An illuminating

phronesis antenarrative
on practicism
Towards an-otherness wentelechistic eco-
social qualiorders through the logics of
anotherness vaguenesses1

The practicistic turn towards real quality

Out of the matrixes-into a more complete future
1
The logic of vagueness here refers to the logic of vagueness as described by CS Peirce. It is the logic by which
anomalies become recognized, are made sense of and maybe generalized. See
http://www.digitalpeirce.fee.unicamp.br/home.htm for more info about this view on vagueness.
 Every sign is and is NOT

Everything named is vague perception in

some degrees

CP 5.309 1868 :
“ Everything has its subjective or emotional qualities, which are attributed either absolutely or
relatively, or by conventional imputation to anything which is a sign of it. And so we reason,
The sign is such and such; The sign is that thing.

This conclusion receiving, however, a modification, owing to other considerations, so as to become—

The sign is almost (is representative of) that thing “

WB 2007:

Above phrase is not even ALMOST what is meant. The is NOT – or, like Peirce would say, being
almost (is representative of)- is not only about emotional or subjective qualities. But also about
external qualities. And much more. Or not. It depends. But a representamen (the kind of sign being
almost) is always undercoded or overcoded to certain extends.

A further note from the author:

This book is a most fundamental key to understand social sciences and practises as a whole and to
improve and transform both social sciences and social practises. It is the ultimate change master and
management tool available at current times. For those who understand. The possibilities or firstnesses
of this discourse can be put into practise for improving among others economics, psychiatric practises,
management, justice as a whole. Kant was wrong when stating that good will is the only
unconditionally good. This discourse among other things also is. Also good things can lead to less
fortunate results, but that is a matter of wrong application and not of the nature of firstnesses as such.

2
3
Copyright

© 2006-2011 Drs.W.T.M. Berendsen

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior
permission of the author. Copyright in the work remains with the author.

This publication is circulated subject to the condition that it shall not by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, sold,
hired out or otherwise circulated without the original author’s prior consent in any form of binding or cover
other than in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the
subsequent publisher. Any permissions granted by the author can be cancelled by the author at any chosen
moment in time, unless agreed otherwise in some contract.

The author gives sole permission to Wilvon Organization & Developments, the company of the author, to
use this publication only for own company purposes, and only during the time that the author is involved in the
company and as long as the author agrees with this permission to Wilvon Organization & Developments.
This permission can be cancelled by the author at any chosen moment in time.

The full address of the author and artist of this work: Wilvon Organization & Developments

Drs.W.T.M. Berendsen
Middachtenstraat 53
7131 Ge Lichtenvoorde
The Netherlands
Mobile: 0031 6 519 416 75
E-mail: info@wilvon.com
Wilfred_vse@hotmail.com
Internet: http://www.wilvon.com

4
 I have got some plurisigns
I have got some secrets
I have got some plurisigns
To anotherness ways

Here are some plurisigns

For anotherness ways
It is desperately needed
After the big mess resulting from
The insanities of past and current generation
But we are the next generation
And have to change a lot
Towards wentelychistic and sane realities
This discourse will be key……
At least it should be!!!!!

5
“The composition of this book has been for the author a long struggle of
escape, and so must the reading of it be for most readers if the author's
assault upon them is to be successful,a struggle of escape from habitual
modes of thought and expression. The ideas which are here expressed so
laboriously are extremely simple and should be obvious. The difficulty lies,
not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones, which ramify, for
those brought up as most of us have been, into every corner of our minds “

J.M. KEYNES
A general theory of Employment, interest and money
13 December 1935

John Maynard Keynes used this words in his preface to “a general theory of
employment, interest and money”. Although I am sure the ideas and
understandings there can be improved, John Keynes his insights were great in
general. And also they have to add a lot to economics and society at large. I
express a bit about why the ideas of John Keynes are great and interesting in
other parts of this discourse, but also my insights are in line with Keynes. This is
not coincidence, but the result of true wisdoms and understandings.

As far as the statement of the words above go, the words of John Keynes are
great for expressing what I want to say about my own book. Just read and I hope
you will understand.

W.T.M Berendsen
A phronesis antenarrative- towards new ecosocial orders through the logic of
vagueness
January 2009

6
Abstract

Everything is not.
An antenarrative for a sane and great society.
Just start reading and anotherness possibilities based on a meta-semeiotical body of understanding
grounded on plurisigns, phronesis and the sole true structure of holoplurality will develop.

7
Table of contents
Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................7
Table of contents.............................................................................................................................................8
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................13
ON THE SPECIFIC REPRESENTAMEN CALLED “TITLE”......................................................................................................13
ON THE STRUCTURE AND CONTENTS OF THIS BOOK.........................................................................15
ON THE COMPLETENESSES OF THIS DISCOURSE.................................................................................18
ON RELATIVITY.................................................................................................................................................20
ON DUCKS AND RABBITS................................................................................................................................22
PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................................................32
LIST OF RELEVANT NOTIONS.......................................................................................................................40
A FUNDAMENTAL PHRONESIS DISCOURSE FOR UNLIMITED POSSIBILITIES, EXISTENCES
AND LAWS...........................................................................................................................................................55
1. THE POSSIBILITIES OF RELATIVE FIRSTNESSES..............................................................................55
Charles Sander Peirce...................................................................................................................................55
1.2 The dialogic world ................................................................................................................................58
Constructing the words to transfer your thoughts.........................................................................................60
About signs....................................................................................................................................................60
Sinsign, legisign and qualisign......................................................................................................................62
Rhema, digisign and argument......................................................................................................................67
Icon, index and symbol..................................................................................................................................68
On signs and universes..................................................................................................................................69
Abduction and retroduction...........................................................................................................................71
On entelechy and wentelechy........................................................................................................................74
Firstness, secondness and thirdness..............................................................................................................78
Immediate and dynamical object...................................................................................................................83
Indeterminacy, iteration and Replication......................................................................................................85
2. THE Y-NESSES OF ANOTHERNESSES......................................................................................................86
THE ENTELECHY OF EXISTENCE................................................................................................................86
SOME OTHER LOGICS ...............................................................................................................................................86
On plural sensed and unsensed anothernesses ............................................................................................86
On patterns in regularities............................................................................................................................89
On obstacles and borders..............................................................................................................................90
On differences in perspectives.......................................................................................................................91
On perceptual borders...................................................................................................................................93
On relativity...................................................................................................................................................95
On relative reference signs............................................................................................................................97
On wentelechy and simplicity......................................................................................................................103
On practicism and pragmaticism...............................................................................................................105
On blueness betweenness the granule.........................................................................................................108
On flying towards grace.............................................................................................................................111
On machines and staplers...........................................................................................................................113
On IDNU and IDNUE.................................................................................................................................114
Issues and persons that are NOT taken into regards, the possibilities of anothernesses...........................116
On positive and negative feedback loops....................................................................................................119
Playing with contexts...................................................................................................................................121
On reification .............................................................................................................................................123
On dreams and thoughts..............................................................................................................................125
On thoughts, existences and matter.............................................................................................................126
A plea for phronitical mind management....................................................................................................127
Fighting against the Devil...........................................................................................................................131

8
 On uniformities, dualities and triads...........................................................................................................133
The distorted dynamical interpretant- effect (DDI-effect)..........................................................................135
On the sophistications and excellence of quali-signs and whatever-signs.................................................136
On the signs of excellence of Peircean and Aristotelean metaphysics .......................................................137
On the beyondnesses and relativity of metaphysics....................................................................................139
On the conventions and perceptions of static social plurisigns..................................................................141
On the fatal errors and mistakes resulting from those terrible processes called induction and deduction
.....................................................................................................................................................................142
On the insanities of (Peircean) philosophy.................................................................................................145
On mathematic conventions........................................................................................................................147
On mathematical and non-mathematical conventions................................................................................152
On relativeness of Peircean categories.......................................................................................................154
On the illusion of facts.................................................................................................................................157
On the (illusion of) facts, and the role of opinions and understandings, in a storytelling society..............159
On models and structures............................................................................................................................162
On structures of insanities...........................................................................................................................164
On system-atical errors...............................................................................................................................167
On anotherness kant....................................................................................................................................169
On good and evil.........................................................................................................................................172
Completeness , logic and entelechy.............................................................................................................174
The chains of existences..............................................................................................................................176
On commodification....................................................................................................................................178
On the “guff”...............................................................................................................................................179
On tacit knowledge, tacit wisdom, tacit experience and the like................................................................182
On Isles of Dreams, floods of thought, perceptions of realities and realities of life...................................184
On possibilities, possibilia, dynamis, energeia, existences and laws..........................................................186
On philosophistics.......................................................................................................................................188
Aporia- a catalyst for growth......................................................................................................................190
Phronesis.....................................................................................................................................................191
On Aporia, (W)entelechy and phronesis.....................................................................................................193
On the understanding of understanding......................................................................................................194
On logic and signs.......................................................................................................................................195
On humanity................................................................................................................................................196
On pluralities, dualities and singularities...................................................................................................198
On small differances in sense-ation............................................................................................................200
On small differences in representamens.....................................................................................................202
On thought existences and reality existences..............................................................................................203
On fixations of believers..............................................................................................................................204
3. THE COMPLEXITIES OF ECOSOCIAL ORDERS OF LIFE................................................................205
A PHRONESIS ANTENARRATIVE................................................................................................................205
THE RELATIVE POSSIBILITIES OF LAWS...............................................................................................205
OUT OF THE MATRIX, INTO THE FUTURE.............................................................................................205
On Practicism..............................................................................................................................................205
On empirism, realism, rationalism and phronesis......................................................................................207
On intelligent social design.........................................................................................................................210
On sign-signs, object-signs and interpretant-signs (SS, OS,IS).................................................................211
On the sole and only true underlying structure and nature of our universes............................................212
On the sole sound and sane methodology..................................................................................................214
We all have a certain role in the wholenesses of life..................................................................................217
Anotherness ways to effectuate changes....................................................................................................218
On the arts of life.........................................................................................................................................219
On getting the means before knowing or agreeing on ends........................................................................220
On partial optimizations.............................................................................................................................222
On insane completenesses...........................................................................................................................223
On searching in the light.............................................................................................................................225
On generalities, specificities and a lot more...............................................................................................227
On philosophy..............................................................................................................................................230
On philosophia and philophronesis............................................................................................................232

9
....................................................................................................................................................................233
On plurisigns and pluriscience....................................................................................................................234
On the ultimate philophronesis ..................................................................................................................236
On Anothernesses and understanding Korzybski versus Bakhtin and lots more........................................237
On how to make my ideas clear...................................................................................................................241
On semantics, semiology, semiotics and semiphronesis.............................................................................244
On Myalosophy, semisophy and semiphronesis..........................................................................................247
On phronesis representia............................................................................................................................249
On representamen, phronesis representia and phronesis pluriflection......................................................255
On differances in notions and representamens...........................................................................................260
On phronesis and phronetic antenarratives................................................................................................266
On phronesis poeiesis..................................................................................................................................268
On phronesis antenarrating and beyond company’s social responsibility.................................................270
On bullshit towards all directions and situations.......................................................................................275
On relative bullshit......................................................................................................................................277
On semiotics, semisophy, semiphronesis and semiotic errors....................................................................279
On social hybridizations and unipluralism.................................................................................................282
On the importance of sound and sane fundaments......................................................................................286
On inbox thinking and doing.......................................................................................................................287
On the semiphronesis insanity of inbox conditioning.................................................................................289
On internal and external plurisigns............................................................................................................291
On beyondness of signs...............................................................................................................................292
The x-ness of signs – on talking or dancing together metaphors, representamens and reifications..........294
Definitions and understandings of definitions matter.................................................................................300
On soccer and a lot more............................................................................................................................300
On critical and non critical signs................................................................................................................304
On contextuality..........................................................................................................................................305
On thought existences and reality existences..............................................................................................307
On insane social fundaments.......................................................................................................................309
On the why of wrong insane sensemaking and structures in our universes................................................312
On fixation on possibilities..........................................................................................................................314
On the sole true structure of our universes versus sign structures.............................................................316
On the holoplural plurisign turn in social sciences and practises..............................................................318
On the practisistic shift................................................................................................................................322
On pluriscience and synechism...................................................................................................................324
On plurisigns and the pragmatic maxim.....................................................................................................328
On a more sane and elementary maxim......................................................................................................332
On (in)direct causations..............................................................................................................................335
On linearity..................................................................................................................................................337
The building blocks of life...........................................................................................................................339
On doing the opposite versus understandings.............................................................................................342
On perceptual dualities...............................................................................................................................344
On irrationalities of rationalities................................................................................................................345
On contents and relations............................................................................................................................346
On contents mattering the most...................................................................................................................348
On anotherness reification..........................................................................................................................350
On the pragmatic paradox versus multiple binding....................................................................................352
On self fullfilling idiocracies.......................................................................................................................356
On the roads of life......................................................................................................................................359
On fishes and birds.....................................................................................................................................362
On becomming one......................................................................................................................................365
Becoming one by the most sane dancing together methodology ................................................................366
On anotherness power.................................................................................................................................369
On anotherness Flyvbjerg debate................................................................................................................371
On judgment and misjudgment....................................................................................................................373
On Nietzschean nihilism..............................................................................................................................375
On logos and singular minds.......................................................................................................................377
On morals, virtues, intentions and incompleteness.....................................................................................378
On using and abusing..................................................................................................................................379
On tempo and rhythm..................................................................................................................................381

10
 On idiots and geniuses................................................................................................................................384
On sanity and insanity.................................................................................................................................385
4. TOWARDS NEW (ECOSOCIAL) ORDERS..............................................................................................386
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................386
Karl Marx and his methodologies...............................................................................................................387
My own methodologies ...............................................................................................................................389
The disadvantages of capitalism.................................................................................................................391
The illogics of capitalism............................................................................................................................394
On capitalist ego.........................................................................................................................................396
The other side of the coin............................................................................................................................399
Symptoms of bad management....................................................................................................................402
Some key insights.........................................................................................................................................404
Life is just a domino game...........................................................................................................................407
First rule of the domino game: it is NOT a game !.....................................................................................407
The kinds of capital....................................................................................................................................408
On anotherness bureaucracy.......................................................................................................................412
On the nature of governmental bodies........................................................................................................413
On narrating the organization....................................................................................................................414
On the nature of organizational collective mind.........................................................................................415
5. PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION............................................................................................................417
MANAGEMENT......................................................................................................................................................417
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................417
THE - LIBERAL - ARTS............................................................................................................................................419
Learning versus teaching............................................................................................................................419
Theory versus practise.................................................................................................................................420
OTHER PRACTICAL ISSUES AND CONCERNS.................................................................................................................422
The role of structures and laws...................................................................................................................422
On intelligence............................................................................................................................................424
On education...............................................................................................................................................426
On sensing and education..........................................................................................................................428
The change masters.....................................................................................................................................430
On virtues....................................................................................................................................................431
On virtues, values and practical wisdom....................................................................................................434
On semisophy, semiphronesis and arête.....................................................................................................436
On quality....................................................................................................................................................437
On differences in values..............................................................................................................................438
On real and perceptual values....................................................................................................................439
On social values like for instance transitivity and quality and intentions..................................................444
On confusing the nature of values...............................................................................................................447
On anotherness growth...............................................................................................................................449
On complex apple pies................................................................................................................................452
On meritocracy............................................................................................................................................454
On perceptions of democracy......................................................................................................................455
On the lionking and philosophistics............................................................................................................456
The injustice of justice.................................................................................................................................457
On social judgements and misjudgements...................................................................................................465
On the insanities of psychology and psychiatry..........................................................................................471
The transitive values and signs growing.....................................................................................................474
On trusting tacit wisdoms and understandings...........................................................................................476
On trial and errors......................................................................................................................................477
On money and transitive values.................................................................................................................478
On ponds and values..................................................................................................................................483
On the relevance of sane true structure of our universes............................................................................485
On fatal misconceptions of capitalism........................................................................................................488
On anotherness Milton Friedman...............................................................................................................491
ON A META-PHYSICAL REDUCTIONIST VERSUS META-SEMEIOTICAL PLURITIVE SYSTEM.......495
ON MONEY, THE GUFF, WEAKEST LINKS AND TAYLOR....................................................................501
On changing the rules of the money “ game” ............................................................................................504

11
On anotherness banking system..................................................................................................................507
On creativeness and money.........................................................................................................................509
On time and structures................................................................................................................................513
REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................................518
INDEX.........................................................................................................................................................522
Samenvatting (Summary, in Dutch).............................................................................................................539
About the author..........................................................................................................................................541

12
Introduction

On the specific representamen called “title”

A title is NOT. Just like everything named is NOT the sign. And the sign is NOT and will NEVER be
anything named. The bakhtin’s of life2 are always more or less important for the real, more complete,
picture.

This is why I decided to give this fundamental antenarrative (this book that is NOT) 3 title pages. The
first one (cover of the book/first page of the digital file) consists of more than one quite specific titles. In
the context of the 3 title pages, the titles on the first title page where the most complete entelygistic
ones I could think of. To cover the content of the contents of my dissertation and label it in a
rhetorically sound way for indexing, searching and marketing purposes.

The second title page is, in the context of the 3 title pages, what Peirce would call secondness. It is
communicating the most fundamental and still general basic thought for improving the semiotic
pragmaticistic theories of Charles Sanders Peirce. The IS NOT relates to the anothernesses that need
to be brought in. For understanding my essential and major improvements of semiotical theory and
practise. Meta-semeiotics is my notion and body of understanding, and it is the most excellent body of
understanding possible. Although it can and probably will be improved in future.

The last, third, title page is actually the best! Since it is empty. This emptiness, or (almost) mere
nothingness, is the (almost) mere nothingness of greater possibilities. And, it actually far better
describes the content of my PhD research (methodologies) , the content and possibilities of this book
and the possible anothernesses NOT mentioned in this book. And it actually communicates the way I
would prefer to handle the aim and contents of my PhD research process in case I would NOT want
something done with it (in many ways) and communicate what I know NOW. For myself only, I would
prefer NOT to put my ideas down on paper. For several reasons, the main being that this book IS NOT
and will never be. Another reason is the fact of limitations. Limitations of language, limitations of ways
to structure “my” antenarrative in most efficient ways, limitations of the people who might do something
with the messages and insights stated in this book and, if they are not blind for them, the
anothernesses NOT stated in this antenarrative. And some anotherness limitations. Solely for myself, I

2
With this Bakthin’s of life I mean anothernesses, but anothernesses based on holoplurality. I would call them
myself anotherness betweennesses, consisting of plurisigns-plural signs. This anothernesses, or holoplural
differences, being important for our sensemaking. Sensemaking being much broader than mindmaking, as also
our so-called realities consist of sensemaking. Objects, music, pieces of art, our money system. It is all part of
sensemaking. Our realities and universes have to be managed according to the most sane kinds of sensemaking,
which I developed a bit more and discuss among anothernesses in my discourses about Phronesis Antenarrating
and pluriflection.

13
would rather NOT spend my precious time with the boring and difficult task of trying to put my thoughts
and current wisdoms on paper. Knowing it will NEVER even reach a bit of the entelechy and richness
of what I learned (to understand) in the last couple of years. I would actually rather start to USE this
insights and wisdom I “have” now.

But, I actually know that for that, I need a lot of persons to better understand what I am writing down.
And that this way of communicating “my” antenarrative will for the long run have a bigger impact on
ecosocial systems and the lifes of us in general. If that was not the case, I would prefer NOT to put the
findings on my PhD process on paper.

For myself, main task of this process was to improve by learning. And to lay the foundations for
essential improvements in society. For that, I do not care about putting it down and get another
academical label. But for practise, my main interests, it is needed. So I will hope to overcome my
resistance for boring and time consuming typework. That you read this is prove I did. I just hope the
text will be very illuminating to a lot of people.

Last but not least. A title is, like I said, at least a means to label a discourse. Since it would be quite
difficult all the times to refer to this discourse (this book) by mentioning the whole title (apart from the
problem to mention the emptiness that is so important, also because of the great lack of signs and
structures) , I give some short version here. I myself would like this discourse to be referred to as “The
Phronesis antenarrative by Thot “. This pretty much reflects the discourse and should be a great
labelling. Of course Thot is fiction at this occasion, but then again Jesus and the new testaments most
probably also are in less or greater respects. Just like much more in our lives and (collective) minds.

14
On the structure and contents of this book

This book is, like every book, linear in structure. There are no possibilities to link texts or words or
other representamens at some place in the text with texts or words or other representamens in or
outside this “book”. At least not in the paper book version of this text. In the digital version, there will
probably be some links to external sources (like the internet), to representamens within this
fundamental antenarrative text and probably also some video clip material. This enables some better
possibilities for improvement of structure. But it is still the case that not only language but also
possibilities of current ways and structure of storage of information impose some significant limits on
the entelechy of this antenarrative. I would love to have some possibility to store this momentum and
fundamental text more object-oriented and, more important, dynamical. And (thereby) nearer to the
realities of life. But I guess the clarity of my antenarrative , the ways of representing it (ways of
representing the content) and also the great fundamental theoretical backgrounds (mainly Peircean
semiotics) guarantee that the major messages I want to communicate will be understood. At least by
people who are not “blind”. To them, it should be an illuminating discourse in many aspects.

Regarding the contents of this book. First of all, what is in is NOT by far what I know. And what could
be in. The book is only fundamental and meant for some first shot towards more entelygistic and
practical ecosocial orders in society. But, it is a good blueprint. Enough for a lot of people to
drastically change their ways of viewing the world and improving their ways of functioning in both
private and public life. And to enable a major shift in these ecosocial systems by means of the catalyst
function of this antenarrative for lots of people. Hopefully. It might be that there are a lot of mistakes or
ways of improving this discourse. But, that does not matter. Like I said, the discourse like I put it on
paper just now is just meant as a fundamental discourse. Meant as a base for further improvements of
both individuals and societies. With some bigger emphasis on phronesis, management and
economics. Especially in the field of business and economics, this discourse should mean a hopefully
big difference. But, foremost, in the fields of social sciences and practises. Mainly because of the
greatest fundament being my notion of holoplurality and the accompanying meta-semeiotical
perspective.

I start with some theoretical discussion on mainly semiotics. And place them in some broader
perspective. This is to show the huge, almost unlimited possibilities of Peircean semiotics. But also to
show the errors and mistakes in Peircean philosophy. And to offer some sound introduction to what
actually is the main part of this book. This main part is dealing with how to improve ecosocial orders in
practise. By means of my philophronesis meta-semeiotical body of understanding called practicism or
practisism. Through this, I hope to give some fundamental possibilities for more entelygistic ways of
organizing future ecosocial orders.

15
Meta-semeiotics is , for several reasons, far more excellent than semeiotics. Semeiotics, Peircean
semeiotics, is based on the WRONG fundaments still. The wrong, limited perspective leading to a lot
of problems in current societies. A meta-semeiotical perspective can and will solve a lot of problems.

A VERY important tool for solving this problems but also for living and enchantment in general, is
communication. Or, better, storytelling. Like I stated in a paper on enchantment that I wrote for the
2010 IFSAM world conference on management, enchantment is about the most optimal fit of
plurisigns, being much more entelychistic and great than uniplurals. This fit of plurisigns is about sane
sensemaking. And about sane sensemaking it can be expressed here just shortly that I discussed this
part in my discourse about Phronesis Antenarrating. It should be mentioned here very clearly that both
my writings for IFSAM but also my writing about Phronesis Antenarrating and about all my other
writings are in the end all about enchantment of our universes. The texts that I did write and will write
but that are not included in this discourses, should all be considered to be either an important part or a
great addition to enchantment, meta-semeiotics, phronesis and my meta-semeiotical body of
understanding called practicism or practisism.

As regards to storytelling. This notion has been developed a lot during the last couple of years in the
fields of change management by several scholars, the most excellent one being most probably David
Boje. I like his notions of Lazarus antenarrative and Vampire antenarratives a lot. This are especially
great notions if we realize that there is also Vampire sensemaking and vampire storytelling. Being
reductionist perspectives and therefore sensemaking, leading to DAMAGE. And, although it does not
matter that much whether this damage occurs to objects, it DOES matter A LOT more mostly in case
this damage occurs to nature or other living creatures or humans. Like David stated, a Vampire
antenarrative would be about “sucking the blood out of….”. The terrible or even horrible issue is, that
there is a lot of reductionist sensemaking in our universes. Sucking the blood, or life, out of US.
Enchantment is, once again, about a most optimal fit of plurisigns. Which is about lazarus
antenarratives and lazarus sensemaking. As both our writing but also organizational sensemaking is
mostly concentrating on rational and non-living, we sometimes fail to see a lot of social human
sensemaking parts and importances. In organizations, it is mostly products first. And persons being
employees. But, of course, persons are much MORE than solely employees. Persons are
PERSONALITIES. With, more or less, FEELINGS. Of course. This feelings can not be taken into
regards always, but in the end Lazarus requires a real great shift from products first to personalities
first. Since at the moment, there is a lot of blood and life sucking going on. By neglecting the most
important anothernesses, being feelings and real true living. We need to reenchant our society and life
with much more LIFE and real true living. Although this discourse I have written might SEEM to not
take that into regards that much, this actually truly is the most important issue here. Throughout the
WHOLE of this discourse and beyond.

16
One of the most important issues to be realized, is the fact that this discourse incorporates and
initiates the most perfect way of viewing and understanding. The ultimate phronetic body of
understanding, although some parts of this body of understanding can and must be improved in later
stages.

I am interested in Peircean semiotics. And also in the works from Kant and Aristotle. But, at least Kant
and Peirce where kind of inbox kind of thinking persons. They might have realized this, but where not
capable yet to move towards the higher levels of understandings. I think Aristotle also coped with the
same problem of getting towards real true ultimate levels of understandings. But it might also very well
be that I simply lack enough insights into the real true understandings of this great master of
philosophy. But I guess not.

In later stages of this discourse I will elaborate in greater details about the errors in Peircean
semiotics. And my own alternatives for that. For now, it is just important to remark that I really truly
understand and offer a much greater level of phronetic insights. For those who understand it, this can
lead to great possibilities for improving just about anything social around us. It can be key for a lot of
improvements in change management, management in general. Economics. Psychology and
sociology. The law, laws and justice system can be improved drastically. Just to name some.

This book should offer some possibility to move out of the insane and reductionist habits of sense
making exhibited by most of the persons on this globe in numerous cases. Most of all, it should enable
people to get the insights of what I call semisophy and semiphronesis errors. Being errors caused
mainly by the fact that most people are still into reductionist and inbox kind of thinking and
understandings. Not being able to move towards the higher levels of understandings. Nietzsche, one
of the few real great intellectuals of the past, has also been trying to do the same by means of his
great text “beyond good and evil “. But, he did not succeed well enough. And possibly I will also not
succeed in my efforts yet. Since in the end a lot of people still cope with getting out of the matrixes. Or
they simply do not want to, since it is just not the most easy way of doing and acting. And possibly
harmful for the people doing so. Mainly because of the fact that in the end, the relative idiots inside of
the boxes are still having more influence. They are just ruling and arranging our worlds and society at
large, and very often harm the greater people with or without realizing what they are really truly doing
to them.

17
On the completenesses of this discourse

Some great falconry friend of mine did make me realise even more that incomplete discourses can
often be much better than complete ones. It is great if an individual, being a scientist or whatever,
takes up a discourse on complex matters and strives towards making this discourse really complete.
But I think in many cases it is just better to leave the discourse incomplete, maybe also since the
person simply can not make the discourse really complete and sound.

Also because of this considerations, I have to say that I find it rather strange that in Science every
discourse is expected to be complete and reflecting the truth. Since also scientists are persons who
make mistakes and will not know and understand everything. I for one did take up this discourse. And I
think I understand much better than any other person on the globe now about a lot of matters and
issues explained and discussed here. But in a lot of respects I am just as much a fool as any other
person on this globe. And there are certainly a lot of persons more wise in a lot of an otherness
respects. Who will be able to add and improve on this discourse.

Anyways, what this great falconry friend told me was told in the light of some discussion on arts in this
case the arts of painting and drawing birds of prey. What he said, was something like that in arts it is
sometimes better to stop earlier than planned with some drawing or painting (e.g some less complete
version) than to continue and trying to make it more complete. Example of it being for instance a
developing artist in animal arts who plans to draw a whole falco peregrinus peregrinus. But then stops
with the painting when having only the head. Since he or she knows studying anatomy and especially
the claws (for instance) is still needed to make that parts also perfect and excellent. In that case just
being very satisfied with some excellent drawing of the head is a very intelligent and wise decision.

I actually very well remember the first time I visited a falconry friend of mine who I now regard being
one of the best friends I ever had. I saw some great arts of birds of prey hanging there. Then
wondered which great artist had drawn these great drawings. When looking more closer to these
drawings, I saw the name of my friend accompanying them. And now, the last year, he has drawn a
great drawing of a goshawk. A complete gos, but the gos is missing his feet still. And no branch or
bow perch drawn below the gos. This is already the case for about a year, and I asked my friend
several times whether he would still complete the gos drawing. Now I am reading this part of my
discourse again, I think I understand what my friend already understands for longer time period. Which
is, of course, that the gos drawing already is considered to be complete. While an actual gos of course
not is without feet, a drawing of a gos without the feet of course can be. Just like only a peregrine
falcon head drawn can be a great complete piece of art.

18
Now, similar to this situations in arts I think it should be also much more common in the art of science
that parts of the discourses and texts are just left incomplete. And by that leaving some possibilities
open for more wise and clever persons on certain fields of knowledge and wisdom to complete the
discourses there. In the end science is an art and also it is an instance of Rhetoric. The Rhetorics of
science are that the scientific discourses are going on and on. Signs are growing3 and by that
generally becoming more and more complete and excellent. We as scientific and intellectual
community should be more and more clear about the fact that science is not something that results
from one individual or mind. But that each scientific discourse is actually the result of collective minds
of more great persons in our societies. That each text is not written solely by that one clever mind but
a result of collective hard work.

Also this discourse is result of very hard work. Individual hard work mainly, since of course I am not
constantly having such great insights as reflected in this discourse. But without the use of the
collective hard work of a lot of other great individuals, I would not have grown to such great extends
and it would never have been possible to create this great piece of art. Mainly Peirce and his writings
have been a great catalyst for growth. I did get a lot of insights by means of Peircean discourses. But
on the other hand I realise the shortcomings of both Peirce and his main source, Aristoteles. Both
Peirce and Aristoteles made some serious errors in their ways of thinking, part of which I will explain
further on in this discourse.

Every discourse is written by one person, while there will be great anothernesses to be brought in by
other wise persons for sure. Which is why it would maybe be better if some questions and remarks just
stay vague in a discourse and the answering of it are just left towards future generations well future
readers of the discourse. It is surely not wise and intelligent to expecting every discourse to be
complete and closed reasoning.

This discourse stated on paper here is not all of the discourse. Which is why I might even not continue
with parts of the discourse or the like in this text if I announce to do so. It might also be I will do so just
later on. Or never. Because, for rhetorical or artistic or whatever reasons, it might just be better to
consider the discourse in this text as being complete enough. And move on to other activities and
considerations. Like I just have to stop thinking and writing about the issues in this discourse at least
to get on with my own lives. Flying and enjoying the bond with my birds of prey. And making my own
life much more complete still.

3
In the light of signs growing, I can strongly recommend the book “ signs grow” by Floyd Merrell. The best
way to understand the real essences and nature of signs growing is however to read this discourse alongside the
book “ signs grow” and a lot of other books and actualities. I can strongly recommend also to read at least some
of the other books mentioned in the references of this discourse. Most of the books mentioned are supplementary
to this discourse in some or anoterness ways.

19
On relativity

One of the most important messages of this antenarrative is, that every representamen IS NOT. Even
the semiotics of Charles Sanders, and this antenarrative, are both far too structural if it is not seen and
understood that the anothernesses (betweennesses, amongnesses, withinnesses, aroundnesses
etcetera) that are NOT to be found in the representamens do play some major role. Depending on how
specific the representamens are and the applicable contexts and living creatures involved, this role
can be more or less important. But overall, the anothernesses of life have huge impacts. Or they have
the possibilities to generate huge impacts. How huge is something only the most bright people can find
out. By returning to the worlds of thoughts and dreams once and a while, reflecting on the possibilities
of the less specific “implicate orders”. Most efficient is to reflect in the world of thoughts about worlds
of existences (what we call reality and real) after returning from the dream world (whether it be night
dreaming or day dreaming). This might and can often lead to great insights. Why this is the case will
be discussed later on in this narrative of life.

To improve the theories of Charles Sanders Peirce and others, it is good to make some additional
distinction in worlds of thought and worlds of matter. What I mean, is the following way of distinctions
and indexes. For some way of subdividing what Bohm calls implicit and explicit worlds, I would at least
make the distinctions of the Isle of dreams, the floods of thoughts, the perceptions of reality and the
reality of life. But, even this distinctions are too structural. And for a better insight in both implicit and
explicit worlds and orders, a further subdivision would be good. And to link it with neurological science
is even better, it leads to lots of pragmatic insights. More about this later on.

There is some excellent storytelling about relativity to be found, among (an) others, somewhere on the
internet. I mean the example of some smart guy called William James. And then I do NOT mean the
great American philosopher William James, who was a close friend of CS Peirce and among others
took part in the metaphysical club4 together with Peirce. The William James I am referring to here, is
another William James. William James Sidis. This Sidis guy had some story on relativity with some
pole and a squirrel in it. If you are lucky, you can still find it on the internet. At www.quantonics.com.
There is a lot of more interesting stuff there. Also about Robert Pirsig. And well…ok..let me help you a
bit with the squirrel..it is on http://www.quantonics.com/The_Prodigy_Review.html#Squirrel%20Logic
still. I hope. By the way, the great American philosopher William James did also use this example of
the squirrel around the pole. For one of his lectures, being “what pragmatism means” (second lecture
of his “pragmatism: a new name for some old ways of thinking”), he starts with some discourse about
the metaphysical discussion about same squirrel example. Which was at least used, probably also
created, before by his contemporary William James Sidis.
4
This metaphysical club is, among others, discussed in the book “the metaphysical club” by Louis Menand. It
deals with pragmatism and, as regards to Peirce, pragmaticism. Key figures in the book are the great American
jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes and philosophers William James and Charles Sanders Peirce. If you want to know
more about this metaphysical club, the internet is also your friend. If you find the better sources (not all info on
the net is as great, of course. This is also the main reason why Larry Sanger started Citizendium)

20
The last thing I might say about relativity here is, that the more you understand from this particular
discourse, the more you will understand that a lot of representamens in this discourse are actually
NOT. Also because my notions of particular terminologies, also the ones of Peirce or some
postmodern terms, are actually incorporating some other qualities (according to the Peircean notion of
qualities) than the regular notions concerned.

21
On ducks and rabbits

A guy called Joseph Jastrow did some psychological experiments with CS Peirce. He however also
used some ambiguous (or reversible) figure to show that perception is also a mental activity. That we
also “see” with our minds (by which I do not mean the notion of mind of Peirce and others like me, but
the notion of mind as being only part of the brain stuff in our head) . I will continue on this later on
when talking about senses. For now, I only want to show the ambiguous figure firstly used in science
by jastrow. Together with some other ambiguous figure. Then I also want to show some illusive
jastrow picture here.

Regarding the ambiguous figures, I will show 2 here. One can be a representamen for a duck/rabbit.
The other can for instance be a representamen for a whale/kangaroo. As you might see (although I
hope you see they are NOT) :

The duck/rabbit version here is not the one of Jastrow, but a changed version by the German
Psychologist Walter Ehrenstein (1899-1961). Fact is that people who overcode this picture could see
either a duck or a rabbit in the first representamen. I myself like the rabbit more, but I think my falcon
prefers the duck. Then again, it is one of the few falcon species that also hunts fur in nature. So guess
she might agree with me. I wish I could have some conversation with her about it. On ducks and
rabbits. But maybe she can convince me it is a snipe. Because part of the decision what it is rests on
pre-assumptions and the fixation of our interpretations by means of just telling it would be a rabbit or
duck. To me it misses some of the qualisigns for being so. Or, like Umberto Eco would say, the
representamen of Jastrow is undercoded for being a representamen of a duck or a rabbit to me.

22
But well, to me as a falconer a drawing or other representamen of an American Kestrel (falco
sparverius) would not be a goshawk. But I am afraid it would be for a lot of people.

Even a clear picture of an American kestrel (falco sparverius) will cause errors in sensemaking:

Probably at least some people would know the name of the bird catched by this falco sparverius
(American Kestrel). But would they know that the bird represented in the picture is an American
kestrel? I guess not! Let alone the discussions about differences in individual kestrels…for more
thoughts about that I would strongly suggest the great research of Charles Sanders Pierce and Joseph
Jastrow reflected in the text “on small differences of sensation”.

In the light of this example, I can also mention that my own accipiter nisus was often confused with
being a falco species or accipiter gentiles. Which are both really very distinct and other creatures for
those who understand.

23
Now, the intriguing question there is who would be right. Saying something on a picture is something
in real life. Because, in actuality a drawing is NOT and will never be. What is actually the semantic
error made here, is the confusion of mixing the representamen with the object. Representamen and
object are just different things, of course. Not to be interpreted as being the same kind of things with
same natures and realities. Although most people are conditioned in this wrong ways early on in their
childhoods. With books with representamens of horses and cows and the like.

Further more, it can be remarked that the external qualities and usage of a representamen are very
important for the interpretation of the representamen as such. A representamen is often a matter of
convention or assumption. So actually if we would agree that the right drawing up here would be a car
instead of a whale or whatever, I guess it would be.

Umberto Eco, in his book “a theory of semiotics”, did introduce the notions of overcoding and
undercoding5. He does explain those notions a bit there, but this explanation is rather theoretical still.
By referring to representamens and signs, but not giving some clear explanation. I myself will try to
explain it much clearer here. By taking the duckrabbit as an example. Since, I came to the insight that
this picture of Jastrow could also give a lot of insights in that. Especially when it is connected with the
universes of Charles Sanders Peirce.

Let us start with the notions of representamens, object(s) and interpretants of Charles Sanders Peirce.
Actually, the duckrabbit can be seen as a representamen. The drawing, the representamen,
represents some possibilities. The possibilities of being a duck or a rabbit or whatever. Whether a
drawing or representamen will actually really be seen as a duck or rabbit or whatever, although it is
not and never will be, depends on a lot. Most of all on the interpretants and the quality of the
interpreter. Some less critical and less perfectionist interpreter will sooner judge some representamen
as equalling a duck or a rabbit than some more critical, or more expert interpreter. Also, the role of
other interpreters will play a major role. Peirce already made some distinction in types of interpreters,
but his typologies of interpreters is, of course, by far not complete enough. Just like this discourse or
any discourse never will be. Without critical individual minds and relying on the collective minds, one
would most likely determine the representamen as being a duck or a rabbit.

5
It might be that Alfred Korzybski uses some other labels for this phenomenon of over coding /under coding in
his book called “science and sanity”.

24
The people who really understand what I am writing in this discourse, but also the people who really
understand Korzybski (and Eco), should say: no it is NOT a duck. It is NOT a rabbit. It is simply a
representamen. We can say it resembles a duck or a rabbit, BUT it is missing the following to actually
really look like a duck or a rabbit. Although it will never actually be. Just like some of the accused and
imprisoned will never actually be criminal. And probably a lot of “insane” people are actually not
insane, but labelled and treated that way because a lot of psychiatric professionals are actually insane
themselves. More on that later. For now, I want to remark that by now I understand that at least some
GREAT part of the people being either into the process of or already into psychiatric institutions or
prisons, are actually not really criminal or bad but on the contrary just GREAT persons even greater
than the inbox kind of persons grounding their sensemaking on partial insanities. The perceived
criminal or psychiatric persons actually being the more sane and therefore just grounding their
sensemaking and acts on great fundaments leading to conflicts with the mainstream insanities.

Now, regarding the overcoding and undercoding of Eco. People who will be non-critical and just
agreeing with the convention of the representamen being a duck or a rabbit will just judge it being
either a duck or a rabbit. But, even if they do, if you will very critically ask what is missing, they will for
sure be able to give some qualities (in Peircean sense) what is missing in the representamen to be
what they say it is. So, in fact each interpreter would agree that the representamen is undercoded in
some ways. Or that their interpretants are overcoded.
This overcoding and undercoding of signs has an impact on a lot of aspects of social practice.
Overcoding / undercoding in fact also leads to a lot of fundamental attribution errors. And it is core of
some aspects of reification.

With regards to the fundamental attribution errors, overcoding and undercoding are part of the issues
that cause this error. And maybe it are the only reasons. But, they have to be seen in some broader
lights. Since, overall the fundamental attribution error is caused by a too narrow point of view by the
interpreter. The fundamental attribution error is actually some more specific instance of a fundamental
interpretation error. And, these interpretation errors are overall caused by some wrong perspective
and points of view from the interpreters. Or a lack of right information, but this actually is also leading
to wrong perspectives (or perceptions) of the interpreter(s).

Practical examples of fundamental interpretation errors are for instance a lot of errors made in justice
and by insane psychics and other persons working in the social spheres. A well known example in
justice is the so-called tunnel view of a lot of judicial people. This occurrence is known, but in the end
no-one really deals with it to prevent this dangerous error. Then another practical example of a
fundamental interpretation error that is caused by a too narrow point of view is the example of a
person stating that people or mankind would be generally bad or evil. Such a statement is based on a
too narrow point of view and lack of information. This lack of information can indeed be because of
other reasons than taking too narrow a view, but ultimately every lack of information is caused by the
interpreter not wanting to think critically enough and to get the right information.

25
In the end, really every correct and true points of view are already there in the worlds and universes
around us. People “only” have to be able and really care about getting the right perspectives. This
being able to is something that most people lack in current times, but also that should be solved in the
long runs.

Another example of a fundamental interpretation error would be if someone does think that the
positivist and the negativist attitude in people is based on the same context, the differences in being
positive and negative solely being based in the characters of the persons being positive and negative.
Because, in most occurrences it will be (almost) solely the context and moments of time that
determine a person to be positive or negative about something. Also, the intelligence of a person does
have a word there. Because, someone more intelligent and wise will mostly “see” a lot more then other
persons. This might cause him to be more positive and/or more negative in certain occasions.
Actually, a very wise and great person who would know a lot of ways to improve our society has more
reasons to be negative than a person who does not see any problems of society. Actually, the
fundamental attribution error is far more profound in our society than people would realise at first
notices. Since people just mostly lack the capacities and insights to move towards thirdnesses and
most sophisticated levels of understandings.

Joseph Jastrow made some illusion with laminas. This is the next one:

Although is does appear that the lamina’s above have different measures, they are actually both
exactly same sizes. This Jastrow Illusion, but also some other ones, can be found on
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/WundtIllusion.html. What this Jastrow illusion tells us, is that our senses
can even misguide us when we have some rather simple objects straight before our eyes and very
near to each other. This may make you worry about the extend of reliability of our senses in more
complex cases where appearances of signs6 are far less explicate.
6
Sign like used here can be just everything. Really everything around us is considered a sign. Probably this was
the point of view of CS Peirce, and it certainly is my point of view. Every process around us is an instance of
signs growing there. Not only we grow, but also a seemingly statical object like a chair or a laptop grows. The

26
Judging about facts, appearances and events in the “real” world is really not easy, even though we
have and use all of our senses. Mainly because our main universal sense, the mind, is really not
optimally functioning yet. Especially in social reality, we all still have to learn a lot still. And a lot of
perception is reality still, although it would better be not. In fact, the more you “see”, the more you
realize that perceptions are much more profound in our “realities” than most people realize. There are
a lot of realities around us that are actually more like fiction and perceptions. Actually, a great part of
our society and universes consist of fictions and perceptions of reality. And perceptions can be really
damaging…to people.

One of the perceptions that should NOT be reality, is the fact that too many people think they can rely
on their senses perfectly. Which is NOT. In the mind, a lot of areas are connected in multiplicity.
William James states somewhere that brains do not record, but construct. This notion of construction
is very important. Since, this construction is a selection process executed only once in a momentum.
Based on the parts that are available and somehow put together in the contexts of this individual mind
perception.

Another one is the reality that a lot of people just do not understand their own weaknesses enough,
and by that harm others. The last perception is especially harmful in socially complex but relevant
situations. Like for instance in justice. There, too many people having too low knowledge and insights
have the perception that they know everything and that they can rely on their senses enough. Without
listening to others and taking other perspectives into account enough. Which is why they quite often
stay with the possibilities, but interpretate them as being existences. Or maybe laws. I dare to say that
almost no professional in justice really understands and reaches the state of actual laws. Which simply
means they make a lot of mistakes in about every law suit. This is not my perceptions, but it is really
without doubt a clear fact. Justice is not about justice. It is about people making a lot of mistakes and
by that also harming the people who are really innocent. These innocent people being treated by a
system and people who put a lot of innocent people in jail. Leading to the perception of criminalities
where actual criminality is much lower than perceived.

one chair is not the other chair, even if they look the same. Actually the representamen is also not the sign and
even the sign itself is different in each moment in time. Continuous movements, growth and changes everywhere
around us.

27
In justice, witnesses are far too often just believed on what they are telling. While in far too many
cases, same witnesses are lying about what actually happened. At least this happens a lot when the
witnesses know the prosecuted persons. While there is no actual true evidence supporting what is
being told, that often simply does not matter for justice. Something being told by the witnesses is
proof, whether there is evidence or not. The things being told ARE the evidence, whether they are lies
or the truth does not make a difference there. While witness testimonials are interpretated as being
evidence, they are NOT. But also there, perception is actually reality. Leading to a lot of disasters for
the persons concerned. And even to the justice system and people working in it being guilty of serious
crimes like for instance the indirect murder of people. Serious offences against the universal rights of
people. Harming innocent people in the most terrible ways possible.

28
 Anonymous Buddhist:

Life is just a game

First rule of the game:

It is NOT a game!!!!7

7
Besides that, It will be mentioned in this discourse that the map is not the territory. And even that the map is
not the map and/or the territory is not the territory. But these two notions have nothing to do with the phrase
above on this page. And understanding them requires an at least rough understanding of the death genius called
Charles Sander Peirce.

29
 Let the “games” excel

So here I am at some stage of my life where time has passed and time will come. Having spent a lot of
my precious hours, days and even years doing what? Mainly reflecting. Reflecting about many aspects
of our society. And social sciences at large. Mainly because I, like so many intelligent people in current
society, could sense that a lot can be much better for sure. That there is a lot of vagueness8 in current
societies. That there must be some other “logic” then the logic currently applied by the majority of
people living on this part of the globe where economy is largely influenced by what is called
“capitalism”. A term which means something different for everyone. But on a whole it entails results
that in fact destroy capitalism if things go bad and destroys capital less if things go well. But always
capital is not exactly profiting from capitalism in current times (first years of 2000). For social capital,
capitalism can sometimes be called a real disaster. I will mention later on in this discourse what is
wrong with capitalism and how it can be changed to true capitalism, which in my opinion should not
destroy but create capital. Not only financial capital, but also social capital and all kinds of other
capital. It will be explained what kinds of capital are there at least, the relation between the kinds of
capital and why and how all of this capitals should be encouraged and build up. Instead of destroying
what has been build up with lots of efforts all the time. And to make it more clear and logic, I will
explain why it is better to replace the notion of capital into the notions of value(s).

8
With vagueness, I here mean about the same kind of vagueness that CS Peirce is aiming at in his discourses. It
is explained a bit in the text “Peirces logic of vagueness” written by Phyllis Chiasson. To be found, hopefully
still when you are reading this discourse, at http://www.digitalpeirce.fee.unicamp.br/home.htm. Some other great
texts about Peirce’s thoughts and insights can be found there.

30
My reflections have also been about how to put my thoughts and my way of viewing the world on
paper. But actually, this is cleared up quite well now. I choose to write in normal speaking language
and to try to keep my discourse as transparent and clear as possible. Not paraphrasing the great
minds of history too much just for paraphrasing them or making the discourse longer then necessary.
The fact is, that I read l lot and I have been searching for some important answers. What I was
basically searching for was universal truth about how life actually is and more specifically what we as
individuals and society as a whole would have to know to be able to create an economy in ways that
real recessions could be over. Forever. And, I think I found that. But besides that, I found much more. I
found a lot that we should know to manage whatever in society. And to understand society as a whole.

A great part of the universal meta-semeiotical body of knowledge regarding thoughts and real world is
clear to me now. In many aspects of life and the world of thoughts. Only a small part of my knowledge
and insights will be discussed in this discourse. A lot, really a lot, of insights and knowledge I did
gather is not yet. Main aims for me in future will be to put a lot in practise. If I get any chance of doing
so.

31
Preface and acknowledgements

This discourse is, in many respects, different from most if not all of the other discourses written in
society. Because of several reasons. One of them being the HUGE potentials of the content. This
discourse really is, what I call, a phronesis antenarrative. Being an antenarrative in the most
elementary and fundamental ways, while meanwhile inhabiting the most entelychistic and great
insights of our universes.

In my main discourse about Phronesis Antenarrating, I express that each antenarrative aimed at
improving (social) aspects of our society should be as phronetic as possible. But, a phronetic
antenarrative (being an antenarrative inhabiting enough phronetic elements to be judged being
phronetic) is not the same as a phronesis antenarrative. A phronetic antenarrative being a specific
type of antenarrating, while a phronesis antenarrative is a specific type of both antenarrative and
phronetic antenarrative.

A phronesis antenarrative is the fundamental kind of antenarrative that precedes further growth of our
universes and society at large. It precedes and follows more or less (phronetic) antenarratives.
Because of this, it has to incorporate the fundamental “firstnesses” needed to understand and improve
more developed signs in our universes at large.

This discourse precisely does so. In most impressive ways. IF the content is understood in proper
ways. The more I read in other books and discourses, the more I understand this is the case. Actually,
whatever book I read on social sciences and social phenomena, the more I understand my own
discourse inhabits fundamental insights for moving ahead in most impressive ways.

More specifically, I could mention the book “the origin of wealth” by Eric Beinhocker. Beinhocker, being
a senior advisor for Mckinsey, has produced a quite interesting book. With an analysis of the
development and general state of economics during the last decades. This book is actually one of the
few books I would not put on the book mountains I got at home far before reaching the end of it. But, it
is still a book I have quite some critiques upon. The most important one being the fact that Beinhocker
still is a too much inbox kind of thinker. Meaning he most obviously lacks a lot of understandings,
although his general analysis of economic science is interesting and relevant.
But overall it is actually very disappointing to learn that a senior advisor of one of the biggest
consulting firms of Western society could only produce what he did while having such huge amounts
of assistants and backup of colleagues and lots of intellectuals. To me, it is another clear proof of the
general low level of intellectuals and practitioners in the fields of social sciences and practises.

What I produced in this discourse is MUCH more entelychistic and great. And, I produced it almost
solely on my own. Maybe that is one of the reasons why it is better. But generally, that does not matter
too much. What matters is that my discourse, THIS discourse, offers the potentials to largely improve

32
social sciences and practises. It is the fundament for understanding about everything in social
sciences and practises, and by that to improve almost everything in our universes and societies
towards the most optimal existences.

One of the key things to understand, is that this discourse should be understood in much more
holoplural and multidimensional ways than the general form of it would suggest. As stated in
anotherness parts of this discourse, the map is not the territory. This representamen, being the effort
of trying to express my understandings in a linearly constructed text, is by far not complete. And it is by
far not the way I would like to express. If only I had more multidimensional and plural ways available to
express my understandings, it would largely improve the impact and possibilities. But, altogether, this
text can and will offer huge possibilities. If only people will understand. But, this understanding will
grow if the understanding of this kind of remarks from me will grow.

Somewhere else in this discourse, I mention that it will improve if the parts of it can be integrated
more. The reason I did not is partly because of limits of writing. But it is also because of the fact that a
further integration requires more understanding. In case I would integrate it much further already now,
it would mean less people would understand. But of course, I also need to understand well enough
then. And generally, I can state that my understandings are also still growing.

One of the key understandings being much more clear to me now, is that one rather simple but key
methodology can and must be key for improving our universes and society at large. This methodology
being the methodology called narrating. With antenarrating being the absolute fundamental
methodology of it. Hopefully I can make my point more clear by paraphrasing some sentences out of
the book “the origin of wealth” by Eric Beinhocker:

“”Roger Schank, the director of the Institute for Learning Sciences at Northwestern University and the
former director of the Yale artificial Intelligence laboratory, has conducted research showing the
centrality of stories to our mental processes for understanding, remembering, and communicating. As
plato said : “those who tell the stories rule society”……….Why is storytelling and story listening so
important to the way we think? ….stories are a way in which we learn” ( The origin of wealth, Eric
Beinhocker, p.126/127)

Although Beinhocker also refers to the insane methodologies of induction and deduction there, the
general argument about storytelling is spot on. Storytelling, but more elementary antenarrating and
narrating, are key. Simply because our minds are key. For whatever happens in our universes.
Antenarrating and narrating can and should be the vessel for change, supported by the right contents.
These contents being great phronesis antenarratives and besides that great methodologies.

With regards to entelychistic antenarrating methodologies, it depends on the aims of the antenarrating
and the contexts and acts to be understood which methodologies fit the best. Of course. But generally,

33
with regards to antenarratives aimed at improving our societies, mostly the most open and flexible
approaches fit best. Actually mostly the less theorizing the better. Since ultimately phronesis
antenarratives are aimed at practises, not at theorizing. And generally a right way of antenarrating will
suffice there. This phronesis antenarrative incorporates enough clues as what this way of practising
phronesis and phronesis antenarratives would involve. But generally, I have elaborated more about it
in the piece I wrote about Phronesis Antenarrating. This discourse can be found in the overview of my
papers at www.academia.edu and also in some draft book I published on
www.scribd.com/wberendsen.

While phronesis antenarrative is the vessel for change, phronesis itself is about the key fundamentals
to start with. Because of this, these key fundamentals have to inhabit the most elementary wisdoms of
our universes at large. This universe not only being the universal existence called society, but also all
other universes as such. At least all the universes we are involved in. I say universes since I would like
to still make distinctions between several types of universes of possibilities and several types of
universes of existences. For instance, our floods of dreams would be a very specific type of universe.
But, in the end, all the universes are intrinsically connected with each other. Although some borders
and limits can be found in and between the several universes as such.

Some of the key starting points of my discourse was and is to be found in the philosophical writings
and understandings of Charles Sanders Peirce. Quite some of his semiotics has been base for further
understandings. But, I hope it becomes clear in and throughout my discourse that I became quite
opposed to his ways of thinking because of some major critiques against Peircean semiotics.

One of the most elementary critiques is the lack of understandings of Peirce himself. I give many
reasons for this in the discourse itself, but would like to mention one fundamental which I did not
express too well in the discourse itself just here. Being the fact that Peirce did probably not understand
both the implications of and the fact itself that the bigger part of his trichotomies are actually
representamens themselves. As the great Korzybski would have said there, the map is not the
territory. Postmodernists would maybe recognize some aspects of reification in Peircean trichotomies.
Altogether, also because of this, these representamens are a reductionist and relativistic way of
expressing the realities and universes surrounding us. Apart from this, the wrong understandings of
structures of our universes cause some major errors in Peircean semiotics.

In this discourse, I tried to both reveal the problems of Peircean semiotics but at the same time also
offering the better approaches and understandings. By now, I am certain I managed to do so in most
impressive ways. I am sure, really sure, that the levels of understandings reflected in this phronesis
antenarrative discourse inhabit the keys to arrive at the most entelychistic insights and understandings
ever reachable in our universes as such. Actually I already reached this, but at the same time I
understand a lot of fundamentals have to be refined and implemented still.

34
The underlying approach and perspective taken throughout my discourse can be seen as highly
constructionistic in nature. Through this scientific perspective, I agree with the general social
constructionist views. But, the nature and contents of my discourse are more entelychistic and great
than the most insights in social constructionism. It is more fundamental and more phronetic. Phronesis
is one of key fundamentals of my discourse, phronesis antenarrative being the aims.

Social constructionism is of course most elementary for social sciences, while it is less applicable to
non-social sciences. Meaning that sciences like mathematics and physics deal less with social
construction. But of course social constructions also play their roles there, since also in mathematics
and physics the social part is there.

But, just like non-social sciences, also the social sciences have their errors and insanities. During the
course of my research, I found that most of these if not all of these errors are grounded in social
insanities. I have mostly labelled them semisophy and semiphronesis insanities, as most if not all of
them are grounded in semiotic/linguistical insanities.

By means of this approach, a lot of great changes can be passed on towards our societies at large. If
properly understood and the right methodologies are used. These sound right methodologies are also
reflected in this discourse well enough, but should be understood in right ways. They offer the keys to
move on towards great out of the box ways of thinking and doing. Some of them being also initiated
partly in this discourse, but I am sure the possibilities and opportunities are WAY bigger and greater
than the first initial steps taken in this discourse might imply.

Because of the fact that this phronesis antenarrative is mostly meant as being some fundament for
understanding our societies at large and also for some real great improvements in our universes at
large, the discourse does not have to be complete actually. I even neglect the academically or socially
requested aim of completeness in this discourse since I expect the main fundamental building blocks
to be improved and applied in both science and practise. Further more, one of the main goals is to
integrate social sciences and practises by means of this antenarrative.

But actually, the high sophistication of this phronesis antenarrative will not have the greatest effects in
case something very fundamentally will not change. Being the intentions and characteristics of human
beings. At the moment, there are just far too many individuals being far too arrogant and selfish. Not
being able to LISTEN to other people’s opinions. Actually I myself have been victim from a lot of
people being far less intelligent and wise than myself, but still thinking and acting as if they would
know it all. This kind of attitudes are the ones that spoil the lives of a lot of people and even lead to
harmfull situations and deaths.

The greatest fundamental discourses. The greatest phronesis antenarratives of mankind. Will not help
in case people proceed with these insane intentions and attitudes that lead to big losses of values

35
throughout time. If we want to cure the insanities of humankind, we need to be able to listen to each
other. To get rid of insane and counterproductive theories and beliefs. This requires collaborative
actions and involvement of several great persons around the globe.

The last couple of years have been very interesting for me. Interesting and tough. Tough because of
the insane actions of a lot of people around me and also because of risks already taken by picking up
the assignment I put upon myself. It was a quest for understanding the universes surrounding us in
better ways. By that I wanted to create the ultimate fundamentals for change management. For growth
and improvement of the universes surrounding us. Not only organizations, but especially also other
aspects of our universes at large. By now, I myself understand that I reached this goal in most
impressive ways. If only people are capable enough to listen at least some will understand the same in
near foreseeable future. Hopefully.

This whole process I have gone through has been executed VERY independently and autonomous
mainly. But, like every PhD student, I had my advisor. This advisor, Slawomir Magala, has been very
essential in the ways I developed. Without his facilitative actions and guidance, I would by far not have
improved the ways I did during the last years. He brought me into contact with Arjo Klamer and
Deirdre Mc Closkey, two other great intellectuals and persons. I very well remember Slawomir
showing me the name of Arjo (at that time, I did not even know him yet) and telling me that I needed to
go to him the next week telling I came by to drink a cup of coffee. So I did the next week, meeting a lot
of PhD students and some professors there at a seminar. By following some seminars with Arjo and
Deirde, and sometimes also Slawomir involved, I got infected by the drive to understand and discuss
intellectual texts. These discussions where key for motivating me to read more. They were my main
catalysts for growth, together with the great and inspiring personalities of Slawomir, Arjo and Deirdre.

These 3 persons have been, without any doubts, some of the most important persons I ever
encountered in my life. For intellectual growth, they have been the most influential and great ones.

But, I need to mention at least one other intellectual in this respects. Being David Boje, who is a
professor of management at New Mexico State University (NMSU) in Las Cruses. Some years back,
he was “ just” one of my intellectual heroes. Without even having spoken to him or whatever other
communications. I only heard of his name and visited his website at that times. Which was enough to
understand the greatness of his lines of thinking and doing. Then, some relative short time ago, I
actually came in contact with him. Mostly through E-mail. It led to some first invitation to join the SC’
moi conference. Some offer I did not accept because it was and is bit too early for me yet to do this.
But, a bit later, David asked me for some other challenge. Being the proposal to write some book
chapter on phronesis antenarrative. This has been a very encouraging request. It lead me to work
even more seriously to my aims of completing my own phronesis antenarrative in better ways. But
besides that, it made me realize that the phronesis antenarrative is exactly the right methodology to
put both mine and whatever other future ideas for improvement into practise.

36
Apart from this major key persons in the development of this discourse, I have to thank at least Roger
Anderton. This independent scholar has been of great support. We had numerous discussions over
the last couple of years. Not directly linked to this discourse, but about a lot of other intellectual and
scientific subjects. Mainly on physics and mathematics and the like.

Another person I would like to mention more specifically, is Jon van den Akker. Jon is a researcher at
Harvard. I spend quite some hours talking with him, mainly through facebook. We talked about general
intellectual things and not specifically related to conciousness (his research topic) and my research.
But still, I highly valued the talks with him. Also our talks about falconry, our common interests.

37
Also Rodolphe Ocler has been VERY important for my developments. He is, among others, part of the
sc’moi research group. In the year of 2009 he kind of told me to write a paper for the IFSAM world
conference of management. Which I did. Initially I started this with Ina Sitnikov, a professor in
management from Croatia. I still regret that we could not complete the discourse together, but at least
I did and handed it in for the IFSAM world conference. Together with two additional pieces, one of
them after encouragements of Cathy Breda.

My visit to Paris to join the IFSAM world conference in management, july 2010, has been very nice
and interesting. There I met my friend Rodolphe Ocler, but also people like Ken Baskin, Cathy Breda,
Denise Faifua, David Meacheam, Michelle Barthod, Zrinka Mendas.

The paper on Enchantment that I wrote for the IFSAM world conference is a really excellent piece. I
will strive at writing a book about it in future, something I also have been asked for by an academic
publisher already for some times now. A reference to this paper can be found in the list of references
accompanying this discourse.

Then also I need to thank a lot of other persons helping me with more or less small steps of this
discourse or just for being there. The problem with mentioning this persons is that I will for sure forget
some. But I will try to mention at least the most of them. First of all, there were the participants of the
seminars I attended led by Arjo Klamer. Some of them, but not all being the following persons: Almut
Krauss, Patrick Bronger, Natalia Hakimi, Till Duppe, Floris Heukelom, Altug Yalcintas, Cees
Langeveld, Tanja van den Heuvel, Bettina Szkudlarek, Patrick Reinmoeller, Hans Abbing, Arjo Klamer,
Deirdre Mc Closkey, Slawomir Magala, Onno Bouwmeester, Willem Schinkel, Simon Goudsmit

Also there are some other intellectual and academic people who I know more or less and just want to
mention here, being Alf Rehn, Kenneth Molberg, Sergio Seloti, Tommi Auvinnen, Stephen Linstead,
E.M. Sent. Then people like Alan Rayner, Bob MacIntosh, Claudio Guerri, Generally also lots of other
people from mailing lists like Peirce_L and Philos-L.

Special messages from people like “antmansbee” where and are also very much respected and
valued.

38
During my research, I have been placed at several companies. I choose not to mention my collegues
with whom I worked there, but want to stress that I am very thankfull to a lot of them and also some of
them enriched my life a lot.

Last but not least, I need to thank the most important persons in my life. Being, of course, my parents.
I am very fortunate to have some GREAT parents. Letting me choose my own paths and destinations
in life, but being there whenever it is needed. Also I want to thank my brothers Robert, Mathijn and
Peter. As Robert and Peter are married, I am glad to also thank their wifes Manon and Doenja. Not the
least for enriching my life with my little nephews and niece. Valentijn, Pepijn and Sophie.

Lichtenvoorde, January 2011.

Wilfred Berendsen

39
List of relevant notions
NOTIONS EXPLAINED IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS DISCOURSE AND
HOLOPLURALITY

Abduction
This notion is used in the philosophies and writings of CS Peirce. Peirce did call it guessing,
and abduction in this context is the explanatory hypotheses for a selection of those best worth
trying. For me, however, abduction is the process of taking distance from a subject under
considerations for indeed getting towards not only the best possible guess but more the most
probably guess or even best fundaments or realities. Abduction in this light is largely
dependent on and supplementary to retroduction (being explained a bit more in another part of
this list of notions). But also for more excellent phronesis abduction also some more
supplementary steps of sound pluriflection are needed. Abduction being one of the most
elementary steps for sound pluriflection

Acritically indubitable beliefs

Acritically indubitable beliefs are part of Peircean common sensism. This common sensism
involves that humans often have no other chance than adopting vague but indubitable beliefs
that rest on experience or scientific discourse.

Acritically indubitable judgements

Acritically indubitable judgements are judgements based on vague but indubitable beliefs.
Current judgement system also relies on this kind of judgements which is damaging because
of the errors being made.

Accitically indubitable insanities

Accritically indubitable insanities is a special type of acritically indubitable beliefs and
acritically indubitable judgements. Denoting that acritically indubitable beliefs or judgements
can indeed lead to acritically indubitable insanities. But foremost the notion is meant to
express the important understanding that most of current mainstream social sciences and
practises are largely grounded on acritically indubitable beliefs being acritically indubitable
insanities leading to damage to people and our society at large.

Accusators
This might be a synonym for prosecutor, accusing someone in the name of the law. But, for
me accusator is more broadly just someone accusing someone else. This can be also in other
social settings like normal or non-normal social behaviors. As current mainstream is mostly
still reductionist, most social behavior is not normal and therefore accusations are mostly not
really just. Either in laws or in social matters the accusatory mostly misses some important
understandings or accuses because of partly own reasons. Which is not correct of course.

Amongnesses
Amongness is just another way of saying in betweenness as each plurising is among other
plurisigns. We have to understand the linkages and dependencies of this other plurisigns in
right correct ways. But also we need to be able to switch to the greatest perspective and most
excellent sensemaking.

40
Antenarrative
I can only use the description of this notion by David Boje as he is the sole inventor of this
great notion. Antenarrative, according to David Boje , is : “non-linear, incoherent, collective,
unplotted, and pre-narrative speculation, a bet,” (Boje, 2001: 1). Antenarratives are “in the
middle” and “in-between” (Boje, 2001: 293)

Aporia
The notion of Aporia is used to label a philosophical puzzle or puzzlement. It can also denote
the state of being perplexed. In the context of practicism, Aporia is the catalyst for phronitical
thinking and sensemaking.

Argument
An argument is in the context of this writing just any communication with the intentions of
convincing other people or living creatures. In fact, really everything can be an argument.
Also each argument is mostly part of a bigger argument . Everything someone does in his or
her life can all together be part of just one big argument. And even this can be part of an even
bigger one. Objects can be arguments. Arguments can be of more or less quality, also
depending on whether it is based on insane or sane sensemaking. But even insane arguments
are arguments.

Autopoiesis
Autopoeiesis is a notion first expressed by Maturana & Varela, being the autonomous creation
or production of something. For a more thorough understanding of this notion, I refer to my
discourse on phronesis poeiesis like reflected in anotherness part of this discourse

Betweennesses
Betweennesses are plurisigns in between other plurisigns

Bricolage
Bricolage is something that is easy at hand to be used as a tool that it was not designed for or
meant for originally. Using a car key to open carton boxes closed with tape is an example, just
like using a line and a towel as a lure in falconry.

Cenoscopy
Charles Sanders Peirce made the distinctions in idioscopic and cenoscopic sciences.
Philosophia Prima (cenoscopy) or philosophy is about positive phenomena rather than special
classes. Cenoscopy precedes the special sciences. Idioscopy are the special sciences.
As such, cenoscopy is part of the in-box linear perspective of CS Peirce and current
mainstream sciences. Just maybe it is about cenoscrazy leading to idiocrazy by idioscopies
using cenoscopies.

Collopoeiesis
Collopoeiesis is a notion initiated by me, meaning the collaborative creation or production of
something. For a more thorough understanding of this notion, I refer to my discourse on
phronesis poeiesis like reflected in anotherness part of this discourse

41
Commodification
Commodification is the transformation of relationships formerly not having a commercial
aspects into a commercial relationship or relationship of exchange of something for money
(capital). While this notion itself is worthwhile, it is much more interesting and important to
understand the nature of this commodifications and the intensities and part of it in our present
society.

Continuous interpretant chain (CIC)

The continuous interpretant chain (CIC) is a notion initiated by me, Wilfred Berendsen. In the
context of the distorted dynamical interpretant. (DDI). The continuous interpretant chain is
expressing the fact that interpretants are mostly the product of several interpretants and also
are part of continuous interpretations. And during the conversion or interpretations or
assemblage of new interpretations, there is always a level of distortion. So continuous
interpretant chains are leading to distorted dynamical interpretants. The more phronetic and
meta-semeiotic the sensemaking, the smaller the chance of aspects of distorting dynamical
interpretants.

Dicisign
A dicisign or dicent is described by CS Peirce as follows : “The readiest characteristic test
showing whether a sign is a Dicisign or not is that a Dicisign is either true or false, but does
not directly furnish reasons for its being so. This shows that a Dicisign must profess to refer
or relate to something as having a real being independently of the representation of it as such,
and further that this reference or relation must not be shown as rational, but must appear as a
blind Secondness. But the only kind of sign whose object is necessarily existent is the genuine
Index. This Index might, indeed, be a part of a Symbol; but in that case the relation would
appear as rational. Consequently a Dicisign necessarily represents itself to be a genuine Index,
and to be nothing more." ('A Syllabus of Certain Topics of Logic', EP 2:275-276, 1903)

Distorted Dynamical Interpretant (DDI)

The distorted dynamical interpretant effect is a notion invented by me, Wilfred Berendsen.
With this notion I want to stress that there are often as many dynamical interpretants as there
are interpreters involved, and that each time a story is passed on to another interpreter the
interpretant changes and therefore gets distorted. Meaning that the message being transferred
and therefore the understandings are different from the original message and interpretant(s).
The more interpreters involved, the more distorted the dynamical interpretant gets. Or not.
But chances of getting more distorted at least get higher. When there is more than one
interpreter and interpretant and the interpretant being communicated over time, there is
always some Distorted Dynamical Interpretant (DDI). The effect of it being the DDI effect.

Duck-rabbit
See also Duckrabbit. This Duck-rabbit or Duckrabbit or Rabbit Duck is the illusion used by
Joseph Jastrow and later on more persons to test whether persons would see a Duck or a
Rabbit or both in a certain representamen. If they saw any of them, they where wrong. As the
representamen is neither a duck nor a rabbit, but a duckrabbit. But indeed it was originally
already created for people to perceive it as being either or while actually it is neither nor.

Duckrabbit
See Duck-Rabbit

42
Duree
Duree is the notion of Henri Bergson. According to him, Duree is indivisible mobility. Duree
is his notion for the real time which science at least at his times ignored. Duree is about the
inner life of man which is a kind of Duration.

Dynamis
Dynamis is Ability, potential, power. Both Dynamis and Energeia(activity, actuality) are
originating from Greek Philosophy. They are mentioned in the works of both Plato and
Aristotle, but these two philosophers had different opinions about the connections between the
notions. According to Aristotle, actuality (energeia) is prior both to potency (dynamis) and to
change. But, Aristotle seems to have only believed in linear plots. Current mainstream seems
to be grounded mainly on Aristotelean philosophy. Aristotle was wrong. Actually linear plots
do exist but there are also out of the box non-linearities. Like David Boje already understood
with his notion of antenarrative.

Dynamoid object
According to Peirce and because of that in semiotics, the dynamoid object is the mediate
object, the object outside of the sign. This dynamoid object is also called dynamical object
(dynamoid and dynamical object being synonyms in this respects). "We must distinguish
between the Immediate Object, - i.e., the Object as represented in the sign, - and the Real (no,
because perhaps the Object is altogether fictive, I must choose a different term; therefore:),
say rather the Dynamical Object, which, from the nature of things, The Sign cannot express,
which it can only indicate and leave the interpreter to find out by collateral experience" (A
Letter to William James, EP 2:498, 1909)

Eidos
By eidos I mean the essence of each thing and its primary substance (aristotle, metaphysics,
1032b1-2) Plato also seems to have written extensively about eidos and in his
writings/understandings it is similar or synonym to the notion of idea.

Energeia
Activity, actuality). For Aristotle, motion is any kind of change and motion is the actuality of
a potentiality. Actuality is energeia. Being at work. Change. Living.

Entelecheia or entelechy
Entelechia is Being-at-an-end as opposed to being-at-work (energeia). In Peircean semiotics,
entelechy was used for perfection of being.

Entelygistic
Being of entelechy or being of entelecheia

External qualities
External qualities are qualities not directly being part of the sign itself. It is a semeiotical
notion originating from CS Peirce. For more understanding about the notion mostly the
Peircean writings will be off interest.

43
Fundamental attribution error
The fundamental attribution error is also called correspondence bias or attribution effect. It is
the tendency to overvalue personality based or internal explanations or factors for behaviors
of others while undervaluating situational or external explanations or factors for this
behaviors of others. In that sense it is a specific type of a combination of undercoding and
overcoding signs.

Governmental social responsibility (GSR)

Governmental social responsibility is about using capabilities guided by prohumanism and
sane sensemaking. Putting the human mind and values for people as the most important issues
to be taken into regards.

Holoplurality
Holoplurality is a notion initiated by Wilfred Berendsen after his understanding of the sole
true underlying structure and nature of all of our universes. The notion of holoplurality
involving just that, the sole true underlying structure and nature. Holoplurality is explained
much more into this discourse but also other discourses of Wilfred Berendsen are important as
holoplurality is fundament and key for the body of understanding called practicism but also
for components/aspects of this body of understanding like for instance sound pluriflection and
phronesis antenarrating.

Idiocratic
Idiocratic is meant to be anything being based on idiocrazy. Idiocrazy being the result of
cenoscrazy. Which is my notion for cenoscopy of mainstream sciences and philosophy.

Individual Social Responsibility (ISR)

Individual social responsibility is more important than both corporate social responsibility and
governmental social responsibility. As ISR can and should also be fundament or aspect of
CSR and GSR. But besides that, ISR has to supplement CSR and GSR where CSR and GSR
are not present.

Indubitable belief
See acriticallhy indubitable belief

Indubitable judgement
See acritically indubitable judgement

Internal qualities
Internal qualities are qualities directly connected with or intrinsic in the sign itself. It is a
semeiotical notion being part of semiotics of CS Peirce.

44
Legisign
CS Peirce did mention in a paper to lady Welsby that a Legisign is a sign of the nature of a
general type. He also stated: “A legisign is a law that is a sign. This law is usually established
by men. Every conventional sign is a legisign. It is not a single object, but a general type
which, it has been agreed, shall be significant. Every legisign signifies through an instance of
its application, which may be termed a Replica of it. Thus, the word "the" will usually occur
from fifteen to twenty-five times on a page. It is in all these occurrences one and the same
word, the same legisign. Each single instance of it is a replica. The replica is a sinsign. Thus,
every legisign requires sinsigns. But these are not ordinary sinsigns, such as are peculiar
occurrences that are regarded as significant. Nor would the replica be significant if it were not
for the law which renders it so." ('A Syllabus of Certain Topics of Logic', EP 2:291, 1903)

Logic of Vagueness
The logic of vagueness is a notion that can mean a lot. Even it can mean contents being
contrary to each other. In Peircean understandings, being the understandings of CS peirce
himself, vagueness can paradoxically entirely destroy doubt. The logic of vagueness is about
getting to understand this paradoxical ability of vagueness. Holoplurality and understanding
of the sole true underlying structure of our nature and universes is very elementary for just
that. For me, the logic of vagueness is also about a way to reduce vagueness(es) and
absolutism. Sound phronesis antenarrating is a way to reduce this vaguenesses by realizing
doubt.

Methodeutic
The investigation and application of the truth. Methodeutic is speculative rhetoric.

Multiversities
Multiversities to my understandings are universities not concentrating on knowledge ,theories,
universals and general cases. But on phronesis, involving specific cases, specific cases and
wisdom. It encompasses among others a shift from focus from theoretical to practical. By that,
making an art from whatever sciences. It is the final step needed to get towards more sane and
complete universes as a whole.

Nous
Mind, intellect, common sense

45
Overcoded
Overcoded is derived from Umberto Eco, who distinguished between the following types of
abduction:
-Overcoded abduction
- Undercoded abduction
- Creative abduction
- Meta-abduction
Before continuing here about the meaning of overcoding/undercoding, it should be stated that
the Eco perspective is different, of course, from the perspective being used in this discourse.
Therefore, overcoding has a very different meaning also in this discourse if related to the
more excellent holoplural perspective and placed in the light of meta-semeiotics where the
meta is also of anotherness nature and level than the meta mentioned above. It is even MORE
meta but also of anotherness nature.
But, in the light of reductionist Eco semiotics, overcoding is basically the phenomenon of
assigning additional meanings to a sign. While undercoding is basically the phenomenon of
not grasping certain meanings that are meant to be communicated with a certain sign. In the
light of a meta-semeiotical more excellent holoplural perspective, both the nature and level of
understandings and therefore also the content and meaning of overcoding and undercoding
differ from the general notion.But also, maybe more important. Is the fact that for Umberto
Eco and probably most people, overcoding and undercoding are just phenomena in our
society. Because of them living in inbox and reductionist worlds to more or less extends still.
For me, understanding about the sole true structure and nature of our universes and a lot more,
both overcoding and undercoding are partly the result of insane incomplete sensemakings.
This is the case as far as the overcoding and undercoding are result of semisophy
errors/mistakes. In a meta-semeiotical understanding and perspective, the main overcoding
and undercoding is part of semiphronesis errors and mistakes being the result of restrictions of
our languages and other representamens.

Philophronesis
Philophronesis is friends of practical wisdom or love for practical wisdom
In the light of this discourse, or practicism, philophronesis is love for practical wisdom being
guided by sane sensemaking based on holoplurality. Philophronesis therefore involves the
love for practical wisdom also in science as science and practice become one in practicism.

Philosophia
Philosophia is friends of theoretical wisdom or love for theoretical wisdom

Phronesis

Phronesis is practical wisdom. In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle distinguishes between

Sophia and Phronesis. Although this distinction itself is great, phronesis should be understood
in anotherness ways than the way it was understood by Aristotle. Mainly because of the inbox
kind of thinking of Aristotle, but also because of the fact that an understanding of the real true
structure of our universes requires so. While Aristotle would label an understanding of the
world and fundamental aspects of it as being Sophia, I would not do so perse. Since a more
entelychistic understanding of phronesis demands also understandings and fundamentals to
belong to phronesis. Phronesis does not have to be solely consisting of acts, also possibilities
or better opportunities can have enough characteristics to be labelled phronetic.

46
Phronesis antenarrating
Phronesis antenarrating is invented by Wilfred Berendsen, following the initial invention of
the antenarrative notion by David Boje. Phronesis antenarrating is basically not only about
storytelling, but also about sensemaking and communication in general. Sensemaking, and
foremost sane sensemaking, is a very elementary component of and guide for Phronesis
Antenarrating. Phronesis antenarrating being based on sound pluriflection, another notion and
concept being initiated by Wilfred Berendsen. This pluriflection consisting of different steps
or components. Some of this components are already described more detailed in other
discourses of me on Phronesis Antenarrating. This are probably the most important ones, but
of course there will probably be more to add also there.

Phronesis representia
Phronesis representia is the plural of phronesis representamen. Both phronesis representia and
phronesis representamen are notions initiated/invented by me, me being Wilfred Berendsen. A
phronesis representamen is the result of sound great Phronesis antenarrating being based on
pluriflection. The quality of the phronesis representia or representamen being largely
dependent on the quality of the people executing and the quality of the specific sensemaking
processes, but also on the quality and content of the Phronesis representia and “normal”
representamens being input for the Phronesis antenarrating processes.

Phronesis constructionism
Phronesis constructionism is understanding and developing social phenomena or realities
based on phronesis and holoplurality. Taking into regards the connectedness of plurisigns and
understanding of the holoplural nature and aspects of this.

Phronesis poeiesis
Phronesis poeiesis is the creation or production of something based on phronesis, practical
wisdom(s). Phronesis poeiesis can have the character of autopoeiesis or collopoeiesis or any
combination of these two types of poeiesis. But besides that, phronesis peoiesis has a lot of
characteristics that are specifical characteristics for this specific type of poeiesis. For a more
thorough understanding of this notion, I refer to my discourse on phronesis poeiesis like
reflected in anotherness part of this discourse

Phronetic
An act or thought is phronetic when it hast a phronesis nature.

Phronetical
Something being phronetical means it is phronetic, it is being based on phronesis or has a
phronesis nature.

Phronitical
Phronitical is the notion of Wilfred Berendsen and means being critical with the backgrounds
of practical wisdoms. And it should be based on sane sensemaking grounded on sound great
pluriflections. This might lead to phronesis representia or phronesis representamens.

47
Pluriflection
Pluriflections is the notion invented by Wilfred Berendsen to distinguish between mainstream
reductionist reflections and the special type of reflection process based on holoplurality.
Pluriflection is therefore sane sensemaking based on the sole true underlying structure and
nature of our universes.

Pluribind
Pluribind is the meta-semeiotical notion for distinguishing the difference with the mainstream
reductionist notion of double bind formulated by Gregory Bateson et al. For a much better
understanding of pluribind, the parts of this discourse dealing with this notion and the
differences with double bind notion should be read at first. In the future I might explain the
pluribind even more. But best is to dance it together with happenings and occurrences in (y)
our lifes. This is the case with about every notion and concept and understanding in this
Phronesis Antenarrative discourse.

Pluriform
Pluriform as opposed to uniform is another concept for plural. For instance plursigns have the
characteristics of being pluriform, consisting of several plurisigns themselves also being
pluriform and consisting of several plurisigns,. This holoplural structure and nature of our
universes is very important to understand, mostly for sane sensemaking and enchantment for
our society at large.

Plurisanity
There are several types of pluri-insanities like for instance the example of pluribind and
pluribind insanities resulting from it. But, of course there are also plur sanities. Or sanities
being plural. So plursanity is my notion for plural sanities. Plural sanities are mostly the result
from lazarus antenarrating and sane sensemaking and phronesis antenarrating. Based on
sound pluriflection and a meta-semeiotical perspective.

Pluriscience
Pluriscience is my notion for science incorporating and being based on holoplurality. As all of
our sciences have to be grounded on holoplurality and my body of understanding called
practicism, in the end all of sciences have to evolve in this particular type of science I termed
pluriscience.

Plurisign
A plurisign is my notion for expressing that all of signs are actually plural and therefore
plurisigns. But, there is a large difference in plurisigns. Even the so-called uniform signs are
in the end more what I termed uniplurals, being far inferior from the phronesis plurisigns
being based on sound great pluriflections and meta-semeiotics. But, in the end even the
uniplurals are of course also plurisigns. The only way to realize this and to realize this to the
fullest is however by means of sound pluriflection and phronesis antenarrating. Therefore,
adding phronesis antenarrating which is a lazarus kind of antenarrating to uniplurals part of
them being representamens, the result will be more or less phronesis plurisigns part of it being
phronesis representia

Pragmatisistic
Pragmatisistic is a notion for something being pragmatic. Or just another notion for pragmatic

48
Possibilia
In this Phronesis Antenarrating discourse, I differentiate between possibilia and possibilities.
Possibilities in the worlds of dreams and thought being some special type of possibilities,
called possibilia. This are possibilities not affected in the worlds of perceptions and realities
yet. Possibilities in the worlds of existence and laws are just possibilities. Then non-effectible
possibilities and possibilia are just impossibilities and impossibilia.

Practicism
Practicism is the meta-semeiotical body of understanding developed/invented by Wilfred
Berendsen. It is based on the notion and concept for the sole true underlying structure and
nature of our universes called Holoplurality . Holoplurality being invented by Wilfred
Berendsen but of course based on the understandings of the sole true underlying structure and
nature of our universes. Part of practicism is phronesis antenarrating and sound pluriflection.
But practicism is overall a very broad and excellent fundament for our societies. It is a body
of understanding better than any philosophy, and because of the contents it must and will
become the fundament for all of social sciences and practises. And the more it will, the more
sane our society at large will become. As practicism is the most excellent body of
understanding, capable of uniting both theory and practice into one great meta-semeiotical
phronetical body of understanding.

Practisism
See Practicism

Prescindible
See prescinded, prescindible meaning being able to prescind something.

Prescinded
Prescinded means separating or deviding something in thought, to consider parts of something
individually

Prohumanism
Prohumanism is a notion from Wilfred Berendsen. It is part of practicism and goes much
further and has much more aspects than humanism as such. Prohumanism is grounded on the
understanding and intentions of placing human minds and people on first place. But also
alongside optimizing the enchantment, the fit between plurisigns. Meaning a most optimal fit
based grounded on pro-humanism and centrality of human mind and sane sensemakings

Quali
Quali is a notion out of semiotics and it means characteristics of a semiotical sign. Quali is the
notion of characteristics of signs in semiotics.

Qualisign
A qualisigns is a quali. Qualisign meaning a sign denoting a characteristic of another sign or
assemblage of signs. It is a specific notion for semiotics being sign theory.

49
Representamen
A representamen is the Peircean notion out of semiotics. The Representamen being a sign
serving to represent something. It is something that represents something else, some other
sign.
Peirce did state that possibly there are representamens that are not signs. This may be true
when signs are understood as being Peircean semiotic signs. But in meta-semeiotical
phronitical practicism, really everything is a plurisign (being indeed distinct from a Peircean
semeiotic sign)

Resistance to sanity (RTS)

Resistance to sanity is a specific type of resistence ( to change) that is aimed against sane
occurrences and realities in our universes.

Resistence to insanity (RTI)

Resistence to insanity is a specific type of resistence (to change) aimed towards against insane
occurrences and realities in our universes.

Retroduction
Retroduction is part of semeiotics but also part of phronesis antenarrating and sound
pluriflection. What retroduction means in the light of semeiotics can be found on the internet
or in several of Peirce’s writings. In the context of sound phronesis antenarrating and sound
pluriflection, retroduction is the process of moving back to the subjects of pluriflection. With
as much as possible phronesis representia resulting from the phronesis and phronetic
pluriduction process(ses). Meaning that the relevant and elementary results from the
phronesis and phronetic pluriduction phase should be communicated with the initial subject of
pluriflection. Phronesis retroduction is just the sole process of moving back towards the initial
subject under consideration with this results of the phronesis and phronetic pluriduction phase

Rhema
Rhema is a notion out of semiotics. A Rhema is, according to Peirce:
" By a rheme, or predicate, will here be meant a blank form or proposition which might have
resulted by striking out certain parts of a proposition, and leaving a blank in the place of each,
the parts stricken out being such that if each blank were filled with a proper name, a
proposition (however nonsensical) would thereby be recomposed” ('Prolegomena to an
Apology for Pragmaticism', CP 4.560, 1906) and
“A rheme is any sign that is not true nor false……A rheme is defined as a sign which is
represented in its signified interpretant as if it were a character or mark (or as being so) " (A
Letter to Lady Welby, SS 33-34,1904

Self fulfilling idiocracy (SFI)

A self fulfilling idiocracy is a specific type of self fulfilling prophecy. But as most of self
fulfilling prophecies are based on insane reductionist mainstream sensemaking, about each
SFP is actually also an SFI

Semeiotical
Semeiotical is semiotical. Based on semiotics.

50
Semiology
Semiology is the science which deals with signs or sign language. But although this
semiology is often used as a synonym for semiotics, it is not. Semiology is based on the work
of Saussure, while semiotics is based on the work of Peirce. Semiotics is more broad and
excellent than Semiology, while my meta-semeiotical understandings and body of
understanding is far more excellent and better than both semiotics and semiology.

Semeion
Semeion is the greek word for sign.

Semiotical
See semeiotical. Based on semiotics.

Semisophy insanities

During the course of my research, I became more and more convinced that most of insanities
in social sciences and practises are fundamentally caused by semiotic errors and insanities.
Meaning that in its essences, almost all if not all of the social problems are caused by
linguistic sign problems. With semisophy errors and insanities, I mean semiotic insanities in
the field of theoretical wisdoms. Being for instance all the misjudgements and
misunderstandings in social sciences. For a better understanding of the connections between
semisophy and semiphronesis insanities, both my whole discourse and the formulation of
semiphronesis insanities will help.

Semiphronesis insanities

During the course of my research, I became more and more convinced that most of insanities
in social sciences and practises are fundamentally caused by semiotic errors and insanities.
Meaning that in its essences, almost all if not all of the social problems are caused by
linguistic sign problems. With semisphronesis errors and insanities, I mean semiotic insanities
in the field of practical wisdoms. Being for instance all the misjudgements and
misunderstandings in social practise, but also semiphronesis insanities in phronesis
antenarratives would belong to this kind of insanities. Meaning that the borderline between
semisophy and semiphronesis insanities is not always as strict and clear as dualistic
perspectives would assume.

Social constructionism
According to Wikipedia, social constructionism is the development of social phenomena
relative to social context. As such, it is a sociological construct. Which could evolve out of all
types of fundaments.

51
Social constructivism
Again following Wikipedia, social constructivism would be the meaning and sense processes
of an individual relative to the social context. It is referred to as being a psychological
construct. I myself however strongly disagree with this. Because of the fact that understanding
social constructivism as a psychological construct is actually a typical example of inbox and
dualistic ways of thinking. Fact is that also social constructivism should be understood in the
right context. Being the context of the sole sane structure of our universes. As such, one of the
distinctive quali distinguishing constructivism from constructionism is the autopoeiesis versus
collopoeiesis character of the social construct. So, as an example, my own phronesis
antenarrative can largely be considered as being social constructivist while more collopoeiesis
antenarratives would suit social constructionism more.

Social DNA
Social DNA is a terminology quite widely used. In the context of this discourse, it entails the
fundamental essences of social sciences and practises. Because of anotherness
understandings, the nature and contents of this social DNA is different from anotherness
notions of social DNA. The fundamentals should be understood as part of my phronesis
antenarrative. And the broad notion of practisism and all the other major contents of this
discourse. Although I object in general against using metaphors too quickly, in this case the
metaphor of DNA fits quite well. Although also here, there are some major and relevant
differences with natural DNA. Which is why the notion of social DNA should be understood
as a whole, just like the notion of Phronesis Antenarrative should. Meaning that the prefixes
Social and Phronesis to the words following them make some critical differences.

Sinsign
The sinsign is also a Peircean notion. According to CS Peirce: " A sinsign(where the syllable
sin is taken as meaning “being only once,”as in single, simple, Latin semel etc.) is an actual
existent thing which is a sign. It can only be so through its qualities; so that it involves a
qualisign, or rather, several qualisigns. But these qualisigns are of a peculiar kind and only
form a sign through being actually embodied." ('A Syllabus of Certain Topics of Logic', EP
2:291, 1903

Specifities
The quality or condition of being specific

Sympthomatology
The notion of symptomatology originates from medicine and refers to the study of signs as a
disease. In the context of this discourse and social sciences in general, I would like to
interpretate it also as being the study of signs as a disease. Signs being taken literally as being
semiotical signs, but apart from that also the plurisigns in meta-semeiotical phronesis. , but
the signs in mainstream social sciences but also in semiotics. The signs or plurisigns or a
combination of the both being the deeper cause of insanities. As such sympthomatology is a
science or perspective concentrating on semisophy errors but also on semiphronesis errors.
In future, sympthomatology should concentrate on solving the damages and insanities
connected with signs and plurisigns.

52
syneches
The greek synechismos or syneches means continuous

Synechesm
This is a mode of synechism very much related to synechism, but slightly different. Because
of small differences in the contents of the notion itself, but mainly also because of the fact that
this synechesm is part of my own body of philophronesis theories and practises. Based on a
whole different understanding of the nature of realities and existences within and beyond our
universes. Synechesm, like it is expressed and still has to be developed and understood in
higher levels of sophistication by both me and others, is part of my own body of practicism.
Incorporating not only synechesm, but also my notions and understandings of philophronesis,
semiphronesis and sign theories and practises.

synechismos
See syneches

Synechism
Synechism is a semeiotical notion. It is the tendency to regard everything as continous. Or, in
Peirce’s own words: Synechism is that tendency of philosophical thought which insists upon
the idea of continuity as of prime importance in philosophy and, in particular, upon the
necessity of hypotheses involving true continuity" ('Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology'
vol. 2, CP 6.169, 1902)

Techne
Techne is technical knowledge. Ancient techne seems to be different from current techne.
Which is of course just unpreventable. But, the differences are important to understand as
ancient greek techne was about work in partnership and cooperation. While current techne is
much more concentrated on materiality, products and production processes. While Heidegger
seems to have build an argument to return to the ancient concept and actualities of techne, I
myself have an argument for going even further towards a techne included in and based on
my notion and concept of prohumanism

Trichotomy
A trichotomy is a splitting into three parts, or in philosophy the three-way classification or
something having a threefold nature

Undercoded
See overcoded. Undercoded is a notion used by Umberto Eco in his semiotics to denote ……

Uniplurals
Uniplurals is my notion to express that the uniformities of mainstream social sciences and
philosophy (aimed at similarities instead of differences mostly) are actually not uniform but
uniplural meaning that they are still plural in their contents and nature. But uniplurals are far
more restricted than plurisigns and still based on reductionist sensemaking and understandings

Wentelechistic
Wentelechistic is the meta-semeiotical notion of entelechy. It is perfection of being, based on
sound pluriflection and phronesis antenarrating.

53
Wentelychistic
See wentelechistic. Wentelychistic is synonym of wentelechistic

Withinnesses
Withinness is another notion for the nature of plurisigns. The withinness expressing that a
plurisign is within other plurisigns. Like the organs within a body, or the body within a
society. The body without organ or the body without society being a reductionist one and
perspectives either treating or sensing this plurisigns as this partial entities being reductionist
and therefore damaging for society at large.

54
A fundamental phronesis discourse for unlimited
possibilities, existences and laws.

1. The possibilities of relative firstnesses

Charles Sander Peirce

Introduction

Some years back, I became interested in the American philosopher CS Peirce. This American
philosopher is currently highly regarded among philosophers all over the world. There has been some
time I also regarded him and his writings very high. But that was until the moment I really truly became
to understood him. There are really interesting and great parts of his philosophy, but also many
relative mistakes. The most important one being his methodological framework. More about that later
in this discourse. For now, it is just very important and fundamental to state the following real true
understandings of mine. Peircean semiotics and philosophy is great in some senses. But, overall it is a
way of viewing and understanding which is basically incorrect. Based on a wrong methodology and
metaphysical frameworks and beliefs. Peirce made some great contributions to science and
understandings by some of his understandings and also the greater parts of his semiotics, I guess.
But, it was all based on the wrong overall metaphysical framework and fundament. The wrong
understandings of philosophy and society at large. He basically did the same as Karl Marx. Having
great intentions and possibilities to excel. But choosing the wrong paths and methodologies at large.
And the wrong fundaments. Maybe because of being far too less critical. But probably mostly because
of a lack of true thorough understandings.

Still, there are interesting parts of Peirce’s writings. One of them being his notions of sinsign, legisign
and qualisign. There are a lot of discussions about what these notions might mean going on an on and
on even in present times. But actually what it might mean does not count that much for me. What is
much more important is what it CAN mean, by which I mean what CAN be done with these notions.
Especially in connection with the phrase of Peirce that “thoughts are diagrammatic”.

And the almost similar but distinct notion that all thinking would be dialogic in form:

55
338. All thinking is dialogic in form. Your self of one instant appeals to your deeper self for his assent. Consequently, all
thinking is conducted in signs that are mainly of the same general structure as words; those which are not so, being of the
nature of those signs of which we have need now and then in our converse with one another to eke out the defects of words,
or symbols. These non-symbolic thought-signs are of two classes: first, pictures or diagrams or other images (I call them
Icons) such as have to be used to explain the significations of words; and secondly, signs more or less analogous to
symptoms (I call them Indices) of which the collateral observations, by which we know what a man is talking about, are
examples. The Icons chiefly illustrate the significations of predicate-thoughts, the Indices the denotations of subject-thoughts.
The substance of thoughts consists of these three species of ingredients.9

This notion of dialogic thoughts and much more notions of Charles Sander Peirce will be discussed
later on in this discourse. Because it can serve for a better insight about the errors in human
sensemaking. As CS peirce was right on stating that all thinking is dialogic in form, but the main
problem is that most of thinking (not all) is being based still on the kinds of dialogic thinking based on
the fundaments of not only all of mainstream social sciences and understandings, but also of Peircean
semiotics. Dialogic thinking in Peircean understandings is very different and inferior sensemaking
opposed to the dialogic thinking placed in my meta-semeiotical sensemaking tool of Phronesis
Antenarrating.

After my discussions on Peircean philosophy, I will discuss the relative errors in his thoughts and
writings. And move on to my own ways of viewing and “philosophy”. Which is, in its essences, really
truly at least fundamental for the most ultimate philosophy ever possible to reach. It is the most
important part of this discourse, although I started this discourse and my PhD investigations for the
third essential part of this discourse. Which is essentially dealing with the fact that most of economics
is probably bullshit. At least how most economists and people in practice understand and use it. Some
10
of the acritically indubitable beliefs about economics will prove to be ludicrous and
counterproductive for society as a whole for whoever understands my discourse and insights
expressed further on in this book.

Charles Sander Peirce has meant a lot to our society. Many philosophers get inspired by the
discourses of CS Peirce. A lot of definitions currently used in science have been defined by him. Then,
some very important one, the electronic switch for the computer like we know them at current times.
This electronic switch, essential for the initial developments of the first computers, was first described
by CS. Peirce. Without him, we might even not have the computer at current times! Just think about
that. No computers! No email. No internet. No (w)entelechy in bits and bites. And, indirectly
connected with it, the internet and software tools. More specifically, even some of the color schemes
and huge possibilities of choice in some of the computer programs are based on Peircean semiotics

One professor in Argentina, a good acquaintance of mine, is using some of his insights for design and
architecture.
9
Charles Sander Peirce, CP 6.338
10
Acritically indubitable beliefs, some other notion used by CS Peirce. Is further explained by several discourses
of Peirce scholars. One of them being Uwe Wirth from Germany. He wrote some very interesting reflections
based on Peirce and his notion of Acritically indutable beliefs.

56
Apart from this relevant and important results from Peircean philosophy, there are quite some relative
errors in both the contents and the theoretical framework and lines of thinking of Charles Sanders. I
will discuss them later on, but will just mention some of them shortly here. First of all, his line of
thinking is still too much structural. And based on the wrong theoretical frameworks, one of them being
the wrong accritically indubitable belief that the correct structures of our universes are reflected in
mathematics. The other wrong theoretical framework is simply his fixations on logic.

Peircean semiotics is inbox thinking. And it is very fundamental to understand that most of current
mainstream social sciences and practises and also understandings actually are. All being based on
what Aristotle and also a lot of other academics would call the linear plot. According to what I have
understood from some lecture by some Yale professor, Aristotle was off the opinion that only linear
plots exist. I do not know whether this is really true, and doubt whether I understood correctly. But it is
sure that, as the great David Boje also remarks, there are a lot of other plots than linear ones. I myself
like David’s invention of antenarrative a lot, as it is a major aspect and tool for sane sensemaking. But,
we might differ in the understandings about the plots. Actually I still need to ask him and get into
discussion with him about that. But, for now I want to mention that for me ALL plots have to be at least
based on the holoplural plot and constantly guided by it. Meaning that indeed the linear plots and a lot
of other plots can and will exist (like David Boje seems to communicate), but that in the end all of them
HAVE to be either grounded on or guided by holoplural sensemaking. A linear or other reductionist
plot not being guided by SANE, complete sensemaking (which is only reachable by means of the
holoplural fundament and accompanying phronesis antenarrating and pluriflection) is just not complete
but also it will damage people and society sooner or later.

At current, indeed A LOT of plots are just of the wrong form or type or at least PERCEIVED in this
wrong ways. Leading to a lot of insanities and damages to people. Phronesis antenarrating and sane
sensemaking is not only capable off, but more importantly aimed at, deconstructing and reconstructing
wrong insane damaging plots into the more sane plots based on holoplural sensemaking.

57
1.2 The dialogic world

Peirce did among anothernesses make the remark that al thinking would be dialogic in form. Thoughts
are dialogic…thoughts are dialogic…well just let us make from this the interpretation that there are
thoughts, language and the real world (like there were in the interpretations and major emphasis of
Peirce).. Then let us interpret his sentences “thoughts are diagrammatic” as that we as human beings
are mainly constructing our thoughts with Grammatik. With words. Just think about it, you are not able
to think anything without using words. Maybe the words that come up do not really express what you
are thinking complete enough, but still. It are words. Same counts for our communication and rhetoric.
It are al words. Signs. Which is actually a big problem in some cases, since like in our thoughts the
words – special instances of representamens - are not (able to really express completely) what we are
thinking! Or, like the famous past philosopher Korzybski (also into language philosophy) told: “the map
is not the territory!”.11 But in real life the signs, the diagrammatic way of viewing the world, is even
more problematic. Since there, the shortfalls of our language even more bother us and other people.
Since other people can not see what is ALSO mentioned but not expressed with the words. Because
words can and do not tell everything. The “anothernesses” that are and can not be expressed in the
words we are telling each other.

Actually, our thoughts are and are not diagrammatic or dialogic. They are because of the limits of our
languages but they are not since we always have a lot of anothernesses not expressed in words in our
minds and thoughts. While our language is mainly diagrammatic, dialogic and uniform. Meaning that
even the sensed plural anothernesses that can not be expressed in words are difficult to grasp in our
own understandings. This is getting more and more relevant since people are getting much cleverer
through the timelines of history. Which means that the anothernesses NOT expressed are increasingly
growing at increasingly higher rates. Besides, individuals are getting more and more used to
multiplicity in thoughts and actions. Which probably means that our language and signs, being quite
ancient and based on uniformity, are increasingly less capable of meeting the standards of transferring
and incorporating the right messages.

There are, in my opinion, only two linguistic ways to circumvent this problem of increasing complexity
and anothernesses in relation to our ancient language. It might of course be there are more, but I for
now only know about two. The first is to either increase the words we use or develop another more
richer language. The other would be to spend more time explaining each other what we really mean.
By using more words and better explanations. But, that would cost more time. For sure. And whether
the message comes abroad in satisfying ways also depends on lots of other factors. Like for instance
the complexity of the message and the people receiving the message and taking part in the

11
More about this “the map is not the territory” can be found in several sources. Like the great book “science and
sanity” written by Alfred Korzybski. Info about him on the internet. Websites like, for instance,
www.thisisnotthat.com. But also other people like Jaques Derrida talk about aspects of this relevant insight.

58
discourses. This are also some of the reasons why people tend to live in different worlds, realities,
more and more. Because of the increase in knowledge and expertise.
Besides these linguistic ways, there would be another solution. A much better one, for certain
applications (surely not all situations and contexts would be suitable) . If it was possible at current
times. I think it will surely be at some point in future, but at the moment not. What I mean is some quite
revolutionary new ways of communication by which it would not be needed to use any words for
“conversations”. Some way of communication where the whole complex area of anothernesses is and
can be transferred between people. By means of transfer of thoughts and feelings. This would largely
increase possibilities, but might also cause some other problems of complexity. I might discuss a little
bit on that later on in this discourse.

As far as dialogic reasoning goes, Auke van Breemen (some Dutch Peircean philosopher) sent me
some information about dialogic and diagrammatic. Regarding dialogic, he stated that dialogic is
referring to the process of sign production. Which is of course true. He divided this dialogic reasoning
in the following 3 variants:
1) The monologues with yourself
2) Dialogues (with nature or the other(s) )
3) Social project (s), for instance science
And then he made the remark that 1 and 2 are part of 3, in certain moments of time

This feedback from Auke to me about dialogic reasoning can be linked, among others, with my own
reasoning about reflection, the subdivisions I will make in mind and matter and the ways knowledge
evolves. More about that later on. The Peircean Philosopher Mats Bergman has written some great
discourse on interpretation and collateral experience. To be found on the arisbe website,
www.cspeirce.com. This collateral experience actually is the main catalyst to add bakhtin’s to the
dialogic thoughts and reasoning processes. It is the empirical part of learning processes to tend
towards effectiveness and completeness. The difference between mere professionalism and art.

59
Constructing the words to transfer your thoughts

We use signs and language almost during each part and in every aspect of our lives. This goes
normally quite naturally and without much preparation or thoughts. And, we normally do not think that
much about possible complexities and troubles connected with using those signs and languages.
Which is quite strange, since actually a lot of problems and difficulties in our societies are caused by
some wrong understanding and use of exactly those signs, words and languages.

When constructing a word, we are not just picking some A or B or whatever mix-up of letters and then
deciding which words we are going to construct afterwards. It is always the other way round. But,
when we are in real life, we in many cases pick a word and then decide on the texts. Or pick a product
or idea and then deciding or pushing it to the market. Or a model and then applying it or just using it in
the real world. Just to name some. Which can be counterproductive for society as a whole. Actually, a
lot of acts in society are also that way. Currently. People are using building blocks without knowing
what house they are building. Or without knowing that other people actually do not want to build a
house with the same building blocks, but rather prefer some nice boat. Or someone is putting all his
efforts and money in building a house not knowing that other parties are thinking about and well
capable off destroying the same houses just during or immediately after the building of it.

Some of the reasons for this are, in my opinion, that a lot of people are actually not really
understanding what they are doing. Lacking a lot of insights and experience for the tasks they are
completing. Too many people know but will not really truly understand. This is partly due to the lack of
quality in education. The fact that even universities went into the habits of teaching the homo sapiens
some tricks. Educating them by rote12.And conditioning them to express the wrong habits although
common sense tells them differently, if they have learned how to use their senses and minds.
Collateral, empirical experiences are fundamental for getting people to get into phronesis.

Another fact however is, that people sometimes just have to continue in this seemingly illogical ways. I
will discuss this way of first picking and/or developing the signs and later on deciding on the words to
make and/or applying them to words later on. Why this can be productive a lot but also what can be
the shortfalls from this ways of acting. A way of acting that is simply needed in practise in some
instances and can lead to success in the long rung. With a bit of luck, patience, and persistence. And
knowing what you are doing and how to. More about this later on in this discourse or beyond.

About signs

12
By this educating by rote. I mean the fact that especially in elementary education the students are taught
knowledge by repetition, a very unintelligent way of teaching tricks not encouraging pluralities, criticism and
intelligent and creative thinking.

60
Peircean semeiotic is the study of signs and symbols. A small, but major part of Peircean
pragmaticism. In Peircean semeiotic, everything is considered as being a sign. Not only the signs that
CS Peirce would call representamens. But also everything in nature, everything you can sense. And
everything you can not. It are all signs. And, like Floyd Merrell explains in his book “signs grow”, these
signs are involved in continuous flux, an never-ending process of expansion, growth and changes. In
his discourses, Peirce has made some great distinctions in types of signs. These distinctions are very
great, but it should be realised that they are fundamental. For certain contexts, it is better to broaden
these signs. Which is why a further development of his thoughts is most important. And why the
Peircean texts now only situated at Harvard University and not yet open to most Peircean
philosophers, should actually be preserved and made available to the public as soon as possible. By
scanning them digitally and then publishing them.

What is also very important about Peircean Pragmatism, is to realise that Peircean notions often entail
much more than you will understand at first sight. This are insights you will understand if you
understand the differences between Peircean notions and the way these same notions are usually
understood and used in current times. Just to name some of the notions, his notions of object and
mind are very different from the regular notions. By that enabling a much broader understanding and
applicability. Then, just to name some other of his great ways of writing things down, he often talks
about sign, object and interpretant. But sometimes also about representamen, object and interpretant,
Now, this SOI (sign, object and interpretant) actually incorporates some completely different notions
and possibilities then the ROI triad of representamen, object and interpretant. This genius fundamental
differences you might only “see” and become to understand if you get the greatest insights in Peircean
semeiotic and pragmaticism.

61
Sinsign, legisign and qualisign

C.S. Peirce defined a lot of definitions that are still used in current times. Some of them are however
only known to people with an interest in C.S. Peirce.

Some of the definitions that are very relevant, are the distinctions that Peirce made in signs. Signs, in
his lines of thought, are one or more of the elements of the triad of Signs, Object(s) and
Interpretant(s). Signs play some key role in this SOI 13- triad. And actually everywhere. Without signs,
there is nothing. One of the elementary distinctions that CS Peirce made in signs, is the trichotomy of
14
sinsign, legisign and qualisign . I will discuss them here since I think I got some interesting insights
on them. First I will publish the notions like defined by Peirce himself here. And then my own discourse
will continue.

The 1903 'A Syllabus of Certain Topics of Logic', EP 2:291 entails a sentence in which the definition of
sinsign (also called a “token”) and qualisign is defined by C.S. Peirce: A _Sinsign_ (where the syllable
_sin_ is taken as meaning "being only once," as in _single_, _simple_, Latin _semel_, etc.) is an actual existent
thing or event which is a sign. It can only be so through its qualities; so that it involves a qualisign, or rather,
several qualisigns. But these qualisigns are of a peculiar kind and only form a sign through being actually
embodied.15

A qualisign actually entails the characteristics of a sign. One mode of these characteristics is quality,
but the term qualisign refers to a broader aspect of signs then only quality. So quali does NOT refer to
quality, but, like is said, to characteristics of a sign. This might be characteristics incorporated in the
sign itself, but it also incorporates some relevant characteristics that are NOT incorporated in the sign
itself but have an influence on it in the contexts concerned.

13
SOI = Sign (or representamen), Object and Interpretant. All of them have distinct characteristics and
possibilities. CS Peirce made some distinctions in kinds of signs, objects and interpretants.
14
Besides this trichotomy, CS also defined the trichotomies icon-index-symbol and rheme-dicisign-argument
15
1903 'A Syllabus of Certain Topics of Logic', EP 2:291

62
Peirce made the following distinction in types of qualities (writings 1,477, Lowell Lecture IX 1866). First
of all, the internal character or quality. This is the quality whose reference to a ground (object) is
prescindible. It is the quality of a likeness. Then there is the external character or quality, which is the
quality of an index. Here, the relation to the object is prescindible, but the peculiar quality is not
prescindible but relative. And, last but not least, there is the imputed quality. This is the quality of a
symbol. There, the essential quality and the relation are both unprescindable. The quality being
imputed and the relation ideal.

Writings 3, p 64 (1873) MS 212 On representations (CS Peirce) :

“The representation not only has material qualities but it also imputes certain qualities to its object. These we may
call its imputed qualities. For example the word “white” printed in a book is itself black so far as its own material
qualities are concerned but its imputed quality is white”.

Notice here that the differences in quality are not coupled (precscinded) loose or tight, but either yes
(prescindible) or no (unprescindable) to the ground. Which is based on so-called aristotelean logic,
opposed to the so-called null-a or non-aristotelean logics. Which are actually more along the lines of
the way Aristotelean thought himself (non-aristotelean). In non-aristotelean logic, the answer could be
Po (like stated in lateral thinking) or whatever.

Some excellent example of this imputed quality notion is what I saw on discovery channel some while
ago. There was some documentary about how smart certain animals are. And, there was some
example there of a crow who searched for some small piece of wood. And then the crow used this
piece of wood as a “fork” to pick some worm out of a deep hole in a tree. In other terminology, he
used it as bricolage. Now, this quality of “fork” is imputed on the piece of wood by the crow.

Then about external qualities and internal qualities, the great intellectual Friedrich Nietzsche said the
following in his “The will of power”:

"How much of a piece of music has been understood when that in it which is calculable ,and can be
reduced to formulas has been reckoned up?"

The parts NOT being understood in above cases, are actually the external qualities of the formulas or
music notes. But, at the same time, they are still internal character(istic)s of the music itself. And
maybe, some possible imputed qualities of the music by the musical artist(s) becomes an external or
internal quality when (musical) signs grow.

63
Another great example of external qualities is the one where it is shown that the possibilities and
existences of a certain practicability and usage of a certain sign can be mere conventions. While these
conventions, in its essences, have nothing to do with the internal qualities of the product. An excellent
example can be given again by means of falconry. While there are of course a lot of examples in
several fields of life. But, in falconry one of the tools to train a falcon is the lure. Which is a kind of
dummy prey to call in the falcon or to train her.

Such a lure normally looks for instance like this:

Now, the great thing is that if a falcon is correctly trained to a lure, the falconer could still make a sort
of dummy dummy lure. By using some rope and a handkerchief. For instance. Just some materials
that simulate a lure and using it like a lure. Although this setup is NOT and never will be, at that
moment it is perceived at least by the falcon to be…a lure. Just like we all perceive a lot of signs in our
surroundings to be while they actually are not. The internal qualities in this case do not match the
perceptions, but because of the external qualities (that are not connected with the real object in any
ways) it can still be used like it would be the sign perceived.

64
In CP 5:309 1868, there is also the distinction in subjective or emotional qualities, which are attributed
either absolutely or relatively, or by conventional imputation to anything which is a sign of it. It is also
stated there that the sign is such and such; almost (is representative of) that thing. This almost would
be because of other considerations. Could it be that the other considerations meant here are the
bakhtin’s of life? Or the imputed qualities? And would they be seen by everyone, or only by some
people that are not “blind” and are able to use their senses and the right methodologies? As the
methodologies of abduction and retroduction in some reflective processes??16

16
The answer here is simply “yes”. Not “no” or “po”like it can be in the mostly more complex matters.

65
Some great example of emotional qualities, are the qualities attributed when making generalizations
about people or other living creatures. When doing so, some “member” of the same group will be
labelled being such and such (general characteristics of the reification meant) while the individuals
might be completely different in many respects. In this case, the emotional qualities are only
perceptive qualisigns. But, these perceptive characteristics can often be very real in their
consequences.

Then, the difference between sinsign and legisign, and also some better understanding of what the
legisign entails, is expressed in the following passages. First of all, there is the passage expressed in
the same 1903 'A Syllabus of Certain Topics of Logic' EP 2:274. There, he defined the subindex in
contradistinction to the index; the index is a sinsign, the subindex (e.g., a proper name) is a legisign.17
Then, in some Letter to Lady Welby, SS 33, 1904, proper names are again called indices:

"I define an Index as a sign determined by its dynamic object by virtue of being in a real relation to it. Such is a
Proper Name (a legisign); such is the occurrence of a symptom of a disease (the symptom itself is a legisign, a
general type of a definite character. The occurrence in a particular case is a sinsign). “

I could continue with more passages where the definitions of Peirce are expressed, but for my
discourse the above mentioned passages should be enough. Especially if people also take notice of
the anothernesses not mentioned in this long discourse.

According to these definitions of Peirce, a sinsign (or token) is an occurrence in a particular case. As
opposed to a Legisign. Which is a general type of a definite character. Some qualisigns are of a
particular kind and only form a sign through being actually embodied.

When reflecting on the definitions of sinsign and legisign more broadly, the following questions came
up to me:
- sinsign and legisign, connection with thoughts and "real" world and objects "around" us.
- can there be a legisign in thought that is also a legisign in the real world. And what differentiates
them from each other.

Some example of legisign, sinsign and qualisign can be given by means of the notion of entelechy like
it is expressed in other parts of this discourse. Entelechy itself is a legisign or subindex when a general
definition is meant like the definition of Charles Sander Peirce. The qualisigns of it being “perfection” ,
“quality” itself and maybe also “completeness”. As soon as the Entelechy relates to a (dynamical)
object it would be a sinsign or index. Also this sinsign or index has its qualisigns. But, they will
probably be different from the qualisigns of the legisign or subindex. To be able to express that there is
some Entelechy, it is however needed that certain qualisigns and anothernesses that are related to the
legisign or subindex are also incorporated in the sinsign or index Entelechy.

17
1903 'A Syllabus of Certain Topics of Logic' EP 2:274

66
Rhema, digisign and argument

Signs can also be divided with regard to their relations to the interpretant. Peirce did make the division
in Rheme, Dicent sign and argument. It corresponds to the old division term, proposition and
argument, but modified for general applicability to signs. The dicent sign is a sign of actual existence
for the interpretant. The dicisign (dicent sign) is a sign which is understood to represent its object in
respect to actual existence ( a syllabus of certain topics of logic, EP 2:292,1903). A Rheme is a sign of
qualitative Possibility, a sign which is understood to represent its object in its characters merely (a
syllabus of certain topics of logic EP 2:292, 1903). Then the argument, which is a sign of law. It
represents its object in its character as sign (a syllabus of certain topics of logic EP 2:292, 1903)

Quite generally speaking, the 3rdness of Peirce is most often the most developed universe. The most
developed mode (or state) of being. Besides that, it generally has more qualisigns, which makes the
possibilities of more (w) entelechy more profound. It is also, like I will explain later on in this discourse,
the field where most great moments of Aporia will take place.

About the laws, I well remember some story that Thomas Riese told me. Thomas is one of the great
persons I met through my interests in Charles Sanders Peirce. He is German and we had some
discussions about Peircean semiotics. During our first discussion, in Germany, he made some great
remarks. I think I also did, but one of his remarks was his statement about laws about laws. He told me
about some guy who was responsible for making laws under several governments. These
governments did ask him to write new laws. But at some stage he did not want to write a law since he
thought it simply did not meet the requirements. Then this guy was prosecuted. Thomas said, because
he did not simply want to make laws. But thought further and wanted to make laws about the laws.
Now, what he actually said, is something that is core of the causes of a lot of troubles in social
relationships. This was something I came to understood some month or so after the discussion with
Thomas. It is, actually, the clash of universes, or modes of beings. People that get some universes
further, being more sophisticated and entelychistic, getting into trouble because other people that can
decide on their faiths can not or will not cross the borders towards this higher level universes. A
problem that caused a lot of intelligent, mostly also great, persons to get into more or less huge
problems.

And, what Thomas probably meant to say was not that the prosecuted guy wanted to make “gesetze
ueber gesetze” (laws about laws), but “gesetze ueber moeglichkeiten” (laws about possibilities). This
guy simply saw that the laws were just possibilities for general cases, but that reality would be better of
with some laws that would suit practise better. A more sophisticated law instead of the inferior laws
that were only possibilities, not detailed and well worked out, according to him. And, of course, this
lawyer was right! Just like the very few sane persons are who got the same important insights at
present times. Unfortunately most of them loose it from the insane people who are not able to do so.

67
Icon, index and symbol

An Icon physically resembles what it stands for. An index has a sequential or causal relationship to its
ground (signified). A symbol represents something in an arbitrary relationship. Words are an example
of symbols. Although they can also be an index. And maybe even an icon. The great thing of signs is
their multiplicity of being. In an ongoing semeiotic discourse, they play the role of firstness,
secondness, thirdness or an-otherness. And can and will switch roles during the unfolding of growth
processes.

Sometimes, a signs is considered as an icon while it actually is “no more” than a symbol. Or the
anotherness ways round. This might happen in situations where people tend to overcode and/or
undercode certain signs. Which actually happens a lot in real life. Even the sole fact that something is
perceived as being an icon or index will already lead to some overcoding or undercoding.

An example of something able to be both icon, index and symbol is a goods issue note on a package
of goods. Just presume this goods issue note entails information about the goods, some specific batch
number and some (additional) sign for communicating that the specific batch is ready for storage or
delivery.

This goods issue note entails parts that can be categorized by means of the diversion into icon, index
and symbol. I however think there must for sure be more subdivisions, and that the division icon/index
and symbol is one of the examples of a too structural way of viewing and understandings. Just like all
structures are. Structures are reductionist ways of viewing, not taking into regards enough the
anothernesses of life and the extreme pluralities and interconnectednesses of signs in general.

But, the batch number of the specific batch like stated on the goods issue note, is a perfect example of
an index. And by means of convention, the (additional) sign for communicating that the specific batch
is ready for storage can be regarded as being a symbol. Although in the end, when understandings
are complete, it has probably no use at all to really use this notion of a symbol. Since in the end, every
sign is NOT. Every sign is just slightly different, and especially this differances can not be expressed in
words. And, analyzing and understanding these signs only by means of categorizations, being any
structure or category you could possibly think of, is just part of reductionist and incomplete views of
realities.

68
On signs and universes

According to peirce, there exist 3 universes. This 3 modes of being, or categories, are what Peirce
calls the being of positive qualitative possibility, the being of actual fact, and the being of law that will
govern facts in the future.Which are his notions of firstness, secondness and thirdness. Firstness is
often referred to as being a possibility, secondness as existence and thirdness as law.

What is VERY important to realise is, that whenever Peirce is talking about firstness, secondness and
thirdness, that he does NOT mean that there are ONLY firstnesses, secondnesses and thirdnesses!
Actually, he could also have called the firstnesses, secondnesses and thirdnessed with other signs like
for instance x-nesses, y-nesses and z-nesses. Whereby the contents of x, y and z could then be
described with some indexal arguments. But, he did not. So why? According to me, the reason for it is
that a possibility is actually the mere first compound of life. Then, out of possibilities, the
secondnesses of objects and possibilities can emerge. This secondness compounds a greater
developed state of order (universe) than the firstness of possibilities. Then, if some interpretant is
added, the thirdness is reached. Peirce however does describe in some of his texts that everything in
life (every sign or sign combinations) are compound of some combinations of this universes of
thirdness, secondness and thirdness. If you combine this insight about the Peircean semiotics (which
is far more sophisticated then most persons notice!) with the insight of relativeness of terminologies,
you can do a lot with the seemingly structural building blocks of Peirce’s fundamental laws and
building blocks of life.

The next scheme can be made taking universes and types of signs into regard:

1 Representamen ® 2 Object (O) 3 Interpretant (I)

1 possibility Qualisign Icon Rhema
2 Existence Sinsign Index Dicisign/Dicent sign
3 Law Legisign Symbol Argument

The most interesting of this table can be discussed when people just execute the great
abduction/retroduction processes, that enable some reflection and difference. By that, the people not
blind should realize that also here, the map is NOT. This whole scheme is a symbol, a representation
whose essential quality(s) and relation(s) are both unprescindible- the quality being imputed and the
relation ideal. As opposed to the icon (with internal qualities) and the index or likeness (with relations
to its ground that are prescindible and peculiar qualities NOT prescindible).

69
But actually there are lots of hybrids, both in the signs and in the universes. And then also this table is
2 dimensions, while occurences (representamens, events) in real life are more or less
multidimensional. For real life, this symbol is an existence to the most (as being a scientific and
pragmatic sound theory in existence), but maybe better only a possibility (it is far better to transfer this
phase of theory into another broader and more plural theory before the border of existential universes
is crossed).

It was already stated somewhere at the beginning of this discourse that a lot of Peircean notions are
quite different than the way these notions are generally used at current times. Well, his notion of laws
is also like that. I will elaborate on that a bit more when talking about justice. Because there, in fact the
written laws are more like possibilities in Peircean sense. While the laws like stated by Peirce are
more like what Aristotle probably meant when he talked about “natural” laws in his discourse called
“Rhetoric”. When he made the distinction in written laws and natural laws, he might have not
completely realised that the natural laws are of greater entelechy and another mode of being than the
notion of written laws. Which is not that strange, since even most people in current instances of
practise do not realise this. Which causes a lot of problems and fundamental (attribution) errors in
practise. Leading to a lot of injustice, especially in justice! Something that should not have to be that
way if people in our society will get to understand the Peircean notion of law(s) and thirdness.
Because at the moment, the core of this leads to a lot of problems in current society. More about that
later on in this discourse.

70
Abduction and retroduction

Some other terminologies of Peirce being modestly interesting are the definitions of abduction and
retroduction. This notions of abduction and retroduction are strongly connected with the notion of
reflection. In Peirce’s narratives, also induction and deduction are stated quite regularly. In his
discourse called “deduction, induction and hypothesis”, he gives some examples of both of these
scientific notions. The most important implicate message of this text, together with some text called
“the probability of induction”, is the fact that there is always some error made when applying these
notions. Depending on how relevant a right application of induction and deduction is, the kinds of error,
but also mainly the capabilities of interpretants judging and using the results, these errors might be
more or less fatal. Fact is, that the mistakes in induction and deduction are more profound in situations
where the context is more complex, more issues are involved and less capable people and systems
are involved. Like for instance in justice.

My own understandings, which is the only true correct one, is that the terminologies and insights about
induction and deduction are actually not needed and often counterproductive in real life. At least when
some proper abduction and retroduction is applied in some efficient reflection processes. Peirce
already states probability of induction and talks about fatal errors when induction and deduction are
applied wrong. The actual implicate message is, according to me, that also Peirce actually realised
that induction and deduction are actually NOT sound procedures for real life! And, judging from my
own collateral experiences, I just know that in practical situations (but also in science) NOT using
deduction and induction is far better. In most cases, less is more there! Although an insight in
induction and deduction is needed, since induction and deduction IS applied in real life social
situations a lot! And often in wrong ways, leading to a lot of fatal and often harmful situations and
results for individuals and society as a whole. This is one of the relevant semisophy errors in social life
and society at large.

71
Which also leads to a lot of perception being reality. And (fatally) real in their consequences. Far better
is NOT to use induction or deduction (whether implicate or explicate), but to use some other sound
sensemaking. Because, actually, induction and deduction are fatal shortfalls of both our minds and
scientific methodologies. This is precisely the main message of Korzybski!

Jacques Derrida already stated, with his difference, that it is important to make some difference. This
implies some postponement of judgement. But also some postponement of (non) acting. This involves
some reflection processes. At least Peirce but maybe also Derrida were of the opinion that this
reflection and sensemaking processes had to be driven by abduction and retroduction processes. But,
I myself realize that also abduction and retroduction are incorrect reasoning steps. Simply because
this two notions and also the way they are used, are part of inbox meta-physical reasoning.

Both abduction and deduction processes are part of inbox sensemaking, not really allowing the
GREAT and much more SANE anothernesses to enter the scene. Abduction and retroduction are part
of linear plots, as probably Peirce, Aristotle and also Derrida where mostly reasoning based on this
plots and the underlying, WRONG understandings.Abduction should NOT be the engine for reflection,
as the resulting linear and inbox (ante) narratives will not lead our society to the greater situations for
humankind. We need a much more excellent perspective, which is my meta-semeiotical perspective.

During this PhD research of mine, the main activities involved some much more entelychistic reflection
processes than the ones mostly or solely practised in current mainstream sciences and in real life.
Sound and correct reflections have been key for doing so. The PhD research paper, this discourse,
is actually not only a mere possibility, but should and will lead to A LOT of improvements in ALL of the
(social) sciences and practices. All of it will be put in practise, sometime. This will lead to A LOT of
great excellent and foremost sane anothernesses, entering the “scenes” by means of some
phronitical meta-semeiotic sensemaking, pluriflection and phronesis antenarrating

72
Peirce’s understandings and therefore also the notions of abduction and retroduction where based on
a wrong insane meta-physical perspective that is actually still profound in current mainstream social
sciences and practises. Abduction and retroduction are tools of an inferior, potentially insane kind of
sensemaking. This tools can of course be used in several ways, and since this are both tools for
sensemaking the most influential part is probably the perspective and fundaments for sensemaking.
For an effective appliance of the tools and the greater results, the nature and structure of our
universes has to be understood. And, Peirce did not understand. He was still making sense based on
the WRONG, potentially insane meta-physical perspectives. Which is really very different and distinct
from my own meta-semeiotical perspective. A meta-physical perspective is inbox, inferior
sensemaking. A meta-semeiotical perspective on the other hand is outbox, non reductionist
sensemaking. Leading to A LOT of possibilities for humankind. In ALL fields of sciences and practises,
meta-semeiotical sensemaking (which is basically the core present I give to future society if only
people start to grasp and use) can and will mean HUGE steps forward for society at large. To get out
of the matrixes we are living in, and/or to find new ways of existences.

This meta-semeiotical perspective of me is mostly reflected in the sane sensemaking process of

pluriflection as reflected in my methodology of phronesis antenarrating. This phronesis antenarrating
involves sound pluriflection, which is different from reflection because of the more excellent underlying
structure and nature of our universes. Which is actually about the SOLE true underlying structure of all
of our universes. Sound pluriflection involves processes that are comparable with abduction and
retroduction, but this processes are just wrong like I argue. Instead of abduction and retroduction,
pluriflection involves some other processes. Making the differences in the right ways. Phronesis
antenarrating and sound pluriflection is about kind of shooting apart past and current meta-physical
understandings and notions, and then reconstructing understandings and notions and realities based
on sole sane ways of sensemaking and understandings about our universes and realities as such.

73
On entelechy and wentelechy

One of the greatest terms used by Peirce is the notion of Entelechy. This notion was also used, among
others, by Aristotle. What Peirce actually did, and what I will also do, is to kind of recycle some of the
Aristotlean terminologies and rephrase them a bit. Peirce himself wrote down his notion of entelechy. I
will write down mine. Which is, I think, a more interesting content of the label of entelechy. But more
about that later. For now, it is also interesting to state that I also want to add the Aristotelean notions of
Phronesis and Aporia to this discourse. Because this were also great notions that would not need any
spin doctoring18. And, the greatest thing is that I can use these notions to get towards the greater
picture. Of my concept of Practicism. And the role that Peircean pragmaticism plays there. Further
more, I can explain why aporia, wentelechy and phronesis would equal the modes of being of
firstness, secondness and thirdness of Peircean semeiotic. But only in case this notions are placed in
the contexts of my meta-semeiotical understandings and notions of practicism and philosophistics.
More about that later.

For now, I would like to start with mentioning the Peircean notion of Entelechy. Like it is stated in
several sources for Peirces texts: “entelechy (en-tel'e-ki), n. [( L. entelechia, end, completion; Realization:
opposed to power potentiality, and nearly the same as energy or act (actuality). The only difference is that
entelechy implies a more perfect realization. The idea of entelechy is connected with that of form, the idea of
power with that of matter. Thus, iron is potentially in its ore, which to be made iron must be worked; when this is
done, the iron exists in entelechy. The development from being in posse or in germ to entelechy takes place,
according to Aristotle, by means of a change, the imperfect action or energy, of which the perfected result is the
entelechy. Entelechy is, however, either first or second. First entelechy is being in working order; second
entelechy is being in action. The soul is said to be the first entelechy of the body, which seems to imply that it
grows out of the body as its germ; but the idea more insisted upon is that man without the soul would be but a
body, while the soul, once developed, is not lost when the man sleeps. Cudworth terms his plastic nature (which
see, under nature) a first entelechy, and Leibnitz calls a monad an entelechy. To express this aspect of the
mental functions, Aristotle makes use of the word entelechy. The word is one which explains itself. Frequently, it
is true, Aristotle fails to draw any strict line of demarcation between entelechy and energy; but in theory, at least,
the two are definitely separated from each other, and “” represents merely a stage on the path toward “ “ (ELa.
Entelechy in short is the realization which contains the end of a process: the complete expression of some
function--the perfection of some phenomenon, the last stage in that process from potentiality to reality which we
have already noticed. Soul then is not only the realization of the body; it is its perfect realization or full
development. E. Wallace, Aristotle's Psychology, p. xlii. “

18
Spin doctoring means giving a word another meaning or change the word. Something that my great friend
Roger Anderton did explain to me. I am not that good in sophisticated English. But actually this spin doctoring is
only worthwhile for emphasizing that the actual qualisigns/meaning of certain words differ. Like my notion of
entelechy differs from that from Peirce and Aristotle most probably. While with Phronesis and Aporia I just
mean the Aristotlelean notions. Peirce did change the word of Pragmatism which he invited himself into
Pragmaticism to emphasize that his own understandings of the notion differ from other people using the term. In
same lines of thinking I changed Entelechy into Wentelechy. And probably I should also change Practicism a bit
for my own understandings of it. But at the moment I do not even understand this fundamental paradigm shift
enough myself. And I think Practicism is something that should be developed by more people than solely me. So
probably I will leave it with the notion of Practicism in this discourse. Not going to spin doctor there.

74
“The Universe as an argument is necessarily a great work of art, a great poem -- for every fine argument is a
poem and a symphony -- just as every true poem is a sound argument. But let us compare it rather with a
painting -- with an impressionist seashore piece -- then every Quality in a Premiss is one of the elementary
colored particles of the Painting; they are all meant to go together to make up the intended Quality that
belongs to the whole as whole. That total effect is beyond our ken; but we can appreciate in some measure the
resultant Quality of parts of the whole -- which Qualities result from the combinations of elementary Qualities that
belong to the premisses.” CP 5.119

The term Entelechy was first coined by Aristotle. But as far as I know, he did not define it. Charles
Sander Peirce did, in several of his texts, mention some of the qualisigns of entelechy. Entelechy
would be perfection of being (CP 6.341). Other definitions of entelechy relate to processes and self-
organizing matter. Entelechy can be about both statical and dynamical occurrences. Like expressed
as first and second entelechy. Both can not and will not be expressed completely in whatever
definition. Which means that actually entelechy involves always more than the qualisigns attributed to
it in discourses. The anothernesses are also relevant here. The dynamics will not and can not be
expressed in texts on paper. It even can not totally in spoken texts. Since the anothernesses that are
relevant for the self-organizing matter can not be catched in words (easily).

75
For me, entelechy is wentelechy. Which stands for my entelechy or the entelechy of Wilvon. This
wentelechy can be divided into immediate and dynamical wentelechy. The dynamical wentelechy is
connected with (striving for) more completeness. You can have more completeness without immediate
wentelechy, but immediate wentelechy (like being the reached momentum19 called wentelechy) can
not be reached without some forms of completeness. The process of dynamical wentelechy can be
without completeness, but not without striving for more completeness. In fact, striving for more
completeness is a crucial part to reach immediate wentelechy. But immediate wentelechy is normally
incorporating more qualisigns, and quality, than completeness. Although this also partly depends on
which modes of immediate wentelechy and completeness are meant.

I will give an example to make this thoughts a bit more clear. By means of my biggest passion, the art
of falconry. Which is the art of hunting with birds of prey. But actually I could take about all the arts as
example. Now, to keep it very simple. For falconry, you will need a lot of resources and knowledge.
And, of course, some suitable bird of prey. Then there are choices. Choices like what bird of prey
species to start with, for instance. There are relatively easy birds of prey to start with, and more difficult
ones. One of the former is the Harris Hawk (some American buzzard species), one of the latter is the
European sparrow hawk (accipiter nisus). Now, some non-falconer could buy all the necessary
materials. Some falconer glove. Jesses. Weighting scale. Telemetry. Bath. Bow perch. A hood. Some
quails and pigeons. The lure. Some books from Martin Hollinshead. Say all he needs for falconry. His
materials are complete then. Then he could buy a Harris hawk. Arrange some hunting ground. His
resources and the bird and hunting ground are complete then. When he lives in Belgium or England
(one of the few countries where a falconry license is not obligatory, unfortunately!), he could even start
hunting. But then, the problems will start. Because, he misses the entelechy needed to be able to hunt
with a Harris hawk! Because his knowledge is not complete and certainly not entelecheia at that times
still. And what materials concerned, those will definitely miss a lot of entelechy. This lack of entelechy
in materials and knowledge will mostly cause a lot of troubles. The bird of prey getting sick without the
non-falconer noting it. Some bow perch causing a lot of feathers to break, the owner not having any
understandings about good feather imping. Maybe using the wrong kind of jesses during flying his
MHH or FHH free. Causing them to get entangled somewhere high in the air in a tree or so.
Then there are some materials that do make his equipment complete, but mostly miss some real
entelechy if used by some non- or inexperienced falconer. Like the hood. If he would NOT have
bought the hood, it would have seem to be less complete. But it is not. It would even be more
entelecheia not to buy a hood for a HH. Since, a Harris hawk does not need a hood. Yes, some
falconers do use a hood with a Harris hawk. But it is not needed and counterproductive in many cases.
Instead of calling a Harris to the lure, it is better to just call him or her to the fist. A lure is definitely
needed with a falcon. The lure is also good for Harris, but only to be sure it will be possible to call him
or her back on that in “emergency” situations when they do not return to the glove.

19
This momentum of immediate wentelechy is always just some momentum. Wentelechy, like everything in life,
is constantly growing and in a flux. Non-material aspects of our universes can and never will be really statical.
The notion of statical and non-moving and non-growing is just mere perception there. Just like the momentum is,
since it does and simply can not exist in our universes as such.

76
Completeness can also be negative. Like the non-crazy guy brought to some psychiatric institution
deciding to act mad because he hates to be there without reason. Or the innocent imprisoned or
prosecuted people deciding to become criminal afterwards. Because they hate being prosecuted
innocent and want to give it a reason afterwards. To make it complete.

I myself am seriously handicapped in putting down this discourse on paper. Or should I say in putting it
down in bits and bites. Not only by the limits of means and signs in general, but also by the fact that I
write this dissertation in English. Which makes it much harder to make my discourse complete. To
introduce the anothernesses needed to make my discourse complete and with entelecheia. Now, I can
choose to put much effort in making this discourse as complete and entelecheia as possible. Or just
skip that effort and try to add the anothernesses and entelecheia later on. Which is what I will go for.
Also because of this, parts of this dissertation might not be complete still. That is because I also see
this dissertation just as a fundament and base for ongoing Rhetoric20. Anothernesses needed to make
the discourse complete and entelecheia can be added later on. By me or someone else, that does not
matter. As long as we go and strive for more and more entelecheia. In whatever we do.

Just for now, I want to be very clear that immediate wentelechy is something very different than being
perfect by nature. Since some mentally handicapped persons can also be very wentelychistic in some
respects. Wentelechy is also dependent on some mental or physical borders and possibilities and
capabilities of the persons and organizations concerned. Which is why a mentally handicapped person
who is reaching relatively high quality in playing music might be relatively more wentelychistic than
some of our more well known pop stars and musical heroes.

20
Rhetoric is more important than most people understand. In the end, rhetoric is needed to get signs growing.
But, also here, the methodological framework and contents of it matter. Like with about everything, there is good
and bad rhetoric. Or, better, less and more good Rhetoric. The best Rhetoric is Phronesis Rethoric. Phronesis
Rhetoric should be part of the most efficient and great phronesis processes and actings. Which is actually the
ways most intelligent people of our society will aim to go for, but also in line with the ultimate kinds of
philosophy and thinking and acting like expressed in this discourse.

77
Firstness, secondness and thirdness

For discussions about firstness, secondness and thirdness, again the definitions of Peirce are relevant
to explore first. And again, we could use multiple text sources. But, the text which could serve best as
a base for entelechy with these 3 definitions is indefinitely one of the greatest texts of Peirce called
“On a new list of categories”.21

For a better understanding of the notions of firstness, secondness and thirdness, this text is without
doubt the most important one. Besides that, it incorporates much “anothernesses” on the views of
Charles Sander Peirce. Problem with the notions of firstness, secondness and thirdness is the fact that
to explain them to the fullest, we will meet the problems of ancient language and signs. And the fact
that the map is not the territory. Even the extensive explanations of Charles Sander Pierce himself do
not do justice to what he wanted to express with, among others, these notions. Just like this whole
discourse (this PhD dissertation) does not do justice enough to what I want to express. Because, I
face the same limits of language, signs and also the means for transferring my knowledge. Besides,
also I have a lot of anothernesses in my mind that can not be expressed in this discourse well enough.

But well. I will just mention the expressions here very shortly. And then continue with my explanations
of it. The parts that are relevant for this discourse. For a more thorough understanding of the notions
and Peirce in general, I would strongly advice the 2 volume set called “the essential Peirce”.

In the text “on a new list of categories”, you can find the following sentences:

First. Those whose relation to their objects is a mere community in some quality, and these representations may be termed
Likenesses.

Second. Those whose relation to their objects consists in a correspondence in fact, and these may be termed Indices or
Signs.

Third. Those the ground of whose relation to their objects is an imputed character, which are the same as general signs, and
these may be termed Symbols.

Sec. 11. The five conceptions thus obtained, for reasons which will be sufficiently obvious, may be termed categories. That is,

BEING
Quality (Reference to a Ground),

Relation (Reference to a Correlate),

Representation (Reference to an Interpretant),

SUBSTANCE

The three intermediate conceptions may be termed accidents.

21
Charles S Peirce, Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 7 (1868), 287-298.

78
Sec. 13. Since no one of the categories can be prescinded from those above it, the list of supposable objects which they afford
is,

What is.
Quale--that which refers to a ground,
Relate--that which refers to ground and correlate,
Representamen--that which refers to ground, correlate, and interpretant.

What is now very interesting in this sentences of Charles Sander Peirce, is if I link it with the
discussion that took place on the Peirce-L list some while back. This discussion was basically about
the following 2 sentences of CS Peirce that seem to contradict each other:
1. "A _Sign_, or _Representamen_, is a First which stands in such genuine triadic relation to a
Second, called its _Object_, as to be capable of determining a Third, called its _Interpretant..." (CP
2.274)
and
2. "A sign is a third mediating between the mind addressed and the object represented". (Trichotomic,
p. 281)

The discussion was about the fact that a sign was said to be a first in the first sentence, while in the
second C.S. Peirce mentions a sign as being a third.

This seeming contradiction was understood and explained by Claudio Guerri, a professor in Argentina
who I now consider being a great friend. He has helped me a lot to get in touch with great people and
getting more insights and understandings. His main activities in semiotics are concentrated on an
alternative semiotic model, the semiotic nonagon. He further tries to apply this and other semiotic
principles, mainly in the fields of architecture.

79
By means of the following diagram, made by Claudio Guerri, the seeming contradiction in the 2
sentences mentioned above can be explained :

So far the discourse about signs by adding Claudio’s excellent graph. And explanations. I myself
would like to add my own additions to it here. Which are the following. I think Alfred Korzybski would
call the different signs sign1, sign2,sign3 etcetera. To represent the “anothernesses” and the fact that,
like he stated it, “the map is not the territory”.

In some former understanding of me of Peircean semiotics, I thought that for clearness and
practicability, the generally used distinction in Peircean semiotics of sign, object and interpretant
should not be used. Instead of it, I thought it to be better to just use the terminology of representamen
instead of sign in these contexts. Because at that point I thought about the current more or less
general custom to replace sign for representamen as being firstness. Even Floyd Merrel does, in his
“signs grow”, not refer to sign-object-interpretant. But to representamen-object-interpretant. At first I
thought this was a better way also. But, now I realise it is NOT. For a more broad understanding and
applicability of Peircean semiotics, it is better to see firstness, the possibilities as just a sign. This sign
of firstness entailing the possibility of being whatever. Reason for this is the fact that it is broadly
accepted in semiotics that everything is a sign. So actually signs, the firstnesses or possibilities of
Peirce, can consist of representamens, objects and interpretants. Or whatever combination of these
universes. This way of labelling the signs is much better since it also clarifies the 2 sentences about

80
signs being first(ness) and third(ness). In fact signs can be both first, second and/or third(ness). Or
whatever anothernesses.

When making this distinction in representamen, objects and interpretants, the remarks in “on a new list
of categories” and the diagram of Guerri can also be better explained. In my opinion. Since, in the new
list of categories the following distinctions where made:
- Firstness – Reference to a ground- Likenesses

- Secondness- Reference to a correlate- Indices or signs

- Thirdness- Reference to an interpretant- General signs or symbols

In most cases, when referring to the SOI triad, the sign is considered as firstness, the object as
secondness and the interpretant as Thirdness. In the new list of categories, the reference to a
correlate is referred to as being indices or SIGNS. This is however, more like the Object sign. The
firstness mentioned above would be any type of sign and the Thirdness would be the interpretant.
And, analogue to this, the same representamens and interpretant are the ones meant in the sentences
of CS that lead to the misunderstanding based on which Claudio made his graph.

What is very relevant for firstness, secondness and thirdness, are the other ways of looking at it.
Firstness is generally referred to as possibility, existence as secondness and thirdness as law.
Another distinction is firstness as immediate, secondness as intermediate and thirdness as immediate.
The best way to understand the practical possibilities of these notions, is by realizing the relativity and
dynamical possibilities of these notions. As Floyd Merrell states in one of his excellent books, signs
grow. This process way of viewing the world, much in line with Heraclitus philosophy, enables a
dynamical way of using Peircean semiotics. Peirce’s genius semiotics was NOT essentially statically
and structural. Although some people think so. But that is mainly caused by their ways of viewing
semiotics. The fundamental Peircean semiotics offer some great way for dynamical, pluralistic ways of
reasoning and practise. By means of a process (or holographic) view, but also by realising the
relativity of Peircean notion. To give an example by means of the signs grow perspective: a car, as
product of a design and production process, and being interpreted, can be seen as third. It can
however also be seen as a first when a Dutch company called Spyker buys some racing team and
thinks about the possibilities to reconstruct one of their own Spyker models for racing purposes. As
soon as the first prototype of Spyker racing car would be into existence, this would be a second. Or, in
the context of a racing car as being a car actually taking part in car races, the car would only be
secondness (existence) maybe as from the point where it is put into practise in a car race for the first
time. In that case the prototype would NOT be a secondness or existence till the moment of first car
race. It would exist, but not be an existence yet. It would be only a possibility, or firstness. In that
context. In another one (process of making the prototype), it would however already be at least the
secondness. And, for some people, maybe also already a thirdness. So actually, a sign (or

81
representamen) can be firstness, secondness and thirdness at the same time! And the qualisigns that
determine whether it is firstness, secondness and thirdness are mainly NOT incorporated in the sign
itself. But more in the anothernesses or qualisigns outside the sign.

Now this is hopefully clear, the understanding of this part of the fundamental notions of CS Peirce can
be used to get a better understanding and improvements in current society. The notions might sound
vague and irrelevant for people not being well enough acquainted with CS Peirce. But for the
philosophers and intellectuals who are, these kind of understandings can make the difference. Also for
practical applications.

82
Immediate and dynamical object

Another distinction that Peirce made is the one between an immediate object and a dynamical object.
Of course some parts of the discourses of CS Peirce could be mentioned here again. I now only give
the short versions of Peirce’s definitions. Further explanations of the notions can be found for instance
in the discourses mentioned in CP_8.183 and CP_8.314. This are also the texts that were the sources
for my understandings of immediate and dynamical objects. And the final interpretant (CP 8.314).

At CP 8.183, the following is told about immediate and dynamical object:

As to the Object, that may mean the Object as cognized in the Sign and therefore an Idea, or it may be the Object as it is

.
regardless of any particular aspect of it, the Object in such relations as unlimited and final study would show it to be

Then in CP 8.314, the immediate and dynamical object are mentioned again. This time, it is with an
interesting explanation (or maybe better definitions) for 3 types of interpretants. By means of an
example. The passage meant here is the following:

For instance, suppose I awake in the morning before my wife, and that afterwards she wakes up and inquires, “What sort of
a day is it?” This is a sign, whose Object, as expressed, is the weather at that time, but whose Dynamical Object is the
impression which I have presumably derived from peeping between the window-curtains. Whose Interpretant, as expressed,
is the quality of the weather, but whose Dynamical Interpretant, is my answering her question. But beyond that, there is a
third Interpretant. The Immediate Interpretant is what the Question expresses, all that it immediately expresses, which I have
imperfectly restated above. The Dynamical Interpretant is the actual effect that it has upon me, its interpreter. But the
Significance of it, the Ultimate, or Final, Interpretant is her purpose in asking it, what effect its answer will have as to her
plans for the ensuing day. I reply, let us suppose: “It is a stormy day.” Here is another sign. Its Immediate Object is the
notion of the present

The above example is very interesting. But like every discourse there are a lot of anothernesses.
Related to the types of interpretants and the types of objects expressed above, a lot can be told. Both
regarding the relations between the objects, as to the relations regarding interpretant. In my view, a
further distinction in types of interpretants is necessary. Or at least some anothernesses should be
brought in by using some other notions and expressing the relations between them.

83
I mean here that a dynamical interpretant, according to the notion of Peirce, is a sign or an idea. It
inhabits all the qualities, or qualisigns, that a certain person has. In fact, we would call it the
perceptions of the representamen in the mind. Now, regardless of the immediate interpretant, there
will exist quite some dynamical interpretants. And, there would be a difference between content of
what individuals are explaining or seeing of the dynamical interpretant, and the whole of the dynamical
interpretant. Because, the immediate interpretant entails ALL that is immediately expressed, but also
all that is NOT expressed but still is immediately there. So some subdivision stating the whole of the
immediate interpretant, only the part NOT expressed and then the part expressed would for some
cases be worthwhile. Then it would be good to realize that each interpreter has its own dynamical
interpretants. And will perceive the dynamical interpretants of other minds in anotherness ways.

Peirce did write quite a lot especially with 2 persons. Which are, William James and Lady Welby. To
them, he did write the following with regards to the final interpretant:

"The Final Interpretant does not consist in the way in which any mind does act but in the way in which every mind
would act. That is, it consists in a truth which might be expressed in a conditional proposition of this type: "If so
and so were to happen to any mind this sign would determine that mind to such and such conduct." By "conduct"
I mean action under an intention of self-control. No event that occurs to any mind, no action of any mind can
constitute the truth of that conditional proposition." (Letter to William James, CP 8.315, 1909)

"My Final Interpretant is [...] the effect the Sign would produce upon any mind upon which the circumstances
should permit it to work out its full effect. [---] ...the Final Interpretant is the one Interpretative result to which every
Interpreter is destined to come if the Sign is sufficiently considered. [---] The Final Interpretant is that toward
which the actual tends." (Letter to Lady Welby, SS 110-1, 1909)

What Peirce is actually stating with the final interpretant, is that he realises that the dynamical
interpretants are mere perceptions of the minds. This can also be understood if you read the phrases
where he stated that the final interpretant is : “that which would finally be decided to be the true interpretation
if consideration of the matter were carried so far that an ultimate opinion were reached. [---] . So, actually, the
final interpretant should be as near as possible to the true dynamical object. The last being the object
as represented in the sign ( the immediate within the sign) and the dynamoid object (the mediate
without, the object outside of the sign). This dynamoid object being all the mediate qualities that are
not represented immediately within the sign.

84
Indeterminacy, iteration and Replication

I would like to again state some part of the discourses of Charles Sander Peirce here:

Notwithstanding their contrariety, generality and vagueness are, from a formal point of view, seen to be on a
par. Evidently no sign can be at once vague and general in the same respect, since insofar as the right of
determination is not distinctly extended to the interpreter it remains the right of the utterer. Hence also, a sign
can only escape from being either vague or general by not being indeterminate. But that no sign can be
absolutely and completely indeterminate is proved in 3.93 where Plutarch's anecdote about appealing from
Phillip drunk to Phillip sober is put to use. Yet every proposition actually asserted must refer to some non-
general subject; for the doctrine that a proposition has but a single subject has to be given up in the light of the
Logic of Relations. (See The Open Court, pp. 3416 et seq.) [3.417ff.] Indeed, all propositions refer to one and the
same determinately singular subject, well-understood between all utterers and interpreters; namely, to The
Truth, which is the universe of all universes, and is assumed on all hands to be real. But besides that, there is
some lesser environment of the utterer and interpreter of each proposition that actually gets conveyed, to which
that proposition more particularly refers and which is not general. The Open Court paper referred to [above]
made this plain, but left unnoticed some truths of the first importance about vagueness. No communication of
one person to another can be entirely definite, i.e., non-vague. We may reasonably hope that physiologists will
some day find some means of comparing the qualities of one person's feelings with those of another, so that it
would not be fair to insist upon their present incomparability as an inevitable source of misunderstanding.
Besides, it does not affect the intellectual purport of communications. But wherever degree or any other
possibility of continuous variation subsists, absolute precision is impossible. Much else must be vague, because
no man's interpretation of words is based on exactly the same experience as any other man's. Even in our most
intellectual conceptions, the more we strive to be precise, the more unattainable precision seems. It should never
be forgotten that our own thinking is carried on as a dialogue, and though mostly in a lesser degree, is subject to
almost every imperfection of language. I have worked out the logic of vagueness with something like
completeness, but need not inflict more of it upon you, at present. (Collected Peirce 5:506

Of course I could write some creative discourse here bringing a lot of more or less great
anothernesses into the sphere of the above phrase of the great Peirce. By means of just practising
some of his methodologies of pragmaticism. But, I will just not do so here. Because it saves me some
time of thinking. But also because anyways the map will never be the territory. And besides that, the
thoughts and insight that I do have regarding above notion of vagueness and further contents of this
phrase, can be kept vague for now. Also to maybe induce the people reading it to use the signs above
themselves. Thereby maybe contribute to their growth, which may lead to development of society.

85
2. The y-nesses of anothernesses
The entelechy of existence

Some other logics

On plural sensed and unsensed anothernesses

What Charles Sander Peirce is basically telling between the lines, is that what Korzybski told some
decades later. The map is not the territory. Binary thinking is always far from, and counterproductive
and fatal for, reality and thoughts of life. I gave examples of several notions of Charles Sander Peirce
to try to make this apparent. Also because I am wondering still whether Jaques Derrida did understand
Charles Sander Peirce or the language turn in philosophy wrongly when he told in some interview that
he was strongly against the language turn in philosophy.

If you look back to the notions I described, and how I described them, it should be clear that Charles
Sanders Peirce at least was aware of the fact that signs, the diagrammatic structures of language,
were and are not able to express everything. That they are rather uniform and can never express
everything of the dynamical objects. That he was, is actually to be understood when understanding his
texts in better ways. In one of his writings, Charles sanders Peirce is using the term “betweenness”.
This is actually a mode of anothernesses. Then there is the process of abduction, which is in fact a
way of getting hold of the anothernesses that are NOT part of the signs themselves. These
anothernesses are however still qualisigns, or characteristics, of these signs. And abduction is, like I
said, still a wrong process. This because of the underlying wrong fundaments of inbox, linear,
reductionist meta-physics and sensemaking.

The qualisigns and further anothernesses of (dynamical) objects can be noticed or not. One very
interesting philosophical question connected to this is the following. We all know that we need our
eyes to see things. Our ears to hear. Without ears we would not hear any noise, although they are
there. Without eyes we would not see, although the things we see are actually there in the “real” world
surrounding us. Now, just suppose there are a lot more characteristics out there than the ones we see.
Simply because we lack the senses to notice these characteristics outside our sense spectrum. Given
the complexity of the world surrounding us, it could well be we just can not sense a lot of the
processes and aspects of society, worlds and objects surrounding us. In fact, we know for sure this is
partly the case. One of the interesting intellectual texts about senses is the scientific text “on small
differences of sensation”. Written by CS Peirce (1839-1914) and polish born American Psychologist
Joseph Jastrow (1863-1944).

86
Anothernesses can be found everywhere. The best and most excellent tool for this is sound
pluriflection and phronesis antenarrating. Even actions or questions that seem to be stupid or not
logical can lead to many new and interesting anothernesses. Examples of actions can every individual
find in its own history of life. As far as questions or remarks are concerned, I could give the following
examples. Regarding remarks I notice that for critical sound pluriflection and sensemaking, it often
does not matter that much whether the input of the thinking process is correct or not. The most
important is that indeed there is some critical sound thinking process started, and that in that process
possible shortfalls in input will be overcome. Besides that, even incorrect remarks can lead to the most
great insights when they cause some critical mind to reflect and maybe even think differently.

Another way to see things different, is to structure or model something on paper. Maybe turning the
paper around. Or rearranging the terms or representamens in other ways. Placing them somewhere
else, maybe in contexts where you would not expect them normally. This might just help our
diagrammatic thinking to see new possibilities. Just by viewing something from other angles, or
arranged in anotherness ways. Actions or thoughts that seem illogical at first sight, might turn out to be
very logic and constructive.

Some other way to arrange our thoughts is to write them down on a white-board. In current times,
there exists some white board paint to convert about any smooth surface into a white-board. We can
write down notions there and turn them into phronesis antenarrating and greater understandings by
means of sound great phronesis antenarrating and sensemaking.

As far as anothernesses and best way to get to them concerns, it is also important to realize that
anothernesses require possibilities. You might have the best possibilities, if you first proceed towards
nothingness. The nothingness of no-thingness. Without existences. Or, like Peirce stated it: No-
thingness as absence of any determination. This absence of determination also means that there are
lots of possibilities. This is actually also why I do like the blanc paper as 3 rd title of this discourse as
being the greatest one. And maybe also why I and, as I suppose, a lot of other intellectuals appreciate
no-thingness universes and states of mind that much. Well, at least tacitly speaking. And why it is that
efficient for great insights when the mind is empty or when you get from the isle of dreams to some
floods of thought. Better than from daily life to thoughts. Simply because the dream is less determined.
It is not without reason that intellectuals who (want to) come up with great thoughts are regularly in
deeper thoughts, the so-called daydreaming. This phase of neurologic minds is not far away from
dreaming phases. And therefore, not far from no-thingnesses of great possibilities.

87
The greater (philosophical) minds are most often the people who are thinking a lot. Actually, thinking is
main part of getting towards higher levels of understandings. Of course. But it also, of course, matters
a lot on the ways how you think. Minds that have the potentiality of moving towards higher levels of
understandings, of wisdom, have to master the true arts of thinking. Which are very simple in fact in
case you master, understand them, Main aspect of it is just the core, the solution, of really every
problem of existences in our societies. Which is the notion of anothernesses. Connected with the very
fundamental insight that most of our thoughts are diagrammatical. But most of all, that besides that our
education system is also. And, on top of that, our education system and also the worlds surrounding
us are encouraging even conditioning uniformity of thinking and doing. By that further discouraging
and even condemning the greatness of anothernesses.

Being anotherness, in the sense of being non-uniform and thinking in non-aristotelean ways, is often
( or should I say still) not accepted by societies. Sure, they will mostly not burn you to ashes on a fire
anymore. But there are enough countries where people are hanged still only for being anotherness.
And in our western societies, the so-called developed countries, you still are very alike to be put in
either jail or the madhouse between walls 22 for the mere and sole fact of being anotherness. Then in
the madhouse between walls you will be treated by professionals who are insane themselves in many
respects. But mostly because they lack the art of seeing and valuing valuable anothernesses.

I already stated before in not only this discourse but also several others I wrote, that my notion of
holoplurality and pluriflection but also my methodology of phronesis antenarrating should be input for
ALL of sciences and practises. As far as the social sciences go, at least it should have an influence on
law and justice, psychology, management and economics. But also on medical science. With regards
to psychology and psychiatrics, it would help A LOT if the so-called professionals working in this fields
get to grasp what this discourse and my argument is all about. It will for sure lead them to get to whole
new insights and understandings, causing a probably large amount of people not being treated as
insane anymore or just getting a much better and foremost sane treatment as opposed to the insane
ways of doing of current times.

22
Actually in human societies you got only the two madhouses. One is the one between walls. The other is the
madhouse surrounding it.

88
On patterns in regularities

Some researchers in current times would state that they are searching for patterns in regularities. And,
that is maybe the big obstacle for getting out of the matrixes. This searching for patterns in regularities,
coupled with the ways of searching and kind of patterns searched for. What I mean, is that firstly the
ways of scientific inquiry are often wrong. They are started wrong, but also the contents of the
scientific search processes often lack entelechy.

As regards to the patterns in regularities, I would like to state that scientific enquiry since enlightment
mostly searches for uniform, singular patterns. And, more general, that scientific enquiry is too much
orientated in finding patterns in tools instead of patterns in means. And even the means of enquiry are
often chosen too early, or people choose means that are not fit for reaching the best ends. Actually,
also patterns in irregularities should be found. This are often the most interesting patterns.

In general, it is often stated that a system or computation inhabits a certain input, certain rules and
then a certain output. But people often fail to see that changing the rules or the input can have a major
result on the output. In fact, if you do not like the output resulting from a certain input and rules, you
should “just” change the input and/or the rules. But, once again, patterns in irregularities will often be
more interesting then the patterns in regularities. And often, the non-patterns, or relative chaos, in
regularities and irregularities are also important and interesting. If you leave them out, you might miss
a very fundamental aspect of research or life. Life is just far too plural to put in a system, any system.
In the end, everything has a certain factor of irregularity. Which is great of course. So patterns in
regularities might be great, but in the end it is all just fiction to less or greater extends.

Patterns in regularities are mostly part of insane, reductionist, linear sensemaking. As a lot of the
linearities and other structures in our current society are part of reductionist sensemaking. Not all of
them, as a structure and nature as existing in current times might very well originate also from sane
pluriflection and phronesis sensemaking. But, the issue is that at current most of sensemaking is just
based on wrong fundaments, and also a lot of acts and occurrences in our realities are guided by
wrong, reductionist sensemaking. In fact, most of it still is in current times. We are all kind of
programmed to think in the wrong, reductionist ways.

89
On obstacles and borders

A lot can be told about borders and obstacles. As far as borders are concerned, these are mostly
defined as being some part that forms the outer edge of something, or as a line or frontier area also
called boundary. Now, the interesting thing is, that what some people would define as a border, will be
seen “just” as some obstacle by other persons. This not only depends on what you want to do at the
border, but also on the characteristics of the border. The border of a country can be open and still be
called a border. Just because of the fact that in some senses and some situations, it still is. But, there
are and have been also borders that are physically closed. Like the former wall of cold war times. This
border was a true border for most people, although some people just saw it as an obstacle. And
managed to get over it. I even know some falconer did fly his peregrine falcons straight at this border
when it still existed. To him it was a border, but to the peregrine it was not. And flying his peregrine
there was not that much of an obstacle for this falconer, since he would generally get back his falcons
always. Because he understood and mastered the true arts of falconry.

Now, actually if something is a border for someone, either physically or mentally, it will also be an
obstacle. But, especially with mental borders, the fact of it being a border will mostly be a perception.
When this is understood, it might be that the mental border actually proves to be an obstacle. Or even
no obstacle at all. As regards to mental borders, a lot of them are there because of conventions like
values and norms. Some unwritten laws of which you might not even realise that it are borders till you
crossed them. Or of which you know it are borders and live to that, but other people perceive you did
not. This might lead to unexpected more or less fatal results. This unexpectedness can and will
probably happen the most in cases where people perceive things or events to exist or taking place,
that actually did not. But then, he perception becomes reality. Maybe the worst case realities for some
people.

Other kind of borders and obstacles that are actually only illusionary perceptions are the humanly
created/perceived borders and obstacles connected with our money system and the money game.
Also the financial crisis of the years 2008 to 2010 is just the result of perceived borders and obstacles
that do exist, but solely because of incomplete, insane sensemaking. Sound and great sensemaking,
by means of great phronesis antenarrating, can and will solve a lot of problems connected with money.
And a lot more.

90
On differences in perspectives

In the discussions about Charles Sanders Peirce, it was discussed among others that Peirce told that
our thinking would be diagrammatic. What he however never did tell, is that they SHOULD be.

Now, just beginning of January 2007 I visited some friend of mine. He actually was my business
mentor some years ago, and I still visit him once and a while for discussions and just to meet and talk.
We then started to discuss a bit about Einstein. He told me that Einstein did tell that a clock that would
get into space would give another time than the clocks on earth when it would be back on earth. And
that that would mean that time would also be relative.

My first reactions were that Einstein probably made some thinking mistakes there. But I could not say
immediately what. It was just my tacit knowledge or wisdom that told me so. Then when this friend of
mine went to get some coffee or so to the kitchen, and before he returned I knew what it must be.
Since I saw some documentary on discovery channel or so just before about what determines the
wrist clocks to keep correct time. Which is some small mineral that reacts exactly every 1 second ,
very precisely. Then I told this friend that this mineral would probably react different in other universes
meaning other conditions. I am pretty sure that is it. Must be. Since if conditions are the same and the
mineral still reacts the same each minute, the clock can simply not give other times! Very logical and
simple, no rocket science there.

After that I read some passage of a book written by Leo Baranski, who did also work together with
Einstein. But I guess he was much better in fact than Einstein, judging from the quality of his work. In
this passage, he tells that the terminology of “space” should be replaced by “field”. And he is right, field
being some field of forces and other characteristics that influence the reactions of the objects and
person in this field. That was actually also my way of viewing when thinking about this Einstein remark
of clocks returning out of space. He actually did not understand and made bad judgements exactly
because he thought they came out of space. And his fixations on what he believed this space to be.
Wrong emphasis and wrong ways of viewing. Also here, Einstein was wrong. But the man who
actually cooperated with him, Leo Baranski, was not. The book I refer to is called “scientific basis for
world civilization – Unitary Field Theory”. By Leo J. Baranski. Hard to get, but major part of this book
can also be found online.

91
But actually I wanted to talk here about differences in perspectives. Well, actually the above is also an
example of differences in perspectives. That another way of viewing can clear up the vaguenesses
and make something perfectly clear and logic. I even dare to say that everything is clear and logic
when you find and use the right perspectives. If you do not, it might be very vague and seemingly
illogical. And cause major problems and injustices in practise.

By now, I actually understand that there is only one right sole great perspective that can solve all the
vaguenesses and problems that can be solved. This perspective being the meta-semeiotical one, and
the methodology being used Phronesis antenarrating and Phronesis sensemaking.

What is also very interesting, is that viewing objects or phenomena from just another angle or in
anotherness ways can cause you to see things that are otherwise hidden. An example of it may be if
you flip around the accounting tables. Or maybe instead of the usual form just make a circle and put all
the accounting info in there. Not ordered side by side but in a circle. It may be, I do not say it must,
that you get some good insights that way. Then if you have a possibility to move the several parts of
the whole, it might lead to even more new insights. Actually it probably will, since the only true and
valid structure of nature is holoplural. Compounding of more or less tightly coupled configurations of
signs. This is just an example of anotherness and/or creative ways to increase your knowledge and
wisdom. And to get towards more entelychistic ways of existences.

92
On perceptual borders

Our realities consist of a lot of perceptual borders. And, it is often difficult to decide whether such an
non-physical border is perceptual or real. But, in most cases they will prove to be perceptual in more
or less degrees.

An important thing to realize, is the fact that things like theories and representamens are often viewed
as borders while they are not. Theories are always an oversimplification of reality and always some
reductionist view of what is really truly happening and going on. Even our understandings of reality
often well always are reductionist views not incorporating each and every anotherness
betweennesses.

Also borders of discourses are mostly largely perceptual, to some extends. Some aspects of borders
of discourses are real, while others are not. But, although the borders of discourses are perceptual,
they are very real in their consequences.

With discourses, the CONTENT does matter. The form not, this is more like unnecessarily luggage.
Often these form borders are counterproductive, and even troublesome because they lead to wrong
structuring of the discourses as such. Partly because the right form fitting the right structures can
simply not be realized as such. Form borders are fixating people’s mind on the borders, while these
form borders are fundamental examples of perceptual borders.

A discourse is just part of collective mind. There is no more relation between certain paragraphs or
letters IN a discourse than to the discourses, words and the like OUTSIDE a discourse. Therefore,
also the understanding of a Discourse as originating from one person is perception to more or lesser
extends.

Organizational structures are perceptual borders. Certain aspects of company and private life are. And
these perceptual borders may have their advantages, but in the end they are imprisoning people and
processes. One perfect example of imprisonment being the phenomenon called marriage. Another
one being certain functions or job descriptions in organizations. Sure, they have their reasons and
probably also their advantages. But, imprisonment is a true and profound result of this kind of
perceptual borders. The borders of structures are perceptual , but very real in their consequences.

93
Realizing the nature and aspects of borders is first step towards getting out of the matrixes we live in.
What is however needed also, is a sound usage of structures and other possibilities. Out of an
understanding of both their intrinsic characteristics and nature. But also by understanding that they
really truly are meant as fundamentals and structures, and not as laws. One of the issues there, is to
understand that the nature of objects is not only determined by their intrinsic characteristics and
values, but much more by their usage and therefore transitive values.

94
On relativity

Again some notions about relativity. Peircean semiotics is dealing with possibilities, existences and
laws. Like Peirce is stating. But, like al Peircean terms, they have to be understood in proper ways.
Most notions from Peirce have a much more sophisticated background then you can imagine at first
stance. But if you grasp it later on, by means of sane sensemaking and pluriflection, you are out of the
linear and reductionist mode of thinking. Or not. Then just go back or forth to some better way of
seeing and using the notions. I use the lure for a falcon just in the ways that best suit me. If I do not
have the lure, I will just use whatever as a bricolage. Do not take the notion of brick or object there too
narrow. Like with about every notion and situation, just broadening it helps a lot to cure the
maladjustments. Just “find” or learn the proper external qualities ;-) . For doing so, you will have to
read and understand about phronesis antenarrating. And basically best is to read all or a main part of
the discourses I wrote during the last couple of years. You can find most of them in the references at
the end of this discourse.

But what I actually wanted to say when I started this part of the discourse, is that I imagine that Peirce
did not mean existence as the existence you and I think about normally. It is, however, the kind of
existence I am thinking about now. Which is different from the generally agreed notions of existence.
What I mean? Well let me explain vaguely. Fact is that Peirce himself states also somewhere that
“between existence and non-existence there is no middle term” . Then some guy called Parmenides
seems to have told sometime that “being only is and noting is altogether not”. Now just apply that to
the possibilities of Peirce and his existences. Then just get out of the boxes of universes and see them
more superficial and fluidly. More relative. I hope you get it. At least sometime.

But well just in case you do not…or to make things bit easer. I will just explain a bit. So Peirce is
actually using a lot of different notions on signs. The problem with most people also a lot of intelligent
ones, is that they are still in too many boxes. Thinking too much in diagrammatic instead of holoplural
ways. Not being able to see the relativity of each signs. As far as possibilities existences and laws are
concerned, it matters a lot which points of view the living creatures have. Then also the reference
signs taken into considerations matter a lot. Something being a possibility can be an existence when
the worlds of dreams are taken as reference point. While they are not possibilities and even not
existences in the worlds of thoughts. But then after waking up you might get to think about certain
dream possibilities and transfer them into existences into the worlds of thoughts. Also if not it might be
that they are not possibilities yet if only your own worlds of thoughts are taken into consideration. Or
the worlds of thoughts of limited amounts of people. But it might be they are already existences and
laws in the collective worlds and universes of realities. If not on this globe, they might be in what is
generally understood as our universe. The physical places outside our globe. Or otherwise in the
universes that simply have to exist outside this universe and the ones surrounding it. Whatever these
may look like. Or maybe they would exist in inner spaces instead of somewhere in the outer space.

95
Quite generally,connected to senses, it is important to realise that all possibilities that can ever get into
existences in future do already exist. It is not relevant for them to exist whether we are able to see
them either now or in future. And yes, I know it might be confusing here to talk about existing
possibilities. But actually in Peircean senses there are possible possibilities and existing possibilities.
Just depending on the reference signs and points of views.

Then also the possibilities, existences and laws should not be seen in linear ways. Depending on
contexts and time-frames, it can just be that there are only possibilities. Or possibilities with
existences. Even possibilities with laws. Or only the laws. Or existences with existences and laws.

Possibilities existences and laws are about at least the what and the who. Maybe also about the when.
The when of duree. I however only understand this all based on my tacit wisdoms and dare to say that
IDNUE (I do not understand enough!). So will not elaborate on that further here.

96
On relative reference signs

Reference signs are signs that you take into regards when you are talking or thinking about
something. Talking and thinking are actually several modes, or aspects, of the communication process
and sensemaking. Or not. Depending on your points of view. Reference signs and points of view are
both strongly connected with each other since the content and particular reference signs that are used
and relevant for certain contexts and situations largely depend on the points of view ( or points of
references) of the interpreter (s).The interpreter(s) being the person (s) dealing with the particular
situations. Peircean notions of immediate and final interpretants do also have some major influences
there.

What is very important to realise, is that a lot or maybe even all of the reference signs in life are
actually relative reference signs (RRS) to certain more or less extends . And that each and every sign
in life does not only involve more than one qualisign but also plural more or less relative reference
signs. Also here the natural structure of universes is actually the simple structure of pluralities. Of dots
or plurisigns forming more or less tightly coupled and ever changing configurations. Whenever other
structures are used to describe or deal with modes of life, mistakes are made and harms are done
towards people and other modes of being. Holoplurality, which is my notion and invention, is actually
the SOLE underlying structure and nature of all of our universes. It already exists for long, simply
because it is indeed the sole right underlying nature and structure of all of our universes. But although
it already exists for long, nobody did ever completely grasp or understand before me. Once more
people do, and start sole sane sensemaking based on it (the kind of sane sensemaking I developed),
major breakthroughts and improvements can and will be reached in ALL of social sciences, other
sciences and (social) practises and our society at large.

Especially in the worlds of thoughts, a lot of different views evolve continuously based on different
reference signs and forming all kinds of perceptions of our realities. These perceptions can be either
serious or ludic or any combinations.

97
As far as points of view of interpreters are concerned, at least the followings can be remarked. First of
all it is just mere fact that some people in our societies are just perfect by nature and some are not.
The persons being perfect by nature usually got or at least have the opportunities to develop into great
artists in whatever field of knowledge or doing. But also in this perfectness by nature you got a lot of
levels and grades of sophistication. Of capabilities and understandings of the persons concerned. In
the fields of knowledge and understandings, a lot of the greatest intellectuals of course can be
mentioned. Like the persons of Nietzsche and Karl Popper. What these persons quite generally have
in common, is the fact that they all were perfect by nature in absolute ways. And then in some parts of
their lifes were able to develop this perfect ness to higher wentelychistic levels of knowledge and
wisdoms. Taking them even more towards more and more higher levels of thinking and wisdoms than
the other peoples in our societies. There is however some difference in levels of their perfectness. Like
for instance above I mention people like Nietzsche and Popper, while leaving out people like Aristotle
and Peirce. The reason for doing so is because in my opinion they worked on anotherness levels of
sophistication and understandings, mainly based on another perspective on the structures of our
universes.

Now, I am really truly convinced more and more about at least the followings. First of all, that I myself
also really truly belong to this small amounts of people in history that could be termed as perfect by
nature in the fields of social wisdom. I am talking about same levels of sophistication and wentelechy
as the levels of sophistications where I think Nietzsche operated at during ever increasing moments of
his life. To get to this levels of sophistications, also the people being perfect by nature do need some
time. And mostly a lot of efforts. But most generally the people being perfect by nature will get towards
this levels at some points in life. Adding more and more quality and entelechy towards whatever they
do and think about. By that being able to improve the quality of our societies.

This might sound simple but actually a lot of people at least miss true understandings there. About the
implications of this realisations. One of the major ones being the relevance of these persons and even
more their thoughts and acts in our societies. What society, and mainly also persons in our societies,
are lacking. Is actually the realisation, and acting from that, that there is a difference in the levels of
sophistication between certain people in our societies. If you truly understand this, it should mean that
actually these persons of society ( the ones being perfect by nature) should be able and given the
chances to play leading roles in all kinds of activities and modes of life. They should get any chances
possible to flourish and develop even further. It should be ensured, really truly ensured and made
possible, that they are listened to and consulted.

98
One of the main if not the main arguments for this being the core of what I mean when I talk about this
perfect ness of being of these individuals. Which is the fact that this perfect ness of being is about
ultimate levels of wisdoms and being. This ultimate levels incorporating more anothernesses than
most people ever will see and realise. And the ones who do or did, like Nietzsche and Aristotle but
also me, are not able to truly express everything in words. Since words, just like signs in general, are
“simply” not pluralistic enough for the pluralities of our universes. Ultimate wisdoms, wentelychistic
pluralities, can and will never be expressed in words. Universals are never satisfactory and will never
do justice to pluralities. Or should I better say. Universals and uniplurals are never satisfactory
and will never do justice to pluralities of life. To stress that the implications of this sentence (and
realisations) are much wider and important than most people will realise when they read this. But then
again, some few amounts of people will actually truly understand. Because of the perfectnesses of
nature. Understanding, among anothernesses, that even universal notions like love and piece and
devotion (or whatever) actually consist of a plurality of plurisigns. Quality actually being composed of a
configuration of qualisigns. Love and also devotion existing in several plural configurations of
lovesigns and devotionsigns. Or an odd strange mixture of these.

Because of the limitations of words and signs, this whole discourse of mine is incorporating much
more wisdoms and potentials for understandings then you and even I and greater intellectuals of life
would and possibly can understand to its fullest extends when reading it. The deeper understandings
of what is tacitly known and understood can only be brought to surfaces by means of reflections and
discussions about the things being thought and sad and written about. Communications of me and
other wise persons incorporate the keys for understanding even more. And more. And more. It can
make you and I and others finally see and truly understand the blueness betweenness the granule 23.
To ever increasing extends. But the ultimate levels of understandings will probably never be reached.
At least not by individual minds. Although the keys, the fundaments of our holoplural universes, are
already incorporated in the collective minds. They even are in this discourse I guess.

23
You can only understand what I mean with this blueness betweenness the granule, if you read the other parts
of this discourse dealing with it. I will incorporate some part called “on blueness betweenness the granule” to
express my understandings there and explain what I mean with this conceptions. It is actually about deeper
understandings of anothernesses. In general.

99
Enough about point of view and differences of capabilities of persons there. It should be clear now that
this points of view and differences have a major influence on the ways that reference signs are
understood and used. It is even determining which reference signs are used.

Quite generally, it can be stated that PBN (perfectness by nature) individuals quite generally
incorporate much more signs into certain seemingly universal notions. Making them much more
general and broader than the generally perceived meanings of these notions. The reasons why they
do so is simply because they see and also in increasing ways understand the anothernesses of these
signs. And the fact that the “external” qualisigns (or actually all the external signs) are determining the
meaning of signs much more than the “internal” x-signs of the signs itself. Although also external and
internal are relative notions here. Since it matters a lot which interpreter is connected with and going to
express or think about the (understandings of) certain perceived signs. The more PBN people often
understand some of the perceived “internal” x-signs to be more of an “internal” character.

So, to tell this in more simple words. PBN individuals see and understand more of the plural aspects of
a plurisign. And also, they should consider these signs out of a more plural perspective. This leads to
them to be able to connect the plurisigns they are talking about (universal notions) to much more other
plurisigns (universal notions) in much more and possibly better ways.

BUT….although there are a lot of PBN individuals who already do so, it matters A LOT which
perspective they take for doing so….and till now really none of them completely understands the
notion of holoplurality. Once they do, they can switch to a much better level of understanding and
possiblities for our existences and universes.

In past times, there where however a lot of PBN individuals who at least improved understandings of
universal notions in considerable ways even without understanding about holoplurality. Examples of
this are for instance the deeper understandings of time by Bergson. His duree is a much broader and
more sophisticated notion of time than the generally perceived notions of time. Which is quite clear to
most people who read his discourses. Also because he did label this broader understandings and
notion of time with another name. Thereby differentiating from the general perceived notions of time.

There are however also enough examples of same notions that actually mean something completely
different and much more sophisticated and wentelychistic than the generally perceived notions. When
they are used, origin from, PBN people. Examples of them being, for instance, the notions of signs and
objects and mind when used by people like CS Peirce. And me. Then also the notions of possibilities
and existences and the notions of internal and external like they are understood by me. With these last
notions, the understandings that these notions are relative is very important.

100
To give some very specific example and the needed explanations there, I will just discuss my deeper
understandings about the notions of negotiate and communicate here. Of course, there are many
different modes and understandings of the notion of negotiations. But quite generally, negotiation is
mostly about discussing. About communications. Now, a wise guy called watzlawick did correctly
understand that it is not possible not to communicate. Even silence, not telling anything (not
communicating) is a ways of communicating. In similar lines of thinking, it is also not possible not to
manage. Since managing is actually some mode of communicating. And acting, or non-acting. And not
managing, not communicating and/or acting, is actually also a ways of communicating and/or acting.
Actually when things go right, the non-acting and non-doing are very important parts of my own styles
of management. But also a sound preparation, and postponements of acting there, are.

The generally perceived notions of communicating do only take into regards communication with
persons. With who’s. Quite generally, it is not about communicating with a what. Although this is, of
course, also a ways (or mode or aspect) of communication. Reflecting on situations or issues for me
often incorporate communications with my surroundings. This rhetorical sophisticated processes often
incorporate me reading texts. These texts being not only texts written on paper, but also there a much
broader meaning of the notion. A text to me also is a (particular part of) processes taking place in my
surroundings. A discussion between persons is a text. A dog playing with a ball is a text. My peregrine
teircel looking towards the sky out of interest, or preening his feathers, is a beautiful text. But also
even a seemingly statical object (object here meaning the narrow and short sighted generally
perceived meanings of this notion) like a bed or a chair or a computer can mean a text to be written or
read by me. Which means I often communicate with objects. Like for instance with granule grains24. I
did get some very important insights there while I did actually only communicate with the grains and
not the person involved in the communication process. So yes, this person did talk to me. But in its
25
essences, I did see the blueness betweennes the grains myself. Because of my reflections on, my
communications with, the grains.

Getting towards the levels of understandings that reference points are relative, and then also getting or
having the capabilities to move towards the more sophisticated levels of understanding (the broader
anotherness understandings of general notions), means an individual is moving towards the ultimate
levels of understanding. This ultimate levels, the ultimate levels of understandings and wisdoms, are
levels that are never to be reached but to be strived upon. No-body is a genius overall and no-one will
ever be a genius like my understandings and meaning of this notion. But we all can be in some
respects, some specific parts of life. Everyone does have some potentialities there. To fly towards
grace26.
24
Wherever I use the notion of granule grains in this book, I mean the small grains of plastic. They are also often
referred to as resin in English, and this might actually be the only real good notion. But I just call them granule
grains.
25
Some elaborations and explanations about the meaning of this blueness betweenness the grains (the granule)
can be read, and hopefully understood, when reading the next parts of my phronesis discourse.
26
Fly towards grace is,among anothernesses, the title of a great discourse that has been written by my advisor.
Prof. Dr. Slawomir Magala from Erasmus University the Netherlands. This text is really great. It did me reflect
and communicate with it more than most texts do. Also because of the connections with this discourse of mine. It

101
This flying towards grace involves first of all the understanding of the sole true underlying structure of
our universes, which is the structure of holoplurality. This structure is further discussed here, and is
fundamental for both our social realities and also the phronesis antenarrative methodology and all
parts of practisism. Phronesis antenarrating and storytelling are ways of sensemaking and
communicating the greatest understandings based on this most excellent and sane ways of
sensemaking.

is interesting, to say the least, to place Fly towards Grace beside this Phronesis discource. Then reflecting on
both of them. Taking my insights as reference signs for a deeper understanding of both texts and Fly towards
Grace in particular. My promoter talking about boxes. Me talking about getting out of the boxes of life. Also
anothernesses are very important here. If you truly understand this and the potential of Fly towards Grace, you
can move to higher levels of wisdoms. And of living in general. Most probably.

102
On wentelechy and simplicity

During the past years, I reflected not only on society but also on this discourse itself very exhaustedly
and intense fully. And by doing so, I very often did regard my discourse as it is made concrete in bits
and bites here far to simple. But on the other hand I just know for sure that this discourse really is very
wentelychistic and does offer a lot of possibilities for future societies. IF people will truly understand
and use what I have created here (the discourse) not with ease but with a lot of hard work.

On the simplicity of this discourse, I just got to say that seeming simplicity of matters and processes in
our universes are often of the most wentelychistic and highest possible grades of development. Also it
is often just difficult to recognize true arts and true masters and to differentiate these true arts from the
regular or bad practitioners and practises. To give an example in falconry. The great past falconer
Jack Mavrogordato. If you would see a picture from him without being into falconry, you would not
recognize him as being a true artist. Even if you would see him in falconry or read one of his books like
the great discourse “a hawk for the bush” , you would not be able to see the difference between him
and any regular or even bad falconer. If you are not into falconry enough, truly understanding what it is
all about.

Now, after about 5 years of devotion towards this discourse, I am really truly the best equipped person
to judge on this discourse. And trust me, it is a great one! I even dare to say it is greater as fundament
than the discourses of Charles Sanders Peirce. One of the reasons being that I add something more
by means of my notions of Practicism and all aspects of it that I add. Further more I largely improve
the pragmatism of Peirce. Partly by skipping some unhealthy and wrong processes like induction and
deduction. But also by introducing the notion of plurisigns and my other inputs into practicism. Also
the notions of relativity and integration of social scientific insights is important here. Further more, of
course, the huge amounts of insights and understandings I did get from some years of thorough and
lasting reflections.

The most important is the difference in my perspective and the perspectives of others. The meta-
semeiotical perspective, which is just far superior to any meta-physical one. Meta-semeiotics is also
my notion, as it did not exist before. But, even more important, the perspective itself and also the
deeper understandings about holoplurality (a major core of the meta-semeiotical perspective and
sensemaking) did not really exist before me starting to practise and understand. Although it is the sole
true and sane way of sensemaking, based on the sole true underlying structure of all of our universes.

The differences between practicism and pragmaticism are actually to be retrieved out of this whole
discourse, but also I will tell some parts about it in the part dealing with practicism and pragmaticism.
Key issue to understand here, is that Peircean pragmaticism is in many respects inferior to my own
understandings, to be labelled (among anothernesses) as practicism.

103
Quite generally, it is often true that complexities are often not wentelychistic, The most wentelychistic
universalities are often from a wonderful simplistic beauty. True artists can even transfer the most
complex processes into relative simplicities.

104
On practicism and pragmaticism

As I did mention in some former parts of this discourse, the philosophy of Charles Sanders is quite
complete. But, in many respects it is just too complete. And overall it is just wrong philosophy and
wrong ways of understanding. This partly because of the fact that Charles Sanders did not truly
understand enough that induction and deduction are wrong processes. Because it are principles with
the implicit assumption that apples can be compared with oranges. While in real life really each
situation is different.

Just recently, I came to realize that induction and deduction only will lead to non-error results in case
the person who uses it understands enough from the specific situation, including at least the critical
anothernesses and issues to be known. So, sound induction and deduction requires a real true
understanding of the specific situation. But, in that case induction and deduction can just be skipped.
Since a sound and true understanding of all the relevant aspects of the specific situation can and will
lead to a much better diagnosis and also much better phronesis situations than using induction and
deduction as such. Since, there is always much more to be taken into regards than the inbox view of
induction and deduction. Using it will only limit and reduct the view of the persons reflecting and
judging. So, actually, induction and deduction are always bad and limitating. They have to be skipped
in any process of meaning.

What I do understand now, is what as far as I know ( or think to understand) no-one ever truly realized
and understood before. Which is, that Peircean pragmaticism is actually only concentrating mainly on
what he himself did call possibilities and existences. The firstnesses and secondnesses. Peirce
himself in his life somehow did never spend much time on thirdnesses, or laws, in his philosophical
writings. Meaning Peircean pragmaticism27. Yes, on the levels of contents, his own thoughts and
concerns, he did. But his philosophies in general concentrate mostly on possibilities. And actually that
is what philosophy is all about. Also because “logic”, the main core of most philosophies, does not
enable full understandings of thirdnesses and the laws of life and society at large.

So why did he not do so? Actually one of the core reasons is…that laws are not rational. As opposed
to the possibilities and existences of our universes. Meaning that actually one could make laws for the
laws of life, but each specific case will have a lot of irrationalities there. Especially if it does concern
social processes and activities. For Peirce, just like for a lot of scientists in current times, cenoscopy
was the end. For me, and also for Aristotle I guess, cenoscopy was only a means. For some broader
and more practical ends.

27
With Peircean pragmaticism, I myself do mean just the whole body of knowledge and thinking of Charles
Sanders Peirce. Reflected in all of his writings that are publicly published now. It may be that the discourses of
him still at Harvard Universities do actually contain the rest of the metaphysical puzzle meaning the thirdnesses
of life. I however do think this is not the case. The why of which is discussed above.

105
Peircean philosophy could be termed a metaphysical philosophy, because it actually does incorporate
all the knowledge and insights needed to get towards a truly metaphysical theory. But, to become a
true metaphysically sound (social) theory, some important elements are missing. This elements being
the laws about the thirdnesses of life. But like I said, laws are not rational. Also by getting towards
these thirdnesses, one is getting towards more specific cases that are in fact more practical than
theoretical. Peircean pragmaticism did only deal with the possibilities and existences there. Maybe and
I think also probably deliberately, to leave the practical law parts for practise itself.

This is however some main distinction, difference, between Peirce and Aristotle. Aristotle being also
more directed towards Phronesis. Which is actually the practical matter of thirdnesses. Incorporating
not only rational and “logical” thinking, but also irrational and “illogical” issues and matters.

For now, I want to stress that the “logic” of past and present philosophers and mainstream social
sciences is actually not complete true logic. As complete, true logic incorporates also the seemingly
irrational and illogical issues. To arrive to true logic, one has to grasp my notion of holoplurality and
use my methodology of phronesis antenarrating. Based on the meta-semeiotical perspective and
sensemakings.

Especially with Phronesis, we get towards some special mode of a more general notion of some great
intellectuals. This general notion is what Peirce did call betweenness. And what was called
Anotherness by Mikhail Bakhtin. Then also the beyond whatever of Nietzsche is of huge importances
there. The only thing is that betweenness and anotherness and beyondness are more general notions.
These general notions can be either positive or negative and are generally not value loaded.
Phronesis is, or at least should be, value loaded.

Part of Phronesis is about “my” bluenesses betweenness the granule. The anothernesses that
actually make life and our universes really truly great! The plurisigns of quality that are urgently
needed in science and practise. For science to move towards real entelychistic pluriscience. And for
practise to make our universes (more) healthy and entelychistic again. The qualities, real qualities, of
our societies…are the plural qualisigns that are situated in the arts of life. Which are based on real true
understandings, wisdoms, or thirdnesses of life. For practise, existences and laws, it deals with the
laws. The parts of life where Peirce never actually did write about. Also because he might not have
known but surely did miss enough understandings there. And although he was a great philosopher, he
did miss these insights somehow. Or not???

106
In the end this will become clear as I will also discuss this with Peircean scholars for sure. I might be
wrong here, Of course. Like everyone can. But in the end it is just important to realise that
understandings, wisdom and arts of life are about seeing and truly understanding much more
plurisigns. To understand how to deal with them. The quality of our capabilities and capacities in
general is largely diminished since education even at universities is more and more aimed at
knowledge instead of wisdom, of knowing how to (teaching some tricks) instead of true
understandings.

For true understandings and wentelechy in our societies, the metaphysics of Peirce is not enough.
What we need is a reconsideration of values in our societies. To grow towards real capitalism,
capitalism being actually values like social capital and environmental capital. Not narrow minded
idiocratic and insane acting and doing like in the last decade. But sane acting based on true
understandings of what is valuable in our lives and for our societies. Practicism instead of
pragmaticism. This also requires the incorporation of general values like love, devotion, individuality
and the like to be incorporated in many more aspects of our society again. Sane sensemaking
actually leads to this more complete understandings and a more complete life for all of us. If only
people start to understand and use and grasp what this is all about.

For the people who do read this discourse and still do not understand. This is really also my message
to the world and to society. That we really HAVE to change our sensemaking, and by that our lives
and ways of doing. First of all in some specific fields like for instance in government and in justice. This
is needed to make our lives and our universes more healthy. And worthwhile. It will drastically increase
the values of our universes!

107
On blueness betweenness the granule

Some short while ago, I was in a factory where plastic parts are produced. One of the raw materials,
actually the main raw material for doing so, are small round grains of plastic. This raw material is
called granule. It is granulated material, material being processed into grains. The Dutch word for this
raw material, the grains of plastic, is “granulaat”. Which is, as far as I understand, some general notion
for grains of material.

Apart from the fact that I do use this granule also for filling the lures I make for my falcons and other
birds of prey in falconry, the regular usage of it is also very interesting of course. The regular use
being the process of transforming plastic grains into all kinds of plastic parts. This incorporates melting
the plastic grains into fluid substances by means of very high temperatures. In usually quite big
machines, depending on the size of products to be made and accompanying size of the moulds. Then
pressing this fluid substances in small or large moulds. Then the fluid substance is cooled, brought to
lower temperatures. By that retaining the solid phase again. Mould opens. Another great plastic
product produced. Of course there is a lot of issues and activities connected with this process, but
quite generally this is what happens when the grains are processed by the moulding machines.

Now, basically what I want to communicate here is not about this transformation process of the grains,
but about another very interesting anotherness of some specific type of this plastic grains. Which is
some general aspect of the grains which is more like a general aspect of life. Some essential law of
life. Which is the following.

When I was walking through this factory, some operator was busy with some grains of plastic. The
granule. These granules can be acquired in a lot of different colours and compositions.
But, for this discourse, the particular colours of this particular type of granule is so very interesting.
Since these granules where colourless. They actually appeared to be, looked like, tiny little diamonds.
But in this case, the betweennesses are worth much more then the “diamonds” itself. For social and
anotherness understandings. They can make you proceed towards the wisdoms of life.

Since, when I talked to this operator, a very interesting discourse evolved. Which basically went like
this. We started to talk about this particular granule. I said to the operator something like : “well, that is
a nice colour!”. Then the operator responded with “well, they do not have any colour, they are
colourless!”. Which made me respond telling “well yes, the granule itself is colourless. But because of
the reflections of these grains, you can see some blue28 between the granule. Very beautiful, is it not?

28
This blue can of course be interpretated in different ways. Someone not having read this discourse, will most
probably just “see” the colour bleu. At least that is what he thinks, while actually of course he can not see a
representamen. But well. Fact is that people who are reading my discourse and this part of it, might also think of
a colour blue. Or some symbolic interpretation of anotheness. But, it is more. Since, just coincidentally, blue is
also the colour of wisdom. Which is, of course, one of the main catalysts for arête and excellent growths.

108
“ Then after telling this, I saw the operator thinking. And then I left. But soon realised how wise and
great this remark actually was. After reflecting on it.

The thing is, that apart from the philosophical reflections on what determines something to be either
blue or yellow or whatever state of appearance, it is just very interesting to think what this blueness
betweenness the granule is actually about essentially. Essentially, it is exactly about the beautifulness
and greatness of anothernesses of life. The anothernesses that are mostly seen and understood to
larger extends by the people being more perfect by nature. It are the anothernesses that can transform
knowledge to wisdoms. Anothernesses that can transform mere acts and modes of being, of
existence, into true arts. The higher levels of sophistication and wentelechy most important for our
societies as a whole. It is about details, anothernesses, that make life more beautiful, good and
sophisticated. But most of all, (more) complete! They increase the qualities and wentelechies of
universes and life in general (or at least they have the possibilities to do so!).

In other aspects of life and society as a whole, the bluenesses betweenness the granule (the
anothernesses or bakhtin’s of life) are much less clearly visible. The only way to “see” them is by
ways of an increase of understandings, of wisdoms. By bright and wise people. The true artists of our
societies. At least in some respects of them. It requires the highest levels of sensemaking, and
phronesis antenarrating and sound pluriflection can mean an important step forward there. Although of
course also the quality of the senses of the people and the backgrounds and understandings of
people themselves matters a lot there.

The key to improving our societies really is quite simple. To evolve towards arts in life and our
societies, we got to concentrate on educating and using the right ways of plural thinking and acting.
And getting rid of the semisophy insanities of our societies, which are partly caused by uniformity and
uniform ways of thinking and doing. But also by means of fixations of our beliefs, for instance by the
insane habits of us to mainly concentrate on firstnesses like structures, writings and the like 29. Getting
rid of these incorporates eliminating some of the so-called aristotelean ways of thinking and doing.
Applying a more holoplural way of thinking and doing in our societies. Striving for quality, wentelechy
and phronesis. This discourse is really incorporating the keys about how to move towards new
wentelychistic ecosocial orders based on phronesis. But some parts at least can be improved for
practical usages.

29
This insane habits of concentrating on firstness, like is tell, is very important to realize. It can be observed
everywhere around us. Some example being the concentration in factories on charts and work processes and the
like, instead of more relevant immediate factors like the people involved. But there are much more examples,
concentration on firstness is everywhere around us. By that, bullshit and insanities are. Since it leads to
reductionist and wrong perceptions and understandings of the universes and the nature and aspects of our
society at large.

109
When talking and thinking about holoplural ways of thinking, it is important to remark that actually also
the philosophies of Charles Sanders Peirce are mainly holographically and based on metaphysical
reductionist understandings. This means that they are only partly right and incorporated in a wrong
methodological system with wrong contents. But still, there are aspects of a holoplural view. One of
the signs for this might be the fact that Charles Sanders is also talking about anothernesses but with
the representamen of betweenness. Now, as you might already understand, the most fundamental
and excellent difference between anotherness and betweenness is the notion of being or existing
between something else. And, that is as far as I understand exactly the great difference that also
Peirce wanted to express. Being the fact that really everything around us is part of other signs in our
universes. And, in that sense, really everything is between something else. Meaning that every, really
every, instance of anotherness is actually a kind of betweenness. Which is why Peirce did emphasize
the location of each anotherness by calling them betweennesses. In the case of bluenesses
betweenness the granule, the blueness is of course a representamen for all kind of anothernesses.
And granule is just some representamen also for all kinds of signs. Which is why it is actually better to
speak about anothernesses betweenness the signs.

110
On flying towards grace

My advisor for this PhD discourse is a very wise and great person. He has also been a teacher for me
at the Erasmus University when I studied business administration there. At that times I already
considered him by far the greatest teacher I ever met. But in many cases I just did not understand
enough from his great lectures. Something that I also meet when talking with great wise experienced
falconers. They simply are on higher levels of understandings on certain fields of knowledge.

Anyways, just a short while ago we did discuss some great discourse of my advisor. It is called” Fly
towards grace”. To me, this discourse is truly one of the best discourses I ever did read. Probably also
because of my own understandings of this text. And the importance of this text for my own discourse.
Sometimes it is just good to compare texts with (seemingly) different if not opposing points of
reference and reference signs. While this discourse is talking about anothernesses, the out of the box
ideas and ideologies, “Fly towards grace” is seemingly talking about boxes. One of the I think main
ideas there is that people would first be in the first box of defining things. Then some of them would
move to the box of interpretations. And then, only some would move to the boxes of negotiating.

Of course, the kinds of reflections based on this text will differ a lot according to your own
understandings and the points of reference and reference signs taken into regards. But I myself of
course know quite a lot from the advisor himself. The ways of teaching he is using.

But well, I will just reflect a bit on the discourse FTG (fly toward grace) in my own ways. First of all, in
this discourse it is mentioned that define, interpretation and negotiate would be boxes. With people
moving from one box to the other but some not capable to move on to the next boxes. And then it is
mentioned that most of “us” then get stuck well stay in the last box. The box of negotiating. Another
interesting thing is that my advisor did remark that a lot of scientific people responded to this discourse
something like “yes, this is exactly the ways we do it…how it is”.

Now, of course the boxes of fly towards grace are not how life actually is…but…I fear it actually truly is
how most people who responded partly react and do things. Or at least perceive to do things when
they read the text. Like I stated before, Peirce does say that people think diagrammatically. Not that
they should, but that they do. And my advisor has proven this more or less with this text by writing it
the way he did. His audience but also a lot of so-called professionals do so when they read and use
discourses from scientists. By doing what homo sapiens is generally doing with structures. Which is,
just adjusting to and using them without being critical(ly) enough.

111
A structure, any structure, is a large oversimplification of reality! But strange thing is that whenever
people put something into a structure, other people will at least partly adjust to these structures. Or at
least strongly believe that they do reflect reality very well if only some major parts of the reality is
reflected in the structures. Or at least some ways reality could evolve. In the case of Define-
interpretate-negotiate. It is of course not true that we always got only these actions. And also we do
not gather at some physical or mentally boxes. Some numbers of people in the definition box. Then
some in the interpretation box. And other ones in the negotiate box. But still, since define interpretate
and negotiate can be some steps of a process, and also since these steps can and do take place in
processes a lot, a lot of people just perceive these steps to be valid and true reflections of reality.
Which is not bad since in the end these steps do truly reflect characteristics of a lot of the processes in
our realities. But the problem here is that the presented sequence and the box idea are really bullshit
here….in the FTG discourse. Then also the problem is that people do not see the other sequences
that are also reality in many cases. And also the anothernesses, being other possibilities like other
parts of the process and other activities, are not taken into regards enough,

The same problem of wrong aspects and reflections are there in maths.

As far as define interpretate negotiate are concerned. Of course defining without interpretations and
negotiations are also possible. Then it matters a lot what your notions of negotiation and interpretation
are. Also it could be someone will define something then starting the negotiations. Before
interpretating him or herself. Or maybe interpretating only very roughly then negotiating and afterwards
interpretating the rest. Since in the end, the meaning process is a process that can evolve in lots of
ways. It is, of course, just and evolving and ongoing process. And, of course, some people only do
certain activities without these mind and communication activities. Actually each person does at least
something, So yes in some respects some people might stay more in the negotiation phases (not
boxes) than other people, but in the end all people also do things. Although I found it interesting to
hear that some people told my advisor that the boxes where right reflections of reality. Since these
people where mainly scientists. Being the people that are more into interpretations-definitions-
negotiations. And actually, I think far too many of them DO stick stay too much in the negotiation
boxes. Somehow not being able to really DO something with their insights. In and for practise, I mean,

112
On machines and staplers

When I was working some days ago, a Dutch colleague of mine asked me for a “nietmachine”
(stapler). Now, actually in Dutch you got also the word “machine” for machine. Then “nietmachine” for
stapler. But also, “het is een machine” for “it is a machine” and “ het is een niet machine” would mean
“it is not a machine”.

So then I wanted to make some joke. Went to this collegue and said “dat is ook een niet-machine”(that
is also a not machine).”en dat ook” (and that also) And pointed to the running machine and then
some other objects there being the not-machines.

And then it “”suddenly” hit me that this joke actually was core of some parts of my discourse. Quite
“suddenly”, the “dots” did come together.

In our insane societies we concentrate a lot on dualities. Like the dualities of either being or not-being.
Of either being specific or general. Of either being whatever or not whatever. But, actually the
existences (beings) like they are understood by people like me and Nietzsche and Korzybski and the
like should be taken into accounts there! If you say that something is a machine, it would not mean
that everything else with other characteristics actually is a not-machine. And if you say that
something is NOT a machine, it would not mean that everything else with other characteristics is a
machine. Also the things out there being a machine or a not-machine actually also are not.

If we say “fire” or “not fire”, “ computer” or “not computer”, the not computer or not fire actually does
not exist for sure. It is merely some insane perception of our mind. Just like numbers of mathematics
and a lot of other signs in our minds are. The not computer or not fire would be whatever else then the
signs that we perceive to be fire. But these signs are actually not the not computer or the not fire. But
just the specific signs they really are.

Also here the anothernesses, the bakthin’s of signs, matter a lot. They make the difference that
determines something to be specific. The specificities of pluralities instead of uniformities. You can
only better understand and work with that if you really are able to skip induction and deduction
processes in your thoughts.

113
On IDNU and IDNUE

A lot can be told about IDNU (I do not understand) and IDNUE (I do not understand enough). Fact is,
that with the concentration in the last decades on acquiring knowledge rather than understanding,
most people that do not understand or do not understand enough might actually not understand
enough the fact that they do not understand. Since to get aware of this, the same people have to get
out of their boxes of knowledge and move on to the arts of understanding and life in general.
Unfortunately, a lot of people are conditioned to act solely on the base of knowledge. Even overruling,
and in some cases punishing and harming, the few great persons in society that do really understand
and want to act on that. To bring the anothernesses in that are needed to make our society complete
and logic again.

Some actually great person I know did tell me some while ago…that it is actually quite frightening and
scary that persons with lesser understandings still living in their boxes are usually in the majority. Not
understanding some of the really great persons in our societies. These greater persons having to cope
with a majority of far less knowledgeable and wise people (maybe even complete idiots in that
relativeness respects) who however are very wrongly assuming they would have things right. And stick
to their opinions. Quite generally only the unwise are ignorant to other points of view and arrogantly
enough to think they know it all. This can lead them to do a lot of harms to very great persons of
society. Like my friend told me there….come on Socrates…take your poison…..

My friend was damn right. One of the examples in our societies being a lot of people so called
professionals working in the social fields. With people. Even or maybe especially the academically
schooled people. They are working in professions like lawyers, psychologists, psychiatric people and
the like. These professionals are actually quite often very arrogant and they think they know it all.
While actually a lot of their education has been insane. Mostly due to the fact it just missed some
essential parts to make it complete. But foremost because their education is grounded on reductionist
insane sensemaking but also their acts are guided by the same insanities. More on that later in my
short discourse on the very fundamental issues understood by and written down in the Rhetorics from
Aristotle. One of the few people I would like to be able to talk to and discuss with for very long times if
it would still be possible.

This insanities, mainly caused by lacks of real true understandings and capabilities with A LOT of
professionals working in social fields, does cause probably a quite big amount of more or less highly
intelligent and great people to be judged wrongly. Causing them to be forcefully harmed to bigger or
lesser extends.

114
When a person says that he does not understand something, it may mean a lot of things. That mainly
depends on the knowledge or skills that this person has about the issue(s) concerned, but also on
which person did acquire this knowledge and/or skills. And the scope of the aspects of life to be
understood. I for instance got a friend who is one of the most and probably the most skilled falconry
hood maker of present times. A true art requiring lots of skills and craftsmanship. Now, when this guy
tells that he does not understand how to make a great Dutch hood, it will mean something completely
different then when some falconer like me will say so. The first person, my friend, will know a lot more
then me and could make some Dutch hood about 10 times better than what I could make when I think
I understand. But still he might say “I do not understand” while actually meaning IDNUE. Because he
simply “sees” a lot more details and possibilities for improvement. This “seeing” is not only about
having acquired more craftsmanship, but also has to do with certain skills that are highly dependent on
specific personal skills. Some people just do “see” and therefore understand more then other people
do, just apart from acquired skills and knowledge. Although in most cases enough knowledge and
skills and experience is needed to see and truly understand something into perfection (of being).

Also the notion of vagueness is relative there. At least the notion of vagueness like expressed by
Charles Sanders Peirce. While most people think they do understand something and that it is not
vague, the true artists of our societies might consider the same level of understanding as being too
“vague”. They see possibilities for improvement and incompleteness of being where other people
perceive something to be complete and satisfactory. Or what sensations concerns they would, like
Peirce would say, still “doubt” where other people “believe”. This aspect of believing is not only about
seeing less, but might also incorporate some firm belief although people would know that there
actually would still be some doubts or incompleteness in case they do not fool their selves with some
irrational beliefs and arguments.

This prevention of doubts by just not accepting the newer or better arguments and ways of viewing
might be some good explanation for some of the aspect causing the habits that are labelled with the
concept of “resistance to change”. Another ways to describe the same phenomenon can be found in
the most popular book of Robert Pirsig. The art of motorcycle maintenance. Peirce would call the
method to neglect anothernesses the “method of tenacity”. Some understanding of the Peircean ways
of viewing there can be understood maybe much better by reading his discourse on “The Fixation of
Belief” ( 1877 ).

115
Issues and persons that are NOT taken into regards, the possibilities of
anothernesses

There is a Dutch book written by Van Dongen, De Laat and Maas called “een kwestie van verschil”(a
matter of differences). The methodology promoted in this book is very good and practical. It is more
concrete than this discourse in my dissertation, but that is because my dissertation is aimed towards
bigger publics and possibilities. But, as regards to types of methodologies, it is about the same. Aimed
at finding anotherness methodologies, ways of analyzing and diagnostics, than the regular ones. With
the main difference that the methodologies used should be capable of dealing with multiplicity, plurality
and special cases instead of with uniformity and singularity. Taking the contexts as starting point, not
the tools or structures. So actually, the more practical and (therefore?) better theories just take into
regards the fact that you can not use any (scientific) language or paradigm that is meant or fit for
uniformity and generality, to diagnose and improve multi-dimensional special cases. Following from
that, you can better just skip induction and deduction methods. Since these are also based on the
assumption that there would be at least two identical cases in the real worlds. Which is of course really
bullshit if you come to think about it. In my own opinion, because of the high relevance of reducing
insanities in our societies at large, very high emphasis should be directed towards reducing semisophy
errors and insanities in our societies and universes. One of them being the notions and applications of
induction and deduction.

As regard to the so-called “integratietheorie”, like discussed in the book “een kwestie van verschil” by
van Dongen, de Laat and Maas, I would state that also here the theory can be broadened. Just like the
pragmaticism of CS Peirce could be, although it is a great line of thinking. This broadening however
should of course lead to more entelechy and logic. Broadening or restructuring just for the sole reason
of being occupied is of course not very constructive. Although this kind of keeping people busy is quite
often practised in society. But fortunately not in science that much. As far as improving the IT
(“integratie theorie”), I would like to state at first that this broadening will for sure meet some of the
broadening aspects of the line of thinking of pragmaticism towards practicism. If this is NOT the case,
it simply means that one of the both has gone wrong. This is not a phrophecy, but a pure and simple
fact. Because, eventually, there will be one logic and entelychistic implicit order that will never be
reached but worked towards. In Peircean philosophics, this implicit order where each scientific thinking
and doing will tend to, is called the ultimate or final interpretant. With as much as possible complete
dynamical objects. Although Peirce did understand about this final interpretant, his final interpretant
will however be always inferior to the final interpretant to be reached by me and my meta-semeiotical
perspective and sensemaking. Simply because Peircean perspectives are way inferior to meta-
semeiotics.

116
But, fact is that the social integration theory, of course, also could use some anothernesses that are
NOT taken into regards yet. But better would be. Like, for instance, the when of time, the duree of
Bergson to be more specific. But also the momentum of time, statical time. Also, I know for sure that a
comparison of Peircean pragmaticism (or even much better this discourse and meta-semeiotical
sensemaking) with the IT can lead to great improvements in at least one of these “paradigms”. I just
know integration will lead to some win-win effects there.

A discussion about, for instance, borders would just not make sense if you do not define any
context(s) before and just start talking solely about the representamen. Actually it does not only not
make sense, but is a kind of crazy way of doing if you really come to think about it. Yet, I was witness
and even participating in this kind of senseless discussion among some actually rather intelligent
persons. And actually, this kind of discussions take place in life a lot. People talking about a
representamen or some special case without knowing enough of the contexts, the anothernesses.
They have very general discussions because the representamen they are talking about is
over/undercoded. Each actor is speaking and thinking about something really different then. The
discussion, argument or points of views just miss a proper, solid fundament then. They are actually
speaking about the firstnesses, the possibilities, without knowing the laws, the dynamic interpretants
and/or the dynamical objects well enough. Just concentrate on it and you will see how often this kind
of situations take place in our society and communications. And actually, it is the way even a lot of
science is practised in current times. Bottom-up, without contexts and far too general. And I am even
not talking about wrong methodologies in science and practise here, which make the outcomes, and
even the possibilities, much worse.

It often happens in current society, that people not always tell everything of what they know or
experience. I think, mostly because of the different interests of individuals and their surroundings.
Besides that, often reality is on purpose told or presented different from how it actually is. These
habits are of course counterproductive in general for society as a whole. And generally caused
by the fact that something is wrong or missing in the contexts where these people are operating in. Or
because people in these contexts are “just” executing the wrong actions or having counterproductive
attitudes.

But then again I do make same mistake in the previous paragraph as the one I am discussing in the
paragraph before. Since it just depends on contexts, ways of viewing and the reference signs whether
habits would be counterproductive in general. Also general cases do not exist in real life, each
situation is specific. So just better forget the bold sentence in the previous paragraph. If you truly
understand what I try to communicate here.

117
To adjust and steer specific counterproductive dysfunctional habits in the surroundings, a person
makes the choice to conceal some issues or putting them different then they actually are. This may
lead to, what I call, the Argyris effect. By which I mean that the dynamical interpretants get distorted
and far from the final interpretant. In more normal language, although the things thought are not the
truth, actions are taken based on these perceptions of reality. Of course, our realities are always
perceptions in more or less degrees. But quite generally, if you know that something is really not real
but mere perception, and still people act on it because of wrong interests or mere stupidity or just not
wanting to know, this would be the Argyris effect. Named after the philosopher Argyris, who once
stated that “perception is reality”.

118
On positive and negative feedback loops

The notions of positive and negative feedback loops are quite intriguing. They have, among others,
been discussed by Karl Weick. In his discourse called “the social psychology of organizing”. One great
example of a positive feedback loop that has been very negative for society for a long time, was the
so-called “arms race” . The negative aspects only went away after the positive feedback loop was
turned around into a negative feedback loop. Although both positive and negative are also relative
here, as always.

Quite generally, the following can be learnt from this. If a positive feedback loop is really positive,
nothing has to be changed in this. But, if a positive feedback loop is negative, it is better to turn it
around into some type of negative feedback loop. This will most probably lead to much better, positive
outcomes. Analogue to this, a negative feedback loop should kept the same in case it leads to a
positive outcome. Is this negative feedback loop negative, then it is better to turn it into a positive
feedback loop. Of course, the judgements about whether something is positive or negative are
sometimes difficult to make. And several issues and contexts have to be considered and taken into
regards.

Although in practise a donkey will not smash it’s head at the same stone more than 2 times, a lot of
human beings will. As we, in a lot of instances, just continue to go on with several processes that are
in fact having negative consequences each time. And we know that. One of the examples in present
times is still using petrol for cars, while we have much better alternatives available. Some of them
already incorporated into existences, real functional cars. Like the options of hydrogen and other
alternatives existing in current times. But, there might also be some more intriguing and great
alternative to be worked out. Which is, the notion of free energy. One of the leading initiators there
being the scientist Tom Bearden. More info about him and his research can be found at
http://www.cheniere.org/

This alternatives should be explored and, if possible, put into practise much more. Something which is
also very relevant in the light of the current shortages of oil and the accompanying increases in prices.
The issues that also are important for developing and bringing alternatives to the market (finance,
organisational problems) can be solved. But, it simply does not happen. Because no-one takes real
initiatives to DO what it takes to put it in practise. That this is the case still, is also mainly a problem of
the contexts we are living in. Something should be arranged to make it profitable for people, for
instance scientists, to work on solutions for problems in society. Just some direct revenues for
valuable and practical science.

119
As far as revenues for research are concerned, there are of course possibilities at the moment. But
these are not relatively flexible and simple to acquire. And then there are researchers like me who can
simply not complete their research at some university or institute. But have to, or want to, complete it
in other surroundings. In these cases, you meet the situation that you got to work some days of the
week at some place to complete the research. While this time is lengthened because for instance
some better paid management job is not reachable for just some days a week. Or because the greater
reflections simply can not result from there since for a better paid job you also got to use your mind
and senses in anotherness ways than for the research you aim for. And the time for working quite
obviously diminishes the results and quality of the researches. In case the research concerned is very
valuable for society as a whole, we all suffer from that. In the short run, but definitely also in the longer
run.

I myself have already thought about solutions to make it advantageous for good scientists to work on
solutions for problems of our society. As I regard it very important that some of the insights I got during
my research will really be put in practise preferably in short notice, I have given also that a lot of
thoughts. This means that I look for solutions and also partially put them in practise.

120
Playing with contexts

With contexts you can play around a bit. By means of broadening or deminishing contexts, a situation
can look completely different. This changes in contexts can take place in time, space, quantities and
further qualities of people and/or issues that play some roles.

The case

So, some year ago there was some to us rather interesting advertisement on TV from some insurance
company in the Netherlands. The plot: some woman explaining about the insurance company
meanwhile the public (some people averaging 70 plus) were served coffee and cake. Which looked
very caring and good, also because the presenter of the insurance company brought the cake with her
herself. Then the advertisement ends.

Some advertisements later the context and issues are involved. By the son of the presenter appearing
on the site, telling his mother that she brought the wrong cake with her. The son brought with him the
normal cake because he thought his space cake was not eaten yet.

My reflection

Here I will give my reflection, which is a very short one. Based quite roughly on some insights by using
the so-called "configuratieve integratie theorie”. Which has been developed mainly by mr. van
Dongen, some former researcher and teacher at the Erasmus University Rotterdam. In English this
theory would translate into "configurative integration theory". We do not care about the name, but we
do about contents of the theory. It is one of the best theories to be used practically for management.
Because it cares about context and issues and gives insights to deal with them.

Regarding the above mentioned case, following can be told (most of this is not in the CIT theory but
the meta-analysis of the case is partly based on it). First of all, it is clear that the first part of the
advertisement is less broad in context than the second one. Since some other issue is added in the
second one which makes something clear that is there already in the second context but not known
since it is not mentioned. But the situation changes quite a lot. In real life, this kind of things happen all
the time. For instance on much larger scale and impact on the fields of social life and economics. But
mainly in other ways round, that the narrower context is presumed all the time and actions are taken
based on that. Without "seeing" the relevant issue that can change the situation to a more positive one
in most impressive ways. A great case of this will be shown in this discourse, which is actually a must
for every manager and scientist on the globe. More about that later.

121
In the above mentioned advertising campaign, some 3rd phase entered the scène. Which was, that
after a while only the first part was shown again. Of the woman serving the cake. By means of
skipping some parts in the advertising campaign again, the character of the advertising message itself
changes dramastically again. BUT most of the viewers who did see the complete (?) context will know
how the situation actually is. Because of the fact that they know or see what issues are involved
outside this advertising message, or particular context. These “what” and “how” issues that are NOT
part of the particular context anymore do play a role in the backgrounds. But only for the people who
are familiar with this parts of the scene.

As regards to the role of a context and judgements about certain situations, there is a great example
about this in Taoism. This example is the story about a farmer and his son and some horses. Or, the
story of the Taoist farmer. There are several versions of them, which can be found by googling a bit on
the net. I do not feel like typing one of the several versions of this example in my own discourse, but
will give some links to them (either in Dutch or in English) on the internet. I guess some of hem or all of
them can still be read at:

http://www.pediatricservices.com/prof/prof-47.htm
http://www.beleven.org/verhaal/zhuang_zi_ach_we_zien_wel_hoe_t_afloopt

The general message of this story of the Thaoist farmer is that actually you can never tell whether
something is good or bad. Since situations can always change, making you realise that aspects of
your life or universes that appeared to be bad are actually very good for the long run. Or that these are
actually still bad for even longer periods of time or situations.

What I however also understand more and more, is that it can also NEVER be known whether
something is really truly right or wrong. That the convictions of people (whether they are scientist or
not), that they would be able to prove anything to be definitely right or wrong, is actually nothing more
or less than a mere illusion. Now, this is something that might be a big problem for unwise persons
who really need to know and get unconditional yes or no anwers, without accepting or better
appreciating the anothernesses of life. People who think along the lines of what some perceive of
being Aristotelean logic. I actually would rather say Po than a true definite yes or no in more and more
cases. More understandings lead to a tremendous explosion of the amount of possibilities. Making
existences and non-existences (the “yes” and “no”) decrease. Then also if you understand
relativeness, there are no excluded middles. There can be a lot of relative wisdom in being unsure.
Depending on the capabilities and (practical) wisdoms of the person(s) concerned.

122
On reification

Some notion connected with this insights of signs that could result from the Peirce discourses, is the
notion of reification. Reification is the process of regarding something abstract as a material entity.
Berger and Luckman (1966) define the term of reification as:

“the apprehension of human phenomena as if they were things, that is, in non-human or possibly
supra-human terms"

or,

“the apprehension of the products of human activity as if they were something else than human
products - such as facts of nature, results of cosmic laws, or manifestations of divine will".

The notion of reification was among others mentioned by Marx in the section of capital entitled “The
Secret of Commodity Fetishism." Then also the intellectual Georg Lukács's did elaborate on this
notion in his book “History and Class Consciousness “ (1925). A more recent publication is the book
called “reification: a new look at an old idea” by Axel Honneth. This book is based on the 2005
Berkeley Tanner lectures by Axel Honneth at the University of California, Berkeley. This university is
“somehow” connected with a lot of great minds in history.

To me, it is not completely clear how to describe the definition of reification in Peirce’s terminology.
This is partly based on the fact I might not understand the terminology of Peirce well enough yet, but
also because of the fact that I myself am not sure yet about what “my” definition of reification would be.
I am however quite sure I can describe my notions of reification and the link with Peirce in general
terms. To me, actually reification would be any misunderstanding of a sign. The notions that Peirce
give are very valuable to pinpoint what goes wrong in the reasoning process resulting in reification.
Reification in this respect is some wrong result of mistakes that are made since people at current
times are not completely understanding the internal logic and rules of semiotics. Or just making
mistakes in this. These mistakes will probably continue forever, since language and the world
surrounding us is just too complex not to make these mistakes. The impacts of reification do not have
to be great, but they can have huge dysfunctional impacts on society as a whole. Especially when they
take place in socially critical processes. Like, for instance (and maybe mainly) those social critical
processes leading to or involving justice. I will give some example of this reification in justice later on.

123
In many cases, a serious mistake is made what reification actually is. This mistake being based on
one of the semisophy errors of human society and understanding as a whole. It is the error that is part
of what Korzybski refered to. Being the confusions between representamen and the represented. Just
to explain this, I give an example I just saw on the internet just now. Being the following phrase:

"Life is simply the reification of the process of living." (E. Mayr)

Now, this sentence as such is exactly the kind of misunderstandings and mistakes made in the
understandings what reification ultimately truly is. This error is made not only with regards to the notion
of reification, but just in a lot more cases. The sentence above is false, based on false understandings.
On the confusions between representamen and the represented, like explained in the book “science
and sanity” from the great Korzybski. Life is NOT the reification of the process of living. Life is just life.
And the process of living is the process of living. Each involving other characteristics. And while the
process of living does truly exist, life itself does NOT. At least not if some static entity is meant. Since
social entities can never be statical in whatever ways.

As regards to the mistake being made in the sentence above, which is a mistake generally made in
the sphere of understanding what reification is. Reification is a process. When comparing life with the
process of living, the process of reducing the process of living to life is a reification. The reification
being a mere perception as such, but that is another issue. But life itself is not a reification, only the
process of moving towards life from the process of living is. Just like words and other representamens
in our society can NEVER be a reification themselves. Without the othernesses linked with them and
the process of reductionism in between. Since this process of reductionism is actually what reification
involves. Nothing more, nothing less. Reification is about relationships and process, not about the
statical entities accompanying this process.

Most of the mistakes made because of reification can be prevented by understanding what reification
is. And to what fundamental problems it may lead. What will also help, is a good understanding of the
notions of overcoding and undercoding. Because in fact any reification is overcoded or undercoded.

124
On dreams and thoughts

In the introduction of this discourse, something has been told about the universes of thought and
matter. I remarked that I would at least make the distinctions in the Isle of dreams, the floods of
thoughts, the perceptions of reality and the reality of life. This is however still some arbitrarily
distinction, based on the words we use at the moment to divide certain modes of thought and matters.

If we however do make the distinctions as proposed by me here, we could label them in relative
ways according to the firstnesses, secondnesses and thirdnesses of CS Peirce. Then, the dreams
and thoughts would probably be firstness. The perception of reality maybe secondness. And then, the
reality of life a thirdness. This is however dependent on context and observer, whether it would be first
or second or third. Just like also the division in dreams, thoughts, perception of reality and reality of life
is. Some neurologist could probably divide the worlds of thought into more phases. And maybe also
the world of reality. But, making some distinction in worlds of thought and worlds of dreams is a quite
interesting distinction. At least to understand something about how knowledge and wisdom is
gathered. Because, the interesting point is that we go to another level of (neurological) thinking when
we move from thought to dream phases. The more we move into dream universes, the more
possibilities are there!

And, more interesting, it seems that we can “see” and understand more of the possibilities for real life
if we get (further) into the dream phase. It is often told that people who are thinking a lot are
“daydreaming”. They seem to get into about same kinds of neurological thinking phases as most
people enter with their eyes shut. During the night. When you now ask WHY this is the case, and think
about the PEL triad of CS Peirce, you might also realise that getting more new insights and possiblities
for real life (so called ideas) is most efficiently reached by going very far into the “world” of thoughts.
With greater possibilities than in real life, and better chances of seeing and understanding them. When
getting far away from the worlds of existences and laws.

The kinds of daydreaming are therefore the most efficient and best ways to get towards greater
awareness’s and understandings of the worlds and universes surrounding us.

125
On thoughts, existences and matter

In previous parts of this discourse, I already told a bit about the relativeness of the subdivisions of
Pierce. His possibilities, existences and laws. Actually I am convinced this are really great and good
subdivisions for insights. But on the other hand these subdivisions are arbitrarily and relative. Just like
all subdivisions are. I myself did make some subdivision in universes in previous part of this discourse,
and also this subdivision is just an arbitrarily chosen one. If you take critical looks there you could for
instance ask what is the real difference between dreams and thoughts. It might just be that the borders
there are not always as clear as you might think at first instance.

As far as possibilities are concerned, I already stated that this is actually also a quite relative
statement. You could just think about what is actually difference between what we would call
possibilities and what we would call existences. Especially when taking the Peircean and I think also
my understandings of existences into regards. Meaning that existences can exist in thoughts and
individual minds, but also in matter. Meaning that a chair or a car can exist, but a certain line of
thought or just an idea in our minds also. Then the contexts and points of view but also the reference
signs would determine whether something would be viewed as possibility or existence. Also besides
this, it also matters a lot which interpreter is reviewing something. Whether he perceives it as a
possibility or a law. Even laws can be seen as, or transferred into, possibilities.

Matter does not only exist out of internal qualities, but also out of external qualities. And if you see
things more dynamical, matter like for instance a chair already exists before it is produced. It starts to
exist when it is still in the minds of the developers. Or maybe even earlier,depending on your
understandings and points of view.

126
A plea for phronitical mind management

The last couple of years I have written a lot about seemingly abstract notions like holoplurality,
phroniticallity, practicism and semiotics. To the people on the streets they mean nothing mostly, but
also a lot of managerial practitioners and academics will not understand the notions. Let alone being
able to understand the bigger picture.

But, in fact, the bigger picture is that I strive for enchantment and that this enchantment can and
should be reached by getting toward what I would call phronitical mind management. Which is actually
about putting people and the individual and collective minds on the first place, instead of machines or
products. At current, a lot of organizations do train their employees or even do not for specific tasks.
But, whatever of this two options is the case, in most cases in the real operational activities the main
centre of concern is mainly the machine or the products.

Actually , the main problem according to me is the spell of scientific management. Taylor and Fayol
are still teached on quite some management schools around the globe, while actually their
perspectives where WRONG. Or, at least the perspectives and ways they are being used in practice
are. Scientific management can be part of solid good management, but it has to be incorporated into a
BROADER, more important perspective. Being the one of mind management, placing individuals
people and their minds in the centre of management and emphasis.

When doing so, it is however also important to realize that also here the HOW is much more important
than the WHAT. Contents matters. And, the content of mind management should be based on the
most sane sensemaking. Being a non-restrictive, non-reductionist way of sensemaking. To arrive
there, it should be realized that a lot of our current sensemaking is based on reductionist
sensemaking. The kind of sensemaking that leads to neglecting the mind of humans, and the kind of
sensemaking leading to (wrong ) applying of scientific management as opposed to mind management.
Proper mind management should be based on what I call pluriflection. Which goes much further than
any current mainstream INBOX reductionist thinking and understandings. Sound pluriflection is based
on holoplurality, being the sole true underlying structure and nature of all of our universes.

Storytelling , narrating and antenarrating (my other main interests) are very much connected with
sensemaking. But also there, it has to be understood that for phronitical mind management and
prohumanism (another concept originating from me), storytelling and (ante) narrating HAS to
incorporate sane sensemaking and phronesis. Which is why I initiated and developed the notion and
methodology of Phronesis Antenarrating. Some more information about Phronesis Antenarrating can
be found on the internet by googling, or by reading some of the references being mentioned at the end
of this discourse.

127
Phronitical (my notion of being critical based on phronesis) mind management is core for phronetical
pro-humanism and a phronetical society. Which is an enchanted society based on lazarus
sensemaking. I explore this notion of lazarus sensemaking a bit more on my discourse about the
Phronesis antenarrating methodology, and compare it with the more BME coherent but restricted Devil
antenarratives and sensemaking. The metaphors of lazarus and Devil for antenarratives and
storytelling is some great expressions I got from David Boje, who used this in at least one of his
writings. I however elaborated more on this two processes (devil and lazarus) and placed it in a bit
broader perspective including majorly also into sensemaking.

Phronitical mind management is about placing the minds of people central in organizations. It includes
not only talking to, but also listening to (REALLY listening to) people in the organizations. But, that is
not all of it. As besides that, sane sensemaking should be encouraged throughout the whole
organization. And people have to be encouraged to communicate their understandings.

But, besides this, also the procedures and machines should be altered towards complementing but in
some respects also even serving the human minds. Of course, they already do by producing or
serving to produce products and services for human people, individuals, and organizations. But, in
future also the machines should actually be more fitted for humans. Meaning that instead of the
humans having to adjust to the machines, the machines should adjust to humans. Not only to human
minds, but also to human physics. So also in that respects phronitical mind management is not
enough, but also prohumanism is needed. But, this actually is the result also of phronitical mind
management. So in that sense, phronitial mind management IS enough to move on to a society
serving the human individuals.

In some other discourse of mine, I wrote on “becoming one”. That machines and procedures and
instructions and people should become one. BUT…it matters a lot there which of the ones is
considered to be the most important. It has to be understood that I consider this becoming one always
based on a phronitical mind perspective, based on prohumanism. And, this should even go MUCH
further than in present times. Meaning that in future machines can and HAVE to be much more
adjusted to the requirements and wished and FEELINGS of the people working WITH them. Even if it
means less production per hour.

So, for instance, we can and should have machines in future that adjust to the individual and even
momentum Rhytm and Tempo of the worker or workers it has to deal with at certain moments of time.
Meaning that if the worker is tired, it should not be the worker who has to turn the speed of the
machine a bit down, but the machine itself should sense this somehow and then adjust to it. Also, of
course, an older worker should be able to work at lower speeds.

Another aspect of phronitical mind management is the fact that the relationship between employer and
employee and/or between management and manager HAS to change, to less or more degrees. It

128
simply HAS to, for numerous reasons. What I am aiming at and towards, is that employers, managers
and other officials in companies have to treat workers at shop floor but just every worker and
employee within the company with respect and equally. This is more and more the case in a lot of
companies, but still power struggles and inequalities are there. And, whenever they exist, they exist in
too large degrees. Respect and equality should not be just one of the several options, it has to be the
sole intention for employees working within a company. Respect for each other, regardless of position,
gender, nationality or whatever. In organizations and situations where this is not the case in too large
extends, management and managers but also individuals themselves have the obligation to assure
this will change. Individual social responsibility, not only for your personal family and friends, but also
for the organizational family. This is not only important for the organizations themselves, but also for
our private lives. As, of course, situations in organizations effect situations in our private lives and our
society at large. At least some part of crimes in our society are directly or indirectly the result of
organizational life. Or organizational nightmares. This is why it is not only a moral but also a legal
responsibility for all organizational members to assure equality and respect. At least, it should be a
legal responsibility. And not only managers, but also legal officials and other governmental officials
should have the same intention. Of showing respect and equality towards every living creature on this
planet. Which is not only about respect, but about a lot more than that. In the end, it is about creating a
much healthier environment and therefore also future for ourselves and our families.

For some, this might seem like soft blablabla that they either not care about or that they deem not to
be possible in our organizational life. But, it is. And it is not. It is, but only if our governments adjust
some rules of the game in our society. Foremost the money game. Our economics and money system
have to change anyways, as they are not in line with the developments in our current society. But, they
can very well be adjusted in ways that make phronitical mind management very possible and that will
just lead to a much more pleasant and great society for all of us. Towards a much more enchanted
society for us and the next generations.

Again, I want to repeat the great words written down by David Boje related to Vampire and Lazarus
antenarrative :

“I have been developing the idea that antenarrative is a bridge of transformation between living story (& pre-story) and narrative. It occurs to
me now since the 2001 book, that antenarratology is the study of two processes. One you might call Vampire, sucking the blood out of living
story, all that co-creation, and reducing it to a beginning, middle, end (linear) narrative. The other is like Lazarus, being raised from dead
narrative abstraction to live again, in living story “ (David Boje)

This Vampire- “sucking the blood out of it” – antenarrative and storytelling is what a lot of (social)
scientists and people in our societies did and do during the last centuries AND PRESENT TIMES.
Sucking the blood , the LIVE, out of their representamens and by that out of society and people.
Because of REDUCTIONIST approaches based on WRONG understandings (of the sole true
structure of our universes/of certain contexts/of certain issues because of WRONG perspectives.

A phronetic understanding leads to LESS blood sucking, more perfection, more excellence. And by
that, MORE live. This is expressed in more excellent PHRONESIS REPRESENTIA.

129
PHRONESIS REPRESENTIA make a text to become alive, or situations to become alive and more
sane, phronesis antenarrating is aimed at more excellent and great nature/LIVE/of processes and
activities and realities

Aliveness is a mode of sanity. It is, ultimately, all about quality…just like phronetic people are, just like
great books are, just like great people are, just like great representia are, just like Bourgouis virtues
are, just like sanity and wisdoms are.

130
Fighting against the Devil

The Devil Wears Prada

And She is everywhere around us
She is in our economies
She is within psychology
She is in our law systems
She is in our managers
She is in our organizations
Simply because
She is in most of us

It is not easy to fight the Devil

If it is absorbed in your surroundings
Without anyone even noticing
Even not at moments it hits them real hard
Like for instance in case of economic crisis
Or persons dying as a result of too much rationalism and blood sucking
Or when having serious problems with relative idiots
Who do not understand they are bad in those senses
While, because of the devil, the majority of our planet currently is

Wilfred Berendsen

Following the perspectives of Nietzsche in his “beyond good and evil” and his “On the Genealogy of
Morals” , I would like to give another perspective on good and evil. As Nietzsche remarks in several
parts of his discourse, there are several perspectives on good and evil.

In my own understandings, and I think this is also what Nietzsche also meant, people can perceive
something as being evil while it actually is only a matter of badness. Badness from the people being
judged, but in even more cases maybe badness of the people judging. In more cases than generally
understood, the people being judged as bad are actually not while the people judging are.

Nietsche did explain part of this in his “On the Genealogy of Morals” by stating that Judaeo-Christian
values gained dominance by a slave revolt in morality. According to him, the moral revolution
consisted in some overturn so that noble virtues of the past are considered as being evil, while the
slave aspects are considered virtuous.

This slave revolt in morality, like Nietzsche called it, is still dominant and mainstream in and throughout
our society. At least in a lot of governmental expectations and requirements for the individuals in our
society. According to me, this is a result from the reductionist, dualist ways of thinking and therefore
reductionist and incomplete understandings resulting from this.

131
Vampire antenarrating, Boje’s notion, is about linear reductionist plots. While in our society this linear
reductionist plots exist about everywhere, they are reductionist and not really truly existing. And of
course, they do. But for instance Axel Honneth seems to have stated somewhere that time does not
really exist. And, he is very right about that. As time like mostly understood is about linear chronos.
Which does not exist as any linearity does not really truly exist in our universes. Linearity and linear
plots are mere perception.

But, to take the notion of time as example (but actually, this very fundamental and important argument
pertains to about every “reality” in our existences and universes being solely a perception in the end),
even other perceived notions and understandings of the same concept do not really truly exist. Like for
instance with time, both Kairos but also Bergson’s Durree do not really truly exist.

Linear perceptual reductionist antenarratives, vampire antenarratives, are just about everywhere in our
society. Vampire antenarratives are actually not only BME plots, but even more less reductionist plots
are mostly still Vampire antenarratives. Especially in a meta-semeiotical, holoplural perspective. As I
have stated about everywhere in my large discourse, and other parts of my writings, reductionist
antenarratives and reductionist understandings lead to damage to people in our societies and damage
to our society and universes at large. Which is why this Vampire antenarratives and the resulting
realities in our society have to be fighted against. We need to fight the devil.

132
On uniformities, dualities and triads.

In Peircean semeiotic,a lot of triads are used. And Peirce is more or less stating that this triads are the
main and probably smallest building blocks of signs. But actually I think he is wrong. Well, I just know
for sure he is. If you take closer looks to two of his triads, namely the following, you can get towards
my insights which must most probably be the correct ways of viewing. What I mean are the following
triads:
1) Possibilities, existences and laws
2) Representamens, objects and interpretants

Now, actually I think this are all modes of non-life and life. I think actually Peircean notion of objects
does incorporate what we would generally agree on being either objects or subjects. Represented by
representamens. But, if we take the more general notion of signs to incorporate both representamens
and objects and actually also interpretants, we would only need signs and interpretants for getting
signs growing. Since a sign and an interpretant means adding life to a situation, meaning the
possibilities for dynamics and thereby growth.

Also possibilities, existences and laws are actually statical phases of growth. Of signs growing. What
is needed for them to grow is life. Just like I myself need life to write this discourse. I would simply not
be able to move my hands to the letters on my laptop if my body would only exist out of matter. It
simply does not. There is more in my body, which is the miracle of life.

So In the end, really everything around us does exist out of either non-life or life or a combination of
these two compounds of duality. Aristotle also talked a lot probably about life. What is needed for it is
what he did call I think formative cause. The Hebrews call a special instance of it ruach. The cristians
call it holy spirit. The cabalists call it yesod.

Basically, there is matter (non-living) and protoplasm (living) in our universes. Part of the living being
called “mind”, or nous in philosophy. But as might be understood from another part of this discourse, a
body without organs but also a body without mind is not enough. What is needed besides that, is a lot
more. Like for instance love, feelings. Although there are of course several different forms of life. And
also extra-terrestrial life can be way different from the life we know from our planet. It can even be that
there IS a lot of extra terrestrial life just very near to our planet but that we simply can not sense this
life forms with our own senses. Just in December 2010, NASA announced that they found the”first
known micro-organism on Earth. This living creature seems to be enabled to live and reproduce using
the toxic chemical arsenic “…while..” Carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur are
the six basic building blocks of all known forms of life on Earth “ 30

30
The source for the two quotes being the following website : http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-
nasa/2010/02dec_monolake/

133
But what if life beyond our own globe just consists out of protoplasm without matter? Something
similar as clicks without bricks. Some extra-terrestrial reality like hyperreality, not to be seen or
touched or the like but still existing?. Us only not being able to see because of restrictions in our
senses and sensemaking. Would that not be funny.

134
The distorted dynamical interpretant- effect (DDI-effect)

What is very important now to understand for practicism and practise, is the fact that there are often as
many dynamical interpretants as there are interpreters involved. Some of these interpreters might
have an important, maybe more or less decisive, role in a certain process and outcome. This outcome
now should, in normal cases, be as near as possible to the “final” interpretant. Or maybe NOT. But fact
is that, the more interpretants involved, the more distortion there will be. Anothernesses of qualities
that are perceived in the minds of the interpreters, which will more or less further distort the “final”
outcomes. Let alone the fact that any “final” interpretant is of course NOT final. EVERYTHING, except
holoplurality, should and will change.

We all know that if you start telling someone a story, and it is passed along, the further it is passed
along the more distorted the story will become. This is actually the DDI (distorted dynamical
interpretant)- effect.

To prevent this DDI-effect, people in organizations should at least become aware of this. That their
dynamical interpretant perceptions are more or less distorted from the “final” interpretant (which never
is and should never be really final). And, that the dynamical interpretant perceptions in other parts of
the continuous interpretant chain (CIC) are also distorted in one or another way. That this distortion
will only be more if more people are involved. Which is why, especially with complex and critical
socially high loaden CIC’s, preferable the whole of the CIC should be executed by as few as persons
possible, whereby the persons involved should of course be very capable to reach the RELATIVE final
(preferred) interpretant. And, in most CIC chains, the deciding interpretant(s) play a major role to
prevent and correct the distorted dynamical interpretant effects.

Also, past experiences happen to be seen less dynamical. I think this is also caused by a fixation on
the immediate interpretant. While current experiences where you are in at the moment involve more
anothernesses. Since you are still in it and therefore more fixated on the dynamical interpretant. Quite
generally speaking, in practise you do not deal with immediate and dynamical interpretant, but with
more or less dynamical interpretants. And, quite logically, although the dynamical interpretants from
the past will have same dynamical features ( or, like Peirce would call them, qualities) later on,
interpretants from the past are perceived as being less dynamical later on. Since a lot of the
experienced anothernesses are simply forgotten or do not play some important roles anymore.

135
On the sophistications and excellence of quali-signs and whatever-signs

If you want to understand the potentiality powers and greatness of some of the insights and building
blocks of Peircean pragmaticism, you truly got to understand several aspects of Peircean wisdoms
and some anothernesses that were not (completely) incorporated in his thoughts, existences and laws.
I now truly understand some important aspects of his ways of viewing things that at least will improve
the understandings of his pragmaticism and logics, but also about the universes and worlds we are
living in right now.

The first remark regarding Peircean theories, and all theories in general, would be that it matters a lot
from what kind of perspectives the several signs (or building blocks of the theories) are interpretated.
For instance it matters a lot whether the signs of Peircean theories are just seen as knowledge blocks
instead of as building blocks for a much larger and sophisticated metaphysical and philosophically
and logically sound (practical) theory. Peircean metaphysical theory is a relatively good metaphysical
theory that can largely improve our understandings about life in general. If you truly understand most
of his theories, like I dare to say I do, you will understand that Peirce did not fully see the potentials of
his own writings. But, apart from the high potentials of some of his understandings, there are also quite
some fundamental and critical errors and insanities in his writings. And he did make some mistakes
like trying to improve the induction and deduction processes. Instead of skipping them and clearly
stating and explaining that induction and deduction actually are very disastrous and counterproductive
processes in our minds and thoughts that need to disappear completely in future minds and societies.
But overall, his theories are good fundamental understandings of the worlds and universes we have to
deal with in our lives. They only need to be translated towards a MUCH greater and better perspective,
being my meta-semeiotical perspective.

Therefore, surely the metaphysical theories and understandings of Peirce can be improved. By
means of the meta-semeiotical move I will make from meta-physical pragmaticism towards meta-
semeiotical practicism. The fundamental elements and insights I add to Peircean philosophy, and also
the parts I neglect, are actually partly based on the insights and understandings of Aristotle. But
exactly the combination of Peirce, Aristotle and the anothernesses I add lead towards a fundamentally
better and more sophisticated meta-semeiotic and philophronesis body of understanding. A meta-
semeiotic philophronesis discourse that is more concentrated on plurality and differences then on
similarities and uniformities. Practicism is a true and great fundamental meta-semeiotic philophronesis
discourse of pluralities and differences, aimed towards arête and real qualities and values of life and
society at large.

136
On the signs of excellence of Peircean and Aristotelean metaphysics

Metaphysics is, in some respects, just some metaphor for a restricted form of understanding and
wisdom. Since both understandings and wisdom require both pluralities in thoughts and signs, and
sophisticated completenesses and anothernesses. Which are actually exactly what is also needed to
get towards a metaphysical discourse. Whether it be a more theoretically or practically aimed and
oriented one. And in the end, metaphysics is about understandings. BUT, it is still restriced as meta-
physics is based on linear plots and inbox thinking. As opposed to my meta-semeiotical perspective
and phronesis antenarrating, which is about getting out of the matrixes and diagrammatic(al) thoughts,
to be able to fly towards grace31.

Although Charles Sanders Peirce did understand a lot, he also did partly miss some very important
insights. One of this insights is the fact that even a right true metaphysics should be aimed solely
towards a metaphysics of pluralities and differences. He however did understand the notions of Aporia
and Entelechy like stated in the great discourses of Aristotle. Whether his notions of vagueness should
be considered as being some mere spin doctoring to hide the fact that he actually is discussing the
Aristotelean notion of Aporia there, or whether he actually did arrive at this notion of vagueness on his
own, is something debatable. Whether he did borrow the notion of Entelechy from Aristotle (like I
borrow it from at least both Aristotle and Peirce) is however not a question, but just a mere fact. But
the strange thing actually is, that he seems not to have used the Aristotelean notion of Phronesis. This
is strange, to say the least, because of the fact that it just seems not logic to me that Peirce would not
understand the importance of this notion in the metaphysical theories and insights of Aristotle. And
also that the notion of Phronesis would also be important, to not only make Aristotelean metaphysics
but also Peircean metaphysics much more complete and logic. Because, actually, the Peircean
metaphysics (and pragmaticism) is in the end just some more detailed and in some respects a bit
more sophisticated version of Aristotelean metaphysics. Just like this discourse actually also has a lot
of aspects of Aristotelean metaphysics in it. Simply because of the fact that I also needed Peirce and
Aristotle to make the discourse (more) complete and therefore logic. The completenesses of the
possibilities of this fundamental discourse do offer a much better chance and much better
fundamentals for improving our societies than the discourses of both Peirce and Aristotle do. Mainly
because of the simple plain fact that it is true what I say in some other parts of this discourse. That
there are connections between completeness and logic. Our societies at current times are incomplete
and therefore illogical. Besides that they are also illogical because some aspects of our existences are
just wrongly perceived.

31
I somehow like this sentence “fly towards grace”, at least because I like to think about flying in connections
with my addictions to falconry. But actually I heard this sentence for the first time only some months ago when
Prof.Dr. Slawomir Magala from the Erasmus University Rotterdam did discuss his paper with this title with us.
Us being a group of critical intellectuals. This paper might still to be found at
http://www.essex.ac.uk/AFM/emc/novelconference/magala_paper.pdf. About novels and organization theories
and practices.

137
But, what Peirce seems to have skipped in his discourse and reflections, is the great shift towards
phronesis. A shift that is highly needed for getting towards the sophistications and excellences in
secondnesses and thirdnesses. Like I state in other parts of this discourse, it is at least needed for the
upgradings of Pragmatism towards Pragmaticism. Although the Aristotelean discourses do deal with
this sophistications, Peirce largely leaves them out. My perceptions about the why, at this moments,
are that Peirce did do so quite deliberately and consciously. Partly because he wanted to put this
sophistications in his ways of looking at things and by that more in the possibilities. For instance by the
notions of qualisigns instead of qualities. This is some excellent example of what I call phronesis
representamen. But also partly because of the fact that probably Peirce wanted to work on the
fundaments first and leave the rest up to other generations and minds. His discourses are really meant
as very fundamental discourses, just like this great discourse of mine is meant to be.

Actually the main reason why Peirce did skip phronesis in his discourses, is probably because of the
difference between his notion of logic and my notion of logic. Meaning that his logic, but also the logic
of a lot of current scientists is actually illogical. For at least two reasons. The first being the lack of true
pluralistic thinking and philosophies of both Peirce and a lot of current scientists. Which is partly the
result of the second reason which is the focus on rationality. This focus on rationality is also a reason
why Peirce skipped Phronesis, I guess. Since Phronesis is also about what he and a lot of scientists
perceive to be irrationalities of life. Which to me also belong to the rationalities of life since I
understand logic and rationality also to incorporate Phronesis. But, more importantly, this phronesis of
mine is more entelychistic and excellent than any other notion and understanding of Phronesis.
Because it is my meta-semeiotically grounded phronesis, being a phronesis representamen much
more excellent than the representamen of phronesis as understood and used by for instance Aristotle
himself. This meta-semeiotical phronesis of mine being an essential part of my notion of practisism32.

32
Whenever the notion of Practisism or Practicism is used in this dissertation/book, it should be understood that
both of these words can and should be understood as phronesis representia for same notion and realities of life.

138
On the beyondnesses and relativity of metaphysics

Although the main really very important part of this discourse is formed by the fact that the money is
not the money33, one of the other most relevant parts will be discussed here. It is most generally the
realisation that about everything in our social worlds is a mere convention. I will however deal more
explicitly with this phenomenon with regards to metaphysics.

Quite generally, it can be said that metaphysics is about completeness. But also not. Since in the end
metaphysics will never be complete since that is only some level of understandings to be strived at but
never to be reached by means of a meta-physical perspective and even not by a meta-semeiotical
perspective.. Our worlds and universes are simply far too pluralistic to be able to embody everything
into one grand theory. But, meta-physics will never be able to be complete and sane simply because
of the reason that it is grounded on reductionist, inbox, linear plots. Therefore, every discussion or
view on metaphysics will always be incomplete in one or anotherness respects.

It is very important to realise that the most complete levels of being are actually quite often to be found
in the social worlds we are dealing with during our lives. Not in scientific or intellectual discourses,
since most of these are especially in these times more aimed at and infected with uniformity of
thoughts and doing instead of the pluralities of life we mostly have to cope with.

Some time ago, I discussed some SAP34 work flows with an SAP developer and consultant. Based on
the charts used there (some hierarchically structure with departments and activities reflected in
horizontal and vertical boxes), I told him that MRP actually is a vertical or top down activity. Which
would be right if the hierarchical structure was and is. But, the thing is that these structures are NOT.
They are just mere conventions. In real life, departments and activities in organizations are not
structured or linked horizontally or vertically or in whatever ways. We only think them to be based on
the convention that is agreed upon in some earlier moment of time.

33
By this I mean generally that money is NOT the money. It is NOT linked with products the ways we think
they are, these links are just perceptions in our minds not existing altogether the ways we perceive them to be.
One mistake being made that the plural roles of us are not taken into regards. Employees also being the buyers of
the products. And the people needing or not needing social insurances. In the end increase of wages of lower
incomes will be a profit to all of us. Also because of the relativity of inflation, inflation is just compared with
other countries. If all factory workers would earn a lot more they would also buy much more. It would enable a
lot of possibilities to become practice. And it would enable higher wages for everyone in the end….
34
SAP is a quite sophisticated and very useful ERP solution. SAP is a computer program for mostly medium and
large (inter)national companies with often several plants and sales organizations globally. By means of SAP all
the information flows of the several activities like purchasing, stockkeeping, warehousing, finance and
controlling, production and logistics planning and control and the like can be arranged. Quite simply said, SAP is
for larger firms what Microsoft is for the private sector in software. The market leader in these ages.

139
In this case, the structure is NOT the organization. Which goes further and is about something else
than the “the map is not the territory”. What Korzybski did mean with that last notion is that a sign is
not the signified. That the real existences in our universes are much more different and plural than the
signs signifying them. This the structure is NOT the organization is however about linkages that are
perceived and not there. About completely wrong perceptions, real fictions of life that are believed to
exist. While reality is not in any ways like it is perceived, but completely different actually. You will not
understand by means of inbox linear plots resulting from meta-physics and the underlying reductionist
sensemaking processes, but you should understand and see by means of the meta-semeiotical
perspective and phronesis antenarrating.

Same as with the SAP work flow example is actually also the case with metaphysics. It is often
perceived that metaphysics is of a higher level of physics than physics itself. And that metaphysics
altogether is of a higher and more sophisticated level than any other sciences and phenomena in our
universes. Now, this is really a very wrong perception. Like with organizations and people working in
them, in reality there are no real differences in higher or lower levels. In organizations there may be
people who are paid more and have more responsibilities and powers. But they are not really on
higher or lower levels even if they are physically working on higher working places. All those artefacts
are just used to maintain the false perceptions of authority and power. But in the end there is just only
differences by means of anotherness plurisigns. So metaphysics is not about higher level physics, but
just about a broader and more complete notion of the universes surrounding us.

This broader and more complete notion of metaphysics in its essences does actually not really have to
incorporate more entelychistic qualisigns. Although a more complete and better metaphysics will
certainly do. Which is why the metaphysical system of Aristotle is in that respects better than the
metaphysical system of Peirce. And why the meta-semeiotical parts of my discourse are much better
than the ones of both Peirce and Aristotle. In that respects. But in many other respects the discourse
of Peirce is better then Aristotle’s. And Aristotle’s and Peirce’s are, of course, in some respects more
sophisticated and great than this discourse of mine.

Going beyond metaphysics is what I actually do in this discourse. By introducing a lot of anotherness
plurisigns. Just like a lot of people do during about each and every moment of their lives. But mainly
because I ground my sensemaking on a completely different perspective and fundament. With far
reaching improvements in understandings and possibilities. Although some parts and conclusions of
this discourse seem to be, and actually are, very simple. The wholeness of this discourse and
anotherness plurisigns around is actually very sophisticated and complete. To the extends that it really
truly is one of the greatest discourses you could possibly think of. Although you would not understand
probably when you do read this discourse. But you should as soon you start to really grasp the notions
and power of holoplurality and phronesis antenarrating.

140
On the conventions and perceptions of static social plurisigns

It is very important to realize that static elements and expressions do not truly exist in the social worlds
surrounding us. Meaning that every static expression or notion of social constructions and processes
is in the end nothing more or less than mere perception. This however should be understood of course
in right ways and contexts. Meaning that in a lot of situations in practise, meaning concrete specific
cases, situations and processes consist of both social and cognitive parts. As soon as matter or
objects enters the scene, the parts of situations that incorporate these instances of matter or form or
living subjects can and will of course also involve static notions and really existing existences and
laws.

But still, any statical social plurisign is a mere perception or convention. It is very important to realize
this, among others to get towards more sophisticated and sane levels of understandings and practises
as such.

Something also very important to realize, is the fact that although statical social plurisigns are mere
perceptions or conventions, they are still needed and valuable in our societies at large. For several
reasons, being it the reasons for communications or the reasons for creating or having sound
firstnesses to develop further or any other sound reasons. Some of the structures not in line with the
only sole true structure of our universes (the one expressed in other parts of this discourse) are just
still needed and valuable, mostly because some parts of our society is not able still to live up and
understand the sole true structure of our universes. But also because for certain specific situations and
practises, this anotherness structures are just practical and worthwhile to use and have. But, in any
case, it has to be understood as much as possible what the characteristics and values and possibilities
of a certain structure really truly are and involve.

141
On the fatal errors and mistakes resulting from those terrible processes
called induction and deduction

Apart from the fact that Peirce did not arrive and deal with at least some instances and appearances of
Phronesis, he did at least make 2 major mistakes. I am convinced that Peirce made at least the
following mistakes in his thinking and writing:
1) His preferences towards Maths. Throughout history there have been a lot of persons and
groupings of people who thought that maths was the real language of nature. Among them the
Pythagoreans. Now, I myself would oppose to that completely at this times. And I am very
sure that the maths that Peirce did take as starting points and basis to work from are NOT the
kind of maths that would be a great reflection of the worlds we live in or nature.
2) Peirce did most probably not fully understand his own resistances against the notions and
practices of induction and deduction. That is, although he did describe and mention quite
thoroughly the fatal errors that can occur when applying these notions in the universes
(firstnesses, secondnesses, thirdnesses of mind and actualities), he did not understand that
inductions and deductions actually are always wrong processes and activities to more or
lesser extends. That is, inductions and deductions are processes that should be removed from
our thoughts and societies in general completely or at least as much as possible to make our
worlds and thoughts more sane and sophisticated. Why this is the case is something I will try
to explain just here

Before I could possibly even start at reasoning why Induction and Induction are bad processes, it
should at first be clear what these concepts actually mean and entail. To get to that point, it should
first of all be very clear that there are really many different points of view and understandings
about both of the concepts. Even in Peircean philosophy there are a lot of different points of view
on Induction and Deduction. Quite generally, most of them are wrong and based on
misunderstandings. Which is actually probably also the main reason why, as far as I know, nobody
ever did argument and explain in right ways why Induction and Deduction are actually bad and
counterproductive processes in science and life in general.

Now, when we would talk about Induction and Deduction, I would prefer to use the
understandings of these notions by the great C.S. Peirce. Since, although he did not fully
understand the errors that accompany any application of these notions, he was one of the few that
truly understood that Induction and Deduction are actually used a lot both in theory and in
practise. But most importantly, he was one of the very few persons that would at least know how
to apply these notions in the best, less harmfull ways.

To C.S. Peirce, induction would mean argument from random sample to population. Deduction (or,
necessary inference) on the other hand would be argument from population to random sample.

142
Quite generally, the most important reason for skipping the processes of induction and deduction,
is because both processes are processes aiming towards or relying on uniformity. Or on the
possibilities to get towards generalities out of specifics or other ways round. Another most
important reason for skipping those processes is because in practise actually each case is
different. So any comparisons or inferences are just not good and lead to a lot of fatal errors (just
like Peirce states). Actually I guess that Peirce by means of his statements on fatal errors with
Induction and Deduction does implicitly also say that both Induction and Deduction are bad
processes. The only pitiful issue there is that he probably understood this enough, but he lacked to
truly understand the most important conclusions to be made when you truly understand what the
processes Induction and Deduction are. Which is the conclusion that they are bad processes that
have to be completely skipped. I guess the most important reason for Peirce not expressing or
accepting this conclusion would be the fact that he more or less focused on his actually wrong
worldview that mathematics would be expressing the laws of nature and life very accurately. This
perspective and understanding is as bad as about any other understanding you arrive at when
thinking and basing your understandings on reductionist, linear meta-physical and./or inbox kinds
of reasoning.

143
One of the major realizations here should be the fact that induction and deduction are both linear and
inbox kind of processes, far too uniform and not able to deal with the pluralities of life and our
universes as such. In our universes, really each and every issue and process as such is pluriform and
a special specific case that is unique in many respects. Composed of different plurisigns in great ways,
requiring someone to really truly understand instead of applying some standard and reductionist
approaches towards these realities of our universes.

In general, scientific but also practise has to neglect a scientific procedure in case of serious conflicts
between theory and observation or practise. In the cases of induction and deduction, both of the
theories should be neglected if the misfit with both sane sciences and practises is properly
understood. But, more generally, a lot of insanities and failures in social practises proof that a lot of the
social scientific understandings and practises are based on insane fundaments, leading to conflicts in
theoretical understandings and practical outcomes. As such, not only induction and deduction but
basically all insane and reductionist scientific methodologies causing serious errors and conflicts
HAVE to be abandoned from the scientific communities AND from (social) practises. By now, I
understand that just all of the results of social sciences till now are based on reductionist
sensemaking. Which does not always mean that they are always wrong and reductionist, but in a lot of
cases they are. Everything in our universes should be based on sound pluriflection and based and
guided on sane sensemaking, and the sole right fundament for that is my notion of holoplurality.
Phronesis antenarrating and sound pluriflection are the sole great tools to convert insane actualities
and understandings into sane ones.

144
On the insanities of (Peircean) philosophy

It has been a while back since I became interested in metaphysics and the philosophies of Charles
Sanders Peirce. By now, i dare to say i understand Peirce quite well...and that i even managed to
improve his philosophies.

First of all, i think real metaphysics does not exist. Since there is always the anotherness. Which
Peirce did call betweenness, but somehow he probably missed enough understandings there. Bakhtin
coined the term of anotherness, Peirce did talk about betweenness a bit. The thing is, that
anotherness is about well anothernesses. But betweenness, is about position. So, if you combine, you
got anotherness betweennesses.

Quite generally, my position, which is the only right one FOR SURE and very great if you understand,
is that there is only one sole underlying structure and nature of our universes. Which is, the holoplural
interconnectedness of objects (meaning both objects and subjects, both living and non-living "things",
even incorporating everything in our minds or in whatever universes). This is a structure without any
borders in possibilities. Borders, and therefore limits, only get into real existences (or perceived ones)
in
their existences. Existences by the way can also be thoughts that do not exist in real world but only in
our mind.

Charles Sanders (Peirce), or short CSP, made in general the same kind of mistake made by Karl
Marx. Meaning that he did kind of borrow/use ideas and constructions of former intellectuals, but not
completely understanding them and therefore using the wrong kinds of building blocks.
With huge errors in them.

CSP did believe that mathematics would offer the right structures of our universes. But, he was wrong.
Since it is just bullshit to argue that mathematics is about the structure of our universes. Mathematics
is just part of our realities, and a VERY important and great part of it, but it is NOT about the structure
of our universes. Maths has a structure, but this structure is different from the sole true structure of all
of our universes. There are a lot of structures not in line with the only true sole structure of our
universes. Which is, like i state and what just is great to understand a lot, the holoplural
interconnectedness of objects (objects being both living and non-living, the Peircean or at least my
understanding and notion of objects).
Any other structure can be worthwhile, but only if it is understood that there is still the underlying
structure of holoplurality. And also that any other structure is reductionist and possibly harmfull, if the
guiding sensemaking process is not according to holoplurality and sane sensemaking.

145
One of the wrong structures of our universes is the structure of linearity. Which can be seen
everywhere around us. In mathematics. In economics..this are not wrong structures, but they always
need to be guided by sane sensemaking based on holoplurality. If holoplurality leads to the
understanding that in certain situations the mathematical structures are reductionist, this mathematical
structures are just WRONG structures for this particular parts of realities. Wrong structures applied to
the wrong situations in our universes cause insane ways of thinking because of the mismatch between
our universes and the structure. They cause insane ways of doing. They cause
sicknesses. They cause insanities in our current society. They cause injustices. They cause death.

Now, presuming the wrong structures and using just wrong ideas is one of the mistakes of Charles
Sanders. Besides that, his Pragmatic maxim (one of the main aspects of his pragmaticism being base
for pragmatisms), is also just big bullshit. Mainly because it is incomplete. In some other parts of this
discourse I will propose a first shot towards a Practicist(ic) maxim, which is a far better approach. To
me a maxim should cover as much as possible of a general idea of understanding, and in my opinion
Peirce did largely fail doing so.

Another mistake of him, is that he used the terminologies of Induction and Deduction. Just some of the
things he kind of used from Aristotle. But, this is actually where not only Peirce but also Aristotle made
huge mistakes. Since induction and deduction are just wrong ways of doing. Also causing insanities.
Mainly because of shifts from generalities to specificities while there is actually no way ever one could
do this....it is reductionist and uniformity ways of thinking and doing, while our universes are pluralistic
and every really every specificity is very specific and only one time available in our universes. This
same kind of unjustified and insane reductionism is actually also there in mathematics. We say 2 + 2 =
4. But actually in real world, in real existences, this 2 and 2 do not exist. Even if we have two identical
products, they are not identical. Since that can never be. It has taken another effort and another
quantity and notion of time to create them. No one here would argue that the one girl or the one wife is
exactly the same as the other girl or the other wife.

There must be a lot more to be told about this errors in Peircean philosophy, of course. But, the most
essential errors are I think clearly described by me in this part and other parts of my discourse. And,
more important, I give the key fundamentals to move on towards the greatest philophronesis insights
and theory possible. This leading towards my discourse to inhabit the key fundamentals, possibilities,
for change and improvement of people, organizations and society and our universes at large.

146
On mathematic conventions

Peirce did, wrongfully, believe that the right structures of our universes where reflected in
mathematics. I do not say that all mathematics is wrong and that parts of the structures of our
universes are maybe reflected in some really better parts of math. But, when stated and believed the
ways Peirce did (reflected in his writings and explanations on mathematics), it is just not correct. And
based on some insane mathematics. Actually, my vision is that Peirce was still too much into inbox
kinds of thinking. And quite certainly he did not really truly understand the insanities in mathematics.
Maybe the core of the problem being that maths is a very uniform way of viewing the world, and really
only a tiny bit of realities at large. Just like Peircean categories are actually only very tiny aspects and
reflections of our universes. Although the categories inhabit a lot more of pluralities and insights about
our universes. But this also depends on the framework chosen, which is also an issue of wrong
understandings of Peirce himself.

I will elaborate and try to explain a bit more about my arguments for labelling at least most of
mathematics as illusionary and perceptual.

First of all, my argument that nothing in social sciences, nothing in living processes is statical. Even
seemingly statical things like non-living objects may appear to be statical, but in the end they are not.
Based on this argument, it already can be understood in its essences why a statical representation of
the worlds surrounding us is not correct. In most of the cases, a statical and mediate interpretation of
our universes (like most ones in mathematics) are nor really right structures but just insane and wrong
conventions of humankind. This should help to understand why, if these kind of wrong perceptual
structures are used, they should only serve as a firstness. Being used and corrected by human beings
when necessary. This correction with anothernesses is mostly needed, at least when the immediate
factors are added and the mathematical firstness is entering a more pluralistic state of being. This
actually already explains why mathematics is incomplete and reductionist way of viewing realities. But
that is something most people understand. That there is nothing in our universes of existences
consisting solely out of mathematical formulas. Except the ones we create in our thoughts and then on
paper and in books and the like. But this does not mean they are reality, on the contrary. There is still
a huge difference between the universes of representation and their information carriers (such as
books and internet) and the real world. Information carriers are existences in their own
settings/universe, but only possibilities in the worlds and realities of being.

147
An example explaining why statical representation is reductionist can be the counting of products. In
whatever setting. This counting is, of course, only a momentum of time. And based on some person
counting. The thing is, that if for instance 50 products or whatever quantity is counted, it is not sure
whether the same amount will exist in any moment later in time. Somebody could pick some amount
from the amount counted without the person counting sensing this. In a process later some product(s)
might have to be thrown away. Some others being added. In that case the quantity will not be same at
some moment in time, and added with another product(s) to meet the required quantity again. Which
might still not fulfil the required quantity since some other persons also throw some away.

Although this might seem simple and straightforward insights known to anyone, the implications and
further anothernesses of them are understood only by a few people.

Anotherness thing with the counting of products or whatever. The counting is just of a limited, agreed
upon part of reality. Of course. If I have two falcons in separated aviaries, of course it are 2 falcons.
They will stay 2 as long as they stay 2. That is of course part of reality. But, what is not in this part of
understanding of reality, is much more than what is in. Being the huge differences between the two
falcons. One might be excellent hunter, the other one just an old one not suitable for anything great
really.

Again, this might seem straightforward. But the deeper implications and structures lying behind this
kind of things are much more elementary and fundamental than most people understand at first sight.

One of the fundamental things is, that if only the number of products being made is stressed, it might
not be realised that the one product takes a lot more effort to be produced than the other one. That
there is a difference between one product and the other one. These differences are much more
relevant when living creatures are reduced to mathematical entities. Same applies on when insights
based on reductionist scientific ways of doing are applied to living creatures. Like human and non
human animals. This leads to a lot of damage and problems of society. Actually, I think most of the
socially connected problems are associated with reductionism and the wrong ways of applying so-
called firstnesses or possibilities in real life situations.

It is actually like the duck-rabbit. While a lot of people think it is either a duck or a rabbit, based on their
reductionist and partly insane ways of conditioning through education and society at large, the same
counts for this issue of mathematics. We are conditioned for partial and reductionist reflections or
representamens of reality to use and accept them as realities, while they are ultimately not. They
might be in the deserts of the real, the perceptions of being, that are maintained as realities around us.
Partly also for practical and good reasons. But in the end, they simply are NOT.

148
 The most important realisation about the Duck-Rabbit is most probably the realisation that the Duck-
Rabbit. Is NEITHER a duck nor a rabbit. It simply is the representamen of the Duck-Rabbit. Nothing
more, nothing less. In its essences, it has really NOTHING to do with either a Duck or a Rabbit. Any
connections to them are mere perceptions of our mind, based on semisophy errors.

The thing is, that Peircean categories are as reductionist as mathematics is. But in a sense, a lot of
features and insights connected with Peircean categories really truly exist. A representamen does
exist. Also objects and interpretants exist. They really truly exist, and should not be labbeled as
perceptions. But, it should be realized that the way Peirce did describe and understand them are
perceptions to some extends. Since in reality, these realities of our universes are far more pluralistic
and different from the understandings of Peirce. Also, they have to be understood in the right
philophronesis framework, which is the only sole true structure of our universes and the philophronesis
practical framework I kind of developed and express in the whole of my discourse. This being
completely different from what Peirce himself developed and understood. Most probably, huge parts of
the errors in Peircean thought are caused by him taking insane mathematics as points of reference.

In some senses, my philophronesis framework and understandings are equalling the issues and the
concept of Unified Field Theory. I came to this insights much more just now, after reading some great
publication of a friend of mine on internet. To be found at http://www.wbabin.net/science/anderton6.pdf
Like UFT for physics, my philophronesis framework is kind of UFT for social sciences. It enables
pluriform, NON reductionist and therefore more sane and great understandings of the realities
surrounding us35. As such, UFT in physics is just a very small part of my philophronesis framework. In
that respects, also physics UFT (such as the one of Roger Boskovich and one of the greatest ones
derived from it, UFT from Leo Baranski) is still too reductionist a view of realities as such. Which can
be solved by using my ways of seeing and understandings, since this is really the utmost and most
ultimate ways of understanding our universes. Although it has to be improved and altered by
improvement of understanding of contents and a lot more. Actually, my understandings and this writing
as such are great firstness – the best you can probably think of at this moment- but it has to be worked
out in practise mainly. And understandings have to grow in this unified fields of sign growing
enormously still.

35
By stating that my philophronesis practicism does enable a non-reductionist understanding of the universes, i
do NOT mean that my discourse does not inhabit reductionist representamens and understandings. This is simply
not possible in whatever discourse. But fact is that everything needed to move on towards much less reductionist
and much more sane realities in our universes is possible by means of understanding and applying my discourse.

149
On representamens. Fact is, that as with regards production of products, it is very interesting to realize
about the representamens. Some very long time ago, I already wondered why a kind of positive way of
keeping records of quality of products (quality management) could not be replaced by some negative
way of keeping records. Or a negative way replaced by a more positive way, depending on what is
labelled positive and negative. But what I meant at that times is not administrating when things or
products are good or satisfying, but only when problems exist. Maybe together with the why’s, the
reasons why things go wrong. This would be far more constructive and essential. Of course.

But now on the why of me stating this. I already understood at that times, but will explain with the
notion of representamen. For a good understanding here, it is important to realize that there are
thought-representamens and reality-representamens. The thought representamens being, for
instance, a production worker counting some products. Or us counting whatever, or administrating
whatever representamens of quality or quantity in our minds. This kinds of representamens are often
far more essential than the reality representamens. Of course this differs, since for stockkeeping and
further processing both will be needed and are important in their own ways and different situations.
But, it is also the case that a lot of these representamens are used in wrong ways in practise. Like, in
my view, in the case of quality management. Why recording when things go well on paper, while in
these cases only the recording in our minds (thought-representamens) are important. The only sound
reason might be to have a check whether we actually checked, and recording this. But for this kind of
reason, it is also satisfactory enough to make a rule to just check for yourself at certain time intervals
whether you did check. And then registering these results. Then just not recording it, unless something
is wrong. Since that is really important to know, besides of course reasons of it and the like.

Same is with requirements to put a sticker on something as a representamen of having checked

something. Since, it should be satisfying that this is recorded in thought-representamens. And making
the agreement or promise to customers it is indeed checked. If it is, the sticker is not needed. If it is
not, the sticker can only be used in wrong ways. Meaning to put sticker on while it is actually not
checked completely. Which is far from reasons to do so I guess.

When we would follow maths and put the difference between good and bad in some formula, we
would probably end up with something like:

Good + or minus anothernesses = bad

Now, any sensible person would see that this kind of reasoning is incorrect. At least that it is a very
reductionist way of viewing good and bad. But, besides that, it is also incorrect ways of thinking about
good and bad. Based on current accritically indubitable beliefs on opposites. These beliefs are actually
semisophy errors, something I will explain further on in this discourse.

150
Let us reflect again about the above formula and the reductionist way of viewing. In fact, if you start
understandings, mathematics and all other kinds of models (and even this discourse and any
discourse and words) is still a too reductionist way of reflecting existences. And, most importantly to
understand, mathematics is purely about conventions and about making these conventions complete.

Problem with mathematics is that structures between insane and perceptual mathematical formulas
are just completed with further insane perceptual structures. Not based on any specific cases in
reality. Also, if this is done, there will always be a big discrepancy with reality. Simply because
mathematics is about representamens, which will be reductionist in view and contents anyways. But
mostly also because connections are just created not based on understandings, but just based on
what connections are needed to make the formulas complete.

151
On mathematical and non-mathematical conventions

Following my remark about the fact that mathematical insights are mostly mere perceptions, I wanted
to give an example. Which I still want to do, but meanwhile my understandings about the differences
between mathematical and non-mathematical universes has increased again. Partly because the
example I did and do want to use was base for a lot of growth of understandings.

This example refers to the notions of rational and irrational numbers in mathematics. Now, at first I
thought this terminology of rational and irrational were more or less equal to the same notions in
general common used language and understandings. But, they are not. Let me first explain what this
notions of rational and irrational numbers mean. Then elaborate on the differences between their
notions in maths as opposed to the notions of rational and irrational for mind and society. Then also
giving some illuminative differences between mathematical and non-mathematical conventions.

In mathematics, we have the rational and the irrational numbers. This rational has however nothing to
do with rationality, or it does. It has according to certain qualisigns, but it has not according to having
exactly the same meaning. The generally accepted convention about what rational and irrational
numbers is as follows :

“The rational numbers in mathematics are numbers that can be expressed at a fraction or ratio.
This ratio being some relation according to the relative size between two quantities of the
same kind “

Apart from the understanding of what rational and irrational mean in this notion, it is very important to
understand that the relations themselves are partial and reductionist views on reality. This is caused
partly because of the issues I will elaborate on below.

The division in rational and irrational numbers is just some convention in mathematics, where the
meaning of rational and irrational differs substantially from the normal meaning of the same
expressions in society. As in society, rational and rationality is mostly understood to be part of mind
and mind processes. The meaning there is much more plural and also the understanding of what
rational and rationality is, is still lacking and growing.

When reflecting on the differences between mathematics and real life, I thought about the fact that
both in mathematics and in social realities, a lot is merely a matter of conventions. Then thinking back
at the issue of Peirce stating that mathematic structures would be base for social structures and
understanding realities, I thought at that respects Peirce might actually have been right and that
indeed the structure of mathematics would in some senses represent the structures of life and
realities.

152
But, this is not the case at all. There is a HUGE difference between both the nature and the qualities of
mathematics and real life. Just some part of it being the following. Of course, there is mathematical
and non-mathematical structures. Meaning that there is more than solely the mathematical world. And
structures are plural. Meaning that for anothernesses being non-rational, anotherness structures at
least anotherness structure plurisigns will be applicable.

On conventions, we got mathematical and non mathematical conventions. And again, there is a huge
difference between conventions in mathematics and conventions in real life. Since mathematics is a
very uniform and strict way of thinking. And also the conventions in mathematics are as such. Which is
very different from real life situations in our universes.

Most non-mathematical representamens, at least the (more) social ones, are much more pluriform.
The less they are, the less they are reflecting the real true underlying structures and realities of our
universes. Then like I already expressed, there is the fact that the social conventions are not always
the same but always different compounded. And the content will differ per situations, also since social
conventions are growing. Towards more or lesser fitted representamens of reality. I call this type of
representamens the most fitted towards reality phronesis representia. They are the ultimate kind of
representamens, according to the understandings of Practicism and Phronesis as reflected in this
discourse. These representia are not changing themselves, but the understandings do.

The most important thing to understand is, that most conventions (whether being mathematical or non-
mathematical), are reductionist representamens of the real world out there. Just like a lot of scientific
representamens also are. The fact that adjustments are needed when being applied already implies
that there are mallfunctions and in some cases even insanities in the fundamental firstnesses of the
conventions being used.

153
On relativeness of Peircean categories

This (parts of my) discourse is one of the most difficult to either understand or write. Mostly because of
the fact that it deals with the ultimate levels of beyondness and understandings. Both in this part of my
writings as in other parts of it, I remark that Peirce made errors and mistakes in his philosophy. This
should however always be seen in the light of the contexts Peirce lived in but also my own
perspectives and understandings. When understandings move towards higher and more entelychistic
levels, the lower grades and levels of understandings may always seem insane and false. This
mistakes and insanities can however be graded as either relative or absolute insanities or bullshit.

I myself understand that I really truly got towards the most high and entelychistic levels of wisdom and
understandings ever possible to reach in history. Fact is however, that this philophronesis
understandings and wisdoms still have to be transferred to the contents and methodologies of the
universes surrounding us. I participate in this, still also making use of insane parts of understandings
and insights. They have and should be changed, making signs growing to the most entelystic and
great ones ever possible in our histories and universes, in the (near) future. This might cause my own
understandings seeming to be as relatively insane in some respects also, most probably. Also
because of this, I invite all the readers to just become and stay very critical towards not only any texts
and existences in our universes, but also towards my discourses and insights as a whole.

The categories of Peircean semiotics, being whatever mode of it like discussed by Peirce, all have
their (relative) errors in it. Being that Peirce himself was still a kind of inbox thinking person in a lot of
respects. This means, that he was also living up to accritically indubitable beliefs and contents. This is
unfortunately all over in his writings and thoughts. Peirce was just not able, somehow, to get towards
the beyondnesses and the real wisdoms of signs and philophronesis as a whole.

So actually, the errors in Peircean philosophy are manifold. Not only he did accritically “copy” parts of
Aristotle and other intellectuals, but also he did make serious errors himself. Errors which are maybe
not real errors, this depends on the perspectives taken. In many respects, Peircean categories are a
great way of viewing and also they can add towards a lot of great insights and ways of viewing. BUT…
Peircean categories are still part of inbox kind of thinking. Not because the Peircean categories
themselves would be wrong, but simply because of the wrong framework of thinking. Which is, like I
say, an inbox kind of thinking. Something I will explain right below this paragraph.

154
There are many modes of Peircean categories. One of them being firstness, secondness and
thirdness. The other one being possibilities, existences and laws. And, last but not least, we have the
categories of representamen, object and interpretant. The general feature of all this categories is that
they all exist of only 3. Nothing more, nothing less. Another general feature connected with the first
one of only 3, is the fact that it are actually just some possible ways to view while there are simply
much more ways to view. There can also be 2 or 5 or whatever, although Peirce did say that the
categories could be only reduced to 3 and not to 2 or less. He was simply very wrong there, just like
Peirce has been wrong on a lot of things he was writing and thinking.

I will start with my critique on his representamen, object and interpretant. Fact is, that Peirce himself
did hold the view that these categories could not be reduced to 2. This is one of the most essential
errors in Peircean semiotics. Since actually, these 3 categories are just some modes of viewing while
there could be much more. A representamen is a type of semiotic qualisign while there are, of course,
a lot more to understand. In fact, all of the 3 semiotic qualisigns of representamen, object and
interpretant can be feature of both an animate and an inanimate object. An object being both objects
like the general used notion of it (animate) and also what is generally referred to as being subjects (the
inanimate). And, instead of representamen connected with an object and then with an interpretant, it
could be that an interpretant gets connected with an object or an interpretant or maybe multiple
interpretants or objects. Without a representamen playing any roles there. A representamen can also
be linked with a non-interpretant or another representamen. Two or more subjects can be linked,
either physically or mentally. Or even both. And, of course, any subject does not only feature the
semiotic qualisign of interpreter, but can feature a lot more. Like for instance the qualisign of being a
listener, a follower, a do-er. This could lead to the categories of representamen, object and listener. Or
the categories of representamen, subject and do-er. Or just any combinations of qualisigns I guess.

Besides this, the categories do not have to be reduced to 3. With the wrong argumentations that they
would only to be reduced to 3 and not to less than these 3. This really truly is absolute bullshit. In the
light of this, I would propose just some possible other SERIAL/DIAGRAMMATIC expression of
categories. Like, for instance, the categories of representamen, object, interpretant, negotiator, actor.
We can, surely, extend this serial of categories much longer if we also divide the sign qualisigns and
object qualisigns in higher details of understandings.

Natural forces are objects in Peircean and also in my understandings. And both representamen and
interpretant are actually semiotic qualisigns of objects. In that sense, the 3 categories of Peirce could
be reduced to only one, being objects. Or, in (Peircean) semiotical or (my) semiphronesis language,
SIGNS. These signs can be categorized as living and non-living signs, which is leading towards 2
categories. The 3 categories of Peirce being only some possible modes and serials departed from it.

155
There are many features (qualisigns) of living signs that are also apparent in non-living signs. For
instance, the qualisign of acting or doing can also be apparent in what we consider to be non-living
signs. For instance the natural forces often do a lot, actively act, while they are not living. Winds and
tornado’s actively blow and maybe destroy. It is a whole other type of doing than the type of doing of
living creatures, but still it is a mode of doing.

Actually the representamen of peirce is a qualisign of objects in general. They can be of living objects
(subjects) or non-living subjects (generally referred to as objects in the generally understood notion of
it). But, in case they are qualisigns of non-living objects, these qualisigns can be divided again.
Meaning that the qualisign of being a representamen exists of several qualisigns of the representamen
itself. Some of these qualisigns of the representamen are connected with the object (living or non-
living), while other qualisigns of the representamen are connected with the interpretant or actor or
whatever. A representamen can not exist without a living creature treating or using it as being a
representamen. So, this living creature and the external qualisigns/qualities of the representamen
effected by this living creature, is a very essential part of the representamen to even exist at all.

There must of course be a lot more to mention about the relativeness of Peircean signs. But I leave
that up for later or for other persons to reflect and discuss further on in depth.

156
On the illusion of facts

Nietzsche: “ What is truth then? A mobile army of metaphors, metonomies, anthropomorphisms, in short a sum of human
relations that are elevated, transmitted, beautified in a poetic or rhetoric manner, and that appear to the people after a long
usage as fixed, canonical and binding: truths are illusions of which one has forgotten they are illusions, metaphors that are worn
out and literally became powerless, coins that lost their images and are now metal and no longer coins”

In current and traditional understandings, there is a division between facts and opinions. This division
is good, but in many cases in practise opinions and perceptions are perceived and treated as facts.
Which is one of the relevant insane semisophy errors to be solved for future societies.

There are conditional and unconditional facts. Meaning that some facts are real true facts regardless
of the contexts and issues under consideration. While other facts are facts under certain conditions
and within certain contexts and issues, while they are not if certain anotherness contexts and issues
are applicable to the situation (s).

I had long discussions with an acquaintance of mine about when something is a fact and when not.
And what is needed to understand something as being a fact or not. In most cases, we consider
something only as a fact when we have sensed that it is by one or more of our senses. But, of course,
we are misguided by our senses in some cases. Like for instance the figures at beginning of this
discourse show, this misguiding of senses happens much more than most people realize.

Trust me, after getting more and more understandings about the world we live in, I can tell that most
“facts” in our societies and universes are actually perceptions of our realities and universes.

What we see and experience does not have to be true facts. And in most cases, they are not. The
world we live in is largely socially constructed. And a lot if not all of the “ facts “ of life are only “ facts “
if considered in the specific contexts applicable to certain situations or realities.

If something happens in larger amounts of cases, this does not mean it will be more probable we deal
with facts. In the light of reductionism, the human minds have created numerous contexts being
incorrect. With processes and acts and happenings inside of these contexts happening over and over
and over again, while not really truly being facts. Since as soon as the context is changed towards
more sane and correct contexts, the so-called “facts” will disappear completely.

This is something VERY important to grasp, since it is about the relativity of about every reality and
also fact we face and deal with in the realities of our universes. This relativity of facts is a REAL TRUE
FACT. Meaning that this is a perfect example of a fact being a fact regardless of the context and
issues under consideration. It is a universal truth that every reality is relative.

157
It seems like there are some mistakes in former sentences. If you do not understand that the majority
of phenomenons we call facts in our society at large are simply NOT the REAL TRUE FACTS. Real
true facts being universal truths, applicable and true regardless of the context and issues under
considerations.

158
On the (illusion of) facts, and the role of opinions and understandings, in
a storytelling society

Social sciences have been influenced to quite some extends by the nature of natural sciences. This
can still be experienced a lot in both mainstream social sciences and practises. Individuals and
organizations in our storytelling36 society are still largely influenced by this.

The main reductionist influence of natural sciences into social sciences and practises being the
tendency of focusing on quantitative uniform signs instead of holoplural plurisigns. Another influence
being the focus on “ hard”, proven facts at the expense of opinions and understandings. Opinions and
understandings not taken into regards as much, and very often even neglected.

Of course, it can be doubted whether the focus on quantitativeness and uniform signs and facts in
social sciences really originates from the natural sciences. But, there are at least two issues justifying
this opinion. One of them being the issue of positivist social scientists having predominated the social
sciences, while the ( eclectic) antipositivists are very slowly gaining more territory in social sciences
and practises. The other issue being the fact that the “ growth” in social sciences has had a very
negative effect in terms of losing sanities in sensemaking and social practises.

To move from natural sciences to social sciences, (of course) something very elementary needs to be
added. This something is the qualitative dimensions of (more) sane sensemaking. And the
transferences and facilitation of this (more) sane sensemaking processes by means of the vessel(s) of
storytelling, antenarrating and phronesis antenarrating.

Sane sensemaking requires opinions and understandings, and requires them even more than “ facts”.
Facts can and will be illusions to more or less extends, but especially when facts are grounded on
wrong fundaments they will be as worthless and damaging as a lot of so-called “ facts” in social
sciences. Social sciences and practises are, of course, very different from natural sciences like biology
or physics. Different matters require different approaches, and foremost different methodologies.

Our societies and social practises are storytelling societies. Consisting of plurisigns growing. Social
realities do not grow by mere realities and perceptions like facts, but of course this realities and
perceptions grow because of sane sensemaking. And, for sane sensemaking, choices are very
important. Even seemingly ridiculous or damaging choices are. Choices introduce Bakthinian
anothernesses and Peircean possibilities. Initiating the growth of plursigns in our storytelling societies.

36
For more understandings of storytelling, I would recommend the book “ storytelling organizations” by David
Boje. His understandings of storytelling, and foremost his notion and tool of antenarrating and antenarratology
are fundamental for improving our (understandings of ) storytelling society.

159
Historically, facts have been opposed to qualitative opinions, with the “ facts” being “ right” and
opinions and judgements being “ wrong”. While in all of social sciences and practises, opinions and
judgements and other Peircean possibilities should be allies of facts. Facts being momental and
contextual, especially in social sciences and practises. These kinds of “ facts” can only grow when
opinions, judgements and other antenarrative bits and pieces enter the scene. Being implemented into
our sane sensemakings and storytellings to larger extends, in phonitical ways. In that ways, mindsigns
and other sense-signs resulting into opinions, judgements and other antenarrative plurisigns can
transform and grow from social sciences and practises. Inclusional holoplurality involves a multi-
directional transfer and growth of plurisigns. Which can only occur, of course, with more than solely
facts and figures.

Understanding this should be a good plea for more qualitativeness and qualitative research in
sciences, as opposed to the current focus on quality in organizations and our society and the resulting
focus and relevance of quantitative research. Qualitative research is NOT opposed to quantitative
research, but a way different kind of research enabling way different processes of sensemaking in
other aspects of our universes as such. And qualitative research needs opinions, understandings and
other Peircean possibilities as these are elementary for a sane (storytelling) society. Therefore,
antenarrating is a crucial part of our society and universes. (Peircean) possibilities should never be
neglected the way they are at current times, and (phronesis) antenarrating can and will introduce them
into our societies in much larger extends again. As soon as our understandings and foremost usage of
antenarrating and antenarrative bits grow and flourish (again).

One of the greatnesses of qualitative research is that it can and will lead to anotherness
understandings. This anotherness understandings, based on more sensemaking, can however only
become even more qualitative if more sane or at least sane kinds of sensemaking are being used.
Current mainstream social sciences and practises are mostly based on insane or less sane kinds of
sensemaking. The key to improve this, is holoplurality. And the resulting sole true sane sensemaking
called pluriflection.

But actually, antenarrating and storytelling means a lot more for social sciences and practises. Which
is the further integration of both of them. By means of antenarrating and storytelling, social sciences
and qualitative research is supplemented by other fundamental aspects of sane sensemaking. And,
more important, it can and will give academics and individuals a more pro-active role in further growth
of social sciences and practises and the integration of the both in our storytelling societies, by moving
from spectator to spect-actors:

Boal - Augusto Boal's (1979) first in his book Theater of the Oppressed, translated from the Spanish Teatro de Oprimido (1974a) is a
conversation with Aristotle. Boal continues the dialog in a more recent collection of his talks and training approaches, in Games for actors
and non-actors (1992) and his latest take, Rainbow of Desire, The Boal Method of Theatre and Therapy (1996). Boal’s theory is we are part
spectator and part actor, and when we cross the divide between audience and stage, to join with the actors, this makes us spect-actors. Like
Burke, Boal takes a more Sociological and dialectical approach. The difference is that Boal embraces Marxism, where Burke is ever
challenging Marx as too polemic. (David Boje, “ Beyong pentad to hexad: Dancing partners and Burke’s sixth step” ).

160
Although the distinction by Boal in actors and spectators is an interesting and great one, of course
there are much more roles and acts than that of actor and spectator. And actually even the actor with
spectate while even a spectator will act. With regards to other roles, for instance an academic can
choose to be more like an actor, but meanwhile still depending more on phronitical insights instead of
the outcomes of qualitative research for improving matters. Meaning that the sound sense making
process is regarded as being more important and fundamental than the insights obtained from what is
already an actuality in the contexts and acts of our storytelling societies. That is where phronitical
thinkers and phronitical think-actors enter the scene.

With regards to actor, spectator and spect-actors, it can be mentioned that of course each individual in
our storytelling society plays any of these roles, depending on both their intrinsic characteristics and
motivations and the contextual surroundings and issues in their life. It is very essential and useful to
understand WHY actors are sometimes not spect-actors but mere actors. But, more essentially, it is
very useful to understand HOW actors can be changed to being spect-actors and to develop means
for doing so.

I think, in general both the academics and also actors in our society have to become spectactors. But,
the difference is that academics move from being too much spectator to more spect-actor and more
actor, while other actors in our society should move from being more actor and no of less spect-actor
towards being more spect-actor. Enabling this requires another attitude and nature of both individuals
in organizations and the organizations themselves. Prospective sensemaking has to be encouraged
and stimulated, even if this prospective sensemaking is against current values and laws. Meaning that
even crossing the borders of values and laws should be accepted in much higher degrees than in
current times. Only in that kind of atmospheres, greater changes can occur.

But of course, in several occasions it is better NOT to act and therefore even not to cross borders at
those specific moments in time. But, even this non-acts are acts. And even the decision and acts of
not-being an actor like for instance a falconer or worker or even just being an acting person, is an act
of being an actor.

161
On models and structures

During the last years I have been thinking about what could replace the many models of economists
and other scientists. And then I realized that they do not have to be replaced. But just have to either
disappear or be used in correct ways. For that, the people have to realize that the map is not the
territory and that every situation is different and needs other building blocks. Some of these building
blocks, which are important for the anothernesses that are too much disregarded at current times, are
already there. A lot of additional ones however still have to be constructed and/or developed. By
means of this piecemeal engineering of building blocks, the old models can be abolished till only the
constructive ones are left and new better ones are there.

Most important to realize is what Peirce probably also realized. Which is the fact that current models
are NOT accurate just like current signs and language is not accurate enough. That structure and
overview is NOT reached by making models but by diminishing structures. Any structure, also the
language structures. Pierce is telling that our thoughts are diagrammatical. He is not telling that real
life should be. And actually, in the whole of his theories he is trying to solve the problems of grammatic
and signs by introducing new notions that are better able to express othernesses of life in better ways.
Which is not the ideal case, but the best we can do at current times. Because the only way to express
ourselves is through languages, and it will probably stay that way. Which is not that much of a
problem, but we have to be aware of the anothernesses and how to deal with them.

Basically, we have a lot of dysfunctional structures in our universes and societies. A lot of them being
either insane, not needed anymore or being both unneeded and insane. Fact is that our social society
currently is moving towards more pluralist universes, with a lot of unneeded and insane parts still
playing a far too profound and influential role. With parts, I here actually also mean people. In the
Netherlands we use the saying “bloempje van catharina” ( flower of Catherine) there, meaning some
aspects of life or organizations that is still there but not needed anymore. Which happens constantly in
an ever changing universe, where the context is changing but the objects or people in these contexts
staying the same. By that creating a misfit between the objects and their surroundings at certain
moments in time. In fact the only real structure of our societies and universes is the one of separate
units or building blocks that are organized with more or less tight links or no links at all between them.
Then there are the anothernesses in between. It is just a social aggregation or configuration of living
and non living parts. All having certain values and plural plurisigns that are not positively or negatively
loaded but more fluently. And plural. Each part itself is also made up of smaller parts in same ways.
And in bigger social orders, every part has a more or less influential influence on the relative wholes.

162
This main structure of our universes and societies is really the ONLY real underlying structure and
nature of our universes and societies. With the values and characteristics that are described in this
discourse. The ordering of social and non-social particles in our universes is not static but dynamical
and more or less fluent. There are no real opposites like positive and negative but much more
pluriform plurisigns and realities of life.

Other kinds of structures, like for instance the linear structures in maths, are of course valuable and
good to use. In some cases. But, it has to be clear and realised that they are not real true structures of
our universes. They are just mere conventions and always not the true complete stories. In case of
mathematics it might sometimes be worthwhile for instance in cases where we have the borders of
time or space that prevent us to look further than certain periods of time. But it should be realised then
that these kinds of mathematical structures are just perceptions, not real and complete reflections of
the real existences in our universes.

The sole structure of our universes like I express it in this discourse is really the only sole real
underlying structure of our universes. I termed it holoplurality. Before me, no one really grasped this
notion and the content, meaning that no-one actually understood the real structure and nature of our
universes. Currently, our mainstream socials sciences , all of our sensemaking and also all of social
practise are based and guided by the wrong understandings about the underlying structure and laws.
Realising this is also very worthwhile in cases where other structures are applied. To be able to see
the plural anothernesses/signs that are also part of realities. All structures that are not in line with the
sole real structure of our universes are just mere conventions, not reflecting completenesses.

The main problem concerning structures is that a lot of structures in our society are just created and
organized in the wrong ways. Meaning that these structures mostly are far too uniform and statical.
Further more they just do not take into regards enough the real and only ways our universes are really
organized. Any structure that is not set up that ways will cause more or less influential and serious
problems. Dependent on how critical the situation and circumstances are and how badly organized
and implemented these structures are. But in most cases the structures are damaging because of
wrong applications, of course. Which is caused by people not realising why these structures are the
way they are and because of lacks of understandings about how they should be used. Excesses of
lack of understandings. Excesses of failures and damages to other people and our societies as a
whole.

163
On structures of insanities

A lot of current structures in our society as such are not according to the sole true underlying structure
of our universes. But, this does not mean that all of these structures are not relevant or have to
disappear all of them. Fact is, that quite some structures are still needed and have to stay into
existence. Partly because of some lacks of understandings of actors involved, and party because of
physical and non-physical borders. And quite probably also because of anotherness reasons which I
do not stress here at this moment.

An example of structures that are not correct but still need to be maintained partly in our society at
large because of physical borders, is the example of linear structures. Meaning that some of the linear
structures existing in our societies just have to stay into existence, while others are really damaging
and unnecessary and just have to disappear.

An example of linear structures that still have to stay into existences, are the linear structures and
ways of thinking and writing. Writing has to be linear in some respects because of the linear structures
of books and digital word processing software. But it is very important to grasp that although the
structure of the writing might seem linear, the universes we live in are not. Therefore, also this linear
structures should be guided by sane and complete sensemaking. The only right way of sensemaking
being based on holoplurality. Phronesis antenarrating, phronesis sensemaking and sound pluriflection
is the main guide and input there. At least, it should be. In every aspect and situation of our universes
and life in general.

In some other part of this discourse, I am mentioning that my way of proceeding would be a top down
or bottom up kind of proceeding. Which seems to be completely into contradiction to my
understandings of the sole true structure of our universes. But, it is not. Since, like I said, linear
thinking can be needed in some cases. Like in representamens as this discourse is. It is simply not
possible to proceed in anotherness ways than through linear structures of writing (because of the
structure of word software). But, what should be fully understood, is the fact that this linear way of
structuring is only some kind of firstness. Since the guiding sensemaking has been more and more
according to holoplurality and sound pluriflection. My whole discourse only serves as some
fundamental blueprint for future societies. To be applied in more correct ways in immediate ways by
human actors. In this more developed phases and the realities of our universes, the shortfalls of linear
thinking and writing should and have to be corrected. Also, the linear kinds of thinking and writing have
to be seen in the broader lights and structure of the real true structure of our universes. So, my linear
representamens are always to be seen as being part of the sole true underlying structures of our
universes. The linearity taking place in several directions, not only horizontal and vertical.

164
For the sake of better understandings, it is very constructive to make the division in dynamical and
statical structures. While physical structures can be statical, non-physical structures overall will not be.
For social matters, aspects, physical and statical do not really exist. Besides that, physical structures
are never statical, but they seem to be because of us only seeing the form of the structure and not the
contents of them. Contents being non-physical, dynamical and growing.

The problem with a lot of structures, and resulting from that the problem of science at large, is that it is
often far to reductionist way of thinking and doing. Which is about same as saying that structures are
insane, if you understand enough. And, it is often not realised enough that these structures are
firstnesses, to be corrected for real life situations by actors. In it’s essences, a lot of structures and
representamens and other fundaments of our society are insane to less or more extends. This does
not matter too much if they are corrected by actors, but, in the end it of course does matter a lot if the
firstnesses are more sane and correct. For this being the case, they have to be the result of great
insights, resulting from applying the right methodologies in right ways by the right persons.

Reductionist structures and, more broadly, reductionist firstnesses. Are not that much of a problem
when the non-critical anothernesses are left out. This mostly is the case with contexts where people
are less or not important. This implies that reductionist and insane structures are doing well as
firstnesses, as long as the immediate aspects (actors) are not critical and/or playing their roles. Also,
in thirdnesses they may be even functional, but only to the extends that they add to the knowledge and
understandings of actors involved.

People, actors, can and in many cases will correct a lot of the mistakes of structures in thirdness, well
in existences and laws. In more evolved phases of dynamics. Structures in thirdnesses are functional
till the times the underlying qualisigns implicitly absorbed in these structures are not known or
understood by the actors working with them. When actors get towards higher understandings, or even
toward artistry levels, the structures may and will become more and more dysfunctional.

For growth and change, unfreezing is needed. Meaning that staying to work within and according to
certain structures will limit growth. Sticking to firstnesses like procedures and other structures too
much, will lead to people being put back into their boxes thereby preventing greater levels of
excellence to develop. Incorrect structures for certain contexts or people lead to insanities and
damages as a whole. But, even some reductionist or insane structures can be very productive and
good to have. Decisions about more or less structures, and types of structures, always have to take
place in the light of understandings of the contexts and people involved. Of course.

165
Structures, even potentially insane structures like linear ones, can be firstness and part of the more
complete structures of our universes. The interconnectednesses in our realities. While these structures
might lead to insane and reductionist views in the worlds and universes of thought, this might not be
a problem. Unless they are not corrected and part of a more sane structure and methodology in the
worlds and universes of our realities. Anothernesses can and should be added in universes of
realities. If structures are not sane in their firstnesses, this is not a problem as long as they are not
being used in wrong ways.

Some specific type of insane social structures is the notion and phenomenon of induction. An, if this
notion is applied in firstness, it is often also not that much of a problem. But when working with people,
or in the contexts of realities of life, it is mostly just better to leave this kind of insane structures out.
Because in these contexts, especially in these contexts, structures (like more specific the notions and
methodologies of induction and deduction) are very dysfunctional and counterproductive as a whole.
As far as insane structures are concerned, it is often the case that less is more.

The application of insane structures in wrong ways often lead to reifications. Representamens are
often the outcomes of reifications, which is a reductionist view on the realities of life. Partly because
reification is a quite uniform, less pluriform reflection of the worlds of realities.

Less structure is often leading to more pluriform ways of realities, and to more anothernesses. Less
structure is needed to unfreeze, to get out of the boxes where we seem to feel comfortable in but
which at same time do drive and keep us insane in many respects. But, what is needed in a lot of
social fields is less structure and more entelychistic anothernesses. More critical, and more qualitative
anothernesses. Art requires not just critical anothernesses, but more qualitative critical anothernesses.
Critical anothernesses with the most of value. Value is quality, but what is quality and what are
qualitative anothernesses? This is something that has to be explored by every individual and also by
society at large. Since ultimately, transitive values are the core of our societies. And, we still do not
know let alone understand even tiny bits of it.

166
On system-atical errors

The semisophy insanity of fixation on firstnesses and less transitive signs as such can be found
throughout our society. But mostly in what we refer to as bureaucratic organizations. Of course, there
is always more or less of “bureaucracy” into a system or organization. The bureaucracy being the
explicit reflection of the implicit insanity of a very specific type of fixations towards firstnesses.

This specific type of fixation towards firstness is the semisophy insanity leading towards syste-matical
errors. Being the kind of errors that are made automatically, as a result of system procedures and
ways of acting. These systems causing automatical ways of doing without the relevant specific
anothernesses taken into regards enough.

Actually, I think this kind of automatical and systematical errors are profound in a lot of jobs and
organizations. That is one, if not main, reason why there is a difference between a job description and
its contents and the art of doing something. Art requires more than this kind of systematical ways of
doing without respecting the anothernesses. But then again, there are simply a few people mastering
something towards the levels of art, not only seeing but truly understanding the relevant
anothernesses to be taken into regards.

Especially the anothernesses being the immediate, specific anothernesses can not be included in
general systems and rules. They have to be applied, introduced to the scene(s), by humans. People
adjusting to specific cases, taking the anothernesses into regard. But, in many cases, other humans
not understanding these anothernesses might not understand their relevance and prevent them from
being applied. Anotherness semisophy error we can see everywhere throughout our society and ways
of doing. If you understand and use your senses to the fullest, this might lead to whole new insights
about the universes and our realities as a whole.

In those cases where people adjust to specific cases themselves, those adjustments can of course
either be based on just perceptions of complying to a system, or these adjustments can really be
instances of complying and improving a system or a reality “out there”. But one of the problems is the
fact that for other people it is often just very difficult if not impossible. To judge which acts from other
people are meant to improve and adjust in good and constructive ways, and which acts are actually
either meant to do so ( or not ), but will not have any constructive results as such.

Having said this, the executions of power by other people in the system are always either a sign or the
causation of weakness. Either because of wrong understandings an/or intentions of the people
executing the power, or because of wrong understandings and/or intentions of the people being
encouraged or forced to change their acts in accordance with the visions or requirements of those
executing the power.

167
A lot could be improved for our society as a whole, if only the understandings and applicability of
interconnectedness and the sole true structure of our universes would be understood enough and
been put in practise likewise. I already said that fundamentally speaking, a sane collective mind is
major there. Although I did not read his book, I think David Bohm has at least something interesting to
tell related to this in his discourse “thought as a system”.

In my own opinion, one of the essential guide for excellent understandings and changes is to prevent
to understand the nature of a system as being automatically and systematical. A system should NOT
be automatical, but natural. Based on a thorough understanding of inclusionality or natural inclusion as
such. This idea of natural inclusion, or inclusionality, is something originating from Alan Rayner.

168
On anotherness kant

This part of the discourse will deal with some issues connected with transitive values mainly. The
starting point of the discourse being some part of Kant’s Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. The
first critique here can be that Metaphysics can never be a sound philosophical base, simply because it
is being grounded on the wrong, reductionist perspective and accompanying sensemaking.

In his Grounding for the Metaphysical of Morals, Kant distinguishes between values that are
“unconditionally good” and values that are good, but only under certain conditions. According to Kant,
there is only one thing we can imagine to be good without qualification, being a good will. He further
on asserts that if a good will is unconditionally good, then its value cannot depend on it having good
effects.

Now, I myself very clearly object to this opinions of Immanuel. The reason being that Immanuel lacked
some understandings when making the distinctions in conditionally and unconditionally good values.
He even did not call them values, this is the only thing I changed in discussing his views, but in the
end what he meant was some more specific occurrences of values. As such, using the notion of
values here is not in any ways changing the nature and fundamentals of the issue expressed here.

The main problem is that Kant did compare apples with apples37 while making oranges of one of the
both to create a difference that is only perceptual and not really truly existing. In case one realizes and
understands that there is no real differance between the two phenomena compared with respects to
the essential qualisigns to be understood and taken into regards there. So actually, what he did, was
just some kind of reversible of comparing apples with oranges38.

This difference he created by focussing on the usage of values, or in my understandings the transitive
values, on the one hand and focussing on the relatively statical values on the other hand. The values
being good under certain conditions compared with the perceptually unconditionally good which is
however also only good under certain conditions. Simply all of the values existing are only good or bad
or whatever under certain conditions. Meaning that the transitive value is always different from the less
transitive or relatively statical values. Or, in anotherness words, valuation of values does change
according to specific contexts. But, given specific contexts, values and also their valuations should be
indeed unconditionally valued the same.

37
This conclusion is based on the similarities between apples and apples, similarities on relevant criteria and
qualisigns. Which is of course a kind of reductionist view, but that is not a problem for the issue at stake here.
38
Actually, you can not even compare apples with apples. If this statement is understood as a normative
statement and the emphasis is on the differences and not on the similarities.

169
I however do not object to the insight that there can exist goods being unconditionally good. What I
however DO object to, is the fact that Kant asserts that only a good will can be unconditionally good.
Since, the way he meant this notion, there are enough other things that can and will be unconditionally
good. Or unconditionally excellent. Since, of course there are a lot of variations of goodness, varying
from just good to great to excellent and anything in betweenness. A distinction in levels of quali
plurisigns is required there.

But, altogether, I just want to state here some other unconditionally good or great. In fact it is just here.
This discourse being a representamen of possibilities. Is at least unconditionally good, if not
unconditionally great. Just like the architecture of a lot of living creatures in our universes is. Natural
laws are mostly unconditionally good. Just to name some. Also sane sensemaking is unconditionally
good, so also my methodology of phronesis antenarrating is. Actually, phronesis antenarrating and
sound pluriflection is not only unconditionally and uncontextually excellent, but has the power
and capability for transforming anything else in the same. ANYTHING else, whatever!

When making the distinction in conditionally and unconditionally good, I think Kant wanted to express
what Nietzsche also expresses in his discourse on beyondness of good and evil. But Nietzsche did
really truly understand, while Kant was probably still into inbox kind of thinkings there. Not really truly
understanding about how to view and understand the beyondnesses of plurisigns.

For instance laws are a perfect example of something actually being perceived as unconditionally
good, while it of course not is so. Since, when contexts are changed and specific situations are taken
into regards, almost NO law is really unconditionally good in whatever settings. Laws are, at best,
mere possibilities. And just like other fundaments of our society, like this discourse will hopefully also
be at certain moments in time, they should be as excellent and sane as possible. Mostly because of
the fact that the possibilities of insanity should not already be included in the fundaments, the cores, of
our society at large. But mainly also because of the high level of applicability of some of the social
fundaments. Causing A LOT of errors and insanities in case anything is or could be wrong with the
fundaments. A sound fundament without any insanities is therefore of the most upmost importance.
The fundament not only being apparent in the representamens and the objects, but also, most
importantly, in the people executing. Since, it is always a combination of both having the sane and
most excellent fundaments, together with the most excellent and great people to put them into effect or
use them in anotherness ways. If there are any problems there, sanity and value of transitivity will
diminish or even get towards damage and costs of transitivity. So that is where the excellence of sane
sensemaking and my great understandings enter the storytelling and sensemaking society and
universes.

170
Transitivity and transitive values can be sane or insane. Based on the levels of understandings, the
methodologies used, and on a correct interpretation and usage of (fundamental) less or more
transitive values. Transitive values are actually anything transitive being either the result of or guided
by sane sensemaking (thereby transforming insanity into sanity by means of sound pluriflection and
phronesis antenanrrating). And since even static objects are actually transitive and anything in our
universes is, anything and everything will become or better get will get elements or grades of transitive
values if sane complete holoplural sensemaking is applied to it. Holoplural sensemaking and social
sciences just HAVE to be grounded on the fundament of the SOLE true underlying structure
and nature of our universes. Which is not just holoplurality, but HOLOPLURAL holoplurality.

One of the examples of transitive values being resistence to change or resistence in general. People
resisting to something based on sane sensemaking can be VERY proud of doing so, even if (like in
many cases) this resistence will not be appreciated or even cause them to be oppressed or damaged
for shorter or longer periods in their lifes. But any resistance to insanity is GREAT and should be
appreciated. Always..

There are just so many cases of wrong issues being taken into regards. Insanities in our lives do not
only occur because of understanding and using too less anothernesses, but also because of
misunderstandings and therefore using too much anothernesses. Meaning that a lot of anothernesses
are taken into regard that are not really important and actually are destructive for sound judgements. A
perfect example of it are fundamental transitive values taken into regard while these transitive values
are either insane themselves or not relevant for the given contexts and therefore turning the whole
situation into an insane one just because of being taken into regards.

171
On good and evil

The notions of good and evil are, like a lot of other notions, often perceived and regarded in the wrong
ways at current times. This is another type of semisophy errors and insanity. The problem being that
the notions are considered and understood with the wrong contextual backgrounds, being the
backgrounds of the wrong methodological context of dualism.

This dualism, partly resulting from aristotelean ways of understanding, is causing a great deal of
current insanities caused by wrong understandings. Not only context-independent understandings
where contexts are crucial, but also the context-dependent understandings (taking the contexts into
regards) can be insane in case it is based on wrong understandings of the applicable or more sane
contexts of understanding.

With regards to good and evil, it is interesting to refer to some remarks made by Nietzsche in his
“beyond good and evil”. In this discourse, Nietzsche does mention the following:

“‘HOW COULD anything originate out of its opposite? For example, truth out of error? or the Will to Truth out of the will to
deception? or the generous deed out of selfishness? or the pure sun-bright vision of the wise man out of covetousness? Such
genesis is impossible; whoever dreams of it is a fool, nay, worse than a fool; things of the highest value must have a different
origin, an origin of THEIR own—in this transitory, seductive, illusory, paltry world, in this turmoil of delusion and cupidity, they
cannot have their source. But rather in the lap of Being, in the intransitory, in the concealed God, in the ‘Thing-in-itself— THERE
must be their source, and nowhere else!’—This mode of reasoning discloses the typical prejudice by which metaphysicians of
all times can be recognized, this mode of valuation is at the back of all their logical procedure; through this ‘belief’ of theirs, they
exert themselves for their ‘knowledge,’ for something that is in the end solemnly christened ‘the Truth’ . “

Unfortunately, nobody really truly understood what Nietzsche has been talking about in his discourse
even until this moment in time. Because, even now, most metaphysicians and philosophers and
actually also most people in practice and our universes of existence are basing their understandings
on the logical procedure based on intransitory ways of thinking. Which is NOT simply opposed to a
more transitory ways of thinking and understanding. On the contrary, the intransitory ways of
understanding are of a whole anotherness order of understanding. Being an INSANE and WRONG
ways of understanding. Meta-physical logic and the kind of logic underlying and being the
fundament of current mainstream philosophy, social sciences but also a lot of practise is
actually illogic, reductionist “logic”. And the fact that it is called “logic” is part of the insanity.

Power is often originating from weaknesses. Or a counterbalance for it. And in general, a lot of
opposites are interconnected with each other in some ways. Or they are not connected in any ways
with each other, meaning that the one side of the opposites is of a completely anotherness order and
nature than the other side that is perceived to be an opposite but actually never was and is.

What I am talking about here, is the dichotomies that we are using throughout our communications
and thoughts. Without realizing that these dichotomies do not really truly exist. Just like the triadisms
of for instance Peirce do not really truly exist in our universes. In the end, just everything is a

172
combination of plurisigns consisting of pluralistic combinations of signs and understandings. With the
underlying structure and nature of HOLOPLURAL holoplurality.

Nietzsche does stress somewhere in his texts that good and bad evolved in good and evil. This made
me realize that indeed something is called “slecht” in Dutch which can mean both bad and evil. Same
word being used for the both. And also the word “bad” in English can mean both bad and also evil.
Same thing, one word having multiple meanings.

When thinking a bit more about this, one can and should understand ( I guess) that something bad can
be understood as being evil. Meaning that something can be perceived as being evil while in fact it is
only result of inferiority of a person or the situation as such.

An example of it being that people might think something is stolen while actually it is not. The objects
that are perceived to be stolen can then just be stored at anotherness location for good reasons and
intentions, for instance. In this and probably a lot of other instances, bad becomes evil. While actually
it is only the perception of evilness while real evilness is not really truly there.

And even if the goods are stolen, it might be just a sign of badness of the people steeling and not a
sign of evilness. Although I do not neglect the fact that true evilnesses do exist. There are enough
instances of people being evil and executing evil activities, but the ones making judgements have to
be willing and capable to make the right sound judgements there.

173
Completeness , logic and entelechy

Logic is a mode of completeness. Just like metaphysics is one of the metaphors of completeness, but
it can never lead to real completeness as it is being grounded on the wrong fundaments and logic
being illogic. A more sophisticated and greater understanding and notion of both logic is needed.
Meaning that logic should also incorporate seemingly illogics, based on resolving the semisophy errors
of current times and social processes at large. Based on my invention and notion of phronesis meta-
semeiotics or phronesis metasemeiotics, which is a philophronesis body of excellence and
understandings beyond any currently available notion and understanding of metaphysics. To reach
completeness, anotherness might be required. To reach even more completeness, some more
anotherness is required. If something seems to miss logic, you can be sure that some anotherness is
missing. That anotherness can be known by other people or not. But whatever it is, it must be able to
be found by the brightest and sane people of our societies. The anothernesses that are needed to
make the incompleteness complete and by that logical. Beyond the illogics (of) logic of current
times.

Some very important aspect of completeness is the quality of completeness. Which is why the term
“wentelechy” is much better than just mere completeness’s. Whether some mode of completeness has
enough quality to label it as incorporating some aspects of wentelechy depends in most cases on the
people involved in the objects of consideration.

Wentelechy is my notion of entelechy, and the core difference is (again) that it is based on phronesis
meta-semeiotics and sound sane sensemaking as opposed to the Peircean and Aristotelean notions
and understandings of entelechy.

The notion of vagueness is actually also connected with logic and entelechy. Whenever something is
vague, it actually means that there are missing pieces in (collective) minds. Either at the moment of
vagueness, or at later phases. So, more completeness is needed to reduce the vagueness. And
maybe, by doing so, adding some entelechy.

I sometimes, well quite often, do say that I do not understand something. Actually, this sentence alone
does not say that much. What is more important, is who says it and in which situation(s) it is being
said. When some intelligent person is telling that he does not understand something, it might mean he
understands it better than other people. But he just understands more, and therefore knows he does
not understand everything yet. While other people less knowable about the concerned situation or field
of studies just do not see that much and think they understand everything.

174
Related to this, I got to think about some person stating in some book “the more I read, the less I
know”. What he actually meant to say, is that the more he read, the more he understood. But, thereby,
also the more he saw that he did not understand yet. And this improvement of things he did not
understand (yet) is NOT about knowing less, but about seeing more. It would be better if he stated
there “the more I read, the more I see what I do not know yet”. Understanding that you do not know or
understand something enough is often a great virtue of wisdom.

Wentelechy is perfection of being. Now, you might ask yourself the question whether entelechy or
wentelechy can also be incomplete. The answer to this is very simply yes. It can and will be
incomplete just like about everything in life can and will be relatively incomplete. Fact is, however,
that the more complete and logic something gets, the more wentelychistic it might be. There are
grades of wentelechy. And more wentelechy generally means more quality.

175
The chains of existences

There is some great saying about weakest links. But, it is often applied in wrong ways. Especially
when applied to situations where human beings are involved. Not only when these human beings are
considered as chains, but also more general in all kinds of business situations where the human
beings are NOT considered as weakest links of the chains.

One example of the first is when I heard some manager telling me that one of the machines on the
production floor was the bottleneck, or weakest link, of the organization. I myself at that time thought,
and was correct, that actually the more critical bottleneck was actually talking to me at that moment.
Or actually, I was also not correct. Because in the end, some other parties (like customers and
governments) are the real weakest links for an organization. And, the more I understand the more I
know that actually governmental reductionist sensemaking and listening is the core bottleneck for all of
individuals and organizations and entities in our society and universes at large. But, what i want to
make clear here, is the following issue. That in organizational cases, often the machines and money
and so on are considered, while the people are forgotten to be taken into consideration. Same kind of
situation is that i saw in some brochure stated that the company would be very flexible because the
production department could be flexibly organized. But, what same company forgot was that most
critical and also long lasting part of the order process procedure was NOT the production part. But the
part executed by people. And exactly this part was NOT that flexible. Having people loaded with work
all the time. So eventually, there was the perception of being flexible, while reality was (is) quite
different.

In those situations where the human beings ARE considered as chains, these weakest links are often
considered in the wrong ways. As being same kinds of bottlenecks as machines are. When this kind of
viewing persons is applied, it is just very deconstructive for the contexts reviewed. Just like a lot of
wrong views on aspects of life are keeping us in much worse situations than needed.

So what is wrong about considering people as fixed, similar bottlenecks? Well, first of all the fact that
people, as opposed to machines, do not have some fixed capacity. The other one being that each
person has different capacities. And, more interesting, that qualities of one person can sometimes be
transferred to the other person in quite easy ways. Or, certain qualities that are perceived not to be
internal, might actually be internal with some of the people considered. This are all issues that can
improve the usage of bottlenecks, and thereby the accomplishments of the “total” processes, in
impressive ways. If treated in best ways. Grounded on pro-humanism, which goes much further than
any current understanding and application of humanism. Placing the humans and human minds and
the feelings and desires of people not only at the core of the organization but , more importantly, as
the most important and relevant issue to take into regards.

176
Human bottlenecks are also coupled more or less tight with each other. It is not like in a real chain,
that the individual chains are all tightly coupled. Then, also apart from chains in a real chain, the
human bottlenecks differ in possibilities. This means, that each human chain has another kind of
impact and influence on the whole. Also depending on the (type of ) contexts considered. Of course.
But, fact is there might be some decisive chains being decisive holoplural plurisigns. Or some chains
(holoplural plurisigns) that can be missed, while others not. For the tasks considered and the ends to
be accomplished.

There is a large field of possibilities to be explored by not only understanding the differences of
people, but also starting to not ignore but pay attention to them in organizational settings but also in
our sensemaking and communications and actions. Real human values and virtues are important
there, of course. Which is why I appreciate people a lot who explore this further for future societies,
writing on ( bourgeois) virtues. Communications, all kinds of communications, need a SOUL and
expression of feelings and respect in them. We are, of course, not machines.

177
On commodification

Every decent thinking man knows at least tacitly that not only our society, but also every living being
and natural resource in our universe has suffered a lot from the subordination of a lot to the logic of
capitalism. It is not only about subordination of public and private realms to the logic of capitalism,
what is often called commodification. So yes, private things (friendship, women) are valued primarily
or more or less according to their commercial value. But actually, this happens (far) too much with
much more aspects of our realities. And some of it is actually caused partly by the way we are
conditioned. It grasps the core of what people like Alfred Korzybski and Charles Sanders, among
others, were trying to communicate properly to the bigger audiences.

Just think about it. On the corporate balances, people and products are expressed in money. Which is
actually rather weird and stupid if you think about it. But, on the other hand, (raw) products are not
expressed in the natural resources and suffering of people involved. Which is actually much more
strange. If you really come to think about it. And realize the true consequences of it. One of the most
terrible ones that is clear to us now, the huge impact this wrong way of thinking and doing had on our
natural resources. Not to speak of the suffering, sicknesses and mental pains suffered by employees
because companies and organizations just do not take these costs enough into regards. Since they
simply do not express several of these factors in sufficient ways in their ways of organizing and doing
things.

Peirce also said that wrong ways of applying induction and deduction cause fatal errors. And, like
almost always, he was damn right. You can see it in every aspect of society, if you become to
understand what he was talking about. Some, by far not all of these, aspects are described by me
above. The shortfalls about not completely expressing the negative impacts and other financial and
non-financial costs of humans, other living creatures and our still great (but far less than some century
ago) nature and globe.

Is it mostly about the money

Is it mostly about the dum, dum…
I do not think it is funny
to make us fade away
Is it mostly about the money
Is it mostly about the damn ……
well I think we got it all wrong anyway
because of the non-anotherness ways.

Values just always HAVE to be expressed or at least taken into regards in sensemaking, being
expressed that ways. If not, it will lead to damage. Like neglection or not sensing will mostly do.

178
On the “guff”

While the Talmud uses the notion of the “guff” as being a repository of all unborn souls, I use this
terminology of the “guff ”as being some mode of limited (re)sources. One of the important questions I
find interesting is whether money and love and caring and doing good things is limited. Maybe just
maybe if one is increased others will also. Without negative side-effects or limits. I actually think this is
the case. What I actually also know very certainly is that we, the family of human race, are having
some obligation to give as much as love and care and to do as many good things as possible during
our lives. This involves speaking to other people instead of staying silent when we know the other
people would value a conversation a lot. Speaking to tramps instead of just leaving them up to their
own when we meet them on the streets but would have enough time to talk and to show them we care.
Just to mention some. We should work on giving as much as possible of the unlimited resources to the
people who can use them. Or at least give it a thought and be aware of how we spread them currently
and what can be improved in it. That we do not at the moment, and that we completely misuse them
very often in current times, has mostly to do with the wrong understandings of value(s). We miss huge
opportunities for enchanting our societies there.

One of the things still to be discussed in this discourse is the notion of capital. That this notion is far
too narrow in current times. What I will discuss there will actually link with what I have and will tell here
now. I only use the concept of value instead of (different types of) capital here. But the message, a
misconception of the representamen, is the same. The representamen called value is mostly
misperceived as being economical capital value. But actually, money is not the only value in life. Also
values (value-s) and norms are. Which is why a broadening of the (understanding of) the notion of
value is strongly needed for our society. Incorporating not only the economical value, but also values
like values and norms, nature. Social capital and the like. Value is actually about really everything in
our universes if quality is added to it. And quality is about and can be reached by guidance of meta-
semeiotical philophronesis holoplural sensemaking.

Besides the fact that it should be realised that some of the values are not limited resources but rather
quite unlimited, there is some other aspect of values. Which also counts for goods and activities in
general. Being the phenomenon that things like goods, activities and values and the like can be
transitive. Transitive goods and activities are goods and activities that can be used in a process
without the essential parts of them that are required in these processes will diminish. It is almost the
same notion as the notion of catalyst. But while a catalyst should mainly stay the same, a transitive
good or activity can and will and should change a lot and still be a transitive good or activity.

179
One example of it being money, that changes from paper money to some numbers and then again
some paper and coined stuff. While the paper, the coins and the numbers are having completely other
qualities (the immediate object itself is altered and therefore not a catalyst), the essential parts of it
being the value (or rather the perception of this particular kind of value), stays the same. Normally
speaking, money does stay the same in the sense of keeping the same value. No matter how often it
is used in a process and/or transferred.

But quite generally speaking, although the value of the immediate object does not change, the value of
the dynamical object money does. To large extends. Actually, the term value and the increasing value
when an object does become more dynamical can best be shown with money.

For instance this example. I go working in a factory tomorrow night. Just some way to still earn some
money while writing my PhD and having discussions with other intellectuals and flying my falcons and
the like. Then I get some money from that. When I get the money it is put on the bank. While the
immediate object does have same value as it was, the dynamical value is actually zero. Since it is not
really used, the immediate representamen called money39.

Then, I decide to use the money. Well actually I do not decide it but it has been decided for me since
the postman did not just destroy the bills but still delivers them at my address. I enter internet banking
to pay the bills. At that moment the representamen is used and gets it’s dynamical value. And, the
immediate (dynamical) value of the money will increase the more it will be used. This happens when
the money is used to pay bills, or exchanged into another value. Like goods or services in our
economies. Suppose the receiver of the money transfers it to an employee. This employee buys some
food from it the other day. Then, the immediate object has become a dynamical object and it has
gathered some value.

Now, as you might understand, this dynamical value will be more when the representamen money is
used more. If the food seller does buy a book with the money received, the dynamical value will
increase again. If he or she puts the money on the bank, the money will become static again and the
dynamical value will stay the same. But, immediate value of money will almost always be different
from the dynamical value of money. Something that might seem logical, but is largely undervalued in
present times. IF you really understand this, you will understand how insane we are in our current
economies.

39
This realization that the dynamical value of money, when put on the bank, is actually zero, is a very important
thing to realize. It actually shows the wrong system in banking, at least the deconstructive issues there. People
and organizations are not stimulated to use the money, instead they are stimulated to put it on the bank and
freeze it there. While, for the more important dynamical values, it should just be stimulated to maybe borrow
some more money or at least not saving it on a bank account as such.

180
Another example of transitive value might be music. Although music does change (it is never the same
music you listen to), the essential parts stay the same. At the moment I am not only writing this
discourse, but also listening to and enjoying probably one of the most sophisticated instances of music
being available at the moment. Which is the concert “under the desert sky” from Andrea Bocelli. His
voice, his ways of performance, are the greatest pieces of art and quality you could possibly think of in
music. It has great aesthetical value. Now, I would not know some expression in current existing
notions of capital to express the value of his great voice and music. Which is very clearly expressing
not only why also here there are a lot of important anothernesses to be taken into regards, but also
that some points of view do cause a lot of important signs to be overlooked. Since, clearly, music has
value. Especially the signs of music of artists like Andrea Bocelli. A lot of relationships rely on music to
more or lesser extends. People’s moods and well-being’s depend on availability of music. So yes,
music has huge values for life and society as a whole.

181
On tacit knowledge, tacit wisdom, tacit experience and the like

The philosopher Michael Polanyi is, among others, known by his phrase “we know more then we can
tell”. This stress on anothernesses, like another Michael would name these, is expressed in Polanyi’s
notion of tacit knowledge. This tacit knowledge is a process and not the amounts of knowledge.

Apart from what this tacit knowledge means and incorporates (this can be read about in lots of other
great sources, among others and because of quality foremost the discourses of Michael Polanyi
himself), it can be stated here that not only knowledge can be tacit. Also things like wisdom and
experiences can be.

Which is why actually there is not only tacit knowledge but also tacit wisdom and tacit experience.
Tacit knowledge solely can be worthwhile, but it is only about the tools. To really get a master and into
the arts of something, you will need also to have a lot of tacit and explicit wisdom. This is acquired by
a lot of explicit experience and knowledge. Without it, or the less of the greatest wisdom and/or
experiences you get, the lesser you will be able to apply the tools (knowledge) in most proper ways.

While tacit knowledge is mostly involving less understanding, real tacit wisdom does involve more
aspects of really understanding something. Although this understanding is tacit.

We actually all know that there are also a lot of tacit capabilities. Being capabilities that are not that
explicit but just there in a person. Gathered by experience and the mere fact of just having lived and
by that acquiring the needed skills and capabilities. An example of it being someone who will just swim
after some boat accident at see and not having swimmed for about 30 years or so. This is some tacit
capability that should have been learned before. A person that never learned how to swim will not
have tacit swimming capabilities. Normally speaking. Which is why I would call this kind of tacit
capabilities the conditionized tacit capabilities.

For this conditionized tacit capabilities, the ones we learn from others, it is important to mention here
the underlying logic of a special great part of social capital of the past. I realized this just some short
while ago when people talked about the past. At least or maybe mainly in the village where I live, it
was very normal and custom for families to help each other out in many ways. Like people living in a
street lending each other their cars or bringing the other family or family members to the hospital or
wherever if this was needed. Or taking care of the children of other families if parents had to work or
had other obligations.

182
A present great form of this kind of capital is, very specifically, the example of another falconer who
made my falconry transmitter just for free after I sent it broken to him. This transmitter being very
expensive normally speaking. Not only he did send me the transmitter back fully functional, but also he
gave me one module (electronic part) and an antenna so that I can solder it together becoming a new
valuable telemetrie transmitter. But, for doing that, I also will not only need to learn to solder and make
or arrange some other parts, but also of course I need to know how to do that. This particular falconer
will show me, and also he might help me out with other technical issues I have in future. I guess he
will. By that helping me out in numerous ways. Social capital.

This last example does perfectly show the internal logic of social capital I wanted to talk about. The
internal logic being the fact that this old ways of social capital and helping each other out, is not only
about helping each other out. It is actually a quite fundamental and great way of teaching each other
several skills being very valuable in future. In current times, this kind of habits and social capital
actually becomes less and less. The result being that younger people, people of my generation and
beyond, have less and less skills beyond. Skills that we do not learn in formal educations but which
are very important and usefull in and during our lives.

Apart from this conditionized tacit capabilities, there are however also unconditionized tacit
capabilities. Being tacit capabilities that are just there, although they have never been learned or
acquired. An example of it can be a person who can get along with some animal in very special ways,
acting very natural with them, without really having acquired the skills for doing so. This person is just
knowing the ways how to react there in a way that we would call “naturally”. Another example would
be the tacit capabilities of a lot of other living creatures. The tacit capabilities of talking and
communicating are still there with human beings who would not have been in touch with other humans
since their date of birth. For instance.

183
On Isles of Dreams, floods of thought, perceptions of realities and
realities of life

There are a lot of intellectuals that distinguish between, what they call, universes or worlds of life.
People like Aristotle, Peirce, but also lots of other more or less known intellectuals discuss on this
issue and give their views. One of the reasons for it being that it is of course very important to
understand the worlds or universes we live in.

The first critique to this views is however, that most of the intellectuals are sort of communicating that
their ways of viewing the worlds, or universes, would be the best one. Then the people who read and
discuss on it also choosing for one of the views. While, actually, all views add something for true
understanding of what is going on there.

Then there is the problem that people, even intellectuals, seem to understand something different
when they speak about universes and worlds. Like, in common current practises, a universe is for
instance the universe like being our globe and everything around it. And in this view, there might be
more universes. In this case the universe is some physical entity. This physical universe, or universe
of the physics, is also called the observable universe. While possible borders of it are actually mere
conventions of human race.

In a philosophical way of viewing, a world or universe is everything that makes up reality. But also the
possible realities belong to it. Or not. Depending on the definitions of intellectuals and what they define
as being world or university. And their conception of the terminologies. For instance Peirce does call
his possibilia, existences and laws also universes. While this are not physically bordered universes,
but universes that exist in both thinking and reality.

I myself would like to add my division of universes, which is the division between the isle of dreams,
the flood of thoughts, the perceptions of reality and the realities of life. Although in reality these
universes can also better be brought together in one universe. Some unified field/universe where all
the sub-universes I mention here as being universes are part of. Along with a lot of other universes
and worlds from other intellectuals and other people. But, for some reasons it can just be very valuable
to make this divisions in universes. The one I make here, for instance for getting more understanding
of the universes of Peirce.

Like, the fact that scientists and intellectuals often want to improve the existences and laws in worlds
of perception and realities. Which is why they have to switch to the universe of possibilia. The
processes that take part there, are for some part explained by means of my small discourse on
possibilia and dynamis, just after this part of my discourse. But for now I just want to explain a bit why
it is needed and constructive to return to the worlds of dreams and thoughts for possibilia to be
introduced into the worlds of perception and realities.

184
Fact is just that every changes in the universes that can be affected by human beings begin in the
worlds of dreams and thoughts. Even the changes that we abstract from the perceptions of realities
and realities of life universe, need some return to the worlds of dreams and thoughts. This are the
universes where signs are born. And where they get into the first steps of their developments and
growth. Our imaginations and creative capabilities determine the effectiveness and grandiosity of most
of the signs that surround us in the worlds of perception and reality.

While the worlds of dreams and thought can be seen as the worlds of minds, are the worlds of
perception and reality a mixture of mind and matter. IF you use the common use, mainstream notions
of mind and matter, what they are thought to involve by that. Because to me, and also to Peirce
probably, mind and matter are NOT separated that much as it is implied in the current explanations of
both notions by most people even the most bright and wise ones.

The though-signs and sign-events of Peirce can all be part of both the worlds of minds, the worlds of
matter and all kinds of mixtures of it. In fact, in each case there will be thought-signs and sign-events.
This already implies that the mind worlds are also part of our universes of perceptions and realities.
That even an object in the real world, object being the mainstream meaning of this notion, consists of
mind. The collective mind of the people at current times, but also the collective mind of our
predecessors. A table for instance is just not an object consisting of solely matter. It is on the contrary
some object consisting of particles and a lot more. The collective mind of the table, being its internal
and external qualities, but also its dynamical qualities, determine that there can be a table, that the
table is seen and used as being a table and (by that) that we can have tables in the first place.

Then our mind, the individual minds of each individual of us, are often wrongly seen as something that
would consist without matter. Which is of course very wrong. Matter can not exist without mind and
mind can not exist without matter. They are strongly linked to each other in about every aspect of
existence. Limiting the views by putting borders that actually do not exist in real existence, either by
narrowing and limiting the broadness of view and/or by taking uniform and singular point of views
(neglecting some aspects of the object or field of examination) just severely limits a correct science
and worldview. And does our society and possibilities for the human race a lot of harm.

185
On possibilities, possibilia, dynamis, energeia, existences and laws

To me, it is just not clear enough what the possibilia from Peirce actually did incorporate. But,
irrespective of what his views were on possibilia and possibilities, I would like to give you mine. Which
is probably a good ways of division. To me, it is very relevant to split what we would call possibilities in
current language up to possibilities that can be effected in reality and possibilities that can not.
Meaning to be possibilities with a possibility to be affected and the ones that can never be affected in
any ways in reality. I would like to have 2 different notions for the both.

For doing so, it would be relevant to make a distinction in the worlds of dreams and thought versus the
perceptions of reality and the realities of life. Some things that are possible in the worlds of dreams
and thought, are not in the worlds of perceptions and realities. I am here not talking about advisable or
non-advisable possibilities, or the quality of several possibility options. Although a distinction there is,
of course, also very important and worthwhile.

As far as the distinction between possibilities that can be affected and the ones that can never be
effected. And the worlds of dreams and thought versus the perceptions of reality and realities of life. I
would call the possibilities in all of these worlds possibilities. Then the possibilities in the worlds of
dreams and thought being some special type of possibilities, called possibilia. This are possibilities not
affected in the worlds of perceptions and realities yet. Possibilities in the worlds of existence and laws
are just possibilities. Then non-effectible possibilities and possibilia are just impossibilities and
impossibilia. But that is something that you can only know either direct or never. Since time goes on
and on and possibilia that might not be possible now, might become possible sometimes. Based on
the fact that a certain process or context, for this possibilia to be applied, did or does exist in some
moment(s) in time.

There is some saying in the Netherlands telling “wie voor een dubbeltje geboren wordt, wordt nooit
een kwartje”. This quite generally can be translated like “who is born for X will never become Y”. Apart
from the fact that this statement is typically in the spheres of the enlightenment ways of thinking (no
pluralities possible?), and not true since you can be X and Y at the same time ( a lot of people are), it
would be a truism even if the general perceived meaning of it (stating that someone who is born to do
do only X and never anything of Y in his life, will simply never do anything of Y) is followed. Since
when the saying is correct, then after (and only after) someone’s death it will be sure he will never do
anything of Y (Y has been simply an impossiblia). If he did, he was simply not born solely for X. So
each living creature that was born for X will never become Y then in this generally, incorrectly
perceived, understanding of the saying.

186
In classical Greek metaphysics, there are some concepts used that deal about possibilities or
potentials. One of these concepts is the concept of Eidos, meaning something’s characteristic form,
essence or property. Then Dynamis was used to refer to the latent potential or power of something.
Actually, this Dynamis is NOT the possibility or possibilia itself, but the potentiality of this possibilities.
Then there is some energy, or energeia, needed to transfer a possibility or possibilia into existences
and/or laws. A possibility without any dynamis will for sure never become into existence. Also, to
become really into existence the possibility needs energeia.

All living creatures, but also non-living representamen, need dynamis ( a potential) and then the power
or energy (energeia) to grow and develop. The catalyst for this dynamis to be explored and put into
existences might in many cases be the phenomenon of aporia, to be discussed in further parts of this
discourse.

But actually you might notice here that I am not that clear about Dynamis and Energeia. Which is a
sign of the fact that I simply do not truly understand enough of these notions. It is vague because I am
vague about it still. But I just know I really need some deeper understandings there, and science in
general probably does so. Which is why I just mention these notions here with my still bit vague
explanations.

187
On philosophistics

Lately, I more and more think that I kind of “invent” some new notions or insights, and then I discover
that other intellectuals or people did already use the same representamens before. And mostly in at
least the same, but mostly more extensive ways. Simply also because they did thought about it more,
because of which the contents of the labels are worked out in more details. Or another label for the
contents appears to be much better. Like the labels “prescindible”, “unprescindible” and “imputed”
quality from CS Peirce. When I had read only about his qualisigns, I already made distinctions in
internal and external qualities. Then discovering the much more sophisticated labels that CS Peirce
gave to the contents of this notions in his “on a new list of categories”. Then I thought I had found the
creative and great label “anothernesses”, then discovering that Mikhail Bakhtin already worked on it in
some of his discourses. And even Peirce, with his notion of betweennes. Which is actually a mode of
anotherness. Just like the notions of amongness, aroundness, aboveness, belowness and so on.

Then, some while ago, I assembled the word “philosophistics”. To combine the notions of philosophy,
sophist (the old notion/meaning of it) and the notion sophisticated. And, yes, when searching the web I
discovered that the same notion also already exists. But, the content is different. But, actually, like
Korzybski says, the map is not the territory. As regards to notions, the content of it will differ among
people. Of course!. That is not mere bricolage, since the difference in content is too less to call it so.

Like every serious pragmatist knows, the notions of pragmatism from William James and Rorty differ
a lot from the notion of pragmatism from Charles Sanders Peirce. The notion of “bird of prey” also
differs a lot between most people and me. And between me and the very experienced falconers of the
world. Same counts for the notion of philosophistics. But, I think my notion of philosophistics is much
broader then the notion of philosophistics from most other people using it. It is at least much broader
than the definition that is mentioned on the net. There, the following definitions are, among others,
given for the term philosophistic:
• Pertaining to the love or practice of sophistry
• A complex or sophisticated manner

188
Now, these notions are relatively neutral. And this kinds of philosophistic do not contain much
contents, not many qualisigns. As opposed to my notion of philosophistic. To me, philosophistics is a
very broad notion. Describing in fact my own views and position as regards to science and life. Just
like pragmaticism of Peirce incorporates about all his notions about how science should look like, the
philosophistics that I have in mind covers all my current views on science and life. How methodologies
should be, the sophisticated philosophic knowledge of current times, and the practicistic ways of
thinking and doing I would aim at. It incorporates much of Peircean philosophy and pragmaticism. And
much more.

To me philosophistics incorporates striving for quality, striving for arête. This incorporates perfection of
being, which is reached among others by means of phronesis and practical reasoning. Society and
science need more quality, which can be reached by reaching more understanding. Our society needs
more wisdom, but wisdom is just a mode of quality and understanding. As regards to info and
knowledge, mere knowledge is not enough and will be harmful in the end. What we really need in
every aspects of our society, is true understanding. And then the people who truly understand, to
incorporate their great insights into our society. This whole idea of the method and practical ways of
thinking and doing and aim for applicability’s for a quality society and life, is what I would call
philosophistics. Using philosophy not for the aim of science and theory, but for improving our society
and our lives.

189
Aporia- a catalyst for growth

" Aporia “

It is the passion flowing right on through our minds

And it's the feeling that you're oh so glad you learn
It is the ante moment of great insights
It is the air you breathe, the knowledge, the fire
It is that information that you took the time to see
It is the power that you know empirical experiences bring
It is the puzzlement inside that you can overcome
That makes the orchestra, the rhythm and the drum

Com uma Aporia, com uma Aporia

Com uma Aporia que ninguem pode parar
Com uma Aporia, com uma Aporia
Com uma fome que ninguem pode matar40

Aporia (Greek: ἀðïñßá: impasse; lack of resources; puzzlement) is a notion used by Aristotle, CS
Peirce and Jacques Derrida. This term is used in philosophy to label a philosophical puzzle or state of
puzzlement. A state of puzzlement where one can not fully understand a certain situation and needs
some more insights. In rhetoric, Aporia is used for a rhetorically useful expression of doubt.

This state of puzzlement is, both in science and in practise, a very important catalyst for improvements
and growth. Especially when an excellent scientist or manager gets into this state of “Aporia” and
realises that he or she does not understand something completely. That improvements can be realised
in the given situation. This state of Aporia in fact means that one “sees” some (new) possibilities. The
firstnesses of Charles Sanders Peirce. So actually, aporia is or often should be the catalyst to get from
Peirce’s firstnesses towards secondnesses and thirdnesses. The mere catalysts for growth. The
aporia is the result of seeing the anothernesses but also realizing the fact you still do not understand
these possibilities enough. It is part of the Peircean notion of vagueness.

40
I just hope this I guess Portuguese will not mean something strange now. Fact is that I was just in some
creative mood so changed the Nelly Furtado thing a bit. But do not know any Portuguese. So forget about
meaning for that part of the text. Just hope that Nelly still wants to sing it.

190
Phronesis

One of the most interesting, and wentelychistic, modes of thirdness will be discussed here. This
concept, the concept of Phronesis, is an important part and one of the ultimate goals of the notion of
Practicism like introduced further on in this discourse.

In his Nicomachean ethics, Aristotle is using the term of Phronesis. This Phronesis is generally

translated as “practical wisdom”, sometimes also called “prudence”. Phronesis is the ability to think
about how and why we should act in order to change things. An important means for getting towards
this practical wisdom involves some proper ways of practical reasoning and the right empirical
experiences.

This phronesis, or prudence, also involves collateral experiences and empirical learning processes. As
stated by Aristotle in his Nicomachean ethics:

“Whereas young people become accomplished in geometry and mathematics, and wise within these
limits, prudent young people do not seem to be found. The reason is that prudence is concerned with
particulars as well as universals, and particulars become known from experience, but a young person
lacks experience, since some length of time is needed to produce it. (Nichomachean Ethics 1142 a) “

Phronesis is also part of the 4 cardinal virtues. This are the following 4 virtues: Temperance, Prudence
(Phronesis), Courage and Justice. The intellectual Bent Flyvbjerg argues that social science should be
practised as Phronesis. I myself do not agree with this. Bringing Phronesis into social science is good,
but in many cases it would not be needed. In my opinion individuals and social groups should strive for
phronesis, entelechy and perfection in social practise. But in many parts of social science, I think
“only” striving for entelechy and perfection (the arts of sciences) should be enough. A possibility
without Phronesis is not that much of a problem, but an existence without enough phronesis might
very well be. Although I would not disagree that for some instances of social science, a pragmatic and
phronesis way of theorizing should be applied. Actually fact is that for specific cases, this phronesis
aspect of science is mostly important. For general theorizing, it is not. Which is also why I will use less
phronesis in the first parts of this great antenarrative on ecosocial orders. In the last parts of this
discourse, dealing with more specific and practical cases, the phronesis aspect will play a much bigger
role.

191
It is very important to realize that phronesis is mostly about dealing with specific cases. It is the mode
of being where, among anothernesses, quality and excellence and perfection become important.
Incorporating a perfect and ever growing understanding of more and more details. Phronesis is not
about uniformities, but about ever growing pluralities. Where anothernesses, or betweennesses,
become more and more important. Another issue that should be understood, is that at the times of
Aristotle, his phronesis did mean something more perfect and complete than the phronesis of current
times. Mainly because of the fact that current individuals are in some regards much more imprisoned
by words and structures. But also because of the simple fact that the systems of mentor and student
are less and less in practical beings. In far too many cases, people know but not truly understand
enough.

Apart from the fact that phronesis did mean something more perfect and complete in the time of
Aristotle than the phronesis of current times, it however should also be very clear after reading the
whole of my discourse that my phronesis is of a much more excellent type than Aristotelean phronesis.
This because of the fact that my phronesis, the phronesis of practisism, is based on a more excellent
perspective and understanding of our universes. But also because of more plural understandings in
general.

192
On Aporia, (W)entelechy and phronesis

If you understand my discourses on aporia, wentelechy and phronesis well enough, you might
understand that these notions are to me key for getting a more sophisticated and practical way of
dealing with the notions of Peirce regarding thirdness, secondness and thirdness.

Aporia is the catalyst for getting from firstness towards secondness and thirdness. At least it is for
possibilities that are not well known yet, or known better and therefore people see they can be
improved. Then through aporia, one should put the possibilities into existences. For higher quality, one
should have the goal of striving towards the highest levels of entelechy there. This involves some
practical reasoning, but not an as sophisticated way of practical reasoning as is needed for higher
level laws. Then, when entering more sophisticated phases of laws, not only the entelechy but also
phronesis should play some role.

Like the universes of Peirce, also the more sophisticated notions above still incorporate (parts of) the
less sophisticated notions. In fact, to get towards statical entelechy, you will need some levels of
aporia. So dynamical entelechy also incorporates aporia. Then phronesis the same. Dynamical
phronesis always should have some parts of entelechy and aporia in it.

When adding aporia, entelechy and phronesis in this way to the universes of Peirce, you will get a
more entelychistic and practical philosophy/ way of thinking and doing. Especially for the doing, and
the anothernesses very relevant there, this trichonomy of AWP (aporia, wentelechy, phronesis) is
needed. To me this is an important part of my practicism. Together with the methodologies of
phronesis abduction and phronesis retroduction and the disappearance or at least draw back from
those awful notions and usage of induction and deduction. Induction and deduction are based on the
world view that there would actually be generalities, while abduction and retroduction are perfectly
suited for special cases. Like I will also mention later on, in reality there are no general cases.
Everything is a special case. Therefore, induction and deduction always have an error in it. Which
does maybe not mean they should not be used, but people have to be aware of it. And I think this
induction and deduction should always be prevented to be applied as much as possible.

193
On the understanding of understanding

Actually, about everything we strive for in our lives has to do with quality. What we look for in
relationships is about quality. The type of quality that Robert Pirsig is aiming at in his “the art of
motorcycle maintenance”. But also the type of quality that artists and also the greater intellectuals of
past and present times were and are aiming at. What is needed to get towards this greater levels of
quality, is some deep and detailed understanding of what people are talking about or doing. This
understanding always involves some need for a lot of doing, since no-one can understand the
bakthin’s of life by means of pure knowledge and/or reasoning. A music play is more then the
representamen from it on paper. Life is more then the rather incomplete and wrong reflections of it in
even the greatest books of history. The pure rationalists are, of course, wrong if they state that pure
reasoning would be enough to understand the worlds and universes we are living in. The pure
empirists are wrong also. It is not about rationality or experience, but about getting both of them.

To really understand something, both rationality and experiences are needed. The experiences
offering a possibility for true understandings of some parts of the universes and worlds we live in,
rationality to process and store only some limited part of it. Even with the experiences and their inputs
to our reflections and thoughts, we will never be able to completely grasp and understand the outer
worlds. The reason being that also our senses are bounded, limited, all the time. They can simply not
sense every detail and aspects of the sensed signs. Besides that, it is sure that there are phenomenon
out there that we simply do not see since we lack the senses or tools to sense them.

A thorough understanding of something, requires the proper ways of proceeding. Actually, best ways
of getting to understand something is by experiencing. And then, if you do not understand well
enough, getting more input by asking and sensing. Then maybe some proper pluriflection, by
phronesis abduction and phronesis retroduction. Mistakes and errors like the ones of applying
deductive and inductive methods, should be prevented in any cases.

Understanding, like most things in life, is about quality. The quality of the person who tries to
understand. The quality of the input and surroundings. And the quality of the processes and ways of
aiming towards real true understanding in it’s most sophisticated ways. Practical understanding,
Phronesis, can only be reached by practical reasoning and experiences.

194
On logic and signs

In the parts of this discourses dealing with logic, I already stated that illogic is often equal to some kind
of incompleteness. That some bakhtins’, or anothernesses, are missing there. Now, at the point that I
stated this my understandings of this issues where not complete and fully sophisticated and
entelygistic. They still are not, or they are, depending on the relativeness of completenesses (of
understandings). But what I came to realise just now also, is that also problems are modes of
incompleteness and illogic. That the saying of a falconer in the Netherlands, who stated that problems
are only in our heads, is surely true for a lot of problems and might be true for all of them. What this
falconer meant to say is that we ourselves are able to solve our problems whatever they are. If WE are
prepared to change and to listen to each other and if the relevant insanities are destroyed for all
persons and issues involved in the specific situation(s). By applying creativeness (a great method to
see and apply anothernesses), logic and common sense and wisdom. In other words, to get true
sophisticated understandings of the problem, the contexts we deal with and how to solve the problem
and get towards more entelygistic, complete and logic conditions.

Another issue connected with the issue of logic and incompleteness is the issue of signs growing. The
great intellectual Floyd Merrell, who is also a great Peircean scholar, did write the great discourse
“Signs Grow, Semiosis and Life Processes”. The simple message there is that signs grow and in the
discourse it is very greatly described how they grow and the different phases of growth and the like.
But what Floyd Merrell did not realise (as far as I understand) , is the fact that purely logically speaking
really each sign has to grow unless there are limits in its growth. And, that if there are limits, that these
limits are often artificially created limits that are only there or even only perceived limits because of the
insanity of the human race. We often call these limits problems, not realising that they only exist
because we create or created them ourselves in the past. And, most importantly, we do not realise
that these problems are a mode of incompleteness. And that these can be solved by the right methods
of thought and pluriflection(s), and listening to the people who found the solution for solving them. In
the end, only really existing borders or really relevant ones should be responsible and cause of real
problems and therefore a limit on (parts of ) the signs growing.

195
On humanity

Some while ago there was an article in a Dutch newspaper about humanity and prisons. I found this
very interesting. The general message in this article was that although the Dutch legal system had
been very well known in the past as having a high humanity level and quality, this is not the case
anymore at present times. A lot of the bad circumstances and habits in prison were discussed there
and it clearly shows the maybe relativeness of humanity. But it also shows very clearly the general
tendency of perceptions ruling our thoughts and actions not only here in the sphere of legal system,
but in all worlds and universes we participate in. As soon as a sign gets into existence, the
representamen of it also does and begins to lead its own life on its own. And actually our whole
perception of the worlds surrounding us does exist out of these representamens, that are more or less
differentiated from the real worlds and signs out there. Again, the map is not the territory. Which is not
only about science and sanity41, but more general about signs and sanity.

But, apart from this general insight on the role of representamen, it should be clear that actually a lot is
really wrong about humanity in the judicial systems. Partly because of the lack of capabilities of the
people involved, which is generally speaking mostly caused by their insanities in sign perceptions. But
also because of the wrong setup of the system. Which is also quite insane, since people like Aristotle
have written down the keys to some great setup of this system and also for establishment of a much
more sophisticated and better society in general.

Improvement of the orders in our legal systems is, like all steps towards quali-orders, “just” a matter of
getting better understandings and doing something with that. For that, we should partly “only” read
and understand the discourses of some of the great intellectuals of the past. Like Aristotle and this
Alfred Korzybski. Then, we not only should but must implement the better ways of doing into our
societies. Transferring the possibilities of intellectual discourses into existences is not only a
possibility, but it is one of our biggest responsibilities. For we, the individual members of the human
race, are responsible for the family of living creatures. This responsibility for fellow citizens and their
lifes should go much further than it is practised in current societies and situations.

Humanity, partly expressed in values and norms, has to be directed towards every aspect of life and
every person in our societies. Whatever their position is, and whatever they have done in our
societies. What is needed there, is pro-humanism. Pro-humanism being my invention and notion that
goes much further than any other notion and understanding of humanism. I will elaborate on this
notion of pro-humanism in other part of my discourse, both within and outside of this text. You should
just also read the other discourses I wrote, as they are all connected in several great ways.

41
Science and sanity, Alfred Korzybski. One of the best written discourses ever written, although Korzybski did
miss some better understandings on some of the subjects he discussed. It is nevertheless a great pity he could not
get his thoughts on the role of intellectuals like he expressed this at the beginning of this great book, into
practice. According to my own levels of understanding, putting that idea into practice will be a major step into
large improvements of our societies. It will lead to the development of more sophisticated quail-orders (of signs).

196
A specific example of pro-humanism is the following issue in justice. There should really be a broad
discussion on whether criminals are really responsible for their deeds and in which situations. Taking
their contexts and surroundings and in most cases possible neurological mallfunctions of the persons
concerned into regards. This might in some cases involve a whole other attitude and approach to
prisoners. An attitude of helping them instead of (only) punishing them, maybe whatever they have
done in the past.

197
On pluralities, dualities and singularities

Ingo Schultze, writer of the book “Neue lebens” (new lifes), a book about the “umbruch” in the DDR in
and after autumn 1989:

“Pas na 1989 werd de wereld voor mij letterlijk global. Tot die tijd hielden de systemen elkaar in stand
door elkaar over en weer ter discussie te stellen. Toen het onderscheid wegviel, leefden we in de
beste van alle denkbare werelden, zo heette het. Het was de totale economisering van de
wereld......in het ene systeem was het woord alles en speelde geld nauwelijks een rol; in het andere
werd alles uitgedrukt in cijfers en winst. Allebei diep ideologisch”

This statement is roughly to be translated and explained as stating that the changes in middle europa
in and after 1989 did make the differences between the two systems (market economy and socialism)
disappear. That suddenly the people there lived in the “best of both worlds”. That in the one system
the word was all and money did not play any roles. In the other world, all was explained in figures and
profit. That both of these worlds were deeply or purely ideological.

Now, in the parts of my discourse above about humanity, I started with the statement that perceptions
of representamens rule our thoughts. This has also been the case very strongly during the cold war
between the US and the Soviet Union of the past. The representamens of socialism and capitalism did
rule their own lives, being very different in most cases from what actually took place in both systems.
The physical border between the two systems, the terrible wall that is now broken down, did actually
increase the big differences between representamens and actualities of socialism and capitalism. Just
like mental borders also increase differences between representamens and actualities, always.
This caused and cause a lot of people, even most of them, to not really understanding what socialism
and capitalism really involved. Also here, true understanding is missing. Causing a lot of perceptions
being reality42. But in fact, both capitalism and socialism are ideologies. And, each ideology is some
kind of a possibility. It is always at least partly a perception, the never really completely to be reached
higher aims to strive towards/at.

42
Chris Argyris: Perception is reality…..

198
This is one of the things that can also be understood when reading the thesis I myself did write to
complete my studies Business Administration at Erasmus University. This thesis with the title “Ex
communist change masters ??? - (The Czech case)” was written by a person (coincidently me) that
did have some true experiences in the Czech Republic. Thereby getting some much better
understanding of what socialism did truly involve. That actually socialism did offer a lot of good things
that capitalism was and still is lacking. Which is why I completed this thesis with, among others, the
statement that it would be interesting to try to incorporate the good parts of socialism into capitalism. A
statement I still agree to, and even more, partly because I now more truly understand what I was
saying there some years ago. This thesis was written now about 10 years ago. My understandings
have improved a lot. And I dare to say I myself have done research and executed some good
reflections that are also opening up great possibilities to incorporate some of the good parts of
socialism into our societies.

The interesting thing here is that it matters a lot whether you perceive something as a singularity or as
a duality/plurality. Of course the knowledge and understandings matter a lot, but these are also partly
caused by the way we look at situations and “things”. As soon as people identify with a certain
ideology or side of some coins, they largely identify not only with the true aspects and issues, but also
and maybe even more with the perceptions and mere possibilities of these ideologies. This causes
them to act in certain ways, but also results in distorted and often insane views on the (perceived)
counterparts of their favorite ideologies. By this, I however do not want to say that all opinions about
counter ideologies and issues and the like are always not true. There are a lot of cases where the
people really have a true understanding about what is wrong with some situation or process. What I
am aiming at however here are the wrong assumptions and perceptions that are caused by people not
really getting informed and not really experiencing the other situations. This experience, the empiristic
kind of experiences that are also important in the pragmaticism of C.S. Peirce, are very important to
move towards real understandings. It is never enough to only read about something in books or hear
about something from others. Since actualities are always different and also there are a lot of other
nesses to be experienced and understood. For instance, Plato was (at least as far as I understand
now, but of course I may be wrong!) a kind of neo-pythagorean who could not be called a
Pythagorean. Among others because of the fact that he did read about the Pythagorean philosophies
in books but he never got initiated into the Pythagorean cult. And thereby he missed some real
experiences and understandings there. Probably also the most essential and great ones. Some
wentelychistic bluenesses betweenness the granule.

199
On small differances in sense-ation

Of course, there are differences in the ways people sense things. This leads to differences in
sensation. The differences caused by, among others, differences in sensing capabilities of people. The
senses of the one person being different then the senses of the other person. But, also the processing
capabilities of the information sensed has a major impact on small and larger differences in
sensations.

Although we the human race are all labelled as being homo sapiens, there are differences in many
aspects among individuals of course. One of the major differences is the difference in (capabilities of
offering and understanding) quality. Roughly speaking, to me this is the difference between the artist
and intellectuals as opposed to the people who do not have enough understandings and will never
have. People with real quality and/or understandings will not just do what they know, but will and can
act on what they see and experience. They will not apply standard methods and insights, but use their
creativeness for the particular cases they are dealing with. Based on their understandings and
experience, not on standard knowledge while even not fully understanding this.

Especially in cases where the human factor plays some major role and has far reaching
consequences when mistakes are made, it is very important that exactly there the people who really
understand and only these people should have a decisive role in the relevant parts of the chain of
actions. The most important context being the juridical system and it’s surroundings. If you put people
there who only apply the standard methods and insights because they simply do not have enough
understandings and wisdom to do their jobs in satisfactory ways, a lot of people can and will suffer.
Like it is now in most juridical matters. Especially in crime investigation and prosecution, a lot of
mistakes are made. But it is some general problem of the big injustice of justice. Because of
incapabilities of the persons who decide and who execute.

As far as the understanding is concerned, it should also be understood that the level of thought of
people like Aristotle and some of the best intellectuals of past and current times is just on a more
sophisticated and therefore better level then the levels of thought of people who are “blind” according
to the understanding of this sign in the great discourse “the open society and his enemies” by the
almost genius43 guy Popper. This level of understanding is in all cases just broader and “just” taking
the right Bakhtin’s into consideration. Something that is illogic is mostly like that since people are just
not taking some relevant anothernesses into consideration.

43
To me, a real genius is something that is a possibility but does not really exist. Since to me a genius is
someone who is really that wise that he does not make any serious mistakes in true understanding and logic. A
person that did or does reach this level of geniusness that I am meaning here (the level of understanding that is
difficult to grasp and understand what I mean) did not exist in the past since till now no-one ever really
understood.

200
Because they either do not see them or just do not want to take them into regards because of some
perceptually important reasons. In the end, the only relevant and important actions and issues to
consider are however the real logic and complete ones. Real logic and completeness are the only truly
sophisticated and advantageous ways to proceed for long term wentelechy and improvement in our
societies and life.

As regards to differences in sensation, it is also interesting to reflect on the differences between a

positivist and a negativist. The reasons why the one person is a negativist and the other one is a
positivist. Since of course there are a lot of differences there according to the specific situation
concerned. But overall there are aspects of the persons involved and the contexts that make the
difference. As regards to the differences in the persons, it is not enough to just regard a positivist and
a negativist as being on same levels of understandings and intelligence. I think that a lot of the wiser
and more intelligent people can be or maybe even should be more negative on certain situations. Just
because they are able to see more, also the bigger possibilities to improve. Being critical might be
some mode of being negative about some aspects of a situation. And this critical minds driven by
some mode of negativism are often the driving force of changes and improvements to happen in our
societies. As regards to the methods to be used by these critical minds, I myself would favour the
abduction and introspection processes like proposed and explained by Peirce. But these all have to be
changed according to the understandings of practisism. Abduction to be transferred into phronesis
abduction, a one of the great processes of pluriflection. And I would skip induction and deduction.
Since each situation simply differs, so better not to try to compare apples with peaches or whatever.
Just do not even compare an apple to an apple to stay on the save sides there.

201
On small differences in representamens

The causes of small differences in sense-ation are manifold. One of them being the wrong
understandings of firstnesses, possibilities. One important mode of thirdness is the notion and
understandings of representamens.

Also in this representamens, there are a lot of differences. Small differences in the qualisigns of this
type of plurisign, causing small or bigger problems according to the nature and extends of
misunderstandings.

According to the types of representamens. Peirce himself did already make some valid divisions there,
by means of his trichotomies of qualisign, sinsign and legisign. But, this are just one of the modes of
differences in representamens, and also solely the ones for firstness. Well, this is of course dependent
on the perspectives. But what I mean, is that these types of representamens as expressed by Peirce
are mainly based on internal qualities and on mediate aspects of the representamen. Not that much on
the immediate aspects of the representamen. They are on level of intrinsic mediate aspects, but not on
the level of external mediate aspects. Also, what is very important to realise here, is the fact that both
the types of qualisigns as expressed by Peirce himself and also the division in internal and external
are reifications, reductionist and imperfect reflections of the realities in our universes. Besides but also
because of that, they are far too structural and part of what is generally understood as being
aristotelean thinking. But then again, the division in aristotelean and non-aristotelean thinking is in
itself aristotelean thinking by (or should I say far away from) nature.

Besides the division in types of representamens, there is also the division of forms of representation.
In this respects, we have the division in iconic, indexical and symbolic representamens. Peirce himself
and also other semioticians did make further divisions there. Which I will not elaborate on in further
extends, partly because I do not understand them enough and partly because I am more interested in
anothernesses. Since in the end these divisions in types are also just representamens and reifications.
To fully understand these, you should probably also understand the merits and shortfalls of the types
of representamens explored by Peirce and other semioticians. But for now, I myself just do not have
the time to explore this in further details. Yet.

Actually, also a lot of physical structures are representamens. Also the non-physical structures are a
special type of representamen, if they are having the nature and qualisigns of thought-signs. This last
example of representamens, structures, also reveals that representamens always have anotherness
qualisigns, being characteristics of the plurisign that go beyond the sole instance and existence of
being a representamen

202
On thought existences and reality existences.

Some years back, i was studying business administration at the Erasmus University Rotterdam. As a
major, I choose the specialization “ change management” . This might partly also explain my current
emphasis in this discourse. But well, during that times I heard some person stating that she actually
doubted whether a tree outside would actually be a tree.

This is, according to me, one of the major discussions in philosophy. And, I think they can be
explained by making the difference in thought existences and reality existences.

Because, in the end, I think this kind of philosophical issues are actually based again on the
semiphronesis error of mixing up the representamen with the object being represented. In this case,
the object being represented is the tree. At least the object which we are labelling tree. This object is
really truly existing out there.

But, the tree like we have it in our minds, with also the immediate characteristics of it, does not really
exist. Just like every immediate factor of objects does not really exist in the realities of life. They do in
thought existences (the representamen) , but in the universes of reality existences (the object being
represented) they just not exist at all and are mere perceptions of our mind.

So actually, in the things being represented, the immediate characteristics do not really exist. They
however do exist, if the realities of the actors involved are added to the scene or context. Meaning that
the thought existences, parts of our thoughts, are also really existing and therefore real in their
consequences. If we define things as real, they are real in their consequences44. But also they are real
in their realities already. In fact, any thought-signs becomes into existence soon after they develop in
our minds. But also, if we define things as unreal, they may still become real in their consequences.
Especially in the insane society we are living in at current times45.

44
As far as I know, this statement is at least originating from W.I. Thomas. According to some I think
reliable source on the internet, it is contained in a book by W.I. Thomas and Dorothy Swaine Thomas
(1928:572). But it was attributed to W.I. Thomas by several people.
45
With insane society, I actually do not mean the whole society being insane or people being crazy,
but “ just” the fact that our society is full of serious semiphronesis errors leading to harming
semiphronesis insanities.

203
On fixations of believers

I would like to discuss some special type of fixation of belief here. Which is the fixation of our minds
resulting from reading and viewing something. The fact is, that we tend to fixate our thoughts and
actions based on certain structures we have been learned or where we have to deal with in our lives.
Examples are people who have certain roles or occupations in their business life. Then really acting in
this role like not being prepared to take care of anothernesses. And even not seeing relevant
anothernesses that also have an influence on their actions and results.

The core problem here is the confusion of people between ends and means. Them not realising that
structures are really means for certain ends. Meaning that in some cases structures are just
counterproductive and just not suitable to use for certain ends. And besides that, it should be fully
understood that each structure is only a partial reflection of a certain context or situation. That there
always are more or less relevant anothernesses that also should be taken into regards.

Models and structures. Even discourses like the one I am typing now. Are always only partly reflecting
realities of life and our societies. There are always anothernesses relevant for completenesses.

But, most of all, it should be realised that these structures are representamens. And firstnesses as
such, in that respects. Models, working procedures, words, books, tools. Are not all representamens,
but some of them are. And these kind of things have one thing in common, being the fact hat it are
immediate things. In the words of Peirce, it would be firstnesses. With a lower level of development
than the immediate usages of them. People can set things straight in more developed levels of
existences, but in many cases they are just not doing this. Because of a central tendency of
concentrating on firstnesses or the lack of capabilities to set things straight when using the tools.

Another interesting fixation of belief is the fixation of our minds on firstnesses. The fixation on models,
structures, writings. In many cases and social society at large, persons are judging solely or mostly on
the base of this firstnesses. The immediate factor, being the persons and issues involved, are often far
too much neglected. While this immediate factor is mostly the most decisive and critical part of the
ongoing processes of signs growing.

204
3. The complexities of ecosocial orders of life
A phronesis antenarrative
The relative possibilities of laws
Out of the matrix, into the future

On Practicism

At this point of this antenarrative discourse, I would like to introduce the concept of practicism.
Whereby exactly my dynamical interpretants regarding this notion are important. And, I know they are
very near already to where the final interpretant of this notion should tend towards.

Some important realisation of Practicism should be, that a lot of its content is already incorporated in
pragmaticism. So not in the by some people called vulgar Rortyism, or in kinds or modes of
pragmatism from intellectuals like William James or other neo-pragmatists. No, with pragmaticism I
mean the full Peircean philosophy like it was originally set up by the greatest pragmaticist of all times,
Charles Sanders Peirce.

Then, it is important to realise that this pragmaticism of Charles Sanders Peirce is only fundamental
for the broader concept of Practicism. The aim of Practicism to be to further enable and guide more
wentelychistic ecosocial orders and further development of individuals, society and every kind of signs
growing. To enchant entities in our society. By means of more practical thinking and doing. Practicistic
methodologies and practises should enable and form the final bridges between pragmaticism and
practice, bridging science and practical realisms and practices.

To enable this, the methodologies found back in Pragmaticism have to be broadened and recombined
a bit to introduce a fundamental concept and proposals for Practicism. And, concerning the people,
the intentions and capabilities of actors are very important, of course. So a sound body of practicism
should also concentrate on great developments of people in societies. The role and ways of acting of
social intellectuals are very important there. I know there are a lot of intellectuals already acting very
great in social public spheres, among others by giving their opinions in media discourses sometimes.
This is great, but can and hopefully will be broadened to more and more public spheres by intelligent
intellectuals in near futures.

205
As regards to the concepts, some very important concepts to add to the body of knowledge of
Peircean pragmaticism are the notions of Aporia and Phronesis like stated in the discourses of that
other great guy called Aristotle. Then, I want to add, maybe as a beginning but as very fundamental
notions also, the notions of Philosophistics and Anothernesses.

Practicism is really an elaborated and broader version of pragmaticism. While pragmaticism mainly is
a kind of philosophical notion, practicism is more general a social phronesis metasemeiotical body of
understandings. Much more suited for practise and with the real true potential of really integrating all
the bodies of science and also practical processes and whatever in the universes we deal with.
Practicism truly is the greatest and broadest phronesis metasemeiotical position you could possibly
think of. Although my discourse is only a fundament for practicism, hopefully enabling the birth of a
new leading paradigm in science and practise. Bridging any differences there, removing all kinds of
bullshit practises. Ensuring a concentration on what really matters, the real true values and qualities of
our universes. I am sure integration of all sciences towards one single best practise or direction is now
possible. I would even know how to large extends. Same counts for practise. Practicism is what we
need there to reach the ultimate goals for improving societies .

In it’s core, practicism is based on a whole new and far more excellent and superior phronesis meta-
semeiotical methodological fundament. Being the insight and understanding that the sole true
structure of our universes is holoplural interconnected plurisigns. The main characteristics of this
structure is and will also be discussed in other parts of this discourse. But quite generally, I will
probably not succeed in reflecting and explaining all the related aspects and issues of this sole
structure of the universes in this discourse. Since I simply can not incorporate all of my tacit and
explicit wisdoms and understandings in writing.

Another core part of practicism is my methodology of Phronesis antenarrating. This is really a VERY
powerfull and great methodology for improving really everything in our societies at large. It should
guide and encourage sane sensemaking, complete excellent sensemaking. And in the end that is
actually all we need to grow and flourish.

206
On empirism, realism, rationalism and phronesis

Some while back, I realised that I did mention something to someone in quite normal words, but that
this remark was actually much smarter and wiser than I realised at that moment. This kind of
realisations, of intelligences in seemingly neutral remarks of me, I get so once and a while.

The remark I am referring to here, is the remark of me that I told someone the following as regards to
how people in science and real life could become the wisest and most knowable. What I told was the
following ( I told it in Dutch but will translate it in English just roughly speaking here):

“If someone in science wants to become really good, it is important to get some good understanding of
philosophy and becoming a great philosopher themselves. Because, philosophical insights are the
catalyst for real improvements. But, then only the rational thinking is not enough. Even someone with
the greatest brains will need a lot of input. Because for improvements, great imputs are important.
Then the mind should be of great quality. Without those two things you will never get good output “ .

At that stage, I told this because I myself did not have much input during the greater parts of my life.
Well, of course I had a lot of input! But, not the great inputs of former intellectuals that I did get and
master myself. I am not talking about experiences, or what scientists would call empiristic sensations,
there. But solely about books, the texts that do not inhabit much real sensory stuff. But, I mean the
great books there. Books that can get you into the states of Aporia that lead you to get inspired and
wanting to know more. And more. And then even more and more and more, preferably infinitely. The
kinds of texts that get the fire and passion of knowledge and wisdom gathering going inside of you.
Actually just that is the great thing I got from some great professors who inspired me, the guy who was
very critical about scientists and those so-called intellectual texts and intellectual kinds of thinking and
doing. To start reading and finding the kinds of wisdoms I was maybe looking for my whole life. The
answers to questions you and I have, can only be found by finding some anothernesses. I still am
quite sure that about every problem existing can be solved. But, not by only experiencing. You will
need other insights, and the great knowledge of past great thinkers, to get the clouds of aporia
disappear and getting the feeling you actually understand the things you did not understand or had a
feeling you did not understand them well enough before. On the other side, there are a lot of things
that you will not understand by solely reading. To prove this, someone could start some experiment by
raising some healthy person and only letting this homo sapiens read a lot, only reading a whole life.
Whatever. Then some other person only sensing reading nothing. But then again we do not have to,
because every sane person should know that both of these two individuals would be distorted in great
extends.

207
But still, in science, there were actually streams of thought that defended that knowledge would be
gathered solely, or almost solely, by the brains. This stream of thought was called rationalism. Then,
there was some other stream of thought that told you that most of the knowledge is gathered by
experience. This was the empiricism movement. Some great example of this would be the Zen monk
who, upon being asked by a person about the depth of water running under a bridge, tries to throw this
person over the railing. The only "real" answer is direct experience according to the empirist.

And then some other guys just got the idea of realism. One of them seems to be Duns Scotum
Ockham, who is now known among some scientists and intellectuals because of Ockham’s razor. Not
that I know much about it, I read a lot but also need to find time for anotherness activities so will not
want to know everything in more or less detail. But this realism thing, or like a scientist would say
“Paradigm”, actually also got a lot of followers. And followers of this paradigms could not agree on
what they were stating, partly because they were just talking about different things, but of course
mainly because they just did not want to agree. Also maybe because a scientist at least might
perceive that people expect him to know everything, or at least to have thought a lot about whatever
they tell you. Just mentioning “oh well, I just do not know” too often, is still not that much accepted in
certain contexts. But, I think it was for sure not that much accepted in former scientific spheres where
these strange notions of rationalism, empiricism and realism were developed. And, people at those
times where more tending towards an either/or world (uniformity thinking) then towards an
and/and/and/… kind of thinking (multiplicity).

BUT…if you understood what I told here about empirism and rationalism, you will understand it is just
both needed. If you strive for completeness in science and practise. If you do not, you will make some
serious fundamental problems. Part of the problems of this paradigms of rationalism-empirism-realism
is also the fact that it are all generalities. And, in Peircean notions, it are possibilities. As long as
people understand that it are both possibilities and generalities, and will just adjust in real life, nothing
is wrong. But, unfortunately, a lot of even smart people will just think that possibilities and even very
general possibilities can just be copied exactly towards existences and even laws (in Peircean
terminology). This is actually causing a lot of fundamental problems in current social realities.

208
Now, so why having this strange paradigms of rationalism, empirism, and realism if you just know it is
not how things are, that it leads to major fundamental problems in practice? Or, just in kind of normal
language, that it actually is mere bullshit? I guess scientists can spend their time in better ways than
by developing and talking about bullshit. So, just skip those kinds of terminology. And any other kinds
of terminology and ways of working that are too general and counterproductive. I am NOT speaking
there about the major parts of science, because really science and scientists are great. The “only”
thing I am talking about here is that there IS some major problem in kinds of practises in science. BUT,
the same counts for practise. And actually, there it is not only wrong practises and lines of thinking.
But just a lot of insanity going on there because some incomplete and non-wentelychistic ways of
acting and doing. Some of these acts I also took and am taking part in. Partly, maybe, because it is
simply needed to not collapse within this same weird system.

But well, what I wanted to explain here, was the connections between rationality, empirism and
realism. I hope you understand it, and that in fact a sound scientific and practical methodology will
need all of them. And, that is actually what the practicism, being mainly Peircean pragmaticism and
this reconstructed and recombined by me towards practicism, way of thinking and doing can and will
offer. It really makes about everything complete. And surely will be able to make everything complete.
And even a lot more. It will completely change our ways of doing and acting. Getting us out of the
matrixes. This is something I am very sure about. Only question is, how long will it take still?

209
On intelligent social design

I think in near future there should be some special branch of social sciences called intelligent social
design. This ISD being a special type of ID. Based on understandings of and wisdom about
philophronesis, quality and arête. With transitive values as a core fundamental.

Actually, ISD starts with the most optimal intelligent firstnesses. This discourse of mine can be viewed
as exactly that, some good effort to design and propose some intelligent firstnesses. Some
fundamentals of ISD, for improving many aspects of our current society and universes as a whole.

For sound applications however, the most wentelychistic and wise human minds are needed. And
sensemaking should be based on sound meta-semeiotical pluriflection and phronesis antenarrating.
Especially for those activities and processes requiring the most wise understandings because of their
complexities and/or pluralities.

A major shift in intentions and mentalities is also strongly required. Since, in current times, people
simply are not really truly capable or prepared to listen to other people. And for sure a major part of
human kind and mind is not capable for understanding what is needed to make our societies more
sane and worthwhile.

This is not only a limit but also something to respect and keep into regards, of course. The limits can
be prevented in about same ways of solving a practical problem with an apple pie.

Throughout my discourse, a lot of insights can be found on the methodologies and contents of ISD. I
will however not elaborate on this further right here and now, since it is something to be picked up to
much broader extends than currently by other intellectuals and practitioners (like for instance future
change masters and governmental people) in future.

210
On sign-signs, object-signs and interpretant-signs (SS, OS,IS)

We all know those situations where something is right before our own eyes or very much into our
minds, but we still do not “see”, or better understand, well enough what is going on. Possibilities are
there, but somehow we can not put them into existences and further more wentelychistic ways of
being.

In many of this cases, we know but do not really truly understand enough. Or at least not to that levels
of sophistication and wentelechy as is possible with the “tools” we got available right before our own
eyes. These tools can be the what or also a who or a when. All these objects, in the language and
understanding of pierce, need at least some person or other living creature to use them to the fullest
and hopefully most wentelychistic ways possible.

Although a lot of persons interested in Peirce do not really understand, the notions of SS, OS and IS
are strictly separated from any links with our universes. In the general ways like Peirce liked to
describe them. They are only mere possibilities, mere tools, just like a lot of current theories and most
of the writings of people like Peirce and Aristotle are. The links with them only become into existences
when these notions occur in any specific cases. Then, the specific SS is or are coupled with other
signs. A SS is however, because of its specific characteristics, always a mere tool. Just like the OS is,
Applications always need the interpretant, the living creature.

Besides this, however, the SS can not exist without living creatures. Some specific parts of objects
signs can and will. So in that respects both the IS and the SS are strongly dependent on life, while
parts of the OS are not. And anotherness parts of OS are. Therefore, some difference in OS should
take place. Based on our real usage, and therefore higher levels of understandings, of the several
modes of signs (SS,OS,IS and AS being anotherness signs) and their differences.

Both Peirce and Aristotle did talk about laws and existences. And about entelechy. But, they both did
stay mostly on the levels of generalities. Of possibilities, And did not move towards the aspects and
greatnesses of really being able to use their own tools. This usage is however needed to start to really
understand the tools and their possibilities, but also their shortcomings, to the fullest. Aristotle did talk
about phronesis, but never was able to convert some of his great possibilities of phronesis into
existences and laws in the worlds “our there”. The realities of life where we are living in all the time.

211
On the sole and only true underlying structure and nature of our
universes

The only, sole, real underlying structure of our universes is the structure of what I termed holoplurality.
This is about interconnectedness. Being that everything in our societies and universes is connected, or
at least has the possibilities to be so, with something else in our universes in one or anotherness
ways.

The structure of molecules is that ways. Without connections of parts of our body with anotherness
parts, we would not be able to live. Just like any living creature is not. Without the connections of our
body and mind with each other or without connections to the worlds and universes “out there”, we
would cease to exist.

At current times, there are a lot of movements that emphasize this interconnectedness. Being the
interconnectedness movement itself. Some friend of mine is writing about natural inclusion,being
anotherness mode of interconnectedness. Just like the currently popular notion of cradle-to-cradle is.

So, a lot of emphasis on interconnectedness. But, what most of the people on this globe still do not
really truly understand, is that interconnectedness is really truly an elementary part of the only true
underlying structure and nature of really everything in our universes. Meaning that any other structure
that neglects part of this interconnectedness or that goes against it in one or anotherness ways, is or
at least has the potential of seriously harming our societies and the lives and anything else within.

Past and even current generations of humankind have and still are harming our societies and
universes exactly because of this. Because of their partly insane ways of thinking and doing. For
instance the in many fields wrong ways of linear thinking and doing. Or, the current ways of thinking
and doing related to money and economics. Money is NOT and never will be. We can, very easily,
give everyone on the globe enough money. Forever. IF we get rid of the insanities of thinking on
money. And, IF we are able to adjust other parts of our societies and ways of doing. It is actually rather
simple where we have to move towards. In every aspect of our lives and ways of doing. Which is, the
basic and core and only ways of structure of our universes. The interconnected structure, which is a
specific instance of holoplural structure(s) and universe(s).

212
Holoplurality is the SOLE underlying structure and nature of all of our universes. And the core of
everything I do and write. At least, it should be. Even in much more extends than at present times. I
am just also incorporated in less excellent ways of doing and structures, and need to still shoot a lot to
pieces and reconstruct it based on holoplurality. Like more people will and have to do in future. But,
sound pluriflection and my methodology of phronesis antenarrating are all based on the great gift of
holoplurality. And all of sciences and practises will have to be grounded on holoplurality. By that, I
created the sole great fundament for future sciences.

213
On the sole sound and sane methodology

A lot can be said about the methodologies I used for improving my understandings and for writing this
discourse.

But, before doing so, it should be mentioned that a sound methodology alone is not enough. What is
also needed, is the right perspective and understandings of the right structure of our universes. Which
is something I at least tacitly understood already when starting my discourse and considerations. But
by now, I understand it much better and detailed and am also much more equipped to explain it to
broader publics. Something which is desperately needed in our current society, as a sound
understanding of it can matter a lot for the universes we live in.

As regards to the right structure of our universes, this is without any doubt the structure of
interconnectened parts. With regards to the parts it is just best for sure to use the notion of plurisigns,
IF it is well understood what this plurisigns are. This notion of plurisigns goes in some respects further
than what CS Peirce meant by his notion and understandings of signs. In the sense that my
understandings of signs is bit different. Mostly because of the nature of what I call plurisigns as
opposed to the nature of Peircean signs. My plurisigns involving really everything incorporated in the
universes around us. The understandings of them partly based on Peircean semiotics, but in slightly
different ways. Partly because this slight difference in nature and mostly also because of a huge
differance in understandings and also in the nature, not the methods, of the main methodology used.

With regards to perspective, some “out of the box” kind of perspective is needed. This kind of
perspective is solely possible when the right methodology, and foremost the right ways of reasoning of
collective minds, is fully understood and applied just everywhere throughout our acts and reasoning’s
in our universes. Even at current times, only a few of the wisest people are capable to grasp and
understand this. Most people are still mostly into “inbox” kind of perspectives. Nietzsche would call
them “frog perspectives” , as can be seen in the next sentences of BGAE :

“….whether the popular valuations and antitheses of value upon which metaphysicians have set their
seal, are not perhaps merely superficial estimates, merely provisional perspectives, besides being
probably made from some corner, perhaps
from below—‘frog perspectives,’ as it were, to borrow an expression current among painters. “

This frog perspective is a perspective not capable or just not intended to include relevant
anothernesses in understandings of the worlds and universes surrounding us. Which is actually totally
opposed to a sane nature of (collective) minds, which requires some possibility and eagerness to get
familiarized with relevant anothernesses and by that to offer alternatives or critical and relevant
additions to choose upon and to broaden our understandings.

214
The sole right methodology is much in line with a sound and sane way of collective thinking by our
collective and individual minds as such. This sole right methodology of thinking being the one of sound
pluriflection. With a sane and sound nature. This requires at least to get beyond a frog perspective,
meaning that alternatives and relevant anothernesses have to be introduced in the abduction phase
and adapted in the retroduction phases and beyond.

For our acts in our realities, but also for our reflections in collective and individual minds, we need to
know about alternatives. Some of these are offered by intellectuals, and of course the most excellent
alternatives are mostly offered by the greatest intellectuals. One of them being for sure the great
person of Nietzsche. Who was without any doubt one of the wisest persons of previous times. The
anothernesses offered by this kind of intellectuals are needed to introduce and understand
anothernesses. Choice processes are important here, just like they are in every thought process and
just each collective mind.

Something I understood just recently, is the fact that every organizational process should actually
evolve like a collective mind (process). Meaning that also in each organizational process, exactly this
offering of choices is also very important. The more alternatives people and organizations have to
choose from, the more options to enable them to offer and work with better solutions.

New ideas on organizational change like storytelling and narrating are actually possibilities to also
introduce these kind of anothernesses. It can and should be part of the sole right methodology of
pluriflection, which can be base of the excellent methodology of phronesis antenarrating. And also it
should be part of the collective mind processes in organizations.

The anothernesses being brought in do not have to be straightforward solutions. They can even be
introduced in very extreme examples or extreme modes of being. Examples of these extremes are on
the internet, and also some human phantasies are into the extreme. In most cases, the realities are
not. But putting things towards the extremes can lead us towards much better understandings of our
universes. And therefore, they are mostly also good to exist and to be explored.

Some very important understanding to grasp, is the difference in so-called existences in our universes.
The dyadic division in perceptions and existences is not constructive and good for sound
understandings. Also here, there are a lot of differences in plurisigns. As far as existences concern, it
is important to understand in this particular context that a lot of existences in our universes are meant
as choices, and there are manifold alternatives to them. These choices are however not only existent
in our individual minds, but also in our collective minds. The collective mind also being about
everywhere around us in our existences of being. Meaning that a lot of existent actions of persons are
actually meant not just as existent actions, but more like choices in more or less extends.

215
These choice options are actually VERY important for our collective mind and our society to grow and
florourish in better ways. It enables us to move from just one way of organizing and acting towards
multiple and manifold alternatives and ways of organizing and doing.

This choice process and therefore the methodology I am following for this discourse and also my
thinking in general is simply the most sane and even sole sane way of thinking and therefore also of
research. Since research in the end is just a way of thinking. And every acting, organizing, should be
based on sound reasoning and therefore methodology.

Some aspects of phronesis are the questions about the fundaments of human choice processes. What
is still wrong in these processes, meaning the insanities of our human individual and collective minds.
In this discourse, I call them semisophy and semiphronesis errors. As always, labels are not important
here. Contents and understandings are.

The fundamentals of our society have to be based on a sound understanding about HOW mind
processes take place and grow, and also WHERE choice processes are based upon. The mind
processes having to deal with individual and collective interests and pluralities of truths and realities.
Phronesis and sound understandings are about plurisigns and plurisciences, It is about anotherness
beyondnesses betweennesses.

I hope this sole sound and sane methodology is now clear, after reading what I have written about it.
Although understandings about this sane methodology can and should grow much more, even with
me, the general nature and applicability’s of it should be clear.

This methodology should not be applied more and more in plurisciences, but foremost just throughout
our society as a whole. To make our society more sane and just for everyone.

216
We all have a certain role in the wholenesses of life

A very important aspect of the worlds we are living in, is the fact that we are all dependent on each

other. The successes of “the economy” or “the” worlds we live in is determined solely by how we act

and live with or against each other. And even some small actions can have big results. How strongly

everything is connected with each other, is often realised far too less. Some practical example of it are

the huge destructive processes going on in ecologic systems because we, the human plague, do not

take our responsibilities in the whole. The interdependencies are much more radical then we all

recognize and realise, on about all aspects of life. This complex system of ecological life or just life in

general on earth can maybe best be compared with a house of cards. At least that is what I heard

some scientist telling. And I immediately understood he is right. And the implications of what he was

telling there. Which is, that if you pull away the wrong cards permanently, this whole house we live in

will also collapse permanently. Just think about it. There are a lot of cards we did destroy forever. It

might be too late for some of them, but for sure we need as much as cards as possible to maintain our

house(s). Otherwise we or the people after us will have to restructure a lot. But restructuring and

rebuilding natural resources…forget it…..

On roles, of course a lot more can be told. But quite generally I here only want to mention the now still

generally applied hierarchical ways of working in organizations. Meaning that people often regard their

managers in higher esteem. And managers, some of them, treating “ lower level” persons in their

organizations that ways. Not realizing they all work for same organization. And are actually one big

team, or should I better say family, there.

217
Anotherness ways to effectuate changes

What our society desperately needs, is other ways of thinking and doing. Which means other
methodologies, proposals to do things in anotherness ways. And acting on it. Especially this action
can take a lot of time. With the current problems of our societies and on the globe, it might well take
too long. So, what we strongly need to do….is to DO.

Other methodologies for thinking and doing are in fact mentioned in this discourse. I based some of
my insights on Peircean semiotics, but his semiotics and philosophy are based on wrong
fundamentals. My anothernesses, well the anothernesses I added based on scientific efforts of a lot of
great intellectuals and some great insights of my own to make these insights growing towards each
other, are much more essential and important. Especially for, like I also say at other parts of this
discourse, to get from pragmaticism to practicism. Which is a more practical way of social science,
based on some ultimate philophronesis framework. You might call it the art of management sciences.
Or the ultimate philosophy. The ultimate guide for change masters, the ultimate blueprint for improving
our societies at large and the blueprints/possibilities themselves. Interconnected and wentelychistic
continuous improvements of our societies and universes at large.

One great methodology for change management is described in the book of Abraham Lincoln, which is
called “change without pain”. There, some great alternatives for change processes are mentioned. It is
aimed more at long term results. By means of, what A. Lincoln calls “creative recombination” in his
discourse.

218
On the arts of life

Actually one of the main cores of this discourse and about everything around us, is the notion of
quality. Which is strongly related to the notion of arête. If you get to reflect on our societies, you see
that about everything is about quality. When we search for a partner, a product or service, a
companion or a friend, we search for certain characteristics and values that we regard as being of high
or at least satisfactory quality. The notion of trust can be regarded in its core as being a mode of
quality. Since if we perceive persons as having certain qualities, we will trust them. And if people do
not trust us (enough), this also involves some lack of quality in some ways.

One of the problems is, that although we strive to perfection and quality in the worlds of dreams and
thoughts, we still too less judge and value quality in real life. This quality in real life has to do with
notions of values and norms, attitudes, knowledge and experience. But, most of all, with the notion of
true understanding and, when knowledge is concerned, wisdom. We really need to guide and guard
quality and wisdom and entelecheia (perfection of being) in the worlds surrounding us. By motivating
and enabling the true artists of life to communicate their arts and wisdoms and to improve the quality
of processes and people in our societies.

At the moment, there are just too many occasions and situations where “we” really mess things up to
smaller or larger extends. Something that really is not necessary and can be prevented in many cases.
With a more sane and wise approach towards education and social processes in general. What might
be needed there is, in most cases, some kinds of financial inputs. But I guess it is more the input of all
kinds of values that are needed. And actually, although it is now generally perceived there might be a
lack at least in the financial inputs, I for sure know this is the case! There simply is too less money.
And it should be created. Created to solve really a lot of problems that currently exist in our
societies. I will explain on the how of this later on in this hopefully very illuminating discourse on
Phronesis and a lot more.

219
On getting the means before knowing or agreeing on ends

I already mentioned in this discourse that people sometimes just have to act in seemingly illogical
ways. By which I meant the habits to first picking and/or developing signs and then later on decide on
the words to make and/or applying them to words later on. And promised to elaborate on this later on.
Which I will do just here.

Fact is that this kind of approach is actually about getting means before knowing or agreeing on ends.
This is a habit that in some cases can be productive. Like for instance when someone is very good in
organizing. Just knowing he can arrange some ways of applying the means for sure. An example
would be in falconry a falconer who will order a peregrine falcon and all the equipment not knowing yet
in what style he will hunt. And on which preys. Since he simply does also not have any hunting
grounds yet. Not even the required licence to hunt with birds of prey.

Then this falconer is able to arrange his license. Around that period picking up the falcon. He starts
with the training, and at about the same time he is able to arrange some hunting grounds. On these
hunting grounds there are a lot of quails. And since these falconry hunting grounds are in Germany, it
is still allowed to hunt on quails. And he meets the seldom surroundings there of quite open
landscapes. So he is actually able to practise falconry in waiting on style. By that he knows how to
train the falcon. And how to use his materials. Probably getting some additional falconry materials
and/or not using some of the materials he already ordered and bought just now. But these materials
can probably be used later on in case he gets to fly another bird of prey later on in pursuit style. For
instance.

In the case above, everything turns out well. But what if the falconer does not get his license in time for
one or another reason. Or no suitable hunting grounds. In fact this kind of things happen all the time.
People arranging all kinds of means then not being able to use them in practise.

Another great example of this being education. A lot of persons following a certain education then not
being able to get a job in their fields of educations.

Whether or not you can and will be successful with this way of approach (first arranging means)
depends a lot on your understandings and capabilities. Understandings of the ends possible.
Understandings about how these ends can be reached, what is needed to reach them and how easy
or difficult that would be.

220
But in a lot of circumstances, it is just needed to follow this approach even if chances to succeed are
small. Just because there is no other, better solution there. The only thing is that most people follow
the approach without enough understandings and capabilities. And without understanding enough the
other possibilities, And that there are better ones. Then also there is the trouble of the bowling alone
effects in current societies. Making it even harder to succeed in many respects.

This strategy of arranging the means before having or knowing the ends can be a large bet. You might
succeed, but also not. It is like creating a lot of possibilities without being certain whether you can
transfer them into existences. But then again, if you will, it is a great accomplishment! Also for me
typing this discourse just now, a lot of my plans for the future are still not sure. A lot of means are
arranged but only partly. To be successful, I at least got to concentrate on completeness later on
there. And other parties should not make enormous mistakes that cause me not to reach my goals
regardless of how hard I try. Since insanities of other parties can also destroy a lot there. Without
sound or at least sufficient completeness, this kind of approach can not become successful.

221
On partial optimizations

One of the insane habits of human nature is the partial optimization of aspects of life or society. Also in
business and organizations, there are a lot of counterproductive and insane instances of optimization.
In a company, there often are optimizations of the shop floor or the departments like purchasing, sales
or engineering. These optimizations taking part without taking into account the issues of other
departments. Or with the issues from the employees involved. Even much rarer it is in these situations,
to not view the employees as employees, but also as human beings that also have private needs and
concerns .

Also in our societies, we as individuals have the tendencies to optimize our own life and our own
surroundings without taking into regards the wishes and concerns of other people in our society. Being
egocentric is not that much of a problem there, but being egoistic and selfish often is. For other parties
and people involved.

Quite generally, we should be more aware of that in practise. Maybe trying to take issues of other
people and or/organizations into consideration much more. And acting on that in the most entelygistic
ways.Phronesis antenarrating and sound sensemaking is just about that, about real true enchantment
by optimization and excellence of plurisigns and their connections. Phronesis antenarrating and
practicism is about real true growth, the most excellent growths and quality for entities in our society
and universes.

222
On insane completenesses

A lot can be told about insane completenesses. I already remarked somewhere else in my discourse,
or in anotherness discourse of mine, that we always tend to the habits of (wanting to) make things
complete. Well, actually this is not totally true. In fact, while in many cases we tend to make things
complete, in even more cases we or better a lot of other people have the tendencies to make things
seemingly complete. While at the same time generally trying to neglect the more work intensive and
more difficult ways to proceed.

Whether these things or processes to be made complete are physical or mental or of anotherness
nature does not matter for this tendencies as such. But, of course, it DOES matter what the nature of
the things to be made complete are. Since physical objects and (in) completenesses are simply better
to sense and to solve than the non-physical ones.

An example of insane physical completenesses are the numerous examples in organizations and
whatever social activities of using certain physical tools not because they are needed or required to be
used still, but just because we know that other people expect us to use them. In this cases, we just
know that it is insane habit or activity to use the tools, but we still do so for anotherness reasons.
Maybe because we are not courageous enough to tell the tools are not needed anymore. Maybe
because we are just not able to express, because of whatever reasons. Or maybe, just maybe, the
using of the tools still serves some other goal worthwhile.

If we talk about the non-physical signs, the tendency of striving towards completenesses is a very
critical one. Since, in many cases, the completenesses reached are mostly based on either insane
fundaments or insane methodologies. Leading to very disastrous and bad outcomes.

Insane fundaments can still lead to great completenesses. Because of the fact that each process
evolves and still can become sane during the growing of signs. But in many cases, the possibilities or
existences in our minds lead to bad outcomes. We all the time in our minds make existences in outer
world complete, by filling the gaps between real existences (facts), or perceived existences (lies,
perceptions, misunderstandings), with perceptions of our minds. Or, best guesses at the riddle.

223
When doing so, in cases of a negative framework or points of view, we often make the whole
perceptions in our mind much more negative than the realities in existences. This is the case with
phantasies, but also with real social cases like problems in relationships, and, more serious and
damaging, issues like judicial system issues. In justice, a lot of perceptions are treated as being
existences while it are ONLY and ONLY perceptions of the people participating.

In lots of law suits, there are things said by someone. Being Perceptions, not realities. But still these
perceptions are treated as being existences. Without being checked ever, in one or anotherness ways.
A lot of the things said simply can not be checked, but still they are treated as facts. While they simply
are NOT.

In many cases, it is just not wise or sane to make things really complete. David Boje is the initiator and
first user of the notions of antenarratives and antinarratives of life. He developed this notions and the
meaning of them and used them at first time in the year of 2001. This notions are without a doubt the
greatest notions being developed by any social scientist till now. I will elaborate a bit on not making
things complete by using the great notion of antenarrative. Sometimes, it is just constructive to have a
antenarrative incomplete at certain times of development. I myself already stated before in this
discourse that I might not make parts of this discourse complete, since it might be better for whatever
reasons to leave that for later periods in life and/or other people. It however can of course also happen
that it IS better to make things complete, but that anotherness issues prevent us to complete certain
anotherness signs. But, whatever the causes are, for signs to grow it is not desirable to freeze them,
like expressed in Lewin’s model of change.

Altogether, these insane completenesses is another type of what I call semiphronesis errors. Being
errors of signs (signs being everything around us) in practise. For an improvement of social processes
in our universes, it is just highly needed to get a better understanding of a) the kinds of semiphronesis
errors existing and b) how to solve them. Then of course, this insights have to be transferred to
practise making our social universes much more sane again.

224
On searching in the light

There is some interesting story or joke going around in several versions. I did see this joke for the first
time in some book on social science, if I am correct. After that, I also saw it mentioned once more in
some other scientific discourse. Since I wanted to use it for the purpose of explanation, like I will
explore and discuss just here, I informed about the story and where to find it on some mailing list with
philosophers. By that, I got lots of clues. And lots of versions of the story. I will only mention the in my
view best version of it just here. But, it is interesting to know that this story is also used as a sufi story.
Sufism is generally understood as being the inner or mystical dimension of islam. In this light it is also
interesting to find out what a Tariqah is, and of course also deeper understandings of all of this. Also
other suffi stories are interesting to explore, since they might lead you to Haqiqa, ultimate truth.

For now, I myself will not elaborate much further on the sufi and Sufism here. But, of course is still
have to mention the my favourite version of the story or joke I want to explore and discuss here. Which
is the following version :

A woman offered to help a man who, on his hands and knees under a street lamp, was frantically
searching for his lost key. Frustrated after several unsuccessful minutes crawling under the bright
light, the woman asked, “Where were you when you lost your key?” Pointing to a dark alley, the man
answered, “over there.” “Then why aren’t you looking there?” she asked. “Because the light’s better
here,” he replied.

Although there are a lot of interpretations of this story, I think the originally intended philosophical
message of this story is rightfully understood with me. And explained with some examples by me just
here.

In the realities of life, we actually are often reacting in same ways as the driver who lost his keys. We
just keep up to lots of insane habits, while we know that we are actually acting like mere fools.
Because the “light” is simply more available then or in other words, it is more comfortable or paying to
act in this ways.

Examples are practitioners who are executing their tasks or jobs in wrong or even insane ways, even
knowing and realizing it, but still doing it since they know that not doing so might cause lower incomes
or even unemployment or harms to themselves or others. Or sometimes laziness or lack of time can
cause them to executing tasks not to the best possible, but just in satisfactory or even non-satisfactory
ways for others. If they are only satisfactory enough for themselves.

Another example is a person in a factory executing certain tasks while knowing they are not needed or
even counterproductive. Because he knows that his managers will just stick to the structures and
procedures, are just unwilling or incapable to really listen, and will not understand that the specific
tasks are not needed.

225
There must be numerous other examples, but the most important is that the essence of the story
should be understood. And that based on this, some better understanding of semisophy insanities in
our social practises are understood and prevented as much as possible.

226
On generalities, specificities and a lot more

There are a lot of stories about the so-called a-ha erlaubniss. The sudden flashes of insights that hit
the individual minds of more or less intelligent people and lead to more or less major insights. The
correspondence between the quality and complexity of the insights is often equivalent to the increase
of intelligence and wisdom of the individual mind. This same equivalent correspondence in increase of
the one towards the other is by the way also valid for the connection between quality and complexity in
many occasions. The reason being that quality is often a mode of infinite multiplicities. With the
qualisign of arête. Uniformity and singleness of thoughts and actions are just characterised by a lower
level of qualisigns, which leads towards lesser quality (qualisigns) and complexity and differentiation.
Differentiations being just another terminology for multiplicity and maybe even for quality in this case.
By the way, quality is here a general term for increase of multiplicity and arête, the multiplicity being
the qualisigns of life. Which is why I would rather speak about increase of qualisigns in life, our worlds
of dreams and thoughts and perceptions and realities and the twilight zones between them (not to be
forgotten, these bridges between the several worlds of univers(aliti)es).

46
The probability and quality of aha-erlaubnisses, the flashes of insights that are at the core of
improvements in our individual and collective minds (and consequently the worlds and universes we
live in), are not only intrinsically connected and dependent on the quality of the individual or better
collective processing minds. They are, like I stated before, also to huge extends dependent on the
quality of processing. One of the important aspects there being the fact from which level of processing
( the worlds of dreams or actualities of life levels of processing to give some example) one would
depart and proceed. What I mean to say by this, is the fact that an aha-erlaubniss, and quite generally
the quality of each reflection and thought process, has a greater potentiality and actuality of successes
when actors departure from an “earlier” and more thought-sign “polluted” kind of world. The most
polluted ones being the worlds deeper into our minds and therefore further departed from the actual
worlds of actualities (the worlds of realities)

46
Probability is here a special case of possibilia. The possibilia being the possibilities that have the potential to
really become an actuality. Now, the specific and therefore differentiated aspect of probability as opposed to
possibilia is the fact that the first has at least the additional qualisign of having a huger potential of becoming and
actuality.

227
The empirical experiences connected with this, proving the premises above, are for instance the
following experiences. I got the best insights for this discourse when I moved from dream phase
towards the worlds of actualities and potentialities of individual minds. The best result having when
suddenly getting awake from a really deep trance of dreaming. Then immediately processing the huge
amounts of complex qualisigns wandering through my minds in a rather un-structured way. I am happy
to be one of the persons of our worlds considered to be vague and unstructured sometimes.
Unstructured being one of the most important determining quali-signs for the notions of vaguenesses
meant here.

For moving towards greater quali-signs in our society, the rather simple ways to proceed are to “just”
increase the differentiations and therefore specifics of the potentialities and actualities of our modes of
universes and worlds and the anothernesses (or twilight zones) in between (and the ones around and
between and wherever from these).

One of the ways and methods of doing so, is the simple increase in the amounts and numbers of
phronesis methodologies. This phronesis methodologies get towards huger sophistications and
understandings when the differentiation and therefore plurality of each of these methodologies
increase. And when the understandings of understandings about the where and when of applicability
of the several possible methods are better known and put in practise.

This fundamental narrative of life that I am writing just now, is hopefully a possibilia with a huge
probability of leading towards an explosion of the number and quality of qualisigns that become
actualities and possibilia in really every aspects of our worlds and universes anyone could possibly
think off. To realise this, I am convince that it is more effective to use the collective minds of our actual
worlds. These minds being an effective combination of the greater individual minds and the static
minds of data like paper books and, in current times, even the digital databases like CD’s and the
world wide webs. One very interesting and important aspects of the world wide web that still has to be
explored and understood (especially its implications and potentialities for our society as a whole!) is
the notion of the internet as being (us(ing)e) US. The US is here a notion for collective minds and
connections between several individual and more or less artificial data base minds. A nice clip about
this is hopefully still to be viewed on youtube. The machine is using us. At
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gmP4nk0EOE. The internet together with the huge amount of
individual minds is (part of ) a much bigger collective mind. One of the concerns of future generations
would be to increase the quality of this individual and collective minds. Which requires a great notion
of understandings of the ways how to improve the quality of data and processing of these on the
internet and in our own individual minds. We can not imagine or effectuate those two minds of the
internet and individuals using it separately. Since it are minds that influence and depend on each other
in more and more increasing ways.

228
Discussions with great wise persons, like seminars and the like, are great ways to enable very
effective recombinations of details and specificities of individual minds. These recombinations lead to
huger potentialities of life and society as a whole. Discussions on aspects of fundamental discourses
and the anothernesses around are needed for the sake of greater understandings and qualities of our
universes.

Actually, while writing this part of the discourse I know I have to work in some factory in about 2 hours
from now. Since I worked also a lot the whole week and got awake just now, I asked a brother of mine
whether he would bring me to - and get me from - this location of slavery and joy ness. So that I could
complete this part of the discourse. I am glad he has the time and preparedness to do so, but he was
not prepared to it immediately at first notion. But only after I explained why I wanted to write this parts
of my fundamental discourse and thinking down immediately. What I explained was that I had to write
it down right now because otherwise I would forget it, making it much more troublesome to write this
kind of text later on.

What I did not explain was the main reason of this. Which is, apart from the fact that the qualisigns of
the flashes of insights or pluralities I got just now are still fresh in my individual mind, the fact that I
departed from a sudden awakening from a really nice deep sleep. I actually almost always have a
really deep sleep, which very probably explains one of the reasons that I got a huger potentiality for
great flashes of insights. But well, apart from my awakening from this very deep sleep leading towards
a greater potentiality of flashes of insights, I also have this always and rather explosively increasing
amount of qualisigns and detailnesses of understandings of the worlds surrounding us. The major
catalyst for this explosions of understandings in my individual minds was and is the great chance and
actualities I got from (taking part in the discourses from) Arjo Klamer. It is a pity that his academia
vitae is not into existence anymore, the main reason also there being a lack of money.

229
On philosophy

Some time back, an intellectual did post a link to a PDF file on logic, situated somewhere on the
internet. In this posting, he said that he did value the writer and this particular work a lot. Although he
himself thought that most writings on logic actually suck.

I responded to him publicly on the list by telling that his statement that most of writing on logic would
suck tells enough about current state of logic. And, besides that, I told him something like “I reviewed
the PDF file you did send a link to”. “and actually I think it sucks”

Important thing here is that I can laugh about this remarks, but it is certainly not that nice to laugh
about. Since I meant it mostly seriously. According to me, a lot of the works in previous time on logic,
but also on philosophy and other branches of social science, actually “suck”. For a lot of reasons, the
main influential one probably being that the wrong approaches and the wrong contents have been
chosen, applied and explored. Based on the wrong (understanding of) the structures of our universes.
Besides that, it is of course the case that there is a huge difference in the quality of intellectuals. This
quality is something that is not enough reflected in the labels of these intellectuals. Meaning that you
might often find the greatest intellectuals where you do not expect them to be. And, more important,
without recognizing them as such. Recognizing good intellectuals and the arts they produce is difficult
anyways, since there are just a few people who can valuate and appreciate their works the ways they
deserve.

Philosophy is in many cases based on logic. And logic mostly on rationality. Which is a highly
reductionist and limited view on reality. In our realities and universes, there simply is no split
between our minds and our feelings. And, like I express in other parts of this discourse, there
is a lot missing in philosophy but also in practical social sciences and processes. The core of
it being a sound understanding and inclusionality of transitive values. Into each and every
aspect of our universes and society as such.

To improve philosophy and social sciences as such, philosophy has to be transformed into what I
would call philophronesis. In some other parts of this discourse, the difference between philosophy
and philophronesis is explained and discussed a bit. This is also a fundamental discourse still and the
nature of philophronesis has to be developed and explored in much more details in the future. But, to
make philosophy and social sciences more sane, a shift towards philophronesis is needed.
Philophronesis is just some label, what matters is the contents. Being a deep understanding and
transformation of the insights expressed in this discourse towards psychology, social sciences and
practices as such.

230
This means that philophronesis will have to incorporate seemingly illogical issues and procedures. It
has to incorporate all essential and fundamental transitive values, some of them being expressed in
this discourse. It has to be based on (a deep understanding of) the real true structure of our universes,
while at the same time the really illogical structures and methodologies have to be diminished and
disappear in the end.

231
On philosophia and philophronesis

There have been many revolutions in the labels of notions during our history. For instance, our current
notion of science developed from the latin word “scientia”, meaning ‘knowledge’.

Now, the interesting thing is that this notion of science did get some other meaning during the last
century only. Before the 19th century, the word science did really only mean “knowledge” and the word
‘scientist’ did not exist at all. Actually, before the 19th century natural philosophy was the label for the
field of study that is now called natural science.

In latin language, “knowledge’ was “scientia”. This greek word of ‘knowledge’ is a label for something
that is less sophisticated than wisdom. In greek language, wisdom was called “sophia” or “phronesis”,
depending on the contents and character of this wisdom. Although I am not fully aware of the
character of knowledge described by the latin notion of “scientia”, it is quite interesting to reflect on
these different notions and the changes in perspective of them starting during the 19th century.

It is clear that the new meaning of “scientia” , that goes far beyond mere knowledge AND wisdom, also
involved a repositioning of the notion and art of philosophy. Science has a meaning that not only goes
beyond knowledge and wisdom, but beyond every understandings and wisdoms you could think of.
Not because of it’s label which is still latin for knowledge, but because of it’s much broader contents.

Now, philosophy is a notion that originated from the greek notion of philo and sophia. Philo meaning
the love of or friendship, and sophia meaning wisdom. Philosophia- “love of wisdom’ or ‘friends of
wisdom’

There however still is not general usage of the word philophronesis. Yes, there is a meaning of this
notion in current times. But, this meaning is not the most entelychistic and great one, according to me.
Let alone the current meaning of the notion of philophronesis, just let me explain what it SHOULD
mean.

It is quite well know among scientists, especially philosophers, what the differences are in the greek
notions of sophia and phronesis. Sophia being theoretical wisdoms, while phronesis means practical
wisdom. It is however often not really truly understood that sophia is also mainly rationally oriented, by
that lacking some real true values of our universes. This is also reflected in some of the main works
and orientations of well-known philosophers of the past. Being persons like Plato, Aristotle, René
Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, John Locke, David Hume, Immanuel Kant.

232
Fact is, that although in philosophy also irrational and “illogic “ aspects of our universe are discussed,
the main perspective is on rationality and theoretical wisdoms. While phronesis, a much more
sophisticated and evolved level of wisdom, is not really truly explored and researched by philosophy.
It is, to certain extends. But this explorations is still in infantry stages, not the least because of the fact
that too many philosophers lack enough capabilities and insights to get towards the levels of real true
understandings, the levels of artistry.

Which is why I want to introduce the notion of philophronesis meaning the branch of science that
concentrates on developing and exploring the sophisticated notion of phronesis. Philophronesis here
means ‘love of practical wisdom’ as opposed to philosophia meaning ‘love of theoretical wisdom’. So
actually, this introduction of philophronesis with this new meaning (love of practical wisdom) also
means some redefinition and meaning of philosophy/philosophia.

To move from universals of philosophy towards the more sophisticated and evolved wisdoms for
specificities, universities have to evolve into multiversities. By this notion, I mean anotherness concept
than the commonly known meaning of multiversity. Which is a university with numerous affiliated
institutions. My notion of multiversity is much broader than that. Multiversities to my understandings
are universities not concentrating on knowledge ,theories, universals and general cases. But on
phronesis, involving specific cases, specific cases and wisdom. It encompasses among others a shift
from focus from theoretical to practical. By that, making an art from whatever sciences. It is the final
step needed to get towards more sane and complete universes as a whole.

233
On plurisigns and pluriscience

The main problem within current society is the fact that people in most cases are more used to and
educated in singularities and uniformity instead of pluralities. In the real world surrounding us,
everything is just a configuration of more or less loose or tightly coupled signs. These signs
themselves also consisting of more or less coupled signs.

Peirce already did coin the notion qualisigns. But, what he did not fully understand apparently, is the
fact that his qualisigns is just the plural reflection of the single notion of qualities. And, in fact, every
single notion in life does consist out of a configuration of several signs and sign types. This means that
there are not only qualisigns. But also all other kinds of plurisigns. Like trustsigns. Lovesigns.
Personalitysigns. Atomsigns (even having their own names like neutrons), neutronsigns, watersigns.
And everything in our lives can and does exist out of a combination of several of these plurisigns.

The main problem of most of the scientific activities is the fact that they are often aimed at reducing
pluralities of our lives and universes towards universalities. While in real life, universalities simply do
not exist. Therefore, there is a strong need for the developing shift towards plurisciences to be
accepted and to become mainstream.

Actually, one of the causes of this main problem of science and therefore also at least one of problems
of our current societies is the core mallfunctioning and illness of current scientific society. Which is the
fact that in general, scientific society is looking for reduction. Reductions from pluralities towards
universals in more or lesser extends. Thereby eliminating the anothernesses that make life and
universes much more valuable, complete and therefore worthwhile. The insanities of science and also
of practise have to be eliminated to move on towards greater and more successful ecosocial systems.
The main disfunctionalities and insanities are really mentioned in this discourse, and it is high time that
as much scientists and intellectuals and otherwise who can make a difference will really do so!

My argument in this whole discourse is NOT that phronesis should always be a part of education.
Since it might actually be, and most probably is, better if phronesis is just learnt in the anothernesses
of life. Being the social processes of life, both before during and after educations. As far as education
is concerned, my argument is more that we should eliminate insanities. And move on from
concentrations on uniformities towards the pluralities of life. And especially in the social fields, as
much concentration on phronesis as possible will actually for sure be good. In the fields of
management, there are great developments like the critical management studies movement, narrative
approaches and storytelling. Based on more practical and phronesis ways of management.

234
Most important although is however, of course, that individuals get to realize that insanities truly exist
in our ways of doing and theorizing. This realization only starts with people getting familiar with the
core problems in science and social life. People like Peirce and also Korzybski, just to name only
some but most important intellectuals there I guess, already discussed parts of the problem in their
discourses. But this discourse is meant to elaborate a lot further there, mentioning and discussing the
anotherness betweennesses also there. Although I realize that in general this discourse is not perfect
still and some parts will be subject to considerable changes and improvements, I am very satisfied
with this discourse in general. It is the result of thorough and time consuming reflections on social
processes. On science and practise. By a quite intelligent person, to say the least.

235
On the ultimate philophronesis

One of the cores of “a phronesis antenarrative” is a fundamental ultimate phronesis meta-semeiotical

body of understanding. Being much more superior to and excellent than any philosophy. Having the
characteristics of an “out of the matrix/box” kind of viewing society. It is the only right and sound body
of understanding, IF you understand. But I have to work it out in more details still. This body of
understanding for everything.

Important is that I use a lot of Peirce, but meanwhile understand that a lot of peircean philosophy is
bullshit. His semiotics is not, but also has errors in it. One of them being the methodological
framework, another one being too much structure. And also the controversial view of what is called
aristotelean thinking. Non-aristotelean thinking, and more specific a kind of thinking more similar to
Robert Pirsig and his “metaphysics of quality”, is better. But, my body of understanding and kind of
thinking is even more sound and great. Since it is in it’s essences really the greatest ultimate body of
understanding. Details have to be worked out more in future, but the essences are there.

Pirsig did not really work out the characteristics of a metaphysics of quality. And he did not understand
that it can not be a metaphysics. His kind of view is actually still too much “aristotelean”. Meaning that
actually even the division into “aristotelean” and “non-aristotelean” is actually “aristotelean” in it’s
nature. I myself think more in the lines of what I discuss in my discourse on “plurisigns”. And on the x-
nesses of signs. Pluralities all over, in all directions. The ultimate only sole structure of our society and
universes as a base.

For the phronesis part, I will work out the semiphronesis insanities and errors. Also I have to make
more clear that Peircean philosophy has his errors and where. Parts of it being quality. Actually I agree
that through Phronesis rhetorics, arête can be reached. It is one of the great roads towards real true
excellence. All kinds of quality and ways how to deal with values through phronesis is an important
part of it. Phronesis as such is major also there.

236
On Anothernesses and understanding Korzybski versus Bakhtin and lots
more

Since some years, my contacts with intellectuals and professors are growing. One of the persons I
have had some contacts with through e-mail and the like, stated that he wanted to make some
comparisons between Bakhtin and Korzybski.

At that times, I already thought it would be better to also introduce Peirce into this comparisons. By
now I understand more complete why this is really VERY worthwhile to do, but also I think at least my
own understandings are most crucial to add to this. And besides that there will be many
anothernesses interesting to increase insights and to have signs grow further. For instance the great
discourse “fly towards grace” from my advisor Slawomir Magala. Depending on which specific cases
and relatively partial insights to be explored, other names and insights will be worthwhile to add to the
exploration of course.

In many cases, the starting points and ways to proceed are just very wrong in science but also in
practise. Since, in most cases, people tend to start from specific starting points which are of course
always different from reality and specific cases in reality. Besides this, science is mostly striving
toward general cases. For reasons of falsification and proof, it is required for science that certain
cases or activities take place at least more than once. Very specific realities or occurances taking
place only once in a lifetime or just only once and NEVER again exactly the same ways (just like most
occurances and activities in reality do) are simply not valid in some scientific settings. Because of the
requirements of proofing and lacks of generalities. By that, science has taken the wrong roads and
also a lot of damage is done to society at large and human animals and other living creatures in our
universes.

In social science, just like in every science, striving towards completeness is needed. This requires
concentration on specific cases and the right methodologies to deal with these specific cases and all
the pluralities and plurisigns involved. This requires science to evolve from science towards
pluriscience. This is especially important for social sciences, since the mediate factor of interpretants
and just all the anotherness issues of living creatures involved just lead to much more pluralities than
in relatively immediate aspects and fields of for instance DNA-research or nanotechnology.

For social sciences, a comparison between Korzybski and Bakhtin will for sure increase
understandings. But, limitation by means of only comparing these two intellectuals and their insights is
largely limiting the insights to be retrieved by means of sound methodologies. To understand
Korzybski, at least Peirce is needed. Or even better my own understandings like expressed in the
whole of this discourse. But anyways, Peirce is needed for content for sure and I am needed for both
the best reflections there and for the best outcome probably. Then for understanding anothernesses,

237
both Peirce and Korzybski are needed. And also Robert Pirsig, some anothernesses and again, me.
Anothernesses means MULTIPLICITY, and comparing only firstness with secondness or one name
with another one is not that much of multiplicity.

To be able to compare certain intellectuals and their thoughts and understandings among each others,
it is of course needed to understand what these intellectuals are standing for. What they wanted to
communicate to society at large, and also what they understood. This is not an easy task, and besides
this each evaluator will of course have anotherness understandings and insights there. Leading to
anotherness understandings. These anotherness understandings not only based on anotherness input
(the understandings of what the intellectuals are standing for), but of course also based on more or
less sound methodologies of reflection. And, last but not least, the capabilities of the persons
evaluating and reflecting on the inputs.

For me, the persons mentioned (or at least the most important ones), stand for the following insights
and understandings

Alfred Korzybski- Science and sanity

To me, Alfred is standing for

Representamen versus object, the mixing up between the two of them.

The map is not the territory was his great phrase.
Excluded middle versus included middle
Anothernesses (bakhtin’s of life) as being the included middles
Anothernesses as being the two counterparts of dualistic thinking, which are mostly perceptions of our
minds.And also counterparts in many cases are not really counterparts, since in realities only ONE of
them exists, and in many different variations. Something can be hot but cold at same time, hot only for
one person at one specific location under certain conditions. For other persons it is just cold.

Bakhtin

To me, Bakhtin stands for

Anothernesses
Anothernesses can be everything, like Peirce and Korzybski and me and WHAT IS NEEDED MORE
FOR COMPLETENESS OF SOCIAL SITUATIONS AND THE LIKE. MAKING THE DIFFERANCES
THERE - DERRIDA

238
Charles Sanders Peirce

To me, Peirce stands for

Representamen object interpretant

The Anothernesses of bakhtin are only PART of this because of differences in anothernesses

Anothernesses like virtues and anothernesses outside context are and are not part of Peirce,
depending on the levels of diagnosis and the points of reference taken.
But then again, the context and issues should serve as starting point
Specific cases, then analysis on base of anotherness and quality and categories and etcetera

I think the comparison between Korzybski, Peirce and Bakhtin could start then by reflecting on the
three of them based on Peircean semiotics. When doing so, the following comparison can result based
on the notions of firstness, secondness and thirdness or more specific based on representamen,
object and interpretants.

Korzybski Peirce Bakhtin

1 2 3 Or BETTER X-NESS OF SIGNS
Semantics Semiotics Beyond semiotics
RELEVANT anothernesses like
- Robert Pirsig, quality or excellence
- ( Bourgouis) virtues
- PHRONESIS
- Representamen versus existences, GROW

In this case, it is needed to understand that the categories mentioned above are as relative and
reductionist ways of thinking and understanding like about all categories and structures and
anotherness representamens are. Introduction of Bakhtin and Derrida towards the overview reflected
above can, or better should, lead you to understand that in real life situations it is even needed to go
beyond this KPB overview. For preventing any reductionist and therefore (potentially) harmful
understandings and practises.

239
Peirce or Bakhtin or maybe Korzybski for analyzing 1-2-3 as being Korzybski Peirce and/or Bakhtin
and/or anothernesses

Because, in the end Peirce is NOT process and it is. Meaning that Peircean semiotics is about less or
more development and the issues involved with it, but his categories and visions are still far too
structural and linear. Besides this, his categories are still not evolved enough. Besides the firstness
secondness and thirdnesses, there are and should be MANY anotherness betweennesses. Anything
around and within, additionally to Peircean semiotics and understandings, is as important as Peircean
categories and semiotics are. Let alone the fact that Peircean semiotics is based on the wrong
structures and understandings, resulting in wrong insights and understandings as such.

Peircean semiotics is still a reductionist way of understanding, not meeting the realities of life the way
they should be met and understood. In this senses, even his 3rdnesses are firstnesses. Or maybe
even not still, depending on the points of references and the scope of analysis.

Better texts than the ones of Peirce or whoever are based on pluralities instead of universalities. Not
aimed at proving something because of general applicability, but based on sound ways to understand
and work with specific cases in practise. The fact that Peircean semiotics and categories are to great
extends based on Mathematics does really suck, not only because of the huge errors caused by this.
Also Peirce does logically deduce his very own categories in the paper “The logic of mathematics” out
of mathematics. This fact that Peircean categories are based on the methods of deducing and
inducing from mathematics just sucks, because of the insanities in both induction and deduction
themselves.

Peirce his texts on education, on the other hand, are just great. Mainly because these texts are really
written out of a pluralist view and real true understandings what is going on. And, the contexts are also
therefore much more shaped and expressed.

240
On how to make my ideas clear

The last couple of years I have been occupied a lot with making my ideas clear. At first for myself, but
also for other people. By now my understandings have grown that much that I can actually add a lot of
useful insights and understandings to social sciences and our universes at large.

But still it is difficult to make this ideas clear to other people. Mostly because of the limits of our
language, but also because of a time lag between thinking and writing. It often occurs to me that I got
the greatest flood of thoughts but then having lost it when arriving at home or generally being able to
write it down. And even if I got the laptop at hands, it still is difficult to write things down the way they
came to me in my thoughts. In general I end up working with some keywords and key insights I remind
from thought processes, then typing some broader discourses based on that. But also generally I do
not like writing. One of the reasons of that being the fact that I do not like the “freeze” states of our
universes. Words and representamens create the perception of being statically while of course nothing
in our universes really truly is. Like Korzybski already stated, the map is not the territory.

This part of my discourse is based on some very fundamental understandings I already have for
longer times but still need to express in far further details. Something I like to do right here. For doing
so, I will take some parts from one of the most well known writings by Charles Sanders Peirce as a
starting point. And the title of this part of my own discourse is derived from it.

Peircean scholars will already know which writings I mean. So, of course, I mean the Peirce writing
called “how to make our ideas clear”. The following sentences originate from this paper:

"They may at first obtain different results, but, as each perfects his method and his processes, the results are found to move
steadily together toward a destined centre. So with all scientific research. Different minds may set out with the most antagonistic
views, but the progress of investigation carries them by a force outside of themselves to one and the same conclusion. This
activity of thought by which we are carried, not where we wish, but to a fore-ordained goal, is like the operation of destiny. No
modification of the point of view taken, no selection of other facts for study, no natural bent of mind even, can enable a man to
escape the predestinate opinion. This great law is embodied in the conception of truth and reality. The opinion which is fated to
be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in this opinion is the
real. That is the way I would explain reality...

Our perversity and that of others may indefinitely postpone the settlement of opinion; it might even conceivably cause an
arbitrary proposition to be universally accepted as long as the human race should last. Yet even that would not change the
nature of the belief, which alone could be the result of investigation carried sufficiently far; and if, after the extinction of our race,
another should arise with faculties and disposition for investigation, that true opinion must be the one which they would
ultimately come to. "Truth crushed to earth shall rise again," and the opinion which would finally result from investigation does
not depend on how anybody may actually think. But the reality of that which is real does depend on the real fact that
investigation is destined to lead, at last, if continued long enough, to a belief in it." (CS Peirce, How to make or ideas clear)

Again, I have to object to about everything being said by Peirce in this sentences. Not that much
because of the contents of this sentences, but foremost also because of the fact that Peirce did write
and think based on a wrong understanding of the structure of our universes. This is something
implicitly reflected in the whole of his writings, but foremost in certain parts of it. Like his part of “how to
make our ideas clear”. But also the contents of these particular sentences are very relevant for what I
want to make clear here.

241
First of all, what I myself try to make clear is actually part of what Peirce does call the results of
operation of destiny. I dare to state that I am the furthest and most close to the ultimate conclusions
and truths. The ones where more and more people will arrive upon. So I agree with Peirce that at least
some of our truths will not escape the predestinate opinion. But, this is only a small part of our
realities. And also it is not about opinions but about the fundamental nature of our universes at large.
But, fact is that this is only a relatively small and reductionist part of our universes and so-called truth
as such.

The above sentences and opinions of Peirce are actually soaked with the outdated but currently
mainstream understandings of traditional social sciences. Based on single truths and on what I call
unipluralities. Focussing on similarities instead of recognizing and understanding differences. I
discuss the handicaps and failures of both traditional sciences and unipluralities in other parts of my
discourse, but what is important here is the fact that traditional sciences were reductionist and
therefore insane for our universes at large. The reductionisms leading to wrong understandings and
damages in our societies. Something a lot of our social realities still cope with. Economics copes with
practical insanities, just like fields of justice and psychology do. Meaning that a lot of people are
damaged by so-called professionals in the field, who will not notice doing so and even having the
illusions that they are doing things just and right. Simply because they learned insane habits, while
mostly being incapable to listen. And even being too arrogant to do so in many cases. Partly because
they master those single “truths” of reality, which were never questioned during their educations.

But fact is, that a lot of these single “truths” of reality are actually forms of semisophy insanities, often
leading to semiphronesis insanities and damages to our universes. I already stated this semisophy
insanities are often having the nature of unipluralities, representamens being represented as uniform
while they are not. This are the kinds of uniform ways of thinking of traditional social sciences, and a
specific type of this unipluralities are the so-called “truths” of traditional social sciences.

So, firstly we got the insanities of unipluralities. In traditional sciences these are not called that ways
and also in many cases they were understood as being uniformities in this perspectives. But, of course
there is a flux between the different perspectives. Meaning that the understandings of unipluralities
(originating from the traditionalist area) did shift and grow. A lot of current “postmodern” or “beyond
47
postmodern” theories are working with the insane fundaments of traditionalist (social) sciences. If
not, they still apply the wrong methodologies or do not master the right perspectives (yet).

47
For me, it is difficult to label any kind of current theories as postmodern. Because of the broad field of
perspectives of this field, the many kinds of hybridizations between ultimate traditionalist views and he
perspectives belonging to practicism. And categorizations are always very arbitrary. To me, a lot of current
theories I would call postmodern are actually somewhere in between postmodernism and practicism, some kind
of hybridizations between the two. Our society at large is currently mix of traditional, postmodern and practicist
realities.

242
I have seen a lot of theories and lines of thought, read a lot of (beyond) postmodernist discourses, and
none of them does include the right perspectives and insights. The only one I could possibly think of
mastering the right perspectives is the great Nietzsche. But then also he did not truly understand,
otherwise he would most probably have written this down in more clear and simple ways.

Following the sentences out of “how to make our ideas clear”, it follows that Peirce believed in an
ultimate single “truth”. Peirce writes :

“The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the
object represented in this opinion is the real. That is the way I would explain reality”

This opinion is based on the wrong understandings of the true nature of our universes. This is very
essential, as Peirce actually did develop his whole philosophical theories based on this wrong
understandings. Also his quite fundamental and elementary philosophy of semeiotics.

Peirce implicitly seems to believe that reality is something objective. Also he seems to believe that
people have same levels of understandings and capabilities of understanding. While actually of course
a lot of our realities is subjective. Also, a major part of our societies is far behind what would be
possible in current times. This differences might diminish in the future, but because of huge
possibilities the differences in perspectives and realities will also grow. Because of pluralisms in our
societies at large. Pluralisms becoming even bigger and more profound while we move towards
practicism. Practicism is per definition a perspective and reality of pluralities. In contradiction with the
beliefs of traditional (social) sciences, the framework along which lines also Charles Sanders was
working and thinking.

So ultimate agreement is mere perception. Just like a lot of perspectives and results of traditionalist
and current mainstream sciences and practises are. But, unfortunately, even this insane perceptions
are realities in many ways. I fear it will take quite a lot of time still to solve this.

I believe the art of science in practicism is to understand which parts of reality are based on universal
laws and truths, and which parts are not. The phronesis representia have to be chosen and worked
out very well. This is part of a sound phronesis antenarrative. If this step is worked out well, the
fundaments are all right for applications in reality. By means of phronetic antenarratives and phronetic
narratives. Leading to more phronetic realities for our society and universes at large.

243
On semantics, semiology, semiotics and semiphronesis

Although a lot of people currently do not understand and mix up the notions of semiology and
semiotics, there is a clear distinction between the both. It is sometimes stated that semiotics originates
from Saussure, which is NOT the case. Further on, it is often thought or stated that Saussure did
introduce or use the notion of semiotics. Which is also NOT the case.

Sausurre, the French intellectual, did not introduce the notion of Semiotics, but the notion of
semiology. Later on, lots of persons used the term of semiotics instead without truly understanding
what they were talking about. Besides that falsely linking the name of Saussure with semiotics, while
Saussure actually never in his whole life really truly had anything to do with semiotics.

According to Saussure himself, semiology (beginning with the greek word semeion, meaning ‘sign’)
would be “ a science that studies the life of signs within society”. Without having a thorough
understanding about what this would involve, it seems like it would be the same as the Peircean notion
of semiotics. But, it is not. Saussure focussed on what he did call “langage”, a system of signs
expressing ideas. He devided this into two parts, namely langue and parole. Both of these parts
concentrating on mere language. Nothing more, nothing less.

Peirce, on the contrary, coined and used the notion of semiotics. Semiotics being the study of signs.
Now, apparently this definition is not different from the definition Saussure gave to his notion of
semiology. Apparently. Since both the true content and the contexts for semiotics differ in many
respects from the notion and contexts of semiology. First of all, the signs where Peirce is referring to
are much broader than the signs Saussure has been considering within his studies of semiology.
Peircean signs involve everything, really everything around us. Not only grammar, but a lot more. As
Floyd Merrel states it, Peircean semiotics involves “iconic images and signs of feeling and indexically
oriented signs of the senses and corporeal flows and twists and jerks in addition to conventional and
chiefly abstract symbols or language “.

According to some sources at the University of Twente48, the Netherlands, Saussure’s semiology was
a generalization of formal, structuralist linguistics. While Peircean semiotics was an extension of
reasoning and logic in the natural sciences. And, they are right. Peircean semiotics must be seen and
understood as being part of the broader metaphysical system developed by Peirce. A broad system
with the characters of a philosophical and metaphysical system, often labelled as pragmatism or,
following the Peircean notion and understandings, pragmaticism. This metaphysical system was
grounded partly on the view of Peirce that mathematics and logic where the main sources for a better
understanding of our universes.

48
http://www.cw.utwente.nl/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Public%20Relations,%20Advertising,
%20Marketing%20and%20Consumer%20Behavior/Semiotic_Theories.doc/

244
In other words, mathematical and logical principles where and are key to Peircean philosophy and
semiotics. For Peirce, as to Kant (his main example), logic was the key to philosophy. In other words,
it was elementary based on the historical split in philosophy between mind and feelings. With
reasoning being the ultimate source for human developments. Which is of course reductionist, as also
the other senses and feelings and other social matters are important besides mere reasoning.

Somewhat later in history, the notion of semantics appeared on the scene. Also there, a lot of
confusions and wrong definitions have been used during the past. Fact is, that semantics first
appeared in a book written by Michel Bréal, a French philologist. Later on, Alfred Korzybski developed
general semantics, which is different from semantics. According to Alfred Korzybski himself, the main
goal of general semantics is to develop in it’s practitioners the realization of how much of reality is
missing in linguistic and other representations we use.

I myself am still working at , what I call, a meta-semeiotical (philophronesis) body of understanding.

This philophronesis stands for love for, or striving towards, practical wisdom. The phronesis I am
talking about here is different from the notion or understandings from the great Aristotle. Because of
the far more excellent meta-semeiotical perspective. My notion of Phronesis involves any practical
wisdoms and issues. Also the (seemingly) illogical ones, like paranormal issues. And, my notion of
Phronesis should and will be present in any universe, also the universes of mind and, for instance, the
internet. Since all of our universes are linked and interconnected in any ways, and parts of these
linkages have their impacts on practical matters.

The reasons why also seemingly illogical, non rational issues and matters are also incorporated into
my notion of philophronesis is simply because of the fact that this philophronesis and my meta-
semeiotical philophronesis body of understandings are all part of my ways of seeing and doing. Just
like my other notions are. Some of them will be expressed here in more or less details.

As opposed to Peircean pragmaticism, I have and will be labeling my meta-semeiotical body of

understanding(s) as practicism. The main reason being the fact that my body of understanding actually
is what it is, a very practical insightful methodology and practice (almost) immediately applicable to,
and relevant to, practice. Besides this, my understandings that the pragmatic maxim (core of Peircean
pragmaticism) is relative bullshit also plays a part to neglect these parts of Peircean pragmaticism.

245
My body of philophronesis is much broader and entelychistic than semiotics and Peircean
pragmaticism will or can ever be. Peircean philosophy and pragmaticism is largely based on logic.
While my philophronesis and practicism is based on not only logic, but also just every possible
anotherness betweennesses. These anotherness betweennesses expressing my understandings of
the sole true structure of our universes. Which is a very important understanding, since this sole true
structure of our universes is the main framework for my philophronesis practice of practicism.

Sign theory, or semiotics as Peirce calls it, is one of the backbones of Peircean pragmaticism. Fact is,
that sign theory also plays a major part of my philophronesis practicism. But, my understandings of
signs and the ways I use them in my understandings and philophronesis practicism, are different from
semiotics. They are different in such major ways, that I will call my sign theory semiphronesis. I will
continue by elaborating a bit more about this semiphronesis and about the nature and contents of the
differences between semiotics and semiphronesis just now.

As I remarked a bit before in this part of my discourse, another very important difference between
Peircean pragmaticism and my philophronesis practicism is the framework, the frame of references.
Peircean pragmaticism is largely structural, while my philophronesis practicism inhabits about anything
but structure. The only framework in my philophronesis practicism is and should be the sole true
structure of our universes, being the interconnected and holoplural betweennesses of signs.

Peirce framed his work especially on the grounds and fundamental framework of “natural sciences”,
with a strong tendency and influence of mathematics. The structural part of his theory being reflected,
among anothernesses, by means of his triadic cenoscopic philosophy and logic. Peircean philosophy
is, because of that, largely based on what he would call diagrammatic thinking himself. By that, it is
based on what I would call inbox kinds of thinking. Leading to reductionists views and understandings
about the worlds and universes we are living in.

The emphasis towards the “natural sciences” is a wrong one. Not because of the fact that natural
sciences would be wrong as such, but mainly because the nature of these natural sciences. Precisely
the fact that they are based on the wrong understandings of the structure of our universes. And the
fact that they (therefore) are manly based on uniform and structural ways of thinking, instead of more
plural and phronesis ways of thinking and doing.

246
On Myalosophy, semisophy and semiphronesis

There are 3 mistakes that can occur in our sensemaking and storytelling. One mistake being
connected with our mind (thought-sign), while the other two mistakes are more connected with writing
and talking , our communications. Therefore, the last 2 mistakes are actually taking place outside of
our brain and more in the universes of our realities/society (reality-signs).

The 2 last mistakes have been discussed before and in other parts of this discourse, as being the
semisophy and semiphronesis errors and mistakes. But, besides that ones, there is a 3rd. Being the
what I will call from now on, myalosophy errors and mistakes. Being the mistakes of mindmaking
processes based on the wrong, even insane fundaments. Therefore leading to mistakes. While of
course mindmaking and sensemaking based on real true phronesis (φρόνησις, Greek for practical
wisdom) but much more MY phronesis will of course not lead to insanity. On the contrary, real true
phronesis will lead to the ultimate best sensemaking and therefore also mostly the best results.

MYALOSOPHY : Myalosophy is a combination of the words myalo (μυαλό ) and Sophy ((Σοφíα,
Greek for theoretical wisdom). Myalo means brain, mind or sensemaker. And sophy means
theoretical wisdoms. So myalosophy mistakes are mistakes that result from brain processes
based on theoretical wisdoms. In general, about all of mind processes based on theoretical
wisdoms will lead to mistakes and damages in our realities.

We have thought-signs and reality-signs. Myalosophy mistakes occur when thought-signs are being
created based on mind processes grounded on Sophia. Instead of phronesis.

Even my own brains are not perfectly suited for the most perfect sane ways of sensemaking
still....although Phronesis and Phronesis antenarrating and quality is about just that. By understanding
the aspects of sane sensemaking and phronesis antenarrating you can still arrive to there...human
brain software it is...and it has to be changed or altered according to understanding what sane
sensemaking is all about and the elements of this. I by now understand very well what sane
sensemaking is all about, and also I wrote about the elements. When writing about pluriflection. The
problem at current times being that we are programmed the wrong ways. Leading to not phronesis, but
sensemaking different from sane sensemaking. Leading to myalosophy errors and mistakes. The
fundament of our sensemaking is already wrong and reductionist, leading to the wrong reductionist
insights or results.

However, as Nietzsche already understood well, insanity can grow towards sanity or damaging wrong
practises can change towards GREAT practises.

247
The way this is reached, is by adding something. Adding something that is missing. Either
Synchronic or Diachronic. This something that is missing can however only result in the most
sane and less damaging results if the something is being added based on sane sensemaking
coupled with prevention of semiphronesis errors and mistakes. This might require the most
excellent storytelling and rhetoric.

Understandings and also phronesis itself is or should be based on phronesis meta-semeiotics . Which
is a very different frame/perspective than the meta-physical or whatever perspective of minds and
people in present times. Frame i use here is about similar but still different from the notion of frame
used by Kenneth Burke in Rhetorics and the like. I think. But need to read more of his work still

The main problem is most probably our language....which is just far too uniform...while our realities are
mostly much more plural....but also the perspective is different than dualist. I invented some new
notions to express the mistakes. If clearly understood, together with sane sensemaking and sound
pluriflection and phronesis antenarrating, it should indeed lead to much less problems in our society at
large. But also it can lead to A LOT more freedom and enchantment for mankind. And a much greater
nature.

As far as nature is taken into regards, there are numerous examples of problems in nature caused
mainly by myalosophy errors and mistakes. Reductionist, insane sensemaking leading to damage for
nature and animals, flora and fauna.

One example being the diminishing numbers of birds on agricultural ground. This is foremost the result
of insanities in our economic system. Which are also the result of myalosophy errors and mistakes. I
somewhere labelled this as butterfly effects and the sentence of insanities all around. The problem
being that imbalances and damages in one part of our society lead to direct effect , a very negative
one, for numerous other parts of our universes. Holoplural interconnectedness requires sane great
fundaments, instead of damaging ones because of limits of our minds and wrong software for our
thinking. Especially at current times with the issue of interconnectednesses of human being growing
(pluribinds everywhere) and increasing numbers and functioning of collective minds , we can not use
insane aspects of mindmaking and sensemaking. As this can and will to incredible mass destructions.
Negative influences of human swarms. Swarm theory has to get aware of human sensemaking and
ways of incorporating sane sensemaking in our society. Changing the rules and functions of swarms

248
On phronesis representia

A very important part of phronesis and phronesis antenarrating, but also in the most entelychistic and
only real great understandings of our universes is a proper use and understanding of representamen.
A representamen being really any written text but also objects or even living creatures and thoughts or
other abstract existences49 in our universes.

The notion of what a representamen is, is something Peirce did quite well grasp and communicate.
Like Peirce says :

“A sign, or representamen, is something which stands to somebody for something in some respect or capacity. It addresses
somebody, that is, creates in the mind of that person an equivalent sign, or perhaps a more developed sign. That sign which it creates
I call the interpretant of the first sign. The sign stands for something, its object. It stands for that object, not in all respects, but in
reference to a sort of idea, which I have sometimes called the ground of the representamen.” Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914),
U.S. philosopher, logician. From an unidentified fragment c. 1897. Collected Papers, vol. 2, para. 228, Harvard University Press (1934).

The problem is, however, that Peirce and also really everyone using the notion does this is wrong
ways. Based on a wrong understanding of the real true structure of our universes. One aspect of it is
that Peircean semiotics and understanding is based on traditionalist social sciences. Just like every
social theory in current times is, in more or less degrees. I am afraid even my own discourse, this one,
might have some tracks of traditionalist social sciences in it somewhere. But if so, it is slight and a lot
less than in whatever anotherness social scientific or practical discourse.

I would however just here like to pinpoint one example of some phrase in my own discourse, which
might be interpretated as being inbox kind of thinking and according to same lines of thinking as
Peirce, based on at least some traditionalist points of view. While actually it is not. The phrase I want
to refer to here, is me stating that “aporia, wentelechy and phronesis would equal the modes of being
of firstness, secondness and thirdness of Peircean semeiotic “. When David Boje reminded me of this
phrase later on in one of our e-mails, I even for a very short moment was thinking I made some
serious mistake there. Being the mistake of thinking along the lines of Peirce himself. But, “of course”,
I did not. Fact is that I was not talking here about the fact that aporia, wentelechy and phronesis would
ONLY equal the firstness, secondness and thirdness of Peircean semeiotic. And also I did not state
that Aporia would be firstness, Wentelechy would be secondness and Phronesis would be thirdness.

49
This notion of existences is different from the notion of existence as generally understood or used by CS
Peirce. It is the notion of existence as I understood it out of a deep understanding of our universes. The universes
being intrinsically connected. This interconnectedness also existing for the notions of possibilities, existences
and laws used by Peirce. But also this are categorizations while the phenomena in our universes are much more
fluent. Meaning that notions of possibilities and existence and laws are really arbitrary. What one calls
possibilities will be called laws or existences by other people. But also the structure of our universes differs
largely from what most people understand. This means, among anothernesses, that possibilities and existences
and laws or whatever state of mind of phenomena exist in whatever universes, or our universes at large. I hope I
can explain in some other part of this discourse the true nature and structures of our universes. It is more like
hologram without the boundaries being perceptually created because of misunderstandings.

249
The only thing I state there, is that it is defendable to call aporia firstness, wentelechy secondness and
phronesis thirdness. And, it is. Even if phronesis is considered as a firstness. Since in the end these
Peircean categories are just relative and mostly every firstness is also secondness and thirdness.
Because of the structure of our universes as such. And Aporia, Wentelechy and Phronesis can all of
them become or be either firstness, secondness and thirdness. But also be a lot more than only that.

This is something difficult to express in words actually. It is about the deeper notions and
understandings of the sole true structure and nature of our universes. The core of this sole underlying
structure and nature is holoplural. But, the point is, that this true structure and nature of our universes
can NEVER be grasped in words or signs…..it never can be and it never will be. This is something
VERY essential to grasp and understand, since it is some very essential feature of about every
representamen. Even of the representamens (Plural of representamen) themselves. And even of the
phronesis representia, the notion I propose for distinguishing between representamens and well the
phronesis representia. The last one having some very elementary features, but still not complete on
what a phronesis representia itself is…..since there are still some features and understandings I can
not grasp in words. But, clever and wise man should be able to understand…I guess.

Traditionalist influences in Peircean discourses and whatever other social scientific discourses till this
moment in time are based on uniplurality. Which is traditionally understood as being uniformity. In both
social practise as traditionalist scientific views and approaches, even a lot of the unipluralities are also
treated as uniformities. Then most of currently heading but not yet mainstream social sciences, a lot of
them labelled as postmodern, actually realise the plurality of our universes but still their fundaments
are based on insanities like unipluralities. And, besides that, they are mostly based on a wrong
understanding of the sole true structure of our universes.

As soon as this whole sole true structure of our universes is understood and applied in proper ways, a
lot of perceptual borders currently existing in both science and practise disappear. Like for instance
the perceptual but also currently real difference between social sciences and social practises. This is,
among anothernesses, partly the result of the reductionist approaches and physical and social splits
between the several social sciences as such. This is also related to AND a partial cause of another
cause of perceptual borders, being the lacks of understandings.

250
The approaches and understandings reflected in this Phronesis antenarrative are the most wise and
great understandings ever to be reached by humankind, most probably. Although this discourse is only
fundamental and can be improved a lot for sure by integrating the parts. But fundamentally, everything
needed to arrive at the ultimate levels of understandings is incorporated in this discourse. By which I
do not mean there are no important anothernesses to be incorporated still. On the contrary, our
universes are that complex and plural, that I will have only grasped parts of it. But what I did, was
getting a true understanding of the sole true structure of our universes and also the essential
characteristics of sound phronesis fundamentals and sound methodologies for arriving at the ultimate
levels of wisdoms and understandings.

Phronesis fundamentals have to be based on this whole body of wisdoms reflected in my discourse.
They are part of both phronesis and phronesis antenarrative. Phronesis fundamentals have to be
based on pluralities instead of unipluralities. Which is why a lot of phronesis fundamentals will be very
different from traditional and current fundamentals. To cure the insanities of current society and
scientific (social) sciences, we have to get rid of the insane fundaments. As far as semeiotics is
involved in it, we also have to get rid of traditionalist representamens.

Representamens will be needed forever. But they have to be intelligently redesigned. To distinguish
this sane representamens from the insane ones, I introduce the notion of phronesis representia. And I
will elaborate on what they involve and how they should be used, together with the nature of these
representia, right here.

First of all, the following should be stated: It is not phronesis and representia but phronesis
representia. Just like it is not phronesis and antenarrative but phronesis antenarrative. The phronesis
antenarrative being something completely different than the antenarrative, and also the antenarrative
in phronesis antenarrative being different than the sole antenarrative as being antenarrative. But just
like the phronesis antenarrative is a specific type of antenarrative, the phronesis representia is a
specific type of representamen. But while the notion of representamen itself is result of traditional and
VERY outdated and wrong perspectives, antenarrative is still developing and moving towards the
greatest kinds of existence and entelechy every possible in our society at large. Being the fundamental
pluralities needed to transform our society at large in the most entelychistic and sane ways.

A phronesis representia is in its essences fundamental. And, very important, plural. Not just for the
simple sake of being plural, but simply because everything in our universes is plural. And
interconnected to other pluralities in holoplural ways. The configurations of this pluralities constantly
changing, while several parts of it stay quite constant during certain moments of time. But even this
seemingly nature of constantness might actually only mere perception. Since in the end a lot of this
seemingly constant existences are also growing and moving. And a lot of seemingly constant
existences are actually not constant at all.

251
An object like for instance a chair or a painting seem not to change during longer moments of time. But
fact is that they do a lot. Since, like also some person told me some years ago, it mostly is not about
the form but about the contents. And, these contents are constantly growing. Especially when the
immediate interpretant and interpretations are taken into regards.

As opposed to what most scientists thought and some of them are still thinking, reality is not uniform
but exist of pluralities. Meaning that there are pluralities in meaning. Denying these pluralities of
meaning in our notions of truths lead to a reductionist and therefore insane perspective on our
universes and realities at large. As such, it should be clear that we mostly do not deal with a thruth but
with several truths. Although some of the “truths” will appear to be illusions and perceptions at later
moments in time, there are also real truths and facts in multiple ways. Simply because of the fact that
our realities can be socially constructed in several ways. And each living creature chooses their own
paths with their own combinations of pluralities.

But of course, there are more and less insane truths. And, for reaching the most sane realities we can
possibly reach and think to be possible, the phronesis fundaments have to be as entelychistic and
excellent as possible. Which can only be the case if these phronesis antenarratives themselves are
incorporating the greatest levels of understandings. And if they are having the potentials of pluralities
in them and if they are plural by themselves. No singularities there, also the notion itself SEEMS to be
plural. But again, it is not about the form or appearance. But about the contents. Contents matter the
most, while appearances do not matter that much for representamens. Yes they do for
communications, and yes they do for aesthetical reasons. And also for the matter of representing. But
in the end, it is about the contents. This is actually also something relevant in relationships, of course.
Relationships with human beings, but also with birds of prey. Or other animals. It is one of the
universal laws of our universes.

The aim of traditionalist social sciences, and also current postmodernist ones, is often considered to
be the truth or truths. Depending on the scientific positions and accompanying understandings. At
least that is what I understand from current mainstream social sciences and practises.

252
The aim of practicist social sciences, on the contrary, is very different. In line with the sole true
structure of our universes and the fundamentally different perspectives, the main aim of practicism is
phronesis. To arrive there, the main aims of practicist social sciences is to arrive at sciences based
entirely on phronesis representia and understandings. Then improving and expanding this phronesis
representia over and over again. Having signs not only growing, but growing towards signs of
excellence. The greatest and purest signs of excellence possible in our universes as such. At least,
that is the aims. But the most excellent practicist social possibilities, the most excellent phronesis
antenarratives, are never really to be reached to the fullest in our societies as such. Just like the most
excellent parts of our societies as such are never to be reached in the most excellent phronesis
antenarratives. Phronesis antenarratives have to be considered to be inbetweennesses, possibilities
that can be constantly improved for sure.

I consider the differences made by David Boje between different kinds of antenarrative, labelled as
Vampire or Lazarus, not only very important but also very fundamental for the nature of also phronesis
antenarrating. Phronesis antenarrating is or should be mostly lazarus in it’s nature in this respects

I have stated this in other parts of my discourse, but as it is that great and fundamental, I want to
restate the great phrase written by David Boje some while back :

“I have been developing the idea that antenarrative is a bridge of transformation between living story (& pre-
story) and narrative. It occurs to me now since the 2001 book, that antenarratology is the study of two processes.
One you might call Vampire, sucking the blood out of living story, all that co-creation, and reducing it to a
beginning, middle, end (linear) narrative. The other is like Lazarus, being raised from dead narrative abstraction
to live again, in living story “ (David Boje)”

Vampire- sucking the blood out of it.,

That is basically what a lot of (social) scientist and people in our societies at large did and do during
the last centuries AND PRESENT TIMES. Sucking the blood , the LIVE, out of their representamens
and by that out of society and people. Because of REDUCTIONIST approaches based on WRONG
understandings (of the sole true structure of our universes/of certain contexts/of certain issues
because of WRONG perspectives.

A phronetic understanding leads to LESS blood sucking, MORE perfection, MORE excellence. And by
that, MORE live. This is expressed in more excellent PHRONESIS REPRESENTIA.

PHRONESIS REPRESENTIA can make a text to become alive, or situations to become alive and
more sane, phronesis antenarrating is aimed at more excellent and great nature/LIVE/of processes
and activities and realities. It can make PEOPLE become more alive and getting damaged far less.

253
Aliveness is a mode of sanity. It is, ultimately, all about quality…just like phronetic people are, just like
great books are, just like great people are, just like great representia are, just like Bourgouis virtues
are, just like sanity and wisdoms are. The most important things to understand is that aliveness of
people requires transitive values based on love and other social values for storytelling and

sensemaking.

254
On representamen, phronesis representia and phronesis pluriflection

Today I was thinking again about something difficult to understand. Which is the difference between
representamen and phronesis representia. The reason why it is difficult to understand and grasp, is
actually something resulting from a very essential issue for understanding, intrinsically connected with
practisism and the differences between practisism and any other understandings of our universes.

It is not easy actually for me to state that practicism and phronesis holoplurality, or whatever other
notion or understanding in my discourse, is the sole true way of understanding. Let alone the fact that
there must and will be parts in my discourse not really being this, there is however a solid reason and
ground upon which I am really sure in some cases I am simply right and other people are wrong.
Which is something again being very difficult to understand, even for myself. Something I hope to
elaborate on and explain in this part of my discourse.

This understanding is in its core dependent on a very essential understanding, which is an

understanding already put forward by Charles Sanders Peirce. The ironic thing being that Peirce
himself was only partly right about this understanding, and he himself in many cases could simply not
arrive at the object of this understanding itself. The understanding being that ultimately there is only
one truth, and the reason why Peirce would not arrive at it mostly himself being that Peirce was
understanding the universes in incorrect ways. Something being reflected in, among anothernesses,
his incorrect understanding of the sole true structure of our universes (a very critical shift in
perspective which is needed to understand the whole complete “truth”) and the resulting limited world
view.

Also because of this, even Peirce’s understanding of what truth actually is or would be is itself
distorted and incorrect. This is actually also with the understanding of Peirce that notions are tools.
This is a very essential and correct understanding of pragmaticism, but still also here it is an
understanding grounded on the wrong understanding of our universes. And, because of this, a wrong
methodology. And methodology, or ways of doing, is key for a lot in practise. Although it is not always
essential for a sane outcome. This last remark and understanding is actually the reason why
anotherness and therefore wrong understandings of the sole true structure of our universes can still be
good enough and even better for usage in practise. Being the fact they might lead to same sane
results meanwhile being more easy to understand and grasp or else wise being more optimal to use.

255
There is a distinction I make in representamens and phronesis representia. The notion
representamens being plural for representamen, and the notion of phronesis representia being plural
for phronesis representamen. This is a very essential distinction of course, but it is not very easy to
understand the differences between the two notions. The main difficulty being my understanding and
resulting remark that really every representamen in our current society is not a phronesis
representamen but a representamen.

For rightfully stating this, I need to start with some explanations. Fact is that I do not mean to say with
this that contents of current representamen in our society would not be according to practicism.
Contents of a notion does mostly distinguish whether something is X or Y, or in this case whether
something is a representamen or phronesis representamen. The contents being either internal or
external qualisigns. Especially with phronesis representia, the external qualisigns are the most
essential and profound aspects of content. But, there is more than only the external qualisigns, of
course. A sign is always at least the combination of both it’s external and internal qualisigns. One of
the internal qualisigns of the phronesis representamen being it’s own labelling being the notion
Phronesis representamen. Till the moment this notion is at first used, no representamen in our current
society is a phronesis representamen.

Since I did use the notion of phronesis representia already in this discourse and also other writings of
myself, the notion of and even the phronesis representia itself DOES exist already in our universes.
But not in our current society yet, as I did not either communicate or explain this notion to other people
yet. And, another very essential aspect of phronesis representia is understanding the very essential
understanding I will try to communicate just here. Which is an understanding not existent in our society
in combination with phronesis representia yet. It does exist in our society, this understanding, I think.
But like I said, not in connection with and absorbed in phronesis representia.

Mainly because of the current hybridizations in our society and universes as such, there are quite
some understandings that can be labelled as being phronesis representia and also really deserve to
be labelled that ways. Even there are some people understanding the sole true structure of our
universes being the holoplural structure of our universes. But this people still are thinking and acting
according to wrong structures and representamens of and in our universes to some degrees. All of
them. Just like I myself am doing in some cases still. I am even doubting whether this will change,
ever. As in current times, our minds and also our language system are simply not perfectly suited for
the sole true structure of our universes and the resulting practicist perspective and actings.

256
But still, through and by means of the fundaments I try to reflect in this phronesis antenarrative
discourse, we should be able to understand. And the more people do, the more we can think and act
according to this essential understandings. By that making our universes and existences more sane.
And, following the logic of evolutions, this should lead to both our minds and our language system to
evolve more and more towards same understandings and realities.

The essential aspect of phronesis antenarrative being the correct understanding of transitivity and
transitive value. This transitivity or transitive value is not only part of my phronesis antenarrative
discourse (this discourse) but also a very essential part of the holoplural structure of our universes.
Transitivity and transitive values are essential plurisign qualisigns of the holoplural structure of our
universes. While typing this I think I need to find some other notion for the notion of qualisigns also,
since this notion is also different from the one in Peircean philosophy and understandings. Simply
because about everything in practicism, phronesis antenarrating and my discourse is. The holoplural
structure of our universes, pluriflection, phronesis rhetoric and all the other notions I use are part of the
sole true structure of our universes. Which is something that is ultimately not something that can be
expressed in words.

Just some days back, a Polish colleague of mine wanted to communicate some simple word to me.
But he could not speak either of my languages and I could not speak his. So he simply said some
word during some action. And out of context I knew what he meant. At least, I think I know. And I think
I learned the notion in same ways as small children do while learning a language. Learning a language
is, as far as I understand, mainly about connecting notions with actions and/or objects. By means of
learning by doing. But, something I did realize again some days back, the notions we learn are
expressions for something not being constant but something in transitivity. And something being plural
instead of uniplural. All the existences around us are growing, growths of plurisigns. This growth can
be positive or negative or anything in between. Even the notions of positive and negative are relative
there, and arbitrary labels of some phases of the growth. Not really existing in our universes of
existences. Or they do, depending on existence in which of our universes. Something else difficult to
explain until you understand. I will elaborate on that just very shortly here, although I guess I am sure
I could write a whole book again only based on this very essential understanding. The only thing I want
to say about it just here is that our universes are actually also part of one big interconnected
universes, with the same sole true structure of wholeness and holoplurality. Our current
understandings of borders between universes is really limiting our world views and understandings of
our universes as such.

257
Anyways, the growth of our universes and it’s natures can be positive or negative in certain contexts
and situations. The nature of the growth here becomes a condition for the positiveness or
negativeness in certain contexts. Which is why the nature of the growth of signs and the nature of the
signs themselves (a combination of the both) is conditionally or unconditionally good or bad given this
contexts. And, as long as nothing changes in this certain contexts that is critical for the nature of the
goodness or badness of the signs and their natures, the nature of the growth of signs and the nature
of the signs themselves stays conditionally or unconditionally good or bad in this given contexts.

This sentences just above this one might seem a bit amateurish and simply constructed, but what I
basically want to express there is that about nothing in our society is really unconditionally or
uncontextually good or wrong or whatever. Everything is only within certain contexts. Which might be
plural and mostly are, meaning that differences in this contexts are allowed as long as no critical
aspects changes that shifts the nature of the contexts and/or contents in critical ways. This is also
something that can not be entirely expressed in words, but again it is key understanding for
understanding what I try to communicate in practicism, phronesis antenarrating and this discourse
being the phronesis antenarrative. It is all about expressing the most entelychistic and excellent
understanding of our social realities and (social) universes as such. Going beyond almost any
understanding at current times. Although it is much in line with the understandings and perspectives of
the one true great master of history, being the great Friedrich Nietzsche. One of my biggest wishes of
current times would be to be able still to have a discussion with this person, something which is not
possible of course. But for sure he would be able to help me and I might be able to help him, and by
that we might be able to help our society and people within. Other persons I would like to speak with
although not possible anymore are people like Alfred Korzybski, Aristotle, Thomas Kuhn, Jacques
Derrida, Charles Sanders Peirce and John Maynard Keynes. Although these persons where all not as
far as Nietzsche regarding understandings of our universes in general, they all contributed something
very essential and great for our society as such. Something we are all very indebted for, but also I
myself am very indebted to all of them. Although I am very clear about my critiques about some of
their understandings, I myself would have not understood without their writings. And also there are
some great and fundamental understandings that are correct and very worthwhile in the writings of all
of them. So my critique, like a lot of the critique I give, is meanwhile also loaded with the greatest
levels of respect and thankfulness for the individuals themselves.

258
Within certain contexts, something CAN and WILL be conditionaly/unconditionally good. Like within
the money system, certain phronesis representamen are conditionally//unconditionally good. And
within certain context, certain rules of the game are good regardless of other conditions. Within certain
contexts, the holoplural structure of our universes and practisism is good or better than other
understandings of our universes. Althought in the end the holoplural structure of our universes IS the
sole true structure of our universes without any doubts. But in some cases it is just more efficient and
good enough to work with other structures. Although in the end the holoplural structure of our
universes is the sole and only complete structure and reality of our universes.

I do NOT believe in single truths solely single truths. What I believe in is that certain rules of nature are
single truths, but the contents of actions is plural always. Rules of nature are firstnesses and actions
are x-nesses in that respects. Firstnesses with the nature of fundamentals, x-ness of content and x-
ness of contextuality and x-ness of interpretants.,,,,,,and x-ness of x-ness……holoplural nature of our
universes!

I do NOT believe the holoplural nature of our universes and resulting methodologies is always the best
option. In many organizational and social settings a less complicated fundamental structure will do, as
long as the holoplural nature of our universes is taken into regards if needed, if this anothernesses are
critical for the outcome. Mostly this is so in thirdnesses. And also the more phronesis the representia,
the more excellent the outcome MIGHT be. This is not SURE.Sometimes just antenarrating is leading
to better results than phronesis antenarrating and sometimes doing nothing leads to better results than
either antenarrating or phronesis antenarrating or whatever.

259
On differances in notions and representamens

When getting in touch with new notions I did not get familiar with before, I very often tend to agree to
them at first and maybe thinking them to fit certain context. But then, after reflecting on the notions or
representamens, I realize I have been wrong. In the sense that I then mostly agree with the
representamens of the notions, but not with the contents of this representamens. Meaning that the
qualisigns I would like to attach to the representamens have grown during the reflections and growth
of understandings.

This phenomenon of signs growing in this particular ways is something that certainly also can be
labelled. For doing so, I want to rely on some really great posting of a member of the Peirce-L list on
the internet. This person, being Andrew LaVelle, was talking about this same phenomenon. He used
the expressions of Primary meanings and Tropical meanings of words. And the notion of definitional
centrality. I paraphrase some part of the post written by Andrew here. It says:

“If we take the approach to word meaning that nothing means anything before it is fully contextualized, then no
dictionary could ever be produced. At a minimum, each entry would have a million-plus possible meanings. Since the
word ³red² can synecdochically and metonymically refer to every conceivable entity in the universe that embodies or
causes redness, you would need an entire dictionary for just this one entry alone “ (Andrew , Peirce-L list posting)

This however goes further than just the dictionary, and also the notions of primary and tropical have to
be understood more relatively. In Andrew’s explanations and I think also understandings, the
underlying structure of primary and tropical is a linear one with at least a distinctive beginning point
and probably also an end. This kind of perspective is actually in line with the kind of perspective that
also Peirce himself most probably had with regards to semiotics. In both cases the main reason being
an inbox perspective based on reductionist view of our universes at large.

Andrew did understand the notions of primary and tropical in different ways. I am sure about that,
although I will not be able to understand to the fullest, of course. But to highlight the most fundamental
differences for this part of my discourse, I continue with some paraphrasing of some other sentences
in his posting:

“Because this is the case with linguistic signs as well, we can diagrammatically represent in radial fashion, as I
mentioned in my previous message, the relation between the meanings of a given word, with the primary meaning
(which is often the historically primitive one as well) being at the center and the others radiating outward from it toward
the periphery. Psycholinguistic testing shows that what is at the center of this diagram is also what is first called forth
when hearing the word in isolation.” ( Andrew . Peirce-L list posting)

This sentences express that Andrew considers the primary meaning as the historically primitive
meaning being at the centre. And this would be first called forth when hearing the word in isolation, so
probably without another more specific “context” (but of course, still based on links with other
plurisigns). In that senses having interesting familiarities with antenarratives and antenarrating, I
guess.

260
Then the tropical meaning(s) would be the “others radiating outward from it toward the periphery”. In
anotherness part of his explanations, Andrew continues :

“All human beings naturally use tropes since they are indispensable to cognitive processing and symbol growth.
Therefore, no one needs to be explicitly taught the rule of tropic shift”

And this is actually exactly where I and Andrew differ from point of view. The main reason being the
ultimate reason why I disagree with about any scientific and philosophical point of view lately. And to
ever growing extends. It is the reason why I have to and need to make differences in about every
scientific notion I meet, especially those being used in the social sciences. This reason being a whole
anotherness perspective of mine compared to most other people. My own perspective being much
more entelychistic and great. Since it is based on the ultimate levels of understandings, which
themselves are mostly based on the sole true sane structure of our universes at large. When everyone
understands this to the fullest, really nothing is still to be understood. But possibilities to grow and
prosper as a society at large will improve and never stop.

Anyways, Andrew did view the world in a more uniform way. With the starting point for linguistic
expressions with their primary meaning. Then tropical meanings to be derived from this central notion.
He called this feature of the primary meaning the definitional centrality.

As I remarked, I think antenarrative and antenarrating have similarities with the primary meanings in
this regards. What I meant to say is, that both antenarrative/antenarrating and primary meaning(s)
have to be understood in the right “contexts”. The most important of this being based on the right
structure of our universes. If not, an in it’s essences exactly similar critique can be mentioned for both
of these phenomenons. Being the following.

Both antenarrative and primary meaning are a beginning and starting, but also not. They are within
certain contexts. A dictionary may be the starting point for someone wanting to write a PhD and who
hears or reads a word for the first time then wanting to find the meaning. But maybe in present times,
google will be the starting point. But even then, the word and it’s explained meanings are the starting
points. In the case of the dictionary, this will be equalling the understanding of primary meanings as
expressed by Andrew. In case of the internet, it might not (as Andrew does not understand tropic
derivations of words as being primary meanings). To me, also this finding on google is primary
meaning. This already uncovers some drastically but elementary difference in perspectives. Anyways,
what both I and Andrew agree upon is that any derivation of the primary meaning can be called the
tropical meaning(s).

261
The difference however is that Andrew does accept the view that the meaning can shift by means of
tropical derivations based on contexts, but that his starting point stays more or less fixed. It is, what he
calls, the word in isolation. While for me, this starting point is NOT actually really a fixed starting point.
It CAN be a starting point in certain contexts, but in the end it can NOT be a starting point. Since
always something precedes the primary meanings. A word in a dictionary is fixed for some moment in
time in that particular dictionary, but might be altered in the next dictionary. Also, dictionaries have
preceded the ones. And also the more or less frozen meanings in the dictionaries have grown towards
this meanings in a time period before. And they were certainly not context independent, in isolation.
And, even a tropical meaning ( in andrew’s understanding) can be a primary meaning in my
understandings. Because of the fundamental differences between inbox thinking and outbox thinking,
the reductionist perspective versus the wholeness perspective.

The same counts for antenarrative and antenarrating. Antenarratives are not isolated starting points.
They should be fundamental starting points for future growth, but at the same time they are of course
based on understandings and narratives preceding the antenarratives. There are however distinctive
qualisigns (characteristics) of the antenarrative that justify the notion to be used. And even to make it a
great notion to be used. IF understood in right ways. The same counts for primary and tropical
meanings, in same ways.

But, of course, antenarratives are actually specific types of primary meanings. Just like justice laws
are. And whatever type of primary meaning you got, there is a fundamental difference between sane
and insane primary meanings, and more or less sane ones. As my whole discourse is a specific type
of discourse called phronesis antenarrative, it is a specific type of primary meaning. But it is the most
entelychistic type of primary meaning possible, as it inhabits a lot of tropic improvements.

The most important problem of current societies is, in my opinions, the fact that a lot of individuals are
froglike. As Nietzsche would call it. Meaning that most people will stick to primary meanings. Which is
not a problem that much IF this primary meanings are sane, and if the people using them are doing so
in sane ways. But, I showed that both the primary meanings and the people are insane to lots of
respects. Mainly because of semisophy and semiphronesis insanities. Part of it being the semantic
insanities uncovered by the great Alfred Korzybski.

Then also primary meanings are fundamental. Although I do not agree to the structural and inbox
trichotomies of Peircean semiotics, in this case the notion of firstness is defendable as being a great
label. Since the primary and fundamental meanings can be used as a fundament for further growth.
And I think exactly this is one of the realizations that should be applied in both science and practise
much more. Which is why antenarrating and especially phronesis antenarratives are very fundamental
for our societies as a whole.

262
But the thing is that actually most social scientists still do not understand enough to move on towards
more great derivations, being improvements, from the primary fundamental meanings. Although a lot
of them have created the greatest insights for future society as a whole. But we can move on some
further steps if the contents of my phronesis antenarrative become mainstream. This goes some steps
further than so-called postmodernism, as it is the most great perspective to arrive upon. It can and
should mean a major improvement of social sciences and society as a whole. And a complete
integration or UNIFICATION of both scientific fields and also science and practise as such. The
borders between and among these dissolving and disappearing. My phronesis meta-semeiotical body
of understanding is a body of understanding for everything. EVERYTHING.

We do not live in a world of either/or, but in a world of and/and. It is not either psychology or sociology,
either management or economics, either justice or communication theory. All these fields are
happening alongside each other in practise, which is why the reductionist perspectives and
concentrations on just one of the social fields cause such huge problems for society at large. Just like
a lot of reductionist views and acts in social actions do.

Moving on from primary meanings to more tropic improved meanings requires a certain methodology
of course. And like with everything, there are more or less entelychistic methodologies. And even with
methodologies, we have the primary methodologies and tropic derivatives of this primary
methodologies. Just let me state that I am SURE the primary methodologies I used for my PhD
research and the ones expressed in my discourse are without any doubts the most optimal ones. But,
they still can be improved. By means of most sane derivations of the antenarrative methodologies
expressed here. This should be based on the contents of this discourse itself actually. Since the “only”
thing needed is evergoing deeper understandings and applications of the contents of my phronesis
antenarrative. And a further integration of the parts. In phronesis antenarratives and phronetic
antenarratives.

I have by now discussed the idea of primary meanings in great details. Of course we are talking about
fundaments and fundamentals there. For social practises, phronesis and phronetic antenarratives
being the greatest starting points. My own phronesis antenarrative being the most elementary. As far
as notions or objects in our realities go, we can just accept them as reflecting the truths. Then applying
them to realities and contexts. But, by doing so, errors and insanities take place. Since of course, the
notions and objects need to be adjusted to specific contexts. Differences HAVE to be made there,
based on understandings. In practise this is sometimes not done, in that cases mostly because of lack
of time. Indeed causing a lot of insanities to take place.

263
I myself for instance took notice of notions like swarm theory and symptomatology. At first I agree to
them and think they fit the contexts. But actually they do not. We tend to try to describe complex
processes by means of single representamens. But explanation of what we mean by this
representamens in certain contexts is needed. And even then, language limits.

But foremost, every notion should be socially constructed in the right ways. Something I understand
already for long, and something that only can be reached when the differences are made in proper
ways. I do so by means of the most great methodology for doing so. Which is a sound and proper way
of abduction and retroduction. By means of creative and excellent abduction and retroduction, signs
grow. Contents of notions and objects get to grow and improved, and wrong contents and parts are
either removed or improved,

So for instance, out of deep understanding and being the result of a lot of thinking, I want to remove
the whole notion and foremost applicabitity of both induction and deduction from the social sciences
and practises. Because I understand that these types of insanities have huge negative consequences
for society as a whole.

Peircean pragmatism, and pragmatism in general, has some special features. One of them being the
fact that pragmatism is grounded on using thought processes as tools. But, really about all pragmatists
in general are using the tools in the wrong contexts and in the wrong ways. Because of the fact that
some of them knew and know, but still lack the greater understandings. It is like in falconry, the
apprentices thinking they know but lacking a lot of understanding still.

In my phronesis antenarrative, I develop the notion of practisism. Being a kind of practisism that is and
should be the primary and fundamental base for the utmost sciences and greatest developments in
practise. Grounded in phronesis and based on a completely different way of understanding, different
from the methodologies and contexts of philosophy.

Antenarrating, phronesis antenarrative, practicism. Are new ways of labelling. Based on

understandings of what is actually already "out there". Either in our thoughts or our minds, just
somewhere in the multiverses. Plural, holoplural multiverses based on sole true structure of our
universes. Signs being linked or not, more or less intrinsically connected in more or less plural ways.
Any other perspectives are reductionist, either because they do not match reality or because they
restrict possibilities and/or existences in more or less of our universes. These universes also being
connected with each other in very special and great ways.

264
I have always been looking towards our society through other lenses, i think more similar to the
perspectives of people like Nietzsche and Korzybski. Lately more and more people are capable of
doing so, but mostly the mainstream social sciences (mainstream economics/management etc)
prevent the greatest and most ultimate socially constructed grand intelligent design of society (based
on the REAL TRUE LOGIC of our universes at large) to take place.

By now I am sure we can reach it! And also that both my discourse AND antenarrating are key to it. To
change the mainstream, even far beyond contents of great initiatives like CMS/SCMOI/SCOS and
postmodernist social sciences.

265
On phronesis and phronetic antenarratives

For essential and fundamental reasons, I need to make a distinction in phronesis and phronetic
antenarratives. And for reasons of further practicality and entelechy, it might be fundamental to make
further distinctions between the two later on. Either by me or by another one capable of great
practicism understandings.

Before getting into detail about the differences between phronesis and phronetic antenarratives and
why it is so important to make this distinctions, I want to make the following clear. Although both
phronesis and phronetic notions and understandings are VERY essential for phronesis future
possibilities and existences, both notions are phronesis representia. If understood correctly, they
should be understood as belonging to a pluralist flow of connected signs. Meaning that, with regards to
phronesis and phronetic antenarratives, it is not possible to say that phronesis antenarratives always
precede the phronetic antenarratives. In current state of time, any communications type might precede
phronesis antenarratives. And even several types of communications will, of course. Both during and
before writing and exploring the (contents of) phronesis antenarratives and antenarrating. This will
never be different, and it should not be. The most important is that the most effective and entelychistic
types of communications are used, leading to the greatest results. Although phronesis representia are
ALWAYS needed to lead to this most great results, either directly or indirectly, it is NOT the case that
phronesis antenarratives or phronetic antenarratives are always the best solution to reach the ends.
Since in the end, both phronesis representia and phronesis interpretia are the most important.

Phronesis antenarratives are intended to supersede phronetic antenarratives or phronetic

communications. Meaning that phronesis antenarratives are written and developed to become
fundamental for future possibilities and existences. A phronesis antenarrative is a phronesis
antenarrative for future possibilities and existences, just as a phronetic antenarrative is. A sound
fundament for entelychistic and great changes and growth of signs.

One of the main differences between phronesis antenarratives/antenarrating and phronetic

antenarratives/antenarrating is the following. Although the nature of both of them should be according
to the nature of practicism (involving both science and practise and integrating both of them in ultimate
ways), there is a difference in the nature of the fundamentals and the way they are used and created.
A phronesis antenarrative is and should be developed by one great mind, preferably the most great
mind having the greatest level of understandings of the subject under consideration. And, like I
remarked, it might supersede a phronetic antenarrative (or any other kind of communications).

266
It is NOT really needed to write a phronesis antenarrative. Both phronesis and phronetic
antenarratives can even only exist (completely, to the fullest) in the mind of a person. But, because
of the aims of both of them, they simply HAVE to be expressed in phronesis or general representia.
Either written and non written, but it will always be some mixture of the both. In general, really each
phronesis antenarrative and phronetic antenarrative exist not only in representia capable to be
sensed, but also in representia and non-representia not (to be) expressed.

Some sounds or objects in our universes might even become or be phronesis antenarratives. Based
on the ways they are understood and used, although some features of phronesis have to be intrinsic in
the phronesis antenarratives.

A phronetic antenarrative is less fundamental and less entelychistic than the phronesis antenarrative.
It might, not must, follow a phronesis antenarrative. For logical and greatest growth, a phronetic
antenarrative should follow a phronesis antenarrative. Although great individual actions can be based
on just a phronesis antenarrative, without any intermediate communications like for instance the
phronetic antenarrative. But a phronetic antenarrative, or combination of several of them, is a process
between and result of collaborative efforts of more people. Although a phronesis antenarrative also
might and mostly will be to certain extends, in and for a phronesis antenarrative the final nature and
contents are decided on and developed by one single person. While a phronetic antenarrative is really
constructed and maintained by several persons together.

Neither the phronesis antenarrative nor the phronetic antenarratives are uncontextually good or
qualitative or whatever. Meaning that no real value statements can be told about the both, and it is
never to be told or known which of the both has more value. It just depends on the contexts, although
also context is a reductionist notion and not really existing. What is perceived as context, is actually
about assemblages and dissasemblages of plurisigns in our holoplural universe(s).

267
On phronesis poeiesis

The word poiesis means production.

In the book “autopoiesis and cognition” by Maturana and Varella, the following is stated:

“…..essay of his on Don Quixote de la Mancha, in which he analyzed Don Quixote’s dilemma of whether to follow the path of arms
(praxis, action) or the path of letters (poiesis, creation, production), and his eventual choice of the path of praxis deferring any
attempt at poiesis “ ( Maturana & Varela, page xvii).

On the same page Maturana states that he would have understood the power of the word “poiesis” for
the first time and invented the word “autopoiesis”.

Now, although I did take notice of both the word and the meaning of “poiesis” for the first time when
reading this page in Maturana and Varela, I dare to say that although Maturana did understand parts
of the power of the word poiesis, he did not understand it to the extends that I understand it. Just let
me elaborate a bit on this, also by introducing some other notion.

Fact is, that the path of arms and the path of letters as discussed above might have been separate
activities and still are separate activities mostly. While, for the real true artists, both of the activities are
important. But in the end, the path of letters or actually the processes preceding and accompanying
the path of letters is the most fundamental and great activity. IF executed by capable or better the
greatest artists in the respective field(s).

The path of letters should be based on and fundamental for phronesis. Phronesis is needed for
creation, while creativeness and production are needed for phronesis. The plurisign of phronesis
should incorporate poiesis, while poiesis (production) should incorporate poeiesis (creation).
Therefore, what the path of letters needs is phronesis poeiesis. But also the paths of arms need
phronesis poeiesis. Just like both the paths of arms and the paths of letters need other instances of
excellence, like for instance the postmodern methodology of antenarrating and narrating. But, for
practise, a specific type of narrating is needed. Being the phronesis antenarrative and antenarrating.
The same counts for the path of letters, but foremost if this path of letters is relevant for (phronesis)
practices and organizing.

This phronesis poeiesis can take place as autopoeiesis. Autopoeiesis is most interesting when it is
executed by the most wise and phronesis artists. But, for some of the greatest phronesis poeiesis,
autopoeiesis is not satisfactory. Since then, a collaboration between several persons is needed. In that
case, collopoeiesis is needed. Collopoeiesis being the collaborative creation or production.

For instance antenarrating can be executed both as autopoeiesis or as collopoeiesis or just as a

combinatory effort involving both instances of autopoeiesis and collopoeiesis. A perfect and great
example of it being the autopoeiesis efforts of many great postmodernist intellectuals in the fields of

268
social sciences and economics, which are at certain points integrated and further developed by means
of both autopoeiesis and collopoeiesis activities.

But, actually, even the perceived autopoeiesis activities are in the end actually collopoeiesis activities.
When being understood in a more grand and great context. Just like a lot of antenarratives might be
just narratives, depending on the perspectives and understandings of the actors involved or judging.

Because of mental or other practical borders, a lot of autonomous actions are actually great and
worthwhile. Like the autopoeiesis activities of people like Nietzsche and the great Nikolai Tesla. And
even my own autopoeiesis activities like writing my own discourses. Without contacting other people
or discussing and the like, only in case I myself think it worthwhile to do so. This is actually what self-
organization is all about. Based on judgements and wisdom, it is sometimes better not to collaborate
on certain matters. While starting the collaboration if needed or required at other issues and moments
in time.

Whatever instances of poeiesis are executed, in the end they should be put together. IF the
autopoeiesis activities have generated useful, great results for practise or further developments. By
means of collopoeiesis, those results can grow. Through collaborative actions, to use and integrate the
autopoeiesis actions of other’s and/or the individual him/herself.

To me, also Maturana and Varela lack the outbox perspectives. Which is a pity of course. But in the
end there are enough possibilities to get towards this kind of outbox perspectives. By means of the
greater postmodern organizational theories and a good understanding of writings by Nietzsche and
other great intellectuals.

Marturana and Varela’s writing have to be danced together with a lot of anothernesses, depending on
the aims of the dance. While sometimes a piece full dance is the best, in many other situations there
must be some destructive and therefore also more constructive dance. Like the kind of dances I try to
incorporate into both my own ways of doing but also practise more and more. Which are not the
easiest types of dancing, trying or even fighting to dance together part of our society while having to
rely on a lot of dancing partners not even willing to start the dance let alone dancing it.

In general, dancing together writings and understandings of even the greatest intellectuals mostly
involves kind of shooting in pieces their work and writings and then kind of completely reassembling
the parts into something (more) useful for holoplural settings and understandings. That is actually what
I am doing constantly, guided by the process which I tried to describe labelled as phronesis
antenarrating and sound pluriflections. This just has to become a collopoeiesis effort more and more in
future. For our society and universes at large.

269
On phronesis antenarrating and beyond company’s social responsibility
Going beyond reductionism-by means of understanding the practical situations and realities around
and beyond the IFSAM world conference on management, from 8 till 10 July 2010 in Paris

During the latest IFSAM world conference on management, which was held in Paris from the 8th till the
10th of Juli 2010, I got even more interested in sorting out my ideas around the company being a
family, the company being grounded on sane sensemaking and mindmaking and my notion of
prohumanity to be explored much more.

What I will do, is kind of the same of what I did during this conference. Being , giving away some
Phronesis antenarrative bits being insights I had and have based on intuition. Intuition being grounded
on tacit understandings and wisdoms, as opposed to the parts of intuition based on non-wisdoms or
even insanities.

One of the remarks during this conference that made me thinking again, was the remark of some guy
speaking about CSR (corporate social responsibility) that a consumer is also a citizen. He did use that
as an argument for mobilizing some force against irresponsible behavior of organizations, but probably
did still not understand the much bigger possibilities there by understanding the insanities of
organizations underlying this argument.

The insanity being that organizations but also humans in general indeed treat humans, people, based
on solely some of the characteristics of them, and at the same time forgetting or neglecting other
important characteristics of the same person. But the same also counts for objects and other
representamens and plurisigns. Representamens tend to become reifications, part of this process
being excellently explained in Axel Honneth’s discourse on “verdinglichung”

Actually, reification is for me (about) the same as representamens (the plural of representamen).
Representamens, the peircean notion of it, is about signs representing something else. They represent
this something else. But, what a lot of people forget to understand, is that this representamens are
different from the objects they represent. This leads to Axel Honnet’s “verdinglichung”, but also it leads
to a lot of aspects of the object NOT being taken into regards simply because they are either forgotten
or simply not sensed. This is actually one of the examples of semisophy errors, semisophy being a
notion developed by myself to stress problems in our sensemaking connected with our perceptions of
signs based on non-phronitical and therefore incomplete sensemaking.

Representamens reflect only part of the aspects of our realities. Representamens are always
reductionist and therefore limiting. Sensemaking can visualize and unleash the other aspects of
objects, but solely if sane sensemaking is applied and even there of course not all of the aspects are
understood still. Our world is much more plural and complex than we will ever grasp in our
sensemakings. Also because simply we can not sense everything in our realities.

270
The past philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote the following :
The limits of my language mean the limits of my world. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (1922)Austrian philosopher
(1889 - 1951)

So WHY is language limiting. It is because language is about representamens, and as Alfred

Korzybski very rightly understood and reflected in his “science and sanity” book but also in
his lectures and other discourses, the map is not the territory. Or , in other words, the
representamen is not the object. We are constantly limiting our understandings by both
thinking and talking in representamens, while what I call the anotherness inbetweennesses
are mostly NOT communicated but also even not taken into regards in our thoughts.

That is basically why I turned from Meta-physics to phronesis meta-semeiotics. For going
beyond the understandings of Wittgenstein. Peirce. Korzybsky and even Nietzsche, i would
recommend my meta-semeiotic body of understanding called practisism. It is, without any
doubts, the most entelychistic body of understanding ever initiated and understood in the
history of humankind. Practisism/practicism is simply the best we can get and the best that
will be. EVER.

271
The unlimited possibilities of phronesis meta-semeiotics are included into practicism which is
my own phronitical body of understanding. It is not only phronesis meta-semeiotic instead of
semeiotic like the philosophy and understandings of CS Peirce, but also it is actually the
most entelechistic and greatest meta-semeiotic body of understanding ever developed and
simply the best we can have and get for future societies and understandings.

Getting back to CSR and the different aspects of a human being, we could and should
always be aware of the fact that people have different roles but of course the other aspects
are always there and need to not only be taken into regards but also to be respected by
persons and organizations dealing with individuals. The people being both citizen and
customer and worker. Sensing and seeing them solely as a partial role and assemblage of
the total being the individual or group of individuals, and not taking into regards
anothernesses, leads to problems . Maybe not directly for the persons or organizations
dealing with them, but in the end we all suffer from neglect of one of the characteristics..
Dealing with ( y)our CUSTOMER. Or dealing with a polluting producer does NOT mean you
can not make them aware they have to go even beyond CSR by managing their company as
a human mind or even based on prohumanity.

What is needed there is what is needed with everything, being the right arguments not based on
uniplurals but based on holoplural understandings. In the end a sound understanding based on
holoplurality and sound pluriflection, guided by sane phronesis rhetoric and phronesis antenarrating,
will lead to enchantment of not only citizens and PEOPLE, but also organizations at large. We are all
interconnected, the concept and understandings of inclusionality explored and initiated by my friend
Alain Rayners are indeed more relevant than ever here.

272
Companies but also the managers and CEO’s and the like within companies need to be socially
aware. People in decisive positions have power, and power gives responsibilities. Which is why also
governmental social responsibility is very important, just like academical social responsibility and
intellectual social responsibility is. As also intellectual power gives responsibilities. Not only power, but
even just decisive positions in general or the intelligence to be able to create or improve something in
our societies entails responsibilities for our society and the people and other living creatures on our
planet.

In justice, there is the lawyers social responsibility. Not only towards the citizens, but also towards the
prosecuted.

Besides a safety plan, we need CSR plans. Checked and guided by some independent organizations
and laws. But, besides this CSR plans, we need ISR. ISR being my invented notion of Individual social
responsibility. Individual social responsibility is responsibility of people for their surrounding and other
individuals. Within organizations, but also way beyond. We are all responsible for other people, but
also for ensuring that certain values in our society are lived upon. If people do not, we have the
obligation to communicate and act upon this. For instance, if we know some manager is just mean and
that his acts are harmful for other people, we have to ensure this stops.

Managing our organizations as sane minds and sensemaking and according to prohumanism, involves
A LOT more than CSR and even ISR or common understandings of HRM and even humanitarianism.
Prohumanism involves that people are and have to be the centre of every organizations and acts in
our society, both within organizations and beyond. In production companies, not machines or money
but people should be the most important. In legal matters, not the laws but in the end the people
should matter the most. Meaning that sane sensemaking is needed and all of efforts should be taken
to arrive at the most just end result. For governments, not money or programs or power should count,
but PEOPLE. If people have certain wants or needs or ideas, others should LISTEN. And
communicate. If people object to something, the same. As objection, resistance to change, mostly has
a very valid cause. It means either the person should have a good explanation and helped, or the
person indeed has some valid points for the organizations or people within.

Why is there a difference in thoughts and realities, possibilities and existences. Partly because we do
not and can not take limits in our realities into regards in our thoughts, but also because of insanities of
our thoughts. In our realities parts of this insanities are changed into more sane ones by the same
minds developing and initiating the fundamental insanities. But they can be improved even more by
means of phronesis antenarrating based on sound pluriflections.

273
The reasons that realities are mostly more phronitical and therefore better than thoughts lies in the fact
that the most limited and therefore insane thinking is in our thoughts and brains; we are somehow
imprinted to think limited and reductionist, insane. This limited, insane ways of sensemaking are both
in our thoughts and in our social realities. We by far do not understand how representia can be used in
our worlds and universes, meaning that sensemaking in both our thoughts and our acts in realities are
just still limited because of our inbox thinking and also wrong perspectives.

274
On bullshit towards all directions and situations

Another well-known story, besides the one of the guy looking for his keys in the light, is the story of
elephants and turtles all way down. Of course it is not possible to get towards the full origins of this
story, but it was among others told by people as American Philosopher William James and John
Locke ( mentioning it in his 1690 tract “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding”).

Since the right reflections of the story are important here, I will just almost completely paraphrase on
some sources of it on the internet. So, according to the sources. James did encounter some Indian
holyman. James had read the creation myth of the Hindus, in which Brahma brings the world into
being. Then placing it upon the backs of four elephant to support it. When meeting the Indian
holyman, he inquires about the myth.

“ I understand that you believe the world rests upon the back of four white elephants. Is that correct?”.
“ Indeed, this is so, “ replied the holyman.
“ Good,” William James went on. “ Now tell me, just what is supporting the great white elephant.” “ And
what is beneath?”
“ Dr. James” the Hindu replied, “ don’t you understand? It’s great white elephants, all the way down!”

There are numerous other versions of the same story, just like there are from the person looking for
his keys in the light. But ultimately, of course the intrinsic (philosophical) message stays the same with
all of them. And actually, of course there are numerous lessons to learn from this story. If the manifold
implications are understood.

I myself would like to stress the fact that clearly this story is based on insane fundaments. And, like I
expressed in this discourse before, also a lot of social situations in current society are. And, if these
are not corrected later on in the process, the insanities will increase all way up or down or towards
whatever directions. Like with our current money system. I already understand for long that there are
insanities in our money system, fucking up a lot of people and other living creatures and nature. And of
course, I do not like any living or non-living signs growing to be fucked up. But it happens, and has to
change. It simply HAS to.

Which is why my version of this story would be….bullshit and insanities all way down and everywhere.
The all way down being only relative, since in my case it has to be understood in the light of the sole
true structure of our universes. And the fact that the first “ elephants” , insanities and bullshit in my
understandings, are just mere relative firstnesses. Immediate or mediate ones. Being incorrect and
insane social fundaments as a base for signs growing into insane and wrong directions. IF people do
not correct the insanities in the growing phases. Just like a lot of insanities simply are not corrected. In
a lot of social fields.

275
276
On relative bullshit

There is a lot of relative bullshit in our societies and universes. Part of this bullshit starts right at the
fundaments of our societies, meaning with our scientific knowledge and insights. The problem being,
among others, the fact that social sciences are based more on knowledge than on real true insights
and understandings.

Actually, it is very weird but a mere fact that some of currently appointed professors and academics
might know, but they do not really truly understand. Some of them get their positions just based on
paraphrasing and using the knowledge of other people in anotherness ways. I am not talking about
plagiarism here, but about following and using building blocks and understandings from other
scientists and intellectuals. Without really understanding them, without really understanding whether
these understandings are facts or perceptions.

Most of the PhD’s are grounded not on wisdom, but on knowledge. And, in some cases, on relative
bullshit. Partly because of wrong fundaments, and partly based on wrong methodologies. Some other
parts just being the relative inferior quality of the people undertaking the enterprise. Or just the fact
that it is just very hard to really complete a great PhD based on wisdom within some foreseeable
period of time.

I know from own experience that it is not quite easy to undertake some PhD research, to say the least.
I also understand that I am fortunate to having made the right decision. Of not undertaking the PhD
research while working and teaching at some university, but instead of it by just working in some
factory meanwhile. This factory might also have been an ice cream car or collector of garbage or zoo
worker. Or whatever other hut on the moor. Without having taken these roads, I most probably also
would have stayed too much into inbox kinds of thinking. And I would not have had as much time to
think and reflect as much as is needed to write such an extensive discourse as this one. The contents
of this discourse might seem simple in some respects, but in the end it inhibits the most valuable
insights you could possibly think of. Also because of the GREAT collegues and learning sites I
encountered during my researches.

277
There are, of course, a tremendous amount of scientific debates. Some of them are about the nature
of scientific research and discovery. There is an ongoing growth of emphasis on integration of parts
and towards the right methodologies, but somehow it does still take a lot of time for the greater ways
of doing and understanding to really break through. Part of this is based on the fact that science has
actually been conditioned to put main emphasis on generality instead of specifities. And also,
pluralities of thinking and doing are just not mainstream. Yet. Unfortunately.

Science still has to move from firstness, knowledge, towards more developed and great levels of
understanding. And, the differences between theory and practise just have to be bridged and to
disappear as much as possible. This requires a deeper understanding and applicability of phronesis
and sane semiphronesis acts and understandings.

But, most important is that practitioners in whatever field have to understand. And to be capable of
moving towards at least some sane directions. Signs grow by human actions, but a lot of these actions
are insane or counterproductive. Signs can grow to a lot of directions and the ways they grow is mostly
just one of many options and possibilities. Currently, a lot of signs are growing towards insane and
counterproductive ones. Simply because too many minds are insane in one or anotherness ways, not
being truly capable to guide and grow signs to great directions.

Korzybski named his book “science and sanity”. He understood that current sciences are mostly
insane. But he was probably also hoping and knowing, I guess, that the same sciences could evolve
into sane ones curing both themselves and society at large. Although, even currently, the fundaments
of our sciences and therefore also existences in our universes are largely insane. Leading, among
anothernesses, to illogics of so-called logic and injustices of so called justice. And much more
insanities and relative bullshit.

278
On semiotics, semisophy, semiphronesis and semiotic errors

Peirce did define semiotics as being the knowledge/understanding of signs

HIS semiotics is however based on a complete different understandings of the nature of the
ultimate/sole/REAL structure of our universes. His point of view was for greater parts based on
mathematics. Peirce was WRONG in this. Partly because he accepted insights and definitions of other
intellectuals before him (like for instance Aristotle) without a true good understandings

I, on the contrary, am RIGHT. About the UNDERSTANDING of the real true ultimate and sole
structure of our universes. Universes being WHATEVER universe you could possibly think of, and ALL
the linkages between them!

THIS sole and only true underlying structure of the universe is the main FRAMEWORK/glasses for
UNDERSTANDING my meta-semeiotical discourse on PHRONESIS antenarrative. I will go to call MY
ways of sign theory NOT semiotics but semiphronesis. Being the (real) UNDERSTANDINGS and
WISDOM of signs. Signs being EVERYTHING you could ever think of, EVERYTHING really
EVERYTHING being a sign. Semiphronesis is in the FRAMEWORK I mentioned in the previous
paragraph. Of the REAL SOLE TRUE underlying STRUCTURE and NATURE of our universes.
SEMIPHRONESIS is PRACTICAL wisdom about signs, it is the result of the ultimate understandings
of our universes. SEMIPHRONESIS equals MY understandings of and wentelechy of PHRONESIS.

KORZYBSKI was talking about semantic errors. Semantics is not as broad a field of study as
semiotics. And BY FAR not as broad a field of study as semisophy and semiphronesis. My phronesis
meta-semeiotical body of understanding based on semiphronesis is expressed in “a phronesis
antenarrative”. Semiphronesis being an important part of it.

ALL social errors, social insanities, are the result of semisophy errors. Only ONE, OR a SMALL part of
this semiphronesis errors, is caused by the (type of) semantic error that KORZYBSKI is talking about
in his discourse. Science and Sanity.

Korzybski, Peirce and even Aristotle. Where WRONG about the nature and structure of the real true
structure of our universes. I am right!. By that, I created the only REAL true and ULTIMATE body of
understanding about and for life and our universes. By that, I created the ULTIMATE change
methodology. The ULTIMATE fundament to improve our societies to the best possible society you
could dream of. MY discourse has the POTENTIAL of understanding and improving EVERYTHING to
the ultimate.

279
Korzybski is mostly talking about the semisophy error of confusement of REPRESENTAMEN or part of
representamen as being the OBJECT. But, it is also in the context of a WRONG understanding of the
structure and nature of our universes. HIS thinking and understanding of the confusement of
representamen or part of it as being the object is in wrong framework and wrong lines of thinking still.

So, actually,semiotics is dealing with KNOWLEDGE about signs

Anotherness term is needed for WISDOM/understanding OF plurisigns

SEMIOTICS is about the study or philosophy of signs. Based on Sophia or Sophy. Semisophy is the
wisdom of signs. Semiotics leading to semisophy, a knowledge or theory about signs.

Peirce his philosophy is mainly about semiotics. And the broader metaphysical body/framework of
pragmaticism. His broader ideas (semiotics and the anothernesses around) could all be grouped
within the notion of pragmaticism. Peirce also wrote a lot about induction and deduction. And he
thought that the main structure of our universes could be found back in mathematics. He valued
mathematics as incorporating main rules of our universes. Also he valued induction and deduction.
Meanwhile he talked also about entelechy. He did probably know that this entelechy is important, but
he did not truly understand. Peircean philosophy is mainly directed to logic. Rationality. His semiotics
is mainly about knowledge of signs, not that much about true understandings. Philosophy instead of
philophronesis.

I myself did improve on that. My main body of understandings/ways of thinking is based on the main
framework of practicism. And the main understanding that the only true real structure of our universes
is the framework of inclusionality and holoplural and natural structure of our universes meaning that
signs are coupled in more or less tight ways with each other and these links are changing over time
through change and growth. I added the illogic of logic meaning that logic being only rational
(philosophy without philophronesis) is not complete. Semiotics (strict knowledge of signs) is also NOT
complete. To move towards completeness, also the anothernesses betweenness the signs (my
metaphor of bluenesses betweenness the grains) are very important. Philophronesis is part of my
notion of practicism. And semiphronesis (wisdom of plurisigns) also is. Just like virtues and values are.
And, very importantly, the ways to view our universes (according to the sole real true structure of our
universes). Linear thinking is always only PART of reality. Universal thinking is ALWAYS only partial.
Generality is ALWAYS only part of reality. Comparing two lines of thought or two situations will always
lead to only PARTS of understanding. Meaning that this leads to WRONG understandings and
WRONG results. To DAMAGE and FAILURES In society. Our society is based on WRONG,
DAMAGING fundaments. Because also Aristotle was mainly still thinking too much inbox, linear….just
like about everyone in our societies does.

280
Semiotic errors are BROADER than semantic errors
Korzybski was talking about semantic errors
Semantic words are more specific than semiotic signs
Everything is a sign but not everything is a word
Some practical example can give some better understandings about the narrow views of semantics as
opposed to semiotics and my notions of semisophy and semiphronesis:

For the XYZ positioning of a robot for a machine, SOME qualisigns are used to determine a certain
position in space

SPACE – only SOME qualisigns are used to determine a certain position

SPACE AND TIME – only SOME qualisigns are used to determine a certain position
REPRESENTAMENS- ONLY SOME qualisigns are used to determine SPECIFIC cases in reality
KORZYBSKI versus PEIRCE. PEIRCE (semiotics) is MORE broad. MY semiphronesis and practicism
and philophronesis is even MORE broader and sophisticated

281
On social hybridizations and unipluralism

Our current societies are full of social hybridizations. Being somewhere along the lines of more or less
pluralities and plural ways of thinking and doing. In this part of my discourse, I will elaborate a bit more
on this social hybridizations. And place them all in the right perspectives, enabling a better
understanding of what is going on and to what it should lead. This also should enable individuals and
society to move towards the more entelychistic and great realities and existences of our universes. To
become part of the great philophronesis and practicism movement I hope to facilitate by means of my
discourse.

Specific types of social hybridizations are the scientific approaches and points of view. I will elaborate
more on this specific social hybridizations just now. There are specific characteristics of this social
hybridizations. And also they have to be understood in the right contexts. By doing so, people should
be able to change their perspectives on the world and increase understandings about our universes at
large.

Science is historically aimed at uniformism and based on a wrong understanding of the structures of
our universes. This stream of sciences is referred to modernism, traditional science etcetera. This is
actually the outdated kind of thinking and doing still prevailing in a lot of aspects of our current
societies. Aimed and concentrating on similarities instead of differences, and also on what I would call
uniplurals.

Then we have the new but not yet mainstream sciences based on pluralism but still based on the
wrong understandings of the structures of the universes. And still being too less plural and if so based
on wrong understandings of plurisigns. This stream of sciences is referred to as postmodernism.

Postmodernism is a greater stream and more entelychistic than modernist and traditional sciences.
But modernist and traditional sciences and insight are still mostly mainstream and leading in both
socials sciences and practises. Although the postmodern insights have entered the scientific stage for
a while already. This postmodern stream of sciences is already in development for some decades
now, with fore-runners like Foucault, Derrida and the like. Currently a lot of initiatives in management
like critical management studies, standing conferences and the like can be regarded as being
postmodern or just about to enter the next and ultimate phase of development. Being the one I am
working on mostly.

282
In the postmodernist social sciences and understandings, pluralism enters the scene. And perspective
is still mostly focussing on similarities, but also differences get more and more important. Critical
scientists and intellectuals are getting able there to interpretate and negotiate, and to make the
differences of pluralism. But, this is still mostly based on wrong understandings of pluralist
phenomena. And maybe also of uniformist phenomena as such. This is something I will discuss further
on in this part of the discourse. Anyways, based on the wrong understandings of pluralist phenomena
a lot of mistakes are still made in postmodernist science. Based on the wrong understandings of the
nature of methodologies, and more generally also on misunderstandings on what methodologies to be
used in which cases. For instance hypotheses are drawn at too early phases, being too specific
instead of more general. Or used in cases they should better not. Hypotheses should only be used
based on right understandings, and in many cases understandings are far too less at the moment
hypotheses are formulated and used.

And then we have the kind of ultimate views of science and practise which is by far not mainstream
yet. Both not in social sciences and, let alone, social practises. This ultimate views and
understandings are based on pluralism and the correct understandings of the structures of the
universes. The kind of science where this phronesis antenarrative should be base for. It is the kind of
perspective and understanding equal to the one reflected in “beyond good and evil” by Nietzsche.

In its essences, the main subject underlying these streams and developments in sciences is based on
uniformism versus pluralism. And a wrong understanding of this phenomena. The traditional,
modernist sciences are mostly based on uniformism. And, more relevant, social phenomena are
mostly regarded as really being uniformist in their nature in these traditional sciences. While in the
end, uniformism is mere perception.

This is something really very essential to grasp. The fact that uniformism is actually mere perception.
A perception being grounded in the limits of our languages. Our words being uniform and singular
mostly, or actually our representamens are. Both in the worlds of thoughts and the worlds of
existences. While actually the contents and understandings of whatever representamen is always less
or more plural, of course, Based on this essential understanding, I strongly oppose the use of this
notion of uniformism any longer. Instead of it, it is far better to use the notion of unipluralism and
uniplural. For those instances where single expressions are used to refer to plural phenomenon and
understandings.

This is actually key for future societies to move on. Throughout my discourse, I am using some new
notions. This is of course not without any reasons. It is simply because of the fact that old notions are
simply too old or because phenomena do not have some right suitable notions yet. In the case of
uniformism, the notion is not only too old but also leading to insanities actually.

283
So that I why the notion of uniformism has to be replaced by unipluralism and uniplural. To denote the
important fact that everything, really everything, in our universes consist of pluralities. This notion of
uniplurality has to be understood in the contexts of practicism and phronesis as reflected in my
discourse at large.

Something I have really been trying to work towards, is to create fundamentals being as plural as
possible in their potentialities. Since that is actually one of the main problems of traditionalist sciences.
They are too reductionist and too unipluralistic. While in its fundaments as potentials, something has to
be as pluralistic as possible.

In the greatest possible understandings of practicism, sciences and practices are not to be separated
from each other in whatever ways. And social sciences can only be separated in certain extends. But
most important, it deals with pluralities instead of unipluralities (I will not use the notion of uniformity
here because of reasons stated above).

If you understand this to the fullest, you must understand why reductionist professionalisms as
psychology or justice do not work. Since, in the end, you can not have psychology without sociology.
Or justice without management and economics. For instance. If you do treat our realities in this
respects, it leads to reductionist views and actions. Damaging a lot of persons and practises in our
societies at large. Which is actually what has been going on and is still going on in our societies at
large. Because of the “simple” fact that insane traditional social sciences are still mainstream and
professionals are therefore still working in insane ways. While insanity more or less equals
reductionism and (therefore) misunderstandings.

As I remarked above, postmodernist scientists are more and more able to become critically. While the
traditional, uniformist sciences and scientists concentrated mainly on defining, the postmodernist
scientists shift their activities towards interpretation and negotiation. This by definition leads to more
pluralism, but besides that it also lead towards a more critical view on science and realities. And their
connections. But, this critical views still took place mostly out of the wrong perspectives. Not according
to the sole true structure of our universes and, also therefore, out of wrong understandings. I call this
understandings still inbox kind of thinking, as my understandings of outbox kinds of thinking solely
apply to the ultimate ways of understandings. As reflected, among anothernesses, in the great
discourses of Nietzsche.

To really become excellent and great, actors have to be able to be phronitical instead of merely
critical. Phroniticallity is very important and the core of sound great pluriflections.

284
This ultimate understandings requires pluralities and the (characteristics and nature of) phronesis
antenarrative to be incorporated in the definition phases already. Meaning that social sciences have to
proceed to logically incorporate the great logics reflected in my discourse already in the definition
phase being science itself, but actually in all the actions. While DIN (define, interpretate, negotiate) are
not having any fixed and linear structure. Unipluralities are part of this, but solely as representamens
while the realizations should be there that this representamens are always representing plural
phenomena.

It all becomes so logic and great…IF you/people become to really truly understand. The fact that both
traditional social sciences (the one being taught mostly now, the one where social practises are
grounded upon mostly at this time) but also postmodernist thoughts ( the ones being considered the
follower up of the now mainstream, the ones being critical and exhibiting more plural ways of thinking
and doing) are actually based on wrong and insane fundaments. Also because postmodernist
thoughts and science is mostly based on a lot of insanities being core in traditional sciences.
Following, among anothernesses, some of the mistakes in Aristotelean thinking.

When understanding THAT, it should become clear that the fundamental anotherness ways of viewing
society, developed in my phronesis antenarrative, is actually the only sole way of excellence for both
science and practise. This means this all should be incorporated in both social sciences and social
practices at large. It is the main key to transform our societies as such. Based on practical wisdoms.

It should be stated very clear here, that the question of plurality versus uniformity is not the same as
the question whether there is ultimately one reality. Because of the fact that even if realities become
the same if people negotiate and investigate, this does not mean that these same realities would be
uniform. Simply because they CANNOT be uniform. At the most they can be uniplural, but that is only
because of the limits of our languages. In the end everything in our societies is plural. Contents of
opinions and the like may differ because of power (although power should NOT exist and be
prevented as much as possible) and desires and the like. Also feelings do influence differences in
existences, just as wrong understandings do. While different understandings have to be prevented as
much as possible, differences in perspectives because of different feelings are OK. Or not. If being
based on sanity, they are of course.

285
On the importance of sound and sane fundaments

Our society and everything based on it is based on a lot of currently insane fundamentals. Some of
which are discussed in the book “science and sanity” from Korzybski. But, that is only a small part of
the insanities woven throughout our societies and social practices.

A common feature of all the insanities fundamental for our ways of doing are that the insanities start at
the core, the firstnesses and possibilities of our society. For instance, a lot of insanities are still there in
science. Meaning that we all get the wrong frameworks and fundaments right from the start. Then
using these insane fundaments for our ways of doing and acting.

A key understanding here, is the main differences between sane and insane firstnesses, possibilities.
The common errors in insane firstnesses being that they often are much too universal, and based on
wrong structures of our universes. While sane firstnesses are much more plural. Based on (practical)
wisdoms. The most and actually only sane fundamentals are based on the sole and only right
structure of our universes. And they are according to the logic of the illogics of logic. At the best, they
incorporate feelings, values and virtues. All in the frameworks of my notion of practicism,
philophronesis and phronesis.

Insanities can evolve and become into existences anywhere in social life and throughout our
universes. And the possibilities of such insanities are everywhere around us. In fact, we are
continuously choosing between good and bad practices, good and bad fundamentals. And most often,
we are not choosing the most entelychistic and optimal fundamentals.

The true art of change and management is to get understandings about first the nature of
fundamentals. Whether they are sane or not. And what the general errors are in the firstnesses being
used. Practical examples of these firstnesses can be found everywhere around us. Tools used in
organizations. Like for instance working instructions. Physical tools like machines and the like. The
people being involved and their capabilities to execute certain tasks and jobs.

Then of course, firstnesses come into existence. Both less and more excellent firstnesses, so just all
of firstnesses, have to be guided by sane sensemaking. Meta-semeiotical pluriflection and
accompanying phronesis antenarrating to transform non-fitting and less sane representamens into
fitting and much more excellent phronesis representia.

286
On inbox thinking and doing

In social practise, it often happens that people like doctors and physicians and psychologists and the
like are judging mostly on the base of firstnesses. Like for instance texts and their own often at least
partly insane visions on reality. Also the historical aspects often play a far too big role there. This
making the dangers of incorrect and insane social fundaments to pay a far too determining role very
huge. These firstnesses and mediate aspects simply do not say much about the persons treated and
the present situations.

Consequences of the general tendency towards inbox thinking are manifold. Also with respects to new
developments in science. Fixation on certain visions on the realities of our universes both in
academical society at large and our society itself largely hinder some real growths and changes in our
societies at large. In academics, the generally agreed paradigms are often far too much defended.
While openness for new insights are not really there.

One example of some probably very important but far too much neglected scientific development
might be the issue of free energy. This great new scientific and practical development origins from the
great Nikola Tesla. And has been developed further during the last decades by a number of excellent
scientists. One of them being Tom Bearden. More information about his research can be found among
others on his own website, to be found at http://www.cheniere.org/.

The problem is, that this kind of developments are not generally accepted yet, mostly because of
narrow thinking since all qualisigns to understand the implications and practicality of this development
are not there with the people who can make this changes happen. And, in this case, also majorly
because of other interests of bigger parties and organizations in our society at large. But still, the inbox
thinking also plays some very decisive role here. This inbox thinking is ultimately because of some
rather flat vision on reality, as opposed to the pluriform multivisions of more capable actors. But till
now, almost nobody truly listens.

But then again, as with everything something has to grow. First in the universes of thought, and then, if
practically applicable, in the universes of realities. This requires a lot of communications to transfer
from one to another universe. Like with trust and love, also preparations and drives to apply theories
and insights in practise have to grow and earned. Trust in a theory or insight is needed to have it
applied in practise. The only way to build this trust is by showing what can be done, and that the things
developed are valid and working. Able to be used.

In some discussion with a friend some while back, I told him that I would not really truly believe in
something until the moment I really truly see and sense enough from it. This seeing in my case

287
involves seeing something working or being into existences in the universes of our realities. Seeing
something on paper, or maybe just in my thoughts, is not enough to really truly believe in it.

I already believe in everything I write down in this discourse, although some parts of it do not really
truly exist in the worlds of realities. But, the reason why I believe in them is because I have seen in our
realities what is missing there, and also I know what would be needed to solve these errors and
insanities. So, although I have not seen some of the proposals and insights here, they are based
enough on things that I did see and experience. Which means that indirectly, I still saw enough
existing in the realities of life surrounding us.

Till I really truly see, the trust in something might grow however. And in many cases, it will. If the things
mentioned and discussed are true and valid and worthwhile.

Quite generally, there has to be a lot more thought on what is needed to get the real great new
developments in society to be finalized and incorporated in society at large as efficiently and optimal
as possible. This might mean it has to be incorporated as quick as possible, but in many occasions it
has to be executed in very small steps. Piecemeal engineering is mostly the best option because of
the interconnected and interdependent nature of signs and our universes as such. This all has to be
understood in much greater details still. Enabling structures and ways to be encouraged and
developed to improve the developments and applications of these great new developments in society.

Especially the out of the box and therefore mostly greatest new developments in society are often very
difficult to grasp and to recognize as such. Like I explain bits just in some paragraphs before this one.
But the (transitive) value and therefore relevance for our societies at large can be tremendous.
Therefore, especially a further and better attention to especially this kinds of research and
developments and also financial means and right structures for development and growth is needed.

288
On the semiphronesis insanity of inbox conditioning

What most people do not realise enough, is that we are somehow all conditioned to strive towards
staying on the tracks of life conditioned in our minds and cultures. Already in education, we are
conditioned to lock ourselves up and also that getting off the tracks for shorter or longer periods of
time is bad or not desirable.

The tendency towards structures and status quo is among others reflected in the change model of Kurt
Lewin, with his notions of unfreezing-move-freezing. Although this model does reflect some steps to
be taken in change processes, the last step (freeze) does involve the unwritten conditioned tendency
of returning back to some status quo. While in many cases it is just more desirable to just unfreeze,
then move and keep moving and growing. The freezing step is totally preventing any further growing
possiblilities for at least certain aspects of the issues and processes involved.

Also, our educations are strongly directed towards inbox thinking. Anothernesses are mostly neglected
or mostly even discouraged, probably mostly because of the semiphronesis insanities of human kind.
Also in resistence to change, either being RTS (resistence to sanity) or RTI (resistence to insanity), the
difference in the two and the characteristics guiding the resistence is simply not understood let alone
appreciated and taken regards off. As long as we do not completely understand and counter this
insane conditionings of the human race as a whole, semiphronesis insanities and damages will
continue to develop and exist.

In some other parts of this discourse, I state that there is some semisophy insanity of human kind to
concentrate on firstnesses, on procedures and models. This tendency is one of the causes, probably,
of the other semisophy insanity in immediate aspects of our society. Being the tendency discussed
here, which is the tendency of inbox conditioning. Leading towards the tendency of generally trying to
put people back in boxes again, if needed with ( a lot of) force and harmful actions.

Just like we like to dominate dogs in this respects, we also do the same to our fellow family members.
Specifically also in families. It is often the case that some family members express the insane habits of
wanting to dominate. To strive at other people making to do whatever they want to happen. Either by
means of physical or mental violence and abuse. Although this kinds of violences and abuses might
also have other causes, of course, they are also caused by this kind of semisophy insanities. Which
are in many cases put into existences as soon as someone is crossing some borders, getting off the
tracks of the status quos. A family member not living up to the rules set out in the family or just not
living up towards expectations runs a higher risk of damage and violence against him or her.
Whenever they try or really leave some boxes, some fixations of acting, they face resistances and
violence from other people. With the implicit rules leading, in many cases people going out of boxes
are forced to get in again.

289
Also in business life, this kind of insanities prevail. Some worker really getting towards the arts of his
profession, therefore being able to skip certain processes, will be punished for doing so by people not
understanding enough. He or she will be made to follow procedures and work procedures, while the
more artistic people simply do not need these and even perform much better without. Work
procedures and guidelines are mere firstnesses, needed the most by people who simply do not master
certain tasks enough. Also, the great artists of certain jobs should not be forced or told what to do by
people not understanding their professions and tasks well enough.

Often, true artists are just made to comply to the more inferior realities or perceptions of less capable
persons, because these are the majority and having decisive voices. Governments, business
managers, psychiatric “professionals”, people in justice. They all somehow have the illusion that they
would know everything better. That they have the right and obligations to put people back in the boxes
again. Thereby causing a lot of damages to humankind as a whole. Preventing our society and people
within to grow and flourish.

290
On internal and external plurisigns

Charles Sanders did make a distinction in internal and external qualities in his discourses. While the
inclusion of these perceived to be external qualities as relevant anothernesses of life and universes is
really good, the signs of reference are not correct. Meaning that in real life internal and external
qualisigns do not exist. Plurisigns in general do. There is however no real border or relevant distinction
between the signs that Peirce did perceive as external and internal. In fact with social signs,
distinctions in internal and external are really for sure just misperceived reifications. To give another
example, internal and external minds do not exist. What does exist is individual and collective minds,
but collective minds is of a completely different order. Meaning that the last involves an ad up of
individual minds but also about everything around us. Collective mind is everywhere, and there is no
real physical border between individual minds and collective minds. Also,contrary to what some people
might believe, animal minds also truly are individual minds. Meaning that animals can and do think and
even have influence on the whole of collective minds that ways.

Great example of an animal thinking is the example of a dog. I sometimes just talk to my dog, and can
see by movements of his head that he is truly thinking. Also last week the food bin was empty. Then at
some moment of the day the dog sat down at the food bin place staring towards the food bin. Me
approaching but not acting, she moved to the basket with dog food. And lay down there. I decided to
give her some food. She did eat it and then same procedure did repeat itself. Now, of course the dog
had to think to have this process going. Besides that, we know that for instance Orka’s (the killer
whales) do communicate with each other. So they not only think but also communicate just like we do.

In my main passions, the passion of falconry, I communicate with my birds of prey. This is non-verbal
communication, but still, communications. Which is why there, especially there, the collective minds
also have no boundaries species-wise.

So actually we can skip the diversifications of internal and external as far as minds and plurisigns are
involved.

291
On beyondness of signs

I would like to elaborate on my understandings of judgemental signs here. With judgemental signs, I
mean all kinds of words and expressions and thoughts expressing some kind of judgement or opinion
on certain matters.

One of the examples of this being the notions of good and evil. Nietzsche himself did write about this
ones in his “beyond good and evil”. I myself however would like to elaborate on the broader
implications and understandings connected with not only this judgemental sign, but just judgemental
signs in general.

There is one important, and very relevant resemblance between judgemental signs and tools. Being
the fact that the context and the persons’s involved have an impact on the nature of the tools. Person
(quali) plurisigns are very important there. For instance, a hood for a falcon can not be much more
than just that. But, a small thin piece of leather can be much more than solely a jess for a falcon or a
goshawk. Just like some social event can be either good or bad, depending on the circumstances and
the judgements of people. Let aside the perceived nature of the judgemental sign, since in its
essences a perceived nature is not per se a correct reflection of the true nature of a judgemental sign
as such.

Now, what Nietzsche is referring to and wants to express in his “beyond good and evil” is, in it’s
essences, exactly this very relevant insight. Something apparently good or wrong can at the end just
be just the other way round. Something appearing to be evil or against justice (the official and more
serious circumstance) can just appear to be just very great and good if certain issues become
understood.

But, there is more on this. Being the fact that judgemental insights grow when people become smarter
and get more skills to sense more of the universes surrounding and incorporating us. And, more
intelligent and evolved people in general are better than less developed and intelligent people. Not
only because they are because of education and insights, but also because of the context and
surroundings they usually live in and up to.

But, in general, it can be concluded that good is in many ways a more developed and higher level of
entelechy than evil. And, people judging on other people whether they are good or evil or have been,
have to be at least at same levels of understandings and mostly just at as high levels as possible to
reach towards the right conclusions and/or judgements. There are just far too many examples of
perceptions of goodness while being evil, and the other ways round, in our universes. Not only in our
thoughts, leading to insane social fundaments and existences, but also connected to and influencing
realities of our societies at large.

292
Actually, in many cases there is a relation between the perceptions of evilness and/or the practises of

evilness as opposed to the notion of inbox thinking.

293
The x-ness of signs – on talking or dancing together metaphors,
representamens and reifications

This discourse is written resulting from a discussion with Professor S. Magala at the Erasmus
University Rotterdam. We agreed at that time that I would write some discourse comparing two books,
which are ‘The trust process in organizations” and ‘ bowling alone”. Although I did not read one single
page of the first and only some pages of the latter, I am ready for my reflection. Since I decided myself
that making the difference here by broadening the reflection would probably be far more interesting.
Which is why I decided to draw upon knowledge out of other fields, mainly semiotics, to reflect on the
notion of Trust. The methodologies being used there being phronesis antenarrating and pluriflection.

Some time ago, I realized that trust plays a very important issue in current times. But also that the
notion of trust does mean different things to different people and different situations. Like every word,
the notion of trust is a specific type of representamen called reification. In this discourse I will reflect on
trust from multiple points of view using several theoretical backgrounds and insights. As far as theory
concerns, I will concentrate on insights resulting from the linguistic turn ( the emphasis on language in
philosophy). General reflections in this field are made by excellent intellectuals like Charles Sander
Peirce and Jacques Derrida.

Also I will integrate some other understandings in this text. One of the understandings being that
talking or dancing together metaphors, representamens and reifications should be supplemented
always by something more which should precede this act of dancing together. This act being the act of
sane sensemaking, based on the sole true structure of our universes. The greatest methodology to
facilitate and guide this process being phronesis antenarrating.

Metaphors, representamens and reifications should be compared with the metaphor of tools there.
The specific tools being, for instance, falconry equipments. So for instance we have the creance and
the hood and the lure being used in falconry. All this equipment can not be danced together without
understanding how to. This can only be reached by means of sane sensemaking based on the sole
true structure. Phronesis antenarrating can also be applied on HOW to USE the equipments. In the
specific contexts and situations. But also it might result in some part of equipment being transformed
in something else. In that case the duck might indeed transform into a duckrabbit or other kind of
hybrid. Or maybe just into a black swan.

But phronesis antenarrating can also lead to the understanding that while X is thought to be X, this is
mere perception. Or even, like in many cases, an insane perception based on insane mindmaking
and/or sensemaking and resulting reductionist or wrong understandings. Examples of this can be the
issue of perception of lack of trust when people are “bowling alone”, while actually this might be the
result of trusting the other person for their capabilities to be able to work independently and still deliver
excellent results. Another example which is much more relevant and very elementary to grasp for

294
about anyone in our societies, is the issue of profitability in companies. This profitability is actually
NOT profitability, as the understandings of profitability for a company or organization are understood
based on wrong methodologies and sensemaking. Mainly because it is not understood that profitability
for a company results in loss for employees and other companies. This loss for employees and other
companies or whatever other parties is mostly not taken into regards, mostly because of the fact that
again insane sensemaking results in insane understandings. If a SANE sensemaking methodology is
applied, it should be understood that a loss for employees and other companies in the end means loss
for the companies. So, in the end, the seemingly “ profit” and “ growth of profitabilities” eventually
lead to a lot of quantitative, money loss for the companies. But also it leads to a lot of losses of
transitive values for individuals in our societies, of course.

This can be best understood when understanding the most elementary steps and characteristics of
sensemaking. Which can only be reached by means of meta-semeiotical phronitical sensemaking by
means of meta-semeiotical phronitical phronesis antenarrating. The step of communication(s) is not
really needed there, but depending on the communication/dancing partner(s) there you might get even
more understandings.

295
Anyways, on the most elementary steps and characteristics of sensemaking. There is the
characteristic of just dancing together representamens and metaphors, uniplural notions. Without the
more elementary step (which can be pre- or post- or alongside or any combinations of these) of sane
sensemaking involving phronesis antenarrating and pluriflections (based on lazarus, broadening and
growth of plurisigns), less understandings or even insane understandings will result. Adding the step of
phronesis antenarrating CAN result in better understandings, IF this phronesis antenarrating is
executed by some capable person in the right ways. The more capable the person is for both
phronesis antenarrating and pluriflection(s), AND the subject of considerations, the better the
sensemaking results will become. Which of course does not mean that the realities in our universes
being based on this most excellent sensemaking will also become to be more excellent.

There are however also distinct aspects of the nature of this excellent holoplural sensemaking and
sensemaking in general. The one is about mindmaking, being supplemented by sensemaking.
Sensemaking consisting of more or less senses-making. The other is about communicating, dancing
together the understandings on the one side with the persons or realities or texts on the other side.
Texts being physically written texts, but also texts like discourses and dances and whatever other
continuous processes in our universes and realities.

With regards to mindmaking being supplemented by sensemaking, the following can be told. As
already has been remarked, it is not sufficient to just think and talk and live representamens. This
should always be added by sensemaking, senses being several ones and not only limited to the
officially labelled ones. Our whole body is sensitive, and feelings are therefore also not only restricted
to our heart. I even wonder why it is generally thought/accepted that feelings are attached to the heart
as there is no and can not be found any proof of it. Simply because feelings are part of our whole
existences, even not limited to individual experiences. Anyways, sensemaking is just like everything
about holoplurality and inclusionality.

296
Which is why sane sensemaking is needed. This sane sensemaking simply has to be based on the
sole true structure of our universes for being excellent and the most sane ways of sensemaking.
Antenarrating is a vessel for sensemaking, and phronesis antenarrating is the sole great vessel for
sane sensemaking. Simply because sane sensemaking has been implemented into phronesis
antenarrating, and further understandings of sane sensemaking will be implemented into it even more
into the future

The differences between antenarrating and storytelling are manifold, but one of the differences there is
that antenarrating is more about sensemaking and growth of understandings in mindmaking, while
storytelling is more about communicating and dancing together in actualities. At least that is how I
understand antenarrating and sensemaking.

In that respects antenarrating is more about but not restricted to peircean firstness, possibilities, while
storytelling is more about but not restricted to Peircean existences and laws. While it is very
fundamental to first change possibilities by means of sane sensemaking into something fitting realities
in our universes. Which is a step to be executed by actors, but often neglected for several reasons.

Trust can actually be about lack-of money, or lack of knowing. Or lack of time. Or perceptions of
knowledge and understandings based on focus on metaphors and representamens or simply lacks of
understandings in general. And, of course there are specific types of trust, like Faith and reliance. And,
there is the interdependence of trust with other notions and realities. For instance leadership might
require trust, while in specific situations the same leadership can only remain to exist because of trust
grounded on insane perceptions. Meaning that people trust someone’s capabilities or intentions based
on insane perceptions and understandings, while if only they understood the real factual capabilities
and understandings all the trust and therefore possibilities for leadership would disappear.

297
The same is applicable for about all our metaphors and representamens we use. Bowling alone might
be perceived as being lack of trust in many occasions, while actually it is about a lot more plurisigns
and issues. It might be not about lack of trust, but about lack of time to communicate and dance
together. Or it might be about another way of organizing, where efficiency is reached by trusting each
other on capabilities and therefore not communicating and organizing together. Instead of this trusting
each individual to individually being capable to organize and dance together parts of the whole in right
great ways.

In general, each seemingly uniplural notion (representamen) of course consists of pluralities. Our
language system is uniplural by nature, but our sensemaking and dancing together should not be.
Peircean semiotics is based on the wrong understanding that human sensemaking would be
diagrammatic. In it’s essences, this understanding is right. But solely because of the fact that indeed
most human sensemaking is restricted to less holoplurality, and all of it is not based fully on
holoplurality and holoplural understandings. Peircean semiotics is still based on linearity and wrong
structures of our universes. It is based on insane or less sane sensemaking. Which can be
understood, for instance, by his lineair and uniplural notions of firstness, secondness and thirdness.
More specifically his notions of representamen, object, interpretant. This three notions are all uniplural,
not based on holoplurality and resulting understandings of the pluralness of plurisigns. But, more
interestingly, Peirce starts with the representamen, then object and then interpretant. Of course this 3
notions might be understood from a holoplural perspective, but Peirce himself did not really do so. This
can be understood from his writings.

Because of this, Peirce did probably not grasp to the fullest that our mindmaking and sensemaking
should be based on holoplurality. He for sure did not understand that

What Peirce however DID understood, was pluralness of signs. He introduced the notions of qualisign.
Quali being not about quality here, but more about a characteristic. This characteristics, the quali, CAN
be emotionally or qualitatively loaded, but this is not an elementary quali of the quali. Meaning that a
qualisign plurisign can be more or less neutral plurisign, as opposed to a quality plurisign.

298
One of the great, elementary things to understand is the fact that more excellence in our societies
should be based on SANE mindmaking and sensemaking AND the sole true structure of our
universes. The sole true structure being the underlying structure of holoplurality. Assemblages of
plurisigns, being constantly dissasembled and assembled in anotherness ways. Or not. It is OPEN
system by nature, although perceptions or realities might be obstacles for some of our
universes/realities.

This remark of sole true structure at first appears to be not too relevant or maybe even obvious. But
the real value of it proofs when being implemented, and used, in a sane (mind/sensemaking)
methodology. Where also nature and contents of sane sensemaking are understood and
implemented.

Sane sensemaking requires a lot more than just thinking, talking, and living/being lived by metaphors.
This should always be suppemented by sane sensemaking (which should, by it's nature, always been
based on sole true structure)

In falconry, we have apprentices. THEY just use their tools like metaphors and reifications, also
because a general lack of enough understandings (yet) to add enough anothernesses by means of
sane sensemaking. Representamens (like metaphors and reifications) and in this case tools are
starting points, instead of results of understandings. WE, the more experiences falconers, use our
tools but based on sensemaking and understandings. The excellence of it can still be improved a lot, i
am sure, when this sensemaking of falconers is changed into more sane sensemaking. Based on "
my" sole true structure of our universes and (resulting) growing insights in mind/sensemaking.

This growth of plurisigns (people, insights, realities etcetera) can be even more profound if apprentices
are aware of sane sensemaking methodology AND given the chances to grow. Maybe also by
falconers realizing that they are also still apprentice in many respects/issues. The THEY and WE
distinction dissapearing.

This is actually a very elementary issue also, this dissapearance of THEY and WE for sensemaking.
While realizing there IS a differance in this THEY and WE. But still listening and communicating.
Based on sane sensemaking, and trying to introduce the anothernesses.

299
Definitions and understandings of definitions matter

On soccer and a lot more.

I think it is generally agreed and understood that definitions matter. But, according to me, it should be
much broader understood to what extends the true definition and understandings of objects and
processes around us truly matter. In fact, a sound defining of objects and signs around us are core for
our whole society and anything within.

When I talk about objects here, I am in fact already talking about a totally different notion of objects
than the generally agreed notion of objects. Objects in this discourse refer to both objects and
subjects. In fact, they can refer to everything around us or in whatever universes possible. It is, in that
respects, a synonym for what I refer to as being signs. Signs there also can refer to everything that
can possibly exist around us or in whatever universes.

There is some difference, of course, between the definition of contents and the contents of definitions.
Meaning, that same definitions can have different contents but also same contents can have different
definitions. I will start giving some example of same definitions having other understandings and
meanings for different persons. And why these different understandings and meanings, of course,
matter a lot.

There seems to be a Chinese proverb, saying the following:

“the beginning of wisdom is calling things by their right name”

Of course, this is true. But, what is not stressed enough there, is the fact that wisdom is also needed to
even be able to call things by their right name. Using the right definitions, and more importantly
understanding what they mean, require the interpreter to understand what he is talking about. This
understandings, growing towards deeper and deeper understandings of the worlds surrounding us and
the representamens used to express them, are key for more entelechy in the use of words and
definitions.

In his discourse “Making social science matter”, professor Bent Flyvbjerg makes a strong point. For a
more phronetic social science. In this book, Flyvbjerg discusses the notion of phronesis as it was
understood by Aristotle. Flyvbjerg argues that phronesis is the most important of the three intellectual
virtues episteme, techne and phronesis. I totally agree to him here, mostly also because my own
philosophy is also based on phronesis.

300
But, the content of my understandings of phronesis is much broader than the contents of the definition
of phronesis like it is understood by Flyvbjerg. If I follow Flyvbjerg’s understanding of Aristotle’s
phronesis, even Aristotle did not cover the broad spectrum of content that I address to the notion of
phronesis. But, I think the explanations and understandings Flyvbjerg is giving of Aristotelean
phronesis might be based on some misunderstandings of what Aristotle himself wanted to express
with the notion.

Flyvbjerg is stating that Aristotle did never include explicit consideration of power in his conception of
Phronesis. Apart from that I do not know from which sources Flyvbjerg did get this insights, I think he
makes some thought error there. According to me, Aristotle did understand the notion of phronesis as
involving a lot more than even Flyvbjerg is talking about in his own discourse. And a lot more. To be
certain about that, I would of course like to talk to the great master himself sometime, but unfortunately
I do not have the abilities to talk to the death (yet).

In soccer, there are a lot of problems. With supporters fighting against each other. Parents of small
soccer players fighting against each others and the like. I think, that a large part of this problems are
caused to some simple but damaging wrong defining of what is going on there. What I refer to here, is
the difference between playing against each other as opposed to playing with each other.

We humans are complex creatures. But, that we would be intelligent creatures, is actually a
misjudgement in many respects. There are a lot of small, tiny but highly disastrous and influential
insanities in each of us. One of them being that we acritically indubitable live up to certain beliefs and
even definitions, without understanding how foolish they actually are. 50

So, for instance in this particular example, soccer players normally use to say that they play against
each other. Instead of saying they play with each other. This simple notions of against is the cause of
a lot of insane evilness. I expressed some of them above, but there are many. Playing against is here
understood in same contexts as fighting against, a notion expressing competitiveness and parties not
aiming towards common goals. Actually, the aspects of competitiveness and diffent goals are
overcoded here, while the aspects of community and striving toward common goals is largely
undercoded and neglected. The more wise and entelychistic notion of soccer, as a game of people
playing with each other, is largely reduced and undercoded by means of interpreters and the notion of
playing against each other.

50
If you want to understand what I mean here, watching the great movie “stalker’ by Andrei Tarkovsky might

help. This movie is anyways one of the biggest masterpieces ever made. At least philosophically speaking.

301
It is simply “forgotten” that the playing against each other is just some small part of the much broader
and greater notion of playing with each other. People should play as a family, not as enemies! Values,
social values but also more broader transitive values, are much more important than the short-sighted
view on a lot of games like expressed in current times.

Another example can be understood from the book “Leading change” by Harvard Business School
professor Kotter. I am referring here to the difference between managers and leaders. Kotter argues
that managers want and live up to maintaining a status quo, while leaders mostly deal with change.
And therefore, it should be required to get more skilled leaders.

Although I do not know whether Kotter does also express this, it clearly is the case that not only
educations and acquiring anotherness skills than management skills make leaders. Also the definitions
matter. Meaning , that even a change of a business school by replacing notions of management with
leader and leadership will lead the persons educated to react in anotherness ways. Because, it clearly
DOES matter whether a person perceives himself as a manager, or as a leader or master of change.
You can actually see so in numerous organizations, by observing the changes in attitudes of persons
getting anotherness roles.

Also here, the labelling of signs matters. Or, in the words of David Green from Hofstra University:

“"Changing how the public labels categories changes the associations those labels invoke in
people's minds, which in turn changes their affective attitudes toward what is being
described."

This wrong and dysfunctional insanities of insane perspectives (by means of wrong labelling,
definitions) are actually very wide-spread throughout our societies. As soon as the perception of
competitiveness is there, either by means of insane thought processes or insane definitions.

In the case of soccer, and any PLAY, the seriousness of it and aspects of competiveness can and
should be largely diminished by just changing the character of the definition. Best would be, if there is
and will be a total ban on the use of using the terminology of playing against each other. The common
goals should be stressed there. I think any mediator in marriage issues could also give more thorough
advice there about the what and how. In playing, but also in any case where “bowling alone” is not
desirable, it is key to stress and realize other values. To erase any perceptions of competiveness and
to build levels of trust, co-operateness and other socially preferred values.

302
Not only the content of definitions matter, but of course, also the nature of this contents. In many
cases, it differs a lot whether notions or definitions are less or more specific. In many cases, definitions
serve as a fundament for broader understandings and actions.

Definitions always are the most important fundament for whatever we understand and do in our
society and universes. Prof.Dr. Slawomir magala, in his discourse “Fly towards grace”, is talking about
the processes of defining, interpretating and negotiating.

One of the better discourses on the relevance of good definitions is probably the book “Tyranny of
words” by Stuart Chase.

303
On critical and non critical signs

In some former parts of this discourse, I talked a bit about entelechy. Which is perfection of being. This
perfection of being often requires some signs of excellence. What is needed for signs to become signs
of excellence is also reflected throughout this discourse.

For this part of it, it is good to understand that a lot of signs of excellence are non-critical signs.
Meaning that we can still live without them without having any real true problems. However, whether
we do or not is highly and solely determined by the applicable contexts and situations. A wrong
understanding of these will cause us to think the wrong plurisigns of excellence to be the critical ones.

An overview and understanding of how critical certain signs are for certain situations and realities is
probably the most important to cure the insanities of our collective and individual minds. Which is
essential for sane minds and therefore sane societies as a whole.

There is a difference between non-essential signs and non-critical signs. Although this is of course
dependent on the understandings and meaning of these two concepts. But, in this context and my own
understandings of the two concepts, I understand essential signs as being needed for something to be
judged/accepted as really truly being a sign. Then a critical sign would be as explained above. A
critical sign is needed to prevent us from having problems.

For my PhD, a lot of critical signs are not essential. And they are not essential or critical signs for
having it accepted as a PhD. This because of a major difference between my PhD and PhD’s in
general. My PhD being much more entelychistic than the regular PhD’s.

304
On contextuality

As i have been mentioning in other parts of this discourse, Nietzsche was far more intelligent and wise
than people like Aristotle, Kant, Peirce. Just to name some. The reason of it being, mostly, the fact that
Nietzsche was more like “outbox” kind of thinker, while the other people mentioned here where just
more into “inbox” kind of thinking and not completely capable to get out of these boxes of thoughts.

One aspects of this inbox kind of thinking versus outbox kind of thinking is the differences between
non-contextual and contextual understandings. Meaning that in those cases where contexts DO matter
to more or lesser extends, the inbox kind of thinking people are more focused on the firstnesses and
neglect the contextual essences. Either because they are just not capable to see, or because of
anotherness reasons.

Some special case of non-contextual thinking is the so-called tunnel view. It is largely there in some
parts of social situations. Like for instance in justice and psychology. While it is even more there in
those fields and practises of psychology which are connected and practised in the areas and activities
belonging to justice in one or anotherness ways. In I think most of these cases, the real anothernesses
and contexts are just neglected far too much. While some insane social fundaments being the
perceived wrong contexts (contexts assumed but not really there!) are leading the psychologists
working in these fields to arrive to wrong conclusions. Thereby harming people in more or less horrible
ways.

In justice, the psychological diagnoses and treatments are even more harmfull and damaging in their
potentialities and existences. Because of the fact that these diagnoses and treatments are often
subject to the bureaucratic plague.

This bureaucratic plague is an instance of non-contextual thinking. Which is actually not non-
contextual thinking but thinking based on the insane social contexts. Perceptions which are not really
there. Normally, in non-bureaucratic surroundings, these errors in firstnesses are corrected by people
who know what they are doing and who understand the mistakes incorporated in the firstnesses they
start from. This is not the case in justice psychology mostly. Because of at least 3 reasons. The first
one being that most psychologist do NOT know what they are doing. They do not understand well
enough since they are not capable enough for their jobs. Therefore, they are NOT capable of adjusting
and correcting the errors in firstnesses well enough. The second reason being that the methodologies
of psychology are mostly insane and therefore incorrect and potentially harmful to more or lesser
extends. Combined with the already insane perceptual contexts assumed by both justice and
psychologists in justice, there is just very little chance of harm not to occur.

305
The third reason being the fact that justice psychology is subject to the bureaucratic plague. Meaning
that, because of structure but also the intentions of the people working in justice prevent a lot of actors
in justice to actually try to use their sound reasonings. Also because of reason one at least
psychologist will not correct any mistakes. Simply because they do not see them. But even IF they do,
they mostly will not because of dependencies on justice and the like.

306
On thought existences and reality existences.

Some years back, i was studying business administration at the Erasmus University Rotterdam. As a
major, I choose the specialization “ change management” . This might partly also explain my current
emphasis in this discourse. But well, during that times I heard some person stating that she actually
doubted whether a tree outside would actually be a tree.

This is, according to me, one of the major discussions in philosophy. And, I think they can be
explained by making the difference in thought existences and reality existences. And foremost by
having the understandings that, of course, there is a DIFFERENCE between the thought-existences
and the reality-existences. Simply because it are other parts of our universes, althought they have
influences and can change each other.

Iin the end, I think this kind of philosophical issues are actually based again on the semisophy error of
mixing up the representamen with the object being represented. In this case, the object being
represented is the tree. At least the object which we are labelling tree. This object is really truly
existing out there.

But, the tree like we have it in our minds, with also the immediate characteristics of it, is different from
the tree being the object in our realities and society at large. At first when writing this part of my
discourse, I wrote down that the tree in our thoughts does not really exist. But, I was wrong there.
Since, of course, all of what we are thinking DOES exist in some ways. Even perceptions of our mind
or thoughts solely existing in our minds, DO exist. But, it is important also here to distinguish between
the immediate object and the mediate object. The statical value being the object, and the transitive
value being the object but also mainly non-physical quali of the object. Which can and will exist also
both as thought-plurisigns but also somehow as reality-plurisigns.

So actually, in the things being represented, the immediate characteristics do not really exist. They
however do exist, if the realities of the actors involved are added to the scene or context. Meaning that
the thought plurisigns, parts of our thoughts, are also really existing and therefore real in their
consequences. If we define things as real, they are real in their consequences51. But also they are real
in their realities already. In fact, any thought-signs becomes into existence soon after they develop in
our minds. But also, if we define things as unreal, they may still become real in their consequences.
Especially in the insane society we are living in at current times52.

51
As far as I know, this statement is at least originating from W.I. Thomas. According to some I think reliable
source on the internet, it is contained in a book by W.I. Thomas and Dorothy Swaine Thomas (1928:572). But it
was attributed to W.I. Thomas by several people.
52
With insane society, I actually do not mean the whole society being insane or people being crazy, but “ just”
the fact that our society is full of serious semisophy errors leading to harming semisophy insanities.

307
Something I realized just short ago, while thinking about my own work. is the fact that Phronesis and
Phronesis antenarrating is actually relying on the differences in thought-plurisigns and reality-
plurisigns in different ways. Meaning that actually phronesis pluriflection, which is the sole sane
sensemaking methodology, is about first making the differences by means of sound abduction
processes, and then melting together the several thought-signs and maybe even reality-signs. But,
mostly it is about melting together different thought-plurisigns then trying to communicate these by
means of sound great antenarrating and storytelling ways.

In thought-signs and reality-signs, we have possibilities, existences and laws. And actually not. As, like
I stated in another part of my discourse, even this devision is far to limited and linear. Like also the
division in thought-plurisigns and existence-plurisigns is. Like in the end, both do not truly exist and our
universes exist of much more plural plurisigns. Being connected, or not, with each other in constantly
changing ways. Plurisigns are constantly assembled and disassembled, and can and will be
assembled differently according to the perspective and understandings of the people or other living
creatures being involved. The essence of my argumentation is that the most excellent configurations
or at least the most excellent possibilities for this configurations will emerge when understanding and
using the great perspectives and fundaments related to holoplurality and my meta-semeiotical body of
understanding called practicism. Phronesis antenarrating is a great tool for realizing this.

In fact, the question being posed in the beginning of this part of my discourse (“is a tree really a tree or
is an object in our realities really what we think it to be in our thought-realities) is actually a result from
not understanding the wholenesses of our universes. Seperating the universes we live in (which is
actually not correct) while at the same time not being able to make the differences in the right ways,
also because of that.

In the end the question is just a matter of getting to understand Korzybski or in Peircean words the
understanding that the representamen is not the object, the thing being respresented is not the
representation.

308
On insane social fundaments

Some instance of semisophy errors and insanities are the many modes of insane social fundaments.
Leading towards insanities, errors and unjustified damages to our universes.

Insane social fundaments do not always have to lead towards unjustified damages or insanities. Of
course. Like with everything in life, there are processes and issues having impact on what these
insane social fundaments are leading towards.

As an example, there are probably numerous instances of problems in relationships where something
is perceived to be true or this while it is actually not true and or that. For instance, it could be that one
of the partners or persons in a relation suspect the other party or parties of cheating or lying or
misbehaving in one or anotherness ways. While this misbehaving is actually a perception of
misbehaving, caused by rumours or lies of other persons. Or just because of perceptions in their own
minds.

When this kinds of suspicions are there, it is very important to postpone any actions based on these
suspicions. This is one of the wisdoms to be retrieved from the difference from Derrida. Making the
differences at same time means postponement of actions here. At least till the moment that one can
be sure that there are only realities and no perceptions as a base for the actions.

In marriage, there are at least two kinds of safety measures to prevent any actions to be taken based
on either sane or insane social firstnesses. On of them is the border of being marriaged. The other one
is the pure relationship, with the transitive values of trust being the most important issue here. Trust is,
like love and devotion, something that is not “just” there but something that has to grow. Just like about
each virtue and transitive value of life has to. Or maybe not. It depends.

It is just ridiculous and insane how often persons and groups base their actions on insane social
fundaments, without taking any actions to get towards the realities of life and clearing their
perceptions. This could in many cases be reached quite easily by just really truly listening and using
your senses. Or by sound communications.

Problems based on insane social fundaments and perceptions can be found everywhere throughout
our societies. In any types and modes of social relationships. They are presented in friendships,
marriages, work environments. In any types of organizational life and practises. Especially in the fields
of justice and psychiatry , a lot of insane social fundaments cause major errors. To such high levels
that the entire judicial system should be changed in drastic ways.

309
More generally, it can be remarked that a lot of people got the habit of concentrating on possibilities.
Without taking enough steps to get towards the higher, most sophisticated levels of understandings.
By searching for the anothernesses of life and signs. A shift in this insanity of human kind would mean
a dramastic improvement of possibilities and potentialities of our society at large. To have signs
growing and develop, it is just required to get from possibilities towards understandings. From
firstnesses towards higher levels of sophistication, wisdoms and actions. All to be guided by the
greatest levels of phronesis. This all sounds simple and maybe not that relevant. But just use your
senses and absorb and try to understand the practises of people in our societies. Try to understand to
what extends the concentration on firstnesses is there. And the huge impacts of this insanities.

A very fundamental insight here is the fact that even each social discourse, including THIS one, is a
special type of “insane” social fundaments to more or lesser extends. What I mean to say with this, is
that it is never possible to find the right words for expressing what you mean to say. Our vocabulary is
simply not rich enough to express the manifold multiplicities in meaning in words. I am not talking here
about the anothernesses like feelings and insights we have. If I only could express these incredibly
pluralistic phenomena in this discourse and even beyond, I would thank god on his knees even though
I am not a real believer there. Linguistic geniuses, or better the first one evolving in future
approaching geniality enough to put this into existences, will give our society the best thing you could
possibly think of. The BIGGEST treasure for humankind. BY FAR much more valuable than
ANYTHING else in the universes of humankind. Actually, right at the point that I am typing this, I
realize I should actually find a way to partially reach what I want there. By maybe taping some voice
records of what I mean to express to the worlds in some relevant aspects of this discourse. But since
this discourse is BY FAR not everything of what I want to reach with it and how, I most probably will
skip that efforts till later periods of time. Although I take some major step there by introducing and
explaining the notion of phronesis antenarrative. But the biggest treasure being another language
able to express the pluralities of our universes to the fullest, will probably never be reached. Although
major steps forward can still be made there.

Words are a special type of insane social fundaments. The special type of insanity being caused by
incorrect reflections of insights because of incorrect coding and decoding through words and
discourses as mediating phenomenon. Since, in its cores, words and discourses are more or less
perceptual mediators of mind and growth of (collective) minds.

310
One of the important characteristics of both words and discourses as a whole, is the fact that also or
maybe specially the plurisigns of intentionality are ultimately the most important ones. Meaning that,
even in scientific discourses, the intentions of the writers are reflected in the discourse. Of course. This
can be hidden or neglected in the explicit wordings, but in the end it is just there. ALWAYS. One of the
premises currently explored by some people, either an illusion or a mere fact, is the possibility that
Einstein himself did consciously fix the believe of humankind on the wrong underlying metaphysical
systems and understandings of society. By means of his theories.

By that covering up some other, better understandings on the real true structure of our universes and,
more specifically, the real true structures and understandings of physics. This better understandings
would then be the theorie of Roger Joseph Boscovich, expressed in his discourse “a theory of natural
philosophy ( 1758). According to his coworker Lancelot Law Whyte, Einstein worked on a so-called
UFT based on Boscoviche’s work. Besides that, there are illusions or facts stating that also the genius
Tesla worked from Boscovich. Leading to insights in how to release, create, natural forces of unlimited
strength and impact. Exactly this, and potential dangers of a true understanding of physics, would
have caused Einstein to communicate the wrong but more safe understandings to society as large.
True or not, this unfolding discourse does have a lot of potential for further understandings of society
and science as such.

On words as special type of social fundaments. Like I try to express throughout this discourse, science
and human society as a whole is full with insanities caused mainly by wrong structures and
understandings. Some of them being conditioned in our ways of thinking and doing. This is, among
anothernesses, leading to illusions and perceptions in discourses and words. As an example, I can
talk about my understandings that society is full of semiphronesis insanities. This is something I want
to work out through semisophy errors and insanities. Which is a good step, but also an incomplete and
potentially incorrect one. Incomplete because of the fact that simply any discourse is incomplete,
because of the anothernesses not being mentioned or understood. And potentially incorrect (the issue
being relevant for this specific part of my discourse) because of the dangers of exploring these notions
in further, more specific understandings. Because, when doing so, not only the correct methodology
but also the correct contents should be chosen. And exactly in the fields of contents, there are HUGE
dangers. Because of the fact that a lot of contents are incorrect. Like for instance, in my case, the
contents of semiotics like understood and expressed by Charles Sanders Peirce. His trichotomies are
valuable since they add a lot towards understandings, but at the same time it are both insane
perceptions and also very incomplete and fundamentally insane understandings of reality. If I would
use this kind of understandings, these insanities and incompletenesses should be understood and
communicated. Even better, they should be corrected. Actually, main problem here is also the fact that
being more specific often means being more reductionist and also more insane (because of errors in
contents not to be solved directly in any cases).

311
On the why of wrong insane sensemaking and structures in our
universes

Because of the wide application and importance of holoplurality and sound pluriflections and phronesis
antenarrating, there is a lot I could still elaborate on. In fact, great phronesis antenarrating can be used
and should be used to improve about anything or just anything in our universes.

But, of course I can not continue writing on forever. For sure I will during the parts of my life that I still
can, but not just all in this discourse.

What I however still need to elaborate on, is about the WHY of wrong insane sensemaking and wrong
insane occurrences or realities in our universes. This realities also being our thoughts and because of
that also the perceptions of our thoughts. And sensemaking being also about objects and writings and
other kinds of storytellings in our universes. As to me objects are part of sensemaking, just like
writings and other types of storytelling are. Other types of storytelling, as for me each part of
sensemaking is a kind of storytelling, while certain types of sensemaking are part of storytelling.

As far as the differences between holoplurality and less optimal and in many instances even insane
and damaging understandings and realities, it is quite important to understand that most of this
differences exist of course because of the intrinsic capabilities and ways of sensemaking of human
sensemaking. Our language system not only being part, but also being a result of just that. Like I state
in anotherness part of our discourse, the nature and content of governments and organizations is
lagging behind to the relative growth of our society, the people within. Plurisigns , also living ones like
people, change and in current times they really change in anotherness ways. In much more open, and
therefore greater ways. But, government and organizations still lagg behind. They need to grow,
adjust, and therefore change in anotherness ways.

The same issue applies to our language system. As till the moment our language system IS adjusted,
at least semiphronesis errors and mistakes will continue to exist.

312
It is not really troublesome and even OK and necessary to accept the current differences in
perspectives and world views of individual minds. But, it is NOT ok and not acceptable to neglect the
understandings being reflected in this discourse and to NOT really DO something with this
understandings better sooner than later. Meaning that this understandings just have to be
communicated throughout our society at large and people need to become aware of the WHY of the
differences but also that the differences are not just about differences being about similar and of equal
importance and quality. But that, on the contrary, there is really only one great excellent perspective.
All other kinds of perspectives and understandings just need to be supplemented with this
understanding and perspective as much as possible, should the necessity for doing so exist. And, in
many cases and instances in our society it is just largely needed they are.

I gave numerous examples throughout this texts of fields of science and practice where holoplurality
and sound great phronesis antenarrating is largely needed. Because of current known or unknown
damages to people and therefore society at large. One of the major subject for that in this discourse of
mine being the economic system we live in till this moment in time. This issue is the most important to
solve, also because it is at current times already leading to A LOT of problems but majorly because
actually the problem is growing and growing still without governments and people in society realizing
enough. Mainly because they think the underlying structure and nature of money of being of a whole
anotherness nature and structure then it actually is. The misfit between governmental actions is
limiting our society and people within in numerous ways.

313
On fixation on possibilities

In many cases, people are fixated on possibilities and/or perceptions of firstnesses without taking into
regards or even seeing the anotherness thirdnesses. Even if the thirdnesses are taken into regards a
lot of harm can be caused by means of semantic but also semiphronesis errors. These semiphronesis
errors are much broader than the semantic or semiotic errors, something I explain in some other paper
of mine (since both philophronesis and semiphronesis are notions developed by myself in much higher
detail, greater content, and also they fit into my own ultimate philosophy of practicism and
philophronesis).

In some cases, the fundamental firstnesses taken into regards are fundamental perceptions based on
lies or misunderstandings. If these firstnesses are then perceived to be true, they can cause lots of
unjustified problems. Something happening in true real life far too often and in numerous cases.

Concentration on firstnesses, taking too narrow a point of view without knowing all the issues (by
means of getting more informations especially about the mediatenesses/inaninamate
aspects/processes/anotherness betweennesses) . Lead to a lot of misconceptions of x . Semantic
problems are part of it, but not all. It is not only about misinterpreting a representamen as being the
object. That is within firstness, while this problem is between firstness and more entelychistic and
developed understandings. Semiosophy problems. And semiphronesis problems. Crossing universes
and categories of Peircean semiotics and my semiphronesis. Also values and virtues and lots more in
my case.

Interpretations without defining and negotiating leads to semisophy errors like wrong fundamental
firstnesses and fixations on them, wrong fundamentals leading to wrong results

This fixation on firstnesses is for instance profound in people not understanding enough. Or just not
being capable of understanding anothernesses. In many cases, people are not only focused on
firstnesses, but along with this also they are mostly focussed mainly on what they can comprehend
and understand. I for instance will not focus my attention or thoughts towards very complex ideas
about new types of energy. But, of course, this might lead me to not see or understand the
anothernesses that could make my life much more sane. And, of course, I actually do not understand.

For instance in falconry, people who are not into this art will mostly not talk about or focus their
learning processes and processes of understandings towards it. Of course. This however also means
that in general, they will be focussed on the firstnesses in falconry should they encounter it or in case
they even got to deal with it. They will focus on the lure and general usage, not understanding the
specific situations. Meaning they might try to use a lure on a bird not being trained on it yet. Or using a
hood for a bird being hood-shy or in the wrong circumstances.

314
This may all sound logical and simple, but the consequences are far reaching. Especially since far too
many people in current times are just mere beginners even in the fields they use to work in. For
instance, most economists do not really truly understand how to actually use money in most optimal
ways. Let alone the people on the streets. Such a far reaching and elementary aspect of our society is
just not understood at all, or even more frightful, wrongfully understood. Another example is the fact
that people in justice simply do not understand how to really judge in just and right ways. They do not
understand how to work with laws. Then psychologists, most of them are working in insane ways with
the firstnesses they deal with. Mostly also because their possibilities are mostly insane themselves, to
less or more extends.

With regards to the issue of firstness, apart from the reasons why, a lot of more examples can be
made. In fact, we can of course notion them throughout our social life and experiences. Especially in
our daily conversations. There are concentrations on firstnesses, but also concentrations on the parts
mentioned while not having an understanding of the parts NOT being mentioned. Let alone the
question whether we are even aware that there are anothernesses at stake. These anothernesses can
of course be less or more relevant to a specific situation to be judged and taken into regard. In case
they are relevant, we should ensure in one of anotherness ways that they will be judged and/or taken
into regards. Some issue that is not getting the attention it deserves at present times, in practise and
our realities as such. Relevant anothernesses are just far too much neglected, also because of this
reason.

Connected with the fixation on firstnesses and issues and understandings mentioned and known,
while neglecting the parts NOT being known or understood, is the general tendency of people to
neglect or to not accept the anothernesses NOT to be known (to be introduced). There are also lots of
reasons for this, most of them being psychological. Some out of human nature, while others are partly
conditioned. For instance our conditioned fixation on uniformities and the things known is most
probably part of the cause of this neglections.

A lack of understanding a certain situation is actually in many cases the result of this concentration on
firstnesses and things known and understood, as opposed to a sound sensemaking methodology to
understand and find the anothernesses. Of course.

The nature of persons to concentrate on firstnesses might be the explanation actually for the semantic
insanities Korzybski is talking about in his “science and sanity”. This type of semisophy error is, like I
explain in more details in other parts of this discourse, a confustion of “firstness” with “secondness”.
Or, better, a confusion of representamens with objects.

315
On the sole true structure of our universes versus sign structures

Throughout this discourse and beyond, I maintain and stick to the opinion that there is only one real
underlying true structure of our universes. Simply because I am SURE this is the only real true
understanding and existence regarding structures in our universes

Of course people might object by saying that there are a lot of other structures in our universes. But, if
there are, these structures are either insane or wrong and/or perceptual. When talking about
structures, we need to divide into structures created and maintained by humans versus structures
created and maintained by nature and natural forces.

Especially the man-made structures are often insane and/or perceptual to certain extends.

Just some example. I state in anotherness part of this discourse that aporia, entelechy and phronesis
would equal the Peircean universes of firstness, secondness and thirdness. This is true, and false.
Depending on your understandings and perceptions on what I mean to say there. Or on the
explanations of what I say in this phrase by other people. For instance some professor, a very bright
one, rephrased this sentence of mine into something like “phronesis equals the Peircean universes of
firstness, secondness and thirdness.

I will explain further why both the phrase of the professor and mine are either true or false. For about
the same reasons.

For this part of the discourse and the understanding, it is good to mention that an understanding of the
true sole real structure of our universes is key to understand the following statement of mine. Which is
that stating that aporia, entelechy and phronesis (or phronesis solely) would equal the Peircean
universes is a way of inbox thinking. As Peirce himself did, the only right way to link whatever reality to
Peircean universes might be to state that something equals this Peircean universes. Which does NOT
mean that these universes or the way of perceiving the realities according to Peircean universes is the
correct or sane one.

Just briefly, the understanding that (aporia, entelechy and) phronesis equal the Peircean universes of
firstness, secondness and thirdness. Is a correct statement when understanding what Peirce meant
with the universes from him. But, it is an incorrect and false statement when understanding the real
true structure of our universes and the HUGE and diverse elementary mistakes made by Peirce
himself throughout almost every part of his writings.

Peirce did have a meta-physical, dualist perspective. Being much different from my own meta-
semeiotical, holoplural perspective. Meta-physics is based on the wrong, not only reductionist but

316
foremost potentially insane perspective. For understanding this a bit more, it is worthwhile to make a
distinction in the explicit and implicit sign structure. Peirce was talking about more than the explicit sign
structure and nature, and even went on to discuss and explore the implicit sign structure and nature.
His biggest handicap and therefore also mistake was however that he based his understandings there
on the wrong perspective, leading to wrong understandings. While his perspective was mostly still
dualist and metaphysical, it SHOULD have been holoplural. Which is why my own meta-semeiotical
perspective is much more entelychistic and excellent than semiotics can and will ever be.

317
On the holoplural plurisign turn in social sciences and practises

What is needed in our societies at large, is a holoplural plurisign turn in social sciences. As opposed to
some scientific paradigm shifts like the plurigraphic turns and understandings of current times. These
kinds of plurigraphic turns are noteworthy, but still based on the wrong fundaments and
understandings of the sole true structure of our universes at large.

Plurigraphicness is not open enough, and although plurigraphic perspectives and intentionalities are
aimed towards more plural understandings, these understandings are still grounded on the insane
structures and perspectives of mainstream or insane perspectives

Holoplural understandings are understandings based on the theories and understandings reflected in
my discourse “a phronesis antenarrative”. This kind of perspectives are much more entelychistic and
sane than any other perspectives available at current times.

Alfred Korzybski is talking about the differences between a difference perspective and a ratio
perspective in his discourse “Manhood of humanity: the science and art of human engineering”. There
he is giving the examples of geometrical progression and arithmetical progression. Resulting in the
following examples:

GP: 2,4,8,16,32,64 etcetera

AP: 2,4,6,8,10,12, etcetera

On page 17, he states: “..in the first series the multiplier 2 is called the common ratio and in the
second series the repeatedly added 2 is called the common difference”…..Why have I introduced
these two series? Because they serve to illustrate perfectly two widely different laws of progress- two
laws representing vastly different rates of growth, increase, or advancement”53

The great aspect of this understandings from him, is the fact that indeed there is a problem of clashes
of perspectives in our current societies at large. Being the clash between mainstream perspectives
and so-called post-modern perspectives. Although this perspectives are, of course, different than both
difference perspective and ratio perspective, there is one very elementary and important
understanding there. This being the understanding that the differences between mainstream and post-
modern perspectives, or differences between fundamentally different perspectives in general, always
involve a VERY different perspective and understanding of the situations and realities of our
universes.

53
Alfred Korzybki, “Manhood of Humanity: the Science and Art of Human Engineering”, page 17.

318
With all of his great and fundamental understandings, it is a pity that Alfred Korzybski did not really
truly understand that even his ratio understandings where not leading towards the most or maybe sole
sane understandings of our universes. I here remark “most or maybe sole sane” in reference to the
structure of holoplural plurisign perspective, while the remark “most or maybe sole sane” is used
because for a lot of specific practical issues and cases, a less sane perspective MIGHT lead to same
sane results. But, overall, the structure of holoplural plurisign perspective is not just a “most or maybe
sole sane” structure and understanding of our universes.

Holoplural plurisign perspective is, without any doubts, the SOLE sane and true understanding and
structure of our universes at large. This remark being a really important one, as really each social
science and most probably even each natural science (like physics and biology) should underlie this
fundamental structure. It SEEMS a quite theoretical and not that much important issue, this holoplural
plurisign notion. But, it is without any doubt the most fundamental understanding any actor in our
societies could acquire and use.

This holoplural perspective just leads to way different understandings and therefore way different
possibilities for our society at large. Comparing current mainstream with holoplurality, but even
comparing something much more according to holoplurality but still not (like about every greater
developments and perspectives in current times) is like comparing fast food with the most exclusive
meal you can get. Or comparing an old, blind falcon with one broken wing with a great young healthy
strong female peregrine with lots of potentials for the falconer in falconry.

319
You can simply not compare them, but if you do then assure to understand and think based on the
perspective of the falconer, not of yourself. And, besides that, you need to understand in that cases
that the fast food or the old, blind falcon is of course of far less excellence than the exclusive meal or
the young healthy strong falcon. At least it is in certain settings, like the changing surroundings or
assemblages of plurisigns of present times.

The concept of money based on mainstream social sciences and economics is just way inferior to my
notion and understandings of money. I could use money in way different ways, just like I can use the
lure in way different ways than non-falconers but even also in other ways than some experienced
falconers can imagine.

One of the insights being that the way money IS used still in current times, but also the
“understandings” about money, are being based on situations and surroundings that simply do not
exist anymore at current times. Just like the body without organs is not suitable any more to current
organizations. It already was not in previous times, but just like money reductionisms they where much
less troublesome when the surroundings did fit better to this reductionisms. In the end, enchantment is
about a most optimal fit of plurisigns. And as this plurisigns constantly grow and reassemble into not
only different but also better assemblages, also the money and body without organs but also a lot
more in our society at large just needs to grow also. Our governments need to grow, to change.
Money and economics needs to grow, to change. Psychology and laws and lawyers NEED to grow, to
change. For that, we need resistence to insanities. But also recieval of resistence to insanities. And a
positive attitude towards this resistences.

The holoplural plurisign turn, or meta-semeiotical perspective I present and argue about throughout
the whole of my discourse, is largely needed for our society at large. Especially given the growing
lacks of resources like mostly raw materials but also just natural resources in general. We can simply
not use other restrictions that are not really there but only existing because of wrong, reductionist
sensemaking and resulting perceptions being realities for a large group of people/individuals in our
society at large. Like mostly the restrictions of TOO LESS MONEY because of reductionist
understandings in and about our financial and economic system.

In fact, a successful enough switch to meta-semeiotic perspectives and sound great phronesis
antenarrating should and will lead to understanding that not only a lot of our current problems have
been created because of the restricted understandings and understandings of our money system and
economic system, but also that we can quite simply solve this situation and by that enormously
improving the potentials to solve a lot of restrictions and problems in our society at large.

320
In about some years from now, our society and governments within just will HAVE to change the
economic system. If they do so according to holoplural understandings, the kind of understandings I
already put forward in other parts of my writings but also this discourse, the results will be very
positive. If that happens it should become clear that holoplurality is the way to go, not only for
economics but for ALL of sciences and practises. I just hope the responsible, influential parties and
persons on this globe will start to grasp this in time.

321
On the practisistic shift

During the last couple of years, I have among anothernesses focussed my efforts on developing a new
body of understanding. This being called Practisism or Practicism. Phronesis, Phronesis antenarrating
and about all of the new notions and insights expressed in the discourse “ a phronesis antenarrative” ,
are all parts of Practisism. Practisism is where theory meets practise and where quality of signs is
growing.

What has also been expressed in several parts of my discourses, is that current social sciences and
practises are based on wrong perspectives and wrong understandings of the structure and nature of
our universes. Resulting into less good or even insane social understandings and/or practises. Making
our universes more sane and facilitating a sane or optimal atmosphere with signs growing requires our
social sciences and practises to be based on practisism. It requires a great Practisistic shift/turn in
realities following a paradigm shift in sciences based on same understandings of practisism.

This practisistic shift involves a holoplural shift and understanding as opposed to plurigraphic shift and
understandings. Plurigraphic is my notion expressing plural notions and understandings, but based on
diagrammatic thinking and understandings. Resulting in what I call Uniplurals. Which are to be
compared/labelled with the Peircean notion of representamen. Phronesis antenarrating and the
practisistic shift and methodologies are aimed at Phronesis representia, or at transforming
representamens into Phronesis representia.

This practisistic shift should however not be just that, a practisistic shift. It should involve a lot more
than that. First of all, the practisistic shift has to be phronitical. Phroniticality being the most important
aspect of the nature of practisism. A consequence of this phronitical nature of practisism is the fact
that the practisistic shift has to be aimed at transitive values as opposed to statical values. And,
following from this, the same practisistic shift involves the aiming towards more quality instead of
quantity. More qualitative than quantitative, more focus on quality. Which not always involves more
focus and attention towards quality as opposed to quantity.

Qualitativity is also about value. Value being not only statical value, but even more transitive values.
Actually, statical value does not really exist, but in current inbox society it is just still valuable to use
the notion as kind of intermediate step for growing towards the great perspective of holoplurality and
meta-semeiotical understandings connected with this excellent ultimate perspective.

But in the end what is called statical value in this discourse, is always not about statical value but
about representamens and objects being starting points. It is just one of the aspects actually of this
objects or representamens, although in most cases in our universes we perceive them as complete
entities. Forgetting about the transitive values, aspects, of the same representamens and object.

322
Linearity and linear BME plots do not really exist in our societies, although we often perceive and think
they do. Linearity is mere perception, while reductionism is just always there and can never be
avoided in our sensemaking and storytelling.

There is however a way to prevent insane reductionisms. Insane reductionisms should always be
subject to resistance to insanity (RTI) . Since RTI introduced the important anothernesses in life, by
playing lazarus instead of accepting and agreeing to the devil antenarratives and stories/plots of our
society.

Practisism/Practicism, and the practisistic shift, is actually aimed at making practise more practical by
influencing both science and practise to move from a reductionist, insane perspective leading to A
LOT of problems for humans and society towards a perspective and kind of sensemaking based on
the sole true underlying structure and nature of all of our universes. As such, it is of course even more
excellent and great than anything currently available in our sciences and practises. Which is why I
correctly state in numerous parts of this discourse that ALL of social sciences, other sciences but also
all of practises in our universes have to be altered and changed according to my understandings.
Meaning that holoplurality and holoplural pluriflection should become fundament and guidance for ALL
of sciences and other occurrences in our universes at large. In the end, ALL of our sensemaking
should become holoplural.

323
On pluriscience and synechism

Charles Sanders Santiago Peirce did kind of invent a lot of new terminologies. From the Greek
synechismos and syneches, meaning something like continuous, he derived his notion of synechism.

Joseph L Esposito did write some interesting article on synechism which is mentioned at the digital
pierce site. Hopefully it still is, at http://www.digitalpeirce.fee.unicamp.br/synesp.htm

There, Joseph L. Esposito among anothernesses states the following:

“Synechism, as a metaphysical theory, is the view that the universe exists as a continuous whole of all of its parts, with no part
being fully separate, determined or determinate, and continues to increase in complexity and connectedness through semiosis
and the operation of an irreducible and ubiquitous power of relational generality to mediate and unify substrates. As a research
program, synechism is a scientific maxim to seek continuities where discontinuities are thought to be permanent and to seek
semiotic relations where only dyadic relations are thought to exist. Synechism and pragmatism mutually support each other:
synechism provides a theoretical rationale for pragmatism, while use of the pragmatic maxim to identify conceivable
consequences of experimental activity enriches the content of the theory by revealing and creating relationships”

I am largely using this text as resource for my reflections here. Since it is simply a very good text on
synechism like it was understood by Peirce. Most probably. Although I am wondering in what respects
Peirce’s real understandings of synechism depart from the interpretations in the discourse from mr.
Esposito.

Joseph Esposito very correctly makes the remark in his discourse that it may very well be that the
universe is not a unifiable system. But that parts of the universe may never influence or have contact
with other parts. Actually this is, of course, the case. But it is against the general idea of synechism,
where the general view is that all parts are connected in one or anotherness ways. Quite generally I
would like to state that Peirce did lack some understanding there. The most important understanding
being that his sign theory almost did give some good fundament already for the structures of our
universes. It was also lacking some insights there, but still he did make great steps forward there. To
actually define synechism the way he did was actually one step too far. Mainly because he simply did
not understand enough, but also because it is probably just doing more harm than being of real use.
By defining this notion of synechism the way Peirce did, he just did direct attentions of thinking of
many people into the wrong directions. Also it is just only part of the whole sole real structure of our
universes. Being really always a combination of continuity and discontinuities. Some parts having links
and some parts just being really separate from a lot of other aspects of our universe.

324
Peirce did state that synechism and atomism would not be compatible with each other when the atoms
were regarded as independent (more or less) fixed entities. Maybe also therefore, he wanted to only
adopt the Boscovichean idea of atoms. The point there is that some misunderstandings of the
structure of our universes expressed in Peirce’s notions and understandings of synechism did direct
him towards accepting Boscovichean physics. I myself got to admit that I do not understand both
synechism and boscovichean physics well enough also at this moment, but accepting only these views
is probably a way of wishfully adopting parts of science without paying enough attention to true
understandings of both the objects of sense making and the anothernesses that are dismissed.

I myself like most of the ideas and contents of synechism, but would like to introduce the notion of
synechesm. This is a mode of synechism very much related to synechism, but slightly different.
Because of small differences in the contents of the notion itself, but mainly also because of the fact
that this synechesm is part of my own body of philophronesis theories and practises. Based on a
whole different understanding of the nature of realities and existences within and beyond our
universes. Synechesm, like it is expressed and still has to be developed and understood in higher
levels of sophistication by both me and others, is part of my own body of practicism. Incorporating not
only synechesm, but also my notions and understandings of philophronesis, semiphronesis and sign
theories and practises.

325
Quite generally, my own understandings of Peirce are that he was a great scholar and scientist
indeed, but at the same time he did miss some true real understandings on critical issues. Besides
that he did not understand important anothernesses well enough. Leading him to develop new notions
and insights that were not complete and therefore not fully right. Examples of it are his notions and
understandings of synechism and pragmaticism. But also his understandings of the universes were
lacking some important critical adaptions. Because of his fixations of belief he, CS Peirce, did
construct a metaphysical system that is just not complete and has some real gaps. But in fact all of
metaphysical systems are incomplete.

This is something that is probably far too much neglected or overlooked by a lot of current Peircean
scholars. My general experiences there are that most of these scholars interpretate Peirce as being
the greatest genius, someone who did not make mistakes in his writings. They most generally view the
Peircean discourses as being complete and ultimate truths, while actually there are a lot of chances to
improve since there are gaps of understandings at many places. According to me, Peirce really was
not that much of a genius. His main advantages were more like he being a son of a well respected
Harvard teacher. He simply did have a lot of input right from the start of his life, most probably. This
resulted in a great start for getting in touch with the greatest intellectuals of the past. Peirce was very
well in recombining the insights of the intellectual texts he did read during his life. And also he did for
sure engineer the fundaments for greater understandings of our universes. With his fundamental
insights and discourses, really a lot can be done. In all aspects of our societies. But in the end his
writings were really fundamental. They should be considered very critically and have to be adapted
and improved in many respects. Since, in the end, Peirce did make a lot of mistakes still because of
lacks of understandings. By bowling together, the greater Peircean scholars could improve a lot on his
fundamental philosophies.

By the way, just as some additional remark on geniuses. Like I said somewhere at the beginning of
this discourse, true geniuses like I regard them to be simply never existed till now. But actually I might
be wrong, since maybe Nikola Tesla belonged to one of the people that actually can be regarded as a
true past genius. According to me, Einstein was not. At least not as far as I understand his discourses.
I did read some of his relativity theory discourse and I think there are major gaps in it. Part of it might
be result of the fact that the original text from Einstein had been adopted over the years. But according
to me, Einstein did really miss some true understanding there. Some of that might be caused by the
fact that most of general relativity, and even the E=MC2, does NOT origin from the beautiful mind of
Einstein. But from another much less well known intellectual, which is Henry Poincare.

If I would have to alter the notions of synechism like expressed by Peirce, I would use the notion of
synechesm instead. Synechesm being my own understandings of the structure of our universes.
Which is much better than the notion of synechism for sure, one of the reasons being that I am certain
that I have better understandings there than the ones Peirce did have during his life. At this point I

326
however do not have enough understandings still to express this in words right here right now. So I will
not.

In the end, it is like I said. That it is maybe just better in fact not to give statements on what synechism
or synechesm would involve. Since it is more important to understand the contents of what it would
involve. And this is already expressed in other parts of my discourse. Just like Peirce did express his
views on this in other parts of his discourses. And also in my case, this insights I have at this moment
are just merely fundamental. Meaning that they surely can (and must!) be altered and improved to
make them really sophisticated and approaching “the” truth(s) even more.

Quite generally, I would like to remark the following here about issues and examples that can be
connected to the notion of synechism or synechismos directly. Of course, our universes contain both
aspects of mediate and immediate objects and processes. Some of the immediate processes are
caused by living creatures acting in one or anotherness ways, some of them are just caused by natural
forces and some of them are just a combination of both of them. Whatever processes result from it are
just part of a much bigger process.

327
On plurisigns and the pragmatic maxim

Most people being interested in Peirce do not fully truly understand the pragmatic maxim. I even
suppose that even Peirce did not fully truly understand the broad implications and practicality of this
notion of pragmatic maxim: Since, practical value of the pragmatic maxim is actually rather high. In
case you truly understand that this maxim is wrongly stated. And that reality is or at least should be
different for sure.

The pragmatic maxim was coined by Peirce. He did among others define it as follows:

“Consider what effects that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our
conception to have. Then, our conception oft these effects is the whole of our conception of the object
(Peirce, CP 5.2, 1878/1902).

Or

“ In order to ascertain the meaning of an intellectual conception one should consider what practical
consequences might conceivably result by necessity from the truth of that conception; and the sum of
those consequences will constitute the entire meaning of the conception ( Peirce, CP 5.9, 1905).

Fact is that everything in life is a combination of plurisigns. And in the end it matters a lot in which
configurations these plurisigns are used and socially ordered. Meaning that a trustsign can mean
something completely different in one situation as compared to the other one. Not only because of
other compounds of the trustsign itself, but also because of the context in which it is used. Somebody
not fully aware of all the relevant plurisigns can and will judge the whole situation in wrong ways.

As an example, the discourse on “bowling alone” . In this discourse, Robert. D. Putnam54 is telling the
story of us bowling more and more alone. The book is giving a lot of examples and data. And for sure
is a very interesting read. If only for the fact that it makes you realise the worth of social capital. And,
more important, that at least something is wrong with this social values in current societies. Social
values are actually, without any doubts, the most valuable resources we got in our societies. It can
improve our societies and universes. And make them much healthier. Actually, If for instance I would
be even more able to bowl in leagues, this fundamental discourse would be much better. But I did
spend a lot of time in all kinds of social configurations. Meeting and talking to a lot of different people.
Being involved in a lot of situations and the like, feeding my mind with empiricist experiences. Which
did for sure have a positive influence on the Phronesis and anotherness plurisigns of this discourse.

54
Robert D. Putnam is Professor of public policy at Harvard. And among others, he is a fellow of the American
Academy of Arts and Sciences.

328
Now, on bowling alone. Of course, like with everything, there are plural reasons why we bowl alone
more and more. One of them probably the reason that in general higher educated people can get quite
arrogant on what they think to know and what they are able to do themselves. Also, bowling alone is
largely motivated in our current education systems. And also in a lot of organizations. I already
remarked somewhere else in this discourse that a lot of unhealthy and even insane habits in
organizations are often transferred towards family55 life. Well, the bowling alone sickness is one of
those insane habits transferred. But I think to understand that the reasons why are very difficult to
grasp still. And that the real main reasons are actually not because of facts that people do not want to
bowl in leagues, but more indirect causes. Maybe the main one just lacks of time on both sides.

But, although some reasons or maybe all of the reasons for bowling alone might be easy to pinpoint in
general, it is often very difficult to make a sound judgement there for individual cases and
circumstances. While someone might perceive a case of bowling alone as lack of trust, it might just be
mainly a matter of lack of time. Meaning that the bowling alone signs actually do not consist of
trustsigns, but much more out of lack of time signs. Now. I would not agree with the pragmatic maxim
in this cases. Since it would matter a lot whether the bowling alone is caused because of lacks of time
maybe or whether it is a matter of trust. By means of knowing that, the problem could be solved
maybe. But each kind of problem needs another kinds of solutions.

It is very great and good that Peirce does link practical useability with intellectual concepts in his
second definition on pragmatic maxim like it is stated here. But I do not agree that the sum of the
consequences would entail the entire meaning of the conception. I do not agree that practical
consequences entails the entire meaning of the conception of an object. You can partly understand
this by reading this whole discourse, I guess. But also you should understand yourself in case you are
wise and use the right ways of pluralistic diagnosis. Which is the right process of pluriflection, some
wentelychistic combination of phronesis abduction and phronesis retroduction and some critical
anotherness betweennesses. Actually the sole reason why I do not agree with the fact that practical
consequences are entailing everything we can understand about an objects, is of course because of
anothernesses. In this case the anothernesses are NOT in the fields of anotherness plurisigns not
related to conception. Since of course they also matter, but in the end Peirce did never state that an
object would not have other qualisigns except conception plurisigns. So also non-practical and
practical plurisigns of an object are important to other aspects than meaning of course. And Peirce did
never state in any ways they are not.

55
The generally accepted notion of family is the family in biologic senses. As meaning biologically related to
each other. This is completely different from my own notion of family. Which is a notion of family in social
senses. Meaning the group of people socially related to each other. And by that also responsible for each other.
Actually, in the end we are all family of each other. Which means we not just got to take care, but simply have
to! We are responsible for every and each family member and should be concerned for their well beings.

329
But, what his pragmatic maxim does not entail, is that a lot of objects of our conception do not have
practical consequences. And still have a lot of meaning in our conceptions of that object. For instance
a lot of the works of Einstein do not have any practical consequences and never will have. But still the
meaning in conceptions is enormous for a lot of people. Then also there is a lot of bullshit in our
universes, that does not have any practical consequences and also never will have. But still it is of
course also having some kind of meaning in conceptions. And even it can lead to great practical
consequences, but also if not it still has meaning. Of course, the whole of our conception of an object
can entail some practical consequences. But they simply do not have to entail any of them!

I can enjoy just looking to my falcons for hours a lot, this has a lot of values for me and the meaning of
this enjoyment is of course a lot more for me than most other objects of my conceptions. But still this
enjoyment does not necessarily have practical consequences. Of course even they can have, but
most probably they will not. Whether they will also partly depends on some processes of thinking and
doing of course, but also on the acts and understandings of the surroundings.

Which is leading me to some other critique on the pragmatic maxim of Peirce. This maxim is far too
much aimed at the objects of our conception, and not on the roles of surroundings. Meaning that
whether something will have practical consequences is of course not only dependent on meaning in
our conceptions, but much more on the entire process. A lot of anothernesses in our universes have
influence on the sum of practical consequences that something will have or will fail to have.

When reading the pragmatic maxim as it was stated by Peirce, I am really wondering whether Peirce
did actually want to play some games with the readers. By stating something while actually really truly
understanding the anothernesses that I did point out above. It would really not surprise me a lot if
Peirce actually did understand about the anothernesses I mention. And even lots more. Since in the
end Peirce really was a great intellectual. Of course. But when we arrive at the points of reflecting on
and interpretations of his discourses, it is always difficult of course to know whether he is playing some
kind of games with the readers or whether he just did not understand enough on certain matters.

Fact is that Peirce did make some general mistake in the pragmatic maxim. Which is that he is
discussing on the what and on existences, but at the same time leaving out some other universes and
elements of life. Whether Peirce is playing a game with his pragmatic maxim or whether he did just not
understand enough, is actually something that is also part of the object of our reflection of thoughts
being the pragmatic maxim. Or it is not. This of course depends also partly on the people reflecting.
But also in what kind of contexts and the like the pragmatic maxim is discussed. But the who, what
and other process like aspects of the object of discussion or thought are of course also important
elements of the object.

Although some of my thoughts about objects might not have any consequences in the end, they still
might have meaning. Or not. This also partly depends on your definitions of meaning also.

330
331
On a more sane and elementary maxim

Peirce did ground quite a lot of his philosophy on the great Immanuel Kant. Maybe through him he
arrived also to his ideas on formulating a maxim himself. The only thing is that the maxim of Peirce
was based on partial understandings of our universes and the underlying principles of our actions.

In the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, a maxim is a subjective principe or rule that the will of an
individual uses in making a decision. It contains the practical rule, determined by a persons will,
according to the demands and requirements of the subject. It is the grounding rule on the base of
which a subject makes it’s decisions.

The most elementary thing there is, according to me, to make some distinctions in what subjective
principles and rules an individual normally DOES and what an individual normally SHOULD use in
making a decision.

I already stated that the maxim of pragmatism is actually kind of relative bullshit. And why. What I want
to mention here, is the ultimate great maxim. The ultimate underlying principle for our actions. Being a
principle that is underlying quite some of our actions right now, but unfortunately not in as many cases
as it should be. In general, this underlying maxim should be the rule and underlying principle for really
each and every action of living creatures in our universes. But, because of serious insanities and
mallfunctions of many aspects of current society and therefore also our universes at large, it is not
always the best choice and option right now. But to make our societies more sane and just, we should
strive towards and apply this ultimate maxim as much as possible.

Before I will arrive towards this maxim, I have to state that just recently I understood in much better
ways that the base of this maxim should be something I arrived at much earlier in my reflections. It is a
concept and notion that is MUCH more elementary and MUCH more important than I understood
earlier on. It is the notion of transitive values. Since just recently, I understand that this notion should
be the most elementary maxim for improving social sciences and society at large.

What I also understand now, is that Bob (alias Robert Pirsig) who is the writer of among others “the art
of motorcycle maintenance”, was actually almost on the right tracks of this ultimate maxim with his
considerations. In its essences, Bob was and is also looking for the grounding maxim(s) of our society.
But, when I read his discourses I can see some quite elementary errors he is making in his thinking
and reasoning’s. As regards to his concentration on quality, this is not the most elementary subjective
principle. The most elementary principle being, like I stated, the notion and principle of transitive
values.

332
On the differences between dynamic quality and transitive values. This differences are mainly
grounded in my understandings and meaning of the terminology of transitive values. As opposed to
Bob’s understanding and meaning of the terminology of dynamic quality. As regards to the
understandings and meaning of Bob, I can for sure not understand and comprehend them to the
fullest. Because of the fact that this understandings and meanings are of course only known to the
fullest by Bob himself. But, it is a real true fact that it can be derived from his writings that he was and
is wrong in the true understandings of the role and true importance’s of quality and values in the light
of a maxim the way it was meant to be by the great Immanuel Kant.

The main differences between Pirsig’s quality and my notion of values, which do not have to be in line
with more rightful understandings of quality and my notion of values, is as far as I understand the
following. Pirsig’s quality is, as far as I am concerned, still too much connected with the notion of arête.
Excellence or, maybe in Peircean terminology, entelechy. Although I still do not understand enough
whether both Peirce and Aristotle or maybe either of them did understand this notions in wrong ways.
But, the most elementary thing here is that my notion of values and understandings of it, and also my
notion of quality and arête, are not similar to the internal qualities of an object. Meaning that quality
and arête and entelechy and the like are based on the main and ultimate maxim being transitive
values. But, these transitive values ideally are and should be a very neutral term and notion. And not.
Being neutral in the sense that something being very modest or without aestetics can be of much more
“quality” and entelychistic than the biggest pieces of art. And less can be more in many respects. The
notion of transitive values is NOT neutral in the sense that the real true contents of it (most importantly
the understandings of the true character of true real arête/quality/entelechy), have to be understood
and to be the main aspect of judgements on transitive values and actions based upon this.

Based on this considerations, I would like to put forward some practicistic maxim here. What I do
understand, is that my notion of transitive values for sure is the most fundamental core of the ultimate
practicistic maxim. But, I am also just human. Meaning that I also make mistakes. So, just see this first
initial shot towards a practicistic maxim as it is. Being a very good and practical maxim, but probably it
is needed to improve it. And maybe just maybe there are some tiny errors in it still. Just like there are
more or less profound errors in about everything written and thought about.

333
But, for now, I would like to formulate the practicistic maxim as follows :

The practicistic maxim is the ultimate grounding rule on the base of which both individuals and groups
and organizations should ground their decisions. Although it is not possible in all circumstances to do
so in present times, because of huge insanities in our society at large, it should be strived upon as
much as possible. To make our universes and societies more just and sane and great. The ultimate
grounding rule should be the notion of transitive value. Transitive values being interconnectedly
linked with the notion of usage. Something NOT being used more does NOT really truly have more
transitive value. BUT, the usage referred towards here also involves taking this something into regards
and then deciding not to “use” it in the normally understood meaning of usage of goods and services
and ideas. Since, in many cases, the arête of transitive value might only increase by NOT using
something. Transitive value increases when something is “used” more often OR less often. This
depends partly on the ways something is “used“, which is of course important here. Meaning that
something can be “used”, of course, for different usages. The one being better than the other one.
Which one is better, is often difficult to understand and comprehend.

The remark that something not being used does NOT really truly have transitive value does refer to
the fact that a static or less transitive value only gets more transitive value when it is interconnected
with more issues and realities. This is needed to decide whether these less transitive values need to
be really “used” in the process to make it more arête, excellent. So, less transitive values might mean
more arête. But to decide so, more issues and values have to be taken into regard first to improve
understandings or to simply find out. So, in that respects, transitive value first has to be increased to
be able to decide which transitive values have to be increased and which have to be decreased in our
realities as such.

IF this practicistic maxim is understood to the fullest, and applied to practise in general also based on
the sole true structure on our universes and sound methodologies and understandings, really
everything in our society and universes can be improved in arête, excellence.

This discourse of mine is fundamental for doing so. The practicistic maxim is only part of the whole
fundament at large, to understand and comprehend this to the fullest a sound understanding of
everything I am talking about is needed. Enchantment is about a most optimal fit of plurisigns, based
on holoplurality.

334
On (in)direct causations

We quite often use the words (in) direct and direct. Now, actually also the character of this notions is
rather relative. What we call indirect is mostly a way of explicating that we use and have a broader and
more thorough understandings of the matters concerned. One of the examples being in justice the
aspect of determining and questioning whether a prosecuted criminal is guilty or not. When we look at
the so-called direct and limitedly characterised view that the criminal himself has executed the crime
and therefore is guilty, the individual and collective that find the criminal guilty has overlooked and
therefore caused a huge error on the scenes of crime and justice. Reason of this being that in the
end the direct causes and guiltiness’s of crimes are NOT a matter of individual minds and guiltiness’s.
It is a matter of collective minds and guiltiness’s. In most cases, indirectly our whole collective minds
are responsible for the crimes of individuals in our societies. It is not only the criminal, but in most
cases the lack of quality and more specifically understanding of the people and collective minds
around him and having the rather foolish and arrogant perceptions of them that they would be able to
judge justicelly , that cause crimes or continuations of them over and over and over again.

Direct causations, well viewing aspects of our worlds and universes as being the result of these, is
mostly a result of a too narrow Aristotelian way of thinking. A kind of thinking that does not accept non-
Aristotelian pluralistic ways of thinking and understandings. Mostly because of the fact that the people
judging the aspects of our worlds and universes are not capable to think and act in non-Aristotelian
ways.

When we reflect more thoroughly, it mostly is the case that there are so-called indirect causations.
Meaning that there are more determinants responsible for how the process continues. But, in the end
these so-called indirect causations are mostly just anothernesses. Indirect only meaning “more” and
“pluralist” instead of solely modernist Aristotelian narrowness.

I will give some example here. Just one while there are of course numerous examples around us each
moment in time. The example I will choose here is about production of whatever in plants. Just
suppose a product to be produced. Some process operators maintaining the process. And some
quality people. If it occurs at whatever moment that the product is not good and a lot has to be thrown
away, the direct cause might be perceived to be the fact that the person working at the machine did
not really check the products enough. But indirect or real direct causes might be that the process
operator did just not execute enough maintenance or applied wrong settings with the machine. In fact
this will most probably be the real cause all the times. Since whenever something is wrong in a
process, there is always something wrong either in the planning or the controlling parts of the process.
Of course.

335
Another thing to realize is that both indirect and direct causes do not exist. At least the terminologies
direct and indirect not, they are wrong terms. Only causes exist, and there are only real causes and
non real, perceived causes that actually are NOT. Mostly the so-called direct causes are, like I explain
above, just very wrong perceptions and actually NOT the real existing causes.

Often in a process of activities taking place at several moments in time, there are always activities
before that have some more or less profound impact on the end results. Meaning that in the end about
all the results or outcomes of certain activities are not real stand alones. Although they are often
perceived and treated that ways.

336
On linearity

Although my thoughts are by far not linear, I just have to write them down in one or another way just
like they would be. In the sense that I have to group my thoughts first into words (which actually can
not incorporate some of the great anothernesses like feelings or simply thoughts I can not express in
words), but then I have also to write them down in some linear structure. It starts with the linear
structure of sentences. Here we write from the left to the right. In some other cultures the people write
from right to left or down-up or up-down. But it is always linear and uniform and can not be any other
way. Which is actually a great pity since I would regard it greater to just write down words with some
lesser fixed links. Or links in multiplicities.

Then when I write down in sentences, or before this, I got to decide on the grouping of the texts on the
pages. An order of things in this case the blocks of texts. The cutting and pasting function in software
for texts in the digital sphere made rearranging possible, thank god, because otherwise this task would
also be more difficult. Which is why I can understand the top down strategy of people like Charles
Sanders Peirce for developing their ways of thinking, and in his case his concepts of Pragmaticism.
This concept and also his semiotics got more and more content during his life. It’s kind of what we
would call object oriented design and architecture in current times. Which was then more needed than
in current times. Because of the cut and paste option, combined with huge possibilities to get lots of
wisdom from various sources, enables a strategy that is much broader and inhabits more aspects of a
top-down strategy. By which is meant more initial emphasis on content with the bottom-up, and more
initial emphasis on form with the top-down.

Anyway, I myself took a strategy more based on some top-down way of working at first stance. Which
was not only possible because of the easier ways of viewing and reading and talking to much more
and partly qualitatively higher sources. But also because of the possibilities of (academic)
methodologies to enable this kind of strategy. Although I had to discover these academic
methodologies at first stance. When starting my PhD research I just did not want to work with some of
the currently used but heavily outdated and counterproductive ways of dealing with academic
research. So I just followed my intuition or, better stated, my tacit knowledge. Not because intuition
does not exist according to Peirce. Because, I disagree with him on that. But, in this case it was tacit
knowledge. Since I knew about practise and realities of life. And about shortfalls in science. Also, I
kind of knew that this was at least partly because of “just” the wrong ways of doing things in science
AND PRACTISE. Some tacit feeling I am now sure about. Because now I also know how a less linear
and less bottom-up way of research is possible.

337
The “only” handicaps still there are the construction of our ancient language. And the technical non-
possibilities, the shortfalls of software at current times. Now, the language problem can not be solved.
But, the shortfalls of software can. Since, by knowing that linearity is a huge shortfall and problem for
getting towards better ways of representing and communicating, we can also know and understand
that same software and ICT is not a problem or shortfall. But a major chance for getting out of the
matrixes there. In ICT, a lot is possible. Program languages have become object oriented. I just know
that also our languages and even this Microsoft Word I am typing in just now can be. Should be. And
will be, in future. As soon as the possibilities are transformed into digital existences.

And now, having written a lot more then I wanted concerning the linearity of software and language, I
would like to continue with the discourse I actually want to write here. Concerning the on linearity.
Because actually the “on linearity”, the heading of this block of text in my antenarrative, refers not to
software or language. But to the linearity in economics. Just like in many parts of life, we seem to like
to structure everything. If possible in linear, diagrammatic ways. Charles Sanders Peirce already
stated a while back that thoughts are diagrammatic. But, like I already stated, that does not mean that
they SHOULD be. And, it by far does not mean that aspects of our society have to be. But in
economics, which plays a major part of our society, it is. Our society is to large extents commodified.
But the object of this commodification, the economy and economic thinking, is largely based on wrong
ways of structuring. And thinking.

What is also very important to understand, is that our society is also driven largely based on pre-
assumptions. Some of these actually not being true, but because they are supposed as being so,
people act and react based on these pre-assumptions. One of the most counterproductive pre-
assumptions now, is the following. Which is very important to truly understand. Because, if you do so,
you will realise just as I do that we are making our lives much more difficult than necessary. This pre-
assumption is, that money and work/ economy are actually tight linked in some strict ways. They are
not actually, the only reason why they are is because we take it to be that way and act that ways. But,
if we would not, we could get towards societies that are much better and people having enough
income not the relatively small amounts compared to what is possible. Really, money is not a problem
or bottleneck. And when we increase wages, we will all profit from that. In a lot of aspects of life! But, it
should be effected in some intelligent way. By someone who really knows what he/she is doing and
who would know the consequences of the acts. I would for sure.

338
The building blocks of life

Very elementary in my point of view is the simple notion that I consider aspects of life to consist
always of some combination of building blocks. Which are some combination of social and cognitive
aspects. 56 In essence we deal with building blocks, that can be recombined. These building blocks are
sometimes tight coupled, in other instances loosely coupled. In some instances they HAVE to be tight
57
coupled, in other instances more or less loose. But in essence, we “only” need to put the building
blocks together in most efficient and effective ways. With as less “pain” as possible, like stated in the
excellent discourse of Eric Abrahamson, called “change without pain”. This discourse in the book
published at the end of 2003 offers some great perspectives about methodologies to guide change
processes in much better ways.

Some years ago, when studying at the Erasmus University Rotterdam, some teacher there proposed
some other way of looking at the organizational charts familiar to be used. What he proposed was
something like this:

The people could be put in by means of dots wherever you would like to inside or outside the border of
the circle. This way of viewing the organization may in some instances (depending on the nature of the
organization) be very fruitful and constructive. Although the circle itself can better also be eliminated.
Just like about all structures can, if real true understandings evolve and get towards a certain level of
understanding and arête.

56
While typing this, one of my sparrowhawks is to be heard. Some anotherness of my life being a
falconer. My absolute passion.
57
Something a guy I met in a closed psychiatry also told me. This guy was not normal, but in many
aspects he is more intelligent than most of us. For this clear moments of him I would like to team up
for making the necessary changes happen.

339
To me, there is some strong similarity between this example of another way of viewing the
organization and the way I see societies and economies. The way I also think they are at least more
and more in present times. Fact is, the circle above does replace some more linear ways of viewing
organizations. But, it is still linear. Straight lines are linear, but non-straigh lines also are. Just like
matrixes and triangles are essentially linear in their nature.

Although the circle still only shows very small parts of qualisigns of the organization, it is a much better
representation of most current organizations and organizations in general. One of the reasons this
representation is mostly better for current times has to do with the changes of context, the changes of
organizational environments requiring this kind of organizing and organizations.

The interesting thing now is, the fact that many economic models are also linear. Which in this case is
not only some bad representation, but also a wrong one. In many cases, absolutely no characteristic
of these models can be found in real life and/or the context(s) the models are giving information about.
Like some falconry friend of mine told me just recently, when drawing a falcon or a goshawk you
should aim at the people who see your work to not see a drawing from a falcon or goshawk, but a
goshawk itself. This requires to really study the structure and details of the living creature. In the case
of drawing birds of prey this would mean learning a lot about anatomy, for example by studying the
writings of the great artist Michelangelo da Vinci. Anyways, also in science the intellectuals or
academics practising their profession should aim at learning all the details and ins and outs, all the
(characteristics from) the qualisigns and issues involved, to improve their works. Any written or
otherwise expressed scientific work should aim at approaching reality as much as possible. We all
know that most theoretical models do not. And the fact that a lot of them are just copied or used in
practise without real understanding of the anothernesses of possibilities, existences and laws causes
a lot of the problems of incompletenesses in our current societies

In fact, we as homo sapiens seem to tend towards linearity and diachronic thinking instead of
synchronic thinking and doing. Our realities are mostly a mixture of both diachronic and synchronic,
but certainly most things are not linear. In a lot of firms, workfloor employers are referring to the
management as the people “up there”. Also the linear organizational charts place them above the
workfloor employers. But in the end everyone is just working not only for themselves but also for the
other people in the company. And also for society at large. Offices at the top of buildings for
management are artefacts for the illusion of superiority. The hierarchies in organizational charts are.
These could all far better be reflected in anotherness ways. Without tendencies of trying to put
everything into boxes. Just look at the organizational charts and you will see this tendency. All persons
kind of “locked up” in their own boxes like Dilbert’s cubicles.

340
As part of my activities, I started a website called philophronesis. This website can be found on
www.philophronesis.com . The aim of this website is to facilitate the gathering of and discussion about
excellent knowledge for changing society. This by taking the notion of building blocks and subsequent
methodologies into regard. Main aim would be that many excellent persons enlist here and contribute
to a better society with their knowledge and networks.

In my opinion, the complete and entelychistic setup of building blocks is most important. The best way
for doing so is to follow the methodology and contents of my understandings and notion of
philophronesis and phronesis. Which is why I use the term of philophronesis on my website. It is
based on the sole true structure of our universes, quite similar to the structures to be found back in
natural elements, molecules and atoms. Their links. And how to alter these links and by that changing
or creating materials. In a way they also work with building blocks. The main difference being the fact
that social building blocks are much more flexible. And can be put together in more different and
complex ways.

To make current capitalist systems complete, some additional building blocks are needed. These can
be only found through logic. Being aware of the anothernesses of current societies and what can be
done with them. Which is, basically, making our capitalist systems very logic. And by that, successful.
With the knowledge I have expressed in this discourse and most of all the knowledge I will express in
the next parts of this discourse, capitalist societies can be made really complete. And by that,
successful. It will prove that every social order, even the capitalist system, can be a true ecosocial
system. With that I mean a combination of economics and social, where BOTH of these will flourish.
The more entelechy is added to the society, the more successful the new ecosocial orders can be
then.

341
On doing the opposite versus understandings

I believe it was Karl Weick who proposed to do exactly the opposite in case something does not work
out. Or maybe it was a former teacher of mine, Alexander Maas, who might have mentioned it in the
book he wrote with some others, called “een kwestie van verschil”. Anyways, it does not matter
actually where it was mentioned exactly. What matters much more, is what it was about and the
understandings about what this all involves.

The most important insight here should be, that whenever something like this is stated, that the subject
of this line of doing is simply not understood well enough. Since, if something is understood really well
enough, the most profitable and great actions can be known and executed instantly. And doing the
wrong opposites or actions is then just not any reasonable option anymore.

Especially in social processes where humans and their actions are involved, a lot of true
understandings are still missing. And actions are based mostly on mere possibilities there. Like reports
or methodologies proposed by science. That most of these methodologies and methods are not
correct or even insane to less or more extends, is something very true but not understood well enough
by the people applying this kind of models and methodologies. People executing and applying certain
“firstnesses”, possibilities, are often capable to adjust to specific situations. But, for doing so they really
need to understand they have to adjust these firstnesses. In many cases, they do not. Since they
simply think they work with real true existences instead of possibilities. Or in this case more like that
they think the scientist or people who made the structures did so based on real true understandings
instead of that they based their insights on insane social fundaments.

Just doing merely the opposite of something in case something does not work out is not the right thing
to do, in case you do not understand what you are dealing with. Since it may indeed work, but still in
those cases that it seems to work you may still do a lot of harm. In case of taking scientific procedures
and lines of thinking as a starting point, doing harms will actually be more or less a “logical” and
“normal” result that about always results out of it. Simply because of the sole reason that a lot of
science is just based on exactly this kind of misunderstandings of specific cases. And, what I explain
in other parts of this discourse, the habits of searching for generals. Modernism and uniform ways of
looking and understanding do deliver to science what is required there, generality and general
applicability of theories and models. But, this at the cost of harms to specific cases in practise.

Once again, the only sole right and just way of practise, both in science and in practical matters, is to
really truly understand. And to base actions only on these real true understandings. This means that
among others the above proposed practise of doing the opposite is just very wrong actually. Just like
the theoretical habits of induction and deduction are. Once people really truly understand what they
are doing, this kind of doing is just not needed anymore.

342
In social practises, whenever there are a lot of complaints on how things are going (like for instance in
economics, justice and psychology), you can bet there is not a real true understandings and actions
are at least partially based on insane social fundaments. This will mean that a lot still has to be
changed and improved in practise, but also that the practitioners working in these fields most likely are
at least partially insane themselves. Meaning that they do not listen and do enough with the
complaints being expressed, but also that there should really be some third parties evaluating the
practitioners and taking needed steps in case they think something might be going wrong there.

Doing the opposite is never really a true sound option. Actions, any actions, have to be based on
understandings. On sane sensemaking, being sound pluriflection and phronesis antenarrating. Any
time this is not the case, it will lead to insanities. Either because the wrong tools are used because of
misunderstandings, or because the right tools are used but in wrong ways also because of same
reason of misunderstanding.

343
On perceptual dualities

“..and that it will continue to talk of

opposites where there are only degrees and many
refinements of gradation “ (Nietzsche, BGAE)

One of the great sayings of last century originates from Argyris, who was saying that perception is
reality.

This is one of the biggest truths and facts of current times. A fact is just a special type of truth and
reality. And in the end, it is a fact that most of our realities are perceptions and therefore not real true
realities and facts.

A special type of perceptual realities is the reality of perceptual dualities. The more you come to
understand the real true facts and realities of our universes, the more you understand that the
perceived realities of dualities are in fact mere perceptions and therefore non-realities. Perceptual
dualities are an example of one of the fiercest and most profound semisophy insanities of human
minds and therefore our societies and universes as a whole.

Dualities perceived by our minds are most often not really existing, at least not in the ways they are
perceived by our minds. These dualities and their qualisigns and characteristics are added and
perceived to be existences, while they do not really truly exist outside of the universes of reality and
even not outside the perceptions. But because of perception they do have their influences and
therefore in the universe of reality these perceptions are treated as existences.

344
On irrationalities of rationalities

When I shower, I do not only take regards of water being spoilt. Individual rationality would have me
shower longer since it is just nice to shower if you got time to do so.

For our globe it would maybe even be better, rationally speaking, if the human race would not exist at
all on our globe. Or in much smaller numbers.

Some irrationalities are really irrational. But also some rationalities are. Since they do not take into
regards enough anotherness rational or irrational plurisigns.

The big question is to what extends irrational behaviours of individuals and organizations have to be
coordinated and controlled. In general, it could be stated that most of them simply do not have to and
that it is much better if they are not. But, for cirtical issues like at the moment environmental issues.
And a lot of other critical issues for life on our planet and our societies. Coordinated actions and
control is, of course, very strongly needed. And not just hesistatingly, but very instantly. There are just
issues that can not wait for action, because then you simply will be too late. Critical issues and
processes of course are.

345
On contents and relations

One of the biggest frustrations I could get when thinking about it more thoroughly, is the fact that I am
not able to just transfer my reflections and thoughts about relations and the why’s of this discourse
without any distortions to the broader public. Al the time I have to transfer my possibilities from world
of thoughts towards possibilities in the world of grammatical existences. Then this should be
transferred towards as many as possible wiser individual worlds of thought in future. And hopefully this
will lead to as many wentelychistic changes in our universes of existences. Towards more
wentelychistic ecosocial systems.

This process of plurisigns growing not only does last a long time, but of course it also leads to
a lot of encoding and decoding. Mostly in grammatical ways with the lacks of enough
pluralistic wordsigns. And in many cases even the lack of proper plurisigns to reflect my
thoughts. A lot of distortions and undercoding and overcodings. Perceptions that may lead to
false implementations.

But well, also here I will try to communicate some very relevant aspects for getting towards Phronesis.
What I will trying to communicate here is actually some very relevant insight that can and should also
lead to better and more complete social sciences. All social sciences can be improved with it in one or
anotherness ways. And also practise, our society at large and people living within, can be.

What I want to talk about here, is the fact that in many cases, we do concentrate almost solely on
the WHAT and far less or even not at all on the relations (the why’s and who’s). We concentrate
more on the mediate than on the immediates. When I was still studying at University, one of the
things I did learn is that every message and thought or anotherness sign can have both a content (the
what) and relations (the who and what). This is of course the case, but also there I did simply not truly
understand this sofia well enough. Mainly also because the text and teaching methods but also the
teachers and I and every student at that time still too much concentrated on the content and too less
on the relations there. Sofia as opposed to Phronesis. Mediate versus immediate. At that time, we
were relatively insane there. Just like about every student, teacher, researcher and person on the
globe still is in many ways right now. Even if you concentrate solely on sofia, sound phronesis
reflections should be applied on it as much as possible to get towards more wentelychistic and
complete understandings. What I basically try to communicate there is that a lot of reflections and
therefore also intellectual and non-intellectual texts, but unfortunately also the (processes of
our) existences and our worlds of universes, lack more immediate and more phronesis
contents. Therefore lacking completeness. Leading to a lot of fatal errors, insanities and inferiorities
in our societies at large.

346
Example of this are manifold and can be seen everywhere around us. If you only truly understand
what I am talking about here. One of these examples, in anotherness ways, are for example the
following.

When I was in the role of informal manager in a relatively large and complex organization some years
ago, I myself quite often did accept if persons did not execute some formerly agreed tasks. Mainly
because I understood at that times that there would probably be a legitimate why for this change or
lack of priorities there. But, what I did not understood is that I (as opposed to most persons on this
globe) am concentrated more on the why and on phronesis and less on the what or sofia. Also in this
specific case I was. Not insane. Overall, I am not. Other people are in many respects. Science and
practice and people within versus sanities.

Anotherness example can be found, for example, in justice. This is a more general and less specific
example than the one in my work career. In law suits, both the investigations and the prosecutions are
largely concentrating on the what’s. And far less, or not at all, on the why’s and on the relation(ship)s.
This leads to a lot of fatal errors and insanities of judicial system at large. Sofia and lacks of phronesis.
Incompleteness leading to insanities.

Many aspects of this discourse are concentrated more on the cores of relations and relational aspects
of social processes. Mainly because higher understandings of these are needed to make our societies
at large more complete. These cores of relations and relational aspects are needed for improvements
in social processes. It is a very essential part of the phronesis needed to incorporate wisdom and
sanity in as many as possible aspects of our societies. Whatever process we look at, it does not
matter that much which system or model (instances of what) are used. The how’s, why’s and
who’s are much more important. They make or at least can make the true differences between
completeness and incompleteness, between sofia and phronesis, betweenness sanities and
insanities of people and processes.

In my thesis for university I already stated that it does not matter whether an (“economic”) system is
called capitalism or socialism58. Labelling do not make the differences. People do. By adding the how’s
and why’s. Read the note on the bottom of this page for better and more complete understandings of
this remark!.

58
Of course, it also DOES matter. Since many individuals are still having different perceptions and
understandings about the notions of capitalism and socialism. And act on it. What I mean to say here, is that it
SHOULD not matter. Because people can change their acts based on better understandings. For instance about
the fact that also the what and who are important. And that processes should “just” be complete and sane in each
system whether it is an economic(al) one or anotherness one. In our thoughts and acts, also here we should just
neglect the system label. And “just” think and act complete and sane.

347
On contents mattering the most

In a lot of current thoughts and understandings, some divisions are made in contents and forms. Some
while back, an artist told me : Form does not matter that much, what matters the most is the content”.

I at that time did not fully understand what he wanted to state with this, but I think by now I do. Even in
the case of arts. Since, in the context of arts, a painting or drawing and the like of course is essentially
form. And, if I would stick to concentration and fixation on firstness ( the piece of art itself), just like
most people do, it would seem that form is most decisive and mattering the most there. BUT…..in the
end it matters more what people think or feel, sense, when seeing the painting. Also, the painting is a
product of a long process of thought and communications of meaning from the artist himself. Also, it is
the product of a learning process. Just to name some. In that respects, it indeed is the case that
eventually the contents matter the most. At immediate levels, called secondness or thirdness by
Pierce, we talk about thought-signs and thought-existences. The kind of experiences and sense
making of people when seeing or reflecting on a certain piece of art. Being it a painting, a meal, a
performance, the repair of a machine or anotherness pieces of art. Form is also relevant there, but
more as part of the plurisigns of thought. The form-signs are part of content-plurisigns in the
existences of thought and understandings.

For aestetics, form is important. In fact, aestetics is mostly about form or, for social matters,
methodologies and ways of doing. For practicality, form may be important. This is, according to my
own understandings, mostly dependent on whether this practical cases inhabit relevant physical parts.

So, for instance, with birds and eggs. It of course DOES matter whether eggs are round or square. Or,
essentially, whether the form is according to the relevant form needed to have the process unfold in
correct ways. Here, content-signs are directly connected with the form-signs. And both of them are
critical for the process.

On the other hand, you also got non-critical forms for a certain process to run correct. Like for
instance, sausages like salami are mostly round. But making them square would not lead to any
problems for consumption. At least not if this can be reached with the content signs (taste, physical
compounds and the like) staying exactly or in satisfactory levels the same. And for logistics, square
products are often much better than round products. Same counts for bottles. A square bottle of beer
or square beer cans would probably be more practical for logistics, but for consumption processes it
does not make any difference there. So, depending on whether the formsigns are relevant or not, form
does or does not matter when physical entities are involved.

348
For social matters, form actually is completely irrelevant. And the issue of form is often far too much
stressed there. The fixations on firstnesses like working procedures and words and the like, like
expressed before, are partly insane. Since in the end, statical realities do not exist in social sciences
and realities. Πάντα ῥεῖ (panta rhei) "everything is in a state of flux", even the seemingly physical
entities in our realities are. They might not be in their firstnesses, but in more developed phases and
realities of our universes they are.

When meeting and valuating living creatures, in initial phases we mostly base our judgements on the
outside, the formsigns. But, eventually the contents is leading and has overriding importance there.
Not only for judgements, but also resulting from this the possibilities of a social fit. We all know this, of
course. In initial phases, the firstness is most important. This is reflected in more relative importance of
the form. But, in later phases the dynamics and content plurisigns are decisive.

A broader perspective which also takes the dynamical contents (statical does not really exist) into
account, does make you realize that indeed only contents really matter. Since form is not really
important and relevant there. So yes, form signs are there in the form of the representamens. But that
is also the contents of our perceptions and judgements. In the end, also here the formsigns are
actually contentsigns (of our thoughtsigns).

349
On anotherness reification

In some other parts of this discourse, i already talked a bit about the phenomenon of reification. The
meaning of this notions is quite varying, depending on the understandings and wisdoms of the people
expressing the contents of this notion.

The german name for Reifications is “verdinglichung”. Under this name, the German scientist and
philosopher Axel Honeth has written some extensive and relatively great discourse about Reification.
There are however, in my own opinions, some very relevant insights to be added to both this
discourse and the understandings and insights of reification in general.

The most important one being the insight that reification is some special type of semisophy and
semiphronesis errors. And, more specifically, it is most probably at least the cause of some special
type of the semantic error like expressed in the book “science and sanity” from Alfred Korzybski.

First of all, it should be understood that every reification is a reduction. And, even the notion of
reification is a reification itself. Since it refers to some special type of process in reality, and the notion
itself is only some small and reductionist part of it. It is a representamen for the processes going on in
our realities as such. Also with reification, we are dealing with understandings about the differences
between a representamen and real objects in our universes. These real objects or thoughts not even
having to be real true realities, but also thoughts and the like in our universes of dreams and thoughts.

When dealing with reifications, not only the reification itself but also the object is reduced to something
statical. But the thing is that even the object itself is not statical but something dynamical.

The main characteristics of a reification, as it is generally understood, are that it is statical and uniform.
Not something dynamical and pluriform. And, of course also the fact that a reification implies
reductionism, the fact that not all the relevant anothernesses are taken into regard. But, quite
generally, a reification is some outcome of a process. It is the result, not the process. Or, it is. Meaning
that the object itself can very well be understood as being dynamical, but that the process itself
(reducing it into a reification) and the outcome ( the reification itself) are reduced into something
statical. With much less characteristics than the object itself. But, how insane would that be? Realizing
that the object is dynamical and much more plural than what we sense of the object, but at the same
time interpretating our representamens of this same objects as being uniform and having not the same
huge amounts of pluralities.

350
Actually, in my opinion, a lot of words are also reifications. Since these kind of “things” are
representing dynamical processes and objects in our realities as such. Even a representamen of a
thing is NOT statical, since the thing/object itself is dynamical. Therefore the representamen is of
course also , MUCH more than that. And, of course there is a difference between the one object and
the other object. Even if statically speaking they appear to be just the same. There are no exactly the
same objects or representamens ever existing in our universes as such.

Reducing a human being or a living process into a thing like representamen is reification. But also the
reducement of a THING with anothernesses and specifical processes towards some statical THING, is
reification as such.

The social semiphronesis errors underlying reification are the same as the errors leading to
duckrabbit and korzybski phenomenons. It is the error of reductionism, and concentration on
firstnesses or what is there, opposed to realisations and understandings on both what is there and
what is NOT there but still is. Meaning, the understandings based on perceptions of wholeness as
opposed to understandings of real true wholenesses, based on the real true structures and contents of
our universes and any phenomenon within.

Then also the error of structuralisation and social freezing of objects, the error of reflecting
and using something as a statical entity while it actually is more or less dynamical and
pluriform, is also apparent in reification, the duckrabbit phenomenon and Korzybski
phenomenons.

This altogether is also a proof of the fact that transitive values are much more important than statical
values are. And that the main social problems in society are caused by mixing up or false application
of one of the both. Social semiphronesis errors are therefore to be understood and explained by a
better understanding of semiotics and the nature and contents of transitive values and their sound and
sane applications in practise. This is also a part of phronesis meta-semeiotics, my perspective going
way beyond the quality of semiotics. Phronesis meta-semeiotics is , for several reasons, much more
excellent than semiotics as such.

351
On the pragmatic paradox versus multiple binding

An interesting social phenomenon that can be found in about every social situation, is the
phenomenon of the pragmatic paradox. This has also been called the Double bind phenomenon and
actually this is the most well known label for the phenomenon. The term double bind originates from
the works and insights of Gregory Bateson, a past great social scientist. Although he was great in
limited ways, about which I will tell in a short distance from this text.

I could search for the definition of double bind and the like on the internet and also in books and then
mentioning it here. Something I already did. But in the end, I think the best source for a definition is
Gregory Bateson himself. Although I did till now not really search for the original source from Bateson
himself, I indirectly found some paraphrases from him on the following website:
http://www.answers.com/topic/double-bind

It is stating :

Bateson defines the double bind as follows (paraphrased): “

1. The situation involves two or more persons, one of whom is designated, for the purposes of
definition, as the "victim". The others are people who are in some way in a higher position to
the victim, for example a figure of authority such as a parent whom the victim respects.
2. Repeated experience. The double bind is a recurrent theme in the experience of the victim
and as such cannot be constituted as a single traumatic experience.
3. A primary injunction is imposed upon the victim by the other person in one of two forms: (a)
Do "X", or I will punish you. (b) Do not do "X", or I will punish you. The punishment is assumed
to be either the withdrawing of love, the expression of hate and anger, or abandonment
resulting from the authority figure's expression of extreme helplessness.
4. A secondary injunction is imposed upon the victim that conflicts with the first at a higher and
more abstract level. For example, "Do what I told you but only do it because you want to."
However, it is not necessary that this injunction be expressed verbally.
5. If necessary, a tertiary injunction is imposed upon the victim to prevent them from escaping
the dilemma.
6. Finally, Bateson states that the complete list of the previous requirements may be
unnecessary in the event that the victim is already viewing their world in double bind patterns.
Bateson goes on to give the general characteristics of such a relationship:
1. When the victim is involved in an intense relationship; that is, a relationship in which
he feels it is vitally important that he discriminate accurately what sort of message is
being communicated so that he may respond appropriately.
2. And, the victim is caught in a situation in which the other person in the relationship is
expressing two orders of message and one of these denies the other.
3. And, the victim is unable to comment on the messages being expressed to correct his
discrimination of what order of message to respond to, i.e., he cannot make a
metacommunicative statement. “

352
Important to mention here, is that although the insights on the double bind phenomenon have
increased since the writings and work of Gregory Bateson, it is still far too much neglected that the
actual insane person is most often not the one experiencing the double bind situation, but mostly the
person or persons causing the double bind situation. A double bind is, in most cases, the result of
insane semisophy errors and insanities of other persons.

As I remarked the double bind phenomenon can be found in about every social situation. It is far more
widespread than most people understand. Not only in family life, but in about every social settings you
could possibly think off the double bind phenomenon can develop to more or lesser extends. In job
situations, job activities, family life and whatever, the semisophy and semiphronesis errors of other
people can lead a less or more complex double bind situation to develop.

For instance the semisophy error of concentrating on firstnesses and procedures can cause a worker
to face a double bind situation. The worker wanting to optimize his working activities by improving or
changing the ways certain work activities are planned, just because the planned activities have errors
or even dangerous situations in them, and then some manager or the like writing procedures that
workers will get punished in whatever ways if they do not follow the procedures.

In this cases, of course the worker can discuss with the manager that the procedures are NOT correct.
However, in many cases factory workers for example are not willing too much to discuss this in case
the management is not very cooperative and listening to the workers. Besides that, if the worker takes
the initiative, again the managers have to LISTEN. If they do not, the workers will continue to face the
double bind situation in their work methods or activities. This double bind situation being the result of
the insane semisophy error of the managers, NOT the workers, as explained above.

So far so good, the initial definition of Gregory Bateson and his fellows of the terminology and
occurrences of the double bind situation is very practical and useful. But, although the initial
theoretical framework and even the practical applicability is for sure great, the Bateson definitions and
understandings lack one thing for sure. Being the understandings of the real true structure of our
universes, and also because of this, it also lacks an out of the box kind of thinking and understanding.

I do not say that Gregory Bateson himself did lack some out of the box perspectives. On the contrary, I
think to understand that specifically (people like) Bateson are to be considered the initiators and
bridging generations to move up some levels of understandings, from frog perspectives towards
anything valuable to understand beyondness the relatively limited understandings and perspectives of
current times. Even now, most people are still living in their boxes during most parts of their lives.
While the bridgers like Bateson and Nietzsche and many others have been paving the roads towards a
much more interesting universe and society. Although I doubt whether this society will ever become
reality for the bigger part of our human society and their participants.

353
I need to stress here that without the detailed definition, or better just the definition of double bind by
Bateson, I myself would not have thought about writing on this subject. While, on the other hand, I got
a much more in-depth understanding about this situations. Maybe and even probably the
understandings from Bateson and lots of other people are however for sure broad enough actually to
mention at least well enough the critical additions to this double blind phenomenon as I will express
them after this specific paragraph of text. However, to do so, you need to not only know but also
thoroughly understand. You need to breath and foremost to think and consume the results of the
situations in practical life to be able to do so. Although a lot of people actually do, seemingly no-one
has thought about broadening the understandings accompanying the double bind phenomenon
before.

The most elementary core of my proposal here being the proposal to skip the word double in the
terminology of double bind, and to replace it with the word “multiple” or “pluri”. Analogous with the term
plurisigns, which is part of understanding of also this multiple pragmatic paradox, and in line with my
own focus on understanding of sanities and insanities. I would prefer to call the multiple pragmatic
paradox a pluribind insanity. Being the result of just about that, pluri insanities. Not from the
people experiencing the pluri insanity, but always from other creators and maintainers of the
insanities. This would also fit since then, besides the pluribind insanity, I can introduce the
plurisanity.

The plurisanity, or short sanity, is then the end result to strive for. A single bind insanity, in this
context and perspectives, would be less good but still not giving major problems with regards to
opposing values. The opposing clash of values would begin to start getting destructive and damaging
as from a double bind insanity (called the double bind by Bateson). Then anything beyond, belonging
to this pluri bind insanity or insanities, being the worst possible option and situation. And actually, if
you start reading double bind in this context, you should understand that even the notion of
“double” in double bind is showing the insanities in the ways the process is understood. As of
course, double does not and can not exist in any ways there. Unless again the wrong, insane
dualist perspectives are somehow automatically being used in the mindmaking processes
leading to this kind of misunderstandings……

Whenever we have a pluri bind insanity, it should be very clear that it is key to strive for solving this
insanity. Just like every insanity understood has to be solved and strived to be eliminated. As regards
to the pluri bind insanity, both structures and human resources HAVE to be capable to cure this
insanities for whatever participants in the related processes and activities of our universes at large.

354
Besides it has to be understood that, just like with a lot of insanities, the pluri bind insanities are
socially constructed. Meaning that NOT the persons executing the insane activities are the insane
ones, but most probably some other people in their surroundings are. This is a VERY essential notion,
not the least for most probably A LOT of socially constructed situations leading to criminal justice to
take actions. Actions most probably being wrong, because probably in a lot of cases the wrong
persons are judged on the mistakes being made. At least to certain extends.

Pluribinds can cause multiple binding several social activities, leading to the situations where whatever
one does one get punished. Either through laws or justice or by other social ways. Also if people do
not communicate well enough about certain issues, pluribind situations might result from it. Or only the
perceptions of binding while actually they do not exist.

Also, a lot of pluriblind situations can be the result or are the result from pluribindness of other people.
In fact, most pluribind situations ARE the result of pluribindness of other people. As, of course, a lot of
social insanities are just resulting from the social insanities of other people and organizations. In our
current meta-physical universes and the insane sensemaking processes guiding this meta-physical
perspectives, about every social situation is at least partially insane and based on pluribind insanities.

355
On self fullfilling idiocracies

For graduating for my studies in Business Administration at Erasmus University, i had to write some
discourse. I decided to write on the changes in the Czech Republic after the Velvet Revolution there.
Apart from that the developments in this country at that specific time period (the velvet revolution)
have been very interesting and great for sure, I think especially the developments after are much more
interesting. The Czech citizens and society as a whole had to prove the world but especially
themselves they were able to become some of the change masters of current society. And I think
especially the Czech society has proven to be one of the most succesfull in this during the years after
1989.

My reasons for concentrating on this interesting research were based on my past experiences with the
Czech Republic and more specifically also their inhabitants. I had lived for some time in the Czech
Republic, among anothernesses because of my studies at the Prague University of Economics.

I knew the culture and people quite well already. Also I had followed some course about the Velvet
Revolution and the years after at Vysoka Skola Economicka V Praze ( Czech name of the University
of Economics Prague). Apart from my Czech Language courses there, this was the other course I
started to follow mainly because of own intrinsic motivations and interests.

Then for the actual researches for the discourse, I went to Prague for another month. During that time
I had numerous great and interesting conversations with some great managers and intellectuals
working for several foreign companies and universities and also governmental bodies in the Czech
Republic. I even tried to contact and speak to Vaclav Havel himself (still being the President at that
times), but both time restrictions and priorities of the President did prevent me from talking to him. If
only I had just said some words whatever some years before, I would at least be able to say I actually
did talk to this great and fascinating person. Since some years before, I actually encountered Him and
I think one of his bodyguards or so when accidentally taking the wrong doors of a governmental body
of the Czech Republic. At that time I thought to be the wisest to just return back outside without saying
anything. So I did. Which might have been a great pity as I might have spoiled the chance to get some
great new acquaintance.

Anyways, I could talk about this for long and probably write a very thick book about my experiences in
the Czech Republic. But in the end I could have skipped the parts I wrote before this sentence and
after the title of this part of this discourse. To write what I wanted to write on self fulfilling prophecies.
Then continuing with what I actually want to say in this part of my current discourse. But in the end,
also every part of the non-written discourse is part of it in one or anotherness ways. So just here I
gave some parts of my own personal discourse of life.

356
When writing about the Changes in the Czech Republic after the Velvet Revolution, I among
anothernesses used the notion of self fulfilling prophecies. A self fulfilling prophecy being, well, what. I
of course know what it is, and could give some definition, but like every intellectual on the globe I need
to think about it. Just luckily we got google. Although this can not be too good since internet is full of
mistakes, but then again our realities also are. So I just rely on google according to the main source
for self fulfilling prophecies. The source may be incorrect, but in the end the content is good and great.

According to the internet, examples of self fulfilling propecies can be found back in literature as far
back as ancient Greece and ancient India. But sociologist Robert K Merton should be credited for
introducting this notion officially into sociology and other social sciences. In his book social theory and
social structure, he gives following definition of the Self Fullfilling Prophecy”:

“The self-fulfilling prophecy is, in the beginning, a false definition of the situation evoking a new behaviour which
makes the original false conception come 'true'. This specious validity of the self-fulfilling prophecy perpetuates a
reign of error. For the prophet will cite the actual course of events as proof that he was right from the very beginning”

If the false definition of the situations happen to be insanities, being semisophy or semiphronesis
insanities, the self-fulfilling prophecy can evolve into a self-fulfilling idiocracy. Which can be classed
as some idiocratic way of group thinking leading to mass actions of idiocratic nature.

Especially in our economies, a lot of instances of self-fulfilling idiocracies happen over and over again.
Most of the social processes in our economies are instances of self-fulfilling prophecies, in most cases
even self-fulfilling idiocracies. Therefore, our economies are mostly self fulfilling economies. These
self-fulfilling economies being, because of their nature, some special and specific types and modes of
self fulfilling idiocracies. Based on idiocratic perceptions and beliefs.

The self-fullfilling prophecies and idiocracies are in line with the so-called Thomas Theorem. This
Thomas Theorem states:

“If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences “

Of course, this is true. Since non-animal minds but also animal minds do base their actions on beliefs.
Even if this beliefs are insane and idiocratic.

Self-fulfilling idiocracies can be found everywhere in our universes where minds are involved. The
more semisophy and semiphronesis errors, the more self fulfilling idiocracies. Since self fulfilling
idiocracies are one of the processes following insane inputs like errors and mistakes of our minds.

Social sensemaking and sciences, and therefore also social practises, are currently still insane
to large extends. Which is why also our economies, a special type of social science and
practise, is largely insane to certain extends.

357
Especially when there are economic crises, like for instance the financial crises in the year of 2008 to
2011 and before, a lot of self fulfilling idiocracies are actually worsening the situation. To large
extends. Especially since it is often still not understood that statical values are mostly mere
representamens, nothing more, nothing less. And that in the end only transitive values really truly
matter. And, these transitive values can never become worse really. Since in the end, history does not
matter. The only thing we have is the future, and since both our resources and starting positions are
actually only improving in general, also the transitive values should. At least they can for sure, if only
the insanities of our society and minds are understood and solved.

Anyways, with regards to the financial crises of 2008 to 2011, it is very interesting to mention the
example of the bank of Cartwright Millingville, like it is mentioned in the book of Merton called “social
theory and social structure”. The same book where also his definition of the SFP is to be found. It is a
perfect example of an economically based SFI and what a self fulfilling idiocracy can do to our
society. Or, what our minds can do to our society at large when being and acting in insane ways.
Especially when this is realized en masse, like with large group think SFI, it can lead to disastrous
results.

Robert K merton in his book again:

“The parable tells us that public definitions of a situation (prophecies or predictions) become
an integral part of the situation and thus affect subsequent developments, This is peculiar to
human affairs. It is not found in the world of nature, untouched by human hands. Predictions
of the return of Halley’s comet do not influence its orbit. But the rumored insolvency of
Millingville’s bank did affect the actual outcome. The prophecy of collapse led to its own
fulfillment “

This phenomenon of SFP and SFI can be cured by curing the insanities of our minds and societies. I
express a lot of this insanities and their natures and even the origins of them in my discourse. But still
a lot can be told and understood about them. And most probably I do not cover all the semisophy and
semiphronesis errors in our individual and collective minds. But in the end, we all need to emphasize
on solving these kind of insanities as much as possible. Since this are the main chances and issues to
move on towards better societies as a whole.

358
On the roads of life

When driving to work, i am literally on a road of life. In general, I am also on a road of life. In general,
but also more specific. Or not. Since, in the end, the dichotomy of general versus specific is just
another case of semisophy and semiphronesis errors.

The semisophy error of general versus specific has been leading and unfortunately still is in science.
Although the great Nietzsche did already talk about the insanity of this ways of thinking:

‘HOW COULD anything originate out of its opposite? For example, truth out of error? or the Will to Truth out of the will
to deception? or the generous deed out of selfishness? or the pure sun-bright vision of the wise man out of
covetousness? Such genesis is impossible; whoever dreams of it is a fool, nay, worse than a fool; things of the
highest value must have a different origin, an origin of THEIR own—in this transitory, seductive, illusory, paltry world,
in this turmoil of delusion and cupidity, they cannot have their source. But rather in the lap of Being, in the intransitory,
in the concealed God, in the ‘Thing-in-itself— THERE must be their source, and nowhere else!’—This mode of
reasoning discloses the typical prejudice by which metaphysicians of all times can be recognized, this mode of
valuation is at the back of all their logical procedure; through this ‘belief’ of theirs, they exert themselves for their
‘knowledge,’ for something that is in the end solemnly christened ‘the Truth.’

Apparently, this great understanding has still not been grasped enough by both scientists and
intellectuals on the one hand and the society at large on the other hand. The fact that not many people
will understand the semisophy error in the sentence before this one does already prove enough that
the great Nietzsche is still not understood. While he is talking about something very elementary, which
is a more evolved en entelychistic way of understanding our universes as such. A way of
understanding I and a lot of other intellectuals try to make clear to amphibian people 59 . There are lots
of hybrids walking around currently, but unfortunately the amphibian nature seems to overrule still with
most of them.

So…stay in your boxes. And make other people who (try to) get out to get in again. Put people in
prison if they do not live up to the status quo. Encourage others and yourself to find somebody else
and get married. Stick to general virtues and morals, even if it makes you to act against your feelings
and your own beliefs and judgements. Just obey and/or follow the orders of your superiors in business
and other organizations, even if you understand it is not the right or just action to be taken in the
specific situation.

I guess Nietzsche might have understood that relationships also imprison and disable people to do
certain things. At least he understood some things do, as can be seen in the following sentences of
BGAE:

“This condition of things actually exists in Europe at present—I call it the moral hypocrisy of the commanding class.
They know no other way of protecting themselves from their bad conscience than by playing the role of executors of
older and higher orders (of predecessors, of the constitution, of justice, of the law, or……. “

59
Nietzsche is talking about “frog-perspectives”. Just coincidentally I had discussion with acquaintance of mine
before having read this Nietzsche, and he was stating similarly but with other words. Only not using the
metaphor of a frog, or amphibian labels, but general message being the same.

359
Back to the roads of life. These roads are often troublesome in many ways, not the least because of
the fact that still too many semisophy and semiphronesis insanities are prevailing throughout the
whole of our universes and society at large.

This insanities severely limit people and processes intended to cross the borders of the matrix, being
eager to grow and flourish. Examples of this are manifold in our society.

When I was driving literally on the road with my car, I realized that for the purpose of driving this roads
are the only safe or at least the safest option. Leaving this road, being the road intended and suitable
for going in certain directions, can lead to a lot of risks and harms to yourself and/or others. When I
look in the mirrors of my car when crossing some lines or choosing another direction, there are parts
of existence I will and can see. But also parts of existences I will and can not see, Or realize and/or
understand.

I might, and probably will, not see some insect being on the road. I probably will be less inclined to see
objects or people not expected to be seen. Or phenomenons that simply can not be seen with a mirror
or another physical object. Or I might miss something because of fixation on anothernesses. Just like I
myself might miss some great insights related to this part of the discourse because at the moment I
am also thinking about and eager to go outside and spend time with my birds of prey.

Anyways, this aspects of the road for cars is also applicable to many aspects of the road of life. Life is
just a game, but first rule of it is that it is not a game. Therefore, it is critical to understand the rules of
the game as good as possible. Details are very critical and important in that respects. The more details
you understand, the better the game of life can be played and understood.

For some people it is good and worthwhile to not leave the prefabricated roads of life. For others, it
might be good to leave the prefabricated roads and moving into the twilight zones of our universes.
Either for own personal developments, or to add some new roads and possibilities to our universes.
Whatever the intentions are, people who do so will mostly become subject to more dangers of life.

Again, there is some relevant passage to add here out of “beyond good and evil” from Nietzsche
(colours and layout changes added by me) :

“It is the business of the very few to be independent; it is a privilege of the strong. And whoever attempts it, even with
the best right, but without being OBLIGED to do so, proves that he is probably not only strong, but also daring beyond
measure. He enters into a labyrinth, he multiplies a thousandfold the dangers which life in itself already brings with it;
not the least of which is that no one can see how and where he loses his way, becomes isolated, and is torn piecemeal
by some minotaur of conscience.”

360
Actually a lot of structures and also minds in our society, having dysfunctional and insane aspects, are
forcing us constantly to leave the safer roads and aspects of life. Especially the lower classes of our
society have to do so almost constantly. For instance a factory floor is not only very unnatural, but also
potentially dangerous and harmful for the people working there. Of course this is improving, but still
there are enough potential dangers there. Like there are almost everywhere, of course. In that sense it
is actually impossible to be in real safe surroundings since that is always relative, of course. But still it
is worthwhile and good to understand the implications.

For me, the most important realisations to be communicated is something I already understand for
long. It is what Nietzsche also refers to in his BGAE. Being the fact that sometimes people just have to
enter the real dangerous context of society. Or, just have to take certain actions putting them into
trouble. Especially this last understanding is something that should be understood much better by
more people, especially those judging on other people. Since misunderstandings about this context
based actions are reasons for a lot of misjudgements and unjust harm to other living creatures.

361
 On fishes and birds

The Zen tradition is a very interesting and broad tradition with lots of followers. A part of this Zen
tradition is the great Genjokoan. This Genjokoan was written in 1233 by Eihei Dogen, founder of the
Soto Zen tradition.

A part of this Genjokoan – the issue at hand, are the following sentences:

“ A fish swims in the ocean, and no matter how far it swims there is no end to the water. A bird flies in the sky, and no
matter how far it flies there is no end to the air. However, the fish and the bird have never left their elements. When
their activity is large their field is large. When their need is small their field is small. Thus, each of them totally covers
its full range, and each of them totally experiences its realm. If the bird leaves the air it will die at once. If the fish
leaves the water it will die at once “.

This part of Genjokoan can of course also be interpreted in many ways. It however does remind me of
two moments of consideration and reflection I had just recently.

One reflection I had was based on the fact that I did read some translations of Genjokoan on the
website of Gnox, some participant on the Peirce- L list. Just some day after reading this, I was driving
on some road to work. Quite suddenly, I saw some turtle just about to cross the street. I myself just
drove by without killing the turtle, but I know for sure the turtle did cross the street and if so it simply
did not make it to the other end without being killed by some car.

If the turtle leaves the water, it will not die at once. But if it enters into some context where dangers for
health or living exist or where critical things are not there, it might very well get harmed or killed. Like
in the above mentioned situation. Although in this case, the turtle did not decide himself probably to
leave the water. Someone else decided it’s death for the turtle in certain ways. Just like we as persons
often cause other creatures to get harmed.

Persons getting the wrong treatments by medical persons or psychiatric professionals. Persons being
misjudged either by justice or socially speaking. Often have to deal with contexts that are potentially
dangerous for themselves, while in the end they do not really wish to arrive there. But other people
cause them to get there based on mistakes and insanities of our society and minds.

That is about the involuntary leaving of safe roads or contexts. Opposed to this is the more or less
voluntary entering of twilight zones. Some people who already took less or more risks by entering
some twilight zones of our universes themselves, might face a very awkward and bad situation in case
they later on got to enter other potentially dangerous or harmfull situations and context solely because
of the mistakes and insanities of other minds in our society and universes.

362
The voluntary entering of twilight zones might however be for several reasons. Some being very
egoistic and solely because of (perception of) getting advantages of it for own minds. But, in many
cases, people leave the predestined and safe paths of life for (the hope of) creating benefits for (other
persons and minds in) our society. Whatever the reasons are, in the case of sane people doing this
kind of things, it is mostly to aim for higher values. Unfortunately, a lot of this activities are not really
leading to higher values. Sometimes because pre-set aims are not reached, but also because the
possibilities and results that minds hope to acquire can or will be only possibilities at the most.

In several part of this discourse, I express my admirations for Nietzsche’s Beyond good and evil. I
paraphrase several parts of his discourse, sometimes even several times the same sentences. This is
for several reasons, the most important to add understandings to my own discourse.

Nietzsche is, among anothernesses, saying the following in his discourse “beyond good and evil” :

“It is the business of the very few to be independent; it is a privilege of the strong. And whoever attempts it, even with
the best right, but without being OBLIGED to do so, proves that he is probably not only strong, but also daring beyond
measure. He enters into a labyrinth, he multiplies a thousandfold the dangers which life in itself already brings with it;
….”

Nietzsche does stress here also that it is dangerous to leave the “normal” roads of life. And that
someone will not do so most probably unless he or she thinks to reach something good or desirable by
doing so. But, in some other part of Beyond good and Evil, Nietzsche also says that it is sometimes
even good and desirable to be independent and to leave the known roads of life:

“ One must not avoid one’s tests, although they constitute perhaps the most dangerous game one can play, and are in
the end tests made only before ourselves and before no other Judge”

And

“Not to cleave to one’s own liberation, to the voluptuous distance and remoteness of the bird, which always flies
further aloft in order always to see more under it—the danger of the flier”

Of course there are, and can be, many interpretations from the sentences above. But, quite generally,
it is the case that people not avoiding their tests and fly further aloft also often need to enter the
twilight zones, the more dangerous contexts of our societies and universes at large. In many cases
they have not to, but in some they have to. And the chance they will enter twilight zones is bigger than
with people not striving for liberation. As such, there is a clash between choosing the safer options or
going for liberation and growth in certain directions and ways.

When I am driving on a road, the lines on the road are more or less to be compared with structures in
our society. If we get off the road, beyond structures, we can face troubles and get harmed or killed. At
a road we often have mirrors to warn us when we cross the lines, but in society it is often not visible at
which moments we actually do cross lines and borders. When communications errors exist because of

363
lacks of communication or information or whatever, there is no mirror. Meaning that we can cross lines
and get into danger without even knowing or realizing it.

364
On becomming one

In you the seeds for experiencing wisdoms

In you and the arts, the fullness of living
The enjoyments of hunting or whatever together
From right now, with you

We come 1

This morning, I had a great experience with my sparrow hawk again. This sparrow hawk is about 4
years old now. It is not an easy character. Meaning that she took and still takes a lot more effort to
man than some others spars I used to have and train before. Just some years before, I still had 2
sparrowhawks. But, because of time and space constraints and my desire to also fly a tiercel
peregrine again, I decided to sell one. The one I choose to sell was the easiest character. Very reliable
bird and just much easier. The one I kept, this one, has taken me more difficulties in beginning. But, it
paid off. By now, we are truly starting to becoming a great team. To become one. Me becoming one
with the sparrowhawk, she becoming one with me. The mutual communications among each others
becoming very natural and evolving into the arts and feelings of entelechy. Or in my and therefore our
case, into wentelychistic states and experiences of being. The most greatest ways of doing on earth,
the ones both the experiencers themselves and the watchers and people noticing it experience as
being the most satisfying and greatest ways of doing on earth. Filled with enjoyment and pleasure.

This kind of “becomming one” is lacking far too much in a lot of current jobs and actions. Partly just
because people do not listen to other people, and are not willing to let in the more complex but much
more satisfying anothernesses intertwined with the arts of being.

I think one of the major aspects of this becoming one is sound communications. One very important
aspect of this communications being the right TEMPO, as discussed by Nietzsche. An optimal TEMPO
is not only needed for this becoming one phenomenon, but also for just making whatever one does
easier and more pleasant. And also it determines whether persons or living people in general will get
along with each other better or worse.

Im happy
with you
Never never sad
Worries washed
you in the air, I’’m nearby
I am the left wing
Youre the right
Would it not be madness to stay detached

We come 1

365
Becoming one by the most sane dancing together methodology

This is kind of antenarrative about social practises, based on the metaphors of dancing and walking
with or without music. The methodology used to get deeper understandings there is called phronesis
antenarrating and has been developed by the undersigned.

David Boje in his “ beyond Pentad to Hexad” , written in the year of 2002: “ Dancing Partners is a
playful approach to theorizing that Louis Pondy taught me in graduate school, in the mid-
1970s. We were ask to take theories that appeared incommensurate and dance them together,
seeing one through the eyes of the other”.

The great thing is, that each and every plurisign in our universes can be danced together in at least
some ways. Theories can be danced together, but also other plurisigns and entities can. And, the key
for doing so, is understandings. Which can be reached, of course, by using the right methodologies
and approaches. Persons and individuals can also be danced together that ways. Dancing together
individuals is one of the key elements of building teams and facilitating processes between individuals.
Both in our organizations, as in our storytelling society at large.

Phronesis antenarrating and antenarrating is about dancing together plurisigns, and sound
sensemaking also is. Therefore, both antenarrating and sensemaking in general can largely profit by a
growth of understandings of the nature and aspects of dancing together(ness), and basically of
dancing.

Dancing involves a lot of genres and ways of doing. It is a very pluriform act and art. Basically it
involves a lot of quality. And, quality is basically what sane sensemaking and antenarrating is aiming
at.

In Dancing, you have rhytm and tempo. Both are also very important in our acts in life. We need to
walk and dance and life according to the underlying rules and logics of acting. This means that we can
dance according to or independent from the contexts, but mostly contexts matter. And also it is better
to at least take them into regards. For dancing, the contexts consist of not only the music but also
other contextual factors like maybe other people watching or participating. The rhytm and tempo of
walking or dancing or acting in general has to be different in several phases of the music. And
sometimes the music and dance will not fit the contexts or the actors involved. But indeed it also has
to do with path dependencies, which are NOT lineair but part of the sole true structure of our
universes.

Prospective sensemaking, one of the parts of quality introduced into antenarrating by the great David
Boje, is actually one of the main mechanisms of dancing together theories, acts, personalities and

366
other plurisigns. Prospective sensemaking is actually intrinsically connected with change, without
prospective and retrospective sensemaking real changes in our storytelling society can not occur.
Especially some specific types of prospective sensemaking, where sensemaking or acts are
purposefully aimed at doing things or writing about things which are not allowed yet or against some
current virtues or practises, are main for the aims of changing activities and practises in our society.
This is something which should be facilitated and encouraged actually, instead of acritical disposal of
and punishment for this kind of acts based on vision and phronesis and good intentions.

In David Boje’s “ Beyond pentad to hexad”, he is talking about the 6the element of Burke. Being the
attitude frame. Burke’s attitude frames, and his "Frames of Acceptance" and "Frames of Rejection”
are actually specific aspects of phronesis antenarrating. They guide and facilitate the growth and
acceptance/denials of anotherness betweennesses. Buy, Burke’s elements are too theoretical and
based on less great perspectives, as the fundamental perspective is the one of uniplural realities.
Meaning that not only Burke but also Aristotle and Goffmann and whoever did not really have the great
perspective of the sole true structure of our universes called holoplurality.

But, there is some other more fundamental difference between the approach of David Boje in his “
Beyond pentad to hexad” and the approach of most of academics and intellectuals, as opposed to my
own main approaches. I myself am more like empirical researcher, meaning that my own approach is
much more influenced and guided by experiences. But, of course there are many senses. And certain
sensitiveness’s of this particular senses of individuals will determine also the results of the
understandings. But, as far as understandings go, the ultimate excellence can and will be reached by
sane mindmaking. Which is something I have been using and developing, being the most sane and
great mindmaking process for empirical research but also for whatever research. Simply because it is
the greatest but also sole true sane mindmaking methodology for our universes and society.

Dancing together theories needs sane sensemaking. By means of sane sensemaking, based on the
sole true structure of our universes, representia can transform into phronesis representia. In my own
cases, I however more experience and read texts in our society at large, as opposed to texts from
books. Of course I do use books and writings, and a lot still. But, in a whole other way than most
intellectuals and academics at current times do. Since the focus is still more on experiences and “
texts” in our societies, while the knowledge in books is used in anotherness ways. By transforming this
knowledge into phronesis representia and phronesis understandings. Mostly by dancing them together
with social practise and understandings.

Dancing together is not only about aesthetics and completeness and quality. It is also about a different
attitude. Instead of being opposed to, it is about being or becoming allies and complementary.
Basically it is about what I have written about “ to become one”. I could compare it with falconry or
riding horses. There are 2 distinct ways of approach there, the one being standing apart or even above
the subjects “ horse” or “ falcon”. The other approach is the one of dancing together, which is the

367
approach of “ become one” . While the first approach might work for some, in general the latest
approach is the best. But, this latest approach needs a lot more understandings. Which is why it is
mostly practised or potentially to be practised by those being masters in the arts of life. Or at least for
the specific social activities under considerations.

Becoming one involves the approach of being spect-actor instead of mere spectator. It is not about
spectator as opposed to actor or non-actor. It is about togethernesses. But, it is a type of togetherness
of a very specific nature. Since, of course, there are differences in dancing partners. This requires
some understandings about how to deal with specific types of dancing partners, but foremost it
requires a certain attitude but also foremost the understandings that dancing partners differ. And that
the only way to find out the differences is by acting, by being involved in signs growing. Dancing
together is the only way of having signs growing, and becoming one and understandings of the nature
of this is elementary for the greatest dances. But, this dancing together has to be phronitical and
based on togetherness while being and staying different and independent.

Some of the realities in our storytelling society are more according to the sole true structure of our
universes, as these realities are less uniplural than some of the writings and understandings in social
sciences. But, the realities in our storytelling society are still not according to the sole true structure of
our society and this sole true structure is still not used as leading in our sensemaking and actings.

The biggest problem of current society however is the fact that sensemaking and growth of signs
being more according to this sole true structure of our universes, are still locked in by more uniplural
and closed system thinking and perspectives of governments. Meaning that signs want to grow and
also have the potential to grow more and more and more, while they are being prevented to do so
because of the limited perspectives and acting’s of governmental bodies of influence.

368
On anotherness power

Power is a very interesting notion to reflect on. Power is one of the fundamentals of our society, and it
might be a more specific occurance of violence. But, like violence, it can be very productive and good.
And power is not always about violence, since there is a broad arsenal of pluriform meanings of this
specific signs and its universes. Unfortunately police and state officials are sometimes very arrogant
and measuring with different insane social fundaments when judging violence and power of other
parties than themselves. What is strongly needed there, is judgement based on laws and
philophronesis wisdoms instead of judgements on the base of possibilities and tunnel views.

As far as power is concerned, power can be used because of social insanities or to solve or prevent
them. Power is also a specific type of resistance, and resistence can for instance be differentiated in
resistence to sanity and resistance to insanity. Insanities by those using or being the victims of power
cause power to be used or maintained. In most instances, there are other alternatives which are better
and therefore to be preferred above power. But sometimes, just sometimes, power can not be
suppressed or just has to be used as best possible option. There are also a lot of cases where power
is used where it should not be so, but even in this cases there might be legitimate reasons for it.

But, of course, there are also occasions where power should simply NOT be used and still it is. In this
cases, the execution of power is mostly a matter and expression of weakness and/or incapabilities.
The incapability of sound communications, the incapability to cope with events in anotherness non-
violent ways. Or the general weakness of just choosing the simplest and less complex option,
regardless of what the consequences might or will be.

Because of the existence of this weaknesses, it is always needed to have an organization or individual
to soundly and independently control those institutions and persons having control and power upon
other organizations and people as such. This kind of control is at the moment largely missing in the
fields of justice, enabling the realities of justice to be more unjust.

At the moment, there are just too many unjust situations in some social areas, and lack of supervising
institutions just enables a lot of these unjust situations to keep into existences. In some cases, the
victims of injustices simply also do not have any real sound possibilities for proving they are right or to
prevent (further) damages to themselves.

In such cases, relative stupidities of persons and organizations can cause a lot of unjust harming of
people. These victims of injustices will sometimes experience these stupidities as instances of power,
while actually they are not. The perceived power qualisigns are then actually more having the nature
of misunderstanding and foolishness plurisigns.

369
But, whatever the reasons are. These injustices of course have to be prevented or , when they already
have been occurred, to be set straight again. Either by means of the persons who made the mistakes,
who have the biggest responsibilities there of course, or by means of creating enough possibilities for
the victims themselves to set things straight again.

Power is also often connected with ethical questions and considerations. Just recently, some person
on a philosophy mailinglist said “Ethics is not about the mythical but the real - what is
real in the Antigone story is conflict of duties where the stakes are
high - like following orders to do evil in wartime –“.

Now, what he is talking about here, is some mythical story about Antigone and her 2 brothers and two
guys called Creon and Haemon. Antigone was the daughter of Oedipus and Jocasta, but actually she
was also the halfsister of Oedipus and the grandchild of Jocasta. And very strictly, she was none of
these .

The story can be found on the net. And I would advice anyone reading this to find the story and read it.
It is too long to state here, but in the end it is very useful to understand more about this part of my
discourse and might also add something to your understandings of ethics and power in general. This
important Antigone story, there are more, might still be mentioned at
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/a/antigone.html.

This specific antigone story is to be found in the antigone of Sophocles, part of the Theban Saga. It is
actually about power on the one hand and values on the other hand. Values is about ethics, although
ethics is about a lot more than solely values. This specific story does however reveal that not only
there are several instances of power, but also that power always is part of a certain context or even
several universes as such. And, of course, there are anotherness plurisigns also involved and playing
their roles there. Besides this, it is one of the discourses proofing my assumptions that power is often
a mode or a result of insanity.

In anotherness part of this discourse, on and about the flyvbjerg debate, I elaborate a bit more on this
aspect of power. Which is one of my most elementary arguments why power should not be considered
to be an elementary part of phronesis, although in many cases power IS an elementary part of
particular realities in our universes. Unfortunately it is.

370
On anotherness Flyvbjerg debate

One of the cores of this discourse is the notion of phronesis. And, as such, it is and it is not in line with
the so-called Flyvbjerg debate. It is since I am also concerned with making social sciences mattering
more by means of practical reasoning and practical wisdom. It is not because of the nature of our
work. Since there are slight but important differences in the contents of my discourse and his
discourses as such

For Flyvbjerg, a focus on values and power is needed. One of the important underlying assumptions in
his discourse on phronesis and social sciences is the fact that power would be a fundamental issue for
phronesis.

In my opinions, this is not the case. Power IS a very profound and needed notion in our society, but
mostly because of the fact of insanities of other people. Power is needed less the more sane our
societies are and become. If all insanities have been cured, the only power to be used is really bad
and wrong and therefore this kind of power should be abolished from our society and universes as
such. In the end , it should be strived upon that power and violence is NOT used in our society as a
whole at whatever levels.

So power is an issue that should be discouraged and erased by the notion of phronesis. Like I stress
in several parts of my discourse, values and more specifically transitive values are the real
fundamental issues and core for phronesis. Quality being a type of transitive value, but not the main
important one. As there are many other transitive values being more neutral and still very important for
our universes. For instance just living is also a very important transitive value. Although some people
think, for good reasons, that less human being on our globe is better for transitive values. I also think it
is in some ways. But, as soon as a living creature is there, the living of it is surely a transitive value.
Let alone the fact that only living creatures and minds can create new transitivity and therefore new
transitive values. But well. Apart from this living example, there are numerous other transitive values
apart from quality ones. Flows of water, the wind blowing, energy. Just to name some.

Something transitive does not have to have quality to be a transitive value. Transitive value as such is
not per se having quality. Quality is “just” one of the characteristics of the plurisigns. Which can have
more or less quality in them, but also just no real quality plurisigns only other types and setups of
plurisigns.

Back to the question whether power should be part of phronesis. Apart from the fact whether Aristotle
DID or DID NOT incorporate power in his notion of phronesis, the question should be whether power
SHOULD be incorporated in the notion of phronesis.

371
Power IS an important part of society to be taken into regards for phronesis as such for sure. But, at
the same time, it is NOT an IMPORTANT fundamental that SHOULD be absorbed in life and society
as such. ON the contrary. a society with LESS power and LESS violence is MUCH more valuable as
such. But, since insanities will never disappear completely, certain types of power are just needed and
even productive also from a phronesis point of view.

372
On judgment and misjudgment

We are judged in many moments and aspects of our life. And at the same time, we also judge
ourselves. In most of the cases, this judging is very complex, requiring a lot of understandings. And, in
most of the cases, we actually misjudge. The results of this can have more or less impact, depending
on the critiqueness of the situation and the results of misjudgements.

Whenever we judge on other people, we should at first understand very well the limits of our senses,
our minds and our understandings. I think the most important thing to realize, is that we simply fail to
understand something to the fullest in most cases. Meaning that in most cases, our judgements are
incorrect to less or more extends. This is a very important realization to make, since a thorough
understanding of this should lead to whole new ways of organizing in many fields, first of all in justice
as such.

On judgement of people. People can and should not be judged on their looks for anything else than
matters where looks does matter. Meaning that someone who may look unsuitable for certain tasks
can prove to be the most excellent person for especially this kind of tasks and activities. We as
persons in society mostly understand this, but fail to live up to this understanding because of insane
habits and customs.

People should also not be judged on the base of what they did in the past or, for instance, whether
they do have a criminal record or not. As I already remarked before, it is anyways difficult to judge
people. Meaning that people can be misjudged. And, even if they have been judged correctly on
certain failures of the past, it does not mean that these persons are evil or wrong for other activities.
Let alone the notion of forgiveness, it is not only a great pity but foremost a great loss for society at
large that some people in our society are judged on past judgements (whether correct or incorrectly
made) . Therefore not being able to contribute to society the ways they plan.

On judgement of situations. Situations are always very complex. And current methodologies are,
without any exception, still not well developed enough to make real good sound judgements on
complex situations. Besides this, there are some major insanities in the people judging. Some of them
being expressed to less or more extends in this discourse.

These shortfalls in both methodologies and persons judging result in most judgements being
misjudgements to less or more extends. Meaning that also here, perception is reality. Besides that, it
means that we as persons and as society have to realize that most judgements are indeed
misjudgements and that we have to act on this in proper ways. Both in private matters as in non-
private matters. A thorough understanding of this also should imply a huge change in both the

373
structure and the procedures of judgemental institutions and activities as such. But foremost, it implies
a need for change in perspectives and understandings on judgements by us and society at large.

Of course, like with every subject under consideration, there are plenty enough anothernesses that will
play a role in real life specific situations and our universes at large. Judgement can not be reviewed in
a reductionist independent way, just like all other social phenomena have to be understood in broader
contexts and perspectives. There are several other signs to be understood when talking about
judgements. One of them being the trust plurisigns, which can actually already inhibit some
characteristics of judgement. Since, some types of trust are the result of judgemental procedures.
Misjudgements lead to failures in trust. People, minds, are understood incorrectly by being misjudged.

Important to realize and understand here, is that the characteristics of the minds are more important
than past judgements or labels people get during their lives. Content matters. Also, presumed evil or
bad actions of minds can actually appear to be very constructive and good when understanding them
in the right contexts and ways. So, whatever judgements are made by your own or anotherness minds.
Do not trust this judgements or act on them too much.

374
On Nietzschean nihilism

Nietzsche was, without any doubts, one of the greatest minds in history. In his writings, he is also
expressing a lot of my understandings in anotherness ways.

In his “will to power”, he is talking about Nihilism. A correct interpretation of this, and how the
interpretation of his discourses should be in general, is something which no-one can be sure about to
the fullest. I however do think that I have some at least constructive opinions about what Nietzsche is
wanting to express in general.

According to my understandings and interpretations of Nietzsche in general and his “will to power”
more specifically, I think that Nietzsche knew that out of Nihilism something could grow. He is actually
continuing to write about some important understanding he already wrote about in his “beyond good
and evil”. In this last text, he did write (among anothernesses) the following:

‘HOW COULD anything originate out of its opposite? For example, truth out of error? or the Will to Truth out of the will
to deception? or the generous deed out of selfishness? or the pure sun-bright vision of the wise man out of
covetousness? Such genesis is impossible; whoever dreams of it is a fool, nay, worse than a fool; things of the
highest value must have a different origin, an origin of THEIR own—in this transitory, seductive, illusory, paltry world,
in this turmoil of delusion and cupidity, they cannot have their source. But rather in the lap of Being, in the intransitory,
in the concealed God, in the ‘Thing-in-itself— THERE must be their source, and nowhere else!’—This mode of
reasoning discloses the typical prejudice by which metaphysicians of all times can be recognized, this mode of
valuation is at the back of all their logical procedure; through this ‘belief’ of theirs, they exert themselves for their
‘knowledge,’ for something that is in the end solemnly christened ‘the Truth.’

Although I do not know whether Nietzsche did really truly understand what he is saying here, but at
least he grasped a lot of understandings by means of his tacit wisdoms. It is actually something I also
already wanted to express in my discourse myself. But, my own understandings have improved a lot
again. By means of reflecting on the writings of the almost genius Nietzsche. I only wish I could speak
to him.

Anyways, as you can see Nietzsche is speaking about transitory and intransitory in the writings above.
So he understood that the transitory is more important mostly than the intransitory. Something I also
express in my considerations on transitive values. This is really something VERY important to grasp.
As even in current times most people are still having the “frog perspectives” as Nietzsche would call
them. Not being able to really truly understand what they are doing or our universes in general.
“Simply” because they are still living in their own matrixes, their inbox kind of thinkings. Which are
actually about non-thinking, even if they actually do think while mostly they even do not about the
wrong representamens they use. This way of inbox thinking leads to very deconstructive and even
insane habits resulting from it. I call them semiphronesis and philophronesis insanities. But the label is
not that important, contents (and understandings of it) are the most important to grasp.

375
Nietzsche was his time FAR ahead. His writings are still very applicable, meaning that people really
SHOULD understand what he is saying. Especially in his discourse “beyond good and evil”. Because a
lot of problems still exist because too few people really truly understand what Nietzsche is talking
about. I think even in current times I am really one of the few who understands this well enough.
Although understandings are growing. But it should go quicker. Especially the changes that can result
from this understanding of the great writings of Nietzsche.

Nietzsche knew that out of nihilism something could grow. He knew about what I call the sole real and
correct structure of our universes. The structure of interconnected signs growing and changing in
constant flux. Nietzsche was NOT for breaking down constructive values and structures. But for
breaking down DECONSTRUCTIVE values and structures. Like in lean production the 5S model, the
S of sort, this is what also is needed in social matters. And, sorting can only be reached if things not
needed are eliminated. By also knowing and understanding the features and realities of nihilism, a
social reality can grow towards better realities. The will to power is meant to offer and use power as a
base for growth.

Nietzsche just understood very well that a lot of structures and also habits and values of his time
where NOT contructive and sane, but on the contrary very deconstructive and/or even insane. That is
why he encouraged HIS understanding of Nihilism in his writings. That is at least my understandings
about his writings and intentions. I might be wrong of it of course, but I think it is at least one of the
most constructive understandings of his writings in general.

I actually also think Nietzsche did understand that nothingness can be a nothingness of huge
possibilities. Anotherness way of saying that Nihilism can be source for growth, I guess.

376
On logos and singular minds

Some time ago, i received some invitation for a workshop on singular thought. It made me think
immediately about the insanities of dualism, but also about the position of our thought and mind in the
total universes. The last issue is something I have been thinking about for long already, but because of
developments and growth there I understand more and more essential details from it.

One of the most essential things to understand there, is that most people are still understanding the
nature of our minds and also the natural structure of it in our universes in wrong ways.

I already mentioned somewhere that our existences are in the end all grounded in our minds. What I
did not remark, is that our minds are just some part of our universals and universal minds. Our minds
are actually the most essential key and fundaments for our universes. If individual or collective mind is
insane, our whole universes or at least part of it is. The more sane our mind and universal mind and
sensemaking, the more sane our universes. This may sound simple, but it is a very essential insight
to grasp. And it explains why I am talking about insanities and also the nature of the insanities I am
exploring in my discourse.

In current times, there are a lot of insanities in our minds. This fundamental insanities spread around
throughout our universes based on our thinking and the further activities of our minds and bodies.
Having an influence not only on our universes, but also on everything within. Some influences having
minor impacts, some having more disastrous impacts.

In the last decades, a lot of damage has been made because of these insanities of our minds. Mainly
because a lot of insanities are now having huge impacts because of the extends at which they are
spread through the huge number of minds in our universes. All being insane to more or lesser
extends.

The way to solve this is to understand this discourse and to get our minds moving towards more sane
ones as soon as possible. Every insane act from our minds has a negative impact to our universes as
a whole. In the end damaging each of our minds, also the ones causing the damages, in either ways.

That is why it is in the interest of really every living creature on this globe and in our universes as a
whole to cure our individual and collective minds.

377
On morals, virtues, intentions and incompleteness

It is often thought that people should live up to virtues and values and morals and the like. In many
cases, some semisophy insanities and errors are applied in these cases. One of them being that
people also here are focused too much on what is there or known to them. Not being able to go
beyond. And if they do, applying the wrong methodologies and the like.

Valuations of morals, virtues and the like are often based on wrong contents and wrong
understandings, just like about everything in our social universes and realities is to more or lesser
extends at current times.

Besides of inbox kind of thinkings, valuations and understandings of morals and virtues are often too
much based on incomplete information. The people valuating not being able to understand the
plurisigns and the linkages and interconnetednesses between them. Not understanding that not only X
is at stake in certain situations, but also Y or Z or whatever else. For instance not only morals being at
stake, but also virtues and intentions and power.

For instance intentions of people are VERY important, if not the most important in practise. But,
sometimes we can simply not live up to them. For instance because of power. The same is applicable
to morals and also a lot more plurisigns, of course.

A theoretical case good for practical understandings is the case of Kill or Letting die. Which is actually,
among anothernesses, about morals and power. And a lot more. I will not elaborate on this case here
right now, but it can be found for instance on the internet.

378
On using and abusing

In anotherness part of this discourse, i gave the example of the Internet is (using) us. To be found on
youtube at http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=NLlGopyXT_g

In this type and understanding what Internet is all about, it is also important to understand the nature
of the relations between internet and us. One of the specific natures being whether this relations are
constructive to both or constructive for the one and deconstructive for the other parties involved.

If the relationship between internet and us would be counterproductive for us and constructive for the
internet, and if we would say this was intended by the (makers or maintainers of parts of) the internet,
the above used sentence could better be transformed into “the internet is (abusing) us.

This difference between the nature, using versus abusing, is about balance versus imbalances. Any
relationship not resulting in a win-win situation is in the end an imbalanced relationship. And, if we
reflect on many of current relationships, we realize that most of them are actually imbalanced. Just
decide on yourself for instance on the following relationships. And ask yourself whether this currently
existing nature of the specific organizations are the most optimal and fit ones.

Examples of relationships here are, for instance:

- The government is abusing us

- The banks are abusing us
- The companies are abusing us
- The economy is abusing us.

In the above mentioned cases, it is not the economy or the companies or the banks or the companies
that SHOULD abuse us, but in most cases these parties and anotherness parties in the system ARE
abusing us. Causing the nature of these phenomena to be more about abusing than about using.
Important to understand here is that this abusing is in most cases NOT the right most valuable
situation. Like abusing of signs almost never is.

In the end, this wrong natures of organizations lead to a limit or stop or even destruction of parts of
signs growing. While ultimately, this signs growing in entelychistic ways is in many cases the most
valuable situation, IF the nature and relevance of transitive values are properly understood.

With regards to this specific part of my discourse, it is however also very important to understand that
the above mentioned natures have to be changed. And that this would and will involve some major

379
changes in both the structure and the nature of above mentioned organizations and also the people
working in them.

380
On tempo and rhythm

In some part of Nietsche’s writings I want to discuss here, he is talking about TEMPO. In his Will To
Power, you can find the following sentence : “This mankind is much less effective, but gives quite
different pledges of lasting strength; its tempo is slower, but the rhythm itself is richer “

This sentence of Nietzsche did made me think a lot, both about tempo and rhythm. The first realisation
I did get at that times, is that communication theories mostly neglect tempo and rhythm. While tempo
and also rhytm are most probably some of the most important aspects of communication.

I just already understood this importance of tempo and rhythm to much greater extends after some
realizations and empirical experiences of myself during my life. At that times, I compared it with the
metaphorical story example of the goshawks nature.

With goshawks breeding efforts in aviaries and the like, it is always a big problem to keep the male
goshawk alive. Like with most birds of prey, the female goshawk is larger and stronger than the male.
When you want to breed with them artificially, there are globally speaking two options. The one being
artificial insemination, the other one being kind of artificial natural breeding.

As far as the artificial natural breeding option goes, it should be mentioned that this option is the most
difficult and will give the major problem of the male goshawk being killed in case you are not very
much familiar with the communicative parts and life of goshawks. This means that only the very
experiences goshawker will be able to breed them in this ANB way. The female goshawk will only kind
of accept a male goshawk in her neighbourhood during some very special period of time. Which can
only be recognized by the communications of the female goshawk. During that time period the
goshawker can put the male goshawk with the female, but of course only if he is able to recognize the
time is right. By very closely observing the communication patterns and contents and process of the
female goshawk. Then even when putting them together, he has to closely observe the
communication going on between male and female goshawk. As the female goshawk will for sure not
accept the male for long, but also the male can express wrong communication thereby even more
risking his life. If everything goes well, meaning the goshawker is great in separating the male
goshawk at exactly the right moment, he will be saved for the next year breeding.

381
I know that in most cases it all goes well, since a goshawker will only try the ANB breeding effort if he
kind of became one with the communicational life of goshawks. But I understand by now that in other
living creatures life, this phenomenon of importance of a match of communication is also there.
Meaning that if there is some mismatch in communications, living creatures will not match and this can
also have serious disadvantages for one of the living creatures involved. As the mismatch can lead to
a lot of negative responses, like for instance refusal but also violence. Violence in most cases not
being as resolute as with the goshawks in aviaries, but still it can lead to quite some harmful activities
and situations.

The most important aspects of communications in this cases is not about the content, but much more
about the contextual features. The most important ones probably to be labelled as the tempo and the
rhythm of the communications going on.

There is, I think, indeed some link between tempo and rhythm like expressed by Nietzsche. When
tempo of communications is rising, the rhythm of the communication will generally become less rich.
When tempo becomes slower, the rhythm of the communication can become much richer. In general,
it will. But for specific cases, it might not. Or the other way round. Since there is, of course, a
difference to be made in the nature of communications in general and the nature of specific
communicational activities as such.

In either ways, whatever the compound and nature of both tempo and rhythm are in certain
communications, the match between these aspects of communications among living creatures is I
guess one of the most important feature and aspect of communicational life. It determines for the most
how the communication and therefore how the relations among living creatures evolve.

That is why both rhythm and tempo are that important for communications and why they should get a
more important role in communicational theory and practise. But, besides that, the importance of both
rhythm and tempo are already very important in earlier stages and universes. Being the universes of
thought and dreams, our minds (both collective and individual) being one central fundamental aspect
of it.

The importance of rhythm and tempo for thought processes should also be picked up by social
sciences and cognitive sciences and the like. I can not understand and explain this importance to the
fullest at this moment, but I just know that the efficiency and results of mind processes are largely
influenced also by this aspects of rhythm and tempo. I already remarked in some anotherness part of
my discourse that most of the better thought processes take place after being in some dream phases,
but also in certain states of “daydreaming”. This has, of course, to do with the tempo but also rhythms
of thinking. I just know there is a lot to be understood and explored about this rhythm and tempo, both
for their influences in mind processes and also in communicational processes.

382
For sure, also all kind of social activities and processes, if not all of them, will experience major
improvements if only the nature of rhythm and tempo and their influences in our society and universes
is understood to much higher extends than at this moment of time.

383
On idiots and geniuses

Like I said before in this discourse, I myself do not think true geniuses do exist. But besides that, I
actually also do not truly consider most of the people in the world as being idiots all the times. On the
contrary most of the people in our societies are doing quite well given the possibilities60 they have. But,
on the other hands, I do consider everyone as being an idiot in some respects. Even the people who
would be called “geniuses” in some respects will be , or better could be, complete idiots in some other
respects. And also even me in some respects. It largely depends on the points of view taken and the
wisdom (insights) of the reviewer.

So when I call someone an idiot in this discourse, and in general, it is not some notion or value of
disrespect. It is just an overall statement for lacking insights and wisdom on certain fields. Further
more it is about expressing the insanities of acting of certain people because they simply miss certain
insights.

Calling someone an idiot might and probably mostly will be judged as disrespectful by the parties or
persons being called that ways. But, it might even be more disrespectful not to call persons or parties
that ways while they are. Also, like I said, it is also a statement of lacking insights and wisdoms. By
expressing this, you give the persons missing the insights both a strong signal and opportunity to
grow. Also, the negative consequences of incomplete understandings just have to be cured, of course.
For that, to me the communication between persons just should be very clear and maybe powerful at
certain moments in time. Being critical is important, being phronitical even more. And being phronitical
is about being also very critical to other persons, even friends and colleagues, if this is needed for
growth and preventing problems in future.

What is also very important to understand here, is the fact that I understand something which is just
true and valid fact in our societies at large. Being the fact that many actors in our society are insane in
the sense that they execute tasks and the like based on what I would call philosophy and semisophy
errors. Some of them are mentioned throughout this discourse, but I think quite a lot of them still have
to be explored and understood in higher details. A lot of research potentials there.

60
Possibilities they have is having a rather philosophical meaning here. Since actually the possibilities are not
that well on social levels…and I think this discourse and also great discourses like the ones of for instance
Deirde Mcloskey do matter a lot there…rhetoric and anothernesses like virtues and the like do make our lives
complete.

384
On sanity and insanity

A lot can be said about sanity and insanity. First of all, let me state here that what most people call
“craziness” ( and I also do in many occasions) is also regarded as a kind of insanity in this discourse.
But there are more types of insanity than the notion of craziness, insanity being a much broader and
sophisticated terminology for reality.

The general notion of insanity is, like most general notions, much more neutrally loaded than specific
situations of insanity. I however agree with Korzybski that both generally and specifically speaking, all
the people on this globe are insane to some extends. But only in the sense of having insane habits
and insane ways of doing. Which is different from being crazy. But, the insanities I talk about are
caused by intrinsic habits and beliefs of the people involved, partly because of wrong conditioning in
our society at large.

I however also got some insights just some short while ago about the insane that are also officially
seen like that. Which is, that actually of course each specific case of insanity is different. But also, that
maybe a lot of instances of insanity are just in the core some relative modes of differences, or
anothernesses, that are just considered to be too far from what the mainstream considers to be
“normal”. Which is of course also relative and in the core nothing more than mere conventions.

I also strongly believe that at least some part of the insane that are judged this ways are actually very
wise and clever persons with the greatest possible intellects you could think of. The only problem is
that the people who got to judge them are inferior in knowledge and insights and just at some lower
levels of thinking than these “insane”. It is not long ago that I told some friend of mine that another guy
I knew went to some psychiatric hospital and that I got some message some years after from this guy
that he was almost finished with that. But, that this guy actually is much cleverer than I am. Now, at
that times I not fully realised enough what I was saying. But also did. Since I already want for long to
go to speak to the guy. Since I think I can judge him much better than most of the psychiatric people
do. With their sometimes really insane ways of viewing, causing sane people to be judged insane.

In one of his great books, Robert Pirsig, the great philosopher who wrote “the art of motorcycle
maintenance”, is talking about that he was put in some psychiatric institution some while. I however
somehow get the impression that he meant this philosophically, that in the end we are all in one large
madhouse called life. With us all being insane to more or lesser extends. But then again this could be
some perception of me while he actually really was in some official madhouse, with walls.

385
4. Towards new (ecosocial) orders

Introduction

Like introduced a bit in the former chapters of this discourse, we should in my opinion move towards
real capitalism. For that, the acts in society have to become complete and by that really logical.
Current mainstream philosophy and social sciences are incomplete, leading to incompletenesses of
our society. Also current mainstream sensemaking is mostly incomplete, by that not being able to
reconstruct insane representamens into sane phronesis representia. Something which my meta-
semeiotical methodology of phronesis antenarrating is well capable off, also because of the fundament
of sane pluriflection and sensemakings. Previous insights out of linguistic turns of philosophy, like the
insights of CS peirce and Korzybski and Derrida, give some main keys for moving towards more
complete ways of understandings. But, all of them are still based on incomplete sensemaking and
meta-physical perspectives. My phronesis meta-semeiotical body of understanding called practisism
or practicism is not only far more superior, but also the phronesis meta-semeiotical perspective and
resulting sensemaking is the SOLE right true and great and complete and excellent way of
sensemaking that should guide ALL of our actions in our universes at large. Holoplurality and sound
pluriflections are very fundamental fundaments for practicism and improvement of our understandings
of the worlds surrounding us. Based on phronesis, real SANE ways of thinking and doing, and
pluralities of thinking and doing. For that, we still do understand far too less. In a lot of fields of our
society as a whole.

Most important of all is to know what is wrong with current acts in society. And to have some rough
vision about how current societies should look like. Rough, because practise will always be different
from the visions described in any discourse. And they have to be. I would not like anyone to just put
any thoughts or visions expressed in this text in practise without it being well fit in the contexts it is
needed for. In fact, I would not want anyone with minor knowledge and capabilities to do so. Like
expressed before, I would first like to be able myself to at least express the many anothernesses. To
explain my vision and how we could strive towards more wentelychistic ecosocial systems.

386
Karl Marx and his methodologies

Karl Marx, the great change master of the 19th century, has accomplished a lot. I found the following
phrase of Machiavelli on a Dutch website:

Men dient te beseffen dat er niets moeilijker is om uit te voeren, noch meer twijfelachtig qua succes, noch meer
gevaarlijk te hanteren, dan een nieuwe orde der dingen te initiëren.
Machiavelli 1446-1507, Italiaans staatsman en filosoof

This can roughly be translated into the following: Nothing is more difficult to accomplish, nor more
doubtful to succeed, nor more dangerous to put in practise, than to initiate a new order of things.
Well, Karl Marx did succeed quite well in initiating a new order. His ideas about a more social world
order where seed and took roots quite soon after his long road of developing his thoughts and
putting it on paper. We all know that Socialism was not that perfect. But then again, Capitalism also is
by far not.

If I myself have to make judgement why the thoughts of Karl Marx proved not to be (that) successful in
practise, I would give 2 main causes. The first main cause is the fact that Karl Marx himself was not
able to have influence a lot on how his ideas where executed in practise. This most probably
decreased the quality of the system in practise.

But, main cause of the main disadvantages of his ideas lay in something much more fundamental.
Which is the fact that Karl Marx did surely take some wrong methodology. What he actually did was
building a new system on the base of certain existing (scientific) notions, mainly economic ones, that
were largely wrong. He chose to use too much “old” building blocks to reconstruct society. The
improvement of the new construction he had in mind had its foundation in the “new” building blocks,
the anothernesses he brought in. But, exactly some of the “old” building blocks (which are still largely
used also in every aspect of current capitalist societies 61) contained and still contain some major
obstacles for real constant and relevant changes in society. These acritically indubitable beliefs, the
“old” building blocks used by Karl Marx, were mainly not correct. This I will show in the remaining part
of this discourse.

61
With current capitalist society, I mean the capitalist societies till now, which is the beginning of the 21th
century.

387
One of the main bad parts of socialism in practise was, in my own personal opinion, the fact that a lot
belonged to the state. Therefore, everything was from everybody and nothing was from somebody. Or,
in other words, people did not have personal interests with these belongings and therefore did not care
about them. They even could treat things bad and maybe even would since they did not like the state
too much to say the least. Another bad parts of both the ideas of Marx and socialism, is that own
initiative was not appreciated enough. Every society simply has to encourage own initiatives and pro-
activity of their citizens. In the end it does not matter whether the system is called market economy or
social economy. What matters and does have impact, is how the people in the system act and how
they deal with social processes. The key important word there is balance. In current market
economies, this balance is strongly imbalanced.

Marx did also not gather enough insights in philosophy. For any major social change, a good insight in
Philosophy is key. Through philosophy, you can step out of many caves and prisons of society. Like
the imprisonments by words and structures. Relational structures like marriage and work relations
can imprison, but also theoretical models and structures can. Just to name some of them. People
can free themselves from these. By reflecting on the essences of reality and dreams. Ideas and
thoughts. By that becoming a more complete citizen. And maybe, just maybe, adding something to the
completeness of societies. For yourself, other people and future generations to follow.

One of the excellent discourses on free societies are the discourses of Karl Popper on “the open
society and it’s enemies”. What I myself among others liked in his book is his metaphor of the people
being awake and those sleeping. Meaning that those sleeping do not really “see” the things that
people being awake do. Awakeners being the metaphor for true understandings and phronesis I
guess. Actually, I currently do tell quite regularly to colleagues of mine at work that I am not completely
awake still. They perceive this to be mentally, but I am pretty sure in anotherness ways than what I
mean to say in most cases there. Anotherness example of the fact that perceptions are realities in our
societies. In far more cases and contexts than most people truly realize. In that respects they are still
sleeping or at least not fully awake.

388
My own methodologies

So yes, I dare to say that my methodology to search for new ways for future world orders (which is
actually what I was mainly looking for) is much better. In the sense that I did gather a lot of insight into
philosophy. Especially in what is called the language turn in Philosophy. I did very roughly read some
texts of people like Jacques Derrida, Charles Sander Peirce and Alfred Korzybski. Just to name a few
but the most important ones. The first one mentioned, Jacques Derrida, did not want to identify himself
with the language turn in philosophy. In fact, he was a huge opponent of the language turn. But, in my
view that was because of a wrong understanding of at least the work of Charles Sanders Peirce. The
difference that Jacques Derrida is mainly talking about does also appear in the works of CS Peirce.
Not so profound as in Jacques Derrida, but still it is an important element.

Reasons why I just very roughly read their texts was because of several reasons. One of them is just
the time constraint. For effectively gathering the useful information, I had to find some essences.
Which is of course also some matter of judgement. But, by triangulation (using multiple sources) and
concentrating on the most clever intellectuals and discourses of previous and current times, I am quite
sure I did find lots of essences relevant for constructive changes and insights.

Which leads me to some second reason why I maybe did not read every text very thoroughly. Which
is, basically, the fact that I needed some distance from all the texts while reflecting on them. To see
the relevant essences. If I would stick too much to one of the great discourses of history, it would have
drastically handicapped the reflection process.

Then, there is the reason of completeness and arête. Which is probably the most important reason.
And partly has to do also with the previous ones mentioned. For completeness and entelechy, I had to
concentrate a lot on finding anothernesses. Anothernesses that are expressed in texts, but, more
important, also the anothernesses not expressed in texts. Like mentioned before, this anothernesses
not expressed in texts and discourses probably play a much more relevant role for society since recent
years62. And will play an even more important role in future societies. Here, empirical practise,
collateral experience and tacit knowledge played and play some main role. But tacit wisdom, otherwise
to be called tacit understandings, are the most important engine. They cause the feelings of aporia
that lead to new research and reflection activities of mankind.

62
See …… on page …….

389
To me, believing in social constructions, it does not matter with which building blocks parts of our
society are constructed. But, completeness, and most of all wentelechy, is very important. To reach
so, it is really essential that the relevant anothernesses are incorporated in the social constructions as
building blocks. If something misses, and no real completeness is there, wentelechy for sure can not
be reached. And in many cases also logic will be lacking. Besides completeness, it is essential that the
nature of the underlying structures is according to holoplurality. And, of course, all actions have to
be not only based on but also guided by sane sensemaking, constantly or whenever needed.

Another advantage of my methodology is the simple fact that I did not use models and structures too
much. By this, I think I have succeeded in finding much more really elementary aspects of many
aspects of life. The real building blocks of societies. In my point of view it is very well possible to
change the current ways of capitalism. By means of piecemeal engineering, and when possible some
more extensive changes in society, going towards better ecosocial orders of things. This is not about a
name (whether communism or capitalism or..) but about completeness, or even better wentelechy,
and the essences of life. If we can incorporate that in a system, any system, life will be much better.
For all of us.

Part of this searches for completeness and wentelechy in our society will hopefully be reached with
lots of pilot projects. Some tests in real life with improvement proposals made by capable and
trustworthy citizens. Because a lot can be improved by trail and error. There is some Dutch saying
“waar gewerkt wordt maakt men fouten”. Quite generally this can be translated and transformed into “
if you want to improve something, also some more or less destructive actions will result “. If the trails
are small and short enough, this failures do not matter! Especially not if it is counterbalanced with long
lasting improvements with more or less great impacts.

In this light, also personal development and learning processes should be encouraged more! I would
like to state some of the favourite statement of my advisor, Prof. Dr. Slawomir Magala, here. Which is
the following statement of Samual Beckett:

“Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better”.

Of course, it is better NOT to fail. But any learning process incorporates some failures. Which are
actually not failures if they ultimately lead to great or satisfying results.

390
The disadvantages of capitalism

At the end of the 19th century the order of society called socialism did collapse in most countries of
Middle-Europe. In countries like the Czech Republic and Poland, this system was and is slowly
replaced by capitalism. Something that is, overall, better probably than communism like it was in those
countries before the collapse of Berlin wall. But still, capitalism is not as optimal a social system like it
can and should be. Something that will be very clear at the end of this book.

At this moment, which is after the year of 2008, it can also be stated that I began writing my research
and dissertation before the financial crisis starting in the year of 2008. I started this research because
of understanding the insanities of social sciences, but more specific the insanities of capitalism. This
same insanities now lead to the financial problems of current times.

What is wrong with current capitalism? In my opinion, there are 2 major essences that are destructive
in society. Both of them are in fact caused by some serious malfunctions in individuals taking part in
society. Which caused us to work with the wrong structures causing even more malfunctions and
keeping the madhouse alive. This 2 major essences are first of all the fact that our society is based on
modernistic, insane ways of thinking and doing. The other essence is actually also result of this first
essence. Being the essence that our societies are too much concentrated on money and exactly there
also you got some insane perceptions about capital and capital flows.

Just think about it. There are in fact lots of improvements in society. Sociologically speaking the world
is getting better and better. Management theories are improving at high rates. But still, competition is
getting more and more. Economies are not working at their fullest potential. And many people feel
rather bad socially speaking. Taking the enormous and extensive developments of science and people
into regard, it is just not logic that capital is not improving in many aspects of life. I am not speaking
about only financial capital here, but also about social and human capital. Some of the paradoxes in
current capitalism are:
• Lots of improvements but lesser welfare for the people
• Employees working harder and harder and still having real difficulties to pay their bills
• Entrepreneurs working very hard but then still going down or just managing to survive
• Individuals getting more and more independent and clever opposed to employees and state
officials who are too consistently following more and more inflexible guidelines, laws and work
methods.

391
 If we want to take some major steps forward, we have to get out of the matrix. We need to break out
of linear structures, and more generally out of reductionist insane structures and beliefs. The
madhouse(s) we did create for ourselves by teaching and conditioning our children and ourselves the
wrong habits and attitudes. In this discourse, I will make clear how we can create a society that truly
deserves the label “capitalism”. With huge possibilities for individuals in society. It will hopefully
drastically change the world we know at this moment. We can now grow towards real capitalism 63.
Building some paradises on earth. Hopefully not too late.

Major starting point for me was some very relevant insight. Which is the fact that I consider the world
to be a social construction. Which is quite a good starting point when we realise that it are always
people who are developing something and executing changes in our society. Now. In my view, there
are multiple ways to construct society. The building blocks of life can be put together in many ways to
construct a nice house for us all to life in. But, the house should be complete. And as excellent and
phronesis as possible. As long as this is not the case, we will always get harmed in any way. We get
sick from certain developments like we get sick from the air moving free through the house when there
are no windows in. Some of us might even die from that or will seriously malfunction. Not because
there is something wrong with the people. But with the surrounding, the contexts of life.

Well, exactly that is still wrong with the system of capitalism at the end of the 20 th century beginning of
the 21th. But, it can be solved. Quite generally speaking, what is first of all needed is to create some
space. Some room for people and organizations to move and make the changes happen. What is
needed besides that is the knowledge HOW to change and move on to better societies. Both elements
will be discussed here. What this book will offer is just some excellent fundament for moving on to a
new far better society.

63
This real capitalism is the kind of capitalism based on the true understandings what real capitalism involves.
Capital being both static and dynamical values. And the realization that dynamical values, thirdnesses, are more
important than dynamical values. Since the dynamics of life eventually matter the most, it is the field where real
true entelechy and excellence can grow and develop. Which is why a focus on static values and “firstness” is
mostly counterproductive, also in this more specific case.

392
The danger is that it can also lead to lots of problems if the wrong people are using the knowledge and
take the wrong action. You might now the saying “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”. And
actually, if my good intentions are used by the wrong people or people with not enough knowledge and
wisdom to deal with it, it might lead to some (partial) hells. But I guess overall this will not be the case.
What I do hope is that I myself get some chances in near future to become one of the change masters
being able to have a major influence on the how and when of changes. This is quite relevant, since for
this whole text it is the case that the anothernesses (the issues and things NOT discussed here) are
much broader and relevant than the things that will be discussed. I have been busy not only with this
subject but with much more related to changes to be completed in our society. Actually, I hope to be
involved in some excellent organization that can make changes happen. Or, even better, to start this
up myself. Soon. Because, a lot is possible in our universes of in some ways unlimited possibilities.
And it is time to move on. To better societies as a whole.

393
The illogics of capitalism

The biggest illogic of capitalism might be the fact that we, homo sapiens, are prisoners of our own
acrytically indubitable craziness’s. They cause us to remain taking all kinds of actions that are
detrimental for society as a whole. And we simply do not know better since (till now?) no smart people
ever thought about the real how and why of economics. Or because of the fact that most of us are
insane without knowing it.

This insanities are mainly caused by current system of money. This system is very reductionist and
damaging for all of us. By system, I not only mean the system itself but also the resulting actions of
people within this system. And, most importantly, the insane actions of organizations and actors within.
Because in the end, our money system CAN be sane. By adding some great anothernesses based on
understandings. More about that later. For now, it should become clear and understood that our
money system, and the system of capitalism, is largely damaging because of INSANITIES.

Part of this insanity can and should indeed be solved by some neurologically sound trainings like the
ones discussed in Alfred Korzybski’s excellent book “science and sanity”. By incorporating some
teaching in semiotics and semantics the way it is discussed in Korzybski’s book. But that’s by far not
all that is needed in education. In fact, the ways of teaching and learning of individuals in current times
is one of the biggest shortfalls of current society. It is the cause of lots of problems and disasters in
society. One of them being the anomie in private life. This anomie is not only caused by that, but also
because of the commodification in both public and private societies and organizations. And the
transfer of unsocial habits of corporate life to private life. I would like to propose some other ways and
contents of learning further on in this book. A way of learning and teaching that is not only
concentrating on acquiring knowledge. But also on entelechy, phronesis and other relevant virtues of
life. This proposal actually is not new, but some part of the great discourses of Aristotle. And also
Peirce did repeat it in his discourses. Actually Peirce was a great kind of spin doctor by recombining
some of the insights of Aristotle like his notion of Aporia. Peirce did translate this notion into the notion
of vagueness. Then Aristotle is talking about speculative reasoning. Which is called speculative
rhetoric in the discourses of Peirce. But, more essential is that both Peirce and Aristotle go beyond the
speculative rhetoric or methodeutic. They move on towards the thirdnesses of life by referring to what
Aristotle calls Phronesis, Techne and Nous. I do not know whether this link will still work when you are
reading this discourse. But some interesting insights can be gathered there by reading this discourse
at the following link: http://www2.dsu.nodak.edu/users/jtallmon/dianoetic.htm. And comparing it with
the pragmaticism of Charles Sanders Peirce. And with the current incompleteness of education and
maybe also parts of our societies by that.

394
For illogics and insanity of society to disappear, we will need to bring some anothernesses back into
science and teaching institutions. In my own passion, the art of falconry, it is still habit that an
apprentice (some student in falconry) learns the art from a mentor. Also for my PhD dissertation, this is
the case (although here I am the apprentice, although by now I might be at least on mentor level at
some aspects of science). In medieval times, this system of mentor and apprentice, or some classes
of learning and teaching where especially also the collateral experiences played a major role, where
much more important than they are now. If you ask me why, I would say that theoretical knowledge
can only give a very partial insight in life. Since, a lot of qualisigns (or aspects) of the world
surrounding us can only be sensed. Our brains can not feel. They can not see. They can not
experience the anothernesses that make life so beautiful and worthwhile. Or a misery. This sensory
way of viewing the world around us and getting an understanding of how the explicate orders are
arranged is fundamental for phronesis. And also for input and insights for more wentelygistic thought
processes. It is actually the kind of experience that in science is termed empiristic experiences. I do
not say here that we have to go back to the apprentice-mentor system. Actually I believe that you can
also learn a lot by experiencing things yourself. But, some insights you will understand much quicker
and/or better by negotiating – well, communicating - with great masters in certain fields of knowledge
and/or practice. This negotiations and communications can also very well take place by getting into
conversations with their texts or other Nachlass.

395
On capitalist ego

So what is this, this phenomenon of capitalism……is it about money? Of course it is! But, it is also
about a lot more. Although also here not only science but also society likes to reduce it to less than it
does really truly involves. Society being just like capitalism about humans and the human mind. With
the dominant prevailing perspective still being what Nietzsche would call "frog perspective". I call the
same phenomenon "inbox thinking". But whatever this labelling is, also here content matters. The
content of this dominant perspective being a largely insane perspective because of reductionism and
(therefore?) insane habits and insights of large parts of human race. Causing a lot of problems for us,
originating from the people around. Not from their legs or hands, but from their minds. Our minds and
the collective minds, which have to be cured from the insanities.

As a matter of fact, really each existence in our universes (whether it is a possibility, an existence or a
law or whatever) is subject to reductionism to more or lesser extends. Of course. As wisdom and
plurisigns grow, the understandings grow. In that sense, reductionism will diminish. But, on the other
hand plurism most probably grows. Which has a negative influence on the phenomenon of
reductionism.

In anotherness part of this discourse, I propose to use the terminology of transitive values instead of
capital. These transitive values being much broader than just adding social and anotherness concepts
of capital. Realizing that capital is more than solely financial is already a good step towards more sane
societies as a whole, but it is not sufficient. For sanity, we need a sound understanding and application
of the concept and idea of transitive values.

What is however also needed, is a very sound understanding of human mind and thought. Since, in
the end, capitalism is about people. Capitalism is us, the economy is us. I will elaborate more about
this economy is us idea in anotherness part of this discourse. It is intrinsically related and connected
with capitalism, of course.

What the capitalism is us idea concerns, it is very important to understand that in the end capitalism is
socially constructed. The so-called financial crisis of current times (I am writing this down October
2008) also is. Although it is NOT a financial crisis since economy and also capitalism is doing GREAT
at least in Europe (let alone the US situation but well that is also going rather good…). Partly because
of what Korzybski already understood, namely that the representamens are NOT the plurisigns of
reality. I prefer to use signs and plurisigns above the notion of issues as expressed by other
intellectuals, since signs and plurisigns better fit what I consider to be the only sole real structure of
our universes, the structure of interconnected signs growing and at the moment destroyed again at
some point of time mostly by means of human insanities and stupidities.

396
Part of the social construction of capitalism is about intentions of people. These intentions are also
partly influenced by the structure, while the intentions are also influencing the structure. Just a day
before writing down this part of my discourse, I realized the great insight I already have had at least
tacitly about the intentions and characteristics of people living in capitalism.

Capitalism is partly about greed and egoism for sure. In fact, the most important ego of capitalism is
the ego of egoism. This is something that can be seen all around. As soon as people get their own
money and their own properties, they generally (not always of course) want to defend it against any
“intruders” and threats.

I got to this realization again and also got some better understandings about it when reflecting on
something that a Czech guy told me some years back when I was still living and studying in Prague.
This guy told me about his personal experiences with the privatizations of properties in the Czech
Republic after the Velvet revolution of 1989.

What he said was the following in short. I will also tell about the contexts and situation when he told
me this. Fact is that I had lots of fun and great times in the Czech Republic, partly because of good
friendships. One of them being with this Czech guy. He took me to some place outside of Prague.
There he did point towards some directions and I could look very far since it was all open land not
much trees and the like.

Then he said…..about everything you can see in all directions….was from my mother and her family
before she left the CZ with me (his mother went to Germany with him after Velvet revolution). And then
he said: “ after the privatization, it all went to an uncle of mine”. “He kicked my mother and me from his
properties”.

At that times, I thought only about the fact that the privatization was not good in that respects. What I
did not think about at that times, was about the realization which is MUCH more important to grasp.
Being the realization that this way of acting about properties is just very much how WE as capitalists
act in many respects. The intention and ego of capitalism is the ego of egoism!

I myself do not truly believe that this is something belonging to human intentions. As opposed to some
intellectuals, I do not truly believe that people are bad inside or that their intentions are egoistic. On the
contrary, I am quite convinced people are acting out of good intentions. Even most of the people seen
and treated as criminals are in my opinions. Although there are also bad people, of course. But most
of them are not. But, even the most friendly and great persons will act in egoistic ways when living in a
capitalist society.

397
Why is this? In my opinion because of wrong understandings and actings in capitalism. Partly because
of reductionism all over, partly because of semiphronesis and semisophy errors leading to wrong and
even damaging understandings.

It is very important to understand that I did not came to my conclusion of egoism being the ego of
capitalism by means of deducting from the story of my friend from the Czech Republic. As I say in
anotherness parts of my discourse, induction is also a semiphronesis insanity. Leading to wrong
understandings. My conclusion was and is however based on understandings. On living in a capitalist
reality and a true thorough understanding because of empiristic experiences and also my
understandings as a practical social scientist.

As such, I do understand that this ego of capitalism is actually caused by current contexts of
capitalism. Like for instance the context of people just having the perceptions they need to be selfish
and egoistic to ensure they will have a living and a future in a capitalist society. Curing these and
anotherness insanities of our minds will cause much more sane realities leading to a sane capitalist
society with much less egoism most probably.

Just now I am thinking….is this all needed….some parts of what I am writing down in my discourse.
But, it is. Since in the end all the parts of my discourse are very fundamental, and part of a bigger
puzzle of interconnectedness and insanities to be cured. This discourse can be a great fundament for
just doing that, and I hope it will. Besides that I think it is full of great guidelines on how to proceed to
make our society much healthier and therefore worthwhile.

398
The other side of the coin

In falconry, a falconer who would go solely or mainly for the preys, would miss a lot of essential and
great parts of management. Because, also in falconry, “der weg ist das ziel” (like some German
falconer once told me). Exactly the diversity and knowledge how to handle these diversities is the
essence that makes the activity the passion, the art. This also counts for the practices of organizations
and management. At this moment, far too much emphasis is on the money. It is far too much about
this money, and also I think they got it all wrong anyway. The essence of money is that it is, and
maybe only should be, a tool for trading. A catalyst for growth. Nothing more and nothing less, no
undercoding or overcoding should be practised there. What we have experienced during the last
years, is that companies made a lot of profit around the turn of the century. Then it went just a bit less
as far as incomes are concerned, and almost immediately the companies and general public became
very negatively. A lot of reorganisations and other negative economic processes resulted from this
wrong negative moods. Also here, the individuals and organizations were (far) too much concentrated
on the preys. The most ironical side of it is that this concentration on preys and resulting negative
economic processes have been based on wrong pre-assumptions and knowledge about “the” realities
we live in. In both science and practise, some fundamental aspects of management are not taken into
regards properly.

Like stated, money is in essence “just” a tool for trading and business. The successes of an economy
are not that much (to be) based on flows of money at a certain moment in time, but especially in
current times more and more on the base of activities of actors in continuous, long term perspectives.
These signs just have to grow and also have to got the chance to grow. Which also means not
breaking down everything or a lot that has been created when things turn out or seem to go bit worse
at some relatively short moment in time. Employees are not only costing money, but are also bringing
in a lot of money for the long terms. Especially also because, although this is not realised at all to
fullest extends, employees are also customers. And not getting social insurances. If you look at the
development of work productivity as opposed to development of wages, you will probably realise that
there are some very destructive developments there.

399
I myself am very sure that economy will grow a lot if wages will be increased instead of decreased. If
some kind of minimum prices are set, mainly for food products. You can not get something from a
chicken that will not get enough food (well in dutch we say “van een kale kip valt niet te plukken”). So
not even the managers and CEO’s of companies, but actually the people we vote for each year,
should finally do something that really has major implications. Which is, just arranging that the people
that are the customers and therefore will buy IF they have this money for being the catalyst for growth,
to get more money to buy and with that get the economy going and going and going. And fixed prices
will certainly prevent the current trend in some branches of companies just competing fiercely and
thereby just destroying a lot. Not only their own trades, but also the lives of their employees. The
people that loose their jobs because of it. And much more.

Another solution would probably be, to just cancel this thing called Money. At this very moment it is
already the case that we talk about money, while actually we are dealing with just the information
flows. Just flows of information between organizations. If we could just cancel these flows of
information in future, it will mean a lot less flows and work to be executed. And, more important, it
solves a lot of administration. And many destructive aspects of money would just disappear. No more
people worrying about Money. To get this into realities of being, it would however mean complete
other ways of dealing with each other. Other ways of motivating people to work. And anotherness
systems of dividing what has been produced among the citizens. In fact if you think of it, it might not be
possible at all. But, I just know that actually socially speaking everything should be possible. Although
this weird idea of me about cancelling money is certainly not possible at this point of time, it will
probably happen. Sometime. IF it happens, I guess one should decide who will do what based on
capabilities like knowledge and experiences. This would be a whole new meaning of the concept of
knowledge economy. I know this kind of thinking and doing will be effectuated in future. Unless we will
not find a solution for the greenhouse effect in very near future. Since, some scientist really thinks that
the homo sapiens can even not live on this globe anymore (soon) after the year 2050. And, based on
what he showed there (with there I mean some documentary I saw), I think he might be right. If
nothing really good will happen ecologically speaking in the fields that have an influence on the
greenhouse effect.

400
Actually, I was just thinking this week. That it is actually stupid that we still go to this money giving
machine if we want to fill our pockets with money. I always learned in logistics that it is the best to skip
steps if it is possible. Well, actually what we do is, if we did work for some week or month. In some
ways some numbers are increased at this institution called bank. Then, we get this papers from the
machine. At same time, these numbers at the bank are decreased with same number on the papers.
Then we go to buy some things. Change the paper for the stuff. And then if the seller brings the paper
to the bank he gets some numbers back for it. Now, actually would it not be much wiser to just get
numbers at some number giving machine. Then bringing those numbers to the shop. And then loading
the numbers to the bank? Well actually this thing exists it is called the chipknip and the like. So I did
want to make some intelligent remark here but it is just existing.

Or, is there still some interesting side of this? Well, of course. You only got to see them. I myself do
not probably, but see one thing. Which is, that the question WHY most people are still going to this
money giving machine is very interesting. And just now it is even leading to the idea, the great idea
maybe that I guess in future we could probably just load some fixed amounts of money to some
vingerprints or iris. Then just paying by looking shortly to some point in the shop, or even getting paid
and paying without even noting it or bothering about it at this momentum of buying. Not needing any
wallet anymore, although we know this money thing is still there. And we can not buy too much. But,
this act of paying is separated from the acts of taking total expenses and so on into regard. Of course
we do and maybe have to, but this whole trading is not something we have to take into regards then
anymore. The physical parts of money will disappear even more, the mediate objects disappear more
and more and “only” the more implicit order will stay. Welcome to the desert of the real.

Now, I think indeed some of these processes are going on. Right now. And, another interesting
question or actually feeling or call it insight I have just now is….is this a good development? We all
know that living only or mainly in virtual realities is not the kind of living that is healthy to human
beings. Maybe, just maybe, also because of the empirics of life. The fact that we just need to sense a
lot also to see the differences of life. And get to understand them. If you do not sense, you will not
understand completely. Which is why people just do not understand each other if they are talking
about same thing but sensed other parts or other things. It might also explain a bit of the clashes
between older and younger generations. Each next generation experiences realities that are more and
more different from the past generations. Which means, that people living in different decades just
more and more live in different worlds. Just like the scientists living in different paradigm worlds. It can
lead to serous clashes and misunderstandings. Now, current worlds are certainly different. But they
not necessarily have to be more bad. BUT, again, experiences are very important. You got to sense
the differences in life. Those differences are still not available enough in the virtual and digital
worlds current generations are living in more and more. This leads to serious inbalances.
Which are basically causing a probably huge part of problems with current generations. They are
just out of balance. In many respects. And loose their fundamental grounds for developments
and growth.

401
Symptoms of bad management

Symptoms of bad management can be seen everywhere around us. Criminal crimes are getting worse
and more. Violence seems to be more and more normal ways of doing. Children aged 16 or even
younger telling their best friend(s) that they want to commit suicide. Managers that can not handle their
work very well and get stressed. This are some very awful, but only small parts of the whole of effects
of bad management.

As far as I am concerned, these symptoms are mainly caused by further McDonaldization and
Americanization of our world. The market economy would be good. I am one of the last persons to
deny this. To me, it is even not the market economy that is bad, but more the ways the market
economy is lived upon in America and, unfortunately, more and more in other parts of the world. This
mostly involves some terrible positive feedback loop that motivates organizations and individuals to
compete to death. Making each others lives unnecessarily difficult and troublesome. Till the extends
where a lot of us work very hard and still earn less and less money relatively speaking, and have no
good perspectives for longer terms.

This competitiveness is mainly caused by the economic system in which we are making ourselves
living in. Unfortunatelly, the economical orders in the Netherlands and also other European countries
are more and more similar to the American economical and social orders. This can be seen
throughout our society. The negative consequences, as have been stated here above, are a direct
result of this. Which is a large argument to not just copy the positive feedback loops from American
societies. I even think it is very much needed to choose anotherness ways of living and doing as soon
as possible. And it is not just a matter of “it can be different”, being some matter of possibilities. No, as
far as the economical orders and management are concerned, it MUST go different. As soon as
possible. That something can be different is far too noncommittal, as if nothing is needed to be DONE
to make these changes happen.

402
About the fact of my remark that companies and individuals in current times have the habits of
competing each other to death. We all know that this is the case in large extends. But I am wondering
whether all people actually “see” the stupidity in this kinds of acting. Just think about it. Managers, and
not only managers, consistently find improvements in the ways of working and other aspects within
organizations and societies at large. Then, because of these “improvements”, people get less time and
have to do more to execute their tasks that also become more and more. So actually people get more
work to do. Which also results in people to be fired. In one or another ways, people are improving and
improving but at the same time also breaking things down again. Because competition also does so,
and it is generally thought that competitive disadvantages will result from not following the main
streams. This may be so on short notice within the present contexts of living, but it is really very stupid
and illogical. Just as long or maybe from the moment that people are “seeing” and understanding it, a
solution will follow. This solution must, in my opinion, come from the government and science, not from
business life. What I am talking about now will become clear after having read this antenarrative for
new eco-social orders. If not, then the states and science have even more to think about and work
upon.

403
Some key insights

Some of the main insights for getting towards real capitalism are these. The stockmarket is NOT the
economy. Money is NOT the money. Inflation is NOT inflation. Employees are NOT (only) employees.
Customers are NOT (only) customers. The structures and work methods are NOT the company!.

Too many scientists aim at explaining our worlds by means of models and structures. Something that
not only is impossible, but also is and has been detrimental for the societies we live in. For the people.
And for about every aspect of life. But, I do not want to blame only the scientists here. Because, in
fact, nearly everybody of us takes part in this madhouse. Even I, the writer of this discourse. We are all
the products of insanity incorporated in current society. And therefore, we all act on it. To more or less
extents. This will continue till the clouds disappear from the sky enabling us to view the anothernesses
much clearer. Making us realise the stupidities of our actions. That time however still has to come. But,
I hope it will be nearer after more people read and understand this discourse. Hopefully to such great
extents that they even see my lack of sentences and insights.

What is now needed, is to show you at least some of the relevant insights. The insights that will,
hopefully, drastically change your view on our economies and how they can work. And, more
important, it will make you realise that we really live in a madhouse at current times. Making life much
more difficult than needed. Not seeing the huge possibilities of incorporating entelechy and smart
design and insights in capitalism.

Actually the biggest problem of current societies are the wrong ways of thinking of doing resulting from
the enlightment. I fully agree with the great Dutch public intellectual Andreas Kinneging, who states in
his new book ‘geografie van goed en kwaad” that the enlightment in general has been very destructive
for society as a whole. There have been a lot of great people of course also during this time period,
but fact is that the methodologies were incomplete and far too much aimed at universality and general
structures. In current society, there is a major clash between uniformity ways of thinking (resulting from
the enlightment) as opposed to plural ways of thinking. This results in a clash between, what Arnold
Cornelis calls, the social ruling system versus communicative selfcorrecting system64. This
selfcorrecting system is certainly a better system, but it is till now stopped by the social ruling system.
At least, that is what Cornelis tells. But what is important to notice here is that of course both systems
are reifications. Of social processes taking part, being the total of human practises. Which are our
ways of doing and acting. These ways are the way they are, indeed, mainly because of the
enlightment and resulting ways of doing and acting. But it is also some blocking in our thinking , just
not being able to see some whole picture of wentelygistic completeness.

64
“De logica van het gevoel”, Arnold Cornelis

404
Modernism is in its essence a bad way of thinking. And the ways of applying modernist insights in
practise have been very destructive and counterproductive till now. This not only because modernism
did base its practises on the wrong preassumptions, but mainly also because the tools of modernism
where applied in practise in very wrong ways. To get our societies on the road again, and functioning
in much better ways then ever before, some other ways of thinking and doing are needed. And other
organizational structures for guiding and helping people and organizations in their functioning. The
scientists, managers and other people in work life should evolve into generalists. Thinking in pluralist
ways, taking all or at least as much as possible relevant issues into regards. This also involves that
managers should learn to see that money in its essence is only a means for trading, nothing more and
nothing less. Besides that, it is very important to notice that each employee is also a customer. To
realise the implications of this. An increase in wages in the end helps us all and will be productive for
our whole society. Employees can then start working less for the same amount of money. In case this
will result in some shortfall in employees, part of the work can be levelled to foreign countries. Or more
machines can be made and sold and used.

Till now, managers who do not understand the arts of management or just do what they think is
expected from them (and not what will be the best for society at large), will just fire some employees if
the amount of orders and work for their company or department decreases. This however often results
in a lot of negative consequences. These kind of positive feedback loops are better to be turned
around. Since the fired employees will also spend less of money in “the” economy, which will only
cause the economical processes (“the” economy) to slow down or even get into anotherness
decreasing spirals. This is the incoming parts of economies. As far as the costs parts are concerned,
the internal organisations, it is also the case that less employees can and in much cases will lead to
higher internal costs.

Within the “black box’ called organization, just a lot of processes are taking place. These processes
are executed by people. Not by numbers on the payroll or by those little creatures called gnomes, but
by people. Although they are in many respects not treated like that in many aspects of business life.
Also because of the ways we deal with each other there, it is sometimes just like some people have
switched some switches completely the other ways round the moment they enter their employers site
or pick up the phone from their companies. But well, just suppose that the persons that prevented the
majority of dysfunctional mistakes in their organization get fired. Or that the work and activities to be
executed only get longer delivery times. This will only lead to higher internal costs and less revenues.
It might even lead to the loss of important customers. Higher costs per employee and lower income
will be the results. Besides that, costs of employees are at some later phase always income for the
total economies.

405
Like stated before, money is really only a means for trade. There is no real value in money itself,
only in the processes resulting from them. The fixation of belief- that money is more than that or
even leading, is very counterproductive and disastrous for the economy as a whole. Like we all know.
If not, it should be clear after reading this antenarrative discourse. Increasing the means for trade will
eventually only lead to more income for business life. More financial means to invest and to pay the
employees. Which will result in more customer money to spend and even more income for the
businesses and other organizations. If these same organizations then also find ways to increase their
profits by getting more great personalities as workers within their organization, then this will even lead
to small or extensive cost reductions of the internal organization and probably also higher profits.
Some negative feedback loops resulting in win-win situations for society at large.

406
Life is just a domino game

First rule of the domino game: it is NOT a game !

The domino case

Imagine the following.

Some actors are in a big hall with some domino setup for world record.
The actors are a manager, a civil servant an a scientist.
They look at the domino setup. And say to each other: well, this looks great. We did spend a lot of
money on the domino tools and organisation and so, but it will probably pay back. For, if we get the
record, we make a lot of profit!

The next day, same actors enter the domino scene. And, they get some big fright. Because, some part
of the domino circuit is missing! And, it is at the beginning of the domino play. Now the civil cervant is
thinking….oh well…if we just can not get the record….lets just take some more stones of the circuit…
then we loose lesser money since we can sell some stones. The manager and scientist agrees. They
are all thinking in the modernist way, so the only reaction in their system is to break down the domino
setup.

This reactions of the actors may seem weird, but actually this is the way that actors in current societies
mostly act and react. They are not used to holoplural and pluralistic ways of thinking. The kinds of
thinking that have to prevail and are lived upon in the scientific streams of Phronesis and Wilvonian
practicism. And maybe, just maybe, they do not dare or are simply not accustomed to express their
free will in business and/or official settings.

In a holoplural perspective, which is the sole right one, it is all about completeness. If some plurisigns
are missing, they are simply needed. So for instance when money is lacking, MORE money is
needed. Like in the current economic crisis. If this is executed in the RIGHT ways, there will not be
inflation….and also OF COURSE we can return to the situation before the economic crisis by
recreating the situations before the crisis happened…and we will be able to improve even a lot more if
people get to understand the HUGE possibilities of my phronesis meta-semeiotical sensemaking and
perspective.

407
The kinds of capital

To get towards real capitalism, not only the financial capital but all the types of capital should be taken
into regards. Like stated before in this discourse, this will lead to more completeness. But it will also
prevent us, the human plague, to destroy our surroundings further. And besides that, it should lead to
more social welfare and less social problems of societies.

A product or a service bought does of course not only represent the product or the service, but a lot
more. And while one person might not appreciate the thing bought that much, another person might
have greatest delight in it. Therefore, the social value/capital of a product or service not only depends
on the product itself, but maybe more on the interests and characteristics and mood of the buyer
and/or user (s). Then we all know that some products get worth a lot more because of aging or
because they are similar to a product that a seller had before and/or if it is hard to get. In these cases
the social value differs, causing the financial value to increase. Not because of intrinsic values of the
product, but because of external qualities. For instance in falconry, there are falconry books that are
sold for for instance 50 pounds sterling. Then some year later they are not for sale through regular
bookstores anymore. And some falconer who was so clever to buy them twice can then sell them for
some 350 pounds or so, each. A major social capital increase of 600% or so, and if the falconer is able
to sell it for that price also the financial capital is increased by that. Till that moment of selling, only the
social capital value of the book is increased. An increase of financial capital is only a possibility not an
existence till the moment of trading the book.

Actually I heard, but do not know for sure, that some publishers would just reprint some first print
books without saying so. Then offering some very small number on the market again. By that getting
some more money since the social value is much higher because of the perception of the buyer to buy
something very old, seldom and hard to get.

Another example on financial and social capital value is the market for houses in the Netherlands.
During the last decades prices have increased a lot. But a lot of people sometimes forget that the
financial capital will only have increased after the houses are sold. Some major decrease in worth of
houses, maybe because of a sudden increase of available housing, will cause major problems for
people who have bought a house just before that.

Another issue I realized just now, after having read this part of my discourse, is something I just NEED
to add here now. I did not work on this particular discourse written by myself for some quite long
period also because of the financial crisis. I just HAD to get much more understandings there, based
on my own phronesis meta-semeiotical perspective and also my methodology of phronesis
antenarrating.

408
By now, I did, and I understand that MORE money is needed. That the GROWTH of society and
people within just requires MORE money. But, after having read the paragraph on the previous page
about the market for houses in the Netherlands, I realize another important issue. Which is something
I already knew and realized just some weeks ago before typing this part of the discourse. Being the
fact that financial capital, the money available on the markets, is by far not enough to pay for all the
social value or transitive value of mainly the high house prices. Houses increased in prices a lot, but
this are all just socially agreed prices and indeed a lot are sold for them but like with stocks also
houses are just largely overrated/overcoded here…and at some time this just leads to problems even
if there IS enough money…..but…there is NOT….too less money for the amounts of people in our
society leading to problems. When house prices stay the same and wages go down or stay the same
when more products are bought and have to be bought to pay for the same wages.

Then a relationship or just communication can be social capital, that is sometimes more effective and
worth more than some parts or instances of financial capital. We all know that friends help each other
sometimes for free. That some things can not be bought for money. So social capital is sometimes not
even replacing the financial capital, but the only way to “buy’ things. For instance for love, care and
devotion you always got to pay some value. This kind of things can however not be bought by financial
capital. They require social capital and value, something that people also have to work and pay for to
get it.

Capital can at least be divided in the following kinds of capital:

- Financial capital (money, other means of exchange)

- Social capital (trust and communication, information, relations/networks)

Sociability, feelings, intuition, care for other people, values and norms, virtues, wisdom,
knowledge
- Human capital (persons number and qualities, ages, educational backgrounds)

- Natural resources capital (environmental capital, ecosystem orders)

- Produced capital
- Cultural capital

Besides these main kinds of capital, there are other kinds of capital that have some overlap with the
ones mentioned above and each other :
- Digital capital (The internet, pictures)

- Communication capital (Trade marks, texts, the internet)

- Intellectual and educational capital

o Knowledge and skills
o Phronesis

409
In the above examples of capital, it is better maybe to replace the word of capital for value. And to
realise that value is a duree that changes over time. Value does change depending on the ways
capital is used and also the circumstances and happenings. Maybe, just maybe, capital does not exist
in the real world. Values do. Or not. Both of them depend on what type of sign is discussed or talked
about.

All these kinds of capital are important and worthwhile. It is not enough to put everything in an
organization on a balance sheet and putting only some number as being financial value besides it.
This is a very counterproductive and limited way of viewing an organization and the people and
resources within. What is also not good, is to only calculate the financial costs for natural resources,
without taking into regards long term effects. This is a very bad policy not only for for instance trees,
but also for whole natural ecosystems. And actually it is bad for all the – what I call- ecosocial systems
in our societies. At the moment no company that uses wood of rain forests pays for the animals that
get extinct. They just disappear and no-one really cares enough to really prevent it to happen. Maybe
also because no-one got to pay for that. It is just not expressed in capital, and therefore not taken into
considerations. IF it will get rated in terms of money, like a lot more qualities should be, we will also
need MORE money there to pay for the NEEDED improvements in this fields. Apart from the other
NEEDED huge increase in money we need, an increase being MUCH more substantial than currently
understood and an increase in money that just HAS to take place without creation of debts. Meaning
creation of money in an open, holoplural and phronesis meta-semeiotical way. Based on
understandings. Which is far different from the current closed money system and ways of creating and
spreading money.

In justice, the lawyers that are judging actually are not the wisest persons you could think of. Which
causes a lot of problems. Most of these problems are caused by the incapability of judges and
lawyers. Overall, the core problem is narrow-mindedness and the lack of wisdom with these kind of
people. In justice there is the term “tunnel view”. Also there are a lot of complaints about justice. But
no single institution that really investigates the system and people within. Till now, there is no
independent organization that monitors the quality of individual judges and other professionals in
justice. Not in the Netherlands, and as far as I know this is not the case in any country. Which is, of
course, very bad. And harmful for justice and therefore for society as a whole.

One concrete problem connected with justice, and more with the in most cases incapable persons
working in justice, is that they quite generally forget about a lot of values of life and society as a whole.
In cases where people are suing other people, justice will mostly neglect all kinds of social values.
Meaning that the ways parties in the conflict dealt with each other are often not taken into accounts.
Instead of trying to solve conflicts by means of mediation and arranging some conversations between
the parties ( the people concerned ) , in most cases the justice system is just largely ( responsible for)
making situations much worse. By again, neglecting social values and all kinds of other values of
society.

410
What is very important to see and understand is that, when we talk about capital, we talk about value.
And value is not only about capital. But also about value(s) and norms and the like. Relationships are
of value. The sounds of birds in spring have the potential to be values. Taking care of our fellow
citizens as a family has huge value.

411
On anotherness bureaucracy

One commonly used notion is the notion of bureaucracy. But, what is this? What is the fundamental
notion, the core which causes something to be a bureaucracy?

In my views, there is anotherness better way to understand what bureaucracy is all about

It is about firstness not being corrected or supplemented by anothernesses by people. Following the
rules and paper work without thinking and judging on their own and taking actions different or deviated
from the paper work and statically procedures. This leads to the bureaucratic plague phenomenon,
which is exactly this semisophy insanity of bureaucracies and bureaucratic ways of thinking and doing.

This bureaucratic plague causes a lot of problems and damages in practise, as for practise the
adjustments of people are highly needed. Mostly since the fundamentals are often either just wrong or
not adjusted enough to practical situations.

The most fundamental to understand here, is that for practical situations the adjustment and
knowledges and understandings of people are key. Besides this, these adjustment and acts of people
have to be sane of course. When this is not the case, it is because of social errors. I labelled them
semisophy and semiphronesis errors in this discourse, but it is of course most important to understand
the types of errors in social practises. And to solve and prevent them as much as possible.

When firstnesses and insane fundamentals are NOT corrected and supplemented with necessary
anotherness issues and actions in specific situations, the specific situations will not be complete and
sane for sure. For instance in bureaucracies, it is always the case that specific anothernesses are
NOT taken into regards. Because of the bureaucractic plague phenonomenon. It lacks especially
some very important action of people in society, which is the action of supplementing and correcting
the errors and insanities of less developed firstnesses like for instance work procedures or laws of life.

Also, an understanding of the social errors is key to improve about everything in our societies at large.

412
On the nature of governmental bodies

As I remark in other parts of this discourse, the nature of organizations should be in line with the
nature of sane natural processes. Each time this is not the case, human suffering and insanities might
result from it.

These human sufferings and insanities because of insane processes not in line with the sane natural
processes, are among anothernesses most profound in activities and processes of governmental
bodies. Since most of them are belonging to the most bureaucratic organizations, at current times.
This has a very negative impact on sanity, the core problem being the core aspect of bureaucracy as I
set it out in anotherness part of this discourse.

Governmental bodies have a lot of laws and regulations both for their own internal processes and also
to be dominated towards the outer worlds and people. While normally the anothernesses and choices
offered by people should be taken into regards for sane perspectives and processes, the
governmental apparatuses want to eliminate exactly those as much as possible. I state want to, since
it is in the end some conscious way of doing by the people working within those governmental bodies.
For some reasons, I think ultimately mostly because of money, about every person working inside of
governmental bodies kind of switch off their mind and common senses and just transfer their actings
mostly into robotic ones.

But also because of lack of understandings and phronesis, a lot of professionals in bureaucratic
institutions are just mere followers, without using their own minds and understandings well enough.
Thereby damaging a lot. If they damage products or materials, I do not mind too much. But if it is
about people, like it is in many instances, this should be changed as soon as possible.

413
On narrating the organization

People like David Boje and Barbara Cziarniawska did put some emphasis on narrating organizations
and texts. This narrating is a very great relatively new development in organizational theories, but
foremost the greatness and wide applicability is still too much misunderstood.

Maybe this is partly because the researchers themselves do not understand enough yet about the
wide applicability and, more important, the logic behind it’s practical usage for organizational life and
also social life as such.

The more I understand from organizational life, the more I think it should be treated and managed
more naturally, while a sane mind should be the core starting point for how the processes in
organizations and society should evolve and grow.

This means also that the choice processes have to get a much more profound place in organizational
management and social sciences as such. These choice processes of our minds requiring input and
consideration of choices. Which requires a much more profound acceptance and applicability of
narratives and antenarratives, even antinarratives, in organizational life.

Besides this arguments for narrating in organizations, it should be clear that in whatever organization
the narrating aspects already play some more or less profound roles. Since, of course, there is a lot of
talk and discussion both inside organizations and beyond. And, these narratives are always the source
for both offering chances to learn and offering of alternatives. These two things are actually part of
same essential process to arrive at sane organization. So, in its essences, narratives are key for sane
social processes as such.

On the issue of narrating and bureaucracies, it should be clear that the essence of bureaucracies can
be cured by narrating. Especially if the role of narrating in mind processes at large is understood to the
fullest.

Whatever narrating theories are about, the most important aspect of narrating is the extent of
excellence of the minds narrating. The greater the understandings are, the better the narrative
activities will unfold. Of course.

414
On the nature of organizational collective mind

In the part of this discourse dealing with methodology, I already stated a bit that organizations and
management could probably best be viewed and treated as being collective mind(s). This follows from
my quite essential realization that a sane natural way of doing is also the best in organizational life and
management.

Meaning that the choice processes, but also the ways of doing, should match sane collective mind
processes. Which are to be retrieved from the collective mind processes like they take place in the
societies and realities surrounding us. With the difference that in our realities and societies the
collective mind processes are still insane to quite some extends. These insanities have to be cured as
much as possible, both in organizations and management as in our society as such.
Interconnectedness also being one of the keys to understand in this respects.

In this ways, the sole sane methodologies of phronesis abduction and phronesis retroduction have to
be applied in organizational life much more. By means of introducing choices, also the biggest bullshit
or the most extreme examples of them, organizational life can grow and excel in much more profound
ways. Choices are important since they offer anothernesses. These anothernesses are needed to
grow and flourish. To offer better alternatives and the like. After all, organizations and society as a
whole is about people. The most decisive elements of them being their minds, since mind is our
centrally and elementary processor.

Also here, intentions are VERY important. Critical responses from the people inside and outside of the
organization should be listened to as opposed to neglected as in current situation. Especially in
governmental life and organizations the feedback from people is often neglected or not used to the
fullest. This is not only a big pity, but also opposed to the responsibilities we have towards fellow
citizens of our society at large.

Not to mention the damage caused to the organizations we work for and in if we do not listen enough
to our colleagues. Narrow mindedness is never good, also not in organizational life and practises. To
flourish, also organizations and organizational minds need choices to choose from.

This issue is anotherness reason why in every organization, management should be cooperative and
preferably also facilitative towards their employees. Anotherness reason for this being that the
employees themselves know best how to do their job, mostly even better than management does.
Which is why employer insights and way of doing often have to be leading above the ways
management think things have to be done. Living creatures just need to “become one” as much as

415
possible, and those who are not capable to do so miss some essential capabilities and
understandings.

416
5. Practical implementation

Management

Introduction

We need to be well aware that the organizational world does not profit a lot if it is managed mainly on
the base of money and economics. The economic models and economic thinking has already
dominated the capitalist societies far too long. While most cooperation’s, the Pepsi’s and Nike’s of
current times, are managed by managers and economists play only some minor role, most of our
world economies are managed by economists. Which is basically one of the major problems of current
times. Economists are good in using models and structures that are very counterproductive in real life.
Because they are, what Alfred Korzybski very well understood some 50 years ago, symbols. In
principle not fitted to real practises in any ways. Besides, economic models and practises are highly
statically. While, on the contrary, management principles and practises are mainly dynamical. And, by
that, much more suited to real life. Actually, the problem with economy is the fact that it is (mainly)
economical and economics. Or, in Dutch: Het probleem van een economie is juist dat het een
econoom-ie is. The econoom-ie (econom-ics) here implies not only economics. But also money. And
the concentration on money flows and (consumption of) goods, services and some living creatures.

In logistics, there are a lot of theories that can in fact be generalized and used in practise. IF they are
understood, really understood, in correct ways. And customized to the specific situations concerned.

One of the issues in logistics is the issue of cycle time, the time required to complete a certain
process. Now, while it is mostly applied to goods and services, the same principles on cycle time are
(mostly) also important on money. But also on every activities of life. This means that the statical
respresentamen (goods, services, money, a certain act) are mostly not the most valuable. They only
get value when they are used. And, the more they are used, the more the total value will be. Or, in the
words of CS pierce, a representamen an sich is just a possibility. It only gets value when the possibility
becomes an existence. And, the more they are used and brought into existence, the more the total
value will be mostly.

Then there is the issue of combinations of representamens into existences. The lead times will then be
longer, but mostly the value will also be. And, by means of (logistical) principles and insights , the total
lead times can be diminished. Enabling some bigger total value of the signs growing.

417
Then there is the notion of JIT, just in time. In this concept of logistics, a company or parts of the
company is often represented as a boat that floats on a sea of inventory. In the sea are the rocks, the
problems that are hidden by the sea of inventory. Inventory is more like a backup to prevent problems.
So if the inventory levels are decreased, the problems become exposed. The disadvantage being that
problems arise in the short term. But for the long term, it might be a good development since the
problems really got to be solved now. Which causes some huge incentives to really solve the problem.
And, in many cases it will be solved then. For the longer term, the solutions will be known for
everyone. Which is a good development, and a great contribution to continuous improvements.

Actually the same happens when economies run worse than usual at certain moments of time.
Persons getting used to operate in worse circumstances. Then when the contexts improve for them,
they will be more creative and suited to survive in better overall situation.

Apart from that I am also convinced that people maybe need to live in worser circumstances for a
while. To enable them to realise that certain aspects of society are not as good as they thought them
to be before. If everything runs rather OK overall, people mostly just do not notice the bad aspects of a
system or a process. But when they get into worser situations they will. And the preparedness for
changes to improve will be much higher overall.

Maybe, just maybe, it is sometimes just needed to get into worser circumstances. For signs like me
and others to get much better understandings of the worlds and universes surrounding us. And also to
have the greater insights of science and intellectuals accepted much sooner. I think this period of time
might be just the right moment and timing to move on. Not only to real capitalism. But also towards
great pluralistic social sciences. The understandings expressed in this discourse. And well just all the
great efforts from great intellectuals. They should be accepted more. The anothernesses of life and
science. Since in most cases, these anothernesses are the real treasures. The blueness betweenness
the granule.

418
The - liberal - arts

Learning versus teaching

In current society, there is a lot wrong with the educational system. One of them can essentially be
described by the fact that concentration is more on knowledge than on understanding. Understanding
is needed to get from knowledge to wisdom. Preferably by means of the right reasoning. In my own
opinion, every reasoning should be practical and aimed at practical wisdom and the arts and
perfection of being. In german, one would say “der weg ist das ziel”. But it depends what road you
decide to follow how well the end results will be. To me every road should ultimately lead to quality, to
practical understanding, to wentelygistic orders and to phronesis.

Now, to reach this, every learning experience should be aimed at understandings. Really
understanding the issues and aspects talked about. Just like an animal artist should now about
anatomy in every single detail and strive towards perfection in every aspect of his work and methods,
the same counts for every single individual learning. At least the teaching methods have to be aimed
at this. Of course not everyone will have the skills to master the skills in the same grades of perfection.
But essentially the teaching method should be aimed at learning in the sense of understanding, not
solely at gathering knowledge. Which would be like teaching a marine guy how to swim by giving him
some books to read. Then throwing him somewhere in the ocean some day with the task to swim
towards the beach, leaving him there on his own. Maybe, just maybe, there was some logic in the
much more practical oriented teaching methods of the past. Having the most excellent and skilled
persons, or the ones that should be guided to develop the most, guided by the greatest artists of
practical skills. Although learning by ourselves is even much more worthwhile and practical in a lot of
fields of understanding and art. If the right methodologies for improving understandings and skills are
applied. And if the correct intentions are available and lived upon.

419
Theory versus practise

At current times, there is some major difference between theory and practise. While actually theory
and practise should be (about) the same. At least it should be possible in general to apply a theory
immediately into practise, leading towards the best possible solutions to reach and strive upon.

The fact that there is such a major difference between theory and practise is, first of all, that there are
some huge errors in scientific thinking and doing. One of them being the mostly wrong application of
induction and deduction. The other one being the lack of methodologies that are more multiple and
oriented to specific cases. And therefore, more suited and matching practise. I already told above that
in practise, there are not much general cases. In the hard sciences there may be, but in social
sciences and therefore practise and life in general, there are not. Therefore, just striving towards
general theories and wanting to apply these to life, is very counterproductive and in fact insane. It
leads to impractical science and therefore an incredible waste of time. And a lot of disastrous effects in
practise because of wrong applications of the wrong insights and tools and methods.

This dissertation was started with a lot of philosophy from CS Peirce. What I did not know even when
typing that part, but do know and understand now, is that the great Peirce actually gives some much
better way of scientific research. But at the same time he missed a lot of relevant insights. While he
introduces the concepts of abduction and retroduction (basically guiding the methodology and process
of reflection), he at the same time missed the most relevant insights on induction and deduction. What
you might understand when reading his discourses on induction and deduction, is that at least the
ways both are applied in practise and theory are very wrong and counterproductive. The only
agreeable ways of using, applying, induction and deductions would be by thorough understandings of
the insanities of these methods and how to deal with these insanities. If you compare that with the
ways they are applied in current times, you will understand the inferiority and lack of completeness
that where intrinsic in these insane methodologies right from the start, but apparently more and more
slipped into this methodologies while time passed by. What Charles Sanders did tell between the lines
in his discourse also, is that actually both induction and deduction are not correct methodologies. That
these methodologies are good for general cases, but that in practise NOTHING is general. He
however did not tell this explicitly, but what he did is describing the errors with correct induction and
deduction.

What is really needed, is to either stop applying induction/deduction, or to realize each time when it is
applied that there will be errors. And why they are there and when they will be there and to which
extends they might be. Then taking that into regards and not judging solely on the outcomes of the
induction/deduction processes. What is further more needed, in any case, is to really understand
WHAT induction and deduction is and HOW it should be applied.

420
Peirce did lack some understandings about induction and deduction, probably partly the same ones as
Aristotle did. But I am not sure there since I simply did not read Aristotle well enough for that. But the
fact is that induction and deduction are processes that do take place a lot in social processes. If that is
stated by someone, whether this person is Aristotle or Peirce or whoever, then this person is right.
BUT, it is just very essential to understand that both induction and deduction are very wrong social
processes. And that both the induction and deduction cause a lot of errors and also damages and
even deaths in our society. Perceptions are probably the number one errors in social processes,
induction and deduction being the second ones. Perceptions themselves however do not lead directly
towards damage and errors in social processes themselves. Only when false inductions and
deductions are retrieved and also applied, the damage will become into existence. In the worlds and
universes of reality, perceptions are not even existing. In the worlds of thoughts they are. But for
reality, they are just possibilities, the firstnesses or “lower order” phases of developments of the
plurisigns that are damaging our societies and the people living within. Also, however perceptions do
not really exist in our realities, they still can have and will have a lot of negative and damaging results
in the same realities. Simply because existence in our thoughts DOES influence realities.

It should never be stated that induction and deduction have or should take place in social processes.
Since they should NOT. But at least in the next decades, we can simply not get rid of them. Since we
all apply induction and deduction numerous times during our lives. And in many cases in wrong ways.
This is also the core for a lot of communication errors. So like I said somewhere in the relative
beginning of this discourse, Peirce did say that thoughts are diagrammatic. But, he did never state that
they SHOULD be. At least not as far as I know. If he did, he was wrong. Because for relevant
anothernesses to be seen and or taken into regards, diagrammatic thinking is not enough. Of course.

The same applies to induction/deduction. Human beings and also some other living creatures do apply
induction and deduction. BUT, it should never be stated that they SHOULD apply them. Since both
with diagrammatic thinking and induction/deduction, less is more. Meaning that we should get rid of
these processes by moving to more sane ones in as many cases possible in any moment of time.

421
Other practical issues and concerns

The role of structures and laws

We all know that there are a lot of structures around us, with most of us having the perceptions of this
structures to be good and productive. But in a lot of cases, they are not. Just think about the structures
and laws on ownership, to name just one of them. It is very strange that even animals and people can
be owned. And that structures, laws and even justice and other organizations are encouraging the
view of people and animals as numbers and products that can be owned, sold and treated like
economic goods. Just think about the absurdity of this!.

Just some days ago I asked some guy what he wanted to drink. And he responded A5. Because that
was the code for some drink at the machine. I almost responded saying well, should I call you number
805 or whatever personnel number you have in future? But I just did not. Employees might bring about
some test by going to their personnel department and introduce themselves. Hi I’ve never been here,
but I am number ….!

Well till so far with the joking (the whole 5 sentences above for people who did not notice). But actually
although of course the examples above are not correct (numbers are just handy and people are in
most organizations treated like people still), it is still the case that structures and laws play some major
role in our lives. Especially when these laws are not seen as possiblities in language of CS, they can
cause major problems and be very counterproductive.

But actually, just as a side remark to this parts of the discourse, the mentioning of A5 for some drink in
a machine is rather interesting also from semiotics points of view. Just think about it. What does this
A5 mean. Where does it stand for. Under which circumstances. Would it have same meanings if some
new employee would step into the company and then someone would say to him “get me an A5”?
Maybe the guy would return with some blanco paper. Also this A5….suppose it would be number T1.
The T for T and 1 for sugar. And not only the particular machine in this particular company, but each
machine around the world would have same code. A long time convention. In that case the whole
situations would be much different…..

A code can be a label just for labelling something. This labelling can however be for whatever means.
One of them being to communicate what we want to have or what we are talking about, the other
being to just finding what we are looking for. It could however also be both or whatever other reasons.
But if you look towards practise, a lot of codes and labels are not chosen very logically. They could be
much easier.

422
Structures and laws are mere tools. They are means to get towards some ends, and “ der weg ist das
ziel” among others to get to know how to apply the tools to get towards the best ends. The people that
would know best how to apply them, are mostly called artists in our societies. But, actually art and
artists can be found in all aspects of life. It is not as narrow a definition, or should not be, as the people
and professions that are officially called artist and arts normally. Art is everywhere, especially if you
get to the level of master ship where only a few can keep up to. In fact only these artists of life or
whatever should make the laws and structures that match their master ship. But, also these same
people should ensure that the laws and structures are applied in proper ways.

In current times, most of the laws and structures are executed by people knowing less from the
certain art and issues that have to or should be taken into considerations. And actually most laws are
made by people who do not know enough about the specific fields where the laws are made for. Also
they make the laws with wrong presumptions and insights about these specific fields. This causes
them to make laws that seriously handicap the real artists working in those specific lines of arts. For
the true artists, the laws are mostly counterproductive and imprisoning their acts of art. While actually
artists should have more freedom than the mainstream for creativeness. Also because they will
understand what is harmful or not in their line of specialty.

Just maybe, real artists should not be hold to the laws that are largely handicapping the real artists
working in those specific line of arts. Laws are important, but should be applied according to contexts
and specific cases. They have to be constructive. In fact there should be some umbrella law that is
more important then any other law. Which has to be about constructiveness of laws, that any law that
is deconstructive for the people involved just does not have to be taken into regards. Then some
possibility to ask for exceptions and have special cases or people free from specific laws. To me
certain scientists and intellectuals should not have to deal with any laws…ever. Besides, the people in
practise should be more professional and wise and then these greatest just people should get a lot of
freedom to judge whether someone should be punished or not for their deeds.

423
On intelligence

Intelligence is an interesting notion. Signs of intelligence can be seen everywhere throughout our
society. There are several notions and understandings about what intelligence would involve. Some of
the notions include traits such as creativity, personality, character and wisdom, while others only
include some or none of these.

To me, at least wisdom and creativity are main features of the main notion of intelligence. But by far
not everyone seems to agree with that. For instance for membership of Mensa, only a high IQ is
criteria to enrol. And what is actually tested for this kinds of IQ, is whether the people involved are
conditioned well enough to learn and execute some tricks. Just like animals are conditioned to execute
same inbox tricks over and over again with more and more fluency. Wisdom is not a feature generally
included in IQ. IQ like it is tested and understood in current times, mainly incorporates high levels of
knowledge and possibilities to understand inbox kinds of structures and thinking. It is not about a more
wise and intelligent understanding of these structures and their applications.

Someone knowing a lot, able to learn structures and or having some good memories are thought to be
intelligent or geniuses. But are they?. In my opinions, they can be. But not based on having this
photographic memory or being able to execute inbox kinds of conditionings.

So, are these people enrolling Mensa and other people who only meet certain criteria of “my” main
notion of intelligence NOT intelligent? Of course, it is far too easy and straightforward to get towards
such a conclusion. The outcome of any test or process not only depends on the person who is making
such tests, but also on the contexts and the content of the tests. If a person with a lot of creativity and
real true intelligence is only asked to meet certain “simple” requirements, this same person might “just”
meet only those criteria. Besides that, it might be a very bright and intelligent person will just become
largely de-motivated by such requests and will act accordingly. I myself did get huge blackout with
some Mensa test in which I participated, but still do not really understand about the why of it actually.
But de-motivation factors might have played some parts there.

Besides this, there are of course different notions of intelligence. People can be intelligent on certain
levels, while being a relative idiot on many other fields or levels. In many cases, the aspects of
intelligence might not be apparent for the surroundings, while the person himself will know about it.
Example of this might be the past philosopher Baruch de Spinoza. A great mind and absolute
intelligent guy, who was mainly living quietly as a lens grinder. Meanwhile writing his great works.

So altogether, a lot of understandings are still needed in the fields of intelligence. And I think it is
important to at least determine what intelligence involves. It’s main features and how to improve and

424
incorporate these in actions of people and society at large. Since in the end, intelligence is very
essential for our society to flourish.

425
On education

As I said at the beginning of this discourse, we will need to bring some anothernesses back into
science and teaching institutions. For illogics and insanity of society to disappear. Theoretical
knowledge can only give a very partial insight in life. A lot of qualisigns (or aspects) of the world
surrounding us can only be sensed. Our brains can not feel, they can not see or smell. They can not
experience the anothernesses that make life so beautiful and worthwhile. Or a misery. This sensory
way of viewing the world around us and getting an understanding of how the explicate orders are
arranged is fundamental for phronesis. And also for input and insights for more entelygistic thought
processes.

Actually, for insanity to disappear out of society, it has to disappear out of education. Ways and
content of education are the most proper and effective ways to ensure a thorough and good
fundament for society. Of course the family is also fundamental there. But fact is that too much
families are insane in some or other ways. To set that straight, it has to start somewhere. And, once
again, education is the most proper surrounding to get changes going related to this. To enable
changes, the education should at least change on following aspects:
• The values, norms and virtues of society should be discussed in education

• Emphasis on neurologic aspects of life. The proposals of Alfred Korzybski in his book “science
and sanity” should be used there. This would solve a lot of problems of current society!

• More emphasis on other ways of thinking, the Bakhtins of life

• More emphasis on specific interests, possibilities and positions of the individuals

People like for instance Charles Sanders Peirce, John Locke and Alfred Korzybski have concentrated
on education. Then John Dewey wrote his “democracy and education”. And I know that currently
there is a lot of discussion on contents of education, which can mainly be concentrated back to some
discourse of Charles Sanders Peirce. And what he tries to discuss there. What I mean is his discourse
“Definition and function of a University”. This discourse is, like the discussions I am talking about, (for)
now only concentrated on Academical educations. But, this is good start. Since a lot has gone wrong
there! That can and should be set straight in next decades.

What Charles Sanders, among others, says in his discourse is:

“Of the three verbs to be, to do, and to know, the great majority of young men unhesitatingly regard the second as expressing
the ultimate purpose and end of life. This is, as a matter of course, the idea of the practical man, who knows what he wants, and
does not desire to want anything else. The average trustee of an American college will think it a commendable thing for a
professor to employ all the time he can possibly save in making money; but if he devotes much energy to any purely theoretical
research, the trustees will look upon him askance, as a barely respectable squanderer of his opportunities”.

426
About this to do and to know, I would like to state the following. Some insight that just came up to me
just now when reading the phrase and some notes I made. Fact is that any education should at least
concentrate on learning how to do. Then, in practice, the learnt knowledge should be applied in proper
ways. This incorporates, like Charles Sanders Peirce actually tries to say, not only knowing how to
deal with existences. It is very important, that also the laws are taken into regards. The third nesses of
life. Therefore, emphasis on methodologies and capabilities to deal with those laws is also major for
greater education. This involves knowing and learning how to deal with special cases and their specific
anothernesses. Actually, the “to know” is far too less emphasized in education. And, more important,
emphasis on understanding and more specific on phronesis is just missing far too much. Also, or
maybe specially, in current times.

Somewhere further in “definition and function of a university”, Peirce continuous with:

“The great medieval universities, the modern German universities, the new science colleges of England, which did, and do,
great things for their students personally, were never in the least founded for their students’ individual advantage, but, on the
contrary, because of the expectation that the truths that would be brought to light in such institutions would benefit the state.
This end was, and is, so constantly in view that the scholars are led to regard their own lives as having a purpose beyond
themselves”.

Beyond good and evil, beyond existences, beyond themselves, beyond borders, beyond values and
norms, beyond laws and structures and the like. Out of the boxes, into the future. By means of a
phronesis meta-semeiotical perspective, sound pluriflection and the great methodology of Phronesis
Antenarrating.

427
On sensing and education

There is some important logic and essential feature in the way people where educated in
previous times

With previous times, I mean both the middle ages and the time period of the old Greece empires. At
that specific periods, we had anotherness ways of education than the ones at previous times. I will not
elaborate on the specific features of this specific time periods, as mentioning this specific features is
not important for what I want to express here. It is however interesting to note that there is some book
from 1881 called “old greek education”” , written by J.P. Mahaffy, M.A.

This book can be found on the internet. It says, among anothernesses, on page 4:

“but, in spite of this, the Greek public was far better educated than we are nay, to some extent, because of this it was
better educated. For Greek life afforded proper leisure for thorough intellectual training, and this includes first of all
such political training as is strange to almost the whole of Europe ; secondly, moral training of so high a kind as to
rival at times the light of revelation ; thirdly, social training to something higher than music and feasting by way of
recreation ; and fourthly, artistic training, which, while it did not con- descend to bad imitations of great artists, taught
the public, to understand and to love true and noble ideals. “

Then, some paragraphs further in the same book, page 5 and 6, it says about the Egyptian
educational system :

“in Plato's Laws^ the training of their young children in elementary science is described as far superior to anything in
Greece. But, unfortunately, the materials for any estimate of Egyptian education, in its process, are wanting. We can
see plainly its great national effects; we have even some details as to the special training in separate institutions of a
learned and literary class ; but nothing more has yet been recovered. If we knew the various steps by which Moses
became * learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, an interesting field of comparison would be opened to us ; and
here no doubt we should find some of our own difficulties discussed and perhaps solved by early sages, still more by
an enlightened public opinion, showing itself in the establishment of sound traditions. And no doubt from the dense
population, the subdivision of property and of labour, and the absence of a great territorial aristocracy, the education
of the Egyptians must have corresponded to our middle class and primary systems, together with special institutions
for the higher training of the professions and of the literary caste. “

This last paragraph is mentioning the fact that past Egyptian education would even be superior to the
old Greece education. I got to mention that beside this paragraphs of the book from Mahaffy, I did not
concentrate on reading the book further. This being said, together with the fact that it has about 140
pages and a lot of references and interesting contents, it should be clear this book is an interesting
source for anyone interested in past educations.

Now, what I actually want to stress and mention in this part of my discourse myself, is about the
essence of learning. In the end, learning is just some result of our sensing activities. But, somehow
this has been neglected or not really properly understood by the educators and the educational
system. It has been known, but not properly understood. Since during history, the contents of our
educational system have contained the proper features of an optimal sensing system to more or lesser
extends, but it never contained the most effective and entelychistic features for making an educational
system work to the fullest.

428
Even till now, it is not properly understood what features an excellent educational system should have.
But, it must be clear and even logic that the educational system of current times is inferior in many
ways to the Greek and I think also Egyptian educational sytems of the past.

The very fundamental thing to understand there, is that the educational systems of current times are
mainly concentrated on non-sensual sensing instead of sensual sensing. While learning should be
concentrated on sensing with as much as possible senses, then also on a proper evaluation of the
inputs we got through our senses by our mind. Just like with organizational processes, also with
education and learning the core (system to understand) should be our individual and collective mind
(processes).

Sensing is about a lot more than about reading a text. It is about smelling, hearing, experiencing.
Especially experiencing is the most important. In academics, it is labelled as empiricist learning. This
kind of learning is currently offered in almost zero educational institutions, while IF it is being offered it
is just small part of the educational system. Especially in higher educations, the empiricist part of
learning is lacking, while especially this part of educational system should deliver the persons being
most wise. But wisdom, understanding, can only be acquired by means of a thorough empiricist
learning.

I think this lack of current educational system is core problem and cause of a lot of problems in our
current society. Our managers and leaders simply do not have a thorough understanding. In the
language of falconry, they are still apprentices in many ways as opposed to real true artist falconers.
Managers for instance know about the relevance of safety and ergonomics, but they do not
understand the sufferings of workers in case they do not comply or understand the sensual
experiences of workers on the shop floor. Juridical people do understand about laws, but they do not
understand the experiences of people being judged. Let alone the experiences of people being
misjudged. If they would have understood, they would have changed the whole law system and
system of justice in impressive ways long before. Since at current times, there is a huge level of
injustice in justice. Again, juridical people will not understood to the fullest what this notion of injustice
involves. It is about a lot of injust human suffering and a lot of injust harm to fellow citizens, executed
by administrators of justice who do not have a real clue about what they are doing.

Again, the cause of it being the complete lack of excellence in educational systems of current times. A
lot can be changed there, but again this also requires wisdoms and understandings. And taking the
features and sane methodologies and processes of our individual minds and collective minds as the
main starting point for both understandings and structure of future educational systems as such.

429
The change masters

To my opinion, a new organization with the most excellent knowledge and resources could and should
play a major role in the change process towards real capitalism. Not only implementing the insights I
will discuss in this book, but a lot more. Enabling the changes that will have an impact on about every
aspect of society like we know it now. Because I am very convinced this is needed, I kind of put lots of
efforts in arranging such an organization. At the moment, in the Netherlands there are a lot of think
tanks. They already concentrate on facilitating more changes in society. But, their influence will be
minor compared to what I could put in practise at this moment. With a better organization, better
resources and, most important, much better knowledge. Among others what I discuss here in this
book, but this is by far not all of it.

There are a lot of anothernesses clear to me now. They are only waiting for implementation in
practise. For that, I would like to arrange and educate change masters. Or at least seed the
fundaments for doing so. Best through some independent organization with the most excellent people
to really make changes happen. The issues determining whether people are the most excellent ones
for this organization are clear to me now. But I will not describe that here. Reason is that like I said I
want to arrange that myself in short notice. And besides, also here the anothernesses are much more
important than the aspects I would and could describe in this relatively short discourse.

Fact is that I somehow missed the ethos and maybe also logos at this stage to get what I still need to
get this organization and economy going. Which is money. Preferably some 20 milion Euro’s. Not
much money taking into consideration that with this amount I can most probably get this organization
running for at least 10 years. Giving it the possibilities and air to get independent and raise the
required money on its own later on. And, more important, bringing society a lot of additional values
(and capital) both financial and social. I hope that by writing down my logos in this book, I will finally
get the support I am waiting for. Enabling me to put some major insights in practise. This is something
I will for sure also pick up through my own organization Wilvon Organization & Developments. To be
found on www.wilvon.com. This consultancy firm is mainly there to support other organizations and
people with next generations consulting and training services. By means of the most recent insights
and knowledge. No short term solutions or mechanistic use of models. But offering the real solutions
taking every aspect of organizations, life and society into consideration.

430
On virtues

On virtues, I would like to mention the quite recent and excellent discourse of professor Deirdre N.
N.McCloskey, “The Bourgeois Virtues: Ethics for an Age of Commerce” (2006). This great discourse is
about her stating that a flourishing human life should show seven virtues. Not four, like stated by
Aristotle, Plato and Cicero. They hold that there were four “pagan” virtues: Courage, Justice, Prudence
and Temperance. Deirde adds three virtues to enable a flourishing life. This three virtues are: Faith,
Hope and Love. These are the so-called theological virtues that were mentioned before by some guy
called St. Thomas Aquinas. Deirdre, an excellent academic intellectual and great person to know,
describes it all in her great discourse called “The Bourgeois Virtues: Ethics for an Age of Commerce”.

In this discourse, you can find the following overview. It expresses the tensions among the seven
virtues and their complementaries from about 400 to about 1749 AD:

The Seven Principal Virtues

The Sacred The Ethical Object:

HOPE FAITH
Martin Luther King St. Peter
The Transcendent

LOVE
Emma Goldman
Other People

JUSTICE [social balance]

Gandhi
COURAGE
Achilles, Shane
TEMPERANCE [individual balance]
Socrates, Jane Austen
The Self

The Profane, Quotidian

PRUDENCE
(Max U, Practical Wisdom, Rationality)
Ben Franklin
(The Ethical Subject:)
Gender: “masculine” <———————————> “feminine”
Autonomy <——————————> connection
Freedom Solidarity

431
 Gesellschaft Gemeinschaft
“we forgot about love, we forgot about faith
We forgot about trust, we forgot about us”65

Of course we did not completely forgot about virtues and all kind of anothernesses. Like trust for
instance. But it is just a mere fact that they have to be incorporated into our lives again much more.

Actually I only came to realize some short while ago that the virtues are all modes of excellence and,
therefore, quality. And that you got to earn a lot of the virtues or that other people might actually give
you a lot of value by their virtues and trusting you for your excellence and quality. I also came to
realize that actually there have been some great persons in my life and that this are persons who gave
me trust, devotion, faith and hope. And also I realized that faith and hope and trust are very important
aspects of great relationships. Which is why I did call my sparrowhawk “faith”. Excellent
understandings and relationships are very important in falconry. But also I named her like this as kind
of gratitude to some of those special persons who played an important role in my developments and
life as such.

If you want to know more about this seven virtues, just read the book from Deirdre. I can not even
dream of writing a discourse on values that would even approach this discourse a bit. My knowledge
extents more on the fields of the language turn in philosophy. Management and organization. And,
relating to academics and science, especially towards the Peircean semiotics, philosophy and
pragmatism. So I will just stick to that and advice you to appreciate the excellent discourse of Deirdre
as far as virtues are concerned. But just do not forget about anotherness betweennesses, of course.
Deirdre’s discourses, my discourses, any discourses can not be enough to make our lives more
complete and sophisticated. They all contribute to greater or lesser extends. But we need diversity and
plurality, and no single discourse can be complete in all aspects. Of course not.

Important to realize here is the fact that virtues are some of the qualisigns of life that should be
incorporated much more in a lot of aspects of our universes and societies. Both in our private lives and
our corporate realities, values and virtues are far too much neglected. They should be reintroduced in
many aspects of life again. And, because of the quality and great wisdom of Deirdre, I would rely on
her bourgouis virtues when needing a fundament for right virtues to be incorporated in our societies
and social processes as a whole.

65
Nelly Furtado has great texts to use here. I guess.

432
Anotherness important thing to realize is, that phronesis is not only a virtue itself, but also a
metaphysical state of affairs that is much broader. And my phonesis, based on an even more great
and excellent phronesis meta-semeiotical perspective, is even much broader and greater. It just
depends on scope and the aspects of phronesis being taken into regards. Phronesis can of course
entail a lot of different virtue-signs. And anotherness plurisigns. Just like each virtuesign can and will
entail a lot of different plurisigns, possibly also phronesis-signs. Holoplural realities everywhere around
us. Something we all tacitly know, but only the most wise and empirical people do truly understand
enough in some respects. Maybe partly only tacitly, but that might be enough. If wise people only dare
to trust on their tacit wisdoms. I do, and this discourse is actually mainly a part of it. Some parts of this
discourse even I just do not understand enough yet, but I know it is important to talk about every single
plurisign I am mentioning here. To get the fundamental and important rhetorical communications and
considerations going into right directions.

433
On virtues, values and practical wisdom

The notions and understandings of statical and dynamical values, like expressed in my discourses, are
very important to grasp, use and understand. Besides that, (Bourgouis) virtues are also important to
move towards entelychistic philophronesis orders and universes. Beyond anything currently existing
and practised, towards the ultimate ways of seeing and doing.

Statical values are actually not really statical. Or they are. It just depends. On the point of view and
reference points from the person(s) involved. But with regards to money, it is important to understand
that external qualities are often more important than the internal ones. The ways money is being used,
is much more important than the paper or metal itself. Of course.

I did write something on the illogics of logic in anotherness part of this discourse. The most
fundamental insight there is the fact that logic, solely logic, is not a complete and entelychistic way of
viewing and understanding our universes. Solely logic, and therefore also solely some of the major
insights and directions in Philosophy, is a reductionist incomplete and also mostly insane ways of
doing.

What is strongly needed to make philosophy and life as a whole really logic and insane again, are
some broader perspectives. These broader issues and activities are all part of my notions of
philophronesis and practicism. At several parts of my discourse I discuss other parts and essentials of
practicism and philophronesis, but in fact my whole discourse and understandings are in the light of
this.

Some important aspect of philophronesis is for instance the notion of (bourgouis) virtues. And all the
sane implications and insights connected with them. Of course, there is a lot to be understood there.
But generally, it all only makes real sense and sanity if it is included in phronesis and sound ways into
our universes. Part of which are the realities we (have to) deal with during every step of our lives and
beyond.

For instance, being courageous is a great virtue. But it can be very insane in a lot of circumstances of
our life. In this cases, people can face some very tough decisions. To either live up to their principles
and deep beliefs, or to just stay “rational’ and “sensible” by neglecting the virtues and the like. In all of
these cases, it is very important what the respective individuals value most in their lives. And the
intentions and nature of them. But, staying “rational” there is mostly about being irrational, and fighting
against irrationalities is overall not only the best and the greatest option. Even if you do suffer from it
later on in your lifes, fighting against irrationalities is something to be and stay proud off to do.

434
435
On semisophy, semiphronesis and arête

In some other parts of this discource, i talked about the notions of semisophy and semiphronesis. I
would like to elaborate a bit on these notions, coupled with the notion of arête. This arête origins
among others from Plato, who seems to mention it in his “allegory of the cave”.

Arête (Greek: ἀρετή; pronounced /ˈærəteɪ/ in English), means excellence. In earlier Greek, it was
used to label the acts of living up to one’s full potential. The meaning of the word of course differs
according to the ways it is used and in which contexts it is used.

In the contexts of semiphronesis and semisophy, it can be asked whether excellence may go further
than only semiphronesis. In some senses it does, but in some senses it does not. Meaning that arête
has to be part of both theoretical and practical wisdom, but at the same time it might be needed to go
beyond semisophy and semiphronesis to reach arête for certain usages and contexts.

There is some huge misfit, at and until this moment in history, in theoretical wisdom and practical
wisdom in many fields of knowledge and understanding. But semisophy, semiphronesis and phronesis
are of a higher and more sophisticated level of understanding than current levels of theoretical
knowledge. Among others since it is more specific, and also because it incorporates much more
relevant aspects of the realities of our universes. And, besides that, my notions and realities of
semiphronesis and semisophy incorporate some more thorough and good considerations of what is
really important in our universes, the real true quality and arête plurisigns in our universes.

At present, there is a serious misfit between organizations and society on the one side and arête
(excellence) and art on the other side. The majority of the people in our society will not understand and
valuate real true arts and excellences of being. It is even dangerous to practice some levels of art to
the fullest, since the persons not understanding are mostly in the majority. And, this majority often will
do their utmost to put the artists back into their boxes again. Sometimes without, but more often with
violence. Since, as soon as you really want to step out of some boxes, some majorities will do their
utmost to force you to get into them again. If not voluntarily, then with violence.

So, overall, the intentions of people and mainly also their attitudes should change. With higher
emphasis and a positive attitude towards people who are doing things in different ways. Since this
might be because they simply master arts in higher levels of sophistication.

436
On quality

Quality or arête is an interesting notion. In the end, we all strive for quality. But, this quality is different
from what most people understand to be of quality. Or, it should be. It is something difficult to grasp
what I am wanting to express here, but really very relevant to understand.

Quality, real true quality, is actually some more specific instance of my own general notions and
understandings of transitive values. It is one of the results of transitive values, and besides the side
results of transitive values the aims of them are or should be this notion and understanding of quality.
And the quali or qualisigns of Peirce are different from quality. In the sense that qualisigns in Peircean
understandings are principally neutrally loaded signs.

They can get some values, becoming loaded by some parts of quali. But, this values exist not because
of being a qualisign but because of intrinsic aspects of this particular types of qualisigns. There are a
lot of different aspects and types of qualisigns of course, and quality is only one of these possible
aspects.

Quality is not an unconditionally good or bad phenomenon. Actually, about anything can be of quality
based on whether it is good or bad in certain conditions, contexts. And I think the previous sentences
is one of the best to describe what I consider to be of quality. But, besides this, it is very important to
understand the following. A real true understanding of quality requires a real true understanding of
transitiveness. Of transitive values and the role of transitive plurisigns in arête.

437
On differences in values

There is, of course, a differance between types and nature of values. As regards to the levels of
intentions, we could make a division between non-meta and meta types of intentions. This would
however be some division based on dualistic ways of thinking, which is not correct. To go beyond, a
more natural way of understanding should be applied. Being a way of understanding based on the
sole true underlying structure and nature of our universes, which is the structure of more or less
interconnected signs and their dynamics.

Because of same reasons, also calling this differences in values by naming them lower and higher
level values, is just incorrect. The higher level values not really truly being higher level but just values
of anotherness nature.

There is although some difference in nature between values as regards to those values based on
more or less frog perspectives, as opposed to values having ultimate applicability’s and truths. Like for
instance the greatest values of respect and intentions.

This values of respect and intentions are real true values, regardless of the applicable contexts and
understandings of people. Respect is a special type of intention. Just like faith and love are. And
intentions are, because of it being a real true value, more important than the more context dependent
values.

Among the more context dependent values, there are also a lot of values incorporating the wrong kind
of values. Meaning that these kind of values very often are practised without taking into regards some
relative anothernesses. Like for instance the real true values which should have some higher stake
and importance in these cases. But sometimes and I think in most cases the real true values are just
neglected because of the perceived importance of context dependent values.

Examples of context dependent values are the values in marriage and religions, for example. These
kind of values very easily evolve into ideologies. Meaning they are applied without taking into regards
more important anothernesses and values of life. These values out of ideologies are most often the
wrong kind of values. Conditional values and norms which are not real true values and norms as they
ultimately not have value but on the contrary being damaging for people and society as a whole.

If understood to the fullest, also about all of the so-called “facts” in our universes are actually context
dependent values. Being treated as context independent in many cases, mostly because of lack of
understandings about the anothernesses. People very often suppose facts as being facts, while they
are not. But out of narrowness of perspectives and wrong methodologies of thinking, they simply are
not capable to see the relevant anothernesses.

438
On real and perceptual values

In semiotics, being the studies of signs an their relations, one of the notions being used is the notion of
undercoding and overcoding.

This phenomenon of overcoding and undercoding is much more widespread than most people, even
Peircean semioticians, would understand. One of the places where the phenomena of overcoding and
undercoding have huge consequences is in our economical life as such. And, more specifically, the
real estate markets and stock markets deal with this.

In these kinds of markets, more specific types of overcoding and undercoding are having serious
consequences for our economies at large. The specific types of overcoding and undercoding I am
talking about here being the confusions between real and perceptual values of real estate and stocks.

Especially during the last decades, the differences between perceptual and real values of estates and
stocks have become bigger. The values have been overcoded dramastically because of a confusion
between perceptual and real values. People have been thinking and are still thinking that perceptual
values are the real values, while they seem to be immune for any people telling the real values. Maybe
partly because of the huge interests at stake.

Already in the year of 2001 or so, I regularly told quite some people that the houses on the markets
where priced far too high. I told them this would change, but also I told that it would last some years.
Because of the high interests at stake. And, I was right. The causes of so-called financial crisis in the
year of 2008 proof it. But also a lot of developments before and also after will. Since in the long term,
of course the house prices will tend to become more real, towards the real actual I mean. Not the
perceived actual of a lot of people.

This is also mentioned at some website which is here http://www.wisebread.com/root-cause-of-the-

financial-crisis. I do not know whether this site still exists when this part of my discourse is read, but it
is from an posting by Philip Brewer. He says the following about the root cause of the financial crisis:

“The root cause is that house prices got so high that the average household couldn't afford an
average house. Once that happened, a correction was inevitable.”

This is however only some slight aspect of the whole problem. In general, of course both houses and
stocks have been overvalued. But a lot of products have. Since the average income of people
generally became too low to pay for their needs. Also because of the fact of variety and types of
products growing and growing.

439
This should have been compensated by MORE money to spend, not less. I am not promoting more
consumption here, but at least people should be able to pay a house in case they work the way most
of us do in recent times. This is however something intrinsically connected to insanities of traditional
economics. One of them being the so-called invisible hand. Something I will elaborate on just bits a bit
later in this part of my discourse.

Because of the perceptual being perceived as the real, while being always different from the real
actual, stocks and real estate always tend to be either overcoded or undercoded. They have been
overcoded mostly before the financial crisis, while currently they are undercoded or overcoded. Mostly
because of semisophy insanities of people, some of them resulting into self fulfilling idiocracies and
the like.

Of course, stock markets and also real estate markets run on overcoding and overcoding. But at the
same time house buyers have huge problems when the differences become too huge. Also the whole
economies at large suffer from too large differences. Something the reactions in the year 2008 proof
once again. The reason of it being, simply, the fact that people tend to confuse perceptual for real.
Meaning they already think they have earned the money before having earned it, and think they
already lost the money before having really lost it.

I am actually talking about a semisophy error leading to self fulfilling idiocracies. The self fulfilling
idiocracies being the result of too large fluctuations in perceptual overcodings and undercodings, while
these perceptual overcodings and undercodings result from semiphronesis insanities. So again here
ultimately the semisophy insanities are cause of major problems in our societies at large.

According to me, anotherness perspective is needed on house prices to decrease and other
seemingly bad developments in society. They should be treated as kind of logic consequences. Stock
markets decreased and house prices also did. But it was a logic consequence of failures in the past.
And actually it is in my opinions even better if both stocks and house prices reflect the real values
more.

Instead of concentrating on the stock markets and financial markets, we should concentrate on
increasing the understandings of economics and our society at large. Since I already have quite a lot
of this understandings, I can say that the solution is in incomes especially the lower incomes. They
have to increase. Simply because the huge amounts of products we produce can not be bought with
the relatively small amounts of money we have. So yes there are some people having very high wages
and lots of money, but there are also a much bigger group of people earning too less. Not being able
to buy what they need, let alone buying a decent house to live in. Also we have to pay for taxes and
the like. To do so, we simply need to earn more money. Something that will not be that much of a
problem, if people get to understand. It can be reached if only we manage our society in the right
ways.

440
Just alongside I would like to elaborate a bit more on not the subject of this part of this discourse on
semisophy insanities, but on semisophy sanities leading to semisophy and semiphronesis insanities.
Just for stating and making clear that also this is possible. Of course semisophy and semiphronesis
errors and insanities do not have to result from insanities, but actually can also result from sanities.
Even the greatest sanities can result in insanities.

Like for instance in science, we have a lot of semisophy sanities and semisophy insanities. And any
mixtures of these. Semisophy signs being more or less sane to certain extends can cause more or
less huge semisophy and semiphronesis insanities. I came to this insight long time ago but had to
write it down just now because of the fact that I read some publication from some kind of colleague of
mine interested in about same kind of academic subjects as me. This guy should be quite ok, but his
writings are just very vague and unclear to me. After having read about half of his publication I can
honestly say I do not understand anything from what I have read there. I was just reading words and
sentences without knowing what I was reading about. So without understanding anything off this text, I
still arrived to being able to use it as an example. Leading towards some useful and great
semiphronesis understanding. But, of course this can be other way round. It does not matter whether
this text is actually very sane or just bullshit, what matters is that because of misunderstanding or just
not understanding the text readers will act in other ways than expected mostly. And the content of the
text, which is probably the most important aspect to be communicated, is just not used at all. But still
the results are either sane or insane, and there are results after the publication is published and read.

As Watzlawick already said, it is impossible not to communicate.

This story of mine also reminds me of another story used by Karl Weick. I got it off another publication
I read just today. This story is actually based on Miroslav Holub’s (1977) poem ‘Brief Thoughts on
Maps’. This poem was published in Times Literary Supplement, Feb. 4, 1977. And translated by
Jarmila and Ian Milner. Miroslav Holub was a Czech poet and scientist. This is the Poem:

Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, who knew a lot about maps according to which life is on its way somewhere or other,
told us this story from the war due to which history is on its way somewhere or other:

The young lieutenant of a small Hungarian detachment in the Alps sent a reconnaissance unit out into the icy wasteland. It began to snow
immediately, snowed for two days and the unit did not return. The lieutenant suffered: he had dispatched his own people to death.

But the third day the unit came back.

Where had they been? How had they made their way?
Yes, they said, we considered ourselves lost and waited for the end. And then one of us found a map in his pocket. That calmed us down. We
pitched camp, lasted out the snowstorm and then with the map we discovered our bearings.
And here we are.

The lieutenant borrowed this remarkable map and had a good look at it. It was not a map of the Alps but of the Pyrenees.

Goodbye now.

441
This is actually a good illustration of the fact that insane or incorrect fundaments can lead to something
great. It does not have to, but it can. Dependent on a lot of circumstances, one of them being the
capabilities of the persons dealing with the fundaments. In the art of falconry, a great falconer does not
need some of the fundaments and can solve problems in anotherness ways. The same counts for
other artists. So for instance in the case of “brief thoughts on maps’, the contents of the map was just
not needed anymore. Simply the illusion of having a right map was a great catalyst for not already
loosing but still trying to find the way home. And the soldiers were just lucky by taking the right roads.

The last option is not that interesting, but the first is. IF the map being of the Alps was just an illusion
and therefore it was not really needed anymore, the lieutenant does not understand because he
seems to be concentrating on the firstnesses. Just like a lot of people both in science and practise do
not understand enough since they take a too narrow point of view. Not being capable to do otherwise
since they are either not used to this kind of proceeding or because they lack enough understandings
or a sound right methodology.

When more results from the wrong fundaments are taken into regard, of course there is a considerable
chance that some insane and damaging results follow from the insane fundaments. Which is why in
general insane fundaments have to be prevented as much as possible.

When talking about real and perceptual values, I even do not want to get towards the fact that there is
much more of value than solely the financial values. Although also these should be reconsidered in
better ways. But this will be more or less solved in case the right balances are reached or at least
strived upon. By means of a broader true understanding on what economics is all about. This
phronesis antenarrative offers the fundaments for this, just like it offers a fundament for all social
sciences and our universes at large.

With regards to real and perceptual, it must be stated that these distinctions are mostly understood in
wrong ways. Being the objects of mind as being perceptual, while the objects of reality would be real.
This is, however, a wrong and insane way to look at these phenomena. Argyris already understood by
saying “perception is reality”.

Just plainly, even perceptions can be reality. Also in current times we have the internet, the so-called
virtual reality. Intriguing in this part of reality is the fact that some of it is reality and some of it is
perception. And, in many cases it is difficult to tell which parts are reality and which parts are mere
perceptions. This also is the case in our realities of life, of course. But there it is mostly much more
visible, making a sound judgement on phenomena a bit easier and trustworthy. Or am I wrong on that?

442
One of the most profound perceptions in our realities are the perceptions of semisophy insanities
connected with wrong understandings and usage of representamens. As I remarked in anotherness
parts of this discourse, there is a huge difference in representamens. I would like to add the notion of
phronesis representia here. Being a special type of representamen, but foremost a broader
understanding and anotherness usage of these representamen. A phronesis representamen is
intrinsically connected with the contexts it operates in. Meaning it has to be adjusted to these contexts.
I will elaborate more about this later. Sometime.

Stockmarkets. Opinions of people not being reality yet. They all lead to perceptions judged as realities,
and eventually because of this the perceptions really becoming realities.

As i remarked some paragraphs before this one, I need to elaborate on the insanities of traditional
economics. One of them being the so-called “invisible hand”. This invisible hand being the expression
used by Adam Smith for the phenomenon of competition. This invisible hands is one of the backbones
of traditional economics. The kind of economics belonging to the outdated but currently mainstream
traditional sciences. As I hope to explain a bit more right here, this invisible hand of competition is
understood and applied in wrong ways. Having major damaging consequences of insanities and a
very negative impact on our economies and therefore society at large.

One of the main problems of the social understandings and actions connected with the invisible hand
are existent because of a wrong understanding of the nature of the invisible hand. Leading towards
huge self fulfilling idiocracies. In general, it is about the fact that competition is NOT unconditionally
good. Competition is only good in certain contexts, and in the end it is all about balance. Like about
everything in our universes should be in balance, fitting the contexts being our universes at large. Also
the nature of the invisible hand itself should be properly fitting these universes.

In the end, everything is about fit or misfit. Undercoding and overcoding lead to misfit, but also they
are the consequences of misfits. In the end, it always should be clear that the sign is NOT, this sign
being the representamen. Really each representamen in our universes is NOT. To solve this
semisophy insanity leading to other ones, I simply have to introduce the notion of phronesis
representia. Some notion I will for sure elaborate on later, both in this discourse and other ones.

443
On social values like for instance transitivity and quality and intentions

Social values are a special type and occurrence of transitive values. As I remark somewhere else in
this discourse, transitive values as such should be understood as being neutral values. Meaning that
the meta understanding of transitive values should not involve any valuation, basically because the
meta understanding is not for practical special cases. But, in practise, an act of valuation should
ALWAYS occur based on sound understandings of social values as such. This requires a sound
understanding of the nature of valuation plurisigns and their interconnectednesses in specific
contexts. To reach this, a phronitical attitude and perspective is needed. This can be reached by
means of the methodology Phronesis Antenarrating and Pluriflection.

Transitive values should not be just applied in practise without valuations. Valuation is needed of not
only the social values, but also of other types and occurrences of transitive values. Like for instance all
kinds and types of object values and context values66.

With regards to the valuation of social values, which is only part of the total valuation process,
intentions and quality are important notions to take into regard. Any act in practise should NOT be
executed if it diminishes transitive qualities. Something easy to grasp at first sight, but not very easy in
current situation where most of the people on the globe do not truly understanding what real true
quality involves. Therefore, to get towards sound valuations it is needed to get a much clearer and
broader understanding of the notion of meta-semeiotical quality.

Meta-semeiotical quality itself should actually also be neutral, while the specific situations in practise
have to be based on more specific valuated quality types. Meaning that meta semeiotical quality is just
like meta-semeiotical transitivity and meta-semeiotical values some general guideline and
understanding to be interpreted as possibilities, while their concrete and more specific occurrences in
practise are more evolved and complex existences and laws based on mediate actions and
understandings of actors.

With regards to acts in practise, the intentions and beliefs of persons are always also very important
for the nature and outcomes of these acts. Intentions and beliefs of persons are a more specific type
of social values, being the intention values. Therefore, I am proponent of judging the intentions and
skills of persons who want to enrol in certain activities both beforehand and during their professions.

66
This context values can also be named universe values or field values or wholeness values, because universe
and field and wholeness can actually be understood as involving exactly the same contents and meaning in this
context and understandings of philophronesis antenarrative. It is, of course, much broader and of another nature
than for instance the context values for graphics or programming.

444
But, more importantly, I understand that it is not fair and just to judge people on doing wrong things or
even illegal things in case these people got the right intentions but/or “simply” do not understand that
or what they are doing wrong. Further more, it is not fair and just to judge people, either legally or
socially, doing things with the right intentions in general.

This understanding leads to another fundamental understanding, being that intentionality is kind of an
umbrella guideline for making any judgements. Well, it is not, but it SHOULD be. In whatever cases
where just and right judgements should be made.

When talking about intentionality, I am not talking about communicated intentionality, but about the
really deep and existent intentionality of people and groups. Not about perceptions of realities, but
about realities of realities mostly deeply ingrained in the thoughts and souls of people.

It is very important to realize that in practise, confusions of intentionality of people lead to a lot of
injustice. Misjudgement of the intentionality of several parties in social or juridical settings can lead to
insane social fundaments or to just very insane and injust outcomes of judgements.

I myself experienced in several cases in life that people misjudged my own intentionality, which
intentionality is overall just very good and great and also was in these specific cases, and alongside
also judged the specifically very wrong intentions of other actors as being very good and great.
Leading to me being misjudged and harmed in less or more extends. In these cases, it is often very
difficult to proof that you are being misjudged. Simply because of misunderstandings of the people
judging, but mostly because of the evilness or badness of the other actors. Having no sense of morals
and somehow being able to communicate a perceived intentionality that is far aside from their wrong
or maybe even evil intentions. In some of these cases, the people having this wrong intentions even
do not understand they have the wrong intentions, but still they might have. If you want to understand
that, you got to understand the beyondness of things. Not only the beyondness of good and evil, but
the beyondness of everything. The great master of beyondness was Nietzsche, and his work offers a
lot of understandings. But through holoplurality and phronesis antenarrating, this understandings can
be improved drastically.

With regards to this beyondness of everything, I would like to paraphrase some part of the Genjokoan:

“For example, when you sail out in a boat to the middle of an ocean where no land is in sight, and
view the four directions, the ocean looks circular, and does not look any other way. But the ocean is
neither round nor square; its features are infinite in variety. It is like a palace. It is like a jewel. It only
looks circular as far as you can see at that time. All things are like this “

445
Some people, and in many specific cases many people, are just too much in the middle of the ocean.
In their inbox kinds of thinking, not being able to see or discover its infinite varieties. For doing so, they
have to break out of reductionism. Understanding of signs and also application and understanding of
Phronesis Antenarrating can and will help a lot of individuals to reach this. Breaking out of their (linear)
reductionisms and by that improving the growths of meta-semeiotical plurisigns and themselves. For
doing so, it is also very worthwhile to read great books like for instance the ones by Paolo Freire
(pedagogy of the oppressed), Floyd Merrel (Signs grow), Alfred Korzybski (Science and Sanity) and
recent books by David Boje about storytelling and antenarrating.

446
On confusing the nature of values

In several parts of this discourse I am talking about values, being the less and more transitive values
of life and society at large. Some issue I did not talk about well enough maybe, is the acts of
confusing between the nature of values. These kind of confusings can cause a lot of insane or
counterproductive, even damaging, situations to take place.

One of the major insane confusing about values is the one where people tend to concentrate on
firstnesses, or on past transitivities, instead of on future transitivities.

Examples of this are, among anothernesses:

- People having worked for money very hard or just got money by being somewhere, and then
being cautious and unwilling to spend the money. This is, in most cases, a very
counterproductive attitude, like not wanting to spend money almost always is.
- People having worked for a coutch very hard and therefore not wanting to USE it.
- People having spend a lot of money on a car and therefore not wanting to use it too much

But also, just about every instance where capabilities or anotherness values are not used while they
can, it could be a confusing of the nature of values. I say it could, since of course there can be a lot of
anotherness reasons for values being misused. In many cases, the real reasons are not understood
and the understandings are actually mere perceptions to more or lesser extends.

On saving money. This saving of money is, in either ways, also almost always a misjudgement and
misunderstanding on values. Saving money is sometimes needed and necessary. But, out of a
perspective of transitive values, saving money is the worst people actually can do. Since you already
worked and earned this specific money. The part of having worked for it is history. The saving of
money is really independent from the past earnings of money. In the sense that the fact whether
saving money or spending it or even borrowing money to spend money is better, is independent from
the historical earnings of money. It IS however the case that the future earnings of money are
dependent on the current and future spending of money. Which is why it might be PRODUCTIVE
and GREAT to spend money. Even if it is needed to borrow money to spend it. CONFUSING of
historical with future (INTER)DEPENDENCIES can therefore largely cause INSANE habits and beliefs.
INBOX thinkings and confusing of statical values with transitive values can largely result in INSANE
habits and beliefs.

There are, without any doubts, numerous other examples of instances where the nature of values are
misunderstood and confused. Especially in those instances where cocktails of several values are at
stake. These kind of mixtures of values at stake in real life situations require a bright mind with

447
phronesis to have judgements on how to cope with the situations as such and consequently also how
to deal with the resources.

448
On anotherness growth

My notion of Phronesis representamen is much more broad and sophisticated than the one
understood and expressed by Peirce. I consider for instance some discourse as a representamen.
While this discourse not only consist of the written parts, but also of the unwritten parts. This discourse
on phronesis, for instance, is much broader and sophisticated than just the parts and the words
expressed on paper. Actually, it is part of a HUGE process of growth initiated and guided by one sole
person being me.

This text can however also be seen as some (part of) a representamen. As such, the words and
expressions mentioned here by me are both the catalyst and the product of growth. At one period of
time, society is catalyst and the text is the product of growth. At another time, the text is growth and
social processes in society are the products growing. But, this kind of conclusion can only be drawn by
getting out of some inbox kind of thinking like it is executed a lot by most of the individuals in our
society, even by so-called “bright” and “intelligent” professors and other kinds of intellectuals. But also
by myself in many cases. Although I know the secrets how to move on to outbox kind of thinking, it is
still the case that this requires some switch from conditioned kinds of thinking towards unconditioned
and more great ways of thinking. In that respects, education is as much of an imprisoning factor as
social habits like marriage and relationships can be.

Actually, this text and society and my mind and collective minds are all interconnected and part of a
much bigger and plural universe at large. Just like our universes like we understand them are just one
big universe of wholeness, while there are for sure other universes not being known and not being
sensed by us that also belong to the same wholeness. Understanding this wholeness to growing
extends is the key to phronesis change and growth in society and wholeness at large.

Like with everything in social science, just sticking to the known and the scientific certainties will not
lead to an overall understanding of what is going on. What is needed there, is exactly improvement of
the understandings. One way to reach this is to try to communicate what is understood to less or more
extends. Something that I try to do over and over again in this discourse and beyond. With regards to
growth, there is really so much still to be explored. And, to progress, it is very important to move on
towards outside of the box kind of thinking.

With regards to growth, it is therefore very important to get towards a more broader and
interconnected understanding of what growth involves. What is needed is a great understanding of the
plurisigns of life and their interconnectedness. With regards to growth, the interconnectednesses with
arête and quality and values is a very important one.

449
The fascinating thing about growth, is that it can be a phronesis meta-semeiotical notion. Just like the
notions of value and quality and arête can be. And, in our realities and universes, these phronesis
meta-semeotic notions are always interconnected in plurisigns. I will elaborate on the notion of growth
out of this meta view of understandings.

When thinking about growth that ways, and understanding the notions in this context of our universes,
growth is intrinsically connected with both the notions of values and quality and arête. While transitive
values should be a very neutral notion, also growth should be. While quality and arête just ask for
valuation away from neutrality in that respects. Growth is some special type of transitive values, but
also each transitive value will inhabit growth if it is getting positive qualities. On the other hand, when
valuation reaches the negative, transitive values can incorporate not growth but decline. Or both of
them.

What is however very important to grasp, is the fact and the results of growth being interconnected
with other quali in the qualisigns of our universes. A proper understanding of the nature and
consequences of this fundamental notion of growth and the role of it in our universes and the universe
of wholeness is key to understandings of wholeness and life as such.

One of the major cores to understand is, that simply nothing can grow without the help of living
creatures or at least moving processes. An important factor of growth is the quali of change. Which
can only happen when something moves. Natural moving processes like wind and storms can make
something grow. At least it can cause signs growing. Solely the movement of time can not make things
growing, time is actually in no possible ways connected with growth. At least the sole aspect and
notion of time is not needed to have something growing. Surely, without time to pass noting can grow.
Simply because time need to pass to have anything changed. But still, time moving is not a
precondition for growth as such.

What I mean to say here, is that without any living creatures, a subject of growth will simply not grow.
In any ways. Something that can be proved very easily by examining and reflecting on objects in a
closed setting for some period of time. Without any movement whatsoever, apart from the movement
of time, no growth or change will occur. Of course.

On the other hand, any movement apart from movement of time will certainly always lead towards any
changes. Which are either growth or decline or combinations of the both. This might seem obvious,
but it is very important to realize and to understand the broad implications of it.

450
Actually, this whole meta notion of growth is not that difficult to grasp, if you understand. But it seems
most people simply do not, for whatever reason. They stick to some limited and inbox kind of thinking,
not only with regards to understandings of notions like growth and quality and values and the like. But
just in general. Most people are still into inbox kind of thinkings. This makes them perceive they are
creating value or growth or quality, while actually they might do just the opposite.

An example. Is the quality department and the people working there in most production plants. Quite
generally, these departments and people will focus on quality of products and work procedures. And
lack to pay attention to the much more influential human parts. Besides that, they will often solely
value the quality of products, not the quality of people and maybe even more importantly the demands
and efforts of these people. People wellbeing, a very important part of quality, will often be diminished
for the sake of product quality. So, while the quality department thinks they work towards quality, they
actually diminish it. Because they are living in their boxes and focus on one sole specific part of quality
meanwhile destroying or diminishing overall quality.

But actually, also when concentrating on total quality, it is still the case that even I but just everyone on
this globe simply does not understand well enough this meta-semeiotical kind of quality and the
linkages between this notion and the notions of growth and excellence and the like. First of all it would
be needed to understand what quality is really truly about. Something I myself probably understand
better than most people on the globe by now, but still there is a lot of vagueness to be solved still
there.

Going beyond good and evil. Or beyond evil or good or growth or quality. Requires to understand this
is about understanding the pluralities of our universes and the links and interrelationnesses between
them. It requires the general nature of this beyondness. How to arrive to this outbox kind of thinking,
but also how to deal with it and how to improve understandings in this fields. At the moment, science is
just not there still. Because most people are still in inbox kind of thinking, even most of the so-called
“smart” intellectuals and professors. Nietzsche and I think Tesla where one of the few in history who
could at least once and a while move on to this beyondness, the great meta kinds of thinking where
real true understandings lead to the best possible insights for change and improvement of society and
wholeness. But, although they did occasionally move there, both Nietzsche and Tesla just lacked
some true understandings there. About the underlying excellence of the processes guiding sound
sensemaking, the ones I expressed in my notion and contents of sound pluriflection and phronesis
antenarrating. Guided and grounded on the sole true structure and nature of our universes, which I
labelled as holoplurality.

451
On complex apple pies

Just some time ago, I got the following riddle/problem case to solve:

How to cut an apple pie into 8 pieces with one knife, only cutting 3 times at the most.

Apart from the solutions there (being several), it made me think a lot about the general more
philosophical backgrounds and implications connected with this kind of problems. As with any complex
and great reflections and understandings, it is not possible to communicate even the smallest parts of
it to the fullest extends. I will try to do so, but as with every input understandings have to grow by
getting more and more detailed understandings.

Concerning the apple pie problem, it is not the apple pie or the knife offering the solution. It is about
methodology. To find a solution, you got to move to the right universes and continue in proper ways.
Moving towards the right universes is already about the nature of general methodology. But also the
contents of the methodology have to change towards anotherness, beyondness ways.

One of the major insights, is that to move beyond, it is not possible to do so solely in the universes of
our realities. Meaning that above all, some beyondness of thinking is needed. This beyondness of
thinking can be profound in human minds to more or lesser extends. I myself have the capability to
move beyond, and know the methodologies for doing so. But, in a lot of cases I am not capable of
doing so. This situations being, among anothernesses, in occasions of me having stress or being tired
or the like. Of course, this kind of contexts are also there with other people. Meaning that so-called
intelligence and understandings are maybe much more context dependent and far less personal
dependent than most people would understand. But actually I am very convinced that real phronesis
and wisdom in general is mostly dependent on a phronitical mind and right pluriflections. The art of this
is reflected in many ways in Phronesis Antenarrating, a methodology I developed during the course of
writing this PhD dissertation. Both the input and encouragements of David Boje have been very
important and stimulating during this process. David is one of the greatest persons and intellectuals,
and he just masters the art of dancing together ideas and possibilities very well.

This phenomenon of not being capable of moving beyond because of stress or other personal issues
made me realize, during driving home from work, that for lots of intellectual processes it is needed and
worthwhile to put your intellect and mind above your own personal feelings and moods. Meaning that it
is great in some occasions if you are capable to neglect any non-relevant or even a lot of relevant
feelings, not having them distract you from the better mind processes. Although it is sometimes really
very hard to fight against, or “just” neglect, your own (strong) feelings. Something I already
experienced a lot.

452
I think persons like Nikola Tesla and also Nietzsche understood. I myself also do, since I also neglect
quite some feelings sometimes to enable me to continue my reflections towards better
understandings. But still, like I said, in many cases the feelings prevent me from getting towards the
insights I normally very well can have. Sensemaking itself should not be distracted by feelings, while
feelings SHOULD be a very important and elementary part of sensemaking if feeling plurisigns are
involved.

For instance with the above problem. It is not a difficult problem, if you know how to proceed, At the
moment of me being asked the solution, I knew the correct methodologies. They would have lead me
to the right solution, for sure. But because of tiredness, I stayed inside of the boxes, behaving like
most people do in current times. Not going beyond the frog perspectives.

On neglecting your feelings. I do not say or mean to say that feelings are not important. Of course they
are. Also in intellectual reflections, they should be taken into considerations. Even to much broader
extends than it is in current times. At least most intellectuals , apart from me I guess, got their mind
processes neglecting feelings and emotions and the like far too much. So yes, feelings have to be
taken into considerations.

What I was talking about above, is not about feelings and the like in general. I just actually meant the
personal feelings that are non-relevant for the reflections of our minds.

Complex apple-pies are everywhere in our universes. In fact, the more you understand, the more you
get the insight that also because of the insanities of our minds there are a lot of complex apple-pies to
be solved and maybe to be reduced to simple (combinations of) plurisigns.

Solutions for solving and getting along with complex apple-pies in phronesis ways are to be found just
about everywhere in my discourse. People “only” need to get towards understanding them, just like
most people really need to understand the writing of for instance Nietzsche and Korzybski much more.
To become more sane minds and contribute to a more sane society as a whole.

453
On meritocracy

Some rather useful term in political science is the term of meritocracy. While there are slightly different
contents of this notion, it mostly means a government that is lead by the gifted or skilled, a government
by the intellectuals and most wise people (rather than a government by selected and then voted
representatives). Another aspects of a meritocracy can be that it is based on demonstrated abilities,
talent and/or capabilities. And a meritocracy could also be any other organization than a governmental
body. It seems that it is now also used for some type of society.

I for one are one of the persons that think and actually know that this meritocracy ways of organizing
will play a more and more important role in future societies. Especially for governments, future
governments, it may and will be a very productive and efficient addition or replacement for current
governmental bodies and structures.

Wisdom and understanding is just something our current society does desperately need a lot these
days to become more complete and more sane again. It is needed for continuous improvement, the
increase of quality like it is meant to be by people like Robert Pirsig and the wiser people on the globe.
It is needed in justice and all other spheres of society.

To reach this goal, it is really needed that the wisest people get the opportunity to have some decisive
position and influence. State officials are just executors of something, not wise enough in general to
really manage and stimulate the society we live in. In fact, in the Netherlands but also in a lot of other
countries we see that really wise and great persons are interested to enter politics and political life. But
will not do so because of the fact that most of current politicians are just not wise and capable enough
to make real changes that are desperately needed to truly happen. Besides that, the bureaucratic
plague and/or the intentions and behaviors of current politicians mostly prevent real true effective
communications.

I already stated in other parts of my discourse that I am convinced that our society should be guided
by most sane sensemaking. Of course, governments will have to get to play the most elementary and
great roles there. In the end, we are all dependent the most on the ways our society are governed.
Government having to become a specific, great type of management. It is not now in present times,
mostly because of the fact that our governments are not meritocracies. Yet.

454
On perceptions of democracy

In the Netherlands we have a democracy. At least, a lot of people perceive it to be. But in the end, it
simply is not. The main reason for this being that we do not have a direct democracy, but only an
indirect democracy. Our democracy is not based on the freedom and influence by really having a vote
and something to say about decisions to be made. We simply do not have anything to say there. The
only democratic aspects of our country is the freedom to vote for certain persons and governmental
bodies. We however may only do so during some fixed period of time. And the voting takes place with
only some quite fixed and homogeneous group of people and governmental bodies. Some really
different group of people or individuals with real good ideas and intentions simply will not survive in
current political climates. Meaning that it are always about same groups of people who decide what
will happen in our country. Not having to really take into regards any opinions of citizens and
organizations in our country. Indirect democracy like we got it is in fact, of course, no real democracy.
It is like fake democracy. Just like a lot in our societies and universes is just fake, mere perception.

A very profound and broadly applied insanity in our universes is caused by the fact that we very often
are concentrating a lot on the what, but simply do not know or understand the how’s and why’s.
Stating that a liberal democracy would be best is one of the examples of these. Since, of course, in the
end social processes and their successes are of course not based on structures, the what. But more
on how people act and react. Further more, of course qualities are very important. The values like I
perceive them to be. Also norms and values are critical. And things like own initiatives and freedom
and the like.

In the end, it does not matter whether a system is called communism or capitalism. Whether it is called
a democracy or not. What matters the most is, of course, just the how’s and the why’s. The dynamical
and immediate processes in our holistic universes.

455
On the lionking and philosophistics

One of the things our society needs, is some parody on the lion king. Some people that have grown
wise, who can truly say they really understand parts of our societies and would be able to improve,
should complete the circles of life. Not by taking over the power, but by helping those in power to
flourish and improve our societies in more sophisticated ways. By means of philosophistics, this group
of philosopher kings and whatever other persons could help ( I would get some people from the
houses of crazyness also to participate once and a while), should bring more quail-anotherrnesses
into our worlds and universes of thoughts and existences.

How this can be reached, is only partially explained in this discourse. A lot more anothernesses and
insights are, among others, in the head of the writer of this discourse. But also with a lot of more great
and wise persons in our societies.

456
The injustice of justice

At current times, justice is actually very unjust. One of the reasons for this being that even, or maybe
better specifically, the so-called professionals in Justice do not understand well enough what justice
and laws are. They think they know, but they simply do not. Partly because of the lacks in their
educational systems, but also because of the judicial system and the almost complete lack of common
sense thinking within this system and by the people working in justice. A lot of the professionals
working for justice have a very narrow view and practise a lot of so-called “tunnel view” thinking and
extremely injust ways of treating people. This probably leads to a lot of perceived criminality that is
actually not there and/or mainly caused by the juridical systems itself.

About the narrow view on justice, I would like to start right away by mentioning that even the more
broader notions of justice would not be enough for a just society as a whole. In case justice would be
able to get rid of the insane practises of its employees as practitioners of current times. And become
just in the end, as opposed to the largely unjust practises and acts of current law systems. It would
certainly be a large good step towards a more just society. But in the end, we, the family, have to take
care of a just society. Even if it means to go against the injustice practises of our “justice”. Everyone,
every single person on the globe, is largely responsible to be just. By living up to the right, just, norms
and values of society. By being social, among others by striving towards love opposed to violence. By
being clear towards anyone who does not live up to the standards of justness. We all have to be
courageous, and be or become proud of being so.

In about every situation, truly important and great changes only take place after awareness and
understanding. Understanding of people that things are not optimal or maybe even causing damage,
and understanding (not only knowing, but truly understanding) that there are better ways and how to
use or live up to those better ways of existences.

Like in most situations, a lot of possibilities for improvement can be found in the discourses of great
masters of past times. As regards to justice, there is really a lot of great materials about what would be
just and what would be unjust. And how justice should work. The only problem is that far too less is
really done, put in practise, of the wisdoms of the past. Mainly because of the lack of quality of most of
the practising people, doing their work mostly very badly in juridical systems. A good lawyer will and/or
cannot help the condemned in any ways if , like now, police and court officials are simply practising
insane and unjust ways during their work. Not knowing, let alone understanding, what they are meant
to do and how to proceed on that. The whole juridical system in the Netherlands, and I guess in about
each country, is really one big mess not to be taken serious by any well-thinking, wise person.

457
I already remarked that we, the family, are in the end responsible for justice in our societies. Just like
we are responsible, together, to live up to certain values and norms. And to be social for everybody.
This idea of citizen sense of duties is also mentioned in the discourses of one of the great men of the
past, the philosopher Plato. His sense of justice also was about harmony of relationships. He also
considered the state as a kind of a perfect whole in which each individual functions not for itself but for
the prosperity of the whole. To Plato justice is about being good and social, it is about harmonious
strengths. In this sense I think we would agree a lot. Which is why I find ISR (individual social
responsibility) even more important than CSR (corporate social responsibility)

Another great philosopher of the past, Aristotle, is talking about the difference in written laws and
natural laws in his discourse on rhetoric.

To me all kinds of classification are artificial, since they do not exist in real life. Besides of that, you
can not tell beforehand how many different modes of a social reality will be there in real life. But, for
the purpose of diversification, I would like to add the notion of justice law to the notions of written law
and natural law. Then to me the justice law I mean here would be more equal to the concept of law
that CS Peirce is using, but even in much broader ways because of the underlying phronesis meta-
semeiotical body of understanding and sound pluriflections. Justice laws just have to be aiming at a
complete phronesis meta-semeiotical understanding, and then judging the whole situation in just ways
based on phronesis. In justice, to be really just and fair and meeting the standards of Plato concerning
the good and the social, people got to strive to justice laws. Not to the written laws, since they are too
narrow and too general. Not to the natural laws, since they might not live up to relevant quality
standards like goodness and social ness. But to the justice law(s), that deal with the real facts that
truly happens and then judges on them fairly and just by striving to the good and the fairness and the
considerations of quality for our society as a whole.

Very essential for this justice law is true understanding of the laws by just men. Socrates seems to
have told somewhere that just men would have a superior character and intelligence, while injustice
would mean deficiencies in some respects. Injustice would be characterized by ignorance, stupidity
and badness. And a just man is wiser because he acknowledges the principles of limit.

Now, what we see in practice, is that the system of justice is crowded with people who are just not the
just men. They lack certain characteristics of wisdom, while at the same time living up to bad habits of
ignorance, stupidity and badness. To know more about justice, to really understand it, one has to
understand what laws are about. What a law really is, and how to deal with it. Then one has to
compare the essences, fundaments and ideas of law with common practises of the judicial officials.
The way the people are treated by lawyers. Well at least as far as people are still treated like people
according to their rights67. And that kind of issues.

67
There are just many clues in newspapers and the like that justice itself is seriously offending certain laws. Like
for instance in the Netherlands the law on “redelijkheid en billijkheid”. But also the laws on “universele rechten
van de mens”. In most cases, the people involved are not punished after complaints. Which is not that much of a

458
As regard to the understanding what laws and justice are all about, one should actually read and
compare the discourses of great men of our society. The roots of science are laid down there, and
often you can find great ideas for improvement by just reading, comparing and thereby understanding
what has already been thought about in previous times. There is no need to reinventing some wheels,
better it is to compare what has already been thought about with other thinking or practises. Then by
means of some piecemeal engineering and the right contacts and activities ensuring the
improvements for practise.

In Plato’s republic, you could find the following phrase: “And can the just by justice make men unjust,
or speaking general can the good by virtue make them bad? Assuredly not. “. (page 48, plato’s
republic).

This phrase of Plato does implicitly contain the understanding that justice can and will be unjust to less
or more extends. He is saying here that although justice might be unjust, the people being judged can
not change from just to unjust because of the judgement. They are simply just or unjust because of
their nature and actions.

In Plato’s republic, the following is also said about justice:

“ And that is what I mean when I say that in all states there is the same principle of justice, which is
the interest of the government; and as the government must be supposed to have power, the only
reasonable conclusion is, that everywhere there is one principle of justice, which is the interest of the
stronger “

If you follow the newspapers on justice and really truly try to understand what is going on there, you
might understand what it is all about. That justice is in fact not about justice anymore. But more about
governmental bodies wanting only one thing: to win and yes, maybe also to broaden their powers.

problem, since punishment is probably not the most correct solution there. But agreeing with mistakes to be
made and striving to prevent them in the past is. This however is also not the case mostly, since people in the
justice system just continue with their insanities and wrong habits.

459
Most juristically employed people, and police officials, think that they know what a law is. And,
according to their businesses, they should know. Of course. But, just take into regard what Charles
Sanders Peirce’s laws are?. Then you might also understand how great also this notion of him is. I
myself do. Just plainfully, the laws people learn in law schools, are not real laws in Peircean logic. But,
it are mere possibilities, firstnesses in practise. In any specific case, the police and/or other
investigators have to link these possibilities with the objects of research. Or not. In most occasions,
this linking is done in false ways. Simply because police officers are not capable enough to move from
mere possibilities to existences there. They are not properly educated and miss the qualifications to
execute some sound investigations, and make a lot of mistakes in the fields of induction and deduction
methodologies. And, the steps towards real justice laws, the great thirdnesses of reality, are mostly
not reached at all during the police investigation. Because of lack of time and capabilities of the people
involved. And then the lawyers have to judge based on incomplete and in most cases at least partially
irrelevant information. Not exactly a good fundament for honest, neutral law suits.

Some clever guy once told me: well ok, so the economy goes bad. Then some people just have to
steal. Or get into other problems and do something wrong. To stay alive or survive. In these cases, is it
the mistake of these people? Or, could we say that it is the mistake of the system and/or society?. To
me and I think to lots of people who do truly understand, it is often more the mistake of the system, the
society. And therefore of our governments. The same parties creating the contexts where crimes occur
are also punishing. While maybe in lots of instances the people are not criminals but victims of the
system.

What is also very important regarding justice and injustice, is that anothernesses are relevant and
have to have their chances to develop and flourish. The map is also here not the territory. To have a
just system, it should be accepted or even rewarded sometimes that certain people are or seem to be
anti-social or not living towards norms and values or the written laws. But actually this is another view
and also a good argument for my remark that there should be some umbrella law about constructive
and deconstructive laws. This law is needed to be written down ( a cognitive intervention) since it is
not and will not be executed by the people involved just as a standard (a social habit or custom)
because of their lack of capabilities and insights. The fact that innocent people get prosecuted is one
of the worst things that can happen in current capitalist societies. To prevent this happening, the
“system” should really listen to people telling they are or would be innocent. Right from the start,
something that should be the case according to the universal rights of citizens but not lived up to by
the too poorly educated and skilled juridical employees like police and court people. And there have to
be sufficient extra activity in the system to check the situation and the social issues involved by extra
involvement of the best people available. Preferably by some team of people. Even the slightest
suspicion that the prosecuted is or might be right should be enough to start new investigations. And
punishments already done have to be taken into regard. And they have to be prevented as long as it is
not clear whether the convicted person is really innocent or not. Besides, the juridical system should
be so that damage is prevented in any case before someone is thought or said to be guilty.

460
One of the most bad and less desirable situations facing representatives of our human family is the
fact of being accused and maybe also prosecuted because of false accusations of evil persons. Fact
is, that this kind of false accusations take place in much more situations than generally recognized and
understood. And, in many cases, the falsely accused are just found guilty. Mainly because of the
wrong characteristics of the juridical systems and the incapabilities of people involved.

There are of course ways to prevent this kind of things happening. One of them is the realization that
opinions and things said by people are NOT facts. And never will be. And that there are always at
least two parties in any conflict or social situation. Therefore, every and each issue told by the
accusators should always be neglected in every possible way in case these issues said are not in line
with other information or denied by the people being prosecuted. Further investigations can take place,
but issues that are not accepted and admitted by the prosecuted should NEVER be told or even taken
as facts and proof in any law suits.

Besides this, in case there are issues expressed by the accusators, they should be checked. At least
by also hearing at least some third parties having no interests or connections with the accusators. So,
for instance if one family or person is accusating some person of having done something, it can and
never may be the case that these issues are only said to have happened by the family or the person
him/herself, without any additional similar accusations or the like from third parties.

Another important thing is, that mediation has proved to be worthwhile in non-juridical cases, but
should be used much more also in justice. And most of all in cases where people prosecuted are
telling they are not guilty. For this situations, some special procedures and laws should be developed.
My own proposal would be to write a law stating that any prosecuted man or woman has the rights to
at least demand 3 times of informal meeting AND talking to persons accusating him or her falsely (or
not). Then, besides this, any person dealing with the prosecuted should have the right to demand such
a meeting of accusators and accused with them being part of the discourses. Then also, a mediator
skilled for this specific mediation in justice should of course lead and guide the process. This mediator
has to be independent from justice in all possible ways.

461
Besides this, to prevent false accusations to happen, there should be some law stating that there will
be some perjury questions in each law suit dealing with two social parties. Meaning that each
prosecuted can state some perjury questions to be asked to the parties accusing him or her. The
punishments for commiting perjury in the light of this special perjury questions should be much higher
than the punishments for commiting perjury in general. Like, for instance, at least 5 years of
imprisonment, with for instance the lawyer judging on the percentage of time added to this
imprisonment, with the amounts of years the innocently prosecuted is proposing as an important base
for doing so. And the people offending should know this, by means of clearly stating the procedures
and possible results from this perjury questions and the acts of commiting perjury within this contexts.
This would mean that the persons or parties accusing just HAVE to tell the truth, since if they do not
they will commit perjury. And, they will know beforehand the possible consequences of doing so.

In my own country, the Netherlands, there is a lot of critique on the law system. There is proof that this
law system fails quite regularly. But till now, our governments are not really doing anything about it.
Apparently they do not care if the lifes of innocent people are being destroyed because of the failures
and incompetencies of lawyers. This is actually proofed already by the fact that investigations for
courts are mostly executed by people not having enough capabilities for doing so. The result of it
being very questionable results of their researches.

We in the Netherlands need a Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCR) like currently existing in
England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Just like all of justice systems and prosecuted people need. To
review law cases and judge on them, irrespective of who is requiring such a review of previous law
cases.

Those being in government simply do not understand. They do not understand what it means to be
innocently prosecuted. For them, innocently prosecuted is just nothing more than 2 words. This 2
words just having to be neglected as in the end they do not understand but also they are not
responsible for individual citizens. At least, that is what they think. I myself am one of the few people
hoping that in the end, all this kind of governmental people WILL be held responsible. For the fact that
they neglect the large amounts of failures in justice, by not DOING anything against it while being the
only party able and responsible of doing so.

462
On immunity for certain persons

Immunity is now mostly only for diplomats, the so-called diplomatic immunity. Then in the US there are
some lawyers and/or judges with immunity rights, the judicial immunity. But according to me, this
should be broadened. By initiatives of all the governments in the world to just grant immunity to other
persons in case they request this and enough reasons for doing so are available in this specific cases.

Some example of a case where immunity would also be good, is for certain researchers. To enable
them to do just whatever is needed to reach their goals, as long as the positive effects of them (on the
whole) far outreach possible “wrong” or “criminal” actions. Immunity can be partial or absolute for
whatever situation. It is a very good thing that these aspects have been and will be broadly discussed
and known at organizations like the European Parliament. Like for instance the discussion on
parliamentary immunity at the European Parliament in November 2005, where a lot of aspects of
existing political immunities have been discussed. Which is great, but in the end it would be even
much better if it was discussed and put in practise with the involvement of much more issues and
greater individuals.

Aristotle also gives some pro for immunity in the following sentence of him:

"a perfect Kingdom is that wherein the King rules all things according to his Own Will, for he that is
called a King according to the Law, makes no kind of Kingdom at all."

Actually, this sentence is about a lot more than solely about immunity. It is also about borders and the
limitations these borders have on possibilities for reaching entelechy and wisdom in actions. Further
more, it is about trust and quality. People that get immunity should be trusted to have enough quality
to get this immunity. This trust should NOT, like it currently is in most cases, be granted based just on
the title or positions that certain persons have. Trust is about lots more than that.

463
I for one am of the opinion that the judicial immunity like it is in the US now is not good because of the
quality matter. The present judges are simply not to be trusted enough to have enough quality since
most of them are not fully capable to execute their duties and tasks in satisfactory ways. To really give
them immunity is not the answer there. Prosecution of lawyers and judges should always be an option.
Although the specific cases should be considered very well. But lawyers and judges are also
responsible for their work and actions just like other people are. Their normal duties have to be
executed the right ways. And they should be capable to do so, otherwise they should not become a
judge or lawyer. So yes, we got quality and trust and immunity to consider. But also the fact of
responsibilities for the quality of actions of professional persons is very important. And with lawyers
and judges, giving them immunity will give them some excuse to not doing their utmost in delivering
quality work all the times. Especially this issue is very contra immunity in judicial matters. Besides the
issue that there is not real quality in justice yet. Like Aristotle among others remarked, judges and
other judicial officials have to be wise and act on the bases of understandings not on mere (false)
knowledge.

464
On social judgements and misjudgements

Throughout the whole of our lives, we are being judged and misjudged. This judgements are all made
by living creatures and within certain contexts and surroundings. And, it are all social judgements.
Even the ones being made by non-human animals.

While reductionist actors in sciences like philosophy often consider judgements taking place mostly
within justice, of course this is by far not all of it. Social judgements are being made in our societies
constantly, within all kinds of social situations.

This fact as such is not that interesting and important to realise. What however IS important to
understand and realise, is the fact that social judgements are based on sensemaking. And, since most
of the sensemaking at current times is insane, most social judgements also are. Especially the more
complex ones, being understood in linear reductionist ways.

Sound social judgements require sound pluriflections. Based on phronitical sensemaking, being critical
sensemaking based on phronesis. While most mainstream reflections and sensemaking are based on
linear or reductionist sensemaking, and therefore on INSANE fundaments, social judgements and
sensemaking need to be based on sound and sane out of the box, non linear pluriflection and
phronitical sensemakings.

Since sensemaking and social judgements in the sciences and practises of for instance psychology,
justice and economics are based on INSANE reflections, all of the social sciences and practises
strongly need the inputs of SANITY. Which in its fundaments needs far more, and goes much further
than, the initial understandings being mentioned by Alfred Korzybki in his “science and sanity” and
“manhood of humanity” .

Psychology is, just like other social sciences and practises, filled with the evils of reductionism. Just
like justice is. Both of them strongly need to break out of linear and non-linear reductionisms. To break
out of their insanities and evilnesses.

465
As far as psychology goes, I would like to mention the following facts and issues :
1) Psychologists say that their methodologies are reliable, not realising they are reductionist and
linear and EVIL. Because of the fact that they are grounded on wrong fundaments. With sound
phronitical pluriflections, this should be obvious. For instance the strange conclusions by
Sigmond Freud should proof that actually this guy must have been relatively insane to less or
larger extends. Since his conclusions where often based on completely different data. Just like
a lot of psychiatrists and psychologists do, putting all kinds of labels and judgements on
completely different or reductionist data.
2) A research by PSYCHOLOGISTS did firstly say that there was/is a large number of people in
prison who are insane but that this insanities are NOT discovered. WHICH SHOULD BE
CORRECT AS THEIR METHODOLOGIES ARE INSANE AND NOT WORKING and NOT IN
LINE WITH SANELY DIAGNOSING INSANITY OR SANITY. But then, the conclusion was that
MORE PSYCHOLOGISTS should DIAGNOSE AND TREAT. THIS WILL HOWEVER LEAD
TO MORE PEOPLE BEING FALSELY DIAGNOSED AS BEING INSANE AND THEN
TREATED ACCORDINGLY, as like the psychologists know themselves….they are not able to
really discover insanities OR sanities….meaning they will just judge (about) everyone they
treat as being insane.
3) FOLLOWING 2), it should be stated and UNDERSTOOD that the PSYCHOLOGISTS stating
that a large number of people WOULD be insane, might and most probably WILL be WRONG.
Because of their INSANE methodologies. The ROSENTHAL experiment proofs this, there is a
Rosenthal EFFECT alongside a Kafka effect in Justice.
4) Psychology, psychologists and psychiatrists are like the person searching into the light:

In his book "One Small Step Can Change Your Life - The Kaizen Way", Robert Maurer tells the
following old joke:

A drunk was crawling about on the sidewalk under a lamppost at night.

A Police Officer came up to him and inquired, "What are you doing?"

The drunk replied, "I'm looking for my car keys."

The Officer looked around in the lamplight, then asked the drunk, "I don't see any car keys. Are you
sure you lost them here?"

The drunk replied, "No, I lost them over there", and pointed to an area of the sidewalk deep in shadow.

The policeman then asked, "Well, if you lost them over there, why are you looking over here?"

The drunk looked at him and said, "Because the light is better over here."

Looking in the “light” is often more comfortable for psychologists, as there they can base their
diagnosis on their own knowledges. But, this are knowledges based on INSANITIES. Not taking
sociological parts and anotherness relevant plurisigns into consideration. Justice actually does the

466
same, working with wrong fundaments and methodologies. Especially with complex social matters
under considerations, anotherness relevant plurisigns could and should for instance been brought in
by SANE sociologists. Instead of psychologists focussing on the WRONG issues and facts and the
WRONG actors, with INSANE methodologies. But using the understandings of sane sociologists is still
not common in justice, instead it is just common practise to consult psychologists, who will look in the
light (wrong place) with the wrong, insane understandings (resulting from this).

In some other discourses of mine, I use the metaphor of the Devil. I even remark at some places there
that I am fighting against the Devil. This is, of course, metaphorically speaking. But, fact is that we are
all almost constantly socially judged by the Devil, by evilness. The (D)evil of reductionism in social
sciences is everywhere around us and causing A LOT of damages in our societies as a whole. Both in
society and in fields like justice and psychology and psychiatrics. This causes a lot of harm in and by
justice and psychology.

The causes for this evilness of social judgements are, of course, manifold. But, some of the reasons
are the following:
1) The role of labelling, fixations on firstnesses
2) Linearity and reductionisms in sensemaking
3) Wrong methodologies as such, comparing apples with oranges and subtracting the strangest
conclusions out of other, different data.

There must be a lot more reasons, and certainly this list can be improved. Just like this whole text can
as it is just some first but great starting point to get out of linearity’s, out of insane boxes of current
mainstream practises.

Sound, sane sensemaking is about the anotherness inbetweennesses. The pluralities not being taken
into regards. Like for instance in psychology the facts of the Rosenhan experiment, “being sane in
insane places”. This understandings should have been incorporated into the practises of justice LONG
ago, resulting in a VERY critical stance against anything being said by psychologists in justice. But,
more essentially, psychological judgements should not be used at all till it can be proven that
psychologists can judge in sane ways instead of their insane fundamentals of current times. Same
counts for justice, as it can and should not be accepted that a lot of people are misjudged by the state
leading to a lot of unjust prosecutions and damages.

Because of the insanities of current social sensemaking and judgements, the real true understandings
can and will only occur in case of sound pluriflections, incorporating the issue of looking further than
the linear or non-linear, reductionist knowledge’s. This reductionist knowledge’s are just (based on)
insane understandings. Leading to insane results.

467
Sound pluriflection therefore, is about breaking out of linearity. The nature of this sole true sane sense
making and judgements is a different voice, consisting of bluenesses betweenness the plurisigns. Blue
is the colour of wisdom, and also there is the Chinese saying “being bluer than blue”. Meaning that the
person being concerned is of excellent capabilities for a certain task. And, this is what sound
pluriflections on complex matters need. Wise, bluer than blue actors.

Of course, sound judgement requires sound sensemaking. And, sound sensemaking also needs to
have certain characteristics. One of these characteristics being the very important insight that a sound
judgement can NEVER be based on labels or judgements as starting points. Instead, there first has to
be a sound sensemaking process, consisting of sane pluriflections, then followed by judgements. This
taking into regards, and adding some other understandings I have, I can give the following list of
aspects of the nature of good sane judgements:
1) Starting with a sound sane methodology instead of a judgement based on insanities
2) This sound sane methodology has to be based on the sole true underlying structure and
nature of our universes called holoplurality
3) The nature of the sound sane methodology has to be plural, based on understandings of
plurisign and phronesis
4) The nature of the methodology has further to be based on bluenesses betweenness the
plurisigns, interconnectedness, looking further than the reductionist linearity’s. Introducing the
anothernesses NOT being taken into regards
5) The more plurality in sensemaking, the more excellent the results will generally be
6) Sound pluriflection requires a phronitical stance, meaning that the actors understandings and
sensemaking have to be based on a critical view based on phronesis.
7) Taking the PLURIGLOTTA into account, the PHRONESIS glotta. Glotta means voices, and in
this case this voices are different and phronitical by nature

Social judgement is strongly connected with the roles we all have and need to play in life. It is about
hope, it is about faith, it is about all the plurisigns of virtues and values in our lifes. But, it is also
connected with a lot of other issues and plurisigns. Just like about everything in our social realities is. It
is all about interconnectednesses.

For instance, the issue of “bowling alone” is important for social judgements. Because of this bowling
alone, in many cases there is no real sane pluriflection, but just the often reductionist and harmful
judgements about other people and their activities and acts. While more and more people seem to
understand that we are all interconnected and influencing each other, in reality there is the tendency of
more and more reductionism and inbox thinking and doing. And our storytellings are diminished from
sane lazarus into insane and evil Devilish stories and acts.

468
On law judgements. It can and should be remarked and understood that about each lawyer and judge
does not really understand what a law is. If they want to understand, they should for instance read the
writings by Charles Sanders Peirce. In his understandings, the semiotic view, the written laws of law
and justice are mere possibilities. And they are. To get the majority of lawyers and judges to
understand would most probably mean a great improvement in court cases. But, a semiotic
perspective is NOT enough, as even this perspective is reductionist and insane. What IS needed, is
my own phronesis meta-semeiotical perspective grounded on the notion and understandings of
holoplurality.

Social judgements on the contrary are mostly based on a better understanding of laws, and treating
the mostly unwritten social “laws” (mostly called habits and morals and virtues and the like) as mere
possibilities. But, still the laws of social judgements- laws in Peircean senses, being much less
reductionist than the written juridical laws or the (un) written social “laws” which are actually
possibilities-are based on wrong, insane sensemaking. And also there are enough social actors who
will focus on the unwritten social possibilities (“laws”), not being able to grasp the broad and highly
relevant anothernesses leading to the real laws in peircean senses.

This understandings should lead, again, to the conclusion that law judgements are far too reductionist,
having insane characteristics and results. Law judgements should be far more social, especially in the
case of (complex) social situations being relevant for the specific case.

Then there is the issue of labelling in both law judgements and psychological judgements. This
labelling is not wrong in its essences, but problems occur where the labelling is not correct. Being
based on wrong, insane fundamentals. Which is something that can and will mostly occur in justice
and psychiatrics with people being innocent and/or sane. Causing the labels of evilness and/or
insanities being connected with people being perfectly innocent and sane.

In psychiatry, this false labelling mostly occurs because of insane methodologies. Like the current
habits of using reductionist and highly standardized multiple choice tests. But also generally because
of the fact that psychologists and psychiatrists solely focus on individual persons and personalities and
looking for the explanations of acts there, while for social situations expecially the surroundings and
contexts might and will be important. In many (court) cases, it will even be a fact that sane sociologists
have to be consulted while psychologists are.

A lot can be told about the labelling part of course. What I would like to mention here, is the fact that
criminals and insane people, or better the ones being labelled as such, are not treated as HUMAN
BEINGS by psychiatry and justice. In our society they are or may be, but as soon as they cross the
line and enter a psychiatric institution or law court they are just objects that apparently have to be
treated like that.

469
Their social labels mean that any (signs of) love and passion, or other qualities expressed to human
beings, are gone. Social judgements-also the ones in justice and psychiatrics- are not only based on
virtues and values and other qualities. They also have a HUGE, mostly dramatic, influence on them.
Meaning that people once having a label, also those who acquired it because of insanities of other
people, will mostly only be judged based on their labels. And as long as they have this labels, virtues
like love, passion, devotion and faith are not expressed towards them. At least not by those people
being familiar with or working with the labels. As soon as one of the virtues is away, the rest will follow.
When faith is away, love and devotion will also disappear soon. Meaning that persons being labelled
will not get all of these values and virtues from other people, getting treated more (and more) like
lower creatures.

Labelling even goes that far that each following social judgements by courts or psychiatrics will mostly
be based on the previous judgements. Breaking out of reductionist linearity is difficult, especially for
lawyers and judges and psychiatrists. Besides of this, documented reports also play a HUGE role
here. As both judges and psychiatrists have the damaging habits of relying on the reports and
judgements already being made in the past, whether these judgements are correct or not. In current
times, most of them are incorrect and insane.

Central to any (social) judgement is the concept of quality. Not only of the person being judged, but
also of the persons judging. And, not only intrinsic qualities of persons are important there. Also the
kind and nature of sensemaking is, like I discussed above.

The persons who do disappoint me most in life, might generally lack qualities like devotion, faith and
or trust. But, it might also be very well that they just lack a lot of understandings, living in their own
reductionist boxes of sensemaking. In many cases, because of my own qualities (faith, love and trust
and the like) I mostly assume that it are NOT the persons themselves disappointing me but other,
external reasons that make them doing so.

Social judgements are often dependent on the notion and nature of power. Power gives
responsibilities. Intellectual understandings, wisdom, is also some kind of power. And intellectual
wisdom therefore also gives responsibilities. And in general not only power but the fact of having
decisive positions and a decisive voice (or at least possibilities to reach these important pluriglotta)
give responsibilities for those having this power of final decision.

Power in justice, because of having a decisive position and voice, give responsibilities toward citizens.
But, also towards the people being prosecuted. It can not be the case that, like in current times, the
positions and situations of the prosecuted are not taken into regards well enough. Also, judges and
lawyers have the responsibilities to listen to every party. And not only to listen, but also to act on it.

470
On the insanities of psychology and psychiatry

Psychology and psychiatry are, in many ways, insane sciences. While they are supposed to be aimed
at “curing” the insane, and for most people there seems to be nothing more into it there, in reality both
psychology and psychiatry are largely insane themselves. Just like the so-called professionals in these
fields mostly are. They have the perceptions of knowing and understanding, while actually they do not.
But, based on their INSANE methodologies and sciences, they will never find out.

Part of the insanities of psychology are caused by the fact that it is a reductionist science, not taking
into regards the context and surroundings of the actors. Anotherness reason for the insanities of
psychology and psychiatry is the more widely operating insanity in all social sciences being the
insanity of wrong fundamentals, wrong underlying structures which are insane to smaller or larger
extends.

With regards to surroundings, it often is the case that people who SEEM to act insane do so because
of certain very specific actions and issues in their surroundings, the context. But, as psychologists and
psychiatrists are mostly solely interested and focused on the individual, they will mostly not find out.
Meaning that they have the PERCEPTIONS that certain issues and acts are solely the result of the
characteristic nature of an individual, while actually the real causes of the act are caused by the
contexts and surroundings of these persons.

Contexts is ALWAYS very important, especially in social realities. Which is why psychology and
psychiatry should either cooperate and communicate with sociologists, or also get their
understandings there.

Besides that, the methodologies of psychologists and psychiatrist HAVE to change. As they are now
largely concentrated and based on INSANE understandings. Leading to insanities, harm and damage
to a lot of persons. Just like in justice,. the procedures and acts of psychologists and psychiatrists are
causing whatever person to arrive at this so-called professionals to be treated in insane ways and to
be judged either criminal or insane. The other judgements are very hard to get, even for the most non-
criminal and sane persons on this globe. Simply because methodologies of psychologists and
psychiatrists are aimed to arrive at insanity. while methodologies of justice are aimed at arriving at
being guilty to more or less degrees. For people not being guilty or insane, the social judgmental
systems of psychology, psychiatry and laws still mostly judge them to be so. Meaning that the innocent
people get punished for doing nothing and the sane people are “treated” for being sane.

As far as the psychologist and psychiatrist concerns, this issue of structure and nature resulting in the
social judgement of being insane is not only caused by the insane underlying understandings and
structure of this social sciences, but also because of the specific nature of psychology and psychiatry.

471
As I remarked before, these sciences always concentrate solely or mainly on the individual. Meaning
that there can be, roughly speaking, two different cases there.

The first case being an insane person who acts strange or does certain strange or wrong things just
because this person really IS insane. Acts in the surroundings may cause this person to act strange, of
course, but in general the core reasons for doing so are solely resulting from the characteristics and
nature of this particular person. In that cases, this person will be judged insane but based on correct
arguments. Being this characteristics and nature of the individual, NOT the methodologies used by the
psychologists and psychiatrist. As about ALL of the methodologies and understandings of
psychologists and psychiatrists are currently based on wrong, more or less INSANE fundamentals and
understandings. Causing even the insane persons to get the wrong treatments.

The second case being a completely sane person who does some acts which SEEMS to be strange
(given the LIMITED and REDUCTIONIST and therefore INSANE views of psychiatrists, justice and the
like), but which are however really normal socially speaking. This are the cases where specific acts of
other actors in their surroundings or characteristics of the surroundings themselves logically result in
certain acts. Which this person does actually because of being sane. In this second case, it can even
be the case that actors in the surroundings of this person have not only acted in wrong or bad ways,
but even lied a lot. Leading to false and damaging social accusations. But then, if at whatever step or
point in time, this person gets the label of being insane and then sent to a psychologist or psychiatrist,
this person will actually be judged insane in most cases. Simply because NO psychologist or
psychiatrist will generally focus or pay attention to the context and surroundings and/or acts of other
actors. Instead, in most cases they will base their judgements on the written reports which are already
there. Not realising that this same reports and former judgements are all FALSE and INSANE.

In general, this kind of false and insane fundamental understandings can be solved by means of
SANE methodologies. But, both psychological and justice methodologies are actually based on, again,
INSANE fundamentals. Leading to (partially) insane outcomes, understandings.

I guess there should be more persons than solely me who wonders how psychologists and
psychiatrists can retrieve the broadest informations and insights about a person by just talking a bit or
even not talking at all to the person. Or by means of tests consisting of a lot of multiple choice
questions or strange tests, then the psychiatric guy or girl having all kinds of conclusions to be drawn.
Conclusions which can not be linked towards the tests in any direct, straightforward or normal ways.
Simply because this kind of conclusions can normally not be drawn from this tests normally speaking.

The message is clear: do not trust this kind of professionals, as most of them need a fundamental
treatment themselves…..

472
In general, when making social judgements like in justice and psychology, the actors making these
judgements largely base their judgements on judgements made in the past about same person. This is
OK if this past judgements are OK, but in most cases they will NOT be. Because of the fact that the
person may be misjudged, but also because of the insane fundamentals of all of the social sciences.

473
The transitive values and signs growing

The really most important part of this discourse is actually the fact that the money is not the money.
That capital entails much more than only money. The transformations from capital into values is very
essential there. Like I discussed in some other parts of this discourse. I also discussed there that the
transitive values are very important. They are much more valuable than static values. Static values are
in fact perceptions mostly in our current societies. Because of the wrong structures and ways of
dealing with values. Only seeing them as capital and mainly being oriented and directed towards
financial capital. By that neglecting and in huge extends harming the other kinds of values. Like social
and natural values. The dodo was unfortunately not the last living creature that disappeared forever
because of human influences. Well actually as far as the dodo concerns it is still not sure whether they
disappeared because of humans. But in current times, a lot of animal species and many parts of
nature do. Some of them just because of insanities and wrong ways of doing of humans. Wrong
perceptions of values are maybe only a small, but still a considerable part of this.

Transitive values also got to do with all kinds of capitals and values. They appear with social capital.
Where the roads often are the real goals. But also with values as the value of love. Love is a value that
largely depends on its transitive value. Also with love statical value is often overvalued and dynamical
value is undervalued. At least when statical structures like marriage are there. These kinds of fictive
structures are borders that some people do not want to cross because of their focus on static value.
But actually, in the end only the dynamical values are important there. Meaning that when dynamical
values become too less in love, it might be time to move on. Or not.

On money, it is often neglected that employees are also customers. And tax payers. Besides that it is
often neglected that people staying at home not taking part in value adding processes are actually not
adding transitive values. Of course they do as far as social values are concerned and also they will
undoubtly add other values, but on the fields of capital values they do not add much there. In the
Netherlands most of them are still paid by society, which is us. Which is why it might be much better if
also these people are just participating in economical and organizational processes. But also because
of the reason of transitive capital value it is. Since these people will then earn bit more. Spend a bit
more and therefore increase total transitive capital value. Besides that they will help other signs in our
society to grow. In all kinds of aspects. By that largely contributing to our societies and all signs in
them growing even harder.

474
Fact is however that signs just growing is not enough. They have to grow with quality, with arête.
Which needs either some good understandings, or some excellent controlling of all kinds of processes
by people who do understand enough and can have needed influences on our societies as a whole.
What is needed there, is that values and virtues like the ones of Deirdre Mc Closkey are incorporated
in our universes and societies. Also the notion of Phronesis is important there. And, of course, right
structures and ways of doing. All elements of life and society that have been discussed in this
discourse. But understandings and application in real life just have to grow. To make signs and our
society grow. And move on towards real capitalism. From aporia to wentelechy by means of Phronesis
and wisdom.

475
On trusting tacit wisdoms and understandings

In our societies, both organizations and individuals should trust more on tacit wisdoms. Tacit wisdoms
being tacitly understood aspects of our lives and universes by really great and wise people. Being
people who have acquired a lot of empirical and phronesis experiences and, besides that, have a
great beautiful mind.

Like I stated before in this discourse, both empirism and rationalism is needed to become truly wise.
And actually, I forgot something there. Which is the irrationalism, being the irrational anothernesses of
life that are in between and can make a moderate wise person move on to become really great based
on real phronesis. This (seemingly) irrational betweenness is the main difference between sofia and
phronesis. Phronesis is more about pluralities and particularities. And, also about irrationalities.
Although some of those irrationalities are only perceived to be irrational.

As regards empirism and rationalism is concerned, empirism is the input and rationalism is about
throughput. Just like the irrationalities of life are. They all belong to throughput. Although both
rationalism and irrationalism can be part of empirism and therefore the input, of course. And also
output will be consisting of both rationalities and irrationalities. Since rationality and irrationalities are
plurisigns that are aspects of the flows of life and universes. Just like time, for instance, is. But
empirism is about experiences in the world of existence. Not in the worlds of dreams and thoughts.
Although I think we can of course have experiences in our dreams. These are also empirist
experiences. But for the matters of interest I am dealing with and discussing about right here, the
empirical existence experiences are most important and fundamental.

476
On trial and errors

Actually I think we, in our societies, should concentrate more on trying. Meaning trying out all kinds of
activities and ways of doing in practise. This could lead to really great insights and new ways of doing
things. Of course the “anything goes” way of doing should not be practised there. But also it should.
Meaning that anything goes is a real good starting point in case this anything is considered and
reconsidered very carefully all the times by the really great and wise persons of our society with the
right empirical and wise backgrounds to be able to judge whether it is worthwhile enough to give
something a try. Every effort should lead at least to new great insights, that can then be registrated
and used as learning possibilities. Antenarrative bits for future research and actions.

Also individuals in our societies can of course try a lot. But when doing so, they should very well be
able to realize possible consequences of what their trail and error activities might lead to. And being
well aware about consequences of possible errors. Of course we all try. And fail. Sometimes even
harder. But that is just learning in life. What I am however talking about when dealing with trial and
errors here, is not about the regular trying and failing. It is more about trying irregular things. Maybe
even things that might be illogical at first stance, or activities that you would normally not think of
because of social or cultural values or beliefs. Of course values are important, but some of them might
just be ridiculous in the end. Like a lot of cultural values. I am actually pretty sure a lot of cultural
values are not only negotiable, but just have to be negotiated and changed. With current globalization
and movements of people all around the globe, it just does not make much sense anymore to have
huge cultural differences. Some of them being just stupid if you think about it. Anotherness ways of
viewing things by sound and great negotiations can make cultures to be changed on many aspects,
making our universes as such also there more sane and worthwhile probably.

This trying with trail and errors also involves, partly, the kinds of prospective sensemaking discussed
in the theoretical field of antenarrating. Antenarrating is a notion and practical theory initiated by David
Boje. I myself initiated and developed Phronesis Antenarrating, some essential part of it being the
Phronesis antenarrating methodology. Phronesis Antenarrating is based on the sole true underlying
structure of our universes, which is my notion and understandings of holoplurality. The sensemaking
process is called pluriflection. Pluriflection involves much more than the regular notion of reflection.
Pluriflection is based on the sole true structure, and it is more plural than normal reflection. And, it is
phronitical by nature. Phronitical and phroniticallity meaning being critical with practical wisdoms.
Being phronitical is never meant to be just that, being phronitical for the sake of being phronitical.
Being phronitical serves some higher aims, especially when phronesis antenarrating is involved. Both
being phronitical and phronesis antenarrating in general are aimed at improving our universes and
societies by means of sound, SANE, sensemaking. The result of it should be at least some acting or
acts, while understanding that even a non-act is a way of acting.

477
On money and transitive values

Some years ago, I started my PhD process. Main reason to start it, was because at that times I
already knew but not understood well enough that there are many insane acritically indubitable beliefs
about money in our societies. And in our economies. I have by now incorporated this also in my phd
dissertation, but for now did not explain it well enough yet. Something I will also not be able to do here
to the fullest, but I will for sure explain in more broader and detailed ways.

Core is, that we very unnecissarily imprison ourselves because of wrong perceptions on money. IN the
end, money does NOT exist. It is, just like a lot of socially constructed notions, mere perception. But
on the other hand it DOES exist. But, solely because of the conventions we made on money. The
accritically indubitable beliefs on money, conventions, according to which we act. The thing is, that
these perceptions are INSANE. In the end, money is NOT a problem. IF we would like to, we could
give each inhabitant of poor countries enough money to just buy what they would need. AND, that
would be GREAT and CONSTRUCTIVE for our economies. The problem however is, that for that we
need at first to UNDERSTAND. Then, this understanding can be dissolved among each citizen of our
societies. What is however also important, is that we UNDERSTAND the different ways of acting that
are needed when we deal with money in SANE ways. THEN, we also have to act with nature and the
resources in SANE ways. NOT using more of nature than would be acceptable for future generations
still being able to harvest out of our natural resources. This resources have already been used TOO
much and in wrong ways by previous and present generations.

IF you want to read more on what accritically indubitable beliefs mean, just look at this link:

http://www.digitalpeirce.fee.unicamp.br/peichi.htm

Some discourse on Peirce’s logic of vagueness by Phillys Chiasson, an excellent Peircean scholar

Now, on the RIGHT ways of looking towards money. Most important to understand, is that the
structure and characteristics of economical processes are just wrongly understood. In economics,
maybe especially in economics, all kinds of models and structures are used to not only describe, but
also to “manage” the economical processes. Many of these structures are linear, either in horizontal or
vertical or diagonical or combinatory ways of these. Besides that, these models are OF COURSE
general. While OF COURSE practical situations are SPECIFIC cases. Yes, there ARE general
characteristics of money. BUT, this are overall NOT characteristics that are special for money and
economics. ON the contrary, these REAL and VALID and SANE characteristics of money are
applicable on much more OBJECTS in our universes.

478
Both in the universes of dreams and thoughts, as in our realities of life. And every other thinkable
universe. Also, some of the objects and real realities are linked across and over the PERCEIVED
borders of universes.

Now, the REAL structure of EVERYTHING in our universes, in every universe and across them, is the
structure of holoplurality. Of OBJECTS, the peircean meaning of them (involving both objects and
subject being living signs), being linked in more or less tight ways (or not) with each other. These
linkages are growing in ways that peircean signs are growing.

Linearity does and should exist in our universes, but NOT as underlying structure of our universes and
actions. Because it is just the WRONG perceived structure of our universes. These wrong perceive
structures became into existence in our minds, and because of that also in the realities around us.
This is the CORE of insanities in our societies all over.

Even discourses, any discourse, is linear. This does not matter as long as everyone understands that
the structure of them is therefore NOT sane. NOT complete. And that the real, sole and only true
SANE structure of our universes is the structure of holoplural inclusionality.
INTERCONNECTEDNESS is the only real structure, and if you understand you can understand a lot
of developments in our societies. Like the development of cradle to cradle. And a lot more.

What is, or after this discourse WAS, missing however, is a true understanding of HOW the
interconnected structure on money really truly IS. I will explain it here, and hope that this
understanding will become existent in every mind and most of all in our realities of life within the first
couple of years from now. Since it will solve A LOT of problems of current societies. It can, and will,
make our societies whole again. BUT for that, we also NEED To know and UNDERSTAND how to
deal with natural resources in responsible ways. AMONG others. There is a lot more to explore still.
But with a lot of bright intellectuals, a great team with broad knowledge on all the important issues
involved, it would be possible to find the solutions SOON.

Now, one of the problems about money is that there is excess of focus on fixed, mediate and non-
transitive aspects and forms of money. Static values is what we are mainly focussing on. While also
with money, the real value and greatness is in the transitive value of money. Dynamics, the dynamics
that life is able to create. Life can create transivity, which is the core of signs being able to grow. Doing
is the greatest value of our society, IF it is executed in SANE and entelychistic ways. This incorporates
natural, inclusional holoplural ways of doing.

For instance, we like to put money on the bank. This is detrimental for society as a whole,
counterproductive. Because money that is fixed and not used, is simply not valuable. Money has NO
value in itself, the USAGE of it is where the value comes from. So yes, we get money for saving
money. But that is transitive value, money is USED in that respects.

479
However, for society as a whole, it is much more valuable to USE the money in economical processes.
To exchange it for goods. Then, the money earned for the goods is USED again. And again and again.
And each time it is used, the real value actually INCREASES.

The money earned for the goods is USED to pay anotherness goods. OR to pay workers. Who can
then PAY the money again for anotherness goods. IF every person selling goods is just then paying
workers for it or keeps it himself. BUT then just pays it AGAIN for anotherness goods or services. The
money stays in economy. BUT, more important, the TRANSITIVE value of money does increase. We
got to work of course to create the goods or services, but actually overall, money does NOT diminish.
Actually, WE get the money that we pay and loose BACK over and over and over again.

We just have to increase the total amount of money. This will enable the other signs to grow.
Further and further and further and further. They do already, but mostly in the fields of possibilities. A
lot of them are just waiting to be developed. But NEED more money. MORE money, not less! With
hugher amounts of money kind of freezed in houses and stocks market papers and banks and
the like, we also need more money for transition. And with more ideas and people being capable to
put them into existence, we need even MORE. Then also with a lot of poor people, we need MORE
money. To enable them to take part in the process of VALUE CREATION. Till now we like to emprison
ourselves. To disable the growth of signs (signs being everything, whether living or non-living, abstract
or concrete, real or imaginative).

Also, on the value of transitive, above static values : just this morning my parents told me that brother
of mine did not get any price in a lottery. Then, the remark was made that he could better not have
bought any lottery ticket. Because then he would have earned more. I responded that this was NOT
the case, that he still earned. This remark is based on the general understanding that money is NOT.
That the transitive value of money, the anothernesses you GET from USING the money, are the one
and only SOLE true values of money. So, in this case, my brother enjoyed the lottery which was held
on TV in anotherness ways. He may have been very rich for short moments of time in his mind. Also
his moods might have been much better for this short period of time. What he did, was using the
money. And for that, he got the transitive value of experiences. Besides that, also the money that has
been spend on the lottery ticket will go to other parties at least partly. And they will use it again at least
partly. Hopefully they spend most of it, since in the end we ALL profit from it then. Interconnectedness
everywhere.

Money is “just” a catalyst for growth. For keeping our economies running and running and running.
And, by that to increase the transitive values. NOT only of money, but also the transitive values of
anotherness values. Like the values of love, the values of social contacts (being able to travel and call
and contact friends and family and the like), the values of health ( also there, lack of money will be
problem)

480
Quite generally, money is constraint for a lot of individuals in our societies. This creates a lot of
problems (stress, psychological problems and whatever), while it does NOT have to be. Money is NOT
a problem. IF we would increase wages, in the end WE will get this money back. Over and over and
over again. But what about devaluation of money and the like, is something the economists raised with
Insane ways of thinking and theorizing would say.

Fact is that devaluations of money do occur. But only in short terms. Meaning that in the end this
devaluation is relative. Meaning that if EVERY economy will increase wages with same percentages,
devaluations will occur to much lesser extends. Or not at all. But, more important, whatever happens,
in the end we ALL will profit from it. NOT only in economical, money kind of ways. But in ways of
transitive values increasing all around us.

Less sicknesses will result from that. Less psychiatric people needed. Less people being depressed or
committing suicide and the like. It will improve EVERY aspect of our societies. IF we understand, and
act on it.

The linear structures in our minds and realities on economics and money have to be replaced by the
only true structures. As soon as possible. And in the right ways. This is quite complex, because of the
interconnectedness of our society. The wrong perceptions on money have INSANE results on a lot of
anotherness aspects of our societies. Changing these structures can and will drastically change about
EVERYTHING around us. BUT, it will make our societies COMPLETE and SANE again. Especially if
we combine it with every interconnected insights and developments in other fields of science. Like,
what I said, developments in the field of cradle to cradle. And natural resources in general.

CAREFULLNESS is however needed. I think I explained well enough in this discourse now about the
HOW of money. What should change there. BUT, to really realize this into our societies is anotherness
complex matter. On the other hand, mistakes in short run are not that much of a problem IF they are
compensated by higher advantages in longer turn. Which will most probably be the case in case of
adjusting insanities in our societies into sane ones.

Peirce was quite close to moving towards a sane metaphysical system. He only did not truly
understand well enough that holoplural inclusionality is the only sole true underlying structure and
nature of our universes. That mankind has and still is neglecting the natural structure and laws. By that
still making our societies insane and full of deconstructive errors. Especially during the last centuries,
these INSANE structures and ways of doing have become multiplied and multiplied throughout our
WHOLE society. The trick is, to eliminate EVERY aspect of insane structures of society. Which
means, eliminating all the structures that are NOT adjusted to AND/ or in line with (holoplural)
inclusionality/ interconnectedness.

481
Peircean semiotics IS in line with inclusionality/ interconnectedness. But based on a meta-physical
perspective, while my practicism and holoplurality are based on a phronesis meta-semeiotical
perspective being much more excellent. And, a lot of aspects of Peirce’s other writing are not even in
line with inclusionality. This is partly due to the fact that Peirce just kind of “borrowed” notions and
ideas that were and still are accritically indubitable beliefs. Like the beliefs in
INDUCTION/DEDUCTION, which are really also harmful and INSANE aspects of our society. IT is just
WRONG methodology, not in line with interconnectedness. IT is linear thinking, and also linking the
wrong things. Specificalities can NOT be subtracted from generalities, and generalities can NOT be
subtracted from specificalities.

Also, a lot of mathematical beliefs is bullshit. At least also a lot of mathematics that Peirce did borrow.
Peirce did belief that mathematics was the key for understanding the structures of our universes, BUT,
it is NOT. ONLY holoplural inclusionality is. Yes, some structures might be according to some of the
insane mathematical structures. BUT, that is only because WE did and still are adjusting to and living
up to INSANE structures. That is causing them to be real and real in their consequences, while they
should NOT be. And, of course, because of inclusionality and interconnectedness, they have
influence on the rest of our societies and universe. Causing more insanities to match the other ones.

The Pragmatic maxim, the “great” premise that is core of pragmatism, is also BULLSHIT, something
else I did explain partly.

What is left, is interconnectedness. But, of course, there are several methodologies also there. Ways
of doing. The only sole and right ways of methodologies, the nature according to which dynamical,
transitive actions and values should be executed, are described in my discourse. I named it phronesis
antenarrating. Which is a core of practisism, since it will solve the errors of insanitiy in both science
and practise. By that bringing both science and practise together. And also the universes we live in.

482
 On ponds and values

The more you realize and understand about the society we live in, the more you realize that a lot of
our acts are based on perceptions. A lot of our thoughts are. Also, there are many existences as
firstnesses, which are not in line with or not adapted in more sophisticated levels to signs growing.
Besides that, we have the perceptions resulting from overcoding and undercoding activities. And,
there are lot more instances of perceptions of realities.

One of the most wide-spread but damaging perceptions are, according to me, the perceptions
connected with money. One of them the perceptions about what money is and how it should be used.

In it’s essences, the perceptions of money can probably be explained the best by means of some
metaphor. I myself did think of the following one.

Just image a pond full with fishes. These fishes need some food probably. And maybe some sunlight.
And probably some other things. I like animals and nature a lot, but am not that well into the
requirements and ways of living of this special type of swimming creatures to know much about it. So
yes, I could observe some koi karper in our pond. And most probably, I would learn more from it. But
that is not the kind of activity I can spend my time on in my life. I even got troubles at the moment to
find time to photograph some young peregrine falcons I would like to see and photograph. Which is a
pity, of course.

But well, on the pond with fishes. Just suppose that these fishes are intelligent creatures, just like the
Orca’s or Killer Wales are68. And, that they would agree with each other that they would need some
strange object in the water. Assuming this object will be available in restricted amounts in the water as
from that moment, comparable to the restricted amounts of money available in our economies. Then
the fishes start regulating their habits and acts according to the availability of this strange objects.
Which they do not really need, but because of generally agreed perceptions, they just keep to
regulate their acts in actually insane ways towards the availabilities of these strange objects. Yes, they
need the strange objects as from the moments the agreements are made, but ultimately this needing
is mere perception. Some kind of system the fishes agree to maintain, without being critical upon
whether there might be better ways to deal with these strange objects. Maybe by just abolishing them,
or maybe by just using them in a whole different ways. Or, by just adding more of the strange objects
when more is needed. Differing from the ways they use these objects till now, based on accritically
indubitable beliefs on the objects.

68
Actually this Orca’s are the kind of animals I would like to observe and learn much more about. I saw quite
some documentaries about them when being younger, and they fascinate me. Since I think they are very
intelligent creatures with own language and cultures and the like.

483
Now, what I actually want to work towards, is the fact that in current economies we just work with
perceptions of money without understanding completely yet what would be the best ways to deal with
this phenomenon called money. Simply because we do not completely understand well enough how
money can be used the best. We just stay in our inbox ways of thinking about what money would be
and how it should be used, although there are actually many clues that we use this money in the
wrong and probably highly ineffective ways. Leading to capitalism to not being true capitalism and,
more badly, leading a lot of suffering and damages to our own family of human beings.

Money can be of huge values for humankind, but not like it is used at current times. We can use it in
much more effective and great ways. IF people only come to same levels of understandings as where
I am right now. With regards to how our universes are structured, the sole true underlying structure of
our universes and also what really matters to our society at large and people living on our planets.

Fact is just, that ultimately quality or arête is needed. Independent from what people regard as being
important and having quality in their lives, we all need the right circumstances to meet these demands
as much as possible. At least in satisfactory ways. But, in the end, these satisfactory ways are not
enough. Since, if you truly understand, we can have MUCH more! All of us. And as a side-effect
reduce environmental problems and increase the other values of life and our universes at large.

Some issues important for reaching this, is to have signs growing. To do anything needed to help each
other where possible. To have a thorough understanding of what real true transitive values of our
universes incorporate and how we can increase them as a whole. Not only for ourselves, but for
society as a whole. This requires a thorough enough understanding of the sole true structure of our
universes and the interconnectednesses of signs and anothernesses in our universes.

484
On the relevance of sane true structure of our universes

The KEY to phronesis is the sole true SANE structure of our universes. The only sane IMPLICIT order
that should also become EXPLICIT. Although the terminologies of implicit and explicit orders are not
good to use here. Also because of the fact that David Bohm’s implicit and explicit order is a way of
inbox thinking. Based on dualities, while actually even orders and structures are subject themselves
towards the only real true and sane structure of our universes. Meaning that there is no real distinction
to be made in implicit or explicit order. Only there are different orders, structures in and throughout the
universes we live in. These orders, structures, being either perceptions or realities. The problems
arising when insane structures are perceived and treated to be sane, either in perceptions or realities
or whatever universes.

Economics should be a special instance of phronesis organizing. Meaning that also in economics, just
like in all universes surrounding us, the sole sane structure of our universes is key. This sole sane
structure should be holoplurally interwoven throughout every aspect of our universes. Everywhere
where this is NOT the case, insanities arise. And damages are done. To people and other creatures,
to our globe and to organizations and/or society as a whole.

In Economics, a lot of realities are based on insane explicit orders now. Because of a wrong
perceiving of the real true structure. Also because of wrong understandings. While phronesis
antenarrating and sane sensemaking leads to much broader and complete real true understandings.
One very relevant example of this sane understandings being the understanding of the fact that most
people are not only workers, but also customers and therefore payers of their own income. Also the
notion of transitive value is VERY important to grasp here.

Till now, our minds are mostly imprisoned because of perceptual existences based on perceptual
existences and wrong understandings. Quite generally, these insane understandings have been the
INSANE structures of our societies. Then also in social practise a lot of activities where and are based
on semisophy and semiphronesis errors. Some of them leading to multiple binds and, related to this,
self fulfilling idiocracies. With the right structures and the right understandings, these self fulfilling
idiocracies could be prevented or even steered towards self fulfilling phronesis poeiesis.

To arrive at this great situation, it is maybe not needed to understand a lot of complex matters. Or to
use (ante)narrating or anotherness complex change methodologies at first instance. At least not for
understandings. Maybe a phronesis antenarrative will be sufficient. IF it incorporates enough of the
right fundamental understandings.

485
Some real relevant issue there might be to understand the fundamental differences between human
social activities and organizing versus non-human animal organizing. One of the fundamental
differences being our language system. Anotherness being, partly resulting from it., the insane
semisophy and semiphronesis orders in our universes.

Part of the way to fly towards grace there, is to communicate the sole sane true structure of our
universes. To proof that this is really the sane true structure, then incorporating it into our universes.
By means of sane education and conditioning. Then in our realities, it is very important that
EVERYTHING in economics and society should approach the sane true structure of our universes as
much as possible. This sane structure should be facilitated throughout society at large.

For economics, this means “simply” the sane true structure of our universes. For social practise, this
means a special type of the sane true structure of our universes called inclusionallity.

One interesting theory to understand economy might be the so-called swarm theory. It says that
certain swarms in nature follow some fixed patterns of doing. The most interesting part there being, in
my opinion, the underlying rules of the game. While natural swarms live their lives based on natural
rules of the game following more or less natural rules, the human swarms of people live their lives
more and more according to scientific or socially constructed rules. Some of them being (based on)
insane rules and structures.

Which is why it is very worthwhile to get a better understanding of the differences between natural and
human swarms and their characteristics. When understanding the relevant rules and structures there,
our society can be constructed in greater ways. And with some great outbox kinds of thinking and
collopoeiesis efforts, we can even get towards greater wisdoms and understandings and realities. By
improving the rules of the game, either being the more natural ones or the societal ones. Meta-
semeiotical logic based on meta-semeiotical understandings grounded on holoplurality is far superior
to both the natural and societal rules underlying swarms.

Narrating and antenarrating is needed, but best is if a greater understanding and fundament precedes
this narrating and antenarrating. It may even be that parts are already understood well enough and
that antenarrating on this matters is not needed or can even distort and slow the change processes
needed in our societies as a whole.

With regards of the contents of antenarrating, I would prefer the more simple but flexible and OPEN
methodologies. Like some of the qualitative methodologies developed in change management, being
for instance deconstruction. I did read some article in a newspaper on deconstructing construction
workers, which made me realize that a lot of these greater open and flexible methodologies are great
for antenarrating and narrating.

486
In general, at least the following issues are important regarding these methodologies. First of all, they
have to be supported by supportive rules and guidelines. Secondly, the content and meaning of the
methodology expressed has to be as clear and simple as possible. And thirdly, the general expression
should be general and not too much outlined. Open application should be possible with a lot of
directions to choose from, unless it is clear that some of the issues or contents are really needed.
These ones can be freezed in preconfigured rules to keep into regards.

For growth towards sanities, the right antenarrating and narrating is therefore needed. With regards to
content, I think deconstruction and reconstruction are great. Methodologically speaking, this narrating
and antenarrating processes should follow the most sane mind processes. A great understanding of
the most effective and great reflection processes playing a major role there. I am speaking about
abduction and retroduction here, while the efficiency and contents of exactly the phases between
abduction and retroduction are key important.

The sane true structure is something I have written rightly and also some right fundaments are
explored and understood now. Anotherness phronesis and phronetic antenarratives are needed for
further understandings. Then antenarrating and narrating is needed for implementation by means of
interventions and communications.

Our society needs sane rules and sane phronesis antenarratives giving guidelines on how to deal with
realities in our universes. If only people live up to that as much as possible, society should have as
less problems as possible. Then, some structures should be further optimized being the structures and
supportive organizations to solve problems in our society at large. Individual initiatives are although
really very important here. Individual social responsibility (ISR) is more important than corporate social
responsibility (CSR), governmental social responsibility (GSR) or organizational social responsibility
(OSR). Or not, depending on the levels and qualities of GSR, CSR and OSR in general. Social
responsibility being a specific type or mode of enchantment, and enchantment being about a most
optimal fit of plurisigns.

487
On fatal misconceptions of capitalism

Just suppose that misconceptions in our social universes would be the sole and only reason why we
enslave ourselves or at least a lot of our family by having lacks of money. While actually we could at
any moment of time switch towards a world without lacks of financial capital. This would probably open
almost endless possibilities for humankind, is it not??? Just imagine…science could proceed without
having to care about the money. Companies could grow and prosper at least as long as demands are
there. And if not, that they could if they just would move towards new demand markets. Having
enough capital for that, and if not being ensured they would have. Always. Whatever would happen to
their companies.

Just suppose…well just leave out the just suppose. Since, actually our current social processes ARE
also based on a lot of insane misconceptions of capital and money. And the stupid ness of us to lock
ourselves into the imprisonment of financial capital each time we reach new improvements for and in
our societies. At least we imprison ourselves in the realities of life. In our worlds of dreams we have
almost unlimited possibilities. Not only because of the absence of laws and the like, but of course also
because of the lacks of financial capital there.

Our acts with respect to financial capital are NOT based on realities, but they are based on
accritically indubitable beliefs on financial capital. These accritically indubitable beliefs are insane
perceptions about the realities we would live in. The real realities are that financial capital is no real
restriction for whatever. IF we understand what financial capital is all about. In its essence, it is just a
perception and will always be. But at the same time it is a reality we have to deal with. But only
because we have certain, at the moment largely insane, perceptions about capital and act on them.
We can reconstruct and reshape the reality of financial capital in each way we would like it to
be. At this moment of time, at least till the end of 2007, we think that if we throw away products, that
money is spoilt. That if organizations pay more money to workers, that it will damage or destroy our
economies. That saving money for some 5% or so of interest is greatest way of adding value to our
lives. But, it all is NOT. What we have been believing at least in the last century but I think during most
of human history, is most of all insanities of humankind. Our past is full of it. But we can change it. The
people in the 19th century have destroyed huge parts of our globe and also the values and norms of
humankind because of their insane beliefs on money and capital. We can change this, quite easily.
Because of the key I offer you right here. Which is the only true way of looking towards and handling
financial capital. Which is, that the money is not the money. Transitive values are more important and
valuable than the non-transitive ones. And workers are also employees. Besides that, we saw lots of
improvements on a lot of fields but still people earn less and get less.

488
This is really because of insanities for sure. Wrong ways of understanding the real values of capital. I
am very sure that increases of wages will lead to more and more transitive values. It will enable us
also to enable great scientists to solve a lot of current problems. Although we can never erase the
many mistakes made by the past and current generations, we will for sure be able to have a lot of
great developments getting a great start. The key for changes is sane insights into the real values of
capital but also of other values. Which is the way I tell you it is in this discourse. It is the only true, real
value and notion of capital. What is believed at the moment is just insanities. Locking us all up and
disabling us to shine.

Trust me on this. If we would increase the (minimum) income of factory workers by lets say 100
percent ..not by increasing the wages but by governments adding some money to the income of
workers …it would mean a much better context for organizations to grow and flourish. At least when
the money is spend again since then it will return to the workers through the workers. By that enlarging
the transitive values of financial capital. Which is an improvement for society as a whole. But only
when the other kinds of capital are taken into regards, of course. In the past, too many values have
been neglected far too much. This has caused a lot of bad developments in our current societies. Now
is the time to set this straight. To increase income of factory workers. After that maybe also for other
groups in our society. I am not talking here about just increasing income of factory workers! Also here,
the how and when and the like are of course more important than the what. If some non-
understanding persons would just apply the what without true understandings about the how and
when, it might turn our society into hell. Just like we are in hell more and more now because of a lot of
current and present persons acting based on the wrong, reductionist sensemakings.

On the how of change. Also there, it is important to understand specificities instead of generalities. It
would require a thorough understanding of details, foremost the critical and influential ones.

489
To enable the changes I understand to be possible to become true requires a lot of very competent
change masters to be involved. The current state officials, presidents and the like can and should be
forgotten there. At least in the role of visionaries and great change masters. The real true visionaries
and change masters can simply not be found among these people since governmental persons are in
many respects just not the most capable persons in our societies. They are the mere executors of
organizational processes in society. And of course they have chances to really change society, but the
mess they have been creating and are still creating at the moment just proves that they are not
capable for great changes in societies. Our past minister of justice and present minister of social
affairs has been proving and still is proving how incapable most ministers are. He made a “donner
kebab69” out of justice, and was just about to do the same for most workers in the Netherlands.

69
This “donner kebab” equals, is a metaphor for, about the biggest mess possible. Created by fools who think
they know everything but just do not understand enough. Possibly leading to a hell and even persons dying
because of insane and idiotic ways of doing. In this context.

490
On anotherness Milton Friedman

The US economist Milton Friedman is considered to be one of the most influential economists of the
last century. He won a Nobel Prize in 1976, and is known as one of the most influential economists of
the 20th century. His political philosophy can be labelled as classically liberal and libertarian. It stressed
the disadvantages of governmental interventions and regulations. Friedman opposed government
regulation of all sorts. He however also thought that the amount of money should increase about 3 to 5
percent a year, maybe as he realized that there IS a government regulating the economy. This
“insight” was derived from the monetarist equation MV=PT.

A guy called Nathan Lewis did write some critiques on this equation and also related to Friedman on
the following website: http://www.polyconomics.com/ssu/ssu-010802.htm. It is stated also there that
Friedman’s ideas where that an increase of the amounts of money would only lead to inflation on the
longer term. His solution was to let the FED control the volume of M.

By his policy, he opposed the ideas and insights of John Maynard Keynes. While Friedman
concentrated on the supply side, Keynes concentrated on the demand side. And while Friedman
opposed governmental regulations, Keynes advocated interventionism by the government. Of course
only if needed, like for instance in case of recessions and depressions. Keynes is also considered as
one of the most or the most influential economists of the 20th century.

Fact is that it seems that currently more economists are attracted to Friedman. Something I regret, as
John Maynard Keynes seems to have been more intelligent. At least he understood things much
better. I read somewhere on the internet that Bertrand Russel did consider Keynes the most intelligent
person he had ever known : “Every time I argued with Keynes, I felt that I took my life in my hands
and I seldom emerged without feeling something of a fool."

Whatever he was, if I read on Friedman’s idea I get the idea of relative stupidity. While reading Keynes
I got the idea of intelligent ideas for sure. I will explain a bit later on about the why’s. Although a lot of
these can be extracted and understood based on my fundamental understandings on economy and
social sciences and transitive values. But in general, I think Friedman’s ideas where based on a very
damaging, reductionist perspective. Largely based on what I would call traditionalist social scientific
perspectives. John Maynard Keynes on the contrary was much more driven by empirical insights and
wisdoms. But still, he seems to have based a lot of his insights on the wrong perspectives. Being,
again, traditionalist social scientific insights and perspectives.

491
At least that is my opinion after having read just some relative small part of “ The General Theory of
Employment, Interest and Money” (J.M. Keynes, 1936). Although Keynes did express some insights
being derived from practical wisdoms most probably, he also makes some fundamental mistakes in his
discourse. Based on a wrong understanding of the nature and structure of our universes as such, but
also based on a too less (plural) understanding. It did lead me to deciding not to read more of his book
for now. Also since I understand where phronesis and phronetic antenarrating of our social sciences,
economics included, should head towards. And wrong insights based on the wrong fundaments will
not help there. But, I am also sure that Keynes will most probably inhabit some phronetic wisdoms. So
eventually I may have to read it. Or someone else working on phronesis antenarrating our economies
will better do so.

When I thought about Keynes versus Friedman this afternoon, one of the things that came to my mind
is the following. In our society at large, we have institutions. And some of them are there for long time,
one of them being the government. Although I agree there is A LOT wrong with government and
governmental actions (like the insanities and damages to innocent people under the names of justice),
his institutions are still needed. And especially some parts of it, like justice and regulatory policies and
interventions in our economies, are strongly needed. BUT, they have to be based on the right
understandings. Which require a pluralist approach not being based on unipluralism and reductionism.
And one thing is very sure, being the fact that Friedman was both a reductionist and a traditional social
scientists. What this involves is something I discuss in anotherness part of my discourse. But if you
understand, you should know that it is probably hopelessly dangerous and damaging for economies as
a whole to follow the insights of this kind of reductionist intellectuals.

Keynes seems to have been a truly intelligent person, being able to understand and communicate his
understandings. Based on plural understandings of our societies and universes at large. Although he
might not have been understanding the elementary nature of our universes at large, he at least
understood the nature of economies quite well. Apparently. When I read about what he argued in his
books “the general theory of employment, interest and money” (1936), I at least get some great
feelings of recognition. Of course I might be wrong there, since Peirce also gave me those some years
ago while currently I understand he lacked some very fundamental insights leading to errors in his
writings. This might be the same with Keynes, but I guess not. It seems to me Keynes was about on
same levels as the great Friedrich Nietzsche. At least with his level of understandings and capabilities
in that areas. But Nietzsche was for sure more wise, and also Keynes missed some of the essential
understandings.

His understandings where at least not sufficient for intelligent design of our economies and universes
at large. Something which should be possible by means of the insights I try to express in my Phronesis
antenarrative, I guess. By means of it we should be able to get the deepest insights on our universes
and society at large, being able to control and design our society.

492
One of this great ideas to be worked upon, is the intelligent design of our economies. What is needed
there, of course, is a much broader and greater insight of our economies and universes at large.
Based on Phronesis antenarratives and phronesis representia. We should concentrate on
antenarrating the economy, based on Phronesis antenarrating with the fundamental insights of my
phronesis antenarrative.

One of my insights is completely in line with something Keynes remarks in his “the general theory of
employment, interest and money”. There, he states that the total income in a society is defined by the
sum of consumption and investment; and in a state of unemployment and unused production capacity,
one can only enhance employment and total income by first increasing expenditures for either
consumption or investment. ( Wikipedia, John Maynard Keynes).

One of my major points following my huge insights of wisdom is the fact that expenditures for either
consumption or investment have to be increased. And that the right ways to do so is by means of
INCREASING the income of mainly the higher masses of people with a low income. This will increase
expenditures and by doing so it will increase employment and usage of production capacity. But it will
also increase a lot of anotherness transitive values like social values and health and the like.

It seems to be opposed to preventing inflation, but in the long run it is not. Something I need to work
out in larger detail later on. For now, it is good to express some other very elementary and essential
insight related to insane or wrong perspectives and results of traditionalist economic thinking. The
results of this way of thinking are currently mainstream in our economies and societies at large. The
very specific failure I want to talk about, is the idea of how many taxes we ultimately pay. In
mainstream way of thinking, it is thought that if 19% VAT is paid out of a quantity of money, that this is
simply the amount of tax being paid. But, it IS NOT. I already expressed somewhere else in this
discourse that there is a difference between statical and dynamical value. Because of dynamical
values, the VAT is really different for each static amount of money being some representamen.
Understood in phronetic ways, he real VAT being paid differs from case to case, and increases the
more money is used. Since each time it is used, some VAT amount goes to government. Meaning that
if we start with for instance 100 dollars, these will be paid for some goods. And VAT has to be paid.
Then some part of the original amount goes to government through taxes, the other amount, say 81
dollars, go to several parties. And ultimately probably all of this money will be re-used for consumption.
And again VAT is being paid. And with levels of VAT in Netherlands, the whole amount of money
being paid as taxes will be more than the statical value of the representamens being used. This is why
transitive money and value is what is really mattering the most. But it is also a very fundamental
insight for getting towards a sane perspective on economical sciences and practises.

493
With regards to inflation, it is just important to mention also here that difference is like always very
important. While creating money the ways governments did might have caused inflations in previous
times, it does NOT mean that it will or should in current times. The context of our society has
drastically changed, the circumstances of people have. But also, while governments might now still
think and believe there is no way out of current crisis, there are plenty of options. If only you start to
grasp that our money system is a closed system, together with the real causes of current crisis and
maybe crisis that will follow if governments still fail to grasp what I already understand for long. I am
actually wondering how long it will take still before economists and general public start to understand
that the financial crisis was not caused by the banks or housing but that there where multiple reasons
all connected with growth of our economies and entities within and the growth of money lagging
behind

But, to understand that, governments but also general public should stop talking metaphors without
really truly understanding what they are talking about. People, and governments, need to first get real
true understandings. The sole way for that is by guiding and basing their sensemaking on SANE,
excellent ways of sensemaking and mindmaking. Based on sound pluriflection and phronesis
antenarrating.

494
ON A META-PHYSICAL REDUCTIONIST VERSUS META-SEMEIOTICAL
PLURITIVE SYSTEM
The keys to moving to almost unlimited growth and improvements in our universes

This short discourse will be continuing some of my other arguments about how to move on to a much
better and greater society by means of my notion/invention of holoplurality. This by means of a
phronesis meta-semeiotical system instead of the current mainstream meta-physical system.

In this discourse, I will make the distinction in static and transitive money. This notion mean the
following in this discourse.

Static money: A plurisign being used in our economies to settle debts and for paying for services and
goods. It is important to realize that static money is a CATALYST in our economic system. Meaning
that if static money is paid, it is NOT lost but still in our economic system.

Transitive money : Statical money being used. In fact, static money as such is the object or
representamen70 itself, while transitive money is the object or representamen money being used.

Our current social system and therefore everything in our thoughts and existences is mainly grounded
on , based upon, reductive mainstream physics and meta-physics. To move on to a not only more
excellent, but also just SANE society and occurrences and actualities in our universes, our society and
therefore the people and minds within have to move to my meta-semeiotical pluritive systems.

70
While CS peirce makes the distinction in object and representamen, and actually links this with certain
existences in our universes and this links being fixed, I myself oppose to this way of understanding the two
notions. As, in my understandings based on holoplurality ( a perspective not being used and understood by CS
Peirce in his times) , an object can represent the representamen and in that case the representamen is actually
also an object and the object also a representamen. This is mostly the case in case of physical or digital
representamens. Like for instance bank notes or numbers on our bank accounts.

495
The main problem with the kind and nature of the current meta-physical reductionist systems we are
dealing and working with in our universes and society at current and previous times, is the fact that
this are CLOSED systems. The only way to get out of this closed, inbox, in-the-matrix kind of systems
is to move on to several meta-semeiotical pluritive systems and understandings. At least the money
system HAS to become OPEN and not the closed and restrictive one as in current times.

As, the result of a closed, reductionist meta-physical system is the following fact leading to problems.
Being the fact that a closed system can not grow, and instead the sole growths that are being
experienced or reached are just perceptions of growth.

With closed I mean a linear, reductionist system without being capable to introduce relevant
anothernesses. This relevant anothernesses can only be introduced by means of another perspective
based on meta-semeiotical pluritive system(s). So either our sensemaking has to be based on solely a
pluritive (meta) semeiotic system or on a closed system being supplemented by a pluritive meta-
semeiotical perspective and sensemaking. This leading to the reductionist understandings to be
supplemented with the needed extra’s. By that enchanting our understandings, and then our realities
as such.

The current money system we live in is closed because of the fact that growth of money, at least
growth of static money, can only be reached by lending /borrowing of money from other parties. That
is just the rule of the money game, at least one of them. I try to argument for a while now that this is
indeed just a rule of the money game, but also that we really HAVE to change this rule making it
possible to just create more money if our society really needs it (like in current times) or if it will lead to
growth of possibilities and plurisigns in our universes.

At the moment, the success of our economic system and therefore everything dependent on it (which
is everything to more or lesser degrees, but more if money is lacking) is dependent to large extends on
money. But not just on static and transitive money, but on a combination of the both. And, it is very
important to understand the relationship between these two plurisigns. Just like it is very important, of
course, to understand the nature of all of other relationships between plurisigns in our universes. Like,
for instance, the relationships between workers, customers and producers. Or, for CSR (consumer
social responsibility) the relationships between customers and workers and producers. Also, for ISR
(individual social responsibility), the relationships between individuals in our society are not only of
utmost relevance but also importance. Changes in this relationships, either because of real changes in
plurisigns or just because of changes in attitudes or perceptions, will have a huge influence on our
universes and realities.

For visualizing the relationships between different entities, a entity-relationship-model or entity-

relationship diagram (ERD) like being used in information system modelling is quite useful. As far as
the relationship between static and dynamical/transitive money goes, this can be of course reflected in

496
several ways. An ERD is just one of the possibilities. But, in figure 1 below, I made such an ERD for
this plurisigns and their relationships.

Figure 1: A simple ERD about the relationships between static money , transitive money
and our economy

Amount of Static
money Has positive
influence on
Our economic Has positive
Our economy
system influence on
Transitivity of Has positive
static money influence on

As can be seen, this ERD diagram is quite linear. Also, in the end it is based on reductionist
representia still. To solve this situation, the ERD has to be transformed into something more excellent.
And, simply the most excellent way to reflect is not about the name of course, but about just that. The
ways and nature of the diagram. This requires not only diagrammatic, reductionist signs, but plurisigns
being based on sane sensemaking and phronesis antenarrating. For now, I would label such a
diagram a plurisign relationships representamen (PRR).

This PRR has to be based on sane sensemaking, being open and out of the box. Not based on BME
plots and structures, but on holoplural structures. This also has to be reflected in the ways PRR’s are
being created. Meaning that actually really every kind of diagram is allowed, BUT it has to reflect the
object it is representing in the best possible ways. We will have still the semiphronesis errors and
mistakes as of course plurality can never be expressed in a representamen to the fullest, but still the
types and nature(s) of the diagram has to fit holoplurality in best possible ways.

From a correct understanding of the nature and structure of holoplurality, it logically follows that in a
PRR there is no division in entities and attributes. As simply, this are all plurisigns. A division in entities
and attributes is not needed but also just leads to more inbox perceptions and misunderstandings in
most cases.

The PRR is not only much better than a ERD, but it is also better than mind mapping or concept
mapping for the aims of understandings. As mind maps are mostly based on hierarchies and tree
structures. A concept map is also based on hierarchical, linear structures. The structure and nature of
PRR allows about any kind or type of representamen or representia, but is always based on
holoplurality being the sole underlying structure and nature of all of our universes.

A PRR is not as much about what is based on current understandings, but more about what can be
based on another perspective. The tool or methodology for getting towards a good great PRR is the

497
methodology of phronesis antenarrating. As a guideline for a good great PRR, it can be stated that at
least the following should apply and result from it
1) A PRR should be the result of, and/or lead to, a much better understanding and therefore also
2) A PRR should lead to great possibilities for improvement.
3) A PRR generally should consist of a lot of different plurisigns. Therefore, it has no use to give
standardized symbols and forms to be used or standard notions for a content of a PRR. The PRR is
drawn or made as a result of understanding, and any pre-set factors only limit the possibilities of
greater understandings.
4) Also because of 3), it will mostly both be impossible and counterproductive to (try to) make or create
a PRR through a computer program for visualizing ideas or concepts.

Because of the last point, I would recommend to draw a PRR yourself either on paper or, better, on a
white-board. For the last option, the recent invention of white board paint can be a great tool. Just
paint a whole wall with white board paint, and start creating and re-creating PRR’s with the tool of
phronesis antenarrating.

But, before creating any PRR of whatever, it HAS to become clear that indeed most ERD’s and mind
or concept maps are not only reductionist because of the representamen itself, but also because of the
sensemaking that lead to this kind of representamens.

For moving on to a much better representation, also the sensemaking has to become much more sane
and complete. For that, we HAVE to move on from a meta-physical reductionist system towards a
meta-semeiotical pluritive system. Phronesis antenarrating is part of this much more entelychistic and
great meta-semeiotical pluritive system. It is the tool and guide for changing BME plots and storytelling
into MSP plots and storytelling. Meta-semeiotical pluritive plots and storytelling being the sole sane
base for good great PRR’s .

The fact that we only can create more static money by borrowing of course means that not really more
static money is being created. As in a closed money system, the only way to grow the amount of static
money is to actually not grow, but having the perceptions of growth.

BUT….borrowing and lending money actually DOES at least temporarily increase the amount of static
money that will be used, although the amount of static money stays the same. The increased usage
however will lead to more transitive money also, and that is actually leading to a better improved
economy for at least a certain period of time.

And that is actually the logic behind some of the actions of actors in our society in previous years.
People borrowing a lot of money to solve the problem of TOO LESS static money in the system. By
that not only solving that, but also stimulating the economy a lot as more static money means more
transitive money means a better economy and people profiting by that in numerous ways.

498
In a closed money system, the only way to grow jobs is by reducing the growth of people by cutting on
their wages, at least the static value of their wages.

In a closed money system. The only way to grow education is by reducing on the quality of it by less
teachers per student . This quality can be increased by just the same amount or even lesser teachers
again if the quality of the teachers improves, but only to certain extends. And, in our current
educational system, the limits of our money system combined with current growths of students and
populations just decreases the quality of education and this is a process that can hardly be dealt with.
At least not with a closed mind system and closed, reduced sensemaking.

I do NOT mean to stress or argument here that in a closed (money) system, people can not grow.
What I DO want to argument is the sole great understanding that a closed, reductionist, devil system
DOES reduce the possibilities of people and therefore our society to grow.

There are so many possibilities in our society for growth of people and our realities, and transitive life
is just the main area where we all can and will and are constantly growing. But, the issue is that our
money system stays mostly closed at least the way governments deal with money. On the other hand
a lot of facets of the money system ARE open, but not because of governments but because of the
additional meta-semeiotical way of understanding and acting of some of actors. But still, also there we
have a lot of restricted, reductionist meta-physical understandings that actually restrict not only some
but a lot of people to grow to much higher extends than being possible at current times.

We live in some mixture of closed systems being devil and open systems being lazarus. But most of
the open systems are not really truly meta-semeiotical by nature and therefore still inferior and leading
to less growth than being possible in the ultimate great meta-semeiotical universes of our minds,
nature and societies.

Static versus transitive, reductionist notions. Static reductionist versus pluritive, uniform versus plural,
reductive versus pluritive

And, although I do NOT want to argue that people can not grow in a closed money system like the one
we live in now, I DO want to argue the FACT that in a closed money system at some point in time OF
COURSE we meet some problems that just grow bigger and bigger. Unless we move to some more
open system, this problems will either continue to exist (if the closed money system stays the same) or
postponed (if the closed money system is not changed in nature but altered in contents).

We, ALL of us, simply need some fundaments for ourselves to exist, but also we need some additional
plurisigs which are all different for any one of us. At least in our Western, developed societies a lot of
this fundament are just strongly connected with static money. Therefore, at least a fundament of static

499
money is needed to just being able to survive. Then also for other products to be bought but foremost
for us to get a more enchanted and great life, we need some additional plurisigns. Which can also only
be acquired with money. At current times, the lower incomes more and more have to use their static
money and even sometimes borrowed money to care for the most fundamental plurisigns for
existence. Meaning that of course we can not buy other goods, but as a result of that other people can
not care for even their fundamental existences….WE HAVE A CLOSED MONEY SYSTEM WITH TOO
LESS STATIC MONEY FOR ALL OF US AND THE US IS CONSTANTLY GROWING.

500
ON MONEY, THE GUFF, WEAKEST LINKS AND TAYLOR

© November 2010, WTM Berendsen

I already plea for long that the real solution for the economic crisis is just creating money without
putting any debts against it. Which is, for sure, the solution to solve the current problems. But, it is not
enough. As on the long term, of course more is needed.

Just because of greed in our society at large, we have imbalances and weakest links. Greed not
specifically from the banking sectors, but more from the companies and organizations employing
people. Without the greed or just with less greed, there would be less imbalances and weakest links.
But even then more money would be needed to finance the growth as besides weakest links we have
the opposite to the guff. Meaning that money is limited in supply, at least more limited than what
entities in our society at large need. Our money system just HAS to be opened up. This by not creating
debts when money is being created.

The last couple of years, first customers did borrow money to actually finance and enable the “growth”
of our economies and people within. But, it was not real growth but largely a perceptual one. For short
period of time. In that period it SEEMED that everything was OK but of course it was not. As borrowing
money to finance growth or an economy just to enable to run is of course not healthy and does lead to
problems at certain moments.

Then, when the financial crisis appeared (which was, of course, the result of problems already in the
system for LONG already but appearing more and more) the solutions of governments was to borrow
money just like the citizens had to do. Which is good for having the economies at least running for a
while still. But, of course also this is not the solution and actually a rather unhealthy situation.

One of the reasons that this problems did occur, is because of a false understanding of Taylor,
efficiency. Companies try to be more and more efficient but the profits of the improvement in efficiency
are not forwarded enough to the employees. While this same employees are, of course, the people
who buy entities (products and services) in our society, our economies. Without them having enough
money to do so, we get into a downward spiral as the one we are in at current times. But in the end
this is all about TOO LESS money as if there would be enough it would just also arrive at the workers
in one way or the other.

Money does circulate through our society, but we have more and more entities that need parts of the
money. The same money or a growing amount of it but not growing fast enough has to be shared with

501
more and more people, companies and other entities. So more and more of this entities get less and
less than what they actually would need to survive or prosper.

Another result for the efficiency is that less and less people are actually really needed to produce or
create the same amount of goods and services. Which is good as long as enough money is still in the
system and people DO get their money from at least somewhere. In future, the income just HAS to
origin more and more from governments, and this governments should just surplus the income of
people who can not work when needed. Of course governments have to encourage people who do not
want to work but who can, but at the same time this is only realistic if there is work to do and enough
wage for it. Which is mostly NOT the case in current times.

The economic and financial crisis is a result of imbalances of the internal economy and beyond.
Efficiency of our society has risen and is still improving, but workers are not being paid more if it does.
Also, there are many changes in our society influencing the income of a lot of workers. Flexwork is
becoming standard more and more. But, of course, it matters a lot whether this flex workers can work
fulltime or not. Less and less can not, having a downward influence on our economies at large.

Besides of this issues, the global economy gets more and more linked and our economies and entities
within grow in more holoplural ways instead of / opposed to the linear reductionist money system. For
instance the connections with a country like china but also of course a lot of other countries and
growing dependencies there also lead to a lot of possible problems appearing when business goes
bad worldwide. Also individually speaking we are growing more and more in holoplural instead of
linear ways. So in several ways, our realities are becoming more and more holoplural. More plural but
growing more and more towards and according to holoplurality. This CAN offer a lot of chances and
possibilities, but for that our society and economics have to become logic and complete again.

As at the moment we have the reductionist money system and wrong management by our
governments (according to linear understandings instead of more holoplural ones) as opposed to the
more holoplural and therefore different growth of entities in our society at large. The money and
reductionist understandings being not only a limiting factor, but even a destroying one. Destroying not
only the possibilities but also the lives of A LOT of people in many ways.

With our closed money system it is probably even bad that we are helping the poorer countries with
money from us. This leads to more debts of our countries for financing growth in third world countries.
The general perception is that this growth in the other countries will actually also return back to us. It
will, but only in the long run. In short run, it only increases our debts. And besides that, which is even
worse, it will slow down the growth or even possibilities for our own economies. For sure

502
But also because of the globalizations, the imbalances of lower income countries and linkages with our
countries is increasing the impact of lower incomes on our own wealth. The lower income countries
also need to spend and if they do not, the higher income countries will actually suffer from it. It is in the
end then just all about lower income inhabitants versus higher income inhabitants, the lower income
inhabitants growing and growing.

And while this lower income inhabitants are growing, there is actually less and less work to do for
them. As efficiency is actually growing in increasing rate, but foremost again our money system is
closed and therefore actually also we have less and less to spend. Less and less to spend, less and
less to be produced, even less income for the lower incomes. Downward spirals slowly sucking out the
blood out of our economies and society.

Higher income just save more money than lower incomes. The money is not even only becoming less
and less, but also stays more and more with the higher incomes. Who will not spend money that
quickly but instead will save the money. While lower incomes just spend their money much quicker
mostly. There is a large difference in turnover rates of money. Because of too less money, more
money going to the lower incomes will increase the spending again and get economies going again.
Spending money is of course needed for growth, but still this growth can not be REAL growth without
MORE MONEY being created WITHOUT putting debts against it. We already have TOO MUCH debts.
Both individuals and governments and society at large. This debts where created to keep our
economies running at an artificially high rate. Which can only become real in case governments will
indeed create more money without putting any debts against it. Besides that for the long run it I will
just for sure be needed that people more and more receive money for actually not working at all.
Detachment more and more from income and working of people.

At the moment, money can not be compared with the idea of the guff, simply because money is not
unlimited but just limited. Money IS growing, but in anotherness ways than entities in our society do
and require. OUR MONEY SYSTEM HAS TO BE ALTERED AND ADJUSTED TOWARDS AN OPEN
MONEY SYSTEM IN LINE WITH / MATCHING THE GROWTH OF OUR SOCIETY AND ENTITIES
WITHIN.

503
On changing the rules of the money “ game”

The fact that current economic system is insane in many respects, has been discussed in this
discourse. And the proof of it can be seen in current society because of the effects of the current
financial crisis. This crisis is the consequence of social processes that are going on for much longer
times already. It is the result of insanities of our social sciences and practises. And, the economical
part of this insanities is ont of the biggest problems of current times.

To solve this insanities, it is first of all needed to break out of reductionist and insane understandings
and doings. The key for doing so is phronesis and the contents I gave to this notion by means of the
contents of my understandings and the contents of practicism.

By means of Phronesis antenarrating, my notion which is discussed something more in the book
chapter I wrote about it, really every social situation can be understood. And, where solutions can be
offered, these can be found through the process and methodology of Phronesis antenarrating.

By means of sound Phronesis antenarrating, the current situation but also the broader issues
connected with the current financial crisis can be understood, really truly understood. Not in insane
economical ways, but in sane and excellent ways. This leads to the understanding that the only way to
solve current economical crisis, is to change the rules of the money “ game” .

More specific, what is needed to solve the crisis itself, is to give (really give, not borrow or the like)
money to persons and organizations in our societies. By means of just printing or adding numbers on
bank accounts. Whatever ways, as long as some relevant parties in our societies get some more
money again.

The reasons why I am saying this to be the only solution for the current crisis are several. In it’s
essences, it is about the fact that our economies can be compared with an engine, but with different
characteristics. An engine needs fuel to run. Economies need money to run. But, as opposed to
engines, the fuel of economies is not following a one-way direction then getting spoiled. On the
contrary, money goes into our economies but not really. It just travels from one to another party. The
more this money is travelling inbetween actors, the better our economies will run in general. But, the
fact is that our economies involve more and more products and services, and more people are
involved. This actors all wanting ever more pieces of the total cake being the total amount of money.
This total amount of money is currently rather fixed, meaning that governments are not willing to
broaden the amounts of money too eagerly. Most of all because of their understandings of inflation,
which is actually a misunderstanding. But more about that later. Fact is, that because of this reasons,
the total amount of money has NOT increased during the last couple of years. But, even before the
crisis started, this was highly needed. It did not take place, and therefore people became creative in

504
their ways of still being able to buy the goods they need but also to thereby raising the incomes of
companies and rich people and everyone else who wanted or needed MORE money.
One way of doing so, was by increasing debts. Lower incomes, those incomes where our economies
are largely dependent upon, borrowed more and more money. Because of the fact that they wanted to
buy more, but also because of the fact that the prices actually increased more. Not that much the
prices of goods, but more the prices of mortgages and the prices of housing and the like.

This borrowing of money can take place and will go OK when economies run well and people still have
their jobs. But, also because of improvements in companies, less people where needed. Then also the
financial crisis itself will have helped a lot of people loosing their jobs. Because of interdependencies in
our whole economies, the collapse of one of the parties leads to collapses of other parties and actors.

Because of this, the only solution to solve current problems is to put more money in our economies.
But, that will not solve all. What is needed besides this, is that the rules of the money game are slightly
changed.

At current, this money game is mostly a closed system game. Meaning that money is not that easy
added to the system itself. At current, the only ways of doing so is mostly through borrowing money
from other parties. This major essence of current system has to change really, since our society has a
lot of potentialities to grow but money is severely limiting this growths because of the closed system
(rules of the) money game.

In this traditional closed money system, there is a connection between work and the earning of money.
Which is good in general. But, besides this ways of acquiring money, there should really be another
means of getting money. Being the situations of just getting it, without having to work for it and without
getting debts or whatever for getting this money. This might be a strange idea, but in the end we all
really profit from this addition to the money game. IF it is implemented and executed in the right ways.
Meaning that this should mostly be arranged for lower incomes, but also that the money being given is
given by the government or the IMF or the like and that also government will not get any debt or so
when they give this money to the several parties concerned.

Another, maybe better solution however would be to just give all the inhabitants on this globe enough
money to pay at least 70 percent of a normal house or apartment in their respective country. While at
the same time introducing maximum prices for certain types of housing. Meaning that houses can not
cost more than a certain reasonable high level which is relatively lower than at current times. Or at
least being such that, with the amount that people get from governments, they can still all buy a decent
house . Then everything they earn can be either saved or spend on services and goods and the like.
In that ways people can also decide to work less and then also buy less. And it will not be a problem if
economy will be running a bit less at certain times. But it will probably not, as people have more
money to spend.

505
The more people work, the more they have to spend then. Just like in current situations. But, the
difference is that in the new situation people would not really HAVE to work. And they could decide to
spend more time with their children or hobbys and the like, which is of course not bad. The lack of
people can be circumvented then by introducing more robots and the like on the workfloor. And more
efficient machines than those being used at current times. Especially if organizations would just get
some amounts of money from governments to spend on machines and buildings and the like. This
would again just profit our economies and all of us in major ways.

506
On anotherness banking system

In some other parts of this discourse, I conclude that the current banking system of banks is
counterproductive for the economic systems at large. This conclusion can be quite simply drawn when
understanding the implications and consequences of the fundamental of transitive values on banking
fundamentals and their “thirdnesses” or, in other words, their more evolved consequences and
plurisigns in general.

As it is clear that the banking system itself will never be able to transfer itself into the right and sane
banking institutions, this simply has to be organized outside of the banking system itself. There is
simply no other way round. This is fundamentally the same problem as with our rulers and ruling
institutions at large. Also these HAVE to be changed into more insane and sufficient organizations for
sure. And the only possibility there is also to have this initiated and organized from the outside. A
reorganization of the banking system is quite easy when the anotherness banking system and its
issues and form are clear, but also not. Since, the most difficult part there probably is that it might
require the current ruling institutions and/or people to be replaced. Or not. This is maybe also simply a
matter of choice for the ruling institutions and people. Meaning that either they adjust to the
requirements and concerns of the public at large, or they will be replaced eventually. But, either ways
around, current more or less bureaucratic and wrongly structured ruling institutions just have to be
replaced by more capable and sane people and anotherness structure capable to deal with the
complex and immense changes needed in our societies at large to move on to a better society at
large.

With regards tot the banking system, the only right and sound solution is to have a whole banking
system or at least the money borrowing and savings organized by the government. Borrowing money
to private persons simply has to be supplied for free by the ruling institution(s) themselves. Meaning
that people should be able to borrow money for pre-set periods of time paying no interests at all, the
only thing they should pay back in the end should be the money they borrowed from the ruling
institutions. Then saving money for private persons would have to bring them no interest at all at the
governmental institutions. While they are free to save money with anotherness financial institutions like
banks in case they offer “ better” options meaning with interest. But, individuals doing so should
simply understand that in these cases they indirectly might harm society at large and individuals living
in our universes.

The borrowing of money by commercial organizations should also be ideally organized by the banking
system(s) set up by the ruling institutions. Commercial organizations should pay interest for borrowing
money, but the interest rates should be determined much more according to specific cases and
situations then. Meaning that organizations for instance making more profits and/or polluting the

507
environment more just should pay more interest. Actually, the interest to be paid by commercial
institutions to the ruling institutions for borrowing money then simply can be labelled as taxes.
I did remark in my private settings just some days ago that it should be possible to borrow money at a
zero percent interest rate. It resulted in some remark of me being called an idiot. Actually I think this
might be the case with a lot of the issues and insights I mention in this discourse. Since in the end a lot
of bullshit is profound in our societies that is regarded to be intelligent and just ways of doing things.
While a lot of the real great insights are often judged as great idiocracy or insanities.

But, what I mention here is NOT about insanities or discussing some stupidities. It indeed is about real
true understandings and intelligence. IF the banking system is changed like proposed here, it will
largely improve the condition of our economics at large. And much more. And in anotherness parts of
this discourse, I will further discuss and explain how economies, and more important capital as being a
meta notion of value, can grow much better and the right ways to deal with money. The notion of
transitive values, and more important a true understanding of this, being the core fundament. The
tools for capital are ok, but the ways they are used in practise in current times is very
counterproductive for economics and society as a whole.

508
On creativeness and money

Our current understandings of money are largely based on accritically indubitable beliefs that are
insane to large extends. To get out of this insane systems, it should at first be clear what is wrong with
the system and how to proceed. Then, some levels of creativeness are needed. Creativeness to find
and offer anotherness ways of doing and acting with regards to the tool of money.

Actually, creativeness is often a sign of getting out of the so-called inbox kinds of thinking. Like
expressed before in this discourse, life is just a game. First rule of the game being that it is not a
game. This phrases can among anothernesses be understood as expressing the fact that, when real
true understandings increase, the playing with tools largely increases. This is not some kind of playing
not being thought about, but a very responsible and often great type of playing.

I myself kind of dare to “play” with my falcons and other falconry birds a lot in many respects actually.
One of the examples being my first falcon I ever had. This tiercel, male falcon, was very comfortable
with me. And the bond between the two of us was special, to say the least. But well. This tiercel was at
one day really full in weight. Not having any hunger at all. And, I knew this. Now, normally the most
important incentive for a falconry bird to return to the falconer is food. Although there are other
reasons of course, but some of them just need to grow in the special relationships between falconer
and falconry bird. But in this case, I was not certain about that. But I could judge on the falcons
reactions at home and the general bond between each other. Based on that, I decided to go out with
my falcon to some place to set him free for a while. Just like I did as much as possible with him. So,
we went to this place. I unhooded the falcon there, with some other people also there. They told me I
would for sure loose him if I would set him free now, knowing he was full in weight not hungry at all.
Then I just let him start from the fist, rising in the sky. After some quarter of an hour, I called him back
on the fist with some meat there, as usual. After having called him, he returned instantly. Without any
hesitation. Then looking at the meat like “what should I do with that”. I secured the jesses on the swivel
and then secured the leash (falconry setup) to the falconers glove. He did not eat anything, but was
just glad to be with me again. Seems like he might have felt the trust I had in our relationship.

Another kind of playing is not weighting a sparrowhawk for some months or so in wintertime, while
knowing that the margins in weight of a spar are really very narrow. And some very small weight
reduction towards the lower spectrum can result in zero chance to rescue the sparrowhawk as such. It
is normally strongly adviced and recommended to weight a sparrowhawk at least once if not twice a
day. In wintertime. But still, I dare to skip this. Based on my understandings of weight management,
but also based on relying on my eyes (seeing the sparrowhawk and his conditions often during these
times) and the fact that the spars are full weight then as opposed to hunting weights (making the
weight management much more critical!).

509
But well, enough of examples. Fact is that what I want to communicate here, is the fact that we also
need to play more with money. But, for doing so in responsible ways (like me with my birds of prey) ,
we have to understand much more about what money really is. And also what can be done with it and
in best ways. This also requires a thorough understanding of the insane accritically indubitable beliefs
we have on money.

One of this accritically indubitable beliefs is that we have lost the money completely when we spend it
on some goods or services. Another accricitally indubitable belief, partly resulting from the first one
mentioned here just before, is that it is good to save money. Another accritically indubitable belief is
that companies need to pay their employees as low a wage as possible and that this is actually good
for the company.

Part of my “playing” with money at the moment is that I try to spend as much as possible of this money
thing. As soon as I have money I just try to spend it again. And I understand that if much more people
would just do the same, our economies would flourish like never before. Besides that, I realise that me
spending money leads to a accumulation of values growing. Me having some increase in dynamical
values of the stuff I buy and use. The persons receiving my money to be able to increase their
dynamical values. And then also the other people receiving the money from them to increase their
dynamical values. And so on and on and on and on, unless somebody is so stupid and insane to put
some parts of this money at some bank. Yes, unfortunately our systems are set up in ways that
sometimes this savings of money are needed. But actually, it should not be that ways. Or at least all
the money saved should be borrowed to other people or organizations who should then use it as soon
as possible.

Like I said in other parts of this discourse, money increases in dynamical value each time it is used.
The one 10 euro’s are not the other 10 euro’s in value. Since the dynamical value of the one 10 euro
might be far less than the dynamical values of the second 10 euro’s. Every time the money is spend or
used in one or anotherness ways, the value increases. Except when it is put on the bank. Therefore, it
is not always logical and productive that persons and organizations get extra interest for saving
money. With the proper understandings of money and the influences of it on our societies and life of
human animals, it should in many cases NOT be encouraged to save money. Actually, it should be
strongly discouraged to save money. For instance by giving NO interests at all for saving money. Then
for borrowing money just the same. A bank can be organized that ways for sure, but the problem is
that this institution just operates without really true understandings about the most critical and valuable
fundamental rules of our societies and universes.

510
In the end, there is quite some valuable wisdom in the books from Bob alias Robert Pirsig. His notions
of statical and dynamical quality is great in some senses. But, Bob is and was relatively wrong. Simply
because he lacked some real true understandings. The most critical ones probably being that he
lacked understandings about the sole true structure of our universes. Besides this, he lacked the
utmost and greatest understandings of all. Being that quality and arête are not the most fundamental
and important guides for making our societies and universes more sane and great. Quality and arête
are important, yes. But there is something MORE fundamental and something more essential than this
quality and arête. Being the notion of transitive value(s). Quality and arête are both products, the
results, of true and pure and great transitive values. But a lot more should be actually. Once you
understand the HUGE importance of this single notion of transitive values, you see and understand
what is missing and what should be changed in our societies as a whole. Which is a lot. Really every
semiphronesis en semisophy errors and insanities are ultimately grounded in some wrong or lacking
understandings of this notion of transitive values and the impact this notion SHOULD have on our
society and our universes at large. It is the most fundamental and most important notion for
immediateness and dynamics, or in other words, the most fundamental and important notion for signs
growing, for life and processes in our universes.

Anyone wanting to be creative or just executing whatever acts in our universes in sane ways, without
harming other people or interests, has to understand this fundamental notion of transitive values and
the impact of it on our society and universes at large. The problems of science, some great part of
semisophy errors and insanities, are all the result of misunderstanding or simply not understanding
this critical phenomenon of transitive values.

About anything in our society and universes, at least the social aspects of our societies and
universes, have to be grounded on a sound understanding of this notion of transitive values.
Economics has to be rebuild on this fundament. Psychology and sociology have to be. Just
like all social sciences should be. Philosophy has to be rebuild on it, or even better philosophy
to be replaced by at least sound pluriflection and phronesis (antenarrating). Justice has to be
rebuild on it.

It is also very important to realize, that people are also very creative. To work with insane situations.
Like the insanities in our economical systems as such. At present times, a lot of people are simply
borrowing money to pay for the products they want to buy. While actually this is caused by the insanity
of wages just being (far) too low. And a wrong ways of dealing with money, mostly created because of
a confusion of the importance’s and nature of static money as opposed to transitive values of money.

511
At current times, the availability of products and also the quality and quantity of products available is
rapidly increasing. To be able to buy this kind of products, and by that to enable producers to pay
higher wages and keep persons working, we need a lot more money to be spend. This requires a
higher emphasis to transitive values as opposed to statical values. But, it foremost also requires an
increase in the income levels. Foremost the income levels of the lower incomes. By means of
increasing these incomes (by supplementing wages by governments in one or anotherness ways), we
will for sure have the economy growing and growing to great levels. IF it is coupled with a high level of
understanding and wisdom on not only economy, but our universes at large. And foremost, again, the
role and nature of transitive values in these.

As I say in other writings from me dealing with money and economies, the real great solution is an
innovation of our money system. In short, this should be about just using numbers as money but in an
open money system. Meaning that just numbers should be typed or changed in a computer system
(bank system) and then being used as money. Apart from this, there has to be a detachment of
income and wage, meaning that people not having a wage should get money but really ENOUGH of
money to spend. In the new innovated system this would mean giving people numbers they can use
as being money. But besides this, also municipalities and provinces and the like should be allowed to
just create numbers and use them as money.

More about this can be read on my website www.philophronesis.com which is also

www.phronesisantenarrating.com. But also I uploaded and will keep uploading my ongoing writings on
economics, money and social sciences and practises on my page at www.academia.edu. Then also
you can find me on facebook and LinkedIn. Last but not least, I will try to upload my writings on a
regular basis towards www.scribd.com/wberendsen.

512
On time and structures

Preceding this phronesis antenarrative, i started writing some other text. This text was however
completely lost because of a computer crash. Which is in the end not too bad, since I had to start my
writing all over again. And this eventually resulted in this great discourse. By now, I am very satisfied
with the results, as it reflects the understandings I had in my mind and wanted to express on paper in
right ways. But besides that, it includes a lot of understandings I explored and grasped during writing
this discourse

One of the things I wanted to express already in the other text, was the sole true structure of our
universes. At that times, I actually already understood. But, at that times, I did not understand it to the
fullest. Which is why I thought it would be good to find some way to express it visually in my discourse.
By now, understanding much more essential features of this sole true structure of our universes, I
understand that this sole true structure can not be expressed in any visual way. It even can not be in
words, although I need to do so. Because of lacking a more suitable way of expressing this.

Anyways, some years back, I wanted to take he symbol for jing and jang as starting point. Then
making this more dimensional. And adding even more dimensions. That is where I got stuck. As of
course, paper and also digital software programs are not capable to entail endless dimensions and
pluralities. Just like words and even phronesis representia cannot do. Also, by now I know it has no
use. Since explicit realities are way different from the sole true structure. The last one has to be
understood and grasped to the fullest, as without this a substantial part of our realities most probably
will not only become insane but even stay as (relatively) insane as they are have been and are till this
moment in time. Since, like I said, what is needed there are sane phronesis representia and a sane
application and use of them.

Insane semisophy and semiphronesis errors are, like I stated in other parts of my discourse, most
probably really always related to insane representamens. I might be wrong there, but I strongly got
the feelings I am not. The sole reason why I am not determined in stating they are always related to
insane representamens, is because of anothernesses that might be relevant also (something not that
weird given the huge pluralities of our universes and the limits of our senses). Not because I would be
biased in whatever ways because of my emphasis on this kind of semisophy and semiphronesis
errors. Since I am not and never have been. But, saying that they are most probably always related to
insane representamens, does not mean that ONLY insane representamens cause insanities. Or that
semiphronesis insanities always originate out of insane representamens. In fact, of course even
phronesis representia can lead to semiphronesis insanities. But, also in this cases, indirectly the
semiphronesis insanities are related to insane representamens. And indirectly, insane representamens
will be the real and ultimate cause of the semiphronesis insanities. Insane representamens, and
because of these, insane social practises.

513
Understanding this is (getting towards) understanding some fundamental consequences from the
nature of the sole true structure of our universes and the limiting and also damaging role of semeiotics
and misunderstandings of this structure to our universes. Mainly our society as a whole. And actually I
fear most of individual minds are not ready to cope with this in really near future. But more and more
will, and some should be able to do so the next decades. And also, I might be wrong of course.

Besides expressing the nature and structure of the sole true structure of our universes, I also wanted
to express the true structure of time. As I for long already understand that time is not reflected in
proper ways currently. Or, to say it differently, the way time is understood in general but also by the
most intelligent and great intellectuals from the past and current, is incorrect. For sure. This is, again,
something resulting from the sole true structure of the universe. In this case specifically the main
characterizing features of it, being the aspects of interconnetedness and plurality.

Some while back, I got to the insight that time as we know it now is actually not what time IS, but
nothing more or less than a convention. A very reductionist and limiting convention of what transitivity
( a broader notion of time) involves. This is both the case for what I would call statical time, and also
for dynamical time.

What I call statical time, is actually not statical time but dynamical. I only call it statical because of the
perception of statical points in time (or at least more or less statical points in time) created by means of
this notion of time. I am referring to the notion of time as regulating our activities. Maintained by means
of clocks, but also by means of phenomena like new year and summer winter time and the like. Our
system of time, grounded on conventional perceptions as a whole.

That this time is mere perception and convention, can best be understood if my proposal is
implemented in society as a whole. Being that we would all remove the clocks from our homes, and
instead start using machines for arranging our activities. Meaning that we would just put machines, not
big but small ones, making moves with constant “time” in between, and some counter or so on it. Then
calling that “time”. Or whatever. But actually that is what we are doing all the time for quite a while
now. The clock being a special type of machine. Not because it is, but mostly because of our
perceptions of it being so based on conventions being made.

514
All of social structures are, like the time structure, mere conventions. Rules of the game, that can be
changed should circumstances (like the financial crisis of 2008) require to do so. But, for changing the
rules of the game, some sane great understandings are needed of course. And that is where sane
sensemaking, the sole needed guide for understandings, is important. The most wise and capable
persons should develop great phronesis antenarratives and storytell them into our societies, not being
based on the linear reductionist accritically indubitable beliefs of the mainstream but based on real true
understandings. Our money system is perceived to be closed and only subject to current rules, but
actually it should become clear that most of current rules and understandings are just (potentially)
insane.

Time does NOT exist! And it does. But it should be clear that time is a human perception. It is a
convention and only existing because we as human being made that convention. But there are several
notions and therefore types of time, being really different from each other. In ancient Greece there was
the division in chronos and kairos. Beng something like linear and non-linear time. While linearity itself
is actually a really different example of perception being even more a perception than the perception of
time. As chronos itself, the perception of time, is perception or convention but stating that one of the
aspects of chronos is linearity is just really perception as the REAL characteristic of even chronos is
not linearity as of course there is much more about this chronos aspect or type of time.

And, it is actually difficult to communicate what I mean to say with time not existing and existing. But,
also not. In the end it exists yes, but because of the conventions we make. But also this conventions
sometimes need to change if contexts do. Chronos time can just stay the same as the important
characteristics of society related to time did not drastically change. But, the more like statical or linear
type of MONEY really HAS to change….as the surroundings and type of society there HAS changed a
lot. Maybe this kind of money itself does not have to change that much, but the way it is used and
position in our society has to change even more.

For that, I made the innovation for our money system that is needed for our future society. In short it is
about creating numbers then giving the numbers to people and other entities in our society where
needed. This goes together with detachment of income of people and wages. Even a detachment of
turnover of companies and wages they give to people or even no wages (the rest being given to them
in numbers by governments) belong to the same open number (money) system. More about this can
be found in other writings I wrote and will write about money and the money system.

515
To conclude this book, not as end or beginning but just some
intermediate phase of thoughts and being:

This book is, by far, NOT my message. It is just some very imperfect way of
bringing the message abroad. And a small part of it.

BUT…DO something with it. Bring it into existence. Or just a “bit” further.
AFTER making some abductive differences. Maybe by returning to the first part
of this book, the essential Peirce. And reading more in his other texts like the
collected papers. Trying to really understand him. And read even more from
other people into (the linguistic turns in) philosophy and academics. And by
that, understanding people like Foucault, Derrida, Popper, Nietzsche and the
like. Then putting this insights into practise, existence. Maybe also moving
towards some greater, fundamental laws for socioeconomic orders.

Also VERY important are the several discourses written by myself, some of
them being mentioned in the references of this discourse. The other papers
and discourses I wrote are mostly supplementary to this discourse in one or
anotherness ways. In the end, all of my discourses and most of my actions are
aimed at enchanting and re-enchanting our universes. By means of the great,
excellent notions and ways of sound pluriflection and phronesis antenarrating.
Based on the only right and great meta-semeiotical perspective of
holoplurality.

Most important fundamental tip I can give you, is to be creative in finding

anothernesses. They are everywhere out there, waiting for us to be SEEN and
used.

516
 Signs of Excellence

Let me be an otherness
Trust me, accept me, have faith in me
Let me be an otherness
Do not cut my head of for being so
And do not give me the poison bowl
Or let me end as Pim Fortuyn
Since it is anotherness an otherness
Than the usual anothernesses
Give me the chance to be quali an otherness
To have modest signs growing
Into signs of excellence
Trust me, help me, have faith in me
Since society desperately needs anotherness ways
Entelychistic phronesis ways
My ways of anothernesses
Let me be quali an otherness
But most of all anotherness quali a notherness.
So that I can arrange the anothernesses betweenness the signs
To have modest signs growing
Into signs of excellence
Let me shine
To improve the universes
And fly. Fly towards grace.

517
REFERENCES

Abizadeh, A (2002 ) , The Passions of the Wise: Phronêsis, Rhetoric and Aristotle’s Passionate
Practical Deliberation, The Review of Metaphysics 56.2:267-296

Abrahamson, E. (2004). Change without pain: How managers can overcome initiative
overload,organized chaos, and employee burnout. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Aristotle (2010), Rhetoric, Readaclassic.com

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). Dialogic Imagination - Four Essays. Austin: University of Texas

Press.

Baranski, L.J. (1960), Scientific Basis For World Civilization: Unitary Field Theory, The
christopher publishing house.

Bateson, G. (1979 ) , Mind and nature, Bantam Books

Bateson, G. (2000). Steps to an ecology of mind, University of Chicago

Press, Chicago.

Boje, D.M. (2008), Storytelling organizations.

Boje, D. M. (2001a). Narrative methods for organizational and communication research.

London: Sage.

Boje, D. M. (2001c, September). Flight of antenarrative in phenomenal complexity theory,

Tamara, storytelling organization theory. Paper presented at the Conference on Complexity
and Consciousness at Huize Molenaar, Utrecht, Netherlands.

Boje, D.M. (2010, forthcoming). Storytelling and antenarrative in organizations. Routledge,

Taylor and Francis Group.

Berendsen, W.T.M (forthcoming). A phronesis antenarrative. Towards new ecosocial systems

through the logic of vagueness”. A draft of this forthcoming publication is to be downloaded
here http://wilvon.com/download_center/index.php?phronesis_complex1.pdf

Berendsen, W.T.M (2009)., Antenarrating our economy, to be downloaded here

http://wilvon.com/download_center/index.php?Antenarrating_economy1.pdf

Berendsen, W.T.M (2009), Holoplurality, to be downloaded here

http://wilvon.com/download_center/index.php?Holoplurality1.pdf

518
Berendsen, W.T.M (2010), A phronesis antenarrative about the understanding of money and
usage of money in more phronetic ways, to be downloaded here
http://wilvon.com/download_center/index.php?TheMoneyGame1.pdf

Boscovich, R.J. (2010), A theory of natural philosophy, Nabu Press

Cornelis, A, (1988), Logica van het gevoel: stabiliteitslagen in de cultuur als nesteling der
emoties, Essence.

Czarniawska, B. (1997). Narrating the Organization - Dramas of Institutional Identity.

Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Deleuze & Guattari (1987), A thousand plateaus, Continuum, London/New York.

Derrida, J. (2001), Writing and Difference, Routledge, 2 edition

Eco. U.(1976), A theory of Semiotics, Indiana University Press

Feyerabend, P. ( 2010) , Against method, Verso, Fourth Edition

Feyerabend, P. (1980 ) , Erkenntnis fuer freie menschen, Suhrkamp; Verand. Ausg. Edition

Flyvbjerg, B (2001), Making social science matter, Cambridge University Press, 1st Edition

Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and Punish - The Birth of the Prison. Harmondsworth:
Penguin

Foucault, M. (1995). The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Routledge.

Foucault, M ( 2001 ) , Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences, Routledge, 2

edition

Fryre, P. (2000 ) , Pedagogy of the oppressed, Continuum; 30 Anv Sub edition

Honneth, A (2005), Verdinglichung, Suhrkamp Verlag KG

Korzybski, A. (1995 ) , Science and sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and

General Semantics, Institute of General Semantics; 5 Sub edition

Korzybski, A. (2009 ) Manhood of Humanity; The Science and Art of Human Engineering,
General Books LLC

Lukes, S. (1997 ) , Power: A radical view, Palgrave Macmillan; 1st edition

519
Maturana, H.R and Varela, F.J (1991), Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the
Living (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science), Springer; 1 edition

McCloskey, D.N (1992), If You're So Smart: The Narrative of Economic Expertise,

University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

McCloskey, Deirdre N., The Bourgeois Virtues: Ethics for an Age of Commerce ,University
of Chicago Press, Chicago

Merrel, F. ( 1996) , Signs grow : Semiosis and Life Processes (Toronto Studies in Semiotics
and Communication), University of Toronto Press; First Edition

Michelstaedter, C (2007), Persuasion and Rhetoric, University of Kwazulu Natal Press

Morson, G. S. (1994). Narrative and Freedom - The Shadows of Time. New Haven and
London: Yale University Press.

Nietzsche (1886), Beyond good and evil

Nietzsche (1887), On the genealogy of morals

Nietzsche, F. (1994). On the Genealogy of Morality. Cambridge Texts in the History of

Political Thought. K. Ansell-Pearson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nozick, R. (1990), The Examined life: Philosophical Meditations, Simon & Schuster

Peirce, CS (1992 ) The essential Peirce volume 1, Indiana University Press

Peirce, CS ( 1998) The essential Peirce volume 2, Indiana University Press

Pirsig, R. (2008 ) , Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance: An inquiry into values, Harper
Perennial Modern Classics

Popper, K.R. ( ) The open society and its enemies: The Spell of Plato (Routledge Classics)
(volume 1) , Routledge; 7th edition edition

Popper, K.R. (2006), The open society and its enemies (Routledge Classics) (volume 2),
Routledge; 7th edition edition

Putnam (2000), Bowling alone, the collapse and revival of American Community, New York:
Simon & Schuster.

Rescher, N. (2003 ) , Nature and Understanding: The Metaphysics and Methods of Science,
Oxford University Press, USA

Simmler,Georg (2004), The philosophy of money, Routledge; 3 edition (May 21, 2004)

Tarkovsky, A (1979 ) , Stalker, Kino Video

520
Weick, K (1979) , The Social Psychology of Organizing (Topics in Social Psychology),
Addison-Wesley Pub (T); 2 edition

Wittgenstein, L. (1973), Philosophical Investigations: The English Text of the Third Edition,
translated by G.E.M. Anscombe, Macmillan Publishing: New York.

Zizek, S. (2002) , Welcome to the desert of the real : Five essays on September 11 and related
dates, Verso.

521
INDEX

A antinarratives · 414
a hawk for the bush · 103 anything goes · 477
a lot of negative consequences · 405 Aporia · 41, 74, 137, 190
a real chain · 177 apprentice-mentor system · 395
a theory of natural philosophy · 311 apprentices · 299
a theory of semiotics · 24 approaching reality · 340
a-ha erlaubniss · 227 architecture · 170
abduction · 71, 86 arête · 136, 189, 236
Abduction · 40 arête plurisigns · 436
Abraham Lincoln · 218 arête. · 436
absence of determination · 87 argument · 67
abusing of signs · 379 Argument · 41
academical social responsibility · 273 Argyris · 118, 344
academically schooled · 114 Argyris effect · 118
accipiter gentiles · 23 aristotelean ways of understanding · 172
accipiter nisus · 23 Aristotle · 17, 74, 211, 245, 300, 305
Accitically indubitable insanities · 40 arithmetical progression · 318
accritically indubitable beliefs · 488, 509 Arnold Cornelis · 404
accritically indubitable beliefs and contents · 154 Art is everywhere · 423
Accusators · 40 art of dancing together ideas and possibilities · 452
acritically indubitable beliefs · 56, 387, 478 artefacts for the illusion of superiority · 340
Acritically indubitable beliefs · 40, 56 article on synechism · 324
Acritically indubitable judgements · 40 artificially high rate · 503
acritically indubitable live up to certain beliefs · 301 artists · 423
acrytically indubitable craziness’s · 394 arts of falconry · 90
act of sane sensemaking · 294 arts of management · 405
aesthetics and completeness · 367 arts of thinking · 88
against justice · 292 AS being anotherness signs · 211
Alan Rayner · 168 Assemblages of plurisigns · 299
Alfred Korzybski · 80, 319 assumption · 199
Aliveness · 254 autopoeiesis · 268
Aliveness is a mode of sanity · 130 autopoeiesis activities · 269
allegory of the cave · 436 Autopoiesis · 41
American Kestrel (falco sparverius) · 23 autopoiesis and cognition · 268
Amongnesses · 40 Axel Honeth · 350
amphibian people · 359 Axel Honneth · 132
An Essay Concerning Human Understanding · 275 Axel Honneth’s · 270
ancient Greece · 357 B
ancient language · 338 Bakhtin · 239
Andrea Bocelli · 181 Bakhtins of life · 426
Andreas Kinneging · 404 bakthin’s of signs · 113
animal minds · 291 balance · 443
animate and an inanimate object · 155 bank of Cartwright Millingville · 358
another way of organizing · 298 banking institutions · 507
Anotherness · 106 banking system · 507
anotherness inbetweennesses · 271 Barbara Cziarniawska · 414
anotherness plurisigns · 140 Baruch de Spinoza · 424
anotherness signs · 224 Bateson · 354
anotherness ways of living and doing · 402 be courageous · 457
anothernesses · 20, 86, 88, 109 beautiful mind · 476
Anothernesses · 87 become one · 415
anothernesses betweenness the signs · 110 becoming one phenomenon · 365
anothernesses of life · 20 becomming one · 365
antenarrating · 127, 297 being bluer than blue · 468
antenarrative · 13 being critical · 483
Antenarrative · 41 being evil · 292
Antenarrative bits · 477 being sane in insane places · 467
antenarrative discourse · 406 belonged to the state · 388
antenarrative for new eco-social orders · 403 Bent Flyvbjerg · 300
antenarratives · 262 Bergson’s Durree · 132
antenarratology · 129 Bertrand Russel · 491
antigone of Sophocles · 370 betweenness · 86, 106
antigone story · 370 Betweennesses · 41

522
beyond existences · 427
beyond good and evil · 17, 131, 283, 292, 360, 451
Beyond good and evil · 363
beyond Pentad to Hexad · 366
Beyond semiotics · 239
beyond structures · 363
Beyond the illogics (of) logic · 174
beyond whatever · 106
beyondness of everything · 445
beyondness of good and evil · 170
beyondness of thinking · 452
beyondnesses of plurisigns · 170
Binary thinking · 86
blocking in our thinking · 404
blueness betweennes the grains · 101
blueness betweenness the granule · 99, 109, 418
bluenesses betweenness the grains · 280
bluenesses betweenness the granule · 106, 110
bluenesses betweenness the plurisigns · 468
blueprint · 15
BME plots · 132, 498
boat that floats on a sea of inventory · 418
body of understanding for everything · 236
body without organs · 320
borders · 90, 94
borders of discourses · 93
borders of universes · 479
borrowing money to finance growth · 501
Boscovichean idea of atoms · 325
bourgouis virtues · 432
bowl alone · 329
bowl in leagues · 328
bowling alone · 294, 328, 329
Bowling alone · 298
bowling alone effects · 221
bowling alone sickness · 329
bowling together · 326
break out of linear structures · 392
brick · 95
bricolage · 95, 188
Bricolage · 41
Brief Thoughts on Maps’ · 441
broaden their powers · 459
broadening and growth of plurisigns · 296
building blocks · 162, 341, 390
building blocks of signs · 133
bullshit and insanities all way down · 275
bureaucracies · 414
bureaucracy · 167, 412
bureaucratic organizations · 167
bureaucratic plague · 305, 306, 412, 454
bureaucratic plague phenomenon · 412
butterfly effects · 248
by sane sensemaking · 171
C common sense · 60
cancel this thing called Money · 400
capabilities of the persons · 442
capable person · 296
capital · 30
capital is not improving · 391
capitalism · 30
capitalist societies · 417
capitalist systems · 341
catalyst · 193, 442
CATALYST · 495
catalyst and the product of growth · 449
catalyst for growth · 19, 399, 400, 480
cenoscopic · 246
cenoscopy · 105
Cenoscopy · 41
cenoscrazy · 44
centrally and elementary processor · 415
chain of actions · 200
change management · 203, 307
change masters · 356, 393
change the economic system · 321
change without pain · 218, 339
changes in attitudes · 302
Changes in the Czech Republic after the Velvet
Revolution · 357
changes of context · 340
changes of organizational environments · 340
character of the definition · 302
characteristic · 298
characteristics · 86
characteristics of sensemaking · 295
Charles Sander Peirce · 294
Charles Sanders · 20
Charles Sanders Peirce · 20, 110, 115
Charles Sanders Peirce’s laws · 460
Chinese proverb · 300
Chinese saying · 468
choice processes · 414, 415
choice processes of our minds · 414
chronos and kairos · 515
Cicero · 431
citizen sense of duties · 458
civil servant · 407
closed money system · 410, 498, 499, 502
cocktails · 447
cognitive intervention · 460
collaborative actions · 36
collaborative efforts · 267
collateral experience · 59
collateral experience and tacit knowledge · 389
collateral experiences · 191, 395
Collected Peirce 5\ ·
506 · 85
collective mind · 93, 185, 228
collective mind processes · 415
collective mind(s) · 415
collective minds · 127, 215, 396
collopoeiesis · 268
Collopoeiesis · 41
collopoeiesis activities · 269
collopoeiesis efforts · 486
combination of building blocks · 339
combination of plurisigns · 173, 328
commodification · 178
Commodification · 42
commodified · 338
common sensism · 40
communicate with objects · 101
communicating with a what · 101
communication errors · 421
communication theories · 381
communicative selfcorrecting system · 404
compare apples with apples · 169
compete to death · 402
competent change masters · 490
competitive disadvantages · 403
complete citizen · 388
complete the circles of life · 456
523
completeness and logic · 137 D
completeness of societies · 388 daily conversations · 315
complex social matters · 467 dance them together · 366
concentrating on possibilities · 310 danced together · 366
concept mapping · 497 dances · 296
concept of money · 320 dancing and walking · 366
concept of practicism · 205 dancing partners · 269
conditionally · 258 dancing together · 269, 294, 296
conditioned fixation on uniformities · 315 Dancing together · 367
conditioned in our minds and cultures · 289 dancing together in actualities · 297
conditionized tacit capabilities · 182, 183 Dancing together individuals · 366
configuration of qualisigns · 99 dangers of life · 360
confusing between the nature of values · 447 David Bohm · 168
confusion of representamens with objects · 315 David Bohm’s · 485
consideration of choices · 414 David Boje · 129, 224, 414, 452, 477
constructionistic · 35 David Green · 302
constructive · 87 daydreaming · 87, 125
contents and forms · 348 DDI (distorted dynamical interpretant)- effect. · 135
contents of definitions · 300 DDI-effect · 135
contents of this representamens · 260 decisive chains · 177
contentsigns · 349 decisive holoplural plurisigns · 177
context · 260 decisive role · 200
context dependent values · 438 deconstructing and reconstructing · 57
context-dependent understandings · 172 deconstruction · 486
context-independent understandings · 172 deconstructive · 376
contexts · 87 Deduction · 142
contextual backgrounds · 172 deduction, induction and hypothesis · 71
contextual essences · 305 define things as real · 307
contextual features · 382 define, interpretate, negotiate · 285
continuous improvement · 454 defining without interpretations · 112
continuous improvements · 418 definition and function of a university · 427
continuous interpretant chain (CIC) · 135 Definition and function of a University · 426
Continuous interpretant chain (CIC) · 42 definition of contents · 300
continuous processes · 296 definitional centrality · 260, 261
conventions we made on money · 478 definitions matter · 300
Coordinated actions · 345 Deirdre Mc Closkey · 475
core bottleneck · 176 Deirdre N. N.McCloskey · 431
corporate social responsibility · 270, 458 democracy · 455
costs of transitivity · 170 democracy and education · 426
counterproductive theories and beliefs · 36 democratic aspects of our country · 455
courageous · 223, 434 demonstrated abilities, talent and/or capabilities · 454
cradle to cradle · 479 der weg ist das ziel · 399, 419
cradle-to-cradle · 212 Derrida · 282
create capital · 30 design our society · 492
creating money without putting any debts against it · 501 destroy capitalism if things go bad and destroys capital
creation of money · 410 less if things go well · 30
creative capabilities · 185 detachment of income and wage · 512
creative recombination · 218 detachment of turnover of companies and wages · 515
creativity · 424 determination · 87
Criminal Cases Review Commission · 462 devaluation of money · 481
criminal justice · 355 devil antenarratives · 323
critical adaptions · 326 Diachronic · 248
critical bottleneck · 176 diachronic thinking · 340
critical management studies · 234, 282 diagrammatic · 58, 298
critical minds · 201 diagrammatic thinking · 87, 246, 322
Critical scientists · 283 diagrammatic(al) thoughts · 137
critique on the law system · 462 diagrammatical · 88
cross the borders of the matrix · 360 diagrammatically · 111
CS Peirce · 420 dialogic · 55
CSR plans · 273 dialogic thoughts · 56
Cultural capital · 409 Dicent sign · 67
cultural values · 477 dichotomies · 172
current crisis · 494 dichotomy of general versus specific · 359
current law systems · 457 Dicisign · 42
current system of money · 394 difference from Derrida · 309
customer money to spend · 406 difference perspective · 318
Czech Republic · 356, 391 differences in perspectives · 92

524
differences in sensation · 201 economic thinking · 338
differences in values · 438 economical and social orders · 402
differences of life · 401 economical processes · 405, 478
different characteristics · 504 economics · 88
different laws of progress · 318 Economics · 485
different modes of a social reality · 458 economists · 315
different perspective · 318 economy is us · 396
different voice · 468 econoom-ie · 417
digital existences · 338 ecosocial orders · 205
digital pierce site · 324 ecosocial orders of things · 390
Dilbert’s cubicles · 340 ecosocial system · 341
diplomatic immunity · 463 ecosocial systems · 410
Direct causations · 335 educate change masters · 430
direct democracy · 455 educational system · 419
dissasemblages of plurisigns · 267 een kwestie van verschil · 116, 342
dissasembled and assembled in anotherness ways · 299 efficiency · 501
Distorted Dynamical Interpretant (DDI) · 42 ego of egoism · 397
diversity and plurality · 432 egocentric · 222
documented reports · 470 egoistic · 222
domino · 407 Egyptian educational system · 428
Double bind phenomenon · 352 Eidos · 43, 187
double bind situation · 353 Eihei Dogen · 362
downward spiral · 501 Einstein · 91
Downward spirals · 503 elephants and turtles all way down · 275
dream world · 20 emotional qualities · 66
dualism · 172 emotionally · 298
dualistic ways of thinking · 438 empirical existence experiences · 476
duality/plurality · 199 empirical experiences · 191, 228
Duck-rabbit · 42 empirical insights and wisdoms · 491
Duck-Rabbit · 149 empirical learning processes · 191
duck/rabbit · 22 empirical practise · 389
duckrabbit · 24 empirical researcher · 367
Duckrabbit · 42 empiricist experiences · 328
duckrabbit and korzybski phenomenons · 351 empiricist learning · 429
Duns Scotum Ockham · 208 empirics of life · 401
Duree · 43 empirism is the input and rationalism is about throughput
duree of Bergson · 117 · 476
dyadic division · 215 empiristic experiences · 395, 398
dynamic quality · 333 empiristic kind of experiences · 199
dynamic quality and transitive values · 333 empiristic sensations · 207
dynamical entelechy · 193 enchant · 205
dynamical interpretant · 84, 135 enchanted society · 129
dynamical interpretants · 135 enchantment · 16, 127, 248, 272, 320
dynamical object · 83, 84 enchantment being about a most optimal fit of plurisigns ·
dynamical object money · 180 487
dynamical objects · 116 Enchantment is about a most optimal fit of plurisigns ·
dynamical processes and objects · 351 334
dynamical qualities · 185 encoding and decoding · 346
dynamical value · 180 energeia · 187
dynamical value of money · 180 Energeia · 43
dynamical values · 434 engine · 504
dynamical wentelechy · 76 engine needs fuel · 504
dynamis · 187 engineer the fundaments · 326
Dynamis · 43 enslave ourselves · 488
dynamoid object · 84 entelecheia · 77, 219
Dynamoid object · 43 Entelecheia or entelechy · 43
dysfunctional mistakes · 405 Entelechy · 74
E entelychistic antenarrating methodologies · 33
E=MC2 · 326 entelychistic philophronesis orders · 434
Eco semiotics · 46 entelychistic pluriscience · 106
ecologic systems · 217 entelychistic qualisigns · 140
economic and financial crisis · 502 entelygistic · 195
economic crises · 358 Entelygistic · 43
economic crisis · 131, 407 entire meaning of the conception · 329
economic goods · 422 entity-relationship diagram (ERD) · 496
economic models · 340 entity-relationship-model · 496
economic system · 313 environmental capital · 107

525
Erasmus University · 199 fixation on anothernesses · 360
Erasmus University Rotterdam · 307 fixation on firstness · 348
Eric Abrahamson · 339 fixation on firstnesses · 167
Eric Beinhocker · 32 fixation on models · 204
error of structuralisation · 351 fixations of acting · 289
errors of signs · 224 fixations of belief · 326
essence of learning · 428 fixed capacity · 176
essences of reality and dreams · 388 flat vision on reality · 287
ethical questions and considerations · 370 flexible and OPEN methodologies · 486
ethos · 430 Flexwork · 502
evil · 292 flood of thoughts · 184
evil persons · 461 floods of dreams · 34
evils of reductionism · 465 floods of thought · 87
Ex · 199 floods of thoughts · 20, 125
excellence of the minds · 414 flows of life and universes · 476
excellences of being · 436 flows of money · 399
excellent configurations · 308 Floyd Merrel · 446
excellent fundaments · 170 Floyd Merrell · 61, 195
excess of focus on fixed, mediate and non-transitive fly towards grace · 101, 111, 137, 237, 486
aspects and forms of money · 479 Fly towards grace · 303
executions of power · 167 Flyvbjerg · 301
executors of organizational processes · 490 flyvbjerg debate · 370
existences of being · 215 focus on values and power · 371
experiences · 194 foolish · 301
experiences falconers · 299 foolishness plurisigns · 369
explicit and implicit sign structure · 317 form borders · 93
explicit wisdom · 182 formsigns · 349
explicit wordings · 311 Foucault · 282
expression of feelings · 177 four \“pagan\ · 431
expression of weakness · 369 Frames of Acceptance · 367
external · 100 Frames of Rejection · 367
external character or quality · 63 free energy · 119, 287
external qualisigns/qualities · 156 free societies · 388
external qualities · 24, 64, 95 freedom · 248, 423
External qualities · 43 freedom and influence · 455
extreme examples · 215 freeze · 224, 289
F Friedrich Nietzsche · 258
failures in trust · 374 frog perspective · 396
faith · 432, 470 frog perspectives · 214, 353, 438
Faith · 297 froglike · 262
Faith, Hope and Love · 431 fundamental attribution error · 26
fake democracy · 455 Fundamental attribution error · 44
falco peregrinus peregrinus. · 18 fundamental attribution errors · 25
falconer · 90 fundamental blueprint · 164
falconry · 299 fundamental interpretation error · 25, 26
falconry equipments · 294 fundamental notion · 412
family · 270 fundamental transitive values · 171
family of human race · 179 fundamentals · 94, 259
feeding my mind · 328 future societies · 164
feelings · 285, 296 future world orders · 389
feelings and emotions · 453 G
feelings, values and virtues · 286 game of life · 360
fields of intelligence · 424 general · 85
fight the devil · 132 general idea of synechism · 324
fighting against irrationalities · 434 general mistake in the pragmatic maxim · 330
final interpretant · 84, 116, 135 general relativity · 326
financial capital · 30, 408, 474 general semantics · 245
financial crises · 358 general values · 107
financial crisis · 90, 396, 408, 439, 494, 505 general virtues and morals · 359
financial inputs. · 219 generality · 85
financial markets · 440 generality and general applicability of theories and
financial problems · 391 models · 342
financial values · 442 Genjokoan · 362, 445
fit of plurisigns · 16 geografie van goed en kwaad · 404
fit or misfit · 443 geometrical progression · 318
fixated on possibilities · 314 gnomes · 405
fixation of belief · 204, 406 good and bad · 173

526
good and evil · 172 honest, neutral law suits · 460
goshawk · 23 horrible ways · 305
government and science · 403 house of cards · 217
government by the intellectuals · 454 house prices · 439
governmental actions · 313 how people act and react · 455
governmental bodies · 413, 459 how to make our ideas clear · 241, 243
governmental bodies and structures · 454 huge incentives to really solve the problem · 418
governmental reductionist sensemaking · 176 HUGE process of growth · 449
governmental social responsibility · 273, 487 Human bottlenecks · 177
Governmental social responsibility (GSR) · 44 human factor · 200
governments · 454 human mind · 272
grades of wentelechy · 175 human mind and thought · 396
granulated material · 108 human nature · 222
granule grains · 101 human plague · 217, 408
great completenesses · 223 human sensemaking · 312
great flashes of insights · 229 human social activities and organizing · 486
great masters · 457 human swarms · 248, 486
greatest intellectuals of the past · 326 hybridizations · 256
Greece empires · 428 hybrids · 359
greenhouse effect · 400 I
Gregory Bateson · 352 Icon · 68
Grounding for the Metaphysical of Morals · 169 ideology · 199
Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals · 169 Idiocratic · 44
grounding rule · 332 idiocratic perceptions and beliefs · 357
grow and flourish · 290 Idiocrazy · 44
Growth is some special type of transitive values · 450 IDNU · 114
growth of plurisigns · 299 IDNUE · 114
GROWTH of society and people within · 409 IDNUE. · 115
guesses at the riddle. · 223 illogical · 87
guff · 179 illogical issues · 231
guidelines · 398 illogics of logic · 434
H illusionary perceptions · 90
habits of competing each other to death · 403 imbalanced relationship · 379
habits of searching for generals · 342 imbalances and weakest links · 501
Haqiqa · 225 imbalances of lower income countries · 503
harmonious strengths · 458 Immanuel Kant · 332
Harvard teacher · 326 immediate and dynamical object · 83
Henry Poincare · 326 immediate and dynamical wentelechy · 76
Heraclitus philosophy · 81 immediate interpretant · 84, 135
hierarchies in organizational charts · 340 immediate levels · 348
higher internal costs · 405 immediate object · 83, 180, 307
higher level laws · 193 immediate representamen · 180
highest levels of entelechy · 193 immediate value of money · 180
Hofstra University · 302 immediate wentelechy · 76
holographically · 110 Immunity · 463
holoplural and pluralistic ways of thinking. · 407 immunity in judicial matters · 464
HOLOPLURAL holoplurality · 171, 173 implicate · 20
holoplural inclusionality · 479, 481 implicit and explicit order · 485
holoplural interconnected plurisigns · 206 implicit and explicit worlds · 20
Holoplural interconnectedness · 248 implicit rules leading · 289
holoplural interconnectedness of objects · 145 impossibilia · 186
holoplural nature of our universes · 259 impossibilities · 186
holoplural plurisign turn in social sciences · 318 imprinted to think limited · 274
holoplural sensemaking · 171 imprisoned by words and structures · 192
holoplural shift and understanding · 322 imprisoning factor · 449
holoplural universe(s) · 267 imprisonment of financial capital · 488
holoplural universes · 99 improved by trail and error · 390
holoplural way of thinking · 109 imputed · 188
holoplural ways of thinking · 110 imputed quality · 63
holoplurality · 7, 13, 15, 44, 46, 47, 48, 88, 100, 102, 103, in non-aristotelean ways · 88
106, 127, 144, 145, 146, 163, 164, 212, 213, 255, 257, inbox kind of thinking · 284, 305
272, 296, 298, 299, 308, 312, 313, 319, 321, 322, 323, inbox kind of thinkings · 170
334, 390, 445, 451, 468, 469, 477, 479, 482, 486, 502, inbox kinds of conditionings · 424
516 inbox society · 322
Holoplurality · 44, 213 incapability of judges · 410
holoplurally interwoven · 485 inclusionality · 168
homo sapiens · 200, 394 incomplete discourses · 18

527
incomplete information · 378 intelligently redesigned · 251
incompleteness of being · 115 intentionality is kind of an umbrella guideline for making
increase in the income levels · 512 any judgements · 445
increase income of factory workers · 489 intentions and behaviors of current politicians · 454
increase the total amount of money · 480 Intentions and beliefs of persons · 444
increasing debts · 505 intentions of people · 378, 397
independent organization · 410, 430 intentions of the writers · 311
independent organization that monitors · 410 interconnected · 172
independent organizations · 273 interconnected and interdependent nature of signs · 288
index · 68 interconnectedness · 168, 212
indirect causations · 335 interconnectedness of our society · 481
indirect democracy · 455 interdependencies · 217
individual cases and circumstances · 329 interdependencies in our whole economies · 505
individual chains · 177 internal · 100
individual minds · 215 internal and external qualities · 185, 291
individual social responsibility · 458 internal character or quality · 63
Individual social responsibility · 129, 273, 487 internal economy · 502
Individual Social Responsibility (ISR) · 44 internal logic of social capital · 183
Indubitable belief · 44 Internal qualities · 44
Indubitable judgement · 44 interpretant · 81
induction · 142 interpretation errors · 25
infantry stages · 233 interpretations of his discourses · 330
inferior in knowledge · 385 interpreter · 100, 300
inferiority of a person · 173 interpreters · 135
infinite varieties · 446 interrelationnesses · 451
inflation · 407, 494 intransitory ways of thinking · 172
Inflation · 404 intrinsic capabilities · 312
information flows · 400 intrinsic characteristics · 94
Ingo Schultze · 198 introspection · 201
injust harm to fellow citizens · 429 intuition · 270
injust human suffering · 429 invisible hand · 443
injustice in justice · 429 involuntary leaving of safe roads or contexts · 362
injustice practises · 457 irrational and illogical issues · 106
injustices · 92 irrational anothernesses of life · 476
inner spaces · 95 irrationalism · 476
innocently prosecuted · 462 irrationalitie · 105
innovation of our money system · 512 ISD · 210
insane · 171 isle of dreams · 87, 184
insane completenesses · 223, 224 Isle of dreams · 20, 125
insane fundaments · 223 issue of labelling · 469
insane habits · 222 J
insane methodologies · 223 J.P. Mahaffy, M.A · 428
insane methodologies of induction and deduction · 33 Jack Mavrogordato · 103
insane mindmaking · 294 Jacques Derrida · 294
insane perception · 294 John Dewey · 426
insane physical completenesses · 223 John Locke · 275, 426
insane primary meanings · 262 John Maynard Keynes · 258, 491
insane reductionisms · 323 Joseph Jastrow · 22, 26, 86
insane social contexts · 305 Joseph L Esposito · 324
insane social fundaments · 292, 305 judge in just and right ways · 315
insane social structures · 166 judge justicelly · 335
insane structures · 166 judged and misjudged · 465
Insanities in our lives · 171 judgement of people · 373
insanities of capitalism · 391 judgement of situations · 373
insanities of dualism · 377 judgemental insights · 292
insanities of traditional economics · 440 judgemental institutions and activities · 374
insights of science and intellectuals · 418 judgemental procedures · 374
instances of optimization · 222 judgemental signs · 292
instances of power · 369 judgements · 173
intellectual power · 273 judging · 287, 373
intellectual social responsibility · 273 judging on other people · 361
intelligence · 424 judicial immunity · 463
intelligent creatures · 301 judicial officials · 458
intelligent design · 265 judicial system · 347, 457
intelligent design of our economies · 492 judicial system issues · 224
intelligent firstnesses · 210 judicial systems · 196
intelligent social design · 210 juridical matters · 200

528
juridical system · 200 limited (re)sources · 179
juristically employed people · 460 limiting factor · 502
just in time · 418 limits · 179, 195
just system · 460 limits of our languages · 283
justice in our societies · 458 limits of our senses · 373
justice law · 458 linear · 15, 86, 240
justice psychology · 305 linear chronos · 132
justice system · 410 Linear perceptual reductionist antenarratives · 132
K linear plots and inbox thinking · 137
Kafka effect · 466 linear reductionist plots · 132
Kairos · 132 linear representamens · 164
Kant · 17, 305 linear sensemaking · 89
Kant’s · 169 linear thinking · 212
Karl Marx · 387 linearities · 89
Karl Popper · 98 linearity · 298
Karl Weick · 342, 441 Linearity and linear BME plots · 323
Keynes advocated interventionism by the government · linearity in economics · 338
491 Linearity is mere perception · 323
Keynes versus Friedman · 492 lines on the road · 363
keys in the light · 275 linguistic turn · 294
Kill or Letting die · 378 linguistic turns of philosophy · 386
kinds of capital · 409 listen to people · 460
knowing less · 175 little diamonds · 108
knowledge economy · 400 live in different worlds · 401
Korzybski · 239, 315 lives of their employees · 400
Kotter · 302 living creatures · 349
Kurt Lewin · 289 logic · 87, 105
logic being illogic · 174
L Logic is a mode of completeness · 174
Labelling do not make the differences · 347 logic of capitalism · 178
labelling of signs · 302 logic of evolutions · 257
lack of knowing · 297 Logic of Vagueness · 45
lack of trust · 294 logical procedure · 172
lack-of money · 297 logistics · 417
lacking insights and wisdoms · 384 logos · 430
lacks of financial capital · 488 loosely coupled · 339
Lady Welby · 84 losses of transitive values · 295
langage · 244 Louis Pondy · 366
language limiting · 271 lower creatures · 470
language limits · 264 Ludwig Wittgenstein · 271
language structures · 162 lure · 64
language system · 312
language turn in philosophy · 86 M
language turn in Philosophy · 389 Machiavelli · 387
langue · 244 madhouse · 404
large group think SFI · 358 mainstream philosophy · 172
large madhouse called life · 385 major implications · 400
law and justice · 88 Making social science matter · 300
law system · 429 maladjustments · 95
laws · 170 management · 88
laws are not rational · 105, 106 management should be cooperative · 415
laws in Peircean logic · 460 Manhood of humanity\ ·
laws on ownership · 422 the science and art of human engineering · 318
lawyers social responsibility · 273 map is not the territory · 271
lazarus · 296 marriage and religions · 438
Lazarus · 253 mathematical beliefs · 482
Lazarus antenarrative · 16, 129 mathematical insights · 152
leadership · 297 mathematics · 147
Leading change · 302 Maturana and Varela · 269
legisign · 66 Maturana and Varella · 268
Legisign · 45 maxim · 332
lens grinder · 424 means for trading · 405
Leo Baranski · 91 mediate and immediate objects and processes · 327
LESS blood sucking · 253 mediate object · 307
Lewin’s model of change · 224 mediation · 410, 461
liberal democracy · 455 mediator · 461
Life · 89 mediators of mind · 310
medical science · 88

529
medieval universities · 427 misunderstandings · 171
Mensa · 424 mixture of both diachronic and synchronic · 340
mentor and apprentice · 395 mixture of mind and matter · 185
mere followers · 413 mixtures of values · 447
mere fools · 225 mode of completeness · 174
meritocracy · 454 mode of incompleteness · 195
Merton · 358 models and structures · 390, 404
meta types of intentions · 438 Models and structures · 204
meta-physical · 103 Modernism and uniform ways of looking · 342
Meta-physical logic · 172 modes of non-life and life · 133
meta-physical perspective · 73 money and economics · 417
meta-physical pragmaticism · 136 money game · 90, 129
meta-physics · 86 money increases in dynamical value · 510
meta-semeiotic philophronesis discourse · 136 money is constraint · 481
meta-semeiotical · 92, 245 money is limited in supply · 501
meta-semeiotical perspective · 72, 73, 103, 116, 136 money system · 90
meta-semeiotical philophronesis holoplural sensemaking morals and power · 378
· 179 more context dependent values · 438
meta-semeiotical phronesis · 138 more just society · 457
meta-semeiotical phronitical phronesis antenarrating · MORE money is needed · 409
295 MORE money to spend · 440
meta-semeiotical phronitical sensemaking · 295 most influential economists · 491
Meta-semeiotical pluritive plots · 498 most optimal fit of plurisigns · 16, 320
meta-semeiotical pluritive systems · 495 MSP plots · 498
meta-semeiotical practicism · 136 multidimensional · 33
meta-semeiotical quality · 444 multiple binding several social activities · 355
meta-semeiotical understandings · 74 multiple binds · 485
Meta-semeiotics · 16 multiple points of view · 294
metaphor of the Devil · 467 multiple pragmatic paradox · 354
metaphor of tools · 294 multiple ways to construct society · 392
metaphorical story · 381 multiple\ · 354
Metaphors, representamens and reifications · 294 multiplicities in meaning · 310
metaphysical · 136 multiplicity · 116, 227
metaphysical club · 20 MULTIPLICITY · 238
metaphysical frameworks and beliefs · 55 multiverses · 264
metaphysical philosophy · 106 multiversities · 233
metaphysical reductionist understandings · 110 Multiversities · 45
metaphysical theory · 106 music · 366
metaphysicians · 172 music and dance · 366
Metaphysics · 137, 169 mutual communications · 365
metaphysics of Peirce · 107 myalo · 247
metaphysics of pluralities and differences · 137 myalosophy errors · 247
metaphysics of quality · 236 mystical dimension of islam · 225
methodeutic · 394 N
Methodeutic · 45 Nachlass. · 395
methodological context of dualism · 172 narrating and bureaucracies · 414
methodologies and methods · 342 narrating in organizations · 414
methodologies of psychology · 305 narrating organizations and texts · 414
Michael Polanyi · 182 narrative activities · 414
Michel Bréal · 245 narrative approaches · 234
Michelangelo da Vinci · 340 Narrow mindedness · 415
middle ages · 428 narrow view on justice · 457
middle of the ocean · 446 narrow-mindedness · 410
Mikhail Bakhtin · 106 narrowness of perspectives · 438
Milton Friedman · 491 Nathan Lewis · 491
mind management · 127 natural ecosystems · 410
mind mapping · 497 natural inclusion · 168
mindmaking · 296 natural laws · 458
minimum prices · 400 Natural laws · 170
Miroslav Holub’s · 441 natural philosophy · 232
misconception of the representamen · 179 natural rules · 486
misconceptions · 488 natural structure and laws · 481
misconceptions of x · 314 nature and the resources · 478
misjudge · 373 nature of communications · 382
Misjudgement of the intentionality · 445 nature of good sane judgements · 468
Misjudgements · 374 nature of organizations · 413
misperceived reifications · 291 nature of practisism · 322

530
nature of sane natural processes · 413 old greek education · 428
nature of the tools · 292 On a new list of categories · 78
nature of this contents · 303 on small differences of sensation · 23, 86
nature. · 94 On the Genealogy of Morals · 131
negative consequences · 402 One Small Step Can Change Your Life - The Kaizen
negative feedback loops · 119 Way · 466
negative framework · 224 only one great excellent perspective · 313
negative impacts · 178 open number (money) system · 515
negative side-effects · 179 OPEN system by nature · 299
neglected · 301 operation of destiny · 242
neo-pythagorean · 199 opportunities for enchanting · 179
Neue lebens · 198 opposite · 172
neurologic minds · 87 opposite to the guff · 501
neurological mallfunctions · 197 opposites · 172
neurologically sound trainings · 394 Orca’s or Killer Wales · 483
neutrally loaded signs · 437 order of society called socialism · 391
new ecosocial orders · 341 organizational life and practises · 309
new roads and possibilities to our universes · 360 organizational nightmares · 129
next generations consulting · 430 Organizational structures · 93
Nicomachean Ethics · 46 organizational world · 417
Nietzsche · 17, 98, 131, 170, 172, 262, 292, 305 Orka’s · 291
Nihilism · 375 other angles · 87
Nikola Tesla · 287, 326 other kinds of capital · 409
Nikolai Tesla · 269 our money system is a closed system · 494
no real value in money itself · 406 our universes · 163
no-thingness · 87 out of balance · 401
non real, perceived causes · 336 out of the box · 214
non-advisable possibilities · 186 out of the matrix · 392
non-contextual and contextual understandings · 305 out of the matrixes · 94
non-contextual thinking · 305 outbox · 305
non-critical signs · 304 outbox kinds of thinking · 284
non-essential signs · 304 outer space · 95
non-essential signs and non-critical signs · 304 overcode · 22
non-human animal organizing · 486 overcoded · 25, 439
non-human animals · 465 Overcoded · 46
non-living signs · 156 overcoding/undercoding · 46
non-mathematical structures · 153 overrated/overcoded · 409
non-physical border · 93 own initiative · 388
non-physical signs · 223 own initiatives and pro-activity of their citizens · 388
non-physical structures · 165 P
non-reductionist · 127 Paolo Freire · 446
non-representia · 267 paper money · 180
non-sensual sensing · 429 paradigm · 116
non-straigh lines · 340 paradigms · 209
non-thinking · 375 paradoxes in current capitalism · 391
non-uniform · 88 paranormal · 245
non-verbal communication · 291 parliamentary immunity · 463
nothingness · 87 parody on the lion king · 456
nothingness of huge possibilities · 376 parole · 244
notion and nature of power · 470 partial insight in life · 395
notion of capital · 179 partial optimization · 222
notion of inbox thinking · 293 passion · 399
notion of phronesis · 371 path of arms · 268
notion of synechism · 324 path of letters · 268
notion of transitive values · 332 patterns in irregularities · 89
notion of Trust · 294 patterns in regularities · 89
notion of usage · 334 paving the roads · 353
Nous · 45, 394 pay for taxes · 440
number one errors · 421 PBN individuals · 100
numbers · 180 pedagogy of the oppressed · 446
O Peirce · 239
objects · 170 Peircean discourses · 326
objects of research · 460 peircean philosophy · 236
observable universe · 184 Peircean philosophy · 106
obstacles · 90 Peircean pragmaticism · 61, 103, 105
occupations · 204 Peircean scholars · 107
Oedipus · 370 Peircean semeiotic · 50, 61, 74, 133, 249

531
Peircean semioticians · 439 phronesis rhetoric · 272
Peircean semiotics · 17, 95, 218, 239, 298 Phronesis rhetorics · 236
Peircean trichotomies · 34 phronesis sensemaking · 164
Peirces logic of vagueness · 30 Phronesis sensemaking · 92
people as fixed, similar bottlenecks · 176 Phronetic · 47
people being awake and those sleeping · 388 phronetic antenarrative · 32
perceived nature · 292 phronetic body of understanding · 17
perception · 294 phronetic insights · 17
perception is reality · 344 phronetic social science · 300
perceptions in our realities · 443 phronetic understanding · 129
perceptions of evilness · 293 Phronetical · 47
perceptions of goodness · 292 phronitical · 322, 384
perceptions of reality · 125, 184 Phronitical · 47, 128
perceptions of wholeness · 351 Phronitical and phroniticallity · 477
perceptual borders · 93, 250 phronitical attitude · 444
perceptual dualities · 344 phronitical mind management · 127
perceptually unconditionally good · 169 Phroniticality · 322
perfect by nature · 109 phroniticallity · 127
perfect ness of being · 99 physical border · 198
perfection of being · 175, 304, 419 physical structures · 165, 202
perfectness by nature · 100 piecemeal engineering · 162, 390, 459
perjury questions · 462 Piecemeal engineering · 288
personalities first · 16 pilot projects · 390
PhD process · 478 plastic grains · 108
phenomenon of reification · 350 Plato’s republic · 459
Philip Brewer · 439 PLAY · 302
Phillys Chiasson · 478 play more with money · 510
philophronesis · 154, 230, 231, 233, 245, 341, 434 play some games · 330
Philophronesis · 46 playing against each other · 301
philophronesis body of excellence · 174 playing lazarus · 323
philosopher kings · 456 playing with each other · 301
philosophers · 172 plural · 33, 89
Philosophia · 46 plural and multidimensional ways · 33
philosophical message · 225 plural anothernesses · 58
philosophical puzzle · 190 plural phenomena · 285
philosophical way of viewing · 184 plural plurisigns · 162, 308
philosophistic · 189 plural thinking · 109
philosophistics · 188 plural ways of thinking · 404
Philosophistics · 206 pluralism · 283
phronesis · 138, 192, 249, 300 pluralist approach · 492
Phronesis · 46, 74, 106 pluralist phenomena · 283
phronesis abduction · 193 pluralistic combinations · 173
phronesis antenarrating · 87, 88, 90, 109, 210, 249, 259, pluralistic phenomena · 310
294, 312, 320, 408 pluralistic thinking · 138
Phronesis antenarrating · 47, 92, 102, 164, 206, 308 pluralistic wordsigns · 346
Phronesis Antenarrating · 16, 127, 452 pluralities · 192, 234
Phronesis antenarrating methodology · 477 pluralities in meaning · 252
phronesis antenarrative · 32, 236, 264 plurality · 116
phronesis antenarratives · 252 plurality of plurisigns · 99
phronesis change and growth · 449 plurality versus uniformity · 285
Phronesis constructionism · 47 pluralness of signs · 298
Phronesis fundamentals · 251 pluri bind insanity · 354
PHRONESIS glotta · 468 pluri insanities · 354
phronesis interpretia · 266 Pluribind · 48
phronesis meta-semeiotical · 206 pluribind insanity · 354
phronesis meta-semeiotical perspective · 408, 433 pluribinds everywhere · 248
phronesis meta-semeiotics · 174, 248, 271 pluriflection · 13, 40, 44, 47, 48, 49, 50, 53, 57, 72, 73,
phronesis metasemeiotics · 174 87, 88, 89, 95, 109, 127, 144, 164, 170, 171, 194, 195,
phronesis of practisism · 192 201, 210, 213, 215, 247, 248, 255, 257, 272, 286, 294,
phronesis organizing · 485 296, 308, 323, 329, 343, 386, 427, 451, 465, 468, 477,
phronesis poeiesis · 268 494, 511, 516
Phronesis poeiesis · 47 Pluriflection · 48, 477
phronesis representamen · 138 pluriflections · 296
phronesis representia · 153, 243, 251, 266, 443 Pluriform · 48
Phronesis representia · 47, 322 pluriform multivisions · 287
PHRONESIS REPRESENTIA. · 129 pluriform plurisigns · 163
phronesis retroduction · 193 pluriform. · 153

532
PLURIGLOTTA · 468 pragmatic paradox · 352
plurigraphic shift and understandings · 322 Pragmatisistic · 48
plurigraphic turns · 318 pragmatism of Peirce · 103
Plurigraphicness · 318 Prague University of Economics · 356
plurisanity · 354 pre-assumptions · 338
Plurisanity · 48 preconfigured rules · 487
Pluriscience · 48 predecessors · 185
plurisciences · 216, 234 predestinate opinion · 242
plurisign · 202 prefabricated roads of life · 360
Plurisign · 48 Prescinded · 49
plurisign qualisigns · 257 prescindible · 63, 188
plurisign relationships representamen (PRR) · 497 Prescindible · 49
plurisigns · 103 primary meaning · 260, 261
Plurisigns · 291 primary meanings · 262, 263
plurisigns of intentionality · 311 Primary meanings · 260
plurisigns of quality · 106 pro-humanism · 176, 196
plurisigns of reality · 396 problems in relationships · 309
plurisigns of virtues and values · 468 procedures and models · 289
poiesis · 268 process of reducing · 124
point of view · 100, 434 process of reductionism · 124
points of reference · 111 process of VALUE CREATION · 480
points of view · 98, 224 products first · 16
Poland · 391 products of insanity · 404
Polanyi’s notion · 182 professionals · 114
pole and a squirrel · 20 professionals in Justice · 457
police investigation · 460 profitability · 295
police officials · 460 prohumanism · 127, 273
political philosophy · 491 Prohumanism · 49
political science · 454 prohumanity · 270, 272
pond full with fishes · 483 prospective and retrospective sensemaking · 367
Popper · 200 prospective sensemaking · 477
positive attitude · 436 Prospective sensemaking · 366
positive feedback loop · 119 psychiatric institution · 385
positive feedback loops · 405 psychological diagnoses and treatments · 305
possibilia · 184, 186 psychological judgements · 467
Possibilia · 49 psychology · 88
possibilia and dynamis · 184 put your intellect and mind above your own personal
possibilities · 87 feelings and moods · 452
possibilities for improvement · 457 puzzle of interconnectedness · 398
postmodern · 282 Q
postmodernist · 252 Quali · 49
postmodernist scientists · 284 quali of change · 450
postmodernist social sciences · 265, 283 quali plurisigns · 170
postponement of actions · 309 qualisign · 97
power · 167, 285 Qualisign · 49
Power · 172, 370 qualisigns · 86, 165
Power gives responsibilities · 470 Qualitativity · 322
practical maxim · 333 quality · 194, 219
practical reasoning · 191, 193 Quality · 99
practical rule · 332 quality of completeness · 174
practical situations · 478 quality of people · 451
practical social sciences · 230 quality of processing · 227
practical social scientist · 398 quality of products and work procedures · 451
practical useability · 329 quality of signs is growing · 322
practical wisdom · 245, 436
PRACTICAL wisdom · 279 R
practicism · 103, 193, 206, 243, 246 ratio perspective · 318
Practicism · 49, 74, 107, 138, 153, 322 rational and irrational · 152
practicist social sciences · 253 rationality · 194
Practicist(ic) maxim · 146 real and perceptual · 442
practicistic maxim · 333, 334 real building blocks of societies · 390
Practicistic methodologies · 205 real capitalism · 107, 386, 408
practises of evilness · 293 real causes · 336
practisism · 138, 201, 264 real dangerous context of society · 361
Practisism · 49, 322 REAL growth · 503
pragmatic maxim · 328 real justice laws · 460
Pragmatic maxim · 146 real logic · 201

533
real safe surroundings · 361 Rhema · 50
real treasures · 418 Rheme · 67
real true quality · 437 Rhetoric · 19, 77
real true understandings · 342 rhetorical sophisticated processes · 101
real values of capital · 489 Rhetorics from Aristotle · 114
realities in existences · 224 Rhetorics of science · 19
realities of life · 163, 184 rhytm · 381
reality of life · 20, 125 rhytm and tempo · 366
reality-plurisigns · 307 riddle/problem case · 452
reality-representamens · 150 right ways of pluralistic diagnosis · 329
reality-signs · 247 road of life · 359
reassembling · 269 Robert K merton · 358
recieval of resistence to insanities · 320 Robert K Merton · 357
reconsideration of values in our societies · 107 Robert Maurer · 466
reconstruct society · 387 Robert Pirsig · 20, 115, 236, 238, 511
reductionisms · 242 Robert. D. Putnam · 328
reductionist · 151 Roger Joseph Boscovich · 311
reductionist antenarratives · 132 role of visionaries · 490
reductionist perspectives · 16, 263 roles · 204, 302
reductionist representamens · 153 roots of science · 459
reductionist science · 471 Rosenhan experiment · 467
reductionist sensemaking · 89 ROSENTHAL experiment · 466
reductionist thinking · 127 Rosenthal EFFECT · 466
reductionist understandings · 132 RTI (resistence to insanity) · 289
reference points · 101, 434 RTS (resistence to sanity) · 289
reference signs · 100, 111 rules of the money game · 505
Reference signs · 97 ruling institutions · 507
reflection · 73 S
reification · 25, 34, 123, 294 Samual Beckett · 390
reification is a reduction · 350 sane · 171
reifications · 166, 202, 270 sane and insane firstnesses · 286
reinventing some wheels · 459 sane derivations · 263
relational aspects · 347 sane mind should be the core starting point · 414
relationships also imprison · 359 sane phronesis antenarratives · 487
relative bullshit · 277 sane sensemaking · 127, 170, 247
relative modes of differences · 385 sanity and insanity · 385
relative notions · 100 Saussure’s semiology · 244
relative reference signs (RRS) · 97 Sausurre · 244
relative simplicities · 104 saving money · 447
relatively incomplete · 175 science and sanity · 426
relativeness of humanity · 196 science and sanity · 196, 278, 315
relativity of facts · 157 science and teaching institutions · 395
relativity. · 95 scientia · 232
reliance · 297 scientific basis for world civilization – Unitary Field
reorganization of the banking system · 507 Theory · 91
replace the word of capital for value · 410 scientific debates · 278
repository of all unborn souls · 179 scientific development · 287
representamen · 150, 249 scientific or socially constructed rules · 486
Representamen · 50 scientific research · 420
Representamen and object are just different things · 24 scientific thinking and doing · 420
representamen of Jastrow · 22 seeing more · 175
representamen of possibilities · 170 seemingly illogical · 92
representamens · 87, 170, 196 self fulfilling economies · 357
representamens and objects · 133 self fulfilling idiocracies · 440, 443, 485
representamens of the notions · 260 Self fulfilling idiocracy (SFI) · 50
representatives of our human family · 461 self fulfilling phronesis poeiesis · 485
resistance to insanity · 171, 369 self fulfilling prophecies · 356
resistance to insanity (RTI) · 323 Self-fulfilling idiocracies · 357
Resistance to sanity (RTS) · 50 self-fulfilling idiocracy · 357
resistence to change · 171 self-organization · 269
resistence to insanities · 320 selfish · 222
Resistence to insanity (RTI · 50 semantic error · 24
respect · 177 semantic errors · 279
responsibilities for the quality of actions · 464 semantic insanities · 262
responsibility for fellow citizens · 196 Semantic problems · 314
retroduction · 71 semantics · 245
Retroduction · 50 Semantics · 239

534
semeion · 244 soccer players · 301
Semeion · 51 social · 358
Semeiotical · 50 social activities · 223
semeiotics · 16 social aggregation · 162
semiology · 244 social and cognitive aspects · 339
Semiology · 51 social and natural values · 474
semiotic · 13 social capital · 30, 107, 328, 409
semiotic nonagon · 79 Social capital · 183
semiotic view · 469 social configurations · 328
semiotic/linguistical insanities · 35 social constructionism · 35
Semiotical · 51 Social constructionism · 35, 51
semioticians · 202 social constructionist · 35
semiotics · 15, 244, 279, 294, 439 social constructions · 390
Semiotics · 239 Social constructivism · 52
semiphronesis · 224, 246, 247, 262, 279 social conventions · 153
semiphronesis acts · 278 Social DNA · 52
semiphronesis errors · 216, 314 social errors · 412
semiphronesis insanities · 242, 311 social fields · 114, 275
Semiphronesis insanities · 51 social fit · 349
semiphronesis insanities and errors · 236 social freezing of objects · 351
semisophy · 216, 247, 262 social fundaments · 170
semisophy and semiphronesis errors · 17, 357 social hybridizations · 282
semisophy and semiphronesis insanities · 35, 51, 262, social insanities · 35
360, 441 social integration theory · 117
semisophy error · 167, 280, 440 social judgements · 465
semisophy errors · 71, 124, 150, 157, 172, 174, 270, 279, social orders · 162
309 social practises · 263
semisophy insanities · 109, 242, 344 social processes · 174
Semisophy insanities · 51 social ruling system · 404
semisophy insanity · 167 social science · 225, 237
semisophy insanity of bureaucracies · 412 social sciences · 88, 241
semisophy sanities · 441 social sciences and cognitive sciences · 382
Semisophy signs · 441 social scientific insights · 103
sensations · 115 social scientists · 263
sense of justice · 458 social semiphronesis errors · 351
Sensemaking itself should not be distracted by · 453 social signs · 291
sensemaking society · 170 social theory and social structure · 357
senses-making · 296 social value/capital · 408
sensing activities · 428 social welfare · 408
sensitive · 296 socially agreed prices · 409
sensory way of viewing the world · 395, 426 socially aware · 273
sensual sensing · 429 socially constructed · 157, 355
seven virtues · 431 socially constructed situations · 355
shooting in pieces · 269 socially preferred values. · 302
Sigmond Freud · 466 solve the crisis · 504
sign is not the signified · 140 sophist · 188
sign-events · 185 sophisticated · 95, 188
signs and sanity · 196 Sophy · 247
signs grow · 61 Soto Zen tradition · 362
Signs grow · 446 SOUL · 177
Signs Grow, Semiosis and Life Processes · 195 sound communications · 365
signs growing · 133 sound investigations · 460
signs of excellence · 253 sound judgements · 171
Signs of intelligence · 424 sound methodology · 214
signs of reference · 291 sound reasonings · 306
signs to grow · 480 sparrow hawk · 365
simplicity · 103 sparrowhawk \“faith\ · 432
single truths · 259 special cases · 116
singular patterns · 89 specific contexts and situations · 294
singularity · 116, 199 specific occurance of violence · 369
sinsign · 66 specific tools · 294
Sinsign · 52 specific type of representamen · 294
sinsign, legisign and qualisign · 55 specific type of resistance · 369
Slawomir Magala · 237 specificities of pluralities · 113
slecht · 173 Specifities · 52
smart design · 404 spect-actor · 368
smelling, hearing, experiencing · 429 spectator · 368

535
speculative reasoning · 394 systematical ways of doing · 167
speculative rhetoric · 394 T
spell of scientific management · 127 tacit capabilities · 182
Spending money · 503 tacit experience · 182
spin doctor · 394 tacit knowledge · 182, 337
spin doctoring · 74, 137 tacit understandings · 389
split in philosophy between mind and feelings · 245 tacit wisdom · 182, 389
standing conferences · 282 tacit wisdoms · 375, 476
state of puzzlement · 190 tacitly · 87
State officials · 454 talking or dancing together metaphors · 294
static elements · 141 Talmud · 179
Static money · 495 Taoism · 122
static objects · 171 Tariqah · 225
statical representation · 148 Taylor · 501
statical respresentamen · 417 Techne · 53
statical social plurisign · 141 telemetrie transmitter · 183
statical time · 514 TEMPO · 365, 381
statical values · 169, 322 tempo and rhythm · 381
status quo · 359 tendency of inbox conditioning · 289
staying on the tracks of life · 289 terminology · 209
stockmarket · 404 Tesla · 311
stop talking metaphors · 494 the art of science · 19
story about Antigone · 370 The art of motorcycle maintenance · 115
story listening · 33 The Bourgeois Virtues\ ·
story of the Taoist farmer · 122 Ethics for an Age of Commerce · 431
storytelling · 16, 20, 33, 47, 102, 127, 128, 129, 170, 215, The Devil Wears Prada · 131
234, 247, 248, 254, 297, 308, 312, 323, 446, 518 the essential Peirce · 78
Storytelling · 127 The Fixation of Belief · 115
storytelling society · 367, 368 the general theory of employment, interest and money ·
Straight lines are linear · 340 492
straightforward solutions · 215 The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money
strive for quality · 437 · 492
structuralist linguistics · 244 the guff · 503
structure is NOT the organization · 140 The holoplural plurisign turn · 320
structure of linearity · 146 The KEY to phronesis · 485
structures · 89, 204 the map is not the territory · 80, 162
Structures and laws are mere tools · 423 the money is not the money · 474
Stuart Chase · 303 the notions of value(s). · 30
stupidities of our actions · 404 the open society and his enemies · 200
sub-universes · 184 the open society and it’s enemies · 388
subordination · 178 the origin of wealth · 32
subordination of public and private realms · 178 the perceptions of reality · 20
sucking out the blood · 503 the power · 167
sucking the blood out of · 253 The Pragmatic maxim · 482
sufi story · 225 the references · 95
Sufism · 225 the road to hell is paved with good intentions · 393
sum of the consequences · 329 the social psychology of organizing · 119
superior character and intelligence · 458 The trust process in organizations · 294
supervising institutions · 369 The Truth · 85
supportive rules and guidelines · 487 the word in isolation · 262
surplus the income · 502 Theban Saga · 370
swarm theory · 264, 486 Theoretical knowledge · 426
Swarm theory · 248 theoretical wisdom · 436
switched some switches · 405 theory and practise · 420
symbol · 68 think tanks · 430
Sympthomatology · 52 third parties · 343
symptomatology · 264 this balance is strongly imbalanced · 388
Synchronic · 248 Thomas Theorem · 357
synchronic thinking · 340 those who tell the stories rule society · 33
syneches · 53, 324 though-signs · 185
synechesm · 325, 326 thought as a system · 168
Synechesm · 53 thought-existences · 348
synechism · 324 thought-plurisigns · 307
Synechism · 53 thought-representamens · 150
synechismos · 53, 324 thought-sign · 247
syste-matical errors · 167 thought-signs · 203, 348
system of justice · 429 thoughts are diagrammatic · 55, 338

536
time constraint · 389 unconditionally good · 169
time is a human perception · 515 unconditionally great · 170
to become one · 367 unconditionized tacit capabilities. · 183
togethernesses · 368 under the desert sky · 181
Tom Bearden · 119, 287 undercoded · 22, 25, 301
too less money · 219 Undercoded · 53
tools of modernism · 405 undercoding or overcoding · 399
total quality · 451 underlying logic · 182
towards great pluralistic social sciences · 418 underlying rules of the game · 486
towards real capitalism · 404, 430 understandings and capabilities · 221
traditional social sciences · 242 understandings of inflation · 504
traditionalist social sciences · 249 undervalued · 180
traditionalist social scientific perspectives · 491 unhealthy situation · 501
trail and error activities · 477 UNIFICATION · 263
transitive · 171 Unified Field Theory · 149
Transitive goods and activities · 179 unified field/universe · 184
Transitive money · 495 uniformism · 282
transitive plurisigns in arête · 437 uniformism versus pluralism · 283
transitive signs · 167 uniformist phenomena · 283
transitive value · 181, 257 uniformities · 113
transitive values · 94, 166, 169, 171, 231, 302, 309, 322, uniformity · 116
351, 396, 437, 444 uniformity of thinking · 88
transitivity · 257 uniplural · 283
Transitivity · 171 uniplural notions · 296
transitory and intransitory · 375 unipluralism · 283, 492
tree · 307 unipluralism and uniplural · 284
tree in our thoughts · 307 unipluralistic · 284
triadisms · 172 unipluralities. · 242
triangulation · 389 uniplurals · 16, 282
trichonomy of AWP · 193 Uniplurals · 53, 322
trichotomies · 202 universal meta-semeiotical body of knowledge · 31
Trichotomy · 53 universal rights of citizens · 460
tropes · 261 universal truth · 31
tropical derivations · 262 universalities · 234
tropical meaning(s) · 261 universality and general structures · 404
tropical meaning(s). · 261 universe is not a unifiable system · 324
Tropical meanings · 260 universe of possibilia · 184
true artists · 290 universe of wholeness · 449
true complete stories · 163 universes · 170, 257
true evilnesses · 173 universes and worlds · 184
true geniuses · 384 unjust practises · 457
true nature · 292 unjust situations · 369
true nature of a judgemental sign · 292 unjustified damages · 309
trust · 294 unprescindible · 188
trust and quality · 463 unsocial habits of corporate life · 394
truth out of error · 172 unwritten conditioned tendency · 289
truths are illusions · 157 unwritten laws · 90
trying irregular things · 477 unwritten social \“laws\ · 469
tunnel view · 305, 457 unwritten social possibilities · 469
tunnel views · 369 use the money · 180
turnover rates of money · 503 using versus abusing · 379
twilight zones of our universes · 360 V
types and nature of values · 438 Vaclav Havel · 356
Tyranny of words · 303 vague · 85
U vague, · 115
UFT · 149 vaguenes · 115
ultimate great maxim · 332 vagueness · 30, 85, 137
ultimate practicistic maxim · 333 vaguenesses · 92
ultimate single \“truth · 243 valuation of social values · 444
ultimate underlying principle for our actions · 332 valuation of values · 169
ultimately quality or arête · 484 valuation plurisigns · 444
Umberto Eco · 24 Valuations of morals, virtues and the like · 378
umbrella law · 423 value is a duree that changes over time · 410
umbrella law about constructive and deconstructive laws · value loaded · 106
460 value of love · 474
unconditional facts · 157 value of transitivity · 170
unconditionally · 258 value statements · 267

537
values and norms · 196, 219 will to power · 375
values of life and society · 410 Will To Power · 381
values of our universes · 107 Will to Truth out of the will to deception · 172
values of respect and intentions · 438 William James · 20
Vampire · 253 William James Sidis · 20
Vampire antenarrating · 132 Wilvonian practicism · 407
Vampire antenarratives · 16 wisdom · 182, 219
Vampire sensemaking · 16 wisdom and creativity · 424
vampire storytelling · 16 wisdoms · 251
van een kale kip valt niet te plukken · 400 Withinnesses · 54
VAT · 493 Work procedures and guidelines · 290
Velvet Revolution · 356 workshop on singular thought · 377
verdinglichung · 270, 350 world of grammatical existences · 346
very neutral term and notion · 333 world of thoughts · 20
vessel for change · 33 worlds of dreams · 219
victims of injustices · 369 worlds of existences · 20
victims of the system · 460 worlds of matter · 20, 185
virtual and digital worlds · 401 worlds of minds · 185
virtual reality · 442 worlds of perception and realities · 184
virtue of wisdom · 175 worlds of thought · 20
virtue-signs · 433 worlds of thoughts and dreams · 20
virtues and all kind of anothernesses · 432 worldview. · 185
virtues are all modes of excellence · 432 written laws · 458
vision · 386 wrong conditioning · 385
visions on reality · 287 wrong fundaments · 89
voluntary entering of twilight zones · 362, 363 wrong methodological system · 110
Vysoka Skola Economicka V Praze · 356 wrong methodology · 387
W X
we need a lot more money to be spend · 512 x-ness of content · 259
weakest links · 176 x-ness of contextuality · 259
weakest links of the chains · 176 Z
weakness · 167 Zen tradition · 362
weaknesses · 172
Welcome to the desert of the real · 401 -
Wentelechistic · 53 -semeiotic and philophronesis body of understanding ·
wentelechy · 74, 174 136
wentelychistic · 103, 104 ,
Wentelychistic · 54 , neglecting social values · 410
wentelychistic combination · 329 , William James · 84
wentelychistic ecosocial orders · 109 '
wentelychistic ecosocial systems · 346 'A Syllabus of Certain Topics of Logic' · 62
whale/kangaroo · 22
wholenesses of our universes · 308 (
(Bourgouis) virtues · 434

538
Samenvatting (Summary, in Dutch)

Dit proefschrift is het resultaat van een inzicht dat ik, Wilfred Berendsen, al had rond het jaar 2000. Dit
inzicht zijnde het feit dat ons huidige geldsysteem en dus ook economie en management en veel meer
is gebaseerd op deels gestoorde, foutieve inzichten. Leidend tot gestoorde acties. Ik had die inzichten
dus al ruim voor de financiële crisis van 2008 en de jaren erna.

Op basis van dit inzicht ben ik vervolgens bezig gegaan met onderzoek. Ik hou er namelijk niet van als
mensen ongewild maar vooral ook in principe onnodig worden benadeeld puur vanwege gestoorde
manieren van handelen. Dit onderzoek is echter gewoon heel breed gestart, in het begin zijn gewoon
geen grenzen opgesteld. Of bijna niet. Het onderzoek was gewoon een grote zoektocht. Waarbij van
verschillende bronnen gebruik is gemaakt en vooral ook veel empirisch onderzoek is verricht. Dit
laatste met name op de werkvloer, maar ook in diverse andere sociale settings. Voor wat betreft die
werkvloer heb ik het geluk gehad twee hele interessante bedrijven met over het algemeen hele goede
en fijne collega’s te treffen. Die mij over het algemeen ook wel erg mochten, dus dat was mooi
meegenomen.

Gedurende het onderzoek groeide niet alleen de realisatie maar ook het begrip dat echt ALLE
wetenschappen maar ook praktijk in feite in meer of mindere mate is gebaseerd op verkeerde
fundamenten en uitgangspunten. Verder ook dat voor onze gedachten en rationaliteit hetzelfde geld.
En, dat ook onze taal voor problemen zorgt.

De meest fundamentele kern van mijn bevindingen is het feit en het begrip dat echt ALLE
wetenschappen en praktijken, maar ook alle denkprocessen, gefundeerd moeten worden op wat ik
holopluraliteit heb genoemd. Holopluraliteit staat voor de ENIGE juiste onderliggende structuur en
eigenschappen van onze universa en samenleving. Er is maar 1 enkele juiste onderliggende structuur
voor onze universa en onze samenleving en alle andere gebruikte structuren of modellen zijn
reductionistisch en potentieel schadelijk.

Met het begrip van holopluraliteit en de door mij ontwikkelde begrippen pluriflectie, phronesis
antenarrating en practicisme heb ik een allesomvattend kader voor alles ontwikkeld. Wat
veelomvattender is dan een theorie voor alles, aangezien mijn holopluraliteit en practicisme
daadwerkelijk een kader zijn voor alles en fundament voor alles. En de verschillen tussen theorie en
praktijk vallen daarbij volledig weg.

Wat erg fundamenteel is om te begrijpen, is het feit dat holopluraliteit ook echt vanuit hetzelfde
perspectief van holopluraliteit moet worden begrepen. In mijn proefschrift zijn heel veel puzzelstukken
voor een meest optimaal holopluristisch perspectief aangegeven, maar wat ik heb beschreven is over
het algemeen allemaal fundamenteel. En zal uiteraard toegepast moeten worden in de praktijk. Het
leuke is dat hoe meer men van het begrip holopluraliteit gaat snappen, hoe meer ook begrepen zal
worden hoe ik die fundamentele puzzelstukjes allemaal heb bedoeld. Door middel van phronesis
antenarrating zullen, afhankelijk van de betreffende situatie, meer en meer van mijn fundamentele
bouwstenen duidelijk worden.

Holopluraliteit moet het nieuwe fundament worden voor alle wetenschappen en alle denkprocessen.
En dus zullen ook alle sociale wetenschappen en de sociale praktijk (alles wat er in onze samenleving
gebeurd!) moeten zijn en worden gefundeerd op begrip van wat holopluraliteit en mijn practisisme
inhoudt. Dit kan en zal leiden tot ingrijpende verbeteringen en mogelijkheden voor onze samenleving.

Dit proefschrift is een argument bestaand uit vele deelargumenten en issues. Die op vele manieren
gecombineerd kunnen worden maar liefst gebaseerd op zo veel mogelijk van de relevante delen en
inzichten vermeld in mijn werk. Waarbij vooral het sociale aspect maar dan echt sociaal en gericht op
mensen heel fundamenteel is. Bij alle sociale aspecten moeten deze ook gezien worden in individueel
en groepsverband en in de realiteit dat wil zeggen bij en tussen mensen. Met gevoelens en
verlangens etcetera.

539
Wat ik onder andere beschrijf in dit proefschrift, is het feit dat onder andere psychologie en rechten
maar ook economie en management verbeterd kan worden met de inzichten die zijn ontwikkeld door
mij en beschreven in dit proefschrift. Meer specifiek ga ik vrij uitvoerig in op de gestoordheden in ons
geld systeem en de economien. Last but not least geef ik de enige juiste en ook geweldige oplossing
voor ons geldsysteem, onze economieën en de economische crisis. De oplossing zijnde een door mij
ontwikkelde innovatie voor ons geldsysteem. Deze innovatie van ons geldsysteem, ontwikkeld op
basis van uitvoerig begrip, heb ik ook beschreven in diverse andere publicaties van mezelf. Die op het
moment het meest te vinden zijn op het internet op bijvoorbeeld www.academia.edu of
www.scribd.com/wberendsen. Verder sta ik in ieder geval nu nog op linkedin en facebook. Bij vragen
of opmerkingen ben ik (ook) via de contactgegevens daar te bereiken.

540
About the author

Wilfred Berendsen was born in Lichtenvoorde in 1973. After completing secondary school in 1992, he
continued studying Logistics and Economics at the HEAO in Arnhem. During the last year of this
studies he also followed an Internship at Nedcon Advanced Storage Systems. During this Internship,
he also worked in the Czech Republic. After completing his bachelor degree in Logistics, he continued
studying Business Administration at Erasmus University, Rotterdam. During this studies, he continued
to work for Nedcon in different activities and tasks. Further on, he was CEMS buddy for the foreign
CEMS students in Rotterdam, and after that he followed some CEMS exchange courses at the
University of Economics in Prague. His Masters thesis was on the changes in the Czech Republic
after the year of 1989.

After his graduation at the Erasmus University, with the specialisation into change management, he
was asked to join a SAP implementation project at Nedcon again. This was a multi-plant
implementation of SAP 4.7c, Wilfred being responsible mainly for the material management aspects.
During this time, he also got informed more about the academic work of David Boje. But, more
important, he did realize that there are some serious insanities in our current money system.

After the SAP implementation project, Wilfred just continued to focus mainly on his PhD research.
Which was mostly aimed at understanding the economy in better ways, but for doing so he realized
that he first had to understand social occurrences a lot more. So he concentrated on getting more
critical about this, while kind of “reading” social texts and occurrences taking place around him. After
asking Slawomir Magala, one of his past teachers, to function as his advisor his developments went
into better directions. Also because of the fact of getting in touch with Arjo Klamer though Slawomir
Magala. This was the start of him following a seminar at Erasmus University for about a year, which
was an excellent catalyst for growth. Although most of the insights reflected in this PhD dissertation
resulted from research and reflections on shop floor and real life (situations).

The research took place while he was not working at any university. Instead, he was actually just
working on shop floor. Being a factory worker or just other shop floor jobs. This enabled him to get a
quite thorough understanding about a lot of social aspects, a lot of them not even reflected in this
particular PhD discourse. But, the most important issues he became to understand during this time are
without any doubts the core understanding that all of social sciences and practises are based on the
wrong fundament, but more important that based on that he developed and described the sole great
perspective and fundament for all of social sciences and practises. The insanities of economics being
just part of a lot more insanities all being caused by the wrong underlying structures and fundaments
of our sciences and practises and sensemaking. As an answer to that, he developed his phronesis
meta-semeiotical body of understanding called practicism or practisism. Which has to become the new
and greatest fundament for all of sciences and practises.

Besides this activities of recent years, Wilfred is also a quite experienced falconer. Falconry being the
art of hunting and building a team with birds of prey. Apart from that, he did practise some horse riding
in the past. Also he has his motorcycle driving license.

541