C-197. The Frontier: where WICF reigns and spacetimes intersect
AT and ON the Frontier. Our next step? What is called for (WICF)? Needed functionality: “WI” and “CF.” WICF comprises what is talked about (WITA) and what is said about (WISA) … and may very well have need of what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA), but isn’t.
For the missing functionality evident in our unsolved problems, R(ealization)-spacetime is where we should be concerned about all this, WTITBTA especially. This missing functionality nags us step after step and, if we are paying attention, at every next step – i.e., AT and ON the Frontier. Where the next step can be the first step, as for producing the kind of molecular step that would do a better job of solving our problems.
We need R-spacetime technologies to help us with the problems that even our good solutions bring with them. Principally, the “O:Sp” problem: the distribution technologies needed to make good ideas and good projects available here and now AT and ON the Frontier. (The market technology isn’t cutting it.)
The Frontier is where the spacetimes (R- and B-) and their companion technologies* should intersect. To work together, as well as independently, on behalf of increased functionality.** To best meet the challenges of WICF. B-ness subverts this, throwing a cover of B-spacetime over R-spacetime.
B-ness sees steps (WITA) in terms of particular body properties (Bs) and body-body relationships (BsB). Steps of whatever unit length (e.g., one foot forward, a traditional practice, an activity). Not the best material for step making (behavioral architecture), when needed to meet WICF challenges. Steps do not have the independence and emphasis they need to meet Emergence’s “< CEM >” developmental requirement.
B-ness spills over R-spacetime, to the distress of steps re WICF, in giving steps expression (WISA) via B-L-technology (language: e.g. noun-adjective, noun-verb-noun). R-word (R-L-) technology offers some help, distinguishing a difference that makes a difference (re WITA).***
***
The ambiguity of the singular is a huge Tell here. The ambiguity arises for many behavioral terms (e.g., walk, eat, mind) because if we were to map them in the two spacetimes (B- and R-) we would see they appear in both of the spacetimes. And we are using one word to represent both cases. Roughly, the needed functionality in R-spacetime and any of the instances in which functionality is evident in B-spacetime.
In flagrant violation of the pragmatic precept (C-199), concealing a difference that makes a difference … a serious matter when consequentiality per se is at the heart of the Nature of Things. A serious matter for what happens to us and for what we might and ought to make happen.
***
* See their respective Involves (Expansion vs. Universe) as foci of attention. See B-transform vs. R-transform for Reading the Expansion.
** Stronger steps, that is. Via the “< CEM >” mechanism that powers development, initially and continuing from and in History’s “body < CEM > step” dynamic … beginning shortly after Big Bang and now elaborated, albeit not strongly enough, in subsequent “< CEM >” ways (e.g., the step’s Mind < CEM > Move).
*** See Message theory in which words like “Mind,” for example, each have two noun and two verb usages … to better capture the structure of process.
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
For the missing functionality evident in our unsolved problems, R(ealization)-spacetime is where we should be concerned about all this, WTITBTA especially. This missing functionality nags us step after step and, if we are paying attention, at every next step – i.e., AT and ON the Frontier. Where the next step can be the first step, as for producing the kind of molecular step that would do a better job of solving our problems.
We need R-spacetime technologies to help us with the problems that even our good solutions bring with them. Principally, the “O:Sp” problem: the distribution technologies needed to make good ideas and good projects available here and now AT and ON the Frontier. (The market technology isn’t cutting it.)
The Frontier is where the spacetimes (R- and B-) and their companion technologies* should intersect. To work together, as well as independently, on behalf of increased functionality.** To best meet the challenges of WICF. B-ness subverts this, throwing a cover of B-spacetime over R-spacetime.
B-ness sees steps (WITA) in terms of particular body properties (Bs) and body-body relationships (BsB). Steps of whatever unit length (e.g., one foot forward, a traditional practice, an activity). Not the best material for step making (behavioral architecture), when needed to meet WICF challenges. Steps do not have the independence and emphasis they need to meet Emergence’s “< CEM >” developmental requirement.
B-ness spills over R-spacetime, to the distress of steps re WICF, in giving steps expression (WISA) via B-L-technology (language: e.g. noun-adjective, noun-verb-noun). R-word (R-L-) technology offers some help, distinguishing a difference that makes a difference (re WITA).***
The ambiguity of the singular is a huge Tell here. The ambiguity arises for many behavioral terms (e.g., walk, eat, mind) because if we were to map them in the two spacetimes (B- and R-) we would see they appear in both of the spacetimes. And we are using one word to represent both cases. Roughly, the needed functionality in R-spacetime and any of the instances in which functionality is evident in B-spacetime.
In flagrant violation of the pragmatic precept (C-199), concealing a difference that makes a difference … a serious matter when consequentiality per se is at the heart of the Nature of Things. A serious matter for what happens to us and for what we might and ought to make happen.
* See their respective Involves (Expansion vs. Universe) as foci of attention. See B-transform vs. R-transform for Reading the Expansion.
** Stronger steps, that is. Via the “< CEM >” mechanism that powers development, initially and continuing from and in History’s “body < CEM > step” dynamic … beginning shortly after Big Bang and now elaborated, albeit not strongly enough, in subsequent “< CEM >” ways (e.g., the step’s Mind < CEM > Move).
*** See Message theory in which words like “Mind,” for example, each have two noun and two verb usages … to better capture the structure of process.
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