C-263.1. We need an extended pragmatic
The Expansion-Nature of Things Conjecture’s larger Involve and the S-universe’s molecular step give us a way to extend the pragmatic, theoretically, and far beyond the commonplace conceptualized outcome success-failure interest in behavioral instances. We have progressed with our new enlarged perspective from the conceptual “behavior” to “step,” a theoretical construct. Why stop there? On to the molecular step! How about a broader, neo-pragmatic approach?* Procedural tech development is needed from one needed functionality, the behavioral problem (Pbeh) to the other, the behavioral solution (Sbeh).
The Conjecture changes Everything and every thing, we have said. Everything by its larger Involve and better Grasp of materiality. We see that +f/-f makes a difference (“good” vs. “bad”), the usual pragmatic concern. But we see too that f’s/nf’s, make a difference, as in evolutionary behaviors . And now, given The Nature of Things, that F/NF makes a difference, as for developmental behavior. These are extensions of the pragmatic precept. (And Extension is an Expansion principle.)
Every thing too? Yes. Most pointedly: things. “Thing” in B-speak embodies (sic) the B-ness neglect and imbalance of our attention to the materiality of steps: via the objectification and naming of any focus of attention. Its penchant for identity over agency, as if we came equipped to respond given recognition (all of this conceptually speaking) … and cognition of no moment.
“Thing” homogenizes our perspective, hiding differences that make a difference. For generality, which can be useful, that might be helpful – as when we employ “variable” to represent any condition which might be studied in the limited sense of functionality (e.g., the “f” in “X = f[Y]”). But homogenize bodies and steps? Not when their respective materialities differ so much. Not when these differences make a difference in how they do, how they might and how they ought to make a difference when they are brought together – as for optimum CEM.
“Thing” is Procrustean re materiality, in practice if not in intent. (Body/step >1+++) Difference (“DIF”) as focal unit for our perspective equalizes step and body as foci of attention. And it accords with Differentiation, the fundamental operating principle of The Expansion. It also accords with providing steps a universe of their own. And DIF as the focal unit supports the CEM potential of the Kuhn’s “back and forth” of theory and method for paradigmatic advance, expanding theory to include theory FOR and not just OF – with the help of DIF as focal unit, as in its extension to mettles within the molecular step.
The pragmatic precept (PP), we said, tells us to look for a difference that makes a difference (DIF => DIF). To be of consequence, as via conjecture, not just to confirm consequentiality, as via hypothesis. There is good reason why we invest in matters of what might be and what ought to be as well as in matters of what must be. As, for example, in screening procedures: uncovering medicinal candidates, assessing job candidates ... looking for differences that can make a difference.
Which is to say: Behavior … redressing the imbalance of body qua entity (and identity) over behavior qua step (and agency), to reduce its deleterious effect (a DIF => DIF) when attempting to Grasp multi-step entities and the differences they make … or might and ought to make.
The molecular step expands behavioral pragmatic applicability, extending the quantity and quality of sliced mettles spliced. Thereby increasing the potential materiality of mettles in the Frontier’s next step, up front in the Mind … and our critical need for procedural technology to improve our thinking … and our thinking about thinking.** Even, in our present extremity, improve our language. In accord with The Expansion, we can treat a similarity as a kind of difference: in the quality and/or quantity of its (limited) One-ness. Where and whether found or made, if a similarity makes a difference we should be interested in it as a difference.
Partial order can accommodate a similarity (SIM) as a difference (DIF), relieving the bias toward a One-ness. And, in further accord with the Nature of Things, we might look to “as one” for better direction (e.g., W. James’ multiple unities). One-ness addiction may betray discomfort with body discontinuity – i.e., the loneliness of “supergappiness.”
There is also the matter of prejudices. We already have ample evidence that it would be better to see SIM’s as DIF’s instead of the all-too-common practice of regarding DIF’s as non-SIM’s. At best only removing them from attention, but too often the basis for discriminatory behaviors – not just discriminative behavior.
This need not turn our familiar earthly world upside down. But it does turn us around. Facing Forward, not just ahead. It’s the Tell, the message of collisions. Take care of your steps – i.e., DIF’s => DIF’s – to take care of your bodies … and take care of your bodies to take care of your steps: the CEM functionality to which we should aspire and bring about: i.e., to “realize” in both its respects, to see needed functionality and to meet it.
Similarity points to efficiency; difference points to effectiveness. Similarity points to prediction; difference points to explanation.
***
Which DIF(s) do we want to find and – more to the point -- make? How far back and forward from the Frontier do we want to extend the pragmatic, as for molecular step building? Consider this extension:
DIF
DIF => DIF
DIF => (DIF => DIF)
DIF => (DIF => [DIF => DIF]) ….
This is how we envision the applicability of procedural tech to the nth degree, to help. As, for example, FOR science, then FOR technology to contribute to science, then FOR theory to contribute to technology FOR science, then FOR paradigm (theory CEM method) to contribute to theory re technology re science… and all this to extend our Help capability.
But the science establishment does not see it this way and to this extent. Many scientific observers go no further than to collect differences, establishing identities for each such DIF discovery -- and identities for their self. The collector-identity relationship may persist for DIF’s => DIF’s collated conceptually as instances. The DIF => DIF may not be firmly established. Something less, perhaps a connection (DIF – DIF or DIF … DIF). Or something more (DIF = DIF), as in a One-ness view of “cause and effect.” Or something in between, such as correlation (DIF r DIF).***
But how about Reason, an R-word? As in regard to explanation. And intelligence. Contrast these three with cause, prediction and information – respectively. These latter terms smack of One-ness and neglect of R-zone needed functionality. How about bi-ness pairings of reason and cause, of explanation and prediction, of intelligence and information? Correcting the B-ness behavior deflation and One-ness that have given us an incomplete and inaccurate picture of needed functionality, of life. Life’s extensions, body and step, characteristically take a bi-ness shape.
Consider the CEM phenomenon, process and result, that we need and want to optimize: (DIF <=> DIF) => DIF. Where the ratio engendered meets the teeter-totter balance test of “as one.” Which is to say: CEM.
***
We have had serious emphasis problems with DIF => DIF’s. For momentary convenience, let us express DIF => DIF here simply as “A => B.” (Alternatively: “DIF=>” and “=> DIF”). Greater emphasis on B (“raw pragmatism,” sufficiency) lends itself to greater credulity with respect to proffered A’s (e.g., criminal “cons”): the wish, says Shakespeare, is father to the thought. It also lends itself to “cherry picking” potential employees (or other candidates) instead of investing in training programs.
B may become A in a next step. A may become B, as here where we have sought out procedural technologies to front procedural technologies, adding to the molecular step’s Mind strength.
Conceptually, we may refer to A as “agency,” “instrumentality,” “cause,” “independent variable,” “stimulus” … whatever. But it’s behavioral materiality: the OF consequence condition (“DIF=>”) in relation to the IN consequence condition (“=>DIF”) -- however construed. And we need the complete materiality palette. With thoughtknots untied, in Accord with the pragmatic precept. FOR the needed materiality.#
***
* Neo-pragmatism? We can hardly call it that, given that it is not in practice. Conceptually, “agency” currently seems to have stage front. Pragmatism and Pragmaticism (Peirce) are captive to B-ness, One-ness and B-speak. “Behavior” is itself too undefined – i.e., a conceptual thoughtknot – for it to define anything adequately. Before the fact and after the fact. And if we refocus on the theoretical construct of molecular step, Mind dictates Move: ahead or forward -- though not so as to make it visible to a B-spacetime Behaviorist.
** Once we free Mind from its limited, embarrassing role in the B-universe “mind-body problem” (i.e., substantively anchored to, found in, part of the brain), placing it instead in the S-universe step with Move, we can enjoy its molecular harvest … as, significantly, by extending quality via procedural tech -- as math has extended quantity. Quality has suffered, oppressed seen as just the handmaid of quantity. CEM is quality, a very desirable quality (e.g., as solution to problem) whatever its quantity. Critically, for procedural tech development, The Expansion’s principles and the Nature of Things’ general persisting conditions (constants) are qualities.
*** It may seem that correlations, like concepts, if enough are collected, will somehow add up to a theoretical grasp of what is being talked about. Their value – i.e., functionality re WICF – is actuarial: better than chance for decision making. Not close to the Grasp we need re WICF. A research strategy more applied than basic, not applicable enough.
# Also conceptually, B may be seen as “identity.” As when A is “means” to B as “end.” Consider, for example, the reasoning of some gun addicts shooting indiscriminately in a crowd. To make something of themselves.
(c) 2023 R. F. Carter
The Conjecture changes Everything and every thing, we have said. Everything by its larger Involve and better Grasp of materiality. We see that +f/-f makes a difference (“good” vs. “bad”), the usual pragmatic concern. But we see too that f’s/nf’s, make a difference, as in evolutionary behaviors . And now, given The Nature of Things, that F/NF makes a difference, as for developmental behavior. These are extensions of the pragmatic precept. (And Extension is an Expansion principle.)
Every thing too? Yes. Most pointedly: things. “Thing” in B-speak embodies (sic) the B-ness neglect and imbalance of our attention to the materiality of steps: via the objectification and naming of any focus of attention. Its penchant for identity over agency, as if we came equipped to respond given recognition (all of this conceptually speaking) … and cognition of no moment.
“Thing” homogenizes our perspective, hiding differences that make a difference. For generality, which can be useful, that might be helpful – as when we employ “variable” to represent any condition which might be studied in the limited sense of functionality (e.g., the “f” in “X = f[Y]”). But homogenize bodies and steps? Not when their respective materialities differ so much. Not when these differences make a difference in how they do, how they might and how they ought to make a difference when they are brought together – as for optimum CEM.
“Thing” is Procrustean re materiality, in practice if not in intent. (Body/step >1+++) Difference (“DIF”) as focal unit for our perspective equalizes step and body as foci of attention. And it accords with Differentiation, the fundamental operating principle of The Expansion. It also accords with providing steps a universe of their own. And DIF as the focal unit supports the CEM potential of the Kuhn’s “back and forth” of theory and method for paradigmatic advance, expanding theory to include theory FOR and not just OF – with the help of DIF as focal unit, as in its extension to mettles within the molecular step.
The pragmatic precept (PP), we said, tells us to look for a difference that makes a difference (DIF => DIF). To be of consequence, as via conjecture, not just to confirm consequentiality, as via hypothesis. There is good reason why we invest in matters of what might be and what ought to be as well as in matters of what must be. As, for example, in screening procedures: uncovering medicinal candidates, assessing job candidates ... looking for differences that can make a difference.
Which is to say: Behavior … redressing the imbalance of body qua entity (and identity) over behavior qua step (and agency), to reduce its deleterious effect (a DIF => DIF) when attempting to Grasp multi-step entities and the differences they make … or might and ought to make.
The molecular step expands behavioral pragmatic applicability, extending the quantity and quality of sliced mettles spliced. Thereby increasing the potential materiality of mettles in the Frontier’s next step, up front in the Mind … and our critical need for procedural technology to improve our thinking … and our thinking about thinking.** Even, in our present extremity, improve our language. In accord with The Expansion, we can treat a similarity as a kind of difference: in the quality and/or quantity of its (limited) One-ness. Where and whether found or made, if a similarity makes a difference we should be interested in it as a difference.
Partial order can accommodate a similarity (SIM) as a difference (DIF), relieving the bias toward a One-ness. And, in further accord with the Nature of Things, we might look to “as one” for better direction (e.g., W. James’ multiple unities). One-ness addiction may betray discomfort with body discontinuity – i.e., the loneliness of “supergappiness.”
There is also the matter of prejudices. We already have ample evidence that it would be better to see SIM’s as DIF’s instead of the all-too-common practice of regarding DIF’s as non-SIM’s. At best only removing them from attention, but too often the basis for discriminatory behaviors – not just discriminative behavior.
This need not turn our familiar earthly world upside down. But it does turn us around. Facing Forward, not just ahead. It’s the Tell, the message of collisions. Take care of your steps – i.e., DIF’s => DIF’s – to take care of your bodies … and take care of your bodies to take care of your steps: the CEM functionality to which we should aspire and bring about: i.e., to “realize” in both its respects, to see needed functionality and to meet it.
Similarity points to efficiency; difference points to effectiveness. Similarity points to prediction; difference points to explanation.
Which DIF(s) do we want to find and – more to the point -- make? How far back and forward from the Frontier do we want to extend the pragmatic, as for molecular step building? Consider this extension:
DIF
DIF => DIF
DIF => (DIF => DIF)
DIF => (DIF => [DIF => DIF]) ….
This is how we envision the applicability of procedural tech to the nth degree, to help. As, for example, FOR science, then FOR technology to contribute to science, then FOR theory to contribute to technology FOR science, then FOR paradigm (theory CEM method) to contribute to theory re technology re science… and all this to extend our Help capability.
But the science establishment does not see it this way and to this extent. Many scientific observers go no further than to collect differences, establishing identities for each such DIF discovery -- and identities for their self. The collector-identity relationship may persist for DIF’s => DIF’s collated conceptually as instances. The DIF => DIF may not be firmly established. Something less, perhaps a connection (DIF – DIF or DIF … DIF). Or something more (DIF = DIF), as in a One-ness view of “cause and effect.” Or something in between, such as correlation (DIF r DIF).***
But how about Reason, an R-word? As in regard to explanation. And intelligence. Contrast these three with cause, prediction and information – respectively. These latter terms smack of One-ness and neglect of R-zone needed functionality. How about bi-ness pairings of reason and cause, of explanation and prediction, of intelligence and information? Correcting the B-ness behavior deflation and One-ness that have given us an incomplete and inaccurate picture of needed functionality, of life. Life’s extensions, body and step, characteristically take a bi-ness shape.
Consider the CEM phenomenon, process and result, that we need and want to optimize: (DIF <=> DIF) => DIF. Where the ratio engendered meets the teeter-totter balance test of “as one.” Which is to say: CEM.
We have had serious emphasis problems with DIF => DIF’s. For momentary convenience, let us express DIF => DIF here simply as “A => B.” (Alternatively: “DIF=>” and “=> DIF”). Greater emphasis on B (“raw pragmatism,” sufficiency) lends itself to greater credulity with respect to proffered A’s (e.g., criminal “cons”): the wish, says Shakespeare, is father to the thought. It also lends itself to “cherry picking” potential employees (or other candidates) instead of investing in training programs.
B may become A in a next step. A may become B, as here where we have sought out procedural technologies to front procedural technologies, adding to the molecular step’s Mind strength.
Conceptually, we may refer to A as “agency,” “instrumentality,” “cause,” “independent variable,” “stimulus” … whatever. But it’s behavioral materiality: the OF consequence condition (“DIF=>”) in relation to the IN consequence condition (“=>DIF”) -- however construed. And we need the complete materiality palette. With thoughtknots untied, in Accord with the pragmatic precept. FOR the needed materiality.#
* Neo-pragmatism? We can hardly call it that, given that it is not in practice. Conceptually, “agency” currently seems to have stage front. Pragmatism and Pragmaticism (Peirce) are captive to B-ness, One-ness and B-speak. “Behavior” is itself too undefined – i.e., a conceptual thoughtknot – for it to define anything adequately. Before the fact and after the fact. And if we refocus on the theoretical construct of molecular step, Mind dictates Move: ahead or forward -- though not so as to make it visible to a B-spacetime Behaviorist.
** Once we free Mind from its limited, embarrassing role in the B-universe “mind-body problem” (i.e., substantively anchored to, found in, part of the brain), placing it instead in the S-universe step with Move, we can enjoy its molecular harvest … as, significantly, by extending quality via procedural tech -- as math has extended quantity. Quality has suffered, oppressed seen as just the handmaid of quantity. CEM is quality, a very desirable quality (e.g., as solution to problem) whatever its quantity. Critically, for procedural tech development, The Expansion’s principles and the Nature of Things’ general persisting conditions (constants) are qualities.
*** It may seem that correlations, like concepts, if enough are collected, will somehow add up to a theoretical grasp of what is being talked about. Their value – i.e., functionality re WICF – is actuarial: better than chance for decision making. Not close to the Grasp we need re WICF. A research strategy more applied than basic, not applicable enough.
# Also conceptually, B may be seen as “identity.” As when A is “means” to B as “end.” Consider, for example, the reasoning of some gun addicts shooting indiscriminately in a crowd. To make something of themselves.
(c) 2023 R. F. Carter
S