My overarching doubt is about the suitability of any visual model for conveying the structure of Objectivism, rather than a written explanation. However, this apprehension would evaporate if indeed the eventual pudding proves to be fulfilling when eaten.
But there remains a number of incongruous aspects of the current ‘cubic spiral’ in articulating the structure of Objectivism:
- Spheres would be more expedient than cubes as they are the simplest, most faceless of 3-D forms.
- Shapes (representing the table's arguments) ought to bud internally, like a Matryoshka doll, rather than split off. For example, currently the largest cube represents the universe of existence, so how could other cubes possibly diverge from that.
- Model ought to be one in which viewer can imagine ‘walking-through’, be architecturally coherent, rather than inconceivable configurations.
- The current spiral is open-ended, yet some sort of link back between metaphysics and æsthetics would tie-up loose ends in a fitting way.
- There is a lack of mutual dynamism within the sets of threes (apart from the easily missed initial animation of reciprocal growth/shrinkage).
- There is an estrangement between model and explanatory tables. They ought to be more integrated somehow.
- Obviously it currently lacks deeper content which the tables presently only hint at.
- It lacks pleasure of engagement (other than turning the shapes around). This could be resolved by introducing a game-like interaction (perhaps the viewer must work at keeping the model in focus, and is rewarded æsthetically for doing so).
- An equivocation remains about my choice of colour (and type of surface texture) for each argument, but I suppose a choice just has to be made and stuck to.
I'll see if I can tackle some of these next time…
.
.
.