By continuing your visit to this site, you accept the use of cookies. These ensure the smooth running of our services. Learn more.

« Global Guerrillas is 3GW (and not Global) | HomePage | Wrong on Immigration. Wrong on Abortion. »

Sunday, June 04, 20061149433200

Visualizing Critt's New Game

As I earlier mentioned, Critt Jarvis of Connecting in Conversation has released version .05 of his new game. His pdf version looks like:


I wanted to understand how he was looking at it, so I redrew it in three different ways. Read more to see different interpretations.

First, I I defined everything in the diagram as an object. This means that the outer pentagrams are directly connected to "Relationships," "Logistics," and "Boundary." In turn, relationships are connected to "People" while "Boundary" is connected to an implicit "Outside World."

Next, I assumed that "Logistics" is not some all encompassing entity, but connected two neighboring pentagons. This is possible but non obvious.


Last, I assumed that "Relationships" are actually relations, so that the outer pentagons connect directly to "People."


That same simplification, but keeping logistics as an object connecting all the outer pentagons together, is:


Alternatively, "Logistics" touches boundary in Critt's version, so maybe the game is better mapped:


Of course, I may be wrong on all of these. Am I getting close, Critt? Or barking up the wrong tree?

10:00 Posted in Connectivity | Permalink | Comments (9)


Ho! Nailed it!

And, just in time for the new week's focus:

"Building an organization, a structured container"

I'll work you into the wiki, if you're interested ;-)

Thanks, Dan.

Posted by: Critt | Sunday, June 04, 2006

Critt -- Woots! :-) The wiki sounds awesome. Which of the visualizations (besides your own, heh) best captures the spirit of what you're doing?

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Sunday, June 04, 2006

#3 looks right to me, but I am just starting to looking into that blog's ideas.

Posted by: purpleslog | Sunday, June 04, 2006

Welcome aboard, Daniel-san !

Posted by: mark safranski | Sunday, June 04, 2006

Before replying, a quick note that tdaxp drawings 2 and 3 should have a line directly connecting rulesets to security. *sigh*

Purpleslog, I aesthetically like three the most, but I'm beginning the think that logistics should be a general purpose transporter, like diagram 4. Hmm.. . Need more info from Critt..

Mark, thanks! It's an honor to be so tapped by Critt, obviously.

PS: Stay tuned to tdaxp tonight. The 10th post of the day should be pretty interesting, too...

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Sunday, June 04, 2006


Me thinks you need some more of that jet lag...

Okay... this doesn't exactly answer your question, but at least I've got a place to start thinking about it...


See you in the morning.


Posted by: Critt | Sunday, June 04, 2006

LOL! I love that the Connecting-in-Conversation link to this page is titled " "Am I close? Huh? Huh? Am I close?" :-)

I haven't had a 10-post day in a while -- I also did some pretty nice yardwork and walked ten miles. I've been up 21 hours and I'm feeling fine! :-)

[* with lungs bathing in oxygen, after the smoggish purgatory of Beijing and Hell of Tianjin, this is hardly surprising! ]

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Sunday, June 04, 2006

"Before replying, a quick note that tdaxp drawings 2 and 3 should have a line directly connecting rule sets to security. *sigh*
Nothing to sigh about, but exactly! Those lines represent the vertical force. The other straight lines represent the horizontal force, and all curved lines represent acceleration! Splendid!

So after all the conversation we have had since I first made myself known on the internet, we are back talking about particle-waves. It must be that everything that needs to be said has been said and we are back to this point.

One thing different is that the boundary we are talking about is actually surface tension caused by the "friction" inside the particle-wave, friction being an electrical force. In a true particle-wave this surface tension is replaced by frequency. Which means frequency and surface tension are different names for the same things; kind of like which came first, the surface tension or the frequency?

Posted by: Larry Dunbar | Tuesday, June 06, 2006

Hmm... So, What the Bleep Do We Know? ;-)

Posted by: Critt | Tuesday, June 06, 2006