Philosophy

sophisticated floatings

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

I: Mr. Lorenz, nice to meet you and thank you for your time.

ML: Thank you for your time as well, nice to meet you, nice to greet you.

I: How do you make descisions? Or how comes? What is your consulting? Blabbermouthes have season, no matter if tactical or strategical is the topic, thus, please, for somewhat sorry as of being direct: what is your added value?

ML: Well, decsicions are deeply rooted in sciences‘ theoretical framework, first, trace history, and second, are based on the state-of-the-art. This way is constructed to be an  independent, autarkic  and  discreet  operating process of  research. The  first step  is  consultancy,  which is usual
 for free. Next, the matter in  question might be arranged, organized and  structured  by the  means of  a  complex network accessing  the  most  different conventional  approaches as well. In case of invalid or  missing data, one must conduct own surveys in order to test hypothesis to make clear the subject. Then, the final stage is likely to offer solutions,  which  are  straight  theoretical  and supported by the data and  therefore desicions are suitable for being set onto a client’s the practical level.

I: Mr. Lorenz, okay now, you really do work, right? This again sounds like a quaksalvers‘ wordings. If we face that together, I ask you again like what makes the difference between philosophy and such a kind of information? Or once again directly: what is the difference to other installations of consultancy?

ML: Well, good you ask. The whole world of modern philosophy does not hint any pieces of advice for life, business as well. It is all theoretical. However, the word philosophy actual means to transport the affection of wisdom to reality. The love to sapiency might be understood as universal power, which could been loaded to different applications to be seen in lower emanations all day. See? This lower emanation from the viewpoint of insight is, as you ask about added value, psychology. Once again, there is no favour for a certain scientiffic discipline nor are processes anchored on any certain forms of installation for consultancy nor anything goes! This way one should be capable to establish the link to the world of knowledge. That way core processes, which are the identification of hypothesis and theories, are started. And therefore, exctly therefore, one has not to follow specified structures. However, to make difference to blabbermouthes and quaksalvers, one should be armed to conduct empirical science. My analysis are anchored onto the criteria of convention. These are objectivity, reliability and validity. The capability of using the different scaling methods of the modern sciences – statistical methods for tabulation, thus elementar-statistical, variance-analytical and multivariate data analysis, like for example covariance-, factor-, cluster- or discrimination analysis – is the mathematical core of my work. Furthermore I evaluate the findings‘ and results. In case of constraints improvement or rework is not a topic. Thus, my work is like a spiral process that is called action research, among academics within the Scientiffic Community, firstly done by Kurt Lewin. I am not a dissident, but thank you, of course I can show you academical papers of degree and qualifications.

I: Ok, Mr. Lorenz, no need, I believe you. Me, to check data I would mandate a mere specialist and I would go to another specialist for consultancy, too. Better have advisors than only one advisor. Better tell many and ask what they do think, but do tell no one what you really have planned to do. What is the potence or the advantage of that philosophical approximation?

ML: Well, you are right, especially Niccolo Machiavelli is extremly popular among manager to follow his dictums. However, he is not the only philosopher and like advisors there are many, who might discuss, have ideas and do contradict. The potence or advantage is, like that of a ruler, the universal and polymath view. Any phenomena in question is captured by its totality, its entity and its ground. Those advisors‘ or specialists` studies cannot do that – due to the conception of that work, which is definated. Definiton is a word, which has its origin in the Latin term > de finis <, meaning bordered. So for any discipline the topic is fix. Single disciplines, which might be also fitted by the application of modern, computer-aided tools like Monte-Carlo-study or bootstrap-technique, are not able to perform the approach in question. In order to avoid Aristotle`s sentence of the whole, I would like to say it like ordinary men: if someone wears blinders it is of no use to look through a magnifier.  

I: Now, which way a philosopher comes to terms then?  What is the instrument about?

ML: Philosophy figures itself out as science – as science of consistant thinking (logic), science of the right way to live (ethic, moral) and science of the exploration of the first causes of being (metaphysics). These three are completed by the additon of the examination of the scientiffic method itself (epistemology) and the examination of the question after the circumstances needed to be established to get knowledge at all (critique of knowledge).  

I: Undoubted philosophy is a way to get knowledge. But why should someone favour science or the scientiffic method? Why should science be superior to the two other forms, art and mythology respectively religion, knowledge could been experienced?

ML: It is said that the superiority of science is reliability.

I: Here at this position I enjoy to ask further questions. What is the difference between philosophy and esotericism?

ML: Philosophy is exoteric. If this would be any esoteric installations of information you could not ask questions by an interview being published. Of course, it is said that philosophers are enspired by the inner forces of the world. And today scientists are factual allowed to say, that those inner movements are source to bear relation for creative and innovative, however intelligent and practical solutions. To make it clearer, one should answer the following question: what is esotericism? In contrast to esotericisms science uses the rational window. Science neither is like shamanism in ancient cultures pre-rational, nor trans-rational like sects, circles or orders of today. As you enjoy digging deeper – at this position – it must be allowed to underline the scientiffic adjustment. I like to do that by mentioning the premises on which science of today must be conducted. These are the necessity of the repeated arrangement of an occurance for the purpose of intersubjective validation, the economy or even efficiancy of the method, and the dictum of the falsification-principle, which has been concepted by Sir Karl R. Popper.

I: To make it more precise: what is the difference between a philosopher and an illuminated human?

ML: For sure – a challenging question. There is no difference. The philosopher and the „bodhisattva“ see clear in all things. It´s a matter of character. Well, a philosopher respects laws.  So I might like to tell you that illumination has been substituted by the term enlightment. And rightly so. Since Immanuel Kant at the latest. In other words: evolution ought to run into one direction only. 

I: So what are the signs a philosopher could been recognized?

ML: There are no signs. He simply knows. He knows answers to essential questions: what can I know? What shall I do? What shall I hope? What is the animal rational, the human being about?

I: Respondence to questions adressed to the crux of what humankind is about runs contrary to the self-conception of philosophers of today. How do I have to construe your answer? Are philosophers of today nescient?

ML: Sic et non. Today a philosopher might be specialist for radical constructivism or critical rationalism, expert on the field of the change of paradigms or epikureist, epistemologist or existentialist – maybe you‘ re be better offf by keeping your lips unmoved.

I: What is next is to ask what the difference between a philosopher who teaches at university or does work for concerns and a self-imployed philosopher is about?

ML: As you might have overlooked, the answer is contained in your question already.

I: Correct. Well, but how did you manage to think cross and free in ease?

ML: Who said that I do think cross and free – in ease over that?

I: The last question.

ML: Good.

I: How much money is information?

ML: I do not sell information. Of coruse, me, I myself, permit to value the my work, the output in both quantity and quality. Research is fun. That is my usual pay. Remuneration is by acknowledgement.

I: Thank you for information.