Knowledge And Self (PDF)

Knowledge and Self

Knowledge and Self

Roy Roebuck

Connection: A Fishing Net = Knots and Strings (1957)

RR1
Connection: A Fishing Net = Knots and Strings (1957)

Think of the world as being a linked
collection, a lattice, of different knots,
each connected to other knots by
multiple strings, like layers of
interwoven fishing nets.
Other
Knots represent nouns/things, and Thing
Thing
strings represent verbs/relations.

Other Other
Thing Thing

12/23/2008 Public Domain. Originated and authored by Roy Roebuck, 1982-2008. Published at http://www.one-world-is.org. 2

Alternate Titles:
Basic GEM Object
GEM Premise 1. Connection: A Fishing Net = Knots and Strings
Related Objects

Body:
In 1957 I had a dream about a fishing net and how people were like the knots in the net. It led to
subsequent perceptions about: Cause and Effect and Rube Goldberg Machines, Connection, Readiness for
Connection, my first understanding of Architecture, my first understanding of Semantics, my first Object
Model, and my first Context Model.

Building an Evolving Tree of Share Knowledge

Building an Evolving Tree of Shared Knowledge
(Roy Roebuck’s Progress In His Endeavor)

• 1957 – Envisioned and Designed an Object/Connection Model of the World
• 1965 – Envisioned and Designed a Knowledge Spiral Process
– Balancing Of Mind (Science, Society, Perception)
– Growth Of Mind (Expanding Reusable Knowledge)
• 1969 Adopted a Technology Model
– Technology Merges/Extends Knowledge
– Technology is Science Applied to Social Need
• 1983 – Envisioned and Developed an Intelligence Model
– Semantics Simplifies Knowledge and Simplifies Sharing It
• 1983 – Envisioned and Developed a Management Model
– Incorporating Norman Vincent Peal’s Rational Thought Process
– Incorporating A Management Definition – Resolve Current Chaos Into
The Next Order
• (Applying Ilya Prigogine’s 1978 Nobel Prize-winning concept of self-organizing structure, negative
entropy, and the sciences behind dynamical systems.)
• 1985 – Envisioned and Developing Supporting Technology Specifications
and Testing The Technologies Utility
• 1987 – Envisioned and Developed an Implementation, Operation,
Maintenance, and Extension Methodology


Alternate Titles:
Designing a Tree of Knowledge
Designing a Wheel of Knowledge
Building a Tree of Shared Knowledge

Subtitles:
(Roy Roebuck’s Progress In This Endeavor)

Body:
All Slides, Notes, and Associated Content and Processes

Cause and Effect (1957)

Cause and Effect (1957)
(Lessons for All of Us)


Alternate Titles:
Cause and Effects

Body:
It seems many people go through their lives only aware of limited causes and effects in their lives.

It also seems that the more causes and effects they are aware of, the more likely they are to be and/or feel
in control of their lives.

What if we could have technology to help us gain awareness of these causes and effects, both those that
touch us directly, and those that touch us or we touch indirectly?

When people learn about cause and effect, and directly relate it to their own lives, they are then ready for
bigger concepts such as the concept of connection.

Connection: A Fishing Net = Knots and Strings (Part 2)

Connection: A Fishing Net = Knots and Strings
• FACT: Every Thing is Directly Connected to
Every Other Thing
– David Bohm’s Implicate Order (2)
– Bell’s Interconnection Theorem (2)
– Aspect’s Non-Locality Laboratory Proof
– Zero Point Field/Energy Mathematical Proofs (2)
Other (3) (4)
Thing – Consciousness and Reality (2)
Thing
• The Readiness of People to Accept the Science
Other Other Foundation of Connection Varies from Person to
Thing Thing Person
• Connection is the Basis for Our Physical
Universe
• Connection is the Basis for Cause and Effect
Phenomena
• Connection is the Basis for the “Systems” and
“Object” Engineering Views, and for all
Architecture views


Alternate Titles:
Connection: A Fishing Net = Knots and Strings
Objects and Ontology (i.e., A World View Having Patterns of Object Structures (or Architecture) and
Flows (or Process) Relationships)

Body:

Everyone mentally does architecture and ontology as their connection method. Everyone builds a world
view by: personally sensing/perceiving their world, identifying/distinguishing distinctive things in it;
naming things, describing things, relating things, and tracking past and projected changes in things. This
world view is also called an “ontology” with its structure and flow parts, and the structure of an ontology
is also called an “architecture”.

Sharing world views/ontologies/architectures to establish interpersonal, organizational and global group
communication, coordination, and collaboration requires a structured means of storing and transferring
signals, data, information, knowledge, awareness, decisions, and actions.

Prior to electronic communication, our means to transfer world views was limited to our physical senses.
With electronic communication we are now able to transfer world views at a distance. We can now
effectively communicate, coordinate, and collaborate while at different locations.

Prior to electronic data processing (e.g., IT) our means to share world views was limited to the single
receiving person or group currently anywhere on a communication circuit with us (e.g., across the room
or on the other end of the telegraph, radio, or telephone). With electronic data processing we are now
able to transfer world views to multiple persons and groups at different times. We can now effectively
communicate, coordinate, and collaborate with all persons and groups on the network at different
locations and times.

As a result of the global Internet and our ontology and architecture modeling processes and technology,
we can now provide the means for all persons and groups anywhere to know everything they need to
know, when they need to know it, from those with the greatest expertise or situational information,
knowledge, and awareness.

Everyone can now be connected, knowledgeable, and aware of the whole world around them, from their
own local vantage point and decisions, including both the world within their control and that beyond their
control.

Connection: A Fishing Net = Knots and Strings (Part 3)

GEM Premise 1 Description. Connection: A Fishing Net = Knots and
Strings
• FACT: Every Thing is Directly Connected to Every Other Thing
– David Bohm’s Implicate Order (2)
– Bell’s Interconnection Theorem (2)
Other – Aspect’s Non-Locality Laboratory Proof
Thing – Zero Point Field/Energy Mathematical Proofs (2) (3) (4)
Thing – Consciousness and Reality (2)

• The Readiness of People to Accept the Science of Connection Varies from Person to Person
Other Other – Connection is the Basis for Our Physical Universe
Thing Thing – Connection is the Basis for Cause and Effect phenomena
– Connection is the basis for the “systems” and “object” engineering views

• Everyone mentally does architecture and ontology as their connection method. Everyone
Think of the world builds a personal world view by: sensing/perceiving their world, identifying/distinguishing
distinctive things in it; naming things, describing things, relating things, and tracking past and
as being a collection projected changes in things. This world view is also called an “ontology”, and also called an
“architecture”.
of different knots, • Sharing world views/ontologies/architectures to establish interpersonal, organizational and
global group communication, coordination, and collaboration requires a structured means of
each connected to storing and transferring signals, data, information, knowledge, awareness, decisions, and
actions.
other knots by • Prior to electronic communication our means to transfer world views was limited to our
physical senses. With electronic communication we are now able to transfer world views at a
multiple strings, like distance. We can now effectively communicate, coordinate, and collaborate while at different
locations.
layers of interwoven • Prior to electronic data processing (e.g., IT) our means to share world views was limited to the
single receiving person or group currently anywhere on a communication circuit with us (e.g.,
fishing nets. across the room or on the other end of the telegraph, radio, or telephone). With electronic
data processing we are now able to transfer world views to multiple persons and groups at
different times. We can now effectively communicate, coordinate, and collaborate with all
persons and groups on the network at different locations and times.
Knots represent • As a result of the global Internet and our ontology and architecture modeling processes and
technology, we can now provide the means for all persons and groups anywhere to know
nouns/things, and everything they need to know, when they need to know it, from those with the greatest
expertise or situational information, knowledge, and awareness.
strings represent • Everyone can now be connected, knowledgeable, and aware of the whole world around them,
from their own local vantage point and decisions, including both the world within their control
verbs/relations. and that beyond their control.



Readiness for Connection



Alternate Titles:
Personal Readiness for Connection

Body
FACT: Every Thing is Directly Connected to Every Other Thing
David Bohm’s Implicate Order (http://www.david-bohm.net/,
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/students/dhall/NWR/Alban/Summaries/godimplicate.html)
Bell’s Interconnection Theorem (http://www.drury.edu/ess/philsci/bell.html#bell,
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/BellsTheorem/BellsTheorem.html)
Aspect’s Non-Locality Laboratory Proof
(http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/new_page_7.htm#4.3. Bell’s theorem, the Aspect
experiments, and the nonlocality of reality)

Zero Point Field/Energy Mathematical Proofs (http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0209016,
http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=408619, http://www.science-
spirit.org/articles/Articledetail.cfm?article_ID=126, http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html)
Consciousness and Reality (http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/new_page_7.htm,
http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/)

The Readiness of People to Accept the Science of Connection Varies from Person to Person
Connection is the Basis for Our Physical Universe
Connection is the Basis for Cause and Effect phenomena
Connection is the basis for the “systems” and “object” engineering views

Everyone mentally does architecture and ontology as their connection method. Everyone builds a world
view by: personally sensing/perceiving their world, identifying/distinguishing distinctive things in it;
naming things, describing things, relating things, and tracking past and projected changes in things. This
world view is also called an “ontology” with its structure and flow parts, and the structure of an ontology
is also called an “architecture”.

Sharing world views/ontologies/architectures to establish interpersonal, organizational and global group
communication, coordination, and collaboration requires a structured means of storing and transferring
signals, data, information, knowledge, awareness, decisions, and actions.

Prior to electronic communication our means to transfer world views was limited to our physical senses.
With electronic communication we are now able to transfer world views at a distance. We can now
effectively communicate, coordinate, and collaborate while at different locations.

Prior to electronic data processing (e.g., IT) our means to share world views was limited to the single
receiving person or group currently anywhere on a communication circuit with us (e.g., across the room
or on the other end of the telegraph, radio, or telephone). With electronic data processing we are now
able to transfer world views to multiple persons and groups at different times. We can now effectively
communicate, coordinate, and collaborate with all persons and groups on the network at different
locations and times.

As a result of the global Internet and our ontology and architecture modeling processes and technology,
we can now provide the means for all persons and groups anywhere to know everything they need to
know, when they need to know it, from those with the greatest expertise or situational information,
knowledge, and awareness.

Everyone can now be connected, knowledgeable, and aware of the whole world around them, from their
own local vantage point and decisions, including both the world within their control and that beyond their
control.

Roebuck’s Spiral of Knowledge (1965)

Roebuck’s Spiral of Knowledge (1965)

p ir it

Humanities
S

Re

my
lig

Society
no
ion

xo
y
Phi l og

Ta
lo s c io
So
sis

o ph
is

the

y
s
Hy ae
the

po

Unknown

e
n

Recorded and
po

ipl
me

Hy

ry

Research Applied Knowledge Known Psychology
eo

inc
Wo heno

s
d

a t ic
Th
pte

World
Pr
ng

Universe a th e m Ph
ce
rki
P

M
Ac

ys
io l
s og
ic
Bio
y
istry
s
hy
l og y
P
Chem

Legend:
Learning and Insight S c ie
Evolving Mind nce
See “Evolving Structure of Information”


I envisioned this model in 1965 while in high school, when I was pondering what to study in college.

The guiding definition of management in this modeling technique is quot;Management is the resolution of
complexity and diversity in science and society into a system of controlled orderquot;. (paraphrased from the
phrase management is … “the resolution of complexity and diversity into orderly patterns of control.” on
page xix of The Encyclopedia of Management, Edited by Carl Heyel, Reinhold Publishing, 1963,
LOCCC#6321622, superseded by Gale Group Encyclopedia of Management, ISBN 0-7876-3065-9).

This diagram is a conceptual representation of recorded human knowledge.

The diagram illustrates that management is the task of guiding the progressive integration of perception.
This has been progressing since we first shared our knowledge with each other as a species, and is going
on for each individual from birth. This progression moves from one domain of knowledge to the next (for
example, philosophy as basis of mathematics, in turn as basis of physics, etc.) until one perceives all
knowledge, and all that the knowledge represents, as integral parts of a resolved whole.

I speculate that a well expressed individual is one who achieves a smooth integration of their senses,
feelings, thoughts, and beliefs. Likewise, a well balanced society is one which displays wholeness in its
science, social behaviors, and spirit. To achieve this, an individual or society needs inclusion, and
acceptance of all knowledge and all ways as valid.

To expand the above definition, quot;management is the process of resolving the complexity and diversity in
science, society, and spirit into a simpler dynamic system of controlled order“ This maps exactly to the
now scientific relation between chaos (e.g., complexity and diversity) and order.

Another way to look at this is that “management” is the negentropy/organizing/pattern-finding tendency
of intelligence, while diversity and complexity are the entropy/creativity/bifurcation tendency of
intelligence.

Individuals and cultures without an effective management philosophy show weak correlation between
science, their society, and their belief-systems (philosophy, cosmology, ontology, religion). Without a
unitive management philosophy, integrative cosmology, rational/scientific ontology, and inclusive
religion working to find overlapping patterns and similarities in knowledge domains, the likelihood of a
person or group resolving the complexity and diversity of day-to-day existence into simpler, less
confusing, orderly states, known as ontologies, is diminished. If an individual or culture cannot reconcile
their belief-systems, science, and social patterns into rational and coherent ontologies, then they will
continually operate from dualistic, disintegrative, and exclusionary, rather than unitary, integrative, and
inclusionary basic methods and assumptions.

With basic assumptions (i.e., a paradigm) of dualism, disintegration, and exclusion, their perceptions of
the world are fragmented and disorderly. This is because their paradigm focuses on the differences and
distance between science, society, and systems/spiritual beliefs, rather than on their similarities and
overlap.

With a dualistic paradigm; science, society, and system/spiritual beliefs exist as separate domains of
knowledge and experience with no clear relation to each other, and are in constant conflict. As a result,
the beneficial synergy and synthesis from reconciling their knowledge and language into an ontology is
blocked, and discord is the order of their day.

But where does this tendency towards dualism come from? It is said Aristotle created the first science,
taxonomy, which is the naming and categorizing of things. I propose that our species was initially aware
only of a continuum of experiences brought to us through our senses, as were perhaps all living entities.
Then, a genetic variation coupled with one or more events led to the behavior of perceiving something as
different from the continuum. Those exhibiting this behavior probably attached a symbol, such as an
unusual utterance or verbalization to this different thing, giving it the first name. This naming of the
different thing probably led to the thought that the thing was separate from ourselves (e.g., quot;not mequot;) and
the continuum, creating the first category. This probably gave us some survival advantage, and thus
became an evolutionary trend, eventually coming into our species' genetic pattern. The construct of
human emotion probably entered the scene around the same time, probably in direct relation to the
perception of difference and to naming.

I propose that this set of circumstances began our species' long history of naming, and mentally and
emotionally separating, categorizing, and judging things perceived as different, rather than accepting all
things as another pattern of the continuum. I believe this is fundamental to our Humanity. To understand
an animal that flows within the continuum, moving from event to event, form to form, in an ever evolving
pattern, study an animal such as a cat or a fish. They exhibit quot;gracequot;, animal grace. The above situation

describes what has been referred to as humanity's quot;fall from gracequot;. We learned to mentally and
emotionally distinguish, name, categorize and judge, rather than to observe and respond simply through
instinct. We eventually diminished the instinctive response to the continuum, lost sight of the
commonality among things, and began to mentally and emotionally perceive only the differences. To
borrow another biblical reference, behavior as an expression of continuum (i.e., graceful behavior) is
fundamentally quot;goodquot;, while behavior as an expression of separation (i.e., judgmental or attacking
behavior) is fundamentally quot;evilquot;. Thus, when our species began to respond to mental and emotional
perceptions of difference, we quot;gained the knowledge of good and evilquot;, quot;casting us out of the Gardenquot;,
our instinctive continuum of wholeness.

Apparently since that time, our species, principally through the efforts of a minority of individuals, has
been trying to mentally and emotionally reacquire and express that instinctive continuum-acceptant
graceful awareness and behavior. Their goal is to instinctively, mentally, and emotionally perceive,
experience, and express continuum (achieving what was lost) without giving up the mental and emotional
uniqueness (what was gained) which makes us creative beings. I propose that this the basis for all human
religion.

From quantum physics and physical cosmology, we learn that the natural order of the world is connection
or quot;non-localityquot; (i.e., nothing is isolated). All objects are connected and interdependent in space and
time. Everything is within a larger system, rather than separated by space and time as isolated entities.

Your quot;Worldquot; is the totality of your perceptions of the universe and the framework within which you
exist. Your quot;Identityquot; is your quot;perception of connectionquot; to the surrounding world. Your Identity changes
as your World changes. The basis of a person's perspective is either that their world is a separate unique
island of reality (duality), or that it is an integrated whole (unitary). Note that in a unitary paradigm,
something can be distinct, individuated, and/or unique, and yet not separated from its environment.

The Spiral of Knowledge (2006)

The Spiral of Knowledge (2006)

Unknown

Recorded and Applied Known
Research
Ontologies and Knowledge World
Universe Knowledge
Base (KB)

Legend:
Education, Learning, Experience, Insight,
and Use of World Ontologies and Knowledge
as GEM Results/Ends.

Evolving Individual and Group
Intelligence as GEM Process/Means.


Alternate Titles:
The Spiral of Knowledge
The Wheel of Knowledge
GEM Premise 3: The Spiral of Knowledge

Roy’s Note: Roy Roebuck, 12/11/2006.
Here's an evolving model of my original 1965 wheel of knowledge that I used to plan my educational and
career focus. It's value as a general technique for understanding individual and societal learning and
perception came to me during the 1983 time frame during my Master's Degree program.

Body:
The guiding definition of management in the General Endeavor Management (GEM) approach is
quot;Management is the resolution of complexity and diversity in science and society into a system of
controlled orderquot;. (paraphrased from Reinhold Encyclopedia of Management, 1963. Superseded by Gale
Group Encyclopedia of Management, ISBN 0-7876-3065-9).

This “spiral of knowledge” model was developed in 1965-1967 as an attempt by the author to understand
how to effectively gain and apply a broad and balanced education, commonly known as a “liberal arts”
education, with continuing refinement from that time. The author was operating from a perception he had
envisioned in 1957 that everything was inter-connected within a single universal thing and thus part of a
universal “cause and effect” network starting with the “big bang” forming the universe, and perhaps
before, and thus that everything “mattered” from this “unified” or “oneness” perception. To the author,
all of existence was a single evolving object, in which he, and every other thing, was interdependent.

This diagram is a conceptual representation of recorded human knowledge and evolving experience. It
illustrates that management is the task of guiding the progressive integration of individual perceptions of
events into sciences, for subsequent ubiquitous application across society, to affect subsequent shared
semantics, and thus the individual perceptions, interpretations, and world views they use in the groups
with which they associate. This progression moves from one domain of knowledge to the next (for
example, philosophy as basis of mathematics, in turn as basis of physics, etc.) until one perceives all
recorded knowledge, and all that the knowledge represents, as integral parts of a resolved whole.

This knowledge is expanded and shared through the learning technique known as science, by observing
various phenomenon of the world, developing models giving an initial hypothesis for a given phenomena,
tuning the initial hypothesis through subsequent observations until it is a working hypothesis that can be
shared and communicated to potentially become an accepted hypothesis, which is then formalized and
given the detailed description and precision of a theory, enabling consistently reproducible events
showing the phenomena, and then setting the theory into ubiquitous practice as a shared principle
applicable across all societies, thus giving the basis for expanded individual and societal perception, to
continue the spiral into its next cycle. This “spiral of knowledge” itself is a “working hypothesis”
reflecting observations on individual and societal learning and adapting.

From this spiral, we can hypothesize that a well expressed individual is one who achieves high levels of
integration of their senses, feelings, thoughts, knowledge, and beliefs. Likewise, a well balanced society is
one which displays full integration, or wholeness, in its science, social behaviors, and perception (also
known as spirit). To achieve this, an individual or society needs inclusion and acceptance of all
knowledge, and all ways of others, to be accepted as valid to their adherents, appreciated in their context,
and possibly agreed-with in theory or principle.

To expand the above management definition: quot;management is the process of resolving the evolving
complexity and diversity in science, society, and perception into a simpler dynamic system of controlled
order.“ This maps exactly to the now-scientific relation between chaos (e.g., complexity and diversity)
and order. Another way to look at this is that diversity and complexity are the
decaying/creating/variance/differing tendency of the universe and intelligence, while “management” is
the forming/organizing/simplifying/pattern-finding tendency of the universe and intelligence.

We hypothesize that individuals and cultures without an effective management philosophy show weak
correlation between accepted/universal science, their society, and their perception and belief-systems
(philosophy, cosmology, semantics, religion). Without a unitive management philosophy, integrative
cosmology, shared semantics, and inclusive religion working to find overlapping patterns and similarities
in knowledge domains, the likelihood of a person or group resolving the complexity and diversity of day-
to-day existence into simpler, less confusing, orderly states, known as ontologies, is diminished. If an
individual or culture cannot reconcile their perceptions/belief-systems, accepted/ubiquitous/provable
science, and social patterns into rational and coherent ontologies, then they will continually operate from
destructive and divisive dualistic, disintegrative, exclusionary, or judgmental/extremist/radical/militant

perceptions, rather than cohesive, healing, unitary, integrative, and inclusive perceptions as their basic
methods and assumptions.

We further hypothesize that with individual and group basic assumptions (i.e., a paradigm) coming from
dualism, disintegration, and exclusion beliefs, their perceptions of the world are fragmented and
disorderly. This is because their paradigm focuses on the differences and distance between science,
society, and perception/systems/spiritual beliefs, rather than on their similarities and overlap. Thus, with
a dualistic paradigm; science, society, and perception/system/spiritual beliefs exist as separate domains of
knowledge and experience with no clear relation to each other, and are in constant conflict. As a result of
their fragmented and disorderly world view, the beneficial synergy and synthesis from reconciling their
knowledge and language into a holistic ontology is blocked, and discord is the order of their day.

Semantics is the mechanism by which to reconcile fragmented and disorderly world knowledge and thus
start the movement towards shared vocabularies, and thus shared perceptions, and thus more effective
communication, and thus broadening and overlapping communities, and thus more inclusive societies,
and thus expanding civilization. The absence of semantics results in ineffective communication, referred
to biblically as “Babel” and technically as “noise”.

But where does this tendency towards fragmentation/dualism come from? It is said Aristotle created what
was called the first science, taxonomy, which is the naming and categorizing of things. Taxonomy is one
of the semantic methods for categorizing broader and narrower terms that name related subjects. Our
hypothesis is that that our species was initially aware only of a continuum of experiences brought to us
through our senses, as were perhaps all living entities. There were no “terms”. Then, a genetic variation
coupled with one or more events led to the behavior of perceiving something as “different from the
continuum” - a phenomena. Those exhibiting this “phenomena-perceiving” behavior probably attached a
symbol, such as an unusual utterance or verbalization to this different thing, giving it a name - a term.
Further, this naming of the different thing then led to the thought that the thing was separate from
ourselves (e.g., quot;not mequot;) and the continuum, creating the first category (or taxonomy) of named things.
This perhaps gave us some survival advantage, and thus became an evolutionary trend, eventually coming
into our species' genetic pattern. Additionally, the relation-oriented construct of human emotion probably
entered the scene around the same time, probably in direct relation to the perception of difference and to
naming. This then led to the need for semantics, the need to communicate and understand each other
across differing communities having variant perceptions and interpretations.

Our hypothesis includes that this set of circumstances began our species' long history of naming, and
mentally and emotionally separating, categorizing, and judging things perceived as different, rather than
accepting all things as another pattern of the continuum. Thus, this capability to name, separate,
categorize, and judge is fundamental to our being human – our Humanity. To understand an animal that
flows within the continuum, moving from event to event, form to form, in an ever evolving pattern, study
an animal such as a cat or a fish. They exhibit quot;grace“ - animal grace. The above situation describes what
has been referred to as humanity's quot;fall from gracequot;. We learned to mentally and emotionally distinguish,
name, categorize and judge, rather than to observe and respond simply through instinct. We eventually
diminished the instinctive response to the continuum, lost sight of the commonality among things, and
began to mentally and emotionally perceive only the differences. To borrow another biblical reference,
behavior as an expression of continuum (i.e., graceful behavior) is fundamentally quot;goodquot;, while behavior
as an expression of separation (i.e., judgmental or attacking behavior) is fundamentally quot;evilquot;. Thus,
when our species began to respond to mental and emotional perceptions of difference, we quot;gained the
knowledge of good and evilquot;, quot;casting us out of the Gardenquot;, our instinctive continuum of wholeness.

Apparently since that time, our species, principally through the efforts of a minority of individuals, has
been trying to mentally and emotionally reacquire and express that instinctive continuum-acceptant

graceful awareness and behavior. Their goal is to instinctively, mentally, and emotionally perceive,
experience, and express continuum (achieving what was lost) without giving up the mental and emotional
uniqueness (what was gained) which makes us creative beings. We hypothesize that this the basis for all
human religion, and when this goal is individually attained, of mysticism.
From quantum physics and physical cosmology, we learn that the natural order of the world is connection
or quot;non-localityquot; (i.e., nothing is isolated). All objects are connected and interdependent in space and
time. Everything is within a larger system, rather than separated by space and time as isolated entities.

Your quot;Worldquot; is the totality of your perceptions of the universe and the framework within which you
exist, forming your “ontology” (i.e., your world view, your model of how your world works). Your
quot;Identityquot; is your quot;perception of connectionquot; to the surrounding world. Your Identity changes as your
World View (i.e., ontology) changes. The basis of a person's perspective is either that their world is a
separate unique island of reality (duality), or that it is an integrated whole (unitary). Note that in a unitary
paradigm, something can be distinct, individuated, and/or unique, and yet not separated from its
environment. Each person is unique, resulting from the billions of years of events leading to their current
moment, but are always unified as parts of one all-encompassing, universe-spanning entity.

Some Aspects of Self Knowledge (1967)

Some Aspects of Self Knowledge (1967)

Society
Spirit Humanities
Integration Efforts
Taxonomy (synthesis, synectics, synergy)
Connection Religion
(wholeness, unity)

Technology Advance
Sociology
Philosophy Believe Feel
Self
Psychology
Mathematics Sense
Increasing Subjectivity
(Direct) (Less Empirical)
Physiology
Physics

Chemistry Biology
Science Increasing Objectivity
(Indirect Sense) (More Empirical)

Perception of Separation
(differentiation, analysis)

Who you are depends on what you believe, sense, or feel. The world outside your self interacts with your
beliefs, senses, and society through spiritual, science, and societal knowledge.

A Model of Self, Technology, and Semantics

A Model of Technology and Semantics
Society
Perception Integration Efforts
(Indirect and (synthesis, synectics, synergy)
Direct Sense) Groups
Semantics Advances
Awareness of Connection Semantics Across Society to
(wholeness, unity) Religion Enable Technology
Idealism is that Supports Human
Provable and Machine
Understanding and
Humanities Perception, and Thus
Philosophy Believe Feel Successful
Empiricism Communication
Self
Now Proves
Idealism Psychology
Mathematics Sense
Increasing Subjectivity
Technology, (Direct) (Less Empirical)
Through
Empiricism and Physics Physiology
Engineering,
Advances Across Post-Quantum
Science to Form Physics and Biology
Social and ZPF Chemistry Increasing Objectivity
Perception Tools. Science (More Empirical)
(Indirect Sense)
Perception of Separation
(differentiation, analysis)


Alternate Titles:
A Model of Technology and Semantics
Some Aspects of Self Knowledge
A Model of Technology

Roy’s Notes: Roy Roebuck, 2/17/2006
This is a model I put together around 1985 to extend the wheel of knowledge into a form that could be
used to explain where technology fits with society and how it evolved and supports social and individual
perceptions.

Body:
Who you are depends on what you believe, sense, or feel. The world outside your self interacts with your
beliefs, senses, and society through spiritual, science, and societal knowledge. You “are” what you, your
self, “connects to”.

Your perception can also be referred to as “spirit”.

Connection Precepts (i.e., Premises, Principles)

Connection Precepts (i.e., Premises, Principles)

1. CONNECTION - we are always part of something bigger. Our environment
is a known subsystem of a greater and largely unknown interconnected
continuum.
2. INTERDEPENDENCE - everything relates to everything else, either directly
or indirectly. All things in the world are subsystems, all directly or indirectly
interdependent.
3. VISION - people navigate because they know where they want to go (the big
picture) and how they want to get there (the path to follow). If you aren't
actively navigating, you're adapting to needs of the moment. Persons
visualize change based on their degree of perception of the higher context
of their subsystem.
4. OPPORTUNITY - expect opportunities and they'll find you. Choice is made in
response to awareness of opportunities for change presented by our
current environment.
5. ACTION - point, plan, implement, assess, adapt = navigating on a journey.
Pursuit of a vision requires controlled and directed action to bring that
vision to reality.


This diagram shows the basic premises for this enterprise modeling method. They reflect my personal
resolution of scientific, social, and spiritual concepts into a systemic (or object-oriented) view.

The first precept is absolute, now proven by science, and known throughout time by mystics (i.e., those
who know and operate from an awareness of interconnectiveness). The second precept is where
intellectual perception begins, and thus where error begins – if interdependence is not perceived, then the
illusory perception (not reality) of separation filters all subsequent perceptions, visions, awareness of
opportunity, and actions – and is thus the “root” of all separation (i.e., evil).

The viewpoint used to develop my approach to enterprise engineering is that of a living object, such as
any endeavor, fully interdependent with its dynamic environment.

Thus the fundamental enterprise engineering concept starts from a unitary, rather than a fragmented,
perspective. The endeavor is seen as a single entity/system within its environment.

Because of the unitary foundation of this approach to enterprise engineering, the concept of enterprise
integration in subsumed.

Integration is less required when this unitary approach is taken. Refinement (decomposition) and
maintenance of Function and process, from a high level and stable framework, becomes the principle
focus of development, rather than integration of fragmented and inconsistent Functions and processes.

An overall framework is defined form the top, with more detail filled in from the middle, and then the
largest amount of detail at the bottom (e.g., “the devil is in the details” – quite literally.

There Is An Increasing Awareness Of The Natural Tendency to Connect What We Perceive And Create

There Is An Increasing Awareness Of The Natural Tendency To
Connect What We Perceive and Create
– i.e., To Integrate, Consolidate, And Reorganize - i.e., To Bring Order To Chaos and Thus
Encompass More “Things” in our World.

1998-2010 Value Lattice (Global Value Chain) (Full Axiology)
(Global Economy Supply Chains, Every to Every)

1998-2008 Value Chain (Partial Axiology)
(Economy Sector Supply Chain, SOA, …B2B2B2C…)
Integration Trends

1998-2005 Business to Business to Consumer (B2B, B2C)
(Inter-Enterprise Supplier/Customer Single Link Chains)

1998-2003 Enterprise Application Integration (EAI)
(Intra-Enterprise Full Functional Integration via SOA)

1990-1998 Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
(Intra-Enterprise Limited Functional Integration)

1960-1998 Application Integration
(Inter-Enterprise Limited Functional Integration)

Prehistory-1960 Functional Integration
(Consolidation of Functional Process into a System)


Alterate Titles:
There Is An Increasing Awareness Of The Natural Tendency To Connect What We Perceive and Create

Subtitles:
– i.e., To Integrate, Consolidate, And Reorganize - i.e., To Bring Order To Chaos and Thus Encompass
More “Things” in our World.

Roy Note: Roy Roebuck, 2/17/2006
I first developed this perception in the mid 1960's when learning about computers in history studies. As
the technology and terminology has advanced, I expanded the trend areas to take them into consideration.

A Model of Identity (Hint: Your “Identity” is what you “Love”)

A Model of Identity
(A Person or Group in Relation to Their Environment)
LEVELS OF PERCEPTION OF
CONNECTION TO WORLD + CONNECTION = IDENTITY

INDIRECT
9 UNITARY
8 INDIRECT PERCEPTION

7 INDIRECT
MENTAL
IDENTITY
6 INDIRECT PERCEPTION

5 INDIRECT

4 INDIRECT

3 INDIRECT PHYSICAL
2 PERCEPTION
INDIRECT

1 DIRECT

0 SELF

Definition: Identity is a person's or group's perception of their connection to the world around them.

Alternate Titles:
A Model of Identity

Subtitles:
(A Person or Group in Relation to Their Environment)

Body:
Identity is the major component of your sense of loyalty, membership, commitment, family, ownership,
stewardship, love, teamwork, and responsibility. A second component of each is choice. Identity and
choices empower persons, individually and collectively. Choices that expand connection/identity/unity
are integrative. Choices that weaken/deny/diminish connection, thus generating a sense of
separation/barriers/duality, are dis-integrative.

An understanding of identity is a principal issue in the improvement of productivity, effectiveness, and
efficiency of operations. Those who must work together within an organization or endeavor often have no

shared organizational identity, no understanding of their connections, inter-relations, and
interdependence. Thus, dualistic issues of feudalism, power, and separateness cross organizational lines.
Hostility between organizational components threatens survival. Under these conditions it is difficult to
address the unitary issues of strategic planning, vision, opportunity, action, and culture of the organization
as a whole. The following general model of identity can help to create a shared organizational identity.

Modeling Context

Philosophy
Modeling Context
(Unitive, Fragmentive,
Psuedo-Unitive)
Cosmology (Integrative, Disintegrative) (Cartography)

Knowledge (Epistomology) (Bound, Encyclical) (Naming, Judging))

Language
Meta-Modeling
(Taxonomy)
Domain Domain Domain
Knowledge Ontology Method
Representation (Model of Domain Concept)
Domain
Method Methodology
Entities Domain
Engineering
Discipline
(Dictionary, Tools, Symbology, Rules)
Modeling
Method
Dictionary
(Entity Attributes)
Knowledge Base
Method
Rule Base
(Entity Behaviors
and Interactions)
Domain Domain Domain
Object Process Data
Artificial Modeling
Modeling Modeling
Intelligence

Domain Domain
Expert System
System Development

I developed this model in the mid 80’s when exploring the new technology of “objects”, as in object-
oriented analysis and object-oriented software design

Model of Understanding

(Perceiving Change In Its Context)


Alternate Titles:

Subtitles:
(Perceiving Change In Its Context)

Body:
Your perception is the basis of your identity, your connection to the surrounding world. The world
contains both Order (stability, predictability) and Disorder (change, chaotic). It is dynamic, or living. You
continually recreate your identity (connection) by perceiving changes from previous to subsequent states
of Order. Identity is also dynamic.

From physics we know there are three major components of the universe: matter, energy and information.
For purpose of this discussion let us refer to all matter as quot;Formquot;, all energy as quot;Flowquot;, and all
information about relationships between matter and energy as quot;Patternquot;.

We perceive the world as quot;dynamic Patterns of Form and Flowquot;. Any entity could be described this way.
Form gives the perception of a stable and predictable reality, whereas flow gives the perception of a
changing and chaotic reality. Since all form (order) eventually decomposes (entropy/destruction) and
flows into (negentropy/creates) new forms, the creative and destructive patterns of reality are both
fundamentally chaotic as well as partially predictable. And they are two sides of the same coin, one
cannot exist without the other.

However, people mostly focus their senses and thoughts on orderly forms, and the underlying disorderly
flow confuses them. This causes them to overlook or discount the overall pattern of their experience,
focusing only on the most direct perceptions. They expect stability while living in a world of constant
change. As long as the pattern change is minor, people feel comfortable, but when the pattern change is
turbulent, they experience stress. The stress results from the difference between what they expect and
what they experience. Note that the definition of quot;informationquot; is quot;the difference between data you expect
and data you receivequot; (quot;The Grammatical Manquot;, Jeremy Campbell, 1982, Simon and Schuster). Your
ability to handle stress directly relates to your ability to handle the information your world is providing.
Since change is always occurring, your identity is never static. Rather it is flowing and continuously
changing with the world around you, and your perceived connection to it. The world and your identity are
fluid and dynamic, not static and mechanical. Faster rates of changing form and flow, and the resultant
rates of pattern change, result in greater personal change in connection/identity. What we need then is a
tool that organizes the flows, forms and patterns, and enables individuals, groups, and organizations to
ask and answer questions from the most unitary (highest context) perspective possible. With these
answers, they gain awareness of the order of their world and the changes flowing within it. They can then
dynamically adapt to those changes.

A Model of Intelligence

A Model of Intelligence
Next State (Order)
Response
Wisdom
Impact
Awareness
Learning
ence

er)
Knowledge
g

sord
telli

asin ontext
Process
g In

g Di
Information

(=D asing C
Metadata
asin

Data
e

ecre
Incr

e
Pattern

Incr
Signal
Indicator
Event
Change
Current State (Order)
Organized intelligence identifies the basis for responses to change, and their subsequent impacts

Alternate Titles:
A Model of Intelligence.
GEM - Intelligence Resource and Context.
Intelligence Resource and its Application Context.

Organized intelligence identifies the basis for responses to change, and their subsequent impacts.

Movement from stimulus to response. Mastery of response is the first human mastery: thinking (perceive,
apply general ontology/education, apply situational-type ontology, apply specific situation ontology,
interpret, consider causes of event, consider alternative interpretations of effects), choosing, responding,
monitoring results, adjusting ontology.

Knowledge structures (Knowledge in general = education = collective ontology, Knowledge of types of
situations = training = categorical ontology, Knowledge of specific situations = data in context =
situational ontology)

Enterprise Intelligence is a collection of those sensed and recorded things that guide enterprise decisions
in response to changes in monitored situations. These intelligence artifacts will best be managed as a
whole, to provide facts for decisions and response.

Management Functions (Evolving Structure of Intelligence)

Management Functions (Evolving Structure of Intelligence)
(#Mapped to Carver Policy Governance Methodology Elements)
2. Operations Function
1. Intelligence Function

To Manage Your Endeavor Operations (2), To Manage Your Endeavor Intelligence,
Manage Your Endeavor Intelligence (1) Manage Your Endeavor Architecture (EA)
Functional Operations (per OrgUnit, Org, Location) Next State (Order)
•Policy (#Ends)
•Responsibility (#Board to Staff Linkage) Response
•Performance Targets (#Ends) Decision
•Authority (#Limitations)
•Budget (#Limitations) Cause/Effect
•Process (including #Board Governance Process) Awareness
•Procedure
•Templates
•Rules
•Standards Knowledge Learning
•Mission (of Organization and Organization Unit) (#Ends) (EA)
•Vision (#Ends)
•Goals (#Ends) Process
•Objectives (Indicators) (#Ends) Information
•Strategies (for Change) (#Ends Linkage to
Means) Metadata
•Plans (#Means)
•Means of Tracking Performance Data
• Oversight #Means
• Reporting #Means Pattern
• Adjustment #Means Signal
•Performance (#Means)
•Indicator Tracking Indicator
•Indicator Measurement Event Respond
•Indicator Analysis
•Indicator Review Process
•Performance Review (#Linkage) Current State (Order) Change Sense
•Means Assessment (#Linkage) Monitor
•Ends Assessment (#Linkage) Network


The terms operations, intelligence, and management need specific definition in GEM.

Operations are those primary and supporting activities taken to: 1) identify the current situation of the
enterprise; 2) set the destination and direction (goals, objectives, strategies, plans, implementations) for
achieving the enterprise mission and vision, and 3) to identify when the pace, path, or destination needs
changing.

Intelligence is the collection of events, signals, data, information, knowledge, awareness, and decisions
that enable an entity to successfully adapt-to or direct changes in their world, from one situation to the
next. The Intelligence is captured and maintained in the form of the Enterprise Architecture (EA). The
EA represents the evolving structure of the enterprise knowledge (i.e., its ontology). When the EA
structure is populated with the above dynamic intelligence, it provides an enterprise knowledge-base, or
more correctly, an intelligence-base.

Management is the resolution of complexity and diversity in science, society, and perception into a
system of controlled order.

GEM provides a mechanism to automate the management of operations and intelligence for those within
the enterprise or its collection of value-chains.

Knowledge And Self (PDF)

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (8)

Semelhante a Knowledge And Self (PDF)

Semelhante a Knowledge And Self (PDF) (20)

Mais de HolisticMeta (Self Employed, Part Time)

Mais de HolisticMeta (Self Employed, Part Time) (20)

Último

Último (20)

Knowledge And Self (PDF)