Penetrating Status Quo

NOTE: This and all thought experiments are subject to the critical situationally aware thinking required in order to establish vital context necessary to properly mode shift this discussion. 

Status quo scientific thinking is the most successful in history in terms of engaging nature. Yet for all those successes, it can not accomplish unification, and that should give you great pause to ask why that is a true, hard, cold, fact. Some will bubble on with elaborate rationalizations. Others will dive into inane discussions about some remote set of constructs deep within some area of science. We didn't do that. We took a deep breath and came at all this from a decidedly knowledge management, systems engineering, information sciences approach. From 2004 until May 7th, 2019, we conducted a systems review acknowledging many contributors in the development of what ultimately resulted in our gaining Patent Pending 16405134 status. Yes, over a year ago now, my company filed the necessary utility patent to perceive and engage the unified Universe.

Plate Flip
The Upside Down Plate

The status quo is ensnared and otherwise mired within the logic trap that is M1.  Believing that they are working directly with nature, they fail to recognize the implications of their central nervous systems instantly furnishing their brains with abstractions in order to relate to the realm in which we all exist. Mistaking abstractions of any kind for actual reality of the unified Universe is something herein called Langer Epistemology Errors, (abbreviated as LEEs), which we named after Susanne K Langer,  who first wrote about these types of errors in 1948. Systems engineers and other professionals in the information sciences will almost certainly have better traction on the following statement than many otherwise trained. What Albert Einstein created with his various papers 1) committed Langer Epistemology Errors and 2) is logically correct. It is that latter statement's immense successes which blinds and obfuscates the path forward. It has been said that if civilization were wiped out and erased, than there is no telling how philosophy would rebuild itself, but that science would come back exactly as it is today because it is immutable. That statement only serves to increase the constraints on thinking.

Institutionalized status quo thinking and thinkers are their own worst enemy exactly because accomplishing unification has been right in front of us the whole time. We couldn't see it because our paradigms were frozen, and it is our intent to thaw them out and bring them into the light of day for an airing. Paradigm shifts take place between our ears. This is an old puzzle and tool used by consultants and educators worldwide.  If you have seen it,  you may think it trivial or trite, but simply knowing the answer is not the point. Understanding what transpires within others as they struggle to comprehend the answer is the point and subject here. On a clean writable surface place three rows of three equidistant dots, and then connect them with exactly four straight lines. Do it now. I am not going to tell you the answer. What I am going to ask is for you to contemplate why thinking is constrained on the way to the solution. I ask that question because a similar process takes place with the image provided above. I have used this video in many recent posts, and I'm going to use it again here both because it is appropriate and because it sets up the discussion which needs to be had globally.

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Humanity has ensnared itself. This is going to make many folks mad, hopefully only for a short while. When humanity decided to swap the terms "philosophy of nature" and "science",  it did itself a great disservice. In the face of committing Langer Epistemology Errors, changing those labels only served to increase the tensile strength of shackles constraining our thinking. The metaphor from above might be that the writable surface got bigger before we drew our dots.  The "psychological reasons" Dr. Feynman mentions in the above video is historically called philosophy. Writing here from the luxurious precipice of hindsight having already accomplished unification, I have a perspective few others possess. It is not fair to anyone to say that getting to where we are today was a strategic error. It was not an error because institutional cognizance of such errors (and their implications) were not and is not even to this day isotropic. When humans refer to the world in which we all exist, we call that the physical world. Scientists who study that are called Physicists. When Feynman points out that two simultaneously true laws compete, then that science can not distinguish between them. That certainty is a strategic clue to the logic trap that is M1 and which ultimately led to the framework and its epistemology which is now called Elegant Reasonism. Metaphorically then we can pick up the rug and shake out the intervening dirt, dust, then sweep up the mess to reconnect everything in a fully compliant manner.

Human's physiology inherently manifests abstractions to our brains via our sense organs across our central nervous systems  up and into our brains for processing against the belief systems inculcated therein. Those belief systems are a function of the paradigms instantiated by the neural networks of individuals. This is an interactive relationship, and that is one reason people like Tony Robbins are as successful as they are. We call what he does NNRP, Neural Network Reconfiguration by Programming. NNRP is consistent with the latest neural and medical sciences. This is why it is important to proverbially 'shake out the rug', and with all that, let's get started.

Elegant Reasonism is philosophically an equal member epistemology which seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe as a predicate priority consideration. Its patent pending 16405134 framework instantiating that epistemology revolutionizes science and its methods.  If one does not, then LEEs Empiricism Trap will almost certainly loom large to ensnare practitioners inside the logic trap that is M1 (or M2). Elegant Reasonism has no mercy for disconnect, rationalizations, or chaotic thinking. It is a powerful mechanism that requires strict adherence to your own individual definitions, and it forces you to quantify and codify what those definitions are and to do so systemically. Many,  if not most,  do not have the patience nor perseverance to do that, which is one factor that led us all down the proverbial primrose path. This new framework and epistemology demands and requires ISO 9001 QMS standards and tools like our ISO 9001 Unification Tool (or its equivalent) and Translation Matrices across the three phases of the framework: Recognition, Illumination, and Analysis as investigators develop fully compliant Treatise, which are then able to mode shift 'what it is we think we know' with truth as a function of the unified Universe (which is always held litmus).

I wrote an article earlier entitled Demons which was loosely based on Carl Sagan's book: The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. I argue that this framework gives us capabilities which neither Feynman nor Sagan recognized in so much as Elegant Reasonism has specifically been designed through its architecture to eliminate or minimize commission of Langer Epistemology Errors. Sagan's words are amplified when we realize the predicate priority considerations philosophical critical thinking demands and requires of science. So, let's put all this to a thought experiment. Readers here should note, again, that I am writing this from the luxurious precipice of hindsight, as I've already been down this path and am attempting to articulate it for your benefit, awareness, contemplation, cognition, and situational awareness of the actual unified Universe.

The issues with status quo thinking are not new in any sense. Plato wrote about it in book seven of The Republic in his allegory of The Cave. You will see both this video and Feynman's repeated in many posts and pages exactly because they both revolve around implications stemming from Langer Epistemology Errors.


Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.


There are many metaphorical references we might make to these and other allegories. Another might be The Matrix movie character where Neo suddenly is able to perceive 'the matrix'. Elegant Reasonism interestingly runs parallel in so much as we are captured by our own physiological nervous system instantly furnishing our brains with abstractions in order to relate the real world in which we all exist. Because status quo is for all intents and purposes subjugated by LEEs Empiricism Trap, reality is obfuscated from direct view. This is why many status quo thinkers are often puzzled at one scale or another in science, and why they can not seamlessly integrate across scales. This is why Newtonian thinking does not connect with Relativistic thinking in M1. It is why quantum mechanics does not scale to cosmological concerns in that same encapsulated interpretive model.

Questing An Encapsulated Model

Do you understand why whatever you think science is can not accomplish unification? Obviously you do not, or you would have done it yourself. But stay with me here because this is a burning question that must haunt us in our every consideration. What is not allowed are excuses or arbitrariness of rationalizations. Here are a few predicate questions which I am not going to answer here, but which you should constantly hold in the back of your mind:

  1. What problem was Einstein working to solve with 100% of his papers on Relativity?
  2. Why does the spacetime-mass interface preclude the use of a single geometric basis point for all real objects in any frame of reference?
    1. Why is this questing critical?
    2. If the spacetime-mass interface fundamentally precludes employment of a common geometric basis point can any encapsulated interpretive model ever accomplish unification?
    3. Does answering this question of why it does not mean it never will accomplish unification?
  3. Do you understand the implications of logically correct descriptions of physically different systems? Do you realize that something can be logically correct yet remain physically different? Now, contemplate two concepts: Langer Epistemology Errors and that Albert Einstein was logically correct.
  4. Given number 3 above, what must we do in order to sort all this out?

The First Step

Criteria for unification must be a philosophical predicate priority consideration in all scientific pursuits. We must never forget that the basis of science is philosophy. Critical thinking demands therefore that we inspect the core constructs instantiating our beliefs, and that means that we must quantify and codify those constructs demanding and requiring that they philosophically close to unification as a predicate priority consideration. If they do not, then we must immediately recognize, despite any and every success, that encapsulated manner of thinking as a logically correct interpretive model. But it is just that - one of potentially many logically correct models.

In order to reconcile a problem one must first recognize it exists. You can not fix something if you do not recognize that it is broken. Similarly, if you do not recognize how M1 has you ensnared and otherwise constrained then you are unlikely to ever escape its grasp. You need to recognize manifestation of LEEs, and you must understand implications stemming from logical correctness of abstractions within composite models employing paradigms.

Getting to the Framework

Once we have gained the precipice of comprehending the implications of Langer Epistemology Errors and logically correct models, we are quite suddenly liberated beyond measure. We are liberated exactly because we are no longer constrained by status quo thinking regarding nature. What once were 'immutable laws of nature' are now 'laws of context instantiated by a particular encapsulated interpretive model'. Recognition and realization of these factors then allows us to leverage what it is we already think we know in attempting to discern what must be, or at least get a little closer to manifesting unification as a predicate priority. I'll save you the guesswork. We spent from 2004 until May 7, 2019 getting to these answers, and the result is The Emergence Model.

What we did in our systems review was to quantify and codify status quo thinking into encapsulated interpretive models. There are now seven recognized such models. We created "Concept Sieves" consisting of detail sets within domains of discourse. Some of these sieves contained over 400 equations. Others reflected the physical properties noted by the science of physics. Others represented other disciplines of science.


When we encapsulate interpretive models we are required to instantiate that model's fundamental foundational context. That context is what manifests that model's integrity. Phrases like "the math works"  logically refers to that context. We may also note that there is a high affinity with nature, but that is a different point. Critical thinking requires and demands that we also ask if that model is fully compliant with the criteria needed for unification.

Mode Shifting

Mode shifting refers to shifting the modes of thought associated with one model into the instantiated context of some other model and back again relative to some paradigm of interest or of nature. Why are we mentioning this here? The answer is that you can not discuss one model's context from the point of view of a different model. The paradigm of interest must be mode shifted in order to do that. Remember, we are shifting 'modes of thought' when we do that. Because the patterns of context establishing change in terms of how a given paradigm of interest is instantiated, we install 100% of all associated factors in every model employed by the investigation team. Where are these actions taken and when? These actions are taken across each of the three phases of the framework: Recognition, Illumination, and analysis, and they are installed into Translation Matrices in order to develop a treatise in full alignment with the unified Universe following the established rules.

Humans Generally Do Not Like Change

Consequently, the status quo usually fights pretty hard to stay the way they are and will only adopt a different perspective under duress. Dr. Richard Massey used to say that paradigms will only shift if a person is subjected to a significant emotional event of some sort that forces them to reconsider their paradigms. I call that process "wrestling your pigs". It's more apt because everyone gets dirty, and the pig likes it.

To all status quo defenders. The Emergence Model is the first encapsulated interpretive model to close to unification in a fully compliant manner, and among other capabilities can be used to describe the unified Universe Bang to Bang. Status quo thinking can do none of that, which should give you great pause to contemplate those ramifications. Elegant Reasonism is a framework supporting its Epistemology which seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe.


Penetration of status quo thinking is accomplished by forcing recognition of an inability to accomplish unification. While couching that issue in a framework of physics,  it is incredibly important to recognize that unification is a tapestry a great deal larger than any single discipline of science including physics. The Quest for Unification is over. The focus for us has now moved to mode shifting concepts and facilitating systems reviews for others. We are developing two courses, which while they are under development are free. When they are completed,  there will be a fee, so register here now and enroll for each right now while you can. Once you are registered simply click the link below and scroll to the bottom of the description and click enroll. It's easy and free under our Elegant Reasonism General Use License.

The core constructs employed by status quo thinking have established a condition where nothing real can traverse the interface between core constructs of the model without first conversion to energy, and it is exactly that fact precluding the use of a common geometric basis point. It also limits and otherwise constrains thinking in so many other areas too numerous to list in this page. Consequently, the real point being made here is action not that status quo thinking does not accomplish unification. The real point is that it can not and never will accomplish unification. Accomplishing unification requires engaging a larger tapestry than has traditionally been deployed, and the framework and epistemology now patent pending 16405134 from SolREI does exactly that.

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.


Shop Now


#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification #EIM #Philosophy #Axiology #Epistemology #Ontology #Plato #Book7Republic #TheCave #ThoughtExperiment #TE-0064

%d bloggers like this: