C-204. Tangles: progeny and meaning
Two or more strung-together thoughtknots give you a Tangle. Then as they say in fishing circles: “Tough luck.” The (fishing) line of Accord (WICF, WITA, WTITBTA and WISA) from the Nature of Things is fouled. Orthogonal coordinates are forfeit. And the emergent quality of performance, needed functionality, is forfeit. This because the recipe for “< CEM >” requires independent components: the pragmatic precept’s “any difference that makes a difference.” This in addition to a balanced ratio re emphasis … as, fundamentally, in the step’s Grasp < CEM > Involve.
If we explicate behavioral concepts qua thoughtknots, especially tangled behavioral concepts, using the R-transform to move them into R-spacetime, we will find that WICF, WITA, WTITBTA and WISA burst forth in blossom. More than B-ness examples of labelled, but not explicated, behaviors. B-ness has given us concepts. We need theoretical constructs that give us the Involve of the Nature of Things with which we can Grasp behavior qua History: as much a matter of before-the-fact’s World of Possibility as any or all of a histories’ after-the-fact particulars.
Take a tangle like “emotional intelligence” for instance. There are numerous examples advanced, typically seeing it as an important attribute of this or that “person who.” B-ness incarnate. A matter of WISA re WITA. Something simple: perhaps some tool-usage competence, as in employing emoticons. Or something far from simple: a combination of “emotional health” and “mental health.” Two far-from-simple behavioral concepts.
Or a matter of WISA re WICF and WTITBTA. A matter of needed functionality in light of the Nature of Things, something never fully achieved. But something that we might and ought to develop … especially with the help of technologies more attuned to the Human Condition.*
The Grasp < CEM > Involve that we need contributed to and for human betterment? The developmental path to that step strength? As Kaplan points out, we may see a definition without having one. Perhaps, situationally, we may settle for one or more examples. But how operative are “operational definitions”? Re the behavioral problem Pbeh? Are we prepared to progress? What about WICF? Follow exemplars as best we can, as the best we can do?
What about WTITBTA? So that even though WISA re WITA (names, labels, words, concepts) is already a taxing definitional problem, we add to it. We ask for explication, for a theoretical construct instead of a concept. Progeny suggests a line of thought. Giving the Nature of Things and all that it implies its due.
Consider how “emotional intelligence” might look as progeny, along with the rest of behavior: as needed, but not always achieved, functionality. As family. Some siblings and some more distant relatives, across generations, all linked as “begats” of Grasp < CEM > Involve. Close relatives like Mind and Move, See and Say, Read and Tell. Other relatives like “mind and body,” “body and soul,” sensOry and sensEry.
***
* R-words reduce definitional work for many process terms. Many other terms could be helped via progeny analysis. That is, many terms are talking about the same thing – or should be. If, say, language technology could draw upon History, in addition to linguistic usage histories, as a resource.
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
If we explicate behavioral concepts qua thoughtknots, especially tangled behavioral concepts, using the R-transform to move them into R-spacetime, we will find that WICF, WITA, WTITBTA and WISA burst forth in blossom. More than B-ness examples of labelled, but not explicated, behaviors. B-ness has given us concepts. We need theoretical constructs that give us the Involve of the Nature of Things with which we can Grasp behavior qua History: as much a matter of before-the-fact’s World of Possibility as any or all of a histories’ after-the-fact particulars.
Take a tangle like “emotional intelligence” for instance. There are numerous examples advanced, typically seeing it as an important attribute of this or that “person who.” B-ness incarnate. A matter of WISA re WITA. Something simple: perhaps some tool-usage competence, as in employing emoticons. Or something far from simple: a combination of “emotional health” and “mental health.” Two far-from-simple behavioral concepts.
Or a matter of WISA re WICF and WTITBTA. A matter of needed functionality in light of the Nature of Things, something never fully achieved. But something that we might and ought to develop … especially with the help of technologies more attuned to the Human Condition.*
The Grasp < CEM > Involve that we need contributed to and for human betterment? The developmental path to that step strength? As Kaplan points out, we may see a definition without having one. Perhaps, situationally, we may settle for one or more examples. But how operative are “operational definitions”? Re the behavioral problem Pbeh? Are we prepared to progress? What about WICF? Follow exemplars as best we can, as the best we can do?
What about WTITBTA? So that even though WISA re WITA (names, labels, words, concepts) is already a taxing definitional problem, we add to it. We ask for explication, for a theoretical construct instead of a concept. Progeny suggests a line of thought. Giving the Nature of Things and all that it implies its due.
Consider how “emotional intelligence” might look as progeny, along with the rest of behavior: as needed, but not always achieved, functionality. As family. Some siblings and some more distant relatives, across generations, all linked as “begats” of Grasp < CEM > Involve. Close relatives like Mind and Move, See and Say, Read and Tell. Other relatives like “mind and body,” “body and soul,” sensOry and sensEry.
* R-words reduce definitional work for many process terms. Many other terms could be helped via progeny analysis. That is, many terms are talking about the same thing – or should be. If, say, language technology could draw upon History, in addition to linguistic usage histories, as a resource.
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