C-260.2 “Forward progress”
There would be less doubt about “human progress” if there were more of it. But for there to be more of it, we would need to be architecturally and technologically advancing in the S-universe … with procedural tech re procedural tech to the nth degree.
And with S-universe functionality re needed functionality (F/NF) our criterion and calculus, not just the familiar B-ness criterion and calculus of functional vs. dysfunctional (f/-f) which lacks functionality when functionality is needed (Eve’s lament). F/NF has far more to do with human progress given the incomplete instruction for behavioral entities of the Nature of Things’ general persisting conditions.
Using the f/-f ratio as a tool, we have only been going back and forth between “good times” and “ bad times.” Between“ hard” and “soft” behavioral tactics. Between partisan contestants for the power of decision making among available functionality candidates. Progress thus tends to be incremental at best. And due more to tool tech than procedural tech development.
Without attention to the F/NF ratio and its call for capability – step strength – development, we suffer a crippling ratio of responsibility/capability >1++ .. a ratio only heightened by neglect of the F/NF criterion and calculus. And exacerbated as our climate of decision making/problem solving >1++ continues disastrously upward. Though many lament this politicization of policy making, the needed “collective agency” capability re problem solving – the realization of Community and Union as selves -- remains unrealized.
Further, the heating-up climate of D.M./P=>S >1++ engenders a dominance of individual and aggregate feckless “uncertainty” over the ever-compelling incompletely instructed condition we share – courtesy of the Nature of Things. Compelling in its call for functionality to meet the fullness of needed functionality (WICF) … a needed functionality not limited to situational demands and not weakened by giving want priority over need.
Hard collisions are getting harder and more frequent. Disasters, conceptually speaking, repeatedly remind us of our unpreparedness – i.e., our lack of procedural technology. We can’t continue this “progress” of two steps up, one step back – given its lack of efficiency … and certainly cannot tolerate a process of one step up, two steps back – given its lack of effectiveness.
Evolution has pointed our bodies ahead. Development must point our steps forward. The Build development of behavioral architecture and procedural technology. (“Build back better” is but the tip of the iceberg – problematically speaking.)
***
Applying the R-transform to move from the B-universe and B-speak, to go from concept to theoretical construct in the S-universe, does not sound the death knell for concepts.* “=R=>” is an add-on procedural tech. With benefit for conceptual clarity. And prospective greater Swing success when we achieve CEM of concept and theory.
We might Read “forward progress” simply as a redundancy. Don’t they mean the same thing? No, they don’t, even as concepts. Their instances differ. This and their status together as a thoughtknot demands application of the pragmatic precept (PP) to explore the differences their differences make.
Further, treating this thoughtknot as a double concept, a correction is needed for the B-speak adjective’s deflate effect. The adjective, as we have seen for “behavioral” (re science and entity), reduces its focal condition’s dimensionality.** This is the “upside-down” Mind tech fallacy with which B-ness saddles us with its flattening effect on behavior … along with the B-ness “inside-out” fallacy (“the universe” is actually in the Expansion!) and its “looking backwards” fallacy (in defiance of the Expansion’s two-sided Frontier) – the points TO and OF the O:S-P problem type.
We can see progress aplenty in the How’s of contemporary human life. But these functionalities are accompanied by many dysfunctionalities. The How’s: our procedural tech, our ways such as they are, largely situated procedural techs. Our procedural techs qua minding are in need of procedural technology to improve and extend them … to deal with the O:S-P problem type.
We might be better served if we explore “forward” theoretically in the S-universe’s functionality re needed functionality and reserve a conceptual “progress” to mark our situational way forward. (As when employing the calculus and criterion of functional/dysfunctional instead of functionality/needed functionality.) Theory and concept working together. Not anticipating, and waiting for, some magic moment of a One-ness concept-theory fusion.
***
Our Forward principle: Solve community first. Community as needed functionality requires “us” to become a “We.” WE when and as needed: Not Community totally (e.g., Confucianism or mindless nationalism), but saliently and pertinently when and as problems require individuals to make and take molecular steps together, to act collectively.
The procedural technology with which we produce Community as a selve will enlighten and enable our realization of individuals and Unions as selves: “Know thy selves.”
We form “communities,” conceptually speaking, in many ways for many purposes. Boggs’ EffectiveArts, for example, brings together those who must work together (“huddle”) to solve the problem of an insufficient supply of human organs with which to replace failing organs. For another example, Kim’s call for interdisciplinarity envisions a gathering of disparate Humanities, Arts and Sciences departmental resources to attack our most vexing societal problems via procedural as well as tool technologies. How will they be able to think together, given disciplinary practices?***
Bringing bodies together is one thing. Making and taking steps together is something else … and something more, because something more is required.# Required in the S-universe. To take us beyond the B-ness restrictive conceptual perspective of problem solving via an aggregate of “persons who” and “things that.” To take “us” to We.
Our Forward principle is in accord with the Expansion’s Frontier condition. For our Frontier’s next step “first things first” applies: Mind before Move, behavioral solution before situational solution, etc.
Reviewing our typology of problems related to quality of life, O:P (unsolved problems requiring collective action) lacks solution because of O:S-P (unsolved problems of Mind technology [i.e., B-ness]). Vexing as O:Sp (unsolved problems of distribution [e.g., inequities of technological progress]) and O:Ps (unsolved problems created by solutions [e.g., global warming and other “climate” problems]) are, O:S-P seems to be at the root of them all.
The Expansion transfiguration and the R-transform to the S-universe can help us recover. (Those who can, do; those who know, can … those who think, can know; those who imagine, can think – procedural matters when “information” has to be produced and not just found or produced in order to find.
***
There’s a practical consideration here. We can not effectively design procedural techs for individuals and all their respective proprietary situations. Even if we could come up with something like a universal “companion” tool tech for all of us, acceptance and adoption would be long – if ever – in coming.
But these considerations are not necessarily a barrier for an operating system of procedural techs designed for a community. And if they are seen to work for communities, whose situational problems are many and more difficult, individuals may find help for themselves in adopting these procedural techs … and find the path to Union facilitated and less taxing.
Developing community tech first has another advantage. We could experiment freely with procedural techs to develop operating systems by using anonymous avatars. Human subjects concerns can be set aside if experimental subjects engage in community formation as anonymous avatars.
***
* The toll is for B-ness. We are still saddled with B-speak’s concepts to talk about the shortcomings of B-speak. A failing of what is said about (WISA) tech. Perhaps a bell should be rung as a signal to assemble some procedural technicians for help? (If there were available procedural technicians schooled in the foundations for and the art and science of molecular step construction.)
** Enough so, presumably, that we warn beginning story writers to avoid the overuse of adjectives. Adjectives may be the 1,000 words that a picture is better than. What, we should ask, is better than 1,000 pictures? The Expansion as the movie instead of the B-ness photos and B-speak slide shows?
*** Both ventures employ and envision additional innovative technologies of tool and procedure: The Attend To’s re shared and extended focal attention and cognition plus use of professional actors (to enable## and enhance problem visibility) in the Boggs initiative; Kim’s work to forge a unity of effort, via procedural tech (collective “co-“ mettle usage), across the boundaries of combative proprietary academic disciplines.
# Is there anything more frustrating than to have participated in a multi-day meeting only to be applauded for having gathered together? Bereft of policy changes or, especially, initiatives. Newly commissioned committees and “task forces” notwithstanding. A Declaration of Interdependence perhaps?
## Hardly a trivial matter. Using professional actors to dramatize the problematic setting with the bereaved averts the sanctions of the “human subjects” policy aim of “Do no harm.”
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
And with S-universe functionality re needed functionality (F/NF) our criterion and calculus, not just the familiar B-ness criterion and calculus of functional vs. dysfunctional (f/-f) which lacks functionality when functionality is needed (Eve’s lament). F/NF has far more to do with human progress given the incomplete instruction for behavioral entities of the Nature of Things’ general persisting conditions.
Using the f/-f ratio as a tool, we have only been going back and forth between “good times” and “ bad times.” Between“ hard” and “soft” behavioral tactics. Between partisan contestants for the power of decision making among available functionality candidates. Progress thus tends to be incremental at best. And due more to tool tech than procedural tech development.
Without attention to the F/NF ratio and its call for capability – step strength – development, we suffer a crippling ratio of responsibility/capability >1++ .. a ratio only heightened by neglect of the F/NF criterion and calculus. And exacerbated as our climate of decision making/problem solving >1++ continues disastrously upward. Though many lament this politicization of policy making, the needed “collective agency” capability re problem solving – the realization of Community and Union as selves -- remains unrealized.
Further, the heating-up climate of D.M./P=>S >1++ engenders a dominance of individual and aggregate feckless “uncertainty” over the ever-compelling incompletely instructed condition we share – courtesy of the Nature of Things. Compelling in its call for functionality to meet the fullness of needed functionality (WICF) … a needed functionality not limited to situational demands and not weakened by giving want priority over need.
Hard collisions are getting harder and more frequent. Disasters, conceptually speaking, repeatedly remind us of our unpreparedness – i.e., our lack of procedural technology. We can’t continue this “progress” of two steps up, one step back – given its lack of efficiency … and certainly cannot tolerate a process of one step up, two steps back – given its lack of effectiveness.
Evolution has pointed our bodies ahead. Development must point our steps forward. The Build development of behavioral architecture and procedural technology. (“Build back better” is but the tip of the iceberg – problematically speaking.)
Applying the R-transform to move from the B-universe and B-speak, to go from concept to theoretical construct in the S-universe, does not sound the death knell for concepts.* “=R=>” is an add-on procedural tech. With benefit for conceptual clarity. And prospective greater Swing success when we achieve CEM of concept and theory.
We might Read “forward progress” simply as a redundancy. Don’t they mean the same thing? No, they don’t, even as concepts. Their instances differ. This and their status together as a thoughtknot demands application of the pragmatic precept (PP) to explore the differences their differences make.
Further, treating this thoughtknot as a double concept, a correction is needed for the B-speak adjective’s deflate effect. The adjective, as we have seen for “behavioral” (re science and entity), reduces its focal condition’s dimensionality.** This is the “upside-down” Mind tech fallacy with which B-ness saddles us with its flattening effect on behavior … along with the B-ness “inside-out” fallacy (“the universe” is actually in the Expansion!) and its “looking backwards” fallacy (in defiance of the Expansion’s two-sided Frontier) – the points TO and OF the O:S-P problem type.
We can see progress aplenty in the How’s of contemporary human life. But these functionalities are accompanied by many dysfunctionalities. The How’s: our procedural tech, our ways such as they are, largely situated procedural techs. Our procedural techs qua minding are in need of procedural technology to improve and extend them … to deal with the O:S-P problem type.
We might be better served if we explore “forward” theoretically in the S-universe’s functionality re needed functionality and reserve a conceptual “progress” to mark our situational way forward. (As when employing the calculus and criterion of functional/dysfunctional instead of functionality/needed functionality.) Theory and concept working together. Not anticipating, and waiting for, some magic moment of a One-ness concept-theory fusion.
Our Forward principle: Solve community first. Community as needed functionality requires “us” to become a “We.” WE when and as needed: Not Community totally (e.g., Confucianism or mindless nationalism), but saliently and pertinently when and as problems require individuals to make and take molecular steps together, to act collectively.
The procedural technology with which we produce Community as a selve will enlighten and enable our realization of individuals and Unions as selves: “Know thy selves.”
We form “communities,” conceptually speaking, in many ways for many purposes. Boggs’ EffectiveArts, for example, brings together those who must work together (“huddle”) to solve the problem of an insufficient supply of human organs with which to replace failing organs. For another example, Kim’s call for interdisciplinarity envisions a gathering of disparate Humanities, Arts and Sciences departmental resources to attack our most vexing societal problems via procedural as well as tool technologies. How will they be able to think together, given disciplinary practices?***
Bringing bodies together is one thing. Making and taking steps together is something else … and something more, because something more is required.# Required in the S-universe. To take us beyond the B-ness restrictive conceptual perspective of problem solving via an aggregate of “persons who” and “things that.” To take “us” to We.
Our Forward principle is in accord with the Expansion’s Frontier condition. For our Frontier’s next step “first things first” applies: Mind before Move, behavioral solution before situational solution, etc.
Reviewing our typology of problems related to quality of life, O:P (unsolved problems requiring collective action) lacks solution because of O:S-P (unsolved problems of Mind technology [i.e., B-ness]). Vexing as O:Sp (unsolved problems of distribution [e.g., inequities of technological progress]) and O:Ps (unsolved problems created by solutions [e.g., global warming and other “climate” problems]) are, O:S-P seems to be at the root of them all.
The Expansion transfiguration and the R-transform to the S-universe can help us recover. (Those who can, do; those who know, can … those who think, can know; those who imagine, can think – procedural matters when “information” has to be produced and not just found or produced in order to find.
There’s a practical consideration here. We can not effectively design procedural techs for individuals and all their respective proprietary situations. Even if we could come up with something like a universal “companion” tool tech for all of us, acceptance and adoption would be long – if ever – in coming.
But these considerations are not necessarily a barrier for an operating system of procedural techs designed for a community. And if they are seen to work for communities, whose situational problems are many and more difficult, individuals may find help for themselves in adopting these procedural techs … and find the path to Union facilitated and less taxing.
Developing community tech first has another advantage. We could experiment freely with procedural techs to develop operating systems by using anonymous avatars. Human subjects concerns can be set aside if experimental subjects engage in community formation as anonymous avatars.
* The toll is for B-ness. We are still saddled with B-speak’s concepts to talk about the shortcomings of B-speak. A failing of what is said about (WISA) tech. Perhaps a bell should be rung as a signal to assemble some procedural technicians for help? (If there were available procedural technicians schooled in the foundations for and the art and science of molecular step construction.)
** Enough so, presumably, that we warn beginning story writers to avoid the overuse of adjectives. Adjectives may be the 1,000 words that a picture is better than. What, we should ask, is better than 1,000 pictures? The Expansion as the movie instead of the B-ness photos and B-speak slide shows?
*** Both ventures employ and envision additional innovative technologies of tool and procedure: The Attend To’s re shared and extended focal attention and cognition plus use of professional actors (to enable## and enhance problem visibility) in the Boggs initiative; Kim’s work to forge a unity of effort, via procedural tech (collective “co-“ mettle usage), across the boundaries of combative proprietary academic disciplines.
# Is there anything more frustrating than to have participated in a multi-day meeting only to be applauded for having gathered together? Bereft of policy changes or, especially, initiatives. Newly commissioned committees and “task forces” notwithstanding. A Declaration of Interdependence perhaps?
## Hardly a trivial matter. Using professional actors to dramatize the problematic setting with the bereaved averts the sanctions of the “human subjects” policy aim of “Do no harm.”
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