C-265. Quality
Quality, like behavior, is a victim of deflation by B-ness and B-speak. In which usage, quality often finds itself arrayed against quantity. A distraction too, because it fails to forward their bi-ness, which, set out as a ratio, could lead us Forward.
The B-ness version of quality is that of a property, in which the property serves an identifying feature … and/or is that to which quantity applies.
The B-speak version, beyond expressing a B-ness version, is that of conceptual meaning, of an “essence” that is the core around which instances center (e.g., as a family) and speak to. This is the more common form of the “ambiguity of the singular.”
The undeflated (“virgin”) version we need is that of a theoretical principle, a feature of The Expansion-Nature of Things. An enduring feature, of quality without quantity. These principles are Differentiation, Extension, CEM, Partial order, Consequentiality and Discontinuity. Principles, which Grasped, should inspire and guide us as we aspire via behavioral architecture* to build our Selves (aka: the new Excalibur).
Lacking explication, “quality” constitutes a thoughtknot, blocking progress toward meeting the challenge of what is called for (WICF).** “Quality vs. quantity” can hardly be effectively argued with less than full theoretical assistance.
Also there is the matter – materiality – of “quality of quality.” Performance, a capability of multi-step entities, is a quality (of entity) that has itself quality and qualities. Deflating behavior to Grasp only the entity quality and/or to treat that quality “objectively” (to carry forth the B-ness notion) impedes CEM potential.
We need the Involves of The Expansion-Nature of Things Conjecture and S-universe R-transform procedural techs to untie our thoughtknots ... that we may Grasp and Involve their points more productively.
***
* “Behavioral architecture” in B-speak poses yet again the behavior deflation problem. As a “search” query demonstrates, you will be directed to Frank Lloyd Wright more often than to the Wright Bros. Yet though all build behaviors, it is the brothers’ flight building that stands out. Their behavioral procedural technology of research and development is exemplary. (“Behavior architecture” doesn’t work as well as “behavior deflation.” “Architecture of behavior” is the best B-speak can offer. Of course, if everyone were schooled to recognize behavior deflation ….)
** The CEM principle yields a procedural tech in the S-universe to help quality analogous to what mathematics gives us as a procedural tech in the B-universe to help quantity. The CEM principle is evident at both “ends” of the behavioral spectrum. We could show the spectrum as a circle, but that implies a realization of needed functionality that we have not yet achieved. There is way to much missing. Some days, even an arc seems gratuitous.
(c) 2023 R. F. Carter
The B-ness version of quality is that of a property, in which the property serves an identifying feature … and/or is that to which quantity applies.
The B-speak version, beyond expressing a B-ness version, is that of conceptual meaning, of an “essence” that is the core around which instances center (e.g., as a family) and speak to. This is the more common form of the “ambiguity of the singular.”
The undeflated (“virgin”) version we need is that of a theoretical principle, a feature of The Expansion-Nature of Things. An enduring feature, of quality without quantity. These principles are Differentiation, Extension, CEM, Partial order, Consequentiality and Discontinuity. Principles, which Grasped, should inspire and guide us as we aspire via behavioral architecture* to build our Selves (aka: the new Excalibur).
Lacking explication, “quality” constitutes a thoughtknot, blocking progress toward meeting the challenge of what is called for (WICF).** “Quality vs. quantity” can hardly be effectively argued with less than full theoretical assistance.
Also there is the matter – materiality – of “quality of quality.” Performance, a capability of multi-step entities, is a quality (of entity) that has itself quality and qualities. Deflating behavior to Grasp only the entity quality and/or to treat that quality “objectively” (to carry forth the B-ness notion) impedes CEM potential.
We need the Involves of The Expansion-Nature of Things Conjecture and S-universe R-transform procedural techs to untie our thoughtknots ... that we may Grasp and Involve their points more productively.
* “Behavioral architecture” in B-speak poses yet again the behavior deflation problem. As a “search” query demonstrates, you will be directed to Frank Lloyd Wright more often than to the Wright Bros. Yet though all build behaviors, it is the brothers’ flight building that stands out. Their behavioral procedural technology of research and development is exemplary. (“Behavior architecture” doesn’t work as well as “behavior deflation.” “Architecture of behavior” is the best B-speak can offer. Of course, if everyone were schooled to recognize behavior deflation ….)
** The CEM principle yields a procedural tech in the S-universe to help quality analogous to what mathematics gives us as a procedural tech in the B-universe to help quantity. The CEM principle is evident at both “ends” of the behavioral spectrum. We could show the spectrum as a circle, but that implies a realization of needed functionality that we have not yet achieved. There is way to much missing. Some days, even an arc seems gratuitous.
(c) 2023 R. F. Carter
S