Standard Preface to Articles in this, Exploration Section

This open-ended ‘exploration’ section of the site delves into fundamental principles and aims to provoke thought and dialogue. No definitive answers should be assumed. The focus is not on established facts but rather to challenge and scrutinise everything proposed as fundamental. This rigorous process is designed to test their robustness and to reveal any inadequacies. Unlike the ‘exploitation’ section where practical applications may be suggested, the articles in this ‘exploration’ section are merely open-ended and ruminative proposals.

When exploring fundamental principles, as is the focus of this site, it is essential to challenge anything proposed as a ‘fundamental element’. This process of rigorous scrutiny either enhances robustness or reveals inadequacy. In discussions that might appear unconventional, it is crucial to reflect that fundamentals are not dogmas but merely starting points for enquiry.

Thus these articles remain merely explorative, ruminating proposals, to which your critique and your contributions are essential, to challenge and expand upon any ideas presented.

The whole aim of this project is to explore WITHOUT REFERENCE to theories HOWEVER WELL they might be regarded. It is NOT aimed to create theories but to question any proposals for ‘fundamental’ effects determining humans’ ability to MANAGE their predicaments. The fact that one could argue that a particular theory might be in line with the reasoning does NOT support the argument, whilst the removal of a fundamental disables the theory and in doing so, enhances the validity of proposed fundamentality. Theory cannot enable fundamentality—one is looking for obvious errors in the logic.

A note on terminology: The words used here—‘purpose’, ‘belief’, ‘curiosity’, ‘concentration’, ‘timeliness’—are labels of convenience, working terms for phenomena being explored. They are not fixed definitions but starting points for enquiry and challenge.

Purpose

Starting at the beginning (in the founding articles to this site) it was claimed that human activity seemed ‘purposeful’, both at the individual and shared, social levels. It is difficult to see, though it varies widely, how it could be otherwise, since random, non-purposeful action would lead only to wasted effort (save for exceptional chance-luck).

A simplistic ‘model’ was proposed, with a process whereby ‘individuals’ made a ‘choice’ from their ‘awareness’ of each current predicament in order to offer an optimum ‘response’, to satisfy their ‘purpose’, that being primarily to survive and hopefully to prosper.

Since to do otherwise could be deemed ‘unwise’, an optimum choice would be at the pinnacle of available ‘wisdom’.

A general question guiding ‘choice’ may be:-         “What is the best thing I can do next?”

This can reduce, many times to:-                               “Is this good-enough?”

when it could reasonably be considered to be merely a waste of time to question further lest it compromises the next opportunity.

A Critical Note on Purpose: ‘Purpose’ in this model is descriptive, not normative. It is simply whatever drives choice at any moment—what seems ‘best’ given current awareness. It is NOT necessarily the “right” or “good” choice by any objective standard. The model describes how humans manage predicaments, not how they should. Most do not deliberately shoot themselves in the foot—they do the best they can with what they know and perceive. The quality of any particular purpose is a separate question; the model simply describes the mechanism by which purpose operates.

The Four Core Skills as Perspectives on Purpose

It was further proposed that this manageable system could be understood by regarding ‘wisdom’ from four separate perspectives. If one observes and evaluates ‘purpose’ from these four interacting perspectives, four essential, interdependent ‘core skills’ emerge:

1. An ability to ‘believe’, relatively but adequately, to provide a frame of reference.
2. An ability to be ‘curious’ and question evaluations adequately.
3. An ability to ‘concentrate’, minimise redundancy and eliminate the unnecessary.
4. An ability to be ‘timely’ and maximise current relevance (essential for environmental/social interaction and benefit).

These four skills are not separate from purpose but rather the means of observing and pursuing it. They represent four essential perspectives through which purpose must be evaluated and enacted.

Supporting articles are listed in the appendix.

Recognition and Causality

For any event or circumstance to become causally significant in human activity, it must first be recognized. An unrecognized phenomenon, however real in physical terms, remains causally inert for human purposes. Recognition itself requires the four skills: attention (concentration), assessment of relevance (curiosity and belief about significance), and timely response. Thus, all socially significant causality—even “emergent” patterns or fortunate accidents—must pass through individual purposeful agency. The invention may be accidental, but its incorporation into human practice requires someone to recognize, value, and choose to adopt it through application of the four skills.

Further, it was seen that ‘individuals’ live with others in ‘societies’ and that these furthered the joint aims of their members and were thus constrained by the combined limits of those members. Thus, though their management must rest on the same four skills as those of their contributors, they could not express these skills with the degree of freedom of any ‘individual’ member.

The words above, highlighted in ‘Bold’ are seen as ‘fundamental’ elements, essential to and determining the model.

The Recursive System and Its Results

Thus, we have a spiral, recursive system:

At every iteration (ideally), ‘purpose’ is validated (primarily) by ‘curiosity’s’ evaluation of ‘timeliness’ and a strategy selected (by ‘concentration’ and ‘curiosity’) from the resources of ‘belief’, as are the strategy itself and the resources to be employed. It is obviously not possible to achieve a ‘perfect’ outcome at any of the numerous stages of this process but if the best effort is ‘good-enough’ one survives to the next stage, so ‘greatest fitness of purpose’ is encouraged.

The application of these four skills to purpose produces outcomes, and these outcomes refine awareness for the next iteration. This refinement—the natural result of purposeful action evaluated through the four perspectives—is what we commonly call ‘learning’. Without this accumulation, purpose would be rendered redundant after each iteration, making the process mere repetition, rather than purposeful navigation. The circle becomes a spiral through this natural consequence of adequate application.

If there is a measure of success in this process, ‘wisdom’ is nominated.

The Hierarchy of Fundamentality

‘Purpose’ is proposed as the primary fundamental determinant—the apex. Its pursuit is fundamentally dependent upon the exploitation of ‘the essential four core skills’, which serve as the only adequate means of observing and evaluating purpose from necessary perspectives. Remove any one of these four skills, and the pursuit of purpose is terminally compromised – No amount of effort in the remaining three can compensate.

The spiral advances (or stagnates) as a result of how adequately these fundamentals are respected.

This proposal has withstood thirty years of challenge but awaits demonstration of error or a more elegant formulation. Can you remove one of these fundamentals and still account for purposeful management of predicaments?   Can you identify error or propose a simpler set that achieves the same explanatory scope?

It is Presumed Inadequate.

Although, in this section, the objective is to expose and explore before moving to considering ‘opportunities to exploit’, it could be noted that the other (lesser) proposed ‘fundamentals’ are essentially means of aiding the exploitation of ‘purpose’, constrained at each, hierarchical, stage by the ‘fitness of purpose’ of their employment.

Clearly, some ‘purposes’ are of greater order than the other ‘purposes’ contained within them. These lesser ‘purposes’ themselves require the employment of appropriate strategies, dependent on the availability of suitable resources and their efficient utilisation.

There is (ample) evidence of the achievement of socially directed commonality of ‘purpose’, to which individuals have shown social alignment and commitment. This shows that individuals can commit to social endeavour. However, since society depends upon individuals for creativity, any shared motivation is derived, fundamentally and via adequate consensus, from a (particular) individual’s motivation. It becomes an element of change which either underpins or undermines the structure of their society.

Is ‘purpose’ the fulcrum of profundity upon which an individual’s relationship with their society is balanced?

To the extent that an individual submits to a project prescribed by their society, they abrogate their responsibility to evaluate the ‘purpose‘ of the project as a whole or elements of its execution. Since they are, by definition, ‘fit’, operatives merely have to do “good-enough” to satisfy the imposed requirements.

The less changing the society, the more its members look to and accept its conventions (from purpose through strategy to detail implementation) and the less they need to question ‘purpose’ but merely follow prescribed practice. The greater the rate of change, the greater the opportunity and necessity to question, so that ‘responsibility’ lessens and one is increasingly required to develop and assume ‘response-ability’.

Conclusion?

In view of dialogue with others, in this case, ‘Conclusion’ is inappropriate – inconsistent with a process, essentially dynamic.   ‘Current Summary’ maybe be more so.

We now live in a world of change and it is increasingly necessary for us to choose and accept ownership of purpose(s)…

So:-

‘Current Summary’

We now live in a world of change and it is increasingly necessary for us to choose and accept ownership of purpose(s).

I hope that none of this is taken as a prescription for “good” choices but merely a descriptive map of how we can operate when we claim ownership of our “response-abilities.” If it has value, it lies perhaps in exposing the levers of agency, not guaranteeing outcomes.

The proposition stands as a challenge: Purpose at the apex, pursued through four essential perspectives (belief, curiosity, concentration, timeliness)—remove any one and the system collapses. These are thus proposed as fundamental

The model is, however, merely a proposition. Though it has been tested and refined by a few hundred over the last thirty years, it is presumed inadequate and awaits demonstration of error or a more elegant formulation.

Your criticism and comment are essential to furthering direction and development.

Appendix of previous articles:-

“Some Fundamental Considerations on ‘Managing Personal Effectiveness’?”

A general introduction and overview/proposal.

“Beliefs – The Structure of Reality”

What it says on the tin.

“Dilemma  –  Can’t make Choice”

The role of ‘curiosity’ and concentration in the ‘choice’ process.

“‘Boxes’, Timeliness & Thinking Styles”

On the individual’s interface with society and its (changing?) nature.

Two Reviewer Comments

1.

Human activity may be viewed as an ongoing process of navigating predicaments through a locally-defined sense of purpose. At any moment, this purpose is pursued through four interdependent and interacting perspectives: belief (which provisionally frames reality), curiosity (which questions and probes that frame), concentration (which selects, simplifies, and removes redundancy), and timeliness (which situates response within the constraints of the moment). Action taken through these perspectives produces outcomes which, when recognised, alter awareness. This alteration is what we commonly call learning. If no change of awareness occurs, the system remains circular; where awareness is altered, the circle becomes a spiral. Learning is necessarily relative and incomplete, for were it absolute, process itself would end. What might be viewed as “error” is here understood simply as discrepancy between expectation and experience—informational rather than judgemental—providing further material for curiosity (IW.- Providing a potential resource-field of ‘opportunity’?). Within this model no answers are offered, only a proposed description of the dynamics through which humans appear to manage, revise, and renegotiate their relationship with themselves, others, and circumstance.

2.

Learning must remain incomplete, relative, and context-bound for the process to continue. If it were ever absolute, process itself would end. Curiosity already contains the mechanism by which inadequacy may be recognised, rendering additional elements unnecessary. What might be labelled “error” is, within this framework, merely the emergence of discrepancy between expectation and experience, and is therefore not judgemental but informational. The model proposes process only, never conclusion.