comment on this:

I still like some aspects of this stuff, especially tarot and qblh -- I think these things are great interest in terms of systems of spiritual categories or of archetypes. I mean, you often see systems of thought with two categories (good/evil or +/-) which all seem to have a solid, deep, qualitatively different meaning, but the major arcana has 22 and they all seem to be deeply meaningful and not to collapse into each other! Sort of like how it would be interesting to categorize all the different moods that music could have or categorize the different kinds of feelings that one feels in dreams but not often while awake -- you get the sense that there could be more than 4 or so categories, but lots of our systems of thought end up not giving you too many categories (or at least that is what happens with me if I try to categorize almost anything while thinking in a standard Western mode).

-- me


belbin roles

INTJ etc

by # dimensions

2D vs. 3d thinking, meta stuff, etc

from from Dr Neil Johnson's lecture notes for Chaos:

Number of variables



n = 1

Growth, decay, or equilibrium

n = 2


n >= 3


n ? 1

Collective phenomena


Waves and patterns

Spatio-temporal complexity

tarot cards



counting, integer, real, complex #s

Vital Relations: change, identity, time, space, cause-effect, part-whole, representation, role, analogy, disanalogy, property, similarity, category, intentionality, and uniqueness

(a Google Set from some vital relations: Change Cause Effect Representation Space part whole Habit Death Organism Immortality Interaction Scientific Model System Time Cycle Process Evaluation Impact Decision )

cardinal virtues: wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice.

theological virtues: faith, hope, and love.

"Black and white are opposites, and as such we can relate them to each other, on the philosophical level, of dialect[2]. Hegel has three principal dialectics: the dialectics of opposites like black and white that make gray when mixed; of polarity, like north and south, that cannot be mixed as they define each other, are necessary for the other to be at all; and the dialectic of negation, of a and -a. The yin-yang is not the first dialectic as it is not just a gray blob. It is not the dialectic of polarities, as white is as much black as it is white. Nor is black the negation of white, for if white were a and black -a, the yin-yang would be nothing at all. What we must do is take the -a of white and the -a of black, the negation of both of these principles, and examine them in the light of each other." -- my friend CK


the seven sept god roles in the fictional Song of Ice and Fire series: " The Father: represents divine justice, and judges the souls of the dead. The Mother: represents mercy, peace, fertility, and childbirth. She is sometimes referred to as "the strength of women". The Maiden: represents purity, love, and beauty. The Crone: represents wisdom and foresight. She is represented carrying a lantern. The Warrior: represents strength and courage in battle. The Smith: represents creation and craftsmanship. The Stranger: The Stranger represents death and the unknown. It is rarely prayed to. "

Jordan's contribution roles:

Hindo varnas and India's old caste system: "

The caste system is connected to the Hindu concept of the four varnas, which order and rank humanity by innate spiritual purity. The highest varna is the Brahmins, or priests. Next comes the Kshatriyas, the warriors, and then the Vaishyas, the merchants. The lowest varna is the Shudras, consisting of laborers, artisans and servants who do work that is ritually unclean. Contact between varnas, and particularly the sharing of food and water, must be limited to avoid pollution of higher, purer individuals by lower, more unclean ones.[2]

In practice, the caste system consists of thousands of jatis, generally of a local or regional nature. Each has its own history, customs, and claimed descent from one of the four varnas.[3] Members of a jati may have many different professions, although commonly they will be related in status and nature to the jati's traditional occupation.[4] Wealth and power generally rise with caste status, but individuals may be rich or poor. Subgroups within a jati may practice hypergamy or exogamy. There is no official or universal ranking that determines the caste hierarchy. Precedence depends on the local community's estimation of a jati's secular importance and ritual purity, and is therefore somewhat fluid. A jati can increase its status by growing in size, wealth and power, avoiding low or unclean work, and adopting priestly ways, such as vegetarianism and teetotalism, a process called sanskritization.[5] Generally, however, Brahmans are the highest caste, and at the bottom of society are those associated with occupations considered extremely unclean, such as handling garbage, excrement, or corpses. In the past these castes were called untouchables, because their touch polluted. They were often forbidden from entering temples, living inside the village, drinking from wells used by high castes, or even letting their shadows fall on a Brahman.[6] "

untouchables are also called Dalits

japan's castes: " In Japan's history, social strata based on inherited position rather than personal merits, was rigid and highly formalized. At the top were the Emperor and Court nobles (kuge), together with the Shogun and daimyo. Below them the population was divided into four classes in a system known as mibunsei (身分制). These were: samurai, peasants, craftsmen and merchants ... merchants were thought to be as the meanest class because they did not produce any products ...

Japan had its own untouchable caste, shunned and ostracized, historically referred to by the insulting term Eta, now called Burakumin. "

Indonesian caste system: " Indonesia Main article: Balinese caste system

Balinese caste structure has been described in early 20th century European literature to be based on three categories – triwangsa (thrice born) or the nobility, dwijati (twice born) in contrast to ekajati (once born) the low folks. Four statuses were identified in these sociological studies, spelled a bit differently than the caste categories for India:[21]

    Brahmanas - priest
    Satrias - knighthood
    Wesias - commerce
    Sudras - servitude" suggests that the three norse castes were Warrior (Noble), Freeman (those who must work for a living), Slave

see also indicates that a lord was someone with land to grant to tenants. medieval knights were landless says "The feudal system of the Middle Ages was like a pyramid of power with specific hierarchy. At the bottom of the pyramid, there were serfs, peasants and villeins. The descending order of the pyramid of power of feudal system was the king, members of nobility, knights, archbishop, freemen, yeomen, servants, serfs, peasants, villeins.

However, it was possible, but very rare, for anyone of any class to attain higher ranks. Medieval squires, freemen and yeomen aspired to become knight. On the other hand, a knight who could prove his valiant attitude during a war or tournament could become so rich and strong that he could join the nobility. In addition, the most powerful and resourceful members of nobility could aspire to become kings through coups. " ".

see also . Note that later on some yeoman could own their own farms whose profits could support them without having to labor. distinguishes between nobility (peers, e.g. those with a title from the sovereign), and landed gentry, who are similar to nobility but without the title : " Gentleman, recognised as a separate title by the Statute of Additions of 1413. It was used generally for a man of high birth or rank, good social standing, and wealth, who did not need to work for a living "

" The historical term gentry by itself, so Peter Coss argues, is a construct that historians have applied loosely to rather different societies. Any particular model may not fit a specific society, yet a single definition nevertheless remains desirable.[4][5] The phrase landed gentry referred in particular to the untitled members of the landowning upper class.

The most stable and respected form of wealth has historically been land, and great prestige and political qualifications were (and to a leser extent still are) attached to land ownership. Owning land was a prerequisite for suffrage (the civil right to vote) in county constituencies until the Reform Act 1832; until then, Parliament was largely in the hands of the landowners. " later suggests that the phrase 'landed gentry' was coined by a publisher who sold a book describing the geneologies of rich commoners. The book was originally called "A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Commoners of Great Britain and Ireland, enjoying territorial possessions or high official rank", and was changed to "A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Landed Gentry; or, Commons of Great Britain" presumably to be more flattering.

" The verb "to knight" (i.e. to make someone a knight) appears around 1300, and from the same time, the word "knighthood" shifted from "adolescence" to "rank or dignity of a knight".

In this respect English differs from most other European languages, where the equivalent word emphasizes the status and prosperity of war horse ownership. Linguistically, the association of horse ownership with social status extends back at least as far as ancient Greece, where many aristocratic names incorporated the Greek word for horse, like Hipparchus and Xanthippe; the character Pheidippides in Aristophanes' Clouds has his grandfather's name with hipp- inserted to sound more aristocratic.[citation needed] Similarly, the Greek ἱππεύς (hippeus) is commonly translated "knight"; at least in its sense of the highest of the four Athenian social classes, those who could afford to maintain a warhorse in the state service. "

roman classes:

patrician/plebian castes

" A plebeian who was the first of his line to become consul was known as a novus homo ("new man"), and he and his descendants became "noble" (nobiles)."

Property-based classes: "The census divided citizens into six complex classes based on property. The richest were the senatorial class, who were worth at least 1,000,000 sestertii.[when?] The wealth of the senatorial class was based on ownership of large agricultural estates, and by custom members did not engage in commercial activity.

Below the senatores in rank, but above were the equites ("equestrians" or "knights"), with 400,000 sestertii, who could engage in commerce and formed an influential business class. Certain political and quasi-political positions were filled by equites, including tax farming and, under the Principate, leadership of the Praetorian Guard. Below the equites were three more classes of property-owning citizens; and lastly the proletarii, whose property was valued below 11,000 asses.[citation needed]"

other sources claim there were five classes in between equestrians and proletti:


cotter/cottar/cottager was a peasant of lower status than a villain, but of unknown legal status

cotset was another type of peasant lower than a villain

bordar was another type of peasant below villain

villan/villain/tunsman was a peasant of slightly higher economic status living in a village. Notionally not a free peasant because subject to the manorial rules and court

colibert/freedman was a former slave who had been given his or her freedom and a small piece of land

freeman was a non-noble landholder who had many more rights and higher status than most other peasants; they were later termed yeomen

serjant (plural serjantz) was a wide class of non-noble tenants who gave specific services in return for holding land and property. They included most town-dwelling craftsmen such as carpenters, butchers, bakers and wealthy merchants, but also a separate class of non-noble professional soldiers who wore armour and could own horses but were not knights. Some served as crossbowmen and archers. All serjantz were required by law to have specific military kit such as armour, helmet and spear so they could act as local militia if required. "

Song of Ice and Fire has novice, acolyte, maester, archmaester. archmaester administers the topic tests that give people their chain. Craft or Blue Lodge freemasonry has 3 degrees, apprentice, fellow craft, and master mason.

interestingly, Magic colors use the same 'parent assists, grandparent restrains' mechanics as wu xing (using ordering [white blue black red green]): "The colors adjacent to each other on the pentagon are "allied" and often have similar, complementary abilities. For example, Blue has a relatively large number of flying creatures, as do White and Black, which are next to it. The two non-adjacent colors to a particular color are "enemy" colors, and are thematically opposed. For instance, Red tends to be very aggressive, while White and Blue are often more defensive in nature. " --

VW grammars only need 2 levels:

Sintzoff [VW 1967] has proved that VW grammars are as powerful as PS grammars, which also shows that adding a third level to the building cannot increase its powers.

M. Sintzoff, “Existence of a van Wijngaarden syntax for every recursively enu- merable set”, Annales de la Société Scientifique de Bruxelles, vol. 81, no. II, p. 115-118, 1967. A relatively simple proof of the theorem that for every semi-Thue system we can construct a VW grammar that produces the same set.


see also resourceTypes.txt


Sisney's PSIU:

Producing, Stabilizing, Innovating, and Unifying

parts (short term view, structured approach): Producing, Stabilizing whole (long term view, unstructured approach): Innovating, and Unifying

respond (reactive, slower face, process-oriented): Stabilizing, Unifying shape: (forward-looking, faster pace, results-oriented): Producing, Innovating

stabilize: makes things controllable, regulate, administer, systematize, focus on how, analysis produce: makes things produce results, generate, make, transform, focus on what, autonomy unify: makes things respond as a whole, integrate, harmonize, coalesce, focus on who, processing innovate: makes things adapt, create, entrepreneur, invent, focus on why not?, excitement

note: is this really adding much more than an affine transformation of the Big Five personality traits: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism?

stabilizer: conscientious, neurotic; produce: extraversion, openness, ?; innovative: openness; unify: agreeableness

hmm.. yes, i guess it is, because the producer doesn't really fit in there.

it's also fun to think of how these fit into the 5 factions from the book Divergence. producer = candor and dauntless, stabilizer and unifier = abnegation and amity, innovate = erudite (and possibly candor?)

pretty good:


" Through his study of his patients’ “number” dreams, Jung came to believe that the smaller natural numbers[12] are symbols in much the same sense that the people and events of our dreams are symbols of personified collective character traits and behavioral situations. The integers seemed to correspond to progressive stages of development within the psyche. In brief, one corresponds to a stage of non-differentiation; two—polarity or opposition; three—movement toward resolution, as expressed, e.g., in the Christian trinity; four—stability, wholeness, as in a quaternity, or a mandala, which is most commonly four-sided.[13]

As so many times before in his career, Jung went beyond this limited model, and took a brilliant leap toward generalization of these discoveries: he speculated that number itself—as expressed most basically in the small integers—was the most primitive archetype of order.

"There is something peculiar, one might even say mysterious, about numbers…[if] a group of objects is deprived of every single one of its properties or characteristics, there still remains, at the end, its number, which seems to indicate that number is something irreducible.…[something which] helps more than anything else to bring order into the chaos of appearances.…It may well be the most primitive element of order in the human mind.… we [can] define number psychologically as an archetype of order which has become conscious.[14]" [13] Jung’s colleague Marie-Louise von Franz has extended this work in her Number and Time (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1974)., C. G. Jung, “Synchronicity: an Acausal Connecting Principle,” par. 870." --

" Number is a very ancient archetype that seems to predate humanity itself. In Number and the Language of Science, mathematician Tobias Dantzig mentions a number of examples of animals and even insects who seem to possess a number sense. In one striking example, he tells the story of a crow who had built its nest in the watch-tower on a squire's estate. The squire was determined to shoot the crow, but the crow was too canny; whenever the squire or his men would enter the tower, the crow would fly away until the coast was clear.

The squire tried sending two men into the barn. One stayed hidden in the tower and one came out again. However, the crow was too smart and wouldn't return until the second man also came out. The experiment was tried on successive days—unsuccessfully—until finally five men went in and only four came out. This time the crow evidently thought that all the men had come out, and returned to the watch-tower. The squire was finally rid of the crow.[17]

The story seems to demonstrate that a crow (or at least the crow in the story) has a sense of “one”, “two”, “three”, and “many”. When five men went in and four came out, the crow saw “many” go in and “many” go out and thought that it was safe to return. Interestingly, early twentieth century anthropologists found that the numeric systems of some African, South American, Oceanic and Australian cultures had the same limitations. E.g., the Australian aborigines—who we now realize have a very sophisticated culture—only had numbers for “one” through “six”, and many”.

Though crows are very intelligent birds, no one would argue that human beings and crows are of comparable intelligence. It is more likely that the archetypal quality of the smaller numbers is so ancient that it predates humanity itself, and is carried in the heritage of creatures even as primitive as insects. Because human beings are capable of counting (“one, two, three…”), we imagine that is how numbers were arrived at. But when crows can recognize “one”, “two”, “three” and “many”, few of us would argue they arrived at these numeric relationships by counting per se. Instead there must be a pattern recognition, a “primordial image” (to use Jung's earlier formulation of “symbol”) that corresponds to the smaller integers. In other words, we have an innate sense of what “one” and “two” and “three” mean.[18]

Now if we conceive numbers as having been discovered, and not merely invented as an instrument for counting, then on account of their mythological nature they belong to the realm of godlike human and animal figures and are just as archetypal as they.[19] ... [17] Tobias Dantzig, Number and the Language of Science (New York: MacMillan? Company, 1954), p. 3.

[18] In fact, the Australian Aborigines actually limit themselves to “one” and “two”, then use composites of “one” and “two” to make up numbers up to “six”. For example, “three” is “two” and “one”, “four” is “two” and “two”, “five” is “two” and “two” and “one”, “six” is “two” and “two” and “two”. They count in pairs, so that they wouldn't be likely to notice if two pins were removed from a heap of seven pins, but would instantly recognize if only one pin had been removed. See Tobias Dantzig, Number and the Language of Science, p. 14.

[19] C. G. Jung, Collected Works, Vol. 10: Civilization in Transition, par. 776. Jung’s emphasis. "


" For most of us, however, this archetypal pattern recognition is unlikely to extend past the smaller counting numbers. Since, at this stage, the recognition of number is the recognition of a primordial image or patten, there is as yet little if any distinction between arithmetic and geometry. As soon as arithmetic and geometry split and go different directions, it becomes much less clear that Jung is necessarily right in his guess that all mathematics emerges from the smaller counting numbers. Geometry by its various nature deals with continuous lines and figures and planes, while arithmetic develops out of ever grander extensions of the discrete counting numbers. At the time when Jung was developing these ideas, he was corresponding with physicist Wolfgang Pauli. Pauli, inspired by Jung, was searching for a neutral language which could underlie both the physical and psychological worlds.[21] Being more mathematically sophisticated than Jung, Pauli recognized that the issue came to a head when the development of arithmetic reached the point where it was forced to deal with infinite quantities.

If, therefore, a more general concept of archetype is used today, then it should be understood in such a way that included within it is the mathematical primal intuition which expresses itself, among other ways, in arithmetic, in the idea of the infinite series of integers, and in geometry, in the idea of the continuum.[22]

At that point, Jung’s speculation becomes identical with Cantor’s continuum hypothesis; i.e., are there any infinities that lie between the infinity of the integers and the infinity of the geometric continuum? ... [21] See Wolfgang Pauli, “The Influence of Archetypal Ideas on the Scientific Theories of Keeler,” in C. G. Jung and Wolfgang Pauli, The Interpretation of Nature and the Psyche (New York: Pantheon Books, 1955). Also see Charles R. Card, “The Archetypal View of Jung and Pauli,” Psychological Perspectives #24 & #25 (Los Angeles: C. G. Jung Institute, 1991)

[22] Quotation by Wolfgang Pauli, in Charles R. Card, "The Archetypal Hypothesis of Wolfgang Pauli and C.G. Jung: Origins, Development, and Implications", in K. V. Laurikainen and C. Montonen, eds., Symposia on the Foundations of Modern Physics, 1992 (Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co., 1993), p. 382. " --

"In Cohen's view, the continuum was clearly an incredibly rich set one produced by a bold new axiom which could never be approached by any piecemeal process of construction.[34]... [34] Joseph Warren Dauben, Georg Cantor: His Mathematics and Philosophy of the Infinite, p. 269. " --


wu xing personality test:


interesting numbers: 0 1 2 3 4 5 7 12

what were ramanujan's number personalities/personifications from 1-13?

but shouldnt 6 be interesting for the same reason as 12?

but 12 might have the smallest proportion of non-factors in the positive integers less than it

5 is interesting in that all of 1 2 3 4 5 are

so mb 7 and 12 are somewhat less interesting. clearly 4 is less interesting than 2 and 3, so the most interesting are 0 1 2 3.

i guess 6 is the first composite with multiple distinct factors, though. also from wikipedia:

" The smallest non-abelian group is the symmetric group S3 which has 3! = 6 elements.

S6, with 720 elements, is the only finite symmetric group which has an outer automorphism. "

what about 8, is it boring yet? again from Wikipedia:

"8 is the order of the smallest non-abelian group all of whose subgroups are normal."

"8 is the dimension of the octonions and is the highest possible dimension of a normed division algebra."

what about 9? yeah, Wikipedia doesnt note anything interesting (to me) for 9

i guess 12 is interesting mainly as the 'hackiest most practical number' due to the above property of having many factors for its magnitude

in human culture, we see a bunch of 2 and 3 and 4 element systems and some 5, but no 6. there is the 7 chakra system but its based off one school, other schools have diff. numbers of chakras. so i guess 5 is probably about all that the untrained human mind can handle. ah, i bet thats why 7 seems wise/old/ghostly. -- we know it's beyond (most of) us

is symbolic thought binary or trinary (RDF)? maybe its quinary.

idea; start with +,-,subject,verb,object and make something more symmetric. maybe look at kant's table of categories/judgements? quantity,quality,relation,modality?

want 5 'places' each of which can take on 5 (kinds of?) values

bah, the idea of having each of 5 places having on of 5 values is so binary!

subject/object/verb/meta/? space/time/matter/energy (or is it mass/energy?)/? configuration? knowledge/viewpoint/perspective? gravity? 0/1/-1/?/?

rdf provenance is like mapping onto another graph, like configuration

polarity/quantity/(negation?), conditionality (from cs; e.g. if statements), (conditionality maybe or may not be the same as) role/relation, modality?, meta/paradox/escape/transcend (synthesis in thesis/antithesis/synthesis), concreteness/ identity in group theory e.g. successor/constants/projection fns in primitive recursion? and what about the object(s) to be operated on?

i guess configuration is like cs conditionality and mb role/relation?

are meta and perspective distinct? meta and configuration (annotation)?

3 = thesis/anti/synth, annotation/quotation, OR verb/role

so do we already get a whole graph structure for 3, as opposed to 'n values in n positional roles' for 2?

then what for 4,5? maybe something more like human language

hmm.. even simple positional assembly/machine language can have a 5_par scheme: opcode, 2 x (operand, addressing mode)

where does probability come in here?


if you consider the powerset arising from elements True/False (e.g. a 'relational' logic), {}, {F}, {T}, {F,T}, we get the:

Indian catuskoti: true, false, neither true nor false, both true and false

(the Hasse diagram of First Degree Entailment logic:

  /  \{T,F} {} \ / {F} )

we can add a fifth value, 'ineffable', to form a 5-valued many-valued logic.

If you then take the power set of that, you get plurivalent logic.

Plurivalent logic can be motivated by König’s paradox:

" Ordinals are numbers that extend the familiar counting numbers, 0, 1, 2, etc, beyond the finite. After we have been through all the finite numbers (of which there is, of course, an infinity), there is a next number, ω, and then a next, ω+1, and so on, forever. These ordinals share an interesting property with the counting numbers: for any set of them, if there are any members at all, there must be a least one. How far, exactly, the ordinals go is a vexed question both mathematically and philosophically. Nevertheless, one fact is beyond dispute: there are many more ordinals than can be referred to using a noun phrase in a language with a finite vocabulary, such as English. This can be shown by a perfectly rigorous mathematical proof.

Now, if there are ordinals that cannot be referred to in this way, it follows that one of them must be less than all the others, for that is true of any collection of ordinals. Consider the phrase ‘the least ordinal that cannot be referred to’. It obviously refers to the number in question. This number, then, both can and cannot be referred to. That’s our paradox. And since it cannot be referred to, one cannot say anything about it. So the facts about it are ineffable; but we can say things about it, such as that it is the least ordinal that can’t be referred to. We have said ineffable things. "

and similar problems in philosophy:

" (Kant) distinguished between two notions of noumenon, the realm beyond the senses: a positive one and a negative one. According to him, only the negative one is legitimate. We cannot talk about things of this kind; we just need to be aware of them to mark the limit of what we can talk about. Pardon? In explaining what they do, are we not talking about them? Well, yes, of course we are. "

" Gorampa was troubled enough by the situation that he attempted to distinguish between two ultimate realities: a real ultimate reality, which is ineffable, and a ‘nominal’ ultimate reality, which is what we end up talking about when we try to talk about the real ultimate. But wait a minute – the nominal ultimate is obviously effable: by definition, it is the reality that we can talk about. In that case, if we say that ultimate reality is ineffable and we are actually talking about the nominal ultimate, what we are saying is false. Thus Gorampa’s proposal refutes itself. "







sisney's work/management personality/role


eyesnck's personality scales: neuroticism, psychoticism, extraversion (and a Lie scale)

-- the Big Five personality traits recognized by consensus psych:

openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism


why are there seven days of the week?

summary: three theories:

note on the planets:

note that the gods associated with the planets are archetypes of facets of interpersonal/social interaction/roles


common officers for sturgis standard code are president, vice-president, treasurer, secretary

other officers are e.g.

seargent (sentinel), parliamentarian, reporter, advisor, historian, chaplain








" In order to make the game more accessible to children, Sierra used an innovative idea that would not reappear in the genre for the next 10 years: the text parser was removed in favor of the function keys that performed various actions: F3 would choose an inventory item, F4 would use it, F6 would perform "Use" near the character's location, and F8 would "look". The simplification of the two actions "Look" and "Use" was not reused in Sierra's later games. However, it somewhat resembles the control system of other later simpler point-and-click adventure games, such as the King's Quest VII or The Dig whose interfaces only consisted of "Look" and "Use". Being based on a Disney film, the graphics present some relative 'flexibility', compared to the monolithic and straight sceneries of previous and later games. " --

"we came up with instead was the function keys were always on the IBM keyboards back then, so we ended up using the function keys. And it's odd because the names that I picked for the function keys are the same names that we ended up using 10 years later for the icons on the verbs bar that we put across the top of screen. Remember when Roberta came up with the idea of using icons? ... We ended up using the same verbs because it's common to the adventure-game language. We had a use and a look and a take and inventory and all these keys that were -- yeah, that were used in Black Cauldron and then we kinda dropped that whole idea and never used it again until, I don't know. When did the point and click thing start? '88? So that's about four or five years later. " --


see also:


names of the quarks: up, down, strange, charm, top, bottom used to be: up, down, strange, charm, truth, beauty


tarot card of (goal: a basis set for thought): evolution, thought, martial arts/attack and defence, hierarchy, various dynamics concept equilibrium etc, identity, qualia, trade, space, time, number/quantity, sense, action, memory, event, choice, power, goal (and success and failure), necessity/natural law/law, implication/rule (a rule is merely a necessary pattern, but these are sufficiently different in application domain), negation, and, or, glass plate game stuff, hypothetical, contradiction, proof, evidence, chance, probability distribution, knowledge, good and evil, morality (or is good applied to a person enoug?), prediction, awareness, self-knowledge, beginning and ending (temporal and spatial extent/size, as opposed to point coordinates), dimension, coordinate, infinity, recursion, induction, zero, one, addition, multiplication, inverse, function, relation, graph/link, variable (and variable substution, and expression), graph cycle, homomorphism, function, contradiction, set, definition, symbol, signified, signified, reference, connotation, form/content/representation, paradox, understanding, love, entity/actor/agent, subject object, modify/Alter, property/attribuute, possession, part/whole, isa instance class, commandimperative/request, replyreponse, replace, search/find, discover, create, property/ownership, positive feedback, negative feedback, periodicity/repetition/homogeneity/plurality, saturation/fullempty, accomodation (what's the word? a neuron renormalizes to a constant signal), thesis/antithesis/synthsis, discrete/continuous, home, process, happiness, beauty, contestt/conflict, cooperation, music, meaning, art, judgement, computation, reality, direction/axis, equation, pattern, derivative, circle/hypersphere, chaos (mathematical), open/closed, duality, story/narrative (not just a hypothetical timeline, but plot, characters, etc), dream, concrete/abstract, form/shape, destiny/fate, selfreference, reference, attract (attractors, also physics, also 'tendency'), create, life, cause/effect, unity, all/some/one, truefalse (cs), truth (philosophy/knowledge of reality), alternative (different from choice, which is a cognitive (cog) concept), concept? (different from isa/instance/class?), order (in the mathematical sense eg lt, gt, lte, equal), metaphor, mechanical, correlation/causation/tendency/typical/prototype, plan, agree, design (goal-driven creation; but not necesarily the common connotaion of a mechanical creation procedure), hole, point line/ surface (manifold), circle, polygon, procedure, algebra?, region? (got region already via extend/duration of space, i think), sequence (temporal pattern), play (in the fun sense), general/specific (eg strategy/tactic duality; different from isa, more like a hierarchy, but also not like king/noble/citizen/serf), purity, harm, authority, fairness, liberty/oppression, altruism, competence, sacred/holy, nice/kindness, politeness, rights (in the political/legal sense), evolution, paradigm, color, basis set/'alphabet', filter, move, copy using this i can make many things clearer to myself; ge in one sense strategy is just a plan or class of plan (general plan), but in anothe.,kr, it's a story about a plan,like, protect, illusion/lie


focus on the numbers 1 thru 12 when presenting small sets of things, and facts about integers

one important thing would be to at least just visit the wikipedia pages for each of those numbers; they usually have some number-theory facts



more on wu xing:



the 7 liberal arts as classes


the happiness factors as classes:


World Happiness Report, published by the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network:

The components of happiness:



customers: meets expectations, meets desires, meets unrecognized needs employees: money, recogntion, meaning investors: transaction alignment, relationship alignment, legacy

(from [7])


dept of lists / organizing personality as a class


" Citing linguistic theory of the late 20th century, Graham (1989) maintains that the tendency of Chinese thought, as demonstrated in the Chinese language, is to think in terms of whole/part rather than class/member relationships. That is, the parts of a whole are considered in terms of their relationships with the whole, not their similarities to/differences from one another. In the above quote, all the masters are likened to be the sage ruler’s limbs. It is not to say that the sage ruler has dozens of limbs anatomically. Instead, a limb is only an analogy of a part and the masters’ writings are all simply parts of the supreme wisdom regardless of whether they share a common set of characteristics " -- Organizing Knowledge the Chinese Way, by Hur-Li Lee.