Pogo_00We have met the enemy and he is us. - Pogo

Source of Inspiration

Pogo didn’t know how correct he was. What’s the distinction between value and money? Ok, mode shift that discussion into alignment with the unified Universe. One of the very first things anyone with an MBA will have to integrate is cognition of the decision to act in order to make any decision with economic implications. Their first step in that regard places them squarely on the path already paved by Ludwig von Mises.

Interesting as any of that may be it is not the point of this article. Part of the point is that we may restfully connect all domains of discourse to the unified Universe and the above treatise on economics is but one example and that’s its only purpose here (to demonstrate it can be done).

Refuge From Collapse

Collapse, by Jared Diamond
Collapse, by Jared Diamond
Catastrophe, by David Keys

Collapsing civilizations has been a recurrent theme of many researchers over the years and the book cover at right is no exception. The current pet theme is ecology and this author does his best to build the case that if we don’t pay attention to Earth’s biosphere, we’re all just as doomed as the civilizations he researched. Which I presume to have been his goal from the outset, but that’s just my opinion. That and a reasonable valuation will get you a cup of good coffee. Spending a lot on populist beverages says more about the customer than the product. The ‘just get it done’ crowd likely has a different set of criteria. Isn’t brand management interesting? What happens when any group organizes itself such that 100% of the decisions being made are all based on peer pressure driven criteria? When that occurs there is consensus on fundamental interpretative abstractions. What happens though if that entire community suffers from the commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) for which human physiology is predisposed?

For most of human history our species only perceived what was right in front of it. Under its proverbial nose. The first social groups huddled together, likely for warmth, then for companionship. Social order emerged, likely resulting from awareness of consequences. We struggle to ask the right questions, but that can truly only be done under the correct context. But how to determine what constitutes correct context is the trick. Carl Sagan pointed out in his series Cosmos that the New York Public Library has ten million books on its shelves, but he could spend his whole life reading and only get through several thousand. The trick, he said, was to know which books to read.




Vision is something that is exceedingly difficult to teach or demanded. Many believe it can not be taught. It comes from the individual. My personal experience is that those who others label in that manner tend to be strategic thinkers with their goals and objectives rather than tactical oriented. The more strategic they are, more often than not, the more visionary their actions tend to be. Tactical actions may not be obvious to anyone other than those with the same strategic awareness. My opinion is that was true of every notable in the information technology industry, perhaps since its inception all the way to modern titans of business. Money is only the instantiation of intrinsic value. Business is incorporated to serve a stated purpose. If that purpose is to deliver value to a free market then its survival is dependent on the niches it serves and how it manages those niches. Berkshire Hathaway is a great example of a company that evolved away from its origins and initial purpose into nothing more than a holding company. In one sense the distinction between BRK.A and the original intent is pursuit of passionate valued simplicity. Managers of BRK.A demand simplicity of purpose, perseverance of intent, and quality of product. It is after all why those people started those businesses in the first place. It’s not about the money as much as it is what you do to earn it. Money is the instantiation of intrinsic value and that value is delivered by people serving a purpose.


358,214 Earthquake Epicenters 1963-1998

Interesting thing about volcanoes is they get blamed for all sorts of nasty events, and they cause lots of destruction to be sure (and have historically done so for eons). Superficial events like Pompeii inspire volcanologists to rationalize all sorts of phenomena rumbling under the Earth‘s crust. Tectonics are real to be sure. Every celestial body that has hydrostatically collapsed, (Here we call all of those planets if they are in independent orbit of a, (our), star, if they orbit a planet then they are still called moons), ultimately cools into layers that have interacted over their existence at some point. So, yep volcanoes do exist and they’re generally nasty for all sorts of reasons. Where are all these beasties? Well they’re everywhere. Some are on tectonic faults. Many are in the middle of the oceans, including the Pacific. Many are said to for islands. Tectonic plates are said to slide over magma hot spots under volcanoes forming island chains over geologic time. Right about there is where I slam on the breaks. Um, no, and here’s why. First there are many different island chains on the same tectonic plate and have different angles. That can not happen under those circumstances. Second those island chains trace out great circle arcs across the surface of the Earth and there are zero known natural phenomena that can do that and we repeat – many island chains on the same plate have different angles. Third there are exactly three phenomena that can trace out great circle arcs across the surface of the Earth: ships at sea, airplanes in flight, and inbound materials from space. Only one those three phenomena is natural and that latter option is a great deal more likely than any other explanation. Ok, so fine are there any other clues? Yep, earthquakes. Not that they happen, but where they happen. Out of all recorded earthquakes just look at epicenters at or very near tectonic boundaries relative to anywhere else. If the tectonic plates were sliding as claimed why are there no earthquakes away from just boundary areas? The answer is that planetary cooling shrinks the crustal areas causing those events. How many different and distinct data points do you need to make a solid empirical case? Perhaps, 358,214? Inbound material caused the others. The implication in that latter case requires an intense study of impact dynamics not just on the Earth but across the solar system. Guess what? That was the purpose of the original systems review that started all of this. Was there tectonic movement on large scales? Yep, and it motivated tectonic movement. See the notes. The evidence label developed as a result of that work effort is a concept we call Perimeters. Earth is replete with its own set and they are a great deal more plentiful than the limited vision of shocked quartz because there is a great deal more to consider as evidence. To think the only evidence to consider is shocked quartz is tantamount to sticking your head in the sand. If you click those links into the original systems review notes and read the surrounding material, and then build in your mind an image of the entanglement gradient extending not just through those topics but all the way through affinities of nucleosynthesis. There are implications a plenty here and we are happy to discuss under appropriate circumstances, but here is inappropriate. The ultimate point is that greater demographic is making proximity assumptions that in the larger tapestry of the unified Universe do not hold up to scrutiny. Are they logically correct in the context of the EIM they are employing? Yep, but then so were the flat earthers, and that’s not the point. The point is whether or not the EIMs being employed close to unification or not.

Epistemological Truth

Expanded Stages of Grief
Expanded Stages of Grief

Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge, and there is more than one type. Each of the different types distinguish themselves from one another in how they source truth. See the User Library for examples of several different types. Here we are interested in two epistemologies: Empiricism and Elegant Reasonism. Elegant Reasonism (circa 2024) eight Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs) each creating distinct context, some of which mode shifts and creates an illusion of nested relationships between the EIMs but that is not the case because some rules do not translate. Some people like to refer to that lack or increase of translation “a deeper understanding”. Another reason not to think of EIMs in a nested fashion is that many of the traditional EIMs require commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) in order to exist. It is better to think of these as discrete domains of discourse where many Paradigms Of Interest/Nature (POI/N) easily translate EIM to EIM. That does not mean they are nested. Those parsing philosophy and science are missing the point that unification demands and requires the credible reintegration of everything, including those domains of discourse. All domains of discourse that are Philosophy and its constituent detail sets (each of which can be considered domains of discourse in and of themselves each with their own detail sets) must all be mode shifted. Key areas that were part of our original systems review are:

  1. Philosophy: study of the unified Universe (e.g. all that is real) as a source of truth mode shifts:
    1. Axiology: Philosophy of value derivation
    2. Epistemology: Philosophy of knowledge
      1. Elegant Reasonism (sources truth as a function of the unified Universe)
      2. Empiricism (scientific epistemological basis)
    3. Ontology: Philosophy of being
    4. Science: Philosophy of nature
    5. Supervenience: Philosophy of relation between sets of properties or sets of facts

LEEs Empiricism Trap

Part of the question here concerns implications and ramifications of committing LEEs within any of these various areas of learning. The historical and traditional approach to science, for example, produces empirical results that can be duplicated, replicated, and independently verified by other human beings. We all jump up and pat each other on the back in such successful cases. However, all the flat earthers did the same thing. Where we might all say: yes but they didn’t go far enough in their experiments, we would reply and neither do your EIMs close to unification. In the recent Reset article I wrote:

Rhetorically consider that you are an ardent defender of the Flat Earth Society. You are emotionally vested in the premise that as you look around in your daily life that the Earth is indeed flat. These people who claim we live on a ball are out of their minds. Then, quite by happenstance, you meet someone who quite articulately explains why the assumptions of a flat Earth are wrong, that a larger tapestry explaining reality exists and can be leveraged to travel to far away places all across our planet. This new explanation explains the night sky above every location and why we see there what we do. The rhetorical question here is that you are that flat Earth person and how long do you believe you would hold on to familial understanding before embracing the new knowledge?

Now carry that analysis into the current situation. Status quo thinking modeling reality does not close to unification. It never will. Humanity is through its exploits and efforts have been working to illuminate our abstractions of reality in an attempt to understand the nature of reality itself, but we were completely ignorant of the implications and ramifications of crossing that very fine line into commission of Langer Epistemology Errors. Commission of LEEs means we believe that our abstractions are reality and, as Susanne K Langer pointed out in 1948, that is a mistake which is epistemologically fatal. If nothing else it blinds us to the set of real questions needing to be asked. It leads us astray by not realizing we are leaving critical and vital information on the proverbial table. It means we really do not understand what it is we think we understand. The comedian Ricky Gervais is correct when he points out that if all of science were completely wiped out that ultimately we would come right back to this highly inevitable point, because that is the nature of science. Where he perhaps is a bit off is how long that might take and whether or not it would those amounts of time all be the same every cycle. The question is how long do flat earther’s persist in their views? Before you answer that too quickly we point out that, as a matter of public record, a guy named Mike Hughes died in 2018, not too many years ago, by building a rocket to prove that the world was in fact flat because he did not believe the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

To think of the flat earth society as something that happened in the middle ages is simply erroneous and it is in fact an example of people struggling with the stages of grief relative to their personal worldviews. Those that do not want to accept Elegant Reasonism because they believe in status quo thinking modeling reality, they are vested in those familial experimental results which they believe directly reflect reality. In essence they fail to recognize the abstraction lens between them and reality, what they mean, and because of that are very tightly ensnared in the grips of LEEs Empiricism Trap. Not a person who has ever lived has not been in that place at some point. That is part of why LEEs Gate on the Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart (PDCF) is so important to recognize.

All of these various issues are also why we very strongly suggest that Elegant Reasonism be wielded transformationally with great empathy and compassion. The business implications are profound.



Anyone who believes that science is the only answer need only review this video from Richard P Feynman‘s 1950’s lecture on Knowing vs Understanding. The point here is that there are some things that science simply fails at and when it does you need integration from a larger tapestry and that’s what we bring to the table is exactly that.


Plurality of Interpretation

The goal and objective of employing a plurality of EIMs in any given investigation is to surround reality to see how it does and does not instantiate the EIMs. Logical congruence is necessary but insufficient to get through the rigor of this context. Investigators must also be conversationally aware of the unified Universe as they conduct the affairs of their effort. If any given investigator refuses to do so they may as well take out a lifetime membership in the flat earth society because what they are saying is “I know my EIM doesn’t close to unification and I don’t care”. Sailboats are generally safer in harbors but that’s not what they were designed for, and after Hurricane Irma we found out that being in a harbor isn’t necessarily all that safe either.

We Are Our Own Worst Enemy

Humans historically have a horrible track record for sharing information that will help civilization. We hope in some small way our efforts here help to correct that situation. We’ve said before and it won’t be the last time that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The notion that we are alone and some how dictators feel that elevates them to universal monarchy is just stupid. Life is likely replete throughout the cosmos. See our last article on profound questions. Think back to the experts inside the communities the books mentioned at the beginning thought. They too thought all good ideas filtered through their wisdom. That was something that John Wheeler, one of the Manhattan Project scientists clearly understood. Richard P Feynman is highly noted for saying to always make room at the bottom to make sure students were heard. Humanity has a long way to go in shedding all its biases ingrained over its evolutionary history.

First Principles

The good news here is that we have an opportunity for the unified Universe to reinforce it learning about itself. We have a rare opportunity to integrate cosmology into our thinking, establishing universal truth as a function of the unified Universe. Evolution created Central Nervous Systems (CNS) and Brains in many animals in our biosphere, including human beings. Neural plasticity is vital to learning. If we intentionally integrate educational curricula and accreditation standards/policy in alignment with the unified Universe we in essence create a self-reinforcing system of truth. We need only implement an NNRP based curricula immersed in Elegant Reasonism principles and seek truth as a function of the unified Universe.



Education: Because Ignorance Votes


#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification #unifiedUniverse #Philosophy #Science #Epistemology #Truth #Objective #Source


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