C-199. Pragmatic precept
The pragmatic precept: (re focal attention) Any difference that makes a difference. See the difference maker! Make a difference maker! The spirit of consequentiality … in accord with the Nature of Things.
Pragmatic because we distinguish the NofTs’ consequentiality per se from the things of nature’s particular consequences. (Not looking just to behavioral results, such as to practices’ outcomes: success vs. failure, ala Jamesian “pragmatism,” for evidence of consequentiality. Hence, too, the lament of Eve. She would have us looking back toward the front of the step for difs that make difs (i.e., needed functionality), and not, presumably, settling for just those within-performance difs that might “shape up” the performance.)
The World of Possibility is remote indeed, if we cannot Grasp it and Involve ourselves (and other things and thingks) in it.* If we, individually and collectively, are not up front, stepwise, with respect to emergence. Development’s < CEM > dynamic for step strength depends on independent units. Confounding concepts, which we often do (e.g., “learn” = “know”), erases < CEM >’s “back and forth relationship” and emergence potential. Balance ratios (e.g., learn/know > 1+++), however telling the imbalance (e.g., as in distorted and authoritative curriculum planning), foretell and forfeit needed correction.
The pragmatic precept pertains to similarities as differences. (Similarities are only instances of particular oneness; there is no general oneness.) In the context of the Nature of Things’ partial order, consequentiality and discontinuity, any such difference (dif) is IN and OF consequence: hence the “pragmatic.”
Further, the pragmatic precept applies to utility. Some functionalities work better than others. Consider too matters of relative value. Some needed and/or realized functionalities are worth more than others. These are matters to be resolved by the complete pragmatist in R-spacetime, using R-sense technologies.
Indeed, based on three fundamental difs that make a dif (NofT’s =/= things of nature, Expansion =/= universe, and R-sense =/= B-ness) We might and ought to become a pragmatic, functionally utilitarian positivist: a person, community and/or citizen of consequence.
***
Applicability for pragmatic precept distinctions (PP’s) is broad. Consider the noun particle distinction (C-40) between a point AT and a point TO. If I make a point AT, re calling attention, there is not the implication of consequentiality that a point TO carries (e.g., re responsibility, capability). Point AT vs. point TO is a difference that makes a difference when we set out, technologically, to give more emphasis to the message, rather than the transport, functionality of communication.** A badly needed emphasis. Note the recent and troubling technological increase in the ratio of transport over message functionality.
The pragmatic precept applies to behavioral concepts, whose definitional quandaries (O:Ps) perplex and frustrate us. Too many differences are obscured. Too many are overlooked. Some so badly (e.g., “behavior”) that we have needed to shift to another term (“step”) in order to parse and pursue the structure of process. Practices, a familiar type of behavioral unit, may miss or ignore many consequential portions IN and OF the molecular step. Enough so as to seriously, if not fatally, handicap the development of a language technology with which to effectively address what is called for (WICF), what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA) and what is talked about (WITA).*** This is why we need to invoke R-spacetime and R-sense to transform behavioral concepts to theoretical constructsa.
The pragmatic precept applies before the fact as well as after the fact. It has throughout human history … hardly diminished by recent development(s). Consider the many differences made hoping for differences needed to be made. For example: sacrifices, superstitions, rituals, prayers and countless traditional practices ... Tries of endless variety. And to screening-type Find efforts, looking for this or that difference that might make a desired difference.
The distinction between things and thingks is critical to remedial and further development in B- and R- based language technologies. Thingks may be an occasional embarrassment in B-spacetime, but they are essential to human progress in R-spacetime.
***
The complete pragmatist does not settle for this or that pragmatic fragmentb … not for behavioral results (James), not for behavioral utilities (Dewey re instrumentalism), not for behavioral integrity (Peirce re truth), not for behavioral contingencies (Rorty). Not for the globby term and focus of attention, “behavior.” Rather, for Step as theoretical construct, not the wishy-washy concept of “behavior.” Nothing less than consequentiality per se (History): one of the Nature of Things’ three general persisting conditions. Not just a matter of particulars after the fact (histories), but of a generality before and after the fact … AT and ON the Frontier of the Expansion.
Nothing less than heeding the difference that makes a difference between focal attention re the Expansion vs. a “universe.” Paradigm change applies. The difference between the Nature of Things and the things of nature is key to R-sense: to the needed < CEM > expansion –i.e., technological development – to meet needed functionality in R- spacetime. The key to emergence, and to individual and collective consequentiality. In Accord with the Nature of Things.
The open door to all the needed functionality re what is called for (WICF) and what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA), marred now by the failure to find and/or make requisite differences. Otherwise we might be complimenting ourselves for having brought forth a pragmatic hegemony. And have fewer unsolved problems.
***
* See the theoretical construct of freedom TO.
** See the “other” information theory, where difs, not bits, are tech to Message’s Points.
*** Thereby failing to profit from the Forward leverage available by strengthening together the language technology and the development of the < CEM > dynamic within the molecular step.
a Where, as we see in R-word technology, many of these concepts are actually talking a lot about the same thing: capability development in response to needed functionality. (See “proper progeny” in C-204.)
b Blame B-ness for the fragmentation?
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
Pragmatic because we distinguish the NofTs’ consequentiality per se from the things of nature’s particular consequences. (Not looking just to behavioral results, such as to practices’ outcomes: success vs. failure, ala Jamesian “pragmatism,” for evidence of consequentiality. Hence, too, the lament of Eve. She would have us looking back toward the front of the step for difs that make difs (i.e., needed functionality), and not, presumably, settling for just those within-performance difs that might “shape up” the performance.)
The World of Possibility is remote indeed, if we cannot Grasp it and Involve ourselves (and other things and thingks) in it.* If we, individually and collectively, are not up front, stepwise, with respect to emergence. Development’s < CEM > dynamic for step strength depends on independent units. Confounding concepts, which we often do (e.g., “learn” = “know”), erases < CEM >’s “back and forth relationship” and emergence potential. Balance ratios (e.g., learn/know > 1+++), however telling the imbalance (e.g., as in distorted and authoritative curriculum planning), foretell and forfeit needed correction.
The pragmatic precept pertains to similarities as differences. (Similarities are only instances of particular oneness; there is no general oneness.) In the context of the Nature of Things’ partial order, consequentiality and discontinuity, any such difference (dif) is IN and OF consequence: hence the “pragmatic.”
Further, the pragmatic precept applies to utility. Some functionalities work better than others. Consider too matters of relative value. Some needed and/or realized functionalities are worth more than others. These are matters to be resolved by the complete pragmatist in R-spacetime, using R-sense technologies.
Indeed, based on three fundamental difs that make a dif (NofT’s =/= things of nature, Expansion =/= universe, and R-sense =/= B-ness) We might and ought to become a pragmatic, functionally utilitarian positivist: a person, community and/or citizen of consequence.
Applicability for pragmatic precept distinctions (PP’s) is broad. Consider the noun particle distinction (C-40) between a point AT and a point TO. If I make a point AT, re calling attention, there is not the implication of consequentiality that a point TO carries (e.g., re responsibility, capability). Point AT vs. point TO is a difference that makes a difference when we set out, technologically, to give more emphasis to the message, rather than the transport, functionality of communication.** A badly needed emphasis. Note the recent and troubling technological increase in the ratio of transport over message functionality.
The pragmatic precept applies to behavioral concepts, whose definitional quandaries (O:Ps) perplex and frustrate us. Too many differences are obscured. Too many are overlooked. Some so badly (e.g., “behavior”) that we have needed to shift to another term (“step”) in order to parse and pursue the structure of process. Practices, a familiar type of behavioral unit, may miss or ignore many consequential portions IN and OF the molecular step. Enough so as to seriously, if not fatally, handicap the development of a language technology with which to effectively address what is called for (WICF), what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA) and what is talked about (WITA).*** This is why we need to invoke R-spacetime and R-sense to transform behavioral concepts to theoretical constructsa.
The pragmatic precept applies before the fact as well as after the fact. It has throughout human history … hardly diminished by recent development(s). Consider the many differences made hoping for differences needed to be made. For example: sacrifices, superstitions, rituals, prayers and countless traditional practices ... Tries of endless variety. And to screening-type Find efforts, looking for this or that difference that might make a desired difference.
The distinction between things and thingks is critical to remedial and further development in B- and R- based language technologies. Thingks may be an occasional embarrassment in B-spacetime, but they are essential to human progress in R-spacetime.
The complete pragmatist does not settle for this or that pragmatic fragmentb … not for behavioral results (James), not for behavioral utilities (Dewey re instrumentalism), not for behavioral integrity (Peirce re truth), not for behavioral contingencies (Rorty). Not for the globby term and focus of attention, “behavior.” Rather, for Step as theoretical construct, not the wishy-washy concept of “behavior.” Nothing less than consequentiality per se (History): one of the Nature of Things’ three general persisting conditions. Not just a matter of particulars after the fact (histories), but of a generality before and after the fact … AT and ON the Frontier of the Expansion.
Nothing less than heeding the difference that makes a difference between focal attention re the Expansion vs. a “universe.” Paradigm change applies. The difference between the Nature of Things and the things of nature is key to R-sense: to the needed < CEM > expansion –i.e., technological development – to meet needed functionality in R- spacetime. The key to emergence, and to individual and collective consequentiality. In Accord with the Nature of Things.
The open door to all the needed functionality re what is called for (WICF) and what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA), marred now by the failure to find and/or make requisite differences. Otherwise we might be complimenting ourselves for having brought forth a pragmatic hegemony. And have fewer unsolved problems.
* See the theoretical construct of freedom TO.
** See the “other” information theory, where difs, not bits, are tech to Message’s Points.
*** Thereby failing to profit from the Forward leverage available by strengthening together the language technology and the development of the < CEM > dynamic within the molecular step.
a Where, as we see in R-word technology, many of these concepts are actually talking a lot about the same thing: capability development in response to needed functionality. (See “proper progeny” in C-204.)
b Blame B-ness for the fragmentation?
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