C-256. Our family business
As children of the Expansion, our family business is architecture: building functionality to meet needed functionality. That which “progress” is all about. Not so much, however, about the buildings we have constructed.. We can have but a measured regard for past building, in so far as it has not met those needs.* Building functionality to meet needed functionality is also what technology is all about.
Both architecture and technology, given voice, would say, “Build!” But not quite in the same way. Architecture is a needed functionality in itself, as in our need to construct an operating system for our several selves, lacking, as we do, complete programming on what to do and how to do it. Technology addresses the “how to do it.” Taken together, “Build to build!” And with no limits on the first of these builds: tech for tech for tech … architecture.
Architecturally speaking, three needed business investments stand out:
1/ Sound foundations on which to build functionality;
2/ Molecular view of behavioral units with which to build functionality; and,
3/ Message capabilities with which to build cooperatively. In all these cases, we see technological opportunities, but we can also see an underlying developmental (i.e., performance) fault: tool tech/procedural tech >1++ -- i.e., unbalanced and getting worse. We are not architectural enough and we are technologically unbalanced. (As the teeter-totter test points out, when balance is lacking, the weaker side will give way and CEM become forfeit.)
***
We know enough to know that foundations are essential to good building: !/ of place; 2/ of materiality, for planning and for execution, for conduct and for content. For building forward, by steps, and not just for building upward, by bodies.
Thus it is important that we have found our place: AT, ON the Frontier of the Expansion. With next step looming. Endowed with this World of Possibility, but frustrated and unprepared by a lack of needed functionality. We have been remiss in our B-ness snapshot from the point of view and perspective of our location in a B-universe. we need procedural techs to furnish the “next step” Mind guidance we were not born with … and to help us, along with tool techs to move forward.
Our place of business is AT and ON the Frontier of the Expansion, at the intersection of two “universes” (of bodies and steps). Our needed functionality has been tragically underestimated, given the Nature of Things in the Expansion. We lack complete construction OF and instruction FOR the human condition. Performance still suffers.
***
The science establishment has invested itself in discovering behavioral order after the fact, whether that “lawfulness” is a gift of nature (see Adapt) or a human product (see Adopt). Prediction is its contribution to behavior before the fact AT, ON the Frontier. Consider, for example, the proposed “science court,” which would have excused science of any policy responsibility beyond its after-the-fact and predictive confines. This in the Expansion’s World of Possibility of extended differentiation, where tries – not prediction – rain and sometimes reign! And, if science would invest itself in procedural tech-enhanced Trials, broadening its capability, it could behave more responsibly.
The science establishment has also grasped behavior more conceptually than theoretically. The molecular vision we have of bodies is missing for steps. Our (conceptual) behaviors are globby: stone age instances unsliced for building purposes.
Lacking Mind technologies with which to attain behavioral molecularity, our various cultures have provided only first approximations of needed functionality. Our practices are more tries than Trials. They depend more on B-universe behavioral outcomes (success vs. failure), than on the S-universe steps as themselves outcomes.** They lack procedural technology for Mind on how to proceed. The units (mettles) we need to Grasp to Involve them in building are not at hand, thus vitiating the kind of experimental science we need more of (See Trials: KMmf)***:– i.e., alloying mettles to optimize step strength and CEM. Given the Nature of Things’ step discontinuity (“next step”), molecularity is as applicable to Differentiation’s step slicing and splicing as it is to its body slicing and splicing.
***
The message is the message when it comes to what is called for (WICF). When that which is called for (W) is communicative functionality, to enable collective problem solving, and “called for” (CF) is communicative functionality too (see relevance) … then what is said about (WISA) technology cannot limit itself to what is talked about (WITA) … not in view of still-needed functionality.#
Message development is obviously needed in two critical sectors: 1/ the tremendous technological imbalances of tools/procedures (>1++) and transport/message (>1++); and 2/ the need to replace B-speak conceptual terms with S-universe theoretical constructs in order to speak more constructively about behavioral architecture before the (“free will”) next step.
As noted before, however, communicative functionality – and needed functionality – should enjoy a centrality in our concerns commensurate with the proportion of daily activity to which it is party.
***
* See, for example, the concept of “civic religion” as a way forward to meeting the needs OF and FOR collective step taking – i.e., community and union. Reverence for past technologies of tool and/or procedure is no substitute for civic architecture, this building which still needs doing.
** Performance improvement – i.e., stronger steps, with CEM -- thus tends to be incremental … and arduous (Learn/Know >1++.)
*** Establishment science has long profited even in its “classic” KF mode of knowing, by inserting tool and procedural techs into their observer behavior: KMmf., as in the cases of scopes and B-spacetime.
# What there is to be talked about (WTITBTA). B-speak falls all over itself trying to talk in conceptual terms about that which needs to expressed in theoretical constructs (see theory FOR) for architectural employment. We cannot build our future with thoughtknots.
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
Both architecture and technology, given voice, would say, “Build!” But not quite in the same way. Architecture is a needed functionality in itself, as in our need to construct an operating system for our several selves, lacking, as we do, complete programming on what to do and how to do it. Technology addresses the “how to do it.” Taken together, “Build to build!” And with no limits on the first of these builds: tech for tech for tech … architecture.
Architecturally speaking, three needed business investments stand out:
1/ Sound foundations on which to build functionality;
2/ Molecular view of behavioral units with which to build functionality; and,
3/ Message capabilities with which to build cooperatively. In all these cases, we see technological opportunities, but we can also see an underlying developmental (i.e., performance) fault: tool tech/procedural tech >1++ -- i.e., unbalanced and getting worse. We are not architectural enough and we are technologically unbalanced. (As the teeter-totter test points out, when balance is lacking, the weaker side will give way and CEM become forfeit.)
We know enough to know that foundations are essential to good building: !/ of place; 2/ of materiality, for planning and for execution, for conduct and for content. For building forward, by steps, and not just for building upward, by bodies.
Thus it is important that we have found our place: AT, ON the Frontier of the Expansion. With next step looming. Endowed with this World of Possibility, but frustrated and unprepared by a lack of needed functionality. We have been remiss in our B-ness snapshot from the point of view and perspective of our location in a B-universe. we need procedural techs to furnish the “next step” Mind guidance we were not born with … and to help us, along with tool techs to move forward.
Our place of business is AT and ON the Frontier of the Expansion, at the intersection of two “universes” (of bodies and steps). Our needed functionality has been tragically underestimated, given the Nature of Things in the Expansion. We lack complete construction OF and instruction FOR the human condition. Performance still suffers.
The science establishment has invested itself in discovering behavioral order after the fact, whether that “lawfulness” is a gift of nature (see Adapt) or a human product (see Adopt). Prediction is its contribution to behavior before the fact AT, ON the Frontier. Consider, for example, the proposed “science court,” which would have excused science of any policy responsibility beyond its after-the-fact and predictive confines. This in the Expansion’s World of Possibility of extended differentiation, where tries – not prediction – rain and sometimes reign! And, if science would invest itself in procedural tech-enhanced Trials, broadening its capability, it could behave more responsibly.
The science establishment has also grasped behavior more conceptually than theoretically. The molecular vision we have of bodies is missing for steps. Our (conceptual) behaviors are globby: stone age instances unsliced for building purposes.
Lacking Mind technologies with which to attain behavioral molecularity, our various cultures have provided only first approximations of needed functionality. Our practices are more tries than Trials. They depend more on B-universe behavioral outcomes (success vs. failure), than on the S-universe steps as themselves outcomes.** They lack procedural technology for Mind on how to proceed. The units (mettles) we need to Grasp to Involve them in building are not at hand, thus vitiating the kind of experimental science we need more of (See Trials: KMmf)***:– i.e., alloying mettles to optimize step strength and CEM. Given the Nature of Things’ step discontinuity (“next step”), molecularity is as applicable to Differentiation’s step slicing and splicing as it is to its body slicing and splicing.
The message is the message when it comes to what is called for (WICF). When that which is called for (W) is communicative functionality, to enable collective problem solving, and “called for” (CF) is communicative functionality too (see relevance) … then what is said about (WISA) technology cannot limit itself to what is talked about (WITA) … not in view of still-needed functionality.#
Message development is obviously needed in two critical sectors: 1/ the tremendous technological imbalances of tools/procedures (>1++) and transport/message (>1++); and 2/ the need to replace B-speak conceptual terms with S-universe theoretical constructs in order to speak more constructively about behavioral architecture before the (“free will”) next step.
As noted before, however, communicative functionality – and needed functionality – should enjoy a centrality in our concerns commensurate with the proportion of daily activity to which it is party.
* See, for example, the concept of “civic religion” as a way forward to meeting the needs OF and FOR collective step taking – i.e., community and union. Reverence for past technologies of tool and/or procedure is no substitute for civic architecture, this building which still needs doing.
** Performance improvement – i.e., stronger steps, with CEM -- thus tends to be incremental … and arduous (Learn/Know >1++.)
*** Establishment science has long profited even in its “classic” KF mode of knowing, by inserting tool and procedural techs into their observer behavior: KMmf., as in the cases of scopes and B-spacetime.
# What there is to be talked about (WTITBTA). B-speak falls all over itself trying to talk in conceptual terms about that which needs to expressed in theoretical constructs (see theory FOR) for architectural employment. We cannot build our future with thoughtknots.
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