You Just May Not Know It Yet
As a matter of history entrepreneurs have changed the nature of the game being played almost at every turn of every major transition. Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison come to mind as an example. The preamble to the application we made to the USPTO opens with the first five enumerated paragraphs from The Federalist Papers; No 31, written January 1, 1788 by Alexander Hamilton. Neither these words nor their use were accidental.
The Federalist Papers; No 31, written January 1, 1788 by Alexander Hamilton
 “IN DISQUISITIONS of every kind, there are certain primary truths, or ﬁrst principles, upon which all subsequent reasonings must depend. These contain an internal evidence which, antecedent to all reﬂection or combination, commands the assent of the mind. Where it produces not this eﬀect, it must proceed either from some defect or disorder in the organs of perception, or from the inﬂuence of some strong interest, or passion, or prejudice. Of this nature are the maxims in geometry, that “the whole is greater than its part; things equal to the same are equal to one another; two straight lines cannot enclose a space; and all right angles are equal to each other.`
 Of the same nature are these other maxims in ethics and politics, that there cannot be an eﬀect without a cause; that the means ought to be proportioned to the end; that every power ought to be commensurate with its object; that there ought to be no limitation of a power destined to eﬀect a purpose which is itself incapable of limitation. And there are other truths in the two latter sciences which, if they cannot pretend to rank in the class of axioms, are yet such direct inferences from them, and so obvious in themselves, and so agreeable to the natural and unsophisticated dictates of common-sense, that they challenge the assent of a sound and unbiased mind, with a degree of force and conviction almost equally irresistible.
 The objects of geometrical inquiry are so entirely abstracted from those pursuits which stir up and put in motion the unruly passions of the human heart, that mankind, without difficulty, adopt not only the more simple theorems of the science, but even those abstruse paradoxes which, however they may appear susceptible of demonstration, are at variance with the natural conceptions which the mind, without the aid of philosophy, would be led to entertain upon the subject.”
 Hamilton, The Federalist Papers: No. 31
 Jan. 1, 1788
Elegant Reasonism is a transformationally disruptive technology, process utility and epistemology, exactly because it illuminates and illustrates that which is perceivable in no other manner. Entrenched status quo thinkers will never succeed in gaining the precipice of unification until they come up out of their trenches and when they do they will meet the will, discretion, and ethics of those who climbed the ladder before them. The landscape will likely not be pretty. Competitive dynamics may well be described as Darwinian and those with large portfolios run shareholder risk every second they delay embracing the inevitable. Shareholders have every right and obligation to ask management how they are protecting their investments. Technology pursuits which have been costly and have as yet failed to produce solid ROI on fundamental promises need to have some honest and fundamental investigations performed relative to their respective positions on those pursuits, else run the risk of incurring liability for their apathy and/or lethargy in understanding competitive implications.
While no one has a crystal ball there are some things we do know. We know the game has changed. How far and to what degree remains to be seen. What we do know is that there are two basic demographics relative to and respective of the precipice capable of perceiving and engaging the unified Universe: those who can gain that precipice and those who are not yet there. The latter are at the mercy, will, discretion, and ethics of the former. It’s just that simple. The only question is which one are you? The diner or the dinner?
What constitutes a credible source? Someone you believe in? Who on Earth, exactly, has ever accomplished unification before that would empanel a review board as litmus to such claims? Einstein once said that if you can not explain something simply enough, then you do not understand it well enough. Correct though he was, buried deep within that statement are Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs), can you spot them? The LEE is presuming every participant in any such conversation can communicate. Communications requires common understanding of the elements involved. The challenge here is that fundamental context changes Encapsulated Interpretive Model (EIM) to EIM. Until everyone is on that same level playing field with the same comprehension of the implications regarding EIMs and the holistic implications of all this communications will be difficult for anyone, let alone us. Our job is to make comprhension as easy as is possible. The catch is penetrating status quo thinking long enough to allow cognition to set in.
- The answer to these questions is yes or no. Can you:
- Close all sciences to unification?
- Can you employ a common geometric basis point for all real objects in every reference frame?
- Can you relate all forces, fundamental or otherwise, not just to each other but to all real objects in all reference frames? (This capability is called “fully coupling” reference frames.)
- Do you realize that even if your answer to the first three questions here was yes that you must then relate everything real to the framework allowing you to answer yes?
- Can you re-unite philosophy and science? Recognizing that ‘the laboratory’ and empirical epistemology used against evidence we are reminded of a parable. If the only tool you have is a hammer, then all the world appears as a nail. The one common thread the traditional epistemologies all have, including empiricism, is human physiology. That was Susanne K Langer‘s major insight relative to the implications of abstractions.
- If your answer was no to any of the above questions do you know why your answer was no?
- Set aside, for a moment, the first set of questions and take a reflective pause. It matters not whether you are vested in science or not. Have you ever been blinded by success? Many entrepreneurs have. You can take any 100 year time span, and list decade by decade the major participants in any industry, then compare those lists. Why did some companies persist? Why did others fail? Why did some who were very successful for a long time succumb to competitive dynamics? You may not think these questions have much to do with science, but you would be wrong if you did. Henry Ford once said: it does not matter if you think you are wrong or you are right, you are correct.
- If your answers to any of the first set of questions was no then you have no choice but to engage Elegant Reasonism to full comprehension. Then if after your inspection and complete systems review you think it’s all horse pucky then so be it. We don’t think that’s going to happen. We have faith in you. Besides we’ve been doing this a very long time. Our experience is that you are at first going to be highly skeptical. Then as your review produces situational awareness of the implications surrounding abstractions in the full context of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) settles in you might do what I did when I first realized all of this. I sat for over an hour with my head in my hands in stunned disbelief. However I was trained to recognize new insights and because of that training pursued it, ultimately to this place.
- Be prepared to experience the industry standard stages of grief. Our experience suggests everyone is going to go through them. These sorts of paradigm shifts are of that magnitude.
- The website behind this post has the mission to facilitate comprehension of the implications brought about by the unified Universe. We do not have all the answers, but we can show you how we got where we are and help you gain the same precipice so you see what we see. We just want you to be prepared for what you are going to perceive and engage.
Bastions of institutionalized thinking which do not actively teach military doctrine likely also do not regularly consider campaign tactics relative to the business they conduct. They erroneously believe they are dealing with actual reality when in fact they rampantly commit Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) and have painted themselves into a very deep barrel bottom. Fixed fortifications never survive modern battle tactics. The lessons of Sun Tzu persist for a reason. Seeds have been planted over the course of the last decade or so and the harvest season is rapidly approaching. Those vested in bastioned status quo positions are not used to entrepreneurial driven competitive dynamics. The landscape of global economics is littered with the carcasses of enterprises who could not sustain their operations through time. Take any industry and any time span greater than 50 years. Now list the major competitors in that industry at ten year intervals. Look at what you have listed. Why did those lists fundamentally fail? What did people on later lists see that those on the earlier lists could not? Why did they not engage the new opportunity? How were they treated by stakeholders and shareholders. One thing we can tell you is that shareholders do not give one rats ass about your credentials. What they care about is their ROI. That’s one reason tenure does not exist in business. Perform or die because shareholders really just do not care about your feelings.
Elegant Reasonism Rises To The Challenge
Have we tested Elegant Reasonism with every facet and nuance of the unified Universe? Hell no. However, we have performed enough canary tests and shown it to enough professionals to know that what we did is correct. Some of those professionals have gone so far as to report back that no one will ever be able to prove any of this wrong. Our response was, well, that’s interesting but it doesn’t prove we didn’t just move from one logic trap to another one. We have to work to make sure that what we did, the process supporting the epistemology, eliminates and reduces that potential reality. We need to eliminate LEEs. When we first started working on all this LIGO had not yet been completed let alone discovered anything. That experiment mode shifts. All of it, the instruments, the data and their conclusions. The mode shifted M5 perception of what it is LIGO detects are graviton waves not waves of spacetime. Gravitons only affect the frequency arm of photons and that’s why they trace the geodesic they do between, for instance BX442 and the HST. The point here is not to diminish anything LIGO has accomplished because what those guys have and continue to do is fantastic science. The point is that Elegant Reasonism survived net new science and continues to thrive.
Elegant Reasonism rules demand and require a plurality of EIMs in any any given investigation. What we must do in order to inventory abstractions so we may surround the reality we are attempting to reflect. And in that reflection discern fundamentals to the extent possible. There is more than one learned lesson in all of this and it is multidisciplinary in nature. Siloed specialization is a death knell logic trap. Have you heard the phrase “can’t see the forest for the trees”? That’s what happens when we specialize ourselves into compartmentalized thinking. Elegant Reasonism based thinking is conversationally situationally aware of fundamental concepts and precepts. It can instantly recognize the source of context relative to core EIM constructs. It is hard to do but it is a skill worth mastering. The book Susanne K Langer made the insight about abstractions relative to physics was essentially about Art Appreciation, not physics, and the implications could not have been more profound. There is no better case for broad educational curricula than this.
Elegant Reasonism is the process used to develop the first EIM which closed to unification: The Emergence Model. Elegant Reasonism constitutes a superset epistemology in the sense that it integrates all traditional epistemologies (including empiricism), but statistically weights them relative to and respective of the unified Universe. From a knowledge management point of view we discard nothing from what it is we already think we know, but what we do is codify it relative to and respective of the EIM making it manifest. We must then conduct a systems review following the processes and methods necessary in order to effectively mode shift that knowledge into alignment with the unified Universe (e.g. effectively traverse the process decision checkpoint flowchart).
One of the reasons that Elegant Reasonism is as disruptive as it is stems from the fact that it redefines fundamental assumptions. Those assumptions we all made are highly systemic and ripple up through our everyday lives and out to the farthest reaches of the cosmos and they span all scales not just distances. The requirements and demands unification brings are daunting to the point of intimidation to the uninitiated. Sometimes even the initiated succumb to their pressures. Unification takes no prisoners. Elegant Reasonism does show mercy in the form of integrated what it is we already think we know allowing us to mode shift that into alignment with the unified Universe. There is a solid chance to take that information and run it through this gauntlet and filters and see what we have been missing all this time. We now have the tools to perceive and engage the unified Universe and the insights about to be herald in are unprecedented. That may be good for some and a challengeg for others to cope and adapt for others. Attitude will be key.
We are working to grow the community familiar with Elegant Reasonism precepts such that credible peer reviews may take place despite all difficulties. As a civilization we need to do this in order to properly assess criteria for everthing from accreditation standards to industry standards and everything in between, up to and including what constitutes evidence. We need to do this so that data we already have in hand may be reassessed. So that we might conduct better systems reviews looking into what it is we think we know and why. Ultimately we need to do this for our progeny. They deserve no less than our full attention and dedication. Please sign up for the newsletter whose purpose is support for all these efforts and more.
The challenges of unification are daunting to be sure but we think you are up to them. Sic’em.
At this writing we have two merchandise shops of over 400 items and neither are intended to be simple places to sell trinkets and trash. The Full Shop has everything and from that larger set we have a set of items in the Educator’s Shop specifically created for those in teaching positions both in academia and industry. They are places to provide merchandise that enlightens, illuminates, and illustrates complex problems in as simple a manner as is possible. They are intended to be fodder for discussion. They are intended to provoke discussion among colleagues, peers, friends, students, and family. We are adding more products all the time so please check back frequently. You will likely notice, if you actually register with us, that we are still working to integrate content out across the landscape that is this website. The point is that as we do that new ideas and insights arise relative to commjnicating those subject areas. Inevitably that leads to product insights and we quickly build something, add it not just to the larger inventory but specifically to those content pages. So as you are traveling around in the website you will increasingly see items specifically targeted for those areas. Those items have the same mission as the larger shops. Help people understand and discuss those subjects relative to and respective of the unified Universe.
#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification #EIM #ModeShifting #TheGame #Worldview #Communications