C-237.2 The Expansion and WTITBTA
Folding the Expansion and S-universe phenomena into the B-universe, by B-ness and B-speak, may not make them completely invisible, but it has clouded our vision of them. B-speak (WISA tech), we have seen, obscures behavioral conditions that belong in the S-universe … where, as mettles, they can be dealt with more productively as theoretical constructs rather than as concepts. And the same difficulty holds for conditions of the Expansion, where the B-ness cloud is even darker.
How dark is the cloud? Many observers and environmental activists envision the human prospect as the achievement of harmony by us with the (other B-ness) things of nature. But as a meta-strategy this fails the Nature of Things … and the need for an operating system to meet its demand for needed functionality to survive in the Expansion: the anthropogenesis problem, the behavioral problem, Pbeh, underlying all our anthropogenic problems.
Consider “creation” stories and myths … however peopled and/or animated. There is a sense of something there, of WTITBTA, but our Grasp (WISA) has been more padded than finely gloved. And our Grasp limited by looking only to the B-universe for answers, and assuming a One-ness there ... with solutions to our problems, even the fundamental behavioral problem, Pbeh.
Consider too some vexing questions that we try to answer in B-ness and B-speak terms: For example, “What is the meaning of life?” Is there direction, purpose? Not any that is apparent in the B-universe. But there is direction in the Expansion: Forward, AT, ON the Frontier. There is purpose and positivity in the S-universe: developing functionality to meet needed functionality.
It seems there is a matter of standing, not just of place, when the Expansion and the S-universe are liberated from B-ness. We have three legs with which to firm up our Grasp, to firm up the stand we take.* And not just with respect to the earth on which we “stand” (instantially, with the help of toes and gravity).**
Consider too, for example, how History per se as the Expansion condition differs from a history – an instance -- as a B-universe condition (“Words’ work: The ambiguity of the singular”). Significantly, History as “Body CEM Step” points TO the Expansion as the source and thread of emergence. The end of History will toll the end of history.
***
* The case for One-ness is limited. In the tradition of Sherlock Holmes, we may have posited multiple hypotheses, expecting evidence to reduce them to but one: the answer and solution. However, in the case of human behavior, we see now that we should entertain a hypothesis of multiple hypotheses re consequentiality – the trio of the Expansion, the B-universe and the S-universe – with the expectation of accepting each of the three as contributing answer and potential solution.
** “Stand” is familiar as a concept with many instances, but it should be an R-word, a theoretical construct, pointing to the Expansion’s Frontier and the S-universe, not just B-universe place. Lacking instruction, given the Nature of Things (i.e., the Expansion), we must do the best we can with information:*** our “fingers” and “toes” for both Grasp and Stand. It’s not just a matter of cleaning out the B-speak dictionary … of what we have misread. Too much we have not read at all. There is too much WTITBTA that we are missing … and it’s not just S-universe WICF. It seems that we may need three, not just two, dictionaries. One for the Expansion too. As for CEM. As for “soul”?
*** Message theory must comprise information from each of the three domains, even though WICF from the S-universe is most compelling. Just as situational problems have seemed more compelling than the basic behavioral problem of anthropogenesis.
In light of the very useful Search feature now available, parenthetical back references are suspended for Comments as of C-184.
(c) 2021 R. F. Carter
How dark is the cloud? Many observers and environmental activists envision the human prospect as the achievement of harmony by us with the (other B-ness) things of nature. But as a meta-strategy this fails the Nature of Things … and the need for an operating system to meet its demand for needed functionality to survive in the Expansion: the anthropogenesis problem, the behavioral problem, Pbeh, underlying all our anthropogenic problems.
Consider “creation” stories and myths … however peopled and/or animated. There is a sense of something there, of WTITBTA, but our Grasp (WISA) has been more padded than finely gloved. And our Grasp limited by looking only to the B-universe for answers, and assuming a One-ness there ... with solutions to our problems, even the fundamental behavioral problem, Pbeh.
Consider too some vexing questions that we try to answer in B-ness and B-speak terms: For example, “What is the meaning of life?” Is there direction, purpose? Not any that is apparent in the B-universe. But there is direction in the Expansion: Forward, AT, ON the Frontier. There is purpose and positivity in the S-universe: developing functionality to meet needed functionality.
It seems there is a matter of standing, not just of place, when the Expansion and the S-universe are liberated from B-ness. We have three legs with which to firm up our Grasp, to firm up the stand we take.* And not just with respect to the earth on which we “stand” (instantially, with the help of toes and gravity).**
Consider too, for example, how History per se as the Expansion condition differs from a history – an instance -- as a B-universe condition (“Words’ work: The ambiguity of the singular”). Significantly, History as “Body CEM Step” points TO the Expansion as the source and thread of emergence. The end of History will toll the end of history.
* The case for One-ness is limited. In the tradition of Sherlock Holmes, we may have posited multiple hypotheses, expecting evidence to reduce them to but one: the answer and solution. However, in the case of human behavior, we see now that we should entertain a hypothesis of multiple hypotheses re consequentiality – the trio of the Expansion, the B-universe and the S-universe – with the expectation of accepting each of the three as contributing answer and potential solution.
** “Stand” is familiar as a concept with many instances, but it should be an R-word, a theoretical construct, pointing to the Expansion’s Frontier and the S-universe, not just B-universe place. Lacking instruction, given the Nature of Things (i.e., the Expansion), we must do the best we can with information:*** our “fingers” and “toes” for both Grasp and Stand. It’s not just a matter of cleaning out the B-speak dictionary … of what we have misread. Too much we have not read at all. There is too much WTITBTA that we are missing … and it’s not just S-universe WICF. It seems that we may need three, not just two, dictionaries. One for the Expansion too. As for CEM. As for “soul”?
*** Message theory must comprise information from each of the three domains, even though WICF from the S-universe is most compelling. Just as situational problems have seemed more compelling than the basic behavioral problem of anthropogenesis.
In light of the very useful Search feature now available, parenthetical back references are suspended for Comments as of C-184.
(c) 2021 R. F. Carter
S