Foreword

Plotinus, circa 200 AD/CE, had a paper entitled:“A Formulation of the Nature of Things”.

Plato, 600 years earlier, wrote of “theory of Forms”.

Transcending Classical (Western) Philosophy

Formulating Western and perhaps some Eastern Philosophy formulations of the nature of things as somewhat primal

intellect informed emergences and bringing them into tension with a more higher-intellect determined

formulation – “The Effectuationism Philosophy System”

Higher faculty intellect transcending primal intellect premises

Evolving Form- -Value- -Effect- -I

Classical Philosophy - Western and perhaps some Eastern philosophy - prior to Effectuationism 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.

Such philosophy systems were stuck in primalsense.

In contrast, higher faculty 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”. Soul- -Effect, through, ... , tension ‘of forces’?

The primal intellect sense of discrete categorical forms informed philosophy, somewhat determining the concepts that emerged and comprised philosophy systems - concepts such as discrete, categorical “truth”, “knowledge”, “reality”, “good”, “essence”, “I”, “Other”, “values”, etc.

Primal intellect premises express in Plato’s theory of Ideas, his hypotheses of “Forms”, his categoricals - definite, unqualified, discrete, static,perfect forms.

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

Note 1: I use “- -” to signify concepts running into or overlapping each other and I pronounce them dah dah, as in Morse Code.

Plato, in his theory of Ideas, premises, for example, the categorical forms “knowledge”, “horse”, “exist”. He then grappled with the problem: asall 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 were perplexed – and with good reason: categorical premises, forms, formulations, values, as above.

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.

Perhaps it should not be surprising that it was outside of academic philosophy that a new system emerged, albeit after thousands of years.

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.We may be in the eleventh hour to introduce The EPS; reliance on brawn and Bronze Age software might soon lead to even more extreme calamity than previously.

A simple, early life example of premises, concepts and systems in (Western) lives are the expressions of how a child receives presents at Christmas.

The child expresses a system which premises Santa Claus, which features the concepts Rudolf the Red-Nosed Reindeer, the importance of being good and going to bed early, etc.

Adults express a different system of concepts.

Eventually the child becomes aware of the adult system- -model and there is no contest.

Another such example was the premise of a flat Earth, informing concepts which comprised a system.The premise gave rise to concepts such as that the Earth rested on four elephants, that when the elephants became restless earthquakes occurred, that the sun crossed the sky by day and returned at night in a sun-boat to the place from whence it riseth, or that a new sun was born each day, that the stars were fixed in a firmament, that if one walked far enough in a straight line, one would go over the edge of the world.

It was a somewhat coherent, mutually reinforcing system of premise informed concepts.

Eventually the helio-centric premise emerged and featured- -expressed a whole different system of more higher-intellect-coherent concepts.

When the geo-centric system came into tension of relationship with the helio-centric system, there was no contest - for those with higher brain faculty. One thrived and the other declined – “Effect, through tension of relationship ‘of forces’, indefinite- -dynamic and inferentially multifaceted”.

Both the child and the Flat Earthers were familiar with the concepts of the old systems.

When they (eventually) conceptualised the respective new systems there was then a tension of relationship of forces; a tension of the new systems in relationship with the respective old systems, and each resolved with a clear, no contest effect.

So, concepts are system particular.

This would seem to imply importance of openness to new premises and new concepts, and, thereby, to testing the rigour of one’s form(ul)(ation).

So, concepts do not translate or transfer across systems. There are no elephants holding up the world, no sunboat, and no going over the edge of the world in the helio-centric system. So, talking across systems makes no sense and unavoidably generates corrupted- -mongrelised concepts.Be open to syntax change. Language is a medium through which we develop connotational empathy with each other’s concepts, e.g. Effectuationism indefinite- -dynamic “I” versus Classical c “I”. It 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 connotat empathy.

So: 1. The idea of a 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.

Again: Premise is important; rather (pre)determining!

It is said: where one starts, is where one finishes.

(Bronze Age) primal intellect premises in, (Bronze Age) primal intellect concepts out, unless the higher faculty intellect works wonders.

Higher intellect premises in, higher intellect concepts out.

Premises inform the form- -culture of citizens and thereby the form- -culture of the society.The Western world is abandoning its classical philosophy system- -values- -formulation (and is floundering, at home and abroad, in the resulting vacuum or inAyn Rand’s stuff).

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, we should just cling to the hypothesis we have, the theory of Forms, and rely on that for our explanations”. What a mistake, but eventually options resolve.

He continues, for example, about participating in the Form of Tallness as an explanation of why one man is tall rather than short, that different cats are cats because they participate in cattiness, etc.

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.

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 degreeof removal, express less of the (light of) (the) One – are less beautiful.

So, Plato apparently started with matter and drew a rather BronzeAge 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 (participating in) categorical forms- -essences; forms without qualification, definite, discrete, static and perfect.

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. He formulated a system of categorical forms and values.

So much for premises and concepts that featured 2,400 years ago.Much of the world today still has such intellectual software installed between its ears.

Perhaps as in the theme of the conference: the preoccupations of “contemporary times ... suspends or indefinitely postpones ... capacity ... to question and reflect upon the social order”, indeed precludes any awareness of intellectual software.

But, the main responsibility for the intellectual software being operated rests with the philosophy specialists.

After 2,400 yrs of inertia and 19 years of silence on The EPS perhaps we need another forum to do Philosophy.

It seems clear that people, such as Plato, who wrote philosophy, explicitly had doubts about the rigour of their “explanations”, “hypotheses”- -”theories”- -premises- -concepts- -first principles.

Indeed 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 andshort.

It seems that any higher intellect force to these theories- -hypotheses- -premises declined through primal intellect influence,in some referral mediums, and they became categoricals, and, by their new nature, were implicitly beyond question andbecame prescribed and were inverted to primary; featuring of the premises declined, perhaps proscribed. Categoricalism was becoming orthodox scholarship, featuring more as dogma than “cling[ed]” to theory of Forms, and, ringing primal intellect bells, the world, for 2,400 years, apparently, was unable to transcend it. What future for mankind if primal intellect thrives to the detriment of higher intellect?

Perhaps I should also mention 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: “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?

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.

In 1995 CE/AD “Effectuationism” emerged and was published in Jan. 1996 – and provided free to an international forum of academic philosophers.

Note: I had already made a 1993 publication of my progress available at that forum in July 1994.They failed to produce a new system from this raw material before I did at the end of 1995.They received the new system, through mail, in Jan. and again in July 1996 at the conference which was held in Dublin that year.They chose not to openly comment on it.They did, however discuss it in my presence without saying what they were talking about.Perhaps their embarrassment prevailed over their grace.

I wonder if they then went off digging another hole which could perhaps keep (their school of) their profession busy for another 2,400 years.

As these people seemed to like not just to think of themselves as intellectuals but as the intellectual cream of society, I did not see it as my role to prop them up to have the spine, grace, integrity to their profession and love of wisdom to openly comment on it and promote it in its pure form to the world. Yet, 19 years later, it seems they have not done so. So, though it was with reservations, I have now, with those words, bumped you regarding it.

Subscribers to ‘Platonism’ rather saw- -see themselves as supernatural aliens here on earth.

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 integrated and lots of other problems featured, resulting in ever increasing intellectual muddle, leading to much scholarship (and comma changing) by, perhaps good intentioned, academic philosophers and religious.

Again, whatever about the rigour of their concepts, the ancients, or at least Plato’s character Socrates, in the Phaedo, openly treated the issue of the nature of things as one of “hypotheses”, “theory”, “explanations” with honest admission of “the poverty of [their] ignorance”.

But, Plato, unable to transcend his premises, stuck his character Socrates, and perhaps there-by the Western world, with implicit subject-objects world connotations: “different phenomena”: “Rather than try to give all sorts of reasons for different phenomena, Socrates suggests that in the poverty of our ignorance we should just cling to the hypothesis we have, theory of Forms, and rely on that for our explanations”.

In any case, through my intellectual analysis of data, its deconstruction and the inter-relation of that data, emerged an alternative formulation- -system to a subject-object world: “Effect- -Form, through, and indeed as, tension of relationship ‘of forces’, indefinite- -dynamic and inferentially multi-faceted”.So, are you open to a change of syntax?At quantum dynamics level, through tension of indefinite- -dynamic ‘forces’ - I- -Other; this atom or other - potentially, with on-going interaction, would evolve complex organisms with central nervous system (organ of tension), and then higher intellect, perhaps eventually formulating “Effectuationism”.

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.

Sometimes, when trying to make a decision, one might feel- -be all of the issues at play and feel that if they were different the resolution- -effect would be different - perhaps as in tension of systems now.Different forces, different effects, different I.Quantum Dynamics is about effect- -tension through (entangled) ‘forces’. Change the ‘forces’, introduce a new ‘force’, and (the) effect changes.

Emergence of primal organisms through Quantum Dynamics indefinite- -dynamic tension of relationship of ‘forces’ with development and informed by primal intellect premises would feature a categorical expression of the world, then stuff about relativity and then potentially go on to transcend these to premise relational value and formulate The Effectuationism Philosophy System.

It would be something of a completion of the circle back to Quantum Dynamics-like level, having become more high conscious along the way, but with the sense of the remote being lost from focus.

Humans expressing such a formulation hopefully would be more appreciative of their higher intellect potential (today increasingly secondary to memory) and, with awareness, express a 100% natural nature, with a recognition of, and respect for, the common under-lying ‘forces’ to their nature and the rest of Nature and appreciate that many species express a very similar nature, consciousness and aspirations.This would be in sharp contrast to the poverty of ignorance system of dual nature, perplexing the intellect and with its attendant strife at the level of individual, inter individual, inter-community and its dim witted regard of other species as brutes.

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.

Perhaps next stage: expression of The Effectuationism Philosophy System formulation of the nature of things.

I have now presented a formulation or consideration of Western and perhaps some Eastern philosophy systems of the nature of things as somewhat primal intellect informed emergences.

As an alternative first principle- -premise of higher intellect informed system, I provided, from The EPS: “Effect, through, and indeed as, tension of relationship ‘of forces’, indefinite- -dynamic and inferentially multi-faceted”.

This new premise has very different connotations to the classical theory of subject-object world of independent observer of definite forms.

I think it is important that I present EPS and you receive it in its pure rather than mongrelised form - EPS expressing, through tension of ‘forces’, not subject ~ object form.

I regard it as foundation material. (Philosophy informs everything and what goes in is what comes out).Conceptualisation of its pure form initially requires considerable concentration and does not lend itself to oral transmission. It is best greeted with a disposition free from old premises- -concepts- -baggage.

A reader having been impacted, having conceptualised, this new formulation of the nature of things, The EPS would then probably come into tension with their prior system. The tension would resolve, with one thriving and the other declining. 2015 CE/AD Peter Kinane

Available at

Amazon Books

andAmazon Kindle

Euroacademia - “The ongoing economic crisis ... New ways of thinking ...”

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, through its specialists, 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 philosophy, which filled a philosophy vacuum.

The banks, perhaps on her principle that 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 cities were built to produce the goods there for export to the newly unemployed at home whose factories are left to rust and who pay for the goods with money borrowed from the newly emerging countries.

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 perhaps sustainably.

These two developed-world-economic-suicide policies were followed by a crazy recovery policy: Quantitative Easing Monetary Policy.

This is refinancing of those who have been bankrupted by the first two policies at the expense of the productive and prudent.

It is far removed from conventional wealth building through savings and moderate borrowing and liquidating the bankrupt to the benefit of the productive or bailing them out with the savings of friends and it operates together with the ongoing trade liberalisation policy. It transfers wealth from the productive to the destructive!

Russia, apparently in agreement with my logic, claims that if Ukraine joined the EU, resulting trade – inflow of goods - would undermine their economy. It also claims that the USA wishes to destroy the Russian economy to conceal its own problems and to preserve the dollar as the petro dollar, which affords it to be world sheriff.

The West seems to dismiss both arguments.

Tensions rise.

Emerging economies grow tired of this petro dollar currency, in large part because the philosophy or philosophies, ancient and recent, of the nature of things which informs its operation - “understandings of the world we’re living in” – is not clearly delivering progress rather than regression and destruction.

Perhaps a philosophy upgrade is in order, after 19 years of refusal of the specialist philosophy platforms to promote Effectuationism! P K