C-206. “What’s the Point?” Yes. Indeed.
The “universe” (B-spacetime) is pointless.* The Expansion has a point: Forward. The point that life gives it. Ergo: “What’s the point?” That point is the point.
Evident by emergence, repeatedly. What issues forth. How what issues forth. By development and not just by evolution. By steps and not just by bodies. By History (body < CEM > step) and not just by histories. By Grasp < CEM > Involve developments within the step. By the within-molecular step strengthening enabled by < CEM >. Emergence to which the concept of “growth” only alludes.
Point is evident in many ways, obscured though it can be by the concept of “purpose,” the B-ness attempt to Grasp the Nature of Things by ascribing attributes to bodies qua authors … missing “Point” as an R-word addressing the needed functionality (incomplete instruction) occasioned by the NofT’s general persisting conditions (partial order, consequentiality and [body] discontinuity).
This even though human bodies (and other multi-step bodies too) make the point about point. Consider facing, for example. From head to toe. Facing forward. AT and On the Frontier of the Expansion, dealing with what is called for (WICF). Consider cognition: a 2nd face, the sensEry face behind the sensOry face, whose asymmetric relations (e.g., inside-outside and before-after) give point TO and ABOUT body and step.** (“Face” should be seen as an R-word – i.e., with Message [App. XX: two nouns and two verbs.)
On what would evolution’s “natural selection” stand without reproduction’s forward thrust? Development has always been here in this World of Possibility, given History’s body < CEM > step, and multi-steppers’ Involve < CEM > Grasp, after Big Bang.
***
WICF? We ask what is meant. But B-ness risks weakness here, settling for “definition” – i.e., point AT and ABOUT (denotation and connotation?), when point TO may be more (of) to the point. Thus, for example, does “agency” point TO: Responsibility? Capability? Needed functionality? The NofT’s? All of these and more.
Not just examples and synonyms … trapped in the limited what is said about (WISA) re what is talked about (WITA) concerns engendered by language technology’s modest advance from WISA’s simply naming WITA.
WICF is plagued by communication technology’s unbalanced ratio between transport and message. To improve Message (as R-word), we need to take cognizance of Point (as R-word) re the NofT’s incomplete instruction, then work on procedural technology (e.g., noun particles) to advance our messaging.
***
* It is party to a point, to a pointed question: “What includes everything?” (“Thing” is B-ness thingk for any and every focus of attention.) As a thingk, “universe” is an Involve for all things, including relationships, in B-spacetime, Thus there is a cognitive point to make about “universe,” a technological point re “Mind” (an R-word).
** < CEM > introduces Compose: a 3rd face behind the “bi-“of sensEry cognition (itself behind the sensOry “bi-‘s” of sight, sound and limb) to the back and forth that might and ought to be further developed for emergence … and the challenge (e.g., pointed question) of authorship.
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
Evident by emergence, repeatedly. What issues forth. How what issues forth. By development and not just by evolution. By steps and not just by bodies. By History (body < CEM > step) and not just by histories. By Grasp < CEM > Involve developments within the step. By the within-molecular step strengthening enabled by < CEM >. Emergence to which the concept of “growth” only alludes.
Point is evident in many ways, obscured though it can be by the concept of “purpose,” the B-ness attempt to Grasp the Nature of Things by ascribing attributes to bodies qua authors … missing “Point” as an R-word addressing the needed functionality (incomplete instruction) occasioned by the NofT’s general persisting conditions (partial order, consequentiality and [body] discontinuity).
This even though human bodies (and other multi-step bodies too) make the point about point. Consider facing, for example. From head to toe. Facing forward. AT and On the Frontier of the Expansion, dealing with what is called for (WICF). Consider cognition: a 2nd face, the sensEry face behind the sensOry face, whose asymmetric relations (e.g., inside-outside and before-after) give point TO and ABOUT body and step.** (“Face” should be seen as an R-word – i.e., with Message [App. XX: two nouns and two verbs.)
On what would evolution’s “natural selection” stand without reproduction’s forward thrust? Development has always been here in this World of Possibility, given History’s body < CEM > step, and multi-steppers’ Involve < CEM > Grasp, after Big Bang.
WICF? We ask what is meant. But B-ness risks weakness here, settling for “definition” – i.e., point AT and ABOUT (denotation and connotation?), when point TO may be more (of) to the point. Thus, for example, does “agency” point TO: Responsibility? Capability? Needed functionality? The NofT’s? All of these and more.
Not just examples and synonyms … trapped in the limited what is said about (WISA) re what is talked about (WITA) concerns engendered by language technology’s modest advance from WISA’s simply naming WITA.
WICF is plagued by communication technology’s unbalanced ratio between transport and message. To improve Message (as R-word), we need to take cognizance of Point (as R-word) re the NofT’s incomplete instruction, then work on procedural technology (e.g., noun particles) to advance our messaging.
* It is party to a point, to a pointed question: “What includes everything?” (“Thing” is B-ness thingk for any and every focus of attention.) As a thingk, “universe” is an Involve for all things, including relationships, in B-spacetime, Thus there is a cognitive point to make about “universe,” a technological point re “Mind” (an R-word).
** < CEM > introduces Compose: a 3rd face behind the “bi-“of sensEry cognition (itself behind the sensOry “bi-‘s” of sight, sound and limb) to the back and forth that might and ought to be further developed for emergence … and the challenge (e.g., pointed question) of authorship.
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