C-207. Ratios or gaps?
BFEPS introduces many differences that make differences. At first because we were concerned with the kinds of problems that need to be solved. But now we find a philosophical reason too: the pragmatic precept. And how it can be instrumental in attacking the shortcomings, characterized as “B-ness,” of our problem-solving technologies.
Why should we be looking to R-sense, to adding R-spacetime to B-spacetime to strengthen our efforts? And, crucially, how does this contribute to more productive efforts? Ratios vs. gaps provide an illuminating Tell.
Recall that we can address what is called for (WICF) in either of two ways: 1/ the distance – “gap” -- between needed functionality (VI: control need) and functionality (VI: control achieved*); or, 2/ the imbalance – “ratio” – between needed functionality and functionality.
The gap presents a B-spacetime picture in distance terms. But what is the gap OF between needed and achieved control? WICF? “Whatever it takes?” A responsible agent? Something we might find? Someone capable visited upon us (omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent)?
The ratio presents an R-spacetime picture in balance terms. Balances of capability, at first of need and achievement … but then, digging into the problem, of behavioral conditions (capabilities, capacities) which, themselves subjected to ratio analysis, become available to trigger the solution.*
Imbalance reduction begins with a ratio’s introduction of a “bi-ness.” (There are many capabilities from which to choose. See App. XVII.) The two independent “bi-“ contributors afford forward leverage to each other and, by the < CEM > potential of step strengthening via Compose, to solving the behavioral problem, Pbeh.
Pbeh has been an intractable problem, confounded by B-ness as it has been, seen as but a portion of the situational problem, Psit. (See, for instance, the notion [Eve’s purported sin] that the Pbeh is a property of the human.) But solve the behavioral problem and all the situational problems will become more tractable.
***
Focus on the ratio. We can, we must start from where we are** and see how we are progressing from there. Emergence will make itself known. Best deal around.
Interestingly, the body may have already been leading the way for the step here. The body, over the course of human evolution, has emerged with a number of equilibrium dynamics. Such, as we have seen, that destruction of equilibrium (“trauma”) can be life threatening.
“Feeling,” the concept, may be a point TO re such a sensEry history for steps too?*** Not the feeling about one’s step results. Not the feeling about one’s step performance. Not the feeling about one’s effort. But about how one’s step making and/or taking is proceeding (e.g., “smoothness,” conceptually).
Should imbalance – the Tell of ratios -- be any less a consideration for steps? When step imbalances are glaringly, dreadfully clear on the contemporary scene – i.e., here and now AT and ON the Frontier? Consider: Decision making/problem solving >1++(+). And the partisanship it engenders. Consider: communication technology’s transport/message >1++. And the attention problem solving needs but does not get. Consider: want/need >1+(+) . And the inadequacy of the market technology for our critical economy < CEM > polity development. Matters such as these plague efforts to deal with unsolved problems (e.g., global warming) for which collective step making and taking are required.
And where what is not fundamentally clear (i.e., B-ness/R-sense >1++(+)) threatens humanitya… and leaves us hearing the sound of one hand clapping. Grasp < CEM > Involve works for one hand. But better with two hands for composing.
***
* Capacity/capability is itself an important ratio consideration, representing two consequentiality resources. As body and step conditions, they have emergent potential if and when involved in a < CEM > proceeding. See evolution < CEM > development, for example.
** No small matter! Ratios ought to be a continuing concern for those who (professionally?) assume sentinel responsibility AT and ON the Frontier of the Expansion.
***Such a step sensEry history may obtain for other biological and botanical species too?
a See “Instinct plus outstinct = extinct.” The other “common sense” we need is R-sense.
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
Why should we be looking to R-sense, to adding R-spacetime to B-spacetime to strengthen our efforts? And, crucially, how does this contribute to more productive efforts? Ratios vs. gaps provide an illuminating Tell.
Recall that we can address what is called for (WICF) in either of two ways: 1/ the distance – “gap” -- between needed functionality (VI: control need) and functionality (VI: control achieved*); or, 2/ the imbalance – “ratio” – between needed functionality and functionality.
The gap presents a B-spacetime picture in distance terms. But what is the gap OF between needed and achieved control? WICF? “Whatever it takes?” A responsible agent? Something we might find? Someone capable visited upon us (omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent)?
The ratio presents an R-spacetime picture in balance terms. Balances of capability, at first of need and achievement … but then, digging into the problem, of behavioral conditions (capabilities, capacities) which, themselves subjected to ratio analysis, become available to trigger the solution.*
Imbalance reduction begins with a ratio’s introduction of a “bi-ness.” (There are many capabilities from which to choose. See App. XVII.) The two independent “bi-“ contributors afford forward leverage to each other and, by the < CEM > potential of step strengthening via Compose, to solving the behavioral problem, Pbeh.
Pbeh has been an intractable problem, confounded by B-ness as it has been, seen as but a portion of the situational problem, Psit. (See, for instance, the notion [Eve’s purported sin] that the Pbeh is a property of the human.) But solve the behavioral problem and all the situational problems will become more tractable.
Focus on the ratio. We can, we must start from where we are** and see how we are progressing from there. Emergence will make itself known. Best deal around.
Interestingly, the body may have already been leading the way for the step here. The body, over the course of human evolution, has emerged with a number of equilibrium dynamics. Such, as we have seen, that destruction of equilibrium (“trauma”) can be life threatening.
“Feeling,” the concept, may be a point TO re such a sensEry history for steps too?*** Not the feeling about one’s step results. Not the feeling about one’s step performance. Not the feeling about one’s effort. But about how one’s step making and/or taking is proceeding (e.g., “smoothness,” conceptually).
Should imbalance – the Tell of ratios -- be any less a consideration for steps? When step imbalances are glaringly, dreadfully clear on the contemporary scene – i.e., here and now AT and ON the Frontier? Consider: Decision making/problem solving >1++(+). And the partisanship it engenders. Consider: communication technology’s transport/message >1++. And the attention problem solving needs but does not get. Consider: want/need >1+(+) . And the inadequacy of the market technology for our critical economy < CEM > polity development. Matters such as these plague efforts to deal with unsolved problems (e.g., global warming) for which collective step making and taking are required.
And where what is not fundamentally clear (i.e., B-ness/R-sense >1++(+)) threatens humanitya… and leaves us hearing the sound of one hand clapping. Grasp < CEM > Involve works for one hand. But better with two hands for composing.
* Capacity/capability is itself an important ratio consideration, representing two consequentiality resources. As body and step conditions, they have emergent potential if and when involved in a < CEM > proceeding. See evolution < CEM > development, for example.
** No small matter! Ratios ought to be a continuing concern for those who (professionally?) assume sentinel responsibility AT and ON the Frontier of the Expansion.
***Such a step sensEry history may obtain for other biological and botanical species too?
a See “Instinct plus outstinct = extinct.” The other “common sense” we need is R-sense.
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