Effectuationism

nesf

http://www.effectuationism.com/

This site came up in Physics/Chemistry where it's treatment of physics was quickly classified as (and I paraphrase) "a fine work of imagination but no substance to it" (read: incoherent ramblings that have nothing to add to or say about physics).

I was curious as to what you guys might make out of the philosophy side of the site.

davej

It seems like (poorly written) garbage to me.

The Effectuationism Philosophy System is a new, very original, democracy, diversity and nature friendly philosophical system, with 'three' criteria of the rigour of value.

davej

DadaKopf

"Coherence, coherence, coherence", eh? Reminds me of some threads here. And they're more coherent than this dude's stuff! I sure would like him to find his way here so we can debate with him about his ideas.

nesf

DadaKopf wrote:

"Coherence, coherence, coherence", eh? Reminds me of some threads here. And they're more coherent than this dude's stuff! I sure would like him to find his way here so we can debate with him about his ideas.

Yeah, perhaps a joint debate with philosphy and physics ppls? It would be amusing...

That or we could go to his message board. I believe he has a forum on there...

Peter Kinane

nesf wrote:

http://www.effectuationism.com/

This site came up in Physics/Chemistry where it's treatment of physics was quickly classified as (and I paraphrase) "a fine work of imagination but no substance to it" (read: incoherent ramblings that have nothing to add to or say about physics).

I was curious as to what you guys might make out of the philosophy side of the site.

Hello all,

I would be interested in seeing what passes on this board for, what you refer to as, "quickly classifying" the site http://www.effectuationism.com/ . So, perhaps, you could humour me by - 'radical idea' - providing the quote and source of what you paraphrase as "a fine work of imagination but no substance to it", which categorisation you then find it appropriate to further explain to your readers.

I'll keep an eye on this thread for a while in case anyone - 'radical idea' - manages to make an argument or ask a question.

Readers may find this URL convenient:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=294156

Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com

SkepticOne

So, in plain English, what is effectuationism?

Peter Kinane

SkepticOne wrote:

So, in plain English, what is effectuationism?

When people call for "plain English" it usually means they are not well acquainted with the concepts with which they have been presented, and probably are not very disposed to understand them. Further, they seem to imply that everything should be expressible in the concepts with which they are familiar. So, they need to open their mind.

I have already pretty much said all this in the opening on my front page:
"The concepts here are original and difficult to communicate, []"
"Any concept connotes the entire system of which it is a feature. []"
"The Effectuationism Philosophy System is a new, very original, democracy, diversity and nature friendly philosophical system, with 'three' criteria of the rigour of value."

Etc., etc.

So, I hope that takes care of your "in plain English" clause?

Re "what is effectuationism?": Instead of expecting to be spoon-fed perhaps you would attempt to show what my front page means to you - and I hope you can do better than those who already commented on it.

Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com

SkepticOne

OK. You say

(The terms ‘Perception’ and Perception above may be substituted with Awareness or Value or Being or Matter or Effect, etc., as one pleases, in single parentheses as given).

The single parenthesis Perception ...

In what way can Perception be subsituted for Awareness, Value, Being, Matter, Effect?

For example, if I percieve something, is that the same as saying that I value it? What sense of the word 'value' would we be using here?

How would we equate matter with effect so that one can be substituted for the other?

DadaKopf

Peter Kinane wrote:

Re "what is effectuationism?": Instead of expecting to be spoon-fed perhaps you would attempt to show what my front page means to you - and I hope you can do better than those who already commented on it.

No, the owness is on you to convice us you're right. Sorry, but that's how it works.

Peter Kinane

* In what way can Perception be subsituted for Awareness, Value, Being, Matter, Effect?

For example, if I percieve something, is that the same as saying that I value it? What sense of the word 'value' would we be using here? *

In this philosophy system, the - your - concept "I percieve" does not arise. The system opens, forgetting about the single parenthesis, with "Perception- -Effect- -Being- -Matter- -Value- -Effect".

We are still at the point of emergence, so slow down and let things develop.

Next principle: "Perception- -Effect- -Being- -Matter- -Value- -Effect", through, and indeed as, relationship 'of forces'.

Perception or Effect, (or whatever term one favours), through, and indeed as, relationships ‘of forces', indefinite, dynamic and inferentially multi-faceted. And so on and on with development.


* How would we equate matter with effect so that one can be substituted for the other? *

Awareness effects through matter and matter through awareness.

Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com

Peter Kinane

Sorry, but the owness is on you to give some feedback on what I have posted. Otherwise how would I know when to emphasise and when to move forward?

You did say, in your first post, "I sure would like him to find his way here so we can debate with him about his ideas". So, this looks like a shift in your opinion?

Try to do a little thinking.

Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com

DadaKopf

You haven't really said anything yet. And if you're saying (matter=awareness), what exactly do you mean by this and what's your rationale? Obviously you're (deliberately?) not communicating your thoughts clearly enough.

You say Effectuationism is a 'system', but you haven't explained the system. Anywhere.

Unless you're some kind of Irish Sokal hoax.

Peter Kinane

DadaKopf wrote:

You haven't really said anything yet. And if you're saying (matter=awareness), what exactly do you mean by this and what's your rationale? Obviously you're (deliberately?) not communicating your thoughts clearly enough.

You say Effectuationism is a 'system', but you haven't explained the system. Anywhere.

Unless you're some kind of Irish Sokal hoax.

As my main post was to SkepticOne, let's hear if he agrees with your post.

Also, I don't like your attitude, mod.

Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com

simu

Peter Kinane wrote:

As my main post was to SkepticOne, let's hear if he agrees with your post.

Also, I don't like your attitude, mod.

Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com

I am the mod of this particular forum, in fact, and it is perfectly acceptable for Dadakopf or anyone else to ask you to explain your ideas. Surely any sincere philosopher relishes the opportunity to explain and defend their ideas?

Peter Kinane

simu wrote:

I am the mod of this particular forum, in fact, and it is perfectly acceptable for Dadakopf or anyone else to ask you to explain your ideas. Surely any sincere philosopher relishes the opportunity to explain and defend their ideas?

Why is Dadakopf the only one here described, under their name, as "moderator", moderator?

You miss the point, which I thought would have been obvious, that I am not protesting at being asked to explain my ideas but at how it is done. Understand now?

I have replied to SkepticOne, who seems as though he may be well enough acquainted with philosophy to appreciate my reply, so let's hear from him how he rates it.

I don't try to explain it to my cat.

Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com

simu

Peter Kinane wrote:

Why is Dadakopf the only one here described, under their name, as "moderator", moderator?

Go to the newbies/FAQ forum if you have questions to ask on the overall functioning of boards.

You miss the point, which I thought would have been obvious, that I am not protesting at being asked to explain my ideas but at how it is done. Understand now?

No - I can't read your mind. If you perceive some slight against you or some other contravention of the forum charter, report the post (press the little triangle icon on the bottom left corner of the post) or PM me about it.

I don't try to explain it to my cat.

There are no cats here - only people who are curious about your ideas. If you really think they are worthy of being transmitted, you could try to explain them here. The writings on your website are unclear, at least to my mind. You could try to use correct English grammar - that would make it easier for people to try and understand what you mean. A short definition of some of the principal terms you use in your text wouldn't go amiss either.

SkepticOne

Peter Kinane wrote:

I have replied to SkepticOne, who seems as though he may be well enough acquainted with philosophy to appreciate my reply, so let's hear from him how he rates it.

I can't understand your reply to me. It is about as cryptic as the original web page to my mind.

I don't know much about philosophy but I've read some of the work of a few. In general, although it might take a little effort, it is usually possible to understand what they are saying.

DadaKopf

And, Peter Kinane, I have a degree in philosophy and your website is just as incomprehensible to me as everyone else on this forum.

Peter Kinane

(Twice I tried to "Preview post" and twice the pc jammed. Once I treid to "Submit post". I wonder if the IT technology here has something in common with the philosophy).


* The writings on your website are unclear, at least to my mind. You could try to use correct English grammar - that would make it easier for people to try and understand what you mean. *

"[C]orrect English grammar" expresses concepts of a system. To repeat what I say on my front page for the second time:
"The concepts here are original and difficult to communicate, []"
"Any concept connotes the entire system of which it is a feature. []"
"The Effectuationism Philosophy System is a new, very original, democracy, diversity and nature friendly philosophical system".

Just in case you are still having difficulty with this: The concepts here are original, as is the system. So, expect the language through which they are expressed to be original too. The meaning of the terms is seen through the system as a whole. Conceptualisation of the system as a whole - as with any concept - does not happen instantly. The more original and comprehensive and therefore complex the system the bigger the conceptual challenge, even when it is presented in simple black and white.

So, instead of intellectually reflexing that "You haven't really said anything yet", that I am "(deliberately?) not communicating [my] thoughts clearly enough", that I may be "some kind of Irish Sokal hoax" more progress would be made if people opened their mind quite wide - and sent on vacation the philosophy of the last 2,400 years, to which they have been exposed.

So, for example, I emphasise: "In this philosophy system, the concept "I perceive" does not arise".


Thanks to SkepticOne for eventually replying. The philosophy which "it is usually possible to understand" is essentially that which pervades our culture. I refer you to this post in general for another model.


To DadaKopf: I guess your degree did not bring you to the realisation that you were, in the course of your studies- -training being programmed a system- -paradigm? I refer you to this post in general for an alternative system.


It now seems best to refer people to the post to SkepticOne:
* In what way can Perception be subsituted for Awareness, Value, Being, Matter, Effect?

For example, if I percieve something, is that the same as saying that I value it? What sense of the word 'value' would we be using here? *

In this philosophy system, the - your - concept "I perceive" does not arise. The system opens, forgetting about the single parenthesis, with "Perception- -Effect- -Being- -Matter- -Value- -Effect".

We are still at the [stage] of emergence, so slow down and let things develop.

Next principle: "Perception- -Effect- -Being- -Matter- -Value- -Effect", through, and indeed as, relationship 'of forces'.

Perception or Effect, (or whatever term one favours), through, and indeed as, relationships ‘of forces', indefinite, dynamic and inferentially multi-faceted. And so on and on with development.

[Have fun with the latter paragraph. Perhaps only then you should get back to me].


* How would we equate matter with effect so that one can be substituted for the other? *

[]


My reply to the last point here should have been that what I have already said is as much as I can advance the issue at this point. So, please focus on that and on the potential for "on and on with development".


Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com

DadaKopf

To DadaKopf: I guess your degree did not bring you to the realisation that you were, in the course of your studies- -training being programmed a system- -paradigm? I refer you to this post in general for an alternative system.

Yeah, you guess. You're wrong. You don't study Wittgenstein and Derrida without kind of picking this up, daww.

And now I say: thanks for venturing to write more about your ideas. If you're challenging a paradigm, you've got to communicate to people your ideas. If you don't challenge dominant paradigms this way, you're not challenging paradigms, but you say you're doing that, so you should try explain more.

"[C]orrect English grammar" expresses concepts of a system.

I can understand this point in the way that I'm familar with the problem, but you offer no indication of the your sense of this phrase. So it'd be nice to know what you mean by it.

To repeat what I say on my front page for the second time:
"The concepts here are original and difficult to communicate, []"
"Any concept connotes the entire system of which it is a feature. []"
"The Effectuationism Philosophy System is a new, very original, democracy, diversity and nature friendly philosophical system".

That leaves the people whose opinions you're trying to change in a difficult position - we can take your word for it, or ask for more clarity. If I were to opt for the former, I wouldn't be a good 'philosopher'. But asking for more clarity, in your opinion, contaminates your 'system', which you haven't described, so how are we to be convinced it's a system.

I get the impression you don't know how language works. You're simply assuming either words have essential meanings, or your words have your own meanings (and therefore can mean anything to anyone). In either case you're failing to communicate your 'system', or at least provide evidence that you've developed one beyond strings of words. The way I see it is this: if your system is novel, then explain what you mean by each of the terms that form part of your system (e.g. 'perception', 'effect', 'being', 'value' etc.), because your attempt to condense your position this way has resulted in incomprehensibility. I think you're preserving your 'paradigm' only by keeping the senses (or referents) of the words you use locked up in your head for some reason. Words do not have essential meanings, so please, explain.

Furthermore, when you say

"Next principle: "Perception- -Effect- -Being- -Matter- -Value- -Effect", through, and indeed as, relationship 'of forces'."

you don't define/describe/explain the relationship between these concepts. Strings of nouns don't indicate the existence of a 'system', surely by definition. So all we can assume is you're equalising these things.

So all we're left with is a static description of the world where everything is the same? This is a 'system'?

davej

Based on the tenets of effectuationism, I have come up with the following system, which I think improves (and in many ways replaces) the original theory quite satisfactorily.

Theory of Duationism

This is a highly complicated {{'as not me'} esoteric} system that allows the expression of original synthethic procedures to be explicated.

1: The first priniple is {{'me'}{'as not me'}} as self propagating through and by {'without'} reason.

2: Regarding the later, there are only opposing {{'me'}{'as not me'}} propositions without which it is dynamic {'reason'}, infinitely regressional and spontaneous until {'without'}

3: {{'me'}{'reason'}} as and through the first principle regressing to the spontaneous, dynamic {'as not me'}

There is further work to be done, but i believe the above lays the grounds for the rejection of conventional "metaphysics".

The author of effectuationism , through his susceptability to implicit dogmatic ideals, has perpetuated much of that which he sought to overthrow. My theory is more fundamental as it addresses these implied assumptions. However I am still greatly obliged to him; As the saying goes, "If I see further then you, it is only because I am standing on the shoulders of giants".

davej

DadaKopf

Based on the tenets of Duationism, I have come up with the following system, which I think improves (and in many ways replaces) the original theory quite satisfactorily.

*~PARP~*

Peter Kinane

DadaKopf wrote:

Yeah, you guess. You're wrong. You don't study Wittgenstein and Derrida without kind of picking this up, daww.

Wittgenstein and Derrida may have been alert to "the language problem" but I have seen no evidence that they formulating a radically new system, thereby showing any progress with the language problem.

DadaKopf wrote:

*"[C]orrect English grammar" expresses concepts of a system.*

I can understand this point in the way that I'm familar with the problem, but you offer no indication of the your sense of this phrase. So it'd be nice to know what you mean by it.

So, you describe the following as "no indication of the your sense of this phrase":
"Just in case you are still having difficulty with this: The concepts here are original, as is the system. So, expect the language through which they are expressed to be original too. The meaning of the terms is seen through the system as a whole. Conceptualisation of the system as a whole - as with any concept - does not happen instantly. The more original and comprehensive and therefore complex the system the bigger the conceptual challenge, even when it is presented in simple black and white.*

More precisely, you ignore it.

Perhaps simu would comment here?

And of course, further down, you continue: "if your system is novel, then explain what you mean by each of the terms that form part of your system".

So, to repeat: "The meaning of the terms is seen through the system as a whole". To present the system as a whole one has to start with a concept, whose meaning initially necessarily is vague. (Wittgenstein: "To give the essence of a proposition means to give the essence of all description, and thus the essence of the world").

Again, you proceed, ignoring the direction "(or whatever term one favours)": "you don't define/describe/explain the relationship between these concepts ["Next principle: "Perception- -Effect- -Being- -Matter- -Value- -Effect", through, and indeed as, relationship 'of forces'."]".

In conclusion: Are you reading each or just every second paragraph?

Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com

DadaKopf

So how do people "get into" the system?

Wittgenstein wrote:

"To give the essence of a proposition means to give the essence of all description, and thus the essence of the world"

So now you're utilising a paradigm. Wittgenstein, I believe for good reasons, rejected the Tractatus, from which this quote originates. You believe words necessarily picture the world? No, they're embedded in forms of life, which is why I'm asking you of the sense you attach to these words.

Peter Kinane wrote:

So, you describe the following as "no indication of the your sense of this phrase":
"Just in case you are still having difficulty with this: The concepts here are original, as is the system. So, expect the language through which they are expressed to be original too. The meaning of the terms is seen through the system as a whole. Conceptualisation of the system as a whole - as with any concept - does not happen instantly. The more original and comprehensive and therefore complex the system the bigger the conceptual challenge, even when it is presented in simple black and white.*

Oh, I understand what you're doing here alright. Discourse moves this process along.

But I'll ask again in case you get side-tracked: how do you "get into" your system?

simu

Me, comment?

To be honest, I find most of what you write to be incomprehensible and I susoect that's because there is nothing there to comprehend.

The meaning of the terms is seen through the system as a whole. Conceptualisation of the system as a whole - as with any concept - does not happen instantly. The more original and comprehensive and therefore complex the system the bigger the conceptual challenge, even when it is presented in simple black and white.

What does this mean? Do you mean that a person has to "get the gist" or begin understanding what you mean by immersing themselves in your writing and getting used to your usage of language and going over it again and again until they reach understanding, similarly to how words in a novel could take on shades of meaning not normally associated with those words due to the way they have been used by the novelist in that particular novel?

If that is what you mean, I still don't think it works. Words such as "system", "concept" and so on have many meanings and reading ahead doesn't make things any clearer. I mean, what the hell is the point of all these "systems" and things you describe? What do they do? Do they describe things in the physical world, thoughts, what? What are you trying to do with your "effectuationism"? What does it try to explain?

Again, you proceed, ignoring the direction "(or whatever term one favours)": "you don't define/describe/explain the relationship between these concepts ["Next principle: "Perception- -Effect- -Being- -Matter- -Value- -Effect", through, and indeed as, relationship 'of forces'."]".

Direction? What do you mean by that word in that context? Are you referring to the order of the words from left to right in your sentence? Are we to understand the "-" symbol as meaning some sort of progression? Or something else entirely? And why all the quotation marks and brackets all over the place?

Peter Kinane

* Oh, I understand what you're doing here alright. Discourse moves this process along.

But I'll ask again in case you get side-tracked: how do you "get into" your system? *

Through discourse moving the process along.

You might therefore now be ready to focus on the second principle:
"Emphasising for clarity: "Effect", through, and indeed as, relationships ‘of forces'".

Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com

Peter Kinane

* What does this mean? Do you mean that a person has to "get the gist" or begin understanding what you mean by immersing themselves in your writing and getting used to your usage of language and going over it again and again until they reach understanding, similarly to how words in a novel could take on shades of meaning not normally associated with those words due to the way they have been used by the novelist in that particular novel? *

I mean precisely that.

You might therefore now be ready to focus on the second principle:
"Emphasising for clarity: "Effect", through, and indeed as, relationships ‘of forces'".

Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com

bus77

Well, I suppose I may as well start off with an acknowledgement of the previous replys. The front page is far to abstract. Now, abstraction can be a tool to draw in the curious or interested, however your starting points or more pricisely your use of the words "New System" implys a sales pitch. It sets off a whole set of expected concepts in itself. When people see, want or expect a sales pitch, they really are not impressed with the wholly abstract. They want the concrete, or discriptive. Objective.

However, from reading your forum, I see this as lying in the realm of the both the creative and inventive arts.
When is the last time you ever saw an objective painter, poet or inventor?
Is it even possible to bring forward an example?
Their work is their speech. They can only go with what they see or paint in their minds. And what they create is made to be seen by others, and themselves. To take part in it. From any angle or perspective.

With as wide a palette and colours as possible.

Peter Kinane

Thank you, bus77.

simu

Peter Kinane wrote:

You might therefore now be ready to focus on the second principle:
"Emphasising for clarity: "Effect", through, and indeed as, relationships ‘of forces'".

Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com

No. You left other questions of mine unanswered.

Peter Kinane

"system" - model - paradigm - conceptual framework.

"concept": * The meaning of the terms is seen through the system as a whole. *

"(or whatever term one favours)": *Perception above may be substituted with Awareness or Value or Being or Matter or Effect, etc., as one pleases*

What part of the above should you not already have understood?

Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com

Peter Kinane

- - is used to indicate one concept running into another; that these are not two clearly demarcated concepts, in the given context. For example, feel- -be.

Peter Kinane

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=300049&page=1&pp=20

Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com

Peter Kinane

Peter Kinane wrote:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=300049&page=1&pp=20

What would robotic morons do when pressurised to think; what would they do when presented with an argument which is contrary to their imprinting and which they are unwilling to conceptualise, not to say refute?

To pull their shell down upon themselves, what a shame it would be; what an evolutionary turn after the Universe evolving higher faculties!

Suggestion, if this were so: They should think about getting themselves an education - as distinct from the training they suffered and as something of which to be proud - indeed to be seen as the ultimate possible cultural accomplishment. Then they should have a chat with their colleges about this self perpetuating cycle of circular posture. Alternatively, at least drop the verb "to educate" from their language.

Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com

Sapien

This chap is wonderful! I'm sorry I've missed him so far.

I'm a little surprised that he has garnered so many responses (though, of course, at least two thirds of the posts on any of these "Effectuationism" threads are his own. Not really into the maieutic process, are we Peter ).

Mr. Kinane, I have chosen to believe that you are a surreal prankster and inventor of a grotesquely moronic marionette. The alternatives: that you are intellectually impaired and epically arrogant, or a 6 kilobyte Turing machine compiled on a Casio watch, are too painful to contemplate.

Accordingly:

Bravissimo, or Infra Dignitatem.

carl_

yah
should be on crank.net really

Peter Kinane

Almost without exception, no one in this or the Physics crèche has shown an intellectually mature understanding of the term "model" some elucidation is in order:

Receiving presents at Christmas is understood by youngsters in terms of a model which feature the concepts Santa, Elves, Rudolf, etc. When they grow older, though they may continue to receive gifts at Christmas, they are introduced to a different model of explanation, one which does not feature the concepts of the former model. (Note the sensitivity with which I write). If the kids are introduced to this explanation before they are psychologically ready for it, it can be a world-shattering experience.

Unless kids are using higher intellectual faculties (and it is fascinating how little, self named, "homo sapiens" use it), or, with their lower faculties, see the process occurring, they will not of their own accord formulate the mature model. Indeed, if the model is introduced without "empirical evidence" they still may not 'get it', and the person introducing the model may be told that it is "a fine work of imagination but no substance to it", or that "you are a surreal prankster and inventor of a grotesquely moronic marionette. The alternatives: that you are intellectually impaired and epically arrogant, or a 6 kilobyte Turing machine compiled on a Casio watch, are too painful to contemplate", perhaps, with encouragement from siblings, culminating in a temper tantrum. Lost innocence, the Garden of Eden ... the trauma of growing up.

In the actual case of the philosophy system and physics navigation model being presented, I am addressing people's higher faculties. Lower faculty reactions should please be posted in a play-room thread.

Perhaps now there are a few people here who have a close understanding of what I mean by "model" (or "system" or "paradigm" or "conceptual framework") and agree with it and can move on to conceptualise the system - by reading the first word first, then the second, then the third and so on and checking back with me occasionally?

Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com

robindch

> move on to conceptualise the system - by reading the first
> word first, then the second, then the third and so on

I think PK could be on to something here, viz, the stepwise derivation of a singularity of thought -- the meaning and intent of the effectuated system, from a multitude of integer-affixed sub-realities ('words') which define the many-to-one relationship between sub-concept and über-concept. Setting ourselves adrift upon the sea of meaning which is the first sentence in the founding document, we paddle about as follows:

> The concepts here are original and difficult to communicate,

Certainly difficult to understand.

> perhaps especially those expressing the early stages of
> emergence,

Hmm... emergence from what? The bath? Or the state of unknowing that exists before the warm, tempting Nirvana which is Effectuationism enfoldens us? I think the latter's what's being referred to here.

> also because value expresses as relational, indefinite
> and dynamic

Whoa! What 'value' is being referred to here? Not an absolute value, since it's dynamic and indefinite, so we see it's variable, and exists relative (Generally Relative? Specially Relative? interesting!) to something, but something unknown so we conclude that not only is the value unknown, but also the nature of the unknowing itself is unknown too. Wonderful stuff!

> rather than the conventional categorical form
> of, for example, “something” versus “nothing”.

We've established that the value (of effectuationism? of value itself?) is unknown, so from quantum mechanics we suspect that it might exist in a superposition of states, such states of value being both 'something' and 'nothing' simultaneously (rather than existing as an example of the conventional exclusivity of somethingness versus nothingness). Perhaps, if we peek further, we could see that the value is cat-shaped and collapses to a singularity of meaning the moment its enfolding box is opened to the prying gaze of an external, wave-function-destroying, observant existence?

Well, there's certainly plenty to chew on in that first sentence. Anybody care to comment on the above, or, to try the next one?

So, perhaps the reader should commence with the next chapter, in the hope of developing confidence in the rigour of logic presented and thereby be motivated to conceptualise the beautiful, true-to-life, intellect rather than primary senses based, system.

Peter Kinane

> also because value expresses as relational, indefinite
> and dynamic

Re "Whoa! What 'value' is being referred to here?":

I appreciate the question mark here, however you drop it in your elaboration: "Not an absolute value, since it's dynamic and indefinite, so we see it's variable, and exists relative (Generally Relative? Specially Relative? interesting!) to something, but something unknown so we conclude that not only is the value unknown, but also the nature of the unknowing itself is unknown too. Wonderful stuff!"

Pity about that because I can only imagine that it is only through your wishful thinking that you can get "What 'value' is being referred to here?" as something I stated; "value expresses" does not state or imply, sorry to disappoint you, that "'value' is being referred to here". Wonderful stuff!

Perhaps you are reading too many words without a break for rest? Obviously it is good that you got back to me and I recommend that you make another attempt at understanding "value expresses". (Please bear in mind the (structure of the) formal principle: ""Effect", through, and indeed as, relationships ‘of forces'.").

Re "We've established []": I'm afraid, as above, we have not. Nor have I featured the concept "unknown:/known", nor shall I.

Obviously, you are going to have to make a big effort to get away from the Santa, Elves, Rudolf model concepts - from categoricalist concepts. So, refer back to me after every few words until you have more reason to feel confident of your understanding.

Perhaps you should start over again.

Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com

Peter Kinane

I should concede to robindch that it is quite understandable to read "value expresses" as you did. However, as I already attempted to explain, that is not the intended sense.


Pretty much next is the second principle:
"Perception or Effect, (or whatever term one favours), through, and indeed as, relationships ‘of forces', indefinite, dynamic and inferentially multi-faceted".

I expect that readers are prepared to attempt to understand the sense of that as it is written.


(Next is to develop what is implied there-in. This is the most difficult- -abstract section. When we get to the third principle we are at the stage of primal organisms and into the familiar world, and it is just a matter of continuing development until we intellectually complete the circle).

So: * (The world, in this system, is not a third person singular phenomenon with you as an alien or whatever).


Indefinite and dynamic relationships or interaction ‘of forces’ implies a kind of dance between potential forms of crystallisation – indeed a kind of dance between choice of frame of reference form. *

Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com