C-155. Managing the muddle: a math triumph
What is it from which the V- transform (C-154), like the R-transform (C-111), stands apart in order to make a contribution to an improved quality of life (0) by helping us in Control Central (C-148) to solve our problems (I)?
It’s the muddle (C-114). Where collision-relevant particulars in the stream of life (i.e., “things”: bodies, their properties, their relationships) are the focus of attention (“objects”), and these focal particulars are assigned values by some V-protocol (C-154). Where math is triumphant, because it helps us to manage the muddle and our conduct in it (e.g., decision making, problem solving).
This is the muddle where step takers are known as behavioral entities (bE) instead of as R-entities (C-147), the muddle where the BPO bias (C-39) is rampant, the muddle where the SGN correction (C-104) using the R-transform (C-135) is required to meet the insistent demand of needed functionality C-144) – rescuing behavior (aka steps) from its subordinated, neglected role as something (or anything) that entities do.
Math V-protocols give us tools and procedures for sorting desirable and undesirable collisions and their consequences, and for sorting desirable and undesirable behaviors (e.g., “actions”)… for the “which and how” of arranging and avoiding collisions, for the numbers and amounts involved in those collisions . For the steps forward we would take, this information has proved invaluable for managing our way in this muddle.
There are, however, some other considerations. What of steps we might take, even should take, if we were able to (C-102)? Must we stay in the mire of this muddle – in a quagmire below a towering Escarpment (App. XII) of impediments (0,IV), many of which we have, ourselves, produced for lack of needed functionality? What of the fact that math’s technology is itself a matter of Realization – of capability development exercised in invention?
The R-transform, like the V-transform, is distinctive in standing apart … in its availability as leverage to insert into the stream of consequentiality, to lift us from the muddle. And “standing” too has something to say here. We effectively come to a stop; “to think” we may say. (In the decision making mode, we are uncertain – and should stop because we lack singularity [VIII] of instruction. Preferable, however, is to view this as creating a Presence [C-96] as a Pioneer on the Frontier [C-118-9].)
The two transforms, operating interdependently (C-154), have the potential to provide two of the three “legs” for the platform that could lift us from this muddle. The other leg, which to now we have not characterized in transform terms, is the language, L-transform (C-156). It, too, stands apart. But its technology, like that of the R-transform, has not received anywhere near the development emphasis it needs (see App. XX: Message theory) for the requirements of effective interdependence (balanced emphasis, especially: XI; C-71).
(c) 2016 R. F. Carter
It’s the muddle (C-114). Where collision-relevant particulars in the stream of life (i.e., “things”: bodies, their properties, their relationships) are the focus of attention (“objects”), and these focal particulars are assigned values by some V-protocol (C-154). Where math is triumphant, because it helps us to manage the muddle and our conduct in it (e.g., decision making, problem solving).
This is the muddle where step takers are known as behavioral entities (bE) instead of as R-entities (C-147), the muddle where the BPO bias (C-39) is rampant, the muddle where the SGN correction (C-104) using the R-transform (C-135) is required to meet the insistent demand of needed functionality C-144) – rescuing behavior (aka steps) from its subordinated, neglected role as something (or anything) that entities do.
Math V-protocols give us tools and procedures for sorting desirable and undesirable collisions and their consequences, and for sorting desirable and undesirable behaviors (e.g., “actions”)… for the “which and how” of arranging and avoiding collisions, for the numbers and amounts involved in those collisions . For the steps forward we would take, this information has proved invaluable for managing our way in this muddle.
There are, however, some other considerations. What of steps we might take, even should take, if we were able to (C-102)? Must we stay in the mire of this muddle – in a quagmire below a towering Escarpment (App. XII) of impediments (0,IV), many of which we have, ourselves, produced for lack of needed functionality? What of the fact that math’s technology is itself a matter of Realization – of capability development exercised in invention?
The R-transform, like the V-transform, is distinctive in standing apart … in its availability as leverage to insert into the stream of consequentiality, to lift us from the muddle. And “standing” too has something to say here. We effectively come to a stop; “to think” we may say. (In the decision making mode, we are uncertain – and should stop because we lack singularity [VIII] of instruction. Preferable, however, is to view this as creating a Presence [C-96] as a Pioneer on the Frontier [C-118-9].)
The two transforms, operating interdependently (C-154), have the potential to provide two of the three “legs” for the platform that could lift us from this muddle. The other leg, which to now we have not characterized in transform terms, is the language, L-transform (C-156). It, too, stands apart. But its technology, like that of the R-transform, has not received anywhere near the development emphasis it needs (see App. XX: Message theory) for the requirements of effective interdependence (balanced emphasis, especially: XI; C-71).
(c) 2016 R. F. Carter
S