C-222. Questioning (Q=>A) (P=>S)
Much can be learned without the aid of questioning. But little can be known. How disastrous then that, in and out of schools, our learn/know ratio is at least something like >1++. Further, “solution” and “answer” (and “problem” and “question”)* are often treated** as synonyms, defeating application of the pragmatic precept. This is a difference that makes a difference. The result is the loss of the CEM dynamic.
Questioning, it is recorded, led to the execution of Socrates. But a greater death was to befall his executioners and their descendants.*** Those who have failed to vigorously apply the pragmatic precept, seeking our differences that make differences, difference makers that may need to be made because they haven’t – perhaps can’t – be found.
Questioning, like engineering, should be a matter for “education” at the earliest possible stage of child development. It can be helpful as a tactical approach when actively seeking friendship – or some kind of partnering. Especially if some difference in status is in play.
And, as discussed earlier (Topic XII), it should be prominent in later, more formal, research technology. Otherwise, research may be of the “recipe” type: more “applied” than applicable. (Also see App. XXI.) It seems that our P=>S/Q=>A ratio is much too high. In scholarship, something analogous can occur. “Q=>A” may be pursued in a literature without an eye to that literature’s own problems. B-speak (WISA) is the prime example and in Medusa-like profusion. Now the Q=>A/P=>S ratio is too high. But R-tech can help, on both counts. PP tech and CEM principles and tech are there when you need them. And We need them. Not enough questioning. Not enough useful questions. Not enough PP application (e.g., stops to question, based on observed discrepancy).
***
The desire (need? want? need/want =?) for explanation (the need to explain, if we see “Explain” as an R-word) takes us and questioning, after the fact and before the fact, beyond the walls of formal education.
Answers to questions, we assume, are the leveraging to solutions for our problems. Among the problem types, the most glaring is the O:S-P type, where the problem is the way in which we tried to solve our problem. The indictment: Without an appropriate question.# For example, “What does it all mean?” points TO the Nature of Things -- or should. Not just to the aggregate things of nature. As pertinent a question before the fact as after the fact.
More to the point of here and now in human history, with the covid-19 virus adding a situational problem, Psit, to many other Psits (e.g., world population and its density, population migration, inequities in quality of life, global warming) we still have not done all that much – or well – with the behavioral problem, Pbeh.##
And we won’t, until we ask better questions. O:Sp, O:Ps, O:P and Psits owe their resistance to O:S-P. Even their solutions, Sbeh and Ssits, are “problems.” A “perfect storm,” behaviorally speaking.
***
Author’s note: It may seem that BFEPS is a Byzantine (aka “dense”) explanation attempt. But it is actually a (big) Involve-type question, comprising a sequence of related questions, whether couched here and there as questions or not. Byzantine in path. Assuredly not in intent. Perplexity has been my nagging companion since the initial PP of “Nature of Things =/= things of nature.”
***
* The confusion re the “mind-body problem” can be seen, employing R-sense, to be a matter of confusing problem with question.
** “We often treat” (the active voice) should be avoided here. Its “We” would be gratuitous in view of our us/we >1++ ratio. Considering our Frontier status, we are much too passive – our B-speak language usage notwithstanding.
*** The same might be said about Jesus? (“Forgive them … they know not what they do.”)
# Which is to say, there’s more to be Read from the facts of collisions evident in the histories of bodies and body-body relationships therein engaged … that more which is the fact of collision per se: the (History’s enabling) general persisting conditions of partial order, consequentiality and discontinuity.
## Consider all the imbalanced ratios to be found in behavior (e.g., decision making/problem solving >1++[+]) and the lack of PP-CEM application to development’s step making and taking needs.
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
Questioning, it is recorded, led to the execution of Socrates. But a greater death was to befall his executioners and their descendants.*** Those who have failed to vigorously apply the pragmatic precept, seeking our differences that make differences, difference makers that may need to be made because they haven’t – perhaps can’t – be found.
Questioning, like engineering, should be a matter for “education” at the earliest possible stage of child development. It can be helpful as a tactical approach when actively seeking friendship – or some kind of partnering. Especially if some difference in status is in play.
And, as discussed earlier (Topic XII), it should be prominent in later, more formal, research technology. Otherwise, research may be of the “recipe” type: more “applied” than applicable. (Also see App. XXI.) It seems that our P=>S/Q=>A ratio is much too high. In scholarship, something analogous can occur. “Q=>A” may be pursued in a literature without an eye to that literature’s own problems. B-speak (WISA) is the prime example and in Medusa-like profusion. Now the Q=>A/P=>S ratio is too high. But R-tech can help, on both counts. PP tech and CEM principles and tech are there when you need them. And We need them. Not enough questioning. Not enough useful questions. Not enough PP application (e.g., stops to question, based on observed discrepancy).
The desire (need? want? need/want =?) for explanation (the need to explain, if we see “Explain” as an R-word) takes us and questioning, after the fact and before the fact, beyond the walls of formal education.
Answers to questions, we assume, are the leveraging to solutions for our problems. Among the problem types, the most glaring is the O:S-P type, where the problem is the way in which we tried to solve our problem. The indictment: Without an appropriate question.# For example, “What does it all mean?” points TO the Nature of Things -- or should. Not just to the aggregate things of nature. As pertinent a question before the fact as after the fact.
More to the point of here and now in human history, with the covid-19 virus adding a situational problem, Psit, to many other Psits (e.g., world population and its density, population migration, inequities in quality of life, global warming) we still have not done all that much – or well – with the behavioral problem, Pbeh.##
And we won’t, until we ask better questions. O:Sp, O:Ps, O:P and Psits owe their resistance to O:S-P. Even their solutions, Sbeh and Ssits, are “problems.” A “perfect storm,” behaviorally speaking.
Author’s note: It may seem that BFEPS is a Byzantine (aka “dense”) explanation attempt. But it is actually a (big) Involve-type question, comprising a sequence of related questions, whether couched here and there as questions or not. Byzantine in path. Assuredly not in intent. Perplexity has been my nagging companion since the initial PP of “Nature of Things =/= things of nature.”
* The confusion re the “mind-body problem” can be seen, employing R-sense, to be a matter of confusing problem with question.
** “We often treat” (the active voice) should be avoided here. Its “We” would be gratuitous in view of our us/we >1++ ratio. Considering our Frontier status, we are much too passive – our B-speak language usage notwithstanding.
*** The same might be said about Jesus? (“Forgive them … they know not what they do.”)
# Which is to say, there’s more to be Read from the facts of collisions evident in the histories of bodies and body-body relationships therein engaged … that more which is the fact of collision per se: the (History’s enabling) general persisting conditions of partial order, consequentiality and discontinuity.
## Consider all the imbalanced ratios to be found in behavior (e.g., decision making/problem solving >1++[+]) and the lack of PP-CEM application to development’s step making and taking needs.
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