Phronesis complex1


Published on

Draft book about my Phronesis meta-semeiotic body of understanding for every-thing. Thing to be replaced by living and non-living plurisigns. It will have to become basis /fundament for ALL of sciences and practises and all of sensemaking. Unifying theory and practises and enabling a whole new world of possibilities

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Phronesis complex1

  1. 1. An illuminating phronesis antenarrative on practicism Towards an-otherness wentelechistic eco- social qualiorders through the logics of anotherness vaguenesses1 The practicistic turn towards real qualityOut of the matrixes-into a more complete future1 The logic of vagueness here refers to the logic of vagueness as described by CS Peirce. It is the logic by whichanomalies become recognized, are made sense of and maybe generalized. See for more info about this view on vagueness.
  2. 2. Every sign is and is NOT Everything named is vague perception in some degreesCP 5.309 1868 :“ Everything has its subjective or emotional qualities, which are attributed either absolutely orrelatively, 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, beingalmost (is representative of)- is not only about emotional or subjective qualities. But also aboutexternal qualities. And much more. Or not. It depends. But a representamen (the kind of sign beingalmost) 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 toimprove and transform both social sciences and social practises. It is the ultimate change master andmanagement tool available at current times. For those who understand. The possibilities or firstnessesof 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 onlyunconditionally good. This discourse among other things also is. Also good things can lead to lessfortunate results, but that is a matter of wrong application and not of the nature of firstnesses as such.
  3. 3. Copyright© 2006-2010 Drs.W.T.M. BerendsenAll rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmittedin any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the priorpermission 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 coverother than in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on thesubsequent publisher. Any permissions granted by the author can be cancelled by the author at any chosenmoment in time, unless agreed otherwise in some contract.The author gives sole permission to Wilvon Organization & Developments, the company of the author, touse this publication only for own company purposes, and only during the time that the author is involved in thecompany 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 & DevelopmentsDrs.W.T.M. BerendsenMiddachtenstraat 537131 Ge LichtenvoordeThe NetherlandsE-mail: info@wilvon.comInternet:
  4. 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 fromThe 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. 5. “The composition of this book has been for the author a long struggle ofescape, and so must the reading of it be for most readers if the authors assault upon them is to be successful,a struggle of escape from habitualmodes of thought and expression. The ideas which are here expressed solaboriously are extremely simple and should be obvious. The difficulty lies,not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones, which ramify, forthose brought up as most of us have been, into every corner of our minds “J.M. KEYNESA general theory of Employment, interest and money13 December 1935John Maynard Keynes used this words in his preface to “a general theory ofemployment, interest and money”. Although I am sure the ideas andunderstandings there can be improved, John Keynes his insights were great ingeneral. And also they have to add a lot to economics and society at large. Iexpress a bit about why the ideas of John Keynes are great and interesting inother parts of this discourse, but also my insights are in line with Keynes. This isnot coincidence, but the result of true wisdoms and understandings.As far as the statement of the words above go, the words of John Keynes aregreat for expressing what I want to say about my own book. Just read and I hopeyou will understand.W.T.M BerendsenA phronesis antenarrative- towards new ecosocial orders through the logic ofvaguenessJanuary 2009
  6. 6. AbstractEverything is not.An antenarrative for a sane and great society.Just start reading and anotherness possibilities based on a meta-semeiotical body of understandinggrounded on plurisigns, phronesis and the sole true structure of holoplurality will develop.
  7. 7. Table of contentsTo be honest, I am wondering just now why they call a table of contents a table of contents. To methat piece of paper or actually the screen I am typing on now does not resemble any table. I am justtyping and somehow some bits look like letters before my eyes. Only because they equal the form ofit. But actually content is much different then the content of the letters on paper. So actually, with theletters we determine what it is based on the form, although content is much different. Just imagine anelectronic supplier would do the same. Just supplying you some laptop missing only the hard drive.Actually this would be much more complete than the letters I am looking at just now. While we allagree that this letters are letters while we disagree on such a laptop being a laptop. And then thisstrange notion of table of contents. It does not resemble a table in any ways. Actually, in this case, Ithink the sole thing that makes this representamen a table of contents is because we agreed on itbeing called a table. Otherwise it would have been called clock of contents maybe. And then I could insame ways start this kind of irregular but hopefully illuminating dialogue about the notion of the x ofcontents.But I will leave this thoughts about why a table of contents is called a table of contents for what it is fornow. And continue with elaborating a bit about my small state of aporia why a table of contents iscalled a table of contents. Now, this state of aporia is small because of contents of the rest of thisdiscourse. But also because I thought about it a bit before typing this down, using the methodologiesand notions I introduce in the rest of this discourse. And while I am talking about the contents of thisdiscourse, this same contents of the discourse actually entail most of the answer about whatdetermines a table of discourse, I mean table of contents, to be named like that. Partly, since both thecontents of the discourse, the contents of what is written below the representamen of signs messaging“table of contents” and the similarity (well, perception about similarity) between discourse, contentsand the representamen will determine whether a table of contents will be named like that. Actually, inthe end it is all about relations and our agreement about perceptions that determine not only thedynamical, but also the immediate interpretants with regards to the representamen table of contents.I could tell a lot more about it here, but I guess it would be a good idea if you read this discourseyourself. Then maybe also some other great discourses from philosophers who were involved in thelinguistic turns in philosophy, and some other great discourses. Then returning back to above part ofmy discourse. Thinking about it yourself. Saves me some time and makes you, the sign, develop inbetter ways.
  8. 8. 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 beanything named. The bakhtin’s of life 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. Thefirst one (cover of the book/first page of the digital file) consists of more than one quite specific titles. Inthe context of the 3 title pages, the titles on the first title page where the most complete entelygisticones I could think of. To cover the content of the contents of my dissertation and label it in arhetorically 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 iscommunicating the most fundamental and still general basic thought for improving the semioticpragmaticistic theories of Charles Sanders Peirce. The IS NOT relates to the anothernesses that needto be brought in. For understanding my essential and major improvements of semiotical theory andpractise.The last, third, title page is actually the best! Since it is empty. This emptiness, or (almost) merenothingness, is the (almost) mere nothingness of greater possibilities. And, it actually far betterdescribes the content of my PhD research (methodologies) , the content and possibilities of this bookand the possible anothernesses NOT mentioned in this book. And it actually communicates the way Iwould prefer to handle the aim and contents of my PhD research process in case I would NOT wantsomething done with it (in many ways) and communicate what I know NOW. For myself only, I wouldprefer NOT to put my ideas down on paper. For several reasons, the main being that this book IS NOTand will never be. Another reason is the fact of limitations. Limitations of language, limitations of waysto structure “my” antenarrative in most efficient ways, limitations of the people who might do somethingwith the messages and insights stated in this book and, if they are not blind for them, theanothernesses NOT stated in this antenarrative. And some anotherness limitations. Solely for myself, Iwould rather NOT spend my precious time with the boring and difficult task of trying to put my thoughtsand current wisdoms on paper. Knowing it will NEVER even reach a bit of the entelechy and richnessof what I learned (to understand) in the last couple of years. I would actually rather start to USE thisinsights and wisdom I “have” now.
  9. 9. 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 onecosocial systems and the lifes of us in general. If that was not the case, I would prefer NOT to put thefindings on my PhD process on paper.For myself, main task of this process was to improve by learning. And to lay the foundations foressential improvements in society. For that, I do not care about putting it down and get anotheracademical label. But for practise, my main interests, it is needed. So I will hope to overcome myresistance for boring and time consuming typework. That you read this is prove I did. I just hope thetext 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 quitedifficult all the times to refer to this discourse (this book) by mentioning the whole title (apart from theproblem to mention the emptiness that is so important, also because of the great lack of signs andstructures) , I give some short version here. I myself would like this discourse to be referred to as “ThePhronesis antenarrative by Thot “. This pretty much reflects the discourse and should be a greatlabelling. Of course Thot is fiction at this occasion, but then again Jesus and the new testaments mostprobably also are in less or greater respects. Just like much more in our lives and (collective) minds.
  10. 10. On the structure and contents of this bookThis book is, like every book, linear in structure. There are no possibilities to link texts or words orother representamens at some place in the text with texts or words or other representamens in oroutside this “book”. At least not in the paper book version of this text. In the digital version, there willprobably be some links to external sources (like the internet), to representamens within thisfundamental antenarrative text and probably also some video clip material. This enables some betterpossibilities for improvement of structure. But it is still the case that not only language but alsopossibilities of current ways and structure of storage of information impose some significant limits onthe entelechy of this antenarrative. I would love to have some possibility to store this momentum andfundamental text more object-oriented and, more important, dynamical. And (thereby) nearer to therealities of life. But I guess the clarity of my antenarrative , the ways of representing it (ways ofrepresenting the content) and also the great fundamental theoretical backgrounds (mainly Peirceansemiotics) guarantee that the major messages I want to communicate will be understood. At least bypeople 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 couldbe in. The book is only fundamental and meant for some first shot towards more entelygistic andpractical ecosocial orders in society. But, it is a good blueprint. Enough for a lot of people todrastically change their ways of viewing the world and improving their ways of functioning in bothprivate and public life. And to enable a major shift in these ecosocial systems by means of the catalystfunction of this antenarrative for lots of people. Hopefully. It might be that there are a lot of mistakes orways of improving this discourse. But, that does not matter. Like I said, the discourse like I put it onpaper just now is just meant as a fundamental discourse. Meant as a base for further improvements ofboth individuals and societies. With some bigger emphasis on phronesis, management andeconomics. Especially in the field of business and economics, this discourse should mean a hopefullybig difference. But, foremost, in the fields of social sciences and practises. Mainly because of thegreatest fundament being my notion of holoplurality and the accompanying meta-semeioticalperspective.I start with some theoretical discussion on mainly semiotics. And place them in some broaderperspective. This is to show the huge, almost unlimited possibilities of Peircean semiotics. But also toshow the errors and mistakes in Peircean philosophy. And to offer some sound introduction to whatactually is the main part of this book. This main part is dealing with how to improve ecosocial orders inpractise. By means of my philophronesis meta-semeiotical body of understanding called practicism orpractisism. Through this, I hope to give some fundamental possibilities for more entelygistic ways oforganizing future ecosocial orders.Meta-semeiotics is , for several reasons, far more excellent than semeiotics. Semeiotics, Peirceansemeiotics, is based on the WRONG fundaments still. The wrong, limited perspective leading to a lot
  11. 11. of problems in current societies. A meta-semeiotical perspective can and will solve a lot of problems.
  12. 12. One of the most important issues to be realized, is the fact that this discourse incorporates andinitiates the most perfect way of viewing and understanding. The ultimate phronetic body ofunderstanding, although some parts of this body of understanding can and must be improved in laterstages.I am interested in Peircean semiotics. And also in the works from Kant and Aristotle. But, at least Kantand Peirce where kind of inbox kind of thinking persons. They might have realized this, but where notcapable yet to move towards the higher levels of understandings. I think Aristotle also coped with thesame problem of getting towards real true ultimate levels of understandings. But it might also very wellbe that I simply lack enough insights into the real true understandings of this great master ofphilosophy.In later stages of this discourse I will elaborate in greater details about the errors in Peirceansemiotics. And my own alternatives for that. For now, it is just important to remark that I really trulyunderstand and offer a much greater level of phronetic insights. For those who understand it, this canlead to great possibilities for improving just about anything social around us. It can be key for a lot ofimprovements in change management, management in general. Economics. Psychology andsociology. 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 sensemaking exhibited by most of the persons on this globe in numerous cases. Most of all, it should enablepeople to get the insights of what I call semisophy and semiphronesis errors. Being errors causedmainly by the fact that most people are still into reductionist and inbox kind of thinking andunderstandings. Not being able to move towards the higher levels of understandings. Nietzsche, oneof the few real great intellectuals of the past, has also been trying to do the same by means of hisgreat text “beyond good and evil “. But, he did not succeed well enough. And possibly I will also notsucceed in my efforts yet. Since in the end a lot of people still cope with getting out of the matrixes. Orthey simply do not want to, since it is just not the most easy way of doing and acting. And possiblyharmful for the people doing so. Mainly because of the fact that in the end, the relative idiots inside ofthe boxes are still having more influence. They are just ruling and arranging our worlds and society atlarge, and very often harm the greater people with or without realizing what they are really truly doingto them.
  13. 13. On the completenesses of this discourseSome great falconry friend of mine did make me realise even more that incomplete discourses canoften 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 theperson 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 everydiscourse is expected to be complete and reflecting the truth. Since also scientists are persons whomake mistakes and will not know and understand everything. I for one did take up this discourse. And Ithink I understand much better than any other person on the globe now about a lot of matters andissues explained and discussed here. But in a lot of respects I am just as much a fool as any otherperson on this globe. And there are certainly a lot of persons more wise in a lot of an othernessrespects. 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 thiscase the arts of painting and drawing birds of prey. What he said, was something like that in arts it issometimes better to stop earlier than planned with some drawing or painting (e.g some less completeversion) than to continue and trying to make it more complete. Example of it being for instance adeveloping artist in animal arts who plans to draw a whole falco peregrinus peregrinus. But then stopswith the painting when having only the head. Since he or she knows studying anatomy and especiallythe claws (for instance) is still needed to make that parts also perfect and excellent. In that case justbeing 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 beingone of the best friends I ever had. I saw some great arts of birds of prey hanging there. Thenwondered which great artist had drawn these great drawings. When looking more closer to thesedrawings, I saw the name of my friend accompanying them. And now, the last year, he has drawn agreat drawing of a goshawk. A complete gos, but the gos is missing his feet still. And no branch orbow perch drawn below the gos. This is already the case for about a year, and I asked my friendseveral times whether he would still complete the gos drawing. Now I am reading this part of mydiscourse again, I think I understand what my friend already understands for longer time period. Whichis, of course, that the gos drawing already is considered to be complete. While an actual gos of coursenot is without feet, a drawing of a gos without the feet of course can be. Just like only a peregrinefalcon head drawn can be a great complete piece of art.
  14. 14. Now, similar to this situations in arts I think it should be also much more common in the art of sciencethat parts of the discourses and texts are just left incomplete. And by that leaving some possibilitiesopen for more wise and clever persons on certain fields of knowledge and wisdom to complete thediscourses there. In the end science is an art and also it is an instance of Rhetoric. The Rhetorics of 2science are that the scientific discourses are going on and on. Signs are growing and by thatgenerally becoming more and more complete and excellent. We as scientific and intellectualcommunity should be more and more clear about the fact that science is not something that resultsfrom one individual or mind. But that each scientific discourse is actually the result of collective mindsof more great persons in our societies. That each text is not written solely by that one clever mind buta result of collective hard work.Also this discourse is result of very hard work. Individual hard work mainly, since of course I am notconstantly having such great insights as reflected in this discourse. But without the use of thecollective hard work of a lot of other great individuals, I would not have grown to such great extendsand it would never have been possible to create this great piece of art. Mainly Peirce and his writingshave been a great catalyst for growth. I did get a lot of insights by means of Peircean discourses. Buton the other hand I realise the shortcomings of both Peirce and his main source, Aristoteles. BothPeirce and Aristoteles made some serious errors in their ways of thinking, part of which I will explainfurther on in this discourse.Every discourse is written by one person, while there will be great anothernesses to be brought in byother wise persons for sure. Which is why it would maybe be better if some questions and remarks juststay vague in a discourse and the answering of it are just left towards future generations well futurereaders of the discourse. It is surely not wise and intelligent to expecting every discourse to becomplete and closed reasoning.This discourse stated on paper here is not all of the discourse. Which is why I might even not continuewith parts of the discourse or the like in this text if I announce to do so. It might also be I will do so justlater on. Or never. Because, for rhetorical or artistic or whatever reasons, it might just be better toconsider the discourse in this text as being complete enough. And move on to other activities andconsiderations. Like I just have to stop thinking and writing about the issues in this discourse at leastto get on with my own lives. Flying and enjoying the bond with my birds of prey. And making my ownlife much more complete still.2 In the light of signs growing, I can strongly recommend the book “ signs grow” by Floyd Merrell. The bestway to understand the real essences and nature of signs growing is however to read this discourse alongside thebook “ signs grow” and a lot of other books and actualities. I can strongly recommend also to read at least someof the other books mentioned in the references of this discourse. Most of the books mentioned are supplementaryto this discourse in some or anoterness ways.
  15. 15. On relativityOne of the most important messages of this antenarrative is, that every representamen IS NOT. Eventhe semiotics of Charles Sanders, and this antenarrative, are both far too structural if it is not seen andunderstood that the anothernesses (betweennesses, amongnesses, withinnesses, aroundnessesetcetera) that are NOT to be found in the representamens do play some major role. Depending on howspecific the representamens are and the applicable contexts and living creatures involved, this rolecan be more or less important. But overall, the anothernesses of life have huge impacts. Or they havethe possibilities to generate huge impacts. How huge is something only the most bright people can findout. By returning to the worlds of thoughts and dreams once and a while, reflecting on the possibilitiesof the less specific “implicate orders”. Most efficient is to reflect in the world of thoughts about worldsof existences (what we call reality and real) after returning from the dream world (whether it be nightdreaming or day dreaming). This might and can often lead to great insights. Why this is the case willbe discussed later on in this narrative of life.To improve the theories of Charles Sanders Peirce and others, it is good to make some additionaldistinction in worlds of thought and worlds of matter. What I mean, is the following way of distinctionsand indexes. For some way of subdividing what Bohm calls implicit and explicit worlds, I would at leastmake the distinctions of the Isle of dreams, the floods of thoughts, the perceptions of reality and thereality of life. But, even this distinctions are too structural. And for a better insight in both implicit andexplicit worlds and orders, a further subdivision would be good. And to link it with neurological scienceis 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 theinternet. I mean the example of some smart guy called William James. And then I do NOT mean thegreat American philosopher William James, who was a close friend of CS Peirce and among others 3took part in the metaphysical club together with Peirce. The William James I am referring to here, isanother William James. William James Sidis. This Sidis guy had some story on relativity with somepole and a squirrel in it. If you are lucky, you can still find it on the internet. At is a lot of more interesting stuff there. Also about Robert Pirsig. And well…ok..let me help you abit with the is on I hope. By the way, the great American philosopher William James did also use this example ofthe squirrel around the pole. For one of his lectures, being “what pragmatism means” (second lectureof his “pragmatism: a new name for some old ways of thinking”), he starts with some discourse aboutthe metaphysical discussion about same squirrel example. Which was at least used, probably alsocreated, before by his contemporary William James Sidis.3 This metaphysical club is, among others, discussed in the book “the metaphysical club” by Louis Menand. Itdeals with pragmatism and, as regards to Peirce, pragmaticism. Key figures in the book are the great Americanjurist Oliver Wendell Holmes and philosophers William James and Charles Sanders Peirce. If you want to knowmore about this metaphysical club, the internet is also your friend. If you find the better sources (not all info onthe net is as great, of course. This is also the main reason why Larry Sanger started Citizendium)
  16. 16. The last thing I might say about relativity here is, that the more you understand from this particulardiscourse, the more you will understand that a lot of representamens in this discourse are actuallyNOT. Also because my notions of particular terminologies, also the ones of Peirce or somepostmodern terms, are actually incorporating some other qualities (according to the Peircean notion ofqualities) than the regular notions concerned.
  17. 17. On ducks and rabbitsA guy called Joseph Jastrow did some psychological experiments with CS Peirce. He however alsoused some ambiguous (or reversible) figure to show that perception is also a mental activity. That wealso “see” with our minds (by which I do not mean the notion of mind of Peirce and others like me, butthe notion of mind as being only part of the brain stuff in our head) . I will continue on this later onwhen talking about senses. For now, I only want to show the ambiguous figure firstly used in scienceby jastrow. Together with some other ambiguous figure. Then I also want to show some illusivejastrow 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 Ihope you see they are NOT) :The duck/rabbit version here is not the one of Jastrow, but a changed version by the GermanPsychologist Walter Ehrenstein (1899-1961). Fact is that people who overcode this picture could seeeither a duck or a rabbit in the first representamen. I myself like the rabbit more, but I think my falconprefers the duck. Then again, it is one of the few falcon species that also hunts fur in nature. So guessshe might agree with me. I wish I could have some conversation with her about it. On ducks andrabbits. But maybe she can convince me it is a snipe. Because part of the decision what it is rests onpre-assumptions and the fixation of our interpretations by means of just telling it would be a rabbit orduck. To me it misses some of the qualisigns for being so. Or, like Umberto Eco would say, therepresentamen of Jastrow is undercoded for being a representamen of a duck or a rabbit to me.
  18. 18. But well, to me as a falconer a drawing or other representamen of an American Kestrel (falcosparverius) 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 Americankestrel? I guess not! Let alone the discussions about differences in individual kestrels…for morethoughts about that I would strongly suggest the great research of Charles Sanders Pierce andJoseph 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 withbeing a falco species or accipiter gentiles. Which are both really very distinct and other creatures forthose who understand.
  19. 19. Now, the intriguing question there is who would be right. Saying something on a picture is somethingin real life. Because, in actuality a drawing is NOT and will never be. What is actually the semanticerror made here, is the confusion of mixing the representamen with the object. Representamen andobject are just different things, of course. Not to be interpreted as being the same kind of things withsame natures and realities. Although most people are conditioned in this wrong ways early on in theirchildhoods. 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 veryimportant for the interpretation of the representamen as such. A representamen is often a matter ofconvention or assumption. So actually if we would agree that the right drawing up here would be a carinstead 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 4undercoding . 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 toexplain it much clearer here. By taking the duckrabbit as an example. Since, I came to the insight thatthis picture of Jastrow could also give a lot of insights in that. Especially when it is connected with theuniverses of Charles Sanders Peirce.Let us start with the notions of representamens, object(s) and interpretants of Charles Sanders Peirce.Actually, the duck/hawk 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 adrawing or representamen will actually really be seen as a duck or rabbit or whatever, although it isnot and never will be, depends on a lot. Most of all on the interpretants and the quality of theinterpreter. Some less critical and less perfectionist interpreter will sooner judge some representamenas equalling a duck or a rabbit than some more critical, or more expert interpreter. Also, the role ofother 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 orany discourse never will be. Without critical individual minds and relying on the collective minds, onewould most likely determine the representamen as being a duck or a rabbit.4 It might be that Alfred Korzybski uses some other labels for this phenomenon of over coding /under coding inhis book called “science and sanity”.
  20. 20. The people who really understand what I am writing in this discourse, but also the people who reallyunderstand Korzybski (and Eco), should say: no it is NOT a duck. It is NOT a rabbit. It is simply arepresentamen. We can say it resembles a duck or a rabbit, BUT it is missing the following to actuallyreally look like a duck or a rabbit. Although it will never actually be. Just like some of the accused andimprisoned will never actually be criminal. And probably a lot of “insane” people are actually notinsane, but labelled and treated that way because a lot of psychiatric professionals are actually insanethemselves. More on that later. For now, I want to remark that by now I understand that at least someGREAT part of the people being either into the process of or already into psychiatric institutions orprisons, are actually not really criminal or bad but on the contrary just GREAT persons even greaterthan the inbox kind of persons grounding their sensemaking on partial insanities. The perceivedcriminal or psychiatric persons actually being the more sane and therefore just grounding theirsensemaking 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 justagreeing with the convention of the representamen being a duck or a rabbit will just judge it beingeither a duck or a rabbit. But, even if they do, if you will very critically ask what is missing, they will forsure be able to give some qualities (in Peircean sense) what is missing in the representamen to bewhat they say it is. So, in fact each interpreter would agree that the representamen is undercoded insome 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 ofsome aspects of reification.With regards to the fundamental attribution errors, overcoding and undercoding are part of the issuesthat cause this error. And maybe it are the only reasons. But, they have to be seen in some broaderlights. Since, overall the fundamental attribution error is caused by a too narrow point of view by theinterpreter. The fundamental attribution error is actually some more specific instance of a fundamentalinterpretation error. And, these interpretation errors are overall caused by some wrong perspectiveand points of view from the interpreters. Or a lack of right information, but this actually is also leadingto wrong perspectives (or perceptions) of the interpreter(s).Practical examples of fundamental interpretation errors are for instance a lot of errors made in justiceand by insane psychics and other persons working in the social spheres. A well known example injustice is the so-called tunnel view of a lot of judicial people. This occurrence is known, but in the endno-one really deals with it to prevent this dangerous error. Then another practical example of afundamental interpretation error that is caused by a too narrow point of view is the example of aperson stating that people or mankind would be generally bad or evil. Such a statement is based on atoo narrow point of view and lack of information. This lack of information can indeed be because ofother reasons than taking too narrow a view, but ultimately every lack of information is caused by theinterpreter not wanting to think critically enough and to get the right information.
  21. 21. In the end, really every correct and true points of view are already there in the worlds and universesaround us. People “only” have to be able and really care about getting the right perspectives. Thisbeing able to is something that most people lack in current times, but also that should be solved in thelong runs.Another example of a fundamental interpretation error would be if someone does think that thepositivist and the negativist attitude in people is based on the same context, the differences in beingpositive 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 thatdetermine a person to be positive or negative about something. Also, the intelligence of a person doeshave a word there. Because, someone more intelligent and wise will mostly “see” a lot more then otherpersons. 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 morereasons to be negative than a person who does not see any problems of society. Actually, thefundamental attribution error is far more profound in our society than people would realise at firstnotices. Since people just mostly lack the capacities and insights to move towards thirdnesses andmost 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 bothexactly same sizes. This Jastrow Illusion, but also some other ones, can be found on What this Jastrow illusion tells us, is that our sensescan even misguide us when we have some rather simple objects straight before our eyes and verynear to each other. This may make you worry about the extend of reliability of our senses in more 5complex cases where appearances of signs are far less explicate.5 Sign like used here can be just everything. Really everything around us is considered a sign. Probably this wasthe point of view of CS Peirce, and it certainly is my point of view. Every process around us is an instance of
  22. 22. Judging about facts, appearances and events in the “real” world is really not easy, even though wehave and use all of our senses. Mainly because our main universal sense, the mind, is really notoptimally functioning yet. Especially in social reality, we all still have to learn a lot still. And a lot ofperception is reality still, although it would better be not. In fact, the more you “see”, the more yourealize that perceptions are much more profound in our “realities” than most people realize. There area lot of realities around us that are actually more like fiction and perceptions. Actually, a great part ofour society and universes consist of fictions and perceptions of reality. And perceptions can be reallydamaging…to people.One of the perceptions that should NOT be reality, is the fact that too many people think they can relyon 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 constructionis 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 mindperception.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 relevantsituations. Like for instance in justice. There, too many people having too low knowledge and insightshave the perception that they know everything and that they can rely on their senses enough. Withoutlistening to others and taking other perspectives into account enough. Which is why they quite oftenstay with the possibilities, but interpretate them as being existences. Or maybe laws. I dare to say thatalmost no professional in justice really understands and reaches the state of actual laws. Which simplymeans they make a lot of mistakes in about every law suit. This is not my perceptions, but it is reallywithout doubt a clear fact. Justice is not about justice. It is about people making a lot of mistakes andby that also harming the people who are really innocent. These innocent people being treated by asystem and people who put a lot of innocent people in jail. Leading to the perception of criminalitieswhere actual criminality is much lower than perceived.signs growing there. Not only we grow, but also a seemingly statical object like a chair or a laptop grows. Theone chair is not the other chair, even if they look the same. Actually the representamen is also not the sign andeven the sign itself is different in each moment in time. Continuous movements, growth and changes everywherearound us.
  23. 23. In justice, witnesses are far too often just believed on what they are telling. While in far too manycases, same witnesses are lying about what actually happened. At least this happens a lot when thewitnesses know the prosecuted persons. While there is no actual true evidence supporting what isbeing told, that often simply does not matter for justice. Something being told by the witnesses isproof, whether there is evidence or not. The things being told ARE the evidence, whether they are liesor the truth does not make a difference there. While witness testimonials are interpretated as beingevidence, they are NOT. But also there, perception is actually reality. Leading to a lot of disasters forthe persons concerned. And even to the justice system and people working in it being guilty of seriouscrimes like for instance the indirect murder of people. Serious offences against the universal rights ofpeople. Harming innocent people in the most terrible ways possible.
  24. 24. Anonymous Buddhist: Life is just a game First rule of the game: 6 It is NOT a game!!!!6 Besides that, It will be mentioned in this discourse that the map is not the territory. And even that the map isnot the map and/or the territory is not the territory. But these two notions have nothing to do with the phraseabove on this page. And understanding them requires an at least rough understanding of the death genius calledCharles Sander Peirce.
  25. 25. Let the “games” excelSo here I am at some stage of my life where time has passed and time will come. Having spent a lot ofmy precious hours, days and even years doing what? Mainly reflecting. Reflecting about many aspectsof our society. And social sciences at large. Mainly because I, like so many intelligent people in current 7society, could sense that a lot can be much better for sure. That there is a lot of vagueness in currentsocieties. That there must be some other “logic” then the logic currently applied by the majority ofpeople 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 resultsthat in fact destroy capitalism if things go bad and destroys capital less if things go well. But alwayscapital 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 iswrong with capitalism and how it can be changed to true capitalism, which in my opinion should notdestroy but create capital. Not only financial capital, but also social capital and all kinds of othercapital. It will be explained what kinds of capital are there at least, the relation between the kinds ofcapital and why and how all of this capitals should be encouraged and build up. Instead of destroyingwhat has been build up with lots of efforts all the time. And to make it more clear and logic, I willexplain why it is better to replace the notion of capital into the notions of value(s).7 With vagueness, I here mean about the same kind of vagueness that CS Peirce is aiming at in his discourses. Itis explained a bit in the text “Peirces logic of vagueness” written by Phyllis Chiasson. To be found, hopefullystill when you are reading this discourse, at Some other greattexts about Peirce’s thoughts and insights can be found there.
  26. 26. My reflections have also been about how to put my thoughts and my way of viewing the world onpaper. But actually, this is cleared up quite well now. I choose to write in normal speaking languageand to try to keep my discourse as transparent and clear as possible. Not paraphrasing the greatminds 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 wasbasically searching for was universal truth about how life actually is and more specifically what we asindividuals and society as a whole would have to know to be able to create an economy in ways thatreal recessions could be over. Forever. And, I think I found that. But besides that, I found much more. Ifound 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 isclear to me now. In many aspects of life and the world of thoughts. Only a small part of my knowledgeand insights will be discussed in this discourse. A lot, really a lot, of insights and knowledge I didgather is not yet. Main aims for me in future will be to put a lot in practise. If I get any chance of doingso.
  27. 27. Preface and acknowledgementsThis discourse is, in many respects, different from most if not all of the other discourseswritten in society. Because of several reasons. One of them being the HUGE potentials of thecontent. This discourse really is, what I call, a phronesis antenarrative. Being an antenarrativein the most elementary and fundamental ways, while meanwhile inhabiting the mostentelychistic and great insights of our universes.In my main discourse about Phronesis Antenarrating, I express that each antenarrative aimedat improving (social) aspects of our society should be as phronetic as possible. But, aphronetic antenarrative (being an antenarrative inhabiting enough phronetic elements to bejudged being phronetic) is not the same as a phronesis antenarrative. A phroneticantenarrative being a specific type of antenarrating, while a phronesis antenarrative is aspecific type of both antenarrative and phronetic antenarrative.A phronesis antenarrative is the fundamental kind of antenarrative that precedes furthergrowth 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 tounderstand and improve more developed signs in our universes at large.This discourse precisely does so. In most impressive ways. IF the content is understood inproper ways. The more I read in other books and discourses, the more I understand this is thecase. Actually, whatever book I read on social sciences and social phenomena, the more Iunderstand my own discourse inhabits fundamental insights for moving ahead in mostimpressive 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. Withan analysis of the development and general state of economics during the last decades. Thisbook is actually one of the few books I would not put on the book mountains I got at home farbefore reaching the end of it. But, it is still a book I have quite some critiques upon. The mostimportant 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 ofeconomic science is interesting and relevant.
  28. 28. But overall it is actually very disappointing to learn that a senior advisor of one of the biggestconsulting firms of Western society could only produce what he did while having such hugeamounts of assistant and backup of colleagues and lots of intellectuals. To me, it is anotherclear proof of the general low level of intellectuals and practitioners in the fields of socialsciences and practises.What I produced in this discourse is MUCH more entelychistic and great. And, I produced italmost solely on my own. Maybe that is one of the reasons why it is better. But generally, thatdoes not matter too much. What matters is that my discourse, THIS discourse, offers thepotentials to largely improve social sciences and practises. It is the fundament forunderstanding about everything in social sciences and practises, and by that to improve almosteverything 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 moreplural and multidimensional ways than the general form of it would suggest. As stated inanotherness parts of this discourse, the map is not the territory. This representamen, being theeffort of trying to express my understandings in a linearly constructed text, is by far notcomplete. And it is by far not the way I would like to express. If only I had moremultidimensional and plural ways available to express my understandings, it would largelyimprove the impact and possibilities. But, altogether, this text can and will offer hugepossibilities. If only people will understand. But, this understanding will grow if theunderstanding 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 beintegrated more. The reason I did not is partly because of limits of writing. But it is alsobecause of the fact that a further integration requires more understanding. In case I wouldintegrate it much further already now, it would mean less people would understand. But ofcourse, I also need to understand well enough then. And generally, I can state that myunderstandings are also still growing.One of the key understandings being much more clear to me now, is that one rather simple butkey methodology can and must be key for improving our universes and society at large. Thismethodology being the methodology called narrating. With antenarrating being the absolute
  29. 29. fundamental methodology of it. Hopefully I can make my point more clear by paraphrasingsome sentences out of the book “the origin of wealth” by Eric Beinhocker:“”Roger Schank, the director of the Institute for Learning Sciences at NorthwesternUniversity and the former director of the Yale artificial Intelligence laboratory, has conductedresearch showing the centrality of stories to our mental processes for understanding,remembering, and communicating. As plato said : “those who tell the stories rulesociety”……….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 deductionthere, the general argument about storytelling is spot on. Storytelling, but more elementaryantenarrating and narrating, are key. Simply because our minds are key. For whateverhappens in our universes. Antenarrating and narrating can and should be the vessel forchange, supported by the right contents. These contents being great phronesis antenarrativesand besides that great methodologies.With regards to entelychistic antenarrating methodologies, it depends on the aims of theantenarrating and the contexts and acts to be understood which methodologies fit the best. Ofcourse. But generally, with regards to antenarratives aimed at improving our societies, mostlythe 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. Andgenerally a right way of antenarrating will suffice there. This phronesis antenarrativeincorporates enough clues as what this way of practising phronesis and phronesisantenarratives would involve. But generally, I will elaborate more about it in the chapter I willwrite in the phronesis handbook that should be published in the year of 2009 or 2010.While phronesis antenarrative is the vessel for change, phronesis itself is about the keyfundamentals to start with. Because of this, these key fundamentals have to inhabit the mostelementary wisdoms of our universes at large. This universe not only being the universalexistence called society, but also all other universes as such. At least all the universes we areinvolved in. I say universes since I would like to still make distinctions between several typesof universes of possibilities and several types of universes of existences. For instance, ourfloods of dreams would be a very specific type of universe. But, in the end, all the universes
  30. 30. are intrinsically connected with each other. Although some borders and limits can be found inand between the several universes as such.Some of the key starting points of my discourse was and is to be found in the philosophicalwritings and understandings of Charles Sanders Peirce. Quite some of his semiotics has beenbase for further understandings. But, I hope it becomes clear in and throughout my discoursethat I became quite opposed to his ways of thinking because of some major critiques againstPeircean semiotics.One of the most elementary critiques is the lack of understandings of Peirce himself. I givemany reasons for this in the discourse itself, but would like to mention one fundamentalwhich I did not express too well in the discourse itself just here. Being the fact that Peirce didprobably not understand both the implications of and the fact itself that the bigger part of histrichotomies are actually representamens themselves. As the great Korzybski would have saidthere, the map is not the territory. Postmodernists would maybe recognize some aspects ofreification in Peircean trichotomies. Altogether, also because of this, these representamens area 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 majorerrors in Peircean semiotics.In this discourse, I tried to both reveal the problems of Peircean semiotics but at the same timealso offering the better approaches and understandings. By now, I am certain I managed to doso in most impressive ways. I am sure, really sure, that the levels of understandings reflectedin this phronesis antenarrative discourse inhabit the keys to arrive at the most entelychisticinsights and understandings ever reachable in our universes as such. Actually I alreadyreached this, but at the same time I understand a lot of fundamentals have to be refined andimplemented still.
  31. 31. The underlying approach and perspective taken throughout my discourse can be seen ashighly constructionistic in nature. Through this scieintific perspective, I agree with the generalsocial constructionist views. But, the nature and contents of my discourse are again moreentelychistic and great than the most insights in social constructionism. It is morefundamental 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 lessapplicable to non-social sciences. Meaning that sciences like mathematics and physics dealless 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 aregrounded in social insanities. I have mostly labelled them semisophy and semiphronesisinsanities, 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 atlarge. If properly understood and the right methodologies are used. These sound rightmethodologies are also reflected in this discourse well enough, but should be understood inright ways. They offer the keys to move on towards great out of the box ways of thinking anddoing. Some of them being also initiated partly in this discourse, but I am sure thepossibilities and opportunities are WAY bigger and greater than the first initial steps taken inthis discourse might imply.Because of the fact that this phronesis antenarrative is mostly meant as being some fundamentfor understanding our societies at large and also for some real great improvements in ouruniverses at large, the discourse does not have to be complete actually. I even neglect theacademically or socially requested aim of completeness in this discourse since I expect themain 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 ofthis antenarrative.
  32. 32. But actually, the high sophistication of this phronesis intenarrative will not have the greatesteffects in case something very fundamentally will not change. Being the intentions andcharacteristics of human beings. At the moment, there are just far too many individuals beingfar too arrogant and selfish. Not being able to LISTEN to other people’s opinions. Actually Imyself 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 onesthat 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. Willnot help in case people proceed with these insane intentions and attitudes that lead to biglosses of values throughout time. If we want to cure the insanities of humankind, we need tobe 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. Toughbecause of the insane actions of a lot of people around me and also because of risks alreadytaken by picking up the assignment I put upon myself. It was a quest for understanding theuniverses surrounding us in better ways. By that I wanted to create the ultimate fundamentalsfor change management. For growth and improvement of the universes surrounding us. Notonly organizations, but especially also other aspects of our universes at large. By now, Imyself understand that I reached this goal in most impressive ways. If only people are capableenough 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 andautonomous mainly. But, like every PhD student, I had my advisor. This advisor, SlawomirMagala, has been very essential in the ways I developed. Without his facilitative actions andguidance, I would by far not have improved the ways I did during the last years. He broughtme into contact with Arjo Klamer and Deirdre Mc Closkey, two other great intellectuals andpersons. By following some seminars with Arjo and Deirde, and sometimes also Slawomirinvolved, I got infected by the drive to understand and discuss intellectual texts. Thesediscussions where key for motivating me to read more. They were my main catalysts forgrowth, together with the great and inspiring personalities of Slawomir, Arjo and Deirdre.
  33. 33. These 3 persons have been, without any doubts, some of the most important persons I everencountered in my life. For intellectual growth, they have been the most influential and greatones.But, I need to mention at least one other intellectual in this respects. Being David Boje, who isa professor of management at New Mexico State University (NMSU) in Las Cruses. Someyears back, he was “ just” one of my intellectual heroes. Without even having spoken to himor whatever other communications. I only heard of his name and visited is website at thattimes. 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. Itled to some first invitation to join the SC’ moi conference. Some offer I did not acceptbecause it was and is bit too early for me yet to do this. But, just recently, David asked me forsome other challenge. Being the proposal to write some book chapter on phronesisantenarrative. This has been and still is a very encouraging request. It leads me to work evenmore seriously to my aims of completing my own phronesis antenarrative in better ways. Butbesides that, it made me realize that the phronesis antenarrative is exactly the rightmethodology to put both mine and whatever other future ideas for improvement into practise.Apart from this major key persons in the development of this discourse, I have to thank atleast Roger Anderton. This independent scholar has been of great support. We had numerousdiscussions over the last couple of years. Not directly linked to this discourse, but about a lotof 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 aresearcher 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 (hisresearch topic) and my research. But still, I highly valued the talks with him. Also our talksabout falconry, our common interests.Then also I need to thank a lot of other persons helping me with more or less small steps ofthis discourse or just for being there. The problem with mentioning this persons is that I willfor sure forget some. But I will try to mention at least the most of them. First of all, there werethe participants of the seminars I attended led by Arjo Klamer.
  34. 34. Then people like Alan Rayner, Bob MacIntosh, Claudio Guerri, Generally also lots of otherpeople from mailing lists like Peirce_L and Philos-L.Lichtenvoorde, October 2010Wilfred Berendsen
  35. 35. List of relevant notionsNOTIONS EXPLAINED IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS DISCOURSE ANDHOLOPLURALITYAbductionThis 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 worthtrying. For me, however, abduction is the process of taking distance from a subject underconsiderations for indeed getting towards not only the best possible guess but more the mostprobably guess or even best fundaments or realities. Abduction in this light is largelydependent on and supplementary to retroduction (being explained a bit more in another part ofthis list of notions). But also for more excellent phronesis abduction also some moresupplementary steps of sound pluriflection are needed. Abduction being one of the mostelementary steps for sound pluriflectionAcritically indubitable beliefsAcritically indubitable beliefs are part of Peircean common sensism. This common sensisminvolves that humans often have no other chance than adopting vague but indubitable beliefsthat rest on experience or scientific discourse.Acritically indubitable judgementsAcritically indubitable judgements are judgements based on vague but indubitable beliefs.Current judgement system also relies on this kind of judgements which is damaging becauseof the errors being made.Accitically indubitable insanitiesAccritically indubitable insanities is a special type of acritically indubitable beliefs andacritically indubitable judgements. Denoting that acritically indubitable beliefs or judgementscan indeed lead to acritically indubitable insanities. But foremost the notion is meant toexpress the important understanding that most of current mainstream social sciences andpractises are largely grounded on acritically indubitable beliefs being acritically indubitableinsanities leading to damage to people and our society at large.AccusatorsThis might be a synonym for prosecutor, accusing someone in the name of the law. But, forme accusator is more broadly just someone accusing someone else. This can be also in othersocial settings like normal or non-normal social behaviors. As current mainstream is mostlystill reductionist, most social behavior is not normal and therefore accusations are mostly notreally just. Either in laws or in social matters the accusatory mostly misses some importantunderstandings or accuses because of partly own reasons. Which is not correct of course.AmongnessesAmongness is just another way of saying in betweenness as each plurising is among otherplurisigns. We have to understand the linkages and dependencies of this other plurisigns inright correct ways. But also we need to be able to switch to the greatest perspective and mostexcellent sensemaking.
  36. 36. AntenarrativeI can only use the description of this notion by David Boje as he is the sole inventor of thisgreat notion. Antenarrative, according to David Boje , is : “non-linear, incoherent, collective,unplotted, and pre-narrative speculation, a bet,” (Boje, 2001: 1). Antenarratives are “in themiddle” and “in-between” (Boje, 2001: 293)AporiaThe notion of Aporia is used to label a philosophical puzzle or puzzlement. It can also denotethe state of being perplexed. In the context of practicism, Aporia is the catalyst for phroniticalthinking and sensemaking.ArgumentAn argument is in the context of this writing just any communication with the intentions ofconvincing 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 orher life can all together be part of just one big argument. And even this can be part of an evenbigger one. Objects can be arguments. Arguments can be of more or less quality, alsodepending on whether it is based on insane or sane sensemaking. But even insane argumentsare arguments.AutopoiesisAutopoeiesis is a notion first expressed by Maturana & Varela, being the autonomous creationor production of something. For a more thorough understanding of this notion, I refer to mydiscourse on phronesis poeiesis like reflected in anotherness part of this discourseBetweennessesBetweennesses are plurisigns in between other plurisignsBricolageBricolage is something that is easy at hand to be used as a tool that it was not designed for ormeant for originally. Using a car key to open carton boxes closed with tape is an example, justlike using a line and a towel as a lure in falconry.CenoscopyCharles Sanders Peirce made the distinctions in idioscopic and cenoscopic sciences.Philosophia Prima (cenoscopy) or philosophy is about positive phenomena rather than specialclasses. 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 currentmainstream sciences. Just maybe it is about cenoscrazy leading to idiocrazy by idioscopiesusing cenoscopies.CollopoeiesisCollopoeiesis is a notion initiated by me, meaning the collaborative creation or production ofsomething. For a more thorough understanding of this notion, I refer to my discourse onphronesis poeiesis like reflected in anotherness part of this discourse
  37. 37. CommodificationCommodification is the transformation of relationships formerly not having a commercialaspects 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 tounderstand the nature of this commodifications and the intensities and part of it in our presentsociety.Continuous interpretant chain (CIC)The continuous interpretant chain (CIC) is a notion initiated by me, Wilfred Berendsen. In thecontext of the distorted dynamical interpretant. (DDI). The continuous interpretant chain isexpressing the fact that interpretants are mostly the product of several interpretants and alsoare part of continuous interpretations. And during the conversion or interpretations orassemblage of new interpretations, there is always a level of distortion. So continuousinterpretant chains are leading to distorted dynamical interpretants. The more phronetic andmeta-semeiotic the sensemaking, the smaller the chance of aspects of distorting dynamicalinterpretants.DicisignA dicisign or dicent is described by CS Peirce as follows : “The readiest characteristic testshowing whether a sign is a Dicisign or not is that a Dicisign is either true or false, but doesnot directly furnish reasons for its being so. This shows that a Dicisign must profess to referor 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 ablind Secondness. But the only kind of sign whose object is necessarily existent is the genuineIndex. This Index might, indeed, be a part of a Symbol; but in that case the relation wouldappear 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 thereare interpreters involved, and that each time a story is passed on to another interpreter theinterpretant changes and therefore gets distorted. Meaning that the message being transferredand 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 oneinterpreter and interpretant and the interpretant being communicated over time, there isalways some Distorted Dynamical Interpretant (DDI). The effect of it being the DDI effect.Duck-rabbitSee also Duckrabbit. This Duck-rabbit or Duckrabbit or Rabbit Duck is the illusion used byJoseph Jastrow and later on more persons to test whether persons would see a Duck or aRabbit or both in a certain representamen. If they saw any of them, they where wrong. As therepresentamen is neither a duck nor a rabbit, but a duckrabbit. But indeed it was originallyalready created for people to perceive it as being either or while actually it is neither nor.DuckrabbitSee Duck-Rabbit
  38. 38. DureeDuree is the notion of Henri Bergson. According to him, Duree is indivisible mobility. Dureeis his notion for the real time which science at least at his times ignored. Duree is about theinner life of man which is a kind of Duration.DynamisDynamis is Ability, potential, power. Both Dynamis and Energeia(activity, actuality) areoriginating from Greek Philosophy. They are mentioned in the works of both Plato andAristotle, but these two philosophers had different opinions about the connections between thenotions. According to Aristotle, actuality (energeia) is prior both to potency (dynamis) and tochange. But, Aristotle seems to have only believed in linear plots. Current mainstream seemsto be grounded mainly on Aristotelean philosophy. Aristotle was wrong. Actually linear plotsdo exist but there are also out of the box non-linearities. Like David Boje already understoodwith his notion of antenarrative.Dynamoid objectAccording to Peirce and because of that in semiotics, the dynamoid object is the mediateobject, 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 distinguishbetween 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" (ALetter to William James, EP 2:498, 1909)EidosBy 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 hiswritings/understandings it is similar or synonym to the notion of idea.EnergeiaActivity, actuality). For Aristotle, motion is any kind of change and motion is the actuality ofa potentiality. Actuality is energeia. Being at work. Change. Living.Entelecheia or entelechyEntelechia is Being-at-an-end as opposed to being-at-work (energeia). In Peircean semiotics,entelechy was used for perfection of being.EntelygisticBeing of entelechy or being of entelecheiaExternal qualitiesExternal qualities are qualities not directly being part of the sign itself. It is a semeioticalnotion originating from CS Peirce. For more understanding about the notion mostly thePeircean writings will be off interest.
  39. 39. Fundamental attribution errorThe fundamental attribution error is also called correspondence bias or attribution effect. It isthe tendency to overvalue personality based or internal explanations or factors for behaviorsof others while undervaluating situational or external explanations or factors for thisbehaviors of others. In that sense it is a specific type of a combination of undercoding andovercoding signs.Governmental social responsibility (GSR)Governmental social responsibility is about using capabilities guided by prohumanism andsane sensemaking. Putting the human mind and values for people as the most important issuesto be taken into regards.HolopluralityHoloplurality is a notion initiated by Wilfred Berendsen after his understanding of the soletrue underlying structure and nature of all of our universes. The notion of holopluralityinvolving just that, the sole true underlying structure and nature. Holoplurality is explainedmuch more into this discourse but also other discourses of Wilfred Berendsen are important asholoplurality is fundament and key for the body of understanding called practicism but alsofor components/aspects of this body of understanding like for instance sound pluriflection andphronesis antenarrating.IdiocraticIdiocratic is meant to be anything being based on idiocrazy. Idiocrazy being the result ofcenoscrazy. 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 andgovernmental social responsibility. As ISR can and should also be fundament or aspect ofCSR and GSR. But besides that, ISR has to supplement CSR and GSR where CSR and GSRare not present.Indubitable beliefSee acriticallhy indubitable beliefIndubitable judgementSee acritically indubitable judgementInternal qualitiesInternal qualities are qualities directly connected with or intrinsic in the sign itself. It is asemeiotical notion being part of semiotics of CS Peirce.
  40. 40. LegisignCS Peirce did mention in a paper to lady Welsby that a Legisign is a sign of the nature of ageneral type. He also stated: “A legisign is a law that is a sign. This law is usually establishedby men. Every conventional sign is a legisign. It is not a single object, but a general typewhich, it has been agreed, shall be significant. Every legisign signifies through an instance ofits application, which may be termed a Replica of it. Thus, the word "the" will usually occurfrom fifteen to twenty-five times on a page. It is in all these occurrences one and the sameword, 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 peculiaroccurrences that are regarded as significant. Nor would the replica be significant if it were notfor the law which renders it so." (A Syllabus of Certain Topics of Logic, EP 2:291, 1903)Logic of VaguenessThe logic of vagueness is a notion that can mean a lot. Even it can mean contents beingcontrary to each other. In Peircean understandings, being the understandings of CS peircehimself, vagueness can paradoxically entirely destroy doubt. The logic of vagueness is aboutgetting to understand this paradoxical ability of vagueness. Holoplurality and understandingof the sole true underlying structure of our nature and universes is very elementary for justthat. For me, the logic of vagueness is also about a way to reduce vagueness(es) andabsolutism. Sound phronesis antenarrating is a way to reduce this vaguenesses by realizingdoubt.MethodeuticThe investigation and application of the truth. Methodeutic is speculative rhetoric.MultiversitiesMultiversities to my understandings are universities not concentrating on knowledge ,theories,universals and general cases. But on phronesis, involving specific cases, specific cases andwisdom. 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 andcomplete universes as a whole.NousMind, intellect, common sense
  41. 41. OvercodedOvercoded is derived from Umberto Eco, who distinguished between the following types ofabduction:-Overcoded abduction- Undercoded abduction- Creative abduction- Meta-abductionBefore continuing here about the meaning of overcoding/undercoding, it should be stated thatthe 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 themore excellent holoplural perspective and placed in the light of meta-semeiotics where themeta is also of anotherness nature and level than the meta mentioned above. It is even MOREmeta but also of anotherness nature.But, in the light of reductionist Eco semiotics, overcoding is basically the phenomenon ofassigning additional meanings to a sign. While undercoding is basically the phenomenon ofnot grasping certain meanings that are meant to be communicated with a certain sign. In thelight of a meta-semeiotical more excellent holoplural perspective, both the nature and level ofunderstandings and therefore also the content and meaning of overcoding and undercodingdiffer from the general notion.But also, maybe more important. Is the fact that for UmbertoEco and probably most people, overcoding and undercoding are just phenomena in oursociety. 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 semisophyerrors/mistakes. In a meta-semeiotical understanding and perspective, the main overcodingand undercoding is part of semiphronesis errors and mistakes being the result of restrictions ofour languages and other representamens.PhilophronesisPhilophronesis is friends of practical wisdom or love for practical wisdomIn the light of this discourse, or practicism, philophronesis is love for practical wisdom beingguided by sane sensemaking based on holoplurality. Philophronesis therefore involves thelove for practical wisdom also in science as science and practice become one in practicism.PhilosophiaPhilosophia is friends of theoretical wisdom or love for theoretical wisdomPhronesisPhronesis is practical wisdom. In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle distinguishes betweenSophia and Phronesis. Although this distinction itself is great, phronesis should be understoodin anotherness ways than the way it was understood by Aristotle. Mainly because of the inboxkind of thinking of Aristotle, but also because of the fact that an understanding of the real truestructure of our universes requires so. While Aristotle would label and understanding of theworld and fundamental aspects of it as being Sophia, I would not do so perse. Since a moreentelychistic understanding of phronesis demands also understandings and fundamentals tobelong to phronesis. Phronesis does not have to be solely consisting of acts, also possibilitiesor better opportunities can have enough characteristics to be labelled phronetic.
  42. 42. Phronesis antenarratingPhronesis antenarrating is invented by Wilfred Berendsen, following the initial invention ofthe antenarrative notion by David Boje. Phronesis antenarrating is basically not only aboutstorytelling, but also about sensemaking and communication in general. Sensemaking, andforemost sane sensemaking, is a very elementary component of and guide for PhronesisAntenarrating. Phronesis antenarrating being based on sound pluriflection, another notion andconcept being initiated by Wilfred Berendsen. This pluriflection consisting of different stepsor components. Some of this components are already described more detailed in otherdiscourses of me on Phronesis Antenarrating. This are probably the most important ones, butof course there will probably be more to add also there.Phronesis representiaPhronesis representia is the plural of phronesis representamen. Both phronesis representia andphronesis representamen are notions initiated/invented by me, me being Wilfred Berendsen. Aphronesis representamen is the result of sound great Phronesis antenarrating being based onpluriflection. The quality of the phronesis representia or representamen being largelydependent on the quality of the people executing and the quality of the specific sensemakingprocesses, but also on the quality and content of the Phronesis representia and “normal”representamens being input for the Phronesis antenarrating processes.Phronesis constructionismPhronesis constructionism is understanding and developing social phenomena or realitiesbased on phronesis and holoplurality. Taking into regards the connectedness of plurisigns andunderstanding of the holoplural nature and aspects of this.Phronesis poeiesisPhronesis poeiesis is the creation or production of something based on phronesis, practicalwisdom(s). Phronesis poeiesis can have the character of autopoeiesis or collopoeiesis or anycombination of these two types of poeiesis. But besides that, phronesis peoiesis has a lot ofcharacteristics that are specifical characteristics for this specific type of poeiesis. For a morethorough understanding of this notion, I refer to my discourse on phronesis poeiesis likereflected in anotherness part of this discoursePhroneticAn act or thought is phronetic when it hast a phronesis nature.PhroneticalSomething being phronetical means it is phronetic, it is being based on phronesis or has aphronesis nature.PhroniticalPhronitical is the notion of Wilfred Berendsen and means being critical with the backgroundsof practical wisdoms. And it should be based on sane sensemaking grounded on sound greatpluriflections. This might lead to phronesis representia or phronesis representamens.
  43. 43. PluriflectionPluriflections is the notion invented by Wilfred Berendsen to distinguish between mainstreamreductionist reflections and the special type of reflection process based on holoplurality.Pluriflection is therefore sane sensemaking based on the sole true underlying structure andnature of our universes.PluribindPluribind is the meta-semeiotical notion for distinguishing the difference with the mainstreamreductionist notion of double bind formulated by Gregory Bateson et al. For a much betterunderstanding of pluribind, the parts of this discourse dealing with this notion and thedifferences with double bind notion should be read at first. In the future I might explain thepluribind 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 thisPhronesis Antenarrative discourse.PluriformPluriform as opposed to uniform is another concept for plural. For instance plursigns have thecharacteristics of being pluriform, consisting of several plurisigns themselves also beingpluriform and consisting of several plurisigns,. This holoplural structure and nature of ouruniverses is very important to understand, mostly for sane sensemaking and enchantment forour society at large.PlurisanityThere are several types of pluri-insanities like for instance the example of pluribind andpluribind insanities resulting from it. But, of course there are also plur sanities. Or sanitiesbeing plural. So plursanity is my notion for plural sanities. Plural sanities are mostly the resultfrom lazarus antenarrating and sane sensemaking and phronesis antenarrating. Based onsound pluriflection and a meta-semeiotical perspective.PlurisciencePluriscience is my notion for science incorporating and being based on holoplurality. As all ofour sciences have to be grounded on holoplurality and my body of understanding calledpracticism, in the end all of sciences have to evolve in this particular type of science I termedpluriscience.PlurisignA plurisign is my notion for expressing that all of signs are actually plural and thereforeplurisigns. But, there is a large difference in plurisigns. Even the so-called uniform signs arein the end more what I termed uniplurals, being far inferior from the phronesis plurisignsbeing based on sound great pluriflections and meta-semeiotics. But, in the end even theuniplurals are of course also plurisigns. The only way to realize this and to realize this to thefullest is however by means of sound pluriflection and phronesis antenarrating. Therefore,adding phronesis antenarrating which is a lazarus kind of antenarrating to uniplurals part ofthem being representamens, the result will be more or less phronesis plurisigns part of it beingphronesis representiaPragmatisisticPragmatisistic is a notion for something being pragmatic. Or just another notion for pragmatic
  44. 44. PossibiliaIn 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 realitiesyet. Possibilities in the worlds of existence and laws are just possibilities. Then non-effectiblepossibilities and possibilia are just impossibilities and impossibilia.PracticismPracticism is the meta-semeiotical body of understanding developed/invented by WilfredBerendsen. It is based on the notion and concept for the sole true underlying structure andnature of our universes called Holoplurality . Holoplurality being invented by WilfredBerendsen but of course based on the understandings of the sole true underlying structure andnature 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 bodyof understanding better than any philosophy, and because of the contents it must and willbecome the fundament for all of social sciences and practises. And the more it will, the moresane our society at large will become. As practicism is the most excellent body ofunderstanding, capable of uniting both theory and practice into one great meta-semeioticalphronetical body of understanding.PractisismSee PracticismPrescindibleSee prescinded, prescindible meaning being able to prescind something.PrescindedPrescinded means separating or deviding something in thought, to consider parts of somethingindividuallyProhumanismProhumanism is a notion from Wilfred Berendsen. It is part of practicism and goes muchfurther and has much more aspects than humanism as such. Prohumanism is grounded on theunderstanding and intentions of placing human minds and people on first place. But alsoalongside optimizing the enchantment, the fit between plurisigns. Meaning a most optimal fitbased grounded on pro-humanism and centrality of human mind and sane sensemakingsQualiQuali is a notion out of semiotics and it means characteristics of a semiotical sign. Quali is thenotion of characteristics of signs in semiotics.QualisignA qualisigns is a quali. Qualisign meaning a sign denoting a characteristic of another sign orassemblage of signs. It is a specific notion for semiotics being sign theory.
  45. 45. RepresentamenA representamen is the Peircean notion out of semiotics. The Representamen being a signserving to represent something. It is something that represents something else, some othersign.Peirce did state that possibly there are representamens that are not signs. This may be truewhen signs are understood as being Peircean semiotic signs. But in meta-semeioticalphronitical practicism, really everything is a plurisign (being indeed distinct from a Peirceansemeiotic sign)Resistance to sanity (RTS)Resistance to sanity is a specific type of resistence ( to change) that is aimed against saneoccurrences and realities in our universes.Resistence to insanity (RTI)Resistence to insanity is a specific type of resistence (to change) aimed towards against insaneoccurrences and realities in our universes.RetroductionRetroduction is part of semeiotics but also part of phronesis antenarrating and soundpluriflection. What retroduction means in the light of semeiotics can be found on the internetor in several of Peirce’s writings. In the context of sound phronesis antenarrating and soundpluriflection, retroduction is the process of moving back to the subjects of pluriflection. Withas much as possible phronesis representia resulting from the phronesis and phroneticpluriduction process(ses). Meaning that the relevant and elementary results from thephronesis and phronetic pluriduction phase should be communicated with the initial subject ofpluriflection. Phronesis retroduction is just the sole process of moving back towards the initialsubject under consideration with this results of the phronesis and phronetic pluriduction phaseRhemaRhema 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 haveresulted 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, aproposition (however nonsensical) would thereby be recomposed” (Prolegomena to anApology 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 isrepresented in its signified interpretant as if it were a character or mark (or as being so) " (ALetter to Lady Welby, SS 33-34,1904Self fulfilling idiocracy (SFI)A self fulfilling idiocracy is a specific type of self fulfilling prophecy. But as most of selffulfilling prophecies are based on insane reductionist mainstream sensemaking, about eachSFP is actually also an SFISemeioticalSemeiotical is semiotical. Based on semiotics.
  46. 46. SemiologySemiology is the science which deals with signs or sign language. But although thissemiology is often used as a synonym for semiotics, it is not. Semiology is based on the workof Saussure, while semiotics is based on the work of Peirce. Semiotics is more broad andexcellent than Semiology, while my meta-semeiotical understandings and body ofunderstanding is far more excellent and better than both semiotics and semiology.SemeionSemeion is the greek word for sign.SemioticalSee semeiotical. Based on semiotics.Semisophy insanitiesDuring the course of my research, I became more and more convinced that most of insanitiesin 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 bylinguistic sign problems. With semisophy errors and insanities, I mean semiotic insanities inthe field of theoretical wisdoms. Being for instance all the misjudgements andmisunderstandings in social sciences. For a better understanding of the connections betweensemisophy and semiphronesis insanities, both my whole discourse and the formulation ofsemiphronesis insanities will help.Semiphronesis insanitiesDuring the course of my research, I became more and more convinced that most of insanitiesin 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 bylinguistic sign problems. With semisphronesis errors and insanities, I mean semiotic insanitiesin the field of practical wisdoms. Being for instance all the misjudgements andmisunderstandings in social practise, but also semiphronesis insanities in phronesisantenarratives would belong to this kind of insanities. Meaning that the borderline betweensemisophy and semiphronesis insanities is not always as strict and clear as dualisticperspectives would assume.Social constructionismAccording to Wikipedia, social constructionism is the development of social phenomenarelative to social context. As such, it is a sociological construct. Which could evolve out of alltypes of fundaments.