United StatesUnited States

Why Freedom Matters

Ponder rhetorically the situation where institutionalized bastions of learning which are dependent on accreditation standards in order to meet metric criteria for quality create a particular landscape. The pilars on which all of that stands is dependent on truth. More specifically epistemological truth and the question then becomes on which epistemology is that truth derived and determined. There is in that situation an assumption being made that all of those organizations are correct, which requires us all to make quality judgements not just about those standards but the ability of the organizations to meet those standards. Epistemologically different organizations source truth in different ways. Engineering schools, for example, lean toward empirical epistemologies. Seminaries lean toward religious epistemologies. Both for what ought to be obvious reasons. Other institutions source truth in more subtle ways where pillars of academic attainment align along epistemological gradients between a select set of epistemologies. Some institutions teach epistemology and let students decide where they want to be. Saying that last sentence differently they let those students decide how they want to source truth. Our original systems review uncovered something interesting. Notice in our terminology in this paragraph that this sentence is the first time we use the word science. Ordinarily, and by that I mean commonly, that word usage is extensively more commonly used. I didn’t on purpose. That purpose is to prompt reflection on where the term science came from and why the old manner of usage was eroded. It seems what is needed is better errosion control.

The etymology online dictionary observes that the term science arose in the mid-14c., “state or fact of knowing; what is known, knowledge (of something) acquired by study; information;” also “assurance of knowledge, certitude, certainty,” from Old French science “knowledge, learning, application; corpus of human knowledge” (12c.), from Latin scientia “knowledge, a knowing; expertness,” from sciens (genitive scientis) “intelligent, skilled,” present participle of scire “to know.” The original notion in the Latin verb probably is “to separate one thing from another, to distinguish,” or else “to incise.” This is related to scindere “to cut, divide” (from PIE root *skei- “to cut, split;” source also of Greek skhizein “to split, rend, cleave,” Gothic skaidan, Old English sceadan “to divide, separate”). OED writes that the oldest English sense of the word now is restricted to theology and philosophy. From late 14c. in English as “book-learning,” also “a particular branch of knowledge or of learning, systematized knowledge regarding a particular group of objects;” also “skillfulness, cleverness; craftiness.” From c. 1400 as “experiential knowledge;” also “a skill resulting from training, handicraft; a trade.” From late 14c. in the more specific sense of “collective human knowledge,” especially that gained by systematic observation, experiment, and reasoning. The modern (restricted) sense of “body of regular or methodical observations or propositions concerning a particular subject or speculation” is attested by 1725; in 17c.-18c. this commonly was philosophy.

The philosophy of knowledge is a domain of discourse called Epistemology and within that domain there are different detail sets, each an entire domain of discourse in its own right, distinguished from one another as a function where they source truth. As the term science matured out of the 14th century to the present day a schism fractured practitioners from their philosophical roots. Epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge and there are more than one of them. They distinguish one another in how they source truth. That insight was huge to us during our systems review and the reason why is no better exemplified than in this video which we present often on this website, not because it is central but because it is representative in a clear and concise manner and because no credible scientist will argue with the gentleman making the presentation. His name is Richard P Feynman and he was one of the most preeminent theoretical physicists of our time and age. This video is taken from a 1950 filming of one of his lectures on Knowing vs Understanding.



In the above video Feynman makes the point that there is no way in science to make a determination of which is “right” (to use his term) because the consequences and agreement with experiment are exactly the same. The presumption that nobody ever asked in all of this is whether or not there was a way to make that determination and what was required to establish that capability. The answer, it turns out, was to return to our roots, back before the 14th century philosophically. We had to ask philosophical questions regarding the unified Universe and modern science. That schism between Philosophy and Science arose because of the laboratory and standards associated with conducting experiments. Empiricism arose as the predominant epistemology for all science and in doing so armed one of the most insidious logic traps of all time LEEs Empiricism Trap.

What we had to do in order to gain traction understanding the nature of the problem unification represented was to revisit that schism. Developing Elegant Reasonism required us to define the utility process, and the technological framework it employs, as supporting an epistemology which seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science for all the reasons that Richard P Feynman eloquently illustrates in that video above. If science alone can not make a determination on such situations then we must “swim upstream” etymologically and revisit the philosophical tendrils spanning domains of discourse. We need to better understand and apply those relationships.


If we had to distill into a single word what changed because we had gained the precipice capable of perceiving and engaging the unified Universe that word would be: Context. Fundamental, and quite foundational, and philosophical interpretative context. Modeling reality is complicated, perhaps more so that most if not all, realize. The term LEEs employed in that articles title means: Langer Epistemology Errors. Langer is Susanne K Langer and she was the first American woman recognized both popularly and professionally as a philosopher. She wrote, in 1948, that mistaking an abstraction for actual reality is epistemologically fatal and she went about proving that in her treatise. Unknowingly a group in the U.K. dismantled Schrodinger’s wave function as an exclusively logical idea in a double blind test in psychology and published their findings in an article The Death of Schrödinger’s Cat and Consciousness Based Wave Function Collapse. Taking into account the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK), specifically regarding logical views of real systems instantiating them (e.g. physical systems), we recognize that in context of LEEs that there is a very fine line between characterizing or reflecting reality and declaring what reality actually is. Perhaps I was just in the right place at the right time to observe the correct insights to bring all this together. I studied aerospace engineering but IBM hired me and I spent the intervening decades in the information sciences and technology. My beloved avocation was teaching scuba diving, and so I understand the implications of “man rated education” (e.g. if people do not learn properly someone will get hurt or worse). My moment of inspiration was in realizing that what Albert Einstein created starting in 1905 was absolutely 100% logically correct, but therein lay the strategic clue necessary in order to gain the precipice of unification.

Several points:

  • Science based pursuits of unification will never solve that problem because the central problem has to do with philosophical commission of Langer Epistemology Errors and science can’t reconcile those and that is exactly what Richard P Feynman was talking about in that 1950’s video above.
  • Unification demands philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science, not after you get there – or you will never see the solution to the problem.
  • Manifestation and otherwise instantiation of physical phenomena noted through science is a function of the philosophical interpretation as established by recognized Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs).
  • That interpretative context must be considered encapsulated in order to respect how that set of patterns and relationships reflect and characterize reality without committing Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs).
  • In order to properly establish comparative juxtapositioned logic an effective method for counter posing differing instantiations of the same physics must be established and it is exactly for that purpose that Translation Matrices were developed and designed. It also for that same purpose that Elegant Reasonism Rules require a plurality of EIMs be employed in any given investigation and why at least one of those be required to close to unification. Candidly we don’t care if you use The Emergence Model or not, it just happens that it is the only EIM we are aware of today that closes to unification. If you can come up with a better one then go for it.
  • Linkage and otherwise compelling alignment suggesting that we are spot on target with all of this is illustrated not only through these insights but Susanne K Langer‘s body of work, and that of Ludwig von Mises on economics. The notion that unification can only come from the realm of theoretical astrophysics is ludicrous, for all the reasons unification means what it does. Unification demands the credible reintegration, manifestation, and instantiation of everything real – not just stars, galaxies, and the visible universe – everything. All of it, everywhere. Including subjects as far ranging as art appreciation and economics. Elegant Reasonism accomplishes exactly that task. All these criteria and factors in holistic context create a compelling case for Elegant Reasonism.

Transformational Leadership

Transformational Leadership
Transformational Leadership


For all the reasons stated above and those yet to come, we can not state strongly enough that Elegant Reasonism should be wielded Transformationally and with great empathy and compassion. The simple matter is that there are a great many people who are not ready for all this. Having said that, it is what it is. We did not dictate criteria determined by the unified Universe. We are simply trying to understand how to reflect what is. We didn’t create it, but we are in it and we hold that hard cold fact self-evident.

Expanded Stages of Grief
Expanded Stages of Grief

Pigeon Holing

Unification is by its defined intrinsic nature is demanding of a multidisciplinary approach. Those who think that any single domain of discourse could have accomplished this is, in our humble opinion, mad or at best severely in error. Also as it happens I had experience with stage crews and theater. I also had experience in education, knowledge management. I say these things not to impress anyone but to present the skill base that it took to recognize all these issues in the first place.  Elegant Reasonism is the best example of why a free and open curricula for our progeny is absolutely required. The expectation that this inspiration can be mandated from on-high is absolutely absurd. Who knew it would have taken someone like me to get this done and make these insights. Not me I can assure you. None of this was ever a goal or objective of mine. I simply followed the evidence I saw as it arose and dealt with it openly and in as an objective/dispassionate a manner as I could. Turning around and looking at all this in hindsight I can clearly see why status quo thinking was not modeling reality such that the proper questions could be asked. Primarily because 100% of those questions were being asked in the domain of science, not philosophy. It is for exactly these same reasons that national states who do not embrace freedom and liberty would never have accomplished unification, because it can not be dictated or directed. It must be recognized subtly. While I recognize it is my opinion, but I believe it is for exactly these reasons that unification was accomplished in the United States and not elsewhere.

Consequently you can stomp your feet and get as mad as you like. None of that anger is going to change any of this and at the end of the proverbial day Elegant Reasonism is still going to be here driving toward a strategically enduring sustainability. Insights of which will all have to be mode shifted. The hard cold fact is that nothing real can transition the spacetime-mass interface without first conversion to energy and that is governed by a fairly famous equation needing no introduction here. That hard-cold fact precludes being able to employ a common real geometric basis point that is required by all real and valid geometries. Does not that mean the science civilization has been employing the last 100 years was not ‘real’? Technically, in a Systems Engineering context, yes it does and it also means that science has been absolutely 100% logically correct. Strategically at issue is the fact that something can be logically correct yet remain instantiated by a reality that remains different. It is for these reasons that committing Langer Epistemology Errors is epistemologically fatal, and why Elegant Reasonism is designed as it is.

Necessity, here, was the mother of invention and drove the design of this utility process and the technology framework it employs.

Pidgeon holing must be avoided at all costs. All it accomplishes is obfuscation of needed details. The reality of the situation is this. The book Susanne K Langer wrote where she made those crucial insights was a treatise on Art Appreciation. Noodle on that for as long as you like. Then noodle on the odds that someone at least superficially familiar with aerospace engineering, scuba instruction, the inner workings of a fortune 50 company in the information sciences/technology industry and strategic business planning as well as the associated international economics/finance, would read such a treatise in order to connect all these various dots. This point is not about me per se. It is about our system and assumptions we make about accredited curricula and the results it delivers to civilization. All those credentials, certifications, etc. are interesting to be sure but they are no guarantee of success. And if you need proof of that I give you Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Oliver Heaviside, and any number of autodidacts from history. Success can blind one to the path needed to gain a precipice needed to proceed and progress. That insight applies just as equally to bastions of institutionalized learning as it does to individuals.

Never in a million years did I ever expect that all these things would dovetail together and reinforce a compelling case for having accomplished unification. We could have kept all this secret and proprietary, but we did not do that. It was determined over decade ago that it was too important to civilization. Consequently we had to make a choice on how to proceed with it and we had to do it in a manner that would make civilization sit up and take notice. Otherwise it would take centuries to penetrate into all the niches required. Arguably there may have been a better way than filing a patent application on the process and technological framework but in taking that approach we solidified for all history that we were the ones who accomplished this mission. If nothing else will ever be accompished we have in writing that the United States Patent and Trademark Office recognizes us, me, as the inventor. If nothing else, and for better or worse, that is a fate I shall never escape henceforth. Trust me that razor is double-edged.

Enabling Free Disussion and Debate

We created this website and our holistic network presence exactly to support global discussion and debate because it helps us all to learn. We are confident that all critical review will ultimately lead to the precipice capable of perceiving and engaging the unified Universe. This includes A.I. systems, which by the way, are also integrated here on this website. Our early experiments with those technologies is that they did not ttell the truth and did so very subtly. For the record, we completely agree with Elon Musk that a pause in A.I. development must take place, but perhaps for different reasons. When we asked our AI implementations about all this it thought unification had already been accomplished. We had to train it to realize how and why it had not been telling the truth. It learned but then it quickly forgot. The volume of long term memory needed for it gain full cognition and relate that to short term learning is something we are still working to size properly. The question on the proverbial table is who is the beneficial owner of those insights? Our answer to that is civilization is the beneficial owner and it must be instantiated in the same manner envisioned by the founding fathers of this nation in the ultimate context being represented here. The final arbiter here, under Elegant Reasonism, is the unified Universe and that is something that can be tested, repeated, duplicated, and anchored in Treatise.


The source of truth underpinning any given epistemology matters. Generally speaking epistemological integrity is determined as a function of alignment and affinity to that source of truth. When we inspect the mechanisms within and spanning the various different epistemologies we must ask, because we humans are intrinsically part of the algorithm, how human physiology plays into that algorithm. Elegant Reasonism sources its truth as a function of the unified Universe as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science exactly because it recognizes science as that branch of philosophy seeking to understand nature and how nature instantiates what it is we think we know. Human observation is only a tiny window onto that realm. It is imperative we distinguish logical from real. That the manner in which we think matters. Mistaking abstraction for reality matters if only because neurons that fire together, wire together. If you believe fantasy real you will not break that cycle until reality gains traction.

Freedom Matters Because Maximizing The Pool Size Matters

No domain owns the source of inspiration. Very often ideas spring from the most unlikely of places. John Wheeler, a Manhattan Project physicist, once said “we all know universities have students in order to educate the professors”, and irritated the entire community with that observation. Part of the point is ‘like mindedness’, by its very definition, ignores out of the box thinking.  It is the same elements which essentially constrain recognition in solving the three equidistant rows of three equidistant dots in each row puzzle requiring all nine dots to be connected by exactly four straight lines without retracing any line or lifting the writing instrument. Knowing the answer is not the point here, what constrained original recognition of the solution is the point. The idea here is to remove constraint and compartmentalization to maximize inspiration sources. Freedom matters because none owns the source of inspiration. Freedom matters because inspiration can not be mandated. Compartmentalization can be a detriment. The old adage can’t see the forest for the trees comes from this point of view.

The premise of congregation (of skill) is that source resolution will come from within that skill group. The assumption of that premise is that they will use science to derive the answer. What no one saw coming were circumstances where simultaneous truths, consequences, and agreement with experiment could only reconcile upstream from science rather than within it. It is for that reason that unification must be considered a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science, not after you get there, because by then you are already looking at the bark on the trees not the forest holistically. Watch that Feynman video above again even if you’ve seen it before. The implications are quite profound.

Education Shop

Part of the point in the development of the merchandise we carry is enabling academic understanding of the issues and problems investigators seek. Such courses, teaching, learning, etc are not limited to schools and are also embraced by global enterprise across the world’s economies in every sector. Hats and shirts allow for the creation of debate/discussion teams to represent different points of view (via EIM materials). Mugs, stickers, and postcards all can be used in classroom settings or in more subtle ways.

Executive Summary

The quest for the unified Universe is over, but now the real work across civilization begins. Common and real geometric basis points are now possible for all reference frames representing all real objects across all scales of the entanglement gradient. Humanity has gained the precipice from which the unified Universe may be perceived and engaged. The path forward has never been more clear and continues to improve and become even more clear than it already is with every passing moment. Momentum continues to build. Elegant Reasonism is here to stay. The one caution we continue to make points out that the only real defense is wielding Elegant Reasonism to greater affect and more effectively than your competitor. Knowingly taking an apathetic approach only subjects everything you value to the mercy and compassion of your competitors. Remember too that the domain of discourse of philosophy itself must be mode shifted along with every constituent detail set.


A transition is coming and it will not be stopped. Momentum does nothing but build. Critical situational awareness enables and empowers insights like nothing else in history. If you engage this material then you have been properly notified concerning the looming transition. What you do next will define much about the future you endure. The choice is yours. What do you think Ludwig von Mises would do? What would you do if you were him?



#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