The problem with stating the conclusion first is the same problem as stating the theory without the evidence; it circumvents both reason and logic and what we like to call “common sense.” You see there is no such thing as “common sense”, unless we would agree that everyone is born with some, and over time and experience it develops into practical life skills or perhaps a compass to navigate this material world of ours. Or secondly, considering “common sense” as simply developing through life experiences, it is still unreliable since in this case, it would necessarily depend on an array of tangible and intangible conditions. I am suggesting two cases for your consideration. An intrinsic element, something we might call intuition or conscience, and a mental or structural element which we might call the foundational precepts of the Scientific Method. Both elements are recognized as a standard for inquiry, investigation, and observation. Through either element, we can discern what is a definition, a description, and an experience of every day natural occurrences, technically complex scientific questions, or abstract concepts such as morality, social justice, and righteousness. Since both elements come from different beginnings and end up in the same place, we can use either to develop a model which depicts definition, description, and experience. So, let’s take “common sense” out of the equation, using either the mental or intrinsic elements as a pathway to experience.

Certainly, the Scientific Method fits this model. Formulating a basic definition of what is, along with a thorough and extensive description of what is, and finally and most importantly capturing the real-life experience of what is. We can move from the premise, through the proof to the final purpose. Understanding any method can be corrupted unintentionally by error or purposefully by design, this author intends to consider an authentic representation of honesty and integrity to encourage serious dialog and contemplation. And again, through the intrinsic element, whether it be epiphany, inspiration or guidance from a greater power, the fundamentals remain the same.

Using the definition to draw the conclusion presents a shallow world view, which can be easily manipulated by encouraging the audience to formulate their own descriptions and select the purposes which best fits their particular point of view. Without the description, the experience can assume all the goodness and glory the definition might entail without enjoining any actual world values which might make the experience possible. This sleight of hand trick also forces any opposing point of view to deal with the definition without the related description or experience, which are the substantive component of the definition. This becomes a tactical strategy forcing other world views to frame a response within the parameter of the definition, when in fact the definition might have nothing to do with the description or experience.  

On the intrinsic side of the process, I believe the process actually works better and can be easily seen in reverse order. Whereas, in the mental process, the definition and description build to a depiction of experience; the intrinsic element begins with an experience, and the description and definition are created to support the experience. This means critically thinking people will analytically weigh the merits of the intrinsic experience with the same scrutiny as they would evaluate the credibility of the definition and description leading to the experience produced by the Scientific Method. The assumption made in this model is the realization that the experience is paramount regardless of the process.

For instance, if the experience is harmony, peace, and security which is the same as the definition of a rich and rewarding life, then all sounds well, straight forward, and forthright. However, as we have seen in Venezuela and other areas where Totalitarianism is on the rise, the description of the definition is  millions killed, millions interned  and hundreds of thousand released back into the society to spread the news; then the experience is one of terror and tyranny. Now evilness molds the narrative, the lie becomes reality. When the disconnect is defined as connecting the dots, when the oppressors are defined as the victims, then natural law can be suspended in favor of existentialism. Consider the recklessness of claiming an existential threat, when the goal is to further a political agenda and generate wealth for a few and suffering for many. Consider the damage done when history is defined in today’s politically correct scheme, that’s when yesterday’s impossibilities become today’s headline news, written to suppress what is happening in favor of promoting power and control. As we know the best hidden agenda is one in plain sight, defined by what it’s not, heralded not as absurdity but exalted as the new normal, the new order, and justice in action.

Here in America, just as a river changes its course over time in a slow and unperceivable way, so too does social sentiments slowly drift from one idea to the next. Trends develop and a willing media creates social commentary from prevailing bias and some fragments of today’s pop culture. When observers think things are happening quickly, it’s because they have failed to see the next step in what has become an organized trend. Events are only surprising when the dawning was not an awakening. “How did this happen?”, is not a rhetorical question, it is a desperate call to action. When a society does not value what it has achieved, it will soon lose those accomplishments. Order is replaced with chaos, and chaos championed as a new beginning. The old order is dismissed as inconsequential instead of formational and foundational, a necessary step.  The current conditions are only seen as intolerable by those outside the fabric of success. Those within the structure want change for the better, built on the existing systems. Those outside the systems appear to be disoriented and isolated because their unity is not based on diversity, but in destruction. They cannot build on what is because it’s beyond their experience. Those in the fabric of success understand  constant learning and the implementation of best practices. Those outside the fabric of success don’t want what is new and improved, they want something different. Different in their terms and in their direction, never considering the consequences of changing the engines in midflight which crashes the plane. When you have nothing to lose why not gamble everything.