The Effectuationism Philosophy System

The Effectuationism Philosophy System Introduction Welcome to “The Effectuationism Philosophy System” (EPS). The Effectuationism Philosophy System is a new, very original, democracy, diversity and nature friendly system of concepts, with 'three' criteria of the rigour of value of a system, namely, coherence, coherence and coherence of the system, evaluated through relationship with any other system(s). This would contrast with the more categoricalist philosophy which the social cultures of most readers express and with which they are familiar and which is first nature to them/you. That categoricalist philosophy goes back thousands of years, is not particularly compatible with democracy, is not particularly diversity or nature friendly, and, not expressing as a system, sees rigour of value in terms such as “truth”, “fact” and “reality”. These notions may be rather grounded in the evolutionary stage when primal senses were dominant and concepts took the form of “this”, “that” and “the other”, all rather discrete, of definite boundaries and unchanging essence. I now wish to bring that philosophy into tension of relationship with a more intellect-dominant formulation of data. “Effectuationism” expresses philosophy as the science of developing formulations of the nature of ‘Nature’; of testing data- -perceptions in alternative formulations of concepts and these concepts in systems, and that, through coming into relationship with one another, the more coherently rigorous formulations thrive and others decline. (“Effect, through relationship ‘of forces’”). The premise- -concept with which a formulation commences, such as whether value is a matter of rather categorical truth or alternatively the most coherent system formulated intellectually, is a pre-determinant of the concepts which will emerge in the system, and effectively of the system itself, unless the premise evolves in the process of formulating the system. (Different ‘forces’, different effects). The premise acts in the development of the concepts of the system and the system expresses the premise. A system is a circle, regardless of what system it is, and indeed of whether it recognises itself as a circle. ‘The system’ having emerged, if there is not an alternative system with which it can be brought into relationship, then ‘the system’ may not even express as a system - as in the evolutionary stage when primal senses were dominant and concepts took the categorical form of “this”, “that”, “the other”, “true”, “fact”, etc. (“Value, through relationship ‘of forces’”). Such was the trapped condition and categoricalist nature of philosophy, heretofore. Quite apart from the difficulty of transcending such a condition and producing a radically original system, just to conceptualise it when presented in simple text seems to be quite a challenge for those who are not much trained in philosophy, and indeed for those who are who really don’t seem to know what a system is. Any concept featuring in a system connotes the system, and would not translate or transfer across systems. It would transform, or perhaps even not arise. The reader may be inclined to look around for familiar concepts. But this would not be helpful, as, again, concepts do not translate or transfer across systems. For example, in the flat Earth system- -model the concepts “going over the edge of the world” and “the Sun moves across the sky and returns in a sun boat to the place from whence it riseth” do not feature in the heliocentric system. Likewise, in the Santa model of receiving gifts, the problem of how Rudolf gets around to so many houses in one night, does not arise in more adult models. Einstein’s notions of “time dilation”, “Lorentz Transformations” and “Space and Time” do not feature in the “Effectuationism Navigation System” (ENS). And so, likewise, in “The Effectuationism Philosophy System”, many Categoricalism concepts, such as mind-body dualism, and the consequent maze of problem issues with which (Western) categoricalism (featuring) philosophy has been grappling for millennia do not arise. So, I am not going to be detailed about the problems in classical systems. Suffice to advise the reader not to expect familiar concepts and problems in this system, but rather that they should be open to a radically original integration of perceptions, thereby producing original concepts and in turn an original philosophy system. The reader could then relate it to their favourite (and other systems) to see how it fares as a formidably comprehensive and coherent formulation of the nature of ‘Nature’, or as whatever they fancy. Even the grammar and syntax is different. As the system commences, it does not feature a subject and object type world with different tenses but expresses as somewhat first person singular. Nor does it feature categorical terms. It connotes indefinite character, for example, “categoricalist”. This contrasts with classical systems which premised categorical truth- -value and attempted unsuccessfully for thousands of years to develop such premises into systems of, shall we say, coherent truth. These categoricalist premises manifest in other branches of science, leading to convoluted concepts in making working models, as, for example, above, “time dilation” in Special Relativity. Indeed, they manifest in the concept- -principle that The Scientific Method is a reliable measure of the rigour of logic. The (un)reliability and (lack of) rigour of this principle is apparent in the following analogy: “Theory: Be good and go to bed early and Santy will come. Experiment: I was good and went to bed early and Santy came”. Note: Both theory and experiment consists of concepts, though the former may be those of intellectual inference and the latter more-so of the primal senses. To emphasise: Systems of concepts can only effectively be evaluated for rigour and coherence of logic through relationship with other systems. Philosophy systems throughout much of the world premise as the philosophical quest, or at least feature, "categorical (truth) value", apparently little aware that this is primal biochemical evolution expressing. When it is possible to bring different systems into tension of relationship, not to do so would be to renounce, at least in part, one’s higher potential. This primal force in philosophy has kept world culture in an intellectual hole and digging for at least 2,400 years, largely, without the philosophers even recognising that they were holed in ‘a system’. It has given rise to science models which are counter intuitive and soul destroying, causing many people to cease to aspire to make good sense of the nature of things and perhaps to be closed to new concepts. Categoricalism is central to and permeates religion, but is a counter force in relationship of tension with dynamism, diversity and democracy friendly forces. It would seem both cannot thrive. Indeed, democratic societies that do not intellectually recognise and transcend such primal instincts may not flourish in a world increasingly of forces flashing high-technology.   21st century technology at the finger tips and caveman intellectual concepts between the ears, what an imbalanced development of the human race! What prospect of any such society conveying moral authority!   Welcome, now, to a new system of concepts, to a new concept of value, to a new effectuation of the nature of ‘Nature’; welcome to “Effectuationism”.       First principle: []