Directions

"Increasing Intricacy Using Polarities & Platonics"

or

"A How-To: 2 to 3"



Taking in the visual spectrum world, our pattern-utilizing cultures, and laws of nature; Start. Draw your conclusions.

After a literal bit of information

Start with nothing. Then there is any thing. This thing is a dot or point, scalable to a circle and then sphere. This any thing, now a sphere, at minimum is a four point polyhedron. This polyhedron, if made of minimal variation or perfect symmetry, is a tetrahedron.

A tetrahedron is comprised of four points (vertexes), six edges, and four faces. It is the simplest of the 5 Platonic Solids. Its classical element is fire. It can be written as {3,3} which is to say that its faces have 3 edges and that at each vertex 3 faces meet. (A cube is written as {4,3}) The single point has grown to contain four points. Each of those four can be investigated to contain their own four ad infinitum. Any thing may be creatively investigated and found to contain microcosms within.

These microcosms are a mental construct mixing some attributes that are known and some that are meaningful. Once they are minimally conceptualized it obtains psychological mass through an untaught and unconscious process felt rather than known. The greater its mass, the deeper its microcosmic rabbit hole. Ideas that reach farther back into our collective memories hold greater mass. Fear, sex, and family are powerful ideas that contain within them great nebulous things such as desire, faith, and power.

R -> P

(x,y) The Cartesian coordination system. In order to gather context and an understanding of Kepler's Laws of planetary Motion I went back to brush up on my Trigonometry. Unfortunately ratios and equations such as cos85 = 0.087155 instantaneously loses meaning in my mind. The number as an event of information completely fails to hold and I cannot proceed to the next lesson.

(r,θ) The Polar coordination system, where r=the distance from the origin (0,0) and θ is the angle of the line to a chosen horizontal. The x and y axis are replaced by circular degrees 0, 90, 180, 270. This does something very important by stating graphical occurrences by their connection to an origin point, a center. This center point is what I mislabeled earlier as the action-event 'fulcrum'. A fulcrum is a point at which a lever pivots. It inhabits a two-dimensional plane and we're looking to create stories in three-dimensional space.

Stories are event-scenes where branching occurs between our expectations and what actually happens. There is a mental ratio at play where branches are compared and judged. This is our joy; judgment of information. Too similar and we risk (right brain) dissatisfaction by predictability; too radical and our (left brain) sense of inner structure hits the alarm.

They come in pencil, they come in ink

Feedback received about the first tetrahedron indicated an entropic, debilitating nonsense of time. What I had thought of as an evening had been read as weeks. Wanting for a sense of surrounding was also a comment. A tighter context overall.

My first hypothesis was to make a clear fulcrum action-event to link the actions of four different characters. In considering the characters as character spheres, or specifically as psychological masses given shape and form, we expect more information on a person-representing shape than a single tetrahedron can provide, formal limitations be damned. Fair enough...

Pictures of the completed form are coming soon. For now I'm looking to return to the realm of flat illustration. Are you familiar with Kepler's 2nd Law?

Scenario: Sequence

Imagining in tetrahedron is interesting. Just now, imagining a scene between Kyran and Anthony where they talk about their skin-changing abilities; How they're different, their individual strengths and weaknesses. There's a tone of violence underlying their conversation as the scenario is that of plotting a crime. This is more than enough to constitute continued research into character spheres and structural elements. The topic of their discussion is a psychological mass so that must be a vertex as well.

Getting back to scenario; Attention to scenario requires non-continuation and eventual termination. This is revealed in the division between movies and film-theater. Film-theater is more concerned with exploring scenarios, movies explore technology. '2001: A Space Odyssey' is a good example of film-theater because although there was a story arc to the whole thing, it was really made up of a variety of scenarios. From the 'Dawn of Man' opening, to the polite space-espionage between Russia and the US, then to HAL's story, to the Star Gate finale, it's a collection of scenarios played out. Movies tend to have more sequences that move in a row. This is where visual acrobatic 'action sequences' succeed and paved the way for video artistry and thereby video-theater.

Internet and blogging has fueled a similar split between journalism and sensationalism and, just as Hollywood has forgotten about scenario, so has the internet given rise to sensationalist and steady as she goes browsing. We want to click from one website to the next, we bookmark places we want to return to, these places begin to cultivate either a scenario or a sensation that you expect when going. But if our conscious minds only roll from one sight to the next then we're devolving into a sequence. The ability to detect and create scenario is crucial to recognizing our lives as a scenario and thereby a temporary venue for exploration.

Scenario: Without Call

Scenes:
Fitness testing in the Gym (Anthony, Ozzie, Vedrana, Jackie)
Experiment (Anthony, Ozzie, Vedrana, Jackie)
Hall of Generation (Anthony, Alison, )
Auctioning (Jackie, Representatives, Scientists, Anthony)
Ant exploring/writing (Anthony,)
the freight ship (Anthony, Alison)
Firing Range (Anthony, Jackie, Alison, Ozzie)

4 Planes [Data] - events, actions, space-time perspectives,
4 Vertexes [Psychologically weighted objects] - characters, actors, personae, objects
6 Edges [Values] - reciprocal bonds, integrity, currents, frequencies, polarities

Microcosms may be expanded upon inspection of vertexes.

01 and the Wizard Con

Some opposites (provided by Fuller):

Associative-Disassociative
Divergent-Convergent
Pulsating-Oscillating
Expansive-Contractive
Explosive-Implosive
Radiational-Gravitational

Positive-Negative
Dissonance-Consonance (Zappa)

Eastern Philosophies...
Yang-Yin
Male-Female
Heaven-Earth

Our behavior is, at all times, capable of being described with these dualities.

Characters X and ~X's coordinate polarity is determinable after X awareness of ~X such as Ozzie to Ant or Ozzie to Alison. The ~X is more terminal (read: event specific) than X experiencing it.

---
(rubs eyes)

Anyways... Having gone to Wizard Con this past weekend I can say that it wasn't nearly as pleasant as C2E2 was. The tone of the latter was fanciful compared to Wizard's gray walled, stereo clubbed, flea market. I understand you're The Iron Sheik but why are you here with a dozen other wrestlers and aging cult actors? Signing and selling studio photos doesn't enrich the community like *gasp* industry speakers.

Also, as much fun as video games are, they're only fun if you get to play them. Twice my friend and I were kicked off consoles so the xbox staff could set up tournaments for the professional gamer and his xbox green contacts. This wasn't after we'd be hoarding the game or loitering, this was actually as we had just completed selecting our song list. All the technological innovations in the world won't matter if we can't enjoy it naturally.

I confessed to my friend the love-hate relationship I have with the entertainment industry. The idea that a person can behave in wildly different manners in fantastical scenarios makes me smile. It's a land that praises and craves lunacy. It's romantic how people dress as favorite characters, to live as them, to be recognized as something bigger than themselves. And through my memories of time with my father, I see values of history and moments of nostalgia. But it's also a terribly ignorant and corruptable craft. The nature of entertainment rewards the lowering of intellectual exploration, reward being comprehension by the viewer. Because it's a populist region, it will always be a platform for public dialog, and that makes it very interesting to narcissists, politicians, and money-people.

Makes me wonder what's beyond the industrial age.

You're quite the character!

Graham Hough's compass on discursive writing:
Allegory - Theme dominant; Image rhetorical, lifeless... road sign figures;

Incarnation - Theme and Image fused implicitly;

Realism - Image dominant, reporting;

and Symbolism - Theme and Image unity asserted to but only held through tension, religious acts and social pretenses.


Here is the Universe-encompassing polarization between theme and image. Image is all stimuli that we receive and Theme is all ideas we can/do/have become consciously aware of. Plato argued that we know all ideas, only they are innate and we are unaware of our knowledge. If we are capable of knowing everything, how do we decide where to begin? I can't consider the applications of extreme thematic dissonance, such as the eternally wandering thought, the mental tension necessary is unbearable and we would disengage. An entropic-assessment will be made.

So start simple.

Archetypes are idealized visions of personality groupings. We intuitively recognize when someone 'is a clown' but yet you can't measure 'humor', 'empathy', or 'cynicism' or other attributes that culminate into seeing someone as a clown. We lack a language to offer scale to these ideas/values. A character sphere's vertex is a point most distal. They are in radiant opposition to a character's gravitational center (self) yet focally applicable - we can attest to their appearance in others.

However we are more than a single idea, we are a continually-assessing, continually-revising, continually-redefining interplay between four archetype vertexes, the minimum structure of the self.

Relavent Objects and Ideas

What can be immediately surmised of this character tetrahedron?

It has four vertexes, six edges, and four planes. However, the planar surfaces are not structural components. Taken out it looks so...

The tetrahedron is the smallest conceptual structure. A triangle on a convex-concave plane can have angles totaling more than 180 degrees. If you convex a triangle's edges you will eventually create a circle and for a tetrahedron, convexing leads to a sphere. This is the logic behind the converting of 'character tetrahedron' to 'character sphere'. But what about the term 'character'?

Within narrative - any account of a series of events, historical, present, or future - the term character refers to a construction of self. A series of events are decision/action showcases for various, self-related occasions by which the audience receives and, I feel, wants to psychologically mirror. This is an explanation to why we value complexity in our characters, because we enjoy the inner-working-out of agreement and disagreement.

So next it should be determined what are the structural components of character, of self?

Groundfloor - First Impressions

- Spacial recognition draws attention to proximal face, thereby, character sphere, identity, and authorial conception.

- Natural application to handle/rotate in order to 'upright' faces. Psychological mirroring in affect.

Consider the interrelationship of data between parallel planes above. Are the three generalities (Charity, Obligation, Transformation) radiant from the character spheres they are written on? With a consciousness of the sphere/identity we're holding closer to us, could these generalities be evidential ideas the sphere/identity is gravitated toward? People are responsive to various aspects of personalities.

We can be both focal and omnidirectional in addressing people, such as the difference between nouns/people/ideas that pass through conversation and a concentrated analysis. Hence, I am reading into this object. If I were to read away from it, it would be in more general terms.

- The event to be described with the inner tetrahedron is pointedly framed by these four conceptions.

- Inner tetrahedron vertexes are fixed at the center point of the outer tetrahedrons. The character spheres' conceptual/actual centers are spacially synonymous with the inner sphere's structural points. Because they are filled with conceptual nothingness, there is no integral quality to where within the vertexes exist. Correlations may be drawn later about departures from equiangular construction as sophistication of dialog is required.

I like this project...