Comment by utexaspunk | Hacker News Reader

Comment by utexaspunk | Hacker News Reader

I love Buckminster Fuller, but doesn't a lot of this sound like pseudointellectual bullshit? I mean

"The entire regenerative hierarchy of major, intermediate, and minor constellations of component patterns-within-component-patterns of universe are continual processes of synchronous, yet independent and unique, transformative patternings. That is, all components of universe are in continually accommodative, associative-disassociative motion reciprocity, and all the moving components of universe continuously affect all the other moving components--in varying degrees, ranging between high and low tide reciprocities of critically intense to critically negligible. All of these inter-effects of all the motional components upon one another are precessional, and precession always produces transformative resultants in vectorial patterns which always articulate angular accelerations in directions other than the 'straight' lines of directions between the inter-effective components"

Really?

Consider that Fuller intentionally obfuscates text, inventing words and constructing labyrinthine sentence structures, to underscore his philosophy that an entirely new way if thinking is required. The act of deciphering meaning from his words forces you to read critically and deliberately, which places you in the frame if mind he wants. In Synergetics, for instance, he constructs an elaborate argument about the construction of a tetrahedron, leading up to a page containing the equation, printed in 128 pt. font, "1 + 1 = 4."

It's a cognitive leap for the reader in which some fundamental preconceptions are made mutable. I dig it.

Edit: sorry for typos, should have read more critically

It's like if aliens tried to communicate "take me to your leader" in English but the only example of English they had to work from was the technical documentation for an xml parser

It's like a paragraph from a "Continental Philosophy" type of writer, except that all the words that would describe people or society have been replaced by "component", "universe" or "vector" instead.

That's my impression of everything I've seen from Buckminster Fuller. As someone who loves his work, what would you suggest I read that isn't?

To be honest I'm not all that familiar with his writing, actually- I just liked seeing the Dymaxion house at the Ford museum, and geodesic domes. Mostly I like that he had an hopeful vision of a global, sustainable, prosperous, futuristic future, where efficient use of technology and materials could provide prosperity for all. I just like that optimism that seems to have died in the mid-20th century.

Crtical path is a great easy read.

I love Buckminster Fuller, but doesn't a lot of this sound like pseudointellectual bullshit?

"Architect, engineer and cosmologist R. Buckminster Fuller"

I don't think any of his cosmological contributions are taken at all seriously.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synergetics_(Fuller)

"Synergetics" is in some ways a library of potential "science cartoons" (scenarios) described in prose and not heavily dependent upon mathematical notations.

That section needs a diagram. It's longwinded, but not pseudointellectual. He's describing the interaction between components of a system and how their individual motions impact each other.

Agreed, I don't think he was trying for pseudo-intellectual writing. But the fact that he was largely self-taught tends to shine through. He didn't have a mentor to teach him that writing simply doesn't diminish the importance of the subject.

That said, plenty of his ideas could stand an honest critique.

It's like a game of scrabble played by alphazero against alphazero.

If you read the surrounding context, it's just his architectural insights lifted into a general, universal abstract principle

The precession of simulacra, indeed

12 Galaxies guiltied to a Zegnatronic rocket society

Give my regards to Frank

Reply on news.ycombinator.com