C-148. “Control Central”
Once we make the point TO re needed functionality, NF, as the missing link between the Nature of Things and Realization, as IN consequence of the former and OF consequence for the latter, it seems reasonable to reposition ourselves, as R-entities (C-147), to make the most of both … to establish this as point of view and perspective for the course our lives will take – to think of it as “Control Central.” (Not merely as a concept, but as a theoretically grounded construct [VI; C-85,124].)
It is in this sense that we have adopted R-entity to designate the prospective control agency. This whether it be individual, community (broadly speaking), or the two interdependently (i.e., union). We have moved our position as control agency out of the “behavioral entity” muddle (C-97,114) into the middle -- the center so to speak-- of consequentiality (i.e., NF). We are now better prepared for what we might and should do … not just to do (or not do) the things that have been done before … to avoid the downward spiral of decision making over problem solving (C-98).
Which is to say: “Let’s talk effectiveness.”
The egregious neglect of the BPO bias (C-39) can be corrected via the R-transform (C-111). This SGN correction (C-104,135) thus achieved expands and clarifies our picture of consequentiality. (“The big picture” becomes “the bigger picture” – i.e., an R-sense.) We have made apparent the materiality of step (independent of body but interdependent with it), of generality (independent of the particular but interdependent with it), and of the Nature of Things’ partial order (independent of the order of things but interdependent with it).
The prospects for life beyond biology (C-105), for increased strength and consequentiality re arranged collisions via further development of the Grasp Involve interdependency (VII), is enhanced by establishment of the step as independent of the body, of the general as independent of the particular, of partial order as independent of order (i.e., the SGN correction).
We can now look anew at the Control imperative (VI), to respond to control need (CN)/control capability capacity (CC) >1 (by removing the discrepancy) and/or to “CN minus CC” by reducing it. Looking anew via R-sense to see that a path of Realization, which recognizes this dual CC interdependency along with many other interdependencies, is the way forward for us as Pioneers AT and IN the Frontier (C-118-9).
***
The bivalent aspect of CN/CC>1 and of CN minus CC needs attention with respect to needed functionality. Both signal NF, but CN minus CC implies that the degree of NF may vary. Whether and how we respond may well differ accordingly … but respond we must. CN minus CC poses a monstrous measurement problem. However, a beginning attack on the problem is possible.
Consider a set of measures for any CN-CC relationship that begins with CN/CC>1, then ranges on upwards through CN/CC>2, CN/CC>3 … ending perhaps with CN/CC>4. Why such a simple solution? Because the numbers from 2 to 4 represent sigma values: the units of standard deviation for the distribution of imbalanced conditions (XI).
CN/CC>1 is itself enough to command attention. For someone managing step making and/or taking, an immediate, modest adjustment to steering is most effective. (Note the risk of skids, even of upsets, via oversteering.) CN/CC>2 … CN/CC>4, like one tail of the normal curve, point to the less likely – but more serious – imbalance conditions.
How might we assess the sigma value for a given R-entity standing AT and ON the Frontier? Consider the use of the Dynamic Profile Assay, DPA (App. XVII). DPA covers a broad survey of potential imbalances for an R-entity in striving ahead via Realization. The observed proportion of imbalances (CN/CC>1) suggests a scalar for adding to the sigma value (say, to 2 from 1). The observed proportion of unrecognized independencies (e.g., not distinguishing need from want, learning from knowing, effectiveness from efficiency, capability from capacity) suggests adding still more to the sigma (to 3 or even 4).
To not have an R-sense condemns one to perpetually crippled – i.e., unbalanced – behavior. “Minding-bound,” via the BPO bias, is a case in point.
(c) 2016 R. F. Carter
It is in this sense that we have adopted R-entity to designate the prospective control agency. This whether it be individual, community (broadly speaking), or the two interdependently (i.e., union). We have moved our position as control agency out of the “behavioral entity” muddle (C-97,114) into the middle -- the center so to speak-- of consequentiality (i.e., NF). We are now better prepared for what we might and should do … not just to do (or not do) the things that have been done before … to avoid the downward spiral of decision making over problem solving (C-98).
Which is to say: “Let’s talk effectiveness.”
The egregious neglect of the BPO bias (C-39) can be corrected via the R-transform (C-111). This SGN correction (C-104,135) thus achieved expands and clarifies our picture of consequentiality. (“The big picture” becomes “the bigger picture” – i.e., an R-sense.) We have made apparent the materiality of step (independent of body but interdependent with it), of generality (independent of the particular but interdependent with it), and of the Nature of Things’ partial order (independent of the order of things but interdependent with it).
The prospects for life beyond biology (C-105), for increased strength and consequentiality re arranged collisions via further development of the Grasp Involve interdependency (VII), is enhanced by establishment of the step as independent of the body, of the general as independent of the particular, of partial order as independent of order (i.e., the SGN correction).
We can now look anew at the Control imperative (VI), to respond to control need (CN)/control capability capacity (CC) >1 (by removing the discrepancy) and/or to “CN minus CC” by reducing it. Looking anew via R-sense to see that a path of Realization, which recognizes this dual CC interdependency along with many other interdependencies, is the way forward for us as Pioneers AT and IN the Frontier (C-118-9).
The bivalent aspect of CN/CC>1 and of CN minus CC needs attention with respect to needed functionality. Both signal NF, but CN minus CC implies that the degree of NF may vary. Whether and how we respond may well differ accordingly … but respond we must. CN minus CC poses a monstrous measurement problem. However, a beginning attack on the problem is possible.
Consider a set of measures for any CN-CC relationship that begins with CN/CC>1, then ranges on upwards through CN/CC>2, CN/CC>3 … ending perhaps with CN/CC>4. Why such a simple solution? Because the numbers from 2 to 4 represent sigma values: the units of standard deviation for the distribution of imbalanced conditions (XI).
CN/CC>1 is itself enough to command attention. For someone managing step making and/or taking, an immediate, modest adjustment to steering is most effective. (Note the risk of skids, even of upsets, via oversteering.) CN/CC>2 … CN/CC>4, like one tail of the normal curve, point to the less likely – but more serious – imbalance conditions.
How might we assess the sigma value for a given R-entity standing AT and ON the Frontier? Consider the use of the Dynamic Profile Assay, DPA (App. XVII). DPA covers a broad survey of potential imbalances for an R-entity in striving ahead via Realization. The observed proportion of imbalances (CN/CC>1) suggests a scalar for adding to the sigma value (say, to 2 from 1). The observed proportion of unrecognized independencies (e.g., not distinguishing need from want, learning from knowing, effectiveness from efficiency, capability from capacity) suggests adding still more to the sigma (to 3 or even 4).
To not have an R-sense condemns one to perpetually crippled – i.e., unbalanced – behavior. “Minding-bound,” via the BPO bias, is a case in point.
(c) 2016 R. F. Carter
S