C-260.7 Bi-ness and duality
Bi-ness is key to our Grasp of Behavior before the fact, to the phenomena and principles of the Expansion’s differentiation, Extension and CEM. As far back in the Expansion as the “two-handedness” of quarks. That and the lack of symmetry in their relationship? Which finds an interesting parallel in the implicatory strength of cognition’s asymmetric relations. As seen, for example, in pointed questions.
As far forward from the Expansion’s Frontier as Mind technologies can take us and our steps in building contingent emergent consequence (CEM).
Bi-ness is the hidden message In the concept of “balance.” Perhaps even in “opposition,” though obscured there. And very evident in ratios. There is no significant behavioral contingent emergent materiality (CEM) without Grasped and Involved independent conditions.
Bi-ness is our escape route from the “one universe” that B-ness promulgates. Mind technology now lets us see the Expansion as a totality, a more comprehensive totality than an “expanding universe,” a totality (aka the Nature of Things) that comprises two universes: a B-universe of bodies (“things of nature”) and an S-universe of steps.
We can use this two-universe Mind bi-ness to good effect technologically. To build with. We Mind with bi-ness in many ways already, some sensOry (e.g., eyes and ears) and some sensEry (e.g., cognition, humor). But we do this mindlessly, so to speak, confounding and confusing them via B-speak.
Employing bi-ness, we can go two ways. We can use it for decision making, slicing Behavior into alternative behaviors. Or we can use it for problem solving, looking to splice – and perhaps swing – bi-ness conditions to improve Behavior. Even what at first appear to be “opposing forces.”
Given current technological development, where communication suffers from a dangerous “transport/message >1++” ratio, bi-ness suffers from the same malady as the communities it might better serve: that of a “climate” change toward more and more decision making at the expense of problem solving … as exemplified in the imbalance of politics over policy.
Ratios exemplify bi-ness. Proportions extend their potential leverage contribution to CEM. Proportions (ratio extensions) exact a further slicing, splicing and swinging cost in needed independence and balancing. For example, the strategies of Adopt, Adapt and Adept. Why we have two of some body capacities? And what of capabilities (mettles), not just of capacities? Procedural technology might and ought to be up to the challenge, however.
Bi-ness also furnishes us with some degree of stability. Which, given the lack of a One-ness totality (e.g., a part-whole B-ness vision), is welcome.
Our individual and community selves can and should use the leverage Forward from ratios to achieve contingent emergent materiality (CEM). Bi-ness should not stop short with mere back and forth (e.g., turn-taking).
***
Duality is very familiar to us after the fact (ATF) in the human body (e.g., eyes and ears, legs and arms, feet and hands, jaws). Even in some of its activities, such as seen in the back and forth of walking and eating. Differentiation.* But only part of differentiation: the product; not the process. B-ness, via the “-ion” suffix, includes but does not Grasp the process. What of Bi-ness before the fact (BTF): As process? As functionality: as “Slice” (an R-word). Not yet Splice. Not yet Swing.
We can point ATF at a brain and a nervous system and say that’s where the Mind splice is. But how does the Mind work? Before the fact, Mind is too often not enough for the functionality we need. And not yet the swing. Not CEM enough for optimum performance of our operating system (O.S..).**
Bi-ness is key to CEM development BTF, not just integral ATF to evolution’s CEM productivity: the behavioral entity … especially humans. Key to CEM because BTF step mettles, to helpfully splice and swing, have to be independent slices to qualify for the ratio and balance assessments essential to alloying mettles for optimal effect – i.e., CEM as measured by the teeter-totter test.
Compose, an R-word, gives Mind (an R-word) the Help (an R-word) it needs to take Splice (an R-word) beyond the instances --and the concept -- of “connection.” There’s more to “Bridge” as an R-word than a resultant connectivity … however salient the latter stands out. After the fact, of course, “bridge” tends to say “connection.”
Beyond “flow”? More, that is, than an HC-1 state. How to achieve it? Via CEM. Which starts with Bi-ness. Via CEM: Swing in consequence of Splice in consequence of Slice … procedural-tech speaking. Bi-ness, not B-ness.
For Humanity (HC-1) we need to be operating in the S-universe, making and taking steps, following the Expansion’s principles. We need the Bi-ness of the two universes. Candidly, the B-universe exists because we built it. It’s our construction … probably in the service of a fervent, hoped-for One-ness.*** So why not build it a needed companion universe and work with and in them together? More “sure-footed” for going Forward.
Architecture BTF, not just ATF. The whole of Differentiation, Extension and CEM: principles BTF of the Expansion and the S-universe. Not just laws or statutes, not just Adapt or Adopt. Principles and Adept. In Accord with the Nature of Things: the Expansion and the S-universe.
***
Duality is no guarantee of Bi-ness or of CEM. Far from it in the case of opposition (e.g., “subjective vs. “objective”; historical vs. ahistorical) and the case of the ambiguity of the singular (instance vs. needed functionality; a history vs. History per se). Duality can be terribly misleading, as in the case of B-speak’s “mind-body,” where a needed CEM of two universes is captive to a thoughtknot of connectivity.
Consider, for example, the word and thing duality of WISA-WITA tech. There is both implicit and explicit One-ness here. This is a naming tech, a matter of identity rather than agency. WISA and WITA are supposed to be “as one” (Saussure). Consider our earlier concern with the deficiencies of the Ogdon-Richards and Peirce models of the word-thing relationship, their limited focus: to what is said about (WISA) and what is talked about (WITA) – to the exclusion of what is called for (WICF) and their dubious coverage of what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA). Their models take the form of:
As far forward from the Expansion’s Frontier as Mind technologies can take us and our steps in building contingent emergent consequence (CEM).
Bi-ness is the hidden message In the concept of “balance.” Perhaps even in “opposition,” though obscured there. And very evident in ratios. There is no significant behavioral contingent emergent materiality (CEM) without Grasped and Involved independent conditions.
Bi-ness is our escape route from the “one universe” that B-ness promulgates. Mind technology now lets us see the Expansion as a totality, a more comprehensive totality than an “expanding universe,” a totality (aka the Nature of Things) that comprises two universes: a B-universe of bodies (“things of nature”) and an S-universe of steps.
We can use this two-universe Mind bi-ness to good effect technologically. To build with. We Mind with bi-ness in many ways already, some sensOry (e.g., eyes and ears) and some sensEry (e.g., cognition, humor). But we do this mindlessly, so to speak, confounding and confusing them via B-speak.
Employing bi-ness, we can go two ways. We can use it for decision making, slicing Behavior into alternative behaviors. Or we can use it for problem solving, looking to splice – and perhaps swing – bi-ness conditions to improve Behavior. Even what at first appear to be “opposing forces.”
Given current technological development, where communication suffers from a dangerous “transport/message >1++” ratio, bi-ness suffers from the same malady as the communities it might better serve: that of a “climate” change toward more and more decision making at the expense of problem solving … as exemplified in the imbalance of politics over policy.
Ratios exemplify bi-ness. Proportions extend their potential leverage contribution to CEM. Proportions (ratio extensions) exact a further slicing, splicing and swinging cost in needed independence and balancing. For example, the strategies of Adopt, Adapt and Adept. Why we have two of some body capacities? And what of capabilities (mettles), not just of capacities? Procedural technology might and ought to be up to the challenge, however.
Bi-ness also furnishes us with some degree of stability. Which, given the lack of a One-ness totality (e.g., a part-whole B-ness vision), is welcome.
Our individual and community selves can and should use the leverage Forward from ratios to achieve contingent emergent materiality (CEM). Bi-ness should not stop short with mere back and forth (e.g., turn-taking).
Duality is very familiar to us after the fact (ATF) in the human body (e.g., eyes and ears, legs and arms, feet and hands, jaws). Even in some of its activities, such as seen in the back and forth of walking and eating. Differentiation.* But only part of differentiation: the product; not the process. B-ness, via the “-ion” suffix, includes but does not Grasp the process. What of Bi-ness before the fact (BTF): As process? As functionality: as “Slice” (an R-word). Not yet Splice. Not yet Swing.
We can point ATF at a brain and a nervous system and say that’s where the Mind splice is. But how does the Mind work? Before the fact, Mind is too often not enough for the functionality we need. And not yet the swing. Not CEM enough for optimum performance of our operating system (O.S..).**
Bi-ness is key to CEM development BTF, not just integral ATF to evolution’s CEM productivity: the behavioral entity … especially humans. Key to CEM because BTF step mettles, to helpfully splice and swing, have to be independent slices to qualify for the ratio and balance assessments essential to alloying mettles for optimal effect – i.e., CEM as measured by the teeter-totter test.
Compose, an R-word, gives Mind (an R-word) the Help (an R-word) it needs to take Splice (an R-word) beyond the instances --and the concept -- of “connection.” There’s more to “Bridge” as an R-word than a resultant connectivity … however salient the latter stands out. After the fact, of course, “bridge” tends to say “connection.”
Beyond “flow”? More, that is, than an HC-1 state. How to achieve it? Via CEM. Which starts with Bi-ness. Via CEM: Swing in consequence of Splice in consequence of Slice … procedural-tech speaking. Bi-ness, not B-ness.
For Humanity (HC-1) we need to be operating in the S-universe, making and taking steps, following the Expansion’s principles. We need the Bi-ness of the two universes. Candidly, the B-universe exists because we built it. It’s our construction … probably in the service of a fervent, hoped-for One-ness.*** So why not build it a needed companion universe and work with and in them together? More “sure-footed” for going Forward.
Architecture BTF, not just ATF. The whole of Differentiation, Extension and CEM: principles BTF of the Expansion and the S-universe. Not just laws or statutes, not just Adapt or Adopt. Principles and Adept. In Accord with the Nature of Things: the Expansion and the S-universe.
Duality is no guarantee of Bi-ness or of CEM. Far from it in the case of opposition (e.g., “subjective vs. “objective”; historical vs. ahistorical) and the case of the ambiguity of the singular (instance vs. needed functionality; a history vs. History per se). Duality can be terribly misleading, as in the case of B-speak’s “mind-body,” where a needed CEM of two universes is captive to a thoughtknot of connectivity.
Consider, for example, the word and thing duality of WISA-WITA tech. There is both implicit and explicit One-ness here. This is a naming tech, a matter of identity rather than agency. WISA and WITA are supposed to be “as one” (Saussure). Consider our earlier concern with the deficiencies of the Ogdon-Richards and Peirce models of the word-thing relationship, their limited focus: to what is said about (WISA) and what is talked about (WITA) – to the exclusion of what is called for (WICF) and their dubious coverage of what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA). Their models take the form of:
Where: “X” is something (?) behavioral – and so might the Thing be too (!), given the B-ness penchant for seeing every condition objectively.
How much better, given the two universes of body and step, to envision something like this:
How much better, given the two universes of body and step, to envision something like this:
Where: R-words represent the needed functionality that B-speak’s emphasis on identification fails to cover adequately; Step and Body represent the two universes with which we must deal; CEM is contingent emergent materiality, that which can be seen in the fact of History per se (Step CEM Body) and in its furthest forward forms of realization in this World of Possibility. In short: WICF and WTITBTA, not just WITA.
***
* A conceptual distinction should not be confused with a theoretical distinction. You can “see” a difference either way. We could designate conceptual distinctions quasi-differentiation. Dealing with things of nature rather than the Nature of Things lends itself to quasi-differentiation practices. As seems to be the case with “r,” the correlation coefficient relative to “R,” the regression coefficient: r being weaker than R as a measure of oneness (“Correlation doesn’t prove causation”). No small matter when one’s “theory” (theory FOR vs. OF or ABOUT) needs to “predict” one’s needed functionality.
** The solutions we seek to our problems, especially the behavioral problem (however we see this: Pbeh? HC-1? O.S.?) demand a theory FOR to effect CEM (contingent emergent materiality). Gappiness (conceptually multiple gaps) =/= “supergappiness” (conceptual expression of theoretical SD), though they are often confused, presents an “organizational“ problem according to how many duality conditions the actor and/or observer of the B-ness “situation” confronts and addresses. (See Topic VI. The gappiness increases exponentially, but may be attacked sequentially. Systemic routing for shipping [O.S.] was slow in coming.)
*** A One-ness which is in denial of the Nature of Thing’s partial order and of our need as multi-step behavioral entities to provide selve-instruction, given our incomplete instruction … on steps to take and, significantly, on steps to Make (an R-word). Forward steps. Such a One-ness serves the proprietary purposes of those asserting authority (e.g., “laws of the universe”) and those assuming authority (e.g., “God’s design,” “God’s will”).
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
* A conceptual distinction should not be confused with a theoretical distinction. You can “see” a difference either way. We could designate conceptual distinctions quasi-differentiation. Dealing with things of nature rather than the Nature of Things lends itself to quasi-differentiation practices. As seems to be the case with “r,” the correlation coefficient relative to “R,” the regression coefficient: r being weaker than R as a measure of oneness (“Correlation doesn’t prove causation”). No small matter when one’s “theory” (theory FOR vs. OF or ABOUT) needs to “predict” one’s needed functionality.
** The solutions we seek to our problems, especially the behavioral problem (however we see this: Pbeh? HC-1? O.S.?) demand a theory FOR to effect CEM (contingent emergent materiality). Gappiness (conceptually multiple gaps) =/= “supergappiness” (conceptual expression of theoretical SD), though they are often confused, presents an “organizational“ problem according to how many duality conditions the actor and/or observer of the B-ness “situation” confronts and addresses. (See Topic VI. The gappiness increases exponentially, but may be attacked sequentially. Systemic routing for shipping [O.S.] was slow in coming.)
*** A One-ness which is in denial of the Nature of Thing’s partial order and of our need as multi-step behavioral entities to provide selve-instruction, given our incomplete instruction … on steps to take and, significantly, on steps to Make (an R-word). Forward steps. Such a One-ness serves the proprietary purposes of those asserting authority (e.g., “laws of the universe”) and those assuming authority (e.g., “God’s design,” “God’s will”).
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