C-193. WICF III: a further recentering of focal attention
“Called for”? By?
By “what is”? As re the Nature of Things and/or the things of nature. As re the former’s needed functionality (general) along with the latter’s needed functionalities (particulars). These, as we have seen, require astute Read capability. In the case of the former, primary Reads (as of collisions: a basis for a theory about the general persisting conditions of partial order, consequentiality and discontinuity) and tertiary theory-based Reads (as of steps, of Expansion, of R-spacetime).
By self and/or other selves?
“Called for” adds How to the What. It adds “communication.” What carbon is to expanded bodies, communication is to expanded steps. It pertains functionally not just to the points AT and ABOUT of communication’s messages, to that which we are talking about (WITA). It also pertains to the points OF and FOR communication, the reasons why we message (matters of WICF, such as the when of needed Help – given or received).
Communication as what is said about what is talked about (WISA: WITA) is a massive thoughtknot, not just as the “-ion” suffix signals us, but because B-ness (Bs and BsB) saturates its linguistic roots (Latin for “impart” and “share”) and, further, because of its sideways Grasp re agent and outcome (e.g., sender => message => receiver: “information transfer” [transfer is not our only informational concern, given the NofT’s legacy of incomplete instruction]).
Communication as concept is familiar in and by its instances, the vast variety at hand of Read and Tell functions, whether technology assisted or not. Still, always, WICF demands more functionality, as use of developed functionalities breeds new needed functionality.
Communication tech promises have fallen short of needed – and hoped for – functionality. And then there’s what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA) – especially needed functionality. How strong, in completeness and accuracy, is our Grasp? What is the Involve for our Grasp? A universe of familiar instances? What can our Grasp contribute to the strength of our Involve? How well has communication helped us to solve our problems? Long on promise but short on results? Worse than short: a vulnerability to destruction (e.g., functional dependence on the transport technology emphasis [e.g., Internet’s “information theory”/Message theory >1+ ratio] … adding commotion to an already collision-threatening human population increase and density)?
“Called for” is about the whole of Read < CEM > Tell with respect to Grasp < CEM > Involve … the latter being the foundation OF and FOR step making and taking, the core point of WICF. Hence WICF II and WICFIII.
***
“Called for”? For?
For Help (an R-word). For progress: Step making’s and taking’s expansions in functionality for individuals and collectivities within the Expansion.* To make and take steps forward, measured in consequentiality of agent, process and product, step by step.
For Support (an R-word). Change, we have seen, is a (more or less) working combination of similarity and difference. It take some similarity (e.g., stability) to effect a criterial difference.
…. And for any or all of the remaining components of all that it takes (II: ATIT).
“Called for?” When?
Here and now, AT and ON the Frontier. The leading edge of the Expansion, our out front in the Expansion. Materiality behind, materiality ahead … if we exercise our before-the-fact option to Solve. This Frontier, functional not geographic, never goes away. But attention to it may be forfeit.
Consider: How are your ratios? Now! What are you doing about how you are doing? How, for example, does decision making stand in relation to problem solving? Does it seem to be the case, D.M./P=>S >1++? That is: too much decision making and not enough problem solving – and getting worse. (As, for example, the beginning of 2016 U.S. election campaign debates in early 2015 … and the first 2020 election campaign rally the week after the inauguration . See C-97.)
Dozens of such ratios should be continuing Frontier concerns. How are our ratios today? The imbalances, the lack of independent molecular components, the strangled emergence for lack of < CEM > development? How is our (Forward!) progress coming along? (See Apps. XVII and XIX.) Are we still depending on incremental evolution to advance the human condition, even increments of developmental technology … when much greater development is needed and possible, development to produce functionalities demanded by the Nature of Things, and not just focusing om found functionalities in the things of nature.
When we need to know. Timing relevance is crucial. The lack of it leads to sins of omission and commission. And to abuse (e.g., “Our representatives are currently serving other customers. Please hold for the next available…”).
Individually and collectively (e.g., as communities – especially Union-assisted communities [App. XX]), we are incompletely instructed given the Nature of Things. Mind technologies (e.g., journalism, “intelligence agencies,” social and economic indicators), such as they are**, are much needed here ON and AT the Frontier for steps now being, or about to be, taken and made. We need Mind, too, technologies to advance Mind technologies (e.g., the R-transform to further our “Grasp < CEM > Involve” IN and OF the Expansion).
***
* Now that we know, “This Universe is expanding, and not in danger of contracting” … for what that might augur for all things thus comprised (e.g., us), isn’t it time to see this “universe” for what it is: a B-ness thingk … and extend our focus of attention to the Expansion, on the diversity of functionality re needed functionality, that can be made knowingly (KMmt) before the fact …. not just what can be discovered (Kt) after the fact. After all, much of what we think we know (“history”) was once the outcome of needed functionality faced before the fact (i.e., the Frontier as the moving edge of the Expansion).
We are out front in the Expansion, on its edge. As R-entities, as potential Excaliburs, and like the Frontier, its leading edge. The message here is that we cannot neglect the whole of needed functionality (see WTITBTA, WICF), knowing behavior only in B-ness terms … not FOR and IN the lifeline of language (see C-190), not FOR and IN the steps we ought and have yet to take.
** Take journalism for instance. Are collations of its Frontier services provided (e.g., a summary, perhaps a theory, of practices) as the “-ism” suffix here, as it does for “functionalism,” imply? Is there more to “missing the news” than, say, a no-longer available newspaper? What else is missing, as re WTITBTA and WICF? Ought the profession and education for it be based on explications of needed functionality … for individual, community and, especially, the Union (R-word) which could add to their strength?
As, for example, in the matter of “How are your ratios today?”
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
By “what is”? As re the Nature of Things and/or the things of nature. As re the former’s needed functionality (general) along with the latter’s needed functionalities (particulars). These, as we have seen, require astute Read capability. In the case of the former, primary Reads (as of collisions: a basis for a theory about the general persisting conditions of partial order, consequentiality and discontinuity) and tertiary theory-based Reads (as of steps, of Expansion, of R-spacetime).
By self and/or other selves?
“Called for” adds How to the What. It adds “communication.” What carbon is to expanded bodies, communication is to expanded steps. It pertains functionally not just to the points AT and ABOUT of communication’s messages, to that which we are talking about (WITA). It also pertains to the points OF and FOR communication, the reasons why we message (matters of WICF, such as the when of needed Help – given or received).
Communication as what is said about what is talked about (WISA: WITA) is a massive thoughtknot, not just as the “-ion” suffix signals us, but because B-ness (Bs and BsB) saturates its linguistic roots (Latin for “impart” and “share”) and, further, because of its sideways Grasp re agent and outcome (e.g., sender => message => receiver: “information transfer” [transfer is not our only informational concern, given the NofT’s legacy of incomplete instruction]).
Communication as concept is familiar in and by its instances, the vast variety at hand of Read and Tell functions, whether technology assisted or not. Still, always, WICF demands more functionality, as use of developed functionalities breeds new needed functionality.
Communication tech promises have fallen short of needed – and hoped for – functionality. And then there’s what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA) – especially needed functionality. How strong, in completeness and accuracy, is our Grasp? What is the Involve for our Grasp? A universe of familiar instances? What can our Grasp contribute to the strength of our Involve? How well has communication helped us to solve our problems? Long on promise but short on results? Worse than short: a vulnerability to destruction (e.g., functional dependence on the transport technology emphasis [e.g., Internet’s “information theory”/Message theory >1+ ratio] … adding commotion to an already collision-threatening human population increase and density)?
“Called for” is about the whole of Read < CEM > Tell with respect to Grasp < CEM > Involve … the latter being the foundation OF and FOR step making and taking, the core point of WICF. Hence WICF II and WICFIII.
“Called for”? For?
For Help (an R-word). For progress: Step making’s and taking’s expansions in functionality for individuals and collectivities within the Expansion.* To make and take steps forward, measured in consequentiality of agent, process and product, step by step.
For Support (an R-word). Change, we have seen, is a (more or less) working combination of similarity and difference. It take some similarity (e.g., stability) to effect a criterial difference.
…. And for any or all of the remaining components of all that it takes (II: ATIT).
“Called for?” When?
Here and now, AT and ON the Frontier. The leading edge of the Expansion, our out front in the Expansion. Materiality behind, materiality ahead … if we exercise our before-the-fact option to Solve. This Frontier, functional not geographic, never goes away. But attention to it may be forfeit.
Consider: How are your ratios? Now! What are you doing about how you are doing? How, for example, does decision making stand in relation to problem solving? Does it seem to be the case, D.M./P=>S >1++? That is: too much decision making and not enough problem solving – and getting worse. (As, for example, the beginning of 2016 U.S. election campaign debates in early 2015 … and the first 2020 election campaign rally the week after the inauguration . See C-97.)
Dozens of such ratios should be continuing Frontier concerns. How are our ratios today? The imbalances, the lack of independent molecular components, the strangled emergence for lack of < CEM > development? How is our (Forward!) progress coming along? (See Apps. XVII and XIX.) Are we still depending on incremental evolution to advance the human condition, even increments of developmental technology … when much greater development is needed and possible, development to produce functionalities demanded by the Nature of Things, and not just focusing om found functionalities in the things of nature.
When we need to know. Timing relevance is crucial. The lack of it leads to sins of omission and commission. And to abuse (e.g., “Our representatives are currently serving other customers. Please hold for the next available…”).
Individually and collectively (e.g., as communities – especially Union-assisted communities [App. XX]), we are incompletely instructed given the Nature of Things. Mind technologies (e.g., journalism, “intelligence agencies,” social and economic indicators), such as they are**, are much needed here ON and AT the Frontier for steps now being, or about to be, taken and made. We need Mind, too, technologies to advance Mind technologies (e.g., the R-transform to further our “Grasp < CEM > Involve” IN and OF the Expansion).
* Now that we know, “This Universe is expanding, and not in danger of contracting” … for what that might augur for all things thus comprised (e.g., us), isn’t it time to see this “universe” for what it is: a B-ness thingk … and extend our focus of attention to the Expansion, on the diversity of functionality re needed functionality, that can be made knowingly (KMmt) before the fact …. not just what can be discovered (Kt) after the fact. After all, much of what we think we know (“history”) was once the outcome of needed functionality faced before the fact (i.e., the Frontier as the moving edge of the Expansion).
We are out front in the Expansion, on its edge. As R-entities, as potential Excaliburs, and like the Frontier, its leading edge. The message here is that we cannot neglect the whole of needed functionality (see WTITBTA, WICF), knowing behavior only in B-ness terms … not FOR and IN the lifeline of language (see C-190), not FOR and IN the steps we ought and have yet to take.
** Take journalism for instance. Are collations of its Frontier services provided (e.g., a summary, perhaps a theory, of practices) as the “-ism” suffix here, as it does for “functionalism,” imply? Is there more to “missing the news” than, say, a no-longer available newspaper? What else is missing, as re WTITBTA and WICF? Ought the profession and education for it be based on explications of needed functionality … for individual, community and, especially, the Union (R-word) which could add to their strength?
As, for example, in the matter of “How are your ratios today?”
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