C-196. We are in what together?
We are together in R-spacetime (aka the World of Possibility), an expansion within the Expansion. Perhaps uniquely so. But that is hardly material in view of what is called for (WICF) here and now AT and ON the Frontier. What is material is that we focus attention on our place in the Expansion … and that we develop technologies in Accord with the Nature of Things’ needed functionality ... producing functionality when it cannot be found in the things of nature. Making steps.
Why aren’t we more together? How can we be, making and taking steps in R-spacetime but thinking in B-spacetime via B-ness based languages? In one sense we are together: crowded in front of an Escarpment of B-ness and under a low ceiling of B-ness – the imposition of B-spacetime technologies on R-spacetime.* We lack R-sense. We have a weak Grasp of development, and of its fundamental dynamic: < CEM >. What is called for from development is forfeit to the lethargy of evolution.
We are very much together in one respect. We share the behavioral problem, Pbeh. Our interests in this or that situational problem, Psit, may be more or less shared. And when we lose Pbeh in this or that Psit, we seriously handicap ourselves. Hence our need to look to behavioral foundations (BFEPS), however B-ness befogs us.
Consider “behavior” as a linguistic term. It has two B-ness roots, as what can be measured in B-spacetime. 1/ Behaviorism focuses on (whole) body movement in B-spacetime. 2/ A behavior as an instance of behavior (the category) uses the “person who” technology of N-dimensional attribution (Bs).**
The term “behavior” is pretty much useless in R-spacetime, in our World of Possibility. “Molecular behavior?” Yes; it works in B-spacetime. But “behavioral molecule?” No. Not in R-spacetime. Hence: “step” as the preferred linguistic term in R-spacetime.
Where is the structure of process? When process (aka functionality) is to be made – or was made -- not found? We know the basic structure of a step: Grasp < CEM > Involve. And it applies to and for units of a more developed step: e.g., MindG< CEM >I < CEM > MoveG< CEM >I. *** “Molecular step?” Yes. For the functionality we must make (H[A< CEM >S]T). Especially re “together” (e.g., Union re the individual-community relationship, the Preamble’s “…toward a more perfect Union.”).
***
* Confounding the two spacetimes. Violating the pragmatic precept, re focal attention, of any difference that makes a difference. And for irony, note the invidious comments directed at the harder sciences by the so-called “hard sciences,” the former’s worst sin being to accept and settle for using the latter’s technologies. R-spacetime needs and deserves its own technology, linguistic included (e.g., R-words). B-spacetime tech looks backward … and forward only as projection (aka “prediction”) can take it. R-spacetime tech helps us look forward, as TO and For solutions to our problems. AT and On the Frontier, History looks forward in Accord with the NofT’s; histories look backward at things of nature.
** Cognition via the attribute-object (relationship) and inside-outside relation, with the focus of attention given “object” status – whether it is a body or not. (See hypostatization. Behavioral concepts are riddled with this practice, allowing definition by example but defeating explication – i.e., what is said about (WISA) re all of what is talked about (WITA), what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA) and WICF. Especially WICF.
*** This could hardly be more important. “< CEM >” – i.e., contingent emergent materiality, scales up, offering a better and faster path to human development. Consider all the step strengthening possibilities (e.g., polity < CEM > economy, learn< CEM > know, agree < CEM > understand) made possible and plausible by meeting < CEM >’s independence and balance requirements.
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
Why aren’t we more together? How can we be, making and taking steps in R-spacetime but thinking in B-spacetime via B-ness based languages? In one sense we are together: crowded in front of an Escarpment of B-ness and under a low ceiling of B-ness – the imposition of B-spacetime technologies on R-spacetime.* We lack R-sense. We have a weak Grasp of development, and of its fundamental dynamic: < CEM >. What is called for from development is forfeit to the lethargy of evolution.
We are very much together in one respect. We share the behavioral problem, Pbeh. Our interests in this or that situational problem, Psit, may be more or less shared. And when we lose Pbeh in this or that Psit, we seriously handicap ourselves. Hence our need to look to behavioral foundations (BFEPS), however B-ness befogs us.
Consider “behavior” as a linguistic term. It has two B-ness roots, as what can be measured in B-spacetime. 1/ Behaviorism focuses on (whole) body movement in B-spacetime. 2/ A behavior as an instance of behavior (the category) uses the “person who” technology of N-dimensional attribution (Bs).**
The term “behavior” is pretty much useless in R-spacetime, in our World of Possibility. “Molecular behavior?” Yes; it works in B-spacetime. But “behavioral molecule?” No. Not in R-spacetime. Hence: “step” as the preferred linguistic term in R-spacetime.
Where is the structure of process? When process (aka functionality) is to be made – or was made -- not found? We know the basic structure of a step: Grasp < CEM > Involve. And it applies to and for units of a more developed step: e.g., MindG< CEM >I < CEM > MoveG< CEM >I. *** “Molecular step?” Yes. For the functionality we must make (H[A< CEM >S]T). Especially re “together” (e.g., Union re the individual-community relationship, the Preamble’s “…toward a more perfect Union.”).
* Confounding the two spacetimes. Violating the pragmatic precept, re focal attention, of any difference that makes a difference. And for irony, note the invidious comments directed at the harder sciences by the so-called “hard sciences,” the former’s worst sin being to accept and settle for using the latter’s technologies. R-spacetime needs and deserves its own technology, linguistic included (e.g., R-words). B-spacetime tech looks backward … and forward only as projection (aka “prediction”) can take it. R-spacetime tech helps us look forward, as TO and For solutions to our problems. AT and On the Frontier, History looks forward in Accord with the NofT’s; histories look backward at things of nature.
** Cognition via the attribute-object (relationship) and inside-outside relation, with the focus of attention given “object” status – whether it is a body or not. (See hypostatization. Behavioral concepts are riddled with this practice, allowing definition by example but defeating explication – i.e., what is said about (WISA) re all of what is talked about (WITA), what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA) and WICF. Especially WICF.
*** This could hardly be more important. “< CEM >” – i.e., contingent emergent materiality, scales up, offering a better and faster path to human development. Consider all the step strengthening possibilities (e.g., polity < CEM > economy, learn< CEM > know, agree < CEM > understand) made possible and plausible by meeting < CEM >’s independence and balance requirements.
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