C-202. The wonder of it all
The things of nature, after-the-fact particulars, can move us to wonder, perhaps to awe … only then to abandon us ON and AT the Frontier to perplexity and quandary. What about what is called for (WICF)? Needed functionality beyond identification? More than fascination and collection.
Food for thought in any case. Any thing can be talked about. Thingks too. And we can talk about what is said about (WISA) re what is talked about (WITA) – interminably. Food for scholarship. Food for gossip and rumors too. But as Frontier food for step making and taking in this World of Possibility?
Only matters of history? What of History – of what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA)? Of History per se – i.e., the Nature of Things – is the wonder of wonders. The Human condition. Of what we might and ought to become?
Why are stories more easily Grasped than histories? Perhaps because they lend themselves to a firmer -- plausible or not – Grasp of functionality and needed functionality?
***
And surely we should see the point TO of the change in recent centuries, from a long history of the human condition’s evolutionary/developmental ratio (of, say, >1+), to a near-explosive rise in the developmental side and to a more balanced ratio of evolution and development … though still fueled more by particular needed functionalities than by a Grasp of needed functionality given the Nature of Things.
This change in ratio, if graphed, would show a sharp rise for recent years. It would show human expansion. And if we take note of the < CEM > mechanism characteristic of, and underlying development’s Compose, then the ascending path ahead should be clear.
***
Something to wonder about….
Wonder about this:
Everything changes every thing
The Nature of Things impacts the things of nature, especially us. And the thingks of nature, especially we*.
IN and WITH these four words, we have attempted a point TO … using and modifying our B-based language technology (“B-speak”)** to bring R-sense (and R-spacetime) into the picture along with B-ness (and B-spacetime). And in anticipation of the added help an R-based language technology might give us….
Thus: Centering for focal attention; Capitalization to call attention to the ambiguity of the singular***; no punctuation;a applying the pragmatic precept to the idea that “everything” = “every thing”; applying the pragmatic precept to the idea that Everything=everything; implying that a change is not the same as a differenceb.
***
* As in “We, the people…” The more perfect Union we might and need to become.
** Too B or not too B: That too is the questionb
*** Not the beginning of a B-L-tech statement.
a Although a closing exclamation point might be appropriate.
b How many PP’s does it take for pattern recognition to take effect, for us to see what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA) and what is called for (WICF) that our procedural technology has not given us? (See paradigm change.)
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
Food for thought in any case. Any thing can be talked about. Thingks too. And we can talk about what is said about (WISA) re what is talked about (WITA) – interminably. Food for scholarship. Food for gossip and rumors too. But as Frontier food for step making and taking in this World of Possibility?
Only matters of history? What of History – of what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA)? Of History per se – i.e., the Nature of Things – is the wonder of wonders. The Human condition. Of what we might and ought to become?
Why are stories more easily Grasped than histories? Perhaps because they lend themselves to a firmer -- plausible or not – Grasp of functionality and needed functionality?
And surely we should see the point TO of the change in recent centuries, from a long history of the human condition’s evolutionary/developmental ratio (of, say, >1+), to a near-explosive rise in the developmental side and to a more balanced ratio of evolution and development … though still fueled more by particular needed functionalities than by a Grasp of needed functionality given the Nature of Things.
This change in ratio, if graphed, would show a sharp rise for recent years. It would show human expansion. And if we take note of the < CEM > mechanism characteristic of, and underlying development’s Compose, then the ascending path ahead should be clear.
Something to wonder about….
Wonder about this:
The Nature of Things impacts the things of nature, especially us. And the thingks of nature, especially we*.
IN and WITH these four words, we have attempted a point TO … using and modifying our B-based language technology (“B-speak”)** to bring R-sense (and R-spacetime) into the picture along with B-ness (and B-spacetime). And in anticipation of the added help an R-based language technology might give us….
Thus: Centering for focal attention; Capitalization to call attention to the ambiguity of the singular***; no punctuation;a applying the pragmatic precept to the idea that “everything” = “every thing”; applying the pragmatic precept to the idea that Everything=everything; implying that a change is not the same as a differenceb.
* As in “We, the people…” The more perfect Union we might and need to become.
** Too B or not too B: That too is the questionb
*** Not the beginning of a B-L-tech statement.
a Although a closing exclamation point might be appropriate.
b How many PP’s does it take for pattern recognition to take effect, for us to see what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA) and what is called for (WICF) that our procedural technology has not given us? (See paradigm change.)
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