Meta Model, Uncategorized

A Data Trust-Sphere Analogous To A Life Biosphere : Or How Three Into One Will Go?

“One becomes two, two becomes three, and out of the third comes the NEW one as the fourth.” Maria Prophetissa

Maria certainly knew a thing or four, so much so that the Arabs bestowed her the honourific, Plato’s Daughter. However I have taken the liberty of inserting NEW into her axiom.

The ‘new one as the fourth’ more accurately describes our findings with the Meta Model for Process. Namely, that the fourth order effect is the heart which transcends the other three. Taking Space-time as an example, our one temporal dimension is the heart of the three spacial dimensions; bringing them all to life! The new one that enables progression to occur. Without it, the third order effect of spacial dimensions (x,y,z) only allows for presentation.

The biosphere is also a fourth order effect allowing progression between it’s three sub-spheres which can all come together to sustain life in it’s many different forms.


As predicted by the Meta Model; the biosphere is a three into one phenomenon. The biosphere can be seen as the summation of its three sub-sphere’s which is greater than its parts.

When meta modelling we use the meta tags of body, mind, soul and heart, to assign the first through to the fourth order effect respectively. They are also useful to keep a track as you move up and down levels of abstraction and layers of interaction.


The table above demonstrates the utility of the meta tags when observing stages of Involution, increasing material complexity, or of Envolution, increasing functional complexity; in this case four examples of Envolution are shown.

In the case of the biosphere we would apply meta tags in the following order:

Heart: Biosphere.      (Life)
Soul:   Atmosphere    (Air)
Mind: Hydrosphere  (Water)
Body: Lithosphere    (Earth)

As a form of envolution, the biosphere also presents as an accumulation of functional complexity; The lithosphere presents as land masses that are separated until the hydrosphere connects them, while the atmosphere connects both the lithosphere and the hydrosphere simultaneously. Finally the biosphere is the unification of all three of these functional domains.

The biosphere then can be considered the global eco-system which houses all other eco-systems. The biosphere eco-system also provides a great analogy to a ‘Trust-sphere’ eco-system or ‘equ-system’ for the proliferation of data as an analogy to the proliferation of life. An equ-system, like any true partnership or relationship exchange should be imbued with trust. For that to occur there should be no gradient (asymmetric information) relationship between any two parties within the system.

A trust-sphere may look something like this;

Heart:Experience trust as new form of eco-system (Equ-system)

Soul: Engagement trust as new form of e-commerce (MeCommerce)

Mind:Execution trust as new form of framework (OIX’s)

Body:Enablement trust as new form of infrastructure (CSP’s)

The Meta Model points to a reflexive process that already appears to be emerging toward the manifestation of a trust-sphere by reflexing the pre-existing conditions and turning them inside out. Just as these examples indicate;

– CRM reflexes to VRM

– E-Commerce reflexes to MeCommerce

– Attention (Push/Advertising) reflexes to Intention (Pull/Casting).

VRM (Vendor Relationship Management) tools provide customers with both independence from vendors and better ways of engaging with vendors. The same tools can also support individuals’ relations with schools, churches, government entities and other kinds of organizations.

While Me-Commerce (Life Management Platforms) will allow consumers to disrupt conventional advertising directly and social network revenue models indirectly. Overall the shift to a trust-sphere would put the heart and soul back into our online interactions by empowering the many;

Heart:  Many to Many
Soul:    Many to One
Mind:  One to Many
Body:  One to One

Personal data sovereignty then, will be the basis for a trust-sphere. As we all create the data in the first place we should be at its heart. It is our asset to commoditise then use as a form of currency however we should choose;

Heart:  Sovereign
Soul:    Asset
Mind:  Commodity
Body:  Currency

So what might a trust-sphere look like and what would constitute the sum of its parts? Well the Meta Model also points to the trust-sphere and it’s three sub-spheres all creating three into one eco-system’s in their own right:

Heart: Experience   (Trust-sphere)
Soul:   Engagement (Enter-sphere)
Mind: Execution      (Exec-sphere)
Body: Enablement  (Infra-sphere)

Heart: Trust-sphere

Ultimately the trust-sphere as a whole will allow us to ‘Experience’ trust throughout as we transact our lives in the digital era. The three sub-spheres required to make this a reality may also look something like this:

Soul: Enter-sphere:

The enter-sphere would be the ‘Engagement’ layer delivering all the enterprise activities we have come to expect but in a safe sovereign environment where we can transact our lives and add value by creating new data for us to own and control with new value adding enterprise models that were previously unavailable:

Heart:   Engagement (Me-Commerce)
Soul:     Platforms      (Life Management)
Mind:   Applications (Collaborators)
Body:   Brands.          (Co-creators)

Mind: Exec-sphere:

The exec-sphere would be the ‘Execution’ layer providing the governance frameworks of open identity exchange systems and memberships both personal and business. Above all else this will provide the portability that guards against monopoly. These are the four facets required of any sustainable civilisation;

Heart:  Execution Framework    (Social Facet)
Soul:    Technology Framework  (Technical Facet)
Mind:  Legal Framework.            (Political Facet)
Body:  Business Framework       (Economic Facet)

Body: Infra-sphere:

Finally, the infra-sphere would be the ‘Enablement’ layer providing the infrastructure to underpin the experiences, enterprises and execution entities. The ultimate role of a data infrastructure layer would be to act as the Utility providers and securers of our data. This is already most likely taking shape as personal and business Cloud Service Providers (CSP’s)

Heart:  Enable Content as a Service   (CaaS)
Soul:    Utility Platforms as a Service (PaaS)
Mind:  Utility Software as a Service   (SaaS)
Body:  Utility Hardware as a Service (HaaS)

Returning to the biosphere analogy where the biosphere and trust-sphere both equate as heart / heart. We can take the notion that the lithosphere (infra-sphere) comprises continents (CSP utilities) or Islands (DIY Clouds) that are separate and associate it with the trust-sphere’s infrastructure layer of data utilities; both lithosphere and infra-sphere equate as body / body.

In turn the lithosphere’s continental land masses (CSP utilities) are connected by the hydrosphere’s Oceans (Open Identity Exchanges) which also associates nicely with the trust-sphere’s ‘Execution’ and governance layer allowing content to move freely between the continents (CSP utilities); both hydrosphere and exec-sphere equate as mind / mind.

Lastly the atmosphere as the ‘Enterprise’ layer adds value as it sits above both and absorbs water (data) by the process of evaporation from the hydrosphere (OIX’s), transporting and depositing it back onto the lithosphere’s (CSP utilities) as precipitation (data content) which can then return it to the hydrosphere’s Oceans (OIX’s) via lakes and rivers to be recycled. Or it can store the precipitation (data content) which can be likened to percolation back into the water table of the lithosphere (CSP as storage).

The processes of sublimation and transpiration that occur on the lithosphere (CSP utilities) also allow the atmosphere (enterprise layer) to absorb water (data) and transport it back to other regions of the lithosphere (CSP utilities) or hydrosphere (OIX’s); both atmosphere and enter-sphere equate then as soul to soul.


Admittedly if a data trust-sphere as an entire global equ-system is to emerge, it will no doubt require a lot of resources and cooperation. Yet we only have to look back a generation to see the enormous development that has given rise to our current form of internet.

The secret for a wiser generation who have borne witness to the reckless and uncontrolled profusion of our personal data and resultant loss of sovereignty;
Will be in ensuring that the three sub-spheres cannot contaminate or corrupt one another and that each sub-sphere maintains a sizeable community engaging in healthy competition much as the biosphere does between life forms within it.

Therefore each sub-sphere will require its own specialisation of cultures, technologies, policies and economic models. In essence we do not need another controlled eco-system, we have that now; what we do need is a collaborative one so we as individuals can remain in control of our sovereign data rights.

Are you ready to trust in a new future? It may not be utopian but it will be tritopian which will be essential if we are to support all life in trust by avoiding our current growing dystopia of data haves and have nots!

This article was written by Brian Grimmer, Founder & 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 ‘Trust-sphere’, ‘Equ-system’, ‘Enter-sphere’, ‘Exec-sphere’ and ‘Infra-sphere’ are new terms to have emerged while meta modelling a data eco-system to be analogous to the biosphere.


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 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.