C-211. Deconstructing the dictionary
As a thought experiment* consider deconstructing the English dictionary. Although it is more Topsy-like compilation than construction in some respects (e.g., names, words, terms,** symbols), it comprises constructive aspects (e.g., grammatic units, suffixes and prefixes, linguistic roots).
We should emerge with two dictionaries, one of B-spacetime and the other of R-spacetime. A breakout from the B-mess (sic) of our current volume. Consider, for example, how much of a drag it must be for artificial intelligence (AI) technology development to work, copying, from the globby-unit, weakly principled, unexplicated “behaviors” attributed to bodies and body-body relationships.
Several ideas are at work:
1. To demonstrate how R-sense technology, here R-spacetime, can serve an analytic function in our study of the human condition. The two dictionaries present a bi- capability re step making and taking, analogous to the many bi- capacities of the body. Together they improve perspective. (Recall how the “mind-body problem,” so opaque in B-spacetime and B-speak, becomes a solution to a problem: ”Mind CEM Move,” in R-spacetime with R-sense.) Note too that while a sentence in B-speak comprises “parts of speech,” an R-word in R-spacetime comprises four such speech parts.
2. To delve into the potential leverage, via the CEM dynamic, of what is said about (WISA) in relation to each and all of what is called for (WICF), what is talked about (WITA) and what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA). Leverage Forward. At the front of the next step, as part of Mind CEM Move, in this step and in the next step. A way to redress the body/step >1+++ imbalance in what is said about (WISA), the B-ness in B-speak and WITA -- that blocks the Forward progress of humanitya. We need to rewrite History before the act, not just histories after the fact. We need all the Compose capabilities of scriptwriter, actor, director, producer, (“appreciative”) audience and (“informed”) critic … but it all starts with an idea: focus of attention plus cognition’s relatings.
3. It’s a matter of words’ work (WW). Recall the “ambiguity of the singular” problem. For which the addition of R-spacetime and R-sense provides resolution. For example: history =/= History, providing via the pragmatic precept a way to develop CEM strength. Procedural tech can improve steps, as languages can – or might and ought to – improve words, by providing Involves with which to Grasp themb. But if we cannot link words with optimum materiality, “meaningfully,” then how well will we progress, individually and collectively … Forward, AT and ON the Frontier? For example, we might reTell “Know thyself” as “Know your self,” taking advantage of Know as an R-word and “self” as something quite different in R- and B- spacetimes: i.e., two different Beings, the one a becoming and the other an “as is.” (Cf. “Know your p’s and q’s.)
***
Some familiar words, their usage having overcome B-ness, would end up in both dictionaries (e.g., “partner”). But these and many other words and terms have very different meanings according to their respective spacetime references. “Step” in R-spacetime, as B-word, is far more lively (molecularly active) than it is in B-spacetime. And consider “Frontier”: There is only one in R-spacetime, the leading edge of the Expansion, separating after-the-fact and before-the-fact (Frontier); but there are many, geographically and/or situationally, in B-spacetime frontiers). Consider “agency”: In B-spacetime, “agency” points AT a person who or an institution that. In R-spacetime, “agency” points TO functionality and needed functionality. But are such distinctions clear? So as to respect the pragmatic precept (PP: differences that make differences) … and the possible CEM strengthening of the step that depends on independence along with balance?
Similarly, confounded terms need PP separation for optimal productivity. Consider, for example, the lack of independence between “capacity” and “capability”. Wouldn’t it be clearer if we placed “capacity” in B-spacetime and “capability” in R-spacetime? Especially considering the many within-step CEM capability possibilities we can generate using R-sense and R-techs. (See step strengthening, as in the case of know CEM learn. “K=L”: Another confounding.)
Clarity might be served by relegating “cause” to B-spacetime, while pursuing “effect” as an R-word in R-spacetime. “Effect” in B-spacetime is redundant to “cause,” as logicians point OUT. Note, too, the clarity achieved by distinguishing History from history. (BFEPS has been using word capitalization [e.g., of R-words] to promote a Grasp of WICF.)
It is one thing to recognize hypostatization (a B-ness phenomenon), but quite another to improve Read and Tell technology so that it doesn’t need to happen.
Equipped with the R-dictionary, the way is clear of B-ness. We are liberated. No longer is us/we >1**. The path Forward is open to further technological development of steps, to tech re tech, stretching far beyond freedoms OF and FROM to freedom TO. Think Emergence….
***
As it stands, the dictionary contains some, but far from all that are needed, distinctions relevant to step guidance. It relies on after-the-fact usage (i.e., culture: which is to say, practices). As noted (App. XX: Message theory), it is incomplete with respect to needed WISA technology.
Some new words might be candidates for inclusion in the R-dictionary. See “sensEry,” for example, to make our distinction between it and “sensOry.” Consider “pud” (pronounced as the “pud” in “puddle”). “Pud” is the sort of thing the very young do, a lead-in – if and when not censored -- to more formal composing. “Puding” could qualify once “pud” usage helped transform our Grasp of WICF, WTITBTA and WITA. ***
***
* Possible application. As a language revision task force, looking to develop procedural technology for a general rather than a universal language? (Given the generality of the behavioral problem [Pbeh].) The refocus of H(h,a&s)T, giving attention to the human condition re the Nature of Things, H, and (especially) procedural technology, T, offers widespread applications, via R-technologies. We have been failing to develop a potentially huge human resource re what is called for (WICF).
** Concepts are special terms. They use the combination of cognition’s inside-outside relation with language’s object-attribute relationship, producing the two-way “flip-flop” technology of attribute serving to identify object and object serving to identify attribute. (Stephenson makes use of this feature in his “Q- factor analysis,” conducting factor analysis of people rather than of attributes.) R-spacetime and R-sense technology provide an alternative (theoretical constructs) possessing greater Grasp CEM Involve strength. Behavioral concepts should have a companion, paired theoretical construct in the R-dictionary. Perhaps, paired, CEM could make more of and with them.
Noun and verb particles are also special terms. As are prefixes and suffixes. And also acronyms (e.g., DD, FF, WICF, WISA). Idioms too? Some of these belong in the R-dictionary (e.g., the noun particles; the ”en-” and “pre-” prefixes; some “-ity” suffixes; BFEPS acronyms, such as FF, PP, WW), some in the B-dictionary (e.g., “-ion,” “-ism” and “-ment” suffixes).
R-words, as WISA tech, suggest that we should call the R-dictionary the Frontier dictionary. These words remind us that We (an R-word) are continually AT, ON the Frontier of the Expansion, and because of that WISA needs to deal with WICF and WTITBTA. Which is to say, policy and the World of Possibiity.
*** “Pudding” in one usage, as a kind of sausage (product), would be in the B-dictionary. In its other usage, that of stuffing (process), it would be in the R-dictionary. What if the truth is in the puding and the proof is in the pudding? Was Peirce reaching toward this in countering James?
a Focusing on the “word-thing” connection, an O:Ps problem, along with behavioral and logical process speculation (Ogden and Richards; Peirce), misses the (needed) point. Which is the O:S-P problem. Whorf and Sapir are looking at the (B-ness) tip of an iceberg when there is whole continent of (R-sense) ice to be explored with respect to WISA re WICF and WTITBTA.
b The Skinner and Chomsky Involves do not fortify language enough?c Intransitive verbs fade into obscurity. Too much work for words. How telling the weakness of the B-ness “expanding universe” re needed focal attention! If WISA is to help WICF – and it must – then there’s work to be done about words’ work.
c Skinner emphasizes agreement for WISA re WITA, an unbalanced, non-CEM ratio of agreement/understanding >1+? Chomsky focuses on the “logic” among syntactic terms that had to be added to nouns to make B-ness work? Both produce endless O:Ps problems. R-words come with and within their own language (i.e., phases, which parts of speech [See App. XX: two nouns, two verbs] represent Compose features incompletely).
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
We should emerge with two dictionaries, one of B-spacetime and the other of R-spacetime. A breakout from the B-mess (sic) of our current volume. Consider, for example, how much of a drag it must be for artificial intelligence (AI) technology development to work, copying, from the globby-unit, weakly principled, unexplicated “behaviors” attributed to bodies and body-body relationships.
Several ideas are at work:
1. To demonstrate how R-sense technology, here R-spacetime, can serve an analytic function in our study of the human condition. The two dictionaries present a bi- capability re step making and taking, analogous to the many bi- capacities of the body. Together they improve perspective. (Recall how the “mind-body problem,” so opaque in B-spacetime and B-speak, becomes a solution to a problem: ”Mind CEM Move,” in R-spacetime with R-sense.) Note too that while a sentence in B-speak comprises “parts of speech,” an R-word in R-spacetime comprises four such speech parts.
2. To delve into the potential leverage, via the CEM dynamic, of what is said about (WISA) in relation to each and all of what is called for (WICF), what is talked about (WITA) and what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA). Leverage Forward. At the front of the next step, as part of Mind CEM Move, in this step and in the next step. A way to redress the body/step >1+++ imbalance in what is said about (WISA), the B-ness in B-speak and WITA -- that blocks the Forward progress of humanitya. We need to rewrite History before the act, not just histories after the fact. We need all the Compose capabilities of scriptwriter, actor, director, producer, (“appreciative”) audience and (“informed”) critic … but it all starts with an idea: focus of attention plus cognition’s relatings.
3. It’s a matter of words’ work (WW). Recall the “ambiguity of the singular” problem. For which the addition of R-spacetime and R-sense provides resolution. For example: history =/= History, providing via the pragmatic precept a way to develop CEM strength. Procedural tech can improve steps, as languages can – or might and ought to – improve words, by providing Involves with which to Grasp themb. But if we cannot link words with optimum materiality, “meaningfully,” then how well will we progress, individually and collectively … Forward, AT and ON the Frontier? For example, we might reTell “Know thyself” as “Know your self,” taking advantage of Know as an R-word and “self” as something quite different in R- and B- spacetimes: i.e., two different Beings, the one a becoming and the other an “as is.” (Cf. “Know your p’s and q’s.)
Some familiar words, their usage having overcome B-ness, would end up in both dictionaries (e.g., “partner”). But these and many other words and terms have very different meanings according to their respective spacetime references. “Step” in R-spacetime, as B-word, is far more lively (molecularly active) than it is in B-spacetime. And consider “Frontier”: There is only one in R-spacetime, the leading edge of the Expansion, separating after-the-fact and before-the-fact (Frontier); but there are many, geographically and/or situationally, in B-spacetime frontiers). Consider “agency”: In B-spacetime, “agency” points AT a person who or an institution that. In R-spacetime, “agency” points TO functionality and needed functionality. But are such distinctions clear? So as to respect the pragmatic precept (PP: differences that make differences) … and the possible CEM strengthening of the step that depends on independence along with balance?
Similarly, confounded terms need PP separation for optimal productivity. Consider, for example, the lack of independence between “capacity” and “capability”. Wouldn’t it be clearer if we placed “capacity” in B-spacetime and “capability” in R-spacetime? Especially considering the many within-step CEM capability possibilities we can generate using R-sense and R-techs. (See step strengthening, as in the case of know CEM learn. “K=L”: Another confounding.)
Clarity might be served by relegating “cause” to B-spacetime, while pursuing “effect” as an R-word in R-spacetime. “Effect” in B-spacetime is redundant to “cause,” as logicians point OUT. Note, too, the clarity achieved by distinguishing History from history. (BFEPS has been using word capitalization [e.g., of R-words] to promote a Grasp of WICF.)
It is one thing to recognize hypostatization (a B-ness phenomenon), but quite another to improve Read and Tell technology so that it doesn’t need to happen.
Equipped with the R-dictionary, the way is clear of B-ness. We are liberated. No longer is us/we >1**. The path Forward is open to further technological development of steps, to tech re tech, stretching far beyond freedoms OF and FROM to freedom TO. Think Emergence….
As it stands, the dictionary contains some, but far from all that are needed, distinctions relevant to step guidance. It relies on after-the-fact usage (i.e., culture: which is to say, practices). As noted (App. XX: Message theory), it is incomplete with respect to needed WISA technology.
Some new words might be candidates for inclusion in the R-dictionary. See “sensEry,” for example, to make our distinction between it and “sensOry.” Consider “pud” (pronounced as the “pud” in “puddle”). “Pud” is the sort of thing the very young do, a lead-in – if and when not censored -- to more formal composing. “Puding” could qualify once “pud” usage helped transform our Grasp of WICF, WTITBTA and WITA. ***
* Possible application. As a language revision task force, looking to develop procedural technology for a general rather than a universal language? (Given the generality of the behavioral problem [Pbeh].) The refocus of H(h,a&s)T, giving attention to the human condition re the Nature of Things, H, and (especially) procedural technology, T, offers widespread applications, via R-technologies. We have been failing to develop a potentially huge human resource re what is called for (WICF).
** Concepts are special terms. They use the combination of cognition’s inside-outside relation with language’s object-attribute relationship, producing the two-way “flip-flop” technology of attribute serving to identify object and object serving to identify attribute. (Stephenson makes use of this feature in his “Q- factor analysis,” conducting factor analysis of people rather than of attributes.) R-spacetime and R-sense technology provide an alternative (theoretical constructs) possessing greater Grasp CEM Involve strength. Behavioral concepts should have a companion, paired theoretical construct in the R-dictionary. Perhaps, paired, CEM could make more of and with them.
Noun and verb particles are also special terms. As are prefixes and suffixes. And also acronyms (e.g., DD, FF, WICF, WISA). Idioms too? Some of these belong in the R-dictionary (e.g., the noun particles; the ”en-” and “pre-” prefixes; some “-ity” suffixes; BFEPS acronyms, such as FF, PP, WW), some in the B-dictionary (e.g., “-ion,” “-ism” and “-ment” suffixes).
R-words, as WISA tech, suggest that we should call the R-dictionary the Frontier dictionary. These words remind us that We (an R-word) are continually AT, ON the Frontier of the Expansion, and because of that WISA needs to deal with WICF and WTITBTA. Which is to say, policy and the World of Possibiity.
*** “Pudding” in one usage, as a kind of sausage (product), would be in the B-dictionary. In its other usage, that of stuffing (process), it would be in the R-dictionary. What if the truth is in the puding and the proof is in the pudding? Was Peirce reaching toward this in countering James?
a Focusing on the “word-thing” connection, an O:Ps problem, along with behavioral and logical process speculation (Ogden and Richards; Peirce), misses the (needed) point. Which is the O:S-P problem. Whorf and Sapir are looking at the (B-ness) tip of an iceberg when there is whole continent of (R-sense) ice to be explored with respect to WISA re WICF and WTITBTA.
b The Skinner and Chomsky Involves do not fortify language enough?c Intransitive verbs fade into obscurity. Too much work for words. How telling the weakness of the B-ness “expanding universe” re needed focal attention! If WISA is to help WICF – and it must – then there’s work to be done about words’ work.
c Skinner emphasizes agreement for WISA re WITA, an unbalanced, non-CEM ratio of agreement/understanding >1+? Chomsky focuses on the “logic” among syntactic terms that had to be added to nouns to make B-ness work? Both produce endless O:Ps problems. R-words come with and within their own language (i.e., phases, which parts of speech [See App. XX: two nouns, two verbs] represent Compose features incompletely).
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