 / 
Working paper prepared for the subproject on networks of the Goals. Processes and Indicators of Development Project of the Human and Social Development Programme of the United Nations University (Tokyo), coordinated from the Institut universitaire d'etudes du developpement (Geneva). Originally published in Transnational Associations, 1978, 5, pp. 248257 [PDF version]. See also Part 2 and subsequent papers.
Subsequent developments: In 1994, cybernetician Stafford Beer developed some specific aspects of this approach in Beyond Dispute: the invention of team syntegrity. (Wiley). The term "syntegrity" has been trademarked by Team Syntegrity Inc as a basis for "syntegration". This has been developed as a proprietary "collaborative group technology designed to help people come together to explore issues of importance to them". One such application is the World Syntegrity Project, sponsored as a worldwide process since 1993 by the World Citizen Foundation who initially commissioned Stafford Beer. The process is also used by the World Game Institute (see Syntegration as a tool for World Gamers). It has been proposed to apply these techniques to facilitate electronic conferences. Further development, however, as envisaged in the following paper, is significantly inhibited by the proprietary approach that has been taken. A festschriftprocess for Stafford Beer, initiated in 1994 (for distribution on CDROM in 1997) was prepared using syntegrity principles, via electronic communication, and is described by Markus Schwaninger in The Team Syntegrity Model: An Architecture for Organizations of the Future at http://www.isss.org/teamsyn.html
It is characteristic of society today that any area of thought, belief or action is viewed in a dualistic manner, either positively or negatively. Much of the dynamic of society is determined by interaction, competition or conflict between those holding such polarised perspectives on any issue. The structures currently available reflect this situation by either:
It would be desirable to precede this section by a development of the familiar argument that there is an interplay between the principles governing the physical architecture and designed structures current in a society and those governing the psychosocial organizations of that society. Unfortunately space limitations preclude doing so in any adequate manner and it is only possible to develop the following argument in such a way as to stress that correspondence.
A building, like any other structure (including psychosocial structures) has forces acting on it, or stresses acting within it, which are trying to deform it or cause it to move. These forces pass through the structure, pushing on some elements (hence "compressive" force) and pulling on others (hence "tensile" force). Until the last century, most of the building materials available were effective in resisting compressive forces (e.g. brick, stone), but few durable materials were capable of withstanding even moderate tensile stress (with the limited exception of wood). Consequently buildings and bridges were designed so that large tensile stresses did not occur in them.
The fundamental problem in building is to support a load, whether in the case of a bridge or simply to establish a covered space. As in Diagram 1 this can be done with beams on columns. But in order to increase the floor space and reduce the materials required for a given load, arches of increasing sophistication have been constructed from Roman times.
It is clear that everything is held in place by weight, so that the continuities of stress are chiefly compressive. Two or more intersecting arches will define a domeshaped space, again clear of supporters because the work of support has been transferred to peripheral columns...
Though the visible continuities are compressive, there is in fact an invisible tension network which analysis cannot ignore. Each component of a stone dome is held in place by the earth's gravitational field, pulling tensionally "downward" through the structure. If the dome were inverted, the force that pulls it together would pull it apart. If it could be placed in orbit, it would drift apart. Thus its structural integrity depends on the weight of its components, and on the way they are oriented in earth's gravitational field. A successful design is essentially a feat of balancing. All forces are resolved along lines perpendicular to earth's surface, so that gravity and the mutual impenetrability of stones achieve a standoff. Any forces that deviate from this system of perpendicular resolutions will create a tendency to collapse inward or outward, and must be counteracted by braces or buttresses". (Kenner, pp. 34).
This approach continues the tradition established in Roman times. Even in the past century, with the development of new high tensile strength materials (e.g. alloys), few structures have been designed to exploit them. In the sophisticated structures of nature, such as trees for example, there is however always a balance between the use of compression and the use of tension and the compressive elements are usually much bulkier (to prevent buckling) than the tensile elements.
As a consequence of this observation a completely different approach was suggested by R. Buckminster Fuller and here described by Hugh Kenner:
Unlike the stone arch or the stone dome, such structures are not made stronger by being made heavier. In fact, they can with advantage be made negligibly light in comparison with the tensional forces that bind the components. The oneway tension of terrestrial gravity is replaced by the multidirection tension of structural members. The system is therefore stable in any position.
Moreover, a tendency to peripheral or local stresses, such as those restrained by the chain around the dome of St Peter's, is supplanted by a multidirectional stress equilibrium. A corresponding multidirectional tension network encloses accidental stresses wherever they arise. There are no points of local weakness inherent in the system". (Kenner, pp. 57).
There are two ways in which an operational space can be elaborated:
In this approach, one commences with a whole (perhaps conceived as a spherical surface), and having broken it up by establishing a minimum of 4 vertexes, an independent system is achieved. Further vertexes can now be added to complexity the system, if this is appropriate to whatever it is supposed to represent (5).
2. Structural elements (struts) can be taken and it is found that an enclosed space is not defined until 6 such elements meet at 4 vertexes. The shape of the space can be rendered more complex using more elements. Again, a system is defined.
With regard to the systems which emerge by either procedure, Fuller makes the unexpected point that: "A/l systems are po/yhedra" (p. 95). He argues that the focal points for energy events in any system are linked into a closed pattern of relationships that can effectively be represented by an appropriate polyhedron (6). "Polybedra are topologically describable finite system enclosures", (p. 655).
Since systems can be represented by polyhedra, two questions raised by both approaches are:
The question of the sphericity of the system is important as an indication of the efficiency with which energy may be distributed throughout the system. This is maximised when the planes of symmetry of a polyhedron constitute greatcircles on a circumscribed sphere. Tensegrity systems, which are supported by tension are most economical when the tensile network runs for considerable distance without changing direction, namely when the vertices are aligned along greatcircle axes. In Fuller's words:
Returning to the elaboration of a system, it is the tetrahedron (4 vertices, 6 edges) which constitutes the minimum single symmetrical system, containing the least volume with the most surface (7). The sphere, in contrast, encloses the most volume with the least surface.
A system of this type, because of its relatively poor sphericity, could be said to be less efficient than the icosahedron type. The challenge in developing (or "maturing") a system might then be to make it as closely approximate to a sphere as possible, with an appropriate polyhedron. However, because the representation of systems by polyhedra has hardly been explored, except by Fuller, it is not clear which polyhedrabased systems would be useful under what circumstancesparticularly in the case of psychosocial systems. (N.B. Basic polyhedra, and their relationship to tensegrity systems, are described on pp. 254255).
In looking for alternative structures, it is obviously not a question of proceeding with an attitude of "compression, bad; tension, good", Fuller himself stresses the intimate relationship between the two: "No tension member is innocent of compression, and no compression member is innocent of tension... Tension and compression are inseparable and coordinate functions of structural systems, but one may be at its most prominent phase, while the other is at its least prominent phase" (p. 357, see also footnote 8)
He does however make the distinction that: "So we find the compression complexes tend to do the small local structure/ tasks in Universe, and the tension complexes tend to do the large structure/ tasks in Universe. As tension accounts for the large patternings and pattern integrities, compression trends into locally small pattern integrities" (p. 357 and footnote 9).
The distinction between "compression" and "tension" and their full meaning elude precise definition because of their fundamental nature as analyzed by Fuller. Every attempt at definition succeeds only in presenting some characteristics but not all. And to the extent that a definition succeeds in encompassing a greater number of characteristics, the special nature of the abstraction required tends to render the statement incomprehensible. (The problem is similar to, if not identical with, the YinYang concept in Chinese philosophy that is concerned with fundamental twoness; definition is itself a yangtype process.)
The difficulty is compounded because an explanation can only be adequately given in terms of a specific system within which the relationship between a minimum of six such elements must be discussed. The concrete models of the tensegrity systems of interest here are constructed with "struts" and "tendons". But the compressive struts also represent vectors (10), and the tendons represent tensors. For Fuller: "Vectors and tensors constitute all e/ementary dimension. A vector represents an expelling force (from the system) and a tensor an impelling force", (Fuller. p. 260).
The polyhedron by which the system is represented is delineated with lines (11) crossing at points (12). For Fuller: "Lines are vector trajectories" (p. 260) and "Every trajectory in a system will have to have at least two crossings", (p. 271).
The reader should refer to Annex 3 which illustrates the nature of tensegrity structures. If additional compressive elements (struts) are added appropriately, the degree of approximation to a sphere increases progressively. The tensile elements outline the sphere's outer surface (to the extent that the polyhedron approximates to it), whilst the struts outline the inner surface. The integrity of the spherical skin as a whole is independent of central support. It does however require that all tensional circuits be completed (possibly by anchoring a truncated structure to the earth, as in most geodesic domes).
The first principle of geodesics as stated by Hugh Kenner is: "The structure is lifted outward by a hidden tensional system. It resembles a contained explosion, like a balloon: compressive outthrusts held in a tensile web, with this difference that the forces pulling outward are also coming from the web. The structural members are not falling in together, nor in any important way leaning on one another" (p. 43).
Fuller emphasises that the behaviour of the individual compressive elements cannot be understood in isolation or in terms of a simple chordal twoway thrust: "The comprehensive spherical tensor network can only relax inwardly. When all in place, the tensegrity compression struts can only prevent the tension network from closing inward toward the sphere's center, which is its comprehensive proclivity. The synergetic force of the struts (that is, their total interrelationship tendency) is not predicted by any one strut taken singly. It is entirely omniradially outward. The force of the strut is not a chordal twoway thrust" (p. 386). The compressive element "is not fastened in shove or sheer. It pulls outwardly of the spherical system, away from the tension members at both of its ends simultaneously; When released, it pops only outwardly from the sphere's center" (p. 390). It does not shove by the tension member from which it is released.
In the light of the above generalised description of tension and compression in tensegrity systems, the challenge is to see whether the intriguing clues can be used to clarify the nature of any parallel in psychosocial systems, especially organizations (see Part 2, pages 258265).
In so doing it should be remembered that tensegrity systems exist and can be comprehended as wholes, even though they may be complex (Diagram 2). Extensive verbal descriptions may in fact only serve to disguise the wholistic, synergistic qualities of such systems  hence the value of constructing and handling models, which may then serve as a scaffolding for reflections about their psychosocial equivalents. (The above paragraphs should be reread in the light of any resulting insights)
Summary of derivation of tensegrity structures (tentative)  Annex 2
Based on (q) 
Platonic polyhedra (k) 
Archimedean polyhedra (j) 
<  Geodesic  polyhedra (m) 
Other polyhedra (c) 
Various hybrids (d) 

.  .  .  Alternate  subdiv.  Triaconic  subdiv.  .  . 
.  .  .  Platonic  Archimed.  Platonic  Archimed.  .  . 
Diamond pattern (h)  .  .  (e)  (e)  .  .  .  (g) 
Circuit pattern (a,f)  (j)  (j)  (n)  (n)  .  .  .  (g,h) 
Zigzag pattern  .  (p)  .  .  .  .  .  . 
Other spherically symmetrical patterns  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 
Nonspherically symmetrical patterns (b)  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 
(b) Examples: 2D (flat), simple nonspherical structures multilayer), ellipsoid, joined (by matching surfaces masts or trusses, as grids or skeletal structures)
(c) Other polyhedra may be grouped as fellows, although few have (as yet) lent themselves to use for tensegrily systems: other facially regular convex polyhedra (92), Archimedian duals (13), prisms/antiprisms (and duals), KeplerPoinsot and related polyhedra, irregular Dolvhedra.
(d) Obtained by adding extra elements, eliminating or combining elements, or adjusting the relationship between elements. (One structure can be converted into another in this way). Includes simple structures (spherically symmetrical) with elements through the centre.
(e) Diamond patterns tend towards circuit patterns with the increase in the number of elements characteristic of geodesics. Tensile force maybe carried by the outer surface of the elements in compression thus eliminating the distinction between dimaond and circuit.
(f) Compressive circuits may each be made up of:
(h) Diamondpattern based systems can be described in terms of the number of elements and layers of which they are composed. Most of the larger structures are cylindrical and not spherical.
(j) Circuitpatterns can only be based on uniform polyhedra bounded by great circles and with four edges Per vertex. These are: octahedron, cuboctahedron and icosidodecahedron The three prime symmetry systems from which these are derived are: octahedral, icosahedral and tetrahedral lusuallv inefficient". The octahedron itself does not give rise to a cricuitpattern tensegrity, only its geodesic subdivisions. Lesser circle systems (small rhombicuboctahedron and small rhombicosidodecahedron) have no lines of truncation for domes.
(k) Platonic polyhedra are: tetrahedron, hexahedron (cube), octahedron,
(l) Archimedean polyhedra are: cuboctahedron, truncated tetrahedron, truncated octahedron, truncated cube, small rhombicuboctahedron, great rhombicuboctahedron, snub cube, truncated icosahedron, truncated dodecahedron, icosidodecahedron, great rombicosidodecahedron, snub dodecahedron, small rhombicosidodecahedron
(m) Based on subdivision of faces of the principle polyhedra to produce a more spherical figure. Only the two most common methods of subdivision are cited: alternate and triacon. Such methods may also be applied to polyhedra other than Platonic and Archimedean. To reduce complication the tendency is to use Platonic polyhedra, only, with faces subdivided as many times as appropriate. All but the 2 snub Archimedean figures are in fact generated by 2 to 12 frequency divisions of the Platonic polyhedra
(n) Circuitpattern systems can only be based on polyhedra whose triangulated faces have been subdivided to a frequency which is a multiple of two. Zigzag patterns are only possible for frequencies which are a multiple of three. In both cases several versions of any given figure result according to whether elements of equal or of different length are used (the latter gives the least distorted result). Most geodesics are based on frequency subdivisions of the octahedron or the icosahedron.
(p) Of the 13 Archimedean figures, 7 have 3 edges meeting at a vertex and form the basis for a tensegrity system.
(q) The valency of a tensegrity is the number of tensile elements attached
to the end of each compression element. A minimum of 3 is required for
a 3D figure (and gives rise to tensegrity prisms, for example). The simple
valence4 spherical tensegrity is based on the octahedron; the two others
are the cuboctahedron and icosidodecahedron. Valence5 occurs with the
icosahedron. Valence6 is characteristic of geodesic subdivision.
Geodesic polyhedra generation  Annex 3
The basic polyhedra have too few edges to construct a spheric tensegrity system of large diameter without the structural elements having to be excessively long. Geodesic polyhedra, having the spheric surface broken up into as many smaller size faces as are required (thus requiring shorter structural elements), may be produced as follows, by the "alternate method"  after any nontriangular faces on the basic polyhedron have been divided into triangles, before the frequency subdivision is applied. The resulting triangular faces of the geodesic polyhedra, such as those shown below, can then be grouped together in patterns at triangles (1), diamonds (2), squares (4), pentagons (5), or hexagons (6), depending on the subdivision frequency and the original polyhedron used. If the subdivision frequency of the original polyhedral triangular face is a multiple of two, these patterns can then be used for tensegrities based on the "circuit pattern"; if a multiple of three, on the "zigzag pattern"The Spheric Experience  Annex 4
Thirty spokes share the wheel's hub; It is the centre hole that makes it useful. Shape clay into a vessel; It is the space within that makes it useful. Cut doors and windows for a room; It is the holes which make it useful. Therefore profit comes from what is there; Usefulness from what is not there. 
"What we do have experimentally as a sphere is an aggregate of energy
event foci approximately equidistant in approximately all directions from
one energyevent focus. This is a system in which the most economical relationships
between embracingly adjacent foci are the greatcircle chords, and not
the arcs". (Fuller, p. 654)
"The spheric experience is a highfrequency, omnidirectional complex
of events and their relatedness. Since it is concerned with the most economical
relatedness, we can also speak of it as a geodesic spherical experience.
This is where the importance of chords comes in. A chord is abstract, yet
tensive. A chord has pull: we would probably not think about the connections
unless there was some pull between them. The function of the chords is
to relate. The event is the vertex. The reaction is the chord, the pulling
away. And the resultant is the inadvertent definition of the nothingness
of the area and volumetric spaces... Areas and volumes are incidental resultants
to fionding the connections between events of experience" (p. 656)
"Almostspherical polyhedra are the nearest approximation (to a sphere).
It can only be treated with as polyhedral  as an aggregate of points in
which the most economical relationships are chords; ergo, geodesics". (p.
654)
"..since physics has found no continuums, we have had to clear up what we mean by a sphere. It is not a surface; it is an aggregate of events in close proximity. It isn't just full of holes; it doesn't have any continuum in which to have holes. The word polyhedron has to go because it says "manysided", which implies a continuum. We don't even have the faces. Faces become spaces. They become intervals. They become nothing. The Einsteinian finite Universe  an aggregate nonsimultaneous Universe  is predicated only on the absolute finiteness of each local energyevent package and the logic that an aggregate of finites is itself finite". (p. 655)
"Zero and the concept of emptiness, too, are comparatively late inventions (clearly because they too leave nothing to hold onto in explaining them). Even now we find it hard to conceive of emptiness as such: we only manage to think of it as the absence of something positive. Yet in many metaphysical systems, notably those of the East, emptiness and absence are regarded as more fundamental and ultimately more substantial than presence. This is also connected with the fact, now acknowledged by most biologists, that symmetry, being the natural condition of an unstressed situation, does not require explanation, but on the contrary it is asymmetry which needs to be explained." (Christopher Alexander. Notes on the Synthhis of Form. Harvard University Press, 1971, p. 197)
2. The above quotation should be reread in the light of the psychosocial implications argued in the following sections. There is an intriguing parallel between the keystone and the position and function of the leader (or "boss") in an organization.
3. It has calculated that a geodesic metal sphere approx. 0.5 miles in diameter would drift like a bubble if the air inside it were one degree warmer than that outside.
4. "Not only can there be no awareness until there is otherness to be aware of, but there can be no magnitude awareness with only one otherness... You can have no sense of awareness of shape with just one otherness or two othernesses. Shape awareness commences only with three othernesses where the relationship of three as a triangle has finite closure. Shape is what you see areally and until there is closure, there is no area of otherness. Not until we have four otherneses do we have macrocosmic volumetric awareness. Four is required for substantive awareness. System awareness begins when we find the otherness surrounding us, when we are omnidirectionally enclosed." (Fuller, p. 656)
5. With regard to this approach, a special algebraic / logical notation has been developed: G. Spencer Brown. Laws of Form. Allen and Unwin, 1969.
6. "All the interrelationships of system foci are conceptually represented by vectors. A system is a closed configuration of vectors. It is a pattern of forces constituting a geometrical integrity that returns upon itself in a plurality of directions" (Fuller, p. 97).
7. "By tetrahedron, we mean the minimum thinkable set that would subdivide Universe and have interconnectedness where it comes back upon itself. The four points have six interrelatednesses" (Fuller, p 333)
8. "Functions occur only as inherently cooperative and accommodatively varying aspects at synergetically transforming wholes... The meaning of function is that it is part of a complementary pattern... Tension and compression are always and only interfunctioning covariables whose seeming relative importance is a consequence of local pattern inspection" (p 359).
9. "The sum of all the interactiveforce relationships of Universe must continually accelerate their intertransforming in such a manner as to result in ever more remotely and locally multiplied islanded compressional functions  comprehensively cohered by everenlarging finite patternings of the tensional function" (p. 360). In our societies, large agencies (compressional complexes ?) tend to be linked with various kinds of liaison networks (tensional complexes ?) which cross jurisdictional boundaries, thus ensuring a minimum of coordination.
10. "A vector manifests a unique energy eventeither potential or realized expressed discretely in terms of directions, mass, velocity, and distance... A vector always has unique direction relative to other events. It is discrete because it has a beginning and an end. Its length represents energy magnitude, the product of its velocity and its mass. The direction is angular in respect to the axis of reference of the observer or in respect to an omnidirectional coordinate system." (Fuller, p. 259).
11. "Speaking operationally, lines are the products of the energy interactions of two or more separate systems. The local environment is system. A line is always formed by an alteration of the local en vironment by another system. "Lines" are the patterns of consequences of one system altering another system either by adding to it or taking away from it." (p. 252).
12. "What we really mean by a point is an unresolved definition of an activity... Without insideness, there is no outsideness; and without either insideness or outsideness, there is only a locus fix... A point's definitively unresolved event relationships inherently embrace potential definitions of a complex of local events. When concentrically and convergently resolved, the point "proves" to be the "center"  the zero moment of transition from going inwardly and going outwardly. Physical points are energyevent aggregations." (p. 2578).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial 4.0 International License.. 