Philosophy of SciencePhilosophy of Science

Penetrating LEEs Gate

Problem recognition begins with critical situational awareness thinking relative to and respective of unification. The realm of reality in which we exist and have pursued understanding of has not changed since the days of those ancient campfires of our distant ancestors. Only our perception of how we ourselves initiate interpretation has changed. Distant lights in the nights illuminating us then do still. As our awareness grew we gathered and as we did the idea of ideas spread and learning was borne. We taught one another intentionally at first. Much later we became aware of our own past and history made clear to the present in order to protect future progeny. But that only works in the presence of mind guided by integrity and honesty framing truth.

Science & Philosophy

Science and the scientific method are the alter on which modern investigators lay down their empirical results for all to bear witness. Several hundred years ago the term science did not exist. People then referred to such contemplation as the philosophy of nature. Then came the laboratory, tools, instrumentation where upon we used our intellect to embed and otherwise integrate references into the equipment so that we could properly interpret the results. Philosophy had no such equipment. Just those large leather chairs in smoke filled rooms filled with pontificating members. The divergence grew and a schism between the two formed, separating them forever in the minds of some, if not many.



3 no 4

The circumstance we have right now today is that we have simultaneously equivalent theories, call them A and B. Theory A is believed true by the vast majority of all scientists. They are taught in school that is the correct model of the universe because it agrees with experiment. There are a few who talk about different constructs that don’t fit into Theory A. Those people are ridiculed by professional scientists who point out that such constructs are incongruent with the underlying core constructs of Theory A and therefore under those definitions could not exist. Those holdouts point out that maybe if their ideas were correct that it would form Theory B. Both have the same experimental results. Both are in that context simultaneously true. Both camps collect, organize and stack up their evidence. Philosophers sitting in the corner watching all of this are bemused by it all.

Now let’s ask different questions. Let us ask “Do both of these theories close to unification?” No comes the answer. Theory A can not employ common geometric basis points for all real objects in the same or even different reference frames. Nor can those same real objects be fully coupled to all forces. The core constructs employed in Theory A were created such that they preclude attaining or reconciling those fundamental issues despite vast success and adoption by almost everyone on the planet. Those successes guided how people everywhere interpreted what it was they witnessed and experienced. How was this possible? Every single one of those people all have a single common element between them. They all share the same physiology. The same Central Nervous System (CNS) and Brain. Interesting thing about neural networks is that their patterns can be changed. That’s why humans are able to learn in the first place. If your patterns were static no one would ever learn anything. Once you do learn something new and your individual life experiences allow you to integrate that learning into the being you are, you alter your synaptic pattern path for referencing future experiences. Early in life creatures like us have neural plasticity that makes us more susceptible to learning. Children soak up experiences and information like a sponge. Adults can still learn but must undergo more intensive effort to integrate new concepts and behaviors. Those efforts are guided by adult learning principles. Adults generally must encounter something new at least seven times before they even have a hope of gaining that precipice. Some individuals aware of these issues make a conscious effort to immerse themselves in circumstances which naturally provide that opportunity. Intentionally immersing anyone, even if you do this yourself to yoursef, with the alteration of their pathways as an intended result is something we call Neural Network Reconfiguration by Programming (NNRP). Every day you chose to attend a learning event or go to school you are in essence conducting NNRP.  Carl Sagan pointed out in his now classic show: Cosmos how many books in the New York Public library he might be able to read in his life time, assuming normal rates of engaging the material. The he points out how many books there are, just in that one library much less than all the libraries on Earth. The subsequent point he makes then is that what is important is knowing which book to read. What does it tell you? Is that book about reality or fiction? How would you know the difference? What if one book was really about Theory A and the one right next to it was Theory B but neither book explicitly declared their basis. How would you know which book is right?

Neils Bohr abstractions
Neils Bohr on abstractions

The answer to all of these questions must come from nature. It must come as a function of the unified Universe. The actual real Universe is unified whether or not your thinking about it is. The question then becomes which theory A or B closes to unification in the most congruent manner possible. Neither must be declared “the” definition but must only be held to reflect reality in the most unified manner possible. We do this so as not to mistake one for the other. We then must recognize that the labels we use to describe material particles are actually just abstractions.

We must never make the mistake of assuming our abstractions ‘are’ reality, they are not. That, in essence, was the same point Susanne K Langer was making. Her point was that mistaking abstractions for actual reality is a fatal epistemological error. We now call these types of errors Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) in her honor.

Large numbers of the population are completely unaware of these distinctions. They do not comprehend the implications of these issues. What happens when we make such mistakes is that we believe we are working directly with reality. What happens when we do that is we stop looking for alternative answers to questions. If you have something in your hand called a key. You don’t look for another key, because the only thing you were told is that you needed that key. Only when you find out that key does not unlock every door do you begin looking for other keys. One can imagine a circumstance where every key attempted fails to unlock the door. Then someone points out that the door was never locked in the first place and they walk on through.  You’re likely to be mad at yourself for not performing the same act. But that is not what you were told. It’s not how you were set up to solve the problem. There are many such examples, metaphors, allegories. Unraveling mysteries in novel manners and then returning to explain what you have done is not a new experience. Plato described such circumstances 2,600 years ago in Book 7 of The Republic in his allegory: The Cave. Interestingly ironic is that unification demands reintegration not just these domains of discourse but all domains. Once what we perceive to be ‘the universe’ is characterized Bang to Bang we are then stuck with reflecting how those mechanics manifest everything real, including us because we are in that same test tube with 100% of the experiments we perform.

Elegant Reasonism is a utility process employing a technology framework supporting an epistemology which seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science and which produced the first fully compliant Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) closing to unification: The Emergence Model. The M5 cogent description was reverse engineered from the original systems review producing those results. Mode Shifting is effectively enabled when all abstractions are inventoried and Paradigms of Interest/Nature (POI/Ns) are reflected relative to each EIM employed by a given investigation, remembering that at least one such EIM must close to unification. At the moment, only The Emergence Model does close. There may be other EIMs later that also close but that eventuality will only make this process stronger.

enabling mode shifting
Enabling Mode Shifting

Recognizing One’s Limits

In the fully compliant context of unification we must first recognize that humanity is inside the crucible of unification being reconciled. We can not solve one without solving the other. We must also recognize that unification is the integration of everything real. What unification is not is a single domain of discourse associated with but a single detail set. It is the integration of them all. More than that unification demands simultaneity of integration. That means everything real must simultaneously align with congruence. Not briefly in a moment of creation but simultaneously and across the entire entanglement gradient. The larger implication is that every domain of discourse representing everything real must also meet those same requirements. The immediate implication is that unification is not a discussion about philosophy or science or any other single school of thought or endeavor but the simultaneous integration of them all. Integration of everything real compellingly demands simultaneous truth as a function of that integration. As tall an order as that may be it is for that reason that Elegant Reasonism seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe.

The problem though is not in understanding what Elegant Reasonism does do, it is in recognizing the limits of what we are doing now, the approach we are employing, does not nor will ever be able to do. The essential basis of status quo thinking seeks empirical truth which ultimately is a product of human physiology. Elegant Reasonism integrates empiricism but does so as a statistically weighted insight relative to and respective of the unified Universe. Status quo thinking (e.g. M1), can not, as a matter of core construct definitions ever accomplish unification exactly because those construct relationships preclude reconciliation of those requirements. The proof is simply that nothing real can transition the spacetime-mass interface without first conversion to energy; which precludes the use of a common geometric basis point in all reference frames and any credible review will concede that vital point. Since we know, as a matter of existence, geometry is real and we know too status quo thinking is logically correct, that we must relegate that thinking to the logical realm where it excels. That same insight is what demanded the search for an EIM which would satisfy the requirements of the unified Universe. Ultimately that realization, drove the original systems review culminating in The Emergence Model‘s single paragraph cogent description.

Recognizing why M1 can never accomplish unification, because it can not employ a common geometric basis point also means it will never be able to fully couple reference frames. A multitude of questions then flood our consciousnesses. Many of the exceedingly elaborate explanations for phenomena are ultimately identified as products of M1 logic artifacts. Such circumstances are uaually only illuminated to illustration as a function of execution of the utility process employing its framework which epistemologically seek truth as a function of the unified Universe within investigations that are fully compliant with Elegant Reasonism.

Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart

LEEs Gate

The Langer Epistemology Error (LEE) ‘gate’ refers to recognition of commission of such errors within the contextual framework under conversational circumstances and is exemplified by the diamond shaped decision block on the Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart (PDCF) center left on that chart. Penetrating this gate is neither easy nor trivial in task nor implication. Passing through that gate metaphorically means recognition of the logical nature of M1, M2, and M3; which is no easy task in and of itself. Many paradigms must be wrestled within any individual passing through that gate. That effort must be recognized, appreciated, and celebrated. But it also means that there is an entire realm of work ahead suggested by that same chart. Here though we pause to reflect on the revelations of this gate for in and among those insights lay understanding of the vital importance of the process.  If one approaches the M5 cogent description out of context it is easy to mistake it for technobabble from science fiction. Recognized in the full context of the original systems review which had to reverse engineer those words it takes on a whole new meaning with vast implications.

Penetrating this single gate represents a monumental individual breakthrough because of the numbers of paradigm shifts any individual will need to reconcile in doing so. It means we recognize what our physiology is doing to our intellect and the intellect must prevail. Ironically when it does it alters the neural pathways in a manner consistent with the unified Universe and facilitates even greater insights. That process is something we call NNRP but more on that elsewhere.

One can only exit the recognition phase effectively when you no longer commit Langer Epistemology Errors. If you commit such errors later in the process you will inevitably be sent back through the LEE loop again for review until you have cognition on the issue.

Vested Awareness

Those heavily vested in institutionalized status quo thinking will very likely transition through industry standard stages of grief dealing with all of this and the implications of it.

  • Denial
  • Anger
  • Bargaining
  • Depression
  • Acceptance

There are two sides to this coin; those coping with the issues and those taking on the role of teacher. In every case we strongly encourage leadership to be transformational in nature. Those in denial will likely be stuck in the LEE loop on the left hand side of the PDCF. How these stages playout throughout civilization is anyone’s guess. How they play out across global enterprise is superficially discussed In Unification’s Wake, Part 05: Business Impact. Many who are caught unaware of all this deeply believe civilization has been working directly with reality rather than abstractions of it (e.g. we have as a civilization rampantly committed Langer Epistemology Errors or LEEs). Cognition will begin to set in as denial begins to fade. Anger will likely be directed at us, some already has. Bargaining will only facilitate their paradigm shifts in favor of the unified Universe. Some may find the onset of depression as perceived insurmountable pressure to change is recognized. Those folks will find acceptance when they realize that what it is we think we know via M1 can be of significant value aiding efforts to mode shift those insights relative to M5.

A Few Implications

Leaders in global enterprise or any institution with global reach one of your first challenges will be dealing with those others in denial both inside your organization and with whom you must work. Challenging as that may be it is in everyone’s best interest that they be enlightened. Civilization’s future depends on it. The issue at the moment is that almost no one recognizes unification issues, and they do not understand why they need to move back from something that is a) logically correct, and b) has produced so many successes in the past. Succinctly, this is about future success not history. Consequently planners will not perceive the impact until after it is too late.

Some of our management team used to participate in corporate transformational leadership classes. Students were given nerf balls. The classroom was then divided into groups. Each group was told  to create a loop of some sort out of whatever they could find in the room and pass the nerf balls through that loop as fast as possible. The class was then asked for each group to report their best times. Typically results would be around five seconds +/- 4 seconds depending on how serious the group was. In this phase of the class the groups were perceived as competing against one another. They were all given opportunity to improve their times. Each winning group at each stage was given some sort of fun token as a prize and celebrated. The class room was then told their competition had considerable subsecond response times for their product/service. Now all the groups realized they were never competing against each other but an unseen adversary somewhere else. Usually what happens is all the nerf balls would be squished together and manually passed together through the loop by force which results in times similar to external competition. The class then debriefs on the evolution of their thinking throughout the exercise. Similar exercises are taught using management styles presented in the 1949 film Twelve O’Clock High. There are whole courses built around that film dissecting the management styles depicted therein. We agree with Gregory Peck’s analysis, it’s a fine film and well written. Another exercise individuals can do easily is to write down three equidistant rows of three equidistant dots in each and then to connect all nine dots by exactly four perfectly straight lines without retracing any line or picking up your writing instrument. The actual solution is not as important as the paradigm shifts you needed to make in order to perceive the solution and the evolution of thought you needed to employ in order to reconcile that solution. Consequently here, it is not important if you know the solution as it is to remember what you had to do in order to gain it.

Elegant Reasonism is a disruptive technology exactly because you will not see adversaries wielding it coming until you are sorting out the aftermath. EIMs are insidious that way. They manifest foundational context and if you mistakenly believe that is the only way to think, then you will not perceive your adversary’s actions correctly until it is well into the competitive interaction. We have placed many materials here to help you think through these issues. You may then contemplate your niche and the implications. Only you can do that. Only you can decide the degree to which problem recognition constitutes problems and challenges for you and your teams. What we do know is that every single one of you is going to have to travel through LEEs Gate to get there. When asked if you are committing LEEs you are going to have to reply ‘no’, and the degree truth aligns with the unified Universe is what will be held litmus in treatise.


#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification #Truth #Philosophy #Science #Epistemology



By Charles McGowen

Charles C McGowen is a strategic business consultant. He studied Aerospace Engineering at Auburn University '76-'78. IBM hired him early in '79 where he worked until 2003. He is now Chairman & CEO of SolREI, Inc. ORCID: