5 Star in a Pentagon
Suggestive Geometric Properties
5 branches star within an pentagon has interesting geometric properties. One can use it when wanting to close a definition, review an integration of inclusion of a delimited object in the space of a plan, or map, examine both continuous and alternate sequences. You can pass from one branch to the following by the pentagon or jump to next following by the edge of a branch. In a system of 3 arguments, you can intermediate; that is to say put between 2 something, which can be a measure, an action or a prevention. Intuitively, number 5 is related to gold number; out of esoterism, intuitive propertives are promising.
Also angle's' geometric property, from one branch to following one is less than 90°. Remind from ortho-norm, that independent events picture are geometrically orthogonal. Think for example that after non correlation as shown by right angles extracted independent variables making a given complex unit (4 if our model is a plane map, 6 if our model ic a volumic map) if still with same complex unit, in an intuitive euclidean system, we are now with "independent positive details" all unrelated 2 by 2 or opposed and all to one complex object. Without any complicated formulation we have nevertheless an abstract intuitve picture for concept, better the visual form suggest properties and wish them to be objective ones (scientific) or subjective ones, that we could like to managed for our sake.
With 5 branches stars approaching an object, imagined the object picture by a plane consistent model, this apprroach no more use ortho-normal independent explaining varibles. That is, if the model of object is consistently represented by a plane and the consistent approach with 5 explaining variables, than variables (in the ideal case), one respect to another, do not structure as independent. Approach the object with 5 star construction by bordering since one branch to another explore all branches but jumping that in the sequence of 1_ 3_5_ 2_4. Observe that if each branch limit de previous and following one with 1_3 we have conceptually delimited branch . 2 In other words we draw the star just following the hedges crossing around, in the center of the star. So we can observe there is a turn around exploration and a relation crossing within exploration.
Indeed it is to make sense to such sort of exploration of geometric properties, not because we want to know everything about properties of pure geometric forms but because this has sense: from time to time Nature show ideal and "clean" geometric forms giving them sense, meanwhile most natural patterns has some but confuse then. Not necesarilly by spirit of contradiction or because non rational. Only human has expected foolishly that perfection of simple geometric supports, exclusively own rationnality and made most of people refusing or unable to use them in a proper way.
See also an interesting analogy of intercalation: between 2 points tops (apexes) of star's branch, there is a middle, something you can use to point an concept (intermediate, specifying). So, at first a ternary structure (a triangle or 3 branches star as opening a doubt between the binary yes & no. Than intermediate between each pair, we step to 5. This comes like operative intention in an analytic frame.
Intermediation can also be between cause and effect when they often look like (in confused reality). There would be an interface (or switch) and a come-and-go between cause and effect or iterated switches of status (like introduced by small dynamic asymmetry inducing cycling). A program will often consider sort of actions concerning intermediation, interposition or interface between cause and the effect and vary their relative status.
For example of a health treatment: the cause an agent of an illness is intervened (direct effect) or prevented to get in or helped to get out, and so on. The effect illness carried by the patient, has also characteristics that can be relevant: illness of some are the risk for others and so on. Interface or relation, will be something like risks factors defined as exposure, degree of contact of the patient, quantified risks of behavior. Operativelly it will be treatment, prophylaxis, asepty, antisepty, hygien. It is important in prevention, to avoid contamination or modify behaviors to reduce risk.
5 branch star is practically very useful to review a circles (virtuous or vicious), to try to get out, examine if jumped combinations could suggest new approaches. For example Cause - relation - Effect. Quite often, in many social situations, there are no perfect definition of effect or cause ("you are! - no! you are"). Many because our abstract is just cannot differentiate that. It is never to miss feedback, feedforward, cycles and flows. Contamination of environnment especially meaningfull to human health come from humans themselves. Intermediation can have switch, cause turns effect, drugs in excess kills you, ill people turn the cause of human transmission. So measures to avoid contamination and curative treatments turn preventions of other exposed people...
Action is often an intermediation be it something to identify, differentiate or set equivalent. Like: I want to go from A to B. There is a intermediate on the road with C, is it essential or could it be shortcut? are from A to C and C to B the same as AB ? in a complex world scarcelly not, almost never and good humane economy is not insisting on pretending it ("over their dead body").
Care Use of Picture's Look
Mind that you set what is called a number or cardinal operations. On one perspective of approach; some cardinal can be arbitrary. Like when grounded more on your intentions and criteria than on scientific issues. It is your right to set it as you like; if it seems to you better for your program. But it is also to assume your responsabilities and your mistakes to not care scientific ground including to pretend be not scientific the plastic way humanity behave. Should the society well structured flexibly not to harm others and others not prevent neither waste neither despise your honnest efforts. While if making efforts, not to be too ashamed of things are not easy: good individuals could be absolved (after having been burned or lynched).
There are 2 perspectives that make cardinals number of component or number of options (in olicognograph or only the pannel of options at hand) not so at random. One reason is with the scientific ground. A second is because economy: you need various options you cannot maintain too many unbalanced and independent for being against. Another reason is that the problem you have to care or mimic have non random numbers of composition. Say if you use one hand to count, normally you have five fingers. If you consider physical forces you may know that they are 4 put in evidence etc. Other perspectives are practical. Facing a complex situations you try to cope with different aspects but too many are not manageable you may develop with modularity, but not with non manageable numbers of options.
We try not to be so simple like insisting on you to use only 1 or 2 arguments ("my decision the only rationnal one and your's a mistake). Remind that until very recently perfect unique-minded World Affairs have lead us to many efforts dedicated to stabilize a free, perfect because the best most dynamic financial system that is "structurally non stable": the opposite of expected: smooth abruptness.
So intuitive management limits series of points but better because of scientific ground. Not of the sort we pretend, neither the privileged scientists or public (individual private free riders) abusers require. Nature is not uneconomical. Limited issues also because, cognitivily we proceed so: can manage options but not an infinite number of them. This may coincide with how cultures have historically proceeded or our future prospect or hypothesis. Cognitive processes switch fast from one register to another. But at one moment only a limited set of options can be treated. What we need in these processes is fixing transiently time and manage as fast as possible ad hoc information. Should this be made just reducing in ways absurd to citizens and arbitrary to experts ? - No !
Is there tips, tricks and mnemonic ressources to help in the management of diversity of arguments? - Religion and symbolism may have not proceed differently when managed symbolic numbers as mnemonic cardinals which, even when not with purpose of esoteric interpretations, are rituals' practices that could make more easy paradigmatic understanding.
To observe that christians will often like to manage systems of 2 (manicheism) and 4 values (the Holy cross). They have also Holy Trinity. Jewish religion has also Holy Trinity and too systems of 6 values (as 2 mixed triangles) and 7 as characteristic number. Islam has a trinity ((with Allah, Muhamad and the Holy Quran) it is also at ease with crescent (2), 5 branches star and 8 octogon (as double square). All can be symbolic mnemonic resources for cardinal setting of your graphs.
Practical Use and Help Oneself to Design Programs that Could be Managed
No intent here to make any judgment of value on Religion or civilization, but to mind that numbers properties are something typically human and not so extraordinary. If mathematics could be most advanced abstraction it is not perfect in infinite projection; even mathematicians have demonstrated the limits of their formal science.
Back to the usefulness of 5 branches star and pentagon approach, observe that our mental practice find it suggestive for integration, be this only the 5 fingers of our hand, do not feel ashame to count moving your fingers, it shows that you try, etc.
