C-260.1 The S-universe
When the transfigurative correction is made for B-ness,* for where we are in the Expansion and S-universe and not just specks in our familiar B-ness “the Universe,” then steps – especially the next step – assume far more significance as part of material totality, of the Nature of Things’ consequentiality. Especially of consequentiality to come.
From where we are AT, ON the Frontier of the Expansion, not just in the B-universe, we need to look both ways: forward and backward. There is a reason why we don’t remember everything. And why some memory is “short-term.” To leave room. There is much that must be first imagined, up front in the next step. Where this transfiguration came from. What a Mind procedural technology has contributed and might yet contribute.
The S-universe. The World of Possibility. Where in concert with the B-universe our steps may finally give us the sound of two hands clapping: the CEM sound. The sound of a problem solved. Especially the sound of the Solve problem being solved … the sound of building, of behavioral architecture. Of Forward, not just upward. What the R(ealization)-transform gives us. A Mind procedural technology worth a Trial.
The R-transform echoes that of the Fourier transform in eliminating noise: the noise of B-speak’s “behavior” concept. Its “behave” aspect (e.g., “deportment,” “industry,” “good,” “bad”) and its focus on instances. But the essence of the R-transform is the transformation from B-universe conceptual “behavior” to S-universe theoretical Behavior: i.e., functionality re needed functionality and not just the ratio of functional re dysfunctional (good-bad) … then from functionality to molecular step and its constituent mettles.
(The capitalization here, “Behavior,” like that for Expansion and Union among others, points to what there is to be talked about, WTITBTA, missed by that B-universe-S-universe confounding which the ambiguity of the singular points out.)
The S-universe, where technology has been already. Although not yet completely. Procedural technology has seriously lagged tool technology ... still captive to conceptualization, lacking in theoretical (theory FOR) foundation. But technology had made its presence known long before there was a science establishment.
Together, the R-transform and the transfigured Expansion change everything. Just as our revised view of the Expansion’s totality changes our view of Everything. They change everything either directly or indirectly. Or should. Because for multi-step entities, “is as does” fails to hold up as explanation. For multi-step entities, “is” also comprises what needs to be done … by the fittingest, who can then change everything for single-step entities as well as for their selves. Like the fate of planet Earth.
How would we see “cancer” qua behavior in the S-universe? Can its operating system be approached? So that we are not just imposing control system measures? How about “science”? As in developing tries into Trials (KMmt). We might make a better job of community building that way.
Much of Behavior that we have piled into our B-ness view of the things of nature would be better served – and solved – in the S-universe … especially with the Expansion’s principles employed via procedural technology’s Slice, Splice and Swing. With B-ness we have been operating, Behaviorally, as if we had but one foot, one leg, one hand, one eye … unbalanced as what to stand on, inadequate for the way Forward.
Far too much of what is called for (WICF) and what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA) is either smothered by conceptualization in B-universe B-speak or not accounted for at all. Be it in fields like education, health, economy, polity, science … wherever we strive to do better, wherever we strive to be more human.
In the S-universe, via development to the Behavioral criterion of needed functionality, we can build our steps in a way – i.e., from a new beginning -- that is still hardly even imaginable for our “evolution-given” bodies. At birth we are gifted in body with a working operating system. The same can not be said for Behavior. Proffered operating systems (e.g., cultures) notwithstanding, though they may come to feel too much like a given. Perhaps an unwanted given.
In the S-universe we can deal with Behavioral problems of step making and taking at the micro- as well as the macro- level. There is an important before-the-fact vs. after-the-fact difference between individuals and communities as selves and aggregate populations. As survival and WICF remind us.
To clarify the Behavioral challenge (Pbeh), go to the S-universe, with its R-word language of functionality re needed functionality. There, build a molecular step out of mettles, using R-words instead of B-speak words for message information clarity. Then return to the B-universe to find a selve to take it. And perhaps to “style” it for performance (i.e., the behavioral instance).
However, the point here is that we need a more behavioral “behavioral entity” than what we have now. We need a more behavioral “behavioral science” than that which we now have. We need theory FOR as well as theory OF and ABOUT, if we are to be more architectural before the fact than we are now. As IN and FOR the Frontier selves cases of Community and Union.
Innovate to innovate. Use as much procedural tech as needed … tech re tech re tech: as far as the Expansion and S-universe functionalities, especially the principles of differentiation, extension and CEM, can take us.
Using our global scope, we can see the Expansion’s differentiation growing profusely on planet Earth. Celebrated in scientific collections of entity differences. Practiced in the Slice and Splice of productive technology. But not yet glowing in CEM. A lack of step development in the S-universe.
***
Consider the case of water and the Periodic Table. “Water” is conceptually familiar as a substance, which with a cup or pail of it we add it here or there to (usually) good effect. But in the “element” context of the Periodic Table, “water” is H2O. In this (valence-balanced) molecular form all sorts of architectural feats may be achieved for all sorts of purposes by combining it with other Periodic Table elements. Similarly, the R-transform changes “behavior,” the B-speak concept, to “Step,” the theoretical construct and R-word, in the S-universe. In the S-universe, every behavioral term enjoys the developmental context of functionality re needed functionality … as explicated in Message theory’s two noun, two verb architecture:
N-1: needed step; V-1: step building; V-2: step exercised; N-2: resultant step.
And the constituent step mettles, to which the R-words refer, can be alloyed for desired effect. As, for example: “See, Say, Share” re communicative purposes. Theory FOR purposes, that is.
Somewhat paradoxically the “behavioral foundations of effective problem solving” (BFEPS.org) lie not in behaviors but in steps. In steps made, molecularly with mettles, not just taken. All the more reason to examine the case for steps having a universe of their own. Our reasons are architectural. We need to build solutions. We need Build units that lend themselves to an architectural perspective.** Steps do; behaviors don’t.
What seems indicated is a science rewind. Our B-ness and B-speak focus of attention on bodies – and everything else as if they were bodies -- has led us astray with respect to the totality of materiality. Steps have been observed “behaviorally,” as B-possessions and/or in B-B relationships … and after the fact “objectively.” “Behavioral entity” imposes the same dimensionality reduction on behavior as “expanding universe” does on the Expansion. They deflate. Just when what we need (WICF) is to open the folded fan of the Expansion, B-speak’s adjectival slight, which pervades the conceptual literature, closes it. And it does not help that much about Behavior is learned – but may not be known -- through the B-speak filter of behaviors.
We need a science rewind because we have been doing Behavioral research in the B-universe, derivatively with B-tech methods and B-speak concepts. To the sound of derisive comments from the so-called “harder sciences.” Who have eschewed the harder problems of behavior, focusing their attention on easier one-step entities … and on the lure of governing laws (for diminished responsibility?) instead of the challenge of guiding principles.
The “behavioral entity” thoughtknot has severely limited Behavioral experimentation, as seen in the “human subjects” concern. Steps that might be studied can not now be divorced from the “persons who” are to take them – nor from the situations in which they are to take them. Matters of verisimilitude dominate. Step mettles change all that.***
If steps are what we need to take to effect needed changes, why aren’t we re-focusing on Behavior and then on steps – especially as many of the steps we need to take we still need to make? Make with procedural technology as our thought experiment suggests? Science as now practiced and institutionalized is divided into and by focal entities (their only unity?), extending from cosmology and astronomy through physics and chemistry to geology, biology and botany to cognition and communication. Where behaviors of proprietary concern, not Behavior as needed functionality, are definitive. Separate domains where current progress may be achieved and marked by breaking barriers between disciplines. Why so much concern for laws of the B-universe things of nature when the Nature of Things calls our attention to partial order … and thus to the architectural need to make order in the S-universe, not just find order in the B-universe? What about the Expansion’s DIFion, Extension and CEM provision of architectural principles?
We need the transfigurative conjecture of the Expansion, together with the R-transform, =R=>, to the S-universe and needed functionality, to move theory FOR forward. Steps have theoretical explication; behaviors have only conceptual definition. The Expansion’s Differentiation principle extends to the S-universe as well as to the B-universe, to kinds of steps as well as kinds of bodies. It is our misguided fortune to have evolved steps qua behaviors without the benefit of molecularity to optimize Differentiation’s CEM promise..
Where “=R=>” is the R-transform that frees us from the conceptual confines of B-ness and B-speak and delivers us to the Expansion’s S-universe … where we can speak of Behavior molecularly, via Step (an R-word). And where theoretical constructs and theory FOR afford us the prospect of freedom TO’s opportunity in the World of Possibility beyond the Frontier.
CEM can guide the way: the Way – i.e., as our R-path. CEM acts as guide because we know the stages involved in reaching the criterion of CEM: independence, alloying and balance re ratios are requisite to CEM. Compose: Slice, Splice and Swing … technologically speaking. And we need to be speaking technologically because not everyone, especially at first, is going to be molecularly competent in step making and taking. Cultures abound in “ways” – i.e., proceedings. But innovation and innovators in procedural technology will be needed to show the CEM Way.
CEM generalizes. As principle (Extension) as well as in practice. Steps generalize too, taking the architectural Build form of “Involve CEM Grasp.”# Differentiation’s CEM extends From History’s “Body CEM Step” to the step’s “Involve CEM Grasp.” Then when we differentiate the step into Mind and Move, the beginnings of step molecularity, “I CEM G” also generalizes. CEM extends to “Mind CEM Move” and then to “I CEM G” for each of the Mind and Move functionalities.## The thread of History from which and with which we can Build.
Further, molecularly formed steps of mettles extend Forward. Countless CEM possibilities within each of Mind and Move as well as between them. And to any mettles other than Mind and Move to which “I CEM G” applies within the molecular step. (To Realize the “progress” concept.) CEM potential extends in other ways too, such as for a more balanced operating system/control system metastrategy in Accord with the Nature of Things.###
***
* The transfigurative correction was originally (C-104) termed the “SGN” correction. That was based on the Nature of Things’ perspective alone. Adding to that contemporary cross-sectional view the perspective of the Big Bang point of view of the Expansion clarifies the limits of a B-ness “the Universe.” As seen in Figure C-260.A.
** This holds for technologies of tool and procedure too. The term ”technology” derives from the Greek word for “build.” “Build,” as an R-word, is capitalized to emphasize the S-universe functionality re needed functionality perspective … in contrast to the “results-oriented” functional/dysfunctional ratio.
*** Step mettles can be arranged architecturally into molecular steps. For the same purposes as behaviors, but with the emphasis on an operating system – rather than designing a control system to govern behaviors. Experimental subjects are thus exploring Build materiality when confronted with a problem (Pbeh or Psit). Whether to employ Ask? With what to alloy it (e.g., Attend, Point)? Consider the potential of mettle architecture, mettle design and mettle engineering as early in the child’s “school” experience as possible (App. XXIII). And see “mettle health” and “mettle illness” as theoretical cousins of the conceptual “mental health” and “mental illness.”
# Involve and Grasp are functionalities. Mettles. Critical functionalities: Our improved view of material totality (Everything) demonstrates “Involve CEM Grasp” at work: Better Involve => Better Grasp. (Involve may be BY selve and/or OF selve. It does not have to be of the B-ness variety [e.g., a glove], but it may be [e.g., a neural network].) The step’s “Involve CEM Grasp” illustrates the Expansion’s principle of differentiation (Tech view: “Slice, Splice and Swing”) at work in the S-universe. Shouldn’t we expect differentiation in the S-universe as well as in the B-universe? Step molecularity, that is. We have missed it in the behaviors we have come to have, but we can not afford to miss its positive promise now.### The pragmatic precept (PP) reminds us to make vigorous use of Slice, not just to detect a difference but also when and where a difference makes – or might make -- a difference … lest we miss not only a needed identity distinction but also the “bi-“ groundwork it sets for Splice and CEM functionalities.
## The “mind” of the “mind-body” relationship is a B-universe conceptual hypostatization. The “Mind” of the “Mind CEM Move” relationship is an S-universe theoretical construct: a mettle. The “mind-body problem” needs first, as a question, the R-transform to see and solve the conceptual problem (of universes) for its answer, then second, as a behavioral problem, the molecular step via mettle alloy to solve it.
### Our control systems approach to Behavior qua behaviors after-the fact just becomes less and less manageable (e.g., more “law and order”) … while needed molecular contributions to an effective operating system remain unrealized.
In light of the very useful Search feature now available, parenthetical back references are suspended for Comments as of C-184.
(c) 2022 R. F. Carter
From where we are AT, ON the Frontier of the Expansion, not just in the B-universe, we need to look both ways: forward and backward. There is a reason why we don’t remember everything. And why some memory is “short-term.” To leave room. There is much that must be first imagined, up front in the next step. Where this transfiguration came from. What a Mind procedural technology has contributed and might yet contribute.
The S-universe. The World of Possibility. Where in concert with the B-universe our steps may finally give us the sound of two hands clapping: the CEM sound. The sound of a problem solved. Especially the sound of the Solve problem being solved … the sound of building, of behavioral architecture. Of Forward, not just upward. What the R(ealization)-transform gives us. A Mind procedural technology worth a Trial.
The R-transform echoes that of the Fourier transform in eliminating noise: the noise of B-speak’s “behavior” concept. Its “behave” aspect (e.g., “deportment,” “industry,” “good,” “bad”) and its focus on instances. But the essence of the R-transform is the transformation from B-universe conceptual “behavior” to S-universe theoretical Behavior: i.e., functionality re needed functionality and not just the ratio of functional re dysfunctional (good-bad) … then from functionality to molecular step and its constituent mettles.
(The capitalization here, “Behavior,” like that for Expansion and Union among others, points to what there is to be talked about, WTITBTA, missed by that B-universe-S-universe confounding which the ambiguity of the singular points out.)
The S-universe, where technology has been already. Although not yet completely. Procedural technology has seriously lagged tool technology ... still captive to conceptualization, lacking in theoretical (theory FOR) foundation. But technology had made its presence known long before there was a science establishment.
Together, the R-transform and the transfigured Expansion change everything. Just as our revised view of the Expansion’s totality changes our view of Everything. They change everything either directly or indirectly. Or should. Because for multi-step entities, “is as does” fails to hold up as explanation. For multi-step entities, “is” also comprises what needs to be done … by the fittingest, who can then change everything for single-step entities as well as for their selves. Like the fate of planet Earth.
How would we see “cancer” qua behavior in the S-universe? Can its operating system be approached? So that we are not just imposing control system measures? How about “science”? As in developing tries into Trials (KMmt). We might make a better job of community building that way.
Much of Behavior that we have piled into our B-ness view of the things of nature would be better served – and solved – in the S-universe … especially with the Expansion’s principles employed via procedural technology’s Slice, Splice and Swing. With B-ness we have been operating, Behaviorally, as if we had but one foot, one leg, one hand, one eye … unbalanced as what to stand on, inadequate for the way Forward.
Far too much of what is called for (WICF) and what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA) is either smothered by conceptualization in B-universe B-speak or not accounted for at all. Be it in fields like education, health, economy, polity, science … wherever we strive to do better, wherever we strive to be more human.
In the S-universe, via development to the Behavioral criterion of needed functionality, we can build our steps in a way – i.e., from a new beginning -- that is still hardly even imaginable for our “evolution-given” bodies. At birth we are gifted in body with a working operating system. The same can not be said for Behavior. Proffered operating systems (e.g., cultures) notwithstanding, though they may come to feel too much like a given. Perhaps an unwanted given.
In the S-universe we can deal with Behavioral problems of step making and taking at the micro- as well as the macro- level. There is an important before-the-fact vs. after-the-fact difference between individuals and communities as selves and aggregate populations. As survival and WICF remind us.
To clarify the Behavioral challenge (Pbeh), go to the S-universe, with its R-word language of functionality re needed functionality. There, build a molecular step out of mettles, using R-words instead of B-speak words for message information clarity. Then return to the B-universe to find a selve to take it. And perhaps to “style” it for performance (i.e., the behavioral instance).
However, the point here is that we need a more behavioral “behavioral entity” than what we have now. We need a more behavioral “behavioral science” than that which we now have. We need theory FOR as well as theory OF and ABOUT, if we are to be more architectural before the fact than we are now. As IN and FOR the Frontier selves cases of Community and Union.
Innovate to innovate. Use as much procedural tech as needed … tech re tech re tech: as far as the Expansion and S-universe functionalities, especially the principles of differentiation, extension and CEM, can take us.
Using our global scope, we can see the Expansion’s differentiation growing profusely on planet Earth. Celebrated in scientific collections of entity differences. Practiced in the Slice and Splice of productive technology. But not yet glowing in CEM. A lack of step development in the S-universe.
Consider the case of water and the Periodic Table. “Water” is conceptually familiar as a substance, which with a cup or pail of it we add it here or there to (usually) good effect. But in the “element” context of the Periodic Table, “water” is H2O. In this (valence-balanced) molecular form all sorts of architectural feats may be achieved for all sorts of purposes by combining it with other Periodic Table elements. Similarly, the R-transform changes “behavior,” the B-speak concept, to “Step,” the theoretical construct and R-word, in the S-universe. In the S-universe, every behavioral term enjoys the developmental context of functionality re needed functionality … as explicated in Message theory’s two noun, two verb architecture:
And the constituent step mettles, to which the R-words refer, can be alloyed for desired effect. As, for example: “See, Say, Share” re communicative purposes. Theory FOR purposes, that is.
Somewhat paradoxically the “behavioral foundations of effective problem solving” (BFEPS.org) lie not in behaviors but in steps. In steps made, molecularly with mettles, not just taken. All the more reason to examine the case for steps having a universe of their own. Our reasons are architectural. We need to build solutions. We need Build units that lend themselves to an architectural perspective.** Steps do; behaviors don’t.
What seems indicated is a science rewind. Our B-ness and B-speak focus of attention on bodies – and everything else as if they were bodies -- has led us astray with respect to the totality of materiality. Steps have been observed “behaviorally,” as B-possessions and/or in B-B relationships … and after the fact “objectively.” “Behavioral entity” imposes the same dimensionality reduction on behavior as “expanding universe” does on the Expansion. They deflate. Just when what we need (WICF) is to open the folded fan of the Expansion, B-speak’s adjectival slight, which pervades the conceptual literature, closes it. And it does not help that much about Behavior is learned – but may not be known -- through the B-speak filter of behaviors.
We need a science rewind because we have been doing Behavioral research in the B-universe, derivatively with B-tech methods and B-speak concepts. To the sound of derisive comments from the so-called “harder sciences.” Who have eschewed the harder problems of behavior, focusing their attention on easier one-step entities … and on the lure of governing laws (for diminished responsibility?) instead of the challenge of guiding principles.
The “behavioral entity” thoughtknot has severely limited Behavioral experimentation, as seen in the “human subjects” concern. Steps that might be studied can not now be divorced from the “persons who” are to take them – nor from the situations in which they are to take them. Matters of verisimilitude dominate. Step mettles change all that.***
If steps are what we need to take to effect needed changes, why aren’t we re-focusing on Behavior and then on steps – especially as many of the steps we need to take we still need to make? Make with procedural technology as our thought experiment suggests? Science as now practiced and institutionalized is divided into and by focal entities (their only unity?), extending from cosmology and astronomy through physics and chemistry to geology, biology and botany to cognition and communication. Where behaviors of proprietary concern, not Behavior as needed functionality, are definitive. Separate domains where current progress may be achieved and marked by breaking barriers between disciplines. Why so much concern for laws of the B-universe things of nature when the Nature of Things calls our attention to partial order … and thus to the architectural need to make order in the S-universe, not just find order in the B-universe? What about the Expansion’s DIFion, Extension and CEM provision of architectural principles?
We need the transfigurative conjecture of the Expansion, together with the R-transform, =R=>, to the S-universe and needed functionality, to move theory FOR forward. Steps have theoretical explication; behaviors have only conceptual definition. The Expansion’s Differentiation principle extends to the S-universe as well as to the B-universe, to kinds of steps as well as kinds of bodies. It is our misguided fortune to have evolved steps qua behaviors without the benefit of molecularity to optimize Differentiation’s CEM promise..
Where “=R=>” is the R-transform that frees us from the conceptual confines of B-ness and B-speak and delivers us to the Expansion’s S-universe … where we can speak of Behavior molecularly, via Step (an R-word). And where theoretical constructs and theory FOR afford us the prospect of freedom TO’s opportunity in the World of Possibility beyond the Frontier.
CEM can guide the way: the Way – i.e., as our R-path. CEM acts as guide because we know the stages involved in reaching the criterion of CEM: independence, alloying and balance re ratios are requisite to CEM. Compose: Slice, Splice and Swing … technologically speaking. And we need to be speaking technologically because not everyone, especially at first, is going to be molecularly competent in step making and taking. Cultures abound in “ways” – i.e., proceedings. But innovation and innovators in procedural technology will be needed to show the CEM Way.
CEM generalizes. As principle (Extension) as well as in practice. Steps generalize too, taking the architectural Build form of “Involve CEM Grasp.”# Differentiation’s CEM extends From History’s “Body CEM Step” to the step’s “Involve CEM Grasp.” Then when we differentiate the step into Mind and Move, the beginnings of step molecularity, “I CEM G” also generalizes. CEM extends to “Mind CEM Move” and then to “I CEM G” for each of the Mind and Move functionalities.## The thread of History from which and with which we can Build.
Further, molecularly formed steps of mettles extend Forward. Countless CEM possibilities within each of Mind and Move as well as between them. And to any mettles other than Mind and Move to which “I CEM G” applies within the molecular step. (To Realize the “progress” concept.) CEM potential extends in other ways too, such as for a more balanced operating system/control system metastrategy in Accord with the Nature of Things.###
* The transfigurative correction was originally (C-104) termed the “SGN” correction. That was based on the Nature of Things’ perspective alone. Adding to that contemporary cross-sectional view the perspective of the Big Bang point of view of the Expansion clarifies the limits of a B-ness “the Universe.” As seen in Figure C-260.A.
** This holds for technologies of tool and procedure too. The term ”technology” derives from the Greek word for “build.” “Build,” as an R-word, is capitalized to emphasize the S-universe functionality re needed functionality perspective … in contrast to the “results-oriented” functional/dysfunctional ratio.
*** Step mettles can be arranged architecturally into molecular steps. For the same purposes as behaviors, but with the emphasis on an operating system – rather than designing a control system to govern behaviors. Experimental subjects are thus exploring Build materiality when confronted with a problem (Pbeh or Psit). Whether to employ Ask? With what to alloy it (e.g., Attend, Point)? Consider the potential of mettle architecture, mettle design and mettle engineering as early in the child’s “school” experience as possible (App. XXIII). And see “mettle health” and “mettle illness” as theoretical cousins of the conceptual “mental health” and “mental illness.”
# Involve and Grasp are functionalities. Mettles. Critical functionalities: Our improved view of material totality (Everything) demonstrates “Involve CEM Grasp” at work: Better Involve => Better Grasp. (Involve may be BY selve and/or OF selve. It does not have to be of the B-ness variety [e.g., a glove], but it may be [e.g., a neural network].) The step’s “Involve CEM Grasp” illustrates the Expansion’s principle of differentiation (Tech view: “Slice, Splice and Swing”) at work in the S-universe. Shouldn’t we expect differentiation in the S-universe as well as in the B-universe? Step molecularity, that is. We have missed it in the behaviors we have come to have, but we can not afford to miss its positive promise now.### The pragmatic precept (PP) reminds us to make vigorous use of Slice, not just to detect a difference but also when and where a difference makes – or might make -- a difference … lest we miss not only a needed identity distinction but also the “bi-“ groundwork it sets for Splice and CEM functionalities.
## The “mind” of the “mind-body” relationship is a B-universe conceptual hypostatization. The “Mind” of the “Mind CEM Move” relationship is an S-universe theoretical construct: a mettle. The “mind-body problem” needs first, as a question, the R-transform to see and solve the conceptual problem (of universes) for its answer, then second, as a behavioral problem, the molecular step via mettle alloy to solve it.
### Our control systems approach to Behavior qua behaviors after-the fact just becomes less and less manageable (e.g., more “law and order”) … while needed molecular contributions to an effective operating system remain unrealized.
In light of the very useful Search feature now available, parenthetical back references are suspended for Comments as of C-184.
(c) 2022 R. F. Carter
S