The Sandorian Grove: From Theory to Praxis: an example & thoughts about Mastery and Organization(s)    
 From Theory to Praxis: an example & thoughts about Mastery and Organization(s)4 comments
picture26 Jul 2008 @ 01:57, by Max Sandor

Where in life would it be helpful to have certainty to cover all possible aspects of something we want to do or have?

Let's look at two examples where it would come in handy:

A (new?) definition of mastery:

the ability of knowing, acting, and balancing all aspects of a subject matter.

If the Ifa paradigm holds true, its principles should cover all aspects of a chosen subject matter and the evaluations of those aspects should give an accurate and complete measure of the level of mastery attained, making it a measure of suitedness for a task, for example for a profession or a specific project. If the Concur Principle is true, we can find the binary structure of anything and use this to determine thes 'codes' of all aspects of a subject matter.

A not so new definition of completeness of an organization:

Am organization is complete when all aspects of its functioning as a whole is being represented adequately.

The latter is not so new but known examples presume that all functions of an organization may be mapped into an organizational board of 11 (later expanded to 12) branches. If the Ifa paradigm holds true, there should be 16 basic aspects but for practical applications 13 should indeed suffice (see the paragraph on 'missing' principles in Cabbalah and not-Ifa related systems in the article on the Toth Diagram).

In any case, the 16 principles should cover all aspects of an organization and the evaluations of those aspects should give an accurate measure of the completeness of an organization, making it a measure of functional ability, for example for company or government agencey. If the Concur Principle is true, we can find the binary structure of anything and use this to determine thes 'codes' of all aspects of an organization until the desired resolution of the model.

Let's choose an arbitrary example: I sit here, I look at the screen of a computer. What are the principles of "human-computer interaction"? Likewise, a more specific example: "In what energy complex is the event "computer programmer stares at a computer screen" embedded"?


we look at the polarity involved: obviously it is computer and human.

Next we chose a 'resolution' of the model, let's say one byte (8 bits) which will allow us to map it on the Toth Diagram later. To get eight bits for the model, we need four bits resolution for each of the computer and human operator model.

Let's create the Concur model of a computer.

A Concur model is obtained by repeatedly splitting into the two basic qualities of life, soul/spirit, yin/yang, cause/effect whatever you call it. This is often a trivial task but with growing resolution it can require some deep thinking.

I want to introduce a new nomenclature for these two basic qualities because the

We can use a list of indicators that have been proven to help make the differentiation for a lot of manifestations:

for the 'I' quality: solid, male, static, action, cause, source, line, one-ness, fullness, key

and for the 'O' quality: fluid, female, changeable, reaction, effect, sink, circle, two-ness, emptiness, keyhole

For a computer the first division is so trivial that one doesn't to think much, a computer consists of 'hardware' and 'software' and these names already say it all. The next step is also very simple: 'software' splits into 'program', an 'active/causative' paradigm and 'data' that are 'acted upon'. 'Hardware' is divided into the core, the processor, and peripheries for input and output, let's call the latter 'Interface'. 'Output' devices, like 'talking' are causative from the computer's view', 'input' interfaces are, again from its own viewpoint, the opposite.
Next, let's look at a (human) computer user: he has a body and a mind. The body can be devided the main body, defined by closed surface, the skin, and its 'interfaces', its organs of exchanging both information and food particles (input and output), their location characterized by 'holes' in the body. This, interestingly enough, parallels computer interfaces: they need pathways of 'openings' or literally 'holes' in the computer case (and in all subordinated devices, like screen, loud speakers, etc).

Here we have a first glimpse at what is an interesting benefit of the contemplations undertaken when constructing a Concur model: one starts perceiving the structure of manifestations in a new, much more structural way, noticing structural characteristics that were obvious but never seemed to have an importance. An 'interface' is so inherently of a 'psyche' character that it always will appear at an opening, at a hole of a system, tunneling in and out to the 'main body'.

One may say that this similarity would be because of a similarity of a computer with a human (many people may reject this, of course). Yet, it is a principle of any complete system, whether a coffee machine or a sand flea.

To finish the Concur model for the human computer user, let us divide the mind into 'will' and 'knowledge', giving us the following scheme:

We can now read combine the bits and pieces (literally) and have a prime energy for the components we are looking for, for example:

The event of "a human seeing a computer screen": we take the binary code from the "interface" of the "computer" ("10") and combine with the code of the "user", likewise (10) and we will have "1010" (Oshe). We know now that it falls into this class which we described in Polar Dynamics as "Synthesis", "compositions". We know it can lead to being hypnotized and when overdone it will turn into its internal opposite "negative Ofun" and lead to a state of dizziness and confusion.

We can do the same for all other aspects of the basic human interaction with the computer and we can combine it intelligently with each other:

A computer programmer is a user who mind ("01") interacts with the programs of the computer ("01"), an energy called Ofun, described in Polar Dynamics 1 as "analysis" but also as "chaos". Even without ever meeting a 'computer nerd', we can predict most of his attitudes simply because we know the basic energy of his job. I say his, because "Ofun" is a "male" energy and will bind significantly more male people than female, in direct contrast to the "computer entry" person which will see more females in that position.

One may say that these two simple examples are simple coincidents, or even that they may have been selected for this purpose. But a simple test shows that all other combinations are likewise to the point as well. Just equipped with a basic, minimalistic knowledge of the sixteen principles of Ifa, we can distill the basic properties of every aspect of a system up to the level of chosen resolution.

With increased resolution, it requires more "intelligence" (as in "ability to classify phenomena") to find the next "splits" into the basic two qualities of live. At the same time, the benefits of such an analysis grow dramatically.

Let us, just as an exercise, develop one more level of the computer model to go to the 'level of 8', or "I-Ching Level", with the "I" quality written first and the "O" quality next to it:

Processor: CPU and memory (111, 110)
Interface: Output and Input (101, 100)
Program: Statements and Conditional Test (011, 010)
Data: constants (read-only) and variables (read/write) (001/000)

It would seem impossible to prove that the results of the simple algorithm presented here is always correct, that is why I treated this postulate as an axiom and look out for a possible counter-example. From the late 80' on, a number of computer projects were created with this principle, including robotic control, language translator algorithms, and simulators of stock trading strategies, to name just a few. There is no limit to its applications and it would serve to create an entire Operating System. If setup correctly, such a system is inherently "failsafe", always in a known state, and, if Concur's postulate hold true over time, always a "minimal system solution" (meaning minimal code size and maximal speed/throughput).

Sometimes we can expand such a tree until the cellular level (or molecular level for machines). Often the process arrives at an element that is itself a fractal of the manifestation that is being modeled. For example, a CPU board in itself is a complete computer, structural identical to the computer itself, and the CPU chip itself is the next fractal level of same. When we hit that moment, we may talk of a 'Fractal leap'. In Concur applications that are not intended to map into a Toth Diagram, we can do a 'recursion' and continue with the other branches until the desired resolution of modeling has been reached. The cellular automaton will simply be recursive. For the Toth diagram to be used, this cannot be allowed.

The resulting model describes an area to the desired degree of precision and, at that level, is COMPLETE.

Besides applications in modeling project scenarios or economic processes, we can now use the model to do perform simulations with historical, real, or statistical (random) data in order to find bottlenecks or improve throughput systemically.

One recent application, still in the testing phase, is CONFLICT resolution. (See the article on "Discrete Vs Structural Processing".) Conflicts are based on polarizations. It has been found that JUST the consecutive analysis often resolves partnership and group conflicts without much further action needed. This aspect is very promising but needs more practical work to be fully confirmed.

On the spiritual side, since the ability to differentiate between the basic two principles of the Universe is fundamental but not being very cultivated in our time, and its lack is quite a disgrace to the cultural state of our civilization, as witnessed in all basic religions, 'statesmen', and its manipulation via today's mass media.

Patanjali, the author of the "Yogasutra" claimed that just this ability to break up any given manifestations into their basic components (gunas), together with the ability of seeing more than one phenomena at the same time, constitutes the entire path to full enlightenment of a being. This is a bold claim and I don't know of anyone attesting to the success of using this route exclusively in our times.

Still, I stand by my assertion that WITHOUT this ability any spiritual progress is seriously hampered and will ultimately come to a complete halt.

For me, this basic differentiation all by itself describes best the Meme of "Spiritual Intelligence".

[< Back] [The Sandorian Grove]



26 Jul 2008 @ 06:14 by vaxen : The gunas...
are 'binding forces.' "The Dream of Ravan" -

Beyond 'them' - 'we' are...

Tri Gunas Rahitam... Nitya Mahan Namamyaham ... Aham si chit.

Chit Shakti Vilas
Sat Chit Ananada
Tamas Rajas Satwas
Shen Chi Jen
0 - 00 - 000
Ad Infinitum - Oderunt Dum Metuam

Zero/yin is flow - One/yang is contact. 0=8=yin 1=7=yang 8+1=9=Old Yang 7-1=6=old yin Such grace!!! ;)  

27 Jul 2008 @ 06:17 by vaxen : Gee...
mx your minimal tools essay has 119 comments! Does that say something or what? ;)  

29 Jul 2008 @ 05:38 by fill-void @ : Where start "consecutive analysis"?
Maybe this is besides the point - I didn't understand the more concrete parts of the example. I suspect I got (and even use "naturally") some basic structure and function to which is pointed anyway, and comment what seems a useability problem to me:
You write "we can find the binary structure of anything and use this to determine the 'codes' of all aspects of an organization until the desired resolution of the model." Well, if I look at where I have difficulties, this would be of limited help. Because even when I arrive at finding the binary structure (which already is easier said than done), the task of relating the correct "resolution level" to a given problem or conflict is immense - usually, according to my experience, the bad situation involves all levels, and the difficulty is then to determine where to start the "consecutive analysis". Top down? Bottom up? Somewhere in the middle? And where's buttom, where's top - if the conflict is not viewed from a 3rd dimension, quite difficult to establish. But if one could look at it from a 3rd dimension, one probably wouldn't have created the conflict in the first place.
Thus the evaluation of the start of use involves ressources and probabilities, and their optimum estimation - for which the binary structure workout may be an approximation and help, but - not quite in the way I understand your example. One couldn't establish the binary structure at first and then work on the "consecutive analysis", but one would start with a hypothetical approximation of the binary structure and an estimation (estimating the resources too) where to best start the analysis, and then on going on toggle between precising more and more the approximation of the binary structure and analysing more. The reach of the precise binary structure would then be congruent to the resolution of the conflict - all before was only hypothetical approximations.
The dealing with which and with the concurring levels down and up the binary trees already before the resolution hopefully was more fun than tears.
I wonder - wonder! - if even bottlenecks or "non-optimal throughputs" are not construed to have fun, despite the tears. My efficiency protesting devil wags his tail on this wondering, while my discipline asking devil aghastly shakes his head. And I come to the hypothetical approximation that this is a hypothetical approximation which only serves to guess that I still face too much or too little or the too wrong or the too right bottlenecks - depending on from where I look to where, and depending on the devil over which's shoulder I glance.

Seriously, I don't see in this how the "resolution level where to start addressing the conflict" is determined. (Perhaps this is the same as not understanding the Toth diagram, this only relates to this single essay.)


29 Jul 2008 @ 14:16 by mx @ : resolution
the term 'resolution' is so overloaded with different meanings that Wikipedia has an entire and very long disambiguation page:

in any case, for practical applications, especially conflicts, you do the process UNTIL the desired resolution is achieved. No need to think about it beforehand.

As for the start, you take an outbreak of an actual conflict (Joey hits Mary on the playground with a bat), and GUIDE the parties through the analysis. This requires two things: the mediator him/herself needs to be internally and externally free and independent of the conflict, the parties need to be willing to confront the roots of the conflict.

It is NOT an 'easy-to-do' process but, if done, works miracles.  

Your Name:
Your URL: (or email)
For verification, please type the word you see on the left:

Other articles in
23 Sep 2016 @ 17:18: A summary of the summaries of Max Sandor's projects
23 Sep 2016 @ 17:04: Project Summary 6. Game Theory - why and how do we manifest?
23 Sep 2016 @ 17:02: Project Summary 5: Polar Dynamics - theory and praxis of polarities
23 Sep 2016 @ 17:01: Project Summary 4: Quantum Fá - a practical guide to this Universe
23 Sep 2016 @ 16:45: Project Summary 3: The Book of Numbers
22 Sep 2016 @ 16:12: Project Summary 2: UrTon - the basis of spoken languages
18 Sep 2016 @ 00:32: Project Summary 1: The ConCur Paradigm - the structure of Reality
9 Aug 2016 @ 14:35: Robot Psychologist (by Awaz)
9 Aug 2016 @ 14:35: Project Summary 7: Archetypology of the Human Being
1 Aug 2016 @ 00:40: Victory, submission or what else? Sign and symbol of the Rio 2016 Kickoff

[< Back] [The Sandorian Grove] [PermaLink]?  [TrackBack]?