Elegant Reasonism Quests

Investigators are strongly encouraged to wield Elegant Reasonism transformationally and everyone on their team must be prepared for truth as a function of the actual real unified Universe. If you are not prepared for that truth, then you have some soul searching to do. Investigations, projects, quests, research, etc., all have something in common and it is that they are seeking better understanding and capability. Cognitive understanding requires and demands some degree of Knowledge Management. The only question is of what, for whom, when do they need it, where do they need it, and how are you going to get it done. This means that such endeavors need to conform to standards or everyone gets lost very early in the effort.

Consultant Based Structure

Objectives

Objectives are the over arching accomplishment expected.

Domain of Discourse

The domain of discourse is the defined set of discussion topics to be investigated and their associated detail sets. This may need to be defined as dynamic as a function of insights developed by investigators. There are many aspects of Elegant Reasonism that simply produce insights that were completely unexpected and beyond the original thinking. Such insights will need to be taken back to sponsors and stakeholders in review of the original objectives. We lost track of how often we had to do that. Open lines of communication are essential.

Goals

Goals are the interim accomplishments along the way toward achieving the objective.

Defining Boundaries

No one has unlimited resources. Consequently boundaries must be established and if they are exceeded then objectives and goals must be re-evaluated and agreed to by all stakeholders.

Scope

The scope of Elegant Reasonism investigation (e.g. quest) defines the boundaries of efforts for investigators, beyond which their efforts should dwindle rapidly. Otherwise your sponsors and stakeholders are going to become impatient and potentially pull their support.

Reach

Reach generally refers to the breadth of a given investigation’s scope.

Range

Range generally refers to how far root cause analysis may be taken in determining insights. It should be noted here that many people grow impatient with the depth to which questions must be asked but it is necessary in order to comply with many standards, especially ISO 9001 QMS. It should be further pointed out that civilization spent more than a century complacently mired and otherwise ensnared in a logic trap exactly because this root cause analysis was not performed adequately or was beaten into submission by institutionalized thinking. We can say that now, in hindsight, exactly because Susanne Langer’s work was published in 1948 and essentially and effectively no one was able to bring the implications to bear on the problems associated with unification until SolREI filed for and received Patent Pending 16405134 status on Elegant Reasonism May 7th, 2019. Consequently we have defined, and quantified Langer Epistemology Errors. We can only encourage investigators to exercise extreme rigor and discipline in how they employ the ISO 9001 Unification Tool or its equivalent in their own teams.

Unification In Hindsight

Questing unification itself proffered some insights useful in other types of investigations.

The unified Universe does not care how you think. The facts are what they are. If your mode of thought can not close to unification then you are not perceiving, much less engaging, the entirety of the tapestry which the unified Universe represents.
- Be brutally honest with yourself. If you can not personally perceive and engage the unified Universe then it is your thinking at issue. Strategically at issue in these observations is the ability to effectively interpret what it is you are experiencing. Because this is so difficult for all humans to accomplish, due to our physiology, we must employ process, quality management systems thinking, defect identification (in context of Elegant Reasonism), and standards. If you are not being honest with yourself you can’t accomplish any of that.
  - Is the tail wagging the dog, or is the dog wagging the tail?
  - “We can not solve problems using the same thinking we used when we created them.” ~ Albert Einstein
- Do not allow past successes blind you. Understand the logical nature of abstractions and the intent and implications of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs). Engage the Systems Engineering Body of Knoweldge (SEBoK) in appropriate capacity if you need help across these issues. Engage INCOSE as required.
Unification has its own set of required modes of thought driving every action of any investigation. Segregate those requirements from those of the investigation or even Elegant Reasonism‘s process & methods, or rules. Critically situationally aware thinking is required at all times. Understand the source of requirements being addressed at any given moment.
Know that Encapsulated Interpretive Models (EIMs) are ‘of the unified Universe’ and they establish the fundamental foundational context for 100% of the perception, thinking, patterns, and more which define that contextual interpretation. EIMs are not discernible one from the other. The process and rules associated with encapsulation are neither trivial nor trite. They may only be compared employing Elegant Reasonism type analysis.

Elegant Reasonism

Elegant Reasonism is an epistemology supported by a utililty process employing a framework which seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science and produced the first fully compliant EIM: The Emergence Model. If you have been around this website then you have seen that sentence more than once due to the difficulty in communications penetration of tradition and no other reason. Part of the point is that we wrote down the necessary elements for unification, created the math, but did not recognize what we had done for years, not days, not months or days. Take nothing for granted. Make sure you review what you have. The Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart is recursively reviewing decisions exactly for these reasons.

5 May Not Be Enough

Traditional root cause analysis usually suggests 5 levels of questioning in order to get to systemic cause of problems or issues. Be prepared to chase root cause all the way back into any given EIM. Under M5, for example, we are required to recognize that the largest construct known is comprised of collections of the smallest and they must all conform to the same intrinsic nature. If you can not follow along the entanglement gradient both from an emergent point of view and a convergent point of view then more work needs doing. You don’t have to cross every T or dot every i but you need to have the heuristics down. Be wary, vigilant, and diligent in your critical situational awareness thinking to make sure that the EIM is doing its job. If it isn’t figure out why and understand that and know that you have to chase that answer further than any EIM and all the way back through how philosophy manifests science. It would not be the first time that has had to happen. Remember Elegant Reasonism is an epistemology and its truth is sourced from the unified Universe. The better we understand all of that, the better we understand ourselves.

Segregating Constructs

Niels Bohr Quote — Matter is Described Through Interactions & Relationships

One of the most important aspects of an investigation is understanding distinctions between abstractions representing some aspect of reality (which in and of itself is a logical construct) from purely logical constructs (like energy under M1). This is the central problem everyone was dancing around with Insight-00001: Why electric circuits work. These issues are hard enough but commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) only exacerbates the problems and challenges. It is for this reason that an early part of any investigation is to perform an abstraction inventory using an appropriate tool like the ISO 9001 Unification Tool or its equivalent. A historical review is often necessary to quantify and codify abstractions by EIM in such an endeavor.

Read the cogent description of M5 and then ask yourself why M1, M2, or even M3 can not develop one short paragraph capable of reflecting everything real in the same manner that M5 and M6 do. The answer to that question is that those other EIMs do not close to unification, nor will they ever. No model based on the same core constructs as M1, M2, and M3 can close to unification exactly because nothing real can transition the spacetime-mass interface without first conversion to energy as defined by a fairly famous equation. Consequently, we are ultimately forced to recognize those EIMs as logical in nature and not physical descriptions. Recognizing that one point will save you countless hours of R&D attempting hollow pursuits. We can all thank the maturity of information sciences for that recognition.

Once you understand the logical nature of EIMs we are then required to implement processes supported by analytical frameworks capable of reflecting the unified Universe. The only way to do that is to philosophically enter science with that predicate priority consideration and that is exactly what Elegant Reasonism does. Investigators are required to do that if they ever intend to successfully navigate the Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart. We have to get beyond recognition of the logical nature of EIMs and understand how their relative and respective core constructs manifest reflection of the unified Universe. That’s where the process abstraction inventory comes into play. It is important for these various reasons to know which logical constructs represent some actual real facet of the unified Universe and which are implemented for purely logical reasons and because both are logical (e.g. virtual) constructs discerning such is very difficult sometimes. For example, many people believe that ‘energy’ is a real object (e.g. thing) rather than an ability of a construct to conduct work. It is the ability to discern and distinguish ‘ability of a construct’ from the construct instantiating it. All of this is where the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK) comes into play. If you need help with all of that then we suggest you engage an INCOSE member.

Requirements Gathering

No one can effectively gather any requirements relative to and respective of the unified Universe if you can not successfully navigate the Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart. Navigation there will require effective execution of the processes and that will require comprehension of the rules and that requires general recognition of exactly what the problem is (e.g. gaining the precipice of unification).

Baloney Detection

Carl Sagan wrote a great book decades ago about science and in that book he posited a notion about how to tell if someone you were talking to was representing actual science or just blowing smoke at you from some far corner of a virtual world. The technobabble employed on many television shows and in movies comes to mind. Sagan is one of the names held in great admiration on our acknowledgments page so please don’t take this the wrong way, mostly because every single one of us has made the same mistake and likely more often. The mistake he, and the rest of us, made was commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) as well as a belief that because of modern laboratory technology that science had progressed beyond philosophy. While that superficial observation may be true, what is also true (and greater so), is that unification demands an integration of concepts. That single fact demands a reintegration of philosophy and science. That single fact alone should be enough to recognize that one must enter science knowing the requirements of unification must be a philosophical predicate priority consideration or one runs the risk of committing LEEs, in which case you can not reach the ladder extending to the precipice of unification. What business leaders need to understand is that not only can you not climb that ladder, you fail to recognize the vista that awaits you on that precipice once you get there. Oh by the way, there are aspects of that if you fail to recognize them; will absolutely eat your lunch and take away your lollypop. Click into the overview of Elegant Reasonism and make sure to review every set of presentation charts and if you like you can listen to a video presentation of those charts on SolREI Studios channel online. Make sure you subscribe and click that notification bell to that channel. We are very far from finished producing content. Right now two key presenations are:

The Fire Hose

There are two aspects of drinking from this proverbial fire hose. One is that you need to be prepared for the insights that will begin flowing at you from the moment you enter the first process step. Initially you will believe those insights Earth shattering or awesome or jaw-dropping, and then you enter the next phase of the process. You will almost certainly begin seeing more profound insights as you work to enable mode shifting for your given investigation. This next set of insights will be more profound than the last and you will wonder how that could be surpassed, and then you enter the analysis phase of the process working toward your Treatise and that’s when you begin to perceive the holistic paradigms that are visible in no other way. That’s when your experiences become tacit and palpable, but describing the experiences is almost ineffable. Once your final Treatise, now in its draft stage, you have to take it back to your stakeholders and roll it out. That’s when potentially the greatest hurtle hits you headlong and you run into all the same communications difficulties we have experienced. Hopefully the presentation on communications In Unification’s Wake will help prepare you for what will come.

In Unification’s Wake, part 03: Communications

Concept Positioning

Elegant Reasonism expects every model of the unified Universe to have two EIMs associated with it; a logical view and a physical view; however, there is something more of several catches with this expectation. One manifests itself as a function of a desire to not commit Langer Epistemology Errors and the other that each model have minimally one logical view and one physical view. Normal as these things might sound superficially they are exceedingly difficult to implement. The natural instinct is to jump to the physical view and we are almost immediately reminded of what Niels Bohr said above. If material particles are really abstractions then in essence they only reflect what reality actually is. Because of Langer Epistemology Errors we realize that we need to draw a line in the sand and tell ourselves that we are not going to cross over that line because doing so is to commit such errors and we want to avoid that. Even recognizing these relatively advanced concepts and setting them aside we stand back and look at the two EIMs M5 and M6. That inherent instinct to jump to M6 rather than M5 must be quelled for several reasons. The least of which is that logical views are more precise than physical views because there are almost always more ways to physically accomplish something. Read that as ‘manifest physical properties’ (a subject we know next to nothing about at this juncture). Then we realize that higher ordered constructs generally must infer lower ordered constructs but lower ordered constructs will generally illuminate and illustrate higher ordered constructs. Microscopes and Telescopes might be examples at each end of that gradient. For these and many other reasons circa 2022 we spend the vast majority of our time with M5 rather than M6. We simply are not mature enough with all of this and we do not have the R&D nor technology to properly investigate M6. Consequently M5 is the best game in town at the moment.