Uncategorized

Personal Systems 2.1- down the rabbit hole we go…

visakanv
March 27, 2011

Continuing from where we left off, here and here!

Brainstorming (prototype 1.0):

system2

Putting things together (2.0)

Refining them (2.1)- click to expand!

I spent a little more time playing around with this, putting in all the things that I’m interested in. What is the point of all this? The point is to show that most things in complex systems arrange themselves into aesthetically pleasing, intricate patterns- If I could do this in 3 dimensions I imagine it would look beautiful and elegant. The terms I have used do not follow any sort of strict pattern or codified structure, and there may be some degree of overlap here and there. I could refine it further if I spend more time on it, but I think it would do me good to do that with fresh eyes.

Consider the feedback loops within the system- physical well being -> consciousness -> experiences -> emotional well being -> physical well being. Most things in nature tend towards such elegant feedback loops! If you want to improve any element of the system, it is worth considering a systemic approach- a little bit of change in 5 elements that are linked to the element that you want to change is most probably going to be more effective than simply trying to force a change in that element, independent of the entire system.

I am a little tired and I spent most of my energy trying to put everything together, so my description of it is weak, convoluted and sub-optimal. Please, if anything doesn’t make sense or seems unnecessarily complicated, ask me questions that force me to simplify, streamline and clarify! Thank you <3

4 thoughts on “Personal Systems 2.1- down the rabbit hole we go…”

  1. Woman With Impressionist Tits

    “What is the point of all this? The point is to show that most things in complex systems arrange themselves into aesthetically pleasing, intricate patterns- If I could do this in 3 dimensions I imagine it would look beautiful and elegant. The terms I have used do not follow any sort of strict pattern or codified structure, and there may be some degree of overlap here and there.”

    Not to discourage you or anything because I do think this pursuit has a worthy end goal.
    But I have to point out this: often the most elegant designs are the simplest. This is truth in physics, in biology, in sociology, in engineering, and so on. Also, if the accruing complexity of the design is a result of “not follow[ing] any sort of strict pattern or codified structure”, then is it not safe to argue that this said complexity is one founded on convoluted logic and not on intellectual precision?

    One suggestion I propose is to try working inwards, instead of outwards, with your nodes. This could be done in a few steps. 1) Removing the nodes that you feel are superfluous 2) Structuring the remaining nodes on fixed logical paths, based on relatively fixed metaphysical / empirical categories. 3) Creating subcategories, structures and superstructures within your design that follow a more hierarchical layout (This makes it more aesthetically approachable for those who are viewing the design)

    Hope these suggestions are helpful.

  2. Woman With Impressionist Tits

    There is an intrinsic problem with including nodes such as “Resourcefulness”, “Reputation”, “Discipline”, etc

    1) They are ambiguous, and their precise meanings and interpretations are too subjective from person to person. You might define ‘resourcefulness’ as, say, the ability to optimize a given situation in your favor, whilst I might define it as the trait which enables me to improve a situation for the betterment of many. Too many nuances for too loosely defined terms / nodes.

    2) Ideals of resourcefulness, reputation, discipline, productivity rely too heavily on pre-conceived or commonsensical suppositions. What I mean to say is, what we come to see as ‘discipline’ or ‘productivity’ are arguably a representative repository of traits, values, beliefs, etc which we come to understand through our interactions with others. If the purposes of your Personal System is to aid others in developing a simplified YET deeper awareness of themselves, then you cannot build such an awareness from nodes that are almost transient and altering in nature.

    A system is truly elegant and purposeful if it can be universally applied even in the face of changing social circumstances. Such an application would be difficult if the nodes that make up the system are in themselves constantly changing as we progress through life. Analogically, it would make more sense to build a brick house on solid rock than on moving water.

    I’m sorry if I am not expressing this as succinctly or as clearly as I should, as I’m pretty tired at the moment, but I hope you get the gist of what I’m saying. I honestly feel that it might help if you reverse engineered your own system back to the basics, and stymie the numerous new extensions you have made. Too many arrows, too confusing, pointing in too many directions except in the direction that might elucidate an understanding from the person reading it.