Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Building in Zero G

Expand Messages
  • coyote_starship
    ... That s true for a majority of died-in-the-wool cubists, so true, but I m not really interested in converting them. It s more the bona fide mathematicians
    Message 1 of 5 , Nov 10 11:20 PM
      --- In synergeo@yahoogroups.com, "John Brawley" <jb@...> wrote:
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "coyote_starship" <kirby.urner@...>
      > > --- In synergeo@yahoogroups.com, "John Brawley" <jb@> wrote:
      > >>
      > >> Perhaps they'd not get so uncomfy if you made it clear to them that yours
      > >> is
      > >> merely one of theirs with its eight corners lopped off....
      > >> (*g*)
      > >
      > > Yes, we might try that. And then ours is filled with little
      > > tetrahedra and octahedra, theirs all cubes. They say our volumes
      > > are "irrational" because of the way they've got it rigged. On
      > "Rigged." Hm.
      > You (plural?) face an (imho) insurmountable task, trying to get cubists to
      > convert to (or, just even to add on) a completely different
      > volume-accounting methodology. They see (?) no good reason for that, and
      > your arguments in favor-of appear to them to be merely asking them to dig
      > themselves ever-deeper into an anomalous and unnecessary (sorry: it _is_
      > unnecessary, even if limitedly useful in some ways) alternate measuring
      > system.

      That's true for a majority of died-in-the-wool cubists, so true,
      but I'm not really interested in converting them. It's more the
      bona fide mathematicians who understand the philosophical nuances,
      see this as an opportunity to advance various debates, that I'm
      hoping will further capitalize on this "whole numbered volumes"
      thread (also known as the "concentric hierarchy" thread).

      Just realizing that 3rd powering doesn't have to mean "cubing" is
      an eye opener for some, worth sharing. Even if you stick with
      math where you have to think in the old ways, you've learned something

      This idea that everyone is stuck in some deep rut they can't get
      out of has some traction though. I understand what you're saying.

      > > our side though, the rigging is different, and we set sail with
      > > a 1,3,4 for tetrahedron, cube, octahedron -- a far more promising
      > > beginning, which several micro-civs have already started with
      > > (not waiting for Godot to give us permission -- radical as that
      > > might sound to "wait for the boss to send a signal" types).
      > >
      > > I've got those cartoons on mathfuture about the tropical island,
      > > where they do all their basic mensuration inside a sphere packing
      > > matrix, and idealization from coconuts that came naturally. They
      > > also talk to dolphins, cuz like this is a Saturday Morning cartoon,
      > > not some PhD marine biology lecture (though we teach lots of marine
      > > biology, get kids ready for life under the waves). Yes' it's some
      > > like 'Lost'. The 108 is still there, part of Martian Math too,
      > > and Pentagon Math.
      > Well, as I've said several if not many times before, more power to y'all,
      > but I hold out next to no hope you'll see it in your lifetime, and perhaps
      > not in anybody's. The system is an idiosyncratic sideline in mathematical
      > history, a curiosity that it will likely never become mainstream.

      "Mainstream" is so not necessary, and your idea of some global
      replacement of XYZ is something I've stated many a time is not
      really my agenda.

      It's more like: to read and appreciate this specific literature,
      here's some stuff you'll need to learn. It's like a new computer
      language. And it benefits from being esoteric, *not* being

      I feel it's real progress though, if the more dogmatic cubists stay
      on the defensive, saying things like "you have no hope of taking
      over". This at least proves they know something of the meme set,
      and that's an improvement.

      A little concentric hierarchy geometry goes a long way, when your
      diet has included next to none. It's like a vitamin or trace element.
      A hormone?

      The best part is all the positive futurism entangled with the
      esoteric geometry, a tradition of spinning out more of the same,
      weaving together "what could be" scenarios (like Old Man River City).

      It's better than 'Lord of the Rings' in some ways, as Tolkien will
      hint about Elven culture, show some of the language, but there's
      nothing so operational as Synergetics to make it real, to bring
      his fictional world into ours (not that we'd want to have the
      eye of Sauron on the dollar bill, but you catch my drift maybe).

      > (And, as the bother strikes me (expectedly), 'they' don't do their
      > mensuration "inside a sphere packing matrix," they do their mensuration
      > inside a *specific, proprietary, limited and 'special' (out of the
      > multi-billions of such matrices)* sphere packing matrix. You guys are as
      > limited by your system as you accuse cubists of being, you disallowing
      > random jamming, hexagonal close, and (etc.) any other system that doesn't
      > fit into your chosen one.
      > That, too, works against your desired acceptance.)
      > JBw

      No one is disallowing anything that I can see.

      There's a philosophical language and some concepts, with lots of
      connections to everything else.

      One finite individual with limited time isn't going to be visiting
      all the topics equally, giving them equal time.

      I see the concentric hierarchy as iconic, almost a kind of logo or
      branding device. It associates with bold thinking that's somewhat
      counter to a mediocre mainstream's. One might accuse us of elitism,
      but what's wrong with being ahead of the game?

      It's not like people don't think in terms of the CCP already. It's
      just not wired up with the whole number volumes. A few pinpoint
      sources, such as Youtubes, are able to reach millions. Sponsors of
      such clips are well positioned to earn kudos and brand loyalty, for
      doing the necessary homework and then daring to get on board.
      Dr. Loeb, a Renaissance man, was one of the first to lend his good
      name. Nor was Coxeter ungenerous, as the bio makes clear. He
      admired 10*F*F + 2 for its simplicity.

      In short, you need this special esoteric geometric language to map
      out the geography of a specific literature. Not everyone reads it,
      granted, but those that do see that it weaves into the storytelling
      pretty seamlessly. You get a lot of history through studying the
      related timelines.

      It's the domes that most people know about, if they know anything of
      this literature. World Game, interlinking electrical grids,
      nationless world projection, concentric hierarchy... few teachers are
      sharing this heritage. So when you find one that is, well that's
      maybe a sign you've found some high quality faculty in this Global U
      of ours.

      I've spent a lot of time reading stuff most people won't have time
      for. Wittgenstein, Kierkegaard, Freud... these are well known
      thinkers, in retrospect, but their writings are not on every shelf
      by any means. Fuller's stuff is off the deep end in some dimensions,
      but it's not being dropped from the weave patterns. The memes are
      not evaporating. On the contrary, I think we've made some real
      strides in 2010. You actually helped out, by making such a big deal
      out of the Rite (not your name for it). Our curriculum is now more
      potent than ever, when it comes to laying out the basics in an
      intelligible sequence.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.