C-260. A universe of their own: a thought experiment
Mind technology, of tool and procedure, has enabled us to see (to “scope”) from here back to Big Bang. From “here” on planet Earth, that is, in B-spacetime. (Compare “here” in the Expansion: AT, ON the Frontier of the Expansion, poised – if not prepared --for our next step). Here in B-spacetime we look across the B-universe and see that it is expanding.
But what if we put Mind technology to work in a thought experiment to go back to Big Bang and have an observer look from there, using a global scope? A global scope to enable the observer to see everywhere forward from Big Bang, to see the totality of materiality in consequence of Big Bang, to follow along the fullness of the Expansion: its energies and masses, its waves and particles, its behaviors and entities, its processes and products, its steps and bodies … and its collisions.* … and the manner of relationship for each of these pairs (from History’s “Step CEM Body” to physics’ “E=MC2” to chemistry’s “left-right” chirality and the step’s “Involve CEM Grasp”).
Changing our point of view. And changing our B-think perspective: from the B-ness and B-speak technologies with which we have been navigating our lives. Changing so that the “expansion” is no longer just the one-dimensional attribute ascribed to the B-universe (“expanding universe”). The Expansion is the totality of materiality, in whatever form (e.g., body and/or step) it occurs and however we see it.
Big Bang was a behavior, a happening initiating what would become a succession of behaviors, of functionalities … at first only behavioral (“explosive energy”), then with emergent behavioral entities (“valenced” hydrogen first) … and then much later, most notably, the event of animation: the emergence of multi-step behavioral entities. And of steps taken and made: of Behavior per se re needed functionality, given the Nature of Things.
From the point of view and perspective of our Big Bang observer, Behavior was at least equal to entity as a matter of interest – as it most certainly should be to the contemporary observer of the human condition.
The Expansion can be posited, as and by procedural tech, to comprise a pair of universes: one of steps, the S-universe, in addition to the familiar B-universe of bodies.
Looking far forward from Big Bang using a magnified global scope, we can see Earth standing out among the heavenly bodies for its distinctive activity. Assume we have left behind us our B-ness (B-think) indoctrination. We have always been at least as fascinated by the game (i.e., extended differentiation) as by the players, indeed long before there were players and their behaviors (i.e., instances). And how much more fascinating our observer’s life would become once needed functionality came into the picture! All the stuff that was tried!
Humanity deserves its special place, as needed functionality even if humans, for lack of functional development, do not. We deserve our humility.
Looking closer at Earth’s entities, we see there are more steps than bodies. “Lives” full of steps: a profusion of animal steps and plant steps ... and geological steps. Some conceptualized as stages. Lots of happenings, some patterned steps, but happenings mostly molecularly unspecified. Surely enough to nominate steps as a distinctive universe, especially as these steps are material – i.e., IN and OF consequence. And these steps are in Accord with this totality’s Nature of Things, the Expansion’s general persisting conditions of partial order, consequentiality, and discontinuity (of step as well as body).** Conditions that find us incompletely instructed, Behaviorally … and in need of Behavior’s steps (needed functionality).
With this new point of view and perspective, we should consider the enormity of insult and injury and cost of B-ness and B-speak as Mind technologies. They relegate Behavior, an enduring quality of the Expansion, to behaviors – i.e., instances where it appears as a B-property or B-B relationship. Concept (“behavior”) when we need theoretical constructs to build a theory FOR , not settling for just a theory ABOUT and OF.
Shouldn’t we even be giving Behavior primacy of focal attention over entity? Even though collisions make us self -- not selve – “conscious”? Instead of accommodating, when we could, Behavior as behaviors “objectively” on the basis of their being our focus of attention (“object of attention”) … with B-speak’s object-oriented syntax as a crutch? (When language ought to provide us forward leverage for future behavioral architecture.) And instead of the computer’s digital technology as an accelerant? Might we still give Behavior that needed focal attention? At least enough attention so that we can redress the “Body/Step >1” imbalance of focal attention and redirect our selves forward, toward balance and toward CEM?
What is at stake here is the sum of our “anthropogenesis” problems, from quotidian misadventures to wars and global warming. Our Mind technology has been incomplete and inaccurate (O:S-P), to the neglect and underdevelopment of what is called for (WICF) and what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA) … and to the misread of the centrality of information and communication in human behavior, to the need to develop an operating system (O.S.) so that we are not victims of a deadly spiraling control system (C.S.): C.S./O.S. >1++. (See Eve’s lament.)
The Expansion offers principles OF and FOR Behavior: Differentiation, Extension and CEM. We can see their applicability in technology’s Slice, Splice and Swing … each, and together, a happening ... when they do happen. Back and forth (e.g., “interaction” and “transaction” concepts) is no guarantee of CEM.
Life on Earth is a signal event, a rare, if not unique, CEM happening in the B-universe. But development, with the aid of procedural as well as tool technology, makes it possible everywhere in the S-universe. A “happening” technology: functionality in regard to needed functionality.
Consider Yogi Berra’s “When you come to a fork in the road, take it” -- not just in its jarring B-speak form but from the Expansion’s Behavioral perspective. Metaphorically it accords with Differentiation’s Slice and Splice. Given a Slice, look to see if a productive Splice is possible. Emphasize Compose. You may get a CEM. A matter of Behavior, and of the materiality of steps not just of bodies.
***
Technological determinism seems too drastic a judgement to place on Humanity’s Mind technologies of B-ness and One-ness (“the Universe”). But designating them “prevailing” technologies seems apt. The Big Bang point of view and perspective they generate on the Expansion and the S-universe denies sovereignty to both.*** WICF and WTITBTA demand more.
***
* Collisions whose ubiquitous presence (a Tell) has gifted us with a Grasp of the Nature of Things … and the human condition under the NofT’s general persisting conditions (GPC) of partial order, consequentiality and (step, body) discontinuity: ergo our condition of incomplete behavioral instruction. The Nature of Things is the Expansion seen sideways now in the B-universe. Our observer back at Big Bang would be surprised – indeed shocked – that later B-universe observers would set their sights on instances – i.e., the things of nature – to the neglect of the larger totality … and be shocked for our foregoing much of the potentiality for the What (CEM) and the How (CEM guidance) implicit in the NofT’s GPC.
** Persisting conditions made evident by collisions, here and there and everywhere in the Expansion. Constants. More principle than law. In Accord with partial order. Just as Differentiation, Extension and CEM are principles of the Expansion. Principles of special interest in the S-universe, where AT, ON the Frontier of the Expansion, order is something we build -- not just find.
*** B-speak’s ambiguity of the singular is – and should have been long ago – telling in this respect. Notably so. As, for example: history and History, behavior and Behavior. Couldn’t Peirce’s pragmaticism have made peace with James’s pragmatism if his focus on behaviors as Tells had extended to the Tell of Behavior? Ala Adam and Eve (rev.).
But what if we put Mind technology to work in a thought experiment to go back to Big Bang and have an observer look from there, using a global scope? A global scope to enable the observer to see everywhere forward from Big Bang, to see the totality of materiality in consequence of Big Bang, to follow along the fullness of the Expansion: its energies and masses, its waves and particles, its behaviors and entities, its processes and products, its steps and bodies … and its collisions.* … and the manner of relationship for each of these pairs (from History’s “Step CEM Body” to physics’ “E=MC2” to chemistry’s “left-right” chirality and the step’s “Involve CEM Grasp”).
Changing our point of view. And changing our B-think perspective: from the B-ness and B-speak technologies with which we have been navigating our lives. Changing so that the “expansion” is no longer just the one-dimensional attribute ascribed to the B-universe (“expanding universe”). The Expansion is the totality of materiality, in whatever form (e.g., body and/or step) it occurs and however we see it.
Big Bang was a behavior, a happening initiating what would become a succession of behaviors, of functionalities … at first only behavioral (“explosive energy”), then with emergent behavioral entities (“valenced” hydrogen first) … and then much later, most notably, the event of animation: the emergence of multi-step behavioral entities. And of steps taken and made: of Behavior per se re needed functionality, given the Nature of Things.
From the point of view and perspective of our Big Bang observer, Behavior was at least equal to entity as a matter of interest – as it most certainly should be to the contemporary observer of the human condition.
The Expansion can be posited, as and by procedural tech, to comprise a pair of universes: one of steps, the S-universe, in addition to the familiar B-universe of bodies.
Looking far forward from Big Bang using a magnified global scope, we can see Earth standing out among the heavenly bodies for its distinctive activity. Assume we have left behind us our B-ness (B-think) indoctrination. We have always been at least as fascinated by the game (i.e., extended differentiation) as by the players, indeed long before there were players and their behaviors (i.e., instances). And how much more fascinating our observer’s life would become once needed functionality came into the picture! All the stuff that was tried!
Humanity deserves its special place, as needed functionality even if humans, for lack of functional development, do not. We deserve our humility.
Looking closer at Earth’s entities, we see there are more steps than bodies. “Lives” full of steps: a profusion of animal steps and plant steps ... and geological steps. Some conceptualized as stages. Lots of happenings, some patterned steps, but happenings mostly molecularly unspecified. Surely enough to nominate steps as a distinctive universe, especially as these steps are material – i.e., IN and OF consequence. And these steps are in Accord with this totality’s Nature of Things, the Expansion’s general persisting conditions of partial order, consequentiality, and discontinuity (of step as well as body).** Conditions that find us incompletely instructed, Behaviorally … and in need of Behavior’s steps (needed functionality).
With this new point of view and perspective, we should consider the enormity of insult and injury and cost of B-ness and B-speak as Mind technologies. They relegate Behavior, an enduring quality of the Expansion, to behaviors – i.e., instances where it appears as a B-property or B-B relationship. Concept (“behavior”) when we need theoretical constructs to build a theory FOR , not settling for just a theory ABOUT and OF.
Shouldn’t we even be giving Behavior primacy of focal attention over entity? Even though collisions make us self -- not selve – “conscious”? Instead of accommodating, when we could, Behavior as behaviors “objectively” on the basis of their being our focus of attention (“object of attention”) … with B-speak’s object-oriented syntax as a crutch? (When language ought to provide us forward leverage for future behavioral architecture.) And instead of the computer’s digital technology as an accelerant? Might we still give Behavior that needed focal attention? At least enough attention so that we can redress the “Body/Step >1” imbalance of focal attention and redirect our selves forward, toward balance and toward CEM?
What is at stake here is the sum of our “anthropogenesis” problems, from quotidian misadventures to wars and global warming. Our Mind technology has been incomplete and inaccurate (O:S-P), to the neglect and underdevelopment of what is called for (WICF) and what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA) … and to the misread of the centrality of information and communication in human behavior, to the need to develop an operating system (O.S.) so that we are not victims of a deadly spiraling control system (C.S.): C.S./O.S. >1++. (See Eve’s lament.)
The Expansion offers principles OF and FOR Behavior: Differentiation, Extension and CEM. We can see their applicability in technology’s Slice, Splice and Swing … each, and together, a happening ... when they do happen. Back and forth (e.g., “interaction” and “transaction” concepts) is no guarantee of CEM.
Life on Earth is a signal event, a rare, if not unique, CEM happening in the B-universe. But development, with the aid of procedural as well as tool technology, makes it possible everywhere in the S-universe. A “happening” technology: functionality in regard to needed functionality.
Consider Yogi Berra’s “When you come to a fork in the road, take it” -- not just in its jarring B-speak form but from the Expansion’s Behavioral perspective. Metaphorically it accords with Differentiation’s Slice and Splice. Given a Slice, look to see if a productive Splice is possible. Emphasize Compose. You may get a CEM. A matter of Behavior, and of the materiality of steps not just of bodies.
Technological determinism seems too drastic a judgement to place on Humanity’s Mind technologies of B-ness and One-ness (“the Universe”). But designating them “prevailing” technologies seems apt. The Big Bang point of view and perspective they generate on the Expansion and the S-universe denies sovereignty to both.*** WICF and WTITBTA demand more.
* Collisions whose ubiquitous presence (a Tell) has gifted us with a Grasp of the Nature of Things … and the human condition under the NofT’s general persisting conditions (GPC) of partial order, consequentiality and (step, body) discontinuity: ergo our condition of incomplete behavioral instruction. The Nature of Things is the Expansion seen sideways now in the B-universe. Our observer back at Big Bang would be surprised – indeed shocked – that later B-universe observers would set their sights on instances – i.e., the things of nature – to the neglect of the larger totality … and be shocked for our foregoing much of the potentiality for the What (CEM) and the How (CEM guidance) implicit in the NofT’s GPC.
** Persisting conditions made evident by collisions, here and there and everywhere in the Expansion. Constants. More principle than law. In Accord with partial order. Just as Differentiation, Extension and CEM are principles of the Expansion. Principles of special interest in the S-universe, where AT, ON the Frontier of the Expansion, order is something we build -- not just find.
*** B-speak’s ambiguity of the singular is – and should have been long ago – telling in this respect. Notably so. As, for example: history and History, behavior and Behavior. Couldn’t Peirce’s pragmaticism have made peace with James’s pragmatism if his focus on behaviors as Tells had extended to the Tell of Behavior? Ala Adam and Eve (rev.).
Figure C-260.A History: Looking Forward
The view Forward from Big Bang. Where B-universe and S-universe are one-dimensional concepts serving as Involves with which to Grasp instances of body and step. The Expansion and the Nature of Things are One; the Nature of Things is the Expansion seen cross-sectionally from the moving Frontier.
Figure C-260.B B-universe instances
A cross-sectional view of the Expansion. Where the conceptual B-universe includes instances of bodies along with instances of B-speak concepts objectifying behaviors. (Aka “The Universe”)
Figure C-260.C S-universe instances
A cross-sectional view of the Expansion. Where the theoretical S-universe includes instances of molecular steps and of steps’ constituent mettles. (Functionality re needed functionality applies.) (Aka “the World of Possibility”)
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
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