C-210. Principles and laws
Consider Adopt (Ao), Adapt (Aa) and Adept (Ae) as strategies. Adopt pertains to man-made laws governing behavior (e.g., statutes, norms). Adapt pertains to “natural” laws (e.g., earth’s orbit). Both pertain to things of nature. Adept pertains to principles, to the Nature of Things’, to the general persisting conditions (GPC) of partial order, consequentiality and discontinuity. Then on to the incomplete instruction in consequence of partial order and what we should do about it. Principally: Compose.
Accord as metastrategy is the primary and major principle of the Nature of Things. As constants re History, the GPC are fundamental principles with respect to next steps AT, ON the Frontier. They tell us we are free of complete instruction … and that we might and ought to act accordingly (sic).
So too are “CEM” and its foundations (balance and independence) principles with respect to next steps. Beginning with History’s body CEM step, and then burgeoning with the step’s Grasp CEM Involve, Mind CEM Move, et al.
The distinction between principle and law, a difference that makes a difference (PP), is essential if we are to progress. As, for example, if to make progress we are not to depend solely on “authority” and/or prediction. If we are to profit from R-sense and R-spacetime procedural technology, which we can via the step-strengthening potential of CEM development.
Consider, for example, the matter of “govern.” Ratio technology (C-207) gives us an R-sense way to govern, working from Nature of Things’ principles. By means of the developmental dynamic, the state of the Union directs We, not “us,” forward. Where laws might insist, principles suggest. Where the absence of laws augurs chaos, principles promise progress.
CEM says (Principles of History):
***
G.G. Simpson’s coverage edict of “all phenomena to which principles* apply” is very much a matter of what is called for (WICF) when we concern ourselves with problem solving’s needed functionality … very much in need of principled guidance before the fact (AT, ON the Frontier: the Where and When of “here and now” of R-spacetime).
When our coverage of collisions is incomplete, missing the Nature of Things while we focus attention on the things of nature**, and inaccurate in our B-ness (B-speak) “objectivist” description of what is said about (WISA) what is talked about (WITA).
Then Solve*** is challenged by the behavioral problem, Pbeh, as well as by this or that situational problem, Psit. Because Pbeh derives principally from the Nature of Things. Whose conditions of partial order and consequentiality, in relation to discontinuity (separation of bodies), engender collisions and command functionality. Needed functionality calls for Adept, not just for Adopt and/or Adapt. For principles, not just laws.# It calls for Accord.
Accordingly, we should respect the pragmatic precept as a principle: Any difference that makes a difference is in accord with the Nature of Things’ general persisting condition of consequentiality.##
***
“Laws of the universe”? What universe? A presumptive unity. The unity substantiating the notion that by treating Difs => Difs as just another kind of Difs, there will (somehow, some day) be a conciliation of concept and theory (R. Atkinson)? This is a significant sector of the science establishment, its collectors. But science, if seen as “to know,” comprises far more than collecting … and cannot abide the “all of a piece” presumption.
The Nature of Things says the evidence (of collisions) tells us that in the Expansion, given the general persisting conditions (GPC) of partial order, consequentiality and discontinuity, Difs => Difs are of a different quality. They respect the Frontier’s before-the-fact concerns. And acknowledge the lack of determinism’s full constraint.
“Law and order”? Given the actuality (incomplete constraint) of the Nature of Thing’s GPC, and lacking local situational constraint, behavior enjoys (?) some measure of freedom (OF, FR OM). However, situations have and do arise where constraint seems indicated … hence legal statutes and cultural norms. Laws which add order. Order not furnished by the Nature of Things.
There remains, then, potentially a considerable amount of ungoverned behavior. And countless situational problems, Psit. More statutes needed? Harsher order sanctions? Compelling behavioral structures (e.g., “-isms”)? The behavioral problem, Pbeh, persists. Human history is punctuated with failed attempts to avoid anarchy on the one hand and tyranny on the other. Freedom TO – our needed Forward capability -- is elusive. For lack of development.
“Guiding principles”? It makes R-sense to apply PP to “law” and “principle.” There’s a Dif there that make a Dif, even though they are sometimes treated as synonyms (e.g., G. G. Simpson). Laws see no difference between after-the-fact and before-the-fact. Principle suggests there is an important difference: Given the Nature of Things’ incomplete instruction (i.e., partial order), guidance is needed.
Some useful redundancy here. Principles furnish only guidance. This is not as empty a promise as it might appear. We have seen that development’s “CEM” dynamic brings principles with it (i.e., independence, balance). Taken together with the pragmatic precept, PP, as a guiding principle, our steps Forward benefit from guidance at their front and in their exercise.
***
Let’s return to some more of the conversation between Eve and Adam….
Eve: I don’t like where this is going.
Adam: What?
Eve: Where we are going to end up.
Adam: So now you are thinking about results….
Eve: Well, yes. But just about the result of depending on results to improve what we do.
Adam: What do you see ahead?
Eve: Us and others like us merely coming to agreements about which finds and tries are better than others. Or worse, not coming to agreements about which are better.
Adam: Don’t we usually agree?
Eve: Yes. But what about others? And worst of all, not trying to do more about trying.
Adam: Why is that so bad?
Eve: Because some ways can’t be found or chosen; they have to be made.
Adam: For example?
Eve: Our family. Can’t you see what’s coming? (To herself: What if it turns out to be like him? He’ll need a sister … maybe more than one.)
***
* Here, in the scientific establishment context, “principle” is confounded with “law.” (Which, undoubtedly, explains why some dismissed his point as advocacy for greater attention to the proprietary interests of biologists.) But the pragmatic precept says to distinguish them. Given the Nature of Things’ partial order, laws – either type – can apply only to the extent that predictability (i.e., order) holds. Which is why principles are critically needed AT, ON the Frontier to complement laws for needed guidance functionality.
** As notably enshrined in the concept of “universe” to the neglect of the Expansion and the Frontier. Our big focus of attention problem.
*** “Solve”: an R-word. That which R-spacetime helps make apparent as a WISA procedural tech development. (See “Deconstructing the dictionary.”)
# Are constants, such as the general persisting conditions of the Nature of Things, laws or principles? Or both?
## Here we should also see that “pragmatism” does not serve the pragmatic precept well, because of the “-ism” suffix. The (B-ness) “-ism” says, “is as does.” But the pragmatic precept says “is =/= does” … and, furthermore, that “is CEM does” is the way to go Forward. A more convincing argument for “existence”? As any and every application of the pragmatic precept AT, ON the Expansion’s Frontier, might be rather than “I think; therefore I am.” The latter seems more of a point TO.
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
Accord as metastrategy is the primary and major principle of the Nature of Things. As constants re History, the GPC are fundamental principles with respect to next steps AT, ON the Frontier. They tell us we are free of complete instruction … and that we might and ought to act accordingly (sic).
So too are “CEM” and its foundations (balance and independence) principles with respect to next steps. Beginning with History’s body CEM step, and then burgeoning with the step’s Grasp CEM Involve, Mind CEM Move, et al.
The distinction between principle and law, a difference that makes a difference (PP), is essential if we are to progress. As, for example, if to make progress we are not to depend solely on “authority” and/or prediction. If we are to profit from R-sense and R-spacetime procedural technology, which we can via the step-strengthening potential of CEM development.
Consider, for example, the matter of “govern.” Ratio technology (C-207) gives us an R-sense way to govern, working from Nature of Things’ principles. By means of the
CEM says (Principles of History):
- Apply PP, looking to find differences that make a difference and, as will be necessary and possible for steps, make differences (“partner them”) that will make a difference (i.e., produce emergence);
- Apply ratios to the partnerships, in Accord with History’s Body CEM Step principle (governing development and evolution) to assess their balance (see C-217: the teeter-totter test);
- Use R-sense and R-technologies (e.g., R-spacetime, R-transform, R-words) to right their balance (in order to optimize emergence). Now you are in the World of Possibility!
G.G. Simpson’s coverage edict of “all phenomena to which principles* apply” is very much a matter of what is called for (WICF) when we concern ourselves with problem solving’s needed functionality … very much in need of principled guidance before the fact (AT, ON the Frontier: the Where and When of “here and now” of R-spacetime).
When our coverage of collisions is incomplete, missing the Nature of Things while we focus attention on the things of nature**, and inaccurate in our B-ness (B-speak) “objectivist” description of what is said about (WISA) what is talked about (WITA).
Then Solve*** is challenged by the behavioral problem, Pbeh, as well as by this or that situational problem, Psit. Because Pbeh derives principally from the Nature of Things. Whose conditions of partial order and consequentiality, in relation to discontinuity (separation of bodies), engender collisions and command functionality. Needed functionality calls for Adept, not just for Adopt and/or Adapt. For principles, not just laws.# It calls for Accord.
Accordingly, we should respect the pragmatic precept as a principle: Any difference that makes a difference is in accord with the Nature of Things’ general persisting condition of consequentiality.##
“Laws of the universe”? What universe? A presumptive unity. The unity substantiating the notion that by treating Difs => Difs as just another kind of Difs, there will (somehow, some day) be a conciliation of concept and theory (R. Atkinson)? This is a significant sector of the science establishment, its collectors. But science, if seen as “to know,” comprises far more than collecting … and cannot abide the “all of a piece” presumption.
The Nature of Things says the evidence (of collisions) tells us that in the Expansion, given the general persisting conditions (GPC) of partial order, consequentiality and discontinuity, Difs => Difs are of a different quality. They respect the Frontier’s before-the-fact concerns. And acknowledge the lack of determinism’s full constraint.
“Law and order”? Given the actuality (incomplete constraint) of the Nature of Thing’s GPC, and lacking local situational constraint, behavior enjoys (?) some measure of freedom (OF, FR OM). However, situations have and do arise where constraint seems indicated … hence legal statutes and cultural norms. Laws which add order. Order not furnished by the Nature of Things.
There remains, then, potentially a considerable amount of ungoverned behavior. And countless situational problems, Psit. More statutes needed? Harsher order sanctions? Compelling behavioral structures (e.g., “-isms”)? The behavioral problem, Pbeh, persists. Human history is punctuated with failed attempts to avoid anarchy on the one hand and tyranny on the other. Freedom TO – our needed Forward capability -- is elusive. For lack of development.
“Guiding principles”? It makes R-sense to apply PP to “law” and “principle.” There’s a Dif there that make a Dif, even though they are sometimes treated as synonyms (e.g., G. G. Simpson). Laws see no difference between after-the-fact and before-the-fact. Principle suggests there is an important difference: Given the Nature of Things’ incomplete instruction (i.e., partial order), guidance is needed.
Some useful redundancy here. Principles furnish only guidance. This is not as empty a promise as it might appear. We have seen that development’s “CEM” dynamic brings principles with it (i.e., independence, balance). Taken together with the pragmatic precept, PP, as a guiding principle, our steps Forward benefit from guidance at their front and in their exercise.
Let’s return to some more of the conversation between Eve and Adam….
Eve: I don’t like where this is going.
Adam: What?
Eve: Where we are going to end up.
Adam: So now you are thinking about results….
Eve: Well, yes. But just about the result of depending on results to improve what we do.
Adam: What do you see ahead?
Eve: Us and others like us merely coming to agreements about which finds and tries are better than others. Or worse, not coming to agreements about which are better.
Adam: Don’t we usually agree?
Eve: Yes. But what about others? And worst of all, not trying to do more about trying.
Adam: Why is that so bad?
Eve: Because some ways can’t be found or chosen; they have to be made.
Adam: For example?
Eve: Our family. Can’t you see what’s coming? (To herself: What if it turns out to be like him? He’ll need a sister … maybe more than one.)
* Here, in the scientific establishment context, “principle” is confounded with “law.” (Which, undoubtedly, explains why some dismissed his point as advocacy for greater attention to the proprietary interests of biologists.) But the pragmatic precept says to distinguish them. Given the Nature of Things’ partial order, laws – either type – can apply only to the extent that predictability (i.e., order) holds. Which is why principles are critically needed AT, ON the Frontier to complement laws for needed guidance functionality.
** As notably enshrined in the concept of “universe” to the neglect of the Expansion and the Frontier. Our big focus of attention problem.
*** “Solve”: an R-word. That which R-spacetime helps make apparent as a WISA procedural tech development. (See “Deconstructing the dictionary.”)
# Are constants, such as the general persisting conditions of the Nature of Things, laws or principles? Or both?
## Here we should also see that “pragmatism” does not serve the pragmatic precept well, because of the “-ism” suffix. The (B-ness) “-ism” says, “is as does.” But the pragmatic precept says “is =/= does” … and, furthermore, that “is CEM does” is the way to go Forward. A more convincing argument for “existence”? As any and every application of the pragmatic precept AT, ON the Expansion’s Frontier, might be rather than “I think; therefore I am.” The latter seems more of a point TO.
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