C-246.4 Agenda and differentiation
Differentiate re differentiation vs. observer re observed: Which is the preferable agenda for us? And, especially, for the professional observers whose point of view and perspective are fundamental to the completeness and accuracy of their reports? Of the help they offer – or don’t … and can’t.
Under the influence of B-ness and B-speak, professional observers -- and with us following along -- have operated with the agenda of observer: observed … freely and broadly objectifying the observe and observed* (e.g., as “things”) so as to accommodate B-ness and B-speak technology … from particle physics and B-spacetime to chemical elements and compounds to geology’s rocks and tectonic plates to biology’s genomes to human behaviors to “information theory” and digital computers.
Happening becomes thing. Just another thing. Defying the pragmatic precept. So as to occlude the behavior-rich Expansion and S-universe. As if prior instances of behaviors have been enough to meet needed behavior.
And with a remarkable and increasingly dire inability to advance observer capability to help meet the challenges of the day. Have we missed the point and principle of the Expansion, to differentiate? Courtesy of B-speak, ”differentiation” is a thoughtknot,. The “-ion” suffix points to both process and product.
The B-ness agenda opts for product; it treats everything objectively, behaviors included – and sets aside the matter of behavior per se.** Alternatively, we might and ought to opt for process, correcting for all the behavior that B-ness and B-speak leave unGrasped in the Expansion (e.g., quantum dynamics) and the S-universe (e.g., step making).
Happening re happening seems appropriate, the observer and observed replaced. The structure of process very much a concern.*** We cannot say too often that there is a technical solution to Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons.” A procedural tech solution. But that procedural tech solution requires a prior procedural tech solution … of how we, and especially professional observers, see … “things.”
***
Ways re ways” would be a helpful agenda. It captures two of the most troubling problems we have with problems and their solutions: the ways in which we have and have not gone about attending to matters as observers (e.g., the O:S-P problem type), and, the ways of the observed to which we have failed to attend (e.g., acts qua mettles).
Instruments are familiar tools tech with which we improve attending. Math is a familiar procedure tech too. But still, as our analysis of B-ness and B-speak demonstrates, observers are inadequately prepared to even think about problems. And our surfacing of unseen behavior in the Expansion and the S-universe, adding to that in the B-universe, shows the incompleteness and inaccuracy of that which we have assumed to be everything.#
An indication and illustration of our impoverished observing is the “word-thing” relationship: what is said about (WISA) what is talked about (WITA). Which reports the sequence: observer: observed (thing) … observation (word), sometimes rendered as a triangle with the word and thing connected on the bottom and something about the observer on the top, with arrows up and down to represent observer actions. What’s so impoverished here? What’s missing? What is called for (WICF) is missing. So is what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA). Matters that matter are missing: needed functionality.
Further, with an eye to technological help for the steps we must make and take to solve our problems, we can adjust the agenda to: Slice and splice re slice and splice. Some observed conditions may not need that help (e.g., dust and sand via erosion), Procedural technology will.
The Covid-19 pandemic has been a costly lesson in needed procedural technology. Not just in preparation for the onslaught; in performance during it especially. Failure of community, failure of union. A particularly cogent example of needed infrastructure. But what of Mind infrastructure on which, with which to build needed procedural technology? Functionality re needed functionality is the name of the game (of life) to be played. Behavioral architecture is a laugh – a tragic laugh.
We need the molecularity of S-universe steps. To build our selves. To build our solutions. For behavioral architecture.
***
* G. G. Simpson’s second point TO (in addition to the matter of overlooked phenomena and principles) was to call attention to “science” as something observers (aka “scientists”) do: i.e., observe, to see as best they can.
** Behavior per se is a matter of the Nature of Things. It is enjoined on bodies by the N of T’s general persisting conditions of partial order, consequentiality and differentiation (“discontinuity”). And a matter (the behavioral problem, Pbeh) to which provision of a material operating system is requisite and imperative, entailing mettle development. Behaviors (mettle ore) are a matter of the things of nature. (See “ambiguity of the singular”.)
*** And the CEM potential realized of an agenda of process re process, of behavior re behavior, of slice and splice re slice and splice, of differentiation re differentiation, of happening re happening, of Way re Way.
# Indeed, “ways re ways” could be the path toward “The Way re the Way.” This solution to the “O:S-P” problem type may be the key to handling the other problem types too.
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
Under the influence of B-ness and B-speak, professional observers -- and with us following along -- have operated with the agenda of observer: observed … freely and broadly objectifying the observe and observed* (e.g., as “things”) so as to accommodate B-ness and B-speak technology … from particle physics and B-spacetime to chemical elements and compounds to geology’s rocks and tectonic plates to biology’s genomes to human behaviors to “information theory” and digital computers.
Happening becomes thing. Just another thing. Defying the pragmatic precept. So as to occlude the behavior-rich Expansion and S-universe. As if prior instances of behaviors have been enough to meet needed behavior.
And with a remarkable and increasingly dire inability to advance observer capability to help meet the challenges of the day. Have we missed the point and principle of the Expansion, to differentiate? Courtesy of B-speak, ”differentiation” is a thoughtknot,. The “-ion” suffix points to both process and product.
The B-ness agenda opts for product; it treats everything objectively, behaviors included – and sets aside the matter of behavior per se.** Alternatively, we might and ought to opt for process, correcting for all the behavior that B-ness and B-speak leave unGrasped in the Expansion (e.g., quantum dynamics) and the S-universe (e.g., step making).
Happening re happening seems appropriate, the observer and observed replaced. The structure of process very much a concern.*** We cannot say too often that there is a technical solution to Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons.” A procedural tech solution. But that procedural tech solution requires a prior procedural tech solution … of how we, and especially professional observers, see … “things.”
Ways re ways” would be a helpful agenda. It captures two of the most troubling problems we have with problems and their solutions: the ways in which we have and have not gone about attending to matters as observers (e.g., the O:S-P problem type), and, the ways of the observed to which we have failed to attend (e.g., acts qua mettles).
Instruments are familiar tools tech with which we improve attending. Math is a familiar procedure tech too. But still, as our analysis of B-ness and B-speak demonstrates, observers are inadequately prepared to even think about problems. And our surfacing of unseen behavior in the Expansion and the S-universe, adding to that in the B-universe, shows the incompleteness and inaccuracy of that which we have assumed to be everything.#
An indication and illustration of our impoverished observing is the “word-thing” relationship: what is said about (WISA) what is talked about (WITA). Which reports the sequence: observer: observed (thing) … observation (word), sometimes rendered as a triangle with the word and thing connected on the bottom and something about the observer on the top, with arrows up and down to represent observer actions. What’s so impoverished here? What’s missing? What is called for (WICF) is missing. So is what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA). Matters that matter are missing: needed functionality.
Further, with an eye to technological help for the steps we must make and take to solve our problems, we can adjust the agenda to: Slice and splice re slice and splice. Some observed conditions may not need that help (e.g., dust and sand via erosion), Procedural technology will.
The Covid-19 pandemic has been a costly lesson in needed procedural technology. Not just in preparation for the onslaught; in performance during it especially. Failure of community, failure of union. A particularly cogent example of needed infrastructure. But what of Mind infrastructure on which, with which to build needed procedural technology? Functionality re needed functionality is the name of the game (of life) to be played. Behavioral architecture is a laugh – a tragic laugh.
We need the molecularity of S-universe steps. To build our selves. To build our solutions. For behavioral architecture.
* G. G. Simpson’s second point TO (in addition to the matter of overlooked phenomena and principles) was to call attention to “science” as something observers (aka “scientists”) do: i.e., observe, to see as best they can.
** Behavior per se is a matter of the Nature of Things. It is enjoined on bodies by the N of T’s general persisting conditions of partial order, consequentiality and differentiation (“discontinuity”). And a matter (the behavioral problem, Pbeh) to which provision of a material operating system is requisite and imperative, entailing mettle development. Behaviors (mettle ore) are a matter of the things of nature. (See “ambiguity of the singular”.)
*** And the CEM potential realized of an agenda of process re process, of behavior re behavior, of slice and splice re slice and splice, of differentiation re differentiation, of happening re happening, of Way re Way.
# Indeed, “ways re ways” could be the path toward “The Way re the Way.” This solution to the “O:S-P” problem type may be the key to handling the other problem types too.
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