Why do I believe that my career will be a place where I create a system for people to understand who they truly are?
Well first because I believe that I am a systems thinker and creator. I’m also understanding myself more generally by living every day. I feel like that’s a truism. Isn’t everyone always learning more about themselves by living every day, by the simple fact that they’re living every day?
Paradoxically though, why does it feel like we know less and less about ourselves the more we discover about ourselves? Might it be because of the exponential connection rate in a neural network type of system?
Hmm, in this neural network pattern, many of the nodes are connected to each other. But the nodes that we see are simply the nodes that we know exist. However, when we discover something about ourselves that’s tangential to 2 other nodes, it’s like a node appears on the “line” in between the 2 existing nodes.
But a line is nothing really but an infinite series of nodes. We think there is a line between 2 notes but really it’s a series of infinite nodes in between. Those yet-to-be-discovered nodes is in life those moments we discover beliefs about ourselves, our past experiences. Those are hidden or latent nodes.
We see the system and think that’s us. But when we discover another deeper belief, there’s a node that appears that creates more clarity of how we got from one thought / belief in our lives to another.
This neural network is really the 3D representation of the 2D Belief Tree that I had last time.
So how do we create it? Well I think with most things, we need to add a dimension at a time. 1D would be just a point or node. In this case, just having these beliefs listed out is good enough. Then let’s make it 2D. That would be lines connecting those nodes, or the branches in the tree.
[10 min ideating & sketching]
The tree is like the dimension of a cylinder that’s shown as a rectangle, if it was 2D. So the tree is also 2D. The h in V = 𝝅r^2*h is the why, which I’ve established before. If r = how, which I’ve also established, then it’s...
The nodes are what I believe. That’s 1D. Asking why of those beliefs creates a 2D structure like the tree. Asking how is essentially the context, or with beliefs, the life domain. This creates the 3D structure. The entirety of it, both the surface area and the volume is the who.
[10 min of more ideating & sketching]
When in this 2D representation, it’s essentially the duplication and updating of this Belief Tree.
Hmmmm. Is why and when really the same question? At least in regards to beliefs. Asking why traces it deeper and deeper, but it involves a function of time. So the further deeper you go with why, the further back in time you go. So that being a r^2 term makes sense then.
Maybe we need to deconstruct the r^2 and r^3 terms. These are in the context of perfect spheres. But what if I bring in my shape theory from a few weeks ago? r1 = why, r2 = when. I need where and how terms.
I feel like r3 = where. That would be consistent with time and space being constructs.
Well...are where and how really the same question as well?
[15 min of thinkitation]
‘How’ is the relation to other beliefs. How those beliefs form. The number of connections. ‘Where’ is the intersection of which and when. The space in between the translation of the how of the beliefs.
(Sphere that encompasses everything is the who. So it answers the question “who am I?”)
[other sketches]
I can picture this in my head, so I just need to flush this fully out and visualize it for myself and others at some point.
LOL. Well to answer the original question, I basically just created the rough foundational framework to do just that.
Kommentare