C-160. “Origin”: Darwin’s other contribution
Suppose that for sake of a thought discovery (sibling to a thought experiment) there is found in an obscure filing cabinet at NBC-television a fragment of script written for a Johnny Carson program. The fragment, never broadcast, features Johnny in his role as Karnak the Great … who, given an answer, holds the accompanying unopened envelope to his head, and then, the envelope still unopened, is able to reveal the question therein contained.
The answer that Ed gives Karnak is, “Which came first: the chicken or the egg?”
Following an initial startled, then inquisitive look at Ed and then (apparent) intense thought, Karnack’s response is, “What question is actually an answer?”
This script fragment might have been hidden away because the interdependence (“”) phenomenon manifested by “Which came first: the chicken or the egg?” could “change everything” (see “the Expansion” below, and later in C-163) -- even change “change” itself, as from the merely circumstantial to the more compositional (II). This question qua answer points TO “” as a crucial phenomenon in development. (It’s not just the grasping and the involving that make a difference [VII;C-105). So too does the “.”) It points TO the apex in molecular step constructions in further Realization (App. XIX) of the human condition, given the Nature of Things (III) and the Course (C-139) of CEM-history (App. XI-XII).
It might be in a commercial broadcast network’s interest that things just evolve … slowly, in marketable chunks of engaging and entertaining endeavor. Too much developmental emphasis and developmental consequentiality too soon could potentially put them at a competitive disadvantage, if not out of the business of popular appeal altogether … were “escape” content to lose out to effective problem solving. Such a fate, whatever the benefits to humanity of an explanation of the human condition that more fully considers developmental processes, especially via the “” contributions to Realization, and then again together with evolutionary processes … even when species origins are what is being talked about (C-38) ... this fate would be intolerable to an entertainment business and not even to be thought about further.
***
Darwin’s best known contribution is his explanation of how species evolution works, establishing it as fact (C-20) via biological observation (environmental differences => species differentiation among behavioral entities across generations) and the fossil record.
Darwin’s other contribution?
Employing the concept of “origin.” Instead, say, of employing the concept of “source” with its imputations of responsible “cause” rather than explicable reason. And “origin” favors us with its behavioral event perspective rather than one of behavioral entity or entities (C-114) ... the latter perhaps accompanied by ascribed behavioral properties of omniscience and omnipotence and/or to be adequately characterized as standing in a logical (and an ahistorical) relationship of necessity and sufficiency.
What the concept of “origin” is talking about, once we introduce a theoretical construct version of it (C-85,124), is the historical Course (C-108,139) and the beginning(s) in it (e.g., the chicken egg phenomenon)… and perhaps, far enough back, of Course itself (C-117).
Why is this so important? Because of all that it rescues us from. Starting, here, by “solving” the chicken egg “puzzle.” Showing it to be a case of mind binding, where means of minding have led us astray (0:S-P). Interdependence is now commonplace in human behavior (e.g., the cognition communication enhanced capability for minding [App. III]) is clearly a matter of Course (C-139).
With the Involve (aka context) of Course, with its molecular steps, it is not difficult to Grasp (VII; C-105) this very apparent back and forth phenomenon as a portion of an extended (especially composed!) molecular step (e.g., as in “playing catch” and “conversation”).
Origin’s point TO Course and its points AT processes and functionalities have the liberating effect of opening the door to progress via development … and via development evolution (C-121), to furthering our knowledge of the human condition via the Realization efforts we undertake (App. XIX; C-93; C-111). The attention we have been giving bodies and “objectively” anything else (including Course conditions, especially steps) as if they were bodies (C-114,139) adds dysfunctionality (0:S-P) to lack of functionality (C-144) as impediments (IV) to human progress.
Course shines a light on “.” We can see then the consequentiality of the “bi-“ phenomenon … of how there is no sound of one hand clapping (C-146), no Grasp without Involve (C-105), no running on but one leg -- to give stability while moving, no changing that does not balance similarity and difference (C-4). Further, we can see then the consequentiality of Step* Body, of Mind <=> Move within Step, of Grasp Involve within both Mind and Move … and of countless opportunities among capabilities developed and exercised within Realization ... all the way up to union as a “” (such as Step-dense molecular creations like a marriage, a team or a community, which must mount a direct attack on the omnipresent**behavioral problem [I:Pbeh]).
Note: The historical (i.e., consequential) progressive sequence of “NF => F => NF => F …” (C-115) can be written ahistorically as “NF F” … but that does not make it any less historical. Species reproduction, a change with informational carryover (i.e., some similarity, some difference), is consonant with the Nature of Things’ general persisting conditions of partial order (i.e., not order, lest there be no change; not no order, lest there be only differences) and consequentiality. Reproduction of some kind, because NF admits of functional equivalence … albeit with no assurance of pragmatic equivalence. A reason can be Grasped and Involved … and thus tested. Does NF require more reason than that? Something more than reasons?
* The capitalization in this paragraph, as elsewhere, makes the point that these terms are all best viewed as R-words (App. XX; C-107) – i.e., indicative of their needing to be interpreted with an R-sense (C-128; passim), of their Origin (yes, “origin” too should be an R-word, suppressive and oppressive usage notwithstanding) in needed functionality.
** An “omni-´of which there can be no doubt lest we not credit the Nature of Things.
***
“Origin” should not have to serve alone in our needed effort to correct the biases of minding that we have incurred to the disadvantage of Course … Course as discovered and, especially, Course as a needed Frontier and Pioneer endeavor (C-118-9).
Perhaps we should enlist Karnak’s assistance. How about:
“Expanding universe”
To which Karnak might respond:
“Which of ‘expanding’ and of ‘universe’ is a known condition and which is a thingk (C-27)?”
Of course! The Course! Expanding, a Course condition, is known. “Universe” is but a putative unit, involved in the use of the B-B “force” and “bE” modes for representing via the inside-outside cognitive relation (X) the focus of attention (C-114). The “big E(ntity),” so to speak.
(Compare what “source” is saying and talking about: It seems to ask us to consider something like a responsible behavioral entity [size and nature unspecified for any condition viewed ahistorically after the fact [C-108]. This putative object possesses the qualities, we must assume, requisite for the condition to be explained. But it is only “objective,” and not necessarily an entity – i.e., body. It’s treated as if it were a body, as a behavioral entity. Confounding the concepts of “source” and “origin,” for lack of theoretical explication, has not been helpful.)
***
When there might have been more than one “evolutionary” origin in Earth’s biological history … and even now perhaps more than one Course of speciation in consequence? And elsewhere? (Think Expansion. Think about functional equivalence too.)
(c) 2016 R. F. Carter
The answer that Ed gives Karnak is, “Which came first: the chicken or the egg?”
Following an initial startled, then inquisitive look at Ed and then (apparent) intense thought, Karnack’s response is, “What question is actually an answer?”
This script fragment might have been hidden away because the interdependence (“”) phenomenon manifested by “Which came first: the chicken or the egg?” could “change everything” (see “the Expansion” below, and later in C-163) -- even change “change” itself, as from the merely circumstantial to the more compositional (II). This question qua answer points TO “” as a crucial phenomenon in development. (It’s not just the grasping and the involving that make a difference [VII;C-105). So too does the “.”) It points TO the apex in molecular step constructions in further Realization (App. XIX) of the human condition, given the Nature of Things (III) and the Course (C-139) of CEM-history (App. XI-XII).
It might be in a commercial broadcast network’s interest that things just evolve … slowly, in marketable chunks of engaging and entertaining endeavor. Too much developmental emphasis and developmental consequentiality too soon could potentially put them at a competitive disadvantage, if not out of the business of popular appeal altogether … were “escape” content to lose out to effective problem solving. Such a fate, whatever the benefits to humanity of an explanation of the human condition that more fully considers developmental processes, especially via the “” contributions to Realization, and then again together with evolutionary processes … even when species origins are what is being talked about (C-38) ... this fate would be intolerable to an entertainment business and not even to be thought about further.
Darwin’s best known contribution is his explanation of how species evolution works, establishing it as fact (C-20) via biological observation (environmental differences => species differentiation among behavioral entities across generations) and the fossil record.
Darwin’s other contribution?
Employing the concept of “origin.” Instead, say, of employing the concept of “source” with its imputations of responsible “cause” rather than explicable reason. And “origin” favors us with its behavioral event perspective rather than one of behavioral entity or entities (C-114) ... the latter perhaps accompanied by ascribed behavioral properties of omniscience and omnipotence and/or to be adequately characterized as standing in a logical (and an ahistorical) relationship of necessity and sufficiency.
What the concept of “origin” is talking about, once we introduce a theoretical construct version of it (C-85,124), is the historical Course (C-108,139) and the beginning(s) in it (e.g., the chicken egg phenomenon)… and perhaps, far enough back, of Course itself (C-117).
Why is this so important? Because of all that it rescues us from. Starting, here, by “solving” the chicken egg “puzzle.” Showing it to be a case of mind binding, where means of minding have led us astray (0:S-P). Interdependence is now commonplace in human behavior (e.g., the cognition communication enhanced capability for minding [App. III]) is clearly a matter of Course (C-139).
With the Involve (aka context) of Course, with its molecular steps, it is not difficult to Grasp (VII; C-105) this very apparent back and forth phenomenon as a portion of an extended (especially composed!) molecular step (e.g., as in “playing catch” and “conversation”).
Origin’s point TO Course and its points AT processes and functionalities have the liberating effect of opening the door to progress via development … and via development evolution (C-121), to furthering our knowledge of the human condition via the Realization efforts we undertake (App. XIX; C-93; C-111). The attention we have been giving bodies and “objectively” anything else (including Course conditions, especially steps) as if they were bodies (C-114,139) adds dysfunctionality (0:S-P) to lack of functionality (C-144) as impediments (IV) to human progress.
Course shines a light on “.” We can see then the consequentiality of the “bi-“ phenomenon … of how there is no sound of one hand clapping (C-146), no Grasp without Involve (C-105), no running on but one leg -- to give stability while moving, no changing that does not balance similarity and difference (C-4). Further, we can see then the consequentiality of Step* Body, of Mind <=> Move within Step, of Grasp Involve within both Mind and Move … and of countless opportunities among capabilities developed and exercised within Realization ... all the way up to union as a “” (such as Step-dense molecular creations like a marriage, a team or a community, which must mount a direct attack on the omnipresent**behavioral problem [I:Pbeh]).
Note: The historical (i.e., consequential) progressive sequence of “NF => F => NF => F …” (C-115) can be written ahistorically as “NF F” … but that does not make it any less historical. Species reproduction, a change with informational carryover (i.e., some similarity, some difference), is consonant with the Nature of Things’ general persisting conditions of partial order (i.e., not order, lest there be no change; not no order, lest there be only differences) and consequentiality. Reproduction of some kind, because NF admits of functional equivalence … albeit with no assurance of pragmatic equivalence. A reason can be Grasped and Involved … and thus tested. Does NF require more reason than that? Something more than reasons?
* The capitalization in this paragraph, as elsewhere, makes the point that these terms are all best viewed as R-words (App. XX; C-107) – i.e., indicative of their needing to be interpreted with an R-sense (C-128; passim), of their Origin (yes, “origin” too should be an R-word, suppressive and oppressive usage notwithstanding) in needed functionality.
** An “omni-´of which there can be no doubt lest we not credit the Nature of Things.
“Origin” should not have to serve alone in our needed effort to correct the biases of minding that we have incurred to the disadvantage of Course … Course as discovered and, especially, Course as a needed Frontier and Pioneer endeavor (C-118-9).
Perhaps we should enlist Karnak’s assistance. How about:
“Expanding universe”
To which Karnak might respond:
“Which of ‘expanding’ and of ‘universe’ is a known condition and which is a thingk (C-27)?”
Of course! The Course! Expanding, a Course condition, is known. “Universe” is but a putative unit, involved in the use of the B-B “force” and “bE” modes for representing via the inside-outside cognitive relation (X) the focus of attention (C-114). The “big E(ntity),” so to speak.
(Compare what “source” is saying and talking about: It seems to ask us to consider something like a responsible behavioral entity [size and nature unspecified for any condition viewed ahistorically after the fact [C-108]. This putative object possesses the qualities, we must assume, requisite for the condition to be explained. But it is only “objective,” and not necessarily an entity – i.e., body. It’s treated as if it were a body, as a behavioral entity. Confounding the concepts of “source” and “origin,” for lack of theoretical explication, has not been helpful.)
When there might have been more than one “evolutionary” origin in Earth’s biological history … and even now perhaps more than one Course of speciation in consequence? And elsewhere? (Think Expansion. Think about functional equivalence too.)
(c) 2016 R. F. Carter
S