>So have you found anything like a "branch" yet? You were saying you couldn't find one.
Can't say I have. What I see is more like people looking for a branch - I see Bucky bad-mouthing the rectilinear and pushing 60deg.
I see things on Amazon.com reviews like this (review of "A Fuller Explanation": "Cartesian geometry is not merely inconvenient, but wrong enough so that it's actively hindering our civilization. It's a blind alley, in the same way Roman numerals were. Buckminster Fuller's most startling inventions are trivial exercises of the theory in this book. Sorry to sound hysterical,..." etc.
"From my own study of synergetics, I'm convinced that Bucky did in fact identify the coordinate system used by Nature. But I would add the caveat that he didn't get too far along in developing it. Fuller points to what the coordinate system is in broad strokes. He gives many penetrating insights and new discoveries, but the synergetics coordinate system needs a lot more development (and integration) before it will be possible to use it as the operative model in all of Science. "
OK - I'll wait and see.
I saw Bucky at a talk back in 75 at Penn State, he was terribly interesting to listen to, but he strikes me in retrospect as a greater humanitarian than a mathematician. He was good at identifying the big problems, and spoke about them in a way that engaged peoples empathy. I'm not sure his solutions, or even his explorations for solutions, were quite as good as his line of talk, and his ability to engage people's imaginations.
On the dark side, his dismissal of large parts of accumulated knowledge (such as cartesian coordinates), while allowing him the freedom to seek new territories to explore, also was a testament to a hugely over-inflated ego, which continues to attract reality-divorced types.
(I also saw the 2008 Whitney exhibition. Hope you were able to.)
>Alexander Graham Bell was another pioneer, with those octet truss kites.
Well, there's another very interesting guy, with some very nice work to his credit. He doesn't get the "guru" treatment and hyperbolic fawning, but, he wasn't around in the 60s.
>See a branch yet? We probably think of the term "branch" differently.