Challenges to Comprehension Implied by the Logo
of Laetus in Praesens
Laetus in Praesens Alternative view of segmented documents via Kairos

29 May 2023 | Draft

Coherence of Sustainable Development Goals through Artificial Intelligence

Elaboration of strategic sonnets as memorable 14-fold modes of aesthetic presentation

-- / --

Justification of the relevance of the sonnet form to articulation of challenges of global governance
Experimental presentation of Sustainable Development Goals in sonnet form by AI
Challenging an AI tendency to echo the conventional blandness of ineffectual articulation
Experimental presentation by AI of 17 SDGs in song and rhyming verse
Experimental presentation by AI of 17 SDGs as riddle, paradox, blind spot and joke
Identification by AI of root cause problems addressed by 17 SDGs -- in relation to overpopulation
Potential correspondence identified by AI between logical connectives and sonnet organization
Intuitive 17-fold constraints on articulation of a pattern of 17 SDGs in the light of geometrical symmetries?
Suggestions of AI for coherent visual mapping of logical connectives and SDGs onto polyhedra
Use of AI to enhance discourse analysis and mapping in the light of logical connectives
Elaboration by AI of Sustainable Development Goals as an epic poem


With respect to AI, the following exploration follows from consideration of whether the current conservative response by authorities to AI should be seen as one of "dumbing down" in contrast to the the potential for eliciting a higher order of authenticity and subtlety in dialogue (Artificial Emotional Intelligence and its Human Implications, 2023). That earlier argument noted the concern expressed at a convocation at The White House of leaders of high tech corporations actively developing AI (White House: Big Tech bosses told to protect public from AI risksBBC, 5 May 2023). In a spirit of speculative vigilance, it also noted the possibility that the scripting of mainstream discourse in response to the pandemic could have been crafted and curated by AI (Governance of Pandemic Response by Artificial Intelligence, 2021). 

Even more recently, widespread media coverage has been given to the regulatory concerns considered vital by Sam Altman, the chairman of OpenAI, the corporation developing ChatGPT (OpenAI CEO calls for laws to mitigate ‘risks of increasingly powerful’ AI, The Guardian, 17 May 2023; A Warning For AI Usage From Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, Social Nation, 18 May 2023). The case has been presented even more dramatically (Artificial intelligence could lead to extinction, experts warn, BBC, 30 May 2023; Runaway AI Is an Extinction Risk, Experts Warn, Wired, 30 May 2023; Top AI researchers and CEOs warn against ‘risk of extinction’ in 22-word statement, The Verge, 30 May 2023).

First released to public access in November 2022, at the time of writing ChatGPT is recorded to have reached 100 million users in two months, with an estimated 10 million queries per day (DavidCurry, ChatGPT Revenue and Usage Statistics, Business of Apps, 5 May 2023; Ritik Sharma, 103 Amazing ChatGPT Statistics for May 2023, ContentDetectorAI, 25 May 2023). Many corporations are scrambling to adapt their processes to its benefits and to protect themselves from its challenges. It has been estimated that 80% of the US workforce could have 10% of work tasks affected by GPT models.

The focus of the following exercise is however on the relevance of AI to the global strategies framed and articulated by the UN's 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) -- potentially to be understood, ironically, as a form of prevention against human "extinction". The issue of concern is whether these goals are expressed in a form to ensure the uptake vital to progress on their implementation -- with the strong possibility that their articulation may become increasingly irrelevant, despite the many initiatives to promote them (Systemic Coherence of the UN's 17 SDGs as a Global Dream, 2021). That study explored whether the set of SDGs was in any way coherent or merely an arbitrary outcome of political horse-trading.

The question explored here is how the readily forgettable conventional articulation of the SDGs might be challenged by the articulation of sonnets, given the memorable inspiration they have offered over centuries. Specifically, to what extent might AI transform the articulation of SDGs into a more meaningful form embodying the cognitive devices long associated and explored in the design of sonnets by poets. This focus follows from previous exploration of the relevance of poetry to governance, especially in the minds of some noted leaders (Poetry-making and Policy-making: arranging a marriage between Beauty and the Beast, 1993; Poetic Engagement with Afghanistan, Caucasus and Iran: an unexplored strategic opportunity? 2009). More generally it follows from the potentially vital role of aesthetics to governance and the articulation of its concerns (Aesthetics of Governance in the Year 2491, Futures, 23, 1991, 4).

With respect to sonnets, especially valuable is the remarkable summary offered by Timothy Hampton who introduces his argument with reference to the opening line of Shakespeare's most famous sonnet:

‘Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?’ The opening line of William Shakespeare’s most famous sonnet might lead you to think that you’re being prepared for a weather report. But that is only part of what awaits you. Shakespeare’s sonnet – like all sonnets – is a mechanism, a kind of a machine. Its parts work both together and against each other so as to exercise the mind of the reader. When you work with it, as you enter its world, you get the literary equivalent of a workout at the gym. (The Sonnet Machine, Aeon, 25 May 2023).

In a period dramatically challenged by the natural disasters exacerbated by climate change, there is a case for recognizing that governance is unduly focused on "weather reports" at a time when Shakespeare's question is especially relevant in the light of the manner in which it is transformed within that sonnet, as discussed below. More generally it can be usefully asked whether metaphor offers a key to reframing the challenges of global governance (Weather Metaphors as Whether Metaphors, 2015; Enhancing Strategic Discourse Systematically using Climate Metaphors, 2015). Is there a case to be made for strategic articulation in sonnet form, as previously argued (Future challenge of problematic sets for governance -- strategic sonnets? 2021).

Especially valuable within the sonnet form, as noted below, is the manner in which it reconciles contrasting and mutually challenging perspectives. Arguably any devices of this kind are vital to a civilization fragmented by seemingly incommensurable opposing perspectives. It is for this reason that the argument with respect to sonnets and SDGs is speculatively developed here, with the aid of AI, in relation to the set of 16 logical connectives central to the neglected  discipline of oppositional logic and geometry. As a relationship featuring in earlier investigations, introducing it into an exchange with ChatGPT offers insights into the process in which the an author's preoccupations and bias may be reinforced and developed -- given the concerns about human creativity challenged by AI.

The experimental presentations which follow take the form of responses by ChatGPT to a sequence of questions put to it. The answers are necessarily those of the most widely available version of ChatGPT (version 3.4) and not the reputedly more subtly creative later version (Eric Griffith, GPT-4 vs. ChatGPT-3.5: What’s the Difference? PC Magazine, 17 March 2023). The newer version is promoted as 40% more factual, and 82% less likely to react to requests for forbidden content -- however that is to be interpreted.

A number of the questions in the following exercise derived from a brainstorming session with Tomas Fülöpp with respect to the impact of ChatGPT on his development of the online Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential. The possibility of augmenting the profiles of the thousands of problems and strategies therein was already a subject of experiments. These notably draw directly on the ChatGPT facility to develop the texts relating to incidence of specific problems, claims for their importance (and counter-claims challenging them), or suggesting links to other aggravating problems. Specifically however, as an interactive facility, the brainstorm focused on how users of the Encyclopedia might in future reframe any problem or strategy via ChatGPT as a poem, a joke, or otherwise.

A significant feature of the following exercise is critical appreciation of the answers progressively generated by ChatGPT. Initial responses to any question may well be both remarkable in some respects and extremely dubious from other perspectives. This is especially the case with transformation of the 17 SDGs into sonnet form. As the first iteration in an experiment, the responses are reproduced here as received. It should be emphasized that there is every possibility to challenge ChatGPT to reformulate any responses in the light of critical inspection --  some examples of which are given. A person with poetic sensibilities would then radically challenge the formulation of the "sonnets" through a succession of iterations. Although clearly those with ideological concerns might call for their reformulation from some other perspective. The "creativity" then lies in articulating that challenge to enable a distinct response by ChatGPT.

This mode of engagement with ChatGPT serves to highlight a more fundamental issue with respect to discourse in any purportedly democratic society. The initial formulations of the SDGs in sonnet form (as reproduced below) can be readily characterized as typical of the language favoured by politicians, authorities and specialists in image management -- crafting slogans and jingles deemed appropriately evocative of fundamental human values. They readily recall phrasing criticised as bland, "silver-tongued","mealy-mouthed", or dependent on "weasel words". In contrast with exposure to such articulation by authorities, ChatGPT can be challenged to reformulate its response in other language -- if those preferences can be adequately articulated. This is rarely the case in any interaction with authorities.

Such challenge, if pursued, may reveal a further constraint of ChatGPT, namely a tendency to take default refuge in cliched expressions regarding its limitations with respect to the "complex" and the "multifacetted". An analogous tendency is evident in the discourse of authorities, notably reference to how "everything is connected to everything" and therefore excusing the absence of any precise response -- or "straight answer".

Both examples highlight the sense in which discourse in civilization can be understood as a massive word-game dynamic of which ChatGPT now constitutes an enabling high-tech development. The sobering consideration is whether the most skilled keynote speaker will soon lack the capacity to articulate concerns in a manner more engaging than an AI facility -- especially one that it is open to challenge by an audience. Just as AIs have demonstrated a capacity to win against the masters of chess, go and poker, it may be readily imagined that they will soon be able to outmaneuver opponents in debate. The conservative reaction to AI is understandable.

Given the potential strategic significance of the 17 SDGs for global civilization faced with the possibility of collapse, the argument concludes by eliciting from ChatGPT a suggestion for scoping out the dramatic elements of a possible epic poem analogous to the Mahabarata, the Kalevala or the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Justification of the relevance of the sonnet form to articulation of challenges of global governance

Noting the capacity of AI to compose poems, early reports regarding ChatGPT contributed to controversy in this regard (Joe Santamaria, Poetry, ChatGPT, and AI: Can it Create ‘Great’ Poetry? Poem Analysis; Daniel Soufi, ChatGPT vs Poetry: can artificial intelligence write in verse? El Pais, 17 March 2013). On the occasion of UNESCO's World Poetry Day (2023), a test was presented to determine whether people were capable of distinguishing between poems generated by ChatGPT and those of human poets (World Poetry Day: Can you tell which poem was written by ChatGPT? Al Jazeera, 21March 2023). However a reason why AI is claimed to write pretty awful verse was addressed by Walt Hunter (What Poets Know That ChatGPT Doesn’t, The Atlantic, 13 February 2023). This avoided the question as to why a high proportion of human poetry is far less engaging than the sonnets of Shakespeare.

Following the explorations of the potential role of poetry in policy-making (as noted above), particular consideration was subsequently given to the possible relation between the much-studied 14-fold organization of sonnets (Variety of Rhyming Patterns in Standard 14-line Sonnets, 2021) and the separately studied 14-fold patterns deemed significant to organizational management and policy articulation. The latter tendency is evident from the range of web resources on the matter (Pattern of 14-foldness as an Implicit Organizing Principle for Governance? 2021). The question was the nature of the potential interplay between the two perspectives (Potential for Coherence through Engaging Strategic Poetry, 2021)

The potential relationship highlighted the possibility of a relative unexplored correspondence between perceived patterns of organization in seemingly disparate, if not supposedly incommensurable domains. This was previously explored (and discussed further below) in the light of a 14-fold pattern of logical connectives (Embodiment of logical connectives in sonnet form, 2021). These connectives are otherwise considered as fundamental to the operation of computer algorithms.

As noted in the earlier argument, there is seemingly little insight -- or interest -- in the justification for a 14-fold pattern, any more than that for other common preferences of strategic significance. The early commentary in this respect by William Sharp is therefore unique (The Sonnet: Its Characteristics and History, Sonnets of This Century, 1887):

The structure of the sonnet is arbitrary in so far that it is the outcome of continuous experiment moulded by mental and musical influences: it is not a form to be held sacred simply because this or that great poet, or a dozen poets, pronounced it be the best possible poetic vehicle for its purpose. It has withstood the severest test that any form can be put to: it has survived the changes of language, the fluctuations of taste, the growth of culture, the onward sweep and the resilience of the wave of poetry that flows to and fro, "with kingly pauses of reluctant pride," across all civilised peoples: for close upon six hundred years have elapsed since Guittone and Dante and Petrarca found the perfected instrument ready for them to play their sweetest music upon....

The Guittonian limitation of the sonnet's length to fourteen lines was, we may rest assured, not wholly fortuitous. The musical and poetic instinct probably, have determined its final form more than any apprehension of the fundamental natural law beneath its metrical principles.... It became necessary, then, to find a mould for the expression of a single thought, emotion, or poetically apprehended fact, which would allow sufficient scope for sonority of music and the unfolding of the motive and its application, and which yet would not prove too ample for that which was to be put into it.

Repeated experiments tended to prove that twelve, fourteen, or sixteen lines were ample for the presentation of any isolated idea or emotion; again, that the sensitive ear was apt to find the latter number a shade too long, or cumbrous; and still later, that while a very limited number of rhymes was necessitated by the shortness of the poem, the sixteen reverberations of some three or four terminal sounds frequently became monotonous and unpleasing. Ten or twelve-line poems were ascertained to be as a rule somewhat fragmentary, and only worthily served when the poet was desirous of presenting to his readers a simple pearl rather than a diamond with its flashing facets, though here also there was not enough expansion for restricted rhyme, while there was too much for merely two or at the most three distinct terminal sounds.

Again, it was considered advisable that the expression should be twofold, that is, that there should be the presentation of the motive, and its application; hence arose the division of the fourteen-line poem into two systems. How were these systems to be arranged? Were seven lines to be devoted to the presentation of the idea or emotion, and seven to its application: seven to the growth of the tree, and seven to its fruitage: seven to the oncoming wave, and seven to its resurge? The sensitive ear once more decided the question, recognising that if there were to be a break in the flow of melody -- and the necessity of pauses it had already foreseen -- it could not be at a seventh line, which would bring about an overbalance of rhyme.

Experience and metrical music together coincided to prove that the greatest amount of dignity and beauty could be obtained by the main pause occurring at the end of the eighth line. Here, then, we arrive at the two systems into which the sonnet is divided -- the major and the minor: and because the major system consists of eight lines, it is called the "octave," and correspondingly the minor system is known as the "sestet." It soon became evident, however, that something more was wanted: it was as if a harpist had discovered that with another string or two he could greatly add to the potential powers of his instrument. This was the number and the true distribution of rhyme-sounds. How many were to occur in the octave, how many in the sestet? or were they to pervade both systems indiscriminately? ... Again, Guittone had definitely demonstrated that in length each sonnet-line should consist of ten syllables, the decasyllabic metre permitting a far greater sonority than the octosyllabic; and that acute experimentalist probably quite realised that continuous sonority and unbroken continuity of motive were two of the most essential characteristics of the sonnet. No one who has any knowledge of the laws both of music and of poetical forms would be surprised if it were proved, as has been asserted, that Fra Guittone or his predecessors perceived and acted in accordance with the close analogy existing between their chosen metrical form and the musical system established by Guido Bonatti in the eleventh century. Throughout Fra Guittone's work it is evident that he is no blind blunderer, but a poet striving to make his vehicle the best possible, working upon it with a determinate aim. [emphasis added]

With respect to Shakespeare's sonnets, for Harold Bloom and Brett Foster:

The sonnets stand as the record of a mind working out positions without the help of any pantheon or any systematic doctrine. Shakespeare's speaker often considers, in rapid succession, any number of intellectual or ideological positions, but he does not move among them at random. To the contrary: in the first quatrain of any given sonnet he has a wide epistemological field in which to play, but in the second quatrain he generally queries or contradicts or subverts his first position (together with its discourse-field). By the third quatrain, he must (usually) advance to his subtlest or most comprehensive or most truthful position (Q3 therefore taking on, in the Shakespearean sonnet, the role of the sestet in the Petrarchan sonnet). And the couplet -- placed not as resolution (which is the function of Q3) but as coda -- can then stand in any number of relations (summarizing, ironic, expansive) to the preceding argument. The gradually straitened possibilities as the speaker advances in his considerations give the Shakespearean sonnet a funnel-shape, narrowing in Q3 to a vortex of condensed perceptual and intellectual force, and either constricting or expanding that vortex via the couplet. (The Sonnets, Infobase Publishing, 2009, p. 294) [emphasis added]

Given the improbability that the literature on the 14 to 16 logical connectives would either make any reference to poetry or consider the possibility of their articulation in sonnet form, it is quite surprising to note the various references to "logical connectives" in discussion of sonnets. Thus for Helen Vendler:

Many quatrains, taken singly, could well be called conventional, and paraphrases of them by critics make them sound stultifying. What is not conventional is the sonnet's (invisibly predicated) set of relations -- of the quatrains to one another and to the couplet; of the words and images to one another; of the individual grammatical and syntactic units to one another. Even though the appearance of logic is often smoothly maintained by a string of logical connectives (When... When... Then), some disruptive or contradictory force will enter the poem to pull one quatrain in two directions at once -- toward its antecedent quatrain by one set of words, toward its consequent by another; toward the couplet by its temporality; toward a preceding quatrain by its spatiality. Since quatrains often participate in several patterns simultaneously, their true "meaning" is chartable only by charting their pattern-sets (The Art of Shakespeare's Sonnets, Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 29) [emphasis added]

The argument with respect to Shakespear's "summer's day" by Timothy Hampton is subtitled as: A sonnet contains an emotional drama of illusion and deception, crisis and resolution, crafted to make us think and feel (The Sonnet Machine, Aeon, 25 May 2023). A case can be made for the inclusion for such subtlety in the articulation of a strategic pattern like the SDGs.

As explained by Hampton, the composition of a sonnet evolved through combining stanzas of six and eight lines.

The sonnet involved putting two of these stanzas together to produce a little poem of 14 lines, divided into eight lines and six lines – an octave and a sestet – with a break in the middle called a volta. These numerical groupings may seem abstract, but they are what makes the sonnet work. They allow the writer to divide the poetic world in two – to depict two versions of the same event, or two emotional states that can co-exist only in a kind of tension.

Hampton argues:

To read through a sonnet is to be faced with an aptitude test, a questioning of your cognitive and moral capacities. It articulates the flexibility of the self... We start to worry that being compared favourably to a summer’s day might not be such a great compliment after all. 'Shall I compare thee? Well, OK, I will – but be aware that these days are not all perfect and that, in any case, autumn is coming and they won’t last long'. The change wrought by the passage of time is, however, stopped short right at the volta, which recasts everything that has come before... A poem that first appeared to be about good weather, warm days and the rhythms of nature now turns out to be a celebration of the power of verse.

In the current period in which reality and illusion stand in challenging relationship rendering governance especially problematic, there is particular relevance to Hampton's argument:

The theme of illusion versus reality, I suggest, is virtually built into the sonnet. It’s why sonnets have been particularly popular in contexts shaped by social anxiety – Renaissance Europe, with its elaborate courtly rituals, being one example.

Such indications can be understood as justifying experiment with transformation of the SDGs into sonnet form -- given the facilities offered by AI.

Experimental presentation of Sustainable Development Goals in sonnet form by AI

In this section, and in most of those that follow, a question was addressed to ChatGPT (version 3.5) and is indicated in the shaded header of the left or right portion of the table. The response of ChatGPT is given beneath in each case (occasionally with a preface or an epilogue it provides). In the first case (below left) the question was framed using the abbreviated label for the first SDG. For this exercise it was thereafter concluded that a more indicative result would be given using the extended label for the SDG (as shown below right). In the tables which follow, this was the procedure used.

Given the necessarily verbose output of ChatGPT on the set of 17 SDGs, readers could well choose to skip between tables and questions, sampling some responses only, since they are presented primarily as illustrative examples.

Compose a sonnet framing the UN's strategic response to "No poverty" -- as SDG1 (trial formulation) Compose a sonnet framing the UN's strategic response to SDG1: End poverty in all its forms everywhere

In partnership and aid, the world will soar,
Through knowledge shared, resources combined,
No poverty, a dream we shall restore,
As hand in hand, humanity will find.

With access to education and healthcare,
Economic growth for all to partake,
No person left behind, no soul laid bare,
A world transformed, from poverty's ache.

And as the sun descends on each new day,
We strive to lift the burden, ease the strife,
To pave the path where poverty gives way,
To dignity, to justice, to a better life.

The United Nations, steadfast and true,
Envisions a world where poverty is through.

In pursuit of a world free from despair,
United Nations strides with purpose and might,
End poverty, their mission's solemn prayer,
To shield all souls from the darkest of night.

In every corner, where poverty dwells,
They cast a net, embracing those in need,
With strategies and plans, their wisdom swells,
A global call to end this direst creed.

From hunger's grasp, they strive to set us free,
To nourish bodies, minds, and spirits whole,
Empowerment and opportunity,
Unleashing potential, a righteous goal.

In every nation, village, and town square,
They labor, aiming for a just affair.

Compose a sonnet framing the UN's strategic response to SDG2: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture Compose a sonnet framing the UN's strategic response to SDG3: Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages

In realms where hunger's grip holds hearts in sway,
United Nations takes up a noble quest,
SDG2, their mission lights the way,
To end the plight of hunger, manifest.

With steady steps, they strive to ensure
Food security for all, near and far,
Improved nutrition, a guiding lure,
A healthier world, where all souls can star.

Promoting sustainable agriculture's call,
They cultivate the land with utmost care,
Preserving nature, preventing its fall,
For bountiful harvests we all can share.

United Nations, guardians of food's grace,
SDG2, a vision we embrace.

In realms where health's importance reigns supreme,
United Nations embarks on a grand quest,
SDG3, their mission, a vibrant dream,
To ensure well-being, our hearts invest.

Healthy lives for all, a sacred right,
Promoting wellness, from birth till life's end,
No barriers to access in our sight,
Empowering minds, bodies, spirits ascend.

Prevention, treatment, care with open arms,
From diseases' grip, we seek release,
Promoting well-being, shielding from harms,
A world where health and happiness increase.

United Nations, the guardian of our health,
SDG3, our beacon, guiding wealth.

Compose a sonnet framing the UN's strategic response to SDG4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all Compose a sonnet framing the UN's strategic response to SDG5: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls

In realms of knowledge, where dreams take their flight,
United Nations crafts a wondrous plan,
SDG4, a beacon shining bright,
To nurture minds, empower every man.

Inclusive education, their noble quest,
A gateway to a world that's just and fair,
Equitable and quality, the very best,
A learning journey for all to share.

Promoting lifelong learning, they aspire,
To ignite curiosity's flame within,
From childhood's innocence to hearts afire,
Expanding horizons, where passions begin.

United Nations, guardian of wisdom's door,
SDG4, the compass we adore.

In a realm where gender battles persist,
United Nations stands with unwavering might,
SDG5, their vision, none can resist,
To break the chains and empower women's light.

Gender equality, the call they raise,
A world where all hearts beat in harmony,
Empowering women, embracing their blaze,
Unleashing potential, setting them free.

For every girl, a future filled with hope,
No limitations on their dreams and worth,
No barriers to hinder, no dark slope,
Their voices heard, their talents brought to birth.

United Nations, defender of women's rights,
SDG5, a beacon shining bright.

Compose a sonnet framing the UN's strategic response to SDG6: Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all Compose a sonnet framing the UN's strategic response to SDG7: Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all

In realms where life's elixir holds its sway,
United Nations takes up a noble quest,
SDG6, their guiding light each day,
To ensure water's flow, a vital zest.

Availability for all, their creed,
No thirst shall go unquenched, no well run dry,
Sustainable management, the urgent need,
To protect nature's gift, never deny.

Sanitation, a right for every soul,
Dignity restored with each clean embrace,
No more disease shall take its heavy toll,
A world renewed, where health finds its place.

United Nations, guardian of water's grace,
SDG6, our lifeline to embrace.

In realms where energy shapes our embrace,
United Nations strides with resolute might,
SDG7, their beacon, shining grace,
To ensure energy's gift, pure and bright.

Access for all, a vision they proclaim,
Affordable, reliable, the goal in sight,
Sustainable power, the world to reclaim,
Modern energy, igniting new light.

From distant corners where darkness once reigned,
They bring the gift of illumination's glow,
Empowering lives, where dreams are unchained,
A future where energy's blessings flow.

United Nations, steward of power's might,
SDG7, our pathway to ignite.

Compose a sonnet framing the UN's strategic response to SDG8: Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all Compose a sonnet framing the UN's strategic response to SDG9: Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and foster innovation

In realms of commerce, where economies strive,
United Nations takes up a noble quest,
SDG8, their mission, to revive,
Promoting growth, empowering the best.

Sustained and inclusive, the path they tread,
No one left behind, no soul to be lost,
With economic growth, they aim to spread,
Prosperity's reach, no matter the cost.

Productive employment, their cherished aim,
Decent work for all, a dignified plight,
Where talents blossom, hearts no longer tame,
A future bright with opportunity's light.

United Nations, the guardian of dreams,
SDG8, our beacon, steadfast it gleams.

In realms where progress builds a sturdy base,
United Nations forges a noble plan,
SDG9, their vision we embrace,
To craft resilient futures, bold and grand.

With infrastructure, solid and secure,
Foundations laid for growth that shall endure,
Inclusive and sustainable, hearts allure,
Where progress blooms and opportunities cure.

Industrialization, flames ignite,
Empowering nations, dreams taking flight,
From factories to innovation's light,
A world ablaze with creativity's might.

United Nations, the guardian of change,
SDG9, our hopes forever range.

Compose a sonnet framing the UN's strategic response to SDG10: Reduce income inequality within and among countries Compose a sonnet framing the UN's strategic response to SDG11: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable

In realms where equity seeks its embrace,
United Nations stands firm with resolute might,
SDG10, their mission's noble grace,
To lessen income gaps, a just fight.

Reducing inequality, their creed,
Within nations and among countries wide,
A world where all hearts find equal heed,
No more divisions, no more unjust tide.

From riches to the marginalized few,
They strive for fairness, a balanced scale,
No person left behind, no soul subdued,
In unity, they mend the social veil.

United Nations, the guardian of rights,
SDG10, our beacon through dark nights.

In urban realms where life's tapestry weaves,
United Nations assumes a noble quest,
SDG11, their vision that achieves,
Inclusive, safe, resilient, and blessed.

Cities and settlements, vibrant and just,
Spaces where all souls find a place to be,
Inclusiveness, the bond that we entrust,
A tapestry woven in unity.

Safety, their shield against fears and strife,
Resilience, the strength to rise anew,
Sustainability, a balanced life,
A world where dreams and possibilities accrue.

United Nations, the guardian of our lands,
SDG11, our hope in urban strands.

Compose a sonnet framing the UN's strategic response to SDG12: Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns Compose a sonnet framing the UN's strategic response to SDG13: Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts by regulating emissions and promoting developments in renewable energy

In realms of consumption, where choices lie,
United Nations embraces a noble aim,
SDG12, their vision reaching high,
To ensure sustainable patterns reclaim.

Consumption and production, intertwined,
Their impact felt on Earth's fragile domain,
Sustainability, the goal defined,
To nurture harmony, balance maintain.

Reducing waste, embracing efficiency,
Resource conservation, a crucial call,
Innovation's spark ignites proficiency,
Where sustainability echoes in all.

United Nations, steward of Earth's embrace,
SDG12, our guide to find a lasting grace.

In realms where nature's balance is at stake,
United Nations heeds a clarion call,
SDG13, the mission they undertake,
To combat climate change, lest we should fall.

Urgent action required to heal our Earth,
Regulating emissions, the path we tread,
Promoting renewable energy's worth,
A future where sustainability spreads.

For climate's impacts reach far and wide,
From melting ice to rising sea and more,
It's time for us to stand on nature's side,
To safeguard what we cherish and adore.

United Nations, the guardian of our skies,
SDG13, our planet's hope shall rise.

Compose a sonnet framing the UN's strategic response to SDG14: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development Compose a sonnet framing the UN's strategic response to SDG15: Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss

In vast realms where the ocean's beauty lies,
United Nations embarks on a grand quest,
SDG14, their mission's noble guise,
To conserve seas, and nature's gifts invest.

Sustainable development, the guiding star,
Preserving oceans, their vital embrace,
For life within their depths and shores afar,
To thrive and flourish, in harmony's grace.

Conserve and use sustainably, they plead,
Balancing needs with nature's fragile plight,
For oceans hold the key, an urgent need,
To safeguard ecosystems, shining bright.

United Nations, protectors of the deep,
SDG14, our promise we shall keep.

In realms where nature's tapestry unfolds,
United Nations stands with steadfast decree,
SDG15, their mission's tale untold,
To protect and restore Earth's legacy.

Terrestrial ecosystems, precious ground,
Sustained by hands that tend with mindful care,
Forests, the guardians that we have found,
Combatting desert's spread, a burden shared.

Halting land degradation, a resolute quest,
Reviving soils, where life takes root and thrives,
Preserving biodiversity, nature's bequest,
In harmony with Earth, our spirits thrive.

United Nations, stewards of nature's grace,
SDG15, our promise to embrace.

Compose a sonnet framing the UN's strategic response to SDG16: Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels Compose a sonnet framing the UN's strategic response to SDG17: Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development

In realms where peace and justice intertwine,
United Nations forges a noble quest,
SDG16, their purpose, so divine,
To build societies where all souls can rest.

Promoting peaceful realms, a steadfast aim,
Inclusion and sustainability wed,
Access to justice, breaking chains of blame,
Institutions accountable, hearts fed.

From local to global, they aspire,
To foster harmony, conflicts resolve,
Inclusive institutions, hearts inspire,
Where justice reigns, all lives shall evolve.

United Nations, guardian of our rights,
SDG16, our beacon in dark nights.

In realms where progress seeks its greatest height,
United Nations envisions a grand design,
SDG17, the beacon shining bright,
To strengthen means, a partnership align.

Implementation, the key to unlock,
Sustainable development's embrace,
Revitalizing partnership, the rock,
Where shared goals find their rightful place.

Collaboration, nations hand in hand,
Innovation and knowledge shared anew,
Resources pooled, united we stand,
For a future that's sustainable and true.

United Nations, the guardian of our ties,
SDG17, our global bonds arise.

Challenging an AI tendency to echo the conventional blandness of ineffectual articulation

The experimental results (as presented above) are in many respects remarkable in their own right -- and valuable as an indication of the capacity of ChatGPT. However, as noted earlier, the "flowery" language used in these sonnets -- as a first iteration -- invites many forms of criticism, especially in the light of particular biases and preferences. Any poetic analysis might well be especially harsh. From a strategic perspective, the language recalls an unfortunate extreme in promotional discourse typical of public relations departments and press releases. The sonnets crafted by ChatGPT are indeed readily defined as trite -- ironically comparable to the conventions of strategic declarations. They might even be compared with advertsing jingles.

The point to be strongly emphasized is that any such response by ChatGPT can be immediately challenged -- even as being "trite". The question is how the challenge can be meaningfully articulated as input to ChatGPT in quest of a more refined articulation. That process is illustrated by the question on the left (below), and the response beneath it. That response was challenged in its turn, as indicated on the right. The process is continued thereafter. Clearly additional challenges could be formulated from poetic or ideological perspectives, for example.

Whilst valuable for public relations, the (above) answers are expressed in a language of aspiration. The SDGs require an emphasis on strategic feasibility. Can you formulate SDG17 with that emphasis in sonnet form: Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development That answer (on the left) still seems to avoid the necessary strategic emphasis on implementation rather than framing good intentions

In realms where aspirations meet the ground,
Where dreams and feasibility align,
A sonnet shall the SDG17 expound,
With emphasis on strategic design.

Strengthen the means, the pathway to pursue,
Implementing sustainable intents,
Revitalizing partnerships anew,
For global progress, challenges to prevent.

With open hearts and minds, let's forge ahead,
Collaborate, united in our cause,
Innovation and resources we spread,
For sustainable development's applause.

A global union, hand in hand we stand,
In quest for a future truly grand.

In realms where action reigns, intentions meet,
Where aspirations merge with strategy,
Let SDG17, in sonnet sweet,
Emphasize feasibility diligently.

To strengthen means of implementation,
Revitalize the partnership worldwide,
We craft a plan with careful formulation,
Where strategic pathways are our guide.

For aspirations without deeds are naught,
To drive sustainable development's flight,
Strategic feasibility must be sought,
To turn our visions into shining light.

Let actions speak, for words alone won't last,
In partnerships, sustainable growth is cast.

Question to ChatGPT: Is it possible to elaborate that answer (right above) as a sonnet, but in stronger action-oriented form?

Response: Alternative A Response:  Alternative B

In realms where action's might eclipses all,
Where intentions ignite transformative flame,
SDG17 stands, resolute and tall,
For strategic implementation is its aim.

With vigor, let us strengthen every thread,
The means to realize sustainable dreams,
Unyielding in our partnership, widespread,
For action's potency exceeds mere schemes.

Revitalizing bonds that span the globe,
Uniting forces, knowledge we exchange,
In strategic symphony, we probe,
To cultivate a world that shall not wane.

No empty words, but actions must prevail,
For sustainable futures to unfurl and hail.

Together we must strive, relentless pace,
With practicality, our compass guide,
Implementing solutions in each case,
To let sustainable development thrive.

In SDG17, let's intertwine,
Intentions grand with actions bold and true,
Harness the power that collaborations find,
To make sustainable visions breakthrough.

No longer shall we linger in mere thought,
But take the reins and forge a lasting change,
In action's realm, a future shall be wrought,
Where progress blossoms, ever bright and strange.

So let us heed the call, united, strong,
In deeds, the path to global growth prolong.

A further shift in emphasis was sought in adaptations to urgency (left below) and threat of failure (below right)

Previously you formulated SDG17 (Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development) in sonnet form with an emphasis on strategic feasibility), Could you reformulate it with an additional emphasis on urgency.

Could you adapt that formulation of SDG17 (on the left) with a strong emphasis on the threat of any failure in its achievement

In a world where progress must swiftly grow,
SDG17, the global partnership's core,
Embrace both urgency and strategic might,
To forge a future with sustainable light.

With steadfast strides, let means find their strength,
Revitalizing ties to reach the length,
Of each Sustainable Development Goal,
United we'll conquer, fulfilling our role.

Urgency now surges, time can't be denied,
For challenges loom, with threats worldwide.
Let partnerships flourish, swift and bold,
To navigate crises, as they unfold.

Together we stand, urgent actions ignite,
For time is of essence, in this fight,
To build a sustainable world that will endure,
A partnership strong, our hopes secure.

In a world where failure haunts our path,
SDG17 rises, strong in its wrath.
With strategic might and a sense of haste,
We confront the threat that failure may taste.

For if we falter, consequences dire,
The flame of progress may dwindle, expire.
A partnership vital, we must maintain,
Lest the dreams of sustainability wane.

Failure beckons with its ominous call,
A future tarnished, hopes destined to fall.
Let urgency drive our relentless quest,
To ensure success, we must give our best.

The stakes are high, the threat is severe,
The time is now, the danger is near.
SDG17 unites us, a shield we wield,
Against the perils that must be repealed.

Let failure serve as a haunting reminder,
Of the cost we pay when progress grows dimmer.
With unwavering resolve, we must persist,
For SDG17's achievement, we can't resist.

The formulation (above right) was challenged as not being in sonnet form. This engendered a seemingly unrelated response as indicated (below left), presumably due to a technical glitch. This was corrected in the question and response (below right).

The previous response (above right) does not seem to be in 14-line sonnet form

The thread seems to have been lost. The previous response had been an adaptation of the formulation of SDG17 with a strong emphasis on the threat of any failure in its achievement

You're right, my previous response was not in the form of a 14-line sonnet. My apologies for the oversight. Here's a revised response in the form of a 14-line sonnet:

Oh, my dear friend, I hear your heart's desire,
To witness words in a sonnet's sweet embrace.
Let me compose a verse that will inspire,
With fourteen lines, and meter's gentle pace.

In rhyming scheme, I'll follow Shakespeare's art,
Each line will bear ten syllables in part,
In iambic pentameter, sublime.

But as an AI, I'm bound by my code,
And though I strive to mimic human skill,
Perfection may elude me on this road,
For algorithms have their limits still.

Though this sonnet may not be without flaw,
I hope it brings you joy, dear friend, with awe.

Please note that while I've made an attempt to follow the rules of a traditional sonnet, there may still be slight deviations due to the limitations of generating poetry as an AI language model.

Apologies for the confusion. Here's the previous response, adapted in the form of a 14-line sonnet:

In this vast world, where challenges reside,
A goal unmet could bring us all dismay.
SDG17, a beacon to guide,
Global partnership, we must obey.

For when we fail to join hands and unite,
The other goals, they tremble and they shake.
Without collaboration, dark the night,
Sustainable development's at stake.

Eradicating poverty, our aim,
Ensuring justice, peace, and shared success.
But without SDG17, it's all in vain,
No single goal can heal our world's distress.

So let us forge alliances that endure,
And work together, making hope secure.
The stakes are high, the threat is severe,
The time is now, the danger is near.
SDG17 unites us, a shield we wield,
Against the perils that must be repealed.

Let failure serve as a haunting reminder,
Of the cost we pay when progress grows dimmer.
With unwavering resolve, we must persist,
For SDG17's achievement, we can't resist.

Much further thought is clearly required in formulating any challenge -- especially to the extent that ChatGPT is learning (to an unknown degree) from the interaction with a particular user (defined by account login). Of some relevance to the methodology of such interaction is the account presented in detail by Joshua McConkey (GPT-4 Solves My Biggest Physics Question: neutron stars and the Pauli Exclusion Principle, Panalysis, 29 May 2023). McConkey comments:

And so I spent a while last evening chatting with GPT-4 about the subject. During the first part of the long conversation, it did start by regurgitating over and over the same lame higher-level explanations about spin and fermions vs. bosons…but then I was able to back it into a corner and force it to use equations and deeper explanations to finally get to the bottom of the matter, at least in my mind.

Experimental presentation by AI of 17 SDGs in song and rhyming verse

The focus of the experimental interaction with ChatGPT then switched to other modalities as indicated below (left and right). In addition to use of poetic form, as noted above, the relevance of strategic articulation in song was previously argued (A Singable Earth Charter, EU Constitution or Global Ethic? 2006). This referred in particular to the effort to give credibility to challenging responses to challenging complexes of social problems (as exemplified by: the 12 songs of The Globalization Saga: Balance or Destruction, 2004, as a CD accompaniment to a book by Franz Josef Radermacher, FAW - Institute for Applied Knowledge Processing, Ulm, in association with the Global Marshall Plan Initiative; the 13 songs in the CD accompanying the book of Alan AtKisson, Believing Cassandra: an optimist looks at a pessimist's world, 1999 -- the AtKisson Group in relation to a strategic review of the international Earth Charter Initiative).

Transform the formulation of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals into verses of a rhyming song Instead of that formulation, could you provide one rhyming verse for each of the 17 goals

(Verse 1)
There are seventeen goals, a vision we hold,
For a world that's sustainable, brave and bold.
From poverty's grasp, we seek to break free,
Creating a future where all can thrive and see.

Sustainable Development Goals, our guiding light,
Together we'll make the future shining bright.
Through collaboration and actions we take,
A world of progress, for all's sake.

(Verse 2)
No hunger shall linger, no child left behind,
Education for all, knowledge we'll find.
Gender equality, a fundamental right,
Empowering women, with all our might.

Sustainable Development Goals, our guiding light,
Together we'll make the future shining bright.
Through collaboration and actions we take,
A world of progress, for all's sake.

(Verse 3)
Clean water and sanitation, for one and all,
Affordable and clean energy, answering the call.
Industry and innovation, driving growth anew,
Responsible consumption, a planet we must renew.

Sustainable Development Goals, our guiding light,
Together we'll make the future shining bright.
Through collaboration and actions we take,
A world of progress, for all's sake.

Life below water, life on land,
Preserving ecosystems, hand in hand.
Peace and justice, equality for all,
Partnerships for progress, we'll stand tall.

Sustainable Development Goals, our guiding light,
Together we'll make the future shining bright.
Through collaboration and actions we take,
A world of progress, for all's sake.

Let's strive together, for a better tomorrow,
Every goal achieved, a cause for joy and sorrow.
In this song of hope, let our voices unite,
For sustainable development, shining so bright.

Certainly! Here are individual rhyming verses for each of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals:

No Poverty:
Let's end poverty, give hope a chance,
Lift people up with an equal stance.

Zero Hunger:
A world well-fed, no hunger's sting,
Where nutritious meals, all hearts can bring.

Good Health and Well-being:
Healthcare for all, a universal right,
Well-being thriving, in every soul's sight.

Quality Education:
Education shining, a beacon so bright,
Unlocking minds, spreading knowledge's light.

Gender Equality:
Men and women, united as one,
In a world where equality has just begun.

Clean Water and Sanitation:
Pure water flows, for all to embrace,
Sanitation ensured, no life to deface.

Affordable and Clean Energy:
Renewable power, affordable and grand,
Clean energy solutions, for a greener land.

Decent Work and Economic Growth:
Jobs aplenty, with dignity and worth,
Economic growth, nurturing our Earth.

Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure:
Innovate industries, build strong infrastructure,
Driving progress forward, with boundless adventure.

Reduced Inequalities:
No discrimination, no gaps to divide,
A world where equality can truly abide.

Sustainable Cities and Communities:
Cities and communities, thriving and green,
Sustainable living, a shared serene.

Responsible Consumption and Production:
Consume with care, produce responsibly,
For a planet's well-being, a world that's free.

Climate Action:
Combat climate change, protect our Earth's space,
Taking action now, for a sustainable race.

Life Below Water:
Preserving oceans, where life dances and swims,
Conserving marine habitats, their beauty never dims.

Life on Land:
Protecting ecosystems, our terrestrial home,
Ensuring biodiversity, where creatures roam.

Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions:
A world of peace, justice for all,
Institutions strong, to answer every call.

Partnerships for the Goals:
Collaboration, partnerships true,
Unite our efforts, for a future we pursue.

These verses encapsulate the essence of each goal, promoting rhyme and rhythm while highlighting the core aspirations of the Sustainable Development Goals.

The relevance of the haiku mode (below left) follows from its value as perceived by Dag Hammarskjöld as the first Secretary-General of the UN, and by Herman Van Rompuy, as President of the European Council (Valentina Pop, 'Haiku Herman' quietly leaves EU stage, EU Observer, 1 December 2014). Its potential is discussed separately (Ensuring Strategic Resilience through Haiku Patterns, 2006).

Could you present the set of 17 SDGs formatted as a set of 17 haiku poems Could you present the set of 17 SDGs formatted as a set of 17 limericks

Certainly! Here's a set of 17 haiku poems, each representing one of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):

No Poverty:
End poverty's grasp,
Equity and shared progress,
Lives free from want's chains.

Zero Hunger:
Empty stomachs yearn,
Nutrition's vital embrace,
Hunger's end we seek.

Good Health and Well-being:
Healthy lives we seek,
Healing touch, thriving spirits,
Wellness for all hearts.

Quality Education:
Knowledge's gateway,
Dreams nurtured, minds awakened,
Education's light.

Gender Equality:
Equal, side by side,
Empowered voices arise,
Gender's strength unveiled.

Clean Water and Sanitation:
Pure drops, life's essence,
Thirst quenched, health restored anew,
Water's flow sustains.

Affordable and Clean Energy:
Renewable might,
Energy's embrace of all,
Clean power, bright future.

Decent Work and Economic Growth:
Dignity's reward,
Opportunity's embrace,
Work's fruits shared by all.

Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure:
Invention's heartbeat,
Progress paves the path ahead,
Infrastructure's reach.

Reduced Inequalities:
Bridges of fairness,
Inclusion's chorus resounds,
Equality's triumph.

Sustainable Cities and Communities:
Urban tapestry,
Harmony weaved through design,
Communities thrive.

Responsible Consumption and Production:
Wisdom in our choices,
Nature's gifts cherished and kept,

Climate Action:
Earth's plea for healing,
Together we fight the change,
Climate's resilience.

Life Below Water:
Oceans' depths teem with life,
Guardianship we embrace,
Marine worlds, preserved.

Life on Land:
Nature's symphony,
Biodiversity's dance,
Land's treasures safeguarded.

Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions:
Harmony's embrace,
Justice reigning, peace prevails,
Institutions strong.

Partnerships for the Goals:
Bound in unity,
Collaboration's power,
Goals achieved together.

Please note that haiku traditionally consists of three lines, with a syllable pattern of 5-7-5. While these poems adhere to the format, capturing the essence of the SDGs within these constraints can be challenging.

Certainly! Here's a set of 17 limericks, each representing one of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):

No Poverty:
Inequality, we must defy,
SDG 1, we amplify,
Through jobs and fair wages,
We'll turn history's pages,
Ending poverty, reaching the sky.

Zero Hunger:
SDG 2, we take the lead,
No more empty mouths to feed,
Sustainable farming,
Nutrition, alarming,
Zero hunger, the world we'll succeed.

Good Health and Well-being:
SDG 3, our focus, our aim,
To ensure health for all, no blame,
Quality care we'll deliver,
Lives flourish and shimmer,
Well-being, a universal acclaim.

Quality Education:
SDG 4, we strive for knowledge,
Education, our ticket to college,
With teachers inspiring,
And minds never tiring,
Quality learning, we'll build a bridge.

Gender Equality:
SDG 5, breaking barriers, we unite,
Gender equality, shining so bright,
Equal rights we'll demand,
Injustice won't withstand,
Empowered voices, a radiant light.

Clean Water and Sanitation:
SDG 6, water, a precious treasure,
Clean and accessible, beyond measure,
Sanitation for all,
Preventing health's fall,
Water's purity, a global pleasure.

Affordable and Clean Energy:
SDG 7, renewable power,
Affordable energy, every hour,
Solar, wind, and more,
Sustainable to the core,
Clean sources, our future will flower.

Decent Work and Economic Growth:
SDG 8, work with dignity,
Economic growth, an upward spree,
Jobs for all, fair and just,
Opportunities robust,
Prosperity, a worldwide decree.

Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure:
SDG 9, innovation, our drive,
Industry's growth, we will revive,
Infrastructure's might,
Connecting day and night,
Progress, a tapestry we'll contrive.

Reduced Inequalities:
SDG 10, equality's claim,
Reducing gaps, ending the shame,
No one left behind,
Fairness, we'll find,
Inclusion, our world's new name.

Sustainable Cities and Communities:
SDG 11, cities thriving and smart,
Sustainable communities, a work of art,
Green spaces, clean air,
Planning with utmost care,
Urban harmony, an impelling start.

Responsible Consumption and Production:
SDG 12, consumption's reflection,
Responsible choices, our direction,
Sustainable production,
Reducing waste's destruction,
A world of mindful selection.

Climate Action:
SDG 13, climate action's call,
Together, we'll prevent a downfall,
Mitigation and adaptation,
For future generations' salvation,
Climate resilience, standing tall.

Life Below Water:
SDG 14, oceans' vibrant grace,
Preserving life's wonders, a race,
Marine ecosystems, thrive,
Conservation, we'll strive,
Life below water, a precious embrace.

Life on Land:
SDG 15, land's bounty and worth,
Protecting ecosystems, giving birth,
Biodiversity's delight,
Conservation, our fight,
Life on land, a flourishing mirth.

Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions:
SDG 16, peace and justice decree,
Strong institutions, fair and free,
Ending violence's reign,
Human rights, we'll maintain,
A world of tranquility, for you and me.

Partnerships for the Goals:
SDG 17, partnerships we'll bind,
Working together, solutions we'll find,
Collaboration's strength,
Uniting at any length,
Global goals

Experimental presentation by AI of 17 SDGs as riddle, paradox, blind spot and joke

A further switch of experimental focus with ChatGPT was made to complementary -- but quite distinctive -- modalities, as indicated below. The strategic relevance of riddle has been argued separately, raising the question as to whether a solution is the answer to the question (Global Governance as a Riddle, 2018). With respect to the SDGs, there is an extensive range of references to paradox, as separately noted (Paradoxes of sustainability, 2023). 

Frame each of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals in the form of a riddle Frame each of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals in the form of a strategic paradox

Certainly! Here are riddles for each of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals:

No Poverty:
I am the absence of lack and need,
A world without me, a noble creed.
What am I?

Zero Hunger:
I am the growl in an empty tummy,
Banishing me brings joy and glee.
What am I?

Good Health and Well-being:
I am the key to a vibrant life,
When nurtured, battles turn to strife.
What am I?

Quality Education:
Unlocking minds, a treasure chest,
Knowledge and growth, I manifest.
What am I?

Gender Equality:
I am the bridge, a balanced stage,
Where fairness rules in every age.
What am I?

Clean Water and Sanitation:
Clear and pure, a source of life,
Quenching thirst, banishing strife.
What am I?

Affordable and Clean Energy:
I am the power, clean and green,
Accessible to all, a glowing sheen.
What am I?

Decent Work and Economic Growth:
Contributing hands, a thriving tide,
Building dreams with passion and pride.
What am I?

Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure:
Progress in motion, roads and gears,
Innovations shaping future years.
What am I?

Reduced Inequalities:
I am the bridge, connecting all,
Breaking barriers, tearing down a wall.
What am I?

Sustainable Cities and Communities:
Buzzing streets, green and serene,
Where harmony and sustainability convene.
What am I?

Responsible Consumption and Production:
I am the choice, a mindful voice,
Reducing waste, making a noise.
What am I?

Climate Action:
A burning issue, our planet's plea,
Tackling me ensures a future decree.
What am I?

Life Below Water:
Deep blue mysteries, hidden from sight,
A world beneath, gleaming in light.
What am I?

Life on Land:
From towering trees to creatures grand,
Preserve me, the Earth's sacred land.
What am I?

Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions:
A world of fairness, where rights prevail,
Conflict's end, a peaceful trail.
What am I?

Partnerships for the Goals:
A web of collaboration, hands entwined,
Together, solutions we shall find.
What am I?

These riddles add a playful twist to the Sustainable Development Goals, inviting contemplation and curiosity about the essence of each goal.

Certainly! Here are strategic paradoxes for each of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals:

No Poverty:
To eradicate poverty, we must first embrace abundance and equitable distribution.

Zero Hunger:
To achieve zero hunger, we must simultaneously address agricultural productivity and reduce food waste.

Good Health and Well-being:
To ensure good health and well-being, we must balance preventive measures and responsive healthcare services.

Quality Education:
To provide quality education, we must foster both standardized curriculum and personalized learning approaches.

Gender Equality:
To achieve gender equality, we must respect individual differences while promoting equal opportunities for all.

Clean Water and Sanitation:
To ensure clean water and sanitation, we must balance water conservation and sustainable use for all.

Affordable and Clean Energy:
To achieve affordable and clean energy, we must balance accessibility and environmental considerations.

Decent Work and Economic Growth:
To promote decent work and economic growth, we must balance technological advancements and human-centered employment.

Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure:
To foster industry, innovation, and infrastructure, we must balance economic progress and environmental sustainability.

Reduced Inequalities:
To reduce inequalities, we must acknowledge individual uniqueness while striving for equal access and opportunities.

Sustainable Cities and Communities:
To create sustainable cities and communities, we must strike a balance between urban development and ecological preservation.

Responsible Consumption and Production:
To encourage responsible consumption and production, we must balance economic growth and resource efficiency.

Climate Action:
To take effective climate action, we must balance mitigation efforts and adaptation strategies.

Life Below Water:
To protect life below water, we must balance sustainable resource utilization and marine ecosystem conservation.

Life on Land:
To preserve life on land, we must balance land use for human needs and conservation of biodiversity.

Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions:
To establish peace, justice, and strong institutions, we must balance stability and adaptability in governance.

Partnerships for the Goals:
To foster effective partnerships for the goals, we must balance autonomy and collaboration in decision-making processes.

These strategic paradoxes highlight the complexities and trade-offs involved in pursuing the Sustainable Development Goals, emphasizing the need for balanced and nuanced approaches to address these global challenges.

Given the value of humour, it is appropriate to ask whether the SDGs call for such a perspective, as put (below left) to ChatGPT, and discussed separately (Humour and Play-Fullness: essential integrative processes in governance, religion and transdisciplinarity, 2005). With respect to playfullness, to the extent that a facility like ChatGPT is deemed to be a form of global brain, it may be asked whether users are called upon to play with it in some way (Envisaging a Comprehensible Global Brain -- as a Playful Organ, 2019). Those opposing any proposed strategy readily evoke its blind spots (Systemic blind spots engendering systemic errors, 2018; Studied Ignorance: willful blindness and collective amnesia, 2011). This raises the question as to whether ChatGPT could identify such blind spots in relation to each SDG (below right).

Frame each of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals in the form of a joke Identify a strategic blind spot associated with the focus on each of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals

Certainly! Here are jokes for each of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals:

No Poverty:
Why did the math book go on a diet?
To lose its chapters on poverty!

Zero Hunger:
Why did the tomato turn red?
Because it saw the salad dressing – it was hungry!

Good Health and Well-being:
Why did the bicycle go to the doctor?
Because it was two-tired!

Quality Education:
Why did the student bring a ladder to school?
To reach for higher education!

Gender Equality:
Why did the girl bring a ladder to the library?
To reach the top shelf and show that girls can do it too!

Clean Water and Sanitation:
Why did the water say it was sorry?
Because it mist it!

Affordable and Clean Energy:
Why did the solar panel get promoted?
Because it had a bright future!

Decent Work and Economic Growth:
Why did the banker bring a ladder to work?
To climb the corporate ladder!

Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure:
Why did the smartphone go to therapy?
Because it had too many apps and needed to reorganize its infrastructure!

Reduced Inequalities:
Why did the circle have low self-esteem?
Because it always felt unequal to the squares!

Sustainable Cities and Communities:
Why did the city wear sunglasses?
Because it had so many bright ideas for sustainable development!

Responsible Consumption and Production:
Why did the tomato go to the grocery store alone?
To avoid any packaging and promote responsible consumption!

Climate Action:
Why did the climate scientist always carry a fan?
To create wind energy and take action against climate change!

Life Below Water:
Why did the fish blush?
Because it saw the ocean's depths and got all flustered!

Life on Land:
Why did the tree always get invited to parties?
Because it was a great branch manager!

Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions:
Why did the judge take up gardening?
Because they wanted to cultivate peace and justice!

Partnerships for the Goals:
Why did the two charities get married?
Because they wanted to form a partnership for a common goal!

These jokes add a touch of humor to the Sustainable Development Goals, bringing a lighthearted perspective to the important global challenges we face.

Certainly! Here are strategic blind spots associated with the focus on each of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals:

No Poverty:
Blind Spot: Overlooking the systemic barriers and social inequalities that perpetuate poverty, such as access to education and job opportunities.

Zero Hunger:
Blind Spot: Failing to address the root causes of hunger, such as unsustainable agricultural practices or lack of infrastructure for food distribution.

Good Health and Well-being:
Blind Spot: Neglecting mental health and well-being, which are integral components of overall health but often receive less attention and resources.

Quality Education:
Blind Spot: Underestimating the importance of inclusive and equitable education, including providing equal opportunities for marginalized groups and learners with disabilities.

Gender Equality:
Blind Spot: Ignoring intersectionality and the unique challenges faced by individuals who experience multiple forms of discrimination based on gender, race, class, or other identities.

Clean Water and Sanitation:
Blind Spot: Focusing solely on improving access to clean water and sanitation without considering the long-term sustainability of water resources or promoting responsible water use.

Affordable and Clean Energy:
Blind Spot: Underestimating the social and environmental impacts of energy transition, such as potential job losses in traditional energy sectors or the need for a just transition for affected communities.

Decent Work and Economic Growth:
Blind Spot: Overlooking the importance of addressing informal labor sectors and precarious work conditions that often perpetuate economic inequalities and undermine decent work opportunities.

Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure:
Blind Spot: Neglecting the potential negative environmental and social consequences of rapid industrialization and infrastructure development, such as habitat destruction or displacement of local communities.

Reduced Inequalities:
Blind Spot: Overlooking the systemic structural barriers and power dynamics that perpetuate inequalities, such as unequal distribution of resources or discrimination embedded in institutions.

Sustainable Cities and Communities:
Blind Spot: Neglecting the inclusion and participation of marginalized communities in urban planning and decision-making processes, leading to the displacement or exclusion of vulnerable populations.

Responsible Consumption and Production:
Blind Spot: Failing to address the influence of consumer behavior and demand patterns on unsustainable production practices and the need for shifting towards more circular and regenerative economies.

Climate Action:
Blind Spot: Neglecting the disproportionate impacts of climate change on vulnerable communities and the need for equity in climate adaptation and mitigation efforts.

Life Below Water:
Blind Spot: Underestimating the interconnectedness between marine ecosystems and terrestrial ecosystems, thereby neglecting the impacts of land-based activities on the health of oceans and marine life.

Life on Land:
Blind Spot: Failing to consider the social and cultural aspects of biodiversity conservation and sustainable land management, including indigenous knowledge and traditional practices.

Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions:
Blind Spot: Overlooking the underlying structural issues that perpetuate conflict and injustice, such as unequal power dynamics or inadequate accountability mechanisms.

Partnerships for the Goals:
Blind Spot: Underestimating the power dynamics and potential for unequal partnerships, which may hinder genuine collaboration and the equal distribution of resources and benefits.

Identifying these strategic blind spots is crucial for a comprehensive and holistic approach to the Sustainable Development Goals, ensuring that efforts address the multifaceted challenges and achieve meaningful and sustainable progress.

Identification by AI of root cause problems addressed by 17 SDGs -- in relation to overpopulation

In the light of the responses of ChatGPT with respect to strategic blind spots, the experiment with ChaGPT could be taken further (below left) with regard to the "root cause" of the problems the SDGs purportedly address -- in the light of the systemic methodology of root cause analysis. This could have been related to the radicalization potentially associated with the response to each problem, and the failure of the SDGs this engenders (Identifying the Root Cause Focus of Radical Identity, 2015). A further possibility would have been the identification of root metaphors associated with each SDG (Root metaphors and social organization, 1995).  In a spirit of provocation, ChatGPT was then asked (below right) to indicate the role of increasing population in relation to each root cause.  

Identify the root cause engendering the problem which each of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals is framed to address Indicate how increasing population is related to the root cause you have identified for each of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals and the possibilities for remedial action

Certainly! Here are the root causes associated with the problems that each of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals is framed to address:

No Poverty:
Root Cause: Systemic inequality and unequal distribution of resources, opportunities, and wealth.

Zero Hunger:
Root Cause: Insufficient access to nutritious food, often due to poverty, inadequate agricultural practices, and limited infrastructure for food distribution.

Good Health and Well-being:
Root Cause: Inadequate healthcare systems, lack of access to essential services, and prevalence of diseases, both communicable and non-communicable.

Quality Education:
Root Cause: Inequitable access to education, limited resources, poor infrastructure, and socio-economic barriers that hinder learning opportunities.

Gender Equality:
Root Cause: Deep-rooted gender discrimination, harmful social norms, unequal power relations, and lack of opportunities for women and marginalized genders.

Clean Water and Sanitation:
Root Cause: Limited access to clean water sources, inadequate sanitation facilities, pollution, and unsustainable water management practices.

Affordable and Clean Energy:
Root Cause: Dependence on fossil fuels, lack of access to reliable and affordable energy sources, and environmental degradation caused by energy production.

Decent Work and Economic Growth:
Root Cause: Unemployment, underemployment, exploitation of workers, and economic systems that perpetuate inequality and marginalization.

Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure:
Root Cause: Insufficient investment in sustainable infrastructure, limited technological innovation, and lack of inclusive industrial development.

Reduced Inequalities:
Root Cause: Deep-seated social, economic, and political disparities, discrimination based on race, gender, disability, and other factors, and unequal distribution of resources and opportunities.

Sustainable Cities and Communities:
Root Cause: Poor urban planning, inadequate infrastructure, rapid urbanization, and social exclusion that lead to unequal access to services and environmental degradation.

Responsible Consumption and Production:
Root Cause: Unsustainable consumption patterns, overexploitation of natural resources, wasteful production practices, and lack of awareness about responsible consumption.

Climate Action:
Root Cause: Human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, unsustainable resource use, deforestation, and the disregard for the impact of human activities on the climate.

Life Below Water:
Root Cause: Pollution, overfishing, habitat destruction, unsustainable fishing practices, and climate change impacts on marine ecosystems.

Life on Land:
Root Cause: Deforestation, land degradation, unsustainable agricultural practices, habitat loss, and insufficient protection of biodiversity.

Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions:
Root Cause: Inadequate governance, corruption, weak rule of law, human rights abuses, and lack of access to justice and accountable institutions.

Partnerships for the Goals:
Root Cause: Fragmentation, lack of coordination, unequal power dynamics, and limited collaboration among stakeholders at local, national, and global levels.

Addressing these root causes is essential for achieving sustainable development and realizing the aspirations of the Sustainable Development Goals. It requires systemic changes, transformative actions, and collective efforts from governments, organizations, communities, and individuals.

Certainly! Here's how increasing population can be related to the root causes identified for each of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, along with potential remedial actions:

No Poverty:
Increasing population can exacerbate poverty by putting pressure on limited resources. Remedial actions include implementing effective family planning programs, promoting education and empowerment of women, and creating sustainable livelihood opportunities.

Zero Hunger:
A growing population can strain food resources, leading to increased hunger. Remedial actions include promoting sustainable and efficient agricultural practices, investing in technology for increased food production, and supporting equitable access to food and nutrition programs.

Good Health and Well-being:
Rapid population growth can strain healthcare systems and resources, impacting access to quality healthcare. Remedial actions include strengthening healthcare infrastructure, promoting preventive healthcare measures, and ensuring access to essential health services for all.

Quality Education:
Increasing population can strain educational resources, leading to limited access to quality education. Remedial actions include investing in educational infrastructure, training and deploying more teachers, leveraging technology for remote learning, and promoting inclusive education policies.

Gender Equality:
Population growth can increase the challenges of achieving gender equality, as resources and opportunities may become further constrained. Remedial actions include empowering women through education, reproductive health services, and promoting gender-responsive policies and laws.

Clean Water and Sanitation:
A growing population can intensify pressure on water resources, leading to water scarcity and inadequate sanitation facilities. Remedial actions include implementing water conservation measures, promoting sustainable water management practices, and investing in water and sanitation infrastructure.

Affordable and Clean Energy:
Increasing population puts additional strain on energy resources and can contribute to environmental degradation. Remedial actions include promoting energy efficiency, investing in renewable energy sources, and implementing policies to ensure access to affordable and clean energy for all.

Decent Work and Economic Growth:
Population growth can lead to increased unemployment and underemployment, impacting economic growth. Remedial actions include promoting skill development and entrepreneurship, investing in job creation, and fostering inclusive economic policies.

Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure:
Rapid population growth can put pressure on infrastructure and hinder inclusive industrial development. Remedial actions include investing in sustainable infrastructure, promoting innovation and technology adoption, and ensuring equitable access to economic opportunities.

Reduced Inequalities:
Increasing population can amplify inequalities and strain resources, exacerbating social disparities. Remedial actions include promoting inclusive policies, addressing discrimination, improving access to education and healthcare, and ensuring equitable distribution of resources.

Sustainable Cities and Communities:
Population growth can strain urban infrastructure and services, leading to inadequate housing and social exclusion. Remedial actions include promoting sustainable urban planning, investing in infrastructure development, and ensuring affordable housing and inclusive community spaces.

Responsible Consumption and Production:
A larger population can escalate consumption levels and strain resources, exacerbating unsustainable production practices. Remedial actions include promoting sustainable consumption patterns, educating about responsible resource use, and implementing circular economy principles.

Climate Action:
Increasing population contributes to higher greenhouse gas emissions and resource consumption, intensifying climate change impacts. Remedial actions include promoting renewable energy adoption, improving energy efficiency, and implementing climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies.

Life Below Water:
Population growth can lead to increased pressure on coastal areas and marine resources, threatening marine ecosystems. Remedial actions include promoting sustainable fishing practices, establishing marine protected areas, and reducing marine pollution through effective waste management.

Life on Land:
Growing population can drive deforestation, habitat loss, and land degradation due to increased resource demands. Remedial actions include promoting sustainable land use practices, reforestation initiatives, and protecting biodiversity through conservation efforts.

Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions:
Rapid population growth can strain governance systems and social cohesion, impacting peace and justice. Remedial actions include strengthening institutions, promoting good

The response of ChatGPT (above left) raises the question of whether and how it gives priority to particular emphases -- to the point of excluding others (or "hallucinating them", as is now the term applied). When challenged in this respect (as below), it is somewhat suspicious that the explanation defaults to vague reference to complexity, as would be the tendency of politicians and policy scientists to refer to the "connectedness of everything to everything".

Given the systemic understanding of root cause (as in root cause analysis) why does your valuable indication of root causes make no mention of population growth as a primary engendering factor -- as usefully clarified by your last response?

Apologies for the oversight. You are correct that population growth can be a contributing factor to some of the root causes mentioned. While population growth can exacerbate resource constraints and put pressure on various systems, it is important to note that the relationship between population growth and sustainable development is complex and multifaceted. The impact of population growth varies across different regions and depends on various factors such as consumption patterns, resource management, and socio-economic conditions.

In the context of the Sustainable Development Goals, addressing population growth as a root cause is often approached indirectly through strategies that focus on promoting reproductive health and rights, empowering women, and ensuring access to quality education and healthcare. These strategies aim to enable individuals and communities to make informed choices about family planning and contribute to sustainable development.

It is essential to adopt a holistic and integrated approach that considers the interplay of various factors, including population dynamics, in addressing the root causes of sustainable development challenges. This approach involves recognizing the importance of empowering individuals, promoting gender equality, ensuring equitable resource distribution, and adopting sustainable practices to achieve the desired outcomes of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Given any attempt to relate the aesthetic focus of sonnets to the challenges of governance, there is an irony to the emphasis on romance in the former given the manner in which it tends to engender the increase in population with which the latter is confronted.

Potential correspondence identified by AI between logical connectives and sonnet organization

To take further the interaction with ChatGPT -- beyond the limitations of current conceptualization of governance -- the focus of the questions was shifted to the potential role of underlying patterns. Specifically the issue was framed in terms of the logical connectives deemed fundamental to oppositional logic and its associated geometry, as previously discussed (Oppositional Logic as Comprehensible Key to Sustainable Democracy, 2018). This could be held to offer clues to the engagement with the "otherness" so characteristic of opposition to strategic initiatives in practice -- potential deprecated as "binary thinking".

Curiously the contributions from such a logical perspective, which are potentially most relevent to the dynamics of governance, are those of Fabien Schang, as indicated by the following titles:

Strangely, as noted above with respect to the reference to Shakespeare's sonnets, that form offers a form of transcendent reconciliation between seemingly contradictory perspectives. There is therefore a case for speculative exploration of the potential relation between logical connectives and sonnet organization -- especially given the comprehensible appeal of the latter in contrast to the arid abstraction of the former.

A puzzling feature in the quest for any basis for comparison is the contrast between the 14-fold organization of sonnets (and a range of other 14-fold organizational principles noted above) and the 16-fold organization of the pattern of logical connectives. Curiously the latter is conventionally reduced to a 14-fold pattern in order to represent it fruitfully in three dimensions on polyhedra (From 16 to 14 connectives -- precluding a logical meta-perspective?, 2021). This raises the question of whether and how the 17-fold pattern of SDGs might be reduced to form a credibly memorable pattern. Whilst the 17th SDG can be readily excluded as a form of meta-goal, it could then be asked whether the remaining 16 include two SDGs which might be appropriately deemed to be "contradictory" or "tautologous" -- as argued in reducing the 16 logical connectives to 14.

With respect to the interaction with ChatGPT, framing such questions could be understood (and challenged) as the introduction of a particular bias cultivated by the questioner. The style of response is therefore of interest in engaging with a perspective which could be deemed to be unduly speculative. In those responses ChatGPT readily explores, with appropriate reservations, a form of correspondence which is foreign to the preoccupations of poetic analysis and logical analysis. The interaction can therefore be understood as a form of brainstorming with AI in support of creativity and innovation.

In order to develop this thread could you suggest how the organization of the 14-fold sonnet might be related to that of the set of Boolean logical connectives -- as conventionally reduced from 16 to 14 for representation on various polyhedra Present that articulation (on left) in the form of a 14-line sonnet for mnemonic purposes, using the significance of the individual connectives to structure the sonnet to the extent possible

Certainly! The organization of the 14-fold sonnet can be related to the set of Boolean logical connectives by aligning each section of the sonnet with a specific connective. While there are 16 possible Boolean connectives, excluding tautologies and contradictions, we can focus on the 14 connectives that are commonly used for representation on polyhedra. Here's a suggestion for the alignment:

Sonnet Section: Conjunction (AND)
Explanation: The introductory section of the sonnet sets the foundation for the following connectives, representing the conjunction or "AND" operation.

Sonnet Section: Disjunction (OR)
Explanation: This section introduces alternative perspectives or ideas, akin to the disjunction or "OR" operation.

Sonnet Section: Negation (NOT)
Explanation: This section presents a contrasting viewpoint or challenges previously expressed ideas, embodying the negation or "NOT" operation.

Sonnet Section: Implication (IF...THEN)
Explanation: This section establishes a conditional relationship between ideas, resembling the implication or "IF...THEN" operation.

Sonnet Section: Biconditional (IF AND ONLY IF)
Explanation: This section explores the interconnectedness of ideas, reflecting the biconditional or "IF AND ONLY IF" operation.

Sonnet Section: XOR (Exclusive OR)
Explanation: This section introduces a choice or contrast between two distinct ideas, akin to the XOR or "Exclusive OR" operation.

Sonnet Section: NAND (NOT AND)
Explanation: This section challenges the conjunction or "AND" operation by negating its outcome, resembling the NAND or "NOT AND" operation.

Sonnet Section: NOR (NOT OR)
Explanation: This section challenges the disjunction or "OR" operation by negating its outcome, reflecting the NOR or "NOT OR" operation.

Sonnet Section: XNOR (Exclusive NOR)
Explanation: This section explores the equivalence or harmony between two contrasting ideas, similar to the XNOR or "Exclusive NOR" operation.

Sonnet Section: Material Implication
Explanation: This section highlights the material implication between ideas, emphasizing their cause-and-effect relationship.

Sonnet Section: Material Equivalence
Explanation: This section emphasizes the material equivalence or equality of ideas, underscoring their mutual connection.

Sonnet Section: Joint Denial
Explanation: This section challenges the conjunction or "AND" operation by denying the joint occurrence of ideas.

Sonnet Section: Alternative Denial
Explanation: This section challenges the disjunction or "OR" operation by denying the alternative occurrence of ideas.

Sonnet Section: Contradiction
Explanation: The concluding section of the sonnet may embody a contradiction or present conflicting ideas, akin to a logical contradiction.

By aligning each section of the sonnet with a specific Boolean logical connective, we can explore the relationship between the organization of the sonnet and the set of connectives, drawing parallels between the structure of the sonnet and the logical operations they represent.

Certainly! Here's a 14-line sonnet that represents the articulation of the connectives and their significance:

In logical realms where truth and reason dwell,
The connectives weave their intricate spell.
First comes conjunction, binding ideas tight,
AND merging thoughts, harmonizing in sight.

Then disjunction arrives, offering choice,
OR branching paths with a diverse voice.
Negation challenges with "NOT" its creed,
NOT that, but this—a contrasting stampede.

Implication follows, "IF...THEN" decree,
IF this holds true, THEN that shall come to be.
Biconditional unites, in perfect sync,
IF AND ONLY IF, a mutual link.

XOR presents a choice, this or the other,
Exclusive OR, a binary smother.
NAND negates AND, questioning their blend,
NOT AND together, a different trend.

NOR denies the OR, opposing its aim,
NOT OR's embrace, an alternate claim.
XNOR equates the diverse in accord,
Exclusive NOR, a balanced reward.

Material Implication, cause unfolds,
Material Equivalence, truth it holds.
Joint Denial refutes the union's plea,
Alternative Denial sets ideas free.

Finally, Contradiction reigns supreme,
Conflicting thoughts disrupt the logical theme.

This sonnet aims to aid memory's might,
To recall connectives, shining bright.
Each line represents a connective's role,
Within the realm of logic, taking its toll.

By crafting this mnemonic verse so grand,
We navigate the logical sea, hand in hand.

This (right above) seems to be more than the 14 lines required by the sonnet format. Is that the case? Excluding the 17th SDG as having a meta-function, could you articulate 16 SDGs as 14 (by collapsing 2 of them as contradictory or tautologous), such as to correspond meaningfully to a logical connective in each case?

Apologies for the oversight. You are correct. The sonnet format traditionally consists of 14 lines. Allow me to provide a revised version of the 14-line sonnet that adheres to the proper structure:

In realms where truth and reason intertwine,
The connectives their intricate spell design.
Conjunction, first, binds ideas tight, aligned,
AND merges thoughts, harmonizing in kind.

Disjunction then arrives, with choices vast,
OR branching paths, divergent and vast.
Negation challenges, "NOT" its refrain,
NOT this, but that—contrast it maintains.

Implication follows, with "IF...THEN" decree,
IF this holds true, THEN that shall surely be.
Biconditional unites, in perfect sync,
IF AND ONLY IF, connection distinct.

XOR presents a choice, this or the other,
Exclusive OR, a binary smother.
NAND negates AND, questioning their blend,
NOT AND, different paths it intends.

NOR denies the OR, opposing its aim,
NOT OR's embrace, an alternate claim.
XNOR equates the diverse in accord,
Exclusive NOR, balance it has stored.

Material Implication reveals cause,
Material Equivalence, truth that draws.
Joint Denial refutes the union's plea,
Alternative Denial sets ideas free.

These connectives, in logic's grand array,
Guide our thoughts and reason's noble play.
In fourteen lines, their essence finds a home,
A mnemonic verse, their meanings to comb.

Once again, my apologies for the previous error. This revised version follows the traditional sonnet structure of 14 lines, allowing for a more accurate representation of the connectives and their significance.

Certainly! Here's a breakdown of how the 16 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) can be represented by collapsing two of them as contradictory or tautologous, aligning each with a logical connective:

No Poverty (Goal 1) - Conjunction (AND)
Explanation: Combining efforts to eradicate poverty with other SDGs is crucial for comprehensive sustainable development.

Zero Hunger (Goal 2) - Disjunction (OR)
Explanation: Addressing hunger can involve various approaches, such as promoting sustainable agriculture or enhancing food distribution systems.

Good Health and Well-being (Goal 3) - Negation (NOT)
Explanation: Improving health and well-being often entails negating or minimizing factors that contribute to illness and disease.

Quality Education (Goal 4) - Implication (IF...THEN)
Explanation: Access to quality education implies better opportunities and outcomes for individuals and society as a whole.

Gender Equality (Goal 5) - Biconditional (IF AND ONLY IF)
Explanation: Achieving gender equality involves a mutual relationship between empowering women and promoting societal progress.

Clean Water and Sanitation (Goal 6) - XOR (Exclusive OR)
Explanation: Ensuring access to clean water and sanitation involves addressing both issues individually, as well as their interdependencies.

Affordable and Clean Energy (Goal 7) - NAND (NOT AND)
Explanation: Promoting affordable and clean energy involves minimizing reliance on conventional energy sources that harm the environment.

Decent Work and Economic Growth (Goal 8) - NOR (NOT OR)
Explanation: Encouraging decent work and economic growth requires avoiding situations where individuals have to choose between the two.

Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure (Goal 9) - XNOR (Exclusive NOR)
Explanation: Sustaining industry, innovation, and infrastructure necessitates a balanced approach that considers their interconnections.

Reduced Inequalities (Goal 10) - Material Implication
Explanation: Addressing inequalities implies taking specific actions and implementing policies to ensure a more equitable society.

Sustainable Cities and Communities (Goal 11) - Material Equivalence
Explanation: Building sustainable cities and communities involves establishing a harmonious relationship between urban development and environmental considerations.

Responsible Consumption and Production (Goal 12) - Joint Denial
Explanation: Promoting responsible consumption and production requires rejecting patterns that prioritize excessive resource consumption or waste generation.

Climate Action (Goal 13) - Alternative Denial
Explanation: Taking climate action involves rejecting alternatives that contribute to environmental degradation or exacerbate climate change.

Life Below Water (Goal 14) - Contradiction
Explanation: Protecting life below water can involve addressing contradictions between activities that harm marine ecosystems and those that promote their conservation.

By collapsing two SDGs as contradictory or tautologous, we are left with 14 distinct goals, each aligning with a logical connective. This alignment helps emphasize the interconnectedness and logical relationship between the goals, highlighting the comprehensive approach needed for sustainable development.

Whilst a questionable case is conventionally made for excluding 2 of the 16 logical connectives, it remains unclear whether 16 of the SDGs could be meaningfully reduced to 14 in quest of any correspondence (Oppositional logic and its geometry -- 16 minus 2 connectives? 2021; From 16 to 14 connectives -- precluding a logical meta-perspective? 2021). ChatGPT responded as follows.

How do you explain the collapsing of the 16 SDGs to the 14 you have presented by identifying 2 of them as potentially contradictory or tautologous?

Apologies for the confusion. Upon revisiting the question, I realize I may have misinterpreted it. The intention was to collapse two of the 16 SDGs as contradictory or tautologous to align them with logical connectives. However, it is important to note that all 17 SDGs are designed to address distinct dimensions of sustainable development and are not inherently contradictory or tautologous.

Each SDG represents a specific area of focus necessary for achieving sustainable development. While some goals may overlap or have interconnected elements, they are not designed to cancel each other out or be collapsed into a single goal.

Therefore, it would not be accurate or appropriate to collapse any of the SDGs as contradictory or tautologous. Each goal holds its unique significance in addressing various aspects of sustainable development, and all 17 goals are necessary for comprehensive and holistic progress towards a sustainable future.

I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous response.

You provide a reasonable answer as to why 16 of the SDGs (excluding SDG17) could not be reduced to any smaller number (say 14) because of a degree of similarity or contradiction between those omitted and some others. You affirmed that the 16 were appropriately distinct and did not admit of any such compression of the set. Could you revisit your assertions in this regard -- since in principle any set of assertions can be compressed to a smaller set for purposes of generalization or synthesis? Your response implies a seemingly unexamined assumption as to the completeness of the set with 17 SDGs. How would you frame the argument for not increasing the number of goals beyond 17 in order to increase the granularity and specificity necessary to effectively address the diverse range of challenges they are designed to tackle -- especially given the manner in which 169 tasks are explicitly associated with the 17 SDGs?

You raise an interesting point about the potential for compressing a set of assertions, such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), into a smaller set for the purposes of generalization or synthesis. While it is true that in principle, any set of assertions can be compressed or generalized, it is important to consider the specific context and characteristics of the set in question.

The 17 SDGs were carefully formulated and established by the United Nations to address a wide range of interconnected and complex global challenges. Each goal represents a distinct aspect of sustainable development, covering social, economic, and environmental dimensions. These goals were developed through extensive consultations and negotiations involving governments, organizations, and stakeholders from around the world.

While it may be possible to identify similarities or overlaps between some of the SDGs, each goal has its own unique focus and importance in addressing specific aspects of sustainable development. Attempting to compress or synthesize the SDGs into a smaller set would risk losing the granularity and specificity necessary to effectively address the diverse range of challenges they seek to tackle.

Moreover, the interlinkages and interdependencies among the SDGs reinforce the need for a comprehensive and integrated approach. The SDGs recognize that progress in one goal can have positive or negative impacts on the achievement of other goals. By considering all 17 goals individually, we can ensure a more nuanced understanding and targeted action towards sustainable development.

While it is possible to generalize or synthesize information for certain purposes, it is crucial to assess the implications and potential loss of important details, nuances, and specificities in doing so. The comprehensive nature of the SDGs reflects the recognition that sustainable development requires addressing a broad range of issues in a holistic and inclusive manner.

Therefore, while generalization or synthesis can be useful for certain analytical or communication purposes, it is essential to recognize the value and significance of the individual SDGs in driving progress towards sustainable development and addressing the complex challenges we face.

You make a valid point, and I apologize if my previous response did not adequately address the potential for increasing the number of goals beyond the existing 17. While the current formulation of the SDGs comprises 17 goals and their associated 169 targets, it is indeed possible to argue for the inclusion of additional goals to increase granularity and specificity.

Here are a few points that can be made in favor of not increasing the number of goals beyond 17:

  • Overarching Framework: The 17 SDGs, along with their associated targets, serve as an overarching framework for sustainable development. They were developed through extensive global consultations and negotiations, involving diverse stakeholders and expert input. The current set provides a comprehensive structure that covers a wide range of social, economic, and environmental dimensions.

  • Balance and Integration: The existing set of 17 goals has been designed to strike a balance between addressing specific challenges and ensuring the integration of various aspects of sustainable development. Each goal represents a distinct focus area, and together they encompass a comprehensive and interconnected agenda. Increasing the number of goals might risk diluting the integrated approach and creating a fragmented framework.

  • Practical Implementation: The implementation of the SDGs requires resources, coordination, and monitoring efforts. Expanding the number of goals would increase the complexity of implementation and monitoring processes. The existing 17 goals and associated targets already pose significant challenges in terms of coordination and resources required for their achievement.

  • Policy Coherence: The 17 SDGs provide a platform for policy coherence and coordination across sectors and stakeholders. Each goal represents a broad area of focus, allowing for synergies and trade-offs to be considered within and between different goals. Increasing the number of goals might hinder the ability to effectively align policies and actions across different sectors.

  • Communication and Awareness: The 17 SDGs have gained global recognition and serve as a communication tool to raise awareness and mobilize action. They are well-known and widely understood by policymakers, organizations, and the public. Increasing the number of goals could complicate the communication and dissemination of the sustainable development agenda.

While there are arguments for both expanding and refining the set of goals, it is essential to strike a balance between granularity and practicality. The current set of 17 SDGs, along with their associated targets, represents a collective effort to address the diverse range of challenges we face. Ongoing evaluation, review, and refinement processes can help ensure the continued relevance and effectiveness of the goals in driving sustainable development.

When challenged further, ChatGPT revealed a lack of awareness (below right) of the extensive literature on the 14-fold principles of management and policy, as noted separately (Pattern of 14-foldness as an Implicit Organizing Principle for Governance? 2021). It can be seen (below left) as reinforcing complaceny with regard to the range of disciplines appropriate to ensuring engagement of a higher order with SDGs. The assertions with regard to the 14-fold pattern ensuring that sonnets have worked over centuries are clearly challenged by the arguments presented above.

You stress the adequate systemic integration which can be assumed to have emerged from the disciplines and expertise consulted with respect to the 17-fold set. The challenge would however seem to lie in the expertise of those excluded from that process, potentially represented by the aesthetic, ,psychological and communication skills necessary to elicit engagement of a higher order. Would your argument apply to the inappropriateness of decreasing the number of lines in a sonnet -- or increasing them? If indeed the range of expertise engendered a 17-fold pattern of goals, as you assert, how is it that there is such extensive reference to a 14-fold pattern with respect to the principles of management, policy and governance? Is there any evidence justifying the addition of an extra 3 goals to the SDGs? Are you also asserting that the 14-linme sonnet pattern is entirely a matter of traditional convention and has no cognitive implications whatsoever?

The argument I presented regarding the 17 SDGs and the potential challenges of increasing or decreasing their number does not directly apply to the structure of a sonnet or the number of lines it contains. The appropriateness of the number of lines in a sonnet is determined by the established conventions and form of a sonnet itself.

A traditional sonnet typically consists of 14 lines, adhering to a specific rhyme scheme and meter. This specific structure and constraint contribute to the aesthetic appeal and poetic tradition of sonnets. Altering the number of lines in a sonnet would fundamentally change its form and deviate from the recognized conventions of the poetic genre.

In the case of the SDGs, the number 17 was chosen as a result of extensive consultations, negotiations, and expert input. The aim was to establish a comprehensive framework that addresses the complex and interconnected challenges of sustainable development. Each goal represents a distinct focus area and contributes to the holistic agenda.

The exclusion of certain expertise or perspectives in the development of the SDGs is indeed a valid concern. While efforts were made to involve diverse stakeholders and disciplines, there may still be voices and perspectives that are not fully represented. Ongoing engagement, inclusivity, and continuous evaluation are crucial to ensure that the SDGs remain responsive to emerging needs and incorporate a wide range of expertise.

In summary, the appropriateness of the number of lines in a sonnet is determined by the established poetic form, while the number of SDGs was chosen based on a comprehensive assessment of global sustainable development challenges. The two contexts and considerations are distinct, and it is important to recognize the unique characteristics and constraints of each.

I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous responses. To clarify, the number of 17 goals in the SDGs was established through a consultative and consensus-building process involving various stakeholders and experts. The inclusion of 17 goals was a result of extensive discussions and considerations, aiming to address a comprehensive range of sustainable development challenges.

Regarding the reference to a 14-fold pattern in management, policy, and governance principles, I am not aware of a universally recognized 14-fold pattern specifically related to those fields. It's important to note that the frameworks, models, and principles in management, policy, and governance can vary depending on the specific context and theoretical perspectives being considered. While there may be some references or discussions involving a 14-fold pattern in certain contexts, it does not necessarily imply a direct correlation or justification for adding three additional goals to the SDGs.

As for the 14-line sonnet pattern, it is indeed a matter of traditional convention within the realm of poetry. The structure of a sonnet, with 14 lines and a specific rhyme scheme and meter, has been established and recognized for centuries. It has been widely used by poets as a form of expression. The cognitive implications of the 14-line sonnet pattern may lie more in the aesthetic and rhythmic aspects of the poem rather than in any direct cognitive significance associated with the number 14 itself.

In summary, the number of 17 goals in the SDGs was determined through a consultative process, while references to a 14-fold pattern in management, policy, and governance may not directly correlate to the SDGs. The 14-line sonnet pattern, on the other hand, is a traditional convention in poetry, and any cognitive implications may stem more from its artistic and aesthetic aspects rather than from the number of lines itself.

The assertive reference by ChatGPT to the unquestionable authoritative consensus of anonymous experts is strangely reminiscent of the reliance of governments during the course of the recent pandemic. A similar pattern is evident with respect to assertion of threats by the security services on the basis of information too sensitive to be rendered public.

The arguments in support of the questions raised above are separately summarized in Comparable Modalities of Aesthetics, Logic and Dialogue -- In the light of correspondences between their polyhedral representation (2021) with the following sections, variously interrelated:

Intuitive pattern recognition and its formal articulation?
Bach's Fourteen Canons -- musically complete (30 minus 16)?
Counterpoint -- a musical instance of opposition?
Comprehension of 14-foldness through Bravais lattices -- and precious stones?
Cognitive implication in polyhedra -- the 14-sided cuboctahedron and its dual
Oppositional logic and its geometry -- 16 minus 2 connectives?
From 16 to 14 connectives -- precluding a logical meta-perspective?
Dangerous loss of connectivity in global modelling and misinformation detection by algorithm?
Constraint of the 7-fold on comprehension of more complex patterns?
Reality "bubbles" -- forming a psychosocial "foam"?
Configuring the variety of "voices" and dialogue modalities coherently?
Constraints on recognition of subtler patterns of order indicated by the periodic table
Variety of "ways of looking" -- binary or otherwise
Embodiment of logical connectives in sonnet form
Coherent ordering of 14 process elements
Future challenge of problematic sets for governance -- strategic sonnets?
Potential psychosocial implications of more complex polyhedra

Intuitive 17-fold constraints on articulation of a pattern of 17 SDGs in the light of geometrical symmetries?

In an effort to develop the pattern of insights which ChatGPT is potentially able to frame, the focus was shifted further to the geometrical pattern which could potentially be the basis for 14-fold coherence of sonnets and management organization -- and by extension to that of the 16-fold or 17-fold coherence of the SDGs. Prior to the current interaction, with respect to 14-fold organization of sonnets, a naive experiment was made with Shakespeare's famed Sonnet 18 (***) and the set of logical connectives.

Mapping onto the rhombic dodecahedron of 14 vertices: Of particular relevance, beyond the Aristotelian square of opposition is its relationship to the rhombic dodecahedron featuring in Hasse diagrams. The explorations of logical geometry and Aristotelian diagrams  have been most recently summarized in comprehensive papers by Lorenz Demey and Hans Smessaert developing the idea that Aristotelian diagrams can be fruitfully studied as geometrical entities. :

Tentative comparison of mapping exercises of logical connectives and sonnet lines
3D visualization of logical connectives
(combining printed images by Demey and Smessaert)
Arbitrary attribution of the 14 lines of Shakespeare's Sonnet 18 to the 14 faces of a cuboctahedron
Mapped onto cuboctahedron
(12 vertices, 14 faces -- faces solid)
Mapped onto rhombic dodecahedron
(14 vertices, 12 faces -- faces transparent)
Simple rotation Animation of (un)folding
Animation of propositional connectives mapped onto cuboctahedron Animation of propositional connectives mapped onto cuboctahedron Attribution of  14 lines of Shakespeare's Sonnet 18 to  14 faces of a cuboctahedron Attribution of  14 lines of Shakespeare's Sonnet 18 to  14 faces of a cuboctahedron
Animations prepared using Stella Polyhedron Navigator

In the light of such possibilities, the question was then asked of ChatGPT whether a 3D configuration of SDGs graph could be generated on the basis of the systemic relationships between the SDGs (J. P. W. Scharlemann, et al. Towards understanding interactions between Sustainable Development Goals: the role of environment–human linkages. Sustainability Science, 15, 2020). This engendered an appropriate explanation of why this was not possible, as indicated in the following -- effectively a failure in the interaction, as noted in a previous interaction (Eliciting coherence on AEI through visualization from an AI exchange, 2023). The responses are however indicative of the future possibilities which emerge from the anticipated development of AI.

You have information on the relations between the first 16 SDGs (as coordinated by the 17th). Could you generate a configuration according to the force-directed graph layout protocol, with the 16 SDGs as named nodes? I assumed you had information on the degree of linkage between one node and another

As an AI text-based model, I'm unable to generate visual representations or graphs directly. However, I can provide you with a textual description of a possible configuration for the 16 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) using force-directed graph layout principles. Remember that the arrangement of nodes in a force-directed graph is not unique, and different layouts may exist.

Here's a possible textual representation of the configuration:

No Poverty
Zero Hunger
Good Health and Well-being
Quality Education
Gender Equality
Clean Water and Sanitation
Affordable and Clean Energy
Decent Work and Economic Growth
Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure
Reduced Inequalities
Sustainable Cities and Communities
Responsible Consumption and Production
Climate Action
Life Below Water
Life on Land
Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions
In a force-directed graph, the nodes representing the SDGs would be arranged based on attractive and repulsive forces. The nodes that have stronger connections or dependencies would be positioned closer together, while nodes with weaker connections would be placed farther apart. This layout aims to create a visual representation that highlights the relationships and interdependencies among the goals.

If you have access to graph visualization tools or libraries, you can input this list of SDGs and apply the force-directed graph layout algorithm to generate a visual representation that adheres to the principles you mentioned.

I apologize for the confusion, but as an AI text-based model, my responses are generated based on pre-existing knowledge and patterns from the data I've been trained on. While I have information about the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and their interlinkages, I don't have specific quantitative data on the degree of linkage between each pair of SDGs.

The degree of linkage between the SDGs can vary and is often analyzed through complex systems thinking and interdisciplinary approaches. Many research studies and reports have been conducted to explore the interconnectedness and synergies among the SDGs. These studies often involve analyzing the relationships and dependencies between different goals and targets, identifying potential trade-offs or co-benefits, and assessing the impacts of progress in one goal on the achievement of others.

To obtain a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of the specific degree of linkage between each SDG, I would recommend referring to scholarly articles, reports from international organizations like the United Nations, or research publications that delve into the analysis of SDG interlinkages. These sources can provide you with detailed insights and quantitative data on the relationships between the SDGs.


The pattern sought from ChatGPT is indicated by that below left on the 14-sided cuboctahedron (or its 14-vertex dual). With respect to any 60-fold organization of problems and strategies, one such pattern is indicated below centre (Interactive Mapping of 30 Problems with 30 Strategies onto Truncated Icosahedron using Force-directed Layout, 2022). In the light of the remarkably articulated traditional framework of the I Ching, a further example is offered by the pattern on the right, as discussed separately (Four-dimensional requisite for a time-bound global civilization? 2015).

Screen shots of selected results of force-directed layout to elicit Archimedean polyhedra
Cuboctahedron (14 sides) Truncated icosahedron Visualization of 384 I Ching transformations
Intractive force-directed layout of cuboctahedron Mapping onto a force-directed truncated polyhedron (C60) of 60 disabling and enabling trends Force-direct layout of 192 2-way pathways between I Ching hexagrams
Interactive  version Interactive version Interactive version

AI commentary on wallpaper group in 2D: The focus of the interactive was then shifted to the 17-fold pattern of SDGs. This can be explored in terms of the cognitive implications for any sense of coherence offered by the 17 tiling patterns of the so-called wallpaper group (Role of 17 2D tiling patterns in ordering SDGs? 2021; Role of the 17-fold "wallpaper group" in ordering SDGs? 2021).

You stress that all 17 SDGs have been designed to address distinct dimensions with some implication that there are only that set of 17 to be strategically addressed. Could you suggest how that restriction might be related to the 17 distinct groups of planar symmetries, otherwise known as the wallpaper group? The 17 diverse patterns of the wallpaper group are distinguished by mathematical operations. Could you suggest how the 17 SDGs might have been designed through analogous operations -- precluding other possibilities?

Indeed, there is an interesting analogy between the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the 17 distinct groups of planar symmetries, commonly known as the wallpaper group. The wallpaper groups represent different ways in which patterns can be repeated and organized on a two-dimensional surface.

Similarly, the SDGs address distinct dimensions of sustainable development, reflecting the diverse aspects and challenges that need to be tackled. Each goal represents a specific focus area, encompassing social, economic, and environmental dimensions.

The parallel with the wallpaper groups can be drawn in terms of the need for diverse strategies and approaches to address the complexities of sustainable development. Just as the wallpaper groups offer different patterns and arrangements, the SDGs highlight the multifaceted nature of the challenges we face and emphasize the importance of considering a wide range of factors and interventions.

Furthermore, both the wallpaper groups and the SDGs recognize the significance of balance, harmony, and interconnectedness. In the case of the wallpaper groups, these elements are reflected in the symmetries and patterns that arise from different arrangements. Similarly, the SDGs emphasize the need for integration, collaboration, and holistic approaches to achieve sustainable development.

By relating the 17 SDGs to the 17 distinct groups of planar symmetries, we can appreciate the diverse and interconnected nature of sustainable development. Just as the wallpaper groups provide a framework for organizing patterns, the SDGs provide a framework for organizing and addressing the complex challenges of creating a sustainable future.

While the design process of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) was not explicitly based on mathematical operations like those used in the creation of wallpaper groups, we can explore an analogy by considering how different "operations" or factors may have influenced the formulation of the goals. Here's a speculative interpretation:

  • Addition: The addition of new goals might have been driven by identified gaps or emerging global challenges that needed explicit attention.
  • Subtraction: Prioritization and focus on key areas could have led to the exclusion or consolidation of certain goals or targets.
  • Multiplication: Duplication or repetition of certain themes across goals might have been minimized to ensure a broad coverage of distinct dimensions of sustainable development.
  • Division: Division of complex issues into specific goals or targets could have facilitated targeted action and measurement of progress.
  • Integration: The integration of multiple dimensions (social, economic, and environmental) within each goal reflects the interconnected nature of sustainable development.
  • Iteration: Iterative processes, such as consultations, feedback, and revisions, might have shaped the formulation of the goals over time to ensure inclusivity and relevance.
  • Transformation: Transformational change might have been a guiding principle, seeking to address systemic issues and create long-lasting impact.
  • Synthesis: Synthesizing inputs from diverse stakeholders and experts might have contributed to the comprehensive nature of the goals.
  • Balance: Striking a balance between ambition and feasibility would have influenced the formulation to ensure aspirational yet achievable targets.
  • Alignment: The goals were likely aligned with existing global agendas, frameworks, and conventions to leverage synergies and facilitate implementation.
  • Consideration of Constraints: Practical considerations, such as resource availability, political realities, and capacity constraints, might have influenced the design of the goals.
  • Expertise: Drawing upon expertise from various disciplines and sectors would have contributed to the formulation process, ensuring a well-rounded approach.
  • Prioritization: Prioritizing key areas of concern and urgency would have guided the selection and order of the goals.
  • Inclusivity: Ensuring representation and addressing the needs and aspirations of diverse populations and countries globally would have been a crucial factor.

While this analogy provides a speculative framework, it's important to note that the actual design process of the SDGs involved extensive consultations, negotiations, and inputs from member states, civil society, and experts. The goals were shaped by a variety of factors, considerations, and perspectives, aiming to address the multifaceted challenges of sustainable development and create a more equitable and sustainable world.

AI commentary on the set of 17 4-dimensional polyhedra: There is the further possibility that the 17-fold pattern is somehow associated with an intuitive recognition of a 4-dimensional pattern, however unconscious (Higher dimensional coherence of SDGs implied by a set of 17 4-dimensional polyhedra? 2021;
Interrelationship of 17 SDGs modelled by 17 regular polyhedra in 4D, 2021). ChatGPT could then be challenged with this possibility, as follows.

Any intuited sense of 17-fold coherence in 4 dimensions is offered by the 64 convex uniform 4-polytopes of which 5 are polyhedral prisms based on the Platonic solids and 13 are polyhedral prisms based on the Archimedean solids. One is however duplicated with the cubic hyperprism (namely a tesseract), reducing the set to 17. In this light, further to your previous speculative response, could you comment on the potential higher dimensional coherence of SDGs implied by such a set of 17 4-dimensional polyhedra?

The analogy between the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the 17 4-dimensional polyhedra you mentioned is an intriguing perspective. While the direct correspondence between these two concepts may be abstract, we can explore the idea of higher-dimensional coherence and its implications for the SDGs.

In higher dimensions, geometric structures can exhibit greater complexity and interconnectedness. The concept of coherence suggests a unified and harmonious relationship among the elements involved. By considering the 17 4-dimensional polyhedra and their properties, we can draw some speculative insights regarding potential higher-dimensional coherence in the context of the SDGs:

  • Interconnectedness: Just as the 4-dimensional polyhedra are connected structures, the SDGs are inherently interconnected. Progress in one goal can have cascading effects on others, indicating the need for a comprehensive approach to sustainable development.

  • Multifaceted Approach: The 4-dimensional polyhedra exhibit various facets and properties that contribute to their overall structure. Similarly, the SDGs address different dimensions of sustainable development, such as social, economic, and environmental aspects, highlighting the need for a multifaceted approach.

  • Unity in Diversity: The diverse set of 4-dimensional polyhedra represents different symmetries and configurations. Similarly, the SDGs encompass a diverse range of global challenges, emphasizing the importance of unity in addressing these complexities.

  • Synergistic Relationships: In higher-dimensional geometry, polyhedra can have interconnected relationships and dependencies. Similarly, the SDGs recognize the synergistic relationships between different goals, where progress in one can support or enhance progress in others.

  • Holistic Perspective: Higher-dimensional structures often require a holistic understanding of their components. Likewise, the SDGs advocate for a holistic perspective, considering the interplay between social, economic, and environmental factors to achieve sustainable development.

It is important to note that the analogy between 4-dimensional polyhedra and the SDGs is primarily a conceptual exploration. The design of the SDGs was not directly inspired by geometric structures, and the goals themselves are intended to address specific global challenges rather than mimic higher-dimensional geometries.

Nevertheless, considering the potential higher-dimensional coherence of the SDGs can offer a thought-provoking perspective on the interconnected nature of sustainable development and the need for a comprehensive and integrated approach to address the complex challenges we face.

Suggestions of AI for coherent visual mapping of logical connectives and SDGs onto polyhedra

Discussion of logical opposition and the geometry whereby it may be mapped tends to focus on the options provided by the Archimedean polyhedra or their duals -- most obviously the 14-faced cuboctahedron and the 14-vertex rhombic dodecahedron (as featured above). Arguably these offer an optimal pattern by which the coherence of the range of logical operations may be represented. Despite their potential, these have clearly been less than relevant to the challenge of coherent discourse in a global civilization faced with divisive challenges of governance.

There is therefore a case for exploring alternative 14-fold extremes which only too readily constitutes a challenge to comprehension and any sense of coherence. A notable possibility is the relatively little known Szilassi polyhedron with 14 vertices, 21 edges and 7 hexagonal faces (below left). It is unique in that each of the 7 faces is in contact with the 6 others -- a property of value in that it requires seven colours to colour distinctively all adjacent faces. 

Of corresponding interest is dual of the Szilassi polyehdron, namely the Császár polyhedron -- necessarily with 14 faces, 21 edges and 7 vertices (below right). The elements of the 14-fold patterns explored above can therefore be associated experimentally with the vertices of the first and with the faces of the second. In both cases animations show the folding from two dimensions to three.

Arguably such polyhedra offer a reflection of the challenge to comprehension to the sets which may be associated with them -- whether logical, aesthetic or strategic. Their complexity might be interpreted in terms of requisite variety in cybernetic terms. There is of course the intriguing question of whether such asymmetric mapping would be of value to comprehension of the elusive magic of the sonnet form -- especially through dynamics suggested by (un)folding.

14-fold polyhedra constituting a challenge to comprehension of associated sets
Rotation of Szilassi Folding of Szilassi Rotation of Császár Folding of Császár
Rotation of Szilassi  polyhedron with logical connectives Folding of Szilassi polyhedron with logical connectives Rotation of Császár polyhedron with logical connectives Folding of Császár polyhedron with logical connectives
Animations prepared using Stella Polyhedron Navigator

In any interaction with ChatGPT it is then a question of how best to frame a question eliciting greater insight into the potential relevance of such configurations relative to that of the more symmetrical possibilities.

Could you comment on the value of symmetric polyhedra (such as the rhombic dodecahedron) for mapping purposes relative to asymmetric polyhedra (such as the Szilassi polyhedron or the Császár polyhedron) with respect to interestingness, memorability, requisite variety and comprehensibility? The set of 14 logical connectives are distinctively mapped onto the vertexes of the rhombic dodecahedron in the light of their relationships to one another -- thereby indicating a degree of coherence. Could you suggest any transformation of that attribution to the vertexes of the Szilassi polyhedron?

When it comes to mapping purposes, the choice between symmetric polyhedra, like the rhombic dodecahedron, and asymmetric polyhedra, such as the Szilassi polyhedron or the Császár polyhedron, can depend on various factors. Let's explore the characteristics of both types in relation to interestingness, memorability, requisite variety, and comprehensibility:

  • Interestingness: Symmetric polyhedra, with their regular and balanced structures, can be visually appealing and aesthetically pleasing. The uniformity of their faces and edges may lend them a sense of elegance. On the other hand, asymmetric polyhedra can be intriguing due to their irregularity and uniqueness. Their unconventional shapes can spark curiosity and interest.

  • Memorability: Symmetric polyhedra often have a distinct and recognizable form. Their regular patterns can aid in memorization and recognition. In contrast, asymmetric polyhedra may be less familiar and harder to remember due to their complex and less predictable configurations.

  • Requisite Variety: Depending on the specific mapping requirements, both symmetric and asymmetric polyhedra can offer different degrees of variety. Symmetric polyhedra provide a consistent and balanced framework, which can be useful for organizing and categorizing information in a structured manner. Asymmetric polyhedra, with their irregularity, may introduce more variability and facilitate the representation of diverse or complex relationships.

  • Comprehensibility: Symmetric polyhedra, with their regular faces and edges, can provide a clearer and more intuitive understanding of spatial relationships. The symmetry aids in comprehending the overall structure and connections between elements. Asymmetric polyhedra, with their intricate designs, may require more effort to interpret and grasp their underlying meaning.

Ultimately, the choice between symmetric and asymmetric polyhedra for mapping purposes depends on the specific context, goals, and audience. Symmetric polyhedra offer a sense of order, elegance, and ease of comprehension, which can be beneficial for straightforward mappings. Asymmetric polyhedra, on the other hand, can bring uniqueness, complexity, and versatility, making them suitable for representing intricate relationships or fostering creative thinking. It's essential to consider the intended purpose and the characteristics that best align with the desired outcomes when selecting a polyhedron for mapping.

.The Szilassi polyhedron is a unique and asymmetric polyhedron, and its vertex configuration differs from that of the rhombic dodecahedron. However, we can still explore a possible transformation of attributions to the vertexes of the Szilassi polyhedron based on the relationships of the logical connectives. Here's a suggestion for mapping the logical connectives onto the vertexes of the Szilassi polyhedron:

  1. Negation (¬)
  2. Conjunction (∧)
  3. Disjunction (∨)
  4. Implication (→)
  5. Exclusive Or (XOR)
  6. Biconditional (↔)
  7. NAND
  8. NOR
  9. Sheffer Stroke (↓)
  10. Pierce Arrow (↑)
  11. Material Nonimplication (↛)
  12. Converse Nonimplication (↚)
  13. Joint Denial (↑)
  14. Affirmation (⊤)

Please note that the vertex arrangement on the Szilassi polyhedron is not inherently linked to logical connectives, so this mapping is a conceptual suggestion based on the relationships between the logical operators. It's important to remember that this is a creative interpretation and may not have a direct mathematical or logical significance.

Use of AI to enhance discourse analysis and mapping in the light of logical connectives

The comprehension and fruitful uptake of the SDGs merits exploration in terms of sustainable dialogue (Imagining sustainable dialogue -- and the community it engenders, 1999; Sustainable Dialogue as a Necessary Template for Sustainable Global Community, 1995; Collapsing the space of sustainable dialogue, 2009).

Central to such an approach is the manner in which agreement and disagreement are perceived to interplay -- as is allusively indicated through the aethetics of the sonnet form. The question is then how use of particular logical connectives comes into play and can be rendered comprehensible in the course of dialogue -- much as is a feature of visualization and analysis of so-called "passing patterns" in ball games. Such games are illustrative of the interplay of opposing forces -- through the "spirit of the game" -- which global dialogue has yet to render comprehensible to any fruitful degree.

What are the strategic implications of the set of logical connectives, especially in the light of the dynamics of discourse and denial in opposition to the SDGs Reformulate that articulation (on left) to include all 16 logical connectives

The set of logical connectives, often used in formal logic and mathematics, can indeed have strategic implications in the context of discourse and opposition to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Understanding these implications can shed light on the dynamics at play. Here are some considerations:

  • Conjunction (AND): The logical connective "AND" represents the intersection and combination of ideas or conditions. Strategically, it implies the need for a comprehensive approach to address the SDGs. It recognizes that multiple goals can and should be pursued simultaneously, fostering integration and synergies.

  • Disjunction (OR): The logical connective "OR" allows for alternatives or choices. In the context of the SDGs, it can be strategic to present different pathways or solutions that align with the overarching goals. It recognizes that diverse approaches may be needed based on specific contexts or capacities.

  • Implication (IF-THEN): The logical connective "IF-THEN" establishes a conditional relationship. Strategically, it can be used to demonstrate the relationship between actions and outcomes related to the SDGs. By highlighting the potential positive impacts of pursuing sustainable development, it can help convince and engage different stakeholders.

  • Negation (NOT): The logical connective "NOT" negates a statement or condition. In the context of opposition to the SDGs, strategic implications may arise when this connective is used to challenge or deny the importance or feasibility of sustainable development. Addressing such opposition requires effectively countering misinformation or misconceptions through evidence-based arguments.

  • Exclusive Disjunction (XOR): The logical connective "XOR" denotes the exclusion of simultaneous presence. In the case of the SDGs, it may have strategic implications when addressing conflicting or competing interests. Balancing different priorities and finding common ground becomes crucial to overcome obstacles and foster collaboration.

  • Understanding the strategic implications of these logical connectives can help in navigating discourse and opposition to the SDGs. It involves presenting persuasive arguments, debunking myths, highlighting interconnections, and emphasizing the benefits of sustainable development. Effective communication and engagement strategies are essential to address denial or resistance and build a broader consensus around the SDGs.

Moreover, it is important to recognize that the dynamics of discourse and denial can be complex and multifaceted. Various factors, such as political ideologies, vested interests, and differing worldviews, can influence opposition to the SDGs. A strategic approach requires tailored interventions, dialogue, and inclusive processes to address concerns and foster a shared understanding of the benefits and necessity of sustainable development.

Certainly! Here's a reformulation of the articulation, incorporating all 16 logical connectives and their strategic implications in the context of discourse and opposition to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):

  • Conjunction (AND): Strategically, the use of "AND" emphasizes the need for a comprehensive approach to address the SDGs. It underscores the importance of considering multiple goals simultaneously, fostering integration and synergies.

  • Disjunction (OR): The connective "OR" allows for alternatives and choices. Strategically, it can be used to present different pathways or solutions aligned with the SDGs, recognizing the need for diverse approaches based on specific contexts or capacities.

  • Implication (IF-THEN): By using "IF-THEN," strategic communication can establish a conditional relationship between actions and outcomes related to the SDGs. This connective can help convince and engage stakeholders by showcasing the positive impacts of pursuing sustainable development.

  • Negation (NOT): The connective "NOT" allows for negating a statement or condition. Strategically, addressing opposition to the SDGs requires countering misinformation or misconceptions through evidence-based arguments to dispel doubts and foster understanding.

  • Exclusive Disjunction (XOR): "XOR" denotes the exclusion of simultaneous presence. Strategically, it highlights the importance of finding common ground and balancing different priorities when addressing conflicting or competing interests related to the SDGs.

  • Biconditional (IF AND ONLY IF): The connective "IF AND ONLY IF" establishes a two-way relationship. Strategically, it can be used to emphasize the interdependencies and mutual benefits of pursuing sustainable development for various stakeholders.

  • Material Implication (IF...THEN): "IF...THEN" expresses a material implication. Strategically, it can be utilized to demonstrate the logical consequences of not pursuing the SDGs, emphasizing the potential risks or missed opportunities.

  • Material Non-Implication (IF NOT...THEN): "IF NOT...THEN" expresses a material non-implication. Strategically, it can be employed to challenge misconceptions and highlight the adverse consequences of not addressing sustainable development.

  • Converse (IF THEN...): The connective "IF THEN..." refers to the converse of an implication. Strategically, it can be used to explore alternative approaches or scenarios related to the SDGs, broadening the discourse and fostering creativity.

  • Converse Non-Implication (IF THEN NOT...): "IF THEN NOT..." refers to the converse non-implication. Strategically, it can be employed to challenge assumptions or assertions by highlighting counterexamples or alternative perspectives.

  • Joint Denial (NEITHER NOR): "NEITHER NOR" expresses joint denial. Strategically, it can be used to address binary thinking and highlight the potential synergistic solutions that transcend dichotomous approaches to sustainable development.

  • Negated Conjunction (NAND): The connective "NAND" negates a conjunction. Strategically, it can be employed to challenge oversimplified or reductionist views that undermine the interconnectedness and complexity of the SDGs.

  • Negated Disjunction (NOR): "NOR" negates a disjunction. Strategically, it can be utilized to challenge false dichotomies and promote inclusive and collaborative approaches to addressing the SDGs.

  • Material Equivalence (IF AND ONLY IF...): "IF AND ONLY IF..." expresses a material equivalence. Strategically, it can be used to establish a clear and comprehensive understanding of the mutual dependencies and interconnectedness of the SDGs.

  • Material Non-Equivalence (IF NOT AND NOT...): "IF NOT AND NOT..." expresses a material non-equivalence. Strategically, it can be employed to challenge misconceptions or narrow interpretations that hinder progress towards the SDGs.

  • Negated Material Equivalence (IF NOT AND/OR NOT...): The connective "IF NOT AND/OR NOT..." negates a material equivalence. Strategically, it can be utilized to challenge assumptions or highlight the complexities and trade-offs associated with pursuing the SDGs.

Understanding and effectively utilizing these logical connectives can inform strategic communication and engagement strategies, enabling a more nuanced and persuasive dialogue around the SDGs and addressing opposition or denial through reasoned arguments, evidence, and the recognition of interconnectedness.

The possibility that discourse analysis "on the fly" could be adapted to the detection of passing patterns was presented as a question to ChatGPT.

Could discourse analysis enable detection of use of such logical devices in a live debate with the possibility of their visualization on any polyhedron (or Haase diagram) conventionally used for such representation -- a procedure analogous to representation of passing patterns in professional ball games? Are there any indications that such simultaneous visualization of interactions in live debate will be enabled and enhanced by AI?

Discourse analysis can indeed play a role in detecting the use of logical devices during a live debate or discussion. By analyzing the language, arguments, and patterns of communication, discourse analysts can identify the presence and effectiveness of logical connectives and other rhetorical strategies employed by participants.

Regarding the visualization of these logical devices on a polyhedron or Haase diagram, it would require mapping the identified discourse elements onto a graphical representation. While the connection between logical devices and polyhedral representations may not be direct, it is possible to develop a visual representation that captures the flow and interaction of arguments.

Here's a possible approach to visualize logical devices in a live debate using a polyhedron or Haase diagram:

  • Mapping Logical Devices: Identify and categorize the different logical devices used in the discourse, such as conjunctions, disjunctions, implications, negations, and others. Assign specific symbols or markers to represent each device.
  • Discourse Analysis: Analyze the debate or discussion transcript to identify instances where these logical devices are employed. Note the speakers, context, and specific statements where the devices are used.

  • Visualization Design: Choose a suitable polyhedron or Haase diagram to represent the discourse. Each face or region of the polyhedron can be dedicated to a particular logical device or type of argument. For example, a face might represent conjunctions, another face for disjunctions, and so on.

  • Marker Placement: Place the corresponding symbols or markers representing the identified logical devices on the appropriate faces or regions of the polyhedron. The spatial arrangement can reflect the sequence or flow of the arguments and their interconnections.

  • Dynamic Representation: As the debate progresses, update the polyhedron visualization in real-time to reflect the ongoing discourse. New markers can be added, shifted, or connected to depict the evolving arguments and logical connections made by the speakers.

  • Visualization Analysis: Analyze the visual representation of the discourse to gain insights into the patterns of logical devices used, their distribution across speakers, and the overall dynamics of the debate. This analysis can reveal the effectiveness of different strategies, the presence of logical fallacies, or the coherence of arguments.

By visualizing the logical devices on a polyhedron or Haase diagram, this approach provides a unique way to observe and analyze the structure and interplay of arguments in a live debate. It allows for a more intuitive understanding of the strategic use of logical connectives and facilitates the identification of patterns, strengths, weaknesses, and potential biases in the discourse.

Yes, there are indications that AI can enable and enhance the simultaneous visualization of interactions in live debates. AI technologies, such as natural language processing (NLP) and data visualization, can play a significant role in analyzing and representing the dynamics of discourse.

Here are some ways AI can facilitate the visualization of interactions in live debate:

  • Real-time Speech-to-Text Transcription: AI-powered speech recognition systems can transcribe spoken words into text in real-time. This transcription can serve as a basis for further analysis and visualization.

  • Sentiment Analysis: AI algorithms can analyze the sentiment expressed in the debate, detecting positive, negative, or neutral tones. This information can be visually represented to show the emotional undertones of the discourse.

  • Network Analysis: AI can analyze the connections and interactions between speakers, identifying patterns of influence, agreement, or disagreement. Network visualization techniques can then be employed to represent these relationships.

  • Argument Mining: AI techniques can extract and categorize arguments from the debate text, identifying premises, claims, and rebuttals. Visualization tools can display the structure of arguments and their relationships, providing a comprehensive view of the discourse.

  • Visual Representations: AI-powered data visualization tools can create dynamic and interactive visual representations of the discourse. This includes the ability to display logical connectives, rhetorical devices, speaker interactions, and the flow of arguments in real-time.

  • Automated Summarization: AI can summarize key points and arguments made during the debate. These summaries can be visualized using techniques like word clouds, topic modeling, or timeline visualizations, providing a concise overview of the main discussions.

  • Contextual Understanding: AI models trained on vast amounts of textual data can provide contextual understanding, helping to identify nuanced arguments, fallacies, or biases. Visual representations can incorporate this contextual information to enhance the analysis of the debate

Less evident is whether any such adaptation could encompass the processes of opposition and denial so characteristic of discourse on controversial issues such as climate change and migration. In its initial response ChatGPT avoided the issue of such embodiment.

How could this development reflect opposition to such transparency as has been evident in video recording and broadcasting of parliamentary debate?

The development of AI-enabled visualization of live debate interactions can indeed raise questions and encounter opposition, similar to the debates surrounding video recording and broadcasting of parliamentary sessions. Here are some potential reflections of opposition to transparency in this context:

  • Privacy Concerns: Opponents may argue that the real-time visualization of interactions in live debates infringes on the privacy of the participants. They might express concerns about the public exposure of their arguments, emotions, or personal information without their consent.

  • Manipulation and Misrepresentation: Critics may worry about the potential for AI-driven visualization to be manipulated or misrepresent the actual discourse. They might argue that visual representations can be biased or selectively edited to favor a particular viewpoint, leading to distorted interpretations.

  • Loss of Spontaneity and Authenticity: Some individuals may argue that the use of AI visualization tools in live debates could discourage spontaneity and hinder the authentic expression of ideas. They might contend that participants may become overly conscious of how their arguments are visually represented, leading to less genuine interactions.

  • Technological Dependence: Opponents might express concerns about becoming overly reliant on AI technologies to understand and interpret debates. They may argue that reliance on automated visualizations could undermine critical thinking and analysis by substituting human judgment with algorithmic interpretations.

  • Distracted Focus: Critics may suggest that the introduction of real-time visualizations in live debates could lead to a shift in focus away from the substance of the arguments. They may argue that participants and the audience may become more preoccupied with the visual representation itself rather than the quality and merits of the arguments being made.

  • Resistance to Change: As with any technological advancement, there may be resistance to change from individuals or institutions that prefer traditional modes of discourse analysis or are skeptical about the benefits and implications of AI-driven visualization.

It is important to address these concerns and engage in open discussions about the ethical use of AI technologies in visualizing live debate interactions. Striking a balance between transparency, privacy, authenticity, and the responsible use of AI is crucial to ensure that the development of such tools benefits the democratic process without compromising its integrity.

By leveraging AI technologies, the simultaneous visualization of interactions in live debates can become more sophisticated and insightful. AI's ability to process large amounts of data, detect patterns, and generate visual representations in real-time can significantly enhance our understanding of the dynamics at play during such debates.

There is a degree of irony to the possibility that from an AI perspective, and its dependence on neural learning, the logic of dialogue as a form of game could be understood in terms of the set of 16 logical connectives. With chess involving the interplay of two sets of 16 pieces (for example), would these be deployed in dialogue between two AIs in manner comparable to a chess game? How then might debate of an AI with a human be played out? By contrast, how many distinctive "connectives" are employed between humans skilled in conventional forms of debate? Aspects of these possibilities were framed as questions to ChatGPT.

In this exchange the pattern of 16 logical connectives has been noted. Given the skills of AI in chess with 16 pieces, could you comment on how might 16 such connectives be deployed by one party in a debate against another -- equally equipped? In chess considerable skill and experience is evident in the choice of a pattern of moves in response to those of the opponent. Given the analogy, could you comment on how connectives might be combined in successful debate and negotiation?

Using the analogy of 16 logical connectives in a debate, similar to the 16 pieces in a game of chess, we can explore how they might be deployed by each party. In chess, each player strategically uses their pieces to gain an advantage and outmaneuver their opponent. Similarly, in a debate, each party can strategically employ logical connectives to present their arguments effectively and counter their opponent's points.

Here's a breakdown of the 16 logical connectives and how they could be utilized in a debate setting:

  • AND: This connective allows one to combine multiple arguments or premises to strengthen their case. It can be employed to demonstrate a relationship of dependency or to highlight the interconnectedness of different ideas.
  • OR: The "or" connective is useful when presenting alternative possibilities or options. It can be used to broaden the scope of arguments and allow for more flexible positions.
  • NOT: The negation connective is employed to contradict or challenge an opponent's assertion. It can be used to demonstrate flaws in their reasoning or to present counterexamples.
  • IMPLIES: This connective establishes a conditional relationship between two statements. It allows one to demonstrate cause-and-effect or logical consequences, often used to strengthen or weaken an argument.
  • IF AND ONLY IF (IFF): The "iff" connective establishes a biconditional relationship, indicating that two statements are equivalent. It can be used to show logical equivalence between arguments or to emphasize the necessity of certain conditions.
  • XOR: Exclusive OR indicates that only one of the connected statements can be true. It can be employed to present mutually exclusive options or to challenge the coherence of an opponent's arguments.
  • NAND: The NAND connective negates the result of an AND operation. It can be used to challenge an opponent's claim that relies on the conjunction of multiple premises.
  • NOR: NOR negates the result of an OR operation. It can be utilized to challenge an opponent's claim that relies on presenting alternative possibilities.
  • XNOR: Exclusive NOR indicates that two statements are either both true or both false. It can be used to demonstrate the consistency or inconsistency of an opponent's arguments.
  • EXISTS: The "exists" connective introduces the notion of existence. It can be employed to show that there is at least one example or instance supporting a particular claim.
  • FOR ALL: The "for all" connective indicates that a statement applies universally. It can be used to establish general principles or to challenge the validity of an opponent's broad claims.
  • THEREFORE: This connective signals a conclusion or inference drawn from previous premises. It is a powerful tool to summarize and emphasize the main points of an argument.
  • EQUIVALENT: The "equivalent" connective establishes that two statements have the same truth value. It can be used to highlight similarities or to challenge an opponent's claim by showing an alternative formulation.
  • INCONSISTENT: The "inconsistent" connective demonstrates that two statements cannot both be true at the same time. It can be employed to show contradictions within an opponent's arguments.
  • CONTRARY: The "contrary" connective indicates a logical opposition between two statements. It can be used to challenge an opponent's position or to present an alternative viewpoint.
  • TAUTOLOGY: A tautology is a statement that is always true. It can be used to emphasize a self-evident truth or to undermine an opponent's argument by demonstrating its triviality.

In a debate, each party could strategically use these logical connectives to construct arguments, challenge their opponent's assertions, and highlight the strengths or weaknesses of various positions. Just as in chess, the success of their deployment would depend on the clarity

Certainly! Just as in chess, skillful and strategic use of the 16 logical connectives in a debate or negotiation can greatly influence the outcome. Here are some ways in which these connectives can be combined effectively:

  • Building a strong argument: Players can combine the AND connective to present multiple supporting premises and strengthen their case. By employing IMPLIES or IF AND ONLY IF connectives, they can establish logical relationships between statements, reinforcing the coherence of their argument.

  • Presenting alternatives: The OR connective can be used to offer different options or possibilities, allowing for flexibility and adaptation during the debate. XOR can also be employed to present mutually exclusive choices, highlighting the differences between opposing viewpoints.

  • Challenging an opponent's position: Players can use the NOT connective to negate an opponent's assertion or to question the validity of their argument. The NAND or NOR connectives can be combined with NOT to challenge the conjunction or disjunction of their opponent's premises.

  • Seeking common ground: By utilizing EQUIVALENT connectives, participants can find shared aspects between their arguments and the opponent's position. This can be helpful in negotiation scenarios where finding common points of agreement is crucial.

  • Establishing universality or existence: FOR ALL and EXISTS connectives can be used to demonstrate the general applicability of a principle or the existence of specific instances supporting an argument. These connectives can add weight to one's position during negotiation or debate.

  • Drawing logical conclusions: Participants can use the THEREFORE connective to summarize their argument and present a logical inference based on the presented premises. This helps solidify their position and provide a clear takeaway point.

  • Detecting inconsistencies: Inconsistencies can be highlighted using the INCONSISTENT connective, pointing out contradictions or logical fallacies in an opponent's argument. This can weaken their position and strengthen one's own.

  • Emphasizing self-evident truths: Players can utilize TAUTOLOGY connectives to underscore statements that are universally true or self-evident. This can be effective in debates where certain fundamental principles are widely accepted.

In successful debates and negotiations, the key lies in the strategic deployment and combination of these connectives. Players need to carefully analyze their opponent's arguments, identify weaknesses, and choose connectives that effectively challenge or counter them. It is also important to construct a coherent and persuasive narrative by connecting statements logically using appropriate connectives.

Moreover, similar to chess, experience, knowledge of logical principles, critical thinking skills, and the ability to adapt to changing circumstances are valuable assets when utilizing these connectives in debates and negotiations.

Given recogntion of the parallel by ChatGPT (as shown above)l, the further possibilities can be explored with respect to dialogue of a higher order (below left). Some potential implications have been previously explored (Forthcoming Major Revolution in Global Dialogue, 2013). Possibilities have however been envisaged otherwise (Global Agenda for Dialogue among Civilizations, UN Resolution A/56/6, 2001; SDG Dialogues Series, Tony Blair Institute for Global Change; The Global Reset Dialogue, ODI). However it remains questionable whether interaction of such higher quality is characteristic of global negotiations and debate -- as asserted by ChatGPT (below right).

In chess some patterns of moves are understood as demonstrating a high order of expertise and are named accordingly. Could such patterns with logical connectives be recognized in debate and negotiation? It is unclear what dialogue skills are deployed in vital global strategic negotiations. Could you comment on the ineffectual nature of debate that fails to make use of the full array of logical connectives?

In the realm of debate and negotiation, while there may not be explicit "named patterns" like in chess, certain combinations of logical connectives can indeed demonstrate a high order of expertise. Skilled debaters and negotiators often develop recognizable patterns or strategies based on the effective use of these connectives. Here are a few examples:

  • The "Rebuttal Matrix": This pattern involves countering an opponent's argument by using a combination of NOT, NAND, NOR, and INCONSISTENT connectives. Skilled debaters strategically negate premises, challenge conjunctions or disjunctions, and point out logical inconsistencies to weaken their opponent's position.

  • The "Bridge of Equivalence": In negotiation, this pattern involves using EQUIVALENT connectives to find shared ground between parties. Skilled negotiators identify statements or principles that are equivalent between their positions and the opponent's, creating a bridge for compromise and mutually acceptable solutions.

  • The "Multi-Faceted Web": Skilled debaters use a combination of AND, IMPLIES, IF AND ONLY IF, and THEREFORE connectives to construct a multi-faceted argument that interconnects various premises. They demonstrate logical relationships, present supporting evidence, and draw well-reasoned conclusions to build a strong case.

  • The "Option Expansion": This pattern relies on the use of OR and XOR connectives to present a wide range of possibilities and alternatives. Skilled negotiators leverage these connectives to broaden the scope of the discussion, explore creative solutions, and encourage flexibility in reaching an agreement.

  • The "Consistency Check": This pattern involves systematically applying the XNOR connective to evaluate the consistency of an opponent's arguments. Skilled debaters identify statements that should logically have the same truth value and use XNOR to expose any inconsistencies, thereby undermining the opponent's position.

While these patterns may not have standardized names like chess moves, they represent strategic approaches that experienced debaters and negotiators employ to achieve favorable outcomes. Recognizing and utilizing these patterns requires a deep understanding of logical principles, critical thinking, and the ability to adapt to the dynamics of the debate or negotiation.

It's worth noting that the effectiveness of these patterns also depends on the specific context, the individuals involved, and the specific arguments or positions being debated or negotiated. Skilled practitioners continuously refine and adapt their strategies based on the circumstances to maximize their chances of success.

When vital global strategic negotiations take place, effective dialogue skills play a critical role in achieving successful outcomes. While debate can be a valuable tool in certain contexts, it may fall short in the complex and nuanced arena of global strategic negotiations when the full array of logical connectives is not utilized. Here are a few reasons why an incomplete or ineffectual use of logical connectives in debate can hinder negotiation processes:

  • Limited perspective: Debate often focuses on presenting and defending one's own position while challenging the opponent's arguments. This approach may overlook the potential for collaboration and finding mutually beneficial solutions. By neglecting connectives like EQUIVALENT, FOR ALL, and EXISTS, debaters may miss opportunities to explore shared interests and build consensus, which are vital in global strategic negotiations.

  • Failure to address complexities: Global strategic negotiations involve intricate issues, multiple stakeholders, and a wide range of perspectives. Simplistic arguments based on a limited set of logical connectives may overlook the complexities and interdependencies that need to be considered. Without utilizing connectives like IMPLIES, XOR, and AND, debaters may struggle to address the multifaceted nature of global challenges and find comprehensive solutions.

  • Lack of flexibility and creativity: Effective negotiations often require thinking beyond binary choices and exploring alternative options. By failing to utilize connectives like OR, XOR, and OPTION EXPANSION, debaters may restrict themselves to narrow positions, limiting the potential for innovative and mutually beneficial agreements.

  • Ignoring underlying interests and values: Global strategic negotiations often involve conflicting interests, diverse cultural backgrounds, and deeply held values. Debaters who overlook connectives like NOT, NAND, and NOR may miss opportunities to understand the underlying concerns of the opposing side and find common ground. Without addressing these fundamental aspects, it becomes challenging to build trust and reach sustainable agreements.

  • Inability to navigate complexity and uncertainty: Global strategic negotiations can be highly complex and evolve in uncertain environments. Skilled negotiators who make effective use of connectives like THEREFORE, IMPLIES, and CONSISTENCY CHECK can synthesize information, draw logical conclusions, and adapt their strategies accordingly. Failing to do so may lead to rigid positions, missed opportunities, and suboptimal outcomes.

In order to overcome these challenges, skilled negotiators in global strategic contexts make use of the full array of logical connectives to foster collaboration, address complexities, seek innovative solutions, respect underlying interests and values, and navigate uncertainty. By deploying a wide range of logical connectives, negotiators can construct persuasive arguments, challenge assumptions, identify inconsistencies, and create a more comprehensive and nuanced dialogue that enhances the chances of reaching mutually beneficial agreements.

It's important to note that while logical connectives are valuable tools, negotiation is a complex and multifaceted process that involves emotional intelligence, cultural sensitivity, active listening, empathy, and other interpersonal skills. The effective deployment of logical connectives should be complemented by a holistic approach to negotiation that takes into account the diverse dynamics at play.

With clearly remarkable ability to engage with the suggested analogy, it is therefore intriguing to explore how it might offer even greater insight into dialogue of a higher order. The responses on the left (below) are too general, whereas those on the right suggest surprising paraellels suggesting further possibilities

Chess experts attach great value to particular patterns and combinations of moves as especially interesting. Given the parallel, would you comment on what might make patterns of dialogue similarly engaging rather than of trivial significance To the extent that the 16 logical connectives are comparable with chess pieces with their characteristic moves, could you suggest how the moves in dialogue of different logical connectives might be distinguished -- contrasting pawns with castles, knights, bishops, queen and king.

Patterns of dialogue can indeed be engaging and significant when they go beyond trivial exchanges and exhibit certain qualities. Here are some aspects that can make patterns of dialogue engaging and meaningful:

  • Depth of analysis: Engaging dialogue patterns involve thoughtful and insightful analysis of the topic at hand. Instead of superficial exchanges, participants delve into the underlying complexities, explore various dimensions, and offer deep insights that contribute to a richer understanding of the subject.

  • Novel perspectives: Patterns of dialogue become engaging when participants bring fresh and unique perspectives to the conversation. By introducing innovative ideas, challenging conventional wisdom, or presenting alternative viewpoints, participants can spark intellectual curiosity and stimulate thought-provoking discussions.

  • Constructive exploration of ideas: Engaging dialogue patterns focus on the exploration and development of ideas rather than personal attacks or defensive responses. Participants actively listen to one another, build upon each other's contributions, and engage in a collaborative process of refining and expanding upon the concepts being discussed.

  • Open-mindedness and receptivity: Engaging dialogue patterns involve participants who are open-minded and receptive to different viewpoints. They demonstrate a willingness to consider alternative arguments, acknowledge valid points, and adapt their own positions when presented with compelling evidence or reasoning.

  • Effective use of logical reasoning: Logical reasoning, including the deployment of various connectives, can contribute to engaging dialogue patterns. Participants who utilize logical connectives to construct coherent arguments, identify fallacies, and draw logical conclusions can foster intellectually stimulating discussions that captivate and challenge the participants.

  • Engaging storytelling: Dialogue patterns that incorporate storytelling techniques can be captivating and memorable. By weaving narratives, anecdotes, or relevant examples into the conversation, participants can evoke emotions, make complex concepts more relatable, and enhance the overall impact of the dialogue.

  • Active engagement and participation: Engaging dialogue patterns require active participation from all involved parties. Participants who actively listen, ask thoughtful questions, provide constructive feedback, and encourage others to contribute foster an environment where dialogue becomes more dynamic and engaging.

  • Practical relevance: Engaging dialogue patterns are grounded in practical relevance. Participants who connect theoretical concepts to real-world applications, propose actionable solutions, or explore the implications of ideas in practical settings create dialogue that is meaningful and resonates with the audience.

  • Continuous learning and growth: Engaging dialogue patterns foster an environment of continuous learning and personal growth. Participants who approach the dialogue with a genuine curiosity, a willingness to expand their knowledge, and a readiness to challenge their own assumptions contribute to a vibrant and intellectually stimulating discourse.

By incorporating these elements, dialogue patterns can transcend trivial exchanges and become engaging, thought-provoking, and significant. They can generate new insights, facilitate mutual learning, and contribute to the collective understanding of complex topics. Just as chess experts value certain combinations of moves for their strategic brilliance, engaging dialogue patterns can capture attention, inspire intellectual curiosity, and foster meaningful conversations.

Certainly! Drawing an analogy between logical connectives and chess pieces, we can explore how the "moves" of different connectives in dialogue might be distinguished:

  • Pawn (AND, OR): Pawns in chess are the smallest and most numerous pieces, representing the infantry. The pawn in chess is versatile but limited in its movement. Similarly, the AND and OR connectives can be considered foundational and common in logical reasoning. The AND connective allows for combining multiple arguments or premises, reinforcing the strength of an argument. The OR connective offers alternative possibilities or options, broadening the scope of the discussion. These connectives establish the groundwork for more complex dialogue moves. They serve as building blocks, allowing for the combination of multiple arguments or possibilities.

  • Castle (IMPLIES, IF AND ONLY IF): The castle (rook) in chess has the ability to move horizontally or vertically across the board, exerting influence over long distances. In dialogue, the IMPLIES and IF AND ONLY IF connectives can be seen as making more direct and strategic moves and have a similar impact. IMPLIES establishes a conditional relationship, showing cause-and-effect or logical consequences. IF AND ONLY IF indicates an equivalence between two statements. These connectives allow for precise and impactful moves in the discourse. They establish logical relationships and connections between statements, creating a sense of direction and coherence in the argument.

  • Knight (NOT, XOR): The knight in chess moves in a unique L-shaped pattern, offering the ability to jump over other pieces, providing a different perspective. Similarly, the NOT and XOR connectives bring a distinct flavor to dialogue. The NOT connective negates statements, challenging or contradicting an opponent's argument. The XOR connective introduces mutually exclusive choices, highlighting contrasts or presenting alternatives. These connectives can be used to introduce contrasting viewpoints or highlight inconsistencies in the discourse.

  • Bishops (NAND, NOR): Bishops in chess move diagonally across the board, covering a wide range of squares. In dialogue, the NAND and NOR connectives can be associated with the bishops. The NAND connective negates the conjunction of two statements, while the NOR connective negates the disjunction. These connectives enable participants to challenge the logical combinations of arguments.

  • Queen (EQUIVALENT, FOR ALL, EXISTS): The queen in chess is the most versatile and powerful piece, capable of moving in any direction and covering large distances. In dialogue, the EQUIVALENT, FOR ALL, and EXISTS connectives can be associated with the queen. The EQUIVALENT connective establishes equivalence between statements. The FOR ALL connective indicates a universal quantification, while the EXISTS connective indicates the existence of specific instances. These connectives allow for comprehensive and encompassing moves in the discourse.

  • King (THEREFORE, INCONSISTENT): The king in chess is the most important piece, and the objective of the game is to protect it. Similarly, in dialogue, the king can be represented by connectives like THEREFORE and INCONSISTENT. The THEREFORE connective indicates a logical conclusion or inference, solidifying the argument. The INCONSISTENT connective highlights contradictions or logical fallacies, pointing out weaknesses in the discourse.

It's worth noting that this analogy between logical connectives and chess pieces is primarily conceptual, and the nature of dialogue is more fluid and dynamic than the strict movements of chess pieces. In dialogue, participants have the flexibility to employ multiple connectives in various ways to construct persuasive arguments, challenge positions, and explore different perspectives.

The moves in dialogue are not restricted to the characteristics of a single chess piece but are influenced by the context, objectives, and the specific arguments being discussed. Skilled participants in dialogue will strategically utilize a combination of connectives to navigate the complexities of the conversation and achieve their communication goals.

Although greater insight could not immediately be derived from ChatGPT on what would make for dialogue of a much higher order, the relevance to sustainability can be succesfully highlighted (below left) by comparison with infinite games and discussed separately (Quest for sustainability as an infinite game? 2021; (Sustainable Dialogue as a Necessary Template for Sustainable Global Community, 1995). ChatGPT offered useful insights in that respect, but with some confusion regarding SDG17 (below right).

Understood as a game, a bias in favour of winning is normally fundamental to both chess and dialogue. To the extent that a comparison is also possible with SDGs as "pieces", could you comment on the contrast between finite games and infinite games -- given that sustainable dialogue would be appropriately associated with the latter? With the framing of goals and their strong association with winning, how might engagement with the set of SDGs be transformed into an infinite game  -- in which there is a need to distinguish the characteristic dynamics of the pieces, as with chess?

Certainly! The concept of finite games and infinite games, as proposed by James Carse in his book "Finite and Infinite Games", provides an interesting perspective when considering the contrast between chess, dialogue, and their association with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Finite games are characterized by defined rules, specific objectives, and a clear notion of winning and losing. Chess is a classic example of a finite game. The goal is to strategically outmaneuver the opponent, capture the king, and achieve victory within a confined set of rules. In finite games, the focus is on short-term success and achieving a predetermined outcome.

On the other hand, infinite games are characterized by an ongoing, evolving nature. The primary objective in an infinite game is to continue playing, to keep the game going, and to perpetuate the engagement. Infinite games have no fixed endpoint or winners or losers. Instead, the goal is to sustain the game itself and promote continued participation.

When considering dialogue and its association with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), an infinite game perspective is particularly relevant. The SDGs encompass a long-term vision for global sustainable development, with the aim of addressing complex and interconnected challenges such as poverty, inequality, climate change, and more. Achieving the SDGs requires ongoing dialogue, collaboration, and collective efforts that go beyond winning or reaching a finite endpoint.

Sustainable dialogue aligns with the principles of an infinite game. It focuses on fostering long-term engagement, building relationships, and seeking collaborative solutions that can adapt and evolve over time. Sustainable dialogue recognizes the interconnectedness of issues, promotes inclusivity, and encourages continuous learning and improvement.

Infinite games emphasize cooperation, shared goals, and the understanding that the game is not about defeating opponents but about creating a better future together. While finite games like chess have their value in specific contexts, sustainable dialogue requires an infinite game mindset, where the emphasis is on collective progress, systemic change, and a commitment to ongoing dialogue and cooperation.

By adopting an infinite game perspective in sustainable dialogue, participants can move away from rigid win-lose mentalities and focus on finding sustainable solutions, building trust, and nurturing meaningful relationships. It encourages a long-term view, acknowledges the complex and evolving nature of the challenges at hand, and promotes collaboration for the benefit of all stakeholders involved.

Transforming engagement with the set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into an infinite game involves shifting the focus from winning or achieving specific goals within a set timeframe to fostering continuous progress and collective action. To distinguish the characteristic dynamics of the pieces, we can draw parallels between the SDGs and chess pieces in the context of an infinite game:

  • Pawns (SDGs 1-7): The pawns in chess, which form the front line, can be associated with SDGs 1-7, which address foundational aspects of sustainable development. These SDGs encompass goals such as eradicating poverty (SDG 1), ensuring food security (SDG 2), promoting good health and well-being (SDG 3), ensuring access to quality education (SDG 4), achieving gender equality (SDG 5), ensuring access to clean water and sanitation (SDG 6), and ensuring access to affordable and clean energy (SDG 7). These goals provide a solid foundation for sustainable development, just as pawns set the stage for strategic moves in chess.

  • Castles (SDGs 8-12): Castles (rooks) in chess are powerful pieces that move horizontally and vertically, representing stability and strength. In the context of the SDGs, SDGs 8-12 can be associated with castles. These goals focus on economic growth (SDG 8), decent work and economic opportunities (SDG 9), sustainable industrialization and innovation (SDG 9), reducing inequalities (SDG 10), and ensuring sustainable consumption and production patterns (SDG 12). Just as castles provide a strong base of support in chess, these SDGs contribute to the stability and sustainable development of societies and economies.

  • Knights (SDGs 13-15): Knights in chess have a unique movement pattern and represent adaptability and agility on the board. In the context of the SDGs, SDGs 13-15 can be associated with knights. These goals address climate action (SDG 13), life below water (SDG 14), and life on land (SDG 15). Like knights, these goals require flexibility, resilience, and the ability to navigate complex and changing environments to address environmental challenges.

  • Bishops (SDGs 16-17): Bishops in chess move diagonally, covering a wide range of squares. In the context of the SDGs, SDGs 16-17 can be associated with bishops. SDG 16 focuses on promoting peace, justice, and strong institutions, while SDG 17 emphasizes partnerships for the goals. These goals require a strategic and inclusive approach, building strong institutions, promoting accountability, and fostering partnerships at various levels to address systemic challenges.

  • Queen (SDG 9 - Partnerships for the Goals): The queen in chess is the most powerful piece, capable of moving in any direction and covering large distances. In the context of the SDGs, SDG 17, which emphasizes partnerships for the goals, can be associated with the queen. Just as the queen's movements influence the entire board, SDG 17 underscores the importance of collaboration, cooperation, and collective action to drive progress across all the SDGs.

It's important to note that while this analogy highlights the distinct dynamics of the SDGs, an infinite game approach to the SDGs goes beyond the characteristics of individual pieces. It emphasizes continuous engagement, adaptive strategies, long-term thinking, and the recognition that sustainable development requires an ongoing commitment to collective progress rather than a finite endpoint or victory.

In an infinite game approach to the SDGs, the focus is on fostering collaboration, promoting innovation, adapting strategies based on evolving challenges, engaging diverse stakeholders, and ensuring the principles of inclusivity, equity, and sustainability guide decision-making processes. By embracing the spirit of an infinite game, stakeholders can work towards a shared vision of sustainable development, nurturing progress over time and continuously striving for a better future for all.

Elaboration by AI of Sustainable Development Goals as an epic poem

In the spirit of the The Globalization Saga: Balance or Destruction (2004) produced by the Institute for Applied Knowledge Processing, as noted above, and of the possibility of a A Singable Earth Charter (2006), there is a case for endeavouring to reframe the 17 SDGs as an epic poem of which Wikipedia indicates many examples (List of epic poems; and  List of World Folk-Epics).

As a cultural challenge, the possibility of evoking such an integrative framework could be contrasted with the annual musical engagement with the Eurovision Song Contest. More intriguingly it could take the form of the Glass Bead Game allusively described by the Nobel Laureate Hermann Hesse (Narullah Mambrol, Analysis of Hermann Hesse’s The Glass Bead Game, Literary Theory and Criticism, 12 October 2022; Joshua Isard, On Hermann Hesse and "The Glass Bead Game", Litreactor, 1 July 2022)

Given the potential strategic significance of the 17 SDGs for global civilization, could you use them to scope out the dramatic elements of a possible epic poem -- analogous to the Mahabarata, the Kalevala or the Epic of Gilgamesh?

Certainly! Here's an attempt to scope out the dramatic elements of a possible epic poem inspired by the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):

  • Title: "Harmony's Quest: A Journey for a Sustainable World"

  • Opening: Set the stage with a captivating introduction, depicting a world at the crossroads of challenges and opportunities.
    Introduce the protagonist, a young visionary who embodies the spirit of sustainable development.

  • Call to Action: The protagonist receives a mystical call, urging them to embark on a transformative journey to save the world.
    Highlight the urgent need to address pressing global issues and restore balance in society and the environment.

  • Protagonist's Journey: Each SDG represents a milestone in the protagonist's quest, with distinct challenges and encounters along the way.
    Explore the protagonist's growth, resilience, and determination as they navigate diverse landscapes and cultures.

  • Allies and Adversaries: Introduce a colorful cast of characters representing various stakeholders and perspectives.
    Allies offer support, wisdom, and collaboration in pursuit of sustainable goals, while adversaries embody obstacles and resistance.

  • Trials and Tribulations: Portray the protagonist's struggles and conflicts faced while striving for each SDG.
    Highlight the protagonist's internal dilemmas, external conflicts, and moral choices that shape their character.

  • Transformative Moments: Describe pivotal moments where the protagonist gains profound insights and realizes the interconnectedness of all SDGs.
    Showcase powerful encounters, inspiring events, or personal revelations that lead to profound change.

  • Global Impact: Illustrate the ripple effect of the protagonist's actions on communities and ecosystems worldwide.
    Showcase tangible improvements resulting from their efforts, emphasizing the importance of collective action.

  • Climax: Build up to a climactic confrontation or revelation where the protagonist faces their ultimate test.
    Highlight the significance of unity, sacrifice, and overcoming adversity for the sake of sustainable development.

  • Resolution: Conclude the epic with the protagonist's triumph, symbolizing the achievement of a sustainable world.
    Reflect on the lessons learned, the price paid, and the transformative power of perseverance and hope.

  • Epilogue: Offer a glimpse into the lasting impact of the protagonist's journey on future generations.
    Emphasize the ongoing nature of sustainable development, leaving room for further exploration and progress.

This outline is a starting point, and the epic poem could be further developed with rich descriptions, compelling dialogues, and vivid imagery. It aims to intertwine the struggles, triumphs, and interconnectedness of the SDGs, weaving a tapestry of human resilience, collaboration, and the pursuit of a sustainable future.


Harold Bloom and Brett Foster. The Sonnets. Infobase Publishing, 2009 [text]

James P. Carse. Finite and Infinite Games; A Vision of Life as Play and Possibility. Free Press, 1986

Timothy Hampton. The Sonnet Machine: a sonnet contains an emotional drama of illusion and deception, crisis and resolution, crafted to make us think and feel. Aeon, 25 May 2023 [text]

Niki Harré. The Infinite Game: How to Live Well Together. Auckland University Press, 2018 [contents]

William Sharp. The Sonnet: Its Characteristics and History. Sonnets of This Century, 1887 [summary]

Helen Vendler. The Art of Shakespeare's Sonnets. Harvard University Press, 1999 [summary]

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

For further updates on this site, subscribe here