C-184. This Way’s Forward Leverages
Coming upon a line of paw tracks in the snow, we might Read one or more of them as belonging to a member of this or that animal species. (A B-ness matter.) Or we might Read the line of tracks, about a happening, about all the functionality and needed functionality involved in that happening. (An R-ness matter.)
The line of paw tracks makes apparent two major leverages by which we progress forward via full body movements. They are: 1/ the “bi-“ leg capacities; and, 2/ the back and forth (B&F) moves from one bi-capacity to the other. (Snakes, lacking the “bi-“ leverage of legs, still have the B&F leverage, using muscles for forward movement of their bodies.)
The “bi-“ capacities provide a defacto forward leverage, via the facing features of the body … these features themselves shaped in consequence of the B&F between body and step, features highlighted in and by evolutionary history. With respect to B&F leverage, we are, however, interested in more than full body movements or even movements of body parts, such as bi-jaw chewing and its limited B&F … limited with respect to the step’s needed functionality.
We are interested in a progressive forwardness, in the steps we must make and take to solve our problems. Facing’s “bi-“ is not forward leverage enough. Not for the materiality needed by multi-step, expansive lives. B&F is about a happening, about history.
About making history. About CEM-history’s progressive thread, of materiality born of B&F’s mutual contingency and emergent features: the B&F of body and step, a story of development and not just of evolution. About the B&F between body capacity and step capability. About the multi-step body’s making history via the step’s B&F of Grasp and Involve (e.g., problem solving). About materiality in making human history within the step, via the B&F of minding < = > moving (e.g., minding after the moving as well as before: re step outcomes). About materiality within the step’s minding, as of minding’s cognition (relating’s B&F to compose a relationship, as in [“seeing” the] humor). About increased materiality within a molecular step, increasing its strength via B&F among several capabilities, and especially among several cases of B&F’d capabilities: (< = >) < = > (< = >), as in the case of needing to develop and orchestrate Union’s individual < = > community with, say, cognition < = > communication capabilities in order to solve problems requiring collective behavior.
We can and do find some possessed functionalities, after the fact, in bodies (e.g., inflammables). But, here On the Frontier before the fact, we must be able to create functionality, too … whatever and however we as agency come to embody it in composed protocols. Step development utilizing interdependence’s B&F offers advances in problem solving functionality far greater -- and quicker -- than evolution’s grinding pace of body < = > step.
Consider the bump in the path of biological evolution made evident in and by the Burgess Shale. There, , a myriad of life forms disparately endowed with limited functionality, can be Read. Most of these life forms from back then disappeared. A few survived to evolve further. Are we now experiencing a similar bump on the road of development: a rife of behavioral complexities? Will only the fittingest survive … and they only if we can give more strength to their molecular compose, to the materiality of fitting (to become Adept, not just to Adopt and/or to Adapt)?
This Way, which applies the R-transform, brings forth the full materiality of the step … the materiality of step making as well as of step taking. And it is in and by step making that we can optimize B&F consequentiality.
Consider, for example, how artificial intelligence (AI) might be called upon. Not for technologies to perform existing functionalities more efficiently. Rather, to assist in developing effective technology for unmet needed functionality, especially re the vexing behavioral problem. Therein beckons the potential step strength of interdependent interdependencies (as above) … but lurk the molecular challenge of behavioral architecture and its demand for continued monitoring of component imbalances (such as suggested in App. XVII’s Dynamic Profile Analysis). A companion. Not a substitute.
This World of Possibility demands -- and offers – no less.
***
Each paw print is also a marker: a collision marker. A collision not always the end (or the beginning) of a happening … sometimes a time and place within a molecular step. A collision IN and OF consequence. Collision per se needs to be Read, of the Nature of Things’ general persisting conditions (partial order, consequentiality and [body] discontinuity), conditions that point to this World of Possibility, to needed functionality, conditions that put a premium on step development and step strength.
Ergo: < = >’s B&F, whose strength, its materiality, depends on the emergent qualities of B&F’s mutual contingency (CEM B&F) … which in turn depends on the independence of, and balance between, the molecular components, step and/or body, so related. (Molecular in that components are specified and separable for composing – i.e., independent. We don’t make carbon steel, alloying iron and carbon for added materiality, by mixing iron-bearing stones and carbon-bearing twigs. We need the iron and carbon separated first, then in the balance appropriate to the materiality needed.)*
For the step’s minding, furthering accord with the Nature of Things, the CEM B&F leverage is critical. Something needs to be made of the focus of attention. For the multi-step taker, multiple in variety and number of steps, a next step’s move to be taken with respect to a multitude of potential foci of attention (bodies or any condition seen “objectively”) depends on there being more than a reactive capacity – even an extensive array of linked reactive steps to “recognized” bodies. That next step needs B&F capacity and capability … such as whose particulars we summarize in territorial concepts like communication, transportation, games, play and eating. All Involve B&F, some more CEM B&F than others. The next step needs cognition, not just recognition; it needs the cognitive impression we compose and not just a bi-enhanced focal image we recognize and register.**
CEM B&F affords us a minding Grasp (a mapping) with which we can venture ourselves forth in and by an Involving step … then to Grasp that step’s outcome and carry on in a next step’s engagement. Might, ought CEM B&F be our engine for progress midst these several multitudes of steps and bodies?
Like the fact of collisions per se, due to the Nature of Things’ partial order, the ubiquity of B&F particulars Tells us to respect the human condition of incomplete behavioral instruction … and our incompletely instructed step maker => taker’s need for general functionality as well as particular functionalities, to which CEM B&F can make, and has made, progressive contributions as in development via the B&F of Grasp < = > Involve.
CEM says that forward does not have to be just the direction we ourselves are facing. Nor, for a multi-step taker, should it. Forward does not have to be to follow someone whom we face. Nor, in this World of Possibility, should it. Forward can and should be This Way, in accord with the Nature of Things, guided on the path of Realization by our Read of the Expansion via the R-transform.
* Our gross, globby, anti-molecular conceptual terms re behavior that use “-ion” et al suffixes (e.g., communication, treatment) plaster over and confound material (i.e., consequential) step making and taking components. They work only to the extent that behavioral fragments and complexes (protocols) are adopted … and those adopted typically with learning difficulties, performance errors and/or problem solving disasters. These behavioral concepts are anti-molecular not just in failing to specify functionalities they are talking about. They fail miserably in failing to specify what other functionality isn’t, but needs to be talked about in this World of Possibility. (That “cognition” should suffer this “-ion” conceptual indignity is tragic. The relating CEM B&F to which it pertains constitutes the core of minding’s progressiveness. See Excalibur.)
** See, for instance, such phenomena as “unreliable” eye witness testimony, human’s pattern recognition (e.g., what a cow looks like – its configuration), the rarity of eidetic imagery capacity in humans (why it’s not selected for).
In light of the very useful Search feature now available in the home page, parenthetical back references are suspended for Comments as of C-184.
(c) 2017 R. F. Carter
The line of paw tracks makes apparent two major leverages by which we progress forward via full body movements. They are: 1/ the “bi-“ leg capacities; and, 2/ the back and forth (B&F) moves from one bi-capacity to the other. (Snakes, lacking the “bi-“ leverage of legs, still have the B&F leverage, using muscles for forward movement of their bodies.)
The “bi-“ capacities provide a defacto forward leverage, via the facing features of the body … these features themselves shaped in consequence of the B&F between body and step, features highlighted in and by evolutionary history. With respect to B&F leverage, we are, however, interested in more than full body movements or even movements of body parts, such as bi-jaw chewing and its limited B&F … limited with respect to the step’s needed functionality.
We are interested in a progressive forwardness, in the steps we must make and take to solve our problems. Facing’s “bi-“ is not forward leverage enough. Not for the materiality needed by multi-step, expansive lives. B&F is about a happening, about history.
About making history. About CEM-history’s progressive thread, of materiality born of B&F’s mutual contingency and emergent features: the B&F of body and step, a story of development and not just of evolution. About the B&F between body capacity and step capability. About the multi-step body’s making history via the step’s B&F of Grasp and Involve (e.g., problem solving). About materiality in making human history within the step, via the B&F of minding < = > moving (e.g., minding after the moving as well as before: re step outcomes). About materiality within the step’s minding, as of minding’s cognition (relating’s B&F to compose a relationship, as in [“seeing” the] humor). About increased materiality within a molecular step, increasing its strength via B&F among several capabilities, and especially among several cases of B&F’d capabilities: (< = >) < = > (< = >), as in the case of needing to develop and orchestrate Union’s individual < = > community with, say, cognition < = > communication capabilities in order to solve problems requiring collective behavior.
We can and do find some possessed functionalities, after the fact, in bodies (e.g., inflammables). But, here On the Frontier before the fact, we must be able to create functionality, too … whatever and however we as agency come to embody it in composed protocols. Step development utilizing interdependence’s B&F offers advances in problem solving functionality far greater -- and quicker -- than evolution’s grinding pace of body < = > step.
Consider the bump in the path of biological evolution made evident in and by the Burgess Shale. There, , a myriad of life forms disparately endowed with limited functionality, can be Read. Most of these life forms from back then disappeared. A few survived to evolve further. Are we now experiencing a similar bump on the road of development: a rife of behavioral complexities? Will only the fittingest survive … and they only if we can give more strength to their molecular compose, to the materiality of fitting (to become Adept, not just to Adopt and/or to Adapt)?
This Way, which applies the R-transform, brings forth the full materiality of the step … the materiality of step making as well as of step taking. And it is in and by step making that we can optimize B&F consequentiality.
Consider, for example, how artificial intelligence (AI) might be called upon. Not for technologies to perform existing functionalities more efficiently. Rather, to assist in developing effective technology for unmet needed functionality, especially re the vexing behavioral problem. Therein beckons the potential step strength of interdependent interdependencies (as above) … but lurk the molecular challenge of behavioral architecture and its demand for continued monitoring of component imbalances (such as suggested in App. XVII’s Dynamic Profile Analysis). A companion. Not a substitute.
This World of Possibility demands -- and offers – no less.
Each paw print is also a marker: a collision marker. A collision not always the end (or the beginning) of a happening … sometimes a time and place within a molecular step. A collision IN and OF consequence. Collision per se needs to be Read, of the Nature of Things’ general persisting conditions (partial order, consequentiality and [body] discontinuity), conditions that point to this World of Possibility, to needed functionality, conditions that put a premium on step development and step strength.
Ergo: < = >’s B&F, whose strength, its materiality, depends on the emergent qualities of B&F’s mutual contingency (CEM B&F) … which in turn depends on the independence of, and balance between, the molecular components, step and/or body, so related. (Molecular in that components are specified and separable for composing – i.e., independent. We don’t make carbon steel, alloying iron and carbon for added materiality, by mixing iron-bearing stones and carbon-bearing twigs. We need the iron and carbon separated first, then in the balance appropriate to the materiality needed.)*
For the step’s minding, furthering accord with the Nature of Things, the CEM B&F leverage is critical. Something needs to be made of the focus of attention. For the multi-step taker, multiple in variety and number of steps, a next step’s move to be taken with respect to a multitude of potential foci of attention (bodies or any condition seen “objectively”) depends on there being more than a reactive capacity – even an extensive array of linked reactive steps to “recognized” bodies. That next step needs B&F capacity and capability … such as whose particulars we summarize in territorial concepts like communication, transportation, games, play and eating. All Involve B&F, some more CEM B&F than others. The next step needs cognition, not just recognition; it needs the cognitive impression we compose and not just a bi-enhanced focal image we recognize and register.**
CEM B&F affords us a minding Grasp (a mapping) with which we can venture ourselves forth in and by an Involving step … then to Grasp that step’s outcome and carry on in a next step’s engagement. Might, ought CEM B&F be our engine for progress midst these several multitudes of steps and bodies?
Like the fact of collisions per se, due to the Nature of Things’ partial order, the ubiquity of B&F particulars Tells us to respect the human condition of incomplete behavioral instruction … and our incompletely instructed step maker => taker’s need for general functionality as well as particular functionalities, to which CEM B&F can make, and has made, progressive contributions as in development via the B&F of Grasp < = > Involve.
CEM says that forward does not have to be just the direction we ourselves are facing. Nor, for a multi-step taker, should it. Forward does not have to be to follow someone whom we face. Nor, in this World of Possibility, should it. Forward can and should be This Way, in accord with the Nature of Things, guided on the path of Realization by our Read of the Expansion via the R-transform.
* Our gross, globby, anti-molecular conceptual terms re behavior that use “-ion” et al suffixes (e.g., communication, treatment) plaster over and confound material (i.e., consequential) step making and taking components. They work only to the extent that behavioral fragments and complexes (protocols) are adopted … and those adopted typically with learning difficulties, performance errors and/or problem solving disasters. These behavioral concepts are anti-molecular not just in failing to specify functionalities they are talking about. They fail miserably in failing to specify what other functionality isn’t, but needs to be talked about in this World of Possibility. (That “cognition” should suffer this “-ion” conceptual indignity is tragic. The relating CEM B&F to which it pertains constitutes the core of minding’s progressiveness. See Excalibur.)
** See, for instance, such phenomena as “unreliable” eye witness testimony, human’s pattern recognition (e.g., what a cow looks like – its configuration), the rarity of eidetic imagery capacity in humans (why it’s not selected for).
In light of the very useful Search feature now available in the home page, parenthetical back references are suspended for Comments as of C-184.
(c) 2017 R. F. Carter
S