P1.0 Recognition

Problem Recognition and Leadership

Cognition Is Required to Recognize

Today there is more work to do than not exactly because status quo predominant thinking is, for better or worse, entrenched in M1 thinking. Investigation team leadership will likely recognize this issue and its implications. Careful discussion and consideration should take place relative and respective to the goals and objectives of all investigations with the stakeholders and sponsors. Members of the team may or may not comprehend the issues surrounding ‘encapsulation‘ of ‘interpretive models‘. Stakeholders and sponsors should be keenly aware of humanity issues involved with commission of Langer Epistemology Errors. Our suggestion is to employ great empathy and compassion because we are all human and share the potential for committing LEEs. Given where civilization is, none of us are free from falling prey to the logic traps that result from such commission. Investigation team leaders should think through how they introduce model encapsulation to their respective members. These issues are neither trivial nor trite, and respect for the individual must be maintained.

Elegant Reasonism Generalized Process Flow
Elegant Reasonism Generalized Process Flow (open in a new tab for larger view)

P1.01 Introduction

There is an old adage that you cannot fix something if you do not know its broken. Essentially since time began only a handful of individuals ever recognized the challenges well enough to even frame out the discussion. Only one to our knowledge was able to discuss it in detail and that person was Susanne K. Langer. Charles C McGowen may have ‘recognized’ the issue circa 2005 but Langer articulated it with eloquence. Only after McGowen realized what the issue was did he discover Langer’s work from 1948. The Langer Epistemology Error, or LEE for short, is so named in her honor.

Recognition requires a multi-disciplined approach to the processes & methodologies employed. The more one delves into Elegant Reasonism, the easier recognition becomes. Hard as it may be to acquire these skills, it is good to know that Elegant Reasonism has a tendency to be self-clarifying for everyone, and in that context it is an epistemology that aides in facilitating individual paradigm shifts. Which in turn helps with recognition. Recognition here means more than recognizing a particular problem or challenge. It requires recognition of the implications associated with historical commission of LEEs. It means that any given investigation must inventory the holistic set of appropriate abstractions, paradigms, constructs, models, rule sets, across science and philosophy that are germane to your investigation. And it means reviewing the actual original author’s material, rather than someone else’s interpretation of it. If you do not perform the ‘original source’ review you may very well be subjected to “cascading LEEs” and that can lead to more chaos than anyone can cope with. In fact it is exactly that phenomena which has ensnared humanity throughout time. It means reassessing them with great rigor, discipline, and critical thinking. All such reviews must be conducted within the scope, definitions, and framework of standards usually defined by ISO.

Traditional epistemologies give way to Elegant Reasonism, as an epistemology, exactly because they are ultimately tied to human physiology in assessing what constitutes ‘evidence’ and Elegant Reasonism is tied to truth derived as a function of the unified Universe. While this distinction is more relevant in the next part of the process (e.g. Illumination) it is important here as well because it is needed in the conduct of all reviews of source materials. Without such a precipice reviews of original materials might never recognize insights from historical logically correct assessments. The one that comes to mind for me was in reviewing the works of James Clerk Maxwell and his preoccupation with “the medium”. Those preoccupations are extremely important when we “mode shift” them between M1 and M5, for example.

One key factor between M1 and M5 is relative to the subject of reference frames in context of the relative and respective core constructs of the models. Reference frames in M1 are as preoccupied with the medium of such frames as they are the objects in the frames. M5 is not encumbered by such discussions and is only concerned with the real objects in the Event Frame and the complex composite, and dynamic, architectures of mass comprising them. There is no ‘medium’ in M5 as space is defined there as dimensionless nothing. It therefore has no influence on any real object. M1 has all sorts of problems arising from its construct of spacetime, chiefly due to the spacetime-mass interface (which precludes unification). The point here is being able to take a deep breath, stop, think, and then act relative to recognizing the deep implications of model encapsulation, mode shifting, etc. and then looking hard at the ISO requirements necessary to complete the analytical stack of Elegant Reasonism.

P1.02 Define the Investigation

Very often when people sit down together to solve some mystery, or answer some question they conclude that a formal investigation is warranted. This means that goals and objectives must be established and maybe just as important is that these objectives must be in full context of ISO 9001 QMS with especial focus on root cause analysis.


Let us pause momentarily and set all of history, science, and most of philosophy aside in order to make just a few points. Humans are necessarily inside the sphere of influence defined by any investigation if only because it is our physiology assessing any investigation and the results it generates. Quality must be thematically integrated into every facet of a formal investigation. Terms like Kaizen (aka Kaisen) and other Quality Management Systems are considered herein intrinsic to any investigation. This is especially true of ISO 9001 QMS standards and the ISO family it represents. This fact places humans inside the test tube being explored and we must never forget that, nor the implications because of that fact.

Conducting rigorous reflection on the systemic implications that core concepts that are constituents to any of the recognized Encapsulated Interpretive Models (EIMs) (of the Universe), what must be recognized is just how systemic they are to perceptions of existence. It is very likely that everyone reading this today will need a personal (e.g. individually conducted) ‘Systems Review‘. This is true because the very first act required of an Elegant Reasonism investigation is to quantify, codify, and inventory the various abstractions, paradigms, and constructs within the sphere of influence represented by the investigation being defined.

We have a very rudimentary database tool available in the Software Library that can be used for this purpose. You will note that all definitions used for all abstractions, paradigms, and constructs must be established across the array of models. A few examples are included in the database.

Derivation of Value

Investigators employing Elegant Reasonism must recognize the Axiology it represents as a disintermediating framework and that it is their responsibility to look not just at the science associated with their investigation but also the holistic business, most especially the source of value (e.g. Axiology) to the enterprise. As the team learns to mode shift intrinsic value they will also equally gain knowledge relative to how that shift affects the holistic enterprise.

P1.10 Quantify, Codify, and Inventory Abstractions

Phase 1 of any investigation has the task of building an inventory of the abstractions comprising the various paradigms and constructs within the sphere of the investigation.  Such an inventory necessarily quantifies, and codifies, every item in such an inventory. One quick manner to accomplish this task is to simply provide investigators on the assigned team a list of the various abstractions and paradigms a list containing nothing more than the labels of the initial set perceived absent any description or definition, and then ask each of them to independently define them. Team leaders must take verbatim these definitions making careful note every single discrepancy in the various definitions. Team leaders may use the rudimentary software database tool in our software library for this purpose. Those in charge of that database instance must make careful note that every single variation in definitions constitutes ‘different thinking’, and constitutes a different iteration off the base encapsulated model (e.g. M1.0001, M1.0002, …, etc). And each iteration must replicate all other definitions in each replicated iteration such that team members later in the overall process must declare which iteration their thinking is dependent. And they must do so in every form of communication. Team leaders may share this database as broadly or narrowly as they see fit given their focus, goals, and objectives. This process alone will likely produce not one definition for various abstractions, paradigms, and constructs, but many. The more fundamental the abstractions are the more likely this is true. Each distinction constitutes an iterated interpretive model which is then encapsulated completely. No individual model is allowed to be ‘tweaked’. Teams may have a thousand iterations on any baseline model, and that is the reason the software tool in our library is very basic. We do not want to unduly influence your choices.

No investigation team should entertain any construct which they have not defined and declared in their copy of the ISO 9001 Unification Database tool. The complete inventory of the foundational thinking must be declared in this tool and then redistributed to the holistic team, stakeholders, and sponsors so that everyone involved is on the same proverbial communications page. That way when team members make ‘model declarations’ in any communications, email, paper, note, etc. there will be no question as to how their thinking determines the points they are making.

P1.11 Setting Up Success

Historically predominant thinking has not been able to accomplish unification. The answer to ‘why’, is largely that civilization has been committing Langer Epistemology Errors. However, that is not the sole reason for the inability to accomplish this long valued quest. Other facets include rigor, discipline, and quality of systems thinking which is highly systemic. Clear understanding of the dynamics of systemic thinking as relative and respective functions of encapsulated interpretive models employing it was never defined prior to Elegant Reasonism. Elegant Reasonism requires a plurality of such models in order not just to communicate success areas but to assure that there is not a better way. Another very important fact and factor is that Elegant Reasonism builds on what it is we already know and does so in a way that illuminates the path forward. Ignoring what we already know is just as powerful a mistake as are LEEs.

Investigators are encouraged to be thoroughly rigorous and disciplined to follow all systemic definitions, consistent with the realm of the c’s, as far as necessary to assure that when they get to Phase 2 Illumination that proper ‘root cause’ analysis can be accomplished.

P1.12 Inventory All Abstractions

This requires a comprehensive historical review from the original authors. You need to know what those guys were thinking in their own words. Once you have that then you need to inventory their core constructs and abstractions. Make detailed notes on how they employed those abstractions and constructs within their mathematical frameworks. The User Library here may be a useful resource for you.

P1.13 Segregate Mathematics from EIM Derived Abstractions

Once you have your historical inventory you will need to segregate the abstractions and constructs from the mathematics in order to setup the proper critically situationally aware thinking required to transition from the upper left of the Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart to the lower right as you continue through the process.

P1.20 ISO 9001 Quality Management Systems (QMS) Standards

P1.21 Keep It Simple

Do not over complicate what you are trying to accomplish. Unless you are performing an academic exercise or complying with what we might call enterprise driven competitive intensity then you likely do not have to go into as much detail otherwise called for by fully engaged QMS standards. Circumstances matter, greatly.

P1.22 Objective and Goal Alignment to Process & Methods

Be careful what you ask for, you may get it. Keep lines of communications open. Be flexible, learn, adapt and start over again. Kaizen.

P1.23 Standards

Standards should be invoked when and as warranted by need, circumstance, and business economics. Be careful not to over reach or you can easily get bogged down and otherwise mired in more than you ever dreamed possible. Be fleet of foot in your execution. Execute as required. Be preemptive.

P1.24 Be Prepared to Mode Shift Metrics

ISO 9001 QMS standards work when metrics can be applied in order to measure progress; however, if those metrics are ensnared within the logic trap you are trying to escape then using them in that context will only set you up for failure. Make sure that you have a plan to mode shift your metrics so you know that your analysis will be in alignment with your ultimate treatise. If you don’t know how to do that then pull your metrics set back into your investigation and include them in your activities. Remember your interpretations absolutely depend on solid cognition and critical situational awareness thinking. If you do not perform P1.0 Recognition properly then you jeopardize every subsequent action and decision. Elegant Reasonism is recursive for exactly that reason. Do not expect to be perfect. Expect to make mistakes. Recognize them, adapt, and move on forward. Know that there is light at the end of the tunnel.

P1.25 Choosing Encapsulated Interpretive Models (EIMs)

Remember Elegant Reasonism Rules requires and demands that a plurality of EIMs be employed and at least one EIM closing to unification be employed.

P1.25 Quantifying and Codifying Encapsulated Interpretive Model (EIM) Elements

P1.30 Epistemological Recognition Review

An epistemology is a philosophy of knowledge. If your organization has formalized Knowledge Management then include them in the investigative team. We strongly encourage inclusion of Systems Engineering personnel as well. Make sure everyone is critically situationally aware in their thinking relative to and respective of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs). Large businesses operating in the realm of global enterprise internationally will likley include HR representatives on investigative teams as well. Remember that one of the purposes of the Bayesian Analytics to come is developing education road maps to affect appropriate paradigm shifts with maximum effect. In all cases SolREI can not emphasize enough to wield Elegant Reasonism transformationally.

Ultimately the objective is to leverage epistemology to mode shift what it is we think we know into alignment with the unified Universe as a function of cognition of truth in that context.

Transformational Leadership

Philosophies of knowledge (e.g. epistemologies) have been around for thousands of years. Only now are we placing such philosophies in the context of the unified Universe. What that means and where we take that as a civilization is up to us all. Unification has its own requirements and it does not care the slightest about how you do or do not think. It simply will allow you to perceive and engage, or not. That choice is up to the individual. Anyone in any position of authority should immediately recognize where civilization is today. Individuals and peoples are vested in their ways of thinking, perceiving and engaging. Humans stereotypically do not like change. Some may like this change even less. We can not encourage strongly enough that Elegant Reasonism be wielded by everyone transformationally with great empathy, and compassion.

Laws and Legislation

Caution and Warning: Legislators are some of the most ardently political creatures on the planet.  Laws enacted often only come after the cows left the barn and carpetbaggers have raped and pillaged the landscape. Elegant Reasonism is a disruptive technology for all the reasons discussed In Unification’s Wake, Part 05: Business Impact. Everyone should be aware of the implications of the existence of these issues in context of there being no laws governing any of this. We all are going to need some very smart ethical people to deal with these issues.

P1.30.1 Constructivism

P1.30.2 Elegant Reasonism Epistemologically

Only in hindsight does the implication of being critically situationally aware in your thinking of the unified Universe across the entire entanglement gradient do the implications of how the Central Nervous System (CNS) work relative to our Brains which governs our thinking which establishes our thought patterns. What has been missing from programs like Neural Linguistic Programming (NLP) was the depth of understanding across the various memory systems. Our original systems review recognized those limitations and briefly initialized awareness of something we call Neural Network Reconfiguration by Programming (NNRP). NNRP is a mode shifted, modernized, idea for education which holistically integrates Elegant Reasonism into objectives and goals across the spectrum of education both institutionalized and enterprise based.

P1.31.3 Empiricism

P1.31.4 Rationalism

P1.40 LEE Assessment

An assessment of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) is not just in the historical record (e.g. 1.12) but is inclusive of stakeholders instigating any given investigation, investigators themselves, and anyone on their teams, as well as consumers and clients. Marketing Mangement, Market Intelligence, Market Communications, professionals may all be needed to fully vette criteria, metrics, etc. Make a cursory pass over the Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart (PDCF) to get a feel the work ahead of you.

We need only point out that LEEs are primarily responsible for humanity not perceiving the path to unification since 1900 to make the case for how important these issues are.

P1.50 Congruence Assessment

Congruence is the affinity not just within any given Encapsulated Interpretive Model (EIM) to manifest everything real and the degree to which it complies with the realm of c’s but externally to the unified Universe (e.g. reality) as well. Remember, we are all humans with foibles that may or may not be cognitively obvious. Be patient, recursive, and know that mistakes are going to happen. Simply go back, fix it, learn, adapt, and move forward. Lose the baggage and arrogance of the past. Life is too short for all that.

There is an integrity point to be made here in assessing congruence. EIMs which can not close to unification have a tendency to espouse increasingly elaborate rationalizations for how real objects (e.g. reality) is made manifest. Complications invite higher skepticism, not less. We mode shifted the Baloney Detection Kit not so much as litmus for others but to remind ourselves of our own foibles and approaches. A few points to remind ourselves of:

  • Can you employ a common geometric basis point for every real object in the same frame of reference? (Yes or No)
  • Can you fully couple all fundamental forces for every real object in the same frame of reference? (Yes or No)
  • Is there a credible evidence chain path for everything real, no matter how restful? (Yes or No) {but if not is there the possibility one exists? and if work needs to be done that’s ok}. For Example:

If your answer to the above questions is no then you have work to do and paradigms to shift. Just be aware of your own limitations and what implications they may harbor.

P1.60 Incongruence Assessment

Denial is a powerful thing, most especially for those vested in thinking which can not close to unification or wield Elegant Reasonism. Be aware that the standard stages of grief will likely take place for anyone working through their own paradigm shifts dealing with all of this. We did. Been there, done that, and have the t-shirt. Move on. The point here is that people will cling to what they know exactly because it is familial territory and no one, maybe stereo-typically, likes change. And the subsequent point is that these circumstances are motivators for elaborate rationalization on problems and challenges.

Reality has a way of leaving clues and in our experience history is replete with them. The challenge is that incredible degrees of obfuscation have been layered over everything and it seemingly sometimes takes a trial lawyer to parse them out. Also be aware that just because we may employ some astrophysical examples do not make the mistake of thinking that all of this is confined to that domain of discourse. Remember unification is the unification of everything real. All of it. Everywhere and for all time. For Example (in no particular order):

  • The MichelsonMorely Experiment to detect the luminiferous aether (which failed) using interferometers (we believe) motivated Einstein to develop Special and General Relativity which instigated a new rule in physics stating: ‘nothing can go faster than the speed of light’. He said in his work that ‘making the speed of light a dimensional aspect of spacetime solved certain problems’ was foretelling. Here we should also point out that Einstein is quoted stating: “we can not solve problems using the same thinking we used when we created them.” Subsequent to, and to some degree contemporaneously with Einstein’s work, Edwin Hubble was developing his insights for Red and Blue Shifted Spectroscopy which was contrary to what Einstein said was true. That stumped everyone until Alan Guth et al, at MIT came up with the Inflationary Theory which paradoxically claimed ‘objects can’t go faster than the speed of light but space can expand faster than that’. Our point would be that under M1 and M2 the construct of spacetime is considered a real object, but we won’t dive into that rabbit hole here. Part of what we saw during our original systems review was that the inflationary theory required a concept called ‘rapid expansion’. Emergence and convergence vectors of the entanglement gradient require corollary congruence. The corollary to rapid expansion is something called ‘infinite compression’. This latter concept is required to understand putting everything real back into that place where the Big Bang banged. The problem with that is black holes grow and that growth can not be reconciled against infinite compression. We therefore must conclude the elaborateness of this rationalization as logical in its nature.
  • BX442 is a grand design spiral galaxy imaged by the Hubble Space Telescope with a red shift value of 2.1765 (e.g. that value times the speed of light) and is some 10.7 billion light years away. The problem with that is grand design spiral galaxies take some 11 billion years to form under gravitational rules. The specific issue with all of that is when the Big Bang transpired was only some 13.7 billion years ago. That means there was not enough time since the big bang happened for BX442 to be where we find it in the maturity state we find it. All sorts of elaborate rationalizations have and continue to rage over this. The Emergence Model however reconciles them all.

The point of these examples is not to dive into details but to point out that in our recognition of problems an inability to reconcile aspects in context of the EIM which manifests fundamental context as understood by those investigators. What Elegant Reasonism brings to the table is a plurality of contexts instigated by its rules, processes, and framework. The intent here is to explore the motivation for differing rationales and their elaborateness relative to what the P1.0 Recognition phase quantifies, codifies into its documentation.

P1.70 Critical Situationally Aware Thinking

Conversational critically situationally aware thinking requires conversants to recognize in discussions highly dynamic and shifting contexts made manifest by different EIMs and the systemic implications of those discussions in real time.

P1.71 CSAT Employing a Common Geometric Basis?

No EIM employing the spacetime construct can employ a common geometric basis point for all real objects in the same frame of reference exactly because anything real transitioning that interface is immediately turned to energy by a fairly famous equation needing no elaboration here. Fundamentally the strategic insight here relegates the success of those models into the logical realm. However, that insight is not bad news as it liberates the mind to employ other EIMs that may also be logically correct and then to juxtapose them against one another to develop greater insights.

P1.72 CSAT Fully Coupled in All Frames?

Fully coupling reference frames means relating fundamental forces of nature relative to one another in all frames of reference and across the entire entanglement gradient and completely reconcile both the Emergence and Convergence vectors. Knowing that these requirements are satiated by science at lower levels allows more restful discussions to ‘take them for granted’, but that in no way lessens the obligation to anchor evidence chains and being aware of that requirement means that recognition of implications must take place within P1.0 Recognition.

P1.80 Belief Systems of Investigative Team

Elegant Reasonism employs Bayesian Analytics in order to assess and analyze belief systems before, during, and after investigations. Part of the reasons for that is to establish an ability to demonstrate improvements over what was in place prior to this particular investigation. Another reason is to develop education road maps. Another is to facilitate paradigm awareness and what must be done or not done as a result.

P1.81 Defeated Before You Begin?

If your team is not open minded to needed paradigm shifts then you may be defeated before you begin. Denial is often so powerful as to impose a particular worldview onto evidence in hand. If the context of that worldview demands a particular interpretative view which can not close to unification then there is a problem which must be addressed in some manner. Again, investigative leadership is strongly encouraged to wield Elegant Reasonism transformationally.

P1.82 Are Other Epistemologies At Work Within Your Team?

The caution here is to simply be aware of anything that may influence interpretative context of any given evidence.

P1.83 Establish EIM Basis of the Investigative Team

Once your investigation has developed objectives and goals consistent with the realm of c’s it will be important to document the communications landscape the investigative team will have to deal with.

P1.84 Establish Bayesian Baseline for Success

Global enterprise will likely be more interested in this area of an investigation than small business, which usually does not have the resources for such things. The point is simply to enable you or your organization to be as empowered as possible for the insights that will flow from recognition of the problems and challenges.

P1.85 Illuminate and Illustrate Examples (+ & -)

This area of the recognition phase is important because you can not fix something if you do not know it is broken. One allegory might be that if the only tool you have is a hammer, all the world appears as a nail. Make sure you have the right tools for the job.

P1.90 Scale

P1.91 The Entanglement Gradient

The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance are two fundamental processes derived from the intrinsic nature of Most Basic Particles (MBPs) under The Emergence Model which has two EIMs: one logical: M5 and one physical: M6. Right now just know that we will be dealing with M5 and not M6, the reasons for that are more advanced than we have real estate here to discuss. Simplistically logical views on physical systems are more precise because they are specifically defined to high precision and because there are almost always more than one physical way to physically accomplish the same logical outcome. Distinctions in critically situationally aware thinking in this domain of discourse can be an advanced information sciences discussion.

P1.91.1 Emergence

Emergence herein is a vector along the entanglement gradient from small orders of complexities to larger orders of complexities, the largest of which are supermassive black holes. Many if not most conversations here deal with The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance and manifestation of physical properties and phenomena.

P1.91.2 Convergence

Convergence herein is a vector along the entanglement gradient from large orders complexities to smaller orders of complexities, the smallest being, under M5, the Most Basic Particle (MBP). Many if not most such conversations deal with issues involving Severance and parsing root cause analysis results along this vector.

Shop Now



#ElegantReasonism #EIM #UtilityProcess #Tools #TranslationMatrices #UnificationTool #PDCF #P1.0:Recognition

%d bloggers like this: