C-267. “Control” and C.S.
In B-speak the verb “control” has no intransitive. It’s only usage as a verb is the transitive, completing a relationship between “subject” and “object.” Thus, even though “control” is very much about behaviors, it falls short when it comes to behavior. It does not “belong” in the S-universe. But we do, in order to build step capability to meet needed functionality.
In B-speak we do have “self-control,” a noun. An oblique reference, at best, to the operating system we so badly need, given the needed functionality demanded by the Nature of Things. Hence the importance of distinguishing operating system (O.S.) from control system (C.S.). There’s a difference here that makes a difference. And the Expansion’s Frontier “next step” condition in the S-universe is where we can make this distinction clear. Our next step can put Mind after the Move from the previous step. But it might and ought to put Mind in front of Move IN and FOR this next step. And more Mind in front of Mind, and mor Mind in front of them, and….
Behavioral guidance can thus come from one and/or the other of these two Minds – procedurally speaking. It’s to our advantage to distinguish them. Even conceptually. But more importantly, theoretically, as we need to build molecular steps to better serve us in the Mind before Move case.* Which is to say, for guidance in our incompletely instructed condition. For O.S. per se. Not just for an O.S. to manage an ever-growing C.S. set. Not just to discover via Mind technology the informational content which comprises only about half of the Nature of Things’ partial order.
Guidance based on the outcome of the previous behavior is clearly limited to and by the step taken. Of such tries are C.S. constructed. Utilizing a calculus of +f/-f: Do our good behaviors weigh more than our bad behaviors? Operating with a very limited Grasp of needed functionality (e.g., thinking in terms of behaviors not theoretical steps) , attention more to a local B-ness “problematic situation” than to the Forward principles of The Expansion-Nature of Things.**
Self-control? A limited sense of “pragmatic.”*** And more “don’t do this” than “do this.” An unbalanced ratio: C.S./O.S. >1+. If not more. Performance can not be effectively guided by a collection of prohibitions. Even if, tragically, that’s the best that parents, employers and leaders can offer.
Management of Selves, not self, is the better theoretical characterization. “I’ve got mine” (self/Selve >1) is a conservative posture that thwarts the needed development of Community and Union. Self-control is not a Lincoln-like position.
***
* See the Know mettle extended from KT to the molecular KMmT, from try to trial.
** Which is why the Excalibur solution is advanced for the behavioral problem, Pbeh, as an operating system in the S-universe responsive to the fullness of human needed functionality. Which evolution has only partially met. For which behavioral architecture development and Expansion-based technology (independence, ratios, balance, CEM) are still needed.
*** A very limited sense. Which can be attributed to the grossness of “behavior” as a concept, dependent on instances for grounding. Why the pragmatic precept calls for us to slice for differences that make differences in order to strengthen the front of the next step … isolating mettles with which to splice a more effective molecular step.
(c) 2023 R. F. Carter
In B-speak we do have “self-control,” a noun. An oblique reference, at best, to the operating system we so badly need, given the needed functionality demanded by the Nature of Things. Hence the importance of distinguishing operating system (O.S.) from control system (C.S.). There’s a difference here that makes a difference. And the Expansion’s Frontier “next step” condition in the S-universe is where we can make this distinction clear. Our next step can put Mind after the Move from the previous step. But it might and ought to put Mind in front of Move IN and FOR this next step. And more Mind in front of Mind, and mor Mind in front of them, and….
Behavioral guidance can thus come from one and/or the other of these two Minds – procedurally speaking. It’s to our advantage to distinguish them. Even conceptually. But more importantly, theoretically, as we need to build molecular steps to better serve us in the Mind before Move case.* Which is to say, for guidance in our incompletely instructed condition. For O.S. per se. Not just for an O.S. to manage an ever-growing C.S. set. Not just to discover via Mind technology the informational content which comprises only about half of the Nature of Things’ partial order.
Guidance based on the outcome of the previous behavior is clearly limited to and by the step taken. Of such tries are C.S. constructed. Utilizing a calculus of +f/-f: Do our good behaviors weigh more than our bad behaviors? Operating with a very limited Grasp of needed functionality (e.g., thinking in terms of behaviors not theoretical steps) , attention more to a local B-ness “problematic situation” than to the Forward principles of The Expansion-Nature of Things.**
Self-control? A limited sense of “pragmatic.”*** And more “don’t do this” than “do this.” An unbalanced ratio: C.S./O.S. >1+. If not more. Performance can not be effectively guided by a collection of prohibitions. Even if, tragically, that’s the best that parents, employers and leaders can offer.
Management of Selves, not self, is the better theoretical characterization. “I’ve got mine” (self/Selve >1) is a conservative posture that thwarts the needed development of Community and Union. Self-control is not a Lincoln-like position.
* See the Know mettle extended from KT to the molecular KMmT, from try to trial.
** Which is why the Excalibur solution is advanced for the behavioral problem, Pbeh, as an operating system in the S-universe responsive to the fullness of human needed functionality. Which evolution has only partially met. For which behavioral architecture development and Expansion-based technology (independence, ratios, balance, CEM) are still needed.
*** A very limited sense. Which can be attributed to the grossness of “behavior” as a concept, dependent on instances for grounding. Why the pragmatic precept calls for us to slice for differences that make differences in order to strengthen the front of the next step … isolating mettles with which to splice a more effective molecular step.
(c) 2023 R. F. Carter
S