C-126.You Are Here!
But where is here?
Here is at the forward end of the CEM-history arc (App. XI). Humans have more contingent emergent materiality behind them, historically, than any other behavioral entities – if we mind that all entities (aka bodies) are behavioral, but some more behavioral than others. Humans compose more. They compose not only arranged collisions but arrangements to avoid collisions.
Here is AT and IN the Frontier (C-118). Whatever we make of and in a Present (C-96), the Frontier’s place between past (after the fact) and future (before the fact) persists. We can, of course, live in the past – but at our peril, because needed ADEPT functionality changes with Realized functionality (C-115) and not just with changes of circumstance that call for ADAPT and/or ADOPT functionalities (C-9).
Why aren’t you Here? Why aren’t we Here? Why aren’t you and/or we in the more consequential, difference making Present? As pioneers (C-119). Why don’t we humans share a common Sense of what we are about and need to be about? Not just “living in the present” of B-spacetime (III) but living in a constructive difference-making Present. Living in a special spacetime. A special spacetime, R-spacetime, in which we can start over from a place other than the (more physical, chemical and biological) place we now occupy … a place where the advice of the Vermont farmer not to start from here (C-18) can readily and usefully be taken, where we can escape the muddle in which we find ourselves (C-114) … where needed functionality (especially for problem solving), in accord with the Nature of Things can be further Realized.
Here in R-spacetime? Yes … if we transform the concept “here” to the theoretical construct “Here” (C-81) … dropping the italics in favor of capitalization. When we introduced the “double crystal” view of life as comprising independent but related structures of body and step (III), we also made a distinction between body and step Senses of time and space (B-spacetime and S-spacetime). In addition to the familiar B-spacetime, S-spacetime acknowledges the materiality – i.e., consequentiality — of spatial gaps, gappiness and supergappiness (Everything’s general persisting condition of discontinuity re behavioral entities – and susceptibility to collision in the other general persisting conditions of partial order and consequentiality) and the materiality of temporal sequence (as part of consequentiality).
Now, armed with the R-transform, one of whose virtues is to bring to surface new materiality (C-111), we can posit this other kind of spacetime: R-spacetime. R-spacetime brings the ahistorical description (e.g., mathematical) and the historical description (e.g., story) together so that we can better see the interdependency relationship that body and step have come to have*, beginning in the biological realm, further realized in the “3C” realm of communication, cognition and composition, and yet to be well realized in the “4th C” realm of community – once we have dealt with the needed functionality of union (to handle the individual ⇔ community interdependency on which realized community depends).
* See C-117. The “echo” there is metaphor. We don’t have to see R-words’ noun-verb duality as an echo of a relationship in the physics’ realm. Rather, we could see some of the relationships in the physics’ realm as echoes of what has become Here (e.g., “dark matter” and “dark energy” as un-Realized materiality). An echo’s seeming “there” (sound’s here-there-here sequence) is suggestive re questions of place, point of view and perspective. CEM-history’s arc extends, roughly, from a starting point in which, as we now look in terms of Here’s more Realized body-step perspective … a starting point where today’s body-step relationship was but that of one and/or the other (see concepts of matter and energy),then of one transformed to the other (e.g., E=MC2, stars’ formation of Periodic Table elements), then that of the behavioral entity (a body taking more than one step), then to that of bodies taking steps to become one step-taking body (i.e., a Union). The latter phases involve body-step interdependency, and are increasingly material.If, as humanists, we would become more consequential, then it appears we should Grasp what the R-transform offers us … and work in R-spacetime. Meanwhile, we might note that, given the CEM-arc, any place on that arc could be seen as an echo of any other place. Why not, for example, see “energy strings” as an echo, especially in their potential multidimensionality, of human step making and taking as Realized energy? If we are engaged in problem solving, and not just puzzle solving – i.e., concerned with the Nature of Things,and thus with ordering things and not just the order of things, then CEM-arc’s steps in R-spacetime might contribute a better point of view and perspective – and sharable Grasp and explanation — than the CEM-arc’s beginnings, as seen with the physicists perspective.Do we need a “theory of everything” or, perhaps, a “theory About (C-40) Everything”(III)? Given the Nature of Things’ partial order, the behavioral evidence available to us can be interpreted according to an order of things … but should it be interpreted only that way? (The oots interpretation may suggest an archetypic here – an origin of sorts, for which we might well search as best we can, via oots methodology. But is what follows on that Here,as the oots, all that we should try to make Sense of and with? Is this all of consequentiality? And where is consequentiality, generally and particularly,past and possible, most evident? Here (C-3).
Here. Where the Frontier is now.The Here to which we still need to get.And with more contingent emergent materiality yet to come, with or without our Grasp and engagement (II).
It’s materiality that matters**. Material can be said to subsume matter (and energy) as entities (cf. “dark matter” and “dark energy” as unrealized materiality). Material captures that and more: all of consequentiality. Matter, as entity and noun, does not. Material comprises the consequentiality IN and OF step as well as, and interdependently with, the consequentiality IN and OF body. A more material philosophy (C-78), a Frontier philosophy, seems indicated.
The R-transform guides us to and in the Accord course (C-9) we need to take. It does something we already have some experience with. Consider “daylight saving time.” We employ this procedure to accommodate needed functionality. The R-transform accommodates needed functionality big time, because its “0” on the Realization axis speaks to needed functionality, to the problems still needing to be solved – esp. the behavioral problem (I). What we have also lacked that the R-transform furnishes is the basis for continuing assessment of the ongoing functionality between Valuation and Realization … their balance and effected interdependence (C-122).
** “Matter” is an R-word (App. XX; C-107), freely used in English as either verb or noun. “Material” should be an R-word, but, like many terms, it has been suffocated via suffix (“materiality”) and/or juked via suffix as verb from its noun usage (“materialize”). Messaging (ughly!), for which human needed functionality is indeed great, deserves a better step-making and taking technology than we have so far materialized as language (App. XIV, App. XX).
Sometimes, CEM has been warped (0:S-P, Ps). See the use and abuse of minding (e.g., dysfunctional and/or weak ideation and ideas).
(c) R.F. Carter
Here is at the forward end of the CEM-history arc (App. XI). Humans have more contingent emergent materiality behind them, historically, than any other behavioral entities – if we mind that all entities (aka bodies) are behavioral, but some more behavioral than others. Humans compose more. They compose not only arranged collisions but arrangements to avoid collisions.
Here is AT and IN the Frontier (C-118). Whatever we make of and in a Present (C-96), the Frontier’s place between past (after the fact) and future (before the fact) persists. We can, of course, live in the past – but at our peril, because needed ADEPT functionality changes with Realized functionality (C-115) and not just with changes of circumstance that call for ADAPT and/or ADOPT functionalities (C-9).
Why aren’t you Here? Why aren’t we Here? Why aren’t you and/or we in the more consequential, difference making Present? As pioneers (C-119). Why don’t we humans share a common Sense of what we are about and need to be about? Not just “living in the present” of B-spacetime (III) but living in a constructive difference-making Present. Living in a special spacetime. A special spacetime, R-spacetime, in which we can start over from a place other than the (more physical, chemical and biological) place we now occupy … a place where the advice of the Vermont farmer not to start from here (C-18) can readily and usefully be taken, where we can escape the muddle in which we find ourselves (C-114) … where needed functionality (especially for problem solving), in accord with the Nature of Things can be further Realized.
Here in R-spacetime? Yes … if we transform the concept “here” to the theoretical construct “Here” (C-81) … dropping the italics in favor of capitalization. When we introduced the “double crystal” view of life as comprising independent but related structures of body and step (III), we also made a distinction between body and step Senses of time and space (B-spacetime and S-spacetime). In addition to the familiar B-spacetime, S-spacetime acknowledges the materiality – i.e., consequentiality — of spatial gaps, gappiness and supergappiness (Everything’s general persisting condition of discontinuity re behavioral entities – and susceptibility to collision in the other general persisting conditions of partial order and consequentiality) and the materiality of temporal sequence (as part of consequentiality).
Now, armed with the R-transform, one of whose virtues is to bring to surface new materiality (C-111), we can posit this other kind of spacetime: R-spacetime. R-spacetime brings the ahistorical description (e.g., mathematical) and the historical description (e.g., story) together so that we can better see the interdependency relationship that body and step have come to have*, beginning in the biological realm, further realized in the “3C” realm of communication, cognition and composition, and yet to be well realized in the “4th C” realm of community – once we have dealt with the needed functionality of union (to handle the individual ⇔ community interdependency on which realized community depends).
* See C-117. The “echo” there is metaphor. We don’t have to see R-words’ noun-verb duality as an echo of a relationship in the physics’ realm. Rather, we could see some of the relationships in the physics’ realm as echoes of what has become Here (e.g., “dark matter” and “dark energy” as un-Realized materiality). An echo’s seeming “there” (sound’s here-there-here sequence) is suggestive re questions of place, point of view and perspective. CEM-history’s arc extends, roughly, from a starting point in which, as we now look in terms of Here’s more Realized body-step perspective … a starting point where today’s body-step relationship was but that of one and/or the other (see concepts of matter and energy),then of one transformed to the other (e.g., E=MC2, stars’ formation of Periodic Table elements), then that of the behavioral entity (a body taking more than one step), then to that of bodies taking steps to become one step-taking body (i.e., a Union). The latter phases involve body-step interdependency, and are increasingly material.If, as humanists, we would become more consequential, then it appears we should Grasp what the R-transform offers us … and work in R-spacetime. Meanwhile, we might note that, given the CEM-arc, any place on that arc could be seen as an echo of any other place. Why not, for example, see “energy strings” as an echo, especially in their potential multidimensionality, of human step making and taking as Realized energy? If we are engaged in problem solving, and not just puzzle solving – i.e., concerned with the Nature of Things,and thus with ordering things and not just the order of things, then CEM-arc’s steps in R-spacetime might contribute a better point of view and perspective – and sharable Grasp and explanation — than the CEM-arc’s beginnings, as seen with the physicists perspective.Do we need a “theory of everything” or, perhaps, a “theory About (C-40) Everything”(III)? Given the Nature of Things’ partial order, the behavioral evidence available to us can be interpreted according to an order of things … but should it be interpreted only that way? (The oots interpretation may suggest an archetypic here – an origin of sorts, for which we might well search as best we can, via oots methodology. But is what follows on that Here,as the oots, all that we should try to make Sense of and with? Is this all of consequentiality? And where is consequentiality, generally and particularly,past and possible, most evident? Here (C-3).
Here. Where the Frontier is now.The Here to which we still need to get.And with more contingent emergent materiality yet to come, with or without our Grasp and engagement (II).
It’s materiality that matters**. Material can be said to subsume matter (and energy) as entities (cf. “dark matter” and “dark energy” as unrealized materiality). Material captures that and more: all of consequentiality. Matter, as entity and noun, does not. Material comprises the consequentiality IN and OF step as well as, and interdependently with, the consequentiality IN and OF body. A more material philosophy (C-78), a Frontier philosophy, seems indicated.
The R-transform guides us to and in the Accord course (C-9) we need to take. It does something we already have some experience with. Consider “daylight saving time.” We employ this procedure to accommodate needed functionality. The R-transform accommodates needed functionality big time, because its “0” on the Realization axis speaks to needed functionality, to the problems still needing to be solved – esp. the behavioral problem (I). What we have also lacked that the R-transform furnishes is the basis for continuing assessment of the ongoing functionality between Valuation and Realization … their balance and effected interdependence (C-122).
** “Matter” is an R-word (App. XX; C-107), freely used in English as either verb or noun. “Material” should be an R-word, but, like many terms, it has been suffocated via suffix (“materiality”) and/or juked via suffix as verb from its noun usage (“materialize”). Messaging (ughly!), for which human needed functionality is indeed great, deserves a better step-making and taking technology than we have so far materialized as language (App. XIV, App. XX).
Sometimes, CEM has been warped (0:S-P, Ps). See the use and abuse of minding (e.g., dysfunctional and/or weak ideation and ideas).
(c) R.F. Carter
S