(Static -vrs- Dynamic Equations)
7
~ The Study of Threes ~
http://threesology.org
Visitors as of 2/27/2021
Examples of additional words and ideas to describe "fractal, fractions, fractured" might be listed as intermittently occurring, random, splintering, sprawling, graduated, granulated, speckled, winding, overlapping, beside, betwixt, beneath, in front of, ahead of, beyond, out of reach, swaying, migration, inter-loping, ahead of, etc... However, my usage of such words occurred while I was gathering some images about human evolution and how they are illustrated. In a way, they represent a type of dynamic equation giving us the limits of present occurrence, and the supposition that humanity will endure for a much longer time, that is if humans don't kill one another off, no pandemic eliminates them, nor any natural (inside or from outside Earth's environment) takes place such as an Asteroid, global flood, loss of the Ozone, etc... Thus we not only have the limits of the equation, but the present quantity is known and their exists the question of whether other models will eventually found... not necessarily as missing links (so to speak), but life forms which were contemporaneous in time, if not place, though their population was smaller and therefore left fewer fossils. It should also be mention that although the human and human-like lineage exhibits an every increasing brain size, it is known that the size of the brain is decreasing. While there is a ratio between body size and brain, this does not describe internal differences. While it has been speculated that Neanderthals might well have been our intellectual superiors had they been advantaged by our present technologies and educational opportunities, they too would have been experiencing a drop in brain size. While there are guesses as to why this is occurring (we have domesticated ourselves and do not allow for too much wildness in anyone, or our diet, or the environment, or a genetic trend towards obsolescence, etc...), the point to be made is that all such criteria add to the overall dimension of the equation.
Again, we see examples of defined limits of growth within the examples provided (Limit 0 and limit 1 ). We see a definite quantity (DQ), and provide for the inclusion of an unknown or undiscovered quantity (UkQ). We also have a time range (TR)... though we might want to think in terms of individual time ranges for a given fossil age, but also when humanity discovered it/them in comparison to when and how long it took for each of the fossil types to be found. We have a width or breadth of occurrence (BoO). And we have several unknown variables (UkV) as to duration which (how long) humanity may continue to exist, (species-specific) impact-ful environmental changes, resource availability, extra-terrestrial habitation possibilities, etc... While it is easy enough to write a linear equation giving such variables, how do you write a dynamic equation if I am asking(you— viewed as a child who is proficient in basic arithmetic formulas but has never been introduced to Algebra... hypothetically speaking), to illustrate it?
No one would typically refer to an image of skulls arrayed in a sort of dot-to-dot fashion as representing a dynamic equation. This is not how equations are commonly written. Nor is the word "dynamic" characteristically associated with such illustrations. Likewise, we do not distinguish between dynamic and linear equations, nor transitional states of operation. We quite often lump everything together under a single heading like those of old who lumped different life and non-life forms under the three-part labeling system of Animal- Vegetable- Mineral.
When we speak of dynamic presentations, specifics can be outlined:
- Dynamic illustrations: one may be referred to the usage of a video.
- Dynamic drawings (such as characters which typically exhibit some measure of animation): Different poses of a stationary figure.
- "A gesture drawing is work of art defined by rapid execution. Typical situations involve an artist drawing a series of poses taken by a model in a short amount of time..." ... Gesture drawing captures the rhythm, the motion and the flow of an action. Even stationary poses can look dynamic. Gesture drawing Gesture drawing research Gesture drawing research (sometimes called scribble studies)
- Dynamic map or mapping (such as in geography): Dynamic mapping is a cartographic concept used to depict dynamic spatial phenomena or to present spatial information in a dynamic way. It summarizes various cartographic presentation methods which incorporate the dimension of time into a map. Dynamic Mapping in Geography
However, we run into a problem. We don't (or at least a cursory search) could not help to secure examples of dynamical systems related to all subjects. Most often the search for suggest let towards a link providing an example from mathematics, yet mathematics doesn't distinguish between dynamic and non-dynamic equations. Whereas such a reference may be in the mind of a given equation writer, we are not taught in school to view different perceptions as being representative of a dynamical system, though I did encounter the distinction being made decades ago when as a very young boy I was introduced to the difference between static and dynamic wheel balancing. Static balancing refers to setting a tire (off the vehicle) on a wheel balancer which provides a "bubble" that is either centered in a circle or not... indicating an imbalance. Whereas with dynamic balancing, it takes place with each wheel on a vehicle and the wheel is spun to varying speeds, typically driving speeds. If the entire system of a particular wheel's attachment to is unbalanced, corrections can be made, but if there is a flat or a different tire is put on the wheel, a new balance will have to be taken.
While the average person speaks of this or that being out of balance, it is uncommon to say that the balancing act is either a measure of being static or in motion. Simply adding time to one's thoughts about a given consideration does not necessarily imply one will automatically adjust one's thinking to include the ideas of static (not moving) and dynamic (moving). If you tell someone an equation is dynamic, that it is showing motion, you may trigger a reflexive thought processing of visualizing an imaginative scenario. For example, if you tell students that the above chart of skulls is one that expresses movement (which is does through time and environmental space), they may want to know what movement(s) came before the origination of human-like creatures, and whether or not present humans are not actually living fossils and not the assumed epitome of evolutionary development.
On some occasions in various contexts, we might use the word "moving" to describe a dynamic situation, or give a vague response to one's interpretation of a theatrical exhibition... because they lack the words or interest in providing anything more distinctive about what is moved and what cause the movement(s). Any perception might well be rendered into an equation, but current uses of equations are limited by the traditions and language(s) of mathematics. Yet, let us ask, is there movement without a time difference? Is time the sole arbiter of movement and therefore the presence of a time variable in an equation automatically describes a dynamic situation and thus no formal distinction of an equation as a "dynamic equation" is necessary... because everyone automatically knows it? I have never encountered an instructor who described an equation as moving. Some part of an equation in reference to a variable (such as in a dynamic systems problem), yes... but never the overall equation.
One may argue that equations are lifeless automatons doing our bidding, or mechanisms which do not move unless we initiate movement, or that it is an exercise in anthropomorphism to think of an equation as having a dynamic property. But relating time to movement, we need also to think in terms of entropy, or disorder in a system. Hence, a dynamic equation or any equation where time is involved is also linked with entropy, as the following excerpt relates:
Time and entropy are closely intertwined concepts. Entropy is known as the "arrow of time," because entropy tends to grow as time passes – the universe seems to consistently move from lower entropy to higher entropy (SN: 7/10/15). This march toward increasing entropy explains why some processes can proceed forward in time but not in reverse: It’s easy to mix cream into coffee but exceedingly difficult to separate it again. Machines also increase disorder as they operate, for example by giving off heat that boosts the entropy of their surroundings. That means even a standard, battery-powered clock produces entropy as it ticks.
A clock’s accuracy may be tied to the entropy it creates by By Emily Conover, April 28, 2021 AT 3:30 PM. (A clock made from a wiggling membrane produces more disorder as it becomes more accurate)
If the presence of time goes hand in hand with entropy, then are time-related equations an expression of a type of entropy no one has taken the time to calculate, because it is difficult for a part of a disorder to be objective enough of itself to accurately give an honest reflection? Are we thus not also describing a situation in which an equation is not stable... unless we view entropy as being stable? In other words, if an equation using a variable of time is also expressing a (not listed) variable of entropy which changes, then the equation is thus dynamic over and above the dynamics being relayed in the equation, because the equation occurs in one time period while the expression of the equation is another time variable, and each time it is used the external variable of time is replaced with an uncalculated change... like the race between the turtle and the runner. Yet, there is no need to linger on such a minor detail of consideration. The point is that we are limited not only in our recognition of a dynamic equation but how to portray them. Why is this important? Because the entropy of the Universe is changing but not our perception of its effects on us, with respect to equations being a reflection of that change. Whereas we claim repetition of equations is reflective of an ordered state of existence, our existence is not stable and our equations must be fully warranted to express this without being subjected to those who do not like inconsistency. Keeping our perceptions of equations in a mode and manner to suggest immutability, like those who once described species as being immutable due to accepted traditions.
Up until 19th century Europe, species were thought to be immutable, meaning species were fixed and unchanging and do not evolve. Judeo-Christian culture fortified this idea with a literal interpretation of the biblical book of Genesis. The idea that living species do not change, and that the Earth is relatively young, about 6,000 years old, dominated Western culture for centuries.
In 1650, Archbishop James Ussher of Armagh (presently North Ireland) presented a treatise explaining that he had nailed down the date of Earth's creation down to October 23, 4,004 B.C. He published a 2,000 page paper explaining how he calculated the average age of each biblical personality and went backwards until the first page of Genesis to figure it out.
In 1766, Georges Buffon suggested that Earth might be much older than 6,000 years. He proposed the possibility that a species represented by a fossil form could be an ancient version of a group of living species. Wow! What an amazing concept! This was never heard of before this man! This was completely against the overall fixed-species concept.
In the early 1800's, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, a student of Buffon, proposed that life evolves. He helped set the stage for Darwin to understand that adaptations evolve as a result of interactions between organisms and their environments.
The evolution of the theory of evolution. (Also: Evolution of The Theory of Evolution Who came up with the Theory of Evolution? by Kashyap Vyas, April 01, 2019).
Note, in the last link is a reference to Alfred Russel Wallace with respect to his well- deserved recognition for coming up with the idea of Evolution. However, though Wallace and Darwin are given credit for the idea of Evolution, this is not to say they were the first. They were merely the first to have the idea become publicly acknowledged because others during their time were appreciably able to comprehend what they were offering. While others in the past may well have come up with the idea, their views were never published nor even widely disseminated by way of a vocal record, as far as can be understood in the present day sense. Because there are ideas which have been independently discovered, we can not actually discount the idea that ideas accredited to one or another person are the sole creators of a given idea. It is a consideration that many a graduate and under-graduate student have had their ideas taken up by a supposed superior whose connections in a given field help them to establish a given idea as their sole innovation, when the actual credit should go elsewhere... such as in the case where the acts and ideas of women have been dismissed, discredited or devalued until some man took up their idea and rearranged data to present it as their own. The U.S. government participates in a similar fashion by "reinventing" ideas used by criminals to assist itself in gaining wealth and power. Take for instance the old numbers racket is now a sanctified lottery... because the government gets a cut of the take. We also have the protectionist rackets called legalized insurance and the Social Security System.
Indeed, how do you write an equation portraying the wind, when all you have is the effects of the wind to describe, and yet cannot actually portray them in an equation because equations are linear, and do not afford for you to account for myriad effects which you easily observe and may even experience an unexpected gust of wind producing unusual effects? Do you simply provide some rationalization that permits you an easy "out" of the dilemma? Do you offer some excuse that enables you to retreat and yet return to from time to time with further internalized considerations? How then also does a static linear equation not only display the occasional or intermittent gust of wind but a similar moment of utmost quiet in both sound and movement of air... as well as your astonished appraisal thereof? How do you portray that in an equation which everyone... or at least those having acknowledged a similar experience can easily read, understand and empathize with?
With respect to the present understanding and usage of Dynamic equations in Mathematics:
- Difference equation in discrete time ( Discrete-Time Models with Difference Equations)
- Differential equation in continuous time ( Continuous-Time Models with Differential Equations)
- Time scale calculus in combined discrete and continuous time (Dynamic Equations on Time Scales by Martin Bohner and Allan Peterson)
Writing out math equations on the typical keyboard is a pain. I do not like to have to resort to a "special" program either. I want a versatile keyboard
which allows me to seamlessly change between math, chemistry, biology, Astronomy, Esoteric, etc., symbols without having to engage in some type of gauntlet
running or pushing this, flipping that, jumping this, crawling under something else, or downloading some type of program that comes with the caveat that
problems may occur but that the designers of the program are not to be faulted. The problem is, present computers and codes are exceptionally primitive, just
like all subjects are, be they religion, biology, math, chemistry, genetics, philosophy, art, music, form of government, form of commerce, etc...
Needless to say, because it is a chore to write... much less perform most equations on a standard keyboard and computer, typing
other than some very basic linear equation is all one can get... unless one trains themselves to adopt a method that is out of the ordinary for most people,
which many equations are anyway. The point is, while you can try to write a dynamic equation, how are you to begin if you have no idea what I am talking
about? Hence, let me resort to an image (which many profiler's are inclined to do because a specialized program being used and displaying correctly on one's
personal computer has no guarantee of being displayed correctly by current browsers). In short, no program for mathematics, which says nothing about the
specialized languages used in other research fields, is perfect. (Rendering Math,
Rendering a formula.
We humans do not know if there exists a species of "hominoid" which predates the believed-in ancestor of present day humans. For all we know is that present humanity may be just another flicker of the larger "hominoid" species development which engulfs all hominids/homonidea as mere temporary excursions in a much lengthier historical script. This being said, present humans may be a living fossil like the Colencanth (fish) and others: 12 of the most astounding 'living fossils' known to science by George Dvorsky, 1/22/14 1:00PM. For all we know, we humans may have been so pyrimidine... way back when we first began to develop, that one or more advanced species of the overall hominoid clan, struck out in space ships (or whatever) and left us behind because it would be little different in present humans leaving behind Australipithicenes if we had lived during the same time and we had space or time or intra/inter-dimensional capabilities.
Many linear equations express underlying dynamical systems. But we do not refer to them as being dynamic equations. The present naming convention for labeling equations is like the language one might think would be employed by some ancient hominid with a limited vocabulary. If you ask a mathematician to tell you the name of an equation, they might well describe all their equations under the name of "Pure mathematics"... which is akin to naming everyone in a given family with the same name. Most equations are not part of the evolution in which a few entities have their own personalities, such as (E=MC2), (π), (√2), (32 + 42 = 52), etc. While they are displayed much in the manner we display the skulls, artifacts, etc., of different ancestral humans and human-like or related species and may give those particular representations particular names, the overall display is set up like a linear equation an not a dynamic one. Though there are multiple youtube presentations where one another speaker conveys the message of images illustrating a particular species lived a dynamic life, we have not developed a comprehensive means of articulating... in toto, the dynamics of evolution except in a piece-meal fashion with only a few suspected variables for inclusion. I have never heard a speaker talk about themselves in the lineage of humanity, mainly because we don't actually know where we fit, since we have a limited crystal ball for a collective observation.
The human lineage (for one example, though many other subjects have their own forms of lineage), is a living, breathing, on-going dynamical system, like fluid mechanics, which needs its own type of dynamic mathematical modeling, instead of the many conventional displays being used today, which also incorporate static ideologies cast with circles, triangles, multi-dimensional planes, etc... (With respect to multi-dimensional planes as an expression of a static equation, it is like viewing a multi-story building with all the lights off, except for presumed upper floors that are "on-fire" with the enthusiasms of believed-in "upper" planes of existence which may be described with the terms "transcendence" "ascension" "hyper-consciousness", "pure energy being", etc...,
How will you know a dynamic equation when you see one? Simply because I label it as such? If you haven't learned to distinguish the simple recurring geometric forms of the line, circle and triangle being advanced in different areas of human expression, how are you to understand cognitive modeling other-than the present conventions entitled by the current spate of subjects and subject matter? How will you recognize a different, if not superior model of thinking using mathematics as but one of several avenues of expression if such a concept is wholly foreign to your way of thinking attuned to present conventionalities? Where is the scale of measurement if you are relying on pure intellectually-expressed muscular and sociability models for determine strength or morality of character used to define what you consider to be an alignment with perfection or honest gravitation there-to? Is the reality of truth only to be defined by you if the efforts enable you to acquire some desired social position, political power, or economic advantage? Or how about whether or not a particular exercise of thought is "well-known" amongst one's peers or peer-group and is collectively agreed upon as "having potential", "having interest", "having something tenable" but at present exists in a raw, unrefined state and needs to be contoured by acceptable academic or institutional, economically viable, or politically correct standards? If an advanced form of realization sits in front of you and you can not at the moment apply it to your respective interest or problem, is it the supposed advanced form of realization which is the problem or your unrecognized inability to use it appropriately, because your mental functioning relies on crude instrumentation that you egotistically define and label as some expressed superior utility?
Let us say you are an extra-terrestrial commonly referred to as an alien or "E.T.". You can view yourself as one of three often cited ones (greys, nordics, reptilians) or choose some other model as your volition suggests best represents your interest in aliens, if you have one at all. Then again, let us say you are a human-bred alien (so-to-speak) as part of a natural course of evolution on planet Earth as it, the Moon, and the Sun incrementally deteriorate, and those deteriorations... coupled to present activities of humanity, have created the necessary conditions for your brain, your body, your cellular activity to be receptive to a new aforementioned "add-on"... or as they say in present electronic's terminology, a "new app" (referring to a new software application or update in the old version's programming code). The alien (from beyond Earth) may well be expected to be able to know all or at least be familiar with some form of symbolic expression that humans think represent superior Intelligence. Indeed, present humanity (in some social circles) is so very arrogant it believes that a being able to cross vast expanses of space in a space craft or via some transportation portal or other device would certainly know the fundamentals of chemistry, physics and mathematics... if not music, art and language decipherment as we on Earth do. Humans actually believe that the utmost advances in any and all subjects is due to divine inspiration or even direct contact... in some cases. When we have more than one Mathematician declaring their exercised wares is royalty with the feminine name of "Queen", this is most telling about the ignorance of the human psyche.
And if the E.T. doesn't know what we think should be known, then what? Are we to describe them as village idiots amongst their own kind and some sort of vehicle thief who stole a space craft in order to take a joy ride? Whereas like most humans enabled to drive some sort of vehicle but have no knowledge nor interest in the so-called "higher truths" evidenced by Mathematics, philosophy, music theory, art, biological investigations, anthropological investigations, architectural design, chemistry, dance compositions, etc., are we to interpret the visitor(s) as being normal, sub-normal or rather ignorant because they lack a knowledge of so-called human-level superior thinking skills; whereby they do not confirm nor thus validate those perceptions of our interests and activities developed by ego-tistical inclinations and definitions? Ah, but what then of the human-born variety of E.T. whose mental functionality is like that of the kind seen in great thinkers in art, science, mathematics, chemistry, mechanics, etc., where intuition is finely tuned to a given frequency which enables them to grasp higher truths and realizations but they have no practiced means of expression... no experienced or focused means of detailing the geometry, the algebra, the calculus... and beyond model of conceptualization... and yet such a mind does express it by saying that their government's design is wrong, their culture's dominant religion is silly, their observed holidays are childish, that human existence is particularly non-sensical? What if in a person's protests is the expression of a higher consciousness that needs to come out but becomes accustomed to the usage of a crude and rudimentary form of socially directed equation, be that an equation involving music, art, religion, violence, sport, or otherwise?
We we speak of consciousness and then use it to reference an ever greater realization of "true" reality, this article suggests that we are constructed in such a way to share in a collective illusion and not see actual reality: Did we evolve to see reality as it exists? No, says cognitive psychologist Donald Hoffman. He hypothesizes we evolved to experience a collective delusion — not objective reality.
From the top of the article:
- Donald Hoffman theorizes experiencing reality is disadvantageous to evolutionary fitness.
- His hypothesis calls for ditching the objectivity of matter and space-time and replacing them with a mathematical theory of consciousness.
- If correct, it could help us progress such intractable questions as the mind-body problem and the conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics.
It doesn't take too long... less than 60 seconds to reach a third of the page, before formulating numerous arguments against such an idea, though it is of interest to consider in the present puzzles of life. The accompanying objections to his view speak well of some general concerns to be brought up... but they are by no means the whole of the lot. Anyway, the point to bring up is that if we are not objective about reality then neither is any of our symbolic systems such as mathematics... despite its relative crudeness as seen from an imagined point some several centuries in the future. This is not to say that we humans do not share in collective delusions and that present humanity may well be experiencing a globally disbursed neurotic illusion... if not a psychotic delusion, but this doesn't mean all humans remain in such a delusion or illusion as attested to the common notion in which we say someone is "too sober" for a given topic of humor or other situation. For example, a person doesn't laugh at the supposed antics and comments of someone while all others nearby are roiling in their seats, because they think the person isn't funny and perhaps even childish. No less, if we all share in the same illusion/delusion, then we may want to consider that the different levels of mathematics are simply different levels of experiencing the illusion/delusion (I.D.). Each of us then may or may not share in the collective I.D. that family members do, or some other group, whereby our ideas may appear to be strange during our lifetime, but become recognized as an overlooked brilliance in some future age.
When discussing the topic of reality, we necessarily come to referencing consciousness... both of which have assumed beginnings humans have tried to unravel the origins of... and yet those origins may not have been in a 3-dimensional frame of reference, whereby our search for such origins in three-dimensions is like looking for a runaway cat or dog in the wrong neighborhood... particularly if the dog or cat had been kidnapped or simply followed one serendipitous event after another, leading them further astray... like trying to chase a butterfly that flies over a fence that keeps a bull confined.
Similarly, then the mathematics we are using today is a collective "ID" (from a personal and collective "IDentification" to a Freudian ID persona), whereby a break-through into another type of math or by extending the boundaries of a current mathematics will thus be the step towards an expressed EGO, which it usually is because of the arrogance or hubris of youth (most break-throughs in mathematics are by young people) exerts itself. However, from that point, which is the many present stations of expression we find Mathematics in... having excelled previous expressions of mathematics... we necessarily will eventually come face to face with a super-ego expression of mathematics. To put it in other words, from a subconscious model of previous or primitive mathematics, to the present day conscious model, into a super- or post- consciousness model... to be called... or not, another collective illusion/delusion from which future generations can step into their own models of collective illusion/delusion, however they may define their reality... or absence thereof for survival or some other rationale more conducive to the conditions of a future age's disposition.
Nonetheless, an Accordian type of dynamic calculus can produce a "higher" rung of interpretation regardless of how many branches upon which we primates sit or stand or walk and peer out through the canopy of our ignorance and claim it a better vista of that we define as a clearer view of truth, of reality. Who knows, maybe the person standing on the corner with a placard saying the world is going to end is more sober than everyone else... because they are in touch with a reality the rest of us collectively ignore because it does not coincide with the many greeds of our many egos.
How do we measure a different mentality that is superior to all the models which seem to appear today and are being denoted in an elementary way as a different kind of "Intelligence" described in terms of the parameters of one subject or another? For example, here is a list of so-called different kinds of "Intelligence" according to Howard Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences (a quantity that can shift from one author to the next), which can be seen incorporated in a list which expresses the idea for a multi-modal approach, though Gardener's view is not as it purports to be as proposed by this view: The Illusory Theory of Multiple Intelligences (Gardner's theory of multiple Intelligences has never been validated.) by Scott A. McGreal MSc., Nov 23, 2013
- Practical Intelligence is the ability to think in concrete examples and solve daily problems directly without necessarily being able to explain how; the tendency to survive or succeed through taking straightforward, responsive, concrete action. (Also called marketing, strategic or political Intelligence -- since it focuses on "the art of the possible" -- or just common sense or simple effectiveness.)
- Verbal Intelligence is the ability to think and communicate effectively and creatively with words; and to recognize, use and appreciate linguistic patterns.
- Logical Intelligence is the ability to think in terms of (and to appreciate) abstract parts, symbols and sequential relationships, conceptual regularities or numerical patterns, and to reach conclusions or construct things in an orderly way. (Also called rational, analytic or mathematical Intelligence.)
- Associative Intelligence is the ability to think in non-sequential associations -- similarities, differences, resonances, meanings, relationships, etc. -- and to create (and appreciate) totally new patterns and meanings out of old ones.
- Spatial Intelligence is the ability to visualize, appreciate and think in terms of pictures and images; to graphically imagine possibilities; and to observe, understand, transform and orient oneself in visual reality. (Also called pictorial or imaginative Intelligence.)
- Intuitive Intelligence is the ability to know directly, to perceive and appreciate whole or hidden patterns beyond (or faster than) logic.
- Musical Intelligence is the capacity to perceive, appreciate, resonate with, produce and productively use rhythms, melodies, and other sounds.
- Aesthetic Intelligence is the ability to produce, express, communicate and appreciate in a compelling way inner, spiritual, natural and cultural realities and meanings. (This can include aspects of verbal, musical and spatial Intelligences.)
- Body Intelligence is the ability to sense, appreciate, and utilize one's own body -- movement, manual dexterity, tactile sensitivity, physical responsiveness and constraints; to create and think in terms of physiological patterns; to maintain physical health; and to relate to or meet the needs of others' bodies. Also called kinesthetic or somatic Intelligence.)
- Interpersonal Intelligence is the ability to perceive, understand, think about, relate to and utilize other people's subjective states, and to estimate their likely behavior. This includes, especially, empathy.
- Social Intelligence is the ability to work with others and find identity and meaning in social engagement; to perceive, think, and deal in terms of multi-person patterns, group dynamics and needs, and human communities; it includes a tendency towards cooperation and service. (Also called team Intelligence.)
- Affectional Intelligence is the ability to be affected by, connected to or resonant with people, ideas, experiences, aesthetics, or any other aspect of life; to experience one's liking or disliking of these things; and to use one's affinities in decision-making and life.
- MOOD Intelligence is the ability to fully experience any mood as it happens (without having to judge it or do anything about it), to learn from it, and to move out of it at will -- especially to generate resilience.
- Motivational Intelligence is the ability to know and to work with what moves you; to sense, think and initiate in terms of needs, wants, will, courage, responsibility and action -- one's own and others. (This can include that aspect of mood Intelligence that can marshal emotions in the service of a goal.)
- Intrapersonal Intelligence is the ability to recognize, access and deal with one's own subjective (or inner) world. (This can include aspects of affectional, mood, motivational and body Intelligences.)
- Emotional Intelligence is the ability to experience, think and deal with emotional patterns in oneself and others. (This can include aspects of interpersonal, intrapersonal, affectional, mood and motivational Intelligences.)
- Basic Intelligence is the ability to move toward what is healthy and desirable and away from what is unhealthy or undesirable. (This can use affectional and practical Intelligences, or be almost automatic and instinctual.)
- Behavioral Pattern Intelligence is the ability to recognize, form and change one's own behavioral patterns, including compulsions, inhibitions and habits.
- Parameter Intelligence is the ability to create and sustain order and predictability -- to recognize, establish, sustain, and change rhythms, routines/rituals, boundaries, guiding principles/values/beliefs, etc., in one's own life.
- Habit Intelligence is the ability to recognize, form and change one's habits (which naturally embraces many aspects of behavioral and parameter Intelligence).
- Organizing Intelligence is the ability to create order in one's own life and in other lives/groups/systems. (This can include aspects of parameter, team/social, and logical Intelligences)
- Spiritual Intelligence is the ability to sense, appreciate and think with spiritual and moral realities and patterns -- to operate from an awareness of ultimate common ground (consciousness, spirit, nature, or some other sacred dimension). (This is usually dependent on intrapersonal Intelligence.) (Also called moral or transcendental Intelligence.)
- Narrative Intelligence is the ability to perceive, know, think, feel, explain one's experience and influence reality through the use of stories and narrative forms (characters, history, myth, dreams, scenarios, etc.).
- ECO-Intelligence is the ability to recognize, appreciate, think and feel with, and utilize natural patterns and one's place in nature, and to empathize with and sustain healthy relationships with animals, plants and natural systems.
Clearly, the words "experience" and "knowledge" (by way of recallable memorization) are being used interchangeably with the word "intelligence" in the foregoing list, making such a view a collection of assumptions and/or belief from which axioms might be derived. by describing different abilities in different people with the label "intelligence" helps one circumvent the notion that standard IQ tests describes a person's level of intelligence because the tests are not designed to identify, much less quantify different kinds of ability that someone can personally interpret as illustrating a high level... or superior kind of intelligence equal to or superior to the assumed intelligence level a standardized testing model can reveal.
With respect to the types of equations, here is a list which signifies the idea of an (environmentally) imposed cognitive limitation:
- Linear equation
- Quadratic equation
- Polynomial equation
- Trigonometric equation
- Radical equation
- Exponential equation
Here is a somewhat different list from the same source:
- Linear equation (x)
- Simultaneous Linear equation (x,y)
- Quadratic equation (x2)
- Cubic equation (X3)
Equation (Basic forms called identities and conditionals)
When speaking about equations, one must differentiate between a type, form and functional application. While multiple names are used to describe specific applications, there is a measurable "stick figure" whose nudity lays beneath all the embellishments. While multiple names for equations can be listed, the point is that the list reveals an enforced conservation of thought processing taking place. The repetition being used in equations reminds me of the reduplications (repetitions) heard in infant babbling. In this sense, much of present day mathematics is a form of adult babbling.
While it is a convention to speak of one, two, and three variables in an equation, what we are actually describing is multiple equations as independent variables that are combined. For example, we have 1 + 2 = 3 as a simple equation containing five elements (or 3 expressions and two notation signs) which may or may not be viewed as independent variables. If we write it as (1+0) + (2+0) = (3+0), the parenthesis define separate equations and the element count is now 17. In this instance I am describing each element as a variable, though the reader may not wish to do so because they have been taught a different perspective not related to an analysis of basic cognitive behavior. Mathematics has its own established vocabulary and labels, just as do other subjects... but all of them cam be similarly counted to provide a model for comparison. To do so reveals a repetition that is either overlooked, taken-for-granted or not recognized at all. Mathematics, like all other subjects, has an underlying set of patterns which can be compared to illustrate a similarity of pattern related to biologically-based efforts to maintain some measure of equilibrium as the environment continues to deteriorate.
We also need to look at the above intelligence list as a refrigerator note (held in place with a magnet) concerning cognitive limitations being described in mathematics. By viewing the above list as types of math problems written out with words (called word problems), we see limitations which can be scrutinized in terms of dichotomies... if not trichotomies, quaternions and multiplicity deemed a polynomial. For example, habit and behavior can be linked together, though all activities might well be included in the topic of behaviorism, thus viewed in terms of "many". With respect to dichotomization, we see intra- and inter-personal. We might also align each of the above with a particular sense such as being more visual or auditory instead of kinesthetic. Our characterizations and alignments can mix and match into different varieties of comparison and contrast, but underlying such a musical chairs approach remains a basic limitation to be described as a biological response to an incrementally deteriorating environment. A Cognitive limitation can be added to the list of Conservation laws.
Date of Origination: 26 February 2021... 6:59 AM
Initial Posting: June 6th, 2021... 9:14 AM