C-194. Thinking like Einstein
In one fundamental way we all think like Einstein. We Involve … as a way to Grasp. That’s half the story of how the Mind and Move of step making and taking work: We Involve to Grasp … and we Grasp to Involve. (Our step strength increases as we develop their interdependence: I < CEM > G. And with this gathering strength we can compose – i.e., Solve, create and invent, making yet more use of I < CEM > G. We can then and thereby effect, bring about, emergence*: (needed) functionality in Accord with the general persisting conditions of the Nature of Things.)
Einstein invokes the Involves of a Universe and of a four dimensional (B-ness) spacetime to Grasp the B-B relationships (“relativity”) between and among bodies. Others use an Involve of totality (e.g., “everything,” “whole”) to Grasp the particulars (e.g., “member, “part”) among the things of nature. Or an Involve of category or concept to Grasp “instances.” Or an N-dimensional (B-ness) Involve of “variables” among which to seek correlations as measures of (some) functionality**. Or an Involve of (“all”) Creation … whose (sideways) comprehensive authorship may be deemed by some to absolve self – and/or deny others -- of Solve authorship and responsibility.
These encompassing Involves possess massive technological histories, evident in their tool and/or procedure developments … in the way their users do things and the things they use to do it. Proprietary establishments reign, as in “Arts and Sciences,” to the neglect of needed art and science functionality. These establishments can – and indeed have -- become barriers to developing needed functionality. Quality of life (0), assessed in terms of problems solved, unsolved and mis-solved, attest to our still underdeveloped functionality.
But let’s get back to thinking like Einstein. To cognition. (See C-190 re “cognition” as the thoughtknot it is. “Think,” as an R-word, would serve us better.) To his use of relate (an R-word) and relations (e.g., inside-outside), to his use of 4-D spacetime as the outside Involve ... to Grasp body-body (relativity) relationships.
But what if we need to Grasp more than B-B relativity? What of other possible Involves? Of, say, Involves not limited re functionality, especially needed functionality, by the step-stunting B-ness***of the above Involves? The Expansion as an Involve? The Nature of Things as an Involve? Thereby extending our Grasp. There is contrast (Expansion vs. Universe; Nature of Things vs. things of nature) to be sure. But they are added perspectives too. We Grasp more. Most significantly, we bring them in Accord with History’s “Body < CEM > Step” dynamic. That “< CEM >” dynamic which has developed, and which with further development, has and can find itself AT and ON the Frontier able to Solve, to bring forth emergence….
….The sound of two hands clapping. The sound of “one hand clapping” is the poster child – and tip of the iceberg – for unrealized emergence.
A general theory about functionality? General but not universal: a difference that makes a difference, as re G.G. Simpson’s, “… all things to which principles apply, not just principles that apply to all things.” Theory as a question, not just as an answer… as in coming to know by trying (KMmt). About -- rather than “of” – to indicate think’s provisional pondering. Functionality as needed (WICF) as well as found … and, especially, not just found steps of proprietary concern for this or that scientific discipline and for this or that practitioner domain.
A general theory about functionality that makes evident the limited applicability of Adapt and Adopt as Frontier behavioral strategies, the need for Adept and Agile behavioral development … and the guidance of Accord with the Nature of Things as our metastrategy, bringing < CEM > into our picture (from History to the future promise of added materiality in the molecular step).
***
* Liberating emergence from its limited role as property and/or entity from its B-ness mooring. ( “Levels” are a B-ness tell? “Layers” better? They apply to steps as well as bodies.) What is the Expansion if not emergence? Are our births the extent of our emergence? Hardly. What is the extent of “self” realization?
** Functionality in (either or both of) quality and quantity.
*** A Mind < CEM > Move stunting of steps made and taken, of steps that might and ought to be made and taken. In this World of Possibility? Shocking!
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
Einstein invokes the Involves of a Universe and of a four dimensional (B-ness) spacetime to Grasp the B-B relationships (“relativity”) between and among bodies. Others use an Involve of totality (e.g., “everything,” “whole”) to Grasp the particulars (e.g., “member, “part”) among the things of nature. Or an Involve of category or concept to Grasp “instances.” Or an N-dimensional (B-ness) Involve of “variables” among which to seek correlations as measures of (some) functionality**. Or an Involve of (“all”) Creation … whose (sideways) comprehensive authorship may be deemed by some to absolve self – and/or deny others -- of Solve authorship and responsibility.
These encompassing Involves possess massive technological histories, evident in their tool and/or procedure developments … in the way their users do things and the things they use to do it. Proprietary establishments reign, as in “Arts and Sciences,” to the neglect of needed art and science functionality. These establishments can – and indeed have -- become barriers to developing needed functionality. Quality of life (0), assessed in terms of problems solved, unsolved and mis-solved, attest to our still underdeveloped functionality.
But let’s get back to thinking like Einstein. To cognition. (See C-190 re “cognition” as the thoughtknot it is. “Think,” as an R-word, would serve us better.) To his use of relate (an R-word) and relations (e.g., inside-outside), to his use of 4-D spacetime as the outside Involve ... to Grasp body-body (relativity) relationships.
But what if we need to Grasp more than B-B relativity? What of other possible Involves? Of, say, Involves not limited re functionality, especially needed functionality, by the step-stunting B-ness***of the above Involves? The Expansion as an Involve? The Nature of Things as an Involve? Thereby extending our Grasp. There is contrast (Expansion vs. Universe; Nature of Things vs. things of nature) to be sure. But they are added perspectives too. We Grasp more. Most significantly, we bring them in Accord with History’s “Body < CEM > Step” dynamic. That “< CEM >” dynamic which has developed, and which with further development, has and can find itself AT and ON the Frontier able to Solve, to bring forth emergence….
….The sound of two hands clapping. The sound of “one hand clapping” is the poster child – and tip of the iceberg – for unrealized emergence.
A general theory about functionality? General but not universal: a difference that makes a difference, as re G.G. Simpson’s, “… all things to which principles apply, not just principles that apply to all things.” Theory as a question, not just as an answer… as in coming to know by trying (KMmt). About -- rather than “of” – to indicate think’s provisional pondering. Functionality as needed (WICF) as well as found … and, especially, not just found steps of proprietary concern for this or that scientific discipline and for this or that practitioner domain.
A general theory about functionality that makes evident the limited applicability of Adapt and Adopt as Frontier behavioral strategies, the need for Adept and Agile behavioral development … and the guidance of Accord with the Nature of Things as our metastrategy, bringing < CEM > into our picture (from History to the future promise of added materiality in the molecular step).
* Liberating emergence from its limited role as property and/or entity from its B-ness mooring. ( “Levels” are a B-ness tell? “Layers” better? They apply to steps as well as bodies.) What is the Expansion if not emergence? Are our births the extent of our emergence? Hardly. What is the extent of “self” realization?
** Functionality in (either or both of) quality and quantity.
*** A Mind < CEM > Move stunting of steps made and taken, of steps that might and ought to be made and taken. In this World of Possibility? Shocking!
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