Walking The TalkWalk The Talk

Does The Talk You Are Walking Close To Unification?

Because if it does not then you have work to do. Unification demands the capability to manifest everything real from a cogent source representing and reflecting ultimate truth. It isn’t mystical, nor mysterious, though many consider science in that regard. It means that unification is a philosophical predicate priority consideration in your every thought entering science. Not after you get there, but before you walk through that door. Strategically at issue is the ability to reconcile experimental simultaneous congruence of multiple theories and hypothesis. How do you know which is correct if they all simultaneously have the same consequences and all agree with experiment? Which one is correct? Do you think science alone can discern the correct answer or is more needed? Here is Richard P Feynman in 1950 talking about exactly that situation.



Often scientists get into discussions regarding which theory looks more natural than another. They have been asking the wrong question. The correct question is which has greater affinity with the unified Universe. If we quantify and codify every domain of discourse and their relative and respective detail sets, and we mean all of them, the question is “Can your manner of thinking integrate all of that to congruence? Can it fully comply with what we call the realm of c’s? Some will hop up on a chair, table, stage, or out in front of a camera and declare superiority because they have great alignment within their detail set or perhaps even their particular domain of discourse. Pick one, it doesn’t matter which. The logical correctness of their thinking is presented as nicely dressed as any store window dressing. They may even present experimental data and lists of numbers that match with high degrees of precision or accuracy, maybe even both. They utterly miss the point. They do miss the point exactly because something can be logically correct yet remain physically different. Logically correct experiments, conducted in logically correct manners, immersed in a logically correct Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM), will in all likelihood produce logically correct results, and that has absolutely nothing necessarily with the underlying reality. What it does demonstrate is the logical congruence and alignment with which all those activities dovetail. It might mean, but not necessarily so, that the underlying reality supports that logical view. It does not mean you are describing actual reality. What it does mean is you are reflecting a logical view of reality. This distinction matters. Failing to recognize these distinctions such that you believe you are describing actual reality, rather than abstractions of it, constitutes what we call: Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs).

So you have experimental results that dovetail pretty good within the EIM employed for a given investigation, assertion, hypothesis, or theory and that’s great! The question on the table though is does all that fully comply with the realm of c’s, one of which is the term: Close? For example, what Albert Einstein created beginning about 1905 is absolutely 100% logically correct, and therein lay the strategic clue needed to gain the precipice of unification. The body of his work is absolutely logically correct, but it does not close to unification. Perhaps even more enlightening is that fact that it will never close to unification no matter how much time, money, resources, humans, or experiments are thrown at it. How do we know that? The answer it irritatingly more simple than perhaps anyone would like. The core constructs made manifest by that model preclude unification. Those philosophical constructs space, time, mass, and energy as conceived under that model (e.g. M2 as originally envisioned by Einstein and under M1 by most modern scientists) conspire to create an interface between spacetime and mass. We simply refer to that as the spacetime-mass interface. Strategically at issue is that nothing real can transition the spacetime-mass interface without first conversion to energy as governed by a farily famous equation needing no introduction here. You can run around your office red faced and stomp all you like, but it won’t change that hard cold fact. What are the implications of that hard cold fact? One is the inability to employ a common geometric basis point for all real objects in the same frame of reference or nested set of many frames, some inertial and others not. That same problem exists for being able to fully couple all forces to those same objects. Now before you start casting dispersions all over the place we must all too recognize that the subject of unification is not what Einstein had set out to explain. It was not his objective and it was ours. Einstein was working to rationalize then recent interferometer experiments all of which reported the same velocity for the speed of light under all conditions. He did that in a fabulously brilliant piece of work. The error, if there was one at all, was two fold: consideration of unification requirements as a philosophical predicate priority were absent, and the abstractions manifesting the various constructs were thought to be real and constituted Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs). Consequently there are small niches, or chinques in the armor of all that logical correctness which under Elegant Reasonism constitute ‘logic artifacts‘ and ‘Six Sigma Defects‘.

Does this means we have to start completely over? Not really, no is that answer. Elegant Reasonism allows us to mode shift what it is we think we know into alignment with the unified Universe by employing a utility process, framework, and epistemology whose truth is based as a function of that unified view of reality. Our experience has been that when we do that, everything real dovetails, and that’s pretty compelling.

Direct Implication

The first thing everyone needs to realize is that everyone on Earth has at this juncture committed Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs), including us and we invented all this. So, no one can escape blame, let alone our heros both there or gone. So keep all those stones in your pockets, we are all in a very large glass house and its more fragile than anyone would prefer. None of this is necessarily about how we got where we are. It is about how we climb the path to the precipice from which we can all perceive and engage the unified Universe. Likely there is more than one way to do that and they all will require a diversity of skills and talent to accomplish. Getting started is both free and immediate. Just start clicking and learning right here, right now! Share pages and info with everyone you know. That will help spread awareness.

Mode Shifting The Message From the Beginning

Re-read that message at the opening of this article. What potentially changes here because of all this is fundamental foundational context. You may have meant what you have been talking for a great number of years and all that is fantastic. The core message from In Unification’s Wake, Part 05: Business Impact is that Elegant Reasonism is 1) disruptive, 2) can mode shift everything you though you knew right out from under your feet exactly because of pattern shifts EIM to EIM, and 3) the only defense is wielding Elegant Reasonism better the competition. We can not encourage strongly enough to wield this new capability transformationally with great compassion and empathy.  The caution and warning here is that one needs to take great care and recognize that we are all in this same new boat together. Rampantly mode shifting your neighbors assets will likely not win you any friends anywhere. Just because your talk dovetails within your particular detail set supporting a particular domain of discourse may not mean much if it also does not close to unification. It certainly might not mean what you think it does. Consequently we mode shifted the Baloney Detection Kit to take a few of these considerations into account.

Everyone should pretty much just count on having to mode shift darned near everything. Six Sigma black belts need to be keenly aware of how encapsulation imposes boundaries on how sigma defects are handled and calculated. Those versed in root cause analysis should be aware that answers to those standard questions may shift EIM to EIM. Metrics will likely have to be mode shifted. All of this has a strong tendency to cause headaches. On the other hand it is should prove useful to know that ultimately you will prevail and gain experience with all of this. The objective is to become conversationally skilled in wielding Elegant Reasonism. That way you can detect baloney sooner rather than later. The good news is that we now understand the role context plays realative to respective of the talk we emply and the actions we take as we walk in order for us to see as we look. From that precipice of unification we can now perceive and engage the unified Universe.

Epic!, Right?! Yep! But Not Done Yet

As you use the utility process, framework, and epistemology to perceive and engage the unified Universe you may notice something going on inside you. Your situational awareness is going to rapidly improve in speed, dexterity, breadth and depth, reach and range. You will become more nimble at articulating communications challenges conversationally with others less familiar than yourself. Part of what Susanne K Langer noted back in 1948 were issues regarding human physiology and the sensors it employs sending signals across the Central Nervous System (CNS) to our Brains. When we say that unification demands being capable of credibly manifesting everything real, we mean without exception, and that necessarily includes us. Langer pointed out that our physiology naturally furnishes our brains with abstractions in order to cope with and engage the world around us. The Emergence Model was the first EIM to close to unification and there may be others at some point. While we aren’t going to get into details here now, M5 does present the path for the organic from inorganic. Intrinsic action of architectures form action potentials within our nervous systems forming the patterns our brains recognize as abstractions. Previously, perhaps historically or traditionally, motivation speakers would employ something called Neural Linguistic Programming (NLP) to cause triggers to different memory patterns with the objective of improving performance or capability in some manner. What those folks all lacked was the framework underpinning all that. What they missed was that the neural pathways were not constrained to linguistic centers of the brain. Every area has the same capability. There is a degree of neural plasticity associated with all Brodmann Areas. When we undergo paradigm shifts significant enough to alter the neural networks instantiating them we realign our paradigms to new synaptic patters within the CNS and it alters how our brains perceive those patterns. What is really cool about all the paradigm shifts we’ve been talking about here on this page and in this website are occurring within you right now just because you are struggling to understand Elegant Reasonism. Those pattern shifts occur naturally or intentionally are here called Neural Network Reconfiguration by Programming or (NNRP). Take a deep breath because this insight is really, really cool. Pause and reflect for a minute what’s going on here. As you become conversant relative to and respective of the unified Universe you also intrinsically become more aware of it and you do intrinsically. It is almost as if the unified Universe wanted to you have this capability and we find that highly compelling and rewarding. This is a precipice worth fighting for and to make sure we can wield properly, effectively, and transformationally. At some level, we don’t really even have to force it on anyone. As they become situationally aware they are going to be innately drawn in due to NNRP. Back in my corporate days we used to call all the effort associated with our own paradigm shifts “wrestling pigs”. NNRP makes that considerably easier once you are over all the initial hurtles and understand what’s going on both inside us and the world around us. NNRP is just one of those little bonuses we get because we made the journey. A very profound journey to be sure.





#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification


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: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2439-1707