C-219. An invidious insularity
There is another “outer space.” It is the R-spacetime by which the Nature of Things envelops the things of nature. This is the region of History and Technology (see “The new ‘U’”)*. This is the World of Possibility, to which R-sense and R-technology can take us. This is where WICF, functionality re needed functionality, reigns.** But weakly?
This is the outer space to which, in which, we should reach out. With as much step strength as possible. Strength available via the CEM developmental dynamic, which the R-transform makes apparent when applied to History’s Expansion.
This is also where we might find much of WTITBTA, that most pointedly needed functionality, for which the inner region’s fields and disciplines --practices (i.e., functions) of humanities, arts and sciences (h,a&s) -- take little responsibility. An inner region that is not always hospitable to those probing WTITBTA with the technology they have … for the needs they see.*** An inner region resistant to paradigm change – despite a human history of needed paradigm changes, as new “scope” after “scope” helps make apparent.
An inner region enamored of (B-ness) concepts. For the gene of Behaviorism lives on, if not by the self-inflicted blindness of seeing only whole-body movements in B-spacetime, then in the lesser blindness ( “Lesser Behaviorism”?) of seeing only behaviors (i.e., behaviors, not behavior) attributable to this or that body and/or body-body relationship … after the fact and in the particular.
An inner region more insular than independent? (The “ivory tower” criticism.) Concerned with the defensibility of what is done -- and not done (e.g., lack of social engagement)? Independence would invite a CEM relationship among Help, Compose and Know (as R-words re “h,a&s”). But what we see as “behavioral science” attends to non-molecular, globby (“Stone Age”) fragments, hardly suited to contribute CEM-wise to step making’s needed help and architecture. We don’t walk backwards into the future so much as we walk in circles behind the Frontier.
An inner region insidious as well as insular? Is “empiricism” hiding something? Consider the matter of “facts”: A found difference (DIF) can be seen as a fact. A found DIF that makes a DIF (DIF => DIF) can also be seen as a fact. As can a found DIF that makes a DIF in a DIF => DIF. And so on. But in doing so, we overlook the very pragmatic consideration that, for step making, we need to be thinking “before the fact.” And that there is unlimited technological development potential there to be tapped (i.e. procedural tech).
An inner region populated by collectors? Those who are content to gather up, formally and/or informally, differences from among the things of nature. (Under the assumption that everything is a thing of nature.) Even, professionally, practicing indifference, as in the case of interpreting a DIF => DIF as just a DIF (a functionality) belonging to the “laws of the universe” – or some lesser Involve.
WTITBTA is steps and next steps – especially making steps. AT, ON the Frontier of the Expansion: our “here and now.” The insular inner region of “h,a&s” should be looking Forward, not down on those struggling with the moment-to-moment challenge of WICF: the need for DIF => DIF’s. (To whom they may gratuitously tender their B-ness methods.)
***
The Lesser Behaviorism fault lies with the observer of what there was to be talked about (WTWTBTA). Consider the “Adam and Eve” story: How did we learn about this purported happening? It was observed. But what about the observer?
Maybe there was only one ripe apple on the tree and the observer (Or) had already eaten the whole thing … so the Or, to protect and project his guilt, made up the story about Eve having taken a bite (that’s all it took to establish guilt) from the apple thereby spoiling everything for everybody ever after … and thereby rationalizing his and Adam’s inclination to depend on step results to guide future step making and taking….#
And now we are beset with an “objectively flawed” – i.e., B-ness -- agenda of observer: observed (Or: Od). In need of R-sense, given the Nature of Things.
The things of nature (aka “Mother Nature”) perspective is attractive because she seems to know what she’s doing. (“I think that I shall never see/ a poem lovely as a tree.”) So, much can be learned from asking her questions. But she doesn’t have answers for all our questions … and may not even understand some of them.
The failure to apply PP to the Nature of Things vs. the things of nature seems the worst of the insularity. It’s critical: the difference that makes the most difference. (The Everything that changes everything.) B-ness and B-speak (the lesser Behaviorists’ WISA technology) skip over and cover up the molecularity of the step, ## leaving the architecture of response – individually and collectively – to WICF in the hands of others. (See the relevance questions: timing and content. As in communication’s two WICF concerns … and its joint centrality with the Nature of Things.)
***
* This is where “non-vocational workshops” (I.e., “vocation” as a calling rather than as a practice) for students would be engaged.
** As notably distinct from the things of nature’s pallid (B-speak) “stimulus-response.” Wherein we need to Grasp the structure of process before the fact, so that we can Involve ourselves and/or other things. See “behavioral architecture.”
*** See C-152 for the dismissive attitude within some disciplines often shown such ventures (i.e., by the so-called – and self-declared – “hard sciences”). By those who have chosen the easiest kind of behavior to study? Where “body = step” rather than “body CEM step.” Whose perspective can see no further than “back and forth” with respect to Forward? Body-wise, we are constructed to go Forward. But how best to go Forward is something else.
# This version of the story accords with History if not with history.
##The anatomy of our step is deplorable. Not even close in Grasp to the anatomy of our body. And our doctoring (e.g., Help tries) shows it.
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
This is the outer space to which, in which, we should reach out. With as much step strength as possible. Strength available via the CEM developmental dynamic, which the R-transform makes apparent when applied to History’s Expansion.
This is also where we might find much of WTITBTA, that most pointedly needed functionality, for which the inner region’s fields and disciplines --practices (i.e., functions) of humanities, arts and sciences (h,a&s) -- take little responsibility. An inner region that is not always hospitable to those probing WTITBTA with the technology they have … for the needs they see.*** An inner region resistant to paradigm change – despite a human history of needed paradigm changes, as new “scope” after “scope” helps make apparent.
An inner region enamored of (B-ness) concepts. For the gene of Behaviorism lives on, if not by the self-inflicted blindness of seeing only whole-body movements in B-spacetime, then in the lesser blindness ( “Lesser Behaviorism”?) of seeing only behaviors (i.e., behaviors, not behavior) attributable to this or that body and/or body-body relationship … after the fact and in the particular.
An inner region more insular than independent? (The “ivory tower” criticism.) Concerned with the defensibility of what is done -- and not done (e.g., lack of social engagement)? Independence would invite a CEM relationship among Help, Compose and Know (as R-words re “h,a&s”). But what we see as “behavioral science” attends to non-molecular, globby (“Stone Age”) fragments, hardly suited to contribute CEM-wise to step making’s needed help and architecture. We don’t walk backwards into the future so much as we walk in circles behind the Frontier.
An inner region insidious as well as insular? Is “empiricism” hiding something? Consider the matter of “facts”: A found difference (DIF) can be seen as a fact. A found DIF that makes a DIF (DIF => DIF) can also be seen as a fact. As can a found DIF that makes a DIF in a DIF => DIF. And so on. But in doing so, we overlook the very pragmatic consideration that, for step making, we need to be thinking “before the fact.” And that there is unlimited technological development potential there to be tapped (i.e. procedural tech).
An inner region populated by collectors? Those who are content to gather up, formally and/or informally, differences from among the things of nature. (Under the assumption that everything is a thing of nature.) Even, professionally, practicing indifference, as in the case of interpreting a DIF => DIF as just a DIF (a functionality) belonging to the “laws of the universe” – or some lesser Involve.
WTITBTA is steps and next steps – especially making steps. AT, ON the Frontier of the Expansion: our “here and now.” The insular inner region of “h,a&s” should be looking Forward, not down on those struggling with the moment-to-moment challenge of WICF: the need for DIF => DIF’s. (To whom they may gratuitously tender their B-ness methods.)
The Lesser Behaviorism fault lies with the observer of what there was to be talked about (WTWTBTA). Consider the “Adam and Eve” story: How did we learn about this purported happening? It was observed. But what about the observer?
Maybe there was only one ripe apple on the tree and the observer (Or) had already eaten the whole thing … so the Or, to protect and project his guilt, made up the story about Eve having taken a bite (that’s all it took to establish guilt) from the apple thereby spoiling everything for everybody ever after … and thereby rationalizing his and Adam’s inclination to depend on step results to guide future step making and taking….#
And now we are beset with an “objectively flawed” – i.e., B-ness -- agenda of observer: observed (Or: Od). In need of R-sense, given the Nature of Things.
The things of nature (aka “Mother Nature”) perspective is attractive because she seems to know what she’s doing. (“I think that I shall never see/ a poem lovely as a tree.”) So, much can be learned from asking her questions. But she doesn’t have answers for all our questions … and may not even understand some of them.
The failure to apply PP to the Nature of Things vs. the things of nature seems the worst of the insularity. It’s critical: the difference that makes the most difference. (The Everything that changes everything.) B-ness and B-speak (the lesser Behaviorists’ WISA technology) skip over and cover up the molecularity of the step, ## leaving the architecture of response – individually and collectively – to WICF in the hands of others. (See the relevance questions: timing and content. As in communication’s two WICF concerns … and its joint centrality with the Nature of Things.)
* This is where “non-vocational workshops” (I.e., “vocation” as a calling rather than as a practice) for students would be engaged.
** As notably distinct from the things of nature’s pallid (B-speak) “stimulus-response.” Wherein we need to Grasp the structure of process before the fact, so that we can Involve ourselves and/or other things. See “behavioral architecture.”
*** See C-152 for the dismissive attitude within some disciplines often shown such ventures (i.e., by the so-called – and self-declared – “hard sciences”). By those who have chosen the easiest kind of behavior to study? Where “body = step” rather than “body CEM step.” Whose perspective can see no further than “back and forth” with respect to Forward? Body-wise, we are constructed to go Forward. But how best to go Forward is something else.
# This version of the story accords with History if not with history.
##The anatomy of our step is deplorable. Not even close in Grasp to the anatomy of our body. And our doctoring (e.g., Help tries) shows it.
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