C-195. Thinking like Einstein II “H(A&S)T”
So: Imagine a book shelf with four rather considerable volumes, similarly bound, and marked on their covers with WICF (what is called for) as, say, publisher. The two centered books are titled Arts and Sciences (A&S). Respectively, they (now)* represent Establishment reports; they comprise historically observed players, practices, products and institutions. Things of nature, broadly speaking. Pretty much in aggregate.
What of H and T? Humanity (H) and Technology (T) could also be said to represent and comprise historically observed players, practices, products and institutions. Also things of nature, also pretty much in aggregate.
But what if we introduce the Nature of Things into H? Adding the generality of the human condition to the aggregates of particular conditions of particular humans. The generality that is the Nature of Thing’s (N of T’s) general persisting conditions of partial order, consequentiality and discontinuity (of bodies), manifested in collisions (hard and soft), that call attention to needed functionality (WICF).** To History, per se, in Accord with the N of T’s consequentiality. History per se, not just histories, pertains to the human condition.
If that needed functionality is not to be found in the things of nature, then technology (T) must (at least help) arrange its emergence by and for Humanity (H). When necessary, beyond steps previously taken: to expand into step making. Because technology comprises more than tools. It includes procedures, tool-using procedures and procedures using tools. And, perhaps most significantly, technology re technology, even technology re technology re technology – and so on. (Think of die casting, and of languages re words.) B-ness has shown us tech-re-tech’s risks as well as its utilities. See, for instance, the Internet’s transport/message imbalance (T/M >1**). R-sense (i.e., R-spacetime, R-transform, R-words) shows us a productive alternative.
Our Grasps of H and T have fed into the Arts and Sciences; topical concerns (what is talked about [WITA]) and tech instrumentations (e.g., scopes) offer familiar examples. But that is hardly all of WICF. And the menacing dark cloud of unsolved problems raises the WICF matter of what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA) -- esp. The Nature of Things.
***
Further: Imagine this shelf of four books to be the design for education across the board. From before kindergarten to university and beyond. For informal as well as formal education.
H would emphasize History per se, the human condition, the confluence of the Nature of Things’ partial order, consequentiality and (Body) discontinuity, the need for functionality to arrange and avoid collisions, the vexing and continuing incomplete instruction, which makes Mind development so imperative, the crucial role of the < CEM > dynamic for human development.
T would emphasize technology’s layered crucial step making contribution, to bring forth productive procedures and/or tools. As, for example, language tech on a foundation of the R-transform (tech) rather than the B-transform Read of the Expansion, yields R-words (tech) that offer a firmer Grasp of what is talked about (WITA) and what is called for (WICF). R-sense says that as early as possible, children should Grasp the essence of needed construction.*** Only a few children seem possessed, at any age, of enough “curiosity” to look into the way things work. (Much more often, children seem curious about how adults work … and copy them as best they can.)
H and T together can and should lead the way to life’s expansion, to the emergence which is so much a feature of our life’s modest – but spectacular – portion of the Expansion. Emergence which plays a crucial, but limited role in evolution – i.e., births of new generations. Emergence which is the essence of development, whose < CEM > dynamic is yet to blossom fully to make the most of this World of Possibilitya.
***
* Prescriptively, given needed functionality, we should be looking to the Union of arts and sciences: Art < CEM > Science. “As one” as needed, rather than a unity that is no more than an aggregates oneness. “As one” as needed, which is far more often than the respective establishments would have it. Giving greater emphasis to the development of functionality. Beyond, for instance, current efforts in “materials science.” Steps are as material – i.e., consequential -- as bodies. But they lack the molecularity required for effective step building.
** Physics’ “four forces” may be B-ness’ crown jewels of functionality, but they fall far short of the functionality we need, for step making’s dynamic “Grasp < CEM > Involve” …that we must somehow come to, with the help of T, if we are to Solve the several H problems (e.g., O:Sp, O:Ps, OS-P, O:P, Pbeh and Psits) to improve our quality of life.
*** See, for example, App. XXIII’s argument for R-blocks. These blocks would serve to introduce the need for, acquaintance with, and beginning exercise in step building.
a Of Possibility, not just of possibilities
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) 2020 R. F. Carter
What of H and T? Humanity (H) and Technology (T) could also be said to represent and comprise historically observed players, practices, products and institutions. Also things of nature, also pretty much in aggregate.
But what if we introduce the Nature of Things into H? Adding the generality of the human condition to the aggregates of particular conditions of particular humans. The generality that is the Nature of Thing’s (N of T’s) general persisting conditions of partial order, consequentiality and discontinuity (of bodies), manifested in collisions (hard and soft), that call attention to needed functionality (WICF).** To History, per se, in Accord with the N of T’s consequentiality. History per se, not just histories, pertains to the human condition.
If that needed functionality is not to be found in the things of nature, then technology (T) must (at least help) arrange its emergence by and for Humanity (H). When necessary, beyond steps previously taken: to expand into step making. Because technology comprises more than tools. It includes procedures, tool-using procedures and procedures using tools. And, perhaps most significantly, technology re technology, even technology re technology re technology – and so on. (Think of die casting, and of languages re words.) B-ness has shown us tech-re-tech’s risks as well as its utilities. See, for instance, the Internet’s transport/message imbalance (T/M >1**). R-sense (i.e., R-spacetime, R-transform, R-words) shows us a productive alternative.
Our Grasps of H and T have fed into the Arts and Sciences; topical concerns (what is talked about [WITA]) and tech instrumentations (e.g., scopes) offer familiar examples. But that is hardly all of WICF. And the menacing dark cloud of unsolved problems raises the WICF matter of what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA) -- esp. The Nature of Things.
Further: Imagine this shelf of four books to be the design for education across the board. From before kindergarten to university and beyond. For informal as well as formal education.
H would emphasize History per se, the human condition, the confluence of the Nature of Things’ partial order, consequentiality and (Body) discontinuity, the need for functionality to arrange and avoid collisions, the vexing and continuing incomplete instruction, which makes Mind development so imperative, the crucial role of the < CEM > dynamic for human development.
T would emphasize technology’s layered crucial step making contribution, to bring forth productive procedures and/or tools. As, for example, language tech on a foundation of the R-transform (tech) rather than the B-transform Read of the Expansion, yields R-words (tech) that offer a firmer Grasp of what is talked about (WITA) and what is called for (WICF). R-sense says that as early as possible, children should Grasp the essence of needed construction.*** Only a few children seem possessed, at any age, of enough “curiosity” to look into the way things work. (Much more often, children seem curious about how adults work … and copy them as best they can.)
H and T together can and should lead the way to life’s expansion, to the emergence which is so much a feature of our life’s modest – but spectacular – portion of the Expansion. Emergence which plays a crucial, but limited role in evolution – i.e., births of new generations. Emergence which is the essence of development, whose < CEM > dynamic is yet to blossom fully to make the most of this World of Possibilitya.
* Prescriptively, given needed functionality, we should be looking to the Union of arts and sciences: Art < CEM > Science. “As one” as needed, rather than a unity that is no more than an aggregates oneness. “As one” as needed, which is far more often than the respective establishments would have it. Giving greater emphasis to the development of functionality. Beyond, for instance, current efforts in “materials science.” Steps are as material – i.e., consequential -- as bodies. But they lack the molecularity required for effective step building.
** Physics’ “four forces” may be B-ness’ crown jewels of functionality, but they fall far short of the functionality we need, for step making’s dynamic “Grasp < CEM > Involve” …that we must somehow come to, with the help of T, if we are to Solve the several H problems (e.g., O:Sp, O:Ps, OS-P, O:P, Pbeh and Psits) to improve our quality of life.
*** See, for example, App. XXIII’s argument for R-blocks. These blocks would serve to introduce the need for, acquaintance with, and beginning exercise in step building.
a Of Possibility, not just of possibilities
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) 2020 R. F. Carter
S