C-164. Our really big mind-bind
Minding, as via imagination, is how humans make the most of their part in the Expansion. To have minding crippled, and our own Expansion suppressed, is a human tragedy … a self-inflicted binding. But this is pretty much what we have done and are still doing, diminishing the human condition.
We have done it by placing Expansion in a two entity (aka body, B) vise, compressing and squeezing behavior (aka steps) into something less than the consequentiality, functionality, and materiality that CEM-history and Realization show the human condition to be and able to become.
We know something about two “ends” -- i.e., boundary conditions -- of the Expansion. There is the “Big Bang” event as one end, a beginning of the Expansion. But instead of an event as what is being talked about, we speak of it as a B-type source … and/or search for it as a substantive cause.*
The other boundary, the other jaw of the vise, is the B-type notion of a Universe itself: enclosing every thing (entities and anything via focal attention seen as an entity – a failing [what is said about re what is talked about {C-156}] in which we indulge here for our purposes with “the Expansion.”)
The “B-ness light” shines (perspective and BPO bias [C-39]) forth from the one boundary condition and inwards from the other.
What we have here are actually two overlapping ”collector concepts.” One concept comprises all that comes after it. The other comprises all that comes inside it. But in collecting these particulars, each particular is classified as a behavioral entity, bE (C-114). No surprise, then, that “between” the two there is a muddle with respect to the human condition.
The Expansion is behavior. To diminish behavior by seeing it as this or that B attribute (in N-dimension spacetime) or as a B-B relationship (“force”) in B-spacetime is to deny – i.e., fail to Realize – the human condition (C-163).
To fully Realize behavior in the Expansion, “source” and “universe” should be prime candidates for set-asides. They are impediments to minding (IV).
There is every reason to think that the general conditions of partial order and consequentiality obtained before the “Big Bang” explosive event as well as continuing now in the Expansion. After the event, collisions (which become increasingly rich in behavior before and after collisions) among emergent entities make it evident that discontinuity (entity separateness) is now also a general condition in the Expansion.
There is a World of Possibility on the open Frontier end of the Expansion, a promise of future expansions that better developed R-entities (C-147,149)can bring about, extending CEM-history positively.
***
We often see the B-B relationship’s compression effect, weakening our Grasp that we have on Realization. Familiarly, for example, “process” is seen as some thing intervening between producer and product, tied to one or the other as identity, its structure characterized in tool and procedure usage terms.
R-words (C-107) demonstrate the oppressiveness of language protocols that follow the B-B model. What R-words are talking about calls for two nouns and two verbs (App. XX) in English as an L-protocol. Instead, some nouns and verbs are frequently absent (notably, N-1 and V-1). Or the four may be collapsed into one, as by using a suffix (e.g.,“-ion” or “-ing”).
Compose, an R-word (at the heart of Realization’s [sic] minding [sic] along with cognition [sic] and communication [sic]), does not deserve the compression (sic) of composition (sic).
So it’s not just the B-bias in minding, objectifying any and everything on which we focus our attention. There’s this B-B relationship bias too, so glowing in “source” and “universe.” We might be forgiven sometimes the B-bias, given our frequent B-involvement in collisions. But a B-B relationship bias, suppressing the development of Realized steps with which to arrange (and arrange to avoid) collisions, is unacceptable. Give steps their due. We need them.
Which is why we need the constructed “BS-spacetime” to fully appreciate the Expansion (C-163) and the contribution that steps are making to CEM-history.
* Treating “Big Bang,” the event, as a “singularity” seems to see that event as a source by those espousing “universe” and who seek to discover the “laws of the universe” (C-93: Kf) – on the working assumption of an underlying order of things (III: ”oots”).This in the face of the Nature of Things’ general persisting condition of partial order and the Expansion’s collisions. (Little wonder then that we speak of the harder and hardest sciences [C-152] that must deal with fragments of order and orderings … and also cannot afford to write off the remainder of behavior via concepts like “chance,” “randomness,” etc. Further, it is in the Expansion domain in which we must operate as humanists and artists as well as scientists [App. VIII: HAS] to formulate steps that we can test as solutions to our problems [C-93: Kt])
(c) 2016 R. F. Carter
We have done it by placing Expansion in a two entity (aka body, B) vise, compressing and squeezing behavior (aka steps) into something less than the consequentiality, functionality, and materiality that CEM-history and Realization show the human condition to be and able to become.
We know something about two “ends” -- i.e., boundary conditions -- of the Expansion. There is the “Big Bang” event as one end, a beginning of the Expansion. But instead of an event as what is being talked about, we speak of it as a B-type source … and/or search for it as a substantive cause.*
The other boundary, the other jaw of the vise, is the B-type notion of a Universe itself: enclosing every thing (entities and anything via focal attention seen as an entity – a failing [what is said about re what is talked about {C-156}] in which we indulge here for our purposes with “the Expansion.”)
The “B-ness light” shines (perspective and BPO bias [C-39]) forth from the one boundary condition and inwards from the other.
What we have here are actually two overlapping ”collector concepts.” One concept comprises all that comes after it. The other comprises all that comes inside it. But in collecting these particulars, each particular is classified as a behavioral entity, bE (C-114). No surprise, then, that “between” the two there is a muddle with respect to the human condition.
The Expansion is behavior. To diminish behavior by seeing it as this or that B attribute (in N-dimension spacetime) or as a B-B relationship (“force”) in B-spacetime is to deny – i.e., fail to Realize – the human condition (C-163).
To fully Realize behavior in the Expansion, “source” and “universe” should be prime candidates for set-asides. They are impediments to minding (IV).
There is every reason to think that the general conditions of partial order and consequentiality obtained before the “Big Bang” explosive event as well as continuing now in the Expansion. After the event, collisions (which become increasingly rich in behavior before and after collisions) among emergent entities make it evident that discontinuity (entity separateness) is now also a general condition in the Expansion.
There is a World of Possibility on the open Frontier end of the Expansion, a promise of future expansions that better developed R-entities (C-147,149)can bring about, extending CEM-history positively.
We often see the B-B relationship’s compression effect, weakening our Grasp that we have on Realization. Familiarly, for example, “process” is seen as some thing intervening between producer and product, tied to one or the other as identity, its structure characterized in tool and procedure usage terms.
R-words (C-107) demonstrate the oppressiveness of language protocols that follow the B-B model. What R-words are talking about calls for two nouns and two verbs (App. XX) in English as an L-protocol. Instead, some nouns and verbs are frequently absent (notably, N-1 and V-1). Or the four may be collapsed into one, as by using a suffix (e.g.,“-ion” or “-ing”).
Compose, an R-word (at the heart of Realization’s [sic] minding [sic] along with cognition [sic] and communication [sic]), does not deserve the compression (sic) of composition (sic).
So it’s not just the B-bias in minding, objectifying any and everything on which we focus our attention. There’s this B-B relationship bias too, so glowing in “source” and “universe.” We might be forgiven sometimes the B-bias, given our frequent B-involvement in collisions. But a B-B relationship bias, suppressing the development of Realized steps with which to arrange (and arrange to avoid) collisions, is unacceptable. Give steps their due. We need them.
Which is why we need the constructed “BS-spacetime” to fully appreciate the Expansion (C-163) and the contribution that steps are making to CEM-history.
* Treating “Big Bang,” the event, as a “singularity” seems to see that event as a source by those espousing “universe” and who seek to discover the “laws of the universe” (C-93: Kf) – on the working assumption of an underlying order of things (III: ”oots”).This in the face of the Nature of Things’ general persisting condition of partial order and the Expansion’s collisions. (Little wonder then that we speak of the harder and hardest sciences [C-152] that must deal with fragments of order and orderings … and also cannot afford to write off the remainder of behavior via concepts like “chance,” “randomness,” etc. Further, it is in the Expansion domain in which we must operate as humanists and artists as well as scientists [App. VIII: HAS] to formulate steps that we can test as solutions to our problems [C-93: Kt])
(c) 2016 R. F. Carter
S