The Big ZYGO

"All models are wrong. But some are useful" (George Box).

BLT is subject to the same analysis and critique that it purports to facilitate. What decisions position BLT on design spectrums (i.e. zygos) such as:

• Fixed-Fluid
• One-Many
• Colourful-Grey Scale
• Angular-Curved
• Rational-Intuitive
• Natural-Artificial
• Symmetrical-Rhizomatic
• Separate-Entangled?

A central premise of BLT is that a part can never be completely transposed as a whole. While the recognition  and reconciliation of many parts is a key goal of BLT, it is important to reflect on the reality of BLT's partialness. It is a situated and self-aware model. 

The final level of theory is reflexive. It aims to 'expose' BLT's situatedness and encourage new models that are better situated for different contexts. However, the paradox of this awareness is that it simultaneously strengthens the model. The BLT is situated and therefore 'wrong' in many ways. However, the self-awareness of this situatedness and the encouragement of new expressions, applications and adaptations of 'the' model affirms its central premises.

Why is BLT's dominant shape a square or circle, hypercube or box? Shouldn't we be 'thinking outside the square or circle'? 

BLT's models use the metaphors of a circle. The framework can be mapped to other models such as a square or other shapes such as a pyramid. The realisation of this translatability and the selectiveness of BLT's core models is a part of understanding BLT.

However, BLT had many shape iterations before the choice of the circle and tesseract (hypercube). Most of its early iterations were pyramidal and then spherical. The choice of a circle as the primary shape was made for three key reasons: relatability, practicability and mapability. 

The metaphor of a circle in relation to thinking is relatable. So, the ZYGO is an ironic shape. It encourages thinking 'outside the circle' with the use of an ambiguous space at the centre ZYGO. 

It is also practical because the circular shapes is relatively easier to make and hold as a material artefact - it has tactile appeal. A significant appeal of the BLT is the ability to make the ZYGO from a simple printed template.

Why is BLT's dominant geometry so linear, Cartesian, and symmetrical? Isn't thinking entangled, asymmetrical and messy?

BLT argues that there a significant, common and predictable misconception that arises when we 'grow out of black and white thinking' or 'binary oppositional thinking'.  The misconception is that shades of grey don't still require a conceptualisation of blacker and whiter and shorthand of black and white. Similarly, it's impossible to negate a dyad (e.g. dyads don't exist) without creating a new relational dyad (e.g. nothing-something).

A central assumption of BLT is that ordered symmetry and chaotic entanglements can coexist. Indeed, symmetry helps to reveal chaotic entanglement and the observation of chaotic entanglements can help define symmetry. So, BLT uses symmetry, not just to 'tame' the chaos and entanglement of reality but to recognise it, to play with it and even to generate it to disrupt the conforming power of symmetry.

Why are BLT's dominant colours black, white, grey and complementary colours? Shouldn't BLT be colourless or more colourful? BLT's graphic design went through many iterations including full colour and grey-scale schemes. The colour schemes mapped well onto many of the frameworks geometries. However, several problems kept arising. Mapping colours to the framework meant attaching the symbolism of the colours to the framework. Should mood be red and mind be blue? What are the ethical implications of reproducing the symbolism that black is negative and white is positive? What are the symbolic and aesthetic implications of not including colour at all? 

A 'solution' having worked through the dyads was to use black and white and complementary colours (e.g. red and blue) as the basic presentation of the model, with the clear recognition that they can be inverted or change to suit different contexts. The colours red and blue have demonstrably diverse and even contradictory symbolism. They can be used reciprocally or inverted to open up the conversation about BLT's reconciliation of 'opposing' symbols.

Why is BLT's theory framed in levels? Shouldn't BLT be less stage-like? 

BLT's framework is presented in ordered and sequential ways that generally reflect simple-to-complex content and logical steps. However, the order and complexity is recursive and iterative. What seemed simple at first glance will appear complex upon later return. What seemed complex at first glance may seem simple at a later stage. Furthermore, the more deeply the framework is understood - the more readily it can be accessed at any point.

Why is BLT's model so abstract and artificial instead of concrete and organic? Isn't it very 'western' compared to more fluid, dynamic and circular symbols of 'Indigenous' knowledges?

Symbolic thought is a characteristic of culture.  No symbols, model or metaphor is culturally neutral. Symbols across cultures use symmetry to express abstractions across diverse organic and natural forms. Indigenous symbols are no different in this regard. Dyadic interactions may be expressed as the confluence of river and sea, the dance of Brolgas, the wax and wane of the Moon, or the ebb and flow of tides. 

The ZYGO takes a cultural form - as any model must - however, the process of Big Little Thinking (BLT) invites transformations, conversions and innovations of the form that share its deeper structures. Some of BLT's core activities encourage representations of its underlying frames, dimensions and dynamics that deliberately disrupt, invert and challenge its situated forms.