there are many troubling aspects as to the theory of a round planet . . it implies we are part of the universe, rather than the center . . . it goes against, what was a essentially a dichotomy in architecture up to that time . . . i am reading a book by le corbusier, and writes elegantly of "regulating lines" , with regards to older forms of architecture, the regulating lines fall between boxes, circles, rectangles, and often form the primitive "alter" - there is no mention of tensegrity . . form and function are often used as catch phrases for the status quo, and often fall into confusion . . . le corbusier was great, but i have often wondered, aside from the "critical path" what might have become of architecture had people stopped talking about form and function, and instead thought in terms of applied science, design science, and engineering . . . you will find these are each phases of the same thing . . i have been enjoying the buildings i see popping up on image searches from dubai . . great stuff . . . too bad it's gonna become las vegas . .

anyways, not much can be said of religion, that is why it is religion . . .

I wonder what we can do that is equally smart with the technology of Synergetics? That is something the people in 2100 could admire us for. We always make mistakes, anyway. That's how we learn by our past mistakes, trial and error.

Imagine coming to the realization of a comprehensively considerate world, a place called, "OME," that this is it and every time you experience it, exlaiming in the softest voice, "This is it!" Then imagine billions of humans realizing the best world, at OME together. It might be as we smell the scent of a rose, enjoy the taste of a perfectly ripened blackberry we have plucked without resistance from a vine in the warmth of a summer day.

Thank you, Kirby. Your perspective is fun to read. I had to laugh, especially at the "wink." However, the control is precisely what each of us has as an inherent right to think a thought and to express it as you did and I do now. For that very moment in time, you lead the world.

If the power structures are scared about a spherical world posing a threat to their perspective adjustments in thought to their heaven or their hell as authoritative destinations under the auspices of that authority, it matters very little, anyway. Obviously, we have not only questioned the idea. We have moved on by thinking along other lines. The most important realization is what anyone does with their economic initiative in respect to spherical thinking, if that is what you are questioning. Primarily, it is the spherical conceptuality, that we can write about if the religious and political leaders fail to understand it. Bucky's example of heaven above and hell below was to make the idea very clear and for us to understand where it derived. At some relevant point, we really must work with spherical conceptions, even if it is just a comment in reply to what someone thinks Bucky meant, or what someone thinks about the unspoken opposition to his geometric models. The best way that I have found to accomplish this is to go to Synergetics online, click on Index, (http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/index/index.html)find the idea you're questioning, under Spherical, for instance, choose any of the sections, find one that is close to satisfying your mind about what Bucky may have been thinking about and in relation to your perspective, compose a sentence paraphrasing the section integrative to your developing thought. It works for me and also puts us in closer proximity to the Mind of Buckminster Fuller, which I have found to be consistent in every one of his books. They are whole parts of his Synergetic thinking. Thank you

As we subtract misinformation (of which there's a lot) from the picture, we gain a clearer understanding of how we might collaborate to a much higher degree to attain beneficial results.

Power structures put on the brakes out of fear of the still greater power structures they presume will try bossing them around (as they even now dictate to others), and bosses don't like to be bossed (you have to *earn* those stripes or whatever). Nobody wants a totalitarian world order "unless I can be the dictator" (that's statistically unlikely plus it wouldn't be a fun job anyway).

But I think this is more where Fuller's notion of precession comes in, and Fuller's own mode of operation. He ran a very small shop, joined a succession of teams, and in synergetics language was always talking about peeling off (leaving the team) versus flying in formation (collaborating in a peer group). He wasn't really big into bossing, even if he seemed to have clear ideas and worked in a willful, intentional kind of way.

I think getting the kinds of transformations we're hoping for will involve more people realizing that humans are not in control to the extent we'd maybe supposed or imagined and I'm not talking little bug-eyed monsters (they're not in control either (wink)). I'm talking about cybernetics and the relationship of parts to a synergetic whole. Another way to think about it, from Wolfram: intelligence is a characteristic of cosmic integrity and little hominids do not have a corner on the market (we share this planet, it isn't ours to trash -- not technically, not according to this new kind of science).

The fact is, no one really feels in control of this Spaceship in any boss-like capacity, where you just bark out orders all day long -- or if they do, they're probably getting quasi full time care and we hope competent nursing.

Consider that there may be no power structure, of the type we maybe imagine, keeping humans this brutal and stupid. We keep ourselves this way cybernetically, prisoners of our own conditioned reflexes (which include patterns of thought, many of them televized and thereby amplified).

The spread of greater awareness and competence takes time.

Political leaders are not precluded from partaking in this awakening, which will have its political dimensions. The power of civilians, with support from their militaries, to make this world less of a hell, more of a heavan, is still within us. And no "evil empire" is really trying to hold us back.

It's an IQ problem, more than a greed, fear and selfishness problem. So maybe we should just drink more Red Bull?

My question is the eternal musing of the thinker and humanist in a capitalist culture. The one thing that will prevent all and every truly beneficial quantum leap forward will be the economic system. Remembering that capitalism needs consumerism and this is why ecological beneficial architecture and housing, urban planning etc will not work. Corporate America, etal, will not allow it. The construction industry, will oppose less is more philosophy. Look how much timber is in the traditional house and other comsumerables. The timber industry will be against new designs that have less of a 'footprint' as will anyone profiting from trad building. Look at what happened to Oprah Winfry when she said something against beef. Corporate greed will not allow it, even if energy companies and the auto industry come on board to 'capitalize' on the new, ecological designs. Building codes will be written to help Home Depot's consumers and profits. Do you remember the Sarich orbital engine from the 70's. An Australian engine that was bought-out by US automakers and shelved.

I agree with you guys, and Bucky. Bucky said "Life is not the physical" So similarly "heaven" or "hell" is certainly not some place somewhere out there. In that sense there is no Heaven or hell. If there is, its just a state of mind.

I think fundamentally Fuller is getting at the fact that when we work against nature and natural systems we cannot succeed. I think that was really the basis for Synergetics, finding a way to work with Nature's inherent structural system rather than imposing other systems over it like planar geometry. Humanity has always tried to control, subvert, and tame nature and we have only succeeded in moving ourselves and the rest of the world toward extinction.

"Either war is obsolete, or men are" - R. Buckminster Fuller

Maybe it's like explaining art, the ways you get there are ugly and you can never really explain what a certain piece does to you internally. In our language up and down are embedded, up means feeling good, down means feeling bad. It's hard to explain things like that to yourself. You just want to make it simple and base it on things you've been taught.

I think one of the challenges inthe comprehensive approach is explaining succinctly to others, the essence of an idea...we see this illustrated in the Nature's Design Class we are offering at BFI. The instructor is attempting to articulate both essential truths, as well as the comprehensive context in which they are contained. In this class, the instructor has to come at the point he is trying to make from many, many different angles -- each metaphor, example, geometric form an attempt to describe an essence which ultimately exists beyond language. The 'aha' moment, and all that is understood in that moment, becomes impossible to describe completely.

One of the things he does better than anyone is to make you see everything all at once, and as interconnected. He is asking you to become comprehensively aware. The awareness of that can begin to help change your whole paradigm and shift everything.

At times, while re-reading this book, I have a very viscereal experience, not unlike that of of being in the middle of a really scary mystery novel, wherein a part of my mind does not want to read what he will say next because once you understand what Fuller is talking about you experience an instant alienation from the 'regular' world because so few people understand the implications of what he is talking about. I am not saying that Fuller alone is the only person who has put forth such radical ideas, but the depth to which he analyzes the system in which we are currently embedded, and the deep roots of cultural history informing the system, is profound, and as I said, leads you to a 'no going back' understanding.

Industrial design, the making of tools, is starting to refer back to nature more and the idea of using what we already have is becoming much more important in this field. The potential for seeing things like alternative energies and even growing ones own packaging becoming just a part of everyday life is very interesting and hopeful.

The expression of human ideas before writing was tools, maybe how we do this now could help us to change our language.

It seems to be almost encoded into the human brain that things have to be this way. At the end of the chapter Fuller alludes to the fact that we still don't want to believe that the world is a sphere, we still say up and down even though we know better.

From a big picture perspective, if you look at the west's histories of revolution, yes, there have been radical revolutions wherein the power structures were toppled, liberation for some was achieved, even some justice may have been meted out - but Critical Path reminds you that ultimately, the deep, fundamental structures upon which the systems in place are contructed, remain unchanged. Fuller's emphasis on structural fundamentals, as the building blocks of life and all of life's systems - natural, political, economic and cultural - is crucially important to keep in mind when imagining systemically transformative change.

During the age of enlightenment, people's minds opened up and realized that everything doesn't have to come from one power structure and I think this is what Fuller is getting at...another age of enlightenment is needed.

the media helps oversimplify everything and it just reinforces this idea that everything is simple and can be condensed.

We don't seem to have evolved very much since then, the very same power structures exist and people still subscribe to them.

Technology was attacked by power structure because it offered a way out of this. If that's what's happening, judging by humanity's past mistakes, it makes you wonder what we're doing now that's equally stupid. What will people in 2100 say about what we're doing in 2006?

theories and religious postualtes about the value of there being a place better than
this life have captured the imagination of many, many people. If you think about it from a power
structure perspective, when you have created an exploitative situation in the here and now and can
couple it with a religious framework embedded in the promise of an afterlife, it makes the individual experience of the exploitation 'easier' to tolerate, in a way. In many ways it keeps the exploited working. Certainly from a politically strategic point of view it has historically, worked well. Some undamentalist interpretations of religious texts, use this idea that life in this plane is meaningless and serving the afterlife is the goal of this life. I read Fuller as positing (as do the mystical components of all of the major religions) the imminence of heaven - time is collapsed at all times - the
afterlife is present here now. In my opinion, Fuller felt strongly that paradise is possible now - not just possible, it *is* the life we are living, in the here and now - you don't have to wait till the afterlife to experience it...an imminent rather than transendent perspective of Universe.

Now with technology the invisible is visible and we have eliminated things we saw as magical, the earthly/heavenly separation is no longer relevant. 90% of our time here has been obsessed with this idea of creating a nice grave and paying into the afterlife, why was this such a big deal?