C-190. Thoughtknots
In composing solutions to problems, using the step’s Grasp < CEM > Involve strength to assemble the relevant materialities (of body, of step’s Mind and Move), the last thing we want to encounter are obstacles to our bringing the needed materialities (i.e., matters of functionality) together in a molecular step.
To produce molecular steps, we cannot afford in our thoughts to have Grasped, previously in report as well as practice, step materiality nonmolecularly. (See, for example, “actions.”) We might, by “shaping” such protocols (e.g., reinforcement schedules re learning by imitation), reproduce a solution nonmolecularly. But our unsolved problems call for more attention and Solve development than that. And partially and poorly solved problems (e.g., of distribution [0:Sp], of messaging [0:Ps]) add voice to still needed functionality.
We need strategies of Adept as well as Adopt and/or Adapt. (Not to mention Agile, to deal with tactical steps by self and others.) Adept needs more emphasis, more development. And Adept needs help, help which procedural technologies, especially re Mind (an R-word), ought to and might provide. The sort of thing that “language and thought” seems to be talking about. (Or are language and thought pretty much the same thing [i.e., a technology and its product]?)
Imagine a lifeline (of thoughts and/or language) above our respective lines of steps made and taken (e.g., “actions”), a lifeline we might Grasp for support and help in matters of functionality in our way forward. Much as we would want a rope continually overhead to assist us across a deep gorge on a shaky, gap-ridden primitive bridge.
(It is no small matter that, living now at the edge of Expansion’s History* [i.e., AT and IN the Frontier of this World of Possibility], we have ahead of us much of that bridge and rope still to construct! Hence “solve” as an R-word [i.e., as much, if not more, needed functionality as it is consequent functionality].)
A linguistic lifeline. One without gaps in what is said about (WISA) re something of consequence (any difference that makes a difference): such as what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA) and what is called for (WICF) … gaps such as functionality that is missing in the bridge, the rope and/or our traverse out front IN and AT our Frontier in the Expansion.**
A linguistic lifeline without thoughtknots. But B-ness, with some help from One-ness, has us in knots. So that instead of messages (see WICF; see point [an R-word]), which are what we need from this lifeline, we get puzzles (of meaning).
If the way in and by which we think (see cognition < CEM > communication technology) knots up the linguistic lifeline, producing thoughtknots, then thoughts are not the resource we need thought to be. For whatever value these products may have, they are poison to process development. We lose the forward leverage that a lifeline’s language might and ought to exert on the rest of step making.
***
How does B-ness do its work?
B-ness has added thoughtknots to the burden of nonmolecularity that we carry along with us in our Solve effort(s). Linguistic B-ness says, “Let’s grasp anything to which we attend as if it were a body.” Another one of the myriad “things of nature” ... whether step or body, whether thing or thingk – whatever (and of whatever size). Suffixed words such as the (above) “action,” “solution,” “cognition” and “communication” exemplify the nonmolecularity and size of the burden.
These worded objects of attention don’t help us “think” (an R-word) so much as they hinder it, as by endless questions of “meaning” as we try to Grasp and Involve them in the back and forth of Message’s Read and Tell. Familiarity? Yes. But functionality?
A thoughtknot can be a single word. Like “what.” As in WISA -- and in WITA, WICF and WTITBTA. Or like “thing”? Or like myriad behavioral concepts (e.g., “behavior,” as in a particular instance of functionality observed after the fact). But what (!) if that (!) which is talked about (WITA) is just the object of attention? Not a body but a step? A needed step, with roots in the Nature of Things that has to look forward in this World of Possibility. Then we have only a B-language technology when an S-language technology is also needed?
Further, when concepts (e.g., “public,” “science”) are invoked, B-ness based cognitive protocols (part-whole, object-attribute, inside-outside) emphasize body identity and body-body relationships (what-what’s) among particulars and after the fact.
With double concepts (e.g., “public opinion,” “basic science”), B-ness based language multiplies the knottiness. Of WITA, WTITBTA and WICF, even more is tied up in and by the adjectival treatment of the first term.
And, as we have seen, B-ness based language makes a real mess with something like “the mind-body problem.” WITA? WTITBTA? WICF? (As in regard to needed functionality, both general and particular. As in the need for technological improvement in linguistic protocols, using an R-transform Read of the Expansion [as focus of attention]. Mind < CEM > Move sets aside the B-ness packaging of needed step making and taking (i.e., problem). Focus on the question (?) of the “mind-body” relationship obscures the < CEM > potential [see Emergence], lacking the ratio and balance of Mind/Move critical to < CEM > development.)
***
How big can a thoughtknot be? Consider the notion of “Universe.” That thing (thingk, actually) which is said to contain all the things of nature? Big, big B-ness. What other thingk would make plausible a One-ness of the thoughts contributed by various observers of various things … so that sooner or later “it would all add up”? What other thingk would make plausible the notion that functionality comprises no more than the “laws of the Universe,” that four (or five) “forces” (BsB relationships) are sufficient foundation for the whole of functionality?
What does this do for our needed functionality? What about the Nature of Things … whose general persisting conditions of partial order, consequentiality and discontinuity provide an origin for, but not a source of, instructed steps. We must think. And develop technologies, especially those affording linguistic leverage, that can help us to think.
A “universal language” is not what we need. There is limited oneness across the thousands of human languages. They are B-ness based, so they advance from naming to wording to syntactic wording (languages). Noun-adjective and noun-verb relationships provide some oneness, but it is a B-ness oneness. Interestingly, a similarity between Skinner’s and Chomsky’s view of language would seem to be that community-reinforced usage and logically structured syntax both add power to B-ness based linguistic development. Strength, and leverage with respect to lifeline re path, demand more however.
A general language would be something else, attentive to the Nature of Things and its general persisting conditions. Now there’s similarity! Lots of it: of needed functionality we share in light of collisions (that crucial Tell we must Read), in light of the NofT’s partial order, consequentiality and discontinuity (separate bodies). This is what R-word technology offers as a way to Grasp the Involve < CEM > Grasp of step making and taking. A step toward an S-language to add resource to our several, disparate B-languages.
Don’t bother to distill one from the many. The essence, of path ahead and/or lifeline, is not there. Add one language to the many.
***
Metaphorically, we might speak of the macramé of thoughtknots we have woven. Some of it impressive in more than size. As when set to music. However, that we have with B-ness self-imposed a Lilliputian mind-bind would come closer to the (missed) point. Consider, for example, all that many behavioral “-ion” thoughtnots miss:
***
* All bodies are out front in the Expansion … for as long as they last. There is no end to History. Death comes only to histories.
** A linguistic lifeline offers more than stability, in so far as it enables “a hand forward.” It can leverage progress in step making. Math models, for example, may point ahead to undiscovered relationships if and when given a test of applicability (Boltzmann; Heisenberg). Math is not the only “look ahead” language technology. A language (R-sense) based on the R-transform’s Read of the Expansion (e.g., Message theory’s R-words) points out incompletely realized linguistic functionality (e.g., N-1 [Need x Want] and V-1 [capacity < CEM > capability]), with potential, but not yet Grasped applicability to helping strengthen the materiality of step making and taking – i.e., Solve’s needed molecular steps.
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
To produce molecular steps, we cannot afford in our thoughts to have Grasped, previously in report as well as practice, step materiality nonmolecularly. (See, for example, “actions.”) We might, by “shaping” such protocols (e.g., reinforcement schedules re learning by imitation), reproduce a solution nonmolecularly. But our unsolved problems call for more attention and Solve development than that. And partially and poorly solved problems (e.g., of distribution [0:Sp], of messaging [0:Ps]) add voice to still needed functionality.
We need strategies of Adept as well as Adopt and/or Adapt. (Not to mention Agile, to deal with tactical steps by self and others.) Adept needs more emphasis, more development. And Adept needs help, help which procedural technologies, especially re Mind (an R-word), ought to and might provide. The sort of thing that “language and thought” seems to be talking about. (Or are language and thought pretty much the same thing [i.e., a technology and its product]?)
Imagine a lifeline (of thoughts and/or language) above our respective lines of steps made and taken (e.g., “actions”), a lifeline we might Grasp for support and help in matters of functionality in our way forward. Much as we would want a rope continually overhead to assist us across a deep gorge on a shaky, gap-ridden primitive bridge.
(It is no small matter that, living now at the edge of Expansion’s History* [i.e., AT and IN the Frontier of this World of Possibility], we have ahead of us much of that bridge and rope still to construct! Hence “solve” as an R-word [i.e., as much, if not more, needed functionality as it is consequent functionality].)
A linguistic lifeline. One without gaps in what is said about (WISA) re something of consequence (any difference that makes a difference): such as what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA) and what is called for (WICF) … gaps such as functionality that is missing in the bridge, the rope and/or our traverse out front IN and AT our Frontier in the Expansion.**
A linguistic lifeline without thoughtknots. But B-ness, with some help from One-ness, has us in knots. So that instead of messages (see WICF; see point [an R-word]), which are what we need from this lifeline, we get puzzles (of meaning).
If the way in and by which we think (see cognition < CEM > communication technology) knots up the linguistic lifeline, producing thoughtknots, then thoughts are not the resource we need thought to be. For whatever value these products may have, they are poison to process development. We lose the forward leverage that a lifeline’s language might and ought to exert on the rest of step making.
How does B-ness do its work?
B-ness has added thoughtknots to the burden of nonmolecularity that we carry along with us in our Solve effort(s). Linguistic B-ness says, “Let’s grasp anything to which we attend as if it were a body.” Another one of the myriad “things of nature” ... whether step or body, whether thing or thingk – whatever (and of whatever size). Suffixed words such as the (above) “action,” “solution,” “cognition” and “communication” exemplify the nonmolecularity and size of the burden.
These worded objects of attention don’t help us “think” (an R-word) so much as they hinder it, as by endless questions of “meaning” as we try to Grasp and Involve them in the back and forth of Message’s Read and Tell. Familiarity? Yes. But functionality?
A thoughtknot can be a single word. Like “what.” As in WISA -- and in WITA, WICF and WTITBTA. Or like “thing”? Or like myriad behavioral concepts (e.g., “behavior,” as in a particular instance of functionality observed after the fact). But what (!) if that (!) which is talked about (WITA) is just the object of attention? Not a body but a step? A needed step, with roots in the Nature of Things that has to look forward in this World of Possibility. Then we have only a B-language technology when an S-language technology is also needed?
Further, when concepts (e.g., “public,” “science”) are invoked, B-ness based cognitive protocols (part-whole, object-attribute, inside-outside) emphasize body identity and body-body relationships (what-what’s) among particulars and after the fact.
With double concepts (e.g., “public opinion,” “basic science”), B-ness based language multiplies the knottiness. Of WITA, WTITBTA and WICF, even more is tied up in and by the adjectival treatment of the first term.
And, as we have seen, B-ness based language makes a real mess with something like “the mind-body problem.” WITA? WTITBTA? WICF? (As in regard to needed functionality, both general and particular. As in the need for technological improvement in linguistic protocols, using an R-transform Read of the Expansion [as focus of attention]. Mind < CEM > Move sets aside the B-ness packaging of needed step making and taking (i.e., problem). Focus on the question (?) of the “mind-body” relationship obscures the < CEM > potential [see Emergence], lacking the ratio and balance of Mind/Move critical to < CEM > development.)
How big can a thoughtknot be? Consider the notion of “Universe.” That thing (thingk, actually) which is said to contain all the things of nature? Big, big B-ness. What other thingk would make plausible a One-ness of the thoughts contributed by various observers of various things … so that sooner or later “it would all add up”? What other thingk would make plausible the notion that functionality comprises no more than the “laws of the Universe,” that four (or five) “forces” (BsB relationships) are sufficient foundation for the whole of functionality?
What does this do for our needed functionality? What about the Nature of Things … whose general persisting conditions of partial order, consequentiality and discontinuity provide an origin for, but not a source of, instructed steps. We must think. And develop technologies, especially those affording linguistic leverage, that can help us to think.
A “universal language” is not what we need. There is limited oneness across the thousands of human languages. They are B-ness based, so they advance from naming to wording to syntactic wording (languages). Noun-adjective and noun-verb relationships provide some oneness, but it is a B-ness oneness. Interestingly, a similarity between Skinner’s and Chomsky’s view of language would seem to be that community-reinforced usage and logically structured syntax both add power to B-ness based linguistic development. Strength, and leverage with respect to lifeline re path, demand more however.
A general language would be something else, attentive to the Nature of Things and its general persisting conditions. Now there’s similarity! Lots of it: of needed functionality we share in light of collisions (that crucial Tell we must Read), in light of the NofT’s partial order, consequentiality and discontinuity (separate bodies). This is what R-word technology offers as a way to Grasp the Involve < CEM > Grasp of step making and taking. A step toward an S-language to add resource to our several, disparate B-languages.
Don’t bother to distill one from the many. The essence, of path ahead and/or lifeline, is not there. Add one language to the many.
Metaphorically, we might speak of the macramé of thoughtknots we have woven. Some of it impressive in more than size. As when set to music. However, that we have with B-ness self-imposed a Lilliputian mind-bind would come closer to the (missed) point. Consider, for example, all that many behavioral “-ion” thoughtnots miss:
- Lost differences (behavioral conditions) that make differences: missed consequentiality (materiality);
- Loss of independence re conditions (e.g., learn and know), loss of (ratio) assessment re their balance; ergo …
- Loss of < CEM > development potential;
- Lost Grasp of Nature of Things (History);
- Lost Accord, in steps made and taken, with Nature of Things.
* All bodies are out front in the Expansion … for as long as they last. There is no end to History. Death comes only to histories.
** A linguistic lifeline offers more than stability, in so far as it enables “a hand forward.” It can leverage progress in step making. Math models, for example, may point ahead to undiscovered relationships if and when given a test of applicability (Boltzmann; Heisenberg). Math is not the only “look ahead” language technology. A language (R-sense) based on the R-transform’s Read of the Expansion (e.g., Message theory’s R-words) points out incompletely realized linguistic functionality (e.g., N-1 [Need x Want] and V-1 [capacity < CEM > capability]), with potential, but not yet Grasped applicability to helping strengthen the materiality of step making and taking – i.e., Solve’s needed molecular steps.
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