C-117. A curious echo?
R-words (C-107) exhibit minding’s linguistic (doubled) duality of expressing two kinds of nouns and two kinds of verbs (App. XX). This even though many common words that should qualify as R-words are not typically found to have been completely “conjugated” linguistically in that manner. Some, like “material,” have achieved expression as a verb only by adding the “-ize” suffix to become a new word – a suffix coinage to the consternation of some who admire the beauty of the old above the truth of the yet-to-be-realized new (and who regard the development, acquisition and usage of language in corrective “+1 … -1” terms rather than in “0 … 1” terms [C-108]).
Whether latent or manifest, the duality of R-words seems to echo another duality, that of the particle-wave phenomenon in physics (Bohr’s complementarity). Here, as there, a word can be one or the other – but not at the same time. What is being talked about may go back and forth between the two conditions of noun and verb … which it does in the process of Realization (C-111).
What this suggests is that the concept of “behavioral entity” (C-114), in its adjective-noun usage, and with its emphasis on the inside-outside cognitive relation relative to the before-after relation (X), misses an important point about the duality: If we do not see body and step as independent of each other, applying the SGN correction (III: the Double Crystal; C-104), then we cannot expect to see what is being – or should be– talked about here with respect to the four step phases of Realization (i.e., conditions dealing with functionality, from needed functionality to embodied functionality ).
However, seeing that the noun and verb conditions each require two aspects to fulfil all the needed functionality of Realization (App. XX), and mindful that we, as humans, must undertake the expression of duality that would make an R-word more than an echo … there is still more that must come in the way of technological improvement. (See, for example, the proposed introduction of R-Blocks to advance behavioral architecture [C-90].)
In C-115 (footnote) and C-126 (You are here!) the CEM-history (App. XI) basis for that technological improvement is discussed.
(c) R.F. Carter
Whether latent or manifest, the duality of R-words seems to echo another duality, that of the particle-wave phenomenon in physics (Bohr’s complementarity). Here, as there, a word can be one or the other – but not at the same time. What is being talked about may go back and forth between the two conditions of noun and verb … which it does in the process of Realization (C-111).
What this suggests is that the concept of “behavioral entity” (C-114), in its adjective-noun usage, and with its emphasis on the inside-outside cognitive relation relative to the before-after relation (X), misses an important point about the duality: If we do not see body and step as independent of each other, applying the SGN correction (III: the Double Crystal; C-104), then we cannot expect to see what is being – or should be– talked about here with respect to the four step phases of Realization (i.e., conditions dealing with functionality, from needed functionality to embodied functionality ).
However, seeing that the noun and verb conditions each require two aspects to fulfil all the needed functionality of Realization (App. XX), and mindful that we, as humans, must undertake the expression of duality that would make an R-word more than an echo … there is still more that must come in the way of technological improvement. (See, for example, the proposed introduction of R-Blocks to advance behavioral architecture [C-90].)
In C-115 (footnote) and C-126 (You are here!) the CEM-history (App. XI) basis for that technological improvement is discussed.
(c) R.F. Carter
S