Philosophy

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

formulation(s)

Introducing my formulation,The Effectuationism Philosophy System (TEPS)

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.

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. 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. This led to much scholarship (and comma changing) by, perhaps good intentioned, academic philosophers- -scholars and religious trapped in primal premises, at much cost to Nature.

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.

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 then be whether the forces of spine, grace, integrity-to-profession and love of wisdom would be sufficient to effect open comment on it; to prevail over protection of institutional power and prestige and sense of embarrassment.

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 “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.

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.

For twenty years I have published an upgrade of primal intellect informed intellectual software to a system 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.

Perhaps contemporary issues may induce the specialist platform to do its job; transcend its preconceptions and openly feature this (profound) new system.

This conference may be a start.

Or perhaps the developed world is already in a spiral of decline of integrity and higher intellect.

I have been surprised that for twenty years an environment emerged which is so unfavourable to a new philosophy system. Perhaps the increase in noise through modern media is also a factor.

I believe this new system is much more complete and coherent than the essentially Bronze Age stuff.

It 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 form of TEPS.

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.

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 peaceful human form, expressing Mother Nature unhybridised with supernatural forms.

Available at

Amazon Books

andAmazon Kindle

Peter Kinane

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 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 a growth strategy.

This is refinancing of those who have been bankrupted by the first two policies at the expense of the productive and prudent and takes a second whack at the productive through dollar dilution.

This latter 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 - the ongoing trade liberalisation policy.

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

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

Emerging economies grow tired of this petro dollar currency, perhaps in large part because the RIPIP which informs its expenditure is not clearly delivering progress rather than regression and destruction.

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

Peter Kinane