[Edu-sig] RE: Pygame, gameMaker etc.

[Arthur]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: edu-sig-bounces at python.org [mailto:edu-sig-bounces at python.org] On
> Behalf Of Kirby Urner
> 
> Fuller's goal, on the other hand, was to come up with a coherent geometric
> language (a prose form) that'd describe whatever:  trees, stars, dust
> mites...

Help me.  Can you recommend source material that might help me understand
what you are saying?  What might you mean by "coherent geometric language"?
If it is to be coherent, presumably it is also accessible.  I am not
unwilling to dig, but have not so far found that coherence.  

What I tend to see is a focus on regular polyhedra and their properties.
And in Fuller's famous domes he seems to have discovered structural
properties - in the engineering sense - of certain regular space lattices
that had been formerly overlooked.  Overlooked by human engineers, that is -
apparently they are being found in nature at the microcosmic level.

How am I doing, and what am I missing?

Am I looking at it in the wrong way, looking for coherence in the manner of
the mathematical traditional, where in the end the actual focus of Fuller
is more descriptive and engineering related?      

> 
> The concentric hierarchy stuff I dwell on in my hypertoons is
> regular/rigid
> (except the jitterbug plays on joint flexibility) and embeds in a frozen
> lattice of CCP spheres.  Crystallography mostly.  Plus a basic grounding
> in
> coordinate systems and spatial relationships.  Geometry 101.

I guess that's a little what bothers me.

A) It is pleasing, but not necessarily easy.
B) Geometry, to me, needs to be presented as purposeful.  Purposeful being
very different from practical.  But purposeful in being the working out of
the logical implications of a limited set of propositions. That's what makes
it geometry, not drawing or engineering. And I guess that the part not
necessarily getting through to me from Fuller and Kirby.

FWIW.

Art