C-162. R-diagnosis: Help!
Ideally, when help is to be extended and/or received, both parties should be R-entities (C-147), possessed of R-sense’s (C-128) Grasp (VII; C-105) of Realization’s body step interdependence (C-111), capable of primary, secondary and tertiary Read and Tell capabilities (C-8), aware of the many kinds of problems needing solution (I: behavioral and situational; 0: Sp,S-P, Ps and P). A Help Help condition should obtain, most simply as in the helping and/or helping to be helped circumstances but extending on into the more molecular (e.g., being helped to help by helping to be helped to help [App. I]).
Any and every material condition should be in play. Most especially all the body step consequentiality … to be found and found out one way or another (C-93: Kt, Kf).
More typical is something like the doctor-patient encounter, of two behavioral entities,: bE (C-114) each confronting the other with their respective functionalities, their limited Grasps of functionality, their needed functionality (C-144) and unneeded dysfunction, their weak communicative capabilities and their respective problematic dysfunctional concerns (e.g., ill => pill; broke => mend; weak => support). And all this in an unsatisfactory market context (C-122: e.g., the distribution problem [0:Sp; C-165]) … plus a dubious technological context (e.g., the computer as the “third person” in the room and, especially, in the “conversation”).
We saw in our initial discussion of health (App. V) the need for diagnosis to look into steps (making and taking them) and the body step interdependency in addition to body dysfunctionalities. Now it seems obvious that a historical record of health, in the context of an R-sense of development, is at least as important to diagnosis for both parties as any medical record.
Are we to compose ourselves or help others to compose themselves or be helped to compose ourselves, any and all of these, without a sense of composing – of the art in, of and for living (App. XXIII)? Of “compose” as an R-word (C-107)?
***
Why a review of behavioral metastrategy (C-161)? Because an R-sense gives us a better Grasp (aka Read) of the human condition. It suggests, via the R-transform (C-111), consequentiality that we have been overlooking. Further, it offers a positive platform (BFEPS) for what we might and should do to obtain a better quality of life, overcoming this oversight (0:S-P,P) – and also helps us to deal with the malfunctioning (0:Sp,S-P,Ps) of what we have been doing. These matters apply in every field of human endeavor – i.e., where problems both situational and behavioral (I) remain to be solved.
R-sense says that not only should we be attending to the molecular step (aka structure of process) and step body interdependence … we should Grasp that within the molecular step there are innumerable capabilities to be developed in response to needed functionality (C-144) and that these capabilities themselves very much need the attention of composition to their prospective interdependencies and prospective effectiveness.
Consider: How adequate a diagnosis do we achieve for any operating system, human or otherwise, given what we typically come to it for and with, and given what we typically look for and how we look for it? Especially the human operating systems, individually and collectively? Motor vehicles have it better?
Typically, both parties come to diagnosis encounters with good intentions in response to need. But mid-Course (C-118-9,139), for both parties. And want may intrude, not just as transformed and expressed need, but in unbalanced relation to need (XI; C-148: e.g., want/need >1) or in an addictive want => need relationship.
(c) 2016 R. F. Carter
Any and every material condition should be in play. Most especially all the body step consequentiality … to be found and found out one way or another (C-93: Kt, Kf).
More typical is something like the doctor-patient encounter, of two behavioral entities,: bE (C-114) each confronting the other with their respective functionalities, their limited Grasps of functionality, their needed functionality (C-144) and unneeded dysfunction, their weak communicative capabilities and their respective problematic dysfunctional concerns (e.g., ill => pill; broke => mend; weak => support). And all this in an unsatisfactory market context (C-122: e.g., the distribution problem [0:Sp; C-165]) … plus a dubious technological context (e.g., the computer as the “third person” in the room and, especially, in the “conversation”).
We saw in our initial discussion of health (App. V) the need for diagnosis to look into steps (making and taking them) and the body step interdependency in addition to body dysfunctionalities. Now it seems obvious that a historical record of health, in the context of an R-sense of development, is at least as important to diagnosis for both parties as any medical record.
Are we to compose ourselves or help others to compose themselves or be helped to compose ourselves, any and all of these, without a sense of composing – of the art in, of and for living (App. XXIII)? Of “compose” as an R-word (C-107)?
Why a review of behavioral metastrategy (C-161)? Because an R-sense gives us a better Grasp (aka Read) of the human condition. It suggests, via the R-transform (C-111), consequentiality that we have been overlooking. Further, it offers a positive platform (BFEPS) for what we might and should do to obtain a better quality of life, overcoming this oversight (0:S-P,P) – and also helps us to deal with the malfunctioning (0:Sp,S-P,Ps) of what we have been doing. These matters apply in every field of human endeavor – i.e., where problems both situational and behavioral (I) remain to be solved.
R-sense says that not only should we be attending to the molecular step (aka structure of process) and step body interdependence … we should Grasp that within the molecular step there are innumerable capabilities to be developed in response to needed functionality (C-144) and that these capabilities themselves very much need the attention of composition to their prospective interdependencies and prospective effectiveness.
Consider: How adequate a diagnosis do we achieve for any operating system, human or otherwise, given what we typically come to it for and with, and given what we typically look for and how we look for it? Especially the human operating systems, individually and collectively? Motor vehicles have it better?
Typically, both parties come to diagnosis encounters with good intentions in response to need. But mid-Course (C-118-9,139), for both parties. And want may intrude, not just as transformed and expressed need, but in unbalanced relation to need (XI; C-148: e.g., want/need >1) or in an addictive want => need relationship.
(c) 2016 R. F. Carter
S