http://www.laetusinpraesens.org

AndriusKulikauskas: I'm very happy to be corresponding with Anthony Judge through our Global Villages working group. I share some of his letters here until he adds his hand to this page. AnthonyJudge20041205 Also, here are some concepts which he cares about that I'm interested in exploring further: [GlossaryOfStructure/true truth], [GlossaryOfStructure/polarities polarities].

• Patterns of Conceptual Integration
• Distinguishing Levels of Declarations of Principles
• Towards a logico-mathematical formaization of "sin"
• Dynamically Gated Conceptual Communities: emergent patterns of isolation within knowledge society
• Distinguishing Emergent Conceptual Polarities

What we need to understand may only be expressible in a language that we do not know. Live like a forest -- or die like a tree.

Greetings

This is an effort to respond to Andrius patient exploration of my own thinking which I have best summarized through a set of polarities.

I share with him a concern with everything and how one approaches it. My first effort was Functional Synthesis of Viewpoints.

But I have worked for an organization that was at the origins of the Universal Decimal Classification system and have been much concerned with the limitations of such exercises. This gave rise to a matrix of topics: Integrative Matrix of Human Preoccupations which is used to cluster thousands of international organizations, world problems, strategies, etc -- also via the web. This was partly inspired by the periodic table of elements and the possibility that it might be a particular case of the organization of knowledge

But as Andrius also notes I am interested in how things get divided up into sets of 1, 2, 3, etc and analyzed this in Representation, Comprehension and Communication of Sets: the Role of Number

Where I differ from Andrius is in my interest in how different thinkers and groups favour sets of particular size to order their universe -- and have little interest in the mapping or transformation to those based on other numbers. I am less interested in which is the right one and more interested in the possibility that they may all be right but only as particular cases of a more generic system. It just depends on how you want to cut the cognitive cake.

I endeavoured to synthesize these different takes in the declaration of principles paper to which Andrius refers. But I am not stressing that this is my view rather than an ordered collage of views based on different numbers -- and the consequence of buying into any set of numbers.

Of particular interest is the comprehensibility of sets and content at any given level. Andrius believes that above a certain numbr thinks collapse down to simpler systems. I would say that depends. It is indeed possible to have them collpase on the basis of factors -- but this does not mean that one finds this meaningful cognitively. Some people like 8, 9 or 12 for good reason. Hence the exploration he refers to in Patterns of Conceptual Integration. This includes Integrative Dimensions of Concept Sets and Beyond Edge-bound Comprehension and Modal Impotence: combining q-holes through a pattern language

All these various points to clarify that I have far less definitive views on how the cake gets divided -- I am much more interested in why one might have strong preferences for one cut rather than another -- and what are the consequences in operational terms. for example how does a 5-point plan differ in practice from an 8-point plan?

Because all of this can appear very dry and meaningless, I have put a fair amoun of energy into the use of geometric and other metaphors to clarify the distinctions -- most recently in relation to a mathematical formalization of "sin"

Andrius calls upon me to articulate what I mean by my most basic levels: the second, the third, and the fourth. My answer is that they represent a cognitive challenge to which I do not have a verbal response -- for at that level we are already constrained by words as I endeavoured to show. Hence the use of metaphor and symbolism.

Andrius also focuses there on questions of the form why, how, what, whether -- that is part of the set of what are termed WH-questions which I recently endeavoured to integrate: Functional Complementarity of Higher Order Questions: psycho-social sustainability modelled by coordinated movement

Andrius I much appreciate your efforts to make sense of my efforts to make sense. I have endeavoured to identify the challenges in: Evaluating Synthesis Initiatives and their Sustaining Dialogues

Earlier you asked for some short phrase summarizing my thinking. I do not have it -- but a couple of such phrases are listed here:

• No doubt? No dialogue!
• What we need to understand may only be expressible in a language that we do not yet know
• Everything does not do it for me
• If one does not understand how one is part of the problem, one cannot understand the nature of the solution required
• Live like a forest -- or Die like a tree
• We can eat without recipes, whether well or badly. But we cannot eat recipes
• What we now know to be true may later prove to be less meaningful than understanding why we believed this to be so before it was reframed by a larger truth

Tony

AboutThisPage

• InvestigatoryQuestion = How do you create institutions which are self-reflective?
• InvestigatoryQuestion2 = How do you make a third order cybernetic organization?
• InvestigatoryQuestion3 = How do we deal with situations where special people can't get on?
• InvestigatoryQuestion4 = How do you reform what you are looking at?
• InvestigatoryQuestion5 = How do you go with the flow and recreate what you see?