The myriad lists which are such a major and conspicuous part of the materials of ideonomy - such as the four that were included in "Point To Extreme Possibilities" (the section of the book "Ideonomy" that discusses the its 'Extremes and Malistology' subdivision) - must not be thought of as mere statuary. Their true importance in the science of ideas lies instead in the ability of their entries (simple ideas), and of the entries of other lists (really 'ideosets') of complementary kind, to be combined by devices called 'ideonomic formulas' in the systematic generation of enormous numbers of compound and complex potential ideas, or 'ideonomic propositions'. In other words, they should be viewed primarily as the parts, or orchestratable input, of complex ideonomic machinery. Their true fascination lies in their immense fertility, or in the contribution they can make to the fantastic cognitive and creative power of ideonomy, when used with ingenuity, skill, and insight. Ideonomic formulas can be endlessly diverse, complex, and sophisticated; but this is not the place to touch on such things, and here only the simplest example will be provided and points made. The powerful statistical techniques and huge sets of data which normally govern these formulas and their products, will make no appearance. Instead, random numbers have been allowed to operate the formulas in the installation of list items, and in the fabrication of primitive propositions which, individually, will have relatively low likelihood of being meaningful, appropriate, or important, or 'ideas' of any real worth. But COLLECTIVELY, even these crude propositions should stimulate in readers' minds pertinent and interesting ideas about "Extremes", and provide helpful intuitive glimpses of how ideonomy, the lists, and the formulas are meant to work - and come alive through the magic of combinatorics and metaphor. Like a mathematical formula, an ideonomic formula has 'constant' and 'variable' elements. The constant elements define its basic structure, whereas the variables represent points, beside or among these constant terms, where items are drawn from lists and inserted, in cycles of production of would-be ideas (the 'ideonomic propositions'). If such a formula has four variables it is 'tetradic', and the propositions it parents 'tetrads'. In the following illustrative and introductory 'ideonomic exercise', the four lists dealing with Extremes that have already mentioned WILL BE PUT TO WORK (they have been adapted to have the same length, and these modified versions can be seen at the end of all this). The resulting set of 29 propositions, which are the ultimate concern here, were created wholly at random and have not been winnowed or modified in any way (in fact, the writer has not even bothered to look at them, so he will share a reader's surprise over whatever merits they have or lack). The tetradic "ideonomic formula" used here is: 1. Do extremes in *LIST (A)* of *LIST (B)* involve *LIST (C)*? INTEREST: Do *LIST (D)*?
The same formula, arranged in a column with its 10 parts: FIRST FORMULA 'CONSTANT': 1. Do extremes in FIRST FORMULA 'VARIABLE': *LIST (A)* SECOND FORMULA 'CONSTANT': of SECOND FORMULA 'VARIABLE': *LIST (B)* THIRD FORMULA 'CONSTANT': involve THIRD FORMULA 'VARIABLE': *LIST (C)* FOURTH FORMULA 'CONSTANT': ? FIFTH FORMULA 'CONSTANT': INTEREST: Do FOURTH FORMULA 'VARIABLE': *LIST (D)* SIXTH FORMULA 'CONSTANT': ?
Here is the formula once again, but with the titles of the four lists (ideosets) inserted, to show the actual logical and semantic syntax of the formula, by means of which it generated the (randomly chosen) 29 'ideonomic propositions': 1. Do extremes in *(A) ILLUSTRATIVE [GENERAL OR UNIVERSAL] DIMENSIONS OF EXTREMES, WHOSE [SINGULAR OR PLURAL] [MAXIMUMS AND MINIMUMS] MIGHT BE WORTH INVESTIGATING* of *(B) IDEONOMY COULD HELP TO [DETERMINE OR TREAT] THE MOST EXTREME [DEGREES OF OR POSSIBILITIES FOR] SUCH THINGS AS* involve *(C) TYPES OF THINGS THAT MAY HAPPEN AT EXTREMES ARE MULTITUDINOUS* ? INTEREST: Do *(D) INTEREST OF EXTREMES, OR IMPORTANCE OF THEIR STUDY* ?
Finally, here is the formula recompacted, to more directly show how the 29 'ideonomic propositions' listed were mass-produced by it (compare the "1. formula" above with the corresponding "1. proposition" below it). 1. Do extremes in *(A) ILLUSTRATIVE [GENERAL OR UNIVERSAL] DIMENSIONS OF EXTREMES, WHOSE [SINGULAR OR PLURAL] [MAXIMUMS AND MINIMUMS] MIGHT BE WORTH INVESTIGATING* of *(B) IDEONOMY COULD HELP TO [DETERMINE OR TREAT] THE MOST EXTREME [DEGREES OF OR POSSIBILITIES FOR] SUCH THINGS AS* involve *(C) TYPES OF THINGS THAT MAY HAPPEN AT EXTREMES ARE MULTITUDINOUS*? INTEREST: Do *(D) INTEREST OF EXTREMES, OR IMPORTANCE OF THEIR STUDY*?
Here is what resulted from the use of the formula (you may find it useful to refer back to the remarks in the book section that accompanied the four lists, for a better sense of how to look at these unusual items, which represent a very novel type of intellectual material): "29 TETRADIC IDEONOMIC PROPOSITIONS PRODUCED BY COMBINING 4 IDEOSETS" 1. Do extremes in *creation* of *cellular automata* involve *clarification and reconstruction of the foundations of things*? INTEREST: Do they clarify the fundamental [dimensions and structure] of nature? 2. Do extremes in *perfection* of *rates of bioevolutionary [innovation or change]* involve *antisyzygies*? INTEREST: Do they supply a larger framework for thought? 3. Do extremes in *tolerance* of *oscillations of the global economy* involve *novel combinations of [phenomena, entities, types of behavior]*? INTEREST: Do they provide tests of the robustness of one's knowledge of the world? 4. Do extremes in *work* of *linquistic behavior* involve *accelerations and decelerations*? INTEREST: Do they demonstrate or define the limits of one's or man's means? 5. Do extremes in *flux* of *animal behavior* involve *mutual interactions & interferences of formerly isolated or compatible things*? INTEREST: Do they provide tests of the [rigor, robustness, or exactness] of one's theory of normal phenomena? 6. Do extremes in *redundancy* of *political ideas* involve *excitations and relaxations*? INTEREST: Do they provide tests of the uniqueness of one's knowledge of the world? 7. Do extremes in *reactivity* of *chess strategies or styles* involve *supersedure of local by universal phenomena (or vice versa)*? INTEREST: Do they establish boundary conditions? 8. Do extremes in *activity* of *emotional states* involve *oscillations or random behavior*? INTEREST: Do they diminish the arbitrary element in human perception and experience? 9. Do extremes in *excitation* of *storms or climatic changes* involve *loss or invalidation of familiar perspectives*? INTEREST: Do they point the way to future progress in dimensions of human existence? 10. Do extremes in *identity* of *drugs* involve *weakening or failure of [laws, constants, and principles]*? INTEREST: Do they provide tests of the uniqueness of one's theory of normal phenomena? 11. Do extremes in *youth (or age)* of *human poisons or diseases* involve *modifications of accustomed probabilities or frequencies*? INTEREST: Do they demonstrate or define the limits of one's or man's knowledge? 12. Do extremes in *importance* of *engineering materials* involve *reversals*? INTEREST: Do they provide tests of the universality of one's knowledge of the world? 13. Do extremes in *oscillation* of *energies of elementary particles* involve *inversions*? INTEREST: Do they provide tests of the fundamentality of one's theory of normal phenomena? 14. Do extremes in *universality* of *volcanic eruptions or episodic volcanism in earth's history* involve *remaking of boundaries*? INTEREST: Do they point the way to future progress in dimensions of human existence? 15. Do extremes in *violence* of *social fads and fashions* involve *complications and simplifications*? INTEREST: Do they provide tests of the universality of one's theory of normal phenomena? 16. Do extremes in *reliability* of *statements of certain ideas* involve *singularities*? INTEREST: Do they establish boundary conditions? 17. Do extremes in *integration* of *algorithmic [shortcuts or powers]* involve *new general patterns of things*? INTEREST: Do they [exercise, challenge, develop, and liberate] the mind? 18. Do extremes in *convergence* of *fish shapes* involve *transcendence of former limits and impossibilities*? INTEREST: Do they provide tests of the comprehensiveness of one's theory of normal phenomena? 19. Do extremes in *disappearance* of *solar fluctuations (as of luminosity or volume)* involve *advent of new regimes*? INTEREST: Do they provide tests of the comprehensiveness of one's knowledge of the world? 20. Do extremes in *freedom or independence* of *illusions (as of safety, absence, or necessity)* involve *emergence or relevance of new [laws, constants, or principles]*? INTEREST: Do they demonstrate or define the limits of one's or man's powers? 21. Do extremes in *divergence* of *types of chemical reactions, or forms of molecules* involve *coalescence of a phenomenon with one or more other phenomena*? INTEREST: Do they demonstrate or define the limits of one's or man's theories? 22. Do extremes in *uniformity* of *renderings of musical or other artistic ideas* involve *interactions of wholes and parts, and holistic changes*? INTEREST: Do they provide tests of the [rigor or exactness] of one's knowledge of the world? 23. Do extremes in *symmetry* of *earth's landscapes* involve *diversification or homogenization*? INTEREST: Do they demonstrate or define the limits of one's or man's techniques? 24. Do extremes in *linearity* of *house designs* involve *circumplexes*? INTEREST: Do they supply a larger framework for thought? 25. Do extremes in *efficiency* of "performances in sport* involve *retrogressions*? INTEREST: Do they diminish the arbitrary element in human perception and experience? 26. Do extremes in *potential* of *human good or evil* involve *dissipation or extinction of normal phenomena, replaced by novel ones*? INTEREST: Do they provide tests of the fundamentality of one's knowledge of the world? 27. Do extremes in *synchrony* of *fluctuations of the level or volume of the ocean* involve *destruction of [equilibria, symmetries, equalities, equivalences]*? INTEREST: Do they clarify the fundamental [dimensions and structure] of nature? 28. Do extremes in *transformation* of *tides of public opinion* involve *division of a phenomenon into [distinct or novel] phenomena*? INTEREST: Do they demonstrate or define the limits of one's or man's understanding? 29. Do extremes in *growth* of *reasoning* involve *appearance or proliferation of [exceptions, defects, problems, or errors]*? INTEREST: Do they [exercise, challenge, develop, and liberate] the mind?
And here are the four lists of 'ideosets' - (A), (B), (C), (D) - which the 'ideonomic formula' used to automatically manufacture the above set of 'ideonomic propositions', by randomly inserting tetrads of terms from these sets into the 'variable slots' of the formula's set of 'constant elements': (A) ILLUSTRATIVE [GENERAL OR UNIVERSAL] DIMENSIONS OF EXTREMES, WHOSE [SINGULAR OR PLURAL] [MAXIMUMS AND MINIMUMS] MIGHT BE WORTH INVESTIGATING Activity Convergence Creation Disappearance Divergence Efficiency Excitation Flux Freedom or independence Growth Identity Importance Integration Linearity Oscillation Perfection Potential Reactivity Redundancy Reliability Symmetry Synchrony Tolerance Transformation Uniformity Universality Violence Work Youth (or age)
(B) IDEONOMY COULD HELP TO [DETERMINE OR TREAT] THE MOST EXTREME [DEGREES OF OR POSSIBILITIES FOR] SUCH THINGS AS Algorithmic [shortcuts or powers] Animal behavior Cellular automata Chess strategies or styles Drugs Earth's landscapes Emotional states Energies of elementary particles Engineering materials Fish shapes Fluctuations of the level or volume of the ocean House designs Human good or evil Human poisons or diseases Illusions (as of safety, absence, or necessity) Linquistic behavior Oscillations of the global economy Performances in sport Political ideas Rates of bioevolutionary [innovation or change] Reasoning Renderings of musical or other artistic ideas Social fads and fashions Solar fluctuations (as of luminosity or volume) Statements of certain ideas Storms or climatic changes Tides of public opinion Types of chemical reactions, or forms of molecules Volcanic eruptions or episodic volcanism in Earth's history
(C) TYPES OF THINGS THAT MAY HAPPEN AT EXTREMES ARE MULTITUDINOUS Accelerations and decelerations Advent of new regimes Antisyzygies Appearance or proliferation of [exceptions, defects, problems, or errors] Circumplexes Clarification and reconstruction of the foundations of things Coalescence of a phenomenon with one or more other phenomena Complications and simplifications DESTRUCTION OF [equilibria, symmetries, equalities, equivalences] Dissipation or extinction of normal phenomena, replaced by novel ones Diversification or homogenization Division of a phenomenon into [distinct or novel] phenomena Emergence or relevance of new [laws, constants, or principles] Excitations and relaxations Interactions of wholes and parts, and holistic changes Inversions Loss or invalidation of familiar perspectives Modifications of accustomed probabilities or frequencies Mutual interactions & interferences of formerly isolated or compatible things New general patterns of things NOVEL COMBINATIONS OF [phenomena, entities, types of behavior] Oscillations or random behavior Remaking of boundaries Retrogressions Reversals Singularities Supersedure of local by universal phenomena (or vice versa) Transcendence of former limits and impossibilities Weakening or failure of [laws, constants, and principles]
(D) INTEREST OF EXTREMES, OR IMPORTANCE OF THEIR STUDY They clarify the fundamental [dimensions and structure] of nature. They clarify the fundamental [dimensions and structure] of nature. They demonstrate or define the limits of one's or man's knowledge. They demonstrate or define the limits of one's or man's means. They demonstrate or define the limits of one's or man's powers. They demonstrate or define the limits of one's or man's techniques. They demonstrate or define the limits of one's or man's theories. They demonstrate or define the limits of one's or man's understanding. They diminish the arbitrary element in human perception and experience. They diminish the arbitrary element in human perception and experience. They establish boundary conditions. They establish boundary conditions. They point the way to future progress in dimensions of human existence. They point the way to future progress in dimensions of human existence. They provide tests of the comprehensiveness of one's knowledge of the world. They provide tests of the comprehensiveness of one's theory of normal phenomena. They provide tests of the fundamentality of one's knowledge of the world. They provide tests of the fundamentality of one's theory of normal phenomena. They provide tests of the robustness of one's knowledge of the world. They provide tests of the uniqueness of one's knowledge of the world. They provide tests of the uniqueness of one's theory of normal phenomena. They provide tests of the universality of one's knowledge of the world. They provide tests of the universality of one's theory of normal phenomena. They provide tests of the [rigor or exactness] of one's knowledge of the world. They provide tests of the [rigor, robustness, or exactness] of one's theory of normal phenomena. They supply a larger framework for thought. They supply a larger framework for thought. They [exercise, challenge, develop, and liberate] the mind. They [exercise, challenge, develop, and liberate] the mind.