Our Faith in the Fourth Future : Or Why All Journeys Begin & End in the Heart?

“We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.”
– T. S. Eliot

At Present Group we have been engaged in a struggle. Like so many before us it is the constant struggle that can be summed up as the creative tension between pragmatism and vision.

Our vision is to create a culture which is a ‘Social Venture’ first and a business second. It was Churchill’s canny observation that “the inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings while the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” Sadly this still rings true and is largely responsible for our current global dystopia and manufactured scarcity.

At Present Group we hope to collapse this duality and realise a unified utopian culture founded on holarchy with a shared imperative to reduce waste on our all too finite planet. That is why we identify as venture custodians rather than venture capitalists. To be a custodian is to act from the heart and embody the virtues of the culture. This holarchy of participation matrix demonstrates how the envolution toward custodianship can manifest in practice;


All cultures comprise four Envolving facets:

• Economic ​ (Body)
• Political ​(Mind)
• Technical ​(Soul)
• Social ​​ (Heart)

Conventional business practice would invariably put the economic facet and an impersonal single bottom line focus above all others. While the political and technical would also serve the economic imperative and not the social. In hardened business cultures, social systems form, if at all at a grassroots level independent of the business and its objectives.

To be a social venture first and a business second means turning this hierarchy on its head. Yet as a vision this is all very well until the pragmatism of meeting bank covenants and reversals of fortune in the market intrude and test our resolve as the economic facet demands primacy…..hence the ongoing struggle.

In order to remain steadfast and never sell out when this occurs we have to delve deep into our hearts. After all a social venture is a sovereign concept much like a family, community or nation and we would never consider selling them out as we hope that they will continue on, to flourish and prosper generation upon generation. Up until now most businesses see things somewhat differently; they constantly sell out, float, merge and shutdown all the time.

Again Churchill offers another vital insight when we way up the pros and cons of selling out when confronted with economic dire straits. Early in the War and in his new role as Prime Minister when all seemed lost he was severely challenged by Lord Halifax and others in his cabinet to negotiate a peace settlement. As an avid student of history Churchill gave an inspired speech “that nations which went down fighting rose again, but those that surrendered tamely were finished” he concluded his impassioned speech, saying “If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground.” Now that is heart!

I too have been both blessed and cursed with irrefutable faith in the concept of intrinsic sovereignty. This has become deeply embedded at Present Group and if all else failed we would prefer to go bankrupt rather than sell out. This arises from a core belief that as custodians we would rise again unified in heart, soul, mind and body, such is the passion for our purpose.

When seeking solace I often draw on a favourite quote that resonates with this sentiment;

“I don’t want to live forever: I just want to find something worth dying for.” – Melchor Lim

So when I hear someone say, as I did again recently “but everyone has a price”

I can only conclude that they do.


The Meta Model for Process has revealed to us that evolution is a quaternity much in the same way that information, knowledge and wisdom beget understanding.

• Ovolution ​ – potentiality as singularity
• Involution ​– accumulation of material complexity
• Envolution ​– accumulation of functional complexity
• Evolution ​– unifying process of the universe

When considering ovolution; think egg, seed, DNA or code which may be hinted at in Stephen Wolfram’s prediction that there is an algorithmic key to the Universe that can compute quantum physics – or, say, reality TV – in four lines of code.

While involution may be likened to the accumulated material descent; from unknown to known or as the great Arthur M. Young put it; from freedom to determinism. Often when describing involution (accumulation of material complexity) Arthur used the example of photon to particle to atom to molecule, suggesting that from a material sense nothing is as free as light and nothing is more determined than molecular structure.

When seeking to understand envolution we can draw upon the great work of Teilhard de Chardin who conceived the idea of the Unity Concept (Omega Point) and further developed Vladimir Vernadsky’s concept of Noosphere. If Carl Jung has given us the notion of the “collective unconscious,” then Chardin, imagines the “collective conscious.”

Chardin imagined the noosphere as “…. An ultimate envelope taking on its own individuality and gradually detaching itself like a luminous aura. This envelope was not only conscious, but thinking…the very soul of the earth.” Interesting to note that he uses the term ‘soul of the earth” as this equates to the third stage of the meta model’s envolution….co-creation (soul).

Chardin continues “The interaction of souls would be incomprehensible if some aura did not extend from one to the other, something proper to each one and common to all.” Chardin believes, too, that this consciousness is not only psychological, but of the greatest spiritual importance, as well. “Nothing is precious,” he says, “except that part of you which is in other people, and that part of others which is in you. Up there, on high, everything is one.”

The Omega Point is the purported maximum level of complexity and consciousness towards which some believe the universe is evolving.

In the original theory of Vernadsky, the noosphere is the third in a succession of phases of development of the earth, after the geosphere (inanimate matter) and the biosphere (organic life). Just as the emergence of life fundamentally transformed the geosphere, the emergence of human cognition has fundamentally transformed the biosphere.

For Teilhard, the noosphere emerges through and is constituted by the interaction of human minds. The noosphere has grown in step with the organization of the human mass in relation to itself as it populates the earth. As mankind organises itself into more complex social networks, the higher the noosphere will grow in awareness. Teilhard argued that the noosphere is growing towards an even greater integration and unification, culminating in unity, which he saw as the ultimate goal of history.

Teilhard was holistic as opposed to esoteric, scholastic or pragmatic and so referred to this unification as Christ consciousness but for the non-religious amongst us this can be understood as the full presence of heart manifesting as unconditional love.

It appears that Rumi the 13th Century Persian philosopher poet also understood envolution in holistic terms. Here he beautifully describes envolution’s accumulation of functional complexity and re-ascent from determinism to freedom.

“I died as a mineral and became a plant,
I died as plant and rose to animal,
I died as animal and I was Man.
Why should I fear? When was I less by dying?
Yet once more I shall die as Man, to soar
With angels blest; but even from angelhood
I must pass on: all except God doth perish.
When I have sacrificed my angel-soul,
I shall become what no mind e’er conceived.
Oh, let me not exist! for Non-existence
Proclaims in organ tones, To Him we shall return.”


If we are to try and understand how the Uni-Verse (one song) sings, in all its reflexive glory then we need look no further than the octave as a spiralling octagon.


The second ‘Do’ demonstrates T.S. Eliot’s great insight. We know it for the first time because we have evolved to a greater vantage point. A higher vibration. A higher ….octave!

More recently the work of Dr John Smart on STEM Compression (space, time, energy and matter) draws parallels with the ascending process of envolution. For example STEM compression can be neatly summed up with the advent of the iPad.

After all it inhabits less space than a laptop, takes less time to boot up, requires less energy to run and is comprised of less matter.

With the utility of the meta model this has led us to abduce that the progression of functional complexity for mankind as we continue to traverse from biosphere (re-generation) to noosphere (co-creation) will itself require the advancement of four key envolutions;

• Nanotechnology ​(Body)
• Computation ​​ (Mind)
• Communication ​ (Soul)
• Culturisation ​ ​(Heart)

Interestingly we appear to sit conveniently between the macrocosm (universe-level) and the microcosm (sub-sub-atomic or even metaphysical-level) as the universe and its processes continue to fractally unfold.

Therefore STEM compression or optimisation may lead us to surmise that our future may well lie in the microcosm. This assumption arises when you consider that just as involution descends by creating more material complexity; envolution dispenses with material as it ascends in functional complexity. For example the biosphere uses a fraction of the material available within the geosphere. Hence the entire noosphere may well use a fraction of the material available within the biosphere to achieve our next leap in functional complexity.

Many say that we are running out of time as life on earth has become unsustainable. Yet linear time may well be the wrong measure, for just as so much activity occurred in our universe’s involutionary infancy when it gave rise to the material complexity of particles (generate), there may be as much accelerated activity at its reflexive equivalent stage of envolution; noosphere (co-creation)

Imagine if consciousness at this level may equate to a near eternity compared to a time bound day as current four dimensional reality becomes higher dimensional actuality. Therefore the Meta Model For Process describes process in terms of progression, not time.

Also between every stage of involution and envolution there exists a transformational challenge or crisis depending on your point of view. It appears that to transform toward a complete noosphere of pure consciousness not only will we have to leave our biological containers behind but our current population and technological explosion may indicate that we are not IN a crisis after all, but that we ARE the predetermined and essential crisis within a macro process as we journey toward a fully formed noosphere and ultimately the omega point?

Achieving in meta process terms a full octave above the Big Bang’s heart at singularity?

The meta model itself describes the challenge or crisis between biosphere (re-generation) and noosphere (co-creation) as being one of ‘mobility’. Not surprisingly the prospect of leaving our biological containers behind to envolve to the greater freedom of combined consciousness at noosphere and unity consciousness at the omega point is without doubt daunting but it is already underway as we use our technology to hasten the process.

As Marshall McLuhan said; “We become what we behold. We shape our tools and then our tools shape us.” Although somehow I don’t believe he intended to extend the concept all the way to an out of body experience.

Experience has taught us that the Meta Model For Process does appear to induce altitude sickness in most. Of course it is a big ask within our infinitely fractal universe to comprehend that in both physical and metaphysical terms we can predict progression in any process at any level of abstraction.

So to understand abstraction in a more acceptable manner, consider:

• Meta​ – The Story​….of the Universe
• Macro​ – A Story​….of an Entire System

• Mesa​ – Our Story​….as a Collective Experience
• Micro​ – My Story​….as an Individual Experience

To trust that at a meta level the universe is reflexing back to a new form of singularity (omega) just as the musical octave reverts to ‘Do’ is less painful once we realise that it is returning purposefully to its heart….albeit a higher heart.

While to trust that at a macro level we as an entire system of conscious life-forms are at the leading edge of this meta truth and returning to our own heart or unified consciousness as Teilhard suggests.

Admittedly this base pair of generic meta & macro futures although progressing toward the heart may hold cold comfort for some? So what of the futures we might anticipate in our own lifetime?

The lower base pair of mesa and micro are specific and hence more accessible as we will have direct experience of this level of process and so can trust the progression from first-hand experience. Just as we all tend to trust processes that we ourselves set in motion but we find it harder to accept that there is an abductive pattern based rule to the greater processes that act upon us.

Product innovations are always far easier to convey as the tools that will shape us. However process innovations as tools are no less important but they do suffer a distinct disadvantage because abductive reasoning is in the shortest supply as it comes more naturally to intuitives, who are in the minority.


In my first post in this series I had posited the more immediate process concerning the envolution of the internet, and it’s shifting paradigms from send to search to social to sovereignty and it is to that which I return as it is close to my heart.

The personal sovereignty movement is a mesa level process and when you consider the four types of imagined futures below it is gratifying that the preferred is of our hearts.


Another meaningful correlation linked to my first post on the ‘Fourth Order Effect’ demonstrates the type of reasoning that leads to these futures. On this basis the fourth future is realised with conductive reasoning which is heart based.

• Predetermined is ‘Cause’ based and therefore Inductive

• Probabilities are ‘Rule’ based and therefore Deductive

• Possibilities are ‘Effect’ based and therefore Abductive

• Preferred is ‘Values ‘ based and therefore Conductive

Equally encouraging are my own values born of conductive reasoning. For my own journey of the heart is a micro process to honour my own personal sovereignty by never selling out a vision for a unified meritocratic social venture.

At all levels it appears that indeed all journeys both begin and end at the heart but for us personally we have to deliberately prefer the preferred futures based on our heartfelt values.

To help encourage each other to have the COurAge to ‘carry our age’ and continue our individual journeys toward a unified future, We must have faith that the universe is not selling us out after all…..merely selling us up.

“Life Shrinks or expands in proportion to one’s courage”
– Anais Nin

This article was written by Brian Grimmer CEO of Present Group with insights and understandings derived from extensive cooperation with Peter Midgley CXO of Present Group on the Meta Model for Process. The terms ‘Ovolution’ and ‘Envolution’ are new terms that have emerged while developing the Meta Model of Process.


The Quadruple Bottom Line : Or Why Not Feed Your Heart, Soul, Mind & Body?

“It’s life. Life is bigger than you, if you can imagine that. Life isn’t something that you possess; it’s something that you take part in, and you witness.” Louis C.K.

At the close of 2013 I made the choice to invest in Meeco, an exciting for-purpose technology start-up. Meeco is a new and easy way to manage your digital life and claim personal sovereignty….but more on Meeco later.

For some time it has frustrated me that both my own Enterprise, Present Group and the School Volunteer Program, another Enterprise where I serve as Non Executive Director are termed ‘For Profit’ and ‘Not For Profit’ respectively, when both are first and foremost ‘For Purpose’!

However this ‘old money thinking’ is being replaced with movements such as Conscious Capitalism, where ‘For Purpose’ in the form of ‘higher purpose’ is one of four key tenants of the movement along with Stakeholder Orientation, Conscious Leadership and Conscious Culture. http://www.consciouscapitalism.org.au/conscious-capitalism/

At a recent Conscious Capitalism gathering of advocates, Jo Hunter of Pollen Strategy very succinctly captured the shift in consciousness that has emerged in recent years. Jo is very much ‘For Purpose’. Her work supports the holarchy of economy, society and ecology (environment), which must become integral if we are to sustain our selves and future generations to come.

New Money Thinking: Unified Consciousness as Holarchy.




Old Money Thinking : Combined Consciousness as Heterarchy

Jo definitely walks her talk by deciding what is ‘enough’ for her chosen lifestyle and any excess is paid forward to causes close to her heart. Even more compelling is her appreciation that a ‘For Purpose’ consciousness removes the notion of competition and replaces it with a more fulfilling promise of cooperation.

Jo offers to teach anyone interested in learning her consulting offerings. As a result, if they then perform and deliver her services effectively, even to the point of eclipsing her business, she considers this simply an opportunity to witness her purpose unfolding at an enhanced rate.

In my view, this purposeful insight is inspiring and makes the old money belief in ‘For Profit’ and competition sound almost medieval in comparison to a marketplace of cooperation.

Albert Einstein once said “No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.”

This quote frames the concepts of heterarchy and holarchy, which are emerging as key concepts in this era of a new consciousness. However, to understand the significance of holarchy let’s first explore historarchy and hierarchy and the resulting consequences.

Historarchy: Separated in Both Time and Space.

Historarchical structures appear in organisations fundamentally lacking in trust. The power resides in the subjective perspective of an autocratic leader. Individuals are rendered dependent since the power to decide resides with the leader or boss. Often this impairs an organisation’s ability to function and not surprisingly results are poor for society.

Hierarchy: Separate in Space NOT Time.


With the introduction of trust rules can be externalised, objectivity is possible and hierarchies form; operating independently of the leader. However if the trust is conditional then individuals behave in accordance with the rules. Written instructions in the form of procedures to follow and proformas to complete become the order of the day.

This is more effective than a historarchy in that separate teams can now operate simultaneously, subject to conformance. Hierarchical cultures are by necessity bureaucratic. They function well in a steady state but are slow to respond to opportunities and challenges or change in general. They also lack humanity and so sap the soul, hence their societal contributions are average at best.

Heterarchy: Combined in Space and Time.


When trust is offered, individuals have the opportunity to change the rules based on the authority of their role. If individuals act for the greater good of the whole – as apposed to their own interests – then an interdependent culture will begin to emerge.

This offers a competitive advantage, since agile teams can continue to combine and align to meet challenges and opportunities. Such cultures are by necessity proactive and can make societal contributions deemed to be in the best interest of a wider group.

Holarchy: Unified in Time and Space


And when we finally arrive at trust at all levels, animated with a unifying imperative – we have holarchy. This shared and unified purpose leads to a full release of discretionary effort and commitment to the cause like no other.

Holarchy embraces all that has gone before it and is something else in and of it’s own creation. Such a culture is generative and will innovate towards greatness. This approach may well change the world for the better in the process.

Each of the stages in raising consciousness retains the properties of those before but with the addition of some more functional complexity and so this process can be considered envolutionary.

Creating a holarchy of insight

Consider this spectrum:

• Autocratic historarchy……the ruler rules
• Bureaucratic hierarchy….the rules rule
• Democratic heterarchy….consent rules
• Meritocratic holarchy…….commitment rules.

It is worth noting that the last stage of envolution from a democratic heterarchy to a meritocratic holarchy will mean that something is left behind; the new vantage point that Einstein describes provides the understanding of what element no longer serves the new order.

For example when consent has becomes the highest form of consciousness for individuals operating democratically, then we come to understand that good is indeed the enemy of great. For conventional wisdom held by the majority may well vote down the exceptional wisdom held by a committed minority? This thinking is the threshold that must be crossed to move to unification which results in holarchy and manifests as meritocracy.

Autocrats and meritocrats may look the same from the outside as they both appear to act seemingly without concern for rules or consent. However, it is worth understanding the relationship between the first level of autocracy and the fourth level of meritocracy as the difference is vital. Autocrats solely serve their own agenda while a meritocrat has a vital understanding that service is to a collective good.

This relationship can be seen in the third century ‘Axiom of Maria’ which is a precept: “One becomes two, two becomes three, and out of the third comes the one as the fourth.” Marie-Louise von Franz built on this insight through her collaborative work with Carl Jung and offered the alternate version; “Out of the one comes two, out of two comes three, and from the third comes the one as the fourth.

At Present Group we are evolving a quadruple bottom line as a way of moving towards a meritocratic culture. Our holarchy approach starts when we ask ask our people to focus their efforts across planet, people, purpose and profit. It starts by individuals mindfully considering these questions.

– Planet: How can I make a real difference?

– People: How do I contribute to true fellowship?

– Purpose: How can I experience meaningful success?

– Profit: How do I co-create abundance for all?
This brings me full circle to my last post on ‘The Fourth Order Effect’ – which explored why personal sovereignty is emerging as the crucial unifier in the envolution of the internet.

At the time I omitted to mention the Meta Tags of heart, soul, mind & body that have permeated our work on the Meta Model from the beginning but they are extremely important when it comes to personal sovereignty.

For example if personal sovereignty (heart) is the Internets Forth Order Effect unifying the other three of Send (body), Search (mind) and Social (soul).

These insights led us to explore for-purpose ventures in the technology sector. We see technology having a profound positive as well as negative impact on society. We were also looking for the right opportunity to be venture custodians rather than venture capitalists by paying forward support to help fund and support another enterprise in the joint venture space that would compliment our own aspirations.

Following the Snowden revelations we had become increasingly aware of the surveillance economy. Over 80% of our on-line activity is tracked and sold by data brokers and third parties, often without our consent or knowledge.

Furthermore, today’s dominance of social networking enterprises aggregating and selling our personal data, feels like we are having our souls stolen and sold back to our bodies via IPO’s.

So we started to research the personal data sovereignty movement. We where interested to see who has the heart and commitment toward a meritocracy that will champion our personal sovereignty? Who is thinking of the generations ahead? Who is focused on disrupting enterprise through innovation? Who is imagining new business models together with new ways to create value?

We found all this and more with Katryna Dow, and the company is Meeco. I would describe Katryna as a boundary rider. Her unique perspective gets personal sovereignty at a cellular level. Imagine as she does, the role of our generation to be real and symbolic guardians in the digital era. How our actions will pay forward sovereignty and freedom for generations to come.

Katryna and the team at Meeco have devised and built a simple and elegant way to gain control of your digital life and make the things you do on-line safer and easier. “It’s your life. It’s your data. You own it”.

We are proud to be a Joint Venture Partner of such an auspicious purpose. We are inspired by our shared values, which from Meeco’s perspective can now be carried into the digital world.

– Planet: Removing cost, waste and minimizing data pollution

– People: Helping people gain control and sovereignty over what is theirs

– Purpose: Creating shared value, which benefits society

– Profit: Enabling people to become the beneficiaries of what is theirs.

Through Meeco we were also introduced to the great work of Respect Network. I recently had the privilege to meet Drummond Reed the Co-founder and CEO. For the past decade Drummond and his team have been co-creating with their foundation partners a positive alternative to the current data eco-system.

The five Respect Network Principles of Promise, Permission, Protection, Portability and Proof speak to the emergence of new people centric terms and conditions; terms which put privacy and respect at the heart of every exchange.

We believe the Respect Network will enable the shift and Meeco will allow us to engage in ways that create value real value for our families and ourselves.

Meeco and Respect Network give us a voice to ask for a return to privacy and the right to transact on our terms. They are contributing to a growing community where integrity and respect are the cornerstones of new ways to create and exchange value. We invite you to join us in this exciting quest.

Meeco and the Respect Network plan to coincide their global launches by mid 2014. To read more visit http://www.meeco.me and http://www.respectnetwork.com

This article was written by Brian Grimmer CEO of Present Group, with insights and understandings derived from extensive cooperation with Peter Midgley, CXO of Present Group, on the Meta Model for Process. The term ‘Historarchy’ is a new term that has emerged while developing the Meta Model for Process.


The Fourth Order Effect : Or HOW the Next Big Wave of the Net Will Work Out & WHY?


“The natural analytical geometry of the universe is based on arrays of tetrahedra” – Buckminster Fuller

 This profound insight into reality is so much more than a simple recognition of the tetrahedron as the most basic 3D space in the universe; it is so ubiquitous that you could liken it to the hydrogen of geometry.

By simply adding time as a fourth dimension to allow for progression it gives us a basis for modeling and predicting how reality continues its fractal unfolding.  As a glorious process it is both physical and metaphysical.

The envolution or increase in functional complexity of the Net is a very visible process with much at stake.  Not surprisingly many people are actively debating what will constitute the next big online revolution. How will the new contrast to pivoting on the existing, which is still inducing billions of dollars in speculation?

Online derivatives will keep on emerging and seeking to differentiate in some way. Of course when this next paradigm does finally emerge everyone will be quick to say, “Of course it had to be so.” Which is so typical of our human nature to live life by furtively fumbling forward while we only dare to understand reality backwards with bold conviction.

So how might we use a simple lens like the tetrahedron to provide us with the clarity to see the next paradigm shift of our current digital age?

If you were to consider point A by itself as a single vertice or singularity then its most striking property would be one of freedom. It possesses the freedom to move out in any direction within 3D space. However, to use the vernacular it would be a ‘one trick pony’ with only the potentiality to emit or send. This correlates nicely with the nets first major paradigm; which was mail as your default post-box to the net.

Now consider that we introduce point B. We now have two points with the same potentiality to emit, and we have also accumulated the vector between which allows for the potentiality to emit and to remit or to search, by finding and retrieving. This also correlates with the nets second major paradigm, which was the advent of search as the default portal to the net.

By adding point C we accumulate still further properties, giving us a 2D plane between it and points A & B. This allows for choice as well as an interior or gated community which all gives rise to the potentiality of a social network. This invariably leads us to correlate the third major paradigm of social as our default personality on the net.

So where is this all heading, and how might it relate to the envolution of the Net?

If we stop for a minute and consider once again the genius of Buckminster Fuller there are clues. It is not widely known that over and above Bucky’s own prodigious and original output he also had time to add a finishing touch to Plato’s own compelling triad.


By adding self to the triad of beauty, symmetry and truth. Bucky turned the triad, which is flat, planar, and therefore non-existent in the 3D spatial universe into a tetrahedron.

Adding self creates a tetrahedron, which in Bucky’s words is the, “unique symmetrical set of minimum interrelationships”. It is the primary system of intellect; self-witnessing the universe of beauty, symmetry and truth. It is the observer plus the observed.

When we put all of this together; what you send from your post box, what you look at through your search portal and how you represent your social personality, all appears to converge at the core issue of self and identity.

The self is really the sole owner of its own personal sovereignty, and yet it seems that this basic right is consistently violated by the default privacy settings and terms and conditions of the net.

The accumulation of tetrahedral properties is stark and as an observer it seems that all points are directed toward a major movement to reclaim our core identity.  Our desire to send, search and be social has unwittingly spread our digital exhaust such that the ramifications are only starting to emerge.

Incorporating the fourth order effect by adding the fourth point at D simultaneously unites the other 3 privacy issues and will empower and liberate us as users and observers like never before.

No longer shall we as individuals merely be the observed. Instead we shall have a 3D imperative to unite both the container and content aspects of our lives in our very own ‘sovereign data kingdom’, along with all of the core rights that personal sovereignty bestows.

The envolution can be summarized as follows:

A = Send as our default post to the net.

A+B = Search as our default portal to the net.

A+B+C = Social as our default persona on the net .

A+B+C+D = Sovereignty as our default privacy on the net.


And so the macro envolution of the internet; the accumulation of functional complexity, as an entire system has so far taken on three generations which have largely determined the main centre of gravity for any given period of time. That is until the accumulated effect of each stage and its predecessors provides the new functionality required, …..and then a new paradigm is born.

1. Send by communication

2. Search by algorithm

3. Social with network

4. Self with sovereignty


In order to consider the reasoning I have used here to arrive at the fourth new order let’s explore the nature of abductive reasoning.

The tetrahedral lens I have used is based on ‘effect’ or pattern recognition and called abductive reasoning as opposed to the more oft understood base pair of inductive reasoning, which is ‘cause’ based and deductive reasoning which is ‘rule’ based.

There is also a fourth type of reasoning, which is also often misunderstood, it is called conductive reasoning and is based on our ‘values’.

It is this form of reasoning, so close to our hearts that yearns for personal sovereignty for ourselves, our children and their children to come.

Take these four instances by way of example;

Inductive reasoning is when I look at the sky through a window and see storm clouds, because I have seen storm clouds cause rain before I decide to carry an umbrella by inducing or sensing the ‘cause’.

Deductive reasoning is when I look at the measurements on my barometer and deduce or reason that the barometric pressure and level of humidity will mean rain, so I decide to carry an umbrella based on reasoning with a scientific ‘rule’.

Abductive reasoning is when I know that cows have just laid down in the field and abduce or intuit that they have greater instincts than humans – as they still live out their lives in nature – and they would want dry bedding underneath them before the rains begin. So I carry an umbrella based on intuiting the superior instinct of cows and its non-apparent ‘effect’.

Conductive reasoning is when I have no sensory data whatsoever but I conduce or understand that today I have a very important meeting. As a result my own personal presentation values will not let me arrive while not looking my very best.  So I carry an umbrella based on my own ‘value’ of what is important to me, regardless of the weather conditions.

Given the insight drawn from these different types of reasoning and why abductive reasoning has immense utility albeit in shorter supply because it requires wisdom. Then we can clearly see that in this case these very types of reasoning hold the answer in and of themselves. For example if we were to apply them in their own order of envolution then we get yet another very striking correlation:

1. Send or communicate is induced and is cause based

2. Search or algorithmic is deduced and is rule based

3. Social or network is abduced and is pattern based

4. Self or sovereignty is conduced and is value based.

This leads me to abductively intuit that the fourth wave will comprise the assertion of the self or personal sovereignty.

If navigated with shared value, this next stage holds the opportunity for each of us to claim our invariable and irrefutable rights.

This article was written by Brian Grimmer, CEO of Present Group, with insights and understandings derived from extensive cooperation with Peter Midgley, CXO of Present Group on the Meta Model for Process.