Synergetics: Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking

[Turtle]

Mmmmm....Synergetics smells like hot buttered popcorn wafting in on a breeze.

Some salient points from 800.00 OPERATIONAL MATHEMATICS (found in hardcover volume 1)

Originally Posted by Bucky;801.09;pg438

We found out the disparity ourselves by examining the limit-case conditions, which can only be discovered by physical experience. This method of discovery is called "operational procedure."
...
pg 439 volume 1: Whereas reality is eternally now, human apprehending demonstrates a large assortment of lags in rates of cognitions whose myriadly multivaried frequencies of myriadly multivaried, positive-negative, omnidirectional aberrations, in multivaried degrees, produce such elusively off-center effects as possibly to result in an illusionary awareness of an approximately unlimited number of individually different awareness patterns, all of whose relative imperfections induce the illusion of a reality in which "life" is terminal, because physically imperfect; as contrasted to mind's discovery of an omni- interaccommodative complex of a variety of different a priori, cosmic, and eternal principles, which can only be intellectually discovered, have no weight, and apparently manifest a perfect, abstract, eternal design, the metaphysical utterly transcendent of the physical.

The first bit is another definition in the growing lexicon of Fuller's geometry. Operational procedure; got it.
The second, besides being one hell of a long sentence, is a summation and stylistic device throughout the book. Think of it as a bolt holding several trusses on a bridge of many trusses.

Originally Posted by 801.23;pg 440

What is really important, however, about you or me is the thinkable you or the thinkable me, the abstract metaphysical you or me, what we have done with these images, the relatedness we have found, what communications we have made with one another.

Indeed.

I just noticed that the online version has a parenthetical vector at the end of 801.24. As my hardcover book does not have it, I'm not following it. That takes us back to the trunk and a final vector to 1073.12, which is a 3 -line equivalence.

Originally Posted by 1073.12;pg 442 volume 2

All systems are conceptually differentiated out of Universe.
System + environment = Universe
Universe - system = environment

Synergetics on 3 minutes a day then. Making haste slowly is a turtle's bag. Time to read on from 100.103 to100.033; page 5 to 7 hardcover volume 2. >> 100.00 SYNERGY

[Turtle]

Mmmmmm...Synergetics feels like a swift kick in the sensibilities.

So the operational procedure that Fuller gives us is to get to limit-case conditions experientially. The above reading continues that course by introducing resolution as a limit-case for vision. I note that this is the first instance of Bucky mentioning Einstein, and he credits Albert's relativity discovery as an example of taking a different perspective to get to a limit-case scenario. (100.023;pg6;volume2)

Fuller presses on with pointing out errors of what is commonly accepted as limit-cases, and this brings us to the next reading on senses by way of a parenthetic vector to §260.11 & §260.22; pg 31 & pg 32. Still under our 3 minutes, §260.22 vectors us to §524.01 in volume 1, pg.269, where there is a short definition of a new term. That's close enough to 3 minutes for me. .........

100.00 SYNERGY
500.00 CONCEPTUALITY

[Buffy]

Mr. Turtle,

Can you define in your own words what Bucky means by "limit-case conditions?"

Happier than this, she is not bred so dull but she can learn,
Buffy

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Mr. Turtle,

Can you define in your own words what Bucky means by "limit-case conditions?"

Happier than this, she is not bred so dull but she can learn,
Buffy

The minimum structural description, right off the top of my head. What do you get from the phrase given the context of the reading so far?

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Turtle

The minimum structural description, right off the top of my head. What do you get from the phrase given the context of the reading so far?

Well, within the immediate section, it seems to be the specific limitations of the senses and their relative--and most importantly unequal--values.

But what prompts my question is his exact phraseology "limit-case conditions" which to me is quite opaque, but would be clear if he defined it somewhere (and a brief search of the document was unfortunately unenlightenment-limit expanding! ), and I was hoping you would know!

NM. Carry on!

Ready comprehension is often a knee-jerk response and the most dangerous form of understanding. It blinks an opaque screen over your ablility to learn,
Buffy

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Well, within the immediate section, it seems to be the specific limitations of the senses and their relative--and most importantly unequal--values.

But what prompts my question is his exact phraseology "limit-case conditions" which to me is quite opaque, but would be clear if he defined it somewhere (and a brief search of the document was unfortunately unenlightenment-limit expanding! ), and I was hoping you would know! NM. Carry on!

Ready comprehension is often a knee-jerk response and the most dangerous form of understanding. It blinks an opaque screen over your ablility to learn,
Buffy

Ahhhh well, he defines everything sooner or later, and usually multiple times in multiple ways. The rub of it is, Synergetics has to be read the way Bucky wants it read. In just the week or so of my exploration here, it is clear that one needs both hard-copy volumes, and though the online version has them combined, there is no facility there to mark where you have been as I am doing in the hardcopies.

As to 'limit-case', it is here referring to senses as you say, but the term 'case' is already mentioned in the previous reading as an element in regard to a 'general' case, and a 'specific' case.

To get to the chase, there is no substitute for reading every bit of Synergetics right along with me. Nothing about it is going to be brief however, and skimming won't cut the mustard. To me, 'limit case' is transparent given the reading that preceded it.

I think my pace of 3 minutes a day is slow enough for even the busiest specialist to follow along, and so far I have covered less than an hour.So far, it looks like the thread is getting ~20 reads in between my postings. As time goes on, it will take longer for a new-comer to get up to speed, and it is de rigueur to have read the material. I can't throw you a life-ring if you're too far from the boat. ..........................

[Turtle]

Synergetics looks like a scary monster!
Anyways, i ain't a'scared of no ghosts. The deal here is to read every last word, understanding them or not. I have had a professional chemist tell me Fuller said nothing on chemistry. Uhh...erhmm...they must not have read Synergetics. Similarly, professional philosopher man tells me Fuller says nothing about what we can know of reality. Uhmm...erhm...didn't read Synergetics. Physicist guys tell me Fuller has nothing to say about quantum mechanics, and, well, you know.

Before going forward, I'm going back to what we might have read had we only had volume 1 of Synergetics.

Originally Posted by Mr. Fuller

101.01;pg3 Synergy means behavior of whole systems unpredicted by the behavior of their parts taken separately.

What is gettable ( pardon my Fuller-ism) out of this work in my view is synergetic, that it is to say it cannot be determined by looking at the constituents alone.

I found this bit in the last reading notable, and additionaly we find mention again of 'case'.

Originally Posted by Bucky

262.04;pg39 Man suddenly got to thinking of the atom as the terminal, the conceptual minimum. He had the terminal case of the atom as a point, but then later found that the atoms consisted of at minimum a proton, a neutron, an electron, and an atomic nucleus, and so forth. And so for a while the atomic nucleus was the terminal limit, until humans began smashing the atom and breaking the nucleus into new component particles: Thus the quarks became the most recently apparent terminally smallest limits of considerability. But the characteristics of the quarks are very exciting because they, too, incontrovertibly manifest a complex of a plurality of interdependent and numerically consistent behaviors. So what physics is really discovering is primitive system conceptuality independent of time and size. And in synergetics conceptuality independent of time and size discloses a complex hierarchy of nuclear system intertransformabilities with low-order numerical and topological relationships, a complex of interrelationships consistently characterizing every one of their realizations as special case, experimentally demonstrable, sense-tuned, physical reality.
262.05 Whenever we look at something that is special case__call it a nucleus or call it a quark__we find that the special cases all break up into the complex of pure principles of conceptuality independent of size and time as elucidated by synergetics. Physically discovered, i.e., experientially, i.e., sense-tuned terminal discoveries, are always special case. Special cases have always time-incremented duration magnitudes__ergo, they are terminal.

The next section to read is all of 264. (the first section we have already read.)
100.00 SYNERGY
Then back to 100.032 for a trip to a short passage at 527.25 &.26 on polarity.
500.00 CONCEPTUALITY
(That passage directs us to another short passage & a diagram at 1040.00, but I'm getting an error for the online version of that. Fear not. )
Last short reading then is to vector to 530.11, and that oughta do us for the day.
500.00 CONCEPTUALITY

[Turtle]

Synergetics sounds like zazz.

or
How did we get hear from their?

So it goes. I have come up with my own arrangement of Fullers composition to try on you all, and my own tin ear of course. I went through the last assigned readings and pulled them altogether as a single, only seemingly continuous, piece. I also have scanned the diagram that the online version of Synergetics is missing, and typed in the missing text that accompanies it.
*[So as to leave the piece ringing in the ears, the next 2 page, 3 minute reading is a straight through no vector romp from §100.10 - 100.20, pgs 7-9 hardcover.]

Originally Posted by Buckster:Synergetics 2

527.25 Nonpolar Points: All systems have poles__ergo, spin axes__ergo, they are polarizably identifiable. Nonpolarized simply means that the spin axis is unrecognized under the conditions considered. There is no such thing as a nonpolarized point, because if you tuned in the subvisible system__appearing only as a directionally positioned microsomething-to visible comprehension, you would find that as a system it has poles and that it has a potential of seven alternately employable poles . So we may call a "point" a focal center__i.e., a "noise" with a direction__but it is inherently an as-yet undistinguished system, with all of the latter's characteristics.

1041.10 Seven Axes of Truncated Tetrahedron

1041.11 The prime generation of the seven axes of symmetry are

the seven unique perpendiculars to the faces of the seven

possible truncations of the tetrahedron:
4 original faces
4 triangular faces
6 quadrilateral truncated edges
_
14 faces of the truncated tetrahedron, which produce seven

unique pairs of parallel faces whose axes,perpendicular to their

respective centers of area, generate the seven axes of symmetry.

530.11 Any point can tune in any other point in Universe All that is necessary is that they both employ the same frequency, the same resonance, the same system, center to center.
Between any two points in Universe there is a tetrahedral connection.
961.30 Granted: A Model for Third-Power Rate of Variation: Granted that there is then in respect to any two points in Universe a tetrahedron that can be given any symmetrical or asymmetrical tetrahedral shape, any of whose volumes will remain uniform or will vary uniformly at a third-power rate in respect to any alteration of the distance between the two initial control points on the axial control line; then, any four points in Universe, provided one is not in the plane of the other three, can be interconnected by varying the angular orientation of the control-line axis and the distance between the two central control points.

Thus systematic connection of two points results in the interconnecting of four points. But none of the four event points of the tetrahedron are simultaneous. They are all overlappingly co- occurrent, each with different beginnings and endings. All of the atoms are independently introduced and terminaled; many are in gear__that is, synchronously tuned__but many are also way out of gear, untuned, or "noisy."

100.033 100.033 A plurality of points became the "building blocks" with which the mathematicians of the day before microscopes imaginatively constructed their lines. "Lines" became the one-dimensional, substanceless "logs" that they floored together in their two-dimensional, planar, thicklessness "rafts." Finally they stacked these planar rafts one upon another to build a "solid" three-dimensional "cube," but having none of the essential characteristics of four-dimensional reality__i.e., having neither temperature, weight, nor longevity.

[Turtle]

Holy close-packing! We're gonna need some proton packs in here!! Fortunately, Fuller is discrete, if not discreet. Like the big brother who teaches you about the smell of flowers by directing you to smell the bloom with the bee in it, Bucky shoves the observer's nose full on into the geometry deep inside the tetrahedron. .

Originally Posted by 100.102;pg 7

...All of the scenario's proofs__and their rationally interrelated number values__derive exclusively from progressive equatorial-symmetry-halvings of Universe's minimum structural system: the tetrahedron. Multiplication occurs only through progressive fractionation of the original complex unity of the minimum structural system of Universe: the tetrahedron.

'Rationally' here as in 'rational numbers', not sound reasoning. While Mr. Loeb says Bucky isn't much for proofs, Bucky is all-out full-on for proof you can get at yourself. Just so, a flat drawing never does justice to a 3-d form, so I made a small tetrahedron from 6 equal length straws and a length of string.

Making the model is my 3 minutes for the day, and never mind how long I spent with it getting the 'cut a tetrahedron in half' proof into my cranium. Tomorrow I still have to get the other division of the tetrahedron straight that I already read about, so no new reading yet. That other division is the 24 A quanta module thingy; this is a basic division and I'm pretty sure I better get it internalized.
900.00 MODELABILITY

Originally Posted by Mr. Fuller; 911.00;pg 502

911.01 The regular tetrahedron may be divided volumetrically into four identical Quarter-Tetrahedra, with all their respective apexes at the center of volume of the regular unit tetrahedron. (See Illus. 913.01.) The Quarter-Tetrahedra are irregular pyramids formed upon each of the four triangular faces of the original unit tetrahedra, with their four interior apexes congruent at the regular tetrahedron's volumetric center; and they each have a volume of one quarter of the regular tetrahedron's volume-1.
911.02 Any of the Quarter-Tetrahedra may be further uniformly subdivided into six identical irregular tetrahedra by describing lines that are perpendicular bisectors from each vertex to their opposite edge of the Quarter-Tetrahedron. The three perpendicular bisectors cut each Quarter-Tetrahedron into six similar tetrahedral pieces of pie. Each one of the six uniformly symmetrical components must be l/6th of One Quarter, which is l/24th of a regular tetrahedron, which is the volume and description of the A Quanta Module. (See Illus. 913.01B.)

Fig. 913.01

Turtle's straw tetrahedron

[Turtle]

i began my operational procedure by sizing fuller's planar net to fit in my straw-tetrahedron, and printed it for a full-scale pattern.


i cut the straws to length and threaded them on a string.


i pulled the string tight & knotted it to form an A quanta module.


i placed my tied-up A quanta module inside my tetrahedron where it belongs.


because A quanta modules come in left/right or inside/outside, pairs, i made an opposite in another color.
1 pair of A quanta modules.


i confined the twins to their room to sit in the corners until they could explain their actions.



next reading: §100.120;pgs9-13;synergetics volume2