C-239. Slice and splice
The key to anatomy (“science”), architecture (“art”) and to get and give help (“humanity”) is our Grasp of the molecular step. In accord with the Involve of Expansion’s principle of differentiation. Just as gene “slice and splice” can define and assist our forward progress in the molecular body’s health, the same can be said to be what is called for by needed functionality for our step’s health.
The Roman arch, still functional 20 centuries later, affords us a visual illustration of slice and splice working together. Its technology shows us how CEM potential can be realized. But what engineering has done for bodies is not matched in our step making and taking. Many instances of behavior are chunky, Stone Age. Sliced, they are just smaller chunks. Not sliced at the mettles. Not an asset to alloying them: to splicing.
Consider, too, ordinary language: a mélange of slices and splices. Thoughtknots and tangles proliferate. Words are too weak for the work they are called upon to do. That work of aiding us in the steps we take, especially those ahead: our next step(s).
Some, prepositions for example, do the work of slice differentiation pretty well (e.g., verb and noun particles). More typical however are spliced words such as “problem,” stitched together from several linguistic roots. Little wonder then that the mention of “a problem” evokes this or that instance rather than signaling a concern for going forward (one of its roots). A point AT rather than a point TO.
Prefixes and suffixes attempt splice differentiation. But at a cost when our steps are not thereby aided. We cannot tolerate such B-ness and B-speak carelessness as, say, to use “solution” (conceptually) to talk about both product and process, confounding them when they differ so much with respect to needed theory FOR: what is called for (WICF) and what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA).*
Neither can we tolerate, within the step, the confounding of the behavioral problem (Pbeh) with the situational problem (Psit), to the neglect and weakness of the “intransitive” verb (re capability) in what is said about (WISA) what is talked about (WITA). Language technology, WISA, must do better than that if messages are to serve up front in the step to inform – where they are needed, given the Nature of Thing’s partial order and our resultant incomplete instruction.
Music has done a much better job of behavioral slicing and splicing – i.e., by score technology. But far too much of human endeavor is unscripted or weakly scripted. For want of an effective operating system: our fundamental problem of anthropogenesis – our problem with problems.
Our next step AT, ON the Frontier is both good news and bad news. Good news in that we enjoy a freedom OF – i.e., liberty. Bad news in that we may lack the capability, the preparation, to make something of it: freedom TO.
***
Splice is the antithesis of the very backward “shaping” characteristic of control systems, in which, after the fact of this or that behavior, attempts are made to improve its functionality … as, for example, by reward and/or punishment regimes.
Splice and slice, together via CEM, are the core of a positive operating system, in Accord with the Nature of Things. With the potential to minimize the O:Ps problem of having to correct the problems due to actions taken. Which, from the Ten Commandments on, has been a principal matter of principle … this control system approach casting a dark pall over the needed operating system.
***
R-sense technology uses R-words as the foundation for the language needed to work in the S-universe. In an R-word primer for the actor’s operating system, Slice and Splice as Compose technologies would come right after the step’s “Involve CEM Grasp” and “Mind CEM Move.” Especially if realized as “Slice CEM Splice.”**
Because R-words each refer to the four phases of functionality re needed functionality, in light of the Nature of Things, they all speak the same – i.e., one – language. Their procedural tech is a given.
***
* And, by confounding, thereby violating the Expansion’s principle of differentiation. Also: differentiation applies not just to WITA. It is about WICF and WTITBTA too: the unrealized expansion that might and ought to come. See human potential. How well we bring it about is the matter of “progress.”
** These seven capitalized words are all R-words – i.e., pertaining to mettles. “Compose” included, as part of our needed procedural technology, with which to establish the molecular step: the structure of process.
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
The Roman arch, still functional 20 centuries later, affords us a visual illustration of slice and splice working together. Its technology shows us how CEM potential can be realized. But what engineering has done for bodies is not matched in our step making and taking. Many instances of behavior are chunky, Stone Age. Sliced, they are just smaller chunks. Not sliced at the mettles. Not an asset to alloying them: to splicing.
Consider, too, ordinary language: a mélange of slices and splices. Thoughtknots and tangles proliferate. Words are too weak for the work they are called upon to do. That work of aiding us in the steps we take, especially those ahead: our next step(s).
Some, prepositions for example, do the work of slice differentiation pretty well (e.g., verb and noun particles). More typical however are spliced words such as “problem,” stitched together from several linguistic roots. Little wonder then that the mention of “a problem” evokes this or that instance rather than signaling a concern for going forward (one of its roots). A point AT rather than a point TO.
Prefixes and suffixes attempt splice differentiation. But at a cost when our steps are not thereby aided. We cannot tolerate such B-ness and B-speak carelessness as, say, to use “solution” (conceptually) to talk about both product and process, confounding them when they differ so much with respect to needed theory FOR: what is called for (WICF) and what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA).*
Neither can we tolerate, within the step, the confounding of the behavioral problem (Pbeh) with the situational problem (Psit), to the neglect and weakness of the “intransitive” verb (re capability) in what is said about (WISA) what is talked about (WITA). Language technology, WISA, must do better than that if messages are to serve up front in the step to inform – where they are needed, given the Nature of Thing’s partial order and our resultant incomplete instruction.
Music has done a much better job of behavioral slicing and splicing – i.e., by score technology. But far too much of human endeavor is unscripted or weakly scripted. For want of an effective operating system: our fundamental problem of anthropogenesis – our problem with problems.
Our next step AT, ON the Frontier is both good news and bad news. Good news in that we enjoy a freedom OF – i.e., liberty. Bad news in that we may lack the capability, the preparation, to make something of it: freedom TO.
Splice is the antithesis of the very backward “shaping” characteristic of control systems, in which, after the fact of this or that behavior, attempts are made to improve its functionality … as, for example, by reward and/or punishment regimes.
Splice and slice, together via CEM, are the core of a positive operating system, in Accord with the Nature of Things. With the potential to minimize the O:Ps problem of having to correct the problems due to actions taken. Which, from the Ten Commandments on, has been a principal matter of principle … this control system approach casting a dark pall over the needed operating system.
R-sense technology uses R-words as the foundation for the language needed to work in the S-universe. In an R-word primer for the actor’s operating system, Slice and Splice as Compose technologies would come right after the step’s “Involve CEM Grasp” and “Mind CEM Move.” Especially if realized as “Slice CEM Splice.”**
Because R-words each refer to the four phases of functionality re needed functionality, in light of the Nature of Things, they all speak the same – i.e., one – language. Their procedural tech is a given.
* And, by confounding, thereby violating the Expansion’s principle of differentiation. Also: differentiation applies not just to WITA. It is about WICF and WTITBTA too: the unrealized expansion that might and ought to come. See human potential. How well we bring it about is the matter of “progress.”
** These seven capitalized words are all R-words – i.e., pertaining to mettles. “Compose” included, as part of our needed procedural technology, with which to establish the molecular step: the structure of process.
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