C-263.3 A new academic discipline
An “academic” discipline in the sense of a needed formal study area. To redress what The Expansion-Nature of Things Conjecture has shown to be the neglect of needed functionality, Pbeh and Sbeh, and the gross conceptual deflation of behavior by B-ness ad B-speak. They, along with unwarranted One-ness, are procedural technologies with deleterious effects on the practices, processes and procedures for which they provided foundation. The study of behavioral architecture.
It is a fact of life that the last step taken and every previous step taken by multi-step entities were once a next step. Thus to study behavior we must be paradigmatically guided by theory and method which attend to this fact. To behavior before the fact, not just to behaviors after the fact. Hence needed theory FOR, before the fact, not just theory OF, after the fact (via a limited empiricism). Hence needed molecular step procedural technology to guide the building of next step behavior.
This new discipline needs procedural technology to give us strength where we most need it: in our next steps, to be prepared so as to be prepared. Resilience is too little, too late. Human history brims with procedural tech accomplishments, from manners to management, from natural languages to logic. But primarily as practices and processes (behaviors) rather than via a disciplined paradigm linking theory and method re behavior.
Practices and processes that have not come close to solving all our problems. Especially our greatest problem, inventing the “we, the people” that we need to become: our selves (Individual, Community and Union). Contemporary situational pandemic control efforts illustrate this disciplinary need. “Situational” in that our concern is about an immediate needed functionality (nf) and the experience-based presumption that this problem will come again … and that we should be prepared for it. “Control” in that we have -- as usual – faced up to this situational problem too late.
We are not helped by B-speak conceptualization: What, after all, are “problem” and “solution” but needed functionality seen before and after the fact? And not all of either needed functionality as well. But most crucially, lacking theoretical explication … so that we are unreasonably content to assess the human condition in terms of f/-f (good and bad functionality) and f/nf (met and unmet situational needs) while neglecting F/NF (met and unmet total needed functionality).
This in the face of the R-zone, which tells us that we must bring Mind resources to bear where behavioral intelligence must be furnished as well as found.
Evolution’s capacities have not given us all the Mind capability we need. (Nor distributed them equally.) We must develop more Mind capability, and procedural tech is the kind of help we need. (To approach equity.)
Practices, as conceptualized procedural techs, are predicated on primitive procedural techs … which as particular notions and beliefs are not without criticism … and as foundations for behavioral architecture have not been thoroughly analyzed. As evident in our assessment of the human condition with less than a full and accurate Grasp of needed functionality.
Primitive procedural technology has gotten us into this mess. Molecular step procedural technology must get us out.
***
Procedural techs to be better prepared? Yes. But procedural tech for procedural techs, to be even better prepared. In the R-zone perspective on the Conjecture’s perspective (both procedural techs), this calls for (conceptually speaking) more intelligence to make better use of more than information – i.e., to inform in the absence of information (“Instinct plus outstinct equals extinct”).
What good is the next step option of the human condition if we fail to do more with procedure and tool tech to promote it? By bringing more intelligence, not just more information, to the Mind component in the next molecular step … as we strive to extend the functionality of the step -- as once in the Burgess Shale period the animate body extended its Move capacity profusely to improve its functionality.*
Evolution did us a great service in providing our body CEM step capacity: our all-too-familiar multi-step selves labeled as “behavioral entities.” But it is up to us and to development theory and method -- and of procedural, not just tool, technology -- to take us (theoretically and methodologically) Forward, not just ahead, in capability.
This needed discipline, Behavioral Architecture, is what the behavioral perspective of the Conjecture calls for. Many unbalanced ratios speak for it. Some loudly, because their imbalance is getting worse or has even reached a tipping point. Consider: body/step >1; after the fact/before the fact >1; identity/agency >1; nf/NF >1; (+f/-f)/(F/NF) >!; self/selve >1; tool/procedure >1; decision making/problem solving >1; transport/message >1; consumer/citizen >1.
“Behavioral architecture” because technology must lead the way to more effective problem solving with its Slice, Splice and Swing: principled building. Art and science make – or might and ought to make -- contributions to that technology: art before the fact and science after the fact. That is if science, qua “to know,” is extended to embrace KMmt (where “m” is step design; “M” is procedural tech guiding the molecular step’s design). This theoretical construct, Trial (compare to the conceptual “try”), enables us to find out materiality, when to find it is impossible: i.e., to get the functionality which will not be there unless and until we put it there.**
***
Academe need not be the only venue for further development of procedural technology. Although like any enterprise which sees itself as an operating system (i.e., as a Selve) it must be concerned with its own behavioral development and not just the behaviors of conditions which it Involves and Grasps. An Institute, within an institution (e.g., the LaFollette program at the University of Wisconsin, Madison) or on its own (e.g., SADB)*** could serve.
Some kind of institutional setting seems needed. Consider the example of the “Earthshot” competition, dedicated to saving Earth and ourselves from impending disaster … and calling for programs to address the matter. A matter of anthropogenesis fundamentally, in that needed functionality is both problem and solution … and a challenge to procedural technology for the Mind and Move of the molecular step# … once the mind-binding of B-ness and B-speak on behavior are Grasped and set aside.
SADB would be the dedicated discipline to extend the behavioral foundations of effective problem solving (BFEPS). These foundations reject the deflated conceptual understanding of behavior (qua instances of behaviors) in favor of the theoretical Grasp of behavior (as needed functionality by reason of the Expansion and Nature of Things,## called to our attention by the bi-perspective Conjecture).
Venue is important because investment is needed, whether the investment be the destination for taxes or tithes, or for other caring sources. Care because of the support/help >1+ ratio. Help needs more emphasis. Support by itself has not been productive enough for behavioral development. Levels of procedural tech, especially for Mind up front in the next molecular step, are all about adding needed functionality.
Procedural tech, the molecular step, about mettle health. A theoretical construct to complement the concepts of “mental health” and “emotional health” … to strengthen if not replace them. Transition from concept to theory FOR in the service of behavioral development ought to be a major SADB concern and undertaking. Transition from field to discipline.
***
The field of procedural tech is enormous, comprising countless “How to’s”, grouped conceptually by subject matter and/or practitioner craft. In this the field resembles the modestly disciplined cataloguing of entities qua substances by qualities (e.g., minerals by hardness, metals by purity) before the introduction of atomic theory and the Periodic Table.
Thus, the field spectrum of behavior, of needed functionality, of the effects of our conceptual deflation of behavior … from problem to solution, still looks like this
(Problem) f’s-nf’s … +f’s/-f’s // behaviors (Solution)
The ”//” point in the spectrum is pretty much the center of where we are now in B-spacetime. The “f’s/-f’s” (good-bad functionalities) calculus lends itself to decision making and supportive behaviors. The “f’s-nf’s” calculus lends itself to interpreting behaviors as adaptive (e.g., “evolutionary change”) and helpful (ala Edison). “behaviors” are conceptualized instances, some involving procedural techs (patterned ways of doing things). However, needed functionality as what is called for (WICF) is incomplete … as our quality of life tells us. And as our failure to meet the WICF communicability principle demonstrates, which we can infer from “Show; don’t tell.” Which is to say, prefer the difficult (arranging to show needed functionality) to the improbable (i.e., pointing TO that needed functionality via B-speak messaging) when the communicable solution requires mettles (behavioral architecture) not behaviors (i.e., behaviors neither constructed nor deconstructed in molecular step terms).
What of human development? Extending our Selves (sic) vis Mind procedural tech:### Rather than looking, ala evolution, for the “missing link” (i.e., an entity) might we, ought we be looking, developmentally, for the missing length (i.e., of the behavioral spectrum)? Extending our Selves on both (WICF) ends of the behavioral spectrum – in Accord with principles of The Expansion-Nature of Things.
It has been too easy to take an “objective” perspective on Selves, via B-ness and B-speak, to settle for a Grasp of them as conceptual instances, viewed after the fact. Frustrating even theories OF and ABOUT, which tend toward summary. And nothing like our needed explanatory theory FOR.
With respect to our needed functionality as Selves, we are more likely to end up behaviorally with an algorithm, based on these “big data” aggregates, than with the principled guidance we have needed to solve our problems. And still need. Especially the problem of behavior. There are DIF => DIF’s to be found and made, TO and FOR, with which we must extend our Selves. With Bi-ness, not B-ness.
***
The discipline spectrum OF and FOR needed functionality (an agenda for further procedural tech development) is a theoretical series of Conjecture-inspired procedural techs, and looks like this:
(Problem) Expansion (DIFion, discontinuity)-Nature of Things (partial order)… F/NF … f’s-nf’s … +f’s/-f’s
// behaviors … step (I CEM G) … molecular step (mettles) … CEM (Solution)
The bold face markings show us how much has eluded our Grasp of behavior. As problem; as solution. They show the Add-On potential from our application of the Extension principle. (Having pointed out the limitations posed by B-ness and B-speak doesn’t call for their abandonment – just their supplement and refinement.) There is much more to consider, architecturally, if we are to build up our Selves.
The “//” is now the Frontier of the Expansion, and where we are behaviorally in the S-universe. The “F/NF” is the (larger) estimate of needed functionality (the R-zone; “intelligence, “operating system) due to our incompletely instructed condition, given the Conjecture’s Expansion-Nature of Things perspective. The theoretical “step” and “molecular step” are based on the Conjecture’s perspective. The molecular step extends the “I CEM G” feature of the theoretical step to “Mind CEM Move” and beyond, providing an attainable “as one” alternative to One-ness notions (a kind of procedural tech) about needed functionality, past and future.@
The huge aggregate and assortment of behaviors, of all kinds and shapes and lengths, on the solution side and a plethora of choices within and between particular functionalities and dysfunctionalities, on the problem side. Where most of the (deflated) behavioral sciences find themselves. To its left, technologies introduce – when capable and sometimes with the aid of arts, sciences and humanity -- new particular functionalities as needed (which may not find acceptance and adoption … and may add needed functionality).
More Selves, in principle and fruition, are farther to the left and to the right in the behavioral spectrum. Their building requires architecture and art, not just sciences and technologies. They need procedural technologies beyond those indentured to tool technologies. They speak to survival of the fittingest, not just of the fit and fittest. Of Selves: of Individual, Community and Union.
The effect of the Conjectural procedural techs is to free us from the B-ness and B-speak Mind-bind, opening up the World of Possibility (the S-universe) for the endless opportunities of behavioral architecture, to build --- given further procedural tech development of molecular steps. Especially in the Mind sector of the molecular step’s “Mind CEM Move,” where needed strength is wanting. But also further procedural tech development in messaging.@@
We have extended our Mind and Message capacity and capability with respect to bodies in the B-universe, as via telescopic tool technology and the computerized Internet. It’s time to give steps in the S-universe a parallel, companion investment in procedural tech development via the extended pragmatic view of needed functionality … the behavioral spectrum comprising “problem” through “solution.”
***
* Mind needed to wait for communication? To advance from the Mindness of sensOry (“Feel”) to that of sensEry (“Reason”) … improving collision materiality and outcomes beyond the simple adience-abience (e.g., magnetism) of one-step entities.
** Art seems to have done better than science with respect to Mind extension. Cubism and collage exemplify the slice and splice (and in some eyes the swing) of technology -- and significantly, more of the principles of the Expansion than the adamant stand of multi-step observers who treat multi-step behavior in conceptual one-step terms (e.g., “education” as an attribute, grossly measured as years in school).
*** “Selves Against Deflated Behavior” (SADB). In recognition of the damage that has already been done to the human condition and conditions as revealed by the bi-perspective of The Expansion-Nature of Things conjecture, capturing the totality of behavioral materiality, looking along and across the consequences of Big Bang (the big behavior before the big behavior of The Expansion.) BFEPS.org has been an initial endeavor.
# Procedural tech as in the extended pragmatic: inserting DIF’s into the molecular step that make a difference in the DIF => DIF that follows … demonstrating just how contingent a DIF => DIF may be, given the reason(s) for its presence – as in the B-ness constriction on behavior lurking in B-speak.
## Necessity may be the mother of invention, but The Expansion-Nature of Things is the father.
### The capability demanded for the realization of democracy and humanity – for all of quality of life -- requires this extended pragmatic.
@ The Expansion-Nature of Things bi-perspective offers a less One-ness explanation to complement the limited applicability of prediction. The science establishment has One-ness roots in predictive need. Early humans given the responsibility of leadership soon found reason to delegate predictive responsibility (e.g., soothsayer). Just as the technology establishment has roots in the “medicine man,” before its next emergent events as “alchemy.”
@@ The B-ness biased B-speak of our many “natural languages” falls short of the needed functionality required of messages to meet the communicability principle implied by what is called for (WICF). A review of a message’s relevant points helps make this clearer theoretically if not conceptually: point OF (to “inform” -- but to pass information? or to provide intelligence?); point BY (“sender”); point FOR (“receiver”); point AT (“DIF”: to direct attention via name]); point ABOUT (to “identify,” perhaps needed to direct attention if name is not familiar; may address “agency” as well as “identity”); point TO (“DIF => DIF”; or “DIF =>” needed to get “=> DIF” … before or after the fact). B-speak gives point ABOUT too much of a load to carry and is pretty much helpless re points TO (the heart and soul of our extended pragmatic).
(c) 2023 R. F. Carter
It is a fact of life that the last step taken and every previous step taken by multi-step entities were once a next step. Thus to study behavior we must be paradigmatically guided by theory and method which attend to this fact. To behavior before the fact, not just to behaviors after the fact. Hence needed theory FOR, before the fact, not just theory OF, after the fact (via a limited empiricism). Hence needed molecular step procedural technology to guide the building of next step behavior.
This new discipline needs procedural technology to give us strength where we most need it: in our next steps, to be prepared so as to be prepared. Resilience is too little, too late. Human history brims with procedural tech accomplishments, from manners to management, from natural languages to logic. But primarily as practices and processes (behaviors) rather than via a disciplined paradigm linking theory and method re behavior.
Practices and processes that have not come close to solving all our problems. Especially our greatest problem, inventing the “we, the people” that we need to become: our selves (Individual, Community and Union). Contemporary situational pandemic control efforts illustrate this disciplinary need. “Situational” in that our concern is about an immediate needed functionality (nf) and the experience-based presumption that this problem will come again … and that we should be prepared for it. “Control” in that we have -- as usual – faced up to this situational problem too late.
We are not helped by B-speak conceptualization: What, after all, are “problem” and “solution” but needed functionality seen before and after the fact? And not all of either needed functionality as well. But most crucially, lacking theoretical explication … so that we are unreasonably content to assess the human condition in terms of f/-f (good and bad functionality) and f/nf (met and unmet situational needs) while neglecting F/NF (met and unmet total needed functionality).
This in the face of the R-zone, which tells us that we must bring Mind resources to bear where behavioral intelligence must be furnished as well as found.
Evolution’s capacities have not given us all the Mind capability we need. (Nor distributed them equally.) We must develop more Mind capability, and procedural tech is the kind of help we need. (To approach equity.)
Practices, as conceptualized procedural techs, are predicated on primitive procedural techs … which as particular notions and beliefs are not without criticism … and as foundations for behavioral architecture have not been thoroughly analyzed. As evident in our assessment of the human condition with less than a full and accurate Grasp of needed functionality.
Primitive procedural technology has gotten us into this mess. Molecular step procedural technology must get us out.
Procedural techs to be better prepared? Yes. But procedural tech for procedural techs, to be even better prepared. In the R-zone perspective on the Conjecture’s perspective (both procedural techs), this calls for (conceptually speaking) more intelligence to make better use of more than information – i.e., to inform in the absence of information (“Instinct plus outstinct equals extinct”).
What good is the next step option of the human condition if we fail to do more with procedure and tool tech to promote it? By bringing more intelligence, not just more information, to the Mind component in the next molecular step … as we strive to extend the functionality of the step -- as once in the Burgess Shale period the animate body extended its Move capacity profusely to improve its functionality.*
Evolution did us a great service in providing our body CEM step capacity: our all-too-familiar multi-step selves labeled as “behavioral entities.” But it is up to us and to development theory and method -- and of procedural, not just tool, technology -- to take us (theoretically and methodologically) Forward, not just ahead, in capability.
This needed discipline, Behavioral Architecture, is what the behavioral perspective of the Conjecture calls for. Many unbalanced ratios speak for it. Some loudly, because their imbalance is getting worse or has even reached a tipping point. Consider: body/step >1; after the fact/before the fact >1; identity/agency >1; nf/NF >1; (+f/-f)/(F/NF) >!; self/selve >1; tool/procedure >1; decision making/problem solving >1; transport/message >1; consumer/citizen >1.
“Behavioral architecture” because technology must lead the way to more effective problem solving with its Slice, Splice and Swing: principled building. Art and science make – or might and ought to make -- contributions to that technology: art before the fact and science after the fact. That is if science, qua “to know,” is extended to embrace KMmt (where “m” is step design; “M” is procedural tech guiding the molecular step’s design). This theoretical construct, Trial (compare to the conceptual “try”), enables us to find out materiality, when to find it is impossible: i.e., to get the functionality which will not be there unless and until we put it there.**
Academe need not be the only venue for further development of procedural technology. Although like any enterprise which sees itself as an operating system (i.e., as a Selve) it must be concerned with its own behavioral development and not just the behaviors of conditions which it Involves and Grasps. An Institute, within an institution (e.g., the LaFollette program at the University of Wisconsin, Madison) or on its own (e.g., SADB)*** could serve.
Some kind of institutional setting seems needed. Consider the example of the “Earthshot” competition, dedicated to saving Earth and ourselves from impending disaster … and calling for programs to address the matter. A matter of anthropogenesis fundamentally, in that needed functionality is both problem and solution … and a challenge to procedural technology for the Mind and Move of the molecular step# … once the mind-binding of B-ness and B-speak on behavior are Grasped and set aside.
SADB would be the dedicated discipline to extend the behavioral foundations of effective problem solving (BFEPS). These foundations reject the deflated conceptual understanding of behavior (qua instances of behaviors) in favor of the theoretical Grasp of behavior (as needed functionality by reason of the Expansion and Nature of Things,## called to our attention by the bi-perspective Conjecture).
Venue is important because investment is needed, whether the investment be the destination for taxes or tithes, or for other caring sources. Care because of the support/help >1+ ratio. Help needs more emphasis. Support by itself has not been productive enough for behavioral development. Levels of procedural tech, especially for Mind up front in the next molecular step, are all about adding needed functionality.
Procedural tech, the molecular step, about mettle health. A theoretical construct to complement the concepts of “mental health” and “emotional health” … to strengthen if not replace them. Transition from concept to theory FOR in the service of behavioral development ought to be a major SADB concern and undertaking. Transition from field to discipline.
The field of procedural tech is enormous, comprising countless “How to’s”, grouped conceptually by subject matter and/or practitioner craft. In this the field resembles the modestly disciplined cataloguing of entities qua substances by qualities (e.g., minerals by hardness, metals by purity) before the introduction of atomic theory and the Periodic Table.
Thus, the field spectrum of behavior, of needed functionality, of the effects of our conceptual deflation of behavior … from problem to solution, still looks like this
The ”//” point in the spectrum is pretty much the center of where we are now in B-spacetime. The “f’s/-f’s” (good-bad functionalities) calculus lends itself to decision making and supportive behaviors. The “f’s-nf’s” calculus lends itself to interpreting behaviors as adaptive (e.g., “evolutionary change”) and helpful (ala Edison). “behaviors” are conceptualized instances, some involving procedural techs (patterned ways of doing things). However, needed functionality as what is called for (WICF) is incomplete … as our quality of life tells us. And as our failure to meet the WICF communicability principle demonstrates, which we can infer from “Show; don’t tell.” Which is to say, prefer the difficult (arranging to show needed functionality) to the improbable (i.e., pointing TO that needed functionality via B-speak messaging) when the communicable solution requires mettles (behavioral architecture) not behaviors (i.e., behaviors neither constructed nor deconstructed in molecular step terms).
What of human development? Extending our Selves (sic) vis Mind procedural tech:### Rather than looking, ala evolution, for the “missing link” (i.e., an entity) might we, ought we be looking, developmentally, for the missing length (i.e., of the behavioral spectrum)? Extending our Selves on both (WICF) ends of the behavioral spectrum – in Accord with principles of The Expansion-Nature of Things.
It has been too easy to take an “objective” perspective on Selves, via B-ness and B-speak, to settle for a Grasp of them as conceptual instances, viewed after the fact. Frustrating even theories OF and ABOUT, which tend toward summary. And nothing like our needed explanatory theory FOR.
With respect to our needed functionality as Selves, we are more likely to end up behaviorally with an algorithm, based on these “big data” aggregates, than with the principled guidance we have needed to solve our problems. And still need. Especially the problem of behavior. There are DIF => DIF’s to be found and made, TO and FOR, with which we must extend our Selves. With Bi-ness, not B-ness.
The discipline spectrum OF and FOR needed functionality (an agenda for further procedural tech development) is a theoretical series of Conjecture-inspired procedural techs, and looks like this:
// behaviors … step (I CEM G) … molecular step (mettles) … CEM (Solution)
The bold face markings show us how much has eluded our Grasp of behavior. As problem; as solution. They show the Add-On potential from our application of the Extension principle. (Having pointed out the limitations posed by B-ness and B-speak doesn’t call for their abandonment – just their supplement and refinement.) There is much more to consider, architecturally, if we are to build up our Selves.
The “//” is now the Frontier of the Expansion, and where we are behaviorally in the S-universe. The “F/NF” is the (larger) estimate of needed functionality (the R-zone; “intelligence, “operating system) due to our incompletely instructed condition, given the Conjecture’s Expansion-Nature of Things perspective. The theoretical “step” and “molecular step” are based on the Conjecture’s perspective. The molecular step extends the “I CEM G” feature of the theoretical step to “Mind CEM Move” and beyond, providing an attainable “as one” alternative to One-ness notions (a kind of procedural tech) about needed functionality, past and future.@
The huge aggregate and assortment of behaviors, of all kinds and shapes and lengths, on the solution side and a plethora of choices within and between particular functionalities and dysfunctionalities, on the problem side. Where most of the (deflated) behavioral sciences find themselves. To its left, technologies introduce – when capable and sometimes with the aid of arts, sciences and humanity -- new particular functionalities as needed (which may not find acceptance and adoption … and may add needed functionality).
More Selves, in principle and fruition, are farther to the left and to the right in the behavioral spectrum. Their building requires architecture and art, not just sciences and technologies. They need procedural technologies beyond those indentured to tool technologies. They speak to survival of the fittingest, not just of the fit and fittest. Of Selves: of Individual, Community and Union.
The effect of the Conjectural procedural techs is to free us from the B-ness and B-speak Mind-bind, opening up the World of Possibility (the S-universe) for the endless opportunities of behavioral architecture, to build --- given further procedural tech development of molecular steps. Especially in the Mind sector of the molecular step’s “Mind CEM Move,” where needed strength is wanting. But also further procedural tech development in messaging.@@
We have extended our Mind and Message capacity and capability with respect to bodies in the B-universe, as via telescopic tool technology and the computerized Internet. It’s time to give steps in the S-universe a parallel, companion investment in procedural tech development via the extended pragmatic view of needed functionality … the behavioral spectrum comprising “problem” through “solution.”
* Mind needed to wait for communication? To advance from the Mindness of sensOry (“Feel”) to that of sensEry (“Reason”) … improving collision materiality and outcomes beyond the simple adience-abience (e.g., magnetism) of one-step entities.
** Art seems to have done better than science with respect to Mind extension. Cubism and collage exemplify the slice and splice (and in some eyes the swing) of technology -- and significantly, more of the principles of the Expansion than the adamant stand of multi-step observers who treat multi-step behavior in conceptual one-step terms (e.g., “education” as an attribute, grossly measured as years in school).
*** “Selves Against Deflated Behavior” (SADB). In recognition of the damage that has already been done to the human condition and conditions as revealed by the bi-perspective of The Expansion-Nature of Things conjecture, capturing the totality of behavioral materiality, looking along and across the consequences of Big Bang (the big behavior before the big behavior of The Expansion.) BFEPS.org has been an initial endeavor.
# Procedural tech as in the extended pragmatic: inserting DIF’s into the molecular step that make a difference in the DIF => DIF that follows … demonstrating just how contingent a DIF => DIF may be, given the reason(s) for its presence – as in the B-ness constriction on behavior lurking in B-speak.
## Necessity may be the mother of invention, but The Expansion-Nature of Things is the father.
### The capability demanded for the realization of democracy and humanity – for all of quality of life -- requires this extended pragmatic.
@ The Expansion-Nature of Things bi-perspective offers a less One-ness explanation to complement the limited applicability of prediction. The science establishment has One-ness roots in predictive need. Early humans given the responsibility of leadership soon found reason to delegate predictive responsibility (e.g., soothsayer). Just as the technology establishment has roots in the “medicine man,” before its next emergent events as “alchemy.”
@@ The B-ness biased B-speak of our many “natural languages” falls short of the needed functionality required of messages to meet the communicability principle implied by what is called for (WICF). A review of a message’s relevant points helps make this clearer theoretically if not conceptually: point OF (to “inform” -- but to pass information? or to provide intelligence?); point BY (“sender”); point FOR (“receiver”); point AT (“DIF”: to direct attention via name]); point ABOUT (to “identify,” perhaps needed to direct attention if name is not familiar; may address “agency” as well as “identity”); point TO (“DIF => DIF”; or “DIF =>” needed to get “=> DIF” … before or after the fact). B-speak gives point ABOUT too much of a load to carry and is pretty much helpless re points TO (the heart and soul of our extended pragmatic).
(c) 2023 R. F. Carter
S