Welcome to this read-only archive of the Worknets wiki. Our content is in the Public Domain. We were active at this and previous wikis from November, 2004 to July, 2010. Please join us at the sites below where we are now active!Tweet
Andrius Kulikauskas Self Learners Network. Think Through Art with Andrius Kulikauskas. Directory of ways of figuring things out. Chicago Street Artist Blog. Video summary of knowledge of everything. Notes on Gamestorming. Living by Truth working group. Twitter: @selflearners Email: ms @ ms.lt
Edward Cherlin Earth Treasury
Kennedy Owino Nafsi Afrika Acrobats
Ben de Vries
Samwel Kongere Mendenyo
George Christian Jeyaraj
Lucas Gonzalez Santa Cruz
Christine Ax, Steve Bonzak, James Ferguson, Maria Agnese Giraudo, Marcin Jakubowski, Ed Jonas, Rick Nelson, Hannington Onyango, Linas Plankis, Proscoviour Vunyiwa
Andrius helped with the following websites:
See also: UnionOfInternationalAssociations
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].
Anthony Judge Director, Communications and Research Union of International Associations Rue Washington 40 B-1050 Brussels, BELGIUM Tel32 2) 640.18.08 Fax32 2) 643 61 99 WWW: http://www.uia.org/ E-mail: judgeATuiaDOTbe
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.
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: