Been reading through Melanie’s article here:
She describes flipping through the quads to go exhaustively through the positions, and to go through dynamic, companion, dependent pairs.
I read this through and I thought, so, it’s horizontal, is this happening in temporal dimension?
The answer is no, it’s happening in equation space and it has some peculiar implications, I think. Here’s what I mean:
If you have this quad
Then this is the first position and the dynamic pair is A/B <==> CD, to use her basic equation showing a dynamic pair compared to the blend of the other two elements.
So what if you want to do— B/A <==> DC ?
You’d flip through three iterations of the quad to get to
And then and only then, you perform B/A <==> DC
In other words, you’re choice of the elements position in the quad influences the layout
Of the elements in the quad.
To put it another way, the first position in the equation is always a K position, the second always a T position and so forth.
And so on as you flip through to get to Companion and Dependent pairs.
This obviously has implications for external MEST and internal KADT positions. By choosing B/A <==> DC, B, is now in the M and K position. In the prior equation, A/B <==> CD, B was in the E and T positions.
This also means that if you use the equation the wrong way, without flipping the quad to the right iteration, the output might be nonsense.
I found this rather surprising, but I can’t see how she could mean anything else, based on what I’m reading.
NOTE. While I think this is how it works, it may be a built in bias in the model.
The first time I read this through, I thought she was talking about the formation of quads of quads in the structure, but now I don’t think that’s what she’s getting at. She’s getting at the weirder, twisting, Rubiks cube aspect of the quad. I mean, it MAY be related to the structure, but it is certainly fractal/frictal too. The act of looking at the quad and measuring changes the quad, as in quantum theory.
Quadum theory? It’s always really helpful to remember the quad is a set of fields of potential, NOT four neatly drawn squares on a page. From that point of view, it’s only natural that interacting with them would change them.
LATER NOTE. Reading through it again, I actually think she’s crunching a couple of ideas together. She is definitely talking about the formation of the variations, and obviously the Collective View is the spatial family view of the quad one level up.
On the road, I’ll write some more on this in a bit as I dope this out.