Cognitive Fullerene as a Rosetta Stone for Patterns of Systemic Constraint

TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 11 Aug 2025

Anthony Judge | Laetus in Praesens - TRANSCEND Media Service

Reconciliation between Disparate Frameworks in the Light of Global Familiarity with the Football

Introduction

10 Aug 2025 – Otherwise known as the truncated icosahedron or C60, “fullerene ” is a polyhedral configuration of 60 carbon atoms named after Buckminster Fuller in the light of his work on Synergetics: Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking (1975/1979). That study does not however explore the cognitive implications to any degree, as argued separately ( Geometry of Thinking for Sustainable Global Governance: cognitive implication of synergetics , 2009). Despite its apparent obscurity, the form of the truncated icosahedron is widely familiar since it is the stitching pattern of the traditional soccer football .

Aside from its other valued properties, curiously the C60 fullerene is now appreciated as being of therapeutic value in response to dementia — a human condition increasingly recognized to be a global challenge (Yawen Wu, et al, Distinct Impacts of Fullerene on Cognitive Functions of Dementia vs. Non-dementia Mice , Neurotoxicity Research, 3, 2019, 4; Davoud Malekzadeh, et al, Neuroprotection of Fullerene in Improving Cognitive–Behavioral Disruptions and Neurobiochemical Enzymes Activities , Nanomedicine , 18, 2023, 6; Brandon Iglesias, Cognitive Integrity 199: C60 Fullerene World’s Strongest Known Antioxidant to counter Reactive Oxygen Species ROS , 10 July 2025),.

The focus in what follows is on the potential implications of the C60 configuration as a pattern of relevance to conceptual organization, coherence, integrity and identity of a higher order, as discussed separately ( Sustainability through Global Patterns of 60-fold Organization , 2022). Rather than the therapeutic role of the molecule as currently explored, the concern here is with the cognitive implications of the fullerene pattern as might be especially relevant to a form of collective dementia — increasingly apparent in the strategic response to global crisis. “Collective dementia” in governance refers to a situation where decision-makers exhibit a lack of awareness or understanding of important issues, leading to poor policy choices. It suggests a collective failure to learn from past mistakes or to address pressing challenges effectively (Societal Learning and the Erosion of Collective Memory, 1980).

The exploration here follows from a previous exercise with regard to configuration of human rights, especially as defined by the 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These have been variously developed and adapted in regional declarations — for which the number of articles averages 58.3, as separately discussed (Global Configuration of Human Rights for a Global Civilization , 2025). Recognizing the systemic limitations of “human” and “rights” — notably ignoring the rights of other lifeforms as well as human responsibilities — the focus here is therefore framed more generally as “systemic constraints”. The more general framing is relevant to the controversial consideration of AI ethics in a civilization which has been much challenged in the effective adoption of any global ethic in practice (Just War Theory as an inspiration for Just AI Theory? 2023).

The question raised is then whether the C60 fullerene offers a pattern through which a variety of “incommensurable” conceptual frameworks could be usefully reconciled — as widely suggested by the role of the iconic Rosetta Stone and its appreciation by the Langlands program of mathematics (Kevin Hartnett, A Rosetta Stone for Mathematics , Quanta Magazine , 6 May 2024; Robbert Dijkgraaf, A Mathematical Rosetta Stone , Institute for Advanced Study , 2018). Seemingly beyond the comprehension of most mathematicians, this recent breakthrough addresses hidden connections between disparate branches of mathematics: number theory, harmonic analysis, and geometry . How might C60 function as such a cognitive Rosetta Stone?

The exploration recognizes the problematic contrast between the educational challenge of numeracy and the illusory dimensions of number symbolism. Both can be understood as limiting the experiential insights of “N-ness”, namely the appreciation of 5-ness, 12-ness, and the like. Such insights limit appreciation of complementary “ways of thinking” valuable to any strategic response, as with the ability to shift gear in an automobile in response to changing conditions ( Interrelating Multiple Ways of Looking at a Crisis , 2021).

The argument concludes with consideration of the highly problematic relation between the Abrahamic religions as a primary underlying driver for many current and recent global conflicts. The conclusion focuses on the common inability of those religions to reconcile, within their theology and practice, the relation between 12-foldness and 5-foldness, despite the fundamental significance with which these patterns are associated in those religions. It is argued that a 60-fold configuration offers the potential of such a reconciliation — both within such religions and between them. This follows from an earlier illustration of the unexplored relevance of the truncated icosahedron — the football as a symbol (Middle East Peace Potential through Dynamics in Spherical Geometry , 2012).

As with previous exercises, the experimental engagement with one or more AIs in what follows continues to evoke questions in a period in which AI is perceived as a threat to academics, to governance, and to employment more generally — if not to the very existence of humanity. Relevant considerations and reservation have been previously discussed — notably the question of the increasingly artificial nature of human intelligence as a consequence of “dumbing down” (How Artificial is Human Intelligence — and Humanity? 2023).

Although this experimental exploration has been variously enabled by AI, most of the responses of AI have been framed as grayed areas in the text. Given the length of the document to which the exchanges gave rise, the form of presentation has itself been treated as an experiment — in anticipation of the future implication of AI into research documents. Many responses may be irrelevant to the outcome (rather than of interest to the process), and can therefore be readily ignored — especially given questionable use by AI of “algorithmic flattery”.

Only the “questions” to AI are rendered immediately visible — with the response by AI hidden unless specifically requested by the reader (a facility not operational in PDF variants of the page, in contrast with the original ). Readers are of course free to amend the questions asked, or to frame other related questions — whether with the same AI, with others, or with those that become available in the future. In endeavouring to elicit insight from the world’s resources via AI, the dependence on “leading questions ” calls for critical comment in contrast with more traditional methods for doing so. The original responses by AI may include citations of multiple sources which have not been systematically in the responses presented.

It should be emphasized that the following exercise with AI is experimental and tentative in anticipation of a more considered approach. As a proof of concept, the questions and results call for iterative refinement — if only with respect to the designs of the animations produced.

TO CONTINUE READING Go to Original – laetusinpraesens.org

Share this article: email mastodon facebook 🔗 copy link

DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

There are no comments so far.