Frank Zubek (FZ) posted Aug 24, 2013 12:56 AM, http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9231068 (GSC's remarks interspersed): > > GSC; wrote; > ) You disapprove of Buckminster Fuller and his works; > ii) You disapprove of Kirby Urner and his works. > > fz; there is no difference between Bucky and Kirby, > Kirby merely propagates Bucky. Kirby have not > invented, solved, nothing he just elevates Bucky they > work is a mirror reflection of one and the other, so > I do not understand your objection at all. > OK, for Item ii, I should have written "As a part of Item i, you ALSO disapprove of Kirby Urner and his works. He is only a mirror reflection of Buckminster Fuller". Does that now satisfy? > > It is not that I disprove Bucky I love tetrahedrons, > concentric hierarchy and all the work that stems from > it, but it is ALL wrong, that's all. > Well, as I understand, Buckminster Fuller was the one who, via his seminal work on geodesic domes ('geodomes'), actually brought the underlying power of tetrahedrons home to most of us. (I understand Fuller wasn't the first with geodomes, but he is more or widely less recognized as the 'father of the dome'). Via his ideas of 'tensegrity' and, later, 'Synergetics', he attempted to make it all fit into a 'universal science' of sorts. (Do correct me if I'm wrong in any of the above - I'm writing without access to references of any kind)., not even those on the web as I'm very short of 'bandwidth' at the moment.
As I've clearly noted earlier, Bucky's writings are often rather opaque (to most people; certainly they are somewhat opaque to me). I would love to get involved in a project to help make Fuller's works 'crystal clear to one and all', something for which I would use the 'One Page Management System' (OPMS) approach. (The OPMS would also help to clarify to us what - if anything at all - may be wrong with Bucky's ideas about 'Synergetics', etc)
If you wish to prove Buckminster Fuller "ALL wrong", then you have a very sizable amount of work* to do - (*see Note, below). Your current writings that I've seen at Math-teach do not do the trick at all. If Bucky is accurately described as 'somewhat opaque', then your writing has to be described as 'impenetrably opaque'. As observed earlier, I have understood nothing from them except that you disapprove of Bucky and wish to 'disprove' him. (I have just seen, but have not read, something you have posted to me at a new thread "GSC Spheres" - at a glance, this too, seems to be at about the same level of clarity).
If you should wish to learn how to write somewhat clearly for a start (to enable your 'project to disprove Bucky'), then the OPMS may help. (I can guarantee that it can help you learn to write clearly; I do NOT guarantee it will help to 'disprove Bucky').
*Note: ++++++ There are many others here at Math-teach who have big ideas and sizable ambitions, who have taken up very challenging goals. For instance:
- -- "PUT THE EDUCATION MAFIA IN JAIL!" (A)
- -- "BLOW UP THE SCHOOLS OF EDUCATION!" (B) (Whether intended literally or metaphorically, this is just plain delusional, IMHO)
- -- "Children must be PUSHED to learn!" (C)
The authors of 'B' and 'C' could also, with you, learn how to express themselves clearly and correctly: they are not quite as impenetrable as are you; but they are certainly quite opaque and therefore unreliable. The author of 'A', who alas is not with us these days, did in fact know how to express himself somewhat more clearly than the authors of 'B' and 'C', but the goal he had taken up was just as foolish, IMHO, as is yours. ++++++