R. Buckminster Fuller

You don't want to look like your heroes, you want to see like they see.

Aug 08, 2026

“My luck is that I was born cross-eyed.”
R. Buckminster Fuller

This is the second in a series. The intent has not changed. I want to take apart not the work of the people I admire but the way they see. With Fuller the temptation is the opposite of the one Tarkovsky posed. There the danger was to read every image as a symbol. Here it is to reach for the inventions, the domes, the maps, the strange car, and to mistake the products of a way of seeing for the seeing itself. A geodesic dome is a coat too. What I am after is the spine under it, the angle the world was seen from, the angle that made the domes and the maps and the new words necessary rather than clever.

I begin the way he began, with his eyes. Fuller is unusual among the people worth studying this way because he told us, plainly and more than once, where his seeing came from. He left books, recorded lectures that run for days, and an archive of his own life so large it is hard to take in. So we do not have to guess. We can start where he told us.

He saw the pattern before he saw the thing

Fuller was born cross-eyed, in 1895, and no one understood why until he was four. The cause turned out to be extreme far-sightedness. Until the glasses came, the world reached him only in broad shape and color. He described it himself, late in life, in an essay he called “Man With a Chronofile.”

“I was born cross-eyed,” he wrote. “Not until I was four years old was it discovered that this was caused by my being abnormally farsighted. My vision was thereafter fully corrected with lenses. Until four I could see only large patterns, houses, trees, outlines of people with blurred coloring. While I saw two dark areas on human faces, I did not see a human eye or a teardrop or a human hair until I was four.”(1)

Then comes the sentence that matters. “Despite my new ability to apprehend details, my childhood’s spontaneous dependence only upon big pattern clues has persisted.”(1)

That is the whole man in one line, if you let it be. For four years he saw only wholes. The details arrived later, after the habit of seeing wholes was already set. And the habit never left. He did not grow out of pattern-first seeing and into detail-first seeing the way the rest of us are trained to. He kept seeing the large shape first and the parts second, and he built everything else on top of that.

Whether the blurred infancy actually caused the lifelong habit is not something anyone can prove, and it does not need proving. What matters is that Fuller read his own seeing this way, and then organized a life around the reading. He called it luck. “There is luck in everything,” he wrote in the same essay. “My luck is that I was born cross-eyed.”(2) A man who treats his own defect as the source of his sight is already seeing in an unusual direction.

What he kept his eyes on

Once you know to look for it, the pattern-first habit is everywhere in what he attended to. He looked at wholes where other people looked at parts.

He looked at the planet and saw a single object. Not a map of countries but one finite machine, travelling through space, carrying everyone on it together. He gave it a name, Spaceship Earth, and wrote the one line of his that almost everyone knows. “Now there is one outstandingly important fact regarding Spaceship Earth, and that is that no instruction book came with it.”(3) The line is usually quoted as a slogan. It is better read as a description of how he saw. He looked at the Earth the way you would look at a complicated machine handed to you with no manual, and felt the whole of it as one problem.

The ship in that metaphor is not decoration. He told us where he got it. Fuller served in the Navy at the end of the First World War, and for the rest of his life he credited those years with the habit of taking the planet as one object. In the opening pages of the same book he traces his own method straight back to naval training, to celestial navigation and pilotage and logistics, and calls that the ground the whole of general systems theory grew from.(4) Fifty years later he said it again to an interviewer, more plainly. He began, he said, to look at the total earth the way the Navy had taught him to.(5) A ship is the most ordinary closed system there is. Everything aboard is finite and counted. Nothing arrives that was not loaded. The whole of it moves together or not at all. He spent two years inside that arithmetic and then turned it on a planet.

That lineage is worth naming because the usual one is literary. His great-aunt was Margaret Fuller. Behind her stand Emerson and the New England habit of trusting your own sight, and it is a true inheritance. But it is not the whole inheritance. The technical ancestor is a warship, and Fuller said so himself, repeatedly, in print and out loud.(6)

He looked at structures and saw forces instead of solids. Where a builder saw stone stacked on stone, Fuller saw a play of push and pull, tension and compression, and believed the tension was the part architecture had underused for its whole history. He looked at resources and saw a ratio rather than a quantity, the amount of life you could get from a given weight of material, which he believed kept rising as knowledge rose. And most tellingly of all, he looked at himself, and saw a process rather than a thing.

That last one he meant almost literally. He liked to point out that the atoms in a body are replaced continuously, that you are not the same matter from one year to the next, that what persists is a pattern and not a substance. In an interview he put it plainly. We are, he said, “in effect, walking coral reefs,” a form that holds its shape while the material flows through and out.(7) He did not look at a person and see an object. He looked and saw an event, still happening.

What he knew, and what he made himself believe

Underneath the seeing sat a few hard convictions, and one of them he had to keep choosing against the evidence of his own life.

He believed the universe was finite and lawful. He believed it ran on a small number of generalized principles a person could actually find by experiment, and that nothing else was worth trusting. He believed scarcity was an engineering problem and not a law of nature. “If we do more with less,” he told an interviewer, “our resources are adequate to take care of everybody. All political systems are founded on the premise that the opposite is true.”(8)

He believed specialization was a trap. What nature actually asks for, he thought, is the person who sees the whole. He said so in the bluntest image he had. If the total scheme of nature required man to be a specialist, he wrote, she would have made him so “by having him born with one eye and a microscope attached to it.”(9)

His idea of God belonged to the same way of seeing. Not a person, not a figure, but the integrity of the whole, the sum of the principles that never fail. He credited the idea to Einstein. He reasoned his way to it in the Chronofile essay, calling it the “Universal Intellectual Integrity.”(10) It is belief in service of perception. If you are sure there is an order under everything, it makes sense to keep looking for the pattern in every direction, which is exactly what he did.

The conviction he had to keep choosing was the optimism. It is easy, from outside, to take Fuller’s confidence as temperament, the native cheer of a man to whom things came easily. Nothing came easily. The optimism sat on top of documented depression, heavy drinking, and long stretches of exhaustion. The belief that everything could be made to work was not a mood he woke up with. It was a position he had to keep taking. The place he first took it was as dark as any in these essays.

The shore

By 1927 Fuller was thirty-two and had failed at almost everything. He had been expelled from Harvard, twice. A building company he ran with his father-in-law had collapsed. He lost his job as its head. The people who had put money in turned against him. His first daughter, Alexandra, had died five years earlier, not yet four years old. He connected the illness ever after to the cold and damp of the family’s housing.(11) He was broke, drinking, and living in Chicago with his wife and a newborn second daughter.

What he said happened next he told many times, and the tellings are not identical. In his account he walked out to the shore of Lake Michigan meaning to drown himself. The life insurance would pass to his family. He believed they would be better served by his death than by his life. And there, at the edge of the water, he did not. Instead he decided to live, but to live in a particular way. He would treat his own life from then on as an experiment, conducted on behalf of everyone. The question was what one penniless human being could do that large institutions could not or would not. He would do his own thinking, and trust only what he could verify from his own experience.(12)

The principle of these essays is that admiration must not blind, and here it requires one honest sentence. The most dramatic versions of this scene, the ones with a voice speaking to him out of the air and his feet leaving the ground, are Fuller’s own later retellings. He kept an enormous archive of his own life. Historians who have gone looking have not found contemporaneous evidence of the episode in it.(13)

What that means is genuinely unclear, and I am not going to pretend to settle it. A man may live through the truest night of his life and not file a note about it the same week. He may also, over decades of telling, smooth a hard private collapse into a cleaner founding story. Both happen to people. The essay does not need the scene to be literally true in every detail, because the turn it marks is real and visible in everything he did afterward.

There is even a quieter version in Fuller’s own hand. In the Chronofile essay he describes the same hinge not as a voice on a beach but as three questions the record of his life had put to him by 1927, about what one “moneyless individual” could best contribute.(14) Same turn, no theatre. From there on, his life was the experiment.

The words were instruments

Here is where the seeing becomes a way of living, and Fuller may be the clearest case of it I know of, because you can watch him build the tools with your own eyes. The tools were words.

He distrusted ordinary language the way Tarkovsky distrusted the symbol, and for a related reason. He thought worn-out words carried worn-out seeing inside them, and that using them without thinking quietly bent your perception toward old errors.(15) So he made new ones, and each new word was a lens ground to correct a specific fault in how we see.

He would not say weaponry without saying livingry beside it, technology turned toward keeping people alive rather than killing them, because the language had a word for the one and no word for the other, and the silence was itself a distortion. He would not say worldwide, because a globe has area and volume but no width, so he said world-around instead. He disliked sunrise and sunset because they smuggle in the old picture of a sun that moves around a still Earth, so he said sunsight and sunclipse, words that put the turning Earth back where it belongs. Spaceship Earth was one of these. So was ephemeralization, his name for the trend he thought he had spotted in his own records, “the doing of ever more with ever less, per given resource units of pounds, time, and energy.”(16) To rename a thing, for Fuller, was to repair how it is seen. The new words are not eccentricity. They are the way of seeing, made into equipment, handed to other people to use.

The life kept as a record

The deepest fusion of seeing and living is also the strangest, and it ran for sixty-three years. From 1920 until his death, Fuller kept what he called the Dymaxion Chronofile, an archive of his own life updated at intervals of a few hours. Letters, bills, notes, sketches, clippings, the trivial alongside the serious, kept on the principle that he was not allowed to judge what mattered. “I must put everything in,” he explained, “so I started a very rigorous record.”(17) It grew to more than two hundred thousand pages. It is held now at Stanford, and it is often called the most documented human life there has ever been.(18)

Read it against the eyes. A boy who saw only patterns grows into a man who looks at his own life from the outside, as one more object to be observed whole, and keeps the evidence the way a scientist keeps a notebook. He even named the experiment. He called himself “Guinea Pig B,” B for Bucky, and meant it as the formal title of a study running in real time, the study of what one ordinary human could do.(19) The three watches he wore for three time zones, the decades of motion around a world he refused to call worldwide, the whole restless arranged shape of his days, all of it is a single proposition lived out. He did not merely believe he was a verb. He organized his life as one, and filed the record.

The shadow kept in

A monument is not what this is. Fuller was wrong about plenty, and his way of seeing had a cost that fell partly on other people, and leaving that out would be its own kind of lie.

The way he saw absorbed things, and not always with the names attached. The cleanest example is the structure he called tensegrity, his own contraction of tensional integrity, the floating arrangement of compression held in a net of tension that became one of his signatures. The pure form of it was substantially the discovery of a student, Kenneth Snelson, who worked it out in Oregon in the winter of 1948 and 1949 and showed it to Fuller the following summer. Snelson set down his own account decades later, in a journal issue assembled for the express purpose of putting the competing versions side by side. He described showing the structure to his teacher, recorded Fuller’s immediate enthusiasm for it, and said that Fuller then took the idea into his own system.(20) That is worth sitting with rather than stepping around, because it is not a side note about credit. It is the same habit again, the pattern-first eye that sees a whole and pulls it inward, naming it, fitting it into the system, sometimes without enough care for where it came from. The gift and the fault are the same motion.

The same smoothing worked on the Navy, and here the 1927 problem stops looking like an isolated lapse. What he called being trained at the United States Naval Academy was a ten week reserve officers’ course, run on the Academy grounds in the summer of 1918.(21) He spoke of having held commands. The one vessel with his name attached to it was his mother’s motorboat, leased to the Navy for coastal patrol off the Maine shore.(22) He told, more than once, of designing a rescue boom that saved hundreds of pilots, and his biographer went looking for a source and found none.(23) None of this touches what the sea actually taught him, which is the part worth holding onto. The perception was real. The credentials he kept hanging on it grew with the retelling.

There were the domes that leaked. The inventions that never reached the people he designed them for. The car that was beautiful and unsold. And there was the self-presentation itself, the dark suit and the round glasses and the manner of a man delivering certainty, all of it adopted deliberately after he learned that anything stranger made people stop listening.(24) The optimism could harden into a performance. The founding story could smooth itself with retelling. None of this is the subject, and none of it is hidden. He was a whole person, and a whole person is what we are after. The way of seeing is the subject, and it is large enough to hold its own shadow.

Not the dome, the spine

I do not know whether how Fuller saw can be reduced to one sentence, but it is worth trying. He saw wholes where we are trained to see parts, the planet as one machine, the self as a process, structure as a play of forces, language as a tool that can be reground, and he saw all of it because a blurred infancy taught him to take the large shape first and never untaught him. The root of it is not a lone genius descended from nowhere. It is in a four-year-old’s broken eyes, in his great-aunt Margaret Fuller and the New England habit of trusting your own sight, in Emerson, in two years of naval arithmetic, in Einstein’s closed and lawful universe, and it runs forward out of him into Stewart Brand’s whole Earth and a great deal of what came after. A web of rhymes, again.

If I wanted to look like him I would build a dome and coin a word. If I want to see like him I have to do something harder. I have to look at the whole of a thing before I name its parts, and then be willing to let what I see cost me the way I live. Maybe that is the whole of it.

How they saw became how they lived

Look again at what Fuller actually saw, not the domes but the realities he kept his eyes on. A planet that is one finite thing, with everyone on it bound to a common fate. A body that is not a possession but a pattern, matter passing through a shape. Resources that are a ratio and not a wall. Words that quietly carry old errors, and can be remade. A self that is a verb, an event still happening. None of this is hidden knowledge. You can see all of it from where you are sitting. It asks for no special instrument, only the nerve to look at the whole instead of away.

And then he did the part that turns a biography into something that belongs to us too. He did not stop at seeing. He lived as though what he saw were true. He saw the planet as one system, so he spent his life trying to make it work for everyone on it and called the work his only real occupation. He saw scarcity as a problem to be designed out, so he kept inventing toward a sufficiency that mostly did not arrive in his lifetime, and kept going anyway. He saw himself as an experiment run for others, so he handed his days over to it, archived the evidence, and did not stop until he died. He saw language as a set of broken instruments, so he built new ones and lived inside them, saying sunclipse in a world that says sunset. The seeing and the living were never two things. Fuller is the rare case where that can be checked rather than asserted. He filed the evidence himself, every few hours, for sixty-three years.

The quiet proposition under all of it is the same one Tarkovsky leaves, arrived at from the opposite temperament. He named his own life Guinea Pig B and said the study was what one ordinary human could do. Readers hear modesty in that. He saw what is plainly there, the single shared planet, the flowing matter, the wasted tension in things, and the whole difference was that he let what he saw reorganize his life down to the words in his mouth and the watches on his wrist. The rest of us see the same things and let them change nothing. We know the planet is one thing and consume as though it were many. We know the body is borrowed and act as though it were owned. The gap is not in the eye. He called scarcity an engineering problem rather than a law of nature. This gap has the same shape.

So the question this leaves is not how he saw. We have answered that. It is the one he hands back to anyone who reads him honestly. The whole is in front of you, and always was. What are you going to do with it?

Notes & Sources

The quotations in this essay come from several kinds of source, and the difference between them has been kept on purpose. Fuller wrote books, but he also thought aloud in recorded lectures for days at a time, sat for long interviews, and was remembered by people who worked beside him. A line written in a book is not the same as a line spoken in an interview, and neither is the same as a thing a former student recalled decades later. Fuller is one of the most misquoted people of the last century, so each kind is marked, and the most popular fakes are flagged below.

Apocryphal or paraphrased, not used here as Fuller’s words. “I am not a thing, a noun. I seem to be a verb, an evolutionary process, an integral function of the universe” was carried as this issue’s epigraph through several drafts and has been removed. The attribution came from Wikiquote, where the citation to “The Designers and the Politicians” in Ideas and Integrities at p. 234 belongs to a different quotation on the same page, the passage beginning “The concept of relativity involves high frequency of re-established awareness.” Page 234 was read directly and carries the relativity passage exactly as the entry says. The citation had simply been attached to the wrong line. Three locations in the book were then read against the epigraph and none contains it, chapter 19 at pp. 302 to 308, chapter 18 at pp. 278 to 301, and p. 234 itself. The line may well be Fuller’s, and it is close to the title of his 1970 book I Seem To Be a Verb, but no printed locus could be established, so it is cut under the standing rule. “We are called to be the architects of the future, not its victims” is one of his most circulated lines and has no located primary source. The popular “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete” is a paraphrase. The documented original, from a recorded interview with Mike Vance (published 1995), is “You never change anything by fighting it; you change things by making them obsolete through superior technology.” The polished “build a new model” wording spread from Daniel Quinn’s Beyond Civilization (1999), uncited. Also treat as unverified until checked against a primary text: “Dare to be naive”; “Don’t fight forces, use them”; “There is nothing in a caterpillar that tells you it’s going to be a butterfly”; and the “Never forget that you are one of a kind” passage.

Essay, his own written voice. “Man With a Chronofile,” Saturday Review, 1 April 1967, p. 14. Verified against a scan of the printed magazine. The passage is continuous in the original, and the sentence about big pattern clues follows immediately on the one about not seeing a human eye until he was four, with nothing between them. The essay quotes them separately only to place a remark between. The piece was later reprinted in World Design Science Decade, Phase II (1967), Document 5: Comprehensive Design Strategy, but the citation here is to the first publication, which is what was checked. Note: some sources wrongly call this near-sightedness. Fuller’s word is farsighted, printed as one word.↩︎
Book, his own written voice. Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth (1969), chapter 1, “comprehensive propensities,” p. 10. Verified against the printed edition. Fuller writes of having been “trained at the U. S. Naval Academy and practically experienced in the powerfully effective forecasting arts of celestial navigation, pilotage, ballistics, and logistics,” and derives present-day general systems theory from that naval inheritance. On the accuracy of the word “trained,” see 21.↩︎↩︎
Book, his own written voice. Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1969), chapter 4, “spaceship earth,” p. 52. Verified against the printed edition. The recurring “1963” date attached to this line online is wrong. The book is 1969, following an address given to the American Planners Association on 16 October 1967.↩︎
Book, his own written voice. Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth (1969), chapter 1, “comprehensive propensities,” p. 10. Verified against the printed edition. Fuller writes of having been “trained at the U. S. Naval Academy and practically experienced in the powerfully effective forecasting arts of celestial navigation, pilotage, ballistics, and logistics,” and derives present-day general systems theory from that naval inheritance. On the accuracy of the word “trained,” see 21.
Interview, spoken. Playboy, February 1972. He describes beginning to look at the total earth as he had been taught to in the Navy. A different source type from 4 and kept separate on purpose, though the claim is the same one.
The two lineages are not rivals in Fuller’s own telling, and he claimed both. For the scholarly reading see Fred Turner, From Counterculture to Cyberculture (University of Chicago Press, 2006), chapter 2, which notes that Fuller traced the world-as-system idea to his Transcendental lineage and especially to shipboard time he considered a closed system. The fullest treatment of the naval thesis is Peder Anker, “Buckminster Fuller as Captain of Spaceship Earth,” Minerva 45 (2007), pp. 417 to 434. Note also a limit worth respecting. The extended “Great Pirates” argument in Operating Manual runs through chapter 2, “origins of specialization,” pp. 25 to 31, and it is maritime history. That stretch was read against this claim, and Fuller nowhere ties the Pirates to his own service. The first person appears only as narrator. What the two passages do share is a vocabulary, celestial navigation, logistics, anticipatory design, naval mastery of the world, split between his own account on p. 10 and the Pirates on pp. 25 to 31. That is suggestive and nothing more, and this essay does not claim otherwise.
Interview, spoken. Playboy, February 1972. The “walking coral reefs” image and the claim that most of the body’s atoms are replaced annually.
Interview, spoken. Playboy, February 1972.
Book, his own written voice. Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth (1969), chapter 1, “comprehensive propensities,” pp. 13 to 14. Verified against the printed edition. Fuller’s printed wording is “If the total scheme of nature required man to be a specialist she would have made him so by having him born with one eye and a microscope attached to it.” Note that this sits in chapter 1 and 3 in chapter 4, two different places in one short book.
Book / essay, his own written voice. “Man With a Chronofile” (1967), the passage reasoning toward a non-anthropomorphic God as the “Universal Intellectual Integrity,” credited to Einstein.
Biographical record. The death of Alexandra Fuller (1922) and Fuller’s lasting connection of it to the family’s cold, damp housing. See Alec Nevala-Lee, Inventor of the Future: The Visionary Life of Buckminster Fuller (New York: Dey Street, 2022).
The 1927 Lake Michigan account, told here as Fuller himself told it. Drawn from his own retellings and reconstructed in the biographies, especially Nevala-Lee (2022) and Loretta Lorance, Becoming Bucky Fuller (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2009).
Honest qualification. The most dramatic elements of the 1927 scene (a voice addressing him, his feet leaving the ground) belong to Fuller’s later retellings, and historians have not found contemporaneous evidence of the episode in the 1927 Chronofile. Barry Katz first pressed this point, calling the story an effective myth. Lorance and Nevala-Lee both note the inconsistencies between Fuller’s versions. This essay renders the scene as Fuller told it and deliberately does not try to settle the archival question.
Book / essay, his own written voice. “Man With a Chronofile” (1967), the quieter version of the same 1927 turn, framed as three questions the Chronofile posed him, including what a “moneyless individual” could best contribute.
Fuller’s general position on language, that obsolete words carry obsolete ideas and mislead intuition, stated across his work and drawn here from Operating Manual (1969) and the World Design Science Decade documents. For the coinage of livingry specifically there is a primary source in his own written voice. Ideas and Integrities (Collier 1969), chapter 18, “Continuous Man,” p. 294, where he writes of “his historically deferred anti-priority problem for which I have invented the word livingry in contradistinction to weaponry,” and adds that the focus of human capability is being transferred from destructive weaponry to constructive livingry. Verified against the printed text.
Book / essay, his own written voice. “Man With a Chronofile” (1967), the definition of ephemeralization, where Fuller also dates his own coinage to his Shelter magazine (1930 to 1933) and Nine Chains to the Moon (1938).
Recorded lecture, thinking aloud. Oregon lecture, 12 July 1962, on why he kept the Chronofile. A distinct source type from the books, Fuller explaining himself in real time.
Archival fact. The Dymaxion Chronofile is held in the R. Buckminster Fuller Collection at Stanford University Libraries (more than two hundred thousand pages, about 270 linear feet), and is frequently described as the most documented human life.
Fuller’s “Guinea Pig B” framing of his own life as a running experiment, from Critical Path (1981) and the related Guinea Pig B material.
Third-party recollection, not Fuller’s voice. Kenneth Snelson, “Snelson on the Tensegrity Invention,” International Journal of Space Structures, vol. 11, nos. 1 and 2 (1996), p. 43. It sits inside a compound section assembled by Haresh Lalvani, “Origins of Tensegrity: Views of Emmerich, Fuller and Snelson and Responses,” running from roughly p. 27 to p. 57, which set the rival accounts against each other on the page. Snelson’s text began as a letter written to René Motro in November 1990 and circulates online under that name, which is how earlier drafts cited it. One point is unresolved and is left standing rather than smoothed. The letter answered an invitation for Motro’s own tensegrity issue of 1992, yet the printed appearance everyone cites is the 1996 issue, and the two cannot be reconciled from outside the volumes. QUOTATIONS REMOVED. Earlier drafts carried three short phrases from this text, taken from a web reproduction. The printed article sits behind a subscription and its wording could not be checked, so under the standing rule the quotations were cut and Snelson’s account is given indirectly. The substance does not depend on them. Snelson built the pure form first, in Oregon in the winter of 1948 to 1949, and holds US Patent 3,169,611 (1965) for continuous tension and discontinuous compression structures. Fuller had patented tensile-integrity structures earlier, US Patent 3,063,521 (1962), and it was Fuller who supplied the name, his contraction of “tensional integrity,” around 1955. That sequence is the dispute in miniature and both patents are public record.
Documentary record, against Fuller’s own account. Fuller attended the 4th Reserve Officer’s Class, a ten week wartime crash course run on the U.S. Naval Academy grounds from June to September 1918, not the Academy’s regular programme. He was commissioned Lieutenant (junior grade) and assigned to convoy communication, and was discharged in 1919. See Peder Anker, “Buckminster Fuller as Captain of Spaceship Earth,” Minerva 45 (2007), pp. 417 to 434. Fuller’s own phrase in 4, “trained at the U. S. Naval Academy,” overstates this, and his 1975 description of serving in “the regular United States Navy” overstates it further. Fuller made the same connection in his own written voice elsewhere. Ideas and Integrities (Collier 1969), chapter 18, “Continuous Man,” p. 301, where he writes that he first generalised the laws governing comprehensive naval and aeronautical logistics and ballistics controls, and then carried those formulations across from weaponry to livingry. Verified against the printed text.
Archival fact. The motorboat Wego was leased to the Navy by Fuller’s mother, given identification number S.P. 1196, commissioned 9 August 1917 and returned 1 October 1918, and patrolled the Maine coast. See the Naval History and Heritage Command, Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. No deck logs survive.
Third-party research, correcting Fuller. Fuller wrote in Ideas and Integrities (1963) that a “seaplane rescue mast and boom” of his design won him the Annapolis appointment, and elsewhere claimed it saved hundreds of pilots’ lives. Nevala-Lee (2022) could find no corroborating source for this or for Fuller’s claim to have been present at the first transatlantic telephone call. Note the internal dating conflict as well. Ideas and Integrities puts the Annapolis appointment in 1917, while the documented course ran in the summer of 1918.
The deliberate adoption of the plain dark suit and conventional manner after Fuller found that anything stranger made people dismiss his ideas. See Nevala-Lee (2022). One quotation removed. An earlier draft had Fuller describing himself as looking like “a second-rate bank clerk.” No primary source could be found for it, and the one traceable reproduction attaches it specifically to his clothing rather than to his general manner, which is not the claim the sentence was making. Following the rule that anything unconfirmable is cut, it has been removed. If a page reference turns up in a printed copy of Nevala-Lee, it can be restored with the narrower meaning intact.
Apocryphal or paraphrased, not used here as Fuller’s words. “I am not a thing, a noun. I seem to be a verb, an evolutionary process, an integral function of the universe” was carried as this issue’s epigraph through several drafts and has been removed. The attribution came from Wikiquote, where the citation to “The Designers and the Politicians” in Ideas and Integrities at p. 234 belongs to a different quotation on the same page, the passage beginning “The concept of relativity involves high frequency of re-established awareness.” Page 234 was read directly and carries the relativity passage exactly as the entry says. The citation had simply been attached to the wrong line. Three locations in the book were then read against the epigraph and none contains it, chapter 19 at pp. 302 to 308, chapter 18 at pp. 278 to 301, and p. 234 itself. The line may well be Fuller’s, and it is close to the title of his 1970 book I Seem To Be a Verb, but no printed locus could be established, so it is cut under the standing rule. “We are called to be the architects of the future, not its victims” is one of his most circulated lines and has no located primary source. The popular “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete” is a paraphrase. The documented original, from a recorded interview with Mike Vance (published 1995), is “You never change anything by fighting it; you change things by making them obsolete through superior technology.” The polished “build a new model” wording spread from Daniel Quinn’s Beyond Civilization (1999), uncited. Also treat as unverified until checked against a primary text: “Dare to be naive”; “Don’t fight forces, use them”; “There is nothing in a caterpillar that tells you it’s going to be a butterfly”; and the “Never forget that you are one of a kind” passage.

Borrowed Eyes

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?