Lurking UOA Pitfalls

A few months back I wrote a post concerning what I believe encapsulates the prime general virtue of Geocentric Design Code. As such, utilitarianism of access (UOA)  qualifies a social philosophy that pertains to effecting the most good for the most people.

Because authentic good originates only from God – and not from the vagaries of human beings – utilitarianism here is specified further by access which pertains to very basic conditions necessary for souls to enter Heaven or the Kingdom of God. Those conditions are 1) the existence of living souls, 2) freely returning the love by which the Moral Being created those souls, and 3) being informed of the choices within such freedom. So UOA pertains to affording the most access for the most people – while in no way claiming that the access will be utilized as hoped for.

It is in the specifications of the UOA conditions where the pitfalls lie, or as the saying goes – “the devil is in the details”. This is especially true of UOA because it, as well as the code hoping to realize such, is an outside/in approach. Generally speaking, the pitfall for each and all of UOA’s goals lie in the human tendency of replacing that which is supposed to be served with the narrower goals themselves, disregarding their ultimate purpose. From the beginning of human history to the present time, replacements have appeared in the differing guises of rituals, technology, etc.

With replacement, the common attitude is “we don’t need Him anymore because . . .” Often replacement escalates to “brave” competition that ironically uses “principles” taken from godly behaviors while gutting the Source of such, with the result of many being fooled by the hollow high grounds attained.

In the code’s realm of physical design, its specific UOA pitfalls pertain to: environmental sustainability (to support more living souls); greater personal independence and less materialism (for the freedom requirement); and geometric framing and orientation (to inform that freedom).

The pitfall of the latter, Judeo-Christian friendly symbolism notwithstanding, are found in the potential for something akin to idol worship. As to whether such occurs can be impossible for mere humans to determine, let it be known for the record that when the architect of a totally geometric endeavor hears the new age phrase “sacred geometry”, he believes there is no such thing.

Regarding how the code addresses freedom with the personal independence and anti-materialism it is conducive to, the former can work against that which it serves if it becomes so anti-social (and thus fruitless) as to totally deny the interdependence necessary for people to work out their differences. On the other hand, by taking the latter to extremes, spiritual growth can degenerate into a sort of sublime selfishness, or it can prematurely preclude what is necessary to house the spirit! Amid the fights on where to draw the lines, what should be kept in perspective is that the freedom of interpretation, and to act on it in however seemingly small a way, is there regardless.

Lastly, there is the area of environmental sustainability which UOA holds necessary to support the emergence of more souls farther into future. Perhaps the greatest specific crimes in the over elevation of this otherwise noble goal – aside from the general pitfall of worship of creation over Creator – are preservation of species that have come and gone without our input for eons while seeking to reduce our own population such that the majority of environmentalists assent to, if not encourage, vast swaths of the population selling their souls in an increasingly shame-free “progressive” society of perverse (but most importantly non-reproductive) sexual lifestyles.

Although the code, by treating the 3 UOA objectives in an wholistic manner, mitigates the pitfalls, it is a limited outside-in endeavor nevertheless. With or without it, (relatively) recently instilled moral conscience via The Word into the heart of man is still the realm where what really counts to Him (and us) ultimately transpires. Against the 4 plus billion years of survival-of-the-fittest evolutionary momentum preceding this transformation of home sapiens to humankind, there is but ONE WAY to prevail against the rebellions fired by such – as stated boldly in the book of John (chapter 14) and given perspective in the 1st epistle of Peter (chapter 1).

So if the code, like other things claiming virtue, is really 6 of one, half a dozen in theory and how it is applied with a high potential for abuse, why proceed at all with it? My answer uses a stadium analogy, where a lot of people can be packed together by reason of an orderly design. Some are on one side, others on the opposing side. One side wins, the other loses. I humbly posit that half and half is a better outcome than perhaps the one out of a hundred or thousand gained in chaos.

Posted in Code Application, Contemporary Relevance, My Journey, Philosophic Bases | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Snowflakes Galore

Out of the blue, my father recently offered up the observation that no two snowflakes are alike.

This idea caused me to marvel for two reasons. For one, I didn’t recall ever having heard this before. And never having given it any thought,  my take was that there was a fairly limited variety of the natural constructs. But sure enough, after resorting to the Wikipedia article on the topic, I found that my father’s statement was at least very close to being true. There was one instance where two snowflakes had been observed to be identical. But who knows? Upon closer inspection maybe they would have been shown to be different.

The second reason for my marveling had to do with the relevance to geocentric design code, or more specifically its guiding geometric patterns. The transport template in particular – applicable to rollers, floaters, and flyers – possesses a strong hexagonal aspect, the same geometry as the vast majority of snowflakes.

With code-designed applications, the simplicity of the patterns and using the simplest possible examples within those patterns – be they houses, bicycles, or spacecraft – might give one the impression that the code is nothing more than a set of design offerings. On the contrary, code patterns are infinitely customizable, with an infinite variety of ways in which they may be applied to real constructs. Thus no two constructs need necessarily be the same.

Furthermore, in comparison to snowflakes which are generally symmetric, code pattern-guided constructs often don’t have that requirement.

With regard to construct uniqueness, the same goes for rectilinear cube-based abodes drawn from the patterns afforded by the celestial co-cubes – even those situated along the same precise latitude with the same roof pitches.


All code constructs are united by being drawn from the same patterns and the same rules determining their use. But within that reality, though they can easily be made identical, code constructs can just as easily be unique, even without having to resort to material or color variation to do so.

Posted in Code Application, Code Orientation, Contemporary Relevance, My Journey, Philosophic Bases, Rolling Transport | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A CBA (like) Roofline

On a recent visit to the Tucson, Arizona area, I was reminded of the stark beauty of its skyline, with near and far off jagged mountains surrounding the lushness of its desert lowlands where I slept under the stars, the huge bright constellations rising spectacularly over the silhouetted range I snuggled against, my hunger for intense celestial exposure satisfied, as was a craving to behold the facsimile of Christ’s birth in the scattering of darkened hill fire lights as portrayed in the opening minutes of the Ben Hur motion picture classic.


As this trip was also a working vacation, I frequented a familiar library in which the biking climb to the plateau it situated upon was invariably rewarded by a most welcome example of a key CBA architectural feature. In truth, the building’s tilt is somewhat shallower than what reflects the latitude of its location, and its alignment is skewed from true south; but the planes of the orthogonally intersecting roof sections, together tilted to supply consciousness with an upward cue, well convey an inkling of how the code’s signature architectural style would appear.






Posted in Cube-based Abodes, My Journey | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Utilitarianism of Access

“You can lead a horse to water, but . . . ” This post revisits a term I once came up with to encapsulate the purpose of Geocentric Design Code.

In truth, a grand purpose did not precede the code’s development – at least not consciously. In fact, in attempting to harmoniously accommodate the bicycle within a  ducky architectural style, my aim was pretty narrow. But to realize such required abstracting commonality between the (geometric) essences of each artifact type, and with success, the door was opened to much broader realms of application.

Thus, owing to its after-the-fact nature, utilitarianism of access is more virtue than purpose. However that may be, there is a crucial presupposition behind the idea, namely a world view in which the purpose of creation is to return the Creator’s impetus in creating it. For love to qualify as such requires, at the least, a sound sense of Who is being loved, and the free will to act on it. I believe these conditions were met initially when homo sapiens received The Word of God and became man in possession of a moral conscience. So conceptualized, the completed circuit of fulfilled purpose is what has typically been called heaven.

If this world view has any merit, it seems reasonable that advancing the base conditions required for the growth of fulfilled purpose would be a good thing. Therefore, the most basic goal of utilitarianism of access entails contributing to the future existence of the human race by addressing the sustainability of a livable environment needed to support it because, put simply, in order for heaven to experience expansion, more souls are required.

Theoretically, application of Geocentric Design Code should advance sustainability in a number of ways, such as in the conservation of resources which would likely transpire in the minimalism of its salt-of-the-earth architecture, as well as by CBA’s solar attributes and its human-powered transport accommodation. Beyond this “begins-at-home” approach, standardizations based on the common geometries of constructs produced potentially offers widespread reusabilities and greater industrial efficiencies.

The second virtue that utilitarianism of access should have in order to qualify as such lies in its ability to foster more freedom for more people. In a very general sense, one way in which a correctly employed code can advance freedom lies in its implied scaling down of imprisoning materialism.

Lastly, utilitarianism of access should inform free souls. Toward such cause, code application frames the world with constructs guided by a geometry reflective of nature’s centralized forces. Then, by the minimal geometric expression of the CBA architectural style, existence on a spinning sphere amid a universe of spheres is inferred – along with a precise sense of place on that sphere. In so doing, the laterally limited social dimension is informed, humbled, and distinguished by the infinite spiritual above – inclined to via juxtaposed celestial cubes.

To summarize, utilitarianism of access entails advancing conditions by which the potential for an expansion of ultimate fulfilled purpose increases with more free and informed souls. So stated, utilitarianism of access (or the code as hopefully one of its contributing members) does in no way claim to actually expand heaven by reason of improving the conditions for such. This is ultimately between an individual soul and his or her Maker. Qualified thus, I will address some U of A pitfalls in a future post.

Posted in Code History, Contemporary Relevance, Cube-based Abodes, My Journey, Philosophic Bases, Rolling Transport | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Rethinking the Environment 

The recent US election upset has caused no small alarm amongst serious environmentalists in light of the electee’s past statements as well as his cabinet selections. Perhaps because I am only a mere sympathizer, I can allow myself a sense of cautious optimism in a few rays of light amid the heat emanating from the Trump phenomenon.

First there is there is the man’s appreciation for both natural (as well artificial) beauty. No bird killing giant airplane propeller wind generators ruining my ocean view. Hopefully, this not-in-my-backyard attitude will extend to the nation as a whole when Mr. Trump becomes president, and a resurgence of vertical-axis generators will be forthcoming.

Secondly, when Trump says he wants clean air and water with little publicity attending the statement, I tend to think he means just that. Likewise for utterance of the phrase “clean coal” (more on that later).

Lastly is the man’s stupendous ability and desire to negotiate trade deals that could potentially bring a worthwhile portion of the world into doing their part while the US functions with one hand behind its back, especially nations spewing far more pollution than us, whether their contributions be total, per capita, per GDP, per area, etc.

But who really knows how environmental and energy issues will play out in this radical new setting? Such unpredictability should bring a lot of voters out of the complacence that usually follows the success of a “green” candidate. For example, higher mpg mandates for new vehicles may sound progressive on the one hand, but these can be, and usually are, negated by the newfound profusion of single occupant cars on the road at the drop of a hat for more miles driven, with new technologies encouraging life in the car.

On the collective front, global warming alarmists need to come to grips with how much their storyline has become as absurd as “a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese”. First and foremost here are the phrases “global warming” which sounds benevolent and for many is desired; and “climate change” which has been rightfully pointed out by deniers as having always been so. The real danger of increasing world temperatures lies in the increase of thermodynamic entropy which essentially means greater unpredictability of weather patterns and less usability of energy sources available. Global entropy is a very serious threat.

Power plants must breathe also, and do so less efficiently when they exhaust into a hotter atmosphere – thus requiring more fuel, be it fossil or nuclear fuel. To appreciate the equivalence requires refining the understanding of the atmospheric CO2/temperature correlation. It is more the violence of kinetic carbon exiting smokestacks and tailpipes than its heat trapping attributes that produce the well recorded results.

Thus much demonized CO2 (plant food) is not required to goose up local and world temps. The megatons of nuclear plant waste heats spewed hourly make their contribution too, and in both plant types, water vapor is the prime heat trapping agent. Should we be denigrating H2O?

Regarding coal, environmentalists need to acknowledge its essence as stored solar energy. By this characterization however, coal (and other fossil fuels) should be the alternative fuel, especially in light of the storing process having transpired over millions of years. To make coal the alternative backup, it should be refined as much as oil was in its pre-cracking days. Nitrogen, mercury, and sulfur – all valuable substances in their places – should be mined out before coal is burned.

A century ago, such impurity elimination used to be the meaning of “clean coal”. Recent efforts made in this direction have enjoyed some success, but the cost of doing so has posed a barrier, which is the whole point – to put coal on an equal footing with what are now regarded as alternative energies, especially photovoltaic applications.

For a fuller development of these thoughts on energy by the author of Geocentric Design Code, view and/or download this 14 page essay.

Posted in Code Application, Contemporary Relevance, Cube-based Abodes, Philosophic Bases | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment