Effectuationism

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