C-105. Biology and beyond (BFEPS)
Biology has its entity base, now made evident in the components and structure of the double helix. But biology has another, behavioral base. And that other, behavioral base now carries forward in CEM-history (App. XI) toward and in the frontier of human history (App. XII). It is the basis for behavioral architecture (C-90) to be found, and built, in communication, cognition, composition and community.
That base is “I <=> G”: the interdependency of involve and grasp (VII, XI; C-71). It pertains for both body and step. Grasp and involve parallel the components, interdependency parallels the double helix structure.
Grasp and involve interdependency is very apparent in and for the biological body, as in the various “bi-” aspects of animal bodies and in their step taking (e.g., eating, seeing and hearing, moving selves and other entities). We also see this interdependency later in CEM-history in communication’s “pitch and catch” behaviors (e.g., the putative “transfer of information”). It is somewhat less apparent – except sometimes by misadventure – in the results of communication, in the Read and Tell of messaging (App. XX) where points may or may not be successfully grasped and/or involved.
Once beyond the biological “I <=> G,” CEM development has been faltering. Not just in the development of the respective I and G capabilities. Even more critical has been the lack of development with respect to interdependency. The fact of interdependency is neglected, as we saw it fundamentally overlooked for body and step re the behavioral entity (III: Life, the double crystal) … and violated by relegating steps to the status of body attributes (C-97). Thus are needed contingencies failing: Problems requiring collective action for their solution fail for lack of a community capability – i.e., for lack of a viable Individual-Community interdependency. (Which, in turn, requires that emphasis on the two be balanced [C-71].)
Community requires effective communication for transport, and effective messaging (therefore cognition and composition together with communication), which together require balanced emphasis and effected interdependence – not just for each separately but for communication and messaging taken together. (Communication technology has developed further than message technology, the latter handicapped by linguistic convention, profusion and confusion. The imbalance poses a danger for messaging. See App. XX. When it comes to the Read and Tell of messaging,” I <=> G” gets far more difficult than the 3R’s would have it … for what is not yet enabled and not just for the problems of the thus far enabled [e.g., 0:Ps troubles like definition]. See C-107: The 4 R’s. The 4th is realization.)
“I <=> G” is the core of CEM-development, of individual and community realization. It should be the core of education.
(c) R.F. Carter
That base is “I <=> G”: the interdependency of involve and grasp (VII, XI; C-71). It pertains for both body and step. Grasp and involve parallel the components, interdependency parallels the double helix structure.
Grasp and involve interdependency is very apparent in and for the biological body, as in the various “bi-” aspects of animal bodies and in their step taking (e.g., eating, seeing and hearing, moving selves and other entities). We also see this interdependency later in CEM-history in communication’s “pitch and catch” behaviors (e.g., the putative “transfer of information”). It is somewhat less apparent – except sometimes by misadventure – in the results of communication, in the Read and Tell of messaging (App. XX) where points may or may not be successfully grasped and/or involved.
Once beyond the biological “I <=> G,” CEM development has been faltering. Not just in the development of the respective I and G capabilities. Even more critical has been the lack of development with respect to interdependency. The fact of interdependency is neglected, as we saw it fundamentally overlooked for body and step re the behavioral entity (III: Life, the double crystal) … and violated by relegating steps to the status of body attributes (C-97). Thus are needed contingencies failing: Problems requiring collective action for their solution fail for lack of a community capability – i.e., for lack of a viable Individual-Community interdependency. (Which, in turn, requires that emphasis on the two be balanced [C-71].)
Community requires effective communication for transport, and effective messaging (therefore cognition and composition together with communication), which together require balanced emphasis and effected interdependence – not just for each separately but for communication and messaging taken together. (Communication technology has developed further than message technology, the latter handicapped by linguistic convention, profusion and confusion. The imbalance poses a danger for messaging. See App. XX. When it comes to the Read and Tell of messaging,” I <=> G” gets far more difficult than the 3R’s would have it … for what is not yet enabled and not just for the problems of the thus far enabled [e.g., 0:Ps troubles like definition]. See C-107: The 4 R’s. The 4th is realization.)
“I <=> G” is the core of CEM-development, of individual and community realization. It should be the core of education.
(c) R.F. Carter
S