Geometry of meaning and cognitive embodiment?

Insights into Dynamics of any Psychosocial Rosetta Stone (Part #3)

[Parts: First | Prev | Last | All] [Gallery] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

The implications of geometry for thinking were the primary focus of R. Buckminster Fuller (Synergetics: Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking, 1975 and 1979), as discussed separately (Geometry of Thinking for Sustainable Global Governance: cognitive implication of synergetics, 2009).

The following exploration is inspired by the approach of Arthur Young (The Geometry of Meaning, 1976). His 12-phase learning / action cycles. can be variously adapted (Typology of 12 complementary strategies essential to sustainable development, Typology of 12 complementary dialogue modes essential to sustainable dialogue). The particular merit of the approach is the explicit distinction between the 12 elements of the pattern offering insights into their cyclic relationship in practice

Young presents the results of his exercise in tabular and circular form as a 12-fold "Rosetta stone of meaning" -- on the basis of insights from physics and the challenge of driving a vehicle. The concern here is to consider the possibility of gaining greater insight into that pattern through the guidance it offers to configuration in three dimensions. In this adaptation, the focus is on distinguishing 12 distinct "mixes" of past, present and future as they are experienced (Varieties of experience of past-present-future complexes, 2001). Each mix offers a different quality of experience.

The table above, especially in Young's original format, is a reflection of conventional thinking in Newtonian terms. Higher derivatives (as suggested by the following extension) are necessarily a challenge to what can be unambiguously named, explained and experienced. With respect to the rate of change of acceleration, Young notes:

But what name and what meaning can we give to this? The name given by aeronautical engineers is jerk, probably because when acceleration is changed by automatic control, it does so in an all-or-nothing fashion which results in a jerk. But in the general case, as in human control, it need not be a jerk... a change in acceleration is what we mean by control... (pp. 15-16) [emphasis added]

Even with respect to ML/T³ in the last row above, Young notes that: Until recently there has been no conventional word for the third derivative of momentun, It is now recognized, however, and used in aeronautical engineering, where it is called power control. I would prefer to call it mass control (material extent of control) (p. 33). This confusion is evident in the discussion below with respect jolt, jerk, jounce and snap. Thus some authors treat jolt, jerk and jounce as synonymous, and corresponding to L/T³. Jounce may more commonly be understood as the rate of change of jerk (L/T⁴). Crackle is assertively recognized as the fifth derivative (L/T⁵), with pop a the sixth derivative (L/T⁶).

The lack of clarity is especially relevant to the confiusion in any psychosocial systemic analogue. Young's insight that, under human control, a jerk need not be a jerk, is fundamental to the argument which follows -- as with the implications in jargon usage of the term.

The degree of confusion is compounded by how these distinctions may be experienced in relation to subtler interpretation of M and L, and with respect to whatever the "higher derivatives of time" are related, especially when termed "negative powers of time". The table as extended above therefore corresponds to a higher degree of subjectivity, with whatever degree of objectivity its elements may be recognized. Of particular relevance is the greater ease with which disruptive forms may be experienced, rather than the "higher" forms of control which constrain their manifestation -- as recognized by Young with respect to jerk..

In that spirit, the framework adopted by Arthur Young is especially relevant through his preoccupation with cycles of learning -- and the cyclic framework he develops. His inspiration derived from the innovative insight he acquired in developing the original Bell helicopter with its unusual piloting challenges -- subsequently generalized by him in philosophical terms to include the speculative possibility of designing a "psychopter" (The Bell Notes: a journey from physics to metaphysics, 1979). For Young, the fourth derivative is unnecessary -- an understanding which may however have undermined his exploration of the operation of a psychopter in relation to gravity, otherwise understood. He argues with respect to control as the third derivative:

What causes us to turn the automobile, or to start it in the first place, or finally to sop it? The answer is "the destination". The destination is a place, or position. Thus the fifth step, the fourth derivative of position, that which determines control, is the same as the first step. This position is not the same position we started with but has the same category of measure (distance or length... (p.17).

This sense that there may be learning processes which could offer a new kind of overview (or integrative perspective) justifies a degree of speculation in that regard (Engendering a Psychopter through Biomimicry and Technomimicry: insights from the process of helicopter development, 2011; Intuited complementarity: environmental cycles and learning cycles? 2018).

Dimensional compactification: There is a degree of metaphorical irony to any progression down the rows of Young's table to the extent that this is paralleled by a form of compactification of dimensionality when represented (as argued with respect to string theory in fundamental physics). The uppermost row (in "substantive" text form) is typically verbose in encompassing one or more themes (as with this text). The second is more experiential and with greater dimensionality, as with "one image is worth a thousand words" -- or "skimming a text to gain an impression". In characterizing the third row in terms of an idea or conceptualization. however multifaceted, this tends to be even more compact, however held or grasped. The excitement characteristic of the fourth row is even more experientially succinct -- whatever the potential it embodies.

There is a further irony to the progression in relation to what might be termed the "trilemma of compactification":

• greater succinctness potentially facilitates comprehension -- but may preclude it -- whilst increasing the probability of incommunicability
• greater (verbose) articulation potentially enables greater comprehension (especially of any part), but may well increase incomprehension and alienation (and especially from the whole)
• greater emphasis on communicability of the whole may inhibit comprehension of its subtlety and complexity

With respect to compactification, Young's tabular presentation highlights a progression in temporal reciprocation (or inversion) which features in an appropriately titled subsequent study (Nested Time, 2004). Thus the first row, as production capacity, is effectively timeless as a product of 1/T⁰, the second identifies change over time as a product of 1/T¹ (or T^-1), the third identifies rate of change as a product of 1/T² (or T^-2), whilst the fourth is a measure of control as a product of 1/T³ (or T^--3).

[Parts: First | Prev | Last | All] [Gallery] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]