MOR structure of presentation
With MOR, you get MOR
My team and I have thought hard about how most effectively to communicate our description of the system. And we concluded that the linear structure of a book—or anything that might look to you remotely like a book—was not for us.
Unless of course you were thinking of those ‘Choose Your Own Adventure’ books that became popular in the 1980s. You were instructed there to jump around to different pages depending on the choices you wished to make for the protagonists, so you could see how your chosen story would continue. We wanted something along those lines.
But we needed something more radical.
We wanted a structure where every article could be read as a stand-alone, self-contained piece that would give you a kind of ‘fractal’ glimpse of the whole system structure we describe, and where every category of article (we are interested in different topics) would be equally good as a point of entry to the system.
Every Management of Reality article is a possible beginning that points to other articles in a functionally pedagogic way. Any one of those paths eventually connects with all others and takes you to the same understanding of the whole structure.
Readers choose, according to their interests, which ‘surface’ articles to read, and then decide, from the FAQ at the bottom of each article, or from the links embedded in the text, what to read next, seeking answers to whatever questions have arisen, in effect choosing their own adventure.
Our description of the system is thus itself a system, a ‘conceptual sphere’ connecting the nodes to each other in a kind of aesthetic homage to the sociopolitical structure it is describing.
Begin anywhere.
As you make progress, you will perceive a larger and larger chunk of the articulated structure of the system, as I describe it. At some point, you will acquire the model. When this happens, you can start making hypotheses about what else should be true to hold the structure described together, and then go test the model. This is in fact how the model was originally built.
I hope my readers will do their own research and challenge my own. We can together improve the model by showing parts of it to be false and suggesting alternatives. It is possible, too, that we will disprove it all. Any such outcome will be progress.