Change Underlying Forces to Modern TensionsI am going to start for a moment at the end.I will be introducing my new philosophy system.The formulation turned out basically or in ‘essence’ to correspond to Quantum Dynamics – not a space and time form, not subject-object with first, second, third, etc. person, not independent discrete phenomena.A somewhat one person indefinite- -dynamic form, but inferring other indefinite- -dynamic forms and in indefinite- -dynamic relationship with them.I think it is important to feature that form- -essence of the system as such, novel and radical though it is. One can touch base - one’s essence - when needed.

Now to the beginning:“Since 1500, the West has moved to dominate the world with particularly Anglo-Saxon political, cultural and economic values, [] surviving bitterly-fought wars against Fascist Nazi Germany and Fascist Japan in World War II and prolonged surrogate wars against the Soviet Union ending in the collapse of their empire in 1991.:I would put it more like this: The West - the particularly Anglo-Saxon political, cultural and economic world - shall we say “survived” Fascist Nazi Germany and Fascist Japan and the Soviet Union, having become powerful for centuries prior. To discuss the values- -forces through which this happened shall not be my primary focus.

But now challenges come from all sides” and in the forms “Islam”, “Enviornmental Crisis”, “The Crisis of Capitalism”, “China and Russia: Challenges to the Western System”, “Multiculturalism”, “Decadence and Moral Decay: The Challenge from Within”:

Now it is (a force) in tension with other forces. Modern tensions - featuring factors- -forces to them - and how those forces might be changed, thereby changing the effect, shall be my primary focus.

Second Principle of The Effectuationism Philosophy System: “Effect, through featuring ‘forces’, multi-faceted”.

Featuring forces determine effect, multi-facedly.

WWI was a factor to Communism emerging - it pushed the masses over the edge - and to the Wall Street Crash of 1929 - governors of UK and other European Banks, in an attempt to speed post war recovery, asked the Fed Res to ease their monetary policy (so as not to be attracting deposits from Europe), which led to lowering of interest rates in the USA and this led to a bubble and pop, the 1929 Crash, and was a factor to WWII - in the Dec. 1924 election the Nazi Party won 3% of the vote, it won 2.6% in May 1928, in 1932 it won 37.3% and entered government.

Communism was a factor to the emergence of Ayn Rand and her primal intellect- -senses informed categorical- -absolutist philosophy system and she influenced Alan Greenspan - he was a member of her ‘collective’. She probably was a factor to his later policy of “light touch bank regulation”. Her advocacy of self interest and laissez-faire capitalism probably also contributed to rapid ‘trade’ liberalization – exporting of our capital and knowhow; rather suicidal economic policy - and to NeoCon destructive foreign policy. All of this primal intellect informed reasoning, readily identified with by the intellectually infantile, now seems prominent in what used to be the leadership of the free world and seems to me to be generating WW111.Perhaps we are already past the point of no return.

The Randist Neo Cons are not the old USA and Russia is not the old USSR. Europe should review which it friends. Perhaps the USA should review whether it is going over a cliff.

Now, after so much progression to political ruin and the arrival of an age of so much social chaos and violence and competition from electronic primal intellect noise, perhaps it is too late for philosophy specialists to do their job and find the spine, grace, integrity and love of wisdom to openly address a higher intellect informed ideology.

Perhaps it is also too late to direct the non-specialists to the exertion of deep deconstruction and conceptualisation of a (profound) new formulation of their nature and the nature of things.

“How are we to understand these challenges to Western hegemony?”

I propose to look at the rigor of the featuring forces- -premises to (Western) values, finding that they are Bronze Age phenomena, embarrassingly overdue for upgrading, the values they generate viable in an age when brawn (aggression) could determine direction of the world without completely destroying it, and to propose higher intellect premises - very novel and radical though they may be - and introduceThe Effectuationism Philosophy System.

I have published for twenty years an upgrade of primal intellect informed intellectual software to software informed by higher intellect premises.

My new system – The Effectuationism Philosophy System (TEPS) – was denied professional philosophy platforms for launch onto the world by a profession that for millennia endorsed and promoted primal intellect informed philosophy.

Perhaps it came into tension with their view of themselves as the intellectual cream of society!

I believe this denial features at shameful cost.

Philosophy

Formulation of the nature of things, in a fashion that fares well in tension with any other

formulation(s)

The Effectuationism Philosophy System

Where to start in Philosophy?

Where one starts is where one finishes;what goes in is what comes out;Bronze Age primal intellect (non)sense in,Bronze Age primal intellect (non)sense out.

Primal intellect premises - primal first principles – would be a determinant of the concepts which emerge and which comprise the philosophy that develops, unless higher intellect works wonders of deconstruction and transcendence.

Philosophy is about putting our data together to form a big picture of the world - not just to have many discrete bits. People wrote philosophy for thousands of years. They kept writing because they were not happy with the sense they were making - their big picture just did not fit together very well. And they did not know what was wrong - it was like being digging a hole and the hole just kept getting bigger and bigger and still did not make good sense.

Let me give you an analogy:Once upon a time people thought the Earth was flat, held up by four elephants, when the elephants got restless earthquakes occurred, that the Sun crossed the sky and returned at night in a sun-boat or that a new Sun was born each day, that if one walked far enough in the same direction one would go over the edge of the world, that the stars were fixed in the firmament, etc.They did not realise that this was a system - with a premise (flat Earth) which somewhat determined the concepts that emerged and all of which comprised a system - a Flat Earth Cosmology.

Then eventually Copernicus (from Poland) put his data (somewhat newer data because of the invention of the telescope) together in a new formulation. He had a new premise (Sun-centred World) and with a whole new set of concepts following from it, comprising a new system - the Helio-Centric Cosmology. And when people conceptualised the new system and it came into tension with the old, the old one just faded away - no contest! (The new one made much better sense and they could see that each was a system - a conceptual framework).

Likewise in Philosophy, I could regarded some of what my culture told me as involving a leap which did not follow from the available logic and so I began to do my own reasoning and eventually had an enormous amount of data and eventually a new premise of the nature of things emerged which informed new concepts and a new philosophy system.

When that new system comes into tension with the ancient Athenian reasoning - the Classical system - there is no contest!(Find it at Amazon Books or Amazon Kindle and see).

Concepts do not translate or transfer across

systems.

In the helio-centric cosmology system, unlike Flat Earth theory, there are no elephants holding up the world, no sunboat bringing back the sun at night to the place from whence it riseth or a new sun born each day, and no going over the edge of the world. There is a new premise and new concepts. They comprise a new system.Concepts are system Particular!

So, talking across systems makes no sense.

It unavoidably generates hybrid concepts.

Plato, 428-7 - 348-7b.c., wrote of “theory of Forms”.

Plotinus, circa 200 AD/CE, wrote to the title:“A Formulation of the Nature of Things”.

They were high intellect enough to feature sense of theory, premise, hypothesis, formulation.Plato, writing the Phaedo, talking through his character Socrates, speaks to the effect: “Rather than try to give all sorts of reasons for different phenomena, Socrates suggests that in the poverty of our ignorance [(poi)], we should just cling to the hypothesis we have, the theory of Forms, and rely on that for our explanations”.

However, higher intellect did not prevail over primal intellect premises. And they finished where they started.

From Classical philosophy until emergence of TEPS, Western and perhaps some Eastern philosophy was much informed by effects arising through primal ‘forces’ - by sense of a subject-object world.

These primal forces included faculties- -senses - sight, sound, smell, taste and touch- in tension with ‘forces’, effecting sense of different phenomena, such as stones, trees, family members, other animals, plants, objects, etc. - sense of I and Other and as unqualified, discrete, categorical forms.

They still ring a bell with people’s primal intellect.

Plotinus, perhaps relying on the oral medium for his information, tells us in “On Intellect, Ideas and [Real] Being”: Plato regarded matter as lifeless and unconscious - without soul and intellect and that:“Perhaps, therefore, it is ridiculous to investigate whether intellect ranks in the order of beings; ...” - that if soul and intellect are not in matter, they must be outside of it. Intellect- -One must be outside of such “order”.It- -One does not originate in soul, nor soul in body nor body in matter, but these emanate out of (the) One, and, with increasing degree of removal, express less of the (light of) (the) One – are less beautiful.

So, Plato apparently started with matter and drew a rather Bronze Age conclusion: life and consciousness - soul and intellect - could not be inherent in it.

This would be controversial if not ridiculous today.

He perceived matter as of categorical forms- -essences; forms without qualification - definite, discrete, static and perfect - and without life and consciousness.Then, “in the poverty of [his] ignorance”, he went ‘outside of nature’ and made intellect, in the only form he knew, namely categorical form: One- -Intellect, and, emanating from One- -Intellect, soul and matter – all categorical form.

He formulated a poi system of categorical forms and values.

Plato, in his theory of Ideas, premises, for example, the categorical forms “knowledge”, “horse”, “exist”. He then grappled with the problem: as all horses are different, how does one know what a horse is? He theorises that the idea or concept “horse” is in the mind a priori - in advance - and so one can know whether something “participates in” horsiness.

People continued to write philosophy for thousands of years, because they were not satisfied with the sense they were making. They dug an evermore elaborate hole, a hole of Bronze Age primal intellect categorical premises, forms, values, as above.

Subscribers to such formulations rather saw- -see themselves as supernatural aliens here on Earth and (implicitly) love uniformity rather than diversity.

Mind-body dualism problems, such as horsiness participated in by horses, and causation problems of how values, or forces, or data featuring from the natural and supernatural integrate and lots of other problems featured, resulting in ever increasing intellectual muddle and cost to the world. This led to much scholarship (and comma changing) by, perhaps good intentioned, academic philosophers- -scholars and religious trapped in primal premises.

However, Plato almost touched on “Effect- -value, through, and indeed as, tension of relationship ‘of forces’, indefinite- -dynamic ... multi-faceted”, but the step to a beautiful system was yet too great:

In his Theaetetus he considers that since 6 is greater than 4 and smaller than 12, 6 is both great and small and that since Socrates is taller than a youth but one day will be shorter, he is both tall and short.

Perhaps I should also mention Aristotle’s muddled “essence”, “substance”, “form,” and Immanuel Kant’s issues of the things of the senses and things in themselves, the “phenomena” and “nuomena”, and Rene Descartes’ “Cogito”: “I think, therefore I am”.

Very categorical concepts as premises: “essence”,“nuomena”, “I think, therefore, I am.”, “I”, “I am”.

Does much, though not all, of Eastern philosophy feature premises of categorical form, if only the “I”; the ego?

Higher intellect Effectuationism expresses:“Effect, through, and indeed as, tension of relationship ‘of forces’, indefinite- -dynamic and inferentially multi-faceted”. (“Effect”: verb non ref.)

C.A Qadir cites The Madhyamika School of Sunyavada: “the knower, the known, and knowledge are interdependent”.

The Carvaka:“The soul is but the body characterized by the attributes signified in the expressions, I am stout, I am youthful, I am grown up, I am old, etc. It is not something other than that body”.

Again, Premise is important!It somewhat informs- -determines the concepts which emerge and which comprise a system.

The primal intellect premise of categorical forms gave rise to an increasingly complex, problematic system of concepts. Education system pressure for fluency in the theory pre-determined specialists to be fluent but stuck in categoricalism – something of a tyranny of orthodoxy.

This tended to preclude development of new premises and emergence of new systems.“Effects, through featuring ‘forces’, multi-faceted”.

New premises give rise to new systems.

Old systems in tension with a new system become apparent as systems and their rigour is tested.

One thrives and the other declines.

Thereby the world would have a prospect of transcending primal intellect informed (non)sense.

Perhaps upon transcending it, the issue would be whether the forces of spine, grace, integrity-to-profession and love of wisdom would be sufficient to prevail and effect open comment on it.

A change from subject-object form to “effect, through ... forces” form causes a syntax change.

Also, language is a medium through which we develop connotational empathy with each other’s concepts, e.g. Effectuationism indefinite- -dynamic “I” versus Classical categorical (observer) “I”.

Language does not refer us to stuff about which we identify with each other so much as to ‘our’ individual-particular concepts with which we develop connotational empathy.

Effectuationism expresses ‘the nature of things’: “Effect, through tension of relationship of ‘forces’, indefinite- -dynamic and inferentially multifaceted”. Concepts- -forms effect through sufficiently recurring tensions of relationship of ‘forces’: I- -Other, stone- -not a stone, tree- -not a tree, green- -not green, yellow, hot, cold, many, few, great, small, tall, short, and through recurring tension of relationship of these emerge concepts such as objects, plants, colour, temperature, number, size, height, ... perhaps “philosophy” and eventually “philosophy system”.Effect, through tension of relationship of ‘forces’, rather than, e.g., through participating in Tallness.

So, some principles so far: 1. The idea of system should not be controversial.

2. Concepts are system particular.They do not translate or transfer across systems.

3. A system is tested through how it fares in relation with any other system - one thrives and the other declines.

4. A concept is individual- particular. We can refer each other to our respective concepts, e.g. “stone”, which is colourless for one of us if they are blind.Through interaction we develop connotational empathy with each others’ concepts.

Four hundred years after Plato lived, Christianity crossed the Mediterranean to Rome.

About two hundred years later, it incorporated Platonic thought - became Platonist- -Christian.

One hundred years after that, the Roman Empire became Platonist- -Christian.

A couple of hundred years later, Islam emerged. It too expresses Platonism- -Categoricalism.

900 years later Anglo-Saxons had a Reformation, stimulating individual thought and autonomy.

In 1995 CE/AD “Effectuationism” emerged.

This new system seems compatible with Quantum Dynamics tension ‘of forces’, develops through the intermediate subject-object form of primal senses intellect before completing the circle to the higher intellect holistic tension of indefinite- -dynamic forces.

I understand Quantum Dynamics to express (entangled) ‘forces’ in tension; change the ‘forces’, introduce a new ‘force’, and (the) effect changes.

Evolving Form- -Value- -Effect- -I, as per TEPS.

If one pauses to higher-intellect-ponder oneself, awareness might effect of oneself as effect through featuring indefinite- -dynamic ‘forces’- -tensions; effect as indefinite- -dynamic “I”; I- -Other.

When issues are trying to resolve, one might feel- -be all of the issues at play and feel that if they were different the resolution- -effect would be different.

This paper is introduction to a new force – pointer to The Effectuationism Philosophy System.New force, new effect, new age.

Different forces, different effects, different I- -Other.

The individual human, perhaps between birth and 20 years of age, expresses stages of evolution.

We are born reflexive.

As children we express a very categorical world – if a word from a story book is changed we object.

As teenagers we express the notion that everything is relative.

Next: Perhaps The Effectuationism Philosophy System formulation of the nature of things, effecting a more coherent human form, expressing Mother Nature unhybridised with supernatural forms.

Available at

Amazon Books

andAmazon Kindle

Optional Philosophy Informs and is a Determinant of so Much

About 15 years ago, the USA, which has been running the developed world monetary and economic policy for about 70 years, allowed two policies to go wild: Deregulation of the banks and trade liberalisation. These probably were born as Neo-conservative policies, probably informed by Ayn Rand’s infantile primal intellect philosophy (RIPIP), which filled a philosophy vacuum.

The banks, perhaps influenced by her terminology “selfishness is a virtue”, became casinos. (Of course FF Ireland self-destructed too).

Rapid trade liberalisation – perhaps self interest of large corporations - moved much of the developed world wealth and know-how to countries with huge populations and near zero income, where (bubble) cities were built to produce goods for export back to the newly unemployed at home, where factories were left to rust and the goods are ‘paid for’ with money borrowed from the newly emerging countries and printed at home by the trillion dollar.

This seems to me to have been a highly reckless policy compared to making our science available to those huge populations, perhaps with a 5 year lag, and let them develop more independently and probably more sustainably, with trade gradually increasing.

These two developed-world-economic-suicide-policies were followed by two crazy recovery policies: Bail out of the bankrupt and Quantitative Easing Monetary Policy as growth strategies.

This is refinancing of those who were bankrupted through the first two policies at the expense of the productive and prudent.

This ‘growth strategy’ is far removed from conventional wealth building through savings and moderate borrowing for productive investment and liquidation of the bankrupt to the benefit of the productive or bailing them out with the savings of friends and it operates together with the former - ongoing trade liberalisation.

Then there is the (Randist Neo Con) foreign policy. It seems very categorical about all issues – borders, form of government and implicitly its own (“objective”) premises.

There is the Anglo-Saxon dogma that Ukraine categorically should be able to go West and to take Crimea with it.

There is the theory that the USA wishes to damage the Russian economy to conceal its own self made problems and to protect the petro dollar, which affords it to be world, increasingly moronic, sheriff.

This Neo Con new world order is not generating respect and support, perhaps because its inherent Bronze Age primal intellect basis is a pain in the head to any with some higher intellect activity.

Perhaps a philosophy upgrade is in order, after 20 years of refusal by the specialist philosophy platforms to promote Effectuationism! P K