PROF. RICHARD F. CARTER

Lincoln, we say, saved the Union. But that was the Union which had been attained to that point. In Realization terms (App. XIX, XX:N-2; C-107,111), an incompletely realized Union. As we should be reminded if we heed the opening lines in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution – i.e., “… in order to form a more perfect union.” And as subsequent U.S. history (e.g., the dysfunctions of the Reconstruction period, the politics/polity >1, decision making/problem solving >1 and power/strength >1 imbalances (XI; App. XVII) on the current national and state scenes) has demonstrated.

We must strengthen our problem solving capability, for the behavioral problem as well as for our many situational problems (I), both individually and collectively. This rather than acquiescing to the decline and fall of the Union (C-51), as the decision making/problem solving ratio increases – perhaps to a tipping point from which we cannot recover, we must do what we can to build up our strength.

Hence an “R’ political party. To help carry on the saving of the Union by building its strength. And with it, ourss individually as well. As the Vilnius Declaration states it – albeit only in weak conceptual terms (C-124), we must be(come) innovative in organization and institution.

An “R” political party because it is by Realization (App. XIX) that we can become stronger problem solvers. Solutions must be composed – not just selected (ala decision making). Composition is what the R-transform (C-111), R-sense (C-128) and R-protocols (C-151) offer to help with the needed technology of collective problem solving, to compose molecular steps (“terms of engagement”), along with manufactured molecular bodies and step-taking bodies (III).

What is called for, the needed functionality (C-110,144) is not an aggregate of political ”Independents.” Not if the so-called Independents are but the undecided among decision makers. Not if the so-called Independents passively deem themselves without efficacy. Not if the Independents function only as a voting (or frustrated nonvoting) aggregate … and who are not engaged in Realizing themselves as a Union (C-107, 112), as that R-entity, RE (C-147) which a democracy is meant to become via development. (See “Public” as an R-entity: “We, the people…”)

“Originalism” as a doctrine applies to the Preamble’s point of “…to form a more perfect Union…” as well as to the directive points set out in the content of the Constitution. The latter might well be seen as having a contingent status*. Which is to say that their continued directive force rests on the service they render the Preamble’s specification of needed functionality.** Jefferson’s periodic “revolutions” view seems apt here, albeit with reservations about timing. (See “When” discussion in the * note.)

Conduct in the Constitutional Convention was itself drenched in decision making’s politicking. And so too was the Constitution’s content so imbued (e.g., arguing for a balance of power among the three branches). This despite the purposive, progressive thrust of problem solving explicit in the Preamble. From a Realization perspective (C-111), the conduct of the Convention and the content of the Constitution were both technological developments toward achieving the best solutions for their Union’s behavioral and situational problems (I). Precisely that. Just that. Needed functionality (III; C-144), which would only cascade (C-115), dictates that these were but steps toward becoming a more perfect Union, a Union capable of all that Realization takes (II; App. XIX). A cascade of needed functionality that is now met ad hoc … compositionally as by rules and regulations, by executive orders, “judicial activism” and other “trappings of big government” (a muddled bE perspective [C-114], rather than an progressive RE [C-147] perspective).

Saving the Union by strengthening it is complicated, then and now, because the U.S. union-building enterprise comprises the state-nation and individual-state relationships in addition to the individual-nation relationship. (And now more complications arise, because corporations have been given legal status as individuals, with consequences such as the “Citizens United” Supreme Court decision and its impact re decision making [e.g., turning the volume up on negative campaigning].)

An “R” political party, however named (e.g., “Union,” “Progressive,” “independent,” “Freedom,” “Realization,” “Frontier,” “Pioneer,” “Excalibur”), because the way back from the precipice of decision making to effective problem solving needs pathfinders (C-119: Pioneers) to show the tempered (C-149: Excalibur) way. An “R” party should be exemplary in its approach to solving its own behavioral problem (I) of forming a more perfect union. Years of Utopian effort make it clear that a community of interest, even of concern, is not all that it takes (II) to attain the interdependency demanded of a Union ... and of any community that is more (i.e., more an R-entity) than a bE gathering. There is more to Realizing a functional Union (C-112) than some notions of “unity” suggest (e.g., metaphorically “as one” [C-23]). Such interdependence strengthens the Involved partners as well as their partnership. Further, work toward composing interdependence can have the effect of reducing any imbalance of developmental emphasis in the relationship’s participants.

An “R” political party, by making the Realization of Union manifest in its own process of composition, serves us in the manner familiar to us via telescopes and microscopes. It broadens our exposure (e.g., “new horizons”) by making apparent conditions of consequence. So when we speak of R-sense, we want (because we need) to expand “common sense” beyond propositions that apply to situational problems (i.e., tested solutions) to a better Grasp of how we, individually and collectively, should approach the behavioral problem of needed, but not available, functionality (aka new solutions). (Another avenue to developing R-sense, beginning among the very young, is set forth in App. XXIII: R-blocks.)

* The Declaration of Independence’s “When in the course of human events…” points immediately to a contingency aspect re what will be emergent – i.e., the then forthcoming Revolution. (See App. XI and passim re CEM history: contingent emergent materiality.) When is also implicit in the Preamble’s beginning, “We, the people, in order to…” Further, it can also be seen as implicit in light of the Course (C-139) of CEM-history (App. XI). Thus: When, from the course of human events it becomes evident … has a part to play here. Consider then this point: The Constitution has an implicit Article to the effect that structural revision, whether by amendment or otherwise, can and shall be undertaken if needed functionality is not met. New composition, a Realization process generality, is not the antithesis of particular old compositions. Needed functionality changes. It’s not just a matter of differences (C-138: e.g., switching among available solutions). And it grows.*** (“When … then” [e.g., note the phenomenon of “quickness”] is especially relevant to the human condition. Together with “if … then” it is refracted in the orthogonality, and potential complementarity, of the ahistorical and historical perspectives (C-107). Thus, for example, we might address a problem via “if … then” as a condition having a negative [ahistorical] value and apply, or seek, a positive value condition – however and by whoever or whatever realized -- to resolve it. [See the V- transform, C-154, and various V-protocols.] Or we might address a problem via “when … then” as a condition whose resolution requires [historical] Realization.) To speak of a “living constitution” is to acknowledge its, and the human condition’s, history -- future as well as past. Realization of Union is an unending challenge, in which new compositions of, and reconstructions of existing, step molecules and of manufactured step-taking body molecules must figure. New solutions must be composed, for new problems and the still-unsolved old problems (0). Too much can be made of the Constitution as a document – i.e., as an L-protocol, when it becomes clear that a discrepancy (VIII) obtains between this linguistic transform product (C-156) and the Realization (of Union) it was and is designed to serve.#

** The act of adopting this – or any – Constitution cautions us to consider the metastrategic implications. ADOPT (Ao), we have pointed out, is but one of three comprehensive behavioral strategies (App. IV; C-9: the “3A’s”) the other two being ADAPT (Aa) and ADEPT (Ae). Commitment to an “Ao only” policy carries risks. To form a more perfect Union, to deal with the behavioral problems of individual -- state relationships, of individual – nation relationships, and of state – nation relationships … for which the Constitution was composed, Ae was and is required. Any imbalance (XI; C-148) among Ae, Aa and Ao can be dysfunctional and thwart further development of their potentially productive interdependence (C-71). “Originalism” as concept and/or theory might helpfully evoke a broader discussion of “origin” with respect to what is talked about, what is said about and what is called for (C-156: WITA, WISA and WICF) than we deal with here. (See C- 160.)

*** There is no end to needed functionality, NF. With each new functionality, just of new persons and their functionality (whatever that functionality’s origin), there comes a need for further functionality (C-115). But new kinds of functionality are always needed … to “… establish justice, assure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…” New kinds of functionality that may be composed structures of step and/or body, of procedures and/or entities. Composed structures which, in light of unRealized NF, given the current quality of life (0) with its unsolved problems, must be regarded as provisional … as steps forward in our continuing effort to know by trying (C-93).

# Our composed structures, of step and/or manufactured body, can be and typically are seen as behavioral entities, bE, such that “is as does” holds, as for identification (e.g., in the cyclotron’s cloud chamber). But with respect to Realization, as for Union, we don’t want to equate structure with function (S=F). We need the strength of S F interdependence, for needed functionality (e.g., capabilities) to instruct emergent structures, not just for structures, bE, to dictate functionality … not when it is both possible and necessary that structure (e.g., protocols) can help functional development (C-90: behavioral architecture – because steps re NF can and must be made, not just taken). We need Realization’s and Union’s “” strength (XI; C-71,146). We need to see, for ourselves individually and/or collectively, the need to become an R-entity, with an R-sense.
***
How do we go about redressing the imbalance of politics over polity … when Realizing a more effective polity, that more perfect Union, is key to solving our shared problems? When polity indicators, such as control system/operating system >1+ (C-36,148), should be Read as more than suggestive that our Course should reviewed? How do we get to the work of problem solving, away from dysfunctional partisan politics, abetted by the clog of functional imbalances as decision making and the power to make decisions have become the climate of the day (C-98), giving negativity in electioneering its sway? A negativity that adds R-erosion (C-125) to the erosive effects on Union of each electoral decision (e.g., a seeming lack of efficacy among the defeated). (Why we value a commitment to go forward that is an agreement based on an understanding.)

It seems we must start from where we are, imbedded in partisan politics. We must find a way to Realize polity via political means.

Strategically, one path we should follow is to not win elections. It should be to prevent other parties from winning unless they bring themselves, as well as the nation, into a balanced and effective interdependency between decision making et al (e.g., power) and problem solving (e.g., strength). In contemporary politics multi-party structures may try to exert power by forging coalitions among (more or less) congenial voter aggregates. (They have not developed themselves all that much as R-entities. They are indisposed to partnership in problem solving.)

A virtue – and value – of LaFollette Progressivism was that it avoided the Utopian and Marxist fallacies with respected to composed structures, the expectation in the first instance that NF could be fully and finally satisfied by any structure composed to express a set of values, the expectation in the second instance that any structure could justify the means by which it would come to replace an existing structure. (The R-erosion from regime overthrows is massive.) LaFollette Progressivism, with its emphasis on problem solving, readily lent itself to adoption -- at least in part -- by existing political parties … although not always happily or completely, but effectively. LaFollette Progressivism was and is consonant with Realization, a potential political R-entity with its foundation in NF, its R-sense (C-128) openness to further development and its disdain for cookie-cutter structural solutions like Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Capitalism, et al.

Politics, it has been said, is a local matter. Here then, is another path to take. A more perfect Union has never been just about the individual citizen – nation relationship. About how to win national elections. (Although the Bill of Rights quickly focused on adjustments for the citizen-nation relationship.) There were, and still are, concerns about the state-nation relationship.

We can speak generally about individual-community relationships, whether the individual is a person, corporation or state, whether the community is a township, a county, a state, a nation or some other “company” (i.e., from partnership and friendship to any institution or organization). But we have seen (C-112) that Union provides the effective functionality by which communities come into being and thrive. That needed functionality without which communities decline and fall (C-51). That Union which can only be saved by strengthening, by further development … because achieved functionality adds further needed functionality. Lincoln’s save needs a save from us too. (“Ask not what your country can do for you…”)

Union is a compositional accomplishment, as much of step as of body (indeed in consequence of effected interdependence of step and body). A matter of Realization, that is. Realization is a view of the human condition that applies to both individual, however stipulated, and community, however stipulated. So how about this new political party promoting a “Pledge of Realization” to accompany the Pledge of Allegiance, locally and more broadly, for school children? Something like:

“I pledge to make the most of myself and my country.”

What we aim for here is to extend our ”common sense.” The common sense with which we are most familiar is the agreements we have, as to use for decision making, about which available solutions have demonstrated their effectiveness. The common sense still needed is the R-sense, a sense to be shared about how we can better solve our problems, individually and collectively, situational and behavioral (I).

Union is a behavioral problem … that problem which imposes itself on the solution to every situational problem (C-1). Democracy requires us to solve the behavioral problem – lest we lapse fecklessly against the importuning cookie-cutter polity structures and their advocates.


FOOTNOTES (RELATED MATERIALS):