Why Financial System became Insane - International Finance Study

Description
Why Financial System became Insane - International Finance Study, In finance, the financial system is the system that allows the transfer of money between savers (and investors) and borrowers. A financial system can operate on a global, regional or firm specific level. Gurusamy, writing in Financial Services and Systems has described it as comprising "a set of complex and closely interconnected financial institutions, markets, instruments, services, practices, and transactions.

WHY FINANCIAL SYSTEM BECAME INSANE - INTERNATIONAL FINANCE STUDY

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. 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) 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

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. 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. 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.

Pluriform Pluriform as opposed to uniform is another concept for plural. For instance plurisigns 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. 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 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 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. 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) 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 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. Uniplurals Uniplurals is my notion to express that the uniformities of mainstream social sciences and philosophy (aimed at similarities instead of differences mostly) are actually not uniform but uniplural meaning that they are still plural in their contents and nature. But uniplurals are far more restricted than plurisigns and still based on reductionist sensemaking and understandings Wentelechistic Wentelechistic is the meta-semeiotical notion of entelechy. It is perfection of being, based on sound pluriflection and phronesis antenarrating. Wentelychistic See wentelechistic. Wentelychistic is synonym of wentelechistic

Introduction The years of 2008 to 2010 and very probably also the years after are the years of the financial crisis. A lot of citizens went back in time related to their properties and possibilities. But the same counts for governments. Governments saving more money to decrease the height of their debts. Something which is just both insane and not needed, which is something I would hope to make clear in the rest of this book. This book is aimed at giving the right understandings about the underlying causes of the financial crisis, but foremost also to give the sole right solutions and ways to continue. As for me personally, it is clear that it is really time for a change. This is the moment, this is the time. To either change the financial system but also our ways of doing drastically, or to head for a really bad future for individuals and society at large. What I hope to make clear in this discourse, is the fact that our current money system and the nature of it is just not fitting our current realities. The financial crisis is mainly the result of a growth problem, being a very unhealthy way of growing not being real growth but just a huge lack of it for insane stupid reasons. It should become clear, after reading my discourse, that the only solution to solve the crisis would be and will be to create MORE money. And having that money to be used and absorbed in our economies. This is however not the sole solution, as in the end also a change in management practices and ways of doing there are highly needed. IF only people start to grasp what I understand, really ALL the debts of governments can be cancelled without any problems. But also taxes for citizens are just not needed anymore. We can move on to economies flourishing and people growing (REALLY growing) and flourishing too, without much problems or efforts. The crisis can be solved in about half an hour of time, if only governments will start to understand what I try to communicate. And I just hope this discourse will explain enough, or at least lead to Governments to grasp and understand. Better sooner than later, of course.

1. Phronesis Antenarrating- reshaping our societies and universes through a holoplural mind perspective

NOTE: THIS CHAPTER WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN TO BE PUBLISHED BY A LARGE ACADEMIC PUBLISHER FOR A BOOK IN A SPECIAL SERIES OF THEM WHERE ONLY A FEW OF THE GREATEST BOOKS IN THE FIELD OF MANAGEMENT APPEAR. I DECIDED NOT TO PUBLISH IT THERE (YET). THE CONTENT OF THIS CHAPTER IS, JUST LIKE THE CONTENT OF THIS WHOLE BOOK, THAT IMPORTANT THAT ACTUALLY AS MANY GREAT MINDS AS POSSIBLE SHOULD BECOME AWARE OF IT. THIS ARE JUST SEEDS I WANT TO INCORPORATE IN INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE MINDS AND PREFERABLE ALSO INTO ALL PARTS OF SOCIETY AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, AS IT WILL LARGELY IMPROVE OUR POSSIBILITIES AND LIVES. IT SHOULD HOWEVER BE MENTIONED THAT THE REST OF THIS BOOK CAN ALSO BE READ AND UNDERSTOOD WITHOUT THIS PARTICULAR CHAPTER. BUT THIS CHAPTER IS ABOUT THE VERY FUNDAMENTAL FUNDAMENT OF SENSEMAKING LEADING TO MUCH GREATER UNDERSTANDINGS. IT SEEMS TO BE RATHER ABSTRACT, BUT IT IS NOT. THE LIST OF NOTIONS AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS BOOK MAY BE OF HELP TO UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE NOTIONS IN THIS CHAPTER AND BOOK IN BETTER WAYS. ON PHRONESIS ANTENARRATING: ANTENARRATING IS AN INVENTION OF THE GREAT DAVID BOJE. TO ME HE IS WITHOUT A DOUBT THE BEST ACADEMIC PROFESSOR IN CHANGE MANAGEMENT WORLDWIDE. HE ENCOURAGED ME TO ACTUALLY WRITE DOWN MY UNDERSTANDINGS ABOUT PHRONESIS ANTENARRATING BUT ALSO HE IS JUST A GREAT PERSON. BUT ALSO WHAT I ADDED TO ANTENARRATING BY MEANS OF PHRONESIS ANTENARRATING IS ABOUT THE GREATEST SUPPLEMENT TO BE ADDED TO IT. AS MY EMPHASIS ON SENSE MY MAKING PART OF OF ANTENARRATING BUT ALSO FOREMOST UNDERSTANDINGS

HOLOPLURALITY AS BEING THE SOLE UNDERLYING STRUCTURE AND NATURE OF OUR UNIVERSES ARE ABOUT THE GREATEST GIFT FOR SOCIETY AT LARGE. RIGHT AT THIS MOMENT, I AM THINKING ABOUT HOW TO DANCE TOGETHER THIS MANUSCRIPT WITH PUBLISHERS AND DISTRIBUTION

CHANNELS AND HOW TO GET IT ON THE MARKET IN BEST WAYS AND FOR THE RIGHT PUBLICS. WHAT I NEED THERE AND ACTUALLY DO, IS PHRONESIS ANTENARRATING. MAYBE SHOOTING APART SOME UNDERSTANDINGS AND EVEN ACTUALITIES AND CHANGING THEM TOWARDS THE MOST OPTIMAL FIT OF PLURISIGNS. ENCHANTMENT. Wilfred Berendsen © W.T.M. Berendsen, Wilvon Organization & Developments
“THE REAL PHILOSOPHERS, HOWEVER, ARE COMMANDERS AND LAW-GIVERS; they say: ‘Thus SHALL it be!’ They determine first the Whither and the Why of mankind, and thereby set aside the previous labour of all philosophical workers, and all subjugators of the past—they grasp at the future with a creative hand, and whatever is and was, becomes for them thereby a means, an instrument, and a hammer. Their ‘knowing’ is CREATING, their creating is a law-giving, their will to truth is—WILL TO POWER. (Nietzsche, BGE)

An introduction

This chapter is meant to introduce a specific type of antenarrative, being the phronesis antenarrative. This notion of phronesis antenarrative has been explored for the first time in the forthcoming discourse “a phronesis antenarrative- towards new ecosocial systems through the logic of vagueness “ 1. This discourse, written by me, is about phronesis, social sciences, management and (understanding) our universes. Among anothernesses. One very slight, but important, core of this forthcoming discourse of mine being the notion of phronesis antenarrative. In and by means of this chapter, this notion will not only be introduced but also further explored.

1

A draft of this discourse can be found and downloaded for free at http://wilvon.com/download_center/index.php?phronesis_complex1.pdf

On phronesis and philophronesis Since ages, people have been searching for or thinking about the philosophers stone. Or Excalibur. While, according to me, this philosopher stone is not itself something to search for, but something to grow into or towards. For me, this notion of the philosopher stone is about wisdom and understandings. The philosopher stone being some symbol for wisdom. Just like god and devil might be metaphors and personifications for nature and non-natural, or good and evil. Good and Evil- God and Devil.

Then, when talking about wisdom, it is important to distinguish between Sophia and Phronesis. Phronesis being practical wisdom. It is not only the greatest kind of wisdom one can ever acquire during one’s life. It is, like Arash Abizadeh 2 rightfully suggests, the true passion of the wise. And the sole true wisdom. At least it should be. Sophia is currently still based on relative insanities, based on wrong understandings. While it has to be based on Phronesis and the sole true structure, which is also the road to take for clearing up the insanities in social sciences and social practises. Phronesis, being my understandings of it, can bridge the differances between theory and practise. That is, it can bridge and solve those differances caused by insanities, the sane differences pertaining. Phronesis can guide and help you through the whole of your life. It can prevent problems. Phronesis can keep you out of trouble or even safe your life. But it can also get you into a lot of trouble because of insanities of current society. But more about that later on.

A lot can be said about the notion of phronesis. In my discourse mentioned before, I give the notion of phronesis the content it should have. Meaning that my notion of phronesis is completely different and a way better understanding of the notion than any understandings of
2

Arash Abizadeh: “ The Passions of the Wise: Phronesis, Rhetoric, and Aristotle's Passionate Practical Deliberation” , The Review of Metaphysics, Vol. 56, 2002

it before. I explore not only the notion itself but also create and invent new notions and understandings worthwhile for social sciences and practise. Among anothernesses, I explore the notion of philophronesis. Being not the generally understood notion of it, but a more logical and worthwhile content for the notion. In my understandings, philophronesis means “friends of practical wisdom”. As opposed to philosophy meaning “friends of (theoretical) wisdom”. For those understanding the sole true structure it should become clear that the friends of (theoretical) wisdom, philosophers, often base their understandings not on wisdoms but on relative insanities.

On methodology

In peircean perspectives, an antenarrative is reflected by means of representamens. Just like all the notions we use in our conversations are. But the antenarrative itself is product of and/or input for antenarrating, and this antenarrating consist of much more than solely the representamen. Antenarrating is about mind processes of both our individual and collective minds3.

The methodology, the how, is always very important. Of course. And, there is a lot to tell about it. Probably enough to fill lots of books, although most of the books on methodology have wrong contents. During the last couple of years I discovered and became to understand something I already knew for long by means of tacit wisdom. But what no-body really nobody does understand till now. Being the fact that there is only one real true underlying structure of our universes, and that this sole true underlying structure is the underlying

3

During my explorations of the last couple of years, one of the most important realizations I got is that our organizations and organizational and social processes should be understood and managed as minds and mind processes. If these mind processes are correctly understood and applied in daily practises, it can solve a lot of insanities in our society. Therefore implementing sane mind processes into antenarrating is key for improving the concept and methodological tool. Phronesis antenarrating is about sound mind processes, while phronesis antenarratives are the result of it.

structure for all social but also physical structures and realities. Which is something difficult to express in words. But, since this is needed for communications, I called it holoplurality. Our universes and anything within consist of interconnected assemblages of plurisigns4, being connected with each other or not. If they are, they are to less or more extends. And this assemblages of plurisigns are disassembled and reassembled just like physical entities are in the fields of nanotechnology. Actually especially in current times assemblages of plurisigns change more and in higher speeds. And even in other ways. Something that is maybe not as good as it is, also because of the fact that about all of human actions of the last decades can be viewed and understood by means of swarm theory and practises. A lot of these actions are executed following specific rules, without someone intelligent controlling. Yes, we got control. But it is control based on the wrong understandings. Just like our actions are. Which is something we can see throughout a lot of social sciences and practises. Economy does not have to be in crisis. The reason it is, is because governments do not understand. Using the wrong structures, based on the wrong understandings being misunderstandings really. Resulting into wrong assemblages of signs instead of sane assemblages of plurisigns. Phronesis antenarrating is about disassembling (partly) insane signs and assembling them in more sane and therefore excellent ways.

On the nature of a sound methodology
“ I have been developing the idea that antenarrative is a bridge of transformation between living story (& pre-story) and narrative. It occurs to me now since the 2001 book, that antenarratology is the study of two processes. One you might call Vampire, sucking the blood out of living story, all that co-creation, and reducing it to a beginning, middle, end (linear) narrative. The other is like Lazarus, being raised from dead narrative abstraction to live again, in living story. Type 1 Antenarrative: It’s the Vampire handing spaces of living story over to formalized place. Type 2 Antenarrative. It’s the Lazarus resurrection of living story space from places of dead narrative cadavers. Storytelling, for me, is defined as the heterogeneous practices in the interplay of narrative, story, and the two antenarratives forces. “ ( David Boje, 5th of April 2008, http://anarchlyst.wordpress.com/2008/04/04/the-friday-tea-time-blog-11/)

4

This plurisign notion is another notion I use to differ from the general notion of signs. Plurisigns are, as the first part of the notion already suggest, plural. But most importantly the nature of this plurisigns is different from a general notion of signs. Plurisigns are assemblages of entities according to the sole true structure. Either living or non-living, or combinations of these. In this understandings really everything in our universes is a plurisign. But also really every plurisign is a combination of several other plurisigns.

Only some months back, I read the great understandings by David as expressed in the sentences above. He distinguishes two types of antenarratives. The one being the Vampire, the other one being Lazarus. He says both of the types of antenarrating exist in our society. In Beyond Good and Evil, the great masterpiece, Nietzsche remarks that bad mostly has at least two meaning. The one being badness, the other being evilness.

Where this all starts to get interesting, is if you grasp the understanding that bad processes are Devil and good processes are Lazarus. Something is always good or bad, devil or lazarus, by nature. A good methodology is Lazarus by nature. This Lazarus involves some plurisigns with pluriquali 5, characteristics. And the major ones are absorbed in the internal logic of phronesis antenarrating. By this I am NOT saying that every outcome or content should always be Lazarus. Since any outcome, any momentum in time, will always be reductionist by definition. But, this reductionist outcome should always be as optimal as possible. Apart from the restrictions of our languages and our organizational tools. And, most contents and outcomes always have to be supported by Lazarus processes. Bakthainian anothernesses require Lazarus processes, more specifically they require input from individual and collective minds through antenarrating. By that influencing our storytelling societies and realities.

Something being good by nature, for instance phronesis antenarrating but also someone being suspected of a crime, can not become bad by devil methodologies or processes. But they can appear to be so because of the outcomes. Bad outcomes of phronesis antenarrating or phronesis representia because of devil methodologies or devil personalities. Or someone being lazarus and good by nature being innocently prosecuted because of (d)evil methodologies. At current times, there are so many instances and situations where people socially judge others as being bad while actually they are themselves. Since the devil as discussed by David is far too much absorbed throughout the whole of our society. But often also much more nearby than we think. And a lot of devils and devil methodologies are to be found in government and governmental institutions. If you come to understand.

5

This notion of pluriquali is a notion i did not use anywhere before but which has to be incorporated in my PhD discourse still. It is a notion needed to label the very specific nature and contents of characteristics of what I call plurisigns. Pluriquali are elements of plurisigns just like protons and neutrons are elements of atoms. In the end really everything in our society is actually according to the rules and logic of holoplurality. Something I hope to proof by maybe also improving understandings of physics this ways in future.

In our current societies, there is some struggle going on between Lazarus and the Devil. And since the Devil as represented by insane reductionism resulting from wrong understandings of structure and nature of our universes is absorbed and everywhere in our societies, it is not always as easy for Lazarus to succeed. There is a real clash between what I call inbox and outbox kind of thinking there. The inbox thinking being almost equal to Nietzsche’s frog perspective. Especially when understanding and grasping that holoplurality is really the sole true and sane underlying structure of our universes, it should become clear that people with frog perspectives to less or more extends actually live in a less dimensional world there. Getting out of it requires some people in our society to enter what I would call the twilight zone. Being those fields in our universes going beyond traditional and inbox realities and understandings. Going there can be quite dangerous sometimes, mainly because of the majority of amphibian perspectives. But the greater possibilities for our societies at large are actually to be found in this twilight zones. This are the inbetweennesses not belonging to and overlooked by traditional kinds of thinking. The best way they can be recognized and explored is through sound phronitical phronesis antenarrating and pluriflections.

I need to elaborate a bit more on an aspect of phronesis antennarating being very essential. Being the notion of phronesis representia. For now, it is important to mention that this phronesis representia all should be based on the sole true underlying structure of our universes being the structure of holoplurality. Improvement of phronesis representia is a very essential aspect of the nature of phronesis antenarrating methodology. The result being either phronesis representia based on relatively insane representamens, or more entelychistic improved phronesis representia and/or additional ones.

Just like a cameleon can change its colours, phronesis antenarrating can change insane representamens into sane phronesis representia or sane (phronesis) representia into even better or saner ones. And, the goal is to have this going on in ongoing processes. By the time everyone understands what this is all about, we should be able to improve anything we want in the social realities surrounding us. Since the understanding of holoplurality is the key for moving towards the ultimate level of wisdom and possibilities. And phronesis antenarrating is the key for arriving there and then just growing further.

On phronesis antenarrating

Phronesis antenarrating methodology is a methodology that is much broader than narrating and storytelling as such, but also it is a methodology to supplement narrating and storytelling. Our society is a storytelling society. Phronesis antenarrating itself consists of several processes. This processes being aimed at growth of understandings. For the purposes of interventions to develop, maintain and/or control social processes and practises. A specific type of Phronesis antenarrating being Phronetic antenarrating, being either part of or a specific practise of phronesis antenarrating. Both Phronesis Antenarrating and Phronetic antenarrating are based on several fundamental notions and understandings which have been explored and developed by me during the last couple of years. This being at least the following notions and understandings: Practicism, Phronesis in general, (phronesis) holoplurality, Phronesis representia (the plural of phronesis representamen), phronitical (phronesis) pluriflection.

On the sole true underlying structure and nature of our universes

The sole true underlying structure of our universes is really a very elementary and core aspect of phronesis and therefore of phronesis antenarrating. By now, I dare to say that this sole true underlying structure is actually the key for getting out of inbox kind of thinking. It really IS the sole true underlying structure of our universes, although we have other structures in our universes and this structures ARE valuable and needed. But this is mostly because of restrictions of our realities. For instance we have restrictions on the level of pluralities possible in our realities. Spoken words and thoughts are and will be much more plural than

written words. Structures in our thoughts and in our storytelling are much more plural than structures in our realities and structures in our written stories or (ante) narratives.

The nature and structure of holoplurality is very different from the nature and structure of holographicness. The structure of holoplurality is like assemblages of dots that can change or maintain during each moment in time based on actions or movements. The nature of these assemblages being the fact that it are never really fixed structures forever. Any lineair structure, being a circle or a triangle or a matrix or a spiral or a holograph or whatever, is only a temporal and specific type of structure, an instance of holoplurality.

Holoplurality is about enrichment of our society. This enrichment is about fit of plurisigns based on holoplurality instead of fit of insane signs based on what I call uniplurals (based on non-holopluralities)

On phronesis representia

Although the notion of phronesis representia evolved out of my own understandings of semiotics and the notion of representamen, there are many fundamental and essential

differences between representamens and phronesis representia. The peircean notion of representamen is the following:
• "A sign, or representamen, is something which stands to somebody for something in some respect or capacity. It addresses somebody, that is, creates in the mind of that person an equivalent sign, or perhaps a more developed sign. That sign which it creates I call the interpretant of the first sign. The sign stands for something, its object. It stands for that object, not in all respects, but in reference to a sort of idea, which I have sometimes called the ground of the representamen. “(A Fragment, CP 2.228, c. 1897).

Examples of this representamens are just everywhere around us. But good examples are for instance Walt Disney personalities like Donald Duck. Or, the very broadly used @. But also this chapter of this book is a representamen

All our communications and mind processes are about representamens and/or phronesis representia. A phronesis representamen being something entirely different than a representamen. Phronesis representia are based on the sole true underlying structure of holoplurality. And therefore, it is about what I labelled as anotherness inbetweennesses. Phronesis representia are always the result of lazarus processes, although the representia themselves might be reductionist. When applying phronesis representia in our storytelling societies, both the rhythm and tempo of these representia are very essential. Storytelling and narrating based on phronesis representia is like writing the greatest music play or hunting with an excellent falconer and his hunting companion. It is about perfection of being, or at least about striving for this.

But, maybe the most important of phronesis representia are the following characteristics of the nature of this notion. First of all, it should be understood that not only the phronesis representia, but also the connections between them are important. The combinations of phronesis representia and the interconnected anotherness inbetweennesses. This combinations are different from the combinations of words and sentences in written and thought texts, or at least they should be as much as possible. More fluid, more flexible and more open. The combinations should be according to the following understandings : 1) The representamen is NOT the object. This is a very important semantic understanding further explored by Alfred Korzybski in his “ science and sanity” . Being one of the greatest books ever written. 2) Phronesis representia have to be understood and treated like antenarrative bits, just about the same ways as David Boje is using them in his great book “ storytelling organizations” 3) Phronesis representia have to be plurisigns. While creating and improving them, point 4) and 5) are important to be taken into regards 4) The greek sophists did have more entelychistic understandings about the nature of our society than current society has. Our universes are about differences, while these differences are less and less expressed in both our language system and our understandings. In greek there was the difference in chronos and kairos. In more general terms, this is about the difference in what I call uniform notions and uniplural notions. In current times, Kairos seems to have disappeared from the scene. At least it has predominantly in governmental settings.

5) The concentration on money (the chronos understanding of it, being a very restricted and limited understanding) and chronos perspectives has led among anothernesses to less narrating and storytelling in our societies. While these narratives and stories are exactly the vessels for introducing and maintaining the differances into our societies. Lazarus needs storytelling to survive and win from the devil.

Besides solving the financial crisis, phronesis antenarrating is aimed at solving a lot more. Like the problem of people not being able and prepared to really listen to each other in current times. The problem of improvements in our society not to be passed on to the fullest also to lower incomes. If that particular aspects are solved, it can solve a lot of more problems in our society. Less stress, less people being harmed, less people with social or financial or anotherness problems.

On sound pluriflection

David Boje’s invention of antenarrating is based on his great understandings of narrating and storytelling. Our society is a storytelling society, and antenarrating is a very elementary aspect of it. But more importantly, antenarrating is key for sensemaking and communicating this sensemaking towards our storytelling societies. Incorporating the right understandings and fundaments into antenarrating is key for improving our societies. The core of phronesis antenarrating is transformation of representia into phronesis representia. This requires some sense making process being different from normal sense making and reflection. Being my notion and understanding of pluriflection. Pluriflection is the sole best methodology for plural

understandings and sane sensemaking. At least the following aspects and nature of pluriflection are important: • Phronesis abduction, phronesis and phronetic pluriduction(s), Phronesis retroduction and Phronduction. • • Phronesis respresentia consisting of plurals instead of pluriform notions Phonetic actors with phronesis wisdoms executing the mind processes and pluriflections The most excellent phronesis antenarratives are resulting from individual or collective mind processes by phronetic actors. Being actors who have enough understandings about certain matters to arrive at phronesis or phronetic antenarratives. Less phronetic actors can however also use phronesis antenarrating, and in general the results from them will also be more phronetic and great than when using other methodologies. But, these results should be labelled phronetic antenarratives instead of phronesis antenarratives. Phronesis antenarratives are the most entelychistic possible results, while phronetic antenarratives are more like less optimal but still the best results given the possibilities and sources available. With regards to pluriflection, it is important to realize that the goal of it is to arrive at (more optimal) phronesis representia. The process required for that is what I labelled as being phronesis pluriflection. A lot still will have to be understood from this process. It is way different from normal reflections, and the key differences are explored and expressed in this book chapter. Again, the fundament of holoplural structure is important here. Both for the goal to arrive at (phronesis representia) and the process itself (pluriflection). The notion of phronesis representia has already been discussed before. What I will do here, is elaborate on the process of pluriflection itself.

Sound phronesis pluriflections is a process that can never be expressed completely in words. It is kind of an art that can only be executed to the fullest by people being phronetic, having a solid base of understanding of the matter(s) under consideration. Without enough plural understandings, it is difficult but not impossible to execute great phronesis antenarrating. Phronesis antenarrating consist at least of the following aspects: • Phronesis abduction, the first stage of pluriflection. Phronesis abduction is NOT what is generally understood as being abduction. Phronesis abduction is most generally “just” the mere act of moving away from the subjects of pluriflection. This moving away can mean a physical moving away from the subject, a mind based moving away or just any combination or instance of moving away from. Towards another surrounding or context or whatever, just any context being different in whatever ways. Enabling anothernesses and plurisigns (pluriform signs) to enter the scene. • Phronesis and phronetic pluriduction, which are the mind processes and actual core of pluriflection. Based on a thorough understanding of phronesis, the holoplural structure of our universes and the subject under considerations, anothernesses critical and/or important for the subject under consideration/pluriflected should be taken into consideration and thought about. Based on a phronitical perspective, meaning a critical perspective based on phronesis. • Phronesis 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 • Then, phronduction is the latest phase of pluriflection. While phronesis abduction and phronesis retroduction are just processes of switching contexts and contents of pluriflection and mind processes in general, phronesis/phronetic pluriduction and phronduction are the essential mind processes of pluriduction. First “away” from the initial subject under consideration(s), being the phronesis and phronetic pluriduction. Then “back” with the results from the pluriduction phase. At that stage the pluriflection is however not completed. Since what is still needed there, is phronduction. Being the phronesis implementation and usage of the findings of pluriduction into the initial subjects under consideration. The result of it should be more entelychistic/excellent phronesis representia. Phronduction itself also consists of several excellent mind processes. This four aspects, stages of pluriflection, are always part of it. But depending on the complexity and nature of the process, emphasis will and should be concentrated more on certain steps and aspects of pluriflection. Which is something difficult to explain, it is part of the art of pluriflection.

This art of pluriflection is difficult to put on paper. It is like flying a falcon or driving a car the right ways, you can read and hear about the things you need to know, but in the end you have to add a lot of anothernesses to make it successful. Of course. But, the short introduction from me can be supplemented by figure 1. In this figure, I tried to visualize the main elements of sound, phonetic pluriflection.

On phronesis and phronetic antenarrating

A distinction needs to be made between phronesis and phronetic antenarrating. Phronesis antenarrating is the result of most efficient sensemaking processes, while phronetic antenarrating is resulting from less efficient sensemaking processes. Not because of the methodologies being used, but the persons executing and participating in the sense making processes. Phronesis antenarrating being executed by the phronimos, while phronetic antenarrating is executed by less skilled and knowledgeable persons. But still this phronetic antenarrating is better than sensemaking processes in general, because the methodology used is based on same contents as phronesis antenarrating.

Then also there is a Phronesis GRAND antenarrative which is a special type of Phronesis antenarrative. The GRAND antenarrative being much more vague and exploring still than the phronesis antenarrative. And of course there is the fundamental phronesis antenarrative. My own discourses are mostly fundamental phronesis antenarratives.

Phronesis and Phronetic antenarrative and antenarrative in general do not have to be complete, since the aim of phronesis and phronetic antenarrative is to arrive at a destination. Which will divert from the phronesis antenarrative anyways.

Phronesis and phronetic antenarratives can have a lot of inputs. Through all or part of our senses. Some of them are reflected in figure 2.

On phronesis antenarrating, antenarrating and change in general

By means of his creation of antenarrating, David Boje has without any doubts created the most effective vessel for change. It can not be understand or used apart from storytelling and narrating in general, meaning that for a thorough understanding of (phronesis) antenarrating, also a thorough understanding of storytelling and the interdependencies between antenarrating and storytelling are key.

I already said before that phronesis antenarrating is some specific type of antenarrating. But in general it is about adding some very elementary and great values to the notion of antenarrating. Enabling the concept and methodology to grow towards the most great change management methodology you could possibly think of. It is the key for solving a lot of current problems in our societies, for instance the current problems because of financial crisis.

It is important to understand that for grasping what antenarrating and our societies are all about, differences are the most important. Phronesis antenarrating is about making and seeing those differences, and a very important issue there is the issue about communicating and listening. A lot of current officials, and maybe more specifically a lot of current higher educated persons, can be really arrogant and non-communicative. Or they seem to be that way because of the concentration on firstnesses. Their concentration on models and figures, without taking enough notice of the anothernesses. Anotherness betweennesses being everywhere around us, if only you can read and listen to texts and persons.

Antenarrative is key for managers to build knowledge about how to proceed, for making choices. A phronesis antenarrative is a guidance for how to proceed, and they are effectuated by means of antenarratives and implementation in structures and procedures or ways of doing.

The great past intellectual Mikhail Bakhtin has written down a lot of great insights about Discourse in the novel. In the chapter with the same name in his book “The Dialogic Imagination”. Besides Mikhail Bakthin and his insights, of course a lot of anotherness plurisigns are important for antenarrating in general and phronesis antenarrating. Some very important insight is that both need phronesis rhetoric. But also very important are the notions of Kairos and Stasis. This old greek notions where very elementary for the Greeks, alongside and part of Phronesis. In greek society, they knew the relevance of Kairos and it got the attention it deserved. In present society, more and more emphasis is on chronos. Kairos and phronesis disappeared from our societies. Because of reductionism and concentration on firstnesses.

Phronesis antenarrating and phronesis representia- some examples

This chapter overall has become overly structural and formal. Something I do regret in some ways, also because I would like to give some good examples to show that phrones I did repeat the notion of

antenarrating is a very practical and relevant methodology.

holoplural structure a lot in this chapter. The notion seems to be much less relevant than it actually is. Just like a lot of issues I have been thinking about during the last couple of years. It all seems very abstract and stressing on seemingly not that important details. But the main issue here is that this holoplural structure really truly is something different from what is already there in our societies. But, more important, this holoplural structure is really the sole and true fundamental base for our society at large. At least it should be.

On examples of phronesis antenarrating. Phronesis antenarrating is a very new notion initiated by myself. There are however some examples to be found on the internet. First of all on the website www.wilvon.com. There going to documents and special downloads. Other examples will most likely appear on www.phronesisantenarrating.com and/or www.antenarrating.com. This examples are not just examples, as phronesis antenarrating is about fundamentals for our societies. Meaning that they offer a solution for change or interventions. For instance on the current financial crisis, I have written some phronesis antenarrative to be found at www.wilvon.com and www.phronesisantenarrating.com

I would be interested to receive any great phronesis antenarratives being developed following my understandings and methodologies. They can be send to [email protected] or [email protected].

In the following figure, figure 3, some practical applications of phronesis antenarratives are mentioned. But the possibilities for phronesis antenarrating our futures are manifold.

Phronesis antenarrating can be your ultimate (change) tool and guide.

References

Bakhtin, M.M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination. University of Texas Press, Austin Boje, D.M. (2008), Storytelling organizations, Sage Publication Ltd. Boje, D. M. (2001a). Narrative methods for organizational and communication research. London: Sage. Berendsen, W.T.M (forthcoming). A phronesis antenarrative. Towards new ecosocial systems through the logic of vagueness”. To be found on www.wilvon.com. The links documents and special downloads. Czarniawska, B. (1997). Narrating the organization: Dramas of institutional identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gabriel, Y. (2000). Storytelling in organizations: Facts, fictions, and fantasies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition. Dordrecht: Reidel. Nietzsche (1886), Beyond good and evil (BGE) Nietzsche (1887), On the genealogy of morals. Peirce, C.S., The essential Peirce, Selected Philosophical Writings, volume 1 (1867-1893), Nathan Houser and Christian J.W. Kloesel, eds. Indiana University Press, 1992. Peirce, C.S., The Essential Peirce, Selected Philosophical Writings, Volume 2 (1893-1913), Peirce Edition Project, eds., Indiana University Press, 1998.

2.

Towards

a

reenchanted

society

through

storytelling

and

phronesis

antenarrating ABSTRACT Storytelling and narrating can be a very efficient and great vessel for changes in our society. One of the experts in storytelling in management being David Boje, developed the notion of antenarrating. A great new notion that is still developing further. A specific type and application of antenarrating being Phronesis antenarrating. Phronesis antenarrating is developed and initiated by Wilfred Berendsen, the Netherlands. In this discourse, the insights and fundaments of Phronesis antenarrating are further explained and applied to one of the core issues of current society. Being the issue of enrichment of plurisigns, of occurrences and individuals and organizations in our society and universes. In this paper, some methodologies and ideas are being developed to destroy some of the insanities of dreams and nightmares in current social sciences and practises, thereby increasing the possibilities for freedom and enrichment for society as a whole. A very fundamental core of this discourse being the notions and understandings of holoplurality and transitive values.

TOWARDS A REENCHANTED SOCIETY THROUGH STORYTELLING AND PHRONESIS ANTENARRATING

Dreams, nightmares and freedom are all notions quite strongly connected with the notions of enchantment, disenchantment and re-enchantment. But, of course, this

notions have to be understood and applied in proper ways. To me, understandings is about Phronesis. Phronesis being practical wisdoms. During the last couple of years I spend a lot of time developing more understandings of this notion and sorting out this notion and a lot more. The major parts of my understandings having been incorporated into a very sophisticated but seemingly simple body of understanding called practisism or practicism. This body of understanding is where theory and practise meet and differences between the two disappear. At least, they should.

This antenarrative discourse is going to present my ideas and understandings regarding enchantment, disenchantment and re-enchantment. As a reenchanting kind of person being strongly interested in storytelling and having developed the idea and contents of Phronesis Antenarrating, I will also couple this understandings with what I consider to be the best approaches to reenchant our storytelling society.

For this discourse, I have chosen to concentrate on a phronitical approach based on empirical experiences and largely grounded on a methodological approach. This approach may SEEM scientific and neutral and, what seems to be, without “warmth”. But, the issue there is that a lot of phenomena SEEM to be x or y, or dreams or nightmares, or disenchanting or reenchanting, while actually they are NOT. And, the only way to understand this, is to base understandings and fundamental methodologies and approaches on the right kinds of sensemaking. Which is why I keep this discourse

of mine seemingly neutral and scientific. Hoping that other people can and will apply this into specific cases, grounding their understandings of enchantment on the core issues being mentioned here.

Reenchantment of our society is actually basically a fight against reductionisms and a strive to break out of this reductionism in methodologies and social practises. Reductionism being a major problem throughout all of our society, mostly because of wrong underlying structures of about all of (social) sciences. It may seem weird to have this perspective of reenchantment being all about fights against reductionisms, but in the end somehow most of them or all of them are. Reductionisms of love, reductionisms in communications and/or reductionisms in understandings. This last issue, reductionisms in sensemaking and understandings, are what I am mostly interested in and concentgrating on. This reductionisms mainly result from the insane fundaments of rationalist and/or dualist ways of thinkings and quantitative approaches to management and practical issues. I myself try to reanchant our society by means of my own understanding of sensemaking and phronesis , being a much better fundament and actually the sole real sane one for our societies at large. I try to communicate parts of this understandings in this paper, but as it is all based on very fresh and new understandings being different from mainstream social sciences and understandings, it might take a while for individuals and society at large to really understand what this is all about.

Before talking further about disenchantment, reenchantment and enchantement, it is of course needed to get deeper understandings about what this notions involve. But, more importantly, it is important to understand the causes of disenchantment and ways to

overcome. And, of course, to understand that there are many differences in causes and ways of disenchantment. Following this, the best possible options for reenchantment are to be thought about and to try upon.

When I was first introduced to the issue of disenchantment and enchantment, I understood the high relevance of this issues. But, at the same time, I understood that a lot of issues and understandings where and are connected to this notions and social phenomena. The core issue that causes (perceptions of) disenchantement in our

societies is the issue of reductionism and a false underlying structure of all of our social sciences. Which is actually the understanding I got already some years back, and I offer the sole right and great solution for it by offering the understanding of the sole true underlying structure of our universes. I named it holoplurality, which is a definition I developed following the sole true right understandings. In the next decades this understanding has to be incorporated in all of the social sciences, together with about all the other understandings I have been developing and am still working on for my new philosophy called practisism or practisism. Phronesis antenarrating, pluriflection, phronesis rhetoric and foremost the sole true structure of our universes called holoplurality are all part of my phronesis notion of practisism/practicism.

Practicism is where the differences between theory and practise disappear, simply or mostly because of the fact that it is based on the sole right sole true structure of our universes, which I called holoplurality. I mention this all since it is all very relevant for reenchantment. Actually, I have been working on phronesis during the last couple of years and incorporated it into a great unifying theory and practise for all of the social sciences and practises. This resulted in major understandings of sensemaking, sensemaking

involving all of the senses and therefore more than sole mindmaking. Mindmaking, the processes in our minds, are however also to be based on my great understandings of holoplurality. As opposed to the insane illogics of insane fundamental logics.

The greatest understandings to be acquired, are that a lot of social problems in our current societies are caused by insane understandings. These problems can be solved a lot by understanding which parts of our societies are insane, based on reductionist and/or insane sensemaking and/or activities. When this is being understood, those who understand have the obligation to strive and fight for changes, for solving problems in our society at large.

As Nietzsche wrote :

“THE REAL PHILOSOPHERS, HOWEVER, ARE COMMANDERS AND LAWGIVERS; they say: ‘Thus SHALL it be!’ They determine first the Whither and the Why of mankind, and thereby set aside the previous labour of all philosophical workers, and all subjugators of the past—they grasp at the future with a creative hand, and whatever is and was, becomes for them thereby a means, an instrument, and a hammer. Their ‘knowing’ is CREATING, their creating is a law-giving, their will to truth is—WILL TO POWER. (Nietzsche, BGE) When I say fight, it not immediately means violence. One can also fight with words, or fight by dancing together plurisigns. Actually, enchantment to me is about enrichment. And the only way to enrich is by means of dancing together what I call plurisigns in most optimal ways. And, this is requiring a solid great fundament and guiding principle, being sane sensemaking based on the right understandings and applications of the sole true underlying structure of our universes. Sensemaking involving all of our senses, and therefore also feelings as I also consider feelings and whatever results from sensemaking as parts of sensemaking and the sensemaking process as a whole.

Re-enchantment can be initiated by leaders having the understandings to change our society, but it will be much better to give individuals the means to re-enchant our society as a whole. By giving them the tools to understand and tools to change. Tools for understanding are the right sound methodologies as opposed to insane methodologies, as the sane true methodologies and sane sensemaking will lead to greater understandings and therefore to less reductionist societies. The means or tools to change are communicational ones. It is true that at first discourse will maybe not have that much of an impact, but if discourses are being listened to and great sensemaking

results from it, signs start growing from this discourses. Storytelling and foremost antenarratives are vessels for change, and phronesis rhetoric and phronesis antenarrating offer more detailed capabilities for doing so. Re-enchantment of our society is not only the duty of leaders, but foremost also a duty of all citizens understanding. Storytelling and communications, both diminishing in our organizations, need to find their way back into organizations. Organizing is about a lot more than just profitability and following the insane illogics of rationality. Organizations are at current highly underestimating both the relevance and the importance of storytelling and enchantment of organizational processes, both for their own organization(s) and society at large. Storytelling and (ante)narrating have to be encouraged and supported in every organization. This requires the encouragement and support of discussions but also informal talks in organizations.

So apart from reenchanting leaders, reenchanting tools are most probably a great solution for reenchanting our societies at large. Phronesis antenarrating leads to a lot of better understandings, if only because of the fact that phronesis antenarrating is based on the sole great true sensemaking technique called pluriflection. Which is my explanation of my own understandings of sane sensemaking. Based on pluriform thinking , as opposed to what Peirce calls diagrammatic thinking. Charles Sanders Peirce, founder of semiotics and pragmatism, thought that all of our thoughts are diagrammatic. This assumption from him was probably based on his other argument that logic should be based on mathematics. This is an assumption still being quite widespread in about all fields of mainstream philosophy and social sciences. But, this fact of diagrammatic thinking and logic based on mathematics is both insane and wrong for philosophy and about all of social sciences at large. As, like I say, really all social

sciences and practises should be according to the sole true structure of our universes which I have called holoplurality. What Peirce did call diagrammatic thinking is, in a slightly different form, indeed a part of sane sensemaking. But, it is only a part of it. And, it simply HAS to be supplemented by other aspects and processes of sensemaking. If not, it will indeed lead to reductionist understandings. Like, indeed, a lot of understandings being misunderstandings of current times. I will write more about this in near future, hopefully.

Re-enchantment requires a supportive organization, and foremost another way of dealing with prospective sensemaking and prospective acts. Re-enchantment is closely connected to social judgements , another very complex issue I am planning to write about in the next couple of years. But for now, it is important to mention that for real true enchantment to happen, parties judging (like normal citizens but also police and state officials and organizations) have to accept enrichtment activities maybe far beyond the levels of acceptance of current times. Prospective sensemaking and resulting acts requires a much higher acceptance of justice and governments for this kind of actions meant to enrich or change our society as a whole. As some prospective acts just require to go beyond laws and social rules, and even to act against some laws sometimes. Justice but also society at large should accept COURAGEOUSNESS and GOOD intentions in other ways, based on sane sensemakings and the understandings that sometimes people just HAVE to cross certain social laws for the sake of society as a whole.

Re-enchanting our society requires a more sane society, and this requires going beyond dualistic, reductionist understandings of current mainstream social sciences and practises. Phronetic antenarrating is meant to offer such a support by introducing a methodology for sane sensemaking. Acts in our society should be based more on this sane sensemaking, as opposed to being based on insane misunderstandings because of insane reasoning. This will sometimes requires a complete other way of social judgements, both in society and in justice.

The great relevance and importance of re-enchantement tools, like antenarrating and storytelling, are to firstly improve understandings and awareness. Awarenesses about

both the contents of issues to re-enchant or disenchant, but also awareness about the duties of individuals to re-enchant, disenchant and support other individuals and our societies at large. Then also re-enchantment and dis-enchantment tools should support the actual re-enchantment and dis-enchantment of individuals and our societies at large.

A lot of activities on the internet can be judged based on their values for and purposes of enrichment. When talking about enrichtment, of course we can talk about dreams and nightmares. But, in the end this are just two of many possibilities. In the end it is more about feelings and experiences if people are involved. And, of course there are blends of feelings and experiences. With machines or other non-living plurisigns, we can not speak about blends of feelings and experiences. Or dreams or nightmares or whatever. But still it is an enrichtment if this kind of plurisigns exist or become into existences. On the internet, there are a lot of extreme communications and “feelings” expressed. I myself think part of them are put to the extremes as part of prospective sensemaking, just to encourage a much more modest but desirable end result. But also I think a lot of developments on the internet can and maybe should be considered as being illustrative for how society is developing and what ways it might go to. Understanding the issues there might be a good way of having an influence on this, and by that on the ways we enrich our society. To me choice, also the choices offered on the internet and even the most extreme and violent ones, are potentially enriching our society at large. But, only if choices are being grounded on sane sensemaking but also on human values and virtues. This incorporates sane sensemaking.

Enchantment has to be guided by the proper sensemaking tools. And it should be based on Phronesis, practical wisdoms. To me enchantment and disenchantment processes

need a proper guiding frame, which should be the frame of entelechy based on phronesis. This might lead to the insights that enchanting certain parts of our social realities might seem to be great and excellent at first sight, while actually it is not. As it is, of course, not always wise and good to enchant. For instance enchantment practises leading to more relationships will be detrimental for the environments. But, because of the complexity and interrelations of social practises, the real advantages and disadvantages are often difficult to understand and predict.

Reenchantement is also strongly connected with the right understandings and arguments. Reaching the right most phronitical understandings first will then pave the ways for the right arguments. This arguments, sensegivings, being much more according to and fitting with our realities and needs.

One of the arguments both for re-enchantment but also to re-enchant, is the argument that in many organizations individuals are treated more and more as being machines. Machine-like management methods are used, and people are sometimes treated as machines. Also in many cases it seems like managers even forget about the people and importance of storytelling and acts of great employees in their organizations. There is an overemphasis on quantity as opposed to quality at current times, and profitability for the companies is strived for while forgetting about the profitability’s for the employees.

The main error being made there being the fact that it is often not realised that this employees are also customers and therefore sources for profit and income for the companies. By constantly trying to cut down employee costs, the companies meanwhile just also destroy potential customer incomes. But also, besides this, treating employees as machines leads at least to a) more damage to the employees both physically and mentally and b) a serious loss of potential wisdoms and improvements of work procedures and overall performances of organizations.

This developments in organizations have to be counterbalanced by right re-enchantment activities based on the right understandings. Being that employees are NOT machines and never will be, but foremost the understandings that individuals and their sane sense makings should be key for any organization and organizational processes. Individuals,

not only customers but also employees, have to be central and main. Not machines and profitability. Tools and means, means and tools.

Enchantment is basically about freedom and appreciating the sense of self and self actualization of individuals in organizations and our societies at large. Although we can offer tools to individuals to re-enchant and also offer them insights to do so, it is in many cases unreasonable to expect individuals to re-enchant themselves. Because of many issues in their environments.

In organizational settings, it is often not appreciated if people try to disenchant. I understand many aspects of it, as I can reflect upon the organizations I am participating in. In one of them, not only I but also other participants are quite open in communications and also disenchanting a lot. But, the more important issues for disenchantment are either discouraged or neglected.

This discouragement and neglecting has many sides, but in it’s essences it is about a clash of perspectives and understandings. This clash being both the source of a lot of disenchantment and also the maintainer of it. Like I remarked before, we need to appreciate the freedom, the sense of self and self actualization of individuals and this is what re-enchantment is about. But the problem is that our society is filled with structures and thoughts resulting from reductionist and/or dualist ways of thinking. This ways of thinking and doing are not according to the real true underlying structures of our universes and the natural ways an individual develops. Each individual in our society needs freedom to develop as an individual, and basically both our governments but also

inferior and bad social sciences and practises are not only restricting this but also discouraging this self actualizations.

Many of the existences in our society consists of both nightmares and dreams. A lot of nightmares being caused by organizational laws and procedures being reductionist. And not understood and used in proper ways. Preventing both individuals in our society and society at large to flourish and grow in more excellent and great ways.

Basically disenchantment is both perception and reality. Both dream and nightmare. The dream being that our thoughts and understandings have actually become more and more enchanted and enriched because of more plural and therefore more entelychistic understandings. The nightmare being that our realities, and foremost representamens and procedures in our realities have become more and more uniformist and reductionist. Or maybe less, but the greater developments in our thoughts and understandings have resulted in some ever bigger gap and clash between dreams and nightmares. Another nightmare being the issue of the changing nature of our surroundings. Individuals in our society have acted as ants in nature, with the essential difference that ants and other animals mostly act based on sane underlying logics. Humans do not. Our society has become more and more rushed, we seem to run through life without taking enough notices of many values of life surrounding us. Changes occur at ever increasing speeds, while being based on wrong fundamentals and understandings. This insanities and wrong nature of life clash with our dreams.

But, this rush through life also has other unwanted side-effects. Like the fact that social contacts seem to be less and less. The growth of the internet actually also has had and

still has a negative effect on this. Social contacts seem to occur more and more through the internet, which is partly enriching but partly disenchanting. Enrichment it is, because through the internet it is possible to meet and get and keep in touch with much more people, and also internationally crossing borders and distances. But, it is also disenchanting for social life. Contacts through the internet are, like we all know, not only different from but also mostly much less intensive than contacts in “real” life being our society as a whole. And, especially feelings can and will never be expressed through the internet or other digital communicational means like SMS messaging. The internet is, by that, in general disenchanting for feelings and love. Although of course there are

exceptions also there.

Our realities currently consists of plural blends of dreams and nightmares, and most of them are caused by some rather insane perspectives and understandings being absorbed in our mainstream philosophies, social sciences and therefore also practises. This insanities lead to misunderstandings and miscommunications in our daily life and routines, but also to clashes between more insane and less insane understandings and realities. Dreams and nightmares. The devil/evil and lazarus/the good. But even Lazarus can clash with sane realities, if Lazarus is supplemented by badness, the Devil, reductionisms.

I initiated/developed the idea of semisophy and semiphronesis errors and mistakes in another discourse I am writing. This semisophy and semiphronesis errors and mistakes resulting from semeiotics and signs, insanities and problems resulting from limits in our languages and communications because of the features and quite reductionist nature of our language and signs. That is the semi- part of semisophy and semiphronesis. The

other part of the notions being the difference in perspectives, the one being sane, the other one being insane.

Our society is overall potentially MORE enriched than in previous times, in many respects. But, like I say in several ways in this discourse, at the same time there are just too many nightmares. Most of them still being the lasting realities of previous times, while others have been created only since relatively recently because of insanities of our mainstream philosophies and social sciences and practises. To enable real true reenchantment and enrichment of our individual life and therefore society at large, we need to solve the nightmares in our society. The only way to do so is through phronesis and a sound understanding of the sole true structure of our universes and sane sensemaking. Sane sensemaking is the sole right and true key to enrichment of our society. Storytelling and antenarrating being the sole true and great vessels for change, once the understandings grow through sound sensemaking. Understandings have to be communicated, and government and society at large have to encourage this kind of communications as much as possible. Even if those having the understandings need to cross certain borders or values or even “ laws” to set things right. A more liberate stance for failures and mistakes, but foremost a more sound and great way of evaluating and valuating the acts of other individuals in needed there. More freedom of thought, more freedom of acts. And the understanding that laws and procedures like we have them in far too numerous and profound ways in our society at large, are NOT laws but actually just possibilities. Which have to be altered and lived according to specific (personal) circumstances and values. Freedom, sense of self and self-actualisation should be valuated more, just like putting more emphasis and valuation towards individuals and

sane sensemaking based on right perspectives of life as such. Life being more than rationalist, reductionist points of view and understandings.

Semisophy errors and mistakes result from the combination of theoretical wisdoms grounded on the wrong perspective and underlying structures with the above discussed limits of language and signs. While semiphronesis errors and mistakes result from the combination of practical wisdoms grounded on sole true structure and nature of our universes, combined with the limits of language and signs.

Semisophy errors and mistakes have to be and can be solved and prevented as much as possible, while semiphronesis errors and mistakes are, to certain extends, not resolvable. Communications and especially written discourses (physical language signs) are reductionist in their essences. The words I have been writing for this discourse on disenchantment and re-enchantment have been largely fed by phronesis backgrounds and understandings, but still I am of course unable to express my plural thoughts and understandings on a piece of paper through physical signs being reductionist and therefore limiting my and anyones possibilities to communicate each and every understanding to the fullest or in most optimal ways. The main argument here however is that some sensemakings are phronitical, and some are sophical based on Sophia. And Sophia, grounded on mainstream philosophy and social sciences, is just very reductionist and therefore damaging for our societies at large. The only way to understand and see the differences there, is by phronitical methodologies and sensemakings.

This phronitical methodologies and sensemakings are needed to re-enchant our society at large. Individuals are the ones who can enrich our society at large, just as individuals are the ones who are actually disenchanting our societies more and more. The reason of nightmares causing a less richer and less qualitative society as the one we are living in right now being the large impact of overall semisophical ways of thinking.

The reasons of this semisophical thinking resulting in nightmares being at least 1) The wrong underlying structures and natures of mainstream (western) philosophy and social sciences, therefore practises 2) The fact that most of thinking is, by its very nature, based on what I would call grammatical thinking. Which is thinking based on representamens and uniform notions, instead of at least trying to think beyond those notions. Phronitical thinking needs and encourages this step of beyondness, basically including the shooting apart from uniform notions while reflecting on it. With a special type of reflection called pluriflection. Then giving it maybe a whole different understanding, being an understanding much more according to realities. By that, also the error mentioned at 1) can be counterbalanced and maybe even solved to the fullest.

A beautiful mind is a joy forever, for all of us. But this beautiful mind is more than just intelligence. A beautiful mind is a mind with the most entelychistic, phronitical sensemaking. Senses being even more than just the commonly accepted senses in mainstream knowledge/understandings. Our sensemaking system involves a very broad system, going even beyond individual persons. It is about sense of self in a very broad universe. And the understandings about sane sensemakings and the role of humanism in our society at large.

Although our thoughts and even sensemakings have become more and more reenchanted and enriched, which is also reflected in a lot of current writings, this enrichment is not reflected to the fullest in our societies at large. Mainly because a lot of writings are just considered as writings, and not as great proposals for humankind. But,

more dramatically, individuals in our societies simply seem not to be capable anymore to distinguish between great and less great quality. In our organizations, we have all become kind of rational machines, acting according to the insanities of mainstream social sciences and practises. To break this spell, we need Lazarus to guide our sensemakings and acts more. Quality has to be re-introduced in our society at large, as at the moment there is a huge misfit there. And a lot of people actually longer for MORE quality in our societies, instead of the bad, evil forces straying us ever farther away from a beautiful, great society.

Quality has to be introduced to our societies again, and the only way of doing so is by sound great communications. Storytelling being the vessel for change there. By means of storytelling, our societies can be re-enchanted and current situations can be changed. Our organizations at large need control instead of only planning and linearly following or strictly following this planning.

Whether you disenchant or reenchant, is not an easy thing to say. In many cases, if people being individuals reenchant certain parts of reality, they at the same time

disenchant other parts of it. Also, while re-enchanting persons they will mostly be disenchanted at same time. Apart from the understandings that in many cases the reenchanter might do their utmost to re-enchant, while actually both the person(s) concerned and society at large will neither want nor profit from this intentions and/or actions. Real enrichment is in the end about understanding the notion and nature of holoplurality, and following this understanding to fit plurisigns together in most optimal ways according to the nature and structure of holoplurality.

Disenchantment and re-enchantment are, what I would call, contextual notions.. The notion contextual actually being about the extends of and nature of fit of plurisigns with other plurisigns. This fit of plurisigns is however relative and conditional, as a

reductionist fit or even a non-reductionist one might not be the most optimal or most required fit. Disenchantment and reenchantment are NOT uncontextually good or bad Meaning that even something being called enchantment can actually be

disenchantment, and something being called disenchantment can actually be about enchantment. Also, processes in life can change balances there. Which is why, also here, it is much more important to have a sane sensemaking and understanding and acting from there all the times, as opposed to focussing too much on the firstnesses of notions.

But, there is more to say about the conditionality of disenchantment, enchantment and re-enchantment. As also there, there are many differences between levels and nature of conditionalities. When talking and reflecting about this, it’s actually about the more detailed and potentially more sophisticated and understandings of our language. By going beyond the singular and dualistic understandings of language, extending the understandings into the semiotical field (semiotics being more detailed than the la

langue of Saussure) as such, and applying the understandings of the sole true fundamental underlying structure of our universes.

So, for instance we have the rather unconditionally notion of killing or kicking somebody. This act always stays the same regardless of contexts, as the question whether someone has actually really truly killed or kicked somebody is largely determined by the internal quali of the notion. Then, for instance, we have the conditional notion of love, or

the unconditional notion of it. For instance, I can and do unconditionally love my birds of prey, family and life in general. But, this same love and devotion to it can become very conditionally when acting in specific cases. Because then, love just like the –chantment notions, becomes more plural and different. Loving my birds of prey might actually mean not giving them something to eat for some days, love of life might in ultimate cases mean kicking or even shooting certain persons.

While talking about love, I think in the end deeper understandings about love of life and family and our fellow citizens is very much related to more understandings about reenchantment of individuals. Re-enchantment should be about humanity and love. Conditionally humanity and love, not unconditional ones

There is a lot of potential to enrich our society at large, both in individual potentialities and understandings like being expressed in some of the greater discourses of mankind. There are a lot of wisdoms in some of the historical and present writings, but still most of them are just treated as stories instead of antenarratives and antenarrative bits that can largely enrich the quality of our society at large. When understanding the potentials of this stories as antenarratives, or rather understanding it ARE antenarratives as such and also even destined to be, those capable to understand not only CAN but even SHOULD act or at least strive to act based upon the better understandings. AND THUS SHALL IT BE

Our realities are filled with pandemoniums, altars of the devil, places of uproar and chaos. This pandemoniums and pandemonium bits and pieces are mostly accepted because of the lacks of understandings about how to solve them. But actually, most of

them, most of our nightmare pandemoniums CAN be solved. Disenchantment of our society happened because of reductionist fundaments and understandings of our society at large, changing dreams into nightmares. Paradises into pandemoniums. By means of SANE sensemaking and resulting understandings, a lot of this pandemoniums and pandemonium bits can be transformed into dreams again. A healthy sane

pluralism, rather than current mainstream pseudoscientific and pseudosane social sciences and practises, is needed for enriching or society at large.

Apart from this understandings, it IS however true that enrichment of our society can only occur through individuals in our society. As I have tried to explain and argument above, a whole different perspective and understanding is needed for doing so. It should be realised that about everything in our society is based on the wrong fundaments, and this fundaments need to be changed based on sane sensemaking. While communication should be understood to be limiting this understandings, either because of the nature of communication and/or the limits in our languages. Semiotics, but more importantly my own understandings of semiotics (based on a more sane perspective than Peircean semiotics is generally perceived at) are offering a much more detailed level of understanding there. Incorporating this understandings into antenarrating and narrating, together with more detailed and entelychistic understandings of sensemaking in general, pave the ways for enriching our social sciences and practises throughout the whole of our society.

As far as dreams and nightmares are concerned, we need to understand that something not only is mostly a blend of both dream and nightmare, but also that this blend differs for different persons. And that the perspectives and understandings of several persons can influence the blends of other persons in our society at large. The insanities being spread all over into our societies causing a lot of unwanted outcomes there.

For instance, my dreams of loving a particular person can result into a nightmare, just because of the simple fact of specific other persons perceiving this great phenomenon of love as being a nightmare. Therefore even changing it into a nightmare even before real actual love can happen. Our society at large can and will largely profit from a sound sane methodology improving understandings, thereby changing perceived nightmares into dreams or just having the perceptions disappear at all.

Quality and enrichment of our societies require the right intentions and perspectives. This perspective should place humans central, as opposed to machines or procedures. This however does NOT necessarily mean that for instance in organizational settings we should incorporate feelings and as much humanizing aspects as much as possible. Because in the end we are dealing with a competitive world, and also enrichment in our organizations might and mostly will result into loss of quality in our private life and growth. The fact of us dealing in a competitive worlds should and can actually be changed, thereby allowing a potentially huge enrichment of and growth of quality in our society at large.

On conditional and unconditional (semisophy notion based on dualist, reductionist perspective), or contextual and uncontextual (semiphronesis notion based on a more

sane perspective), the following can be said to improve understandings. Semisophy enrichment based on mainstream understandings differs from semiphronesis enrichment based on practicism phronesis understandings. Limited, dualist and/or

mainstream understandings of perfection and differences as being solely or purely enrichment are at least partly insane, therefore leading to insane understandings. Singular langue notions by nature incorporate more plural understandings, but there is a huge difference in both outcomes and sanity whether this understandings are based on sane or insane sensemaking and communicational understandings and means. For instance perfection and differences are often unconditionally considered as being good and enriching our society at large, while actually they are contextually by nature.

An example of this contextuality of this single notion (while actually most perceived unconditional notions are contextual ones) is the aims of perfection and change in organizations. Change often incorporating differences being considered based on very narrow, limited semisophy understandings. Also mainly because of the fact that till now there are no great semiphronesis antenarratives based on greater understandings. Anyways, this changes and also the fact of striving for perfection are generally considered as being good. While overall, they actually in many respects are insane and leading to a lot of serious mailfunctions and damages in society at large. People being less healthy can not cope with the system anymore, while those who do may and will have a lot of problems connected with the strive for semisophy “ perfection” .

In the end, enchantment to me is closely connected with (strive for) quality. And perfection. But, like I said, perfection is contextual. But, I think in the end a lot of perfection IS uncontextually and unconditionally perfect and qualitative. What is needed

to get to this stage, is to remove the insanities of philosophy and social sciences out of philosophy, social sciences and our universes at large. As much as possible.

So, for instance, if we have a machine running in a factory. It is generally considered of more quality if the machine runs smoothly and cycle times are diminished. When the process of running machine is broken for whatever reasons, it is generally considered to be bad. Mostly because of reductionist understandings, being almost equal to misunderstandings of both “ object” and “ surroundings/context” .

Before moving on to further pluriflections on this machine case, I would like to mention here that in the great universal and fundamental philosophy of practicism, the notion of “ surrounding/context” should not exist anymore. Since this notion itself is a reductionist, dualist notion. In practicism, there is the understanding that each plurisign CAN be dependent on other plurisigns in it’s surrounding. This network of plurisigns and their dependencies is what matters, and understandings about it grow by means of sound pluriflection and phronesis antenarrating.

The reductionist understandings about the machine do not take into regards both specific individual requirements of the workers themselves, but also they rely on reductionist and incomplete understandings of the role and nature of money. On this role and nature of money I am currently in the process of writing another discourse, which is of course very interesting and important to take notice of. But, for here I want to stress the important understanding that money is a tool and an end, but that also here balance is important. Meaning that an almost sole emphasis on the end, like in current times, is both undesirable and even damaging to society at large. For money, it is much more important to stress and emphasize the tool part. Money can help society and individuals to grow, and that is actually the way money should be used and work. Money has to become much more supportive, and reaching this will at first require a much more supportive role of governments. Based on a much better understanding of both money as such and the money game(s) we can play and SHOULD play based on it. As opposed to the reductionist and insane games we play at current times.

In current situations it is actually not that bad if a machine does not run for a while for whatever reasons. It will mean workers to get paid a bit more, which is good for

economy at large. Besides that, it will give same workers a bit time to relax and having a break. Which is also not bad, as the insanities of competiveness have lead a lot of companies to have their tempo and rhitm to be controlled by machines instead of human beings. Meaning that lots of persons in companies just have to run a higher tempo and rhythm than they would like to or even at the very limits of what they are capable off, simply because machines are the ruling ones and humans have to become one with the machines instead of other ways round.

While, of course, becoming one and centrality for organizations should be the people. NOT the machines. I would welcome the days when finally the great situation will be mainstream that machines actually CAN sense the moods and possibilities of human beings and act accordingly. Or when workers will mostly be allowed within a company to just shut of their machines or putting them in slower gears (??) either themselves or having this done by operators of same machines.

Quality and enchantment for human beings is about humanism. This requires SANE sensemaking, and having the sensemaking processes from human beings and between and beyond individuals as central point of importance. I already stated somewhere else my strong conviction that organizations should be managed as being sensemaking organizations, and the more I understand the more I agree with this essential understanding. But, I am not talking about mainstream understandings of sensemaking there, but about sensemaking as understood in my body of understanding called practisism or practicism.

I told some friend a while back that if I would have to lecture strategy, I would ask students to write about their strategy or strategies of or for love. Just such a broad assignment, nothing more and nothing less. Then students would have to decide what love would be about, for who and where etcetera. Then analyzing and writing about their strategies. The reason why I said this about strategy of love is because love and faith and other virtues (human qualities/values) incorporate feelings and sensemaking beyond what I call pure mindmaking. Phronesis antenarrating is also aimed towards that, a more complete sensemaking involving ALL of the senses, and even anything interesting and valuable beyond if possible.

When talking about enrichtment ( a to me more general and worthwhile definition for enchantment), it is always very important of course to also think about the strategy or implementation. And important issue there being a good sense of which parties will listen and what arguments will serve this important groups of people or individuals best. Phronesis rhetoric, being rhetoric fitting the relevant plurisigns to the best, should be based and follow sane sensemaking processes. And that is actually where the start of this discourse (phronesis antenarrating, sane sensemaking) meets “ practise” . But actually, it already does right from the start and is a constant guide for our society.

Our organizations, but also individuals among each other, quite constantly give counter…messages to each other. In current organizations, it is for instance common practise that managers DO encourage employers to be pro-active and critical. And to get into discussions if something bothers them or if they think their work can be improved. But, at the same time when these same employers do so, they are either not listened to or nothing can or will be done with the same worthwhile and important feedbacks. Also, while this encouragements of storytelling ARE there socially, the main structures of organizations reflected in organizational writings and procedures are communicating just the opposites. Organizational charts being hierarchical in their setups, or at least communicating this, can and will discourage employees to speak with other professionals and managers in their companies.

When still being at University in Rotterdam, I was teached that each communication has a content and a relational aspect. This is however, again, based on reductionist and dualist understandings. As, of course, there is much more than only that. Really everything in our society is consisting of blends of content and relational aspects, and

both of them are just characteristics or actually just plurisigns of other plurisigns. And, limiting the scope to individual plurisigns without taking into regards the several

connections with other ones, does like always limit understandings.

One perfect example, again, of dreams and nightmares and blends of them (or better, just blends of feeling plurisigns) is my own passion of falconry. In falconry, the falconer creates and maintains a very special bond and relationship with another living creature. This relationship is really very special and unique. But, while creating this relationship and even to be actually capable and allowed to do so, the falconer has to bridge a lot of problems and difficulties. In the Netherlands, we need a falconry license to be allowed to hunt with birds of prey. To be able to do so, we must first learn a lot by fulfilling some apprenticeships with other experienced falconers. This is, of course, very good. As also for being able to fly a bird of prey and building the relationships, A LOT of knowledge and foremost understandings are needed. Then finally, after getting the license, the “real” falconry can start. This actually sounds like the road to take to get something really worthwhile and great born out of intellectual and academic understandings into society at large. Many obstacles to take and a lot of work to be done beforehand.

Anyways, in falconry itself, we also face a lot of dreams and nighmares to become or even to be free. The freedom of flying falcons requires the mentioned obstacles and work to be done and completed successfully beforehand, and even if we have this “freedom”, we still need to face and cope with a lot of problems to be solved. Solving them however enriches us as a person and also enriches the arts of falconry at large. Individual falconry but also collective falconry strives and grows through aspects of nightmares.

Freedom but also about everything in our society at large consist of blends of feeling plurisigns. And the nature of this blends and combinations can and will change over time. Goodness often contains badness, and other blends of positively and negatively

perceived feeling plurisigns. And while a certain compound of feelings is perceived as a nightmare by one person or group of persons, it can be perceived as a dream by another person or group of individuals.

In Nietzsches words :

‘HOW COULD anything originate out of its opposite? For example, truth out of error? or the Will to Truth out of the will to deception? or the generous deed out of selfishness? or the pure sun-bright vision of the wise man out of covetousness? Such genesis is impossible; whoever dreams of it is a fool, nay, worse than a fool; things of the highest value must have a different origin, an origin of THEIR own—in this transitory, seductive, illusory, paltry world, in this turmoil of delusion and cupidity, they cannot have their source. But rather in the lap of Being, in the intransitory, in the concealed God, in the ‘Thing-in-itself— THERE must be their source, and nowhere else!’—This mode of reasoning discloses the typical prejudice by which metaphysicians of all times can be recognized, this mode of valuation is at the back of all their logical procedure; through this ‘belief’ of theirs, they exert themselves for their ‘knowledge,’ for something that is in the end solemnly christened ‘the Truth.’ In the end, Enrichtment is about phronetic combination and optimization of the linkages between several plurisigns. Social plurisigns, just like physical ones, have to have certain characteristics to enable a smooth and positive combination. In current society, a lot of social plurisigns can not be combined in positive ways because of insanities of mainstream fundaments. Leading to reductionist inbox thinking and perceived insanities becoming real because of the perceptions. Enrichtment of our society requires breaking out of reductionism and linearities and to fully appreciate and understand the nature and huge possibilities of the sole true structure. The great discourse by Nietzsche called “Beyond good and evil” can serve as a great guide for understandings there. This discourse being about a lot more than solely good and evil, just like a lot of other great discourses. Most great discourses are pluralist by nature, and incorporating a lot more than the title of the discourse would imply or uncover to the outsider.

REFERENCES Boje, D.M. (2008), Storytelling organizations. Boje, D. M. (2001a). Narrative methods for organizational and communication research. London: Sage. Boje, D. M. (2001c, September). Flight of antenarrative in phenomenal complexity theory, Tamara, storytelling organization theory. Paper presented at the Conference on Complexity and Consciousness at Huize Molenaar, Utrecht, Netherlands. Boje, D.M. (2010, forthcoming). Storytelling and antenarrative in organizations. Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group. Berendsen, W.T.M (forthcoming). A phronesis antenarrative. Towards new ecosocial systems through the logic of vagueness”. A draft of this forthcoming publication is to be downloaded here http://wilvon.com/download_center/index.php? phronesis_complex1.pdf Berendsen, W.T.M., Antenarrating our economy, to be downloaded here http://wilvon.com/download_center/index.php?Antenarrating_economy1.pdf Berendsen, W.T.M, Holoplurality, to be downloaded here http://wilvon.com/download_center/index.php?Holoplurality1.pdf Berendsen, W.T.M, A phronesis antenarrative about the understanding of money and usage of money in more phronetic ways, to be downloaded here http://wilvon.com/download_center/index.php?TheMoneyGame1.pdf

Nietzsche (1886), Beyond good and evil Nietzsche (1887), On the genealogy of morals

3. A Phronesis antenarrative about the understanding of money and usage of money in more phronetic ways The following chapter is actually a paper I wrote for the 2010 IFSAM world conference on management. Another great paper I wrote for this conference is about enchantment. An academic publisher already approached me some times to write a book also about this subject (based on the paper), which is something I probably also will do in near future. ABSTRACT Storytelling and narrating can be a very efficient and great vessel for changes in our society. One of the experts in storytelling in management being David Boje, developed the notion of antenarrating. A specific type and application of antenarrating being Phronesis antenarrating. Phronesis antenarrating is developed and initiated by Wilfred Berendsen. In this discourse, the insights and fundaments of Phronesis antenarrating are further explained and applied to one of the core issues of current society. Being the misunderstandings of money and the money game and the resulting insanities and problems in our society and universes. Without a sane sensemaking process as reflected in Phronesis Antenarrating, quite a lof of the insanities in our understandings of money and the money system will most probably not be understood to the fullest. This discourse aims at developing a much more complete and sane understanding about money and the money system, and to enable a change in the money game. This should also lead, among a lot of other results, to a solution for financial crisis and for preventing any financial crisis in future. But also it should and probably will lead to a much richer and better society as a whole.

A phronesis antenarrative about the understanding of money and usage of money in more phronetic ways Around the years of 2001, David Boje initiated and developed the notion of antenarrating. Antenarrative is a story concept invented by David Boje and presented in his book “Narrative Methods for Organization and Communication Research, London, Sage. According to Boje, antenarrative is “non-lineair, Incoherent, collective, unplotted, and pre-narrative speculation, a bet”. Antenarratives are “in the middle” and “in-between” ( Boje, 2001:293) refusing to attach lineair BME coherence. Antenarratives are, according to David, more ofthen prospective (forward-looking) than retrospective (backward-looking). The concept of antenarrative has huge potentials for our society as a whole and more specifically for change management and organizations and individuals in our society. The concept is currently developed in more detail, by David Boje and also other intellectuals and academics. I myself, Wilfred Berendsen, initiated the concept of Phronesis Antenarrating. Phronesis antenarrating being a specific type of antenarrating including Phronesis, practical wisdom. In my own body of knowledge called practisism or practisism, I further developed the notion of Phronesis and gave it much more content. Phronesis to me is closely connected to the other notion of Aristotle called entelechy. Perfection of being. Practical wisdom can and only will be reached with some perfections of being, foremost the perfection of methodology and sensemaking. Therefore, my body of knowledge called practisism or practicism does include a lot of insights retrieved from social sciences and practices, but foremost about sensemaking. Another important part of practisism or practicism is the part dealing with communications and language. For this, a lot of insights out of semiotics as developed by the relatively great Charles Sanders Peirce are very relevant and useful. But, when using the insights out of semiotics it has to be very clear that Charles Sanders Peirce did ground his understandings partly on the same insane and even potentially damaging fundament being the same insane fundaments of a lot of current mainstream philosophy, social sciences and social practices. A very fundamental and even the most central and fundamental insights of practicism, my understandings and notion of phronesis and also phronesis antenarrating is the insight that there is only ONE sole true (main) underlying structure of our universes.

I called this SOLE sane underlying structure and nature of our universes holoplurality. Once individuals get to fully appreciate and understand this understanding of the SOLE sane and true underlying structure of our universes, and start applying it in most entelychistic ways through phronesis antenarrating, they should be able and capable of improving a lot in our society in impressive ways by breaking out of the reductionist and (potentially) harmful misunderstandings or less sane understandings of current mainstream philosophy and social sciences. Holoplurarity is about what a much deeper understanding about the nature and contents of what I call assemblages of plurisigns. And, about everything in our universes is a plurisign, consisting off other plurisigns. And although the underlying structure of holoplurality is the sole one, there are many instances and occurrences of this structure in our universes at large. All of our universes are connected with each other, and the structure of holoplurality is an open structure. Meaning that all instances of structures in our society at large are also potentially open and possible to alter and change in many respects. One of the most essential characteristics and contents that Phronesis antenarrating can and does offer to storytelling and discourse analysis, is the fact that sane sensemaking is central part of Phronesis antenarrating. Meaning that storytelling and discourse analysis can and should always be supported and guided by exactly this same sane sensemaking. Sane sensemaking being based on holoplural insights and understandings, but also grounded on important transitive values and virtues. Phronesis antenarrating can and will hopefully be used to improve a lot of social matters and occurrences in our society and universes at large.

This discourse will aim at developing some broader, more intelligent understanding of money in our society at large. Based on the methodological process of phronesis antenarrating, which is a very effective and fundamental approach for sane sensemaking, developed by myself

Practisism, a kind of phronesis philosophy developed again by myself, is based on the fundamental understanding that our Western Philosophy, social sciences and therefore also social practises are at least to large extends based on reductionist, damaging and therefore insane fundaments. This can be solved by means of fully understanding both the nature and contents of the sole true structure of our universes, being called holoplurality by myself. Both the understandings and nature of this notion holoplurality are not available outside my own work till now, although it truly is the sole true underlying structure of all of our universes. Sensemaking based on mainstream social sciences and mainstream philosophy can and will lead to reductionist and therefore damaging and insane sensemaking and results. While sensemaking based on Practisism can and will lead to sane sensemaking and therefore less reductionist and generally much more positive results. Parts of the differences in sensemaking are already reflected in my writings about pluriflection and phronesis antenarrating till this specific moment, but I am still working on writing about the proper contents and nature of pluriflection and sane sensemaking in general. Basically, to make insane sensemaking sane, it is needed to at least add something to it, of course. While maybe other parts can and most probably will have to be skipped. The same applies with our money system and the rules of the money game. This money system and also the rules of it, are actually insane at current times. Resulting from the fact that actually no single economist or person on earth does actually really truly understand the money system and the rules of the game to the fullest. At least not how the money system and rules of the system should look like and work following a sane understanding of money and also our society at large. What I will try to do here, is giving some ideas about how the money system should change and how the rules of the money game should be altered, following a more sane understanding of both the nature of money and the nature of our society at large. This better and more sane understanding is reached by means of the more sane sensemaking process included into the methodology of phronesis antenarrating, together with some essential insights I got about money in general and the nature of our society during my own social research of the last couple of years.

Before although starting to talk about the ideas how the money system should change and how the rules of the money game should be altered, I need to talk a bit about some of the understandings I have following again a different, more sane sensemaking process. Pluriflection, my notion for it, really truly covers and also initiates the sole most sane sensemaking process. Although a less sane sensemaking process might lead to same results for several matters, or at least a satisfactory one under certain conditions, certain levels of damage will occur in our society at large when the less incomplete and therefore less sane sensemaking does NOT suffice. Like in present society at large. In the end, all of social problems that can be prevented are result of less complete, and therefore potentially insane sensemaking. This more sane sensemaking which I termed Phronesis antenarrating, is basically about making the differerances in most entelychistic and phronetic ways. The great past philosopher Jacques Derrida was right about the essence of making differences, but what he failed to understand completely is the pure rather “simple” fact that this making of differences is actually one of the core and essential parts of sane sensemaking, and that this determines the sanity or insanity of the outcomes of this sensemaking processes and therefore the sanity of social practises and occurrences in our society at large. And, as far as the outcomes and therefore “ realities” in our universes are concerned, the more complex the situations under considerations the more essential the entelechy of this difference making will be. Sensemaking is basically about entelechistic difference making. At least, it should be. And the fact that most of western philosophy and also most of social sciences and practises fail to completely grasp and understand this understandings and therefore also failed to include this understandings to the fullest in their sensemaking process, results in most of mainstream social sciences and practises at large to be insane in their nature. When I talk about “ realities” in our universes, I also mean to cover understandings and misunderstandings in our thoughts. Even thoughts themselves and sensemaking itself are “realities” in our universes, and also therefore sensemaking itself has to include differance in it’s nature. There is however, of course, also a differance in difference. Meaning that there is always a more and less entelychistic differance. And this is exactly where again current mainstream philosophy and social sciences and practises at large have failed to become and “ be” really sane and entelychistic by nature. And, that is exactly where holoplurality enters the scene. At least, it should be.

But, because of the fact that really no single person in current society except myself does really truly grasp the nature of holoplurality itself and also the notion itself, about all of current sensemaking is less entelychistic by nature. I do not say that it is all insane sensemaking by nature, as this is for several reasons thankfully not the case. But, it IS a fact that incorporating both the understandings of holoplurality and holoplurality itself into sane sensemaking and through that into social sciences at large, will potentially have a huge impact on the quality of (occurrences and social processes and practises in) our universes. More sane sensemaking should therefore include holoplurality by nature. Also because nature not only includes holoplurality, but also IS holoplural by nature. Goodness, and perfectness, is about nature. Well, of course not about all of it, but surely about parts of it. Holoplurality being the most essential issue there. Another lesson nature teaches us, is the fact that most situations in our universes are blends of dreams and nightmares, blends of good and wrong. And also something can and develop into something more and less good. Destruction can be a very valuable step and fundament for great developments and growth in the future. By now, I myself would like to just destroy and stop using about all of insights of mainstream philosophy and social sciences, or at least I want to destroy a lot of this insights. Then either using the pieces, deeper understandings about this insights, to recreate and use them in other ways. This other ways being sane ways, as opposed to the potentially insane understandings of the mainstreams. One of my main arguments being that current philosophy should just disappear, being replaced by sane sensemaking and sensemaking processes. And that ALL of social sciences and practices should be grounded and grow on exactly that, a fuller understanding and application of this sane sensemaking in both our communications and social practices. Following a more sane sensemaking, I made the differences in statical and transitive values. Money is just one, but not the only, type of values. Something that is mostly forgotten a lot throughout the whole of our society at large. Although most people DO realize there is of course more off value than solely money, most people do not base their actions on this understandings but also they simply do not understand well enough the further widespread implications and results of this understanding.

Another important thing to understand is the fact that our money system like it is set up and running at present time, is being based on reductionist and therefore insane understandings. One of this understandings, which is actually a misunderstanding, is the understanding of inflation and deflation. Although I myself probably understand A LOT more about this notions and impact of the phenomena on economies and societies at large than most economists or other intellectuals and scientists actually do, even I myself do not understand really truly well enough what inflation deflation would be all about. And actually I do not want to, as it is much better to shoot this notions into pieces and just rely on sane sensemaking based on sane understandings. This will quite naturally lead to both understandings and solutions to the current financial crisis and a lot more of current social problems. As in the end, a lot of our current social problems of society are connected with money, and the lack of sane understandings of what money involves and therefore how to change the rules of the money game into something much more sane and positive for society at large. On statical and transitive values of money, it should be very clear that although transitive value of money is MUCH more important than the statical value of it, individuals and society at large do not really truly understand and therefore act in most insane ways. Most people will only see and act on the statical value of money, therefore also largely decreasing the transitive value of money. Also or maybe mainly because this transitive value of money, and even more the connectedness of it with other transitive values, is still not really understood well enough.

So we have for instance a 10 dollar money representamen. A piece of paper with some information on it. Most people only see that, and will only judge two of this pieces of paper according to the physical condition and the information on it. For almost any individual, 2 of this pieces of paper represent exactly the same value. But, do they? Is the book “ a hawk for the bush” by Jack Mavrogordato the same as another copy of the book? Will they be the same if one is in your hands, the other in my hands being a sparviter and able to use the wisdoms in the book? Is the same book the same book still if I start reading it instead of just having it on the book shelves? Or doing something else with it? Of course not! And, of course, same counts for a piece of paper representing some money value. Along this lines, you need to question yourself what the money value would be of 2 pieces of this paper in terms of transitive value. Meaning, what is of more value….a piece of this paper just after it has been printed, not being used at all. Then being used for the first time to buy something. And also after it has been gone through the weird exchange of a piece of paper for services or goods and the even more weird thing that apparently we can and will not do a lot of our actions and especially or work really without knowing for sure that we will get a piece of paper or some digits on our bank account or so back for it. It there would not be any money at all in our worlds, we would basically not do many of the acts and thoughts we work on in present times. Although the resources are there, the people are there and we could enrich society a lot by means of certain acts, we are not doing so. Not because we can not, but because of the rules of our money system. This money system is based on a closed system, which is an even more weird thing. And very destructive for our society at large. There is some relatively fixed amount of statical money in our system, this amount of statical money being quite independent from growth of quantity of individuals on the globe, growth of this individual personalities themselves and also growth of society at large. The amount of money in our system is dependent on the reductionist, insane understandings of money and mostly the understandings of statical money. And, even more important but destructive and insane, the amount of money is based on insane understandings being the ones about inflation and deflation. Then also somehow there is the insane habit and belief that against any creation of money, some debt should and has to be created. This is actually a very insane and damaging misunderstanding, as our society at large both needs and can handle the creation of money without putting any debts against it.

Because in the end, actually the erasure of all debts from all countries of the world will not suffice to solve our economic problems completely. What is needed also, for sure, is that money should be created by governments but without creating any debts against it. Just creating money, statical money in either physical form (the pieces of paper or coins) or digital form (just some numbers , increase of it on bank accounts…), nothing more and nothing less. Then assuring this money will appear and be USED in our world society at large. Individuals will profit from that, economy will grow, and by that individuals will be able to grow again and much more. It will bring an end to a lot of poverty, a lot of psychical problems and a lot of social problems.

The other issue really everyone in our society at large should not only understand, but also act upon, is the fact that of course transitive value of money is not the only kind of values in our society at large. There are a lot more values of course, but for organizing and our society at large I think it is most essential to concentrate on at least getting more understandings of social and individual values. This kind of values HAVE to be incorporated both in our sensemaking and our acts, and through that into our societies at large. Whenever I talk about sane sensemaking, it should be understand that by nature this should also incorporate both a thorough understanding and the application of understandings about social and individual transitive values. Just some of the values I am talking about here, are the general values of feelings and health. More specifically, the general values of feelings can be determined more specific. As there are of course numerous transitive values connected with feelings. I am talking there about virtues and values like trust, devotion, faith, love and the like, but also about just general feelings like the enjoyment and pleasure of listening to music, talking to people and just the enjoyment that could accompany whatever acts and occurrences in our universes at large. But also the feelings connected with certainty and uncertainty, which can of course also be determined more specific. Changes in our society, and maybe even the rapid changes in our society at large, of course lead to a lot of uncertainly. This kind of uncertainties having their influences on other transitive values. Like the value of spending more money, which is limited and discouraged because of uncertainties in our society at large.

Another important part of the puzzle of understanding connected with the transitive value of money, is the fact that employees within a company are not only employees, but at the same time they are customers. This is a very simple and clear truth, but it is also a simple and clear insane fact that most organizations solely see their employees as employees, neglecting the part of being a customer at the same time. Concentration on the statical values of money, together with a general misunderstanding of the role and nature of money even within the closed and insane money system of current times, lead most companies to strive at decreasing the number of employees and trying to buying their sources for as less money as possible. Meanwhile forgetting, or even not understanding, that at the same time of doing so they also destroy a lot of customer potential and also might and will encourage a further destruction of total number of people and also quality of people working within companies and organizations. It is just leading to a general, insane and destructive process within organizations at large. Of course, we are all dependent on money. Mostly also because of the rules of the money game. In the current money system, we have the occurrences of competition. A very fundamental question about competition, is the same as the question which is most important for about anything, namely the question of “ why??”. WHY do we have competition. Of course, the answer is quite complex. But to me, it is clear. We have competition, because of the fact that we all want some of the money (either statical or transitive money) and there is actually not enough of it for every one of us. We compete for money, as in constantly having to try to get the bigger parts of it, even if it means other parties to have less. And, besides this competition issue (going on for a very long time already) we also have (for a bit shorter period of time but also still developing and even at an ever increasing rate) the issue of a growing population and, even more important but also problematic, the growth of individuals in society at large. More people means that we need MORE money, and the fact that every single person even wants and actually NEEDS more and more of this rather strange thing called money, we all need ever bigger and bigger parts of the “ money cake” . So, what would happen if the money cake would grow LESS quick then the growth of requirement of money of society at large?

Basically, what would happen is what has already happened for a long time also. It has lead to a lot of problems in our society, just one of them being the economic crisis. People and companies would basically have to compete even more for money, meaning that they would have to work even harder and harder for the same amount of money or for higher amounts but sufficient for less or at least not as much as required. Well, this is also not that easy to reflect in words, but the understandings are the right ones. We have constant growth of products, but can not buy as we do not have the money for doing so. We have growth of health problems, but do not have the money for good health care for everyone. We have growing problems of environment, but do not have the money for solving these. We have HUGE potentials to solve problems, but do not have the money to solve them. Money is NEEDED in our system, but it is not there! At least, by FAR not enough! WE NEED MORE, MUCH MORE, MONEY!!!!!!!! OR FORGET ABOUT THE MONEY AND JUST SOLVE OUR PROBLEMS. But the last option, forgetting about money, is not an option yet. Just imagine an aquarium with fishes,the fishes growing and growing. Both themselves as in numbers. Meanwhile the aquarium keeping the same dimensions. This is basically what is happening, the fishes being representing the people and the acquarium representing the money representing insane, reductionist understandings. Our governments at large are not understanding or consulting economists who do not really understand. Having their sensemaking and therefore actions guided by insane ways of understanding, based on the wrong understandings of underlying structure of our universes. The main solution to break out of this reductionist insanities, is to understand the insanities of current understandings of money and the money game. We really have to change money games based on SANE understandings of both money and the money game. This will also involve to break out of reductionist understandings of money. First of them being that we need to understand more money is needed, but also that to enable this money has to be created without putting any debts against it. Meaning that governments just have to create money, either paper or just numbers on bank accounts, without any more debts for parties concerned. Also I think it will be needed and also wise if the debts of governments in general will all just be erased, meaning that ALL countries in the world should just loose all the debts they have. But at same time also all this governments and countries should be allowed to print at least enough money needed to survive. But, in fact the best is to just have only some countries create more, as of course too much is also not good there.

But in general at the moment we just need MORE money and it is not that important how it will be created as long as it is and just some reasonable amounts to re-establish a good balance and good situation again for society at large. Another important issue connected with creation of money is that of course, the money should be spread in society in most optimal ways. Meaning that those who need it the most should get it. By which I do NOT mean that rich countries have to give money to the poor countries, as the poor countries should create money themselves then and give it just give it to the citizens as far as needed for a healthy economy. But of course a healthy economy is about a lot more than just money so this governments have to develop and grow in a lot of fields first. They can be helped doing so by the developed and rich countries and more intelligent people on the globe, but only after breaking out of the reductionist and insane understandings of money and money system. This will help the now poor countries to just develop based on enough money for doing so. As I said, resolving this and breaking out of the insane money system will really solve A LOT of problems. And, it is actually the sole real solution for longer terms. Human populations is of course one of the main other issues to take into regards. And one of the problems to be solved for society. It is without a doubt one of the most important things to solve, and actually the sole most important issue to solve. Governments worldwide have far too long neglected this issue and this resulted in the human plague. Our globe is simply not meant for so many human animals, and it is both arrogant and insane for us as human population on the globe to neglect this. The core nature of about every act on our planet should be a humanist one, but humanism according to Nietzschean beyondnesses based on the sole true structure of our universes. We need, for sure, very excellent and great Phronesis Antenarratives based on great pluriflections to enable also this issue to be solved in most excellent ways. It is however not now the place and time to discuss this, as like I say the core issue to solve first is insanity of money system. The logic behind path dependencies, lineair ways of working, is simply the fact that something has to be added in a certain step/phase, before the next step/phase should occur.

This all based on understandings, but the issue also here is that you can have perceptual understandings being potentially insane or even insane misunderstandings (like some or even most resulting from mainstream philosophies and social sciences and practises) as opposed to real true understandings based on sane sensemaking and a sane underlying structure (which is the underlying structure of sole true structure of our universes). Which is why my first step was to develop the philosophy of practisism/practisism, with pluriflection and sound sensemaking in general being a very elementary part of it. Also I invented the notion of phronesis antenarrating, gave it a proper content and nature, and this methodology and ways of thinking and doing is still under development. So like I said, the growth of human populations is not core issue to solve first, but the insanities in understandings of money and money system are. But, besides that, I find it VERY important to state that my remarks here about human population and the fact that I DO state that they have to be diminished, does NOT mean that I would favor any governmental or rigorous solutions there. There are many ways to do something, of course, and I will probably write something about this issue also within not too long period of time. But like I mention, first things first, and this discourse is to be written first now. As antenarrative bit for future sensemaking and hopefully also very constructive actions and social practises in general. At this stage, however, it is important to mention a very important and excellent understanding to grasp. Being the fact that although this discourse, the Phronesis Antenarrative on money I am writing now, seems to concentrate solely on Money, of course it HAS to be both understood AND implemented also under the “ umbrella” , the guidance and frame, of holoplurality. Meaning that a much broader understanding is kind of pre-story but actually more pre-sensemaking for this discourse itself, and this pre-sensemaking about an as complete understanding possible about the real nature and content of specific configurations of plurisigns. Or, in more common language, a phronesis antenarrative is based on a phronesis antenarrating process going on and on and on based on sane sensemaking and the right structure of our universes. As opposed to philosophy and social sciences based on insane structures and natures. I do not say philosophy or social sciences as such are not worthwhile, as a lot really is, but before being able to judge on this it will be needed to treat any of the results of social sciences and philosophy as being a representamen and potentially insane input for phronesis antenarrating.

Current understandings of money and money system, the understandings where both economic models and understandings but also the actions of citizens and governments and organizations are based upon, are all based on reductionist misunderstandings. If you grasp that, you can imagine taking a gun and shooting the insane reductionist misunderstandings and models into pieces. DESTRUCTION. Then, you can use a sane sensemaking process, and I of course would recommend Phronesis Antenarrating based on sound pluriflections. Sane sensemaking in fact should guide all our actions and sensemakings both in thoughts and in our universes. Each being capable of sensemaking, whether human animal or non-human animal, has to do so in sane ways. As of course, any insane sensemaking will lead to (potentially) harmful results. Our current financial crisis being one of them, but also a lot of mistakes in social practises (family life, psychiatry, justice) are examples of this kind of harmful results. Me personally I do not mind that much of this harmful results for products and houses and machines and the like, but I DO care and feel bad of this kind of harms to nature, living creatures and social practises. After the destruction and reconstruction of holoplural plurisigns by means of phronesis antenarrating and/or sound pluriflections, of course there are acts needed in society at large to have the possibly better understandings to be accepted. This however can be quite hard, mostly also because of the insane understandings in our society. This understandings can be very widespread and very tough to change or influence. Which is why a phronesis antenarrative is that important. Good great phronesis antenarratives should lead to either actions, or even better phronesis antenarratives because of the antenarrative or phronesis antenarrative bits and pieces being used in consequent sensemaking(s). Now back to the core issue of this antenarrative bits discourse. As I already mentioned before, we need to get rid of the ridiculous idea that our money system should be closed. Meaning that if we need money somewhere, and it is not available, it should be possible to just create some more. Without having some organizations or whatever creating a debt for this money. Governments at current times just have their actions guided by the wrong contents. First of all, there is the wrong perspective of not trusting their citizens, therefore making a lot of laws and controlling a lot in society. The other wrong content is their misunderstandings about role and nature of money and the way the money game should be. A lot of actions are based on current lacks of money, like for instance the lack of actions on environmental issues are based on lack of money.

If there was more than enough money, environmental problems should be solved. Just like that scientists would then get much more money for doing their research and with that helping society at large. Artists would maybe just get money for performing their arts but just some insurance income then being able to grow as artists and perform. Money should be created. Then, when this is done, the money has to be distributed in most optimal ways. Following understandings based on sensemaking respecting the differences in people and their situations in our society at large. This is really a VERY essential action to take, and I understand this based on mainly the understandings of holoplurality and sane sensemaking. Phronesis antenarrating and pluriflection are both means and tool for phronesis rhetoric there. Meaning that they are a source for phronesis rhetoric, but also they develop the right phronesis arguments. An argument being a whole other understanding of argument than the one being commonly used. I understand my notion of argument is quite near to Charles Sanders Peirce’s notion of argument, while still being different mainly because of a more entelychistic and excellent fundament. But, by argument, we both mean something much broader than the commonly used and understood content and meaning of “ argument”. In both CSP’s and my own understandings, this whole Phronesis antenarrative on money and the money system is an argument, or even part of a much broader and bigger argument. The argument consisting of not only the representamens on paper (physical representamens) but also the representamens in thought (mental, brain, thought representamens). This fundamental understandings lead me to distinguish between thought-signs and existence-signs in another discourse, but in practisism these would be thought-plurisigns and existence-plurisigns. And even the distinction between the both would be different than mainstream ones. Because, another distinct difference in the general meaning of argument is the fact that in my own understandings and therefore the understandings of practicism, sensemaking and thoughtplurisigns and mind-plurisigns are very distinctly and (therefore) much closely connected with the universes of existences. Practicism is about understanding all of our universes at large, and understanding them in much better and more realistic and real ways.

This whole Phronesis Antenarrative tries to bring forward my argument and argumentations that money should be given to parties and that, if needed, more money should be created for doing so. This money creation might even not be needed at all, but that is something to be discovered and also I think in the end we will need quite some money to be created. At least as much to counterbalance the debts of governments and governmental bodies still existing then, probably also coupled with some parts of the still existing family debts and organizational debts. But, in fact also here of course acts and their order DO matter. I would say that before creating money, governments should just start spending money by giving it to some parts of the lower incomes. By means of the fact that static money is also transitive money connected with the fact that especially lower incomes increases of the spending of money has huge influences in the hight and value of transitive money, this will probably have quite a positive influence on economies. Also, it will probably mean some increases in tax incomes for governments. In the end, it might even lead to some of the governmental debts to be erased. Therefore, to me spending could supersede the creation of money by governments. But, this creation of money can and will have to happen alongside the phronetic spending of money meaning giving it to the lower incomes. Alongside other great initiatives like giving all citizens a basic fixed income being higher than the current ones, and having each citizen being insured of this income whatever happens. And the initiative of giving scientists doing really excellent research for society or being capable of doing so enough sources for just that. The main issue here is that there are so many great ways to deal with money when understanding that both the understandings and the money system in general ARE not and SHOULD not be closed and reductionist like in current insane understandings. A tool for getting towards better understandings and practises there is sound pluriflection, and the means for communicating is antenarrating, storytelling and phronesis antenarrating. Antenarrating and storytelling have to include the right arguments and phronesis rhetoric to have these great and necessary changes to become reality in our societies at large. And by that enabling signs in our society, especially also individuals and groups of persons, to grow and flourish in much sane and therefore better ways.

We are all oppressed by insane sensemaking, and by the insane misunderstandings of a lot including money and the money system resulting from this insane sensemakings. This insane understandings are like prisons to a lot of persons in our society at large, mainly the lower incomes and even more those not being capable anymore to take part into normal working life. For whatever reasons. It is the duty of all of us, and the duty of governments even more, to help and guide and support also and even more the weaker persons in our societies. One of the main arguments if not the most important main argument against my own argument of money creation without creation of debts (just printing money or adding digits to some bank account, then starting to use it) is most probably the argument of inflation. But, this is actually an argument to be neglected at the moment. For several reasons. All being connected with the fact that inflation, just like a lot of mainstream understandings of the social science called economics, is based on reductionist and therefore potentially insane understandings. Of course, there is a lot more to be taken into regards. Instead of solely concentrating on money and the money system, the perspective should be holoplural and aimed at an entelychistic and phronetic understanding being as broad and detailed as possible. The main, central notion there being statical and transitive values and the connections and influences among and between these. One of the very important values to be taken into regards there, is the value of feelings and sensing. I could state for instance in this whole argument (being part of a much broader one) that our insane reductionist actions might for instance lead to persons in our society not starting a relationship because of lack of both time and money. And that people generally lack time to communicate enough and do not have enough time for social contacts. But actually, we already ended up in a society being very much disenchanted in that respects. While in many respects of course the situations have actually improved, but meanwhile they could have been much more when society would have been based on sane sensemaking and actions and efforts would be more directed towards this.

There are just too many people “ outside” of the “ games” of life, for several reasons. Some people can not cope to having to do too easy work or work they do not like, others are not capable enough to do the same work and really would like to be able to do so. Both of this groups HAVE to be supported and helped by governments to either get into the work they like or to find some other great activities to do. Money can be a great facilitator for this, but only IF and only AFTER governments get to understand the real value and meaning of money and

by that become capable of altering, changing, the money system and money games. Making the same games much more plural and much more according to and fitting the realities in our universes as such. We will find, hopefully in near future, that the money game can be altered to a much nicer and better one, based on sane sensemaking and sane acts. This will have an influence on our economies and individuals as a whole and should actually lead to new situations with lots of possibilities for society as a whole. It should lead to plurisigns growing in better and more optimal ways, a drastic improvement of quality and enrichtment of our society and plurisigns within. And, it should also mean an end to financial crisis forever. Much less financial problems for individuals. And therefore, much less problems and worries for individuals and organizations within our society and universes. Following a restructuring of the money game, a further restructuring of the way we deal with transitive values in general should follow. Transitive values playing a much more fundamental and leading role in our society at large. Enrichtment of our society is very important, of course, and can be reached by means of sound phronesis antenarrating.

REFERENCES Boje, D.M. (2008), Storytelling organizations. Boje, D. M. (2001a). Narrative methods for organizational and communication research. London: Sage. Boje, D. M. (2001c, September). Flight of antenarrative in phenomenal complexity theory, Tamara, storytelling organization theory. Paper presented at the Conference on Complexity and Consciousness at Huize Molenaar, Utrecht, Netherlands. Boje, D.M. (2010, forthcoming). Storytelling and antenarrative in organizations. Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group. Berendsen, W.T.M (forthcoming). A phronesis antenarrative. Towards new ecosocial systems through the logic of vagueness”. A draft of this forthcoming publication is to be downloaded here http://wilvon.com/download_center/index.php?phronesis_complex1.pdf Berendsen, W.T.M., Antenarrating our economy, to be downloaded here http://wilvon.com/download_center/index.php?Antenarrating_economy1.pdf Berendsen, W.T.M, Holoplurality, to be downloaded here http://wilvon.com/download_center/index.php?Holoplurality1.pdf Berendsen, W.T.M, Towards a reenchanted society through storytelling and phronesis antenarrating, to be downloaded here http://wilvon.com/download_center/index.php?Rechantingsociety1.pdf

Nietzsche (1886), Beyond good and evil Nietzsche (1887), On the genealogy of morals

4. Backgrounds of our economic crisis I want to start this discourse by just mentioning the backgrounds of our economic crisis. Or at least start a discourse about the main developments but also some perceptions on the one hand and some realities not being mentioned on the other hand. Anywhere near to 2008 we had the warnings and realizations that we actually got a financial crisis. Now, at the end of the year 2010, we are still having the crisis. Meanwhile, of course a lot has happened. The US got a new president, Barack Obama. Who was thought to be capable to get US on the right tracks again, but till now that did not happen. Even not with the help of the Economic Council, people like Geigner and Summers. And the actions of the FED lead by Ben Bernanke. We had saving operations of banks throughout Europe. And now the banks are saved we have the cases of whole governments being in debt too much and needing help, mostly money, from other countries. Themselves also having debts and struggling to survive the current situations. While meanwhile nobody except me seems to understand that there is a very easy and great way out of the crisis. If only the money system and money is being understood in the right great ways. And governments get to start listening or reading what I have to say. Of course I could give a lot of figures and facts here, and by that write a lot of pages with maybe useful information about the past, but of course we need to have solutions for the future. And also I just need to ensure that people reading this discourse will continue reading it. Which is why I just keep this part of the discourse rather short. I only want not to skip mentioning some of the backgrounds of the crisis, before getting on with the interesting understandings that should change the life for future individuals drastically and improve life a lot. On the backgrounds of the crisis, it has to be mentioned that the financial crisis can of course not be seen as something that happened out of nowhere. Or, like a lot of people think, as something that resulted from actions from banks. In the end, there is a lot more that is going on. This financial crisis was NOT the result of actions of banks, on the contrary. It is the result of causes that already existed in our economic and managerial systems for longer times. As I will try to explain in the rest of this discourse, banks are generally taking the right

actions. When they do not, it is mostly because of insane kind of actions and decisions of other parties in our society. The problems that caused the financial crisis are ultimately the result of a wrong underlying structure and nature of all of our social sciences and practices. Mostly because a wrong kind of sense making. THERE IS SOMETHING MISSING THERE. In the ways we make sense, the ways we communicate, and the ways we act. Our actions and ways of organizing are all based on the WRONG fundament. Leading to a lot of problems. The financial crisis actually being solely one of the manifold of problems existing because of us acting based on the wrong fundaments and framework for thinking and sense making. This wrong sense making and wrong fundament is been and has been already there since ages. The writings of many philosophers are based on wrong fundaments. About all of philosophy is. In fact, just all of philosophy can and has to be forgotten and neglected and replaced by the sole great underlying fundament and nature for ALL of social sciences and practices. This underlying structure is mentioned and incorporated in my body of understanding (which is broader and much more excellent than any philosophy) called practicism or practisism. Which is a meta-semeiotical body of understanding based on the sole true underlying structure and nature of our universes which I gave the name of holoplurality. This wrong underlying structure has lead to numerous insanities causing our economic system and money system to not function in the most excellent ways. And, of course, malfunctions in our money and economic system have a lot of negative influences in our society at large. If there was a more sane and excellent functioning money and economic system (something perfectly possible if the people who can change this systems start to understand what I do and try to explain at least partly in this discourse), we would have far less problems in our society at large. Much more freedom for citizens to really grow and follow their aspirations and dreams. Like I stated before, the banks are NOT the cause of the financial crisis. The real causes are, like I mentioned, the wrong underlying structure and nature of our social sciences and practices, in this case the underlying structure and nature of our money system and mainstream economics. Governments base their decisions on insights of mainstream economics, while the same mainstream economics is based on the wrong understandings.

What is lacking, is a) lack of understandings of the money system and the insanities of this money system , b) lack of understandings, real understandings, about our economies and c) lack of the influence of acts in our society (organizing and also managerial acts) on our economies and individuals living within. What we have now, in current times, is actually about imbalances. Caused by a closed money system, wrong understandings of the money system itself, wrong actions of individuals and organizations. We have a misfit between actions and our money system. That can, at present times, only be solved by creating more money without putting any debts against it. Which is very much possible and will not cause the problems it might if only this creation of money is done in right, correct and great ways. The biggest problem for citizens which is also probably the biggest cause of the crisis, is the fact that house prices have risen too much. According to The Economist the total value of residential property in developed countries rose by more than $30 trillion to $70 trillion in only about 5 years time, an increase equal to the combined GDP’s of the countries being taken under considerations there. But apart from the house prices, prices of A LOT of other products have increased tremendously. At least the market prices have, to such extends that all the money in the world is probably BY FAR not enough to pay for all this products. Which will cause problems and already is causing problems in our current economies and money system. Costs of real estate and rents for company buildings have also increased A LOT. Then also of course the higher educated people in our society also want to get paid higher wages. In the end, more and more entities in our society just want a higher income and more money. Products need more money, buildings need more money, people need more money. This CAN be arranged, but not based on understandings of mainstream economists and current money system. It CAN be arranged, very easily, by means of my innovative and great money system. Which is, in it’s simplest form, just about creating numbers even locally or just at home(s), having a computer system or even mobiles and other information devices act and function as “banks” or part of information (“banking”) systems.

Just having this increase of money requirements being subtracted from the lower incomes by having them to work harder and producing more for the same money (efficiency) is not an answer. And in the end, it just leads to problems. The last couple of years have proven this once again. In the end, real growth can only occur if it is really growth for all of citizens in our society at large. The so-called growth of our society as from say the year of 2000 or so has not been real growth. As there is really TOO LESS MONEY in our system and this meant that the growth of individuals was just an illusionary growth. Now, at current times, the current survive (not even growth!) of organizations and individuals is even an illusionary one. As it is being financed by the governments going into more and more debts. Then after a while, something happens what already happened to Greece and now Ireland (November 2010). There are quite some Economists currently fearing what they call a domino effect, causing countries like Portugal, Spain, Italy and UK to follow. If Spain falls, it will cause real troubles as Spain has the worlds 9th biggest economy. The problems being even bigger when Italy or UK collapse. But, as far as the domino effect goes. There has been an effect already there for long. Even longer than when the financial crisis started. But, this is not a domino effect. Is appears to be so, but that is just an illusion. As what most economist think to be a domino effect is of another nature and content than what they think to understand. The effect is also much more widespread than anyone grasps till even this time. It is actually about insanities everywhere around us, being part of about every social act and occurrence in our realities. The main problem being too less money, having an influence on about all of our social powers and life as such.

At present time, the ECB and IMF and the like are trying to save the countries by giving them loans. Causing even more debts while indeed saving the countries. But the question is, of course, for how long. Also, while the countries are saved, the positions of organizations like ECB and IMF also weaken.

5. Some elementary understandings In this chapter, I want to share some elementary understandings. Some of which I have already at least introduced in other writings I wrote before. But, some of them are new understandings which I did not mention at least not as much as in this work. Let’s start with the new understandings. Just the morning of the day that I wrote this, I travelled to work. I ended up in a traffic jam because of the weather, but of course also because of the HUGE traffics. Then I was thinking….governments mostly try to bring down the traffic jams, but based on the wrong insights. They fail to understand that a lot of people travel longer distances because of indeed they got a job further away, but that a system of job switching could maybe strongly reduce this. A solution would be that larger companies start with communicating that employees in their company can negotiate to switch jobs with people from other companies. If that reduces travelling. It would mean some willingness of these companies to again train some workers, but at the same time they would end up with workers probably more committed to the job and also lesser chance of them being later because of traffic jams. And foremost, it is where social responsibility (a more specific type of enchantment) should be all about. The main insight I got was that governments are looking to the problem based on the wrong perspective. Therefore not looking FURTHER than this. Same counts for the issues and problems of the money system. If only Governments and Economists could grasp and understand some basic fundaments of our money system but also the value of the much greater holoplural perspective, the money would not be the problem anymore. And this money would not be the problem anymore is actually about a next insight I got today. Something I already knew but which importance I now understand much better. The issue or insight being that people and money are both needed for an organization to survive. But, if any of the two becomes scarce while needed REALLY NEEDED a lot more, that of course leads to problems.

At the moment, money is scarce. But it does not have to and SHOULD not be. In fact, I think that really EVERY person in government at current times that will read my discourse or has the opportunity to do so, should be held responsible at later times if they continue neglecting my insights. As not neglecting it should mean no money problems anymore and the financial crisis solved and A LOT of human suffering prevented. Further more, solving the money scarceness is the right way of opening up A LOT of possibilities for human kind. Any governmental person neglecting that should be kept responsible at later times. But on the money scarceness, money should never be scarce. But people as human resources on the contrary just HAVE to be scarce. By creating MORE money and erasing all the taxes, in fact people as human resources WILL become scarce. But, in fact, also the fact that the span of control of managers should decrease (MORE managers for less workers) will lead to some more scarcity of human resources. Let alone the endless possibilities that my practicisms can and will create for future generations to come. IF this discourse (THIS one) is grasped, money can and will NEVER be a problem anymore. It will mean freedom, it will mean borderless and almost endless growth. Sure there will be obstacles for growth. But by far not as many as there are at current times. And the growth will be much more of REAL growth instead of the perception of growth while other parts of our society or life are destroyed. Value can, as I describe in other discourses of mine, be labelled as statically and transitive values. In the end, there is some value in statically goods and products and thoughts. But, the real great value only gets into existence when the goods and products and thoughts are getting USED. This discourse, but also my discourse on practicism, has the greatest value you can possibly imagine. But, the greatest values still have to develop and grow. By means of using of this statical values. It is insanity to couple statical value (money) to something else like for instance gold. As far as money goes, there is of course by far not enough gold to cover all of the money and value of money in the world. But, apart from this, it is just insanity to do so. Money gets its worth only transitively, when it growths, gets used. At that moment, the money (or numbers) are coupled with some transaction through the bank and then get worth. NOT because of the link with gold which is just insanity.

IN THE END OUR WHOLE ECONOMIES CAN AND SHOULD RUN JUST BASED ON NUMBERS THAT ARE VERY EASY TO CREATE. IN FACT THE ONLY THING NEEDED SHOULD BE A LAPTOP THEN CREATING THE NUMBERS. THIS COULD BE COMBINED WITH MY INSIGHT THAT ACTUALLY THE SMALLER MUNICIPALITIES SHOULD BECOME RESPONSIBLE FOR MORE AND MORE LOCALLY. LOCAL IS THE FUTURE FOR SOME ACTIVITIES. CREATION OF MONEY SHOULD BE ONE OF THEM. CREATION OF MONEY BY JUST CREATING NUMBERS ADDITIONAL WHEN NEEDED AND THEN USING THEM TO COVER ALL THE EXPENSES NORMALLY PAID WITH TAXES AND ALSO TO COVER ALL THE DEBTS IF NEEDED. I COULD EVEN IMAGINE THAT IN SOME SITUATIONS EVEN ORGANIZATIONS OR BUSINESSES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CREATE SOME ADDITIONAL NUMBERS AND PAY WITH THEM IN SOME PARTICULAR SITUATIONS AND BASED ON SPECIFIC LAWS OR RULES TO BE FOLLOWED AND TAKEN INTO REGARDS. NUMBERS OUT OF NOTHING HAVE NO VALUE THAT IS WHAT SOME PEOPLE WILL SHOUT. BUT IN FACT THE PAPER WE USE AS MONEY ALSO DOES NOT HAVE ANY VALUE WHEN NOT BEING USED. IT GETS ITS VALUE BECAUSE OF THE LINKAGES WITH GOODS AND PRODUCTS. AND ALSO NUMBERS CAN BE LINKED WITH IT. IN FACT IT IS NOT EVEN A REAL LINK ONLY LIKE AN SAP SYSTEM ALONGSIDE A PRODUCTION SYSTEM EQUALLING MORE OR LESS A NUMBER AND BANKING SYSTEM ALONGSIDE THE REAL PRODUCTION SYSTEM. Or, in other words, the money system is already kind of an information system like an ERP system. Numbers have already replaced the money, and that works perfectly. The only problem being that indeed governments are still not clever enough to just cancel all of their debts by changing negative numbers to zero or just positive ones. Nothing more, nothing less. It is all that is needed to solve an economic crisis. But also taxes can be abolished as they are really not needed. They are in an insane money system, they are not in a free open moneynumber system.

We would just use numbers and be able to buy with numbers but that is actually what is already happening. Numbers on paper are really not different from numbers in a computer or information system. The only GREAT difference is that numbers are much easier to produce. In fact I would also strongly prefer to just give municipalities and small villages the right to produce their own money for certain tasks and issues, like for changing the cities and villages and for maintenance of roads and also even for ordering musicians to play in the streets or for organizing a lot of GREAT social happenings in villages and the like. Numbers can enchant when being used in the right ways. This idea of giving municipalities and for specific situations and ends also organizations and companies the right to create own numbers and pay with them is just very much in line also with some wisdoms. And also it is in line with my understandings that organizations should be managed and run as being sane minds. A sane mind adjusts anything in it’s surroundings to other parts that occur. Enchantment is about a most optimal fit of plurisigns. Just treating ways of doing or facts in life as firstness, not altering or changing them to specific situations when needed, is not only insane but also leads to insanities and damages for society at large. Insanities and damages that can be prevented if sane minds indeed adjust for specific situations. Representamens have to be changed into phronesis representia guided by sane phronesis pluriflection constantly. While realizing that our holoplural universes are open. In our minds, about anything is possible. In realities it might be the same, as soon as people get out of their matrixes more and more and find a way to change the desert of the real.

6. On different types of power and their availabilities In the past, several discourses have been written about power while all of them are part of at least some power(s). I read Steven Lukes Power: a radical view. But here, I want to mention some other divisions of power and the understandings being based on this and my own perspectives. Some while back, I already thought to understand that most intellectuals prefer intellectual power above financial power. Meaning that in the end, most intellectuals and academics will rather prefer intellectual power or knowledge above financial rewards. Although a certain level of this financial rewards are of course necessary. And also, there are a lot of different mixes there, meaning that there still are a lot of intellectuals that might go for a bit more finance in exchange for a bit less intellectual power. Besides this devisions I made between intellectual and financial power, there are of course a lot more. We also have, for instance, social power. Intellectual power is, in a way, just a specific type and instance of social power. But, it also is not. I think it is defendable to see it as an extra type of power alongside the social and financial power. Mostly to differ between kinds of people but also their powers. So what we have then, are at least the following types of powers: • • • Intellectual power Social power Financial power

The last, financial power, is for this discourse the most interesting. But also for a lot more. Especially when considered by means of some insights based on intellectual powers. When enough of the greater intellectual powers are added, it can have a tremendous influence on both financial and social power. And actually, the 3 types of power can influence each other in great ways. More intellectual power can lead to more financial and social power. While more social power can lead to more financial and intellectual power. This are all plurisigns that can grow upon and from each other.

With enough of intellectual power, it should become clear and apparent that financial power is actually about numerical power or information power. At least that is what the intermediate phase or period should be, just before the final end state where numerical power disappears and solely the information power is left instead of financial power. As this sentences can be explained in many ways, I will try to explain the meaning of them well what I want to express here at least in part. With the statement that financial power is actually about numerical power or information power, I simply mean to state that our current realities and the great understandings to be extracted from holoplural perspectives should lead to the understandings that it is high time to abandon all of our paper money and just continue with numbers. But, apart from that, that this numbers can just be created more and even should whenever the growth of individuals and organizations in our society require this. Numbers get their value because of the rules we make, as numbers themselves do not have any value. Just like our current money does not have so, at least not the way it is often perceived. A paper banknote does not have any TRANSITIVE financial value as long as it is not used, the only value being the value of the raw material paper. As I stated on my facebook account on 3 december 2010:
“TIME does not exist. And there is a lot more that actually does not exist. But IF we make rules that exist, we better make them GREAT instead of oppressing and troublesome “

This is from my facebook account, to be found there by my name Wilfred Berendsen. You are always welcome to join me there and be my friend 6. In fact, like everyone, I can use a lot. But also me personally I can use more. Especially good ones. Some years back I was part of Friends of Wisdom (FOW), and when I departed there some others asked me to start some mailing list myself. I did, and they joined. But also I have a lot of other friends now. To me, these are just also FOW meaning Friends Of Wilfred.

6

Actually I think “You are always welcome to be my friend” is a GREAT slogan for facebook.

When financial power changes to a much greater number power, the social power left is based on both number power and intellectual power. Then, when enough of intellectual power is used for understanding both the number power and the intellectual power, it should become apparent that this powers are mostly about availability. Availability not only being understood based on own or single availabilities standing on their own, but based on availabilities of wisdoms or numbers (having value because of rules, and the greater the rules the greater the values) as opposed to this availability of wisdom and numbers in other parts of our universes. What I actually did not discuss here, is that beside intellectual and social and financial power, there is tool power. But, the greatness is that this can all be forgotten as soon as wisdom leads to the great understandings that like TIME, also intellectual and social and financial and tools does not exist. Even rules are not. As in the end, it is all about holoplural plurisigns and their fit. Like I wrote in a discourse, enchantment is about a most optimal and entelychistic fit of plurisigns. This MIGHT seem abstract, but it is not. As ALL of problems in our society are connected with a misfit of plurisigns with what I call uniplurals. Governmental bureaucracies are great at uniplurals, but also uniplurals are very much absorbed in a lot of parts in our universes. This uniplurals as firstnesses becoming actualities in our universes can lead to devil antenarratives. If not supported enough by lazarus antenarratives to alter the insanities into sanities. At current times, there are a lot of devil antenarratives and it seems like they are only growing into our societies. Well, actually they do. Because of the fact that the uniplural perspective is not only absorbed in all of philosophies and social sciences. But also mainly into our sensemaking which is guiding about all of our actions. The insanity of finance being the greatest obstacle. This insanity has to be understood based on the understandings of plurisigns and holoplurality. Meaning that the insane part of finance has a HUGE influence on social and intellectual power and possibilities. In our society and realities, a VERY negative one.

If houses, or other values (like finance) get scarce. They prevent real growth. The devil antenarratives of uniplurals instead of great excellent lazarus antenarratives based on holoplural plurisigns. Meta-semeiotic perspectives and understandings are highly needed in our society at large. The understandings I reflect in this book being about the most important or the most important for society at large. Implementing the understandings expressed in this book into society at large will substantially increase the possibilities and realities of individuals in our society. ENCHANTMENT.

7. On the HUGE difference of a linear perspective on the one hand and a holoplural or even transitive holoplural perspective and understandings on the other hand.

Over the past couple of months, I have been announcing parts of my understandings about the great potential of just creating numbers and using them as money and also the understandings that it is actually very easy to just cancel ALL of governmental debts and erase ALL of taxes on my facebook account. It resulted in quite some persons stating that I would not understand what economics is all about. There was even one person stating that I should first follow some economic classes. Which would be the same about stating to Einstein that he would have to follow some Special Relativity courses. Or actually not. As Einstein did not really understand what he was talking about (maybe also because he kind of borrowed the E=MC from Henri Poincare) , while I certainly do. The problem with my understandings in most cases, is the fact that these understandings are based on a much more excellent kind of sense making but also a much more excellent perspective than the ones being available in our society at present times. Meaning that there is no single individual on this whole globe being even a bit near to the excellence of my sense making. It MIGHT be that there will be someone else very soon also stating that we need to just create numbers without putting debts against it, but even then this understanding will only be based on (linear/) reductionist thinking and understandings. Meaning that this person and also the persons hearing this understanding, will still base their sense making and therefore understandings on the wrong underlying fundaments and understandings. Besides this, they will therefore also still not grasp the great results that will occur if only the insane money system of current times is being replaced by the GREAT proposal I give. Which is opening up the money system, cancelling all the governmental debts by just changing numbers that may be used as money, then if needed also cancelling some or all of individual and organizational debts. And, last but not least, just cancelling ALL of taxes and instead having governments pay their own needs with nothing more and nothing less than numbers they create by typing them or having them typed into some information system. What governments and also individuals will probably still fail to understand and grasp even IF they start to understand about the great value of opening up our current insane money system, will be the following.

What they still will fail to understand, is that this opening up of our money system will also mean that the perceived disadvantages of creating more money will disappear. As, at least the following disadvantages will disappear: 1) The stupid insanity that more debts are created when governments borrow money or create more money. This is just not needed as governments not only can but also should be able to create money themselves without putting any debts against them just whenever they think this would be good for economies. In the end, it will always be good for economies if we move on to the holoplural perspective and accompanying understandings. But, of course, this is something governmental people but also individuals in general will continue to fail to understand as long as they keep reflecting and thinking based on insane understandings and perspectives. Like in current times. 2) The disadvantage of prices rising more than income of people. This disadvantage will disappear as soon as governments grasp that they should manage our system. A way to do so is by indeed issuing maximum prices of certain goods and services in our society. In fact, as soon as all taxes are cancelled and governments start to open up the money system, they could even put prices of food and energy and the like very low or, if needed, very high. IF citizens and organizations would just have and get enough numbers to continue to operate. The key words there are balance of the complete systems, but also fixing imbalances for specific cases where needed. Meaning that even some individuals would get houses for lower prices, other ones for higher prices and also some organizations with a lot of numbers could be responsible for using a part of their surplus numbers for the society based on specific aims or just a general aim. The greatness of opening up the money system is mostly that it will or at least should appear in holoplural transitive ways. Meaning that also our whole society should change into one based on holopluralness. The starting point there is sound sensemaking. What this involves, is something I already expressed in part in my discourse about phronesis antenarrating.

8. On the future of finance, individuals, organizations and society In this part of this discourse, I will try to give my vision on the future based on wisdoms instead of the perceptions of economists and governments. Like you might have understood when reading the previous parts of this discourse, I strive at playing Neo. Getting people out of their matrixes. Just a part of it being the insanities of our economies and money system. This is however also strongly influenced by the ways of management and wrong acts of individuals. Therefore, only solving the financial crisis is not enough. Following it, we need to also base our acts more and more on wisdoms instead of wrong sense making and insane acts. This discourse is mostly aimed at the first part, solving the financial crisis. By innovation of our money and money system. In short, what is needed there, is the following 1) The realization that statical money, the paper or whatever other plurisigns being used as statical money, should not be coupled to gold 2) Instead, they are not coupled to anything really. At least, they should not be. While we now have a lot of actions where money is exchanged by means of paper, it is much easier to have numbers or better bits and bites expressing numbers in a computer system or just digitally on any device. 3) By that, we have the information running alongside the other processes. It will lead to detachment of information flows from the real world society while the digital money can still organize our lives. But, in much better ways than at previous times. 4) This would mean that paper money is not needed anymore, but also that gold standards are not. 5) The link between income and working should be detached also A LOT more. Meaning that people who do not have an income of course should still just get enough numbers, while also people working less should get some supplement in numbers. This supplements or “presents” of numbers being at least high enough to pay for a normal good living. Including costs of energy, clothes, food and living in a house or apartment from their own. 6) This would mean that persons who can not work enough at certain times while really wanting to themselves should just get immediate compensation by means of numbers. Then being able to use this numbers to still buy what they need and pay for what they need to pay for

This is all very much possible if only governments and economists start to understand the real great possibilities of (numerical) values. The fact that numbers can get great value if only we agree that we can pay with the numbers. Together with that, governments really need to start to grasp that they can just change negative numbers (debts) into zero or positive ones by just changing numbers. Nothing more, nothing less. Also, for the same reason, taxes are not only not needed but also one of the big insanities of the past and current society. Instead, what governments should just do, is typing some numbers in a computer system and then paying whatever they need to pay for just with that. The parties receiving the numbers are then just able to buy and pay also with the same numbers they get. In the end, money should not exist and numbers also not. IT is NOT only about the money or the numbers, but also mainly about the rules of the game. This rules should not be oppressive or limiting. But great, and supporting the growth of individuals and organizations in our society. Numbers have that potential. Or at least numbers or whatever being coupled with the WAY WE DEAL WITH numbers or whatever has. Quality is not only about statical plurisigns, but also mainly about transitiveness and the nature of this transitivenesses. First thing to do really at present times, is for all governments to cancel all of debts by just allowing the banks where they have the debts to change the negative numbers into zero or even a bit positive ones. Then, the taxes just need to be cancelled. All of them. That will actually for a considerably period of time get the economies going again. But, there is a lot more needed. Which is basically about fixing our society and actions within. As the wrong insane fundament of our sense making is absorbed in a lot of parts of our society, what is needed is sane sense making for solving a lot of current problems. For organizations, one of the first things needed there is to start to understand the greatness of phronesis enchantment. Which is about a most optimal fit of plurisigns. This SEEMS to be abstract and theoretical, but only for persons not still understanding what it is all about. The only way to start to understand is by getting to understand the value of a holoplural perspective. Coupled with the correct sense makings. Something I talk about, for instance, in my great discourse on Phronesis Antenarrating. By means of phronesis antenarrating, all of insanities in our universes can be solved. It is the ultimate enchantment tool.

One of the issues for organizations will be to really start to grasp what efficiency should be all about. For that, individuals and organizations using scientific management tools should start to grasp the underlying values and purposes of scientific management. Which are a lot more focussed on humanism than most of the ways efficiency is effectuated in organizations. Frederick Taylor, the inventor of Scientific Management, has written a book about scientific management and accompanying efficiencies. The problem is that most managers understand efficiency in the wrong ways, also because of not having read Taylor’s “ The Principles of Scientific Management “, published in 1911. While most efficiency is based on a Devil approach, kind of sucking the life out of organizations and exploiting the workers, this of course is not the aim of it. On the contrary, scientific management and efficiency was and is aimed at improving the life of employees. Much more than at present times. Meaning that more efficiency should result in either more time or more money for the workers involved. If for instance through efficiency a company can produce the same amount of products as in previous times in 6 hours instead of 8 hours, it should not occur that based on that the workers get to work 6 hours and also a 6 hours payment instead of an 8 hours payment. Instead, they should get paid for instance an 7 hours wage for the 6 hours and still work 8 hours so in the end getting more payment. The reason that this is mostly not happening, is one of the reasons why we are now living in such insane times financially speaking. The real worth of scientific management and efficiency will however only unfold when being considered and changed based on Phronesis Antenarrating and the holoplural perspective. For that, at first the changes I propose in this discourse are needed. It is the first but main step for an incredible potential of enchantment of our universes and society. Pro-humanism, my metasemeiotical version of humanism, being an important aspect and goal related to that. WE NEED MORE MONEY, or actually we need more catalysts for growth. The best being for money to be replaced for numbers acting as money. Numbers together with the sign for the specific valuta. Like for instance 2000 EURO (just number with some letters) can be changed in a computers system very easily to 20.0000 EURO by just typing an additional zero. Or, -1.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 EURO for an entity whether it is an individual or organization or government can be very easily be changed to + the same just by changing – in +. Or just the first part can be deleted and only one 0 left.

By that, just one small alteration of some numbers, we all end up in a very different much greater situation. ALL of us. So why are governments not yet doing so? Probably because they do not really understand yet. I can explain it to them, if they want to they only need to contact me. If this discourse is not clear enough yet. If it is not, the inbox thinking of individuals in our society is even MUCH worse than I realized even till this moment in time. In future, great artists should get the possibility to devote whole of their lives to their arts. Scientists should be enabled to work wherever they need to, get the resources they need and the possibilities to travel as much and as far and as long as they want to. All being paid with numbers they just get, for free, from the governments or whatever other party being allowed and capable of doing so. And if the numbers are getting negative, the only great simple way to solve is to change the negative numbers into positive ones again. This might lead to some persons not wanting to work anymore, not at all. But most people will still. As there will be more than enough products that persons are not able to buy without working. But, this may never be the really necessary goods and further needs of a person. As the numbers that each person has should at any moment of time be enough for paying for those. The basic “income” or numbers should be enough to cover: energy costs, housing costs (including furniture costs and paint or other materials to improve houses) , car costs, food costs for great healthy food and sufficient of course, keeping some animals for those who would like to, television and internet, at least 2 times of holidays a year, visiting the cinema regularly or going swimming or sporting, and other leisure time. Then, above that, there should be some supplement for people to be able to either save some additional numbers or buy some additional products they want and need. Then each municipality or village should have a person responsible for and allowed to give additional numbers away for free. But only to persons going there and asking for more numbers. And giving arguments for and reasons why he needs the additional numbers, together with proofs of him needing them. Then, the person should be able to decide on his own how much numbers the other person asking for the numbers will get.

This all should be effectuated better sooner than later. Apart from that, as far as housing is concerned, the renting of houses should disappear. As in the end, if people pay for houses, they should just become owner. The reason why some do not is because of lack of money for them at least at specific periods of time. By introducing numbers and just creating them when needed, this will all be solved. But until the time this really can be solved for longer (of course a lot of persons will still have to rent because of being old or whatever at present times), there should at least be created some procedure for having the person renting to get back the numbers being used for changing the houses after moving in. Meaning that someone renting a house should just get the numbers they need for changing or altering the house either immediately or after leaving the house again. There are of course more difficult ways to arrange this, but this is really the most simple solution. Like..persons renting a house. Then wanting to paint some parts inside. Them then going to some shop, buying the needed paint and materials with numbers they have on their bank accounts. Then, immediately after having paid it, going to some party at municipality or village or town levels. There, he can then just give the proof of buying the goods and then getting back the numbers on their bank accounts. Which is just about increasing the numbers being already there again. By means of typing a bit, changing numbers. Nothing more, nothing less. Very easy to do and leading to great results both for the individuals and the society at large.



doc_563070126.doc