C-261 Irony...and then some
Something bigger than “The Universe”? Yes: The Expansion, which comprises another universe, the S-universe, along with the B-universe. Both the “the” and the “uni-“ in the “The Universe” are not deserved: the B-universe is not the only universe and One-ness of material totality is a gratuitous claim for any universe. The B-universe perspective is not the only relevant procedural technology for Grasping the totality of materiality.
Something more than the things of nature? Yes: The Nature of Things, which if the Expansion is seen in cross-section, comprises more than every thing. We conventionally in B-speak objectify as “things” any and every condition, but at the cost of not fully and accurately representing all relevant material conditions – especially those behavioral.
How ironic then that we should assume a humiliating posture for having essayed that the Earth is the center of the universe … when we have since been authoritatively assured that this expanding universe will not contract! The former mistake pales in comparison to the latter’s underestimate of materiality. So says The Expansion-Nature of Things Conjecture.
The ultimate irony: Because joined with the tragedy of unfulfilled human potential it is a “perfect storm.” A storm of more and more -- and more taxing – problems. As we see in the “human climate” problem of decision making/problem solving >1++.
And it is the enduring irony that we can realize these matters now with the help of the theoretical step: Involve CEM Grasp. Irony because it has been our conceptual notion of a “step” along with notions of The Universe and (objectified) things of nature – i.e., B-ness and B-speak Mind procedural technology -- that have blocked this theoretical step from view.
Now it is up to us to repair that damage and, via extended Mind procedural technology, develop the behavioral architecture with which to meet the needed functionality dictated by the Nature of Things (the general persisting conditions [GPC] of partial order, consequentiality and discontinuity [of body, of step] made evident by collisions) and implied by the Expansion’s principles (Differentiation, extension and contingent emergent materiality [CEM]).
Most importantly, to meet the need for Mind strength, aided by procedural technology, to meet the challenge of incomplete instruction: the Nature of Things’ GPC. We need Mind to get what information there is, to learn. But we also require Mind to furnish the rest of the information we need, to come to know … to produce orderings to go along with the “natural order.”* Hence the need for conjecture, not just hypothesis (what if’s and if-then’s). Our needed theory FOR, not just OF.
For guidance. To point the way forward. Guidance which needs guidance. Guidance which needs guidance which needs guidance…. Just as, generally, Help needs to be extended (HelpN), as in help for the helper of the helper and help for the helper of those to be helped (and also for those who help themselves)… and so on as far as need and procedural and/or tool technology can take us.
Now that the theoretical step’s Involve CEM Grasp has given us the Expansion, the favor (i.e., Help) can be returned. First by liberating steps from B-ness: B-universe procedural technologies that deflate behavior, to give steps a universe of their own along with bodies. Second by furnishing the foundation and ingredients (mettles) for a behavioral architecture of molecular steps, applicable before the fact as well as after the fact. Third by furnishing technological principles (Slice, Splice and Swing) for the Build of behavioral architecture: Differentiation, extension and CEM.
***
There are good reasons to be at work in the S-universe. Theoretically at work, that is. To move Forward, from behavioral concepts and instances to theory FOR behavior. And for the Bi-ness.** For starters, we need the bi-ness of the two universes: to separate – i.e., slice -- the materialities within and between body and step. Trying to accommodate behavior with faulty B-universe procedural technology (backwards, upside-down and inside-out) has necessitated our BFEPS transfigurative point of view and perspective. Now we are able to see body and step materiality better: after the fact separately and then before the fact spliced together more effectively.
Body and step need to be distinguished theoretically to facilitate technological development, especially procedural technology. The familiar conceptual “step” illustrates the “back and forth” leverage Forward, “step after step,” that bi-ness enables. But it lacks the architectural relevance – foundation, building units and structural principles -- needed to make the molecular step. As for the all-important emergent needed solution to a problem.
The “back and forth” leverage Forward of bi-ness has made possible evolution’s animating Body CEM Step. A signal event. What we need it to do now developmentally, and not just for body plus step, is to realize the vast untapped CEM potential within the molecular step … for Mind CEM Move and then for CEM-mettle extensions within each of Mind and Move.
Even in B-speak, it’s worth making the distinction between “sensOry” and “sensEry” to distinguish two Mind procedures, favoring body and step respectively. In B-speak, however, the lettering distinction comes across as conceptual and clumsy. Theoretically, the difference is a serious matter. Because that portion of needed functionality that is due to GPC (should we say at least half?) requires step capabilities not just body capacities.***
What is called for (WICF)? What there is to be talked about (WTITBTA)? What is the bottom line for needed functionality to which these new domains point us and give us access? Helping the helper and the helped: HelpN. Help is WICF. Technology for helping is a WTITBTA. Technology for technology for technology … as here for steps procedurally. Especially those procedural technologies we have yet to invent.
Not just compiling instances of conceptualized behaviors. Instead, Grasping behavior theoretically via the step’s Involve CEM Grasp.# Treating the molecular step’s mettles like the body’s genes, accessible to a procedural technology analogous to CRISPR and editing … realizing architecturally the full potentiality of humanity – as much needed functionality re needed functionality.
***
The behavioral foundations of effective problem solving? First: Behavior. Behavior is the foundation by which we can develop the behavior of problem solving. The Expansion is behavior. Materially so. Or the B-universe wouldn’t be seen to be expanding. The ”heavenly bodies” are artifacts of this behavior consequent to another behavior: Big Bang … this behavior, the Expansion, whose immediate consequence was only – and might still be partially – unrealized behavior (“quantum froth”?) … to be realized in the bi-ness of energy and matter, waves and particles, step and body, et al.
Second: Steps. Molecular steps. The architecture of behavior. Behavior as needed functionality. Steps are that functionality, with their component mettles and their compositional structure. Further, for functionality to match needed functionality, we need to make both helper and helped capable of both aspects of WICF: the needed functionality and its communicated representation, with both Grasped##… with the needed functionality expressed in Sliced and Spliced mettles – i.e., molecular steps … such that the twin problems of relevance, content and timing, can both be solved.
***
The theoretical step, “I CEM G,” has now given us Involves (the Expansion, the Nature of Things, the S-universe) that extend our perspective beyond the limitations, qualitative as well as quantitative, of the B-ness and B-speak’s “The Universe.” They change Everything: to the totality of materiality – all that is IN and OF consequence, including and following Big Bang. They change every thing behavioral: retrieving them from their observer-imposed suppressed, deflated circumstance.
They can even change all things for the better, by attending to the ratios. Their needed independence (slices) yields the possibility of balance (splices) that can lead us toward CEM: the needed contingent emergent materiality of solutions for problems (swing) … contingent on the molecular steps we make and take. The procedural technology for improved procedural technology.
Consider that for problem solving, as in the medical profession, every cure begins with the appropriate diagnosis. By slicing, that is: the pragmatic precept, PP, that tells us to look for differences that make a difference. Where ratio procedures begin. But not just to initiate control system procedures, as to remedy specific ills. Operating system procedures, to strengthen health, begin here too with behavioral architecture developed in the molecular step. If we have provided procedural technology – i.e., theory FOR -- with which to build this operating system.
These ratios are our Expansion Frontier conditions, vital for informed next steps. Ratios and next steps need to change: for the better – from our familiar conceptual sense of the pragmatic in terms of wanted outcomes. The Expansion principles and our parallel technological procedures can help. What has been anticipated along the BFEPS path as Applications (I-XXII) now becomes a full-scale assault, armed with Expansion principles -- not just with laws, natural or statutory; not just with actuarial probabilities.
It becomes clear why Adept must accompany Adopt and Adapt as behavioral strategies: so that our behavior may Accord meta-strategically with the implications of these new, larger Involves. Also, as importantly, that we are adding functionality to the functionality we have … subtracting from B-ness functionality only to relieve terms in B-speak of work that is more appropriately and productively done in the S-universe.###
***
And then some. The next step is pivotal. We need to be pivotal. We need to be thinking more about thinking, theoretically (FOR) and technologically (procedurally) -- and not just conceptually. From the concept of behavior to the theoretical construct of step is pivotal. We need The Expansion-Nature of Things Conjecture for step making and taking before the fact, to complement hypotheses about behavior after the fact.
We cannot abide a notion (a “Let’s pretend”) especially to the extent of a conspiracy to tempt the credulous (e.g., the unexamined One-ness to cover everything as a unified “whole”) as a substitute for conjecture and/or hypothesis, both of which are pointed questions and subject to answer. We need both theory OF (hypotheses) and theory FOR (conjectures). As we need the bi-ness of Mind’s two Know’s: to find and to find out (KF and KT – the latter further developed, from “try” to Trial, via conjectural step making to KMmt).
We have accepted the “black box” notion of thinking (mind in body), because B-ness and B-speak sequester and characterize behavior in a B-universe perspective. There, excessive objectification (e.g., “stimulus-response”) tramples behavior in favor of behaviors (i.e., instances and concepts).@ Its B-speak technology confounds behavior in thoughtknots. At its worst, (i.e., Behaviorism) it deals only with whole-body movement in B-spacetime, not with behavior as functionality and, especially, needed functionality. We place something called “a mind” only in the brain of a body, as a part or attribute, yielding a problem when Mind is needed functionality in the molecular step. Not a good basis for development.
The Expansion-Nature of Things Conjecture gives lie to all of this. Its newly established S-universe reaches over to claim neglected and confounded behavioral from the B-universe. The Expansion is behavior. To which the entities in the B-universe are but part and party. B-speak’s “expanding universe” adds insult to injury.
***
The Expansion-Nature of Things Conjecture changes Everything: the totality of materiality, of differences that make differences … and every thing: all the foci (“objects”) of our attention and al the conditions IN and OF consequence to which we have not paid attention. The Conjecture changes our place as actor as well a observer: to the leading edge of The Expansion, to our next step AT, ON the Frontier – and not just at a location in B-spacetime. The Conjecture changes too the place of things: some conditions to be minded in The Expansion, some in the S-universe, fewer in the B-universe.
There is a lot to be changed. But at least now we have a procedural technology with which to help change the lot.
***
* Or orderings that will help Mind to get what information there is. Scopes, for example, the tool technology we build with which we extend our visual capacity. Even to the point of furnishing information, via procedural technology (e.g., classic experiments, thought experiments) to get what information there is (e.g., laws, principles). But our need to manufacture information never changes. The general persisting conditions are not going away. That we don’t know what we don’t know has two tributaries: one is this dual needed information-producing functionality, which is always at the flood; ignorance, conceptually speaking, is the other.
** Bi-ness is in accord with the Expansion’s principle of differentiation: its Slice to Splice to Swing. Leverage Forward comes from the sequence of one element of the Bi-ness playing off the other (“back and forth” as in “walking”). Especially when and if CEM is generated. Better than hopping on one leg and foot. Or trying with one hand to clap hands.
*** It can be said that sensOry procedures (e.g., vision) also work via a bi-ness foundation and operate via sensEry capabilities within the body.
# See B-speak’s ambiguity of the singular: the conceptual instance vs. the needed functionality. For us to be able to build a molecular step, individually or together, the conceptual instance will not do. Whatever functionality a behavior might have provided, copying it and distributing it pose a problem (O:Sp). Synthetic organic chemistry tellingly remedies a scarce supply of a useful “found” functionality by reformulating the needed functionality molecularly so that it can be manufactured. “Scaling up” behavior via the “behaviors” route (formal and informal copying) has proved arduous and unfulfilling of problematic situations, Psits … let alone the other types, especially the behavioral problem and behavioral solution, Pbeh and Sbeh, as of developing an organizing system (O.S.). All the more reason to be working in the S-universe guided by the Expansion’s principles.
## B-speak is no friend to needed Slice, Splice and Swing. Consider prefixes and suffixes: “Fixes” indeed! Overworking words to try to handle what a better language might and ought to provide. Consider “-ion” terms, for example. They confound process and product, and confound functionality with needed functionality. A classic O:Ps problem type: requiring definition to remedy (if possible!) this needed “fix” solution. Note too our need to add noun particles to B-speak, so that we can make needed slices, as in distinguishing freedoms FROM, OF and TO. And to distinguish theories ABOUT, OF and FOR.
### Attempts to formulate – or find -- a “universal language” in B-speak are unsuccessful, whether for cultural variations or for inadequate design in all of the multitude of “natural” languages. Something more helpful linguistically might be composed IN and FOR the S-universe as a general aid to building an operating system, strengthening step making and lessening dependence on the lessons of history for guidance – i.e., behavioral instances and their outcomes. Perhaps a pictorial primer of mettles, with splicing exercises … and consideration of possible outcomes and guiding principles.
@ Also “cause-effect,” “producer-product,” “problem-solution.” These magic twins among our observations have in the observer a close “in-law”: the “black box.” Etymologically, “problem” even has a Siamese linkage with “solution.”
c) 2023 R. F. Carter
Something more than the things of nature? Yes: The Nature of Things, which if the Expansion is seen in cross-section, comprises more than every thing. We conventionally in B-speak objectify as “things” any and every condition, but at the cost of not fully and accurately representing all relevant material conditions – especially those behavioral.
How ironic then that we should assume a humiliating posture for having essayed that the Earth is the center of the universe … when we have since been authoritatively assured that this expanding universe will not contract! The former mistake pales in comparison to the latter’s underestimate of materiality. So says The Expansion-Nature of Things Conjecture.
The ultimate irony: Because joined with the tragedy of unfulfilled human potential it is a “perfect storm.” A storm of more and more -- and more taxing – problems. As we see in the “human climate” problem of decision making/problem solving >1++.
And it is the enduring irony that we can realize these matters now with the help of the theoretical step: Involve CEM Grasp. Irony because it has been our conceptual notion of a “step” along with notions of The Universe and (objectified) things of nature – i.e., B-ness and B-speak Mind procedural technology -- that have blocked this theoretical step from view.
Now it is up to us to repair that damage and, via extended Mind procedural technology, develop the behavioral architecture with which to meet the needed functionality dictated by the Nature of Things (the general persisting conditions [GPC] of partial order, consequentiality and discontinuity [of body, of step] made evident by collisions) and implied by the Expansion’s principles (Differentiation, extension and contingent emergent materiality [CEM]).
Most importantly, to meet the need for Mind strength, aided by procedural technology, to meet the challenge of incomplete instruction: the Nature of Things’ GPC. We need Mind to get what information there is, to learn. But we also require Mind to furnish the rest of the information we need, to come to know … to produce orderings to go along with the “natural order.”* Hence the need for conjecture, not just hypothesis (what if’s and if-then’s). Our needed theory FOR, not just OF.
For guidance. To point the way forward. Guidance which needs guidance. Guidance which needs guidance which needs guidance…. Just as, generally, Help needs to be extended (HelpN), as in help for the helper of the helper and help for the helper of those to be helped (and also for those who help themselves)… and so on as far as need and procedural and/or tool technology can take us.
Now that the theoretical step’s Involve CEM Grasp has given us the Expansion, the favor (i.e., Help) can be returned. First by liberating steps from B-ness: B-universe procedural technologies that deflate behavior, to give steps a universe of their own along with bodies. Second by furnishing the foundation and ingredients (mettles) for a behavioral architecture of molecular steps, applicable before the fact as well as after the fact. Third by furnishing technological principles (Slice, Splice and Swing) for the Build of behavioral architecture: Differentiation, extension and CEM.
There are good reasons to be at work in the S-universe. Theoretically at work, that is. To move Forward, from behavioral concepts and instances to theory FOR behavior. And for the Bi-ness.** For starters, we need the bi-ness of the two universes: to separate – i.e., slice -- the materialities within and between body and step. Trying to accommodate behavior with faulty B-universe procedural technology (backwards, upside-down and inside-out) has necessitated our BFEPS transfigurative point of view and perspective. Now we are able to see body and step materiality better: after the fact separately and then before the fact spliced together more effectively.
Body and step need to be distinguished theoretically to facilitate technological development, especially procedural technology. The familiar conceptual “step” illustrates the “back and forth” leverage Forward, “step after step,” that bi-ness enables. But it lacks the architectural relevance – foundation, building units and structural principles -- needed to make the molecular step. As for the all-important emergent needed solution to a problem.
The “back and forth” leverage Forward of bi-ness has made possible evolution’s animating Body CEM Step. A signal event. What we need it to do now developmentally, and not just for body plus step, is to realize the vast untapped CEM potential within the molecular step … for Mind CEM Move and then for CEM-mettle extensions within each of Mind and Move.
Even in B-speak, it’s worth making the distinction between “sensOry” and “sensEry” to distinguish two Mind procedures, favoring body and step respectively. In B-speak, however, the lettering distinction comes across as conceptual and clumsy. Theoretically, the difference is a serious matter. Because that portion of needed functionality that is due to GPC (should we say at least half?) requires step capabilities not just body capacities.***
What is called for (WICF)? What there is to be talked about (WTITBTA)? What is the bottom line for needed functionality to which these new domains point us and give us access? Helping the helper and the helped: HelpN. Help is WICF. Technology for helping is a WTITBTA. Technology for technology for technology … as here for steps procedurally. Especially those procedural technologies we have yet to invent.
Not just compiling instances of conceptualized behaviors. Instead, Grasping behavior theoretically via the step’s Involve CEM Grasp.# Treating the molecular step’s mettles like the body’s genes, accessible to a procedural technology analogous to CRISPR and editing … realizing architecturally the full potentiality of humanity – as much needed functionality re needed functionality.
The behavioral foundations of effective problem solving? First: Behavior. Behavior is the foundation by which we can develop the behavior of problem solving. The Expansion is behavior. Materially so. Or the B-universe wouldn’t be seen to be expanding. The ”heavenly bodies” are artifacts of this behavior consequent to another behavior: Big Bang … this behavior, the Expansion, whose immediate consequence was only – and might still be partially – unrealized behavior (“quantum froth”?) … to be realized in the bi-ness of energy and matter, waves and particles, step and body, et al.
Second: Steps. Molecular steps. The architecture of behavior. Behavior as needed functionality. Steps are that functionality, with their component mettles and their compositional structure. Further, for functionality to match needed functionality, we need to make both helper and helped capable of both aspects of WICF: the needed functionality and its communicated representation, with both Grasped##… with the needed functionality expressed in Sliced and Spliced mettles – i.e., molecular steps … such that the twin problems of relevance, content and timing, can both be solved.
The theoretical step, “I CEM G,” has now given us Involves (the Expansion, the Nature of Things, the S-universe) that extend our perspective beyond the limitations, qualitative as well as quantitative, of the B-ness and B-speak’s “The Universe.” They change Everything: to the totality of materiality – all that is IN and OF consequence, including and following Big Bang. They change every thing behavioral: retrieving them from their observer-imposed suppressed, deflated circumstance.
They can even change all things for the better, by attending to the ratios. Their needed independence (slices) yields the possibility of balance (splices) that can lead us toward CEM: the needed contingent emergent materiality of solutions for problems (swing) … contingent on the molecular steps we make and take. The procedural technology for improved procedural technology.
Consider that for problem solving, as in the medical profession, every cure begins with the appropriate diagnosis. By slicing, that is: the pragmatic precept, PP, that tells us to look for differences that make a difference. Where ratio procedures begin. But not just to initiate control system procedures, as to remedy specific ills. Operating system procedures, to strengthen health, begin here too with behavioral architecture developed in the molecular step. If we have provided procedural technology – i.e., theory FOR -- with which to build this operating system.
These ratios are our Expansion Frontier conditions, vital for informed next steps. Ratios and next steps need to change: for the better – from our familiar conceptual sense of the pragmatic in terms of wanted outcomes. The Expansion principles and our parallel technological procedures can help. What has been anticipated along the BFEPS path as Applications (I-XXII) now becomes a full-scale assault, armed with Expansion principles -- not just with laws, natural or statutory; not just with actuarial probabilities.
It becomes clear why Adept must accompany Adopt and Adapt as behavioral strategies: so that our behavior may Accord meta-strategically with the implications of these new, larger Involves. Also, as importantly, that we are adding functionality to the functionality we have … subtracting from B-ness functionality only to relieve terms in B-speak of work that is more appropriately and productively done in the S-universe.###
And then some. The next step is pivotal. We need to be pivotal. We need to be thinking more about thinking, theoretically (FOR) and technologically (procedurally) -- and not just conceptually. From the concept of behavior to the theoretical construct of step is pivotal. We need The Expansion-Nature of Things Conjecture for step making and taking before the fact, to complement hypotheses about behavior after the fact.
We cannot abide a notion (a “Let’s pretend”) especially to the extent of a conspiracy to tempt the credulous (e.g., the unexamined One-ness to cover everything as a unified “whole”) as a substitute for conjecture and/or hypothesis, both of which are pointed questions and subject to answer. We need both theory OF (hypotheses) and theory FOR (conjectures). As we need the bi-ness of Mind’s two Know’s: to find and to find out (KF and KT – the latter further developed, from “try” to Trial, via conjectural step making to KMmt).
We have accepted the “black box” notion of thinking (mind in body), because B-ness and B-speak sequester and characterize behavior in a B-universe perspective. There, excessive objectification (e.g., “stimulus-response”) tramples behavior in favor of behaviors (i.e., instances and concepts).@ Its B-speak technology confounds behavior in thoughtknots. At its worst, (i.e., Behaviorism) it deals only with whole-body movement in B-spacetime, not with behavior as functionality and, especially, needed functionality. We place something called “a mind” only in the brain of a body, as a part or attribute, yielding a problem when Mind is needed functionality in the molecular step. Not a good basis for development.
The Expansion-Nature of Things Conjecture gives lie to all of this. Its newly established S-universe reaches over to claim neglected and confounded behavioral from the B-universe. The Expansion is behavior. To which the entities in the B-universe are but part and party. B-speak’s “expanding universe” adds insult to injury.
The Expansion-Nature of Things Conjecture changes Everything: the totality of materiality, of differences that make differences … and every thing: all the foci (“objects”) of our attention and al the conditions IN and OF consequence to which we have not paid attention. The Conjecture changes our place as actor as well a observer: to the leading edge of The Expansion, to our next step AT, ON the Frontier – and not just at a location in B-spacetime. The Conjecture changes too the place of things: some conditions to be minded in The Expansion, some in the S-universe, fewer in the B-universe.
There is a lot to be changed. But at least now we have a procedural technology with which to help change the lot.
* Or orderings that will help Mind to get what information there is. Scopes, for example, the tool technology we build with which we extend our visual capacity. Even to the point of furnishing information, via procedural technology (e.g., classic experiments, thought experiments) to get what information there is (e.g., laws, principles). But our need to manufacture information never changes. The general persisting conditions are not going away. That we don’t know what we don’t know has two tributaries: one is this dual needed information-producing functionality, which is always at the flood; ignorance, conceptually speaking, is the other.
** Bi-ness is in accord with the Expansion’s principle of differentiation: its Slice to Splice to Swing. Leverage Forward comes from the sequence of one element of the Bi-ness playing off the other (“back and forth” as in “walking”). Especially when and if CEM is generated. Better than hopping on one leg and foot. Or trying with one hand to clap hands.
*** It can be said that sensOry procedures (e.g., vision) also work via a bi-ness foundation and operate via sensEry capabilities within the body.
# See B-speak’s ambiguity of the singular: the conceptual instance vs. the needed functionality. For us to be able to build a molecular step, individually or together, the conceptual instance will not do. Whatever functionality a behavior might have provided, copying it and distributing it pose a problem (O:Sp). Synthetic organic chemistry tellingly remedies a scarce supply of a useful “found” functionality by reformulating the needed functionality molecularly so that it can be manufactured. “Scaling up” behavior via the “behaviors” route (formal and informal copying) has proved arduous and unfulfilling of problematic situations, Psits … let alone the other types, especially the behavioral problem and behavioral solution, Pbeh and Sbeh, as of developing an organizing system (O.S.). All the more reason to be working in the S-universe guided by the Expansion’s principles.
## B-speak is no friend to needed Slice, Splice and Swing. Consider prefixes and suffixes: “Fixes” indeed! Overworking words to try to handle what a better language might and ought to provide. Consider “-ion” terms, for example. They confound process and product, and confound functionality with needed functionality. A classic O:Ps problem type: requiring definition to remedy (if possible!) this needed “fix” solution. Note too our need to add noun particles to B-speak, so that we can make needed slices, as in distinguishing freedoms FROM, OF and TO. And to distinguish theories ABOUT, OF and FOR.
### Attempts to formulate – or find -- a “universal language” in B-speak are unsuccessful, whether for cultural variations or for inadequate design in all of the multitude of “natural” languages. Something more helpful linguistically might be composed IN and FOR the S-universe as a general aid to building an operating system, strengthening step making and lessening dependence on the lessons of history for guidance – i.e., behavioral instances and their outcomes. Perhaps a pictorial primer of mettles, with splicing exercises … and consideration of possible outcomes and guiding principles.
@ Also “cause-effect,” “producer-product,” “problem-solution.” These magic twins among our observations have in the observer a close “in-law”: the “black box.” Etymologically, “problem” even has a Siamese linkage with “solution.”
c) 2023 R. F. Carter
S