C-258. Two conclusions
There is that conclusion which ends (e.g., inference) … and that conclusion which begins (e.g., belief). The Expansion and its principles, its process and product of differentiation, gives us both: a conclusion about the human condition and a conclusion about our next step … that the next step be a Trial based on a theory FOR behavior.
A desirable “bi-ness,” considering the danger of a belief’s potential closed-mindedness to the human condition. Also considering the danger of One-ness notions that foreclose the forward-going paradigmatic interplay between theory and method implied by our view of the human condition and what might and ought to be done about it.
The belief/inference ratio (>1+) is of concern, as now when effective steps are needed by individual and community to resist the ravages of the Covid-19 pandemic. But more generally too, as the depth of the behavioral problem calls forth beliefs to counter overwhelming needed functionality. Credulity becomes a frequent situational problem.
***
The Expansion’s ending conclusion pertains to a question-answer proceeding: inquiry and inferences re the completeness and accuracy of our Grasp of the human condition. The beginning conclusion pertains to a problem-solution proceeding: developing a molecular next step. Or not – if belief suffices, functionally if not pragmatically. Both inquiry and development are about the behavioral problem, Pbeh. Hence the importance of the (Q=>A)/(P=>S) ratio* and of the (Q=>A) CEM (P=>S) dynamic.(See Topic XII.)
***
* Q=>A is – or should be – at the front (leading edge) of the step,** where Mind technology can and should thrive, needs development … especially now that we see that Mind’s nested procedural technologies can strength the latter Move elements of the molecular step (e.g., KMmT).
** Here and now in place AT, ON the Frontier of the Expansion, our next step faces us: ergo “front.” But in place in the B-universe, and looking after the fact at this or that behavior, the front of the step is at the back of the behavior. (And to a behaviorist, inaccessible.) One reason for B-ness-bred observers to focus on behavioral outcomes (ala Adam and control system) rather than behavioral architecture (ala Eve and operating system).
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
A desirable “bi-ness,” considering the danger of a belief’s potential closed-mindedness to the human condition. Also considering the danger of One-ness notions that foreclose the forward-going paradigmatic interplay between theory and method implied by our view of the human condition and what might and ought to be done about it.
The belief/inference ratio (>1+) is of concern, as now when effective steps are needed by individual and community to resist the ravages of the Covid-19 pandemic. But more generally too, as the depth of the behavioral problem calls forth beliefs to counter overwhelming needed functionality. Credulity becomes a frequent situational problem.
The Expansion’s ending conclusion pertains to a question-answer proceeding: inquiry and inferences re the completeness and accuracy of our Grasp of the human condition. The beginning conclusion pertains to a problem-solution proceeding: developing a molecular next step. Or not – if belief suffices, functionally if not pragmatically. Both inquiry and development are about the behavioral problem, Pbeh. Hence the importance of the (Q=>A)/(P=>S) ratio* and of the (Q=>A) CEM (P=>S) dynamic.(See Topic XII.)
* Q=>A is – or should be – at the front (leading edge) of the step,** where Mind technology can and should thrive, needs development … especially now that we see that Mind’s nested procedural technologies can strength the latter Move elements of the molecular step (e.g., KMmT).
** Here and now in place AT, ON the Frontier of the Expansion, our next step faces us: ergo “front.” But in place in the B-universe, and looking after the fact at this or that behavior, the front of the step is at the back of the behavior. (And to a behaviorist, inaccessible.) One reason for B-ness-bred observers to focus on behavioral outcomes (ala Adam and control system) rather than behavioral architecture (ala Eve and operating system).
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