Greetings Andrius --
I just now inadvertently managed to send the entire post to which I am
responding, without adding anything. As administrator, I could see where
you might want to delete that particular post.
Two things:
1. Peacemaking
I just now watched your https://youtu.be/O5HCLpr7UE0 ;(Bring Peace to Russia
and Ukraine) from start to finish. My YouTube and reading habits tend to
be chaotic, as if I'm following a learning path of invisible links, jumping
from book to book, source to source. Lots of scholars know that learning
pattern. Other times, one buckles down and plows linearly through the
entire field.
From my point of view, there's an inner circle (redundant to say inner?) or
subculture that is enamoured of a post nation state viewpoint, even if we
leave the door open for nation states for the next five hundred years. Our
model is EPCOT (some lawyers changed it to Epcot) with Tomorrowland on one
side of the lake, and national pavilions (World's Fair style) on the other
side. Neither side is at war with the other. We treasure our National
Geographic heritage i.e. the old nation-state pavilions with their ethnic
foods and gift shops. Tomorrowland features Spaceship Earth, semi-covertly
credited to Bucky (no royalties due).
The upshot of their being a Dymaxion Map cult, even still, is a de-emphasis
on inter-national APIs aka frameworks. Instead of embassies, passports,
flags and treaties, we have our supranational institutions such as
university networks, the several Disney campuses (theme parks) i.e.
corporations etc. That's what you'll find in Tomorrowland. This doesn't
mean companies can't be defunct, just like countries (remember Prussia?).
Kodak for example. Or some morph, like Nokia. It's not a disgrace to not
live forever, as nothing and nobody does. Immortality for corporations is
not an objective. Think how movies get made: a company forms, brands,
gets the job down, enjoys the proceeds, and disbands. More like rock bands
or troupes of thespians (which is more what they are, these movie makers).
2. 120 + 120 + 90 = 0
I like that we're sharing some "monkey bars" (a "jungle gym"). I think of
this picture:
https://www.grunch.net/synergetics/images/conf_10.gif
More context:
https://www.grunch.net/synergetics/geni3.html
I think we should acknowledge the coming together of your paradigm with
ours (said cult in the Peacemaking section), in that the 12 arrows,
organized into four hexagons, with the turns we're making, are the 12
arrows (or 24 if we do 6 x 4 hexagons, doubling them) we're talking about
are the 12 arrows of the cuboctahedron, which Fuller dubs the "vector
equilibrium" (because 24 circumferential vectors balance the radial 24).
You're using said apparatus to illustrate a dharma you're getting from
Dynkin Diagrams. You're doing like an uber-Dynkin. Our thinking is more
centered around a different meaning of "dimension" than the one used with
Hilbert Spaces or Lie Algebras. There's room in maths for many camps
(cults, whatever). We have our respective diplomats and manage to make
friends and establish channels without involving the National Geographic
people all that much. The use pronouns so differently, with all their "us"
and "them".
Kirby
