PROF. RICHARD F. CARTER

The situational problem, Psit, and the behavioral solution, Sbeh, offer only traces of what is involved in the behavioral problem, Pbeh. As particulars they are incomplete as well as somewhat inaccurate – as interpreted. The behavioral problem has its roots in the Nature of things.

1. Everything (EV) as the Nature of Things: NONE < EV < ONE. Everything is more than nothing and less than ONE. The Nature of Things is not the same thing as the things of nature.

2. Qualities of EV: General persisting conditions*. Contrast with particular, variable circumstances. These are qualities without quantity.

2.1. Consequentiality: Without consequentiality nothing, observed or otherwise, would make any difference. Collisions are in consequence and of consequence.

2.2. Partial order: The Nature of Things is more than the order of things (to which the fact of collisions attests)

2.3. Discontinuity: Behavioral entities are separate (aka individual) and thus able to collide but may be combined (e.g., communities), most especially by configuring. Contrast discontinuity per se with gap and gappiness, which are situational particulars*

3. Implications for behavioral entities (BE)

3.1. Behavioral necessity: Step needs, not just body needs, are to be met: Requisites and imperatives.** Complementary with logical necessity as explanatory aid

3.2. Incomplete instruction: Some self-instruction needed. (Guiding) principles not limited to normative (Sbeh) particulars and actuarial principles

3.3. Development of step capability (re Pbeh) is as important to the future of the human species as evolution of body.

3.4. BE is a double crystal. Body and step have different, but entwined (interdependent) structures. A sample of important distinctions follow:

• B-structure vs. S-structure
• B-space vs. S-space (separateness)
• B-time (duration) vs. S-time (sequence)
• B-community vs. S-community
• B-principles vs. S-principles
• B-strength vs. S-strength
• B-”mind” (n.) vs. S-mind (v.)
• B-problem vs. S-problem
• B-environs vs. S-environs
• B-difference maker (e.g., person) vs. S-difference maker (process
• B-history (e.g., evolution) vs. S-history (e.g., development)
• B-question (physiology) vs. S-question (behavior)
• B-design vs. S-design
• B-engineering vs. S-engineering
• B-art vs. S-art
• B-science vs. S-science#
• B-health vs. S-health+
• B-tools vs. S-”tools” (procedures)
• B-alchemy vs. S-alchemy
• B-utility vs. S-utility
• B-waste vs. S=waste
• B-self vs. S-self

*This distinction, between the general and the particular, is of great importance (as is the B- vs. S- distinction) in the explication (if not definition) of many conceptual terms. For example:

• G-Nature vs, p-(thing[s] in) nature
• G-discontinuity (quality of Nature of Things) vs. p-discontinuity (particular gap or gappiness)
• G-behavior (the fact of behavior) vs. p-behavior(s) (instance[s] of behavior)
• G-generality (GPC) vs. p-generality (universals)
• G-life vs. p-life/lives
• G-art vs. p-art(s)
• G-science vs. p-science(s)
• G-language vs. p-language(s)

( in Comments for further discussion of the B- vs. S- and G- vs. p- distinctions as they bear on conceptual terms. Dynamic considerations [XI] apply for each pair.)

** These general persisting conditions (GPC) and the requisites and imperatives (Topics VI-XI) add two additional kinds of behavioral principles to the more familiar norms/rules of our ordering attempts, to actuarial principles, and to the (nomothetic) principles of observed particular physical, chemical and biological circumstances. They are especially applicable to the challenge of unsolved problems.

# The former are typically called the “hard sciences.” The latter are the harder sciences – harder for lack of the B- vs. S- and G- vs. p- distinctions and understanding of the BFPS roots in the Nature of Things that provide the foundation for behavioral sciences like communication and cognition (which see in).

+ See Health in Applications.

(c) 2010 R. F. Carter


FOOTNOTES (RELATED MATERIALS):