C-261.3. An absolute necessity -- and it’s time
Our 2nd universe, the S-universe, is an absolute functional necessity. We need it for the bi-ness … that we need for the CEM-solutions that we can get from working back and forth between universes … if body and step are independent and we can bring them Forward toward CEM balance ... functionality founded on the perspective and principles of The Expansion and constants of The Nature of Things.
So that we can get from “us” to “WE.” As in “We, the people.” From populations in prey-predator relationships to constructive selves relating within and between communities. And to Unions of individuals and communities. So that we can develop procedural technology to match the tremendous expansion of tool technology.*
It’s a matter of behavior, not just of behaviors. Of behavioral architecture: of making, not just taking, steps. Molecular steps. Not the Stone Age Mind technology of behavioral instances and their companion concepts to give them names. In neglect of what is called for (WICF), of behavior as needed functionality and not just of particular functionalities.
And needed now. The signs – i.e., the “>1++” ratios – warn us: Unbalanced and getting worse. Exemplified by the “back and forth” variety of “change” (e.g., political partisanship) which leads to trauma versus the CEM variety of “change” (e.g., progress) whose “back and forth” is Forward going. In conceptual terms: “opposition” vs. “cooperation.”
It’s way past time for us to emphasize development over evolution for the needed Extension in our human dynamic. It’s a matter of survival. “Instinct plus outstinct equals extinct” because something is missing. The R-zone and an operating system to manage behavior (Pbeh and Sbeh) suggest what that “something” is ... something that our attention to this or that “problematic situation” has overlooked.
***
It’s time to get the message … of Message (as an R-word). As much process as product: an extension of step making and taking.** A process with a history – and story – of technology. A technology that began procedurally with the slicing of sound and the splicing of those slices into strands of oral language and music. (The latter with more swing, the efforts of poets notwithstanding.) Then linguistically a combined procedural and tool technology of pictorial glyphs. And a language with name and sentence splices of letter slices.
The notion of humans as unique in being “symbol using” doesn’t pick up technology’s story until far along the way of technological progress. Relegating procedural technology to the service of a tool technology. Similarly, communication has been characterized as tool usage, bridging space and time (Innis). Definitions of “communication” (Dance) almost unanimously see it as the transfer of information***rather than an as the quickening of intelligence (S.S. Stevens).
Help, which we need for survival, is contingent on Message quality. Message embodies the principle of communicability, that WICF must be understood in two respects: the relationship between sender and receiver and between each of them and the needed functionality. Conceptually, this principle is familiar as “relevance.” But we must move from concept to theoretical construct. WISA re WITA is not up to the needed functionality of WICF. B-speak (e.g., names re identity, concepts re agency) doesn’t do the job. Not when agency is about behaviors qua things rather than behavior as needed functionality.#
WISA must Grasp WICF.## If we are to be relevant in content and timing for helping. Agency is at least, if not more, consequential than identity to satisfy WICF. Especially as technologies of procedure and tool are being introduced to reduce individual and collective agency (consumer/citizen >1++). Theoretical constructs, via procedural tech such as the Conjecture, molecular steps and theory FOR might and ought to be helpful to Help. WISA re WICF is essential for our Grasp of behavioral architecture, especially before the fact, IN and FOR our next step.
***
* And to liberate procedural technology from its subservient role in support of this or that tool technology. Perhaps then we might not have to invent the next generation of computers like we did the first: backwards, inside-out and upside-down with respect to behavior.
** An extension of step so significant that we often make a place for it in our activities … sometimes even substituting it for a more risky step (e.g., poking someone in the ribs to get their attention). But we could do more with Message – if we draw out via noun particles all the points (OF, AT, ABOUT, TO, BY, FOR) behaviorally involved: i.e., re “sender,” “receiver” and what is called for (WICF) by and for them.
*** So that it should be no surprise that today’s communication technology (e.g., the Internet) is heavily tool, not procedurally, developed: i.e., transport/message >1++. This even as the procedural bi-ness of “bit” slices and splices echo the early days of Message procedural technology. And despite the evidence of failed promise to human society, time after time, of new communication tool technologies.
# Behaviors as things is Stone Age, both scientifically and technologically. Technologically, in our endeavor to build extended steps via communication procedure as well as tool. Metaphorically, we have been constructing cobbled streets and grottos. Behavior qua thing condemns us to advance collectively shackled to copying procedures instead of building still-needed functionality.
## Linguistic procedure might look to the Message model of WICF, beyond and instead of the WISA “word-thing-X” model (Ogden, Richards; Peirce). The “X” merely disguises a “person who.” We need to Grasp WICF as a point TO more than one person … and to another person as more than a thing.
(c) 2023 R. F. Carter
So that we can get from “us” to “WE.” As in “We, the people.” From populations in prey-predator relationships to constructive selves relating within and between communities. And to Unions of individuals and communities. So that we can develop procedural technology to match the tremendous expansion of tool technology.*
It’s a matter of behavior, not just of behaviors. Of behavioral architecture: of making, not just taking, steps. Molecular steps. Not the Stone Age Mind technology of behavioral instances and their companion concepts to give them names. In neglect of what is called for (WICF), of behavior as needed functionality and not just of particular functionalities.
And needed now. The signs – i.e., the “>1++” ratios – warn us: Unbalanced and getting worse. Exemplified by the “back and forth” variety of “change” (e.g., political partisanship) which leads to trauma versus the CEM variety of “change” (e.g., progress) whose “back and forth” is Forward going. In conceptual terms: “opposition” vs. “cooperation.”
It’s way past time for us to emphasize development over evolution for the needed Extension in our human dynamic. It’s a matter of survival. “Instinct plus outstinct equals extinct” because something is missing. The R-zone and an operating system to manage behavior (Pbeh and Sbeh) suggest what that “something” is ... something that our attention to this or that “problematic situation” has overlooked.
It’s time to get the message … of Message (as an R-word). As much process as product: an extension of step making and taking.** A process with a history – and story – of technology. A technology that began procedurally with the slicing of sound and the splicing of those slices into strands of oral language and music. (The latter with more swing, the efforts of poets notwithstanding.) Then linguistically a combined procedural and tool technology of pictorial glyphs. And a language with name and sentence splices of letter slices.
The notion of humans as unique in being “symbol using” doesn’t pick up technology’s story until far along the way of technological progress. Relegating procedural technology to the service of a tool technology. Similarly, communication has been characterized as tool usage, bridging space and time (Innis). Definitions of “communication” (Dance) almost unanimously see it as the transfer of information***rather than an as the quickening of intelligence (S.S. Stevens).
Help, which we need for survival, is contingent on Message quality. Message embodies the principle of communicability, that WICF must be understood in two respects: the relationship between sender and receiver and between each of them and the needed functionality. Conceptually, this principle is familiar as “relevance.” But we must move from concept to theoretical construct. WISA re WITA is not up to the needed functionality of WICF. B-speak (e.g., names re identity, concepts re agency) doesn’t do the job. Not when agency is about behaviors qua things rather than behavior as needed functionality.#
WISA must Grasp WICF.## If we are to be relevant in content and timing for helping. Agency is at least, if not more, consequential than identity to satisfy WICF. Especially as technologies of procedure and tool are being introduced to reduce individual and collective agency (consumer/citizen >1++). Theoretical constructs, via procedural tech such as the Conjecture, molecular steps and theory FOR might and ought to be helpful to Help. WISA re WICF is essential for our Grasp of behavioral architecture, especially before the fact, IN and FOR our next step.
* And to liberate procedural technology from its subservient role in support of this or that tool technology. Perhaps then we might not have to invent the next generation of computers like we did the first: backwards, inside-out and upside-down with respect to behavior.
** An extension of step so significant that we often make a place for it in our activities … sometimes even substituting it for a more risky step (e.g., poking someone in the ribs to get their attention). But we could do more with Message – if we draw out via noun particles all the points (OF, AT, ABOUT, TO, BY, FOR) behaviorally involved: i.e., re “sender,” “receiver” and what is called for (WICF) by and for them.
*** So that it should be no surprise that today’s communication technology (e.g., the Internet) is heavily tool, not procedurally, developed: i.e., transport/message >1++. This even as the procedural bi-ness of “bit” slices and splices echo the early days of Message procedural technology. And despite the evidence of failed promise to human society, time after time, of new communication tool technologies.
# Behaviors as things is Stone Age, both scientifically and technologically. Technologically, in our endeavor to build extended steps via communication procedure as well as tool. Metaphorically, we have been constructing cobbled streets and grottos. Behavior qua thing condemns us to advance collectively shackled to copying procedures instead of building still-needed functionality.
## Linguistic procedure might look to the Message model of WICF, beyond and instead of the WISA “word-thing-X” model (Ogden, Richards; Peirce). The “X” merely disguises a “person who.” We need to Grasp WICF as a point TO more than one person … and to another person as more than a thing.
(c) 2023 R. F. Carter
S