One hour recording of my recent progress, attempting to interpret Euler’s formula as a description of the moving moment of mind.

There’s not much explanation of the mathematical terms, eg e, i. Focus is on the interpretation of the established form of mathematics. For me, a foothold into measurement: the temporal dimension of the period of time for a thought, or a collection of thoughts.

The four phases I’ve covered in Time Walkers and elsewhere. The bit I’m honing in is the receptive projective phase, where our ability to perceive (evolved as we were animals) enables us to make sense of the physical (as well as other aspects) of the world. In terms of the moving moment of listening, it is the pre-conscious processing which occurs before conceptual or primary attention is ‘notified’. The phase before conceptual distinctions are made, complex network of associations are somehow referred to or evoked. Within this phase, is a human sharing where I locate the sense of ‘we’ which we need to cultivate. Locating this mathematically, within the psycho-social field, will be a big win for us.

The question which must always be returned to: is this a model of mind, or a reflection of it, the so called Reflexive Imposition. The point of XQ is not to create a model of the mind. The point is to reflect on the mathematical structures which we have produced, and within them witness patterns of mind.

The process I’ve been following for a few weeks appears to be breaking the Reflexive Imposition, and appears to lean towards modelling the mind. Just in the same way the mathematical forms were requisitioned for the study and control of electro-magnetic phenomena. Will this lead to equations of mind? I doubt it. They are too simplistic. But I am a man stumbling around in the dark. There is a possible path to connect this to Fourier Transforms, but I just don’t have the familiarity to explore this properly. It is a stretch as it is. Another connection has been Generative Adversarial Networks, from a completely different angle. I suspect mathematicians and computer scientists are honing in on simulations of mind purely through iterative engineering experiments, with very little internal, reflexive appreciation of how they individually work. Perhaps I am doing them a disservice. I would not be surprised to find that my crude explorations are rudimentary structures taught to first year undergraduates studying AI, at least the algorithms; I remain sceptical that an internal appreciation of mind is part of the course.

Will we see these kinds of equations and explorations being explored by PhD students in mathematics departments within a decade? I’d like to think so, but I know it is purely fantastical speculation.


I’ve reminded myself of logarithmic functions, fractions in the derivation of Shannon’s derivation of entropy or theory of communication, which also makes use of Bayes Theorem… way too much for me to assimilate.

And I am reminded of Theory of Perception, Powers and Maclennan was it, when considering hierarchies of feedback cycles.

The point of looking at e^pii is to utilise alternative interpretations of mathematical functions and builds, for simple things like circles, cycles, since these are obviously aspects of how we think, how we consciously operate. It should mean, that when we look at mathematical descriptions of AI programming, algorithms, we will be able to see why they actually work, rather than the rather objective, scientific explanation which is based on its output, that it works. We may also be able to attend to eg the maths of electromagnetic fields and draw out the mathematical forms which may provide insight into psycho-social fields.

We’ve got two wow-graphs on the Sqale app so far: the distribution graph and the thanks graph. I had envisaged three originally, and the third has been the hardest to nail down. The previous two I saw years ago; yes, we only coded the thanks graph a couple of months ago, but the library for it has been online for years. I have not seen anything which fits nicely what the projects graph needs to do.

So… after so many years of approaching the problem from different angles (my catching fish method), and facing the end of current funding, I’m opening the task out to others, first with Matt and sharing through Sqale itself.

Here’s a short video intro. I’ll follow it with an assimilation of thinking. It hones in on the minimal parameters of design. I’ll tag on another video which does another intro and then goes over the text material. As always, share through Sqale 🙂

Design Objective

A simple graph which is visible on a phone, understandable by a child, fits into current UI, ie list of projects. Shows individual timeline and collective timelines.

Uses d3.js library without much modification, so that total coding done between 2-4 weeks. Preferably no added features or modules.

preparatory content

Following might be useful to map out the territory.

Check this book (or pod version here) I produced a few years ago. p59 (in pdf) to p69 is the highest level version I’ve come up with. But it is completely impractical. p89 to p93 is the project dependency we were talking about. And useful dependency diagram to think about (p91) — but not that useful for our UI, I don’t think:

Potential Library from d3.js 

  • sankey?
    • perhaps Sankey –
    • sankey with different ways to arrange:
    • vertical sankey –
    • Someone trying to use sankey for people, but failing –
  • traditional
    • elegant gantt chart – 
    • wow, basic timeline, zoomable etc, and 2d space —


Design Elements

Summary of below Blaab:

  • credits support of project; intention towards project (current)
  • project author to other projects, creating parent-child or directory (current)
  • individual ligaments associating projects; v project-decision-basis
  • do-now module
  • soft-dependency of before/after/during ligature (by individual, by governance per project); hard dependency by absolute time
  • governance module (for project-decision-basis)
  • conditional support logic (for delayed support)


More Videos




Share through Sqale




Share through Sqale


The material below is on Sqale — Request Invite if you aren’t part of Sqale.

Paradigm Shift in Listening


Thanks for watching!

Please return to  Sqale  to Value and Comment so that the person who shared this with you can see your Value and Comment. The Share with others who you think might be interested.

This is part of a bundle of videos which are attempting to zone in on ‘We-ness’. Here’s the rest of the  videos in that playlist.

Seeking Documentary Makers

I can’t be bothered creating a specific card for this video. If I do, I’ll link it here.

The basic idea is to put it out through the network, and someone is going to step up at some point. The earlier the better.

Seed, Shoot, Plant

This is the meta, so that we get the idea of how anyone can go from an idea to team formation, to social test. I think this can be tightened, integrated with ABC State. The standard order of three parts of Value, Share and Support are suited for presentation, more like a lecture, and the creation of a non-judgemental space.

This seed-shoot-plan has a different sequence which operates a different social purpose: from idea to crowd-sourcing, to crowd-testing. It is invitational. Perhaps we should call it the Invitational, or innovation, or co-creative protocol?

Social Neuron

As described, this is a very rough brief of what is required. If you are interested, get in touch. I’ll post a specific link to this video here.

Action Cycle

This is an example of the Seed Protocol. I present the basic notion of the card game, which is quite well developed in this case. Folks are invited to take part in Part 2, where the exact rules are gone over, and perhaps people have variations, responses etc. And then anyone who wants to sets up a real world Action Cycle in an organisation (or a network), and we record it as Part 3. The documentary folk might be interested in this material; obviously the more professional the better.

I’ve created a specific card for this on Sqale. And I’ve added this video to the Action Cycle site.

All the material below is linked to a card on Sqale: click here for an invite.

Part 1


Thanks for watching!

Please return to Sqale to Value and Comment so that the person who shared this with you can see your Value and Comment. It is like a mini-review which will help everyone else who see this video. Please do this before proceeding onto part 2.

Your decision to watch part 2 is entirely yours. You owe no responsibility to the person who shared this with you, or me the author of the video. This is the source of our individual power, the moment we each of us occupy between past and future, the internal state of personal evaluation and judgement, and the transition from what our friend thought and felt and valued and what you think and feel and value.

Part 2


Thanks again! Please return to Sqale before watching part three, to organically Share this with people you know who might value this. Sharing before watching part 3 changes how you experience part 3.

Your decision to Share is the source of our social power, the active means by which we influence the social stream within which we are in. Our evaluation may influence others who come across our review; your Organic Sharing is directed and conscious and active, requesting attention and time from those we know. Choose well!

Part 3


Your decision to watch part 3 is a collective decision. What results from our collective viewing  is social change.

Feel free to use this structure of three parts to invite others to evaluate, co-create, and explore a natural way of sharing and making a world we all wish to live in, for all our children and their children in turn.

Observations on forming an operational team for Armagetron.


All of the observations about the game, player journey, tournament is great, but so what?

Well, what if we do something like the equivalent of the launch in Fort? We align to one objective, we grind, and then split up to do different tasks. Form a team of committed individuals. Some of us are interested in attack (new player engagement), others more in defence (tech admin), and there are folks like me who really shouldn’t be on the grid because my skills aren’t up to it, but I do offer something strategic. I facilitate pretty well.

If we get a team of 6 or so folks who are game, what are the rules of engagement?

No negative

Everyone’s contribution is good, otherwise they wouldn’t contribute it. There is a tendency to respond to statement A with not-A but B. The ‘not-A’ implies opposite. This opposite is a veto. And when a group of people (or a company) need to get things done, the power of veto is usually restricted from lower levels of hierarchy so that the executive’s decisions can be actioned. Since we do not have an ‘executive’, the power veto in a collective is the common cause for lack of movement by the collective. The way around this is to acknowledge that there is A, and there is B, and there are a whole bunch of other perceptions, evaluations, and observations. Our action are tied to those observations. Thus, we must be very careful about avoiding oppositional state mentally, so that we can clarify what our options of action are, and then prioritise them.


Social evidence by giving it a go. We give the suggestions a go in the most appropriate order, and we see what the result is. The ladle is an example of this. People said it could not work because ‘you can’t trust the players’. I went ahead anyway (which is rare for me) and enough players made it happen. The evidence of the happening, the first ladle, was enough for people to repeat it. It is not the core structure of the ladle technically that is important, it is the collective of participants who make it happen which is important. The social result. So, we need to be committed to the social result.
Degree of commitment. This one is tricky. My suggestion is 1 million player tournament. It is a beyond realistic objective, which means that if it happens, it is because of actions beyond my capacity or practical reach. And, I would guess, beyond the locus of control of the team, and thus necessarily invites the active participation of others. In fact, I think if we stick to self-organised principles, it depends on the 1 million players. We are just facilitating. To commit to 1 million players, we need a time reference. I think this time-reference should be decided by people who are interested in it. In fact, setting the time-reference (3 months, 6 months, 1 year), defines the team. The commitment is to see it through. The time-reference needs to be appropriate so that it inspires action from the get-go. If it is too long (10 years) nobody will do anything. If it is too short (a week), it just can’t happen. Things need to be put in place, and, because of the nature of human beings, it takes time to internalise some things, and produce the right social parameters for it to feasibly grow to 1 million by itself.

Minimal Viable Social Event

(Compare to Minimal Viable Product.) The team is not organising a 1 million tournament. The team is aiming to create a critical social effect, that because of its self-organised operations, ‘inevitably’ grows to 1 million players. The core machinery for running tronic ladle needs to be upgraded for tronic bowl, catering for 1000 players. That must involve a process by which the 100 players who play ladle do something beyond playing in the tournament, or the current social practices to become part of a team (practice, turn up on time). It must involve some kind of ‘engagement’ or ‘invitation’ protocol.

Observation on the tournament based on Armagetron.


I documented this fairly well back in 2006. Needs upgrading. Basically, 1,000,000 players who organise themselves over a few hours to determine the winning team. ‘Entry fee’ of $1, means $1 million prizemoney distributed to players (about half), admin officials for trusted servers, developers and retrospective payments to originators (the other half). I can see these games being played weekly. For us to be playing 1 million tournaments weekly, there’s probably a larger player base capable or willing to play monthly, perhaps 10 million.

Yes, big numbers.

Player Rating

The current system for setting up games is Pickup through Discord channel. There’s an algorithm which seeds players in order to make the teams balanced.

A simple system involves calculating a player Rating based on their position in Tronic tournaments. On the old forums some players added a record of their Ladle and other wins in their signature.

Could placement in the ladle derive a value. Like seeding. The lower the better. Getting to the finals is 1, semis 2, etc. The idea is to make it scalable. As new players enter and ladle increases, so the rarity of Q1 increases, and ratings increase to Q10 with around 1k players, Q20 with 1m players. (Based on teams of 8, I don’t know base 6 off-hand).





Observations on getting on the grid, the player journey, for the game Armagetron.

Barriers to Entry

Far too many barriers to entry: join discord, learn pickup script, use defunct user to authenticate; then when joining server, authenticate — not through in-game menu but through code in chat (not console).
Ideally, a new person downloads the game, hits multiplayer, picks a server on the list, and default is they are on the grid. Currently, a player joins as spectator, in fact all settings are from the Ladle tournaments, to ensure orderliness of play. But not appropriate to give new people the experience of play. Probably best to create grid if first player, spectator if anyone is on the server playing already.

Team Green Room

I like the idea of a green room, which Discord currently operates. Put yourself in a random team, or a private clan green room. Once team is formed, you are pulled from wherever and materialise on the grid. On the server list.

How-To Videos

We need to smooth this out. We may also wish to consider promotional material, how-to videos. I’d rather it is easy, just folks sharing. A little more like twitch videos than ‘promotional’ videos. More like podcasts.



Observations on playing the game of Armagetron.

Game Balance: Individual-Team

Balance between individual and team. Because there is no ‘ball’ which introduces a certain degree of chaos, everything is exact and fully determined by players. Their skill level is phenomenal. A player likened it to fencing. There is teamwork, but it is often a match between individual players.

Evolution of the Game.

I listened to a  blogpost  (45 mins in) where another person returning to the game from ten years ago, Concord, predicted the next evolution of the game is double-teaming or triple-teaming. I had thought more would evolve, but apart from holes, double-defence, plugs, which I was present to in 2009, perhaps only bottles have appeared, a variation of plug.


Had the idea of players choosing a setting which linked rubber, acceleration, speed. The idea is to have different types of bikes. Those who wanted to be faster and play ‘at a distance’ versus mazers who perform intricate close-range sumo. The game tends to the latter.


Watching 100th Ladle from 2015, and recently backed up by watching interminable 1v1 sumo. I like a challenging 1v1, but with the skill levels of players the drama is stretched out too much.

(mute sound)

Defence might be altered. Shorter tail length. Someone suggested getting rid of tail shrink, I’m not sure what that it is. To increase the chances of cuts. The only sure-fire way of gaining advantage is holing. Hard to crack a reasonable defence. Shrinking takes too long.


Fortress Gameplay


Player Journey UX


Tournament Development


launching globally

I returned to an old game I began playing in 2006: Armagetron Advanced. Amazing. Beautiful mechanics. I thought it was the virtual equivalent to football, minimal team game with the potential of becoming as popular. A dynamic version of Go, ‘the surrounding game’. The genius solution of solving the problem of ping with ‘rubber’ and acceleration. Two teams, two zones. Minimally, two keys to play, left and right.

Joined a game, 6v6, and felt the thrill once again. Incredible mazing skill of other players. I was certainly the worst player there. I am a nervous player. Too sensitive. Panic is my general response, and my brain just can’t send the appropriate signals to the fingers fast enough. As I like to say, I have hooves not hands.

I conceived the basic structure of a tournament back in 2006, and it was initially rejected by the leading players/coders at the time. However, I went ahead and created a wiki and invited people on the forum, and with the goodwill of players, it proved to work. The core process was improved by careful administration by a number of active players, and the Tronic Ladle successfully ran monthly for a decade.

When I returned to the game in 2009, I suggested we needed to take the game forward collectively. The next film version of Tron was in the works, and I thought there was an opportunity to not only get more players, but also promote the movie. My call to action was ignored. The powerful contingent were worried that it might attract the ire of Disney and close down our little indie operation. Meanwhile I was invited to join a team, Plus, and some of us (Sinewav, Concord, Compugene, spring to mind) tried to move the game forwards by producing promotional video content, blog posts, and so on. Compugene had a similar idea to me which was to get Arma in schools. In fact, I managed to get my school to set up a discrete server (facilitated by Z-man), and the result was explosive. Yes, there was a ban on its use during school hours; and the tough learning curve of grinding for launch as lone users joining a fortress match online, turned out to be the most powerful teamwork learning activity for a group in person I have implemented as an educator. I also see it as an excellent portal to coding, from entering consol commands to alter game visuals, to writing patches for an open source ecosystems.


Full-stack playing.

David Pinto

Returning to the game now, there is a small group of what I would call elite players, people committed to playing, similar to when I returned briefly in 2016. The tournament is now played as a round-robin, because the number of teams are small. It shouldn’t really be called the Tronic Ladle since it doesn’t conform to the Tronic progression; a Tronic Cup with 1 million players won’t be run as a round-robin.

Beyond reaffirming how brilliant the game design is and recounting a little history, the following posts records my observations as I return to the game at four levels. These four levels are all about player engagement. Under the hood technical levels, client code, server code, internet protocols, are only touched upon in relation to player engagement. Four levels: playing the game itself, the player journey to get onto the grid (especially from non-player), the requirements for a tournament hosting 1 million players, and how we go about doing it (forming an open team).

Share Arma Through Sqale

Episode 1 Impromptu Beginning


A very slow start. I didn’t even know I had begun.

It began as a microphone and recording test.

Use headphones for full effect.

Testing hook up with RSS and Mixcloud.

Added this to and created alternative podcast