C-248. Even more backwards
B-speak, added to B-ness, magnifies the “body/step >1” imbalance – and the riskiness -- of our inattention to behavioral materiality in the Expansion and our way forward in the S-universe. Bad enough that we have homogenized all that we attend to “objectively”, behavioral instances included, as “things” technologically … procedurally: what is said about (WISA) in service of what is talked about (WITA). But then we have piled on top of that tech the WISA tech of naming … naming every thing, that is. Words become names for (step) happenings as well as (body) things. Language as procedural tech could do better than endlessly “fix” and update name technology (“living language”).
Common (B-speak) languages, coined by communities, have proliferated. Names culturally differentiated. A training problem within communities came with them (O:Sp). A translation problem across communities also came with them (O:Ps). Even with the modal adoption of English as an ad hoc procedural strategy.
In doing all this naming, and continuing to do this, we have emphasized the functionality of identity … as if we were born programmed enough for the steps we take (and make) that WISA technology – indeed, development and procedural tech more generally – need take no further heed of needed functionality. As if what is called for (WICF) and what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA) were not material.
Our unsolved problems snicker at such a ridiculous notion. As if making steps – i.e., solutions to our problems – were not the most obvious and vexing problem of all. Making, not just taking, steps.* The behavioral problem, Pbeh, next to which situational problems, Psits – even those as dire, say, as global warming -- if not dwarfed, are secondary to our developing an operating system with which to attack them.**
Such is the Nature of Things, whose general persisting conditions in the Expansion of partial order, consequentiality and discontinuity (of steps, not just bodies) impose on us multi-step organisms the need for more functionality than evolution has gifted us with … and more than B-ness and B-speak procedural technologies have provided for us.
Consider: An observer in the B-universe looks around at bodies and sees that they are moving outward only: the “expanding universe”. An observer in the S-universe looks around at steps and sees that they are mostly moving backward: missing the Expansion’s “universe” of extended differentiation.
Ever more backwards too? The Expansion says, “Forward!” The S-universe says, “Come into the World of Possibility; make your way forward here.” Take the R-transform! (To the strain of “Take the A-train.”) To where freedom TO is to be made … once we are liberated (freedoms FROM and OF) from the oppression of B-ness, which has flattened the architecture out of behavior, most notably and tragically in the case of “expanding universe.” (The “upside-down” fallacy: Like a nail left on a railroad track after a train has passed over it. What the feckless concept is, architecturally, compared to the S-universe theoretical construct [e.g., mettle], when it comes to building needed functionality.)
***
What does “ahead” tell us? That evolution has gifted humans with a body structure that, nothing else interfering, the steps we take will pull us in the direction the body “faces”? Or that the steps we take and make can move us forward toward a point chosen or, even better, toward a point conceived … depending not just on step capacities we inherit but on step capabilities that we might and ought to develop?
A point forward that we can see as CEM (contingent emergent materiality). “Emergent” speaks to the functionality we need, solutions, and not just to the functionality we inherit by birth. “Contingent” speaks, technologically, to the slice and splice by which we can act to produce emergence. “Materiality” speaks to the functionality and consequentiality attained, in and by the emergent, whether of body or of step (technologically: tool or procedure).
We revere CEM events like the birth of a child or the “union” of marriage. And CEM events are respected, such as the invention of bronze, of moveable type (a dramatic “slice and splice” technology) and of hybrid plants– if not fully analyzed functionally. That History, as “body CEM step,” is not respected, lost in the maze of histories and the ambiguity of the singular, is a different matter. Just as union, the CEM between individual and community, has been forfeit to instance rather than cultivated theoretically and architecturally as needed functionality.
CEM: property of the Expansion and History. A promise of S-universe development: of steps strengthened by balanced ratios and proportions of alloyed mettles. The way forward.
***
Are we architecturally-minded enough?*** About the building as well as the buildings, about process as well as product? About the what and how of building such that we produce CEM (e.g., cathedrals instead of burial pits). About infrastructure. There is infrastructure and then there is infrastructure. As within (B-ness) domains of transportation, but also of communication, economy, polity, education and care. And there is infrastructure for infrastructure, levels of infrastructure (aka “foundations”) underlying development and developments, in these several domains.
Levels too of behavioral infrastructure. Of behavioral architecture. With which to build our selves: as individuals, as communities, and as unions between the two. Levels too of (B-ness) Mind technology that have buried principles and phenomena of the S-universe and the Expansion in a B-spacetime universe.
The B-speak concepts that now give names to instances of behavior provide a weak foundation for behavioral architecture. They aggregate. They do not meld. As foundation material they are, at best, like unreinforced concrete – i.e., Stone age … inadequate for the operating systems – i.e., selves – we need to construct.#
B-speak concepts suck the life out of the Expansion, as we see in their 1-dimensional rendition of an “expanding universe.” But as and in consequence of Big Bang, the Expansion comprises all that follows. We are children of the Expansion.## Along with other animate species, some architecturally strange in their differential extensions. (See the Burgess Shale varieties. And elephants and giraffes in contemporary times.)
Humans are architecturally strange in their architectural agency, beyond that of the building by other animate species. It is precisely this agency that gives humanity a claim for centrality in the Expansion … in that we are able to demonstrate it even as we falter to explain it and further it.###
What we manage to do in building our and humanity’s futures requires we stand on strengthened legs in the S-universe and the B-universe. The two legs will be all the stronger for the CEM potential of their operating together. What now seems fundamental about infrastructures in the several B-ness domains will be all the better for the behavioral infrastructure levels extended underneath them.
***
* AT, ON the Frontier of the Expansion and in the S-universe step making is arguably more critical than step taking. Not just because of the opportunity afforded, but because decisions made based on the lessons of history are limited to the functionality of what was tried … and problem solving, based on the Nature of Things (aka History), offers a more open, forward path (Trials).
** Many of our situational problems, such as global warming, have a strong anthropogenic aspect: We made them (O:Ps) with procedural techs, such as naming, that we made by making and taking steps. We need more and better procedural tech to rescue us as observers (O:S-P) from our lesser step-taking selves. Tech re tech, as needed.
*** The concept of “structure” is not all that helpful when we want (need!) to address what is called for (WICF), AT and ON the Frontier, and not just what is talked about (WITA) with respect to past, present and future instances. “Architecture” has this virtue of forward pointing. And “architecture” says “Build!” … a multi-dimensional endeavor in time (“for the ages”) and space … unlike B-speak concepts, which are 1-dimensional , serving only to identify a collation of instances. “Build” is an R-word. “Building” is a B-speak thoughtknot. Technologically, a WISA attribute in B-speak reduces our picture of dimensionality … as we have seen in how “expanding universe” makes a mockery of the Expansion (going so far as to invent a body [the “universe”] to which to attach the attribute).
# Theory FOR going forward, meeting needed functionality with functionality, needs theoretical constructs, not concepts, for its building material. B-speak concepts make words’ work too onerous, unproductive and even counterproductive as we see in the case of the ambiguity of the singular.
## As children of the Expansion we should look to the architectural principles of the Expansion (differentiation, extension and History’s CEM), not just look about for principals to guide – or to have guided – us. Principle or principal: Which provides the better explanation of the differentiation phenomena and architectural evidence available to us? Has there ever in recorded history been a mind-bind greater than the reduction of the Expansion to its B-speak one-dimensional descriptor of a putative one-step entity: the “expanding” B-universe?
### A centrality beyond Copernicus’ (B-universe) relationship regarding earth and sun. “Laws of the universe” – of the B-universe, that is – were never going to do the job for us. Which is why Adept, not just Adapt and Adopt, is a pertinent behavioral strategy. Adept: able to build, as needed. In Accord with the Nature of Things (aka the Expansion).
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
Common (B-speak) languages, coined by communities, have proliferated. Names culturally differentiated. A training problem within communities came with them (O:Sp). A translation problem across communities also came with them (O:Ps). Even with the modal adoption of English as an ad hoc procedural strategy.
In doing all this naming, and continuing to do this, we have emphasized the functionality of identity … as if we were born programmed enough for the steps we take (and make) that WISA technology – indeed, development and procedural tech more generally – need take no further heed of needed functionality. As if what is called for (WICF) and what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA) were not material.
Our unsolved problems snicker at such a ridiculous notion. As if making steps – i.e., solutions to our problems – were not the most obvious and vexing problem of all. Making, not just taking, steps.* The behavioral problem, Pbeh, next to which situational problems, Psits – even those as dire, say, as global warming -- if not dwarfed, are secondary to our developing an operating system with which to attack them.**
Such is the Nature of Things, whose general persisting conditions in the Expansion of partial order, consequentiality and discontinuity (of steps, not just bodies) impose on us multi-step organisms the need for more functionality than evolution has gifted us with … and more than B-ness and B-speak procedural technologies have provided for us.
Consider: An observer in the B-universe looks around at bodies and sees that they are moving outward only: the “expanding universe”. An observer in the S-universe looks around at steps and sees that they are mostly moving backward: missing the Expansion’s “universe” of extended differentiation.
Ever more backwards too? The Expansion says, “Forward!” The S-universe says, “Come into the World of Possibility; make your way forward here.” Take the R-transform! (To the strain of “Take the A-train.”) To where freedom TO is to be made … once we are liberated (freedoms FROM and OF) from the oppression of B-ness, which has flattened the architecture out of behavior, most notably and tragically in the case of “expanding universe.” (The “upside-down” fallacy: Like a nail left on a railroad track after a train has passed over it. What the feckless concept is, architecturally, compared to the S-universe theoretical construct [e.g., mettle], when it comes to building needed functionality.)
What does “ahead” tell us? That evolution has gifted humans with a body structure that, nothing else interfering, the steps we take will pull us in the direction the body “faces”? Or that the steps we take and make can move us forward toward a point chosen or, even better, toward a point conceived … depending not just on step capacities we inherit but on step capabilities that we might and ought to develop?
A point forward that we can see as CEM (contingent emergent materiality). “Emergent” speaks to the functionality we need, solutions, and not just to the functionality we inherit by birth. “Contingent” speaks, technologically, to the slice and splice by which we can act to produce emergence. “Materiality” speaks to the functionality and consequentiality attained, in and by the emergent, whether of body or of step (technologically: tool or procedure).
We revere CEM events like the birth of a child or the “union” of marriage. And CEM events are respected, such as the invention of bronze, of moveable type (a dramatic “slice and splice” technology) and of hybrid plants– if not fully analyzed functionally. That History, as “body CEM step,” is not respected, lost in the maze of histories and the ambiguity of the singular, is a different matter. Just as union, the CEM between individual and community, has been forfeit to instance rather than cultivated theoretically and architecturally as needed functionality.
CEM: property of the Expansion and History. A promise of S-universe development: of steps strengthened by balanced ratios and proportions of alloyed mettles. The way forward.
Are we architecturally-minded enough?*** About the building as well as the buildings, about process as well as product? About the what and how of building such that we produce CEM (e.g., cathedrals instead of burial pits). About infrastructure. There is infrastructure and then there is infrastructure. As within (B-ness) domains of transportation, but also of communication, economy, polity, education and care. And there is infrastructure for infrastructure, levels of infrastructure (aka “foundations”) underlying development and developments, in these several domains.
Levels too of behavioral infrastructure. Of behavioral architecture. With which to build our selves: as individuals, as communities, and as unions between the two. Levels too of (B-ness) Mind technology that have buried principles and phenomena of the S-universe and the Expansion in a B-spacetime universe.
The B-speak concepts that now give names to instances of behavior provide a weak foundation for behavioral architecture. They aggregate. They do not meld. As foundation material they are, at best, like unreinforced concrete – i.e., Stone age … inadequate for the operating systems – i.e., selves – we need to construct.#
B-speak concepts suck the life out of the Expansion, as we see in their 1-dimensional rendition of an “expanding universe.” But as and in consequence of Big Bang, the Expansion comprises all that follows. We are children of the Expansion.## Along with other animate species, some architecturally strange in their differential extensions. (See the Burgess Shale varieties. And elephants and giraffes in contemporary times.)
Humans are architecturally strange in their architectural agency, beyond that of the building by other animate species. It is precisely this agency that gives humanity a claim for centrality in the Expansion … in that we are able to demonstrate it even as we falter to explain it and further it.###
What we manage to do in building our and humanity’s futures requires we stand on strengthened legs in the S-universe and the B-universe. The two legs will be all the stronger for the CEM potential of their operating together. What now seems fundamental about infrastructures in the several B-ness domains will be all the better for the behavioral infrastructure levels extended underneath them.
* AT, ON the Frontier of the Expansion and in the S-universe step making is arguably more critical than step taking. Not just because of the opportunity afforded, but because decisions made based on the lessons of history are limited to the functionality of what was tried … and problem solving, based on the Nature of Things (aka History), offers a more open, forward path (Trials).
** Many of our situational problems, such as global warming, have a strong anthropogenic aspect: We made them (O:Ps) with procedural techs, such as naming, that we made by making and taking steps. We need more and better procedural tech to rescue us as observers (O:S-P) from our lesser step-taking selves. Tech re tech, as needed.
*** The concept of “structure” is not all that helpful when we want (need!) to address what is called for (WICF), AT and ON the Frontier, and not just what is talked about (WITA) with respect to past, present and future instances. “Architecture” has this virtue of forward pointing. And “architecture” says “Build!” … a multi-dimensional endeavor in time (“for the ages”) and space … unlike B-speak concepts, which are 1-dimensional , serving only to identify a collation of instances. “Build” is an R-word. “Building” is a B-speak thoughtknot. Technologically, a WISA attribute in B-speak reduces our picture of dimensionality … as we have seen in how “expanding universe” makes a mockery of the Expansion (going so far as to invent a body [the “universe”] to which to attach the attribute).
# Theory FOR going forward, meeting needed functionality with functionality, needs theoretical constructs, not concepts, for its building material. B-speak concepts make words’ work too onerous, unproductive and even counterproductive as we see in the case of the ambiguity of the singular.
## As children of the Expansion we should look to the architectural principles of the Expansion (differentiation, extension and History’s CEM), not just look about for principals to guide – or to have guided – us. Principle or principal: Which provides the better explanation of the differentiation phenomena and architectural evidence available to us? Has there ever in recorded history been a mind-bind greater than the reduction of the Expansion to its B-speak one-dimensional descriptor of a putative one-step entity: the “expanding” B-universe?
### A centrality beyond Copernicus’ (B-universe) relationship regarding earth and sun. “Laws of the universe” – of the B-universe, that is – were never going to do the job for us. Which is why Adept, not just Adapt and Adopt, is a pertinent behavioral strategy. Adept: able to build, as needed. In Accord with the Nature of Things (aka the Expansion).
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