C-245. Feel
Some words in ordinary language, such as “move” and “mind,” are readily seen as referring to both B-universe and S-universe conditions. Needed functionality and mettles in the S-universe are as readily apparent as instances in the B-universe. Whereas these terms would be theoretical constructs in the S-universe they are concepts in B-speak. Treated as R-words they are at hand to be used as theoretical constructs, especially re theory FOR, in accord with the actor’s point of view and perspective.*
“Feel” is such a 2-universe contributor. Importantly so in a helpful way. Early on historically, sensOry feel (e.g., pain) was a primary Mind capacity for behavioral entities. Not just for the outcomes of primitive body moves by self and others, but also for an R-sense of the behavior in progress.
There is a clear difference between the body’s feel and the step’s feel (e.g., imbalance). Enough to justify coining the terms “sensOry” and “sensEry” to mark the difference. Enough to urge scrutiny of concepts like “grief” and “emotion” for this capacity/capability duality of Feel ... and to consider them as mettle ore**. Enough to see the double meaning in “How do you feel?” or in the casual greeting of “How are you?”
What Feel, as capacity and as capability, has been and still needs to be up to is providing functionality for the overlooked behavioral problem, Pbeh. Whether we talk about this as the operational system problem or the anthropogenesis problem. Feel is a big Tell … as we work to become. As we extend.
***
Feel needs to register the forces of the Expansion (e.g., CEM) and the S-universe (e.g., ratios) as we go along, not just how our body feels. Especially for the challenge ahead, when implementing community and union as needed functionality, requires us to provide them with Mind capability (i.e., sensEry Feel) for their steps in progress and not just for their step outcomes. The step can feel “right” in both these ways. For extended steps, molecular or not, this processual feature is helpful in designing an operating system.***
However, “right vs. wrong” re how things are going suffers the same handicap as “good vs. bad” re step outcomes. The calculus does not register enough of what’s happening and needs to be happening. It misdirects us, from the functionality/needed functionality ratio to the less consequential functional/dysfunctional ratio.
Feel cannot afford indifference. At odds with the Expansion’s differentiation principle. Nor, for example, can we neglect “a feeling” as a reason to Stop what we are doing, to take advantage of a possible new “next step,” this the option that step discontinuity in the S-universe offers. But for these matters, “Feel” needs to be seen as something rational – and can be if we give it extension as a theoretical construct.
This makes Feel (as an R-word) a prime candidate for development via procedural technology, using imbalance-showing ratios. This for community, as needed functionality especially, given that we need step making and taking to realize it. For example, giving better measure to serious contemporary political problems, such as that indicated by the “consumer/citizen >1++” ratio. Or its companion “decision making/problem solving >1++ ratio.#
Evolution has given the body copious sensOry capacities. But it is up to mettle and mettle alloy development to give the step needed sensEry capabilities. And it is up to CEM development to balance and optimize the steps’ mettle alloys.
Much has been made of “balance” -- but conceptually. Theoretically, it needs the context of CEM, its forward potential, and of ratios, its indicative measures. “Feel,” for al its sensOry history, needs to be rational. For community as needed functionality, can it be anything less? But how much of the billions spent on “intelligence” on behalf of this or that community is thus dedicated? How much of journalistic reporting tells us of how our communities feel?
***
* See C-327.4: the case for theory FOR.
** Indeed, we should declare “Feel” an R-word and mettle, so that in the molecular step it can be alloyed with other Mind mettles and with Move mettles. Although “emotion trumps cognition,” that hardly precludes the excitement, pleasure and satisfaction of producing a good idea. (See B. Russell.) Nor does it negate the functionality of a perceptive journalist with a “feel” for the health of a community.
*** Lest one have to depend on Skinnerian principles to modify behavioral instances.
# “>1++” says, “very imbalanced and getting worse.”
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
“Feel” is such a 2-universe contributor. Importantly so in a helpful way. Early on historically, sensOry feel (e.g., pain) was a primary Mind capacity for behavioral entities. Not just for the outcomes of primitive body moves by self and others, but also for an R-sense of the behavior in progress.
There is a clear difference between the body’s feel and the step’s feel (e.g., imbalance). Enough to justify coining the terms “sensOry” and “sensEry” to mark the difference. Enough to urge scrutiny of concepts like “grief” and “emotion” for this capacity/capability duality of Feel ... and to consider them as mettle ore**. Enough to see the double meaning in “How do you feel?” or in the casual greeting of “How are you?”
What Feel, as capacity and as capability, has been and still needs to be up to is providing functionality for the overlooked behavioral problem, Pbeh. Whether we talk about this as the operational system problem or the anthropogenesis problem. Feel is a big Tell … as we work to become. As we extend.
Feel needs to register the forces of the Expansion (e.g., CEM) and the S-universe (e.g., ratios) as we go along, not just how our body feels. Especially for the challenge ahead, when implementing community and union as needed functionality, requires us to provide them with Mind capability (i.e., sensEry Feel) for their steps in progress and not just for their step outcomes. The step can feel “right” in both these ways. For extended steps, molecular or not, this processual feature is helpful in designing an operating system.***
However, “right vs. wrong” re how things are going suffers the same handicap as “good vs. bad” re step outcomes. The calculus does not register enough of what’s happening and needs to be happening. It misdirects us, from the functionality/needed functionality ratio to the less consequential functional/dysfunctional ratio.
Feel cannot afford indifference. At odds with the Expansion’s differentiation principle. Nor, for example, can we neglect “a feeling” as a reason to Stop what we are doing, to take advantage of a possible new “next step,” this the option that step discontinuity in the S-universe offers. But for these matters, “Feel” needs to be seen as something rational – and can be if we give it extension as a theoretical construct.
This makes Feel (as an R-word) a prime candidate for development via procedural technology, using imbalance-showing ratios. This for community, as needed functionality especially, given that we need step making and taking to realize it. For example, giving better measure to serious contemporary political problems, such as that indicated by the “consumer/citizen >1++” ratio. Or its companion “decision making/problem solving >1++ ratio.#
Evolution has given the body copious sensOry capacities. But it is up to mettle and mettle alloy development to give the step needed sensEry capabilities. And it is up to CEM development to balance and optimize the steps’ mettle alloys.
Much has been made of “balance” -- but conceptually. Theoretically, it needs the context of CEM, its forward potential, and of ratios, its indicative measures. “Feel,” for al its sensOry history, needs to be rational. For community as needed functionality, can it be anything less? But how much of the billions spent on “intelligence” on behalf of this or that community is thus dedicated? How much of journalistic reporting tells us of how our communities feel?
* See C-327.4: the case for theory FOR.
** Indeed, we should declare “Feel” an R-word and mettle, so that in the molecular step it can be alloyed with other Mind mettles and with Move mettles. Although “emotion trumps cognition,” that hardly precludes the excitement, pleasure and satisfaction of producing a good idea. (See B. Russell.) Nor does it negate the functionality of a perceptive journalist with a “feel” for the health of a community.
*** Lest one have to depend on Skinnerian principles to modify behavioral instances.
# “>1++” says, “very imbalanced and getting worse.”
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