I have found it very interesting and useful.

Thanks

Radhika Fofalia

nice post and great information thank you very much.

http://generalclick.blogspot.com/2009/01/earth-for-energy.html

aloha all - been a lover of Bucky Fuller since 1971 WG seminar at SIU, Carbondale. 3 ways i share BF design Science -
1. analyzing how nature works in our bioregion.
2. Analyzing any whole systems: transpo, recycling, energy, food, water & local industry: sources, process & results of meeting local needs;
3. Permaculture is traditional natural designing homesteads for growing food in balance with local climate cycles of food-webs.
4. Natural energy geometry designs with making & using toys,domes, crystals, grafix, photos, etc. i now live in 8ft wooden geodome on mini farm with: cow, chickens, ducks & garden.

micheal sunanda Oness press, see many free webooks efn.org/~ecozma/sunergy
prod of "I Seem to be A Verb" on BF radio series on KZEL/KSAN 70s

I am trying to create a drawing of a Geodesic dome with 12 divisions of the base of the coupled sperical equilateral triangles.

I could draw the dome with all the strut segments as explained in some notes I had with me.

The strut lenghts match

I am trying to calculate the degrees at which the strut lengths meet so that I can design a node which can join the five and six struts ( as in a space frame ball.)

I have found out that the degrees in the strut lengts vary from 53 to 65 degrees and that I will have to design 13 diffrent kinds of nodes to make this dome

I want you to help me clarify this matter and send me any data you have on the nodes, their types and typically hoe you have addressed this problem?

Milind Upasani

Nick,

On the issue of intention:

Of course intention could be self-serving. But this is the whole point! The whole difference is in whether the motivation for a particular design is only self centered and ego driven, or whether the objective is broader and more encompassing then the self. In the case of Fuller, the objective of “Design Science” was, emphatically, to take effective care of 100% of humanity, and the planet as a whole.

Michael Ben-Eli

Dear Nick,

Thank you for your comment.

Without assuming to talk on behalf of either, I would suggest that there is a great deal of convergence between Fuller’s design philosophy and Ackoff’s view of planning. The point of convergence is in that Fuller’s concept of a “preferred state” and Ackoff’s notion of “idealized Design” seems to entail a similar idea, that of projecting a desired, future situation, then designing a way to achieve it (see page 41 of the document). This is very different from merely focusing on an existing problem and trying to fix it within its existing, familiar context

One important difference in these two bodies of work,is that Fuller put his emphasis on the design of “artifacts” -- physical structures -- in order to demonstrate his ideas, whereas Ackoff was concerned with the design and optimization of social organizations.

From a bird's eye view, however, the object of a design process (physical structure or a social organization) appears to be less important then the design approach itself (even if, granted, there are important differences between dealing with communities of human beings, and the invention of artifacts).

In any event, I suspect that practitioners would do best by learning from both of these great system thinkers, and using what is most relevant to a particular design problem with which they are involved, adding to the mix a good measure of their own, unique creativity.

Michael Ben-Eli

greetings:

i listened to russell ackoff's idealized vision of planning at the world game 1977 in philadelphia; it seems,that what comes under the rubric of the world game is still ackoff's approach of planning? i did not work with fuller diirectrly other than attend his lectures and some participation in his world games, which included a three out of six week workshop in phily. due to a a serious car accident of a close friend i left. And three years ago i participated in medard gabel's design science lab workshop. it seems, buckminster fuller was probing for approaches to make this vision of making the world work for everyone... russel ackoff claims that his approach tests out as the most effective on planning?
it seems the work you have laid out on design science is a broad overview; from what i can gather of you representation, if there is intention some form of planetary planning can come into being? of course intention often is self serving, and not otherwise minded???
when i attended the 1978 world game in amherst, ma ian mcharg talked; one statement by him still holds in my memory, which was to effect "here we have the mass assemblance of intelligence on the planet and not an iota of it used anywhere?
what do you suppose is the next step?

Joshua,

You will recall Fuller’s use of the example of a bee, which goes after pollen to satisfy its individual, in-built drive, unaware of the larger purpose it fulfills in the process, that of cross pollination.

I suspect that in the same way, a “design science” practitioner can do excellent work without being consciously preoccupied with the question of “an implicated higher order.” The notion is essential, however, for a complete description of Bucky’s concept of Design Science since it bears directly on his speculative thinking regarding the function of humans in Universe, a central tenet in his philosophy.

Fuller saw this function as an anti-entropic balancing act having to do with a unique, capability of creating local order. This concept was shared, incidentally, by Norbert Wiener, the father of Cybernetics, and it is also echoed in various wisdom traditions, for example, the concept of “tikun olam” -- repairing of the worlds -- in the Jewish Kabbalah tradition. Any such concept assumes some consistent, “orderly” meta-framework, hence that inevitability.

Yes to the follow up question.

Michael Ben-Eli

Michael,
Do you think that to be an effective practitioner of design science its essential to perceive the "inevitability of an implicated higher order"? (as per slide 11 of the ppt or slide 14 in the Slideshare viewer) The next slide ( 14 or 16) refers again to a "higher order underlying Universe" which is followed by a quote from Spinoza which refers to "all things ....are made by the infinite nature of God".

From a *practical* perspective, when you identify a sense of "higher order" and "cosmic religious feeling" which Fuller, Spinoza, Einstein and others perceived, are you essentially referring to the presence of general principles and the ethical obligation to use our best efforts to discover and employ them in everything we design?
Thanks,
Joshua