Discovering Potential and Actualizing Horizons

^{HYBRID APPROACHES(S) MERGING FRAMES FROM FORMAL LOGIC, METHODS OF ANALYSIS IN STATISTICS AND OTHER DISCIPLINES AND SELF DIRECTED PROCESSES OF ENGAGEMENT OF INDIVIDUALS IN GROUPS ENGAGING IN MASTERMIND OR THINK THANK APPROACHES TO UNDERSTANDING SELF, WORKPLACE AND AND OTHER FACTORS FROM ENVIRONMENT / HISTORY. THIS INCLUDES NONFICTION WRITERS OF VARIOUS ILKS.} 

SELECT ENDNOTES FOR

BEING BECOMING: INTEGRATIVE PARADIGMS

VOLUME I: ONTOLOGICAL MODELING

⁴ This reference extends from Being Becoming: Integrative Paradigms – Volume I: Ontological Modeling.  Endnote 4.  It stems from a section focused on developing workshops centering around issues related to identity and the phenomenon of scheduling.

Consider the following propositions (split from original) (Note – There are many rules of formal logic that could be applied, but this is an open-ended way to start):

Today, I do not think most categories of gainfully employed people between 40-70 years of age create as FIRM of a schedule as did their counterparts 50 years ago. Do you agree? Why or why not?  What new shifts might you anticipate or speculate for this cohort in the next 15 years?  What categories would you offer as exceptions?

Today, I do not think most categories of gainfully employed people between 40-70 years of age create as ROBUST of a schedule as did their counterparts 50 years ago. Do you agree? Why or why not?  What new shifts might you anticipate or speculate for this cohort in the next 15 years?  What categories would you offer as exceptions?

Now for the “reciprocally split” statements:

Today, I think most categories of gainfully employed people between 40-70 years of age create a FIRMER schedule than did their counterparts 50 years ago. Do you agree? Why or why not?  What new shifts might you anticipate or speculate for this cohort in the next 15 years?  What categories would you offer as exceptions?

Today, I think most categories of gainfully employed people between 40-70 years of age create a more ROBUST schedule than did their counterparts 50 years ago. Do you agree? Why or why not?  What new shifts might you anticipate or speculate for this cohort in the next 15 years?  What categories would you offer as exceptions?

⁵ RE: This set of questions requires at least one reciprocal statement to arrive at a null hypothesis and at least three more extrapolations to construct a test for statistical inference⁴. My purpose here is not to overwhelm the reader, but to briefly address a minimalist frame of reference for ramping frameworks for thinking by demonstrating a little intermediate logic and means of developing sets for statistical analysis. The purpose is to increase the range, powers and value of reasoning and products of deep thought to the point of moving beyond their scaffolds.  I argue that groups of advanced thinkers can very often bypass some options for statistical analysis in favor of working with exchanges involving much richer paradigms.  However, people with inadequate intellectual foundations are not in a position to ignore certain kinds of foundations like basic reasoning, logic and statistics if they want to consistently make  valuable contributions.

A person interested in offering a holistic analysis of any sort should certainly be exposed to formal structures of reasoning and statistics in order to sharpen capacities to holistically address problems and questions in less formal processes and communications.  Nonfiction writers are among those who must often analyze their own thoughts in ways which adequately cover the bases intended while acknowledging and addressing necessary and contingent distinctions that apply to “contradictions”, paradoxes or opposite directions that when pursued may also greatly broaden essential frames of reference.