I have earlier responded to KU's post -see my post dt. Posted: Aug 29, 2014 12:55 AM (http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?messageID=9577251?). It strikes me that some further remarks may be in order to remove, hopefully, some misapprehensions KU seems to be suffering from.
"I think OPMS is about writing an action plan in a page or less, based on a stated objective or goal"
is WRONG. It is about *crystallising* all issues, elements, models - everything ? related to a Mission onto a single page. There is a significant difference.
You could never have come out with the above statement if you had taken the small trouble to read up something about the OPMS.
Advice: When one doesn't know about something, it's generally better to confess that one doesn't know anything about it - as I prefer to do - or has not read anything about it (as I prefer to do) rather than thus make a fool of oneself.
You have kindly explained how GST-a (by which he means 'general systems theory framed in terms of 'Graph Database concepts). Nothing at all wrong with the concepts of Graph Database, etc. I have downloaded the O'Reilly book by Ian Robinson and am studying it in some detail. Have also tried out Neo4j and have used it (just a bit).
Graph Database is surely a good way to develop a real and possibly usable understanding of 'systems'. It is, possibly a good way to start 'systems thinking'.
'Graph Database' is NOT a 'general system' - nor can it help the user (individual/group) create an Action Plan along with all needed associated systems to accomplish a 'Mission' in a complex system. It cannot do what OPMS can help the user do. (Neo4j, as a piece of software, is well developed. As a concept, it's not a 'general system').
Suggestion: Find out what a 'general system' is before claiming that 'GST-a' is a general system tool.
The OPMS is a general system.
Here is a brief listing of some of the 'Missions' that have been successfully accomplished by users of OPMS; are still ongoing; have failed (Check out the presentation attached):
1)"To understand all topics of my math syllabus, and THEREBY to improve, very significantly, my results in my math exams, tests, quizzes" (successfully accomplished by a college student who had done very poorly in math right through his school career);
2) "To get myself a good and satisfying job on graduation" - successfully accomplished by a fair number of individuals.
3) "To develop the prototype OPMS software" (Prototyp OPMS s/w developed by the Interactive LogicWare [ILW] software team. ILW itself failed as a commercial organisation because of the waves from the 'dot.com bust' of 2002 and because difficulties with my financial partners.
4) "To become a top-level software designer" - done successfully by most members of the the ILW software team. All of them who learned to use OPMS successfully found excellent jobs at the lowest point of the 'dot-com bust' and will soon be helping out train my new team, which is just now under formation.
5) "To obtain needed funding for developing ghe OPMS s/w" - succesfully obtained needed start-up funding; now discussion next-level funding.
6) "To develop effective workshops for organisations" - around 100 workshops successfully conducted for commercial organisations. All participants are keen to have the OPMS software when it is launched (Only a few of the Missions successfully taken up have been listed here).
8) A sizable number of 'societal Missions' sketched, and will be worked on with appropriate organisations in due couse. Check out the PowerPoint presentation "Some Missions of Interest" herewith attached. (The presentation is still under development, therefore please see it as such). 9)
10) You could, if you wished, develop an *effective* Action Plan for a worthy Mission like, say: "To promote Buckminster Fuller's Synergetics (and his ideas of 'nature's engineering' systems) widely". I observe that the revolutionary work that Buckminster Fuller did has been lying in limbo, more or less, after Fuller passed on (notwithstanding the missionary work done by Kirby Urner, David Koski, EJ Applewhite and doubtless many others. OPMS can help get it moving within a couple of months.
I also observe that you do have something like this in your latest post ("Mission: make Bucky Fuller's ideas more accessible within the average individual's educational experience").
It surely is a worthy Mission. It could certainly 'get going' pretty well within a couple of months at most.
But first you (and others interested in the Mission) would need to find out something about 'GST in practice' [which is different from GST and GST-a]. Then, perhaps and, perhaps, about OPMS as the simplest and most practical means to apply 'systems science' to any Mission. The OPMS prototype software is acceptedly not as well developed as Neo4j. Conceptually, the OPMS goes far further than anything in Graph Database, which you call GST-a.
11) There are a sizable number of societal Missions on my plate, which will be taken up as and when the resources are found to do that. (See attachment).
12) Quite a number of OPMS Missions taken up have failed. I regard a 'Mission' as a failure if I've taken it up - and then given it up. By and large, these failures have occurred because the Missions were attempted without having the needed infrastructure/ support in place. Some of these have been listed at the attachment "Some Missions of Interest"
12a) To convince Kirby Urner to read up and understand something about the OPMS as a preliminary to using it for any of his Missions.
12b) To persuade Robert Hansen to cease telling lies about a the OPMS
12c) To persuade someone at Math-teach to try out the OPMS on any Mission of interest
12d) To persuade my co-directors at ILW to use OPMS in their work
12e....) There are quite a number 'failed Missions'. In rfact, I observe that there are considerably more 'failed Missions' than successful Missions.
There are, however, far more 'ongoing Missions' than either 'successful Missions' or 'failed Missions'.
GSC Kirby Urner (KU) posted Aug 28, 2014 7:16 PM (http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9576944): > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 3:41 AM, GS Chandy > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > << SNIP >> > > > > I have indeed "taken note", though I fail to > understand the specific > > context in which I am to "take note", and what I > should do with whatever > > note that I might take. > > > > I think GST[a] (e.g. OPMS) might make use of dot > notation, especially in > connection with Graph Database concepts, e.g. > :MARRIED_TO is a > relationship, but its legality in such-and-such a > state may be True or > False e.g. :MARRIED_TO.legal = False. As a Quaker > with IT > responsibilities, such a Graph Database is of > interest, as we have many > households in our Meetings wherein the partners are > :MARRIED_TO in our > records, but not in those of the surrounding state. > > > > (I do broadly understand the 'dot notation' and how > it is used, though > > Coxeter's "Regular Polytopes" and etc are now not > readily accessible to me > > for reference. So am quite unable to make out the > distinctions between > > meanings of various usages of ".4D" in the > book/elsewhere, when he or > > anyone else discusses "tesseract", "time machine" > etc, etc). Anyway, all > > of these ideas are at a higher level than the one > at which I usually > > function. > > > > More broadly speaking, I'm sure you're aware of how > people use words > differently depending on background and context. To > paraphrase a standup > comedian I was listening to recently, the term > "faggot", used by some as a > put-down, means "smoke-able item" in the UK whereas > in this gentleman's > upbringing it had nothing to do with sexual > orientation. A "faggot" is > someone who holds their nose with their hand when > jumping into the swimming > pool. (Laughter). > > This was intended as "adult humor" and was meant to > stay edgy. Portland is > hugely into gay rights and gay marriage so pretending > to insult gayness > tends to get some laughs in the right context (e.g. > in a comedy club) as no > one in the audience is taking such insults seriously. > This isn't the > elementary school playground after all. > > > > In regard to Mr Hansen's suggestions/ claims in his > postings about your > > lack of awareness of what "spiralling" might be, > about his understanding > > of "teaching", "learning", etc, etc, etc and the > like: these ideas of his > > are, in general, worth smiling at if not ROTFLOL. > Mr Hansen has > > grandiosely proclaimed, for instance: > > > > >>"teaching is about teaching things. That is > pedagogy" > > > > Yes, many quotable witticisms come from our > math-teach sages, don't they. > > > > > > Children must be FORCED or GOADED to learn math!" > (and doubtless > > everything else) [definitely more than three > smiles]; > > > > Is forcing or goading ever appropriate in a > democracy? That's a tough > question as here the words "force" and "goad" have > their different spins > per context. > > A child will bitterly complain she or he was "forced" > to eat peas, as a > punishment for not eating them is "no dessert" and > from the child's point > of view, that amounts to forcing. > > The word "torture" is similar, though I think we can > agree on many uses of > that word, as well as agree it should be out of > bounds as a rule of thumb, > almost as a definition of civilization (meaning > "civilization" is still an > idea waiting to be tried sometime in the future, to > paraphrase Gandhi). > > > > > > and doubtless there are many other wondrous > matters most of which may > > well be worth smiles and etc. Mr Hansen sometimes > thinks I am 'mocking' > > him, but actually I am usually lost in admiration. > > > > I'd agree you're mocking him. <sarcasm> </sarcasm> > tags would apply. > > > > > > The way I myself had understood (or NOT understood) > 'spiralling' was that > > this is in fact the way every human, every human, > every infant and every > > child, actually deepens his/her understanding of > anything and everything. > > You, me, even Robert Hansen. Einstein also. > Groups as well. Every time we > > revisit an idea, our understanding of it deepens > ('spirals', so to speak). > > > Curriculum writers such as John Saxon make explicit > use of this technique, > returning to previous topics and deepening them > further. > > I like to think of storytelling in this connection. > Some stories follow a > thread for a time, drop it, come back to it, thereby > weaving a larger > tapestry as the threads intersect and overlap. A > kind of multitasking. > This too is spiraling. > > > > Of course, Einstein's and Robert Hansen's ideas > about anything are > > obviously very different from those that GSC may > possess. Anyway, I have > > long believed that the power of the 'One Page > Management System' (OPMS) > > about which I have often written at Math-teach > actually arises from its > > characteristic of forcing the user to 'spiral' over > the things he/she/they > > is/are seeking to understand. Doubtless Mr Hansen > will disagree based on > > his vast 'expertise' on 'learning', 'teaching', > 'spiralling', etc, etc, etc > > - to claim that I do not know what 'learning', > 'teaching' or 'spiralling' > > might be. > > > > Aha, you're explicitly "forcing the user" (perhaps > even goading the user) > to 'spiral', showing that even in OPMS you have > characteristics of > 'forcing' and 'goading'. My point about the > importance of context > exactly. Context = System (for shorthand). = > Namespace (in CS). > > > > > I always did believe that I know a little about > 'learning' and how it > > happens in the human animal - but I freely accept > that I know little or > > nothing about: > > > > D. Koski; > > > > Koski and I each received a Synergetics Explorer > Award back in the early > 1990s, presented to us by Bucky Fuller's grandson, > through the Buckminster > Fuller Institute (BFI.org), which exists to this day. > Synergetics is > shorthand for the philosophical magnum opus of said > Medal of Freedom > winning world class architect / thinker. E.J. > Applewhite put up the cash > for this particular prize. He was one of Fuller's > life-long collaborators > and someone I've worked with on furthering Fuller's > ideas. > > > > Python, POVRAY; > > > > Python: a leading computer language these days, > popularly taught in > colleges and universities, sometimes in high schools > POVRAY: free open source ray tracing software that > allows the rendering of > graphics (still or moving) on screen. > > A lot of my curriculum writing focused on Python + > POV-Ray (Persistence of > Vision ray tracer) in part because it's gratifying to > apply the mathematics > one is learning to generate artful graphics. One > ends up owning good > graphics as intellectual property meaning no need to > ask permission to show > off this or that technical write-up in which graphics > play a role. > Students of my curriculum may become curriculum > writers / publishers > themselves, thanks to acquired skills. > > > > Magnus Wenninger (though I do recall that you've > referred to him earlier); > > > > A 92 year old priest known throughout the world for > his paper polyhedron > constructions, a clearinghouse of information about > polyhedrons. It was in > his modest chambers, when visiting with Koski, that I > first set eyes on a > draft of Divided Spheres by Popko, a book relating to > Fuller's architecture > in which I'm footnoted and included in the > bibliography (something I'm > proud of, as it's an excellent primer, with lots of > color pictures -- I can > access it on some of my devices via my Kindle app). > > > > polyhedral (tetrahedral?) mensuration; > > > > Using a tetrahedron as a unit of volume instead of a > cube. The tetrahedron > divides evenly into a cube (3), octahedron (4), > rhombic dodecahedron (6), > cuboctahedron (20) if these are sized according to > Fuller's "concentric > hierarchy" schema. I have written about this topic > extensively on > math-teach for well over a decade. It's one of my > main threads and relates > to the NCLB Polyhedron you also know nothing about. > > > > whatever Linda Dalrymple Henderson might have > written; > > > > With typical access to the Internet it takes about > five-ten minutes to read > a few things. I suggest that rather than predictably > confess your > ignorance about just about every topic I mention, you > sometimes take the > time to do homework BEFORE you respond. I don't want > to FORCE or GOAD you > into doing homework, but you do on occasion come > across as quite proud of > your abysmal ignorance and lack of qualifications to > have any informed > opinions whatsoever about the matters we discuss here > on math-teach. I > have rarely met a less informed person of your age > group with aspirations > to contribute in such an arena. > > > > and a great many other things many of which I > should be familiar with. > > > > > But never will be... one might add. I reiterate the > hopelessness of your > particular case, even against a backdrop of GST > itself moving onward and > embracing contributions from Fuller as well as > Warfield. You no longer > have current enough knowledge of GST as it stands > today to effectively > advance the reputation of OPMS. I recommend taking > at least six months to > do homework (reading and studying) if you have any > hope whatsoever of being > an effective exponent of applied GST. This probably > sounds like goading to > you. > > > > > > As noted, I had always believed I did understand a > bit about 'learning' > > and about 'learning'-and-'teaching' as a 'silver > dyad' (though I am no > > teacher by any manner of means - but I definitely > do believe I am a > > *learner*, have always been one). > > > > I must confess that I rarely if ever look at movies > and videos, even > > though I know there are many fascinating (perhaps > even ESSENTIAL) ones: one > > lives in the real-life circumtances that confront > one (though my computer > > friend had a VAST collection of movies available > for viewing). (The > > underlying > > > > << SNIP >> > > > > > > As you suggest, OK, back to work. > > > > Back to homework is what I suggest in your case. > > Kirby