Synergetics (Redux)

Maybe an atom looks like this?

Back in 1974, Richard Buckminster Fuller presented humanity with the tools necessary to become more in tune with our planet Earth. A work entitled Synergetics. Unfortunately, for many of us, the tools were a bit difficult to grasp, even with opposable thumbs.

My name is Don Mayer. I have a background in architecture, building and design which spans 50 years. I’ve been a language specialist, website designer, artist, sculptor and amateur cosmologist (nothing to do with make-up). For clarification let me state that Cosmology is defined as the study of the Universe.

I am, at the very root, a puzzle freak and model builder. I have found the Universe to be the ultimate puzzle and have been determined to build a model of it. From my earliest childhood I have questioned what was being presented to me in school in the sciences and mathematics. I love both fields and have spent many years endeavoring to make some sense out of them.

It occurred to me that, even with these interests, I was having trouble understanding what was going on. I had to take calculus three times before I really grasped the concepts. I realized that part of the problem was that the concepts were not adequately presented visually. I was taught that the atom was a nucleus with an electron or two spinning around it. Questions like: what keeps the electron up there or what does a “half spin” look like were brushed off as not answerable. I found this unacceptable and began looking for answers on my own.

Fine Structure Constant

It turns out that modern day physics is loaded with many, many unanswerable questions, paradoxes and contradictions which only get more and more mysterious the closer we look. What is the smallest particle? Where does the Fine Structure Constant, which keeps coming up in experiment after experiment, come from and what is it? Why are there only 92 regenerative elements in the periodic table? And, if you’re into physics; Whatever happened to Schroedinger’s Cat? Richard Feynman, one of the preeminent physicists of the past century has said that anyone who tells you they understand physics is lying. Stephen Hawking expresses much the same sentiment in A Brief History of Time. How can this be? How can the Universe not be understood at least in it’s parts. I used to say that God/Universe (and I’ll use the terms pretty much interchangeably unless someone finds that objectionable) must be incomprehensible, for if I could somehow understand he/she/it I would contain “it” and I would be greater than it. Who is the “I” comprehending God? Mustn’t “I” be greater than God to be able to comprehend him/her/it. The answer to this comes from none other than Douglas Adams in Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. In it he posits that the instant we figure out how the Universe/God works, it morphs into something again incomprehensible. He then conjectured that perhaps we had already done just that.

From a more practical point-of-view, how does a soap bubble know how to round off PI and what does it do with the remainder? A tree doesn’t separate physics and chemistry and biology but humans do. The physicist and biologist don’t even speak the same language but, perhaps that’s the problem. Specialization has caused us to look at the elephant of the Universe as blind men, one feeling the leg sees it as a tree, another feeling the trunk describes it as a snake, to the third sitting on top it appears as a moving boulder. Part of the goal of Synergetics is to reunite these apparently disparate disciplines with a common, visually oriented and intuitive language. 


Additionally, we would like to ask where does consciousness come from? Is it the product of evolutionary chance as science is claiming? Who is the “I” who asks these questions and why do I ask them? It’s all part of the same puzzle.


So what’s wrong with this picture? Over-specialization is the cause of all extinction, think dinosaurs. They couldn’t adapt to the changing environment. Has evolution gone awry? Are we on a course which will lead to this final accounting in 2012 as the Mayans seem to indicate? Well, I think I have come up with some answers to these most important questions and I would like tonight to give you some background to all of this.

Let me start by saying that all of this is open to challenge and only by questioning and examining can we refine our search for answers. That being said I would ask a favor. Try to accept the bulk of what I going to say in this introduction to a vast field without asking me to prove things as we go. Everything I am going to tell you is provable and I would enjoy answering any questions once the basic premises are laid out otherwise it may get very confusing since what one individual may question someone else may understand intuitively. The basic approach is what is commonly referred to as the scientific method. Now some of you may disagree as to whether this is a viable method of examination so let’s take a quick look at what it actually is.

Scientific Methodology

First we come up with a theory which can come from anywhere and that theory gets questioned and tested. Does it make sense? Does it violate anything we know to be true? If it appears to work does it explain anything we could not explain in a simpler fashion? Finally can it predict something previously unpredictable? As all of these questions are asked and re-asked our theory takes on the validity of law. These laws must apply everywhere and everywhen throughout the Universe and as such become generalized principles. E=mc2 is one of these as is F=MA applicable throughout the known Universe on sub-atomic and galactic levels. After all the macro-cosm and micro-cosms are both part of the same Universe, how can the laws apply at one extreme and not the other. That’s how the method works and I have no problem with it.


Now, this work is based on the work of several key authors I have read over the years. Herman Hesse’s fictional novel Magister Ludi or The Glass Bead Game, for which he received the Noble Prize back in 1939, was the seminal work that got me into this. In it he describes a notational system which can be used to describe any phenomena from science, mathematics and language to music, art and psychology. He never details the notation but much like musical notation, anyone who understands the system can look at the charts and hear the music. What if we had a comprehensive system to describe all of these physical manifestations of consciousness?

Jane Roberts was a psychic and channeler who in the 70’s introduced the world to an entity named Seth who gives us a very vivid and concise description of what we may call the “spirit world” and he explains what happens after we die and where consciousness comes from. Louise Haye and Deepak Chopra, among others, site Jane Roberts and Seth as integral to their own work. I have found nothing in this work to violate the above described scientific method.

David Wilcock in Ascension 2000 gives a detailed description of how the physical world comes into being and describes much of the work done in the former Soviet Union which supports many of the concepts we will investigate.

Richard Buckminster Fuller is perhaps the most influential of these authors as he gives us, in Synergetics, the actual basis for this Glass Bead Game we are about to describe. He posits that the Universe does not use the 90o Cartesian coordinate system we accept as a given in science and mathematics but rather a 60o 4 dimensional system based on the closest packing of spheres. A concept which becomes more intuitive as we see what nature uses in creating a tree or an element or a planet or galaxy. Rene Descartes whose name is given to our 3 dimensional Cartesian system expressed surprise that the Royal Academy of Science had chosen the 3D system as it is basically unstable without triangulation. We will see how this has limited our ability to describe and model the Universe around us.

Where Do I Look?

Which Theory?

Now one of the things that I have been dealing with is that there are so many theories out there competing for my attention that I waste a tremendous amount of time trying to decide where to look first. 911? 2012? Nostradamus? Mayan Calendar? Paranormal/psychic abilities? Quantum physics? Crop circles? Which is the most interesting? The most likely to produce meaningful results? Which is going to happen first? And how do I know until I read the book? I think we all wrestle with this at times and yet we all have our areas of interest. Things that makes sense to us or provide us challenges in new areas. I think the answer is all of the above. At this point I would like to describe a method I have come up with in dealing with priorities regarding what road to go down next.

Technology, Language of the Future

 We all have particular things which interest us, this is a form of specialization. This is the Babel principle, all of the different languages competing for the attention of individuals who can no longer see the big picture. We have heard at times that technology was to be the language of the future. Well, it is but as it stands it is incomprehensible to 99% of humanity. This technology is only comprehensible to a select few because we just aren’t speaking the same language. The biologist, the physicist, artist, musician are all speaking different languages. What if we and they all spoke a similar language one based in technology but simple enough to be comprehended by anyone willing to learn to a basic education level.


Fuller’s Synergetics provides just such a language. Actually it’s a modeling format which enables us to create models of all of physical realities “stuff”; mechanics, politics, art and even if we never map any of these areas, having that inherent ability will have a huge impact. Think of how effectively masses of humanity have been bamboozled into believing someone was coming to get them, that some powerful enemy was going to get us if we didn’t support their cause. This is the way wars are always justified and later regretted. Imagine if people in a country that was starving had a simple and comprehensible means to see that there was plenty of food available and how to get it. If we could know intuitively that we could have everything we needed and no one had to die or sacrifice for anyone else, the wars would end. So, in this scatter-gun introduction, I have thrown out, albeit sometimes in disguise; economics, politics, science, spiritualism.

At this point I would like to stop and get some idea if any of these specific topics is of interest to members of the group here because I can go in any of several directions and with a little tweeking I can keep things pertinent and, hopefully, interesting.

2 thoughts on “Synergetics (Redux)

    1. My background is more model building than socioeconomic structures. That being said, I have recently been reading the work of Thomas H Greco, specifically; The End of Money, and have found that his ideas of a cashless society, based more on community than global banking, may work very well within the community in Costa Rica where I live.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *