Progress, in a sense, has been made from last month: I've realised that creating the promised maximally æsthetically pleasing 3-D form can't be done in a contextual vacuum. An object's æsthetics is based upon its specific use to us, whether in nature (sexual attractiveness, providential environments, etc.) product design (form follows function) or (genuine) art (the selected concretisation of abstract ideas, ultimately nourishing us with the ammunition to face life well — rather than abstractions upon abstraction which merely muddle us further). Even if I succeed in producing a perfect spiralling 3-D form, exhibiting ideal dynamic symmetry from every viewpoint, it's perfect for what? I can't help but imagine myself within it's space, its architecture, looking for the best place to repose or look out from; or holding it in my hand to trace its smooth contours with my fingers. It's never just pure spatial relationships, I'm always judging its æsthetics upon my imagined physical interaction with it and its particular usefulness to me.
Hence, we can't evade the question — “what is the form for, what is its context for my life?”
My earlier enterprise of trying to concretise the structure of Objectivism at least offers one answer to that question.
Back to the drawing-board
I'm currently attempting to convey the structure of Objectivism in the simplest way possible ~ basic shapes in black/white.
The animation above alludes to the flipping of purviews between the axioms of existence and consciousness (the third person view and the first person view). I think this also echoes the philosophical branches of Metaphysics and Epistemology respectively (their symbiotic relationship). Here there is no priority set yet, just a hola-hoop loop engulfing each other in turn. It's work in progress ~ the third axiom of identity hasn't yet emerged to bridge the two.