knowledge and self (pdf)

Knowledge and Self

Knowledge and Self

Roy Roebuck

Connection: A Fishing Net = Knots and Strings (1957)

Connection: A Fishing Net = Knots and Strings (1957)

12/23/2008 Public Domain. Originated and authored by Roy Roebuck, 1982-2008. Published at http://www.one-world-is.org. 2

Thing

OtherThing

OtherThing

OtherThing

Think of the world as being a linked collection, a lattice, of different knots, each connected to other knots by multiple strings, like layers of interwoven fishing nets.

Knots represent nouns/things, and strings represent verbs/relations.

RR1

Alternate Titles: Basic GEM Object GEM Premise 1. Connection: A Fishing Net = Knots and Strings Related Objects Body: In 1957 I had a dream about a fishing net and how people were like the knots in the net. It led to subsequent perceptions about: Cause and Effect and Rube Goldberg Machines, Connection, Readiness for Connection, my first understanding of Architecture, my first understanding of Semantics, my first Object Model, and my first Context Model.

Building an Evolving Tree of Share Knowledge


Building an Evolving Tree of Shared Knowledge(Roy Roebuck’s Progress In His Endeavor)

• 1957 – Envisioned and Designed an Object/Connection Model of the World• 1965 – Envisioned and Designed a Knowledge Spiral Process

– Balancing Of Mind (Science, Society, Perception)– Growth Of Mind (Expanding Reusable Knowledge)

• 1969 Adopted a Technology Model– Technology Merges/Extends Knowledge– Technology is Science Applied to Social Need

• 1983 – Envisioned and Developed an Intelligence Model– Semantics Simplifies Knowledge and Simplifies Sharing It

• 1983 – Envisioned and Developed a Management Model– Incorporating Norman Vincent Peal’s Rational Thought Process– Incorporating A Management Definition – Resolve Current Chaos Into

The Next Order • (Applying Ilya Prigogine’s 1978 Nobel Prize-winning concept of self-organizing structure, negative

entropy, and the sciences behind dynamical systems.)

• 1985 – Envisioned and Developing Supporting Technology Specifications and Testing The Technologies Utility

• 1987 – Envisioned and Developed an Implementation, Operation, Maintenance, and Extension Methodology

Alternate Titles: Designing a Tree of Knowledge Designing a Wheel of Knowledge Building a Tree of Shared Knowledge Subtitles: (Roy Roebuck’s Progress In This Endeavor) Body: All Slides, Notes, and Associated Content and Processes

Cause and Effect (1957)


Cause and Effect (1957)(Lessons for All of Us)

Alternate Titles: Cause and Effects Body: It seems many people go through their lives only aware of limited causes and effects in their lives. It also seems that the more causes and effects they are aware of, the more likely they are to be and/or feel in control of their lives. What if we could have technology to help us gain awareness of these causes and effects, both those that touch us directly, and those that touch us or we touch indirectly? When people learn about cause and effect, and directly relate it to their own lives, they are then ready for bigger concepts such as the concept of connection.

Connection: A Fishing Net = Knots and Strings (Part 2)


Connection: A Fishing Net = Knots and Strings

• FACT: Every Thing is Directly Connected to Every Other Thing

– David Bohm’s Implicate Order (2)– Bell’s Interconnection Theorem (2)– Aspect’s Non-Locality Laboratory Proof– Zero Point Field/Energy Mathematical Proofs (2)

(3) (4)– Consciousness and Reality (2)

• The Readiness of People to Accept the Science Foundation of Connection Varies from Person to Person

• Connection is the Basis for Our Physical Universe

• Connection is the Basis for Cause and Effect Phenomena

• Connection is the Basis for the “Systems” and “Object” Engineering Views, and for all Architecture views

Thing

OtherThing

OtherThing

OtherThing

Alternate Titles: Connection: A Fishing Net = Knots and Strings Objects and Ontology (i.e., A World View Having Patterns of Object Structures (or Architecture) and Flows (or Process) Relationships) Body: When people learn about cause and effect, and directly relate it to their own lives, they are then ready for bigger concepts such as the concept of connection. Everyone mentally does architecture and ontology as their connection method. Everyone builds a world view by: personally sensing/perceiving their world, identifying/distinguishing distinctive things in it; naming things, describing things, relating things, and tracking past and projected changes in things. This world view is also called an “ontology” with its structure and flow parts, and the structure of an ontology is also called an “architecture”.

Sharing world views/ontologies/architectures to establish interpersonal, organizational and global group communication, coordination, and collaboration requires a structured means of storing and transferring signals, data, information, knowledge, awareness, decisions, and actions. Prior to electronic communication, our means to transfer world views was limited to our physical senses. With electronic communication we are now able to transfer world views at a distance. We can now effectively communicate, coordinate, and collaborate while at different locations. Prior to electronic data processing (e.g., IT) our means to share world views was limited to the single receiving person or group currently anywhere on a communication circuit with us (e.g., across the room or on the other end of the telegraph, radio, or telephone). With electronic data processing we are now able to transfer world views to multiple persons and groups at different times. We can now effectively communicate, coordinate, and collaborate with all persons and groups on the network at different locations and times. As a result of the global Internet and our ontology and architecture modeling processes and technology, we can now provide the means for all persons and groups anywhere to know everything they need to know, when they need to know it, from those with the greatest expertise or situational information, knowledge, and awareness. Everyone can now be connected, knowledgeable, and aware of the whole world around them, from their own local vantage point and decisions, including both the world within their control and that beyond their control.

Connection: A Fishing Net = Knots and Strings (Part 3)


GEM Premise 1 Description. Connection: A Fishing Net = Knots and Strings

• FACT: Every Thing is Directly Connected to Every Other Thing– David Bohm’s Implicate Order (2)– Bell’s Interconnection Theorem (2)– Aspect’s Non-Locality Laboratory Proof– Zero Point Field/Energy Mathematical Proofs (2) (3) (4)– Consciousness and Reality (2)

• The Readiness of People to Accept the Science of Connection Varies from Person to Person– Connection is the Basis for Our Physical Universe– Connection is the Basis for Cause and Effect phenomena– Connection is the basis for the “systems” and “object” engineering views

• Everyone mentally does architecture and ontology as their connection method. Everyone builds a personal world view by: sensing/perceiving their world, identifying/distinguishing distinctive things in it; naming things, describing things, relating things, and tracking past and projected changes in things. This world view is also called an “ontology”, and also called an “architecture”.

• Sharing world views/ontologies/architectures to establish interpersonal, organizational and global group communication, coordination, and collaboration requires a structured means of storing and transferring signals, data, information, knowledge, awareness, decisions, and actions.

• Prior to electronic communication our means to transfer world views was limited to our physical senses. With electronic communication we are now able to transfer world views at a distance. We can now effectively communicate, coordinate, and collaborate while at different locations.

• Prior to electronic data processing (e.g., IT) our means to share world views was limited to the single receiving person or group currently anywhere on a communication circuit with us (e.g., across the room or on the other end of the telegraph, radio, or telephone). With electronic data processing we are now able to transfer world views to multiple persons and groups at different times. We can now effectively communicate, coordinate, and collaborate with all persons and groups on the network at different locations and times.

• As a result of the global Internet and our ontology and architecture modeling processes and technology, we can now provide the means for all persons and groups anywhere to know everything they need to know, when they need to know it, from those with the greatest expertise or situational information, knowledge, and awareness.

• Everyone can now be connected, knowledgeable, and aware of the whole world around them, from their own local vantage point and decisions, including both the world within their control and that beyond their control.

Thing

OtherThing

OtherThing

OtherThing

Think of the world as being a collection of different knots, each connected to other knots by multiple strings, like layers of interwoven fishing nets.

Knots represent nouns/things, and strings represent verbs/relations.

When people learn about cause and effect, and directly relate it to their own lives, they are then ready for bigger concepts such as the concept of connection.

Readiness for Connection


Readiness for Connection

Alternate Titles: Readiness for Connection Personal Readiness for Connection Body FACT: Every Thing is Directly Connected to Every Other Thing

David Bohm’s Implicate Order (http://www.david-bohm.net/, http://www.phys.lsu.edu/students/dhall/NWR/Alban/Summaries/godimplicate.html) Bell’s Interconnection Theorem (http://www.drury.edu/ess/philsci/bell.html#bell, http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/BellsTheorem/BellsTheorem.html) Aspect’s Non-Locality Laboratory Proof (http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/new_page_7.htm#4.3. Bell’s theorem, the Aspect experiments, and the nonlocality of reality)

Zero Point Field/Energy Mathematical Proofs (http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0209016, http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=408619, http://www.science-spirit.org/articles/Articledetail.cfm?article_ID=126, http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html) Consciousness and Reality (http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/new_page_7.htm, http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/)

The Readiness of People to Accept the Science of Connection Varies from Person to Person

Connection is the Basis for Our Physical Universe Connection is the Basis for Cause and Effect phenomena Connection is the basis for the “systems” and “object” engineering views

Everyone mentally does architecture and ontology as their connection method. Everyone builds a world view by: personally sensing/perceiving their world, identifying/distinguishing distinctive things in it; naming things, describing things, relating things, and tracking past and projected changes in things. This world view is also called an “ontology” with its structure and flow parts, and the structure of an ontology is also called an “architecture”. Sharing world views/ontologies/architectures to establish interpersonal, organizational and global group communication, coordination, and collaboration requires a structured means of storing and transferring signals, data, information, knowledge, awareness, decisions, and actions. Prior to electronic communication our means to transfer world views was limited to our physical senses. With electronic communication we are now able to transfer world views at a distance. We can now effectively communicate, coordinate, and collaborate while at different locations. Prior to electronic data processing (e.g., IT) our means to share world views was limited to the single receiving person or group currently anywhere on a communication circuit with us (e.g., across the room or on the other end of the telegraph, radio, or telephone). With electronic data processing we are now able to transfer world views to multiple persons and groups at different times. We can now effectively communicate, coordinate, and collaborate with all persons and groups on the network at different locations and times. As a result of the global Internet and our ontology and architecture modeling processes and technology, we can now provide the means for all persons and groups anywhere to know everything they need to know, when they need to know it, from those with the greatest expertise or situational information, knowledge, and awareness. Everyone can now be connected, knowledgeable, and aware of the whole world around them, from their own local vantage point and decisions, including both the world within their control and that beyond their control.

Roebuck’s Spiral of Knowledge (1965)


Spirit

Society

Science

Taxo

nom

y

Hum

anities

ReligionPhilosophy

Mathematics

Physic

sC

hem

istry

Biology

Physiology

Psychology

Sociology

Known World

Unknown

UniversePr

incipl

eRecorded and Applied Knowledge

Theo

ry

Acce

pted

Hyp

othe

sis

Wor

king

Hypo

thes

is

Phen

omen

ae

Research

Legend:Learning and Insight

Evolving Mind

Roebuck’s Spiral of Knowledge (1965)

See “Evolving Structure of Information”

I envisioned this model in 1965 while in high school, when I was pondering what to study in college. The guiding definition of management in this modeling technique is "Management is the resolution of complexity and diversity in science and society into a system of controlled order". (paraphrased from the phrase management is … “the resolution of complexity and diversity into orderly patterns of control.” on page xix of The Encyclopedia of Management, Edited by Carl Heyel, Reinhold Publishing, 1963, LOCCC#6321622, superseded by Gale Group Encyclopedia of Management, ISBN 0-7876-3065-9). This diagram is a conceptual representation of recorded human knowledge. The diagram illustrates that management is the task of guiding the progressive integration of perception. This has been progressing since we first shared our knowledge with each other as a species, and is going on for each individual from birth. This progression moves from one domain of knowledge to the next (for example, philosophy as basis of mathematics, in turn as basis of physics, etc.) until one perceives all knowledge, and all that the knowledge represents, as integral parts of a resolved whole.

I speculate that a well expressed individual is one who achieves a smooth integration of their senses, feelings, thoughts, and beliefs. Likewise, a well balanced society is one which displays wholeness in its science, social behaviors, and spirit. To achieve this, an individual or society needs inclusion, and acceptance of all knowledge and all ways as valid. To expand the above definition, "management is the process of resolving the complexity and diversity in science, society, and spirit into a simpler dynamic system of controlled order“ This maps exactly to the now scientific relation between chaos (e.g., complexity and diversity) and order. Another way to look at this is that “management” is the negentropy/organizing/pattern-finding tendency of intelligence, while diversity and complexity are the entropy/creativity/bifurcation tendency of intelligence. Individuals and cultures without an effective management philosophy show weak correlation between science, their society, and their belief-systems (philosophy, cosmology, ontology, religion). Without a unitive management philosophy, integrative cosmology, rational/scientific ontology, and inclusive religion working to find overlapping patterns and similarities in knowledge domains, the likelihood of a person or group resolving the complexity and diversity of day-to-day existence into simpler, less confusing, orderly states, known as ontologies, is diminished. If an individual or culture cannot reconcile their belief-systems, science, and social patterns into rational and coherent ontologies, then they will continually operate from dualistic, disintegrative, and exclusionary, rather than unitary, integrative, and inclusionary basic methods and assumptions. With basic assumptions (i.e., a paradigm) of dualism, disintegration, and exclusion, their perceptions of the world are fragmented and disorderly. This is because their paradigm focuses on the differences and distance between science, society, and systems/spiritual beliefs, rather than on their similarities and overlap. With a dualistic paradigm; science, society, and system/spiritual beliefs exist as separate domains of knowledge and experience with no clear relation to each other, and are in constant conflict. As a result, the beneficial synergy and synthesis from reconciling their knowledge and language into an ontology is blocked, and discord is the order of their day. But where does this tendency towards dualism come from? It is said Aristotle created the first science, taxonomy, which is the naming and categorizing of things. I propose that our species was initially aware only of a continuum of experiences brought to us through our senses, as were perhaps all living entities. Then, a genetic variation coupled with one or more events led to the behavior of perceiving something as different from the continuum. Those exhibiting this behavior probably attached a symbol, such as an unusual utterance or verbalization to this different thing, giving it the first name. This naming of the different thing probably led to the thought that the thing was separate from ourselves (e.g., "not me") and the continuum, creating the first category. This probably gave us some survival advantage, and thus became an evolutionary trend, eventually coming into our species' genetic pattern. The construct of human emotion probably entered the scene around the same time, probably in direct relation to the perception of difference and to naming. I propose that this set of circumstances began our species' long history of naming, and mentally and emotionally separating, categorizing, and judging things perceived as different, rather than accepting all things as another pattern of the continuum. I believe this is fundamental to our Humanity. To understand an animal that flows within the continuum, moving from event to event, form to form, in an ever evolving pattern, study an animal such as a cat or a fish. They exhibit "grace", animal grace. The above situation

describes what has been referred to as humanity's "fall from grace". We learned to mentally and emotionally distinguish, name, categorize and judge, rather than to observe and respond simply through instinct. We eventually diminished the instinctive response to the continuum, lost sight of the commonality among things, and began to mentally and emotionally perceive only the differences. To borrow another biblical reference, behavior as an expression of continuum (i.e., graceful behavior) is fundamentally "good", while behavior as an expression of separation (i.e., judgmental or attacking behavior) is fundamentally "evil". Thus, when our species began to respond to mental and emotional perceptions of difference, we "gained the knowledge of good and evil", "casting us out of the Garden", our instinctive continuum of wholeness. Apparently since that time, our species, principally through the efforts of a minority of individuals, has been trying to mentally and emotionally reacquire and express that instinctive continuum-acceptant graceful awareness and behavior. Their goal is to instinctively, mentally, and emotionally perceive, experience, and express continuum (achieving what was lost) without giving up the mental and emotional uniqueness (what was gained) which makes us creative beings. I propose that this the basis for all human religion. From quantum physics and physical cosmology, we learn that the natural order of the world is connection or "non-locality" (i.e., nothing is isolated). All objects are connected and interdependent in space and time. Everything is within a larger system, rather than separated by space and time as isolated entities. Your "World" is the totality of your perceptions of the universe and the framework within which you exist. Your "Identity" is your "perception of connection" to the surrounding world. Your Identity changes as your World changes. The basis of a person's perspective is either that their world is a separate unique island of reality (duality), or that it is an integrated whole (unitary). Note that in a unitary paradigm, something can be distinct, individuated, and/or unique, and yet not separated from its environment.

The Spiral of Knowledge (2006)


Known WorldKnowledge Base (KB)

Unknown

UniverseRecorded and Applied Ontologies and KnowledgeResearch

Legend:Education, Learning, Experience, Insight, and Use of World Ontologies and Knowledgeas GEM Results/Ends.

Evolving Individual and Group Intelligence as GEM Process/Means.

The Spiral of Knowledge (2006)

Alternate Titles: The Spiral of Knowledge The Wheel of Knowledge GEM Premise 3: The Spiral of Knowledge Roy’s Note: Roy Roebuck, 12/11/2006. Here's an evolving model of my original 1965 wheel of knowledge that I used to plan my educational and career focus. It's value as a general technique for understanding individual and societal learning and perception came to me during the 1983 time frame during my Master's Degree program. Body: The guiding definition of management in the General Endeavor Management (GEM) approach is "Management is the resolution of complexity and diversity in science and society into a system of controlled order". (paraphrased from Reinhold Encyclopedia of Management, 1963. Superseded by Gale Group Encyclopedia of Management, ISBN 0-7876-3065-9).

This “spiral of knowledge” model was developed in 1965-1967 as an attempt by the author to understand how to effectively gain and apply a broad and balanced education, commonly known as a “liberal arts” education, with continuing refinement from that time. The author was operating from a perception he had envisioned in 1957 that everything was inter-connected within a single universal thing and thus part of a universal “cause and effect” network starting with the “big bang” forming the universe, and perhaps before, and thus that everything “mattered” from this “unified” or “oneness” perception. To the author, all of existence was a single evolving object, in which he, and every other thing, was interdependent. This diagram is a conceptual representation of recorded human knowledge and evolving experience. It illustrates that management is the task of guiding the progressive integration of individual perceptions of events into sciences, for subsequent ubiquitous application across society, to affect subsequent shared semantics, and thus the individual perceptions, interpretations, and world views they use in the groups with which they associate. This progression moves from one domain of knowledge to the next (for example, philosophy as basis of mathematics, in turn as basis of physics, etc.) until one perceives all recorded knowledge, and all that the knowledge represents, as integral parts of a resolved whole. This knowledge is expanded and shared through the learning technique known as science, by observing various phenomenon of the world, developing models giving an initial hypothesis for a given phenomena, tuning the initial hypothesis through subsequent observations until it is a working hypothesis that can be shared and communicated to potentially become an accepted hypothesis, which is then formalized and given the detailed description and precision of a theory, enabling consistently reproducible events showing the phenomena, and then setting the theory into ubiquitous practice as a shared principle applicable across all societies, thus giving the basis for expanded individual and societal perception, to continue the spiral into its next cycle. This “spiral of knowledge” itself is a “working hypothesis” reflecting observations on individual and societal learning and adapting. From this spiral, we can hypothesize that a well expressed individual is one who achieves high levels of integration of their senses, feelings, thoughts, knowledge, and beliefs. Likewise, a well balanced society is one which displays full integration, or wholeness, in its science, social behaviors, and perception (also known as spirit). To achieve this, an individual or society needs inclusion and acceptance of all knowledge, and all ways of others, to be accepted as valid to their adherents, appreciated in their context, and possibly agreed-with in theory or principle. To expand the above management definition: "management is the process of resolving the evolving complexity and diversity in science, society, and perception into a simpler dynamic system of controlled order.“ This maps exactly to the now-scientific relation between chaos (e.g., complexity and diversity) and order. Another way to look at this is that diversity and complexity are the decaying/creating/variance/differing tendency of the universe and intelligence, while “management” is the forming/organizing/simplifying/pattern-finding tendency of the universe and intelligence. We hypothesize that individuals and cultures without an effective management philosophy show weak correlation between accepted/universal science, their society, and their perception and belief-systems (philosophy, cosmology, semantics, religion). Without a unitive management philosophy, integrative cosmology, shared semantics, and inclusive religion working to find overlapping patterns and similarities in knowledge domains, the likelihood of a person or group resolving the complexity and diversity of day-to-day existence into simpler, less confusing, orderly states, known as ontologies, is diminished. If an individual or culture cannot reconcile their perceptions/belief-systems, accepted/ubiquitous/provable science, and social patterns into rational and coherent ontologies, then they will continually operate from destructive and divisive dualistic, disintegrative, exclusionary, or judgmental/extremist/radical/militant

perceptions, rather than cohesive, healing, unitary, integrative, and inclusive perceptions as their basic methods and assumptions. We further hypothesize that with individual and group basic assumptions (i.e., a paradigm) coming from dualism, disintegration, and exclusion beliefs, their perceptions of the world are fragmented and disorderly. This is because their paradigm focuses on the differences and distance between science, society, and perception/systems/spiritual beliefs, rather than on their similarities and overlap. Thus, with a dualistic paradigm; science, society, and perception/system/spiritual beliefs exist as separate domains of knowledge and experience with no clear relation to each other, and are in constant conflict. As a result of their fragmented and disorderly world view, the beneficial synergy and synthesis from reconciling their knowledge and language into a holistic ontology is blocked, and discord is the order of their day. Semantics is the mechanism by which to reconcile fragmented and disorderly world knowledge and thus start the movement towards shared vocabularies, and thus shared perceptions, and thus more effective communication, and thus broadening and overlapping communities, and thus more inclusive societies, and thus expanding civilization. The absence of semantics results in ineffective communication, referred to biblically as “Babel” and technically as “noise”. But where does this tendency towards fragmentation/dualism come from? It is said Aristotle created what was called the first science, taxonomy, which is the naming and categorizing of things. Taxonomy is one of the semantic methods for categorizing broader and narrower terms that name related subjects. Our hypothesis is that that our species was initially aware only of a continuum of experiences brought to us through our senses, as were perhaps all living entities. There were no “terms”. Then, a genetic variation coupled with one or more events led to the behavior of perceiving something as “different from the continuum” - a phenomena. Those exhibiting this “phenomena-perceiving” behavior probably attached a symbol, such as an unusual utterance or verbalization to this different thing, giving it a name - a term. Further, this naming of the different thing then led to the thought that the thing was separate from ourselves (e.g., "not me") and the continuum, creating the first category (or taxonomy) of named things. This perhaps gave us some survival advantage, and thus became an evolutionary trend, eventually coming into our species' genetic pattern. Additionally, the relation-oriented construct of human emotion probably entered the scene around the same time, probably in direct relation to the perception of difference and to naming. This then led to the need for semantics, the need to communicate and understand each other across differing communities having variant perceptions and interpretations. Our hypothesis includes that this set of circumstances began our species' long history of naming, and mentally and emotionally separating, categorizing, and judging things perceived as different, rather than accepting all things as another pattern of the continuum. Thus, this capability to name, separate, categorize, and judge is fundamental to our being human – our Humanity. To understand an animal that flows within the continuum, moving from event to event, form to form, in an ever evolving pattern, study an animal such as a cat or a fish. They exhibit "grace“ - animal grace. The above situation describes what has been referred to as humanity's "fall from grace". We learned to mentally and emotionally distinguish, name, categorize and judge, rather than to observe and respond simply through instinct. We eventually diminished the instinctive response to the continuum, lost sight of the commonality among things, and began to mentally and emotionally perceive only the differences. To borrow another biblical reference, behavior as an expression of continuum (i.e., graceful behavior) is fundamentally "good", while behavior as an expression of separation (i.e., judgmental or attacking behavior) is fundamentally "evil". Thus, when our species began to respond to mental and emotional perceptions of difference, we "gained the knowledge of good and evil", "casting us out of the Garden", our instinctive continuum of wholeness. Apparently since that time, our species, principally through the efforts of a minority of individuals, has been trying to mentally and emotionally reacquire and express that instinctive continuum-acceptant

graceful awareness and behavior. Their goal is to instinctively, mentally, and emotionally perceive, experience, and express continuum (achieving what was lost) without giving up the mental and emotional uniqueness (what was gained) which makes us creative beings. We hypothesize that this the basis for all human religion, and when this goal is individually attained, of mysticism. From quantum physics and physical cosmology, we learn that the natural order of the world is connection or "non-locality" (i.e., nothing is isolated). All objects are connected and interdependent in space and time. Everything is within a larger system, rather than separated by space and time as isolated entities. Your "World" is the totality of your perceptions of the universe and the framework within which you exist, forming your “ontology” (i.e., your world view, your model of how your world works). Your "Identity" is your "perception of connection" to the surrounding world. Your Identity changes as your World View (i.e., ontology) changes. The basis of a person's perspective is either that their world is a separate unique island of reality (duality), or that it is an integrated whole (unitary). Note that in a unitary paradigm, something can be distinct, individuated, and/or unique, and yet not separated from its environment. Each person is unique, resulting from the billions of years of events leading to their current moment, but are always unified as parts of one all-encompassing, universe-spanning entity.

Some Aspects of Self Knowledge (1967)

Some Aspects of Self Knowledge (1967)

SocietySpirit

Science(Indirect Sense)

Believe Feel

Sense(Direct)

Self

Mathematics

Physics

Chemistry Biology

Physiology

Psychology

Sociology

Taxonomy

Humanities

Religion

Philosophy

Perception of Separation(differentiation, analysis)

Integration Efforts(synthesis, synectics, synergy)Connection

(wholeness, unity)

Technology Advance

Increasing Subjectivity(Less Empirical)

Increasing Objectivity(More Empirical)

Who you are depends on what you believe, sense, or feel. The world outside your self interacts with your beliefs, senses, and society through spiritual, science, and societal knowledge.

A Model of Self, Technology, and Semantics


A Model of Technology and SemanticsSociety

Perception(Indirect and Direct Sense)

Science(Indirect Sense)

Believe Feel

Sense(Direct)

Self

Mathematics

Physics

ChemistryBiology

Physiology

Psychology

Humanities

Semantics

Groups

Religion

Philosophy

Perception of Separation(differentiation, analysis)

Integration Efforts(synthesis, synectics, synergy)

Awareness of Connection(wholeness, unity)

Technology, Through

Empiricism and Engineering,

Advances Across Science to Form

Social and Perception Tools.

Increasing Subjectivity(Less Empirical)

Increasing Objectivity(More Empirical)

Semantics Advances Across Society to

Enable Technology that Supports Human

and Machine Understanding and

Perception, and Thus Successful

CommunicationEmpiricismNow ProvesIdealism

Idealism isProvable

Post-QuantumPhysics andZPF

Alternate Titles: A Model of Technology and Semantics Some Aspects of Self Knowledge A Model of Technology Roy’s Notes: Roy Roebuck, 2/17/2006 This is a model I put together around 1985 to extend the wheel of knowledge into a form that could be used to explain where technology fits with society and how it evolved and supports social and individual perceptions. Body: Who you are depends on what you believe, sense, or feel. The world outside your self interacts with your beliefs, senses, and society through spiritual, science, and societal knowledge. You “are” what you, your self, “connects to”. Your perception can also be referred to as “spirit”.

Connection Precepts (i.e., Premises, Principles)


Connection Precepts (i.e., Premises, Principles)

1. CONNECTION - we are always part of something bigger. Our environment is a known subsystem of a greater and largely unknown interconnected continuum.

2. INTERDEPENDENCE - everything relates to everything else, either directly or indirectly. All things in the world are subsystems, all directly or indirectly interdependent.

3. VISION - people navigate because they know where they want to go (the big picture) and how they want to get there (the path to follow). If you aren't actively navigating, you're adapting to needs of the moment. Persons visualize change based on their degree of perception of the higher context of their subsystem.

4. OPPORTUNITY - expect opportunities and they'll find you. Choice is made in response to awareness of opportunities for change presented by our current environment.

5. ACTION - point, plan, implement, assess, adapt = navigating on a journey. Pursuit of a vision requires controlled and directed action to bring that vision to reality.

This diagram shows the basic premises for this enterprise modeling method. They reflect my personal resolution of scientific, social, and spiritual concepts into a systemic (or object-oriented) view. The first precept is absolute, now proven by science, and known throughout time by mystics (i.e., those who know and operate from an awareness of interconnectiveness). The second precept is where intellectual perception begins, and thus where error begins – if interdependence is not perceived, then the illusory perception (not reality) of separation filters all subsequent perceptions, visions, awareness of opportunity, and actions – and is thus the “root” of all separation (i.e., evil). The viewpoint used to develop my approach to enterprise engineering is that of a living object, such as any endeavor, fully interdependent with its dynamic environment. Thus the fundamental enterprise engineering concept starts from a unitary, rather than a fragmented, perspective. The endeavor is seen as a single entity/system within its environment.

Because of the unitary foundation of this approach to enterprise engineering, the concept of enterprise integration in subsumed. Integration is less required when this unitary approach is taken. Refinement (decomposition) and maintenance of Function and process, from a high level and stable framework, becomes the principle focus of development, rather than integration of fragmented and inconsistent Functions and processes. An overall framework is defined form the top, with more detail filled in from the middle, and then the largest amount of detail at the bottom (e.g., “the devil is in the details” – quite literally.

There Is An Increasing Awareness Of The Natural Tendency to Connect What We Perceive And Create


Value Lattice (Global Value Chain) (Full Axiology)(Global Economy Supply Chains, Every to Every)

Value Chain (Partial Axiology)(Economy Sector Supply Chain, SOA, …B2B2B2C…)

Business to Business to Consumer (B2B, B2C)(Inter-Enterprise Supplier/Customer Single Link Chains)

Enterprise Application Integration (EAI)(Intra-Enterprise Full Functional Integration via SOA)

Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)(Intra-Enterprise Limited Functional Integration)

Application Integration(Inter-Enterprise Limited Functional Integration)

Functional Integration(Consolidation of Functional Process into a System)

1998-2010

1998-2008

1998-2005

1998-2003

1990-1998

1960-1998

Prehistory-1960

Inte

grat

ion

Tren

ds

There Is An Increasing Awareness Of The Natural Tendency To Connect What We Perceive and Create

– i.e., To Integrate, Consolidate, And Reorganize - i.e., To Bring Order To Chaos and Thus Encompass More “Things” in our World.

Alterate Titles: There Is An Increasing Awareness Of The Natural Tendency To Connect What We Perceive and Create Subtitles: – i.e., To Integrate, Consolidate, And Reorganize - i.e., To Bring Order To Chaos and Thus Encompass More “Things” in our World. Roy Note: Roy Roebuck, 2/17/2006 I first developed this perception in the mid 1960's when learning about computers in history studies. As the technology and terminology has advanced, I expanded the trend areas to take them into consideration.

A Model of Identity (Hint: Your “Identity” is what you “Love”)


PERCEPTION OF CONNECTION IDENTITY

LEVELS OFCONNECTION TO WORLD

0123456789 INDIRECT

INDIRECT

INDIRECT

INDIRECT

INDIRECT

INDIRECT

INDIRECT

INDIRECT

DIRECT

SELF

PHYSICALPERCEPTION

MENTALPERCEPTION

UNITARYPERCEPTION

IDENTITY

Definition: Identity is a person's or group's perception of their connection to the world around them.

+ =

A Model of Identity(A Person or Group in Relation to Their Environment)

Alternate Titles: A Model of Identity Subtitles: (A Person or Group in Relation to Their Environment) Body: Identity is the major component of your sense of loyalty, membership, commitment, family, ownership, stewardship, love, teamwork, and responsibility. A second component of each is choice. Identity and choices empower persons, individually and collectively. Choices that expand connection/identity/unity are integrative. Choices that weaken/deny/diminish connection, thus generating a sense of separation/barriers/duality, are dis-integrative. An understanding of identity is a principal issue in the improvement of productivity, effectiveness, and efficiency of operations. Those who must work together within an organization or endeavor often have no

shared organizational identity, no understanding of their connections, inter-relations, and interdependence. Thus, dualistic issues of feudalism, power, and separateness cross organizational lines. Hostility between organizational components threatens survival. Under these conditions it is difficult to address the unitary issues of strategic planning, vision, opportunity, action, and culture of the organization as a whole. The following general model of identity can help to create a shared organizational identity.

Modeling Context

Philosophy (Unitive, Fragmentive, Psuedo-Unitive)

Cosmology (Integrative, Disintegrative) (Cartography)

Language (Taxonomy)

DomainOntology (Model of Domain Concept)

DomainMethod

DomainKnowledge Representation

DomainMethodology Domain

EngineeringDiscipline

(Dictionary, Tools, Symbology, Rules)

Knowledge Base

MethodDictionary

(Entity Attributes)

Method Rule Base (Entity Behaviors and Interactions)

DomainObject Modeling

DomainProcess Modeling

DomainSystemDevelopment

Artificial Intelligence

Meta-Modeling

Modeling

Knowledge (Epistomology) (Bound, Encyclical) (Naming, Judging))

MethodEntities

DomainData Modeling

DomainExpertSystem

Modeling Context

I developed this model in the mid 80’s when exploring the new technology of “objects”, as in object-oriented analysis and object-oriented software design

Model of Understanding


Model of Understanding(Perceiving Change In Its Context)

Alternate Titles: Model of Understanding Subtitles: (Perceiving Change In Its Context) Body: Your perception is the basis of your identity, your connection to the surrounding world. The world contains both Order (stability, predictability) and Disorder (change, chaotic). It is dynamic, or living. You continually recreate your identity (connection) by perceiving changes from previous to subsequent states of Order. Identity is also dynamic. From physics we know there are three major components of the universe: matter, energy and information. For purpose of this discussion let us refer to all matter as "Form", all energy as "Flow", and all information about relationships between matter and energy as "Pattern".

We perceive the world as "dynamic Patterns of Form and Flow". Any entity could be described this way. Form gives the perception of a stable and predictable reality, whereas flow gives the perception of a changing and chaotic reality. Since all form (order) eventually decomposes (entropy/destruction) and flows into (negentropy/creates) new forms, the creative and destructive patterns of reality are both fundamentally chaotic as well as partially predictable. And they are two sides of the same coin, one cannot exist without the other. However, people mostly focus their senses and thoughts on orderly forms, and the underlying disorderly flow confuses them. This causes them to overlook or discount the overall pattern of their experience, focusing only on the most direct perceptions. They expect stability while living in a world of constant change. As long as the pattern change is minor, people feel comfortable, but when the pattern change is turbulent, they experience stress. The stress results from the difference between what they expect and what they experience. Note that the definition of "information" is "the difference between data you expect and data you receive" ("The Grammatical Man", Jeremy Campbell, 1982, Simon and Schuster). Your ability to handle stress directly relates to your ability to handle the information your world is providing. Since change is always occurring, your identity is never static. Rather it is flowing and continuously changing with the world around you, and your perceived connection to it. The world and your identity are fluid and dynamic, not static and mechanical. Faster rates of changing form and flow, and the resultant rates of pattern change, result in greater personal change in connection/identity. What we need then is a tool that organizes the flows, forms and patterns, and enables individuals, groups, and organizations to ask and answer questions from the most unitary (highest context) perspective possible. With these answers, they gain awareness of the order of their world and the changes flowing within it. They can then dynamically adapt to those changes.

A Model of Intelligence


A Model of IntelligenceNext State (Order)

Wisdom

Awareness

Knowledge

Information

Data

Signal

Event

Current State (Order)

Incr

easin

g In

telli

genc

e

Response

Impact

Learning

Process

Metadata

Pattern

Indicator

ChangeIn

crea

sing

Cont

ext

(=D

ecre

asin

g D

isord

er)

Next State (Order)

Wisdom

Awareness

Knowledge

Information

Data

Signal

Event


Incr

easin

g In

telli

genc

e

Response

Impact

Learning

Process

Metadata

Pattern

Indicator

ChangeIn

crea

sing

Cont

ext

(=D

ecre

asin

g D

isord

er)

Organized intelligence identifies the basis for responses to change, and their subsequent impacts

Alternate Titles: A Model of Intelligence. GEM - Intelligence Resource and Context. Intelligence Resource and its Application Context. Organized intelligence identifies the basis for responses to change, and their subsequent impacts. Movement from stimulus to response. Mastery of response is the first human mastery: thinking (perceive, apply general ontology/education, apply situational-type ontology, apply specific situation ontology, interpret, consider causes of event, consider alternative interpretations of effects), choosing, responding, monitoring results, adjusting ontology. Knowledge structures (Knowledge in general = education = collective ontology, Knowledge of types of situations = training = categorical ontology, Knowledge of specific situations = data in context = situational ontology)

Enterprise Intelligence is a collection of those sensed and recorded things that guide enterprise decisions in response to changes in monitored situations. These intelligence artifacts will best be managed as a whole, to provide facts for decisions and response.

Management Functions (Evolving Structure of Intelligence)


Management Functions (Evolving Structure of Intelligence)(#Mapped to Carver Policy Governance Methodology Elements)

To Manage Your Endeavor Intelligence, Manage Your Endeavor Architecture (EA)

To Manage Your Endeavor Operations (2), Manage Your Endeavor Intelligence (1)

Next State (Order)

Decision

Awareness

Knowledge(EA)

Information

Data

Signal

Event


Response

Cause/Effect

Learning

Process

Metadata

Pattern

Indicator

Change

RespondProcessSenseMonitorNetwork

2. Operations Function1. Intelligence Function

Functional Operations (per OrgUnit, Org, Location)•Policy (#Ends)

•Responsibility (#Board to Staff Linkage)•Performance Targets (#Ends)•Authority (#Limitations)

•Budget (#Limitations)•Process (including #Board Governance Process)

•Procedure•Templates•Rules

•Standards•Mission (of Organization and Organization Unit) (#Ends)

•Vision (#Ends)•Goals (#Ends)

•Objectives (Indicators) (#Ends)•Strategies (for Change) (#Ends Linkage to Means)

•Plans (#Means)•Means of Tracking Performance

• Oversight #Means• Reporting #Means

• Adjustment #Means•Performance (#Means)

•Indicator Tracking•Indicator Measurement

•Indicator Analysis•Indicator Review

•Performance Review (#Linkage)•Means Assessment (#Linkage)•Ends Assessment (#Linkage)

The terms operations, intelligence, and management need specific definition in GEM. Operations are those primary and supporting activities taken to: 1) identify the current situation of the enterprise; 2) set the destination and direction (goals, objectives, strategies, plans, implementations) for achieving the enterprise mission and vision, and 3) to identify when the pace, path, or destination needs changing. Intelligence is the collection of events, signals, data, information, knowledge, awareness, and decisions that enable an entity to successfully adapt-to or direct changes in their world, from one situation to the next. The Intelligence is captured and maintained in the form of the Enterprise Architecture (EA). The EA represents the evolving structure of the enterprise knowledge (i.e., its ontology). When the EA structure is populated with the above dynamic intelligence, it provides an enterprise knowledge-base, or more correctly, an intelligence-base.

Management is the resolution of complexity and diversity in science, society, and perception into a system of controlled order. GEM provides a mechanism to automate the management of operations and intelligence for those within the enterprise or its collection of value-chains.

knowledge and self (pdf)

Education

locality laboratory

12232008 public

12232008 public

local vantage

bells interconnection

genetic variation

identifyingdistinguishing

object engineering