Representation of Creative Processes through Dynamics in Three Dimensions
TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 13 Oct 2014
Anthony Judge – TRANSCEND Media Service
Global Insight from Spherical Reframing of Mandalas, the Zodiac and the Enneagram
Introduction
The argument developed here derives from an exploration of the creativity of Nikola Tesla (Reimagining Tesla’s Creativity through Technomimicry: psychosocial empowerment by imagining charged conditions otherwise, 2014). There it took the form of a separate section (Insight into global dynamics through Tesla’s focus on the sphere, 2014). The focus and scope of that section, with its speculative animations, justified its separate development in this document into which the contents have been transferred.
The concern here is with the learnings to be derived from spherical representation of cognitive dynamics — especially in contrast to their representation framed in some way by a circle, as with mandalas, the zodiac or the enneagram.
Missing from the separate discussion of Tesla’s creativity was his considerable interest in the sphere — both in relation to his energy experiments, and to his understanding of the terrestrial globe. There is a case for relating these to the later explorations of Buckminster Fuller (Synergetics: explorations in the geometry of thinking, 1975), as separately discussed (Geometry of Thinking for Sustainable Global Governance: cognitive implication of synergetics, 2009).
With respect to Tesla, it was suggested that his creativity might be fruitfully explored in the light of technomimicry, as illustrated by that of Arthur M. Young, designer of the Bell helicopter, as separately discussed (Engendering a Psychopter through Biomimicry and Technomimicry: insights from the process of helicopter development, 2011). Young envisaged the possibilities of applying the principles of helicopter control — notably involving challenges of rotation — to the development of a “psychopter” or “winged self” (Geometry of Meaning, 1976; The Bell Notes: A Journey from Physics to Metaphysics, 1979). Possible understandings are discussed separately (Characteristics of phases in 12-phase learning-action cycle, 1998; Typology of 12 complementary strategies essential to sustainable development, 1998).
From a cybernetic perspective, both are complemented by the work on syntegrity of Stafford Beer (Beyond Dispute: the invention of team syntegrity, 1994) as variously summarized (Allenna D. Leonard, Team Syntegrity Background. 2002; J. Truss, et al., The Coherent Architecture of Team Syntegrity: from small to mega forms, 2003). Beer focused his cybernetic argument on the icosidodecahedron with 32 faces (of two types), 60 edges, and 30 vertices — emphasizing the variety that could be associated with the vertices, with which distinct stakeholders could be associated in any discourse.
The following argument explores a degree of confluence in the arguments of Young, Fuller and Beer when their implications in three dimensions are considered, especially when understood dynamically. This had been stressed with respect to Tesla’s innovative capacity with regard to electromagnetism, more particularly in handling the polarity of positive and negative.
PLEASE CONTINUE READING THE PAPER IN THE ORIGINAL – laetusinpraesens.org
This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 13 Oct 2014.
Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: Representation of Creative Processes through Dynamics in Three Dimensions, is included. Thank you.
If you enjoyed this article, please donate to TMS to join the growing list of TMS Supporters.
This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.