C.266.3. “Government”
Government was the acknowledged reason for the 1787 Constitutional Convention. The 13-state Federation was unable to meet its functional needs. In that sense “government” was a problem then just as it is today.
What is “government”? It has to be Grasped as a solution, not just as a problem* It should be the operating system of some community (selve), from family to nation. Process. But it is typically seen as producer (“them” [against “us”] and source of onerous rules and regulations) or as a product too big and complex (“bureaucracy”).
The term “government” violates the pragmatic precept, failing to distinguish – i.e., slice – differences that make a difference. In B-speak, “government” can be said to point AT producer, process and/or product. Words’ work indeed! There’s something to be said for versatility, but not if some part of it is woefully weak: here the objectified process. The behavior. Or more to the point, the needed next step. Because our conceptual Grasp of behavior, via instances, is weak. We need the theoretical strength of the molecular step: sliced, spliced and swinging -- architecturally in Accord with the Differentiation principle of the Expansion.
The Expansion and the S-universe expose this and similar terms as thoughtknots, tying up the step’s Mind strength. “Agency,” for example, has the same problem. Even though it enjoys more connotative flavor qua urgency. But this is not just a “this or that word” matter. This is B-ness and B-speak at their worst, unbalancing us to the extent of body/step >1+++. Hence the observer fallacy of “upside-down.” Which stems from the “inside-out” observer fallacy, by which behavior is seen deflated and not Grasped as steps: rather as a property of the body (“behavioral entity,” intransitive verb) and/or of the relationship between bodies (transitive verb).**
Lincoln’s judicious employment of prepositions: OF, BY and FOR (the people) turns our attention toward needed functionality and steps: BY => FOR the Expansion’s Frontier steps, which are open to development (whoops! Have we missed that?). Beyond those steps within the body given us by evolution (whoops! Have we missed that?)***
Not just OF the people, especially not looking backwards at behavioral instances, limiting the pragmatic precept yet again to commonplace pragmatism: focus of attention on behavioral results to the neglect of differences within and upfront in the step that might, ought to make a difference.#
Three major fallacies with B-ness and B-speak! Which, together with the assumption of One-ness (as in “The Universe”), make clear our need to change everything.## They have given us only part of what we need, of all that it takes. Frustrating WICF. And they have obscured what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA).
***
Speaking “objectively,” governments make investments in their and our future. Government sponsored research has had tremendous impact via tool technology on our quality of life. The Internet is exemplary. But it too is shameful: as much problem as solution. Enough so that we have reason to provide initiative and support for a parallel program for procedural technology.
For a discipline of procedural technology. In which fields as disparate as engineering and philosophy, as design and polity, can find common cause. The plethora of cultures and their languages speak to the profusion of practices -- developed ad hoc, characterized after the fact conceptually – which we tolerate (or not) in lieu of a theoretically Grasped and grounded needed functionality.
We have not treated behavior (the essence of The Expansion!) fairly.
***
* Seen as problem type “O:Ps”: a problem deriving from a solution. And not more narrowly conceptualized. Within the broader perspective of The Expansion-Nature of Things conjecture, it becomes apparent that behavioral questions should attend to the “two-faced” materiality of IN consequence and OF consequence.
** Which we might and ought to say in light of the Nature of Things: “Life is more material than lives.”
** “-ment,” “-ion”: B-speak makes it difficult to speak of its and B-ness’ faults. Add that to Wittgenstein’s observation about observations. As if the ambiguity of the singular -- and of the plural (“we”) -- were not quagmire and escarpment enough! B-speak is corrupt in many ways, infested with thoughtknots. It makes sense for us to further corrupt it (e.g., R-word capitalization, multiple prepositioning, noun particles) to bring closer the day when it is cleansed and complemented by R-speak.
# See Eve’s lament.
## Starting with Big Bang putting an end to One-ness. After that, any similarity can be considered a difference. A difference in Accord with the Nature of Things: IN and OF consequence. A difference that may make a difference. But not all the difference: not a One-ness – the conceit of too many observers and actors. Not given the ample evidence of needed functionality. Especially given the incomplete instruction partial order affords body-discontinuous and step-discontinuous conditions in the Expansion … and the threat of hard collisions, the possibility of avoided collisions and the possibility of arranged collisions. And the need for us to inform our selves. Incomplete instruction means we cannot find all the knowledge we need in what is given us. We have to produce knowledge, preferably by procedural tech-assisted Trials rather than weakly informed tries.
(c) 2023 R. F. Carter
What is “government”? It has to be Grasped as a solution, not just as a problem* It should be the operating system of some community (selve), from family to nation. Process. But it is typically seen as producer (“them” [against “us”] and source of onerous rules and regulations) or as a product too big and complex (“bureaucracy”).
The term “government” violates the pragmatic precept, failing to distinguish – i.e., slice – differences that make a difference. In B-speak, “government” can be said to point AT producer, process and/or product. Words’ work indeed! There’s something to be said for versatility, but not if some part of it is woefully weak: here the objectified process. The behavior. Or more to the point, the needed next step. Because our conceptual Grasp of behavior, via instances, is weak. We need the theoretical strength of the molecular step: sliced, spliced and swinging -- architecturally in Accord with the Differentiation principle of the Expansion.
The Expansion and the S-universe expose this and similar terms as thoughtknots, tying up the step’s Mind strength. “Agency,” for example, has the same problem. Even though it enjoys more connotative flavor qua urgency. But this is not just a “this or that word” matter. This is B-ness and B-speak at their worst, unbalancing us to the extent of body/step >1+++. Hence the observer fallacy of “upside-down.” Which stems from the “inside-out” observer fallacy, by which behavior is seen deflated and not Grasped as steps: rather as a property of the body (“behavioral entity,” intransitive verb) and/or of the relationship between bodies (transitive verb).**
Lincoln’s judicious employment of prepositions: OF, BY and FOR (the people) turns our attention toward needed functionality and steps: BY => FOR the Expansion’s Frontier steps, which are open to development (whoops! Have we missed that?). Beyond those steps within the body given us by evolution (whoops! Have we missed that?)***
Not just OF the people, especially not looking backwards at behavioral instances, limiting the pragmatic precept yet again to commonplace pragmatism: focus of attention on behavioral results to the neglect of differences within and upfront in the step that might, ought to make a difference.#
Three major fallacies with B-ness and B-speak! Which, together with the assumption of One-ness (as in “The Universe”), make clear our need to change everything.## They have given us only part of what we need, of all that it takes. Frustrating WICF. And they have obscured what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA).
Speaking “objectively,” governments make investments in their and our future. Government sponsored research has had tremendous impact via tool technology on our quality of life. The Internet is exemplary. But it too is shameful: as much problem as solution. Enough so that we have reason to provide initiative and support for a parallel program for procedural technology.
For a discipline of procedural technology. In which fields as disparate as engineering and philosophy, as design and polity, can find common cause. The plethora of cultures and their languages speak to the profusion of practices -- developed ad hoc, characterized after the fact conceptually – which we tolerate (or not) in lieu of a theoretically Grasped and grounded needed functionality.
We have not treated behavior (the essence of The Expansion!) fairly.
* Seen as problem type “O:Ps”: a problem deriving from a solution. And not more narrowly conceptualized. Within the broader perspective of The Expansion-Nature of Things conjecture, it becomes apparent that behavioral questions should attend to the “two-faced” materiality of IN consequence and OF consequence.
** Which we might and ought to say in light of the Nature of Things: “Life is more material than lives.”
** “-ment,” “-ion”: B-speak makes it difficult to speak of its and B-ness’ faults. Add that to Wittgenstein’s observation about observations. As if the ambiguity of the singular -- and of the plural (“we”) -- were not quagmire and escarpment enough! B-speak is corrupt in many ways, infested with thoughtknots. It makes sense for us to further corrupt it (e.g., R-word capitalization, multiple prepositioning, noun particles) to bring closer the day when it is cleansed and complemented by R-speak.
# See Eve’s lament.
## Starting with Big Bang putting an end to One-ness. After that, any similarity can be considered a difference. A difference in Accord with the Nature of Things: IN and OF consequence. A difference that may make a difference. But not all the difference: not a One-ness – the conceit of too many observers and actors. Not given the ample evidence of needed functionality. Especially given the incomplete instruction partial order affords body-discontinuous and step-discontinuous conditions in the Expansion … and the threat of hard collisions, the possibility of avoided collisions and the possibility of arranged collisions. And the need for us to inform our selves. Incomplete instruction means we cannot find all the knowledge we need in what is given us. We have to produce knowledge, preferably by procedural tech-assisted Trials rather than weakly informed tries.
(c) 2023 R. F. Carter
S