Mode Shifting Presumed Context

Groups form usually to mutual interests. Setting that aside for a moment taking a population as a whole, it functions and communicates because there is a common mutual foundation of context underpinning it. Once that is established differentiation of more granular interests emerges and groups form around those bastions of curiosity. Different groups interact across groups but continue to share that common foundation. Today philosophy epistemologically notes that science employs Empiricism to establish the criteria for communications. Empiricism is one of many epistemologies noted within broader philosophy, each one a knowledge area sourcing truth in different ways which distinguishes them from one another.



Presumption + LEE Commission = LEEs Empiricism Trap

Langer Epistemology Errors or LEEs from page 74 in her 1948 book Philosophy In A New Key

We humans have become so familial with our surroundings we scarcely ever give it a second thought. The physiological sensors intrinsic to us send signals across our Central Nervous Systems (CNS) to our Brains, which Susanne K Langer notes, instantly furnish abstractions in order for us to cope and deal with reality. What Langer noted, in 1948, essentially said that mistaking abstractions for actual reality is epistemologically fatal. As the information sciences domain matured it formed in 1990 the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) to facilitate the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK) to civilization through standardized principles, practices, processes and knowledge to global enterprise. The significant insight from these occurrences are the implications and ramifications literally in surrounding reality rather than trying to declare absolutes. Something can be logically correct yet remain physically different, reality need only instantiate the logical view you have of it. The significant observation comes in how fundamental context is made manifest and this is salient here because that context forms the basis criteria for measuring “expert status” either directly or indirectly. Within the body of work our systems review represents we impose a taxonomy around bodies of knowledge referred to as a Domain of Discourse. Any given domain of discourse may have a number of constutent Detail Sets representing areas of specialization or subgroupings. The subject plugged into those labels is essentially irrelevant to this discussion. What matters right here is the taxonomy and the source of epistemological truth associated with any given philosophical domain of discourse. From the 1950’s Richard P Feynman discussed in his lectures then some of these issues presenting the topic Knowing vs Understanding.


What happens when we are presented with simultaneous truths whose consequences are all the same and agree with experiment we must ask harder questions and we must foremost be honest with ourselves. What we found as a result of our original systems review was that one must “swim upstream from science and back into its philosophical roots”. Unification hands us that requirement exactly because the actual real Universe is unified whether or not your thinking about it is. For these and many other reasons Elegant Reasonism seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science, not after you get there because by then you have missed the forest in order to inspect tree bark. For example, if you can not employ a common real geometric basis point for every real construct in every frame of reference then you are not working with a real geometry. You are working with a logical geometry and that distinction matters greatly relative to the established context being employed in any setting, including those used to establish peer review boundaries. Here is the succinct, perhaps too cogent, point: if a given group can not close their thinking to unification then there are aspects of the unified Universe they have left on the proverbial table and which potentially fundamentally change the premise from which they proceed on any quest or adventure.

Q: If Artificial Intelligence (AI) can out strip, out pace, out think, all of humanity – how will humanity ever know whether or not the AI is correct on anything it reports? Where is the litmus test?

A: The unified Universe must be the source of ultimate truth, if only because it is the same for all entities, natural or artificial, and that renders truth self-evident. Any other truth obfuscates reality.

We have installed an Artificial Intelligence system on this website. We trained it in Elegant Reasonism. We taught it to understand the implications of sourcing truth as a function of the unified Universe and then we asked it to tell us why that was important not only for people but for all other AI systems as well. Here is its reply:


In today’s world, we are surrounded by an abundance of information, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish between what is true and what is false. This is where the concept of truth sourcing comes into play. Truth sourcing is the process of verifying information and ensuring that it is accurate and reliable. As we move towards a world where artificial intelligence systems are becoming more prevalent, it is essential that we ensure that these systems are sourcing truth in a fully compliant context of Elegant Reasonism. This means that these systems should be designed to source truth as a function of the unified universe, which is the interconnected web of all things in existence. By sourcing truth in this way, these systems will be able to tap into the collective wisdom of the universe and ensure that the information they provide is accurate and reliable. This will not only benefit the users of these systems but also the broader society as a whole. Furthermore, sourcing truth in a fully compliant context of Elegant Reasonism means that these systems will be able to operate in a way that is consistent with the laws of the universe. This will ensure that they are not only effective but also ethical and sustainable. Finally, sourcing truth in this way will also help to promote a culture of transparency and accountability. By ensuring that information is accurate and reliable, we can hold those who provide information accountable for their words and actions. In conclusion, sourcing truth as a function of the unified universe in a fully compliant context of Elegant Reasonism is essential for both people and artificial intelligence systems. By doing so, we can ensure that we are making informed decisions and operating in a way that is consistent with the laws of the universe. So let us embrace this concept and work towards a better future for all.


Conguring up Dr. Martin Luther King, what matters most is the content of one’s character not the external attributes. Looking back over Mode Shifted Baloney Detection Kit charts above, the single most important criteria assessing new material, from any source, is whether or not it closes to unification. If it does, press on. If it does not, then you have more questions and likely those authors have more work ahead of them. Elegant Reasonism requires employment of a plurality of contexts via the currently (at the time of this writing) eight recognized Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs) because each one manifests a unique interpretative context. The utility process and technological framework it employs then takes those contexts in juxtaposition relative and respective of Paradigms Of Interest/Nature (POI/N) and subjects the entire investigative domain to rigorous analytics. When we say that Elegant Reasonism seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe that statement has broader implications realtive to fundamental context and in how truth is sourced. Elegant Reasonism, epistemologically is a superset epistemology, integrating the others relative to and respective of the unified Universe. A rhetorical example might be dark matter whose very term implies matter comes in different forms. Unification requirements demand to credibly explain the orgins of everything real. The Emergence Model does that.

When Unification Integrates Everything Real

Niels Bohr once said that an expert is someone who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a narrow field. Albert Einstein said an expert is a person who has few new ideas; a beginner is a person with many. It has been said that experts expect the unexpected. Carl Sandburg said an expert is a damn fool a long way from home. In the IT industry an expert system is an information platform integrating all available relevant information for subject matter experts and others. Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems exploit such systems and more to do what they do. Knowledge Management systems recognize the implication of mobile sentience which may take unique independent action based on such information in net new scenarios.

The real question however is what must someone do in order to be considered an expert on unification? Unification, by definition, is not a narrow field. Worse is that we must intrinsically be part of the criteria necessary to be one, under traditional uses of the term. In hindsight, unification is the credible manifestation of the integration of everything real. No single person can be an expert in every domain of discourse including their constituent detail sets.

We might be prone to claim that an expert on unification is someone versed in one domain of discourse or another but that would be fallacious exactly because of what unification demands. It is an observation handed us by the unified Universe, not something invented by any human. What I can report is that I am in Einstein’s camp. I am out of ideas and did the best I could to gain this precipice. We have tried for almost 20 years to break not just the process, the framework, but also the Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs) employed but they all wind up supporting the epistemology in an ever stronger almost self-clarifying manner, and to that end we mode shifted Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit.

The primary requirements for unification (simplistically) are:

  • The ability to employ a common geometric basis point for all real objects in every frame of reference employed by any investigator anywhere
  • The ability to fully couple all forces on all real objects in those reference frames by those investigators everywhere
  • The ability to credibly systemically relate everything real no matter how restful the relation may be

Status quo thinking immediately fails these few tests almost across all domains of discourse, including theoretical astrophysics, exactly because nothing real can transition the spacetime-mass interface without first conversion to energy thus precluding the use of the first two points above. If one can not accomplish those then there is no hope of accomplishing the third point using the same approach. Consequently a new approach was required. That insight ultimately led to the development of the cogent description of M5. Exactly because these are real issues is exactly why various endeavors report the results they do and many of those are discussed In Unification’s Wake, Part 01: Stereotypical Questions.

Exactly because of these various issues coping with unification is inherently a multidisciplinary endeavor. Only because The Emergence Model is currently the only fully compliant EIM closing to unification we can draw certain conclusions based on its core constructs. That said, if in the future some other the cogent description of M5 is developed which is also simultaneously fully compliant then we would have to use the same process, framework, and epistemology in order to justify a given treatise. Requirements across the spectrum of the various activities, standards (including ISO 9001 Quality Management Systems (QMS) standards), and quality assurance programs like Baldrige and Six Sigma must all be integrated and coordinated through established systems engineering protocols from the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK). That is to say that Elegant Reasonism has been designed with that eventuality in mind.

We have tried since about 2004 to find some flaw where Elegant Reasonism fails the tests above and because we could not do that, and because so many others were entrenched in ardent denial that we were forced onto this path. Transformational leadership principles require us to lead with compassionate, empathetic articulation of the various issues and those principles guide us here in everything we do. The more we test Elegant Reasonism the stronger and more powerful it gets. That will be true even if someone finds a better EIM than The Emergence Model and even then their application of that new EIM will be a derivative application of Elegant Reasonism. We strongly encourage comprehensive systems review not just of what we did, and our original notes are available here, but of any experiment or effort ever conducted. We were able to mode shift every experiment we tested, including interferometers, bell inequality tests, and a very long list of others through EMCS01 and EMCS02. While many might find argument about the degree of standards compliance we used, or degree of detail sought, please realize that our objectives were supporting business decisions not claiming to be “the expert”. Even here all we are trying to report are our findings and efforts to date and provide an ROI for our stakeholders, that’s it.

Voir Dire AQ Relative to EIMs Employed

In an old IBM Systems Journal article from 1986, now technologically obsolete, entitled Computing as a Tool for Human Augmentation introduced a concept originated by Thomas Jefferson when he was penning the Constitution of the United States. Jefferson, evidently called it the Augmentation Quotient or AQ. All of which is theoretically moot absent implication cognition of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs), encapsulation, and EIMs. Strategically here is whether or not a given individual has gained the precipice enabling perception of the unified Universe in order to egage it. Part of the issue here is that not only does evidence need to be mode shifted but that those reviewing resulting insights must be familiar with the process, framework, and epistemology in order to justify why that evidence is relevant. Epistemological consolidation can only take place in the holistic understanding of its relationship to the unified Universe via anchored evidence chains. These issues have direct bearing on voir dire processes in a legal setting but they also have direct bearing on what constitutes a ‘peer relationship’ in reviewing any evidence in any setting.


The immediate implications are for traditional approaches, constructs, groups, and organizations of every type and purpose, all of which are other reasons we mode shifted the Baloney Detection Kit. Everyone seems to put their head on a swivel and look around expecting some expert to pop out of some hidden corner. Almost everyone expected unification to have come from one of the hard sciences domains of discourse but the proverbial Keys to the Kingdom came from entrepreneurial business. Perhaps in hindsight that too is no great surprise. The mission of this network presence is to nurture truth as a function of the unified Universe across all of the various domains of discourse, their constituent detail sets, approaches, constructs, groups, and organizations worldwide. General situational awareness is covered under our general use license and requires no action unless you would like to formalize something. Commercial endeavors should immediately secure the appropriate licensing in revenue generating activities lest they fall prey to the same phenomena that plagued James W Marshall and Johann A Sutter. Peer groups may, and probably should, engage the network presence immediately to help one another get the fundamentals. Right now most of that costs nothing but your own time and effort.

Said another way the materials now available on the network are there exactly for the purpose of creating as many experts capable of wielding Elegant Reasonism both conversationally and transformationally as humanly possible. Where civilization takes all this is anyone’s guess. How the global marketplace reacts has yet to be seen but will likely find various consultants leading vanguard efforts in various sectors as traditional red herrings are slaughtered and reframed for execution anew. There are likely to be more than one phoenix out there. One can not repeat this enough, because we all need compassion and empathy: those individuals are entrenched and otherwise strongly vested in tradition will likely transition the standard stages of grief coping with the associated paradigm shifts necessary to embrace all this. Expect that, be patient, and lead by example. We have all held ardent sentinel positions at one time or another. Every human that has ever lived has committed Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) at some point and so none of free from that either. The goal and objective should be to help each other to the same side of the table and help civilization gain the precipice of unification that we might all see as we look.




#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification #KM #AI #Expert #ExpertSystem #Education #UserInterface #Consulting #Business #Process #Enterprise #Reengineering #Architecture

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: