I was checking out some diagrams by William Irwin Thompson the other day e.g. a triangle and inverted triangle labeled Cosmos and Chaos respectively (Pacific Shift, Sierra Club Books, 1985 -- Appendix).If that makes sense, then Fuller's "entropy = one negative tetrahedron" shouldn't be so hard to fathom, yet Arthur Loeb pokes fun at that in his introduction to Synergetics, as symptomatic of the work's supposed incomprehensibility.
Just turn those Thompson triangles into tetrahedra, duh, and you've got a handle on it (now adding "tetrahedra" to the computer's spellchecker dictionary -- again duh (nor was spellchecker itself a word, double duh)). Then read the Omnidirectional Halo essay again? Too hard for Princeton Philosophy, even in 2007? No way!
A lot of brilliant writers who might have done much to weave Bucky's brand with their own -- in the wake of Hugh Kenner's brilliant beginning (The Pound Era), and Applewhite's best shots (Cosmic Fishing, Chemical Intelligencer not to mention Synergetics itself (a collaboration)) -- chose to not do that, at least not effectively. Robert Anton Wilson helped a lot.
Anyway, that left the field wide open for a guy like me to capitalize on this crying need for strong branding, so I suppose I shouldn't complain too much.
