Synonymous Ideas

Strategic thinking

Relativity

Quantum Thinking

Motion

Inputs: Y Axis, Vision, Form parameters

Outcomes: Ideal and optimal trajectory, long-term strategic plan, list of potential allied ideas, ideal evolution of form

Archetypes in focus

Commander is the master of directing the motion

Protagonist balances the requirements of form

Analyst observes the motion

Evaluator contextualizes the impact into the concept

A (very brief) explanation of time and influence

Time is the dimension following 3 dimensional space. In the last stage, your ideas' substance and size was explored. Now that we have discovered where the idea is in hypothetical 3 dimensional space, we can track its movement in time to determine its trajectory, momentum, and position. For our idea development model, we define time as a function of relative trajectory. Trajectory is a function of momentum and position, and only in time can we determine the momentum and position of an idea. 

These properties of time are also relative to the ideas around it, so we can determine if your idea is on a similar trajectory to other ideas and if there may be larger or smaller ideas on its path that could be assimilated or should be avoided. 

We have an assumption, as explored in the philosophy of the living universe, that ideas have their own independent meaning and internal state. They don't depend on perceivers, like us, to create them - the meaning we prescribe to ideas is an interaction between ourselves (our biases, experiences, desires etc) and the idea itself (it's "will" so to say). Ideas have their own momentum, and that momentum is relative to ALL ideas in its frame of reference and not just our frame of reference. 

 

In this stage we will show you how to identify your idea's momentum, independent from our frame of reference, and how that impacts our own frame of reference. For our idea development we will assume almost all ideas we perceive in day to day life have some trajectory into our frame of reference, otherwise we probably wouldn't be able to perceive them. There may be some cases where very outlandish ideas will not enter our temporal frame of reference but these are probably too abstract and mystical to be of much use to us here. (As always though if you want to explore those types of esoteric ideas, then please get in touch!)

Our other main assumption is that we can influence the trajectory of ideas - this isn't that controversial... yet... we know even in traditional science that we have some causal agency in the world to simply influence trajectory of things. However, as mentioned before we assume the experience of the meaning of an idea is an interaction between the observer, and the observed. When we observe an idea, it influences us and we influence it (usually in very different forms of influence and to varying degrees). The Nietzsche quote of "when you stare into the abyss long enough, the abyss stares back" is a good example of this logic. 

How can we influence ideas? 

This is where we depart from traditional models of causality and dive into the paradigm of quantum interpretations of multi-directional meaning.

Traditionally we influence ideas in a human centric linear fashion, e.g. I exert force on a ball and the ball moves away from us. This mode isn't incorrect, but it doesn't explain the entire picture in a living universe model. Imagine the ball had an internal living state and some form of perception. Repeat the example from the ball's perspective and it might "think" it pushed us away. Who is to say that the ball didn't push us, when we moved away from it?

The same human centric linear thinking is usually applied to ideas; we typically believe that if we express an idea we've caused the idea in the world. How can we know for certain that the idea didn't cause us to express it in the world, like in the pushing a ball analogy? The differences are the frame of reference, and that we typically only prescribe agency to ourselves in linear causal models. 

But what if other things other than people had agency? Then the only difference in defining what-caused-what is the frame of reference that we use. In our model that frame of reference is both ourselves, and the idea. When we influence an idea, it also has some influence on us - it's the 3 laws of motion applied to ideas. The influence we receive in return can be found in the experience we had when we acted on the idea. It is via experience of working with an idea, expressing it, focusing attention on it that the idea imparts its self onto us as we imprint ourselves onto it. The act of working with an idea is building a relationship with the idea. 

So how do we influence an idea? We act on it, give it attention and focus on it. By giving attention to ideas we modify their trajectories, just as they influence our trajectories with their attention. Every action we create on an idea, is an action the ideas creates on us, and brings the idea closer to our frame of reference. 

 

Evaluating an idea's trajectory

 

As always with evaluating an idea in our framework, we evaluate relative to the ideas vision and first principles. If we have an idea for flying to get somewhere faster, what is the necessary trajectory to make it happen? We recommend reading the archetype of "The Commander" to get a better idea of what's involved in evaluating the trajectory of your ideas. 

While exploring a form for the idea, we should have a sense for how proximate the idea currently is. In the example of flying, and let's imagine we are in the 18th century, the idea of flying would be relatively far away from us. The spectrum of lift was commonly associated with physically lifting objects. But if we wanted self-propelled lift in order to fulfill the vision of lift + high controllability , then we would need to treat the idea as being far away in the 18th century. However it's very close AND very important to a bird's frame of reference.

So, we've established that our idea is pretty far away to our frame of reference. We know we will need to move it closer to our frame of reference. We can move the idea closer to us by directing our attention towards it and moving the idea closer towards another accessible idea, e.g. bird flight.

 

The size also needs to be considered; if it's a smaller niche idea could it get trapped in the "gravity" of a larger idea on its trajectory towards us? e.g. a small device used for harnessing wind power on it's trajectory towards our frame of reference might bump into other larger forms of energy production - and be integrated into a larger idea, say integrated into a fossil fuel energy vision. 

We can also evaluate whether the idea is growing or shrinking, and whether we want to try to influence the idea to grow or shrink. In most cases, we want ideas to grow as they come closer, but in some cases this might be to the detriment of keeping the idea independent of larger ideas. Imagine the case where a small idea that was relatively far away would grow to a point where it would inevitably clash with some other ideas on it's path towards our frame of reference. This could be the case for a small idea that wants to remain independent and "off the radar" until it has come close enough to be able to protect itself from incumbent larger ideas. 

The same logic can be applied to the speed of the idea; do we want to speed it up or slow it down to avoid potential collisions? Speeding it up in a trajectory towards our frame of reference is a matter of giving it more attention, and making it more visible to other ideas in our frame of reference; i.e. marketing or advertising your ideas' existence. Slowing the idea down is a bit difficult, as any attempt at influencing an idea is a form of speeding it up relative to our frame of reference. But we can slow down the momentum in relation to other ideas around it by speeding it up in opposite directions. 

All of the insights for how the idea is best served by cooperating with other ideas, and what it needs to do to avoid less desirable ideas, should form the backbone of your long-term strategy. 

Time considerations for the form

We recommend consulting the "Protagonist" archetype to give a better idea on how to navigate the hurdles of the practical spatial considerations and theoretical temporal considerations between stages 4 and 5. 

Most of this stage has been spent exploring the temporal space of an idea itself, and here are some final remarks on the temporal considerations of the form of the idea. The spatial dimensions in the last stage identified the physical form of the idea. Here are few tips for how to apply the time dimension to evaluating the different forms you may have come up with.

 

Does the physical form need to change in time to best embody the idea? Is it different in the past from the future? Can it take different forms between point 1 and 2? Does the form of the idea evolve?

 

For solid forms like a table; where the function is to be stable then the physical temporal dimension would be consistent throughout time. However if we wanted to hold an object for a set amount of time, and then release it, we would have 2 different states in different time frames. In those cases this stage should be used for identifying the ideal changes in physical properties that should occur in order to fulfill the vision.  

If you want to get in touch to discuss our philosophy on time and how it influences your ideas, or get some strategic feedback on your ideas, please contact us! We thrive on engagement with the community and would love to hear from you. 

 


 

5. MOTION

"Time has a wonderful way of showing us what really matters" - Margaret Peters

Time is the dimension of motion. With motion applied to our idea, a whole new dimension of data is created and the beginnings of a relative meaning of our idea can be explored. 

The purpose of this stage is determining how to move your idea from wherever it presently is in space and time, to a more desired reference point (usually a frame of reference closer to us in space and time).