C-264. Beliefs, notions and gambling
The next step AT, ON the Frontier of The – and our – Expansion offers an opportunity to make changes in our own behavior, not just that of other conditions. A priceless opportunity that we may gamble away. How? By adopting a tactic, strategy or even a metastrategy that is based on a precedent procedural technology … one which, as long as it is in force, may negate this next step opportunity. And if we persist in an unexamined belief or a notion, for as long as we continue to bypass the next step option.
As Emerson says, “Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” But the R-zone, where we don’t know what we don’t know, is not a comfortable place. It breeds notions. Something to stand on or hang on to. Something precedent. Unless we come to make the R-zone less forbidding – if not totally comfortable … by strengthening our step making and taking (more Adept) to make the most of our next-step option and our lives. By looking TO and AT the procedural techs that have got us here .... and FOR procedural techs that could help us go forward.
Beliefs and notions, “ideas” conceptually speaking. To believe is necessary to get from Mind to Move in the molecular step. Before the fact … AT, ON the Frontier in the S-universe. As noted by the concept of “commitment,” which Brehm and Cohen say plays an important role in Festinger’s dissonance theory about psychological distress after the fact of commitment. Which Peirce says is why behaviors (moves) make clear the meaning of words and ideas (mind).*
But a belief, like a notion, also contributes a procedural technology for subsequent procedural techs. A precedent procedural tech, with an emphasis on precedent. Enveloping and isolating them. Rationalizing practices. It may serve explanation as a needed functionality, before the fact and not just after the fact.** But not always well. Perhaps because a belief qua product is, like “believe,” an S-universe phenomenon being treated with B-speak as if it were a B-universe phenomenon (i.e., a kind of thing).
In pragmatic terms, “belief” points TO “DIF =>” and emphasizes “DIF => DIF.” These lend themselves to “causal” conceptualization. However, we also need to Grasp it (or a more appropriate R-word) as a “=> DIF” phenomenon to see where it comes from and, as needed functionality, see it via the behavioral spectrum as both problem and solution. In the S-universe, in The Expansion.
We pay a price for practices: perspectives, habits, customs and many other procedural techs. They should earn it. So should notions and beliefs who serve as precedents for them. Notions like B-ness and One-ness are big bets. They are exacting a terrible cost. Perhaps a terror of the “unknown” (R-zone?) or even an embarrassing situational experience of self-weakness justifies this major investment IN and OF self … in contrast to making investments in Selves development (Individual, Community and Union) via behavioral architecture.
Selve-censorship, blocking our development, is risked with adopted precedent procedurals techs. Most critically, forfeiting the promise and exercise of our “next step” option. Enough so as to justify our distinguishing theories OF from theories FOR: Multi-step behavior needs a different frame and lens than one-step behavior – the course of institutional science notwithstanding.
The B-ness perspective has not helped S-universe development. We should be working there as professional observers behaviorally (sic) and not just objectively in how we see materiality. (“Subjectively,” after all, is the other side of the “objectively” coin – not that coin’s alternative.) Modern communication technology, with its “transport/message >1++ ratio, extends the B-ness bias already embedded in B-speak.
One-ness actually has a better case in the S-universe. It can point TO the step’s needed singularity of direction (VIII). It represents a balanced ratio. It points TO the endpoint of a functional endeavor that begins with zero – i.e., need. It resonates more with quality than with quantity.
***
Let’s consider the effect on how we see “behavior” conceptually or theoretically according to precedent procedural techs – i.e., notions, beliefs and ideas acting as precedent procedural techs re procedural techs, whether understood as such or not. Varying too in the extent of their censorship, as by their institutionalization.
***
There’s a reason people bet at the gaming table, even when aware of the odds. It’s not just the attraction of a rich payoff -- which may be understood that if obtained, will shower one with unwanted attention and demands. That reason is because there are worse bets. The odds in life, says Runyan, are worse: “seven to five against.” And there are even worse bets: B-ness; One-ness.
Some notions have a flavor of “gambling it all.” “It all” being one’s life. Thus are B-ness and One-ness risky business.. Mind-binding to a fault. It’s insanity what these precedent techs do to Mind’s strength. “Mental health” is suffocated by the lack of mettle health … mettle health which by principle lends itself to building the Selves (Individual, Community and Union****), the functionality we need to realize freedom TO.
“Emotional health” suffers too. In the absence of mettle health, Mind still remains at the sensOry (capacity) level, not advancing to the sensEry (capability) level of development. Not enough positivity – i.e., build. Not enough architecture of behavior. Designs bereft of design. Information without intelligence.
B-speak in consequence of B-ness is not exempt from criticism as a “beneath bet.” Foundational as languages are to communication and WICF, these procedural techs are betting that identity/agency >!+ (behaviors as things) is a winner, that deflating behavior in favor of objectivity poses no danger.# But B-speak’s deflated-behavior concepts are a threat to behavioral development. The cognitive flip-flop of concept and instance (concept points TO instances; instances point TO concept) is circular: going nowhere, a summary tech not a theoretical tech. There’s a reason it is said, ”Talk is cheap.“##
***
* See the “butterfly’s fluttering wing” B-speak version of this precedent effect.
** Guidance: the explanation we need before the fact, AT and ON the Frontier. In the R-zone, in need of Reason … flooded with reasons and/or co-opted by a reason. Product(s) when we need process.
*** Community first. Being, by way of step making, the best introduction to behavioral architecture. For which Union – i.e., Individual CEM Community – can serve as clarion call for behavioral architecture with which to build Selves. Preferably with the help of molecular step mettles, to increase the likelihood that WICF’s communicability principle is heeded: needed functionality can be Grasped by and for communication.
# But this is the same danger as betting on tool tech development over procedural tech development. When lack of procedural tech development is responsible for many of our troubles! We need to see (apply PP) that there is more than one brand of “objectivity” … that orientation which favors entity over behavior is Selve-destructive. Selves need development, not just situation-charged evolution.
## We can add to the bet – and risk -- if we emphasize Learn over Know. This is not advocacy for more practice, which is itself more a matter of learned than of known. There is more to agency., to behavior (i.e., needed functionality) than practices – i.e., behaviors. Pointing TO this needed functionality requires theory FOR … even as we use B-speak to try to get this message across.
(c) 2023 R. F. Carter
As Emerson says, “Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” But the R-zone, where we don’t know what we don’t know, is not a comfortable place. It breeds notions. Something to stand on or hang on to. Something precedent. Unless we come to make the R-zone less forbidding – if not totally comfortable … by strengthening our step making and taking (more Adept) to make the most of our next-step option and our lives. By looking TO and AT the procedural techs that have got us here .... and FOR procedural techs that could help us go forward.
Beliefs and notions, “ideas” conceptually speaking. To believe is necessary to get from Mind to Move in the molecular step. Before the fact … AT, ON the Frontier in the S-universe. As noted by the concept of “commitment,” which Brehm and Cohen say plays an important role in Festinger’s dissonance theory about psychological distress after the fact of commitment. Which Peirce says is why behaviors (moves) make clear the meaning of words and ideas (mind).*
But a belief, like a notion, also contributes a procedural technology for subsequent procedural techs. A precedent procedural tech, with an emphasis on precedent. Enveloping and isolating them. Rationalizing practices. It may serve explanation as a needed functionality, before the fact and not just after the fact.** But not always well. Perhaps because a belief qua product is, like “believe,” an S-universe phenomenon being treated with B-speak as if it were a B-universe phenomenon (i.e., a kind of thing).
In pragmatic terms, “belief” points TO “DIF =>” and emphasizes “DIF => DIF.” These lend themselves to “causal” conceptualization. However, we also need to Grasp it (or a more appropriate R-word) as a “=> DIF” phenomenon to see where it comes from and, as needed functionality, see it via the behavioral spectrum as both problem and solution. In the S-universe, in The Expansion.
We pay a price for practices: perspectives, habits, customs and many other procedural techs. They should earn it. So should notions and beliefs who serve as precedents for them. Notions like B-ness and One-ness are big bets. They are exacting a terrible cost. Perhaps a terror of the “unknown” (R-zone?) or even an embarrassing situational experience of self-weakness justifies this major investment IN and OF self … in contrast to making investments in Selves development (Individual, Community and Union) via behavioral architecture.
Selve-censorship, blocking our development, is risked with adopted precedent procedurals techs. Most critically, forfeiting the promise and exercise of our “next step” option. Enough so as to justify our distinguishing theories OF from theories FOR: Multi-step behavior needs a different frame and lens than one-step behavior – the course of institutional science notwithstanding.
The B-ness perspective has not helped S-universe development. We should be working there as professional observers behaviorally (sic) and not just objectively in how we see materiality. (“Subjectively,” after all, is the other side of the “objectively” coin – not that coin’s alternative.) Modern communication technology, with its “transport/message >1++ ratio, extends the B-ness bias already embedded in B-speak.
One-ness actually has a better case in the S-universe. It can point TO the step’s needed singularity of direction (VIII). It represents a balanced ratio. It points TO the endpoint of a functional endeavor that begins with zero – i.e., need. It resonates more with quality than with quantity.
Let’s consider the effect on how we see “behavior” conceptually or theoretically according to precedent procedural techs – i.e., notions, beliefs and ideas acting as precedent procedural techs re procedural techs, whether understood as such or not. Varying too in the extent of their censorship, as by their institutionalization.
- As a move, given a transactional perspective.
- As a movement, given a B-spacetime perspective (e.g., “Behaviorism”).
- As conduct, given a control system perspective.
- As character, given a B-ness perspective (e.g., cultures).
- As fate, given a One-ness perspective.
- As dependence, mathematically (e.g., X = f[Y]).
- As a stage, conceptually (e.g., progress, growth).
- As a step, theoretically (i.e., step’s Involve CEM Grasp).
- As needed functionality, theoretically, given the Conjecture’s bi-perspective: The Expansion-Nature of Things (e.g., the behavioral spectrum).
There’s a reason people bet at the gaming table, even when aware of the odds. It’s not just the attraction of a rich payoff -- which may be understood that if obtained, will shower one with unwanted attention and demands. That reason is because there are worse bets. The odds in life, says Runyan, are worse: “seven to five against.” And there are even worse bets: B-ness; One-ness.
Some notions have a flavor of “gambling it all.” “It all” being one’s life. Thus are B-ness and One-ness risky business.. Mind-binding to a fault. It’s insanity what these precedent techs do to Mind’s strength. “Mental health” is suffocated by the lack of mettle health … mettle health which by principle lends itself to building the Selves (Individual, Community and Union****), the functionality we need to realize freedom TO.
“Emotional health” suffers too. In the absence of mettle health, Mind still remains at the sensOry (capacity) level, not advancing to the sensEry (capability) level of development. Not enough positivity – i.e., build. Not enough architecture of behavior. Designs bereft of design. Information without intelligence.
B-speak in consequence of B-ness is not exempt from criticism as a “beneath bet.” Foundational as languages are to communication and WICF, these procedural techs are betting that identity/agency >!+ (behaviors as things) is a winner, that deflating behavior in favor of objectivity poses no danger.# But B-speak’s deflated-behavior concepts are a threat to behavioral development. The cognitive flip-flop of concept and instance (concept points TO instances; instances point TO concept) is circular: going nowhere, a summary tech not a theoretical tech. There’s a reason it is said, ”Talk is cheap.“##
* See the “butterfly’s fluttering wing” B-speak version of this precedent effect.
** Guidance: the explanation we need before the fact, AT and ON the Frontier. In the R-zone, in need of Reason … flooded with reasons and/or co-opted by a reason. Product(s) when we need process.
*** Community first. Being, by way of step making, the best introduction to behavioral architecture. For which Union – i.e., Individual CEM Community – can serve as clarion call for behavioral architecture with which to build Selves. Preferably with the help of molecular step mettles, to increase the likelihood that WICF’s communicability principle is heeded: needed functionality can be Grasped by and for communication.
# But this is the same danger as betting on tool tech development over procedural tech development. When lack of procedural tech development is responsible for many of our troubles! We need to see (apply PP) that there is more than one brand of “objectivity” … that orientation which favors entity over behavior is Selve-destructive. Selves need development, not just situation-charged evolution.
## We can add to the bet – and risk -- if we emphasize Learn over Know. This is not advocacy for more practice, which is itself more a matter of learned than of known. There is more to agency., to behavior (i.e., needed functionality) than practices – i.e., behaviors. Pointing TO this needed functionality requires theory FOR … even as we use B-speak to try to get this message across.
(c) 2023 R. F. Carter
S