C-119. Pioneer
More commonly than we speak of IN and AT the Frontier (C-118), we speak of “life on the frontier,” as in noting those particular frontiers defined in the more familiar B-spacetime (III). rather than in the R-spacetime of the Present (C-96, C-118). We have been looking here at the general aspect of Frontier (the edge that moves but never changes) in contrast to such particular frontiers (e.g., “the Wild West,” “the final frontier”).
As we go forward with thinking about life AT and IN the Frontier, producing a theoretical construct (App. XVIII: adding explanation to concept’s summary; C-81, C-85) to add to – and inevitably alter – our sense of frontier, we need to give the concept of pioneer the same attention and similar treatment, basing our sense of Pioneer on what we know about the Frontier.And on what we know about Life as a Double Crystal (III), comprising a dynamic of entity and behavioral structures (e.g., molecules) characterized by the body ⇔ step interdependence (XI; C-71).
As a theoretical construct, Pioneer is not to be seen solely in terms of late-stage functionality (C-37) … that “person who” placement late in the Realization process (App. XIX) in which particulars of behavior are but an add-on to entities, serving to identify and/or locate an entity (C-114: “behavioral entity”) … where the matter of making steps, of composing behavioral molecules, is forfeit. That “person who” does live on a frontier, probably unmindful of the Frontier.
(If we were to characterize the Pioneer in late-stage fashion, we would point to Presence [C-96], wherein the minding Pioneer [sic] brings together the past and the future, devoting a chunk of B-spacetime future to that endeavor.)
This Pioneer is as unchanging as the Frontier in important respects … because of the Frontier condition and the Nature of Things which it refracts. Always double placed (C-118), after the fact (ATF) and before the fact (ATF), this Pioneer must heed the needed functionality entailed (C-110) by the duality. For instance:
The necessity for and balance of focal attention to BTF and ATF. Given the Nature of Things’ general persisting conditions of partial order and consequentiality, this has always been a World of Possibility – ATF of what might have been and BTF of what might be. So this Pioneer, “two-faced” so to speak (but re Realization, not values: see C-111), must monitor and govern the ratio of attention given BTF and ATF (See XI; App. XVII). (Necessity for and balance of exposure to BTF and ATF is presumed here.)
The necessity for and balance of cognition re BTF and ATF. Cognition BTF utilizes relating and relations to produce relationships (X). Cognition ATF can do that too, but it may settle for recognition of relationships and, at some risk, for the biased (i.e., unbalanced) use of the inside-outside relation to produce concepts at the expense of developing and using the before-after relation (e.g., II, X) – as for innovation and invention.
The necessity for and balance of memory re BTF and ATF. Short-term and mid-term memory (App. XX) are invaluable for BTF functionality. We would not want to do without long-term memory either, but we would not want to do with long-term memory only.
The necessity for and balance of questioning re BTF and ATF. Questioning re ATF is useful for hypotheses about order of things and can be useful for message clarification, as in the situational problems arising in instruction (I:Psit; 0:Sp) … if not for “rebellious” acts in control systems (C-36). BTF questioning, as in the other kind of knowing (C-93), in which we won’t know until we compose an answer or a solution and try it out, demands a yet poorly developed capability of and for pointed questioning (X; see App. XXI).
Interdependence, critical for molecular development of behavior and an absolute necessity for collective behavior, as for union (C-112) and community, depends itself on these balances (C-71) – and on the balancing of these balances (C-82).
(To further characterize this Pioneer, we can say “balanced” and “composed” [C-47]. We can also say, this Pioneer knows one’s self backwards and forwards. And employs – or should employ – a HAS discipline [App. VIII].)
***
When we described a thought experiment (App. XVI: Option B) in which we would walk into a photo studio and get a picture taken with a staged group of, say, “Old West” pioneers, our head poking through a hole in the stage set, and then we would walk out the back door and receive a map of, about and for Life … then we effected the change from the concept of pioneer to the theoretical construct of Pioneer AT and IN the Frontier.
(“Life AT and IN the Frontier” uses capitalization to sign and signal that theoretical constructs have replaced the concepts of life and frontier. AT and IN are capitalized here and elsewhere to do the same. As theoretical constructs, these prepositions serve as noun particles [C-40]. (Because we typically use, distinctively, “life” and “live” as noun and verb, respectively, “Life AT” shows this special prepositional usage while “live at,” with “live” as a verb, shows the more familiar prepositional usage.)
(c) R.F. Carter
As we go forward with thinking about life AT and IN the Frontier, producing a theoretical construct (App. XVIII: adding explanation to concept’s summary; C-81, C-85) to add to – and inevitably alter – our sense of frontier, we need to give the concept of pioneer the same attention and similar treatment, basing our sense of Pioneer on what we know about the Frontier.And on what we know about Life as a Double Crystal (III), comprising a dynamic of entity and behavioral structures (e.g., molecules) characterized by the body ⇔ step interdependence (XI; C-71).
As a theoretical construct, Pioneer is not to be seen solely in terms of late-stage functionality (C-37) … that “person who” placement late in the Realization process (App. XIX) in which particulars of behavior are but an add-on to entities, serving to identify and/or locate an entity (C-114: “behavioral entity”) … where the matter of making steps, of composing behavioral molecules, is forfeit. That “person who” does live on a frontier, probably unmindful of the Frontier.
(If we were to characterize the Pioneer in late-stage fashion, we would point to Presence [C-96], wherein the minding Pioneer [sic] brings together the past and the future, devoting a chunk of B-spacetime future to that endeavor.)
This Pioneer is as unchanging as the Frontier in important respects … because of the Frontier condition and the Nature of Things which it refracts. Always double placed (C-118), after the fact (ATF) and before the fact (ATF), this Pioneer must heed the needed functionality entailed (C-110) by the duality. For instance:
The necessity for and balance of focal attention to BTF and ATF. Given the Nature of Things’ general persisting conditions of partial order and consequentiality, this has always been a World of Possibility – ATF of what might have been and BTF of what might be. So this Pioneer, “two-faced” so to speak (but re Realization, not values: see C-111), must monitor and govern the ratio of attention given BTF and ATF (See XI; App. XVII). (Necessity for and balance of exposure to BTF and ATF is presumed here.)
The necessity for and balance of cognition re BTF and ATF. Cognition BTF utilizes relating and relations to produce relationships (X). Cognition ATF can do that too, but it may settle for recognition of relationships and, at some risk, for the biased (i.e., unbalanced) use of the inside-outside relation to produce concepts at the expense of developing and using the before-after relation (e.g., II, X) – as for innovation and invention.
The necessity for and balance of memory re BTF and ATF. Short-term and mid-term memory (App. XX) are invaluable for BTF functionality. We would not want to do without long-term memory either, but we would not want to do with long-term memory only.
The necessity for and balance of questioning re BTF and ATF. Questioning re ATF is useful for hypotheses about order of things and can be useful for message clarification, as in the situational problems arising in instruction (I:Psit; 0:Sp) … if not for “rebellious” acts in control systems (C-36). BTF questioning, as in the other kind of knowing (C-93), in which we won’t know until we compose an answer or a solution and try it out, demands a yet poorly developed capability of and for pointed questioning (X; see App. XXI).
Interdependence, critical for molecular development of behavior and an absolute necessity for collective behavior, as for union (C-112) and community, depends itself on these balances (C-71) – and on the balancing of these balances (C-82).
(To further characterize this Pioneer, we can say “balanced” and “composed” [C-47]. We can also say, this Pioneer knows one’s self backwards and forwards. And employs – or should employ – a HAS discipline [App. VIII].)
When we described a thought experiment (App. XVI: Option B) in which we would walk into a photo studio and get a picture taken with a staged group of, say, “Old West” pioneers, our head poking through a hole in the stage set, and then we would walk out the back door and receive a map of, about and for Life … then we effected the change from the concept of pioneer to the theoretical construct of Pioneer AT and IN the Frontier.
(“Life AT and IN the Frontier” uses capitalization to sign and signal that theoretical constructs have replaced the concepts of life and frontier. AT and IN are capitalized here and elsewhere to do the same. As theoretical constructs, these prepositions serve as noun particles [C-40]. (Because we typically use, distinctively, “life” and “live” as noun and verb, respectively, “Life AT” shows this special prepositional usage while “live at,” with “live” as a verb, shows the more familiar prepositional usage.)
(c) R.F. Carter
S