On Human Intellect: About The Tensegrity Group’s Intuitive Model.


Preface: It must be stated that this is our uncompromised ‘take’ or “rationale” centering on the intuitive model which we’re making available to the public. Therefore, the reading in this passage is by no means “light.” Theoretical constructs are utilized to clarify and explain this intuitive model that otherwise lacks the operative semiotic and mathematical rigors contained within our group’s (Tensegrity’s) proprietary model. Even so, to mount a complete and thorough coverage of the model’s “ins & outs” would be unrealistic for our stated objectives here, which is merely to set the stage for conducting “thought experiments” to establish full “face validity” & operative reliability. Thus, for those brave enough, who quixotically take on this endeavor to arrive at a fuller, richer understanding of this model's impetus for humanity, we salute you. The key is to realize that what follows does indeed read like a collegiate textbook... and you are enrolled in Cybernetics 101. The conceptualities involved are presented “hard and fast” with little in the way of “niceties” or in-depth clarification and definition. We suggest the reader have “print outs” of the intuitive model’s representation, together with a terminological listing from the lexical offering available online at www.aiforbusiness.com or www.aiforall.net .

The human intellect is wonderfully made: Its potentialities are great & when focus and clarity are sought, they are usually easily attained. Catastrophic cusps are only able to eventuate when
the pursuit of accurate, timely (contemporary) reviews & assessments are neglected...

The human intellect operates via a number of paradigmatic measures, no matter how intuitive or cognitively intentional. While simplicity is to be valued in any process, it is also important to remember the well-chosen words of "Uncle Albert" in this matter: "Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." Oversimplification in descriptions and representations of what transpires within an intricate or complex system can only spell out "ultimate failure" in human reconnoitering dialogues that are otherwise earnest attempts to mediate system difficulties.

The Tensegrity Group’s model is based on archetypal “primitives” gleaned from the repeated study of Human Reconnoitering Dialogues (HRDs): These seemingly exhaustive sojourns into the realms of system boundedness, mediation, & transcendence have also produced both of the critical indicators for “the person space” placements on the various derived indices – behavioral & otherwise. The latitudinal & longitudinal implications re: the formation of matrices utilized in the execution of heuristic content found in any particular “FES” (fuzzy expert system), are also made evident via this line of inquiry. Subsequent PADM (problem analysis & decision making) structures are also systematically tested and systemically confirmed, or, brought into question re: degrees & levels of applicability & functionality, inherent thresholds and the possible timed introductions e.g. catalysts, in accordance with adopted goals & objectives.

The above paragraph has only touched upon that which is fully garnered from the rigors of this methodological approach i.e., the auto-epistemological; it is nevertheless representative of the considerable instrumentality intrinsic to the complementary dialectical connections that create meta-cognitive, determinate-driven cybernetic capabilities – reflexive & dynamic – of “The ‘CHI’ (collective human intellect) Factorization.” Thereby, the acquired acumen of a specific individual or group can readily be codified into operative & referential sets of “couched heuristics” that go into the creation of expert systems. The process of FES creation has commonly been referred to as knowledge engineering.

“Knowledge engineering” makes use of past & current “facts ‘n’ stats” to help with projective analyses. The projective knowledge types incorporate the acumen in the various knowledge bases, i.e., factual, semantic, schematic, & strategic. The problem with today’s “state of the art” is the lack of captured contextual underpinnings... those real-time, evolving, moment-to-moment gestalts are incomprehensible within the established operating parameters of today’s cybernetic systems. This model changes all that & represents the necessary compendium of metacognitive constructs (or the aforementioned archetypal “primitives”) to create a working “solid state” intellect... thus allowing for sentience or sentient-like qualities in the cybernetic environment! This is what gives humankind the collective impetus to bring sensible solutions to the many difficulties we experience in all areas of our present existence.

To do this effectively however, a change in the way people approach their problems, etc. needs to occur: Usually, a simple shift from the common “either – or” mentality to one that is comprehensively “reflexive” and accounts for equally valid perspectives is required for truly adept constructive analyses to ensue. For example, outcomes, whether targeted or naturally “evolving,” are subject to changes in the attributing factors (often initially unpredicted) e.g., policy, funding/ resource allocations, technological innovations, etc. Increased numbers of perspectives properly entertained and given appreciable and adequate audience makes for greater “sensibilities” that increase the probabilities for apprehending those otherwise undetected factors in a timely manner. We are only as effective as our “anticipatory sets” allow us to be! This last statement should be seen as self-evident. This area of concern has everything to do with the marks received or points given in “form & execution” of “spins” or voiced perspectives... their relative “legitimacies.” It must be realized that the ever-existent, tautological manifest which asks us to narrow our search parameters does not impose any kind of built-in “schizogenesis” upon our PADM models. What is involved, are the desired outcomes or targeted objectives tied to the often multilateral (multi-scoped), concurrent goal orchestrations over which we seek control.

Our acquired sensibilities (collectively) then allow us to effectively map the “epigenetic landscapes,” i.e., the manipulative, orientational, & developmental, whereby the optimal (or adequate) “cherods” (or “necessary paths”) are devised to incorporate alternate, compensatory plans and “fail-safes” to assure success in our critical endeavors. Therefore, the main question has always been one that centers on human awareness... specifically, centrally operative, imperative awareness states (COIAS) that address the various “postures” or levels of human involvement and efficacy, i.e., system boundedness, (re)mediation, & transcendence. This is all fine & good, but how are we to view these “awareness states?” - We seek to bring clarity in the most proficient & simple way possible... via focal interaction at a metacognitive level. How is this done? - There are a number of conceptual milestones that must be apprehended & internalized for the fullest appreciation of this to be realized:

We started with one of R. Buckminster Fuller’s concerns, that of “universal, complementary forces...” those being “compression” & “tension,” which set up an innately ubiquitous, structural dynamic (tensegrity). By this, dialectical unions, created from the pairing of system “primitives,” can be brought into relationships or coefficient triaxial correspondences (CTCs) in space-time. Structurally, think of this as the x,y,& z axes of a 3-D geometry; each axis represents the scalar functioning of a complementary dialectic, e.g. “structure” and “process” (mediational). The simplest form of “tensegrity (incorporating compression & tension) was discovered by Theodore Pope in the form of a platonic solid – the octahedron. It is the octahedral matrix that we utilize to express a “focal unity” meant to bring increased semantic clarity to an otherwise nebulous system concept.

Another idea that we utilize is that of assigned “semantic carriage” so that “coverage” is “optimized” via definition and level of system predominance. Naturally, a “level two” focal unity incorporates greater acuity than a “level one” unity, but has much less semantic carriage. From the study of HRDs, we can see the essence of a primitive’s functioning in the contextual backdrop and its inherent efficacious adherences via the unique signature of the CTCs and the subsequent usage of the determinates found within those dialogues (HRDs).

Ergo, we see the relationships between the COIAS as dialogues of “articulation” or “postural efficacies” that utilize the many determinates or topical listings to further the relative strength of any specific argument or line of rationale. The “determinates” have complementary relationships with the functionality of any “implicate order” or metacognitive understanding of the contextual. We refer to these as Dialogue In-Base Determinates and Acuities (DIBDAAs).

To appreciate the verity of this model’s functionality, it requires that we test its reliability via any number of thought experimentalities. One such method has been deemed “exhaustive elimination.” By this we mean to have independent novices to the model compare their life experience via a longitudinal accountancy of predefined factors within a particular part of the model. In example, we have often asked the individual to record all the “felt disparities,” impediments, frustrating occurrences, etc. for at least a week’s time. Upon completion we ask that they review each entry and then consider each in lieu of the four stated areas of system boundedness, i.e., media, methodology, rationality, and purveyance (purview subsumed). If our model has validity in its accountancy of that level of human awareness, one or more of these named areas should be able to account for the specific contributing factors involved in each incident. If not, we certainly want to know. Thus far, there have been no valid instances where these areas fail to account for system boundedness. Another, slightly more sophisticated experiment has the subject describing a specific problem and subsequently, the various measures or actions or elements incorporated to remedy or (re)mediate the problem. Whether the objective is to navigate, negotiate, or mediate, the six level one mediational foci should account for the components utilized to insure a successful resolution to any problem.

We will begin with the concepts behind system "boundedness" and then cover those connected with mediation and transcendence. We encourage feedback to all aspects of this blog, so PLEASE, LET US KNOW ABOUT YOUR IDEAS!!!