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
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 quality
Out of the matrixes-into a more complete future
1
The logic of vagueness here refers to the logic of vagueness as described by CS Peirce. It is the logic by which
anomalies become recognized, are made sense of and maybe generalized. See
http://www.digitalpeirce.fee.unicamp.br/home.htm for more info about this view on vagueness.
2. Every sign is and is NOT
Everything named is vague perception in
some degrees
CP 5.309 1868 :
“ Everything has its subjective or emotional qualities, which are attributed either absolutely or
relatively, or by conventional imputation to anything which is a sign of it. And so we reason,
The sign is such and such; The sign is that thing.
This conclusion receiving, however, a modification, owing to other considerations, so as to become—
The sign is almost (is representative of) that thing “
WB 2007:
Above phrase is not even ALMOST what is meant. The is NOT – or, like Peirce would say, being
almost (is representative of)- is not only about emotional or subjective qualities. But also about
external qualities. And much more. Or not. It depends. But a representamen (the kind of sign being
almost) is always undercoded or overcoded to certain extends.
A further note from the author:
This book is a most fundamental key to understand social sciences and practises as a whole and to
improve and transform both social sciences and social practises. It is the ultimate change master and
management tool available at current times. For those who understand. The possibilities or firstnesses
of this discourse can be put into practise for improving among others economics, psychiatric practises,
management, justice as a whole. Kant was wrong when stating that good will is the only
unconditionally good. This discourse among other things also is. Also good things can lead to less
fortunate results, but that is a matter of wrong application and not of the nature of firstnesses as such.
5. I have got some plurisigns
I have got some secrets
I have got some plurisigns
To anotherness ways
Here are some plurisigns
For anotherness ways
It is desperately needed
After the big mess resulting from
The insanities of past and current generation
But we are the next generation
And have to change a lot
Towards wentelychistic and sane realities
This discourse will be key……
At least it should be!!!!!
6. “The composition of this book has been for the author a long struggle of
escape, and so must the reading of it be for most readers if the author's
assault upon them is to be successful,a struggle of escape from habitual
modes of thought and expression. The ideas which are here expressed so
laboriously are extremely simple and should be obvious. The difficulty lies,
not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones, which ramify, for
those brought up as most of us have been, into every corner of our minds “
J.M. KEYNES
A general theory of Employment, interest and money
13 December 1935
John Maynard Keynes used this words in his preface to “a general theory of
employment, interest and money”. Although I am sure the ideas and
understandings there can be improved, John Keynes his insights were great in
general. And also they have to add a lot to economics and society at large. I
express a bit about why the ideas of John Keynes are great and interesting in
other parts of this discourse, but also my insights are in line with Keynes. This is
not coincidence, but the result of true wisdoms and understandings.
As far as the statement of the words above go, the words of John Keynes are
great for expressing what I want to say about my own book. Just read and I hope
you will understand.
W.T.M Berendsen
A phronesis antenarrative- towards new ecosocial orders through the logic of
vagueness
January 2009
7. Abstract
Everything is not.
An antenarrative for a sane and great society.
Just start reading and anotherness possibilities based on a meta-semeiotical body of understanding
grounded on plurisigns, phronesis and the sole true structure of holoplurality will develop.
8. Table of contents
To be honest, I am wondering just now why they call a table of contents a table of contents. To me
that piece of paper or actually the screen I am typing on now does not resemble any table. I am just
typing and somehow some bits look like letters before my eyes. Only because they equal the form of
it. But actually content is much different then the content of the letters on paper. So actually, with the
letters we determine what it is based on the form, although content is much different. Just imagine an
electronic 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 all
agree that this letters are letters while we disagree on such a laptop being a laptop. And then this
strange notion of table of contents. It does not resemble a table in any ways. Actually, in this case, I
think the sole thing that makes this representamen a table of contents is because we agreed on it
being called a table. Otherwise it would have been called clock of contents maybe. And then I could in
same ways start this kind of irregular but hopefully illuminating dialogue about the notion of the x of
contents.
But I will leave this thoughts about why a table of contents is called a table of contents for what it is for
now. And continue with elaborating a bit about my small state of aporia why a table of contents is
called a table of contents. Now, this state of aporia is small because of contents of the rest of this
discourse. But also because I thought about it a bit before typing this down, using the methodologies
and notions I introduce in the rest of this discourse. And while I am talking about the contents of this
discourse, this same contents of the discourse actually entail most of the answer about what
determines a table of discourse, I mean table of contents, to be named like that. Partly, since both the
contents 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, contents
and the representamen will determine whether a table of contents will be named like that. Actually, in
the end it is all about relations and our agreement about perceptions that determine not only the
dynamical, 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 discourse
yourself. Then maybe also some other great discourses from philosophers who were involved in the
linguistic turns in philosophy, and some other great discourses. Then returning back to above part of
my discourse. Thinking about it yourself. Saves me some time and makes you, the sign, develop in
better ways.
9. Introduction
On the specific representamen called “title”
A title is NOT. Just like everything named is NOT the sign. And the sign is NOT and will NEVER be
anything named. The bakhtin’s of 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. The
first one (cover of the book/first page of the digital file) consists of more than one quite specific titles. In
the context of the 3 title pages, the titles on the first title page where the most complete entelygistic
ones I could think of. To cover the content of the contents of my dissertation and label it in a
rhetorically sound way for indexing, searching and marketing purposes.
The second title page is, in the context of the 3 title pages, what Peirce would call secondness. It is
communicating the most fundamental and still general basic thought for improving the semiotic
pragmaticistic theories of Charles Sanders Peirce. The IS NOT relates to the anothernesses that need
to be brought in. For understanding my essential and major improvements of semiotical theory and
practise.
The last, third, title page is actually the best! Since it is empty. This emptiness, or (almost) mere
nothingness, is the (almost) mere nothingness of greater possibilities. And, it actually far better
describes the content of my PhD research (methodologies) , the content and possibilities of this book
and the possible anothernesses NOT mentioned in this book. And it actually communicates the way I
would prefer to handle the aim and contents of my PhD research process in case I would NOT want
something done with it (in many ways) and communicate what I know NOW. For myself only, I would
prefer NOT to put my ideas down on paper. For several reasons, the main being that this book IS NOT
and will never be. Another reason is the fact of limitations. Limitations of language, limitations of ways
to structure “my” antenarrative in most efficient ways, limitations of the people who might do something
with the messages and insights stated in this book and, if they are not blind for them, the
anothernesses NOT stated in this antenarrative. And some anotherness limitations. Solely for myself, I
would rather NOT spend my precious time with the boring and difficult task of trying to put my thoughts
and current wisdoms on paper. Knowing it will NEVER even reach a bit of the entelechy and richness
of what I learned (to understand) in the last couple of years. I would actually rather start to USE this
insights and wisdom I “have” now.
10. But, I actually know that for that, I need a lot of persons to better understand what I am writing down.
And that this way of communicating “my” antenarrative will for the long run have a bigger impact on
ecosocial systems and the lifes of us in general. If that was not the case, I would prefer NOT to put the
findings on my PhD process on paper.
For myself, main task of this process was to improve by learning. And to lay the foundations for
essential improvements in society. For that, I do not care about putting it down and get another
academical label. But for practise, my main interests, it is needed. So I will hope to overcome my
resistance for boring and time consuming typework. That you read this is prove I did. I just hope the
text will be very illuminating to a lot of people.
Last but not least. A title is, like I said, at least a means to label a discourse. Since it would be quite
difficult all the times to refer to this discourse (this book) by mentioning the whole title (apart from the
problem to mention the emptiness that is so important, also because of the great lack of signs and
structures) , I give some short version here. I myself would like this discourse to be referred to as “The
Phronesis antenarrative by Thot “. This pretty much reflects the discourse and should be a great
labelling. Of course Thot is fiction at this occasion, but then again Jesus and the new testaments most
probably also are in less or greater respects. Just like much more in our lives and (collective) minds.
11. On the structure and contents of this book
This book is, like every book, linear in structure. There are no possibilities to link texts or words or
other representamens at some place in the text with texts or words or other representamens in or
outside this “book”. At least not in the paper book version of this text. In the digital version, there will
probably be some links to external sources (like the internet), to representamens within this
fundamental antenarrative text and probably also some video clip material. This enables some better
possibilities for improvement of structure. But it is still the case that not only language but also
possibilities of current ways and structure of storage of information impose some significant limits on
the entelechy of this antenarrative. I would love to have some possibility to store this momentum and
fundamental text more object-oriented and, more important, dynamical. And (thereby) nearer to the
realities of life. But I guess the clarity of my antenarrative , the ways of representing it (ways of
representing the content) and also the great fundamental theoretical backgrounds (mainly Peircean
semiotics) guarantee that the major messages I want to communicate will be understood. At least by
people who are not “blind”. To them, it should be an illuminating discourse in many aspects.
Regarding the contents of this book. First of all, what is in is NOT by far what I know. And what could
be in. The book is only fundamental and meant for some first shot towards more entelygistic and
practical ecosocial orders in society. But, it is a good blueprint. Enough for a lot of people to
drastically change their ways of viewing the world and improving their ways of functioning in both
private and public life. And to enable a major shift in these ecosocial systems by means of the catalyst
function of this antenarrative for lots of people. Hopefully. It might be that there are a lot of mistakes or
ways of improving this discourse. But, that does not matter. Like I said, the discourse like I put it on
paper just now is just meant as a fundamental discourse. Meant as a base for further improvements of
both individuals and societies. With some bigger emphasis on phronesis, management and
economics. Especially in the field of business and economics, this discourse should mean a hopefully
big difference. But, foremost, in the fields of social sciences and practises. Mainly because of the
greatest fundament being my notion of holoplurality and the accompanying meta-semeiotical
perspective.
I start with some theoretical discussion on mainly semiotics. And place them in some broader
perspective. This is to show the huge, almost unlimited possibilities of Peircean semiotics. But also to
show the errors and mistakes in Peircean philosophy. And to offer some sound introduction to what
actually is the main part of this book. This main part is dealing with how to improve ecosocial orders in
practise. By means of my philophronesis meta-semeiotical body of understanding called practicism or
practisism. Through this, I hope to give some fundamental possibilities for more entelygistic ways of
organizing future ecosocial orders.
Meta-semeiotics is , for several reasons, far more excellent than semeiotics. Semeiotics, Peircean
semeiotics, is based on the WRONG fundaments still. The wrong, limited perspective leading to a lot
12. of problems in current societies. A meta-semeiotical perspective can and will solve a lot of problems.
13. One of the most important issues to be realized, is the fact that this discourse incorporates and
initiates the most perfect way of viewing and understanding. The ultimate phronetic body of
understanding, although some parts of this body of understanding can and must be improved in later
stages.
I am interested in Peircean semiotics. And also in the works from Kant and Aristotle. But, at least Kant
and Peirce where kind of inbox kind of thinking persons. They might have realized this, but where not
capable yet to move towards the higher levels of understandings. I think Aristotle also coped with the
same problem of getting towards real true ultimate levels of understandings. But it might also very well
be that I simply lack enough insights into the real true understandings of this great master of
philosophy.
In later stages of this discourse I will elaborate in greater details about the errors in Peircean
semiotics. And my own alternatives for that. For now, it is just important to remark that I really truly
understand and offer a much greater level of phronetic insights. For those who understand it, this can
lead to great possibilities for improving just about anything social around us. It can be key for a lot of
improvements in change management, management in general. Economics. Psychology and
sociology. The law, laws and justice system can be improved drastically. Just to name some.
This book should offer some possibility to move out of the insane and reductionist habits of sense
making exhibited by most of the persons on this globe in numerous cases. Most of all, it should enable
people to get the insights of what I call semisophy and semiphronesis errors. Being errors caused
mainly by the fact that most people are still into reductionist and inbox kind of thinking and
understandings. Not being able to move towards the higher levels of understandings. Nietzsche, one
of the few real great intellectuals of the past, has also been trying to do the same by means of his
great text “beyond good and evil “. But, he did not succeed well enough. And possibly I will also not
succeed in my efforts yet. Since in the end a lot of people still cope with getting out of the matrixes. Or
they simply do not want to, since it is just not the most easy way of doing and acting. And possibly
harmful for the people doing so. Mainly because of the fact that in the end, the relative idiots inside of
the boxes are still having more influence. They are just ruling and arranging our worlds and society at
large, and very often harm the greater people with or without realizing what they are really truly doing
to them.
14. On the completenesses of this discourse
Some great falconry friend of mine did make me realise even more that incomplete discourses can
often be much better than complete ones. It is great if an individual, being a scientist or whatever,
takes up a discourse on complex matters and strives towards making this discourse really complete.
But I think in many cases it is just better to leave the discourse incomplete, maybe also since the
person simply can not make the discourse really complete and sound.
Also because of this considerations, I have to say that I find it rather strange that in Science every
discourse is expected to be complete and reflecting the truth. Since also scientists are persons who
make mistakes and will not know and understand everything. I for one did take up this discourse. And I
think I understand much better than any other person on the globe now about a lot of matters and
issues explained and discussed here. But in a lot of respects I am just as much a fool as any other
person on this globe. And there are certainly a lot of persons more wise in a lot of an otherness
respects. Who will be able to add and improve on this discourse.
Anyways, what this great falconry friend told me was told in the light of some discussion on arts in this
case the arts of painting and drawing birds of prey. What he said, was something like that in arts it is
sometimes better to stop earlier than planned with some drawing or painting (e.g some less complete
version) than to continue and trying to make it more complete. Example of it being for instance a
developing artist in animal arts who plans to draw a whole falco peregrinus peregrinus. But then stops
with the painting when having only the head. Since he or she knows studying anatomy and especially
the claws (for instance) is still needed to make that parts also perfect and excellent. In that case just
being very satisfied with some excellent drawing of the head is a very intelligent and wise decision.
I actually very well remember the first time I visited a falconry friend of mine who I now regard being
one of the best friends I ever had. I saw some great arts of birds of prey hanging there. Then
wondered which great artist had drawn these great drawings. When looking more closer to these
drawings, I saw the name of my friend accompanying them. And now, the last year, he has drawn a
great drawing of a goshawk. A complete gos, but the gos is missing his feet still. And no branch or
bow perch drawn below the gos. This is already the case for about a year, and I asked my friend
several times whether he would still complete the gos drawing. Now I am reading this part of my
discourse again, I think I understand what my friend already understands for longer time period. Which
is, of course, that the gos drawing already is considered to be complete. While an actual gos of course
not is without feet, a drawing of a gos without the feet of course can be. Just like only a peregrine
falcon head drawn can be a great complete piece of art.
15. Now, similar to this situations in arts I think it should be also much more common in the art of science
that parts of the discourses and texts are just left incomplete. And by that leaving some possibilities
open for more wise and clever persons on certain fields of knowledge and wisdom to complete the
discourses there. In the end science is an art and also it is an instance of Rhetoric. The Rhetorics of
2
science are that the scientific discourses are going on and on. Signs are growing and by that
generally becoming more and more complete and excellent. We as scientific and intellectual
community should be more and more clear about the fact that science is not something that results
from one individual or mind. But that each scientific discourse is actually the result of collective minds
of more great persons in our societies. That each text is not written solely by that one clever mind but
a result of collective hard work.
Also this discourse is result of very hard work. Individual hard work mainly, since of course I am not
constantly having such great insights as reflected in this discourse. But without the use of the
collective hard work of a lot of other great individuals, I would not have grown to such great extends
and it would never have been possible to create this great piece of art. Mainly Peirce and his writings
have been a great catalyst for growth. I did get a lot of insights by means of Peircean discourses. But
on the other hand I realise the shortcomings of both Peirce and his main source, Aristoteles. Both
Peirce and Aristoteles made some serious errors in their ways of thinking, part of which I will explain
further on in this discourse.
Every discourse is written by one person, while there will be great anothernesses to be brought in by
other wise persons for sure. Which is why it would maybe be better if some questions and remarks just
stay vague in a discourse and the answering of it are just left towards future generations well future
readers of the discourse. It is surely not wise and intelligent to expecting every discourse to be
complete and closed reasoning.
This discourse stated on paper here is not all of the discourse. Which is why I might even not continue
with parts of the discourse or the like in this text if I announce to do so. It might also be I will do so just
later on. Or never. Because, for rhetorical or artistic or whatever reasons, it might just be better to
consider the discourse in this text as being complete enough. And move on to other activities and
considerations. Like I just have to stop thinking and writing about the issues in this discourse at least
to get on with my own lives. Flying and enjoying the bond with my birds of prey. And making my own
life much more complete still.
2
In the light of signs growing, I can strongly recommend the book “ signs grow” by Floyd Merrell. The best
way to understand the real essences and nature of signs growing is however to read this discourse alongside the
book “ signs grow” and a lot of other books and actualities. I can strongly recommend also to read at least some
of the other books mentioned in the references of this discourse. Most of the books mentioned are supplementary
to this discourse in some or anoterness ways.
16. On relativity
One of the most important messages of this antenarrative is, that every representamen IS NOT. Even
the semiotics of Charles Sanders, and this antenarrative, are both far too structural if it is not seen and
understood that the anothernesses (betweennesses, amongnesses, withinnesses, aroundnesses
etcetera) that are NOT to be found in the representamens do play some major role. Depending on how
specific the representamens are and the applicable contexts and living creatures involved, this role
can be more or less important. But overall, the anothernesses of life have huge impacts. Or they have
the possibilities to generate huge impacts. How huge is something only the most bright people can find
out. By returning to the worlds of thoughts and dreams once and a while, reflecting on the possibilities
of the less specific “implicate orders”. Most efficient is to reflect in the world of thoughts about worlds
of existences (what we call reality and real) after returning from the dream world (whether it be night
dreaming or day dreaming). This might and can often lead to great insights. Why this is the case will
be discussed later on in this narrative of life.
To improve the theories of Charles Sanders Peirce and others, it is good to make some additional
distinction in worlds of thought and worlds of matter. What I mean, is the following way of distinctions
and indexes. For some way of subdividing what Bohm calls implicit and explicit worlds, I would at least
make the distinctions of the Isle of dreams, the floods of thoughts, the perceptions of reality and the
reality of life. But, even this distinctions are too structural. And for a better insight in both implicit and
explicit worlds and orders, a further subdivision would be good. And to link it with neurological science
is even better, it leads to lots of pragmatic insights. More about this later on.
There is some excellent storytelling about relativity to be found, among (an) others, somewhere on the
internet. I mean the example of some smart guy called William James. And then I do NOT mean the
great American philosopher William James, who was a close friend of CS Peirce and among others
3
took part in the metaphysical club together with Peirce. The William James I am referring to here, is
another William James. William James Sidis. This Sidis guy had some story on relativity with some
pole and a squirrel in it. If you are lucky, you can still find it on the internet. At www.quantonics.com.
There is a lot of more interesting stuff there. Also about Robert Pirsig. And well…ok..let me help you a
bit with the squirrel..it is on http://www.quantonics.com/The_Prodigy_Review.html#Squirrel%20Logic
still. I hope. By the way, the great American philosopher William James did also use this example of
the squirrel around the pole. For one of his lectures, being “what pragmatism means” (second lecture
of his “pragmatism: a new name for some old ways of thinking”), he starts with some discourse about
the metaphysical discussion about same squirrel example. Which was at least used, probably also
created, before by his contemporary William James Sidis.
3
This metaphysical club is, among others, discussed in the book “the metaphysical club” by Louis Menand. It
deals with pragmatism and, as regards to Peirce, pragmaticism. Key figures in the book are the great American
jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes and philosophers William James and Charles Sanders Peirce. If you want to know
more about this metaphysical club, the internet is also your friend. If you find the better sources (not all info on
the net is as great, of course. This is also the main reason why Larry Sanger started Citizendium)
17. The last thing I might say about relativity here is, that the more you understand from this particular
discourse, the more you will understand that a lot of representamens in this discourse are actually
NOT. Also because my notions of particular terminologies, also the ones of Peirce or some
postmodern terms, are actually incorporating some other qualities (according to the Peircean notion of
qualities) than the regular notions concerned.
18. On ducks and rabbits
A guy called Joseph Jastrow did some psychological experiments with CS Peirce. He however also
used some ambiguous (or reversible) figure to show that perception is also a mental activity. That we
also “see” with our minds (by which I do not mean the notion of mind of Peirce and others like me, but
the notion of mind as being only part of the brain stuff in our head) . I will continue on this later on
when talking about senses. For now, I only want to show the ambiguous figure firstly used in science
by jastrow. Together with some other ambiguous figure. Then I also want to show some illusive
jastrow picture here.
Regarding the ambiguous figures, I will show 2 here. One can be a representamen for a duck/rabbit.
The other can for instance be a representamen for a whale/kangaroo. As you might see (although I
hope you see they are NOT) :
The duck/rabbit version here is not the one of Jastrow, but a changed version by the German
Psychologist Walter Ehrenstein (1899-1961). Fact is that people who overcode this picture could see
either a duck or a rabbit in the first representamen. I myself like the rabbit more, but I think my falcon
prefers the duck. Then again, it is one of the few falcon species that also hunts fur in nature. So guess
she might agree with me. I wish I could have some conversation with her about it. On ducks and
rabbits. But maybe she can convince me it is a snipe. Because part of the decision what it is rests on
pre-assumptions and the fixation of our interpretations by means of just telling it would be a rabbit or
duck. To me it misses some of the qualisigns for being so. Or, like Umberto Eco would say, the
representamen of Jastrow is undercoded for being a representamen of a duck or a rabbit to me.
19. But well, to me as a falconer a drawing or other representamen of an American Kestrel (falco
sparverius) would not be a goshawk. But I am afraid it would be for a lot of people.
Even a clear picture of an American kestrel (falco sparverius) will cause errors in sensemaking:
Probably at least some people would know the name of the bird catched by this falco sparverius
(American Kestrel). But would they know that the bird represented in the picture is an American
kestrel? I guess not! Let alone the discussions about differences in individual kestrels…for more
thoughts about that I would strongly suggest the great research of Charles Sanders Pierce and
Joseph Jastrow reflected in the text “on small differences of sensation”.
In the light of this example, I can also mention that my own accipiter nisus was often confused with
being a falco species or accipiter gentiles. Which are both really very distinct and other creatures for
those who understand.
20. Now, the intriguing question there is who would be right. Saying something on a picture is something
in real life. Because, in actuality a drawing is NOT and will never be. What is actually the semantic
error made here, is the confusion of mixing the representamen with the object. Representamen and
object are just different things, of course. Not to be interpreted as being the same kind of things with
same natures and realities. Although most people are conditioned in this wrong ways early on in their
childhoods. With books with representamens of horses and cows and the like.
Further more, it can be remarked that the external qualities and usage of a representamen are very
important for the interpretation of the representamen as such. A representamen is often a matter of
convention or assumption. So actually if we would agree that the right drawing up here would be a car
instead of a whale or whatever, I guess it would be.
Umberto Eco, in his book “a theory of semiotics”, did introduce the notions of overcoding and
4
undercoding . He does explain those notions a bit there, but this explanation is rather theoretical still.
By referring to representamens and signs, but not giving some clear explanation. I myself will try to
explain it much clearer here. By taking the duckrabbit as an example. Since, I came to the insight that
this picture of Jastrow could also give a lot of insights in that. Especially when it is connected with the
universes of Charles Sanders Peirce.
Let us start with the notions of representamens, object(s) and interpretants of Charles Sanders Peirce.
Actually, the 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 a
drawing or representamen will actually really be seen as a duck or rabbit or whatever, although it is
not and never will be, depends on a lot. Most of all on the interpretants and the quality of the
interpreter. Some less critical and less perfectionist interpreter will sooner judge some representamen
as equalling a duck or a rabbit than some more critical, or more expert interpreter. Also, the role of
other interpreters will play a major role. Peirce already made some distinction in types of interpreters,
but his typologies of interpreters is, of course, by far not complete enough. Just like this discourse or
any discourse never will be. Without critical individual minds and relying on the collective minds, one
would most likely determine the representamen as being a duck or a rabbit.
4
It might be that Alfred Korzybski uses some other labels for this phenomenon of over coding /under coding in
his book called “science and sanity”.
21. The people who really understand what I am writing in this discourse, but also the people who really
understand Korzybski (and Eco), should say: no it is NOT a duck. It is NOT a rabbit. It is simply a
representamen. We can say it resembles a duck or a rabbit, BUT it is missing the following to actually
really look like a duck or a rabbit. Although it will never actually be. Just like some of the accused and
imprisoned will never actually be criminal. And probably a lot of “insane” people are actually not
insane, but labelled and treated that way because a lot of psychiatric professionals are actually insane
themselves. More on that later. For now, I want to remark that by now I understand that at least some
GREAT part of the people being either into the process of or already into psychiatric institutions or
prisons, are actually not really criminal or bad but on the contrary just GREAT persons even greater
than the inbox kind of persons grounding their sensemaking on partial insanities. The perceived
criminal or psychiatric persons actually being the more sane and therefore just grounding their
sensemaking and acts on great fundaments leading to conflicts with the mainstream insanities.
Now, regarding the overcoding and undercoding of Eco. People who will be non-critical and just
agreeing with the convention of the representamen being a duck or a rabbit will just judge it being
either a duck or a rabbit. But, even if they do, if you will very critically ask what is missing, they will for
sure be able to give some qualities (in Peircean sense) what is missing in the representamen to be
what they say it is. So, in fact each interpreter would agree that the representamen is undercoded in
some ways. Or that their interpretants are overcoded.
This overcoding and undercoding of signs has an impact on a lot of aspects of social practice.
Overcoding / undercoding in fact also leads to a lot of fundamental attribution errors. And it is core of
some aspects of reification.
With regards to the fundamental attribution errors, overcoding and undercoding are part of the issues
that cause this error. And maybe it are the only reasons. But, they have to be seen in some broader
lights. Since, overall the fundamental attribution error is caused by a too narrow point of view by the
interpreter. The fundamental attribution error is actually some more specific instance of a fundamental
interpretation error. And, these interpretation errors are overall caused by some wrong perspective
and points of view from the interpreters. Or a lack of right information, but this actually is also leading
to wrong perspectives (or perceptions) of the interpreter(s).
Practical examples of fundamental interpretation errors are for instance a lot of errors made in justice
and by insane psychics and other persons working in the social spheres. A well known example in
justice is the so-called tunnel view of a lot of judicial people. This occurrence is known, but in the end
no-one really deals with it to prevent this dangerous error. Then another practical example of a
fundamental interpretation error that is caused by a too narrow point of view is the example of a
person stating that people or mankind would be generally bad or evil. Such a statement is based on a
too narrow point of view and lack of information. This lack of information can indeed be because of
other reasons than taking too narrow a view, but ultimately every lack of information is caused by the
interpreter not wanting to think critically enough and to get the right information.
22. In the end, really every correct and true points of view are already there in the worlds and universes
around us. People “only” have to be able and really care about getting the right perspectives. This
being able to is something that most people lack in current times, but also that should be solved in the
long runs.
Another example of a fundamental interpretation error would be if someone does think that the
positivist and the negativist attitude in people is based on the same context, the differences in being
positive and negative solely being based in the characters of the persons being positive and negative.
Because, in most occurrences it will be (almost) solely the context and moments of time that
determine a person to be positive or negative about something. Also, the intelligence of a person does
have a word there. Because, someone more intelligent and wise will mostly “see” a lot more then other
persons. This might cause him to be more positive and/or more negative in certain occasions.
Actually, a very wise and great person who would know a lot of ways to improve our society has more
reasons to be negative than a person who does not see any problems of society. Actually, the
fundamental attribution error is far more profound in our society than people would realise at first
notices. Since people just mostly lack the capacities and insights to move towards thirdnesses and
most sophisticated levels of understandings.
Joseph Jastrow made some illusion with laminas. This is the next one:
Although is does appear that the lamina’s above have different measures, they are actually both
exactly same sizes. This Jastrow Illusion, but also some other ones, can be found on
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/WundtIllusion.html. What this Jastrow illusion tells us, is that our senses
can even misguide us when we have some rather simple objects straight before our eyes and very
near to each other. This may make you worry about the extend of reliability of our senses in more
5
complex 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 was
the point of view of CS Peirce, and it certainly is my point of view. Every process around us is an instance of
23. Judging about facts, appearances and events in the “real” world is really not easy, even though we
have and use all of our senses. Mainly because our main universal sense, the mind, is really not
optimally functioning yet. Especially in social reality, we all still have to learn a lot still. And a lot of
perception is reality still, although it would better be not. In fact, the more you “see”, the more you
realize that perceptions are much more profound in our “realities” than most people realize. There are
a lot of realities around us that are actually more like fiction and perceptions. Actually, a great part of
our society and universes consist of fictions and perceptions of reality. And perceptions can be really
damaging…to people.
One of the perceptions that should NOT be reality, is the fact that too many people think they can rely
on their senses perfectly. Which is NOT. In the mind, a lot of areas are connected in multiplicity.
William James states somewhere that brains do not record, but construct. This notion of construction
is very important. Since, this construction is a selection process executed only once in a momentum.
Based on the parts that are available and somehow put together in the contexts of this individual mind
perception.
Another one is the reality that a lot of people just do not understand their own weaknesses enough,
and by that harm others. The last perception is especially harmful in socially complex but relevant
situations. Like for instance in justice. There, too many people having too low knowledge and insights
have the perception that they know everything and that they can rely on their senses enough. Without
listening to others and taking other perspectives into account enough. Which is why they quite often
stay with the possibilities, but interpretate them as being existences. Or maybe laws. I dare to say that
almost no professional in justice really understands and reaches the state of actual laws. Which simply
means they make a lot of mistakes in about every law suit. This is not my perceptions, but it is really
without doubt a clear fact. Justice is not about justice. It is about people making a lot of mistakes and
by that also harming the people who are really innocent. These innocent people being treated by a
system and people who put a lot of innocent people in jail. Leading to the perception of criminalities
where actual criminality is much lower than perceived.
signs growing there. Not only we grow, but also a seemingly statical object like a chair or a laptop grows. The
one chair is not the other chair, even if they look the same. Actually the representamen is also not the sign and
even the sign itself is different in each moment in time. Continuous movements, growth and changes everywhere
around us.
24. In justice, witnesses are far too often just believed on what they are telling. While in far too many
cases, same witnesses are lying about what actually happened. At least this happens a lot when the
witnesses know the prosecuted persons. While there is no actual true evidence supporting what is
being told, that often simply does not matter for justice. Something being told by the witnesses is
proof, whether there is evidence or not. The things being told ARE the evidence, whether they are lies
or the truth does not make a difference there. While witness testimonials are interpretated as being
evidence, they are NOT. But also there, perception is actually reality. Leading to a lot of disasters for
the persons concerned. And even to the justice system and people working in it being guilty of serious
crimes like for instance the indirect murder of people. Serious offences against the universal rights of
people. Harming innocent people in the most terrible ways possible.
25. 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 is
not the map and/or the territory is not the territory. But these two notions have nothing to do with the phrase
above on this page. And understanding them requires an at least rough understanding of the death genius called
Charles Sander Peirce.
26. Let the “games” excel
So here I am at some stage of my life where time has passed and time will come. Having spent a lot of
my precious hours, days and even years doing what? Mainly reflecting. Reflecting about many aspects
of our society. And social sciences at large. Mainly because I, like so many intelligent people in current
7
society, could sense that a lot can be much better for sure. That there is a lot of vagueness in current
societies. That there must be some other “logic” then the logic currently applied by the majority of
people living on this part of the globe where economy is largely influenced by what is called
“capitalism”. A term which means something different for everyone. But on a whole it entails results
that in fact destroy capitalism if things go bad and destroys capital less if things go well. But always
capital is not exactly profiting from capitalism in current times (first years of 2000). For social capital,
capitalism can sometimes be called a real disaster. I will mention later on in this discourse what is
wrong with capitalism and how it can be changed to true capitalism, which in my opinion should not
destroy but create capital. Not only financial capital, but also social capital and all kinds of other
capital. It will be explained what kinds of capital are there at least, the relation between the kinds of
capital and why and how all of this capitals should be encouraged and build up. Instead of destroying
what has been build up with lots of efforts all the time. And to make it more clear and logic, I will
explain why it is better to replace the notion of capital into the notions of value(s).
7
With vagueness, I here mean about the same kind of vagueness that CS Peirce is aiming at in his discourses. It
is explained a bit in the text “Peirces logic of vagueness” written by Phyllis Chiasson. To be found, hopefully
still when you are reading this discourse, at http://www.digitalpeirce.fee.unicamp.br/home.htm. Some other great
texts about Peirce’s thoughts and insights can be found there.
27. My reflections have also been about how to put my thoughts and my way of viewing the world on
paper. But actually, this is cleared up quite well now. I choose to write in normal speaking language
and to try to keep my discourse as transparent and clear as possible. Not paraphrasing the great
minds of history too much just for paraphrasing them or making the discourse longer then necessary.
The fact is, that I read l lot and I have been searching for some important answers. What I was
basically searching for was universal truth about how life actually is and more specifically what we as
individuals and society as a whole would have to know to be able to create an economy in ways that
real recessions could be over. Forever. And, I think I found that. But besides that, I found much more. I
found a lot that we should know to manage whatever in society. And to understand society as a whole.
A great part of the universal meta-semeiotical body of knowledge regarding thoughts and real world is
clear to me now. In many aspects of life and the world of thoughts. Only a small part of my knowledge
and insights will be discussed in this discourse. A lot, really a lot, of insights and knowledge I did
gather is not yet. Main aims for me in future will be to put a lot in practise. If I get any chance of doing
so.
28. Preface and acknowledgements
This discourse is, in many respects, different from most if not all of the other discourses
written in society. Because of several reasons. One of them being the HUGE potentials of the
content. This discourse really is, what I call, a phronesis antenarrative. Being an antenarrative
in the most elementary and fundamental ways, while meanwhile inhabiting the most
entelychistic and great insights of our universes.
In my main discourse about Phronesis Antenarrating, I express that each antenarrative aimed
at improving (social) aspects of our society should be as phronetic as possible. But, a
phronetic antenarrative (being an antenarrative inhabiting enough phronetic elements to be
judged being phronetic) is not the same as a phronesis antenarrative. A phronetic
antenarrative being a specific type of antenarrating, while a phronesis antenarrative is a
specific type of both antenarrative and phronetic antenarrative.
A phronesis antenarrative is the fundamental kind of antenarrative that precedes further
growth of our universes and society at large. It precedes and follows more or less (phronetic)
antenarratives. Because of this, it has to incorporate the fundamental “firstnesses” needed to
understand and improve more developed signs in our universes at large.
This discourse precisely does so. In most impressive ways. IF the content is understood in
proper ways. The more I read in other books and discourses, the more I understand this is the
case. Actually, whatever book I read on social sciences and social phenomena, the more I
understand my own discourse inhabits fundamental insights for moving ahead in most
impressive ways.
More specifically, I could mention the book “the origin of wealth” by Eric Beinhocker.
Beinhocker, being a senior advisor for Mckinsey, has produced a quite interesting book. With
an analysis of the development and general state of economics during the last decades. This
book is actually one of the few books I would not put on the book mountains I got at home far
before reaching the end of it. But, it is still a book I have quite some critiques upon. The most
important one being the fact that Beinhocker still is a too much inbox kind of thinker.
Meaning he most obviously lacks a lot of understandings, although his general analysis of
economic science is interesting and relevant.
29.
30. But overall it is actually very disappointing to learn that a senior advisor of one of the biggest
consulting firms of Western society could only produce what he did while having such huge
amounts of assistant and backup of colleagues and lots of intellectuals. To me, it is another
clear proof of the general low level of intellectuals and practitioners in the fields of social
sciences and practises.
What I produced in this discourse is MUCH more entelychistic and great. And, I produced it
almost solely on my own. Maybe that is one of the reasons why it is better. But generally, that
does not matter too much. What matters is that my discourse, THIS discourse, offers the
potentials to largely improve social sciences and practises. It is the fundament for
understanding about everything in social sciences and practises, and by that to improve almost
everything in our universes and societies towards the most optimal existences.
One of the key things to understand, is that this discourse should be understood in much more
plural and multidimensional ways than the general form of it would suggest. As stated in
anotherness parts of this discourse, the map is not the territory. This representamen, being the
effort of trying to express my understandings in a linearly constructed text, is by far not
complete. And it is by far not the way I would like to express. If only I had more
multidimensional and plural ways available to express my understandings, it would largely
improve the impact and possibilities. But, altogether, this text can and will offer huge
possibilities. If only people will understand. But, this understanding will grow if the
understanding of this kind of remarks from me will grow.
Somewhere else in this discourse, I mention that it will improve if the parts of it can be
integrated more. The reason I did not is partly because of limits of writing. But it is also
because of the fact that a further integration requires more understanding. In case I would
integrate it much further already now, it would mean less people would understand. But of
course, I also need to understand well enough then. And generally, I can state that my
understandings are also still growing.
One of the key understandings being much more clear to me now, is that one rather simple but
key methodology can and must be key for improving our universes and society at large. This
methodology being the methodology called narrating. With antenarrating being the absolute
31. fundamental methodology of it. Hopefully I can make my point more clear by paraphrasing
some sentences out of the book “the origin of wealth” by Eric Beinhocker:
“”Roger Schank, the director of the Institute for Learning Sciences at Northwestern
University and the former director of the Yale artificial Intelligence laboratory, has conducted
research showing the centrality of stories to our mental processes for understanding,
remembering, and communicating. As plato said : “those who tell the stories rule
society”……….Why is storytelling and story listening so important to the way we think?
….stories are a way in which we learn” ( The origin of wealth, Eric Beinhocker, p.126/127)
Although Beinhocker also refers to the insane methodologies of induction and deduction
there, the general argument about storytelling is spot on. Storytelling, but more elementary
antenarrating and narrating, are key. Simply because our minds are key. For whatever
happens in our universes. Antenarrating and narrating can and should be the vessel for
change, supported by the right contents. These contents being great phronesis antenarratives
and besides that great methodologies.
With regards to entelychistic antenarrating methodologies, it depends on the aims of the
antenarrating and the contexts and acts to be understood which methodologies fit the best. Of
course. But generally, with regards to antenarratives aimed at improving our societies, mostly
the most open and flexible approaches fit best. Actually mostly the less theorizing the better.
Since ultimately phronesis antenarratives are aimed at practises, not at theorizing. And
generally a right way of antenarrating will suffice there. This phronesis antenarrative
incorporates enough clues as what this way of practising phronesis and phronesis
antenarratives would involve. But generally, I will elaborate more about it in the chapter I will
write 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 key
fundamentals to start with. Because of this, these key fundamentals have to inhabit the most
elementary wisdoms of our universes at large. This universe not only being the universal
existence called society, but also all other universes as such. At least all the universes we are
involved in. I say universes since I would like to still make distinctions between several types
of universes of possibilities and several types of universes of existences. For instance, our
floods of dreams would be a very specific type of universe. But, in the end, all the universes
32. are intrinsically connected with each other. Although some borders and limits can be found in
and between the several universes as such.
Some of the key starting points of my discourse was and is to be found in the philosophical
writings and understandings of Charles Sanders Peirce. Quite some of his semiotics has been
base for further understandings. But, I hope it becomes clear in and throughout my discourse
that I became quite opposed to his ways of thinking because of some major critiques against
Peircean semiotics.
One of the most elementary critiques is the lack of understandings of Peirce himself. I give
many reasons for this in the discourse itself, but would like to mention one fundamental
which I did not express too well in the discourse itself just here. Being the fact that Peirce did
probably not understand both the implications of and the fact itself that the bigger part of his
trichotomies are actually representamens themselves. As the great Korzybski would have said
there, the map is not the territory. Postmodernists would maybe recognize some aspects of
reification in Peircean trichotomies. Altogether, also because of this, these representamens are
a reductionist and relativistic way of expressing the realities and universes surrounding us.
Apart from this, the wrong understandings of structures of our universes cause some major
errors in Peircean semiotics.
In this discourse, I tried to both reveal the problems of Peircean semiotics but at the same time
also offering the better approaches and understandings. By now, I am certain I managed to do
so in most impressive ways. I am sure, really sure, that the levels of understandings reflected
in this phronesis antenarrative discourse inhabit the keys to arrive at the most entelychistic
insights and understandings ever reachable in our universes as such. Actually I already
reached this, but at the same time I understand a lot of fundamentals have to be refined and
implemented still.
33. The underlying approach and perspective taken throughout my discourse can be seen as
highly constructionistic in nature. Through this scieintific perspective, I agree with the general
social constructionist views. But, the nature and contents of my discourse are again more
entelychistic and great than the most insights in social constructionism. It is more
fundamental and more phronetic. Phronesis is one of key fundamentals of my discourse,
phronesis antenarrative being the aims.
Social constructionism is of course most elementary for social sciences, while it is less
applicable to non-social sciences. Meaning that sciences like mathematics and physics deal
less with social construction. But of course social constructions also play their roles there,
since also in mathematics and physics the social part is there.
But, just like non-social sciences, also the social sciences have their errors and insanities.
During the course of my research, I found that most of these if not all of these errors are
grounded in social insanities. I have mostly labelled them semisophy and semiphronesis
insanities, as most if not all of them are grounded in semiotic/linguistical insanities.
By means of this approach, a lot of great changes can be passed on towards our societies at
large. If properly understood and the right methodologies are used. These sound right
methodologies are also reflected in this discourse well enough, but should be understood in
right ways. They offer the keys to move on towards great out of the box ways of thinking and
doing. Some of them being also initiated partly in this discourse, but I am sure the
possibilities and opportunities are WAY bigger and greater than the first initial steps taken in
this discourse might imply.
Because of the fact that this phronesis antenarrative is mostly meant as being some fundament
for understanding our societies at large and also for some real great improvements in our
universes at large, the discourse does not have to be complete actually. I even neglect the
academically or socially requested aim of completeness in this discourse since I expect the
main fundamental building blocks to be improved and applied in both science and practise.
Further more, one of the main goals is to integrate social sciences and practises by means of
this antenarrative.
34. But actually, the high sophistication of this phronesis intenarrative will not have the greatest
effects in case something very fundamentally will not change. Being the intentions and
characteristics of human beings. At the moment, there are just far too many individuals being
far too arrogant and selfish. Not being able to LISTEN to other people’s opinions. Actually I
myself have been victim from a lot of people being far less intelligent and wise than myself,
but still thinking and acting as if they would know it all. This kind of attitudes are the ones
that spoil the lives of a lot of people and even lead to harmfull situations and deaths.
The greatest fundamental discourses. The greatest phronesis antenarratives of mankind. Will
not help in case people proceed with these insane intentions and attitudes that lead to big
losses of values throughout time. If we want to cure the insanities of humankind, we need to
be able to listen to each other. To get rid of insane and counterproductive theories and beliefs.
This requires collaborative actions and involvement of several great persons around the globe.
The last couple of years have been very interesting for me. Interesting and tough. Tough
because of the insane actions of a lot of people around me and also because of risks already
taken by picking up the assignment I put upon myself. It was a quest for understanding the
universes surrounding us in better ways. By that I wanted to create the ultimate fundamentals
for change management. For growth and improvement of the universes surrounding us. Not
only organizations, but especially also other aspects of our universes at large. By now, I
myself understand that I reached this goal in most impressive ways. If only people are capable
enough to listen at least some will understand the same in near foreseeable future. Hopefully.
This whole process I have gone through has been executed VERY independently and
autonomous mainly. But, like every PhD student, I had my advisor. This advisor, Slawomir
Magala, has been very essential in the ways I developed. Without his facilitative actions and
guidance, I would by far not have improved the ways I did during the last years. He brought
me into contact with Arjo Klamer and Deirdre Mc Closkey, two other great intellectuals and
persons. By following some seminars with Arjo and Deirde, and sometimes also Slawomir
involved, I got infected by the drive to understand and discuss intellectual texts. These
discussions where key for motivating me to read more. They were my main catalysts for
growth, together with the great and inspiring personalities of Slawomir, Arjo and Deirdre.
35. These 3 persons have been, without any doubts, some of the most important persons I ever
encountered in my life. For intellectual growth, they have been the most influential and great
ones.
But, I need to mention at least one other intellectual in this respects. Being David Boje, who is
a professor of management at New Mexico State University (NMSU) in Las Cruses. Some
years back, he was “ just” one of my intellectual heroes. Without even having spoken to him
or whatever other communications. I only heard of his name and visited is website at that
times. Which was enough to understand the greatness of his lines of thinking and doing. Then,
some relative short time ago, I actually came in contact with him. Mostly through E-mail. It
led to some first invitation to join the SC’ moi conference. Some offer I did not accept
because it was and is bit too early for me yet to do this. But, just recently, David asked me for
some other challenge. Being the proposal to write some book chapter on phronesis
antenarrative. This has been and still is a very encouraging request. It leads me to work even
more seriously to my aims of completing my own phronesis antenarrative in better ways. But
besides that, it made me realize that the phronesis antenarrative is exactly the right
methodology to put both mine and whatever other future ideas for improvement into practise.
Apart from this major key persons in the development of this discourse, I have to thank at
least Roger Anderton. This independent scholar has been of great support. We had numerous
discussions over the last couple of years. Not directly linked to this discourse, but about a lot
of other intellectual and scientific subjects. Mainly on physics and mathematics and the like.
Another person I would like to mention more specifically, is Jon van den Akker. Jon is a
researcher at Harvard. I spend quite some hours talking with him, mainly through facebook.
We talked about general intellectual things and not specifically related to conciousness (his
research topic) and my research. But still, I highly valued the talks with him. Also our talks
about falconry, our common interests.
Then also I need to thank a lot of other persons helping me with more or less small steps of
this discourse or just for being there. The problem with mentioning this persons is that I will
for sure forget some. But I will try to mention at least the most of them. First of all, there were
the participants of the seminars I attended led by Arjo Klamer.
36. Then people like Alan Rayner, Bob MacIntosh, Claudio Guerri, Generally also lots of other
people from mailing lists like Peirce_L and Philos-L.
Lichtenvoorde, October 2010
Wilfred Berendsen
37. List of relevant notions
NOTIONS EXPLAINED IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS DISCOURSE AND
HOLOPLURALITY
Abduction
This notion is used in the philosophies and writings of CS Peirce. Peirce did call it guessing,
and abduction in this context is the explanatory hypotheses for a selection of those best worth
trying. For me, however, abduction is the process of taking distance from a subject under
considerations for indeed getting towards not only the best possible guess but more the most
probably guess or even best fundaments or realities. Abduction in this light is largely
dependent on and supplementary to retroduction (being explained a bit more in another part of
this list of notions). But also for more excellent phronesis abduction also some more
supplementary steps of sound pluriflection are needed. Abduction being one of the most
elementary steps for sound pluriflection
Acritically indubitable beliefs
Acritically indubitable beliefs are part of Peircean common sensism. This common sensism
involves that humans often have no other chance than adopting vague but indubitable beliefs
that rest on experience or scientific discourse.
Acritically indubitable judgements
Acritically indubitable judgements are judgements based on vague but indubitable beliefs.
Current judgement system also relies on this kind of judgements which is damaging because
of the errors being made.
Accitically indubitable insanities
Accritically indubitable insanities is a special type of acritically indubitable beliefs and
acritically indubitable judgements. Denoting that acritically indubitable beliefs or judgements
can indeed lead to acritically indubitable insanities. But foremost the notion is meant to
express the important understanding that most of current mainstream social sciences and
practises are largely grounded on acritically indubitable beliefs being acritically indubitable
insanities leading to damage to people and our society at large.
Accusators
This might be a synonym for prosecutor, accusing someone in the name of the law. But, for
me accusator is more broadly just someone accusing someone else. This can be also in other
social settings like normal or non-normal social behaviors. As current mainstream is mostly
still reductionist, most social behavior is not normal and therefore accusations are mostly not
really just. Either in laws or in social matters the accusatory mostly misses some important
understandings or accuses because of partly own reasons. Which is not correct of course.
Amongnesses
Amongness is just another way of saying in betweenness as each plurising is among other
plurisigns. We have to understand the linkages and dependencies of this other plurisigns in
right correct ways. But also we need to be able to switch to the greatest perspective and most
excellent sensemaking.
38. Antenarrative
I can only use the description of this notion by David Boje as he is the sole inventor of this
great notion. Antenarrative, according to David Boje , is : “non-linear, incoherent, collective,
unplotted, and pre-narrative speculation, a bet,” (Boje, 2001: 1). Antenarratives are “in the
middle” and “in-between” (Boje, 2001: 293)
Aporia
The notion of Aporia is used to label a philosophical puzzle or puzzlement. It can also denote
the state of being perplexed. In the context of practicism, Aporia is the catalyst for phronitical
thinking and sensemaking.
Argument
An argument is in the context of this writing just any communication with the intentions of
convincing other people or living creatures. In fact, really everything can be an argument.
Also each argument is mostly part of a bigger argument . Everything someone does in his or
her life can all together be part of just one big argument. And even this can be part of an even
bigger one. Objects can be arguments. Arguments can be of more or less quality, also
depending on whether it is based on insane or sane sensemaking. But even insane arguments
are arguments.
Autopoiesis
Autopoeiesis is a notion first expressed by Maturana & Varela, being the autonomous creation
or production of something. For a more thorough understanding of this notion, I refer to my
discourse on phronesis poeiesis like reflected in anotherness part of this discourse
Betweennesses
Betweennesses are plurisigns in between other plurisigns
Bricolage
Bricolage is something that is easy at hand to be used as a tool that it was not designed for or
meant for originally. Using a car key to open carton boxes closed with tape is an example, just
like using a line and a towel as a lure in falconry.
Cenoscopy
Charles Sanders Peirce made the distinctions in idioscopic and cenoscopic sciences.
Philosophia Prima (cenoscopy) or philosophy is about positive phenomena rather than special
classes. Cenoscopy precedes the special sciences. Idioscopy are the special sciences.
As such, cenoscopy is part of the in-box linear perspective of CS Peirce and current
mainstream sciences. Just maybe it is about cenoscrazy leading to idiocrazy by idioscopies
using cenoscopies.
Collopoeiesis
Collopoeiesis is a notion initiated by me, meaning the collaborative creation or production of
something. For a more thorough understanding of this notion, I refer to my discourse on
phronesis poeiesis like reflected in anotherness part of this discourse
39. Commodification
Commodification is the transformation of relationships formerly not having a commercial
aspects into a commercial relationship or relationship of exchange of something for money
(capital). While this notion itself is worthwhile, it is much more interesting and important to
understand the nature of this commodifications and the intensities and part of it in our present
society.
Continuous interpretant chain (CIC)
The continuous interpretant chain (CIC) is a notion initiated by me, Wilfred Berendsen. In the
context of the distorted dynamical interpretant. (DDI). The continuous interpretant chain is
expressing the fact that interpretants are mostly the product of several interpretants and also
are part of continuous interpretations. And during the conversion or interpretations or
assemblage of new interpretations, there is always a level of distortion. So continuous
interpretant chains are leading to distorted dynamical interpretants. The more phronetic and
meta-semeiotic the sensemaking, the smaller the chance of aspects of distorting dynamical
interpretants.
Dicisign
A dicisign or dicent is described by CS Peirce as follows : “The readiest characteristic test
showing whether a sign is a Dicisign or not is that a Dicisign is either true or false, but does
not directly furnish reasons for its being so. This shows that a Dicisign must profess to refer
or relate to something as having a real being independently of the representation of it as such,
and further that this reference or relation must not be shown as rational, but must appear as a
blind Secondness. But the only kind of sign whose object is necessarily existent is the genuine
Index. This Index might, indeed, be a part of a Symbol; but in that case the relation would
appear as rational. Consequently a Dicisign necessarily represents itself to be a genuine Index,
and to be nothing more." ('A Syllabus of Certain Topics of Logic', EP 2:275-276, 1903)
Distorted Dynamical Interpretant (DDI)
The distorted dynamical interpretant effect is a notion invented by me, Wilfred Berendsen.
With this notion I want to stress that there are often as many dynamical interpretants as there
are interpreters involved, and that each time a story is passed on to another interpreter the
interpretant changes and therefore gets distorted. Meaning that the message being transferred
and therefore the understandings are different from the original message and interpretant(s).
The more interpreters involved, the more distorted the dynamical interpretant gets. Or not.
But chances of getting more distorted at least get higher. When there is more than one
interpreter and interpretant and the interpretant being communicated over time, there is
always some Distorted Dynamical Interpretant (DDI). The effect of it being the DDI effect.
Duck-rabbit
See also Duckrabbit. This Duck-rabbit or Duckrabbit or Rabbit Duck is the illusion used by
Joseph Jastrow and later on more persons to test whether persons would see a Duck or a
Rabbit or both in a certain representamen. If they saw any of them, they where wrong. As the
representamen is neither a duck nor a rabbit, but a duckrabbit. But indeed it was originally
already created for people to perceive it as being either or while actually it is neither nor.
Duckrabbit
See Duck-Rabbit
40. Duree
Duree is the notion of Henri Bergson. According to him, Duree is indivisible mobility. Duree
is his notion for the real time which science at least at his times ignored. Duree is about the
inner life of man which is a kind of Duration.
Dynamis
Dynamis is Ability, potential, power. Both Dynamis and Energeia(activity, actuality) are
originating from Greek Philosophy. They are mentioned in the works of both Plato and
Aristotle, but these two philosophers had different opinions about the connections between the
notions. According to Aristotle, actuality (energeia) is prior both to potency (dynamis) and to
change. But, Aristotle seems to have only believed in linear plots. Current mainstream seems
to be grounded mainly on Aristotelean philosophy. Aristotle was wrong. Actually linear plots
do exist but there are also out of the box non-linearities. Like David Boje already understood
with his notion of antenarrative.
Dynamoid object
According to Peirce and because of that in semiotics, the dynamoid object is the mediate
object, the object outside of the sign. This dynamoid object is also called dynamical object
(dynamoid and dynamical object being synonyms in this respects). "We must distinguish
between the Immediate Object, - i.e., the Object as represented in the sign, - and the Real (no,
because perhaps the Object is altogether fictive, I must choose a different term; therefore:),
say rather the Dynamical Object, which, from the nature of things, The Sign cannot express,
which it can only indicate and leave the interpreter to find out by collateral experience" (A
Letter to William James, EP 2:498, 1909)
Eidos
By eidos I mean the essence of each thing and its primary substance (aristotle, metaphysics,
1032b1-2) Plato also seems to have written extensively about eidos and in his
writings/understandings it is similar or synonym to the notion of idea.
Energeia
Activity, actuality). For Aristotle, motion is any kind of change and motion is the actuality of
a potentiality. Actuality is energeia. Being at work. Change. Living.
Entelecheia or entelechy
Entelechia is Being-at-an-end as opposed to being-at-work (energeia). In Peircean semiotics,
entelechy was used for perfection of being.
Entelygistic
Being of entelechy or being of entelecheia
External qualities
External qualities are qualities not directly being part of the sign itself. It is a semeiotical
notion originating from CS Peirce. For more understanding about the notion mostly the
Peircean writings will be off interest.
41. Fundamental attribution error
The fundamental attribution error is also called correspondence bias or attribution effect. It is
the tendency to overvalue personality based or internal explanations or factors for behaviors
of others while undervaluating situational or external explanations or factors for this
behaviors of others. In that sense it is a specific type of a combination of undercoding and
overcoding signs.
Governmental social responsibility (GSR)
Governmental social responsibility is about using capabilities guided by prohumanism and
sane sensemaking. Putting the human mind and values for people as the most important issues
to be taken into regards.
Holoplurality
Holoplurality is a notion initiated by Wilfred Berendsen after his understanding of the sole
true underlying structure and nature of all of our universes. The notion of holoplurality
involving just that, the sole true underlying structure and nature. Holoplurality is explained
much more into this discourse but also other discourses of Wilfred Berendsen are important as
holoplurality is fundament and key for the body of understanding called practicism but also
for components/aspects of this body of understanding like for instance sound pluriflection and
phronesis antenarrating.
Idiocratic
Idiocratic is meant to be anything being based on idiocrazy. Idiocrazy being the result of
cenoscrazy. Which is my notion for cenoscopy of mainstream sciences and philosophy.
Individual Social Responsibility (ISR)
Individual social responsibility is more important than both corporate social responsibility and
governmental social responsibility. As ISR can and should also be fundament or aspect of
CSR and GSR. But besides that, ISR has to supplement CSR and GSR where CSR and GSR
are not present.
Indubitable belief
See acriticallhy indubitable belief
Indubitable judgement
See acritically indubitable judgement
Internal qualities
Internal qualities are qualities directly connected with or intrinsic in the sign itself. It is a
semeiotical notion being part of semiotics of CS Peirce.
42. Legisign
CS Peirce did mention in a paper to lady Welsby that a Legisign is a sign of the nature of a
general type. He also stated: “A legisign is a law that is a sign. This law is usually established
by men. Every conventional sign is a legisign. It is not a single object, but a general type
which, it has been agreed, shall be significant. Every legisign signifies through an instance of
its application, which may be termed a Replica of it. Thus, the word "the" will usually occur
from fifteen to twenty-five times on a page. It is in all these occurrences one and the same
word, the same legisign. Each single instance of it is a replica. The replica is a sinsign. Thus,
every legisign requires sinsigns. But these are not ordinary sinsigns, such as are peculiar
occurrences that are regarded as significant. Nor would the replica be significant if it were not
for the law which renders it so." ('A Syllabus of Certain Topics of Logic', EP 2:291, 1903)
Logic of Vagueness
The logic of vagueness is a notion that can mean a lot. Even it can mean contents being
contrary to each other. In Peircean understandings, being the understandings of CS peirce
himself, vagueness can paradoxically entirely destroy doubt. The logic of vagueness is about
getting to understand this paradoxical ability of vagueness. Holoplurality and understanding
of the sole true underlying structure of our nature and universes is very elementary for just
that. For me, the logic of vagueness is also about a way to reduce vagueness(es) and
absolutism. Sound phronesis antenarrating is a way to reduce this vaguenesses by realizing
doubt.
Methodeutic
The investigation and application of the truth. Methodeutic is speculative rhetoric.
Multiversities
Multiversities to my understandings are universities not concentrating on knowledge ,theories,
universals and general cases. But on phronesis, involving specific cases, specific cases and
wisdom. It encompasses among others a shift from focus from theoretical to practical. By that,
making an art from whatever sciences. It is the final step needed to get towards more sane and
complete universes as a whole.
Nous
Mind, intellect, common sense
43. Overcoded
Overcoded is derived from Umberto Eco, who distinguished between the following types of
abduction:
-Overcoded abduction
- Undercoded abduction
- Creative abduction
- Meta-abduction
Before continuing here about the meaning of overcoding/undercoding, it should be stated that
the Eco perspective is different, of course, from the perspective being used in this discourse.
Therefore, overcoding has a very different meaning also in this discourse if related to the
more excellent holoplural perspective and placed in the light of meta-semeiotics where the
meta is also of anotherness nature and level than the meta mentioned above. It is even MORE
meta but also of anotherness nature.
But, in the light of reductionist Eco semiotics, overcoding is basically the phenomenon of
assigning additional meanings to a sign. While undercoding is basically the phenomenon of
not grasping certain meanings that are meant to be communicated with a certain sign. In the
light of a meta-semeiotical more excellent holoplural perspective, both the nature and level of
understandings and therefore also the content and meaning of overcoding and undercoding
differ from the general notion.But also, maybe more important. Is the fact that for Umberto
Eco and probably most people, overcoding and undercoding are just phenomena in our
society. Because of them living in inbox and reductionist worlds to more or less extends still.
For me, understanding about the sole true structure and nature of our universes and a lot more,
both overcoding and undercoding are partly the result of insane incomplete sensemakings.
This is the case as far as the overcoding and undercoding are result of semisophy
errors/mistakes. In a meta-semeiotical understanding and perspective, the main overcoding
and undercoding is part of semiphronesis errors and mistakes being the result of restrictions of
our languages and other representamens.
Philophronesis
Philophronesis is friends of practical wisdom or love for practical wisdom
In the light of this discourse, or practicism, philophronesis is love for practical wisdom being
guided by sane sensemaking based on holoplurality. Philophronesis therefore involves the
love for practical wisdom also in science as science and practice become one in practicism.
Philosophia
Philosophia is friends of theoretical wisdom or love for theoretical wisdom
Phronesis
Phronesis is practical wisdom. In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle distinguishes between
Sophia and Phronesis. Although this distinction itself is great, phronesis should be understood
in anotherness ways than the way it was understood by Aristotle. Mainly because of the inbox
kind of thinking of Aristotle, but also because of the fact that an understanding of the real true
structure of our universes requires so. While Aristotle would label and understanding of the
world and fundamental aspects of it as being Sophia, I would not do so perse. Since a more
entelychistic understanding of phronesis demands also understandings and fundamentals to
belong to phronesis. Phronesis does not have to be solely consisting of acts, also possibilities
or better opportunities can have enough characteristics to be labelled phronetic.
44. Phronesis antenarrating
Phronesis antenarrating is invented by Wilfred Berendsen, following the initial invention of
the antenarrative notion by David Boje. Phronesis antenarrating is basically not only about
storytelling, but also about sensemaking and communication in general. Sensemaking, and
foremost sane sensemaking, is a very elementary component of and guide for Phronesis
Antenarrating. Phronesis antenarrating being based on sound pluriflection, another notion and
concept being initiated by Wilfred Berendsen. This pluriflection consisting of different steps
or components. Some of this components are already described more detailed in other
discourses of me on Phronesis Antenarrating. This are probably the most important ones, but
of course there will probably be more to add also there.
Phronesis representia
Phronesis representia is the plural of phronesis representamen. Both phronesis representia and
phronesis representamen are notions initiated/invented by me, me being Wilfred Berendsen. A
phronesis representamen is the result of sound great Phronesis antenarrating being based on
pluriflection. The quality of the phronesis representia or representamen being largely
dependent on the quality of the people executing and the quality of the specific sensemaking
processes, but also on the quality and content of the Phronesis representia and “normal”
representamens being input for the Phronesis antenarrating processes.
Phronesis constructionism
Phronesis constructionism is understanding and developing social phenomena or realities
based on phronesis and holoplurality. Taking into regards the connectedness of plurisigns and
understanding of the holoplural nature and aspects of this.
Phronesis poeiesis
Phronesis poeiesis is the creation or production of something based on phronesis, practical
wisdom(s). Phronesis poeiesis can have the character of autopoeiesis or collopoeiesis or any
combination of these two types of poeiesis. But besides that, phronesis peoiesis has a lot of
characteristics that are specifical characteristics for this specific type of poeiesis. For a more
thorough understanding of this notion, I refer to my discourse on phronesis poeiesis like
reflected in anotherness part of this discourse
Phronetic
An act or thought is phronetic when it hast a phronesis nature.
Phronetical
Something being phronetical means it is phronetic, it is being based on phronesis or has a
phronesis nature.
Phronitical
Phronitical is the notion of Wilfred Berendsen and means being critical with the backgrounds
of practical wisdoms. And it should be based on sane sensemaking grounded on sound great
pluriflections. This might lead to phronesis representia or phronesis representamens.
45. Pluriflection
Pluriflections is the notion invented by Wilfred Berendsen to distinguish between mainstream
reductionist reflections and the special type of reflection process based on holoplurality.
Pluriflection is therefore sane sensemaking based on the sole true underlying structure and
nature of our universes.
Pluribind
Pluribind is the meta-semeiotical notion for distinguishing the difference with the mainstream
reductionist notion of double bind formulated by Gregory Bateson et al. For a much better
understanding of pluribind, the parts of this discourse dealing with this notion and the
differences with double bind notion should be read at first. In the future I might explain the
pluribind even more. But best is to dance it together with happenings and occurrences in (y)
our lifes. This is the case with about every notion and concept and understanding in this
Phronesis Antenarrative discourse.
Pluriform
Pluriform as opposed to uniform is another concept for plural. For instance plursigns have the
characteristics of being pluriform, consisting of several plurisigns themselves also being
pluriform and consisting of several plurisigns,. This holoplural structure and nature of our
universes is very important to understand, mostly for sane sensemaking and enchantment for
our society at large.
Plurisanity
There are several types of pluri-insanities like for instance the example of pluribind and
pluribind insanities resulting from it. But, of course there are also plur sanities. Or sanities
being plural. So plursanity is my notion for plural sanities. Plural sanities are mostly the result
from lazarus antenarrating and sane sensemaking and phronesis antenarrating. Based on
sound pluriflection and a meta-semeiotical perspective.
Pluriscience
Pluriscience is my notion for science incorporating and being based on holoplurality. As all of
our sciences have to be grounded on holoplurality and my body of understanding called
practicism, in the end all of sciences have to evolve in this particular type of science I termed
pluriscience.
Plurisign
A plurisign is my notion for expressing that all of signs are actually plural and therefore
plurisigns. But, there is a large difference in plurisigns. Even the so-called uniform signs are
in the end more what I termed uniplurals, being far inferior from the phronesis plurisigns
being based on sound great pluriflections and meta-semeiotics. But, in the end even the
uniplurals are of course also plurisigns. The only way to realize this and to realize this to the
fullest is however by means of sound pluriflection and phronesis antenarrating. Therefore,
adding phronesis antenarrating which is a lazarus kind of antenarrating to uniplurals part of
them being representamens, the result will be more or less phronesis plurisigns part of it being
phronesis representia
Pragmatisistic
Pragmatisistic is a notion for something being pragmatic. Or just another notion for pragmatic
46. Possibilia
In this Phronesis Antenarrating discourse, I differentiate between possibilia and possibilities.
Possibilities in the worlds of dreams and thought being some special type of possibilities,
called possibilia. This are possibilities not affected in the worlds of perceptions and realities
yet. Possibilities in the worlds of existence and laws are just possibilities. Then non-effectible
possibilities and possibilia are just impossibilities and impossibilia.
Practicism
Practicism is the meta-semeiotical body of understanding developed/invented by Wilfred
Berendsen. It is based on the notion and concept for the sole true underlying structure and
nature of our universes called Holoplurality . Holoplurality being invented by Wilfred
Berendsen but of course based on the understandings of the sole true underlying structure and
nature of our universes. Part of practicism is phronesis antenarrating and sound pluriflection.
But practicism is overall a very broad and excellent fundament for our societies. It is a body
of understanding better than any philosophy, and because of the contents it must and will
become the fundament for all of social sciences and practises. And the more it will, the more
sane our society at large will become. As practicism is the most excellent body of
understanding, capable of uniting both theory and practice into one great meta-semeiotical
phronetical body of understanding.
Practisism
See Practicism
Prescindible
See prescinded, prescindible meaning being able to prescind something.
Prescinded
Prescinded means separating or deviding something in thought, to consider parts of something
individually
Prohumanism
Prohumanism is a notion from Wilfred Berendsen. It is part of practicism and goes much
further and has much more aspects than humanism as such. Prohumanism is grounded on the
understanding and intentions of placing human minds and people on first place. But also
alongside optimizing the enchantment, the fit between plurisigns. Meaning a most optimal fit
based grounded on pro-humanism and centrality of human mind and sane sensemakings
Quali
Quali is a notion out of semiotics and it means characteristics of a semiotical sign. Quali is the
notion of characteristics of signs in semiotics.
Qualisign
A qualisigns is a quali. Qualisign meaning a sign denoting a characteristic of another sign or
assemblage of signs. It is a specific notion for semiotics being sign theory.
47. Representamen
A representamen is the Peircean notion out of semiotics. The Representamen being a sign
serving to represent something. It is something that represents something else, some other
sign.
Peirce did state that possibly there are representamens that are not signs. This may be true
when signs are understood as being Peircean semiotic signs. But in meta-semeiotical
phronitical practicism, really everything is a plurisign (being indeed distinct from a Peircean
semeiotic sign)
Resistance to sanity (RTS)
Resistance to sanity is a specific type of resistence ( to change) that is aimed against sane
occurrences and realities in our universes.
Resistence to insanity (RTI)
Resistence to insanity is a specific type of resistence (to change) aimed towards against insane
occurrences and realities in our universes.
Retroduction
Retroduction is part of semeiotics but also part of phronesis antenarrating and sound
pluriflection. What retroduction means in the light of semeiotics can be found on the internet
or in several of Peirce’s writings. In the context of sound phronesis antenarrating and sound
pluriflection, retroduction is the process of moving back to the subjects of pluriflection. With
as much as possible phronesis representia resulting from the phronesis and phronetic
pluriduction process(ses). Meaning that the relevant and elementary results from the
phronesis and phronetic pluriduction phase should be communicated with the initial subject of
pluriflection. Phronesis retroduction is just the sole process of moving back towards the initial
subject under consideration with this results of the phronesis and phronetic pluriduction phase
Rhema
Rhema is a notion out of semiotics. A Rhema is, according to Peirce:
" By a rheme, or predicate, will here be meant a blank form or proposition which might have
resulted by striking out certain parts of a proposition, and leaving a blank in the place of each,
the parts stricken out being such that if each blank were filled with a proper name, a
proposition (however nonsensical) would thereby be recomposed” ('Prolegomena to an
Apology for Pragmaticism', CP 4.560, 1906) and
“A rheme is any sign that is not true nor false……A rheme is defined as a sign which is
represented in its signified interpretant as if it were a character or mark (or as being so) " (A
Letter to Lady Welby, SS 33-34,1904
Self fulfilling idiocracy (SFI)
A self fulfilling idiocracy is a specific type of self fulfilling prophecy. But as most of self
fulfilling prophecies are based on insane reductionist mainstream sensemaking, about each
SFP is actually also an SFI
Semeiotical
Semeiotical is semiotical. Based on semiotics.
48. Semiology
Semiology is the science which deals with signs or sign language. But although this
semiology is often used as a synonym for semiotics, it is not. Semiology is based on the work
of Saussure, while semiotics is based on the work of Peirce. Semiotics is more broad and
excellent than Semiology, while my meta-semeiotical understandings and body of
understanding is far more excellent and better than both semiotics and semiology.
Semeion
Semeion is the greek word for sign.
Semiotical
See semeiotical. Based on semiotics.
Semisophy insanities
During the course of my research, I became more and more convinced that most of insanities
in social sciences and practises are fundamentally caused by semiotic errors and insanities.
Meaning that in its essences, almost all if not all of the social problems are caused by
linguistic sign problems. With semisophy errors and insanities, I mean semiotic insanities in
the field of theoretical wisdoms. Being for instance all the misjudgements and
misunderstandings in social sciences. For a better understanding of the connections between
semisophy and semiphronesis insanities, both my whole discourse and the formulation of
semiphronesis insanities will help.
Semiphronesis insanities
During the course of my research, I became more and more convinced that most of insanities
in social sciences and practises are fundamentally caused by semiotic errors and insanities.
Meaning that in its essences, almost all if not all of the social problems are caused by
linguistic sign problems. With semisphronesis errors and insanities, I mean semiotic insanities
in the field of practical wisdoms. Being for instance all the misjudgements and
misunderstandings in social practise, but also semiphronesis insanities in phronesis
antenarratives would belong to this kind of insanities. Meaning that the borderline between
semisophy and semiphronesis insanities is not always as strict and clear as dualistic
perspectives would assume.
Social constructionism
According to Wikipedia, social constructionism is the development of social phenomena
relative to social context. As such, it is a sociological construct. Which could evolve out of all
types of fundaments.
