ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Business and Employment»
  • Human Resources (HR)

The Form of the Human Person: A Measure of Self-Containment

Updated on December 15, 2014
Self-Containment | Source

Knowledge, Experience and Imagination

Up to the 25th of January 1988, I searched to have a clear and precise definition of knowledge. 26 years down the line, in December of 2014, I have a working definition. Even if it is Kluge! To know, one would need to have a mental picture of the phenomenon. The clearer the picture, the better the knowledge would be. Usually, one would need to have experienced the object of knowledge, which may be personal or vicarious by another person’s experience. Much of the time and for most people, experiences are acquired via the five, 5 senses of smell, touch, taste, hearing, and sight. This would be purely material. But experiences could also be intangible, through thought, when inferences and antecedents are made. In this case, the object of knowledge may not exist in the material world; but merely in the imagination, waiting to be realized. Whether the realization can be achieved or not, depends largely on the quality of the perspective that is presented. And it would be this quality that distinguishes between people, one person from the other. Albert Einstein attempted to make this distinction in the following quote:

Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand. While imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand


Thus brilliance or excellence would be the approximation of the human potential, which is self-containment, like the universe. Thanks to physics, we now know that the universe is self-contained. This means the following three, 3 things, at once:

  • It has no beginning and no ending,
  • It is self-sustaining, and
  • Energy would neither be created nor destroyed, simply re-cycled

For humans, self-containment would mean the following:

  • A thought pattern that approximates the natural order, N-O
  • A behavior pattern that follows the standard procedure, SP for the performance of task, which SP would be the analogue of the N-O
  • An intuitive capacity to reduce phenomena into the essentials that give being
  • A capacity for rationality, to evaluate and confirm this intuition

Then the person would have made the shift from the excessive disposition to appearances, to the perception of essentials. And creative thought would base on the following three, 3 principles:

  • Forms,
  • Waves, and
  • Reciprocity


The Form of the Human Person

Perspectives that derive from the above three, 3 principles would be valid and reliable, being predictive and consistent, respectively. They would therefore be valued highly. Serially:

3. Consistency............Power

2. Validity...................6. Wealth

1. Reliability...............5. Value

4. Predictability

A workforce that has acquired this perspective would be engaged and retentive, being fully employed with minimum skill gaps, respectively. They would therefore optimize the organization’s bill of health index, BHI. Serially:

3. Employment...............Performance

2. Retention...................6. Work

1. Engagement..............5. BHI

4. Skill Gaps


These two, 2 series present work and wealth as equivalent concepts. Given one, the other would be determined. Power and performance are also presented as analogues. Then the performance at task would depend on how much power has been stored in the personality for the purpose. These links would however be subject to the quality of the perspectives presented. They would have to approximate the N-O and its analogue the SPS very closely. Perspectives that are divergent to a certain extent would not fit. The observed divergence and/or approximations derive from the style of upbringing. In this case a distinction would be made between materiality and spirituality. So that divergence would result from excessive materiality and approximation, from spirituality. Following this conception, the form of the human person would be presented in the tripod as follows:

  • Work, L
  • Family, F
  • Wealth, A

Then given work, wealth would be determined; according to the upbringing, in the family. Upbringing determines how murky the mind turns out. The murkier the mind, the less predictable the person would be. This would be an indication of divergence from self-containment. When upbringing is linked to the state of mind in this way, it expands the concept of family beyond the nuclear; to include the institutions that influence the belief system and therefore the system of values. Notably among these, are the religious institutions, including the following essential five, 5: serially:

3. Islam.................Religion

2. Science............6. Family

1. Hindu...............5. Christianity

4. Judaism


Then the form of the human person would be reconstituted to include as follows:

  • Power, L
  • Religion, F and
  • Performance, A

Note the inversion in the factors L and A, according to whether the concepts that define the form are objects or institutions. The first tripod includes objects, and so is specific and unitary. The second is global, including institutions. In whichever direction it turns out however, the factor-L defines the size feature of the phenomenon, in this case the human person. And the factor-A defines the location feature, both factors of which are selected in accordance with the requirements of the wave principle. This means that given the size, L the location, A of the human phenomenon would be determined, subject to the factor-F. Moreover, while the size feature defines productivity, the location feature defines leadership capacities.

Establishment of the Creativity Model

These conceptions therefore at once, account for the principles of forms and waves, as required by creative thinking. But the items on the series are selected intuitively. Then rationality would be required, to establish the efficacy of the choices. The reciprocity principle suggests how this could be done. Recall that every item on both series is located uniquely, according to the role it plays in the relationships that the system defines. In general, the items 1 and 2 define the work that is to be done as the optimization of the minimum, 1 until it approximates the optimum, 2 definition of the phenomenon.

The energy that funds the project would be derived from the items 3 and 4 respectively. And the item-5 would define the exhaust, for tracking progress in the attainment of the stated objective defined by the item-6. For corroboration, reciprocity suggests that the item-2 is the position that the protagonist has taken. It defines the nature of the phenomenon in view. The item-1 defines a precedent, in the first attempt at defending the choice of positions; and the items 3 and 4 identify antecedents, to establish the first two, 2 choices. The antecedents, 3 and 4, are selected according to the principle defined on the item-5; similarly, the items 1 and 2 point to the item-6. It is sufficient that the scores on these items are consistent, to establish the efficacy of the choices. This judgment would be guided by the following assumptions:

  • Basically, humans would be considered to be selfish, and
  • The environment presents obstacles that force selflessness

Notice that these assumptions define a contradiction, which could be reconstructed analogously to define relativity for the purpose of measurements. Two, 2 points would be worthy of note:


Firstly, these assumptions actually define the two, 2 extreme limits of existence, humans and the environment. This means that whatever else exists would be located between these items. It also means that all phenomena are linked in a definite continuity. The number line would be an objective representation of this fact. It extends from negative infinity, -∞ on the left, to positive infinity, +∞ on the right. The midpoint of these extremes is defined by the point zero, 0. In the same way that all other phenomena lie between the extremes of contradictions, all the numbers lie between the extremes of relativity defined by the number line.

Secondly, contradictions and their analogue relativity, actually define energy sources. Notice that the number line defines the steepest slope that there can be; the vertical, from top to bottom, for maximum energy. When mapping is done during measurement therefore, every item on the contradiction continuum would have a match on the relativity continuum. Moreover, every score would define how much energy has been accumulated, according to its location on the slope. The higher up toward positive infinity, the greater the momentum that would have been gathered. So that size and location would be intertwined as it were, in a tango.


For the purpose of measurements and establishment, the above two, 2 general assumptions are reduced to three, 3 that are more specific as follows:

  • The duality series from operations research would be an appropriate outline for the natural order, N-O
  • The perception model of mind, PMM describes the mind at its optimum, when it is able to appreciate the N-O
  • Given the size of phenomena therefore, the location would be determined

In this case the N-O represents a unit of existence, which would be self-contained and complete by itself. So that the four, 4 items of the duality series would define the phenomenon, end to end, E2E as follows:

  • Maxima
  • Minimax
  • Maximin
  • Minima

This would be a size feature, according to the phenomenon in view; whether specific and unitary or generalized and global, as already demonstrated above. But when people relate with phenomena to experience them, they impose their values by projection; the personal order, P-O against the natural order, N-O. Then the items on the series would be distorted, according to the divergence of the P-O from the N-O. By the PMM, at its optimum, the mind would have approximated the N-O exactly. The P-O would have been traded for the N-O: The self, for the selfless. This would be evident in the consistency of the scores on the items. The better the approximation, the better the scores would be; to define the location of the person.

Then given the size, the location would have been determined!

Notes from the Data on Self-Containment

Self-containment is actually a measure of the quality of upbringing, according to how closely the values that are acquired approximate the N-O. It is best at a unity, for ScT = 1; and peters way down, as a fraction. This metric is important to the extent that it defines the preparedness for employment. It is a measure of what the employee brings to the organization, what value they bring to the table. The following observations are obvious from the table presented below:

  • The measure of reliability for the individual, RtYF is related to the number of essentials that a person can identify, Nu by r = 0.97
  • The measure of reliability for the individual, RtYF also predicts workforce engagement, EnG at r = 0.99
  • The measure of reliability for the organization, RtYG is the same as the measure of self-containment, ScT at RtYG = ScT.

Thus, a person who has made the shift from the excessive preoccupation with appearances, to the optimum perception of essentials would be engaged, self-contained, and make the organization reliable. In this case, reliability would be a reference to the 6σ two, 2 defects standard. These observations are supported by the rigors of the measurement of the factor-ScT. Validity, Vdy is evaluated twice. First as a multiple of the two, 2 input factors, VdYM, and then as a dividend of the same input factors, VdYD. The two, 2 values are expected to be equal, for VdYM = VdYD. So that when the ratio is taken, it would yield a unity, for VdYM / VdYD = 1. Then the fractional score of ScT decreases as the gap between VdYM and VdYD increases, for ScT → 0.


The only number that matches the rigorous requirement of this evaluation is the number one, 1 for 1 x 1 = 1 and 1 / 1 = 1. This would be a measure of absolute consistency, and internal unity. Moreover the equality of unity, 1 and infinity, ∞ could be demonstrated as follows:

0 / 0 = 1: A number divided by its self gives a unity, 1

0 / 0 = ∞: A number divided by zero gives infinity, ∞

1 = ∞

To remove this analysis from the realm of mathematical fallacies, the number zero, 0 is demonstrated to be both real and imaginary as follows:

a - b = ci – di – The equality of numbers

a - b = (c - d)i – Collecting like terms

0 = 0i – Zero is both real and imaginary

This would also be a reference to infinite consistency: self-containment?


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No comments yet.