I like to observe things. After that, I like to try to understand the more general ideas they represent. I’m currently reading publications of Buckminster Fuller, so to use his words, I observe the physical with my brain and comprehend the metaphysical with my mind.
Tonight, though, I found a few that have started to jump back and forth, appearing in different physical states. My post on July 30th, I talked about “states beget states.” What I had been noticing was a tendency for people to remain sad or happy by themselves. Also, to affect others around them. I then went on to conceptualize this in a more general term, using circles and apeirogons. Tonight, I am watching a few videos by Veritasium. He really likes to talk about inertia, and I like to listen. Inertia is ” the resistance of any physical object to any change in its motion (including a change in direction). In other words, it is the tendency of objects to keep moving in a straight line at constant linear velocity, or to keep still.”
And, if your light-bulb clicked like mine did. States beget states.
I thought that was wonderful. Usually I learn a scientific piece of information and then notice it in the patterns of daily life, but tonight, I started to see the opposite happen. Of course, I did learn about inertia back in high school, but to my defense, until tonight I didn’t consciously remember it. Maybe it planted seeds that would grow into itself eventually.
This isn’t just inertia though. A lot of what Bucky has written summarizes nicely concepts that have been appearing in my thoughts. It makes sense though since I’ve turned 20 and 20 is a tetrahedral number and Bucky thinks very highly of tetrahedra.
So my further noticings were written as a response to Dennis’s (I think) first essay.
Dennis’s quote was
“Today, I wish to discuss youth and adulthood. Both have their benefits. Both have their detractors. However, I find it interesting that just like most things and life (very much like the yin-yang symbol), both rely on each other. I would go as far as to say that the ultimate secret of the one is the other, and vice versa.”
and my response which I haven’t posted in the blog was:
I think that is true of every single thing on earth. (there is no one, only a combination of 2)
(as a result all things are 1 and all things are 2)
Bucky seems to agree, stating that Unity is plural and at minimum, 2.
I like the visualizations Bucky brings from this, and believe it or not, if you can see these visualizations, they hold the ground in a lot of quantum theory that Bucky writes about.
So he defines a system (rather quotes Euler about it) as needing at minimum 4 somethingnesses. these 4 somethings, after forming every relationship that’s possible between them (or geometrically: drawing lines between points) form a tetrahedron, or 4 triangles. A triangle being the minimal polygon and tetrahedron being a minimal system.
The passage from his book Tetrscroll: Goldilocks and the Three Bears goes as such:
“Life minimally described is ‘awareness,’ which is inherently plural, for at minimum it consists of the individual system which becomes aware and the first minimum ‘otherness’ of which it is aware, the otherness being either integrally internal or separately external to the observing system’s fourteen integral, topologically componented subsystems (4 verticies, 4 areas, 6 lines)
Together the observer and the observed constitute two points differentiated against an omni-environment of nothingness with one inherent line of ‘awareness’ interrelationship running between these two points. Euler’s generalized formula, which he named topology, says the number of points plus the number of areas will equal the number of lines plus the number 2, which Goldy [his character] finds to be at minimum 2P+1A=1L+2, which minimum set of awareness aspects of life adds to four, i.e., A the observer, B the oberved, C the line of interrelationship, and D the nothingness area against which the somethingness is observed”
So there it is. The unity that all systems are plural, at minimum two but which in life become 4 creating the tetrahedron. This idea is fractal-like in nature and I’m sure there is more there that is yet to be discovered for myself. For now, I’ll leave with a picture of a Sierpinski Pyramid and, well I tried to come up with a joke to finish but I got nothing.
Ok fine, here’s a monkey riding a dog
Edit: I was hoping to hitherto coin the term Emotional Inertia but apparently I was beaten (back in 1998) In my defense, I was 5 at the time.
Here’s the publication if your interested. I didn’t read it, my anger towards having been beaten carries a high inertia.
Suls J, Green P, Hillis S. Emotional reactivity to everyday problems, affective inertia, and neuroticism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1998;24:127–136.