C-188. An R-calculus: the identity and value of effort
Eve: Aren’t we missing something?
Adam: Well, we are piling up knowledge about what we like and don’t like … about what to do again and what not to do again.
Eve: As much about the bad as the good. We need two heads for it all. And two heads may still not be enough.
Adam: We are doing pretty well so far. We’ve enough to eat and drink. We are warm enough.
Eve: Still … there’s something missing.
Adam: We know what to pick, don’t we? And as long as the good is more than the bad….
Eve: But should we just be picking?
Adam: What else?
Eve: Making things. Like where we live and keep things. Like how we get along together. Like how we can do things better.
Adam: We can try things, see if they work.
Eve: And just keep trying one thing or another? What about the way we try things? Is just trying good enough?
Adam: I see what you mean. Our steps can be good or bad things too.
Eve: Yes. How good are they? Can we make them better?
Adam: I see. How to make better steps may not happen if we can’t see the good or bad in how we make the steps we take. Not just see how things end up afterwards.
***
A map for problem solving, an R-sense of making and taking steps from needed functionality, general and specific, through capability development and composed solution to embodied functionality, is not all that we need to Grasp progress. We also need measures. Values of functional needs; values of progress, step after step in R-spacetime, step-based values analogous to (and supplementary to) distance measures in B-spacetime*.
In B-spacetime we can assess via calculus the movement aspect of step taking for an entity or entities. In N-D spacetime we can determine the position of an entity or entities based on steps as properties (dimensions). But there is much more to step assessment than entity movement and entity positioning. (For example, the differences between “fast” and “quick,” between “sorting” and “sorting out.”}
Most pointedly, there are steps we make, not just take. Steps whose mind < CEM > move interdependence we use to make solutions for problems. The mind < CEM > move which defies the conceptual “step” … the latter as just entity movement or “actions” in N-D or B-spacetime. Step’s mind < CEM > move has more to say, more molecular materiality … more consequentiality -- if we can Grasp it.
We need an R-calculus, to assess step making and taking in their full molecularity. A full and accurate “How are we doing?” re happenings from start to finish, of step materiality (and effectiveness) from Realization’s beginning in needed functionality (given the Nature of things and not just situationally) through its developmental and compositional phases … not merely a success vs. failure calculus re the effects of the step taken – or not.
We have a sensOry kind of R-calculus, sensations via body capacities, to which emotions give expression. But step capabilities, expressed and exercised molecularly, need a sensEry kind of R-calculus.
Consider, for example, the accounting needed for the Dynamic Profile Audit (App. XVII), which calls for an assessment of imbalances in molecular step endeavor. What does just a small set of these imbalances imply for interdependence, the CEM B&F of effective step strength?
The general form of such a measure would be:
(a/b) x (c/d) x (e/f) … x … (y/z) = R
Where: R is the degree of Realization achieved and achievable, given the imbalances of a/b, c/d, e/f … y/z conditions; a…z are measures of the emphasis given each of these independent conditions; In each pairing, the least emphasized condition is the numerator.
Thus any value of R for even a small set of pairings can be very low. See, for example, education’s “(Know/Learn) x (Adept/Adapt) x (Adept/Adopt).” Multiply this by the “Step/Body <1” (B-ness bias)** attendant to our minding protocols – in school and out. Now consider the ceiling that this R-score suggests we have imposed on development for effective behavior. “Know while trying to do” versus “Learn by doing” should get our attention here, especially as “trying to do” invokes Adept’s compose contribution to knowing via trying. (See Kmt. Where the making of the step contributes to knowing along with the taking of the step.)
There are matters to consider in designing and executing such a technology. The conditions have to be independent – or a correction made. Emphasis made and measured is difficult, but might be assessed for a population [say, of schools]. Execution while things are happening – or not -- would be difficult by schools and even more difficult by individual teachers and students … but that could be a challenge for artificial intelligence [whose own dynamics run to imbalances of efficiency over effectiveness, to after the fact cloning over before the fact creation. How about an R-companion device to do for problem solving what current “handy” devices do for decision making?)
***
We may seem to be employing an R-calculus of sorts now, as we gather huge amounts of data on technology performances. But those processes enjoy a structural specification after the fact that is not available before the fact, for step making, in terms of step molecularity, for the step taking that is not just a matter of technology utilization (e.g., using found functionalities).
Indeed, a case might be made in light of needed functionality that tool development is out of balance with personal development … with, in education for example, consequent exacerbation of the “Learn/Know >l+ imbalance” – as seems apparent in STEM vocational curriculum advocacy. (Compare STREAM.)
Decision making may seem to offer an attractive alternative to problem solving’s needed R-calculus. But the attraction is illusory. Once alternatives are brought up for analysis, their relative functionalities must be assessed. Such exercise is plagued by lack of data on functionality re needed functionality of the kind that R-calculi might help provide.
And then there’s the matter of specifying the step units to which value is to be attached. And the plague of thoughtknots, those linguistic terms (what is said about (WISA) that compact, confound and confuse our picture of step making and taking (of what is talked about [WITA]; of what is called for [WICF]; of what there is to be talked about [WTITBTA]), such as those conceptual terms re process characterized by the use of suffixes such as “-ion,” “-ing” and “-ism.” For example: “cognition” – an egregious thoughtknot. Mind binding. Of mind as step condition, not body condition. See “mind” as R-word.
If we cannot dissect the step, what promise can there be in positive restructuring (“new, improved!”) of the old and/or the needed creating of new steps? Where are the Grasp and Involve capabilities we need to make steps and things that take steps for us? To increase functionality in response to needed functionality.
* Note that what we humans have been doing is to try to accommodate steps, re needed and available functionality, in one B-spacetime, via an aHistorical (B-ness) mapping. The burden from B-transform’s Read of the Expansion (e.g., focusing on a universe) has been heavy. The R-transform Read of the Expansion (R-sense in R-spacetime) can relieve some of that burden and substantially add to the strength of our endeavors. We can see our Frontier efforts as companion steps in two worlds: our World of Possibility (R-sense) and the B-ness of our Earth world. We need our spacetimes to be independent, so that our back and forth (< CEM >) between spacetimes can add materiality – i.e., make us more effective.
** See the SGN correction with respect to this imbalance and its roots. The B-ness bias means that we carry the burden of an unsolved behavioral problem, whatever situational problem(s) we might also attend. The R-score for the human aggregate thereby remains low.
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) 2018 R. F. Carter
Adam: Well, we are piling up knowledge about what we like and don’t like … about what to do again and what not to do again.
Eve: As much about the bad as the good. We need two heads for it all. And two heads may still not be enough.
Adam: We are doing pretty well so far. We’ve enough to eat and drink. We are warm enough.
Eve: Still … there’s something missing.
Adam: We know what to pick, don’t we? And as long as the good is more than the bad….
Eve: But should we just be picking?
Adam: What else?
Eve: Making things. Like where we live and keep things. Like how we get along together. Like how we can do things better.
Adam: We can try things, see if they work.
Eve: And just keep trying one thing or another? What about the way we try things? Is just trying good enough?
Adam: I see what you mean. Our steps can be good or bad things too.
Eve: Yes. How good are they? Can we make them better?
Adam: I see. How to make better steps may not happen if we can’t see the good or bad in how we make the steps we take. Not just see how things end up afterwards.
A map for problem solving, an R-sense of making and taking steps from needed functionality, general and specific, through capability development and composed solution to embodied functionality, is not all that we need to Grasp progress. We also need measures. Values of functional needs; values of progress, step after step in R-spacetime, step-based values analogous to (and supplementary to) distance measures in B-spacetime*.
In B-spacetime we can assess via calculus the movement aspect of step taking for an entity or entities. In N-D spacetime we can determine the position of an entity or entities based on steps as properties (dimensions). But there is much more to step assessment than entity movement and entity positioning. (For example, the differences between “fast” and “quick,” between “sorting” and “sorting out.”}
Most pointedly, there are steps we make, not just take. Steps whose mind < CEM > move interdependence we use to make solutions for problems. The mind < CEM > move which defies the conceptual “step” … the latter as just entity movement or “actions” in N-D or B-spacetime. Step’s mind < CEM > move has more to say, more molecular materiality … more consequentiality -- if we can Grasp it.
We need an R-calculus, to assess step making and taking in their full molecularity. A full and accurate “How are we doing?” re happenings from start to finish, of step materiality (and effectiveness) from Realization’s beginning in needed functionality (given the Nature of things and not just situationally) through its developmental and compositional phases … not merely a success vs. failure calculus re the effects of the step taken – or not.
We have a sensOry kind of R-calculus, sensations via body capacities, to which emotions give expression. But step capabilities, expressed and exercised molecularly, need a sensEry kind of R-calculus.
Consider, for example, the accounting needed for the Dynamic Profile Audit (App. XVII), which calls for an assessment of imbalances in molecular step endeavor. What does just a small set of these imbalances imply for interdependence, the CEM B&F of effective step strength?
The general form of such a measure would be:
Where: R is the degree of Realization achieved and achievable, given the imbalances of a/b, c/d, e/f … y/z conditions; a…z are measures of the emphasis given each of these independent conditions; In each pairing, the least emphasized condition is the numerator.
Thus any value of R for even a small set of pairings can be very low. See, for example, education’s “(Know/Learn) x (Adept/Adapt) x (Adept/Adopt).” Multiply this by the “Step/Body <1” (B-ness bias)** attendant to our minding protocols – in school and out. Now consider the ceiling that this R-score suggests we have imposed on development for effective behavior. “Know while trying to do” versus “Learn by doing” should get our attention here, especially as “trying to do” invokes Adept’s compose contribution to knowing via trying. (See Kmt. Where the making of the step contributes to knowing along with the taking of the step.)
There are matters to consider in designing and executing such a technology. The conditions have to be independent – or a correction made. Emphasis made and measured is difficult, but might be assessed for a population [say, of schools]. Execution while things are happening – or not -- would be difficult by schools and even more difficult by individual teachers and students … but that could be a challenge for artificial intelligence [whose own dynamics run to imbalances of efficiency over effectiveness, to after the fact cloning over before the fact creation. How about an R-companion device to do for problem solving what current “handy” devices do for decision making?)
We may seem to be employing an R-calculus of sorts now, as we gather huge amounts of data on technology performances. But those processes enjoy a structural specification after the fact that is not available before the fact, for step making, in terms of step molecularity, for the step taking that is not just a matter of technology utilization (e.g., using found functionalities).
Indeed, a case might be made in light of needed functionality that tool development is out of balance with personal development … with, in education for example, consequent exacerbation of the “Learn/Know >l+ imbalance” – as seems apparent in STEM vocational curriculum advocacy. (Compare STREAM.)
Decision making may seem to offer an attractive alternative to problem solving’s needed R-calculus. But the attraction is illusory. Once alternatives are brought up for analysis, their relative functionalities must be assessed. Such exercise is plagued by lack of data on functionality re needed functionality of the kind that R-calculi might help provide.
And then there’s the matter of specifying the step units to which value is to be attached. And the plague of thoughtknots, those linguistic terms (what is said about (WISA) that compact, confound and confuse our picture of step making and taking (of what is talked about [WITA]; of what is called for [WICF]; of what there is to be talked about [WTITBTA]), such as those conceptual terms re process characterized by the use of suffixes such as “-ion,” “-ing” and “-ism.” For example: “cognition” – an egregious thoughtknot. Mind binding. Of mind as step condition, not body condition. See “mind” as R-word.
If we cannot dissect the step, what promise can there be in positive restructuring (“new, improved!”) of the old and/or the needed creating of new steps? Where are the Grasp and Involve capabilities we need to make steps and things that take steps for us? To increase functionality in response to needed functionality.
* Note that what we humans have been doing is to try to accommodate steps, re needed and available functionality, in one B-spacetime, via an aHistorical (B-ness) mapping. The burden from B-transform’s Read of the Expansion (e.g., focusing on a universe) has been heavy. The R-transform Read of the Expansion (R-sense in R-spacetime) can relieve some of that burden and substantially add to the strength of our endeavors. We can see our Frontier efforts as companion steps in two worlds: our World of Possibility (R-sense) and the B-ness of our Earth world. We need our spacetimes to be independent, so that our back and forth (< CEM >) between spacetimes can add materiality – i.e., make us more effective.
** See the SGN correction with respect to this imbalance and its roots. The B-ness bias means that we carry the burden of an unsolved behavioral problem, whatever situational problem(s) we might also attend. The R-score for the human aggregate thereby remains low.
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) 2018 R. F. Carter
S