esthetic of core olicognographs in this web site
olicognographs should turn progressively interactives. First frame is static, we also must invent its internal operation. Created for local purpose and for looking like attrative for a book, they will appear at fisrt as coloured pictures (as they are in our tool box). This may have other marginal developments but this is not essentiel (?) and will disappear while the development.
simple graph? complex?
Still simple graph is not just made of completely independant nodes and same weight links. Like if in a triangular disposition any node can have the same weight and any link too. Graph will have directed links, nodes different weights, pathways can be speficied to reach all parts in common olicognograph. Also as explained in the management of olicognograph, you fill the complex logical unit of a system. Be this objective (a body, a delimited structure) or virtual; so wholesome; trying to include sensible environment, extend of your possibilities and in abstract reasonable extend of your perspective; that we think manageable if not too extended (like by ideological ambitions of "soft" theories). The reason why to prefer communities systems, private sincere commitments (but pursuing a concern for social sense of utility and common humanity), regional level of programming, with care of precautions, not ignoring doubts.
logic of successive layers?
You are somehow free to organize them, but should seek a balance. You can understand that making core safe concepts with basic essential physics concepts you will anchored better to realities, but not to miss criteria that would come form higher, often call "human values". Now if you start you core with values very specific to some philosophical system applied to abstract categories and theories you may at the interface of practice and theories be surprise that not match well with more primitive and more essential unit like human being, community's mental health and so on. Like when sociologist you must also care that the communities where you are have also to solve basic problems with appropriated solutions where your innovation can have some part. Your concern is not to avoid it or ask to be missed or expect them to change their culture, deterministically; but to see eventually how they could appropriate "freely" with something enough plastic for being adapted by them. Of course you must care that where they are, their way of doing things can be, in fact, better adapted.
Are they better forms of olicognographs?
Yes always but no as freely psychedelic. Scientific roots inspire some layers and there not with whatever cardinal to apply. For example if you want a macro energy view you will have necesarrilly energy - material - information. Than to get in detail not as you want in an esoteric way. With softer human abstract values, the anchors are more with consensus, share values, democratic will. But our modern society have quite systematically developped according the unique mindedness that solution, one good way, program or miraculous intervention could solve any and everything. That may be your faith option, but in practical things do not pretend you: human, mimic omniscience, omnipotence even in a special register of excelence and pretend that doing everything with unique value sense of monotheism: God's will is not your individual one's. So for human solutions do not all take the same omnibus. In complexity what works in reality may inspire but may not work tomorrow; can be imitated but not blindly. The democratic process has this purpose clear cleverness and share adaptations while not always with the same essential mistakes.
Up to down and down to up?
If to anchor properly essential scientific concepts, it is good to obtain frame from "specialists" either working together in a multidisciplinarian way and enough aware that final users have rights and may have logical cultural systems providing, not necessarilly wrong, definitions and mistakes. So they may provide safer core values, real information to support local appropriations. The reason why we think that at first fixed or static proposals can come from up, especially shape, then down, labels can be changed and structures adapted somehow preserving some coherence. So once logical interfaces like olicognographs provided they are made dynamic under manipulations, redesign, adaptation, changed and assumed by communities. Then we may put in evidence sort of more complicated patterns, not necessarilly very differents out of local specifications and identifications. Even fundamental physics shows now that things are not so simple as said by determinist (dictators) of "pensée unique": those pretending to stay forever the best in their intellectual elitism.
Present olicognographs too sophisticated?
During more than 10 years we work both looking at high formal ideas and close to modest humane things. High formal "investigation" were more for an epistemological understanding and for visual essential logical structures within complexity. We worked also a lot at primary level of communities. So we have plenty of more adaptable olicognographic frameworks; and will progressivelly put them into this website, especially with some popular treatment of some packages. Now to bring scientific essential concepts it is better to have some "rigorous scientific design" despite these visual supports could look like weird, at first glance. Then, from these designs, make a more simple version for popular use. Meawhile developing software programs behind the screen (we will do what we can, with no warranty ... but we think we have some ideas). Frames are for local democracy but also should be a show something and suggest patterns that can help us to provide basic essential adapted knowledge. Now, turning dynamic and plastic, the manipulations of a standard may maintain some coherence and eventually detect cultural patterns; not imposed by a paradigm from any cartesian-reductionist "more civilized" occidental pseudo-continental area of the world, either a pseudo-empirical executiveness from a "best civilized" area turned global. Both have their merits and defects but science is no more suggest that this is the only ways. Also to mind that to go on, we need to be in some kind of culture, somehow not rigid, with information and openmind to multidisciplinarity. A good frame, as plastic as it could be, is not, even ideographically, without sensical logic. Just this is not binarily complex because this sort of complexity, if honnest is too long for our perplexity. For the moment and in soft ways it is too short for being honnest.