Talk:Synergetics (Fuller)

Justification

Fuller's strain of Synergetics differs enough from Haken's strain that the two really can't be developed together gracefully in the same article, so my hope is this article can be retained and developed into a reasonable article. The Synergetics page is now just a redirect to a corresponding disambiguation page. The disambiguation page is much like the Synergetics page was for much of its career before the material on Haken's strain of synergetics was added to it. The Haken version has developed nicely, and this article should be able to do the same now that it is not just an indignant intrusion on the Haken article. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bob, Does the External Link make sense or is it left over from page splitting? PamD (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The external link to someone's business which they had named "Synergetics" was a left over from the splitting project which seemed to fit best on the disambiguation page. I see you have eliminated it in your cleanup of that page, and I was glad to see it disappear. The link to Kirby's grunch.net site on this page was welcome, though it seemed mislabeled. Hopefully that can be restored at some point. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I compeletely agree that Synergetics per Fuller and Synergetics per Haken are completely different topics, so this stub is highly welcome. However, I think the link to "Synergetics Coordinates" destroys the integrity of the attempt, as specious claims are made on that page, misattributing something Clifford Nelson came up with to Fuller. Until this is resolved, I don't want any links to my Synergetics on the Web [1] so I deleted the one external link to it that I found. Background reading: [2] Kirbyurner (talk)Kirbyurner —Preceding undated comment added 14:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC). OK, Synergetics Coordinates pages fixed to not make them be Bucky's (he never invented those), so now let's proceed. I've got a proposed outline we could discuss [3]. Focus on Synergetics the artifact, first a book, then a second volume with index, then on the web c/o Bob Gray, mirrors. Applewhite a key figure i.e. this was a collaboration, need an additional Wikipedia page for him, to go on-line in tandem. External link of most relevance would be the work itself, adding that now. Should we create a committee under BFI? Kirbyurner (talk)Kirbyurner

I'm glad you are ready to go. A page on Applewhite sounds like a good idea. And a page on the Synergetics books seems like a good idea and perhaps should be separate (call it "Synergetics (Fuller's books)" ?). I think the original intent of this page is to explain Fuller's Synergetics system with some clarity rather than have an article on the books, and an article on Fuller's Synergetics mathematics is certainly my interest. A committee under BFI may be useful for some participants. I can't see it for me at this point, but that could change. The article is of course open to the whole Wikipedia community, and I think we should choose our references (such as your site, Gray, Edmundson etc.) to be accessible as possible so we can get edits from a variety of points of view and thus not get stuck in one. My procedure was going to be to start with references. I was doing that on the page itself, but maybe it would be more appropriate to collect them here until they are used. My vague outline for an article: start with definition of universe, then definition of science ... Then introduce in a very basic way some of the lines of thought. I will check out your ideas at the links above. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

thx for your perspective. I do think the magnum opus by RBF in collaboration with EJA pretty much defines the field at this point, and needs to be explicated. I'll reserve my input to the page on the books you propose above, although I'd include Bob Gray's web version, i.e. it's the text I'm talking about (including figures, color posters) and given the web versions interweave the two volumes as Fuller originally envisioned, we're better off starting with the hypertext version, looking at the Macmillan print versions as a secondary implementation for reading off-line (realizing that's not the historical order). As to "Synergetics mathematics" I'm not sure if the plan is to distill Synergetics to something more "essentially mathematical" drawing inspiration from the original text. I do know that Fuller never intended colonization by the "alien squiggles" cultures i.e. if the intent is to dress it up in highly arcane math symbols, then I think that'd be a fun parody of the fully matured discipline (a philosophy). We've already seen a lot of Fuller inspired mathematics, computer code (thinking of Elastic Interval Geometry in particular). I've contributed to this genre in more than one computer language (as have many others). This might be the right place to make these links. If you're linking to Synergetics Coordinates, for example, you should link to Quadrays (Chakovians) which are in every way as 4D, if not more so. Kirbyurner (talk)Kirbyurner

After all, I suppose we are trying to do here what the Synergetics books did, but do it more succinctly. But I think, even for Fuller's point of view, it might be interesting to look at how these ideas crop up in his other works as well. I would not consider doing anything like the Synergetics coordinates page does. Synergetics is Fuller's mathematics in that it is his highest level of abstraction. I plan to use his mode of expression as much as possible unless another point of view helps clarify what he is doing. For example, his approach to characterizing symmetry using great circles might be clarified by comparing it to other approaches. Maybe I can find a reference that does that. Geometrically, his approach seems more unified to me. The "See also" section is for relevant Wikipedia links. I'd put a link to just about any Wikipedia article there as long as it involves Synergetics some how, and there is not already a link to it in this article. If the page does not mention Fuller's synergetics, then there should be some explanation after the link about the connection to synergetics. I don't see a Quadrays link on Wikipedia, but maybe you can find something. Or maybe you can put the web links you are thinking of in the "External links" section I just started with a restoration of the link to grunch.net. We can move links there to the references if we use them to support statements in the article, but to start with they can go in the "External links" section. My level of being bold is to do one solid edit a week; therefore, the more links for people to browse in the meantime the better. So far I've made my quota. I put the Gray and Edmundson links in the References section because I have some confidence we will be using them to support statements in the article. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I have an interest in your project, however recalling Fuller's "not seeking license to ramble wordily" I think it starts off on a wrong foot to come from "trying to right a wrong" e.g. Synergetics is "too verbose" "incomplete" or whatever the criticism. Those myths should be busted as superstitions not accepted as givens, unless you can point to pre-existing literature where these conclusions are publicly reached after a process of ample debate. My proposed outline contains room for these controversies, but doesn't prejudge the outcome e.g. my view is Synergetics is more properly filed under Philosophy, not Mathematics, which I regard as a positive attribute i.e. I'm prouder of core philosophies when it comes to their contributions to the literature because of their willingness to tackle psychology, the human condition. But then of course that's an artificial divide (a key contention of Synergetics, that division into academic departments is our neurosis, not Bucky's -- and he had no shortage of credentials to prove his way had merit, i.e. in the currency of the realm, he was no slouch (another reason not to premise Wikipedia explications on some presumed deficiency in the original work)). Also, I think the mere existence of this two volume work and its subsequent migration to the Web primarily thanks to Bob Gray, plus secondary literature such as Cosmic Fishing, Synergetics Dictionary and others, is important history worthy of synopsis somewhere within Wikipedia. Including this material, the history of the work itself, with some focus on E.J. Applewhite in particular, is in no way to get side tracked or off course. We're talking a lot of factual material here. The 'Synergetics Folio' also received separate treatment, later becoming the 'color posters' in the back of 2nd volume. Just explaining each of these posters might be a way to structure a portion of this Wikipedia entry, if you're looking for ideas. 75.164.150.225 (talk)KirbyUrner

"His oeuvre inspired many researchers to tackle branches of synergetics: Haken explored self-organizing structures of open systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium," -- what evidence to we have that Synergetics by Fuller inspired Haken in any way? Applewhite told me Fuller was quite irritated that Haken would use the same title. I don't get the impression they were collaborating. Is this just a myth then? A citation is warranted, or we should take it out as pure speculation. Kirbyurner (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

"Many other researchers toil today on aspects of synergetics, though many deliberately distance themselves from Fuller's broad all-encompassing definition, given its problematic attempt to differentiate and relate all aspects of reality including the ideal and the physically realized, the container and the contained, the one and the many, the observer and the observed, the human microcosm and the universal macrocosm." I'd like to remove this whole sentence, which uses a lot of words to describe what in the end is a "problematic attempt" at definition. This is not the place to have verbose opinions. Plus it's condescending to leave Bucky with just "coining the word" but then maybe getting it wrong when it comes providing substance. That's "Bucky the popularizer" meme, however this is Fuller's original work and he's defining Synergetics ab initio, not popularizing something already out there incorrectly. We have other places where we talk about lack of acceptance, for whatever reasons. Let's use the section subtitled Academic Acceptance to summarize whatever happens to be the current status quo, which is itself not a static picture. Kirbyurner (talk) 04:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

"Amy Edmondson explored tetrahedral and icosahedral geometry" -- so do a lot of people; this is insufficient to distinguish what makes Amy's work connect especially to Fuller's (which it does, I don't deny it), so how might this be rephrased? Kirbyurner (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed outline

Here is a proposed outline. A fragment now. Of course it will need to change if I don't find my recollection is validated by verifiable citations to our references. I will update this as I get things clearer in my mind.

• Universe
• Science
• Thinking
• Syntropy/Entropy
• Patterns
• Space filling
• Great circles
• Views on traditional mathematical procedure

— Bob Burkhardt (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll suggest some notes here: Universe as partially overlapping scenarios, get across this is a consciously designed definition with a lot of intersubjective elements (partly why this is philosophy is its taking the trouble to "spin" Universe, not simply accept it as "a given" or "that which came from the Big Bang" or other silliness) -- special attention to "non-unitarily conceptual" and the dictionary analogy (limited bandwidth, human lag times); Science includes Bucky trusting many scientists, but then he accredits internally to Synergetics i.e. he decides what he means by "physicist" and just about every other word he keeps in play in this invented language i.e. we're not sure if he includes Laurie Anderson (Big Science), probably does; Thinking goes to Omnidirectional Halo, of core importance for keeping this cybernetics slash systems angle i.e. Synergetics is thinking about thinking (where the "meta" comes from in "metaphysical") -- explorations in the geometry of thinking let's remember; Syntropy/Entropy relates to Signal/Noise, also to Gravity/Radiation (see [4] ); Patterns (skip?); Space-filling: Mites, Sytes and Kites for sure, rhombic dodecahedron as just as important as pentagonal dodecahedron, a bias correction (does that mean we're not "Platonists"?); Great Circles: most important is the 25 and the 31, their juxtaposition and secondary great circles, LCD triangles, long tables of numbers, checkable (Bob maybe found some errors, computers still pretty new in 1970s, early dome tables had errors too, explains "leaking" says J. Baldwin, who smuggled them from Joe Clinton's lab to Dome Handbook prematurely (hey, it was war!)); Views: not sure what you mean here as get ten mathematicians in a room and some will shout about intuition, others extol the beauties of rigor and machine proofs, while some just rock back and forth, intimidated by all the shouting. Kirbyurner (talk)Kirbyurner —Preceding undated comment added 17:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC).

Hmmmm, not much progress in over a month I see. I was hoping some big name philosophy professor wanting to make a name for herself (himself) might weigh in with some sensitive reading, evidence of doing significant homework, really coming to grips. That'd help redeem the Ivory Tower from charges of bleeping over some of our best heritage yet still charging high tuition for the privilege. A literature professor, ala Hugh Kenner? Most of Fuller's honorary degrees were in the humanities [5], and don't think "honorary" means 2nd rate, means a school is willing to peg the value of its diploma to some role model without even charging tuition to that individual, means they really thought about it and mean it. So to have forty six of those is really saying something. Fuller was one of the most decorated academics of all time, bar none, yet he's hardly ever cited by his over-jealous contemporaries. I use that fact for marketing purposes (leverage) [6] 02:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Kirbyurner

Inappropriate external links

I think the banner on inappropriate external links currently at the top of this article must refer to all the Synergetics references in the text which are in parens. At first glance, these are a bit cryptic as well. I think the fix is to move all to footnotes, and expand the labels to something like "Synergetics, Sec. XXX.XX". I imagine I will do this at some point if no one else does. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I added a link to my Synergetics website, a popular go-to for long-standing, high ranking in Google search. Exactly what External Links are for. Now I see other issues have been raised by the Wikipedia gods (not relating to External Links). We're to make the page more accessible without losing any technical details. This is from early 2018. Kirbyurner (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, separate thread, I see the Wikipedia gods have new worries about the tone of the article, although this was not registering as an issue for the many years its been available. Anyone want to discuss the "tone"? Kirbyurner (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

New Flags: Tech and Tone

Starting a new thread. 97.115.7.92 (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

A first survey by me suggests the hypothesis that our posting is too dense because unbolstered by many auxiliary pages that would usually assist a reader grapple with a main topic of this size. For example Jitterbug Transformation has no page of its own in February 2018, nor do any of the various volumes so meticulously described: A, B, T, E and S modules. Given the granularity of Wikipedia, the absence of such pages bespeaks enormous holes in the "semantic web" we've at least started to address with this initial entry. 97.115.7.92 (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Addendum, July 7, 2019: FYI my initial draft for this article is archived here: Synergetics at Wikieducator

Kirbyurner (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I've reviewed the guidelines for removing tags and although I'm a stakeholder as the principal author, I see no conflict of interest as the flags were not with reference to contested facts or the verifiability of claims, but about tone and accessibility. This is essentially a synopsis of a published work, embellished with some historical context. Now that I've done some spring cleaning in March 2021, I'm hoping the tone is more tolerable and the content less all over the place about whether Synergetics is Fuller's own invented discipline (true) or some collaboration undertaken with Haken (false). The whole point of this page is to disambiguate, not to create fuzziness about the difference between Synergetics (Fuller) and Synergetics (Haken). Kirbyurner (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Conceivably useful sources

These sources (scraped from Synergetics coordinates, now a redirect to this article) might conceivably be of use to some editor of this article:

• Stan Dolan, 'Man versus Computer,' Mathematical Gazette, volume 91, number 522 (November 2007), pages 469–480.
• R. Buckminster Fuller, Synergetics: Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking (2 vols.), Vol. 2, Section 203.09 and Section 986.205.

Sec. 966.20; Sec. 987.011; Vol. 1, Sec. 400.011 and Fig. 401.01.

• Quadray Coordinates on WikiEducator
• Weisstein, Eric W. "Synergetics Coordinates". MathWorld.
• Clifford J. Nelson. Synergetics Coordinates
• Clifford Nelson, Buckminster Fuller Notebooks

--JBL (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)