C-215. The new alchemy
Modern chemistry has given “alchemy” a bad reputation. But the search for more materiality is unending … and not limited to element transformations (e.g., lead into gold) nor even the marvels of plastics et al as synthetic compositions. Current “materials science” expansion shows an awareness. But it’s a very B-ness awareness. What of still needed procedural technology? For our unsolved problems, which are very much behavioral matters despite our B-ness penchant for seeing them as situational problems.
Will “peace” never be other than absent conflict? A concept, but not a theoretical construct capable of being realized? A name … not yet a word strengthened by behavioral as well as linguistic roots?
Needed procedural technology, most notably for solutions to the behavioral problem, Pbeh. But for situational problems, Psits, too. And for the four problem types associated with quality of life:
The new alchemy is a new chemistry. “Step chemistry,” one might say.* This in the R-sense of “chemistry,” which addresses the potential for materiality to be developed when and by using the CEM dynamic for the Frontier’s “next step” Forward progress.**
The idea of alchemy makes a valuable point (TO): Needed functionality cannot always be found; sometimes (more than sometimes!) it has to be made. Ergo: procedure; ergo procedural technology. A science (“knowing”) that attends only to after-the-fact particulars does not offer enough Help before the fact.
Now seems to be the time for it. Circumstance, the Covid-19 pandemic, has set us a massive situational problem. But it obviously calls for attention to the behavioral problem. We see traces of the incompletely solved “… toward a more perfect Union…” problem: the dynamic of individual and community. The vexing polity x economy and citizen x consumer relationships too, bereft as they are of effective CEM development for lack of principle and ratio technology.
***
It might be useful to consider the old alchemy. Technology as craft (e.g., making spear points and other cutting instruments) had been Involved in the human condition long before the art and science establishments came along. (Still, craft endures the same secondary status with art that tech does with science.)
In history the techs of levers and wheels (e.g., trains) would continue to show development prior to the practices of science. But focused then – as now -- more on the situational problem, this or that desired result (e.g., gold or wellness), than on optimizing procedural technology to solve the behavioral problem. The control system/operating system >1++ ratio persists.
Still, the Quality of Life point (O:QL Point), together with the behavioral problem and situational problems (the six problem types) remind us of a continuing call on procedural technology, to Help. Tool tech is not enough. And it requires procedural tech for its emergence in the first place. It requires a Grasp of the structure of process. Something B-ness and B-speak have not given us. (Technology becomes tool and/or someone’s technique.) Something R-sense can.
“Amend the Preamble!” We do, informally. By “policy,” enacted as laws, by regulations and/or elections. By the back and forth of “liberals” and “conservatives” within political parties or now – disastrously – between parties. However, the Preamble has never received the formal CEM-principled attention that it needs, as most prominently evident in neglect of Union as the very CEM dynamic with which the triple problem of individual x community (state x nation, individual x nation, individual x state) can be tackled.
How we can, and must, make We work. As a phenomenon, alchemic practice makes clear a fact of life: Differences needed to make differences cannot always be found; some must be made. What else justifies Tries? And when Tries fall short: What else calls for tech-enhanced Trials?*** AT, ON the Frontier, differences needed for differences to be made are not always there to be found.
The pragmatic precept is as applicable before the fact as well as after the fact. Focus on differences that make a difference … and especially those differences to be made for there to be available the difference that makes a difference. A double positivity.# Both speaking to “purpose,” pointing to the Nature of Things’ demand for functionality to meet needed functionality.
The science establishment still trails behind the body’s technology: how things work, the DIF’s that make DIF’s (e.g., the genome). Science is worse for the technologies of procedures for tool use (e.g., “documentation”) and use of tools for procedures (e.g., gun control). It’s even worse for procedural tech (e.g., “law and order”).
The last of these most prominently because of the step making and taking tech we need but don’t have yet. We have not solved the behavioral problem, technically. And science has not answered the question of behavior. Needed functionality in both cases. Several scientist exceptions are exceptional: Einstein and the quantum theorists gave us new pictures of what there is to be observed. They also gave us new “cameras of the mind” – i.e., new (B-spacetime) procedural techs. New ways to think about things. Which is what R-sense and R-techs “have in mind.” To be able to see through and beyond the B-ness pictures our cultures have given us. To energize development. Perhaps not through popular use of the “camera,” although the general language possibility is tempting. But through the utility of further procedural techs building on CEM principles.##
***
* “Team chemistry” and related concepts (e.g.,”morale”) provide body state examples (WISA re WITA). However, a recipe is lacking (for WICF). And that in part for lack of attention (to WTITBTA [e.g., the future; emotion]). What of the needed and possible molecular step?
** See “Step physics” too for that (and this) matter. As we now practice “social distancing.” And once made more of lever and pulley technology in advance of today’s physics. Then too, the endlessly creative steps in the arts (e.g., music, dance, drama), distinctive in their step technologies … more defined in their steps than we achieve with words articulated in B-speak.
*** Because we have a lot of differences to make (including “We”!), not just find, procedural tech of and for the molecular step (“behavioral architecture”) assumes great importance. For example, see KMmt as an extended tech re tech for “Know” (an R-word). (See C-219.)
# And not just to counter alchemy’s reputation. Alchemy speaks to WICF. Here and now: Our ever-present place in the Nature of Things’ Expansion, commanding our attention as much – if not more – to the future as to the past. The future which R-sense sees as the World of Possibility.
## The terms “motion picture” and “notion picture” can be used to mark the difference (PP) discussed here. “Motion picture” embraces all of tool, procedural- use-of-tool and tool-use-of-procedure techs. “Notion picture” points TO just a procedural tech, about the step’s minding – its camera. (Where thingks come from.)
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
Will “peace” never be other than absent conflict? A concept, but not a theoretical construct capable of being realized? A name … not yet a word strengthened by behavioral as well as linguistic roots?
Needed procedural technology, most notably for solutions to the behavioral problem, Pbeh. But for situational problems, Psits, too. And for the four problem types associated with quality of life:
- O:Sp. Distributional problems, as when a solution is available, but whose “adoption” is not distributed for one reason or another. Democracy depends on citizen participation, but if participation is limited (e.g., inequalities, “poverty”) then democracy suffers.
- O:Ps. Normative behavior, as when a try (solution) has to be corrected to accord with cultural practice (see C-212) – such as “mistakes” in spelling, grammar and manners. Also see “unanticipated consequences.”
- O:P. No solution available, as when collective step making and taking capability is needed, but missing. Defacto, the capability may be missing because decision making is opted for instead of problem solving.
- O:S-P. The problem-solving technology is flawed. Which if widespread (e.g., B-ness) can be debilitating. Flawed as much for incompleteness as for accuracy, as in the lack of Grasp for the Nature of Things by focusing on the things of nature.
The new alchemy is a new chemistry. “Step chemistry,” one might say.* This in the R-sense of “chemistry,” which addresses the potential for materiality to be developed when and by using the CEM dynamic for the Frontier’s “next step” Forward progress.**
The idea of alchemy makes a valuable point (TO): Needed functionality cannot always be found; sometimes (more than sometimes!) it has to be made. Ergo: procedure; ergo procedural technology. A science (“knowing”) that attends only to after-the-fact particulars does not offer enough Help before the fact.
Now seems to be the time for it. Circumstance, the Covid-19 pandemic, has set us a massive situational problem. But it obviously calls for attention to the behavioral problem. We see traces of the incompletely solved “… toward a more perfect Union…” problem: the dynamic of individual and community. The vexing polity x economy and citizen x consumer relationships too, bereft as they are of effective CEM development for lack of principle and ratio technology.
It might be useful to consider the old alchemy. Technology as craft (e.g., making spear points and other cutting instruments) had been Involved in the human condition long before the art and science establishments came along. (Still, craft endures the same secondary status with art that tech does with science.)
In history the techs of levers and wheels (e.g., trains) would continue to show development prior to the practices of science. But focused then – as now -- more on the situational problem, this or that desired result (e.g., gold or wellness), than on optimizing procedural technology to solve the behavioral problem. The control system/operating system >1++ ratio persists.
Still, the Quality of Life point (O:QL Point), together with the behavioral problem and situational problems (the six problem types) remind us of a continuing call on procedural technology, to Help. Tool tech is not enough. And it requires procedural tech for its emergence in the first place. It requires a Grasp of the structure of process. Something B-ness and B-speak have not given us. (Technology becomes tool and/or someone’s technique.) Something R-sense can.
“Amend the Preamble!” We do, informally. By “policy,” enacted as laws, by regulations and/or elections. By the back and forth of “liberals” and “conservatives” within political parties or now – disastrously – between parties. However, the Preamble has never received the formal CEM-principled attention that it needs, as most prominently evident in neglect of Union as the very CEM dynamic with which the triple problem of individual x community (state x nation, individual x nation, individual x state) can be tackled.
How we can, and must, make We work. As a phenomenon, alchemic practice makes clear a fact of life: Differences needed to make differences cannot always be found; some must be made. What else justifies Tries? And when Tries fall short: What else calls for tech-enhanced Trials?*** AT, ON the Frontier, differences needed for differences to be made are not always there to be found.
The pragmatic precept is as applicable before the fact as well as after the fact. Focus on differences that make a difference … and especially those differences to be made for there to be available the difference that makes a difference. A double positivity.# Both speaking to “purpose,” pointing to the Nature of Things’ demand for functionality to meet needed functionality.
The science establishment still trails behind the body’s technology: how things work, the DIF’s that make DIF’s (e.g., the genome). Science is worse for the technologies of procedures for tool use (e.g., “documentation”) and use of tools for procedures (e.g., gun control). It’s even worse for procedural tech (e.g., “law and order”).
The last of these most prominently because of the step making and taking tech we need but don’t have yet. We have not solved the behavioral problem, technically. And science has not answered the question of behavior. Needed functionality in both cases. Several scientist exceptions are exceptional: Einstein and the quantum theorists gave us new pictures of what there is to be observed. They also gave us new “cameras of the mind” – i.e., new (B-spacetime) procedural techs. New ways to think about things. Which is what R-sense and R-techs “have in mind.” To be able to see through and beyond the B-ness pictures our cultures have given us. To energize development. Perhaps not through popular use of the “camera,” although the general language possibility is tempting. But through the utility of further procedural techs building on CEM principles.##
* “Team chemistry” and related concepts (e.g.,”morale”) provide body state examples (WISA re WITA). However, a recipe is lacking (for WICF). And that in part for lack of attention (to WTITBTA [e.g., the future; emotion]). What of the needed and possible molecular step?
** See “Step physics” too for that (and this) matter. As we now practice “social distancing.” And once made more of lever and pulley technology in advance of today’s physics. Then too, the endlessly creative steps in the arts (e.g., music, dance, drama), distinctive in their step technologies … more defined in their steps than we achieve with words articulated in B-speak.
*** Because we have a lot of differences to make (including “We”!), not just find, procedural tech of and for the molecular step (“behavioral architecture”) assumes great importance. For example, see KMmt as an extended tech re tech for “Know” (an R-word). (See C-219.)
# And not just to counter alchemy’s reputation. Alchemy speaks to WICF. Here and now: Our ever-present place in the Nature of Things’ Expansion, commanding our attention as much – if not more – to the future as to the past. The future which R-sense sees as the World of Possibility.
## The terms “motion picture” and “notion picture” can be used to mark the difference (PP) discussed here. “Motion picture” embraces all of tool, procedural- use-of-tool and tool-use-of-procedure techs. “Notion picture” points TO just a procedural tech, about the step’s minding – its camera. (Where thingks come from.)
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