[^^home]  [SUB-SPACE (zix #42)]  [HYPER-SPACE (Mfg'g Spec)]   [Q/T-i]
                                 [Quick Index/Map]  

                 **[Enter the ICONOSPHERE zix-42]**

Factory Floor: Start Here

-[Iconospher DOC]- (word) -[The Aesthetics of the Iconosphere itslef]- (a bit more complete; html) -6_-

Start Here

A quick introduction

-[The entire project in ONE page]- -[A Brief Course in Art Design]- 4 quotes "Politics and religion are dead; the time has come for science and spirituality." -- Sri Jawaharlal Nehru (1962). Address to Ceylon Association for the Advancement of Science, Colombo Sri Lanka. "In order to think, you need something to think ABOUT." -- Dr. Squib (one of my old high school chemistry prof's) "Start at the beginning and go thru until you get to the end and then stop." Lewis Carrol, "Alice in Wonderland", (advice to the Mock Turtle on how to tell his story -- as i recall). "I began to play a few musical airs which I myself had invented... "All of my troubles stemmed from there." -- Erik Satie, Recoins de ma vie. Translated by Steward Spencer. 4 quarts: -^_6 **[Enter the ICONOSPHERE zix-42]** On this page: {Intro} (As in: "An introductin to the work.") {Noetic intro} {How to Make an Iconsospericist} {Style Manual}


Briefly: The iconosphere is a number of web pages linked together that explore different "ways" of approaching both creativity (of new things) and knowledge (of old things). It consists of the following (seemingly random) POV's (points of view): Absurdist -- dealing with the inconsistencies of everything; or not. Artist -- within reason, exploring infinitity; reason does not exist. Futurist -- thinking about "the future"; whatever that is. Humanist -- centering around humanity; "The proper study of Man is Man". Jazzist -- structure (the bounded) + creativity (the unbounded) =. Scientist -- that which we see is all that is; to measure is to know all. Spiritualist -- the unseen is as important as the seen; possibly more so. START AGAIN A traditional introduction to a work like this would start thusly: "It is now nearly fifty years since I first projected a system of verbal classification similar to that on which the present work is founded. Conceiving that such a scompilation might help to supply my own deficiencies, I had, in the year 1805, completed a a catlog of words on a small scale, but on the same principle, and nearly the same form, as the Thesaurus now published. -- Peter Mark Roget, British vocabularist. So, i should begin thusly: The present work has grown out of my life-long love of words and and ideas. Like Isaac Asimov's character in his sf story "Foundation", Salvador Hardin, i am a habitual epigrammist; eg, "If in ideas you dwell, therein you will find a world.", "The next human revolution will not be human, it will be computer.", "Without frontiers, men always turn to war.", "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think", etc. START AGAIN **[
Enter the ICONOSPHERE zix-42]** The purpose of the present work is present a kind of "idea matrix" that brings together different ways of "thinking" about the world. In general, when we approach a problem we put on different kinds of "hats". If we are writing an essay on the ddevlopment of space stations and bases on the moon, we first put on a hat about astronomy and rocketry. We then put on a hat about sustainable environments, the effects of no or reduced gravity on living systems, etc. And then we might put on a hat about exploring the universe as being an extension of our need to explore not only the earth, but ourselves as well. Thus, this work attempts to provide "many hats". Speaking of, often a "new" idea is really just an old one, wearing a new hat. START AGAIN The idea of the so-called "iconosphere" is a multi-vectored approach to idea creation, concept exploration/expansion, and meta reasoning. In the same way that we use a co-ordinate system (eg, the familiar "XY plane") to locate a point using analytic geometry, we use *analytic reasoning* to deduce hard facts about the world around us. But, we also use intution (eg, guessing, educated guesses, analogies, metaphors, and even stories) to "make the leap" from one idea to another. Both of these ways of creating/thinking/cataloging are approximate antipodes (opposites) of each other. I use the word "antipode" as it applies to the surface of the Earth. The most obvious of antipodes are of course the North and South pole which are completely opposite each other and thus absolute antipodes of each other. In the same way, when we appoach a problem form different directions, we are more likely to not only create different views of the problem and its possible solutions, but to gain insight into the nature of the various ways of looking at the problem and the underlaying aspects of the various solutions that present themselves. As such, the present work is a sort of "idea generator", or a sort of "brain storming enhancer", or a "thought provoker", or a ... START AGAIN The iconosphere presented here (which is just one of the probably infinite number of such philosophical constructs) contains several features of note: There are eignt main protusions from the central singularity; ie, the central nexus of ALL possible (and impossible) ideas. These protrusions form (geometrically) the corners (vertices) of a cube. Thus, from the central signularity out to each vertex a different "conceptual axis" is formed. Vectorially, it begins with zero and reaches outward towards infinity. [Note 1] START AGAIN (finally) The iconosphere (now known as "Iconosphere zix42" or just "zix42") is an art objec that "just happens to be constructed out of words. (and with 2 words left over! And that was even with the "naming of names" !) Enjoy, -- Frank.

Noetic Beginning

Enter the ICONOSPHERE zix-42]** Consider for a moment that we are all circus clowns. Bear with me. Now, we all know the routines. They (we) come out in an unbelievably small car, and out emerge an incredible number of clowns of all varieties, shapes, sizes, colours, etc. A common "clown act" is the "dead clown bit". Two clowns are arguing and one of them "somehow" is "killed". The other clown shows (appropriately) mock horror and tries to "stand up" the dead clown (can we say ex-clown?). Conveniently near-by is a plank of wood. Unfortunately, it's "just out of reach". So, the live clown has to stand up the dead clown (now also "quite conveniently" quite stiff). So, the live one manages to get the clown standing -- albeit rocking back and forth like he might fall over any second. The first clown carefully balances the dead clown, and then turns to get the wood, the dead clown starts to totter over, the first clown catches him and re-balances him, he then turns to pick up the wood. The dead clown totters almost over -- this time almost not in time, the first clown catches him. Finally, the clown is balanced, the other clown (with many double checks gets the board, and of course, over the dead clown goes, tumbling out and standing up -- perfectly alive. He laughs mockingly at the first clown who is now infuriated at being fooled and doing a double take looks at the board and begins chaising the second clown now with the intent of using the board to ACTUALLY kill him. Now of course there are two things going on here: 1) The "act" of the clown begin dead, the balancing, and of course the getting of the board, etc. 2) Below the surface is the equally important (more so, some might say) aspect of the act itself as an act. They must time there actions correctly otherwise, the "dead" clown might actually fall over off-queue and get hurt. Note that there are two very (and i would say equally important) aspects to this "thing" -- the perceived comedy and the performed comedy. I say that they are both equally important because if the practice of clowning (the acting, timing, and stagecraft) is "too studied" the illusion of the act (the clowning around bit) comes off as stiff and not nearly as funny. The serious bit of humour depends mainly on the fact that we "know" that the clown (usually the tall one) is NOT dead; small children might not know, since they are not "clued in" to the "mock" expressions used in clowning -- this is also the reason that children are often frightened of clowns: They act so intensely and yet are NOT seen as a threat by adults. Also, the clown act (as performed text say from a script) must flow naturally and have at least something consisting of an "inner truth" otherwise, we wouldn't feel ANY empathy for the dead clown -- dismissing it as "well, he's not really dead; this is just plain silly". Most of this paper (and its associated components) are all about these idea of "breaking things down" and building up of things. It is important to note that in this case, there are (at least) TWO main components: A "dichotomy" if you will (literally in Greek, "a cutting in two"). And that these two aspects are almost in direct opposition to each other. It is by the contrasting (and inter-working) of the two elements that the entire effect is achieved: Quite serious acting, + Comic timing, mock ---> Clown act gestures, sounds, etc. behaviour, etc If all things are balanced correctly the audience isn't just entertained (one can be entertained by the most mundane of things if one has an interest in them), but actually laughs -- one of the most ellusive of rewards in any endeavor. Another elusive reward is understanding. As Albert Einstein pointed out: Understanding is more important than knowing. So, that's (mainly) what this project is about: Using the various ideas and concepts to bring about new (and old) methods of understanding and to tie together various and sundry bits of knowledge.

A bit of Hegel

One of the more interesting ideas in the history of ideas (commonly refered to as "Philosophy") was codified by ??initials?? Hegel. And it runs something like this: Thesis + Anti-thesis ---> Syn-thesis Or: An idea (thesis) gives rise to its "opposite" or some set of ideas that oppose the original -- commonly refered to as the original idea's "antithesis". These two ideas "fight it out" and out of the conflict comes a NEW idea (the synthesized "solution"). Of course that new idea is then a new thesis and gives rise to a corresponding new antithesis, and so things compete, evolve, and something called "progress" is bound to occur (or not). I only note here that when we juxtapose opposite or at least not-alike concepts with each other, then that's when the sparks happen. And hopefully, some progress of new ideas can come out of it instead of just a mish-mash. For example, we can well imagine trying to juxtapose a carbeurator and a pizza with each other, but it's as likely as not that no real break thru will emerge; eg, "The Automechanics of Pizza Aeration" as a new field of study. Satirists (such as Jonathan Swift) ??sp?? have long had field days with such wishful thinking. Of course, thinking about a problem intensely and at length and trying to find some sense in the new way of approaching an seemingly unsolvable problem has often been productive simply because one didn't use a "traditional" approach to the thinking. A well known example is when Fredrich August Kekule had been trying to figure out the seemingly impossible structure of benzene, he fell asleep and dreamed of the carbon atoms at the ends joining hands and dansing around in a circle. When he awoke, he knew that that was the answer. The point here is not that by some miracle the dream came to him -- had he not been thinking about the problem, he would most likely never solved the problem. Again: In order to think, you have to have something to think about. btw: When i said "Bear with me" -- that's a different clown act; it's usually called "meeting of minds". The actor/clown Kenneth Mars is said to have orignated it. Mars is best known as "Hugh" in Peter Bogdanovich's film "What's up, Doc?" as well as "The Chief of Police" in Mel Brooks' film "Young Frankenstein".

Enter the "Icon-o-sphere"

After a bit of thinking about things, i came up with an interesting model for understanding things. It's a collection of "opposites" (or at least "differents") that hopefully will be usefull in looking at problems and finding new solutions. Note: i use the lower-case version of "i" for the usual convention of "I" for two reasons: 1) As a slight tribute to the poet e.e.cummings, 2) as a poetic/humbling device to de-emphasise my own ego, and c) because it's the only one-letter word in English that must always be capitalised, and i see no reason to discriminate against "a" (as in "a house" or "a dog") the only other single letter word in the English letter, and it's ONLY capitalised at the beginings of sentences or in an "all-caps" situation, and 4) it find inconsistencies to be most disturbing and will not put up with them mostly of. I appologise for the inconvenience. Meanwhile back in the history of ideas: The use of contrasting elemetns to solve problems. Key to this process is the concept of "serendipity". Based on a very old story ("The Three Princes of Serendib" as i recall learning from one of Isaac Asimov's essays) where these guys go around looking for various treasures and whilest looking for one, they find one of far greater value. The point is, that while we are searching for the soluiton to one problem, don't over-look it when we find some much more intriguing solution or idea. A classic case was the so-called "Edison Effect" that Thomas Alva Edison came across while trying to make light bulbs work. He found the effect, duefly wrote it up (like all good scientists or explorers should do). As it turns out, Lee de Forest found it and turned it into the entire field of electronics which is the basis of much of modern technology -- including the computer that i am using to write these words (as opposed to a type writer, pen and paper, scribe and clay tablet, spoken/articulated language, vocal utterances and grunts, snarling and/or arm/body gestures, .... ?) -- it's usually refered to as "progress". I'm not sure all the time that that's a good thing or not.

Creativity, Discovery, and Understanding

Before going to much further, we whould talk about the creative process. I have decided to split up these discussions into two different levels: 1) One a pretty direct "hashing it out" approach to each thing that comes up. That's the "ma" bit of the iconosphere. 2) A higher-level discussion of the concepts; meta-ideas if you will. That's the "mfa" part of the thing. This seemed a natural break down of things, but then it's pretty much arbitrary since most of the things taken as "Truth" (with a capital "T") are pretty much arbitrary to begin with. For example, if you "believe" in gravity, then you must probably not be a fish in the ocean. (I'm sure at some level fish are aware of gravity, but if you're going to argue that our sensibilities concerning gravity and a dolphin's are anything alike, then you might as well go read something else right now -- because you will get almost no time for argument from me). We perceieve and experience the world around us in the way that we are conditioned to. We are limited by our senses, but not (usually) by our imaginations -- if we USE our imaginations. To point this up, i bring up the following example. In the area of geometry, maths is not limited to just 3 dimensions. In fact there can be 4, 5, and even fractional (fractal) dimensions. As it turns out the 4th dimension can be thought of NOT as time -- more on that later -- but, as good, solid fourth dimension just as valid as the three that we are used to. This was first explored near the end of the 1800's and quite caught the imagination -- a good 20 years or so BEFORE Einstein used the fourth dimension as time. As it turns out BLIND mathematicians are much more addept as "visualising" the theorems of 4-dimensional geometry than SIGHTED mathematicians. This even spills over into problems invovling what is called "3-dimensional topology" (an area of mathmatical geometry, not to be confused with "topography" -- which describes the "lay of the land" in map making and such). Thus, not only the way that we THINK about a problem limits (or not) our way of solving it, but the very way that we perceive the world (universe) around us does as well. Of course, in many cases we can "overcome" many of our limitations by practicing, thinking, or studying various techniques. But, of course when we do so, usually something is lost. Before i undertook the formal study of art, i was actually quite handy at drawing caricture sketches of people. Now, i find that i can only do so with great difficulty -- trying to add too many lines, micro-adjusting the values of line elements that i used to be completely ignorant of (at least at a conscious level), etc. Alas -- i'm a caracturist no more. But, again: Albert Einstein tells us: A mind once stretched by a new idea, rarely returns to its original dimensions. So, again: Everything has pluses and minuses. There's always a price to pay.

HOw to Make an Iconosphericist

Start with a system (specified) of orgnaised matter adhered to a substrate (matrix) with sufficient flexibilities and semi-permanance to have the following properties for a time (specified), Happiness/Saddness. Examples include Frank Capra Movies, as well as "Old Yeller", "Shane", "The Great Race", "Chitty Chitty, Bang, Bang". Cartoons including "Chip and Dale", "The Two Polite Gophers", "Inky and the Tucan", "Casper the Friendly Ghost", "The Firebird", "Speed Racer", "Super Car" (technically marrionation not animation), "Go Go Gophers" (the ONLY available resource at the time where the INDIANS actually won! -- talk about suberssive!). And of course numeous explorations into how clocks and radios worked by means of a well applied carpenter's hammer -- and the resultant spankings, time-outs, and "just wait until your father gets home" -- this helps to build a strong sense of "cause and effect"; unfortunately so strong is this form of conditioning (in terms of Amagdallial programming (physical memory level) as well as Hypocampusial programming (long term "normal" memory level) that the persistence of the illusion of cause and effect can not later be removed as easily as the parenthesis by the application of any (here-to-fore) known distributive law. Intellectual Challenges. Examples include "Prepositions are NOT verbs", "How to add 9 and 1 to make 10" (etc), "don't tap your foot while playing the clarrinet" (or not; depends how strong you want the "music element" to be in the k-space), "pi", "how to take the square root of a number" (manually), "the area of a triangle is HALF the height times the base", "the difference between a similie, a metaphor, and an analogy", "English spelling rules" (an oxymoron if there ever was one), "the opposite of the opposite is not necessarily the thing" (and other "is is", "not is", noetics, etc). Librarial/Documentarial Aspects. Without introducing too many self-referential paradoxes, introduce these functionalities into the system. To assist in this function (as well as to avoid either cascade or self-refrential problems) a sense of humor/irony/tragedy/romance should be added; preferably sparingly. Stir brain (or whatever substrate you are using) well. Expose to any readily available mix of aesthetic, scientific, spiritual, musical, mathematical, etc. charges. Open the resulting singularity to reveal that the duck is un-harmed and use a standard #7 idea converter. The resulting iconosphere (a by product of this procedure) can be safely deposited by the trash can with a sign on it labeled either "trash/basura" or "The cured". Replace batteries (or whatever energy source you are using) at regular intervals as needed. Do not exceed recommended torque of the idea converter. Note: While many iconsphericists thusly produced will be able to create (or at least re-create/simulate/discourse upon) nor even partially adept at "Generating LautrEamont's Text" (& google: Micahael Riffaterre)


(this section only)
[1] This is a brief essay on a topic embedded in the following outline of the description of the so-called "iconosphere", that is, the "centre point" of the iconosphere". (to requote from above) [The present iconowphere consists of] eight main protusions from the central singularity; ie, the central nexus of ALL possible (and impossible) ideas. These protrusions form (geometrically) the corners (vertices of a cube. Thus, from the central signularity out to each vertex a different "conceptual axis" is formed. Vectorially it begins with zero and reaches outward towards infinity. The primary focus of this essay is the nature of this "central point" -- whether viewed as a "sigularity" or a "nexus"; taking into consideration the paradoxes as well. In this section: {Intro} {The Centre Point as Singualrity} {The Centre Point as Nexus} {The Paradox involved Vectorially}


The last sentence: "Vectorially it begins with zero ... infinity", is an apparent paradox; it may actually be a paradox, but we will deal with that shortly. In the first place since the central "point" is where all of the ideas orginate (or meet; again the paradox -- see below). Thus, it would seem like that the "content" of that point (nexux/signularity -- see also below) should be infinite. After all, that is where all of the ideas originate/converge. From one point of view, at the centre point are ALL ideas. We might think of this as a sort of "white" or "black" hole of ideas.

The Centre Point as Singularity

The Centre Point as Nexus

The Paradox of the "Beginnings" and "Endings" of Ideas

This deals with the "black/white hole" nature of the centre point. In astrophysics, the idea of a black hole -[
scientist entry]- is easy enough to understand. As a result of Einsteins "Special Theory of Relativity" that matter curves space via the force of gravity, it follows that if you have a sufficiently large mass (about 1.5 times the mass of our sun, Sol), then gravity is so strong that nothing can escape it. Not even light; thus, the name *black* hole. That is, the "excape velocity" of a black hole is greater than the speed of light. Note that the escape velcocity of the earth is about 25_000 miles per hour, the escape velocity of the moon is about 4_000 mph or so. The escape velocity of the sun is about (as i recall) 400_000_000 mph. The speed of light (186_000 miles per SECOND (300_000 km/sec) works out to about 700_000_000 miles per hour. Thus, anything that falls into a black hole is lost forever. Alternatively, it has been suggested that such a thing as a "white" hole exists. In this case, matter pours out of. Further, specualtion has been that black holes in OUR universe might mannifest themselves as WHITE holes in another universe. An importnat idea that has come about: Is that nothing can escape the black hole and yet some things can. This was/and-continues-to-be explored by physicst/futurist Stephen Hawking (one of Einstein's successors). View that information here: -[Back to the TEXT, above} -^_6

Style Manual

This consititutes a "Manual of Style" for the iconosphere (at least partiallY0. Entries include: {
File names} {Links} {Labels (link-destinations} {Cross Products} {References to the PDE (Public Domain Encyclopaedia)}

File Names

File names are consisten and fairly rigidly standardised. As we say here: "Everything is 99% organisation -- which produces nothing (except itself), but this makes the other 1% (which is everything of consequence) not only possible, but accessible." Thus, we have: ma-axis_name.html axis_name is one of the 8 axis names; ie, absurdist artist fractalist futurist humanist jazzist scientist spritualist each axis name has TWO different abreviations; 2 and 3 letters each eg, humanist is HUM and HU fractalist is FRA and FR etc Thus, we might have: ma-sci-tools.html (tools of science) Or ma-SPxFR.html (the cross product of spiritualist and fractist) Each axis has several files that are automatically associated with it (this is useful for any of you that might want to construct iconospheres along the guidelines of the present iconsophere's structure). Thus, for absuridim: ma-ab-ab.html ma-absurdist.html -- main absurdism page ma-absurdist-sr.html -- z^i for absurdism (creativey to the imagination power) ma-ab-icon.html -- looking at the iconosphere from the absurdist POV ma-ab-tools.html -- tools of the absurdist
File names for cross products would be: ma-ABxAB.html absurdist x absurdist (self ref) ma-ABxAR.html absurdist x artist etc The use of UPPER case is for clarity, but on unix/linkux system is "required". Entries in the MAP are simple words or phrases; eg, "time.html", "ducks.hmtl" The "map" is really just a dictionary/lexicon. Image files are either .gif or .jpg files -- prerably all letters in lower case, but not a rigid rule. Note to be "blind friendly, EVERY image should have an ALT text to inter-work with "JAWS" which renders things on brail, etc, terminals. If ANY do not have them, please email me at: fleeding@hotmail.com i (personally) appologise for the inconvenience, Frank.


Links are usually referenced in "tables", "see also" blocks, as well as in-line. There are FOUR basic formats used: {thing} [thing] -{thing}- (rare) -[thing]- See also: {thing} a label on the CURRENT page [thing] a label on ANOTEHR page This might be a perfect example of a -[pataphysical]- representation. In this case the label refers to ANOTHER page, but by clicking the link, a SEPARATE window is opened. Hence the "-[]-" and "-{}-" notation, which the user sees. Links: HTML Thus, man -[(see map)]- considers himself to be superior to apes. -[<a href="./man.html" target="_blank">(see map)]- Note the file to which the reference points may be different or even an internal lable on that page; viz, While humans -[(see map)]- (for the most part) are quite descent, -[<a href="./man.html#mench">(see map)</a>]- the phrase "(see map)" ALWAYS refers to a separate file in the INDEX directory; eg, ./man.html ./time.html etc.

LABELS - Link Destinations

Note that labels are ALMOST always followed by a HORIZONTAL RULE MARK (the "<hr>" HTML tag). Thus, we have: <a name="sci-qm-heisenberg"> <!---------- sci: qm: Heisenberg's Principle --> <hr color="#009900" width="21%"> <h2>The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle</h2> Note the useful comment at the end of the <a NAME > tag. Which is rendered as

The Heiseberg Uncertainty Principle

Note that this is a SUB-TOPIC (under QM: Quantum Mechanics, an entry on the SCI (Scientist) page). As such, the width is 21% instead of the usual 42%, thus giving an indication of a sub-topic rather than a primary entry. Labels: HTML Generally, all labels are created such that they can be INTERWOVEN (refered to as "the interweave principle". Thus, we might have sevefal files a section called "Intro" (intoduction). <a name="sci-intro"> <a name="fra-intro"> <a name="sci-qm-intro"> This makes it possible to "cut and past" entire blocks of HTML and text into a single file and STILL have the links work. The general format is: <a name="ZZZ-label"> the label should be "self-distinguishing" as in the examples of "sci-intro" vs "sci-qm-intro" which occur in the same file. ZZZ is one of the 8 iconospheric axises; ie, ABS, ART, FRA, FIT, HUM, JAZ, SCI, SPI.

Cross Products

See also: {
File Names entry, above} Cross products: HTML <a name="ma-AAxBB-OF-variable"> <h2>AA x BB (variable) --> concept</h2> See also: related-concept links go here In this section: links to relevant sub-topics (the first is almost always "Intro") <a name="ZZZ-AAxBB-intro"> <hr color="#009900" width="42%"> <h2>Intro</h2> introduction NOTE: That "ZZZ" actually violates the "usual" interweave principle. We applogise for the inconvenience. As such, for each cross product page, there are 8 sub-entries (major entries actually) (for each of the iconospheric axises; ie, ABS, ART, FRA, FUT, HUM, JAZ, SCI, SPI). This is a result of the a partial attempt to avoid cascade idea phenomenon; ie, infinite expansion which would swell the 512-fold explansion of the 8x8 cross product to a "very large number". I'm open to suggestions, please submit ideas ;) to: iconsophere@hotmail.com