# Multi-Dimensionality

## Energy-binding, Space-binding, & Time-binding

• Dimensions are not categories.

Let's build a metaphor to show the difference between categories and dimensions that is specific to the binding dimensions.

Categories are like a row of pigeon holes. If that were a building, it could be a building with several doors along the street. This is only one dimension - we walk along the street and go into different doors. A book shop, a restaurant, a barber shop, a jewelry store, etc. How can this be compared to dimensions? Well, the various categories all align along one dimension - the width of the block. Suppose we put a solar panel on the front of each store. Now we've got the dimension of energy-binders. There are different kinds of energy binders, but the all make useable energy. This becomes the width dimension. The longer the block, the more stores, and the more money can be made on the block. Also the more solar panels, so the more energy can be made.

Now consider space binding. The stores all have one front size, but how much business they can do will depend on how much space they can take up. How far back into the block can they go? This corresponds to the depth dimension.  Can one spread out behind another and take up more space? Certainly. By adding a second dimension, the floor area of the stores changes the picture by adding competition for floor space. The more chairs the barbershop has, the more customers it can service. If there are two barber shops, or beauty parlors, they can compete directly for customers by offering more space. But they STILL have to process and use energy - money, and solar power. By taking up more space, say by getting two street doors - and two solar cells, they can control more energy. Competition for space allows taking control of the energy-binders in that space, and benefiting from them.

How about time-binding? We need a third dimension. Let's go up. This corresponds to the height dimension. We build a second floor, a third floor, etc. What do we do with them? We keep records of what was done. We look at those records - sales, customer information, customer satisfaction, customer requests. We plan to improve our customer satisfaction. We plan to attract new customers. We build a records department, we build a quality department, we build an advertising department, etc. We get messages from the past and send them to the future. We improve our product or service. This takes a third dimension - time.

If we get something (product or service), and we get a location, and we simply sell that product or service to people who walk in, we get some money, so we can buy more stuff, eat, etc. We bind energy. If we expand our operations by adding floor space, especially if we do so at the expense of others in the same business - by beating them to the good spots, then we are competing for space and market share. We bind space. If we keep records of all our operations, develop plans, advertise, respond to feedback, etc., we are using symbols that record the past and plans that anticipate the future. We bind-time.

• Volume of business corresponds to energy-binding.   - length.
• Competition for space and market share corresponds to space-binding. - depth.
• Advertising, planning, licensing, negotiating, making contracts, etc.; these all correspond to time-binding. - height.

Just like the length, depth, and height, these dimensions are independent.

• Can we have a business that neither competes nor plans?  Certainly.  They may not last long if they try.
• Can we have a business that competes but does not plan?  Certainly.  A lot of businesses start out this way.
• Can we have a business that plans, but does not compete? Certainly - most government businesses. Also, monopolies plan to prevent competition.  Sometimes a few businesses conspire to fix prices so as to avoid competition.  This is generally "bad" for the consumer - so much so that we have laws against it.

Is there something "wrong" with competition? No, but some general semanticists seem to consider "space-binding" as being animalistic behavior.  Look at sports - competition is the name of the game.

• People use energy bound by other species.
• People compete continually in all aspects of their lives, for space, for spouses, for status, for jobs, for approval, in auctions, etc., etc..
• People use time to manage all of the above.

• We can have high or low energy consumption and use (and anything in between)
• We can have high or low competition (and anything in between)
• We can have high or low planning (and anything in between)

Are they correlated in any way?

1. We need energy to do anything, so more competition and more planning both require more energy.
2. We can compete much better when we plan than when we do not, so competition is enhanced by planning.

Many general semanticists seem to think that there is something wrong with "space-binding", and say we are being animalistic.  An "ethic of cooperation and good feelings" seems prevalent.  The "truth" is that we compete better and in more complex ways than animals by using time-binding to enhance our competition capabilities.

hr>
Annotated bibliography of general semantics papers
General Semantics and Related Topics

This page was updated by Ralph Kenyon on 2009/11/16 at 10:58 and has been accessed 3212 times at 19 hits per month.