C-226. Curiosity’s mettles
How might we strengthen “curiosity”? By seeing to its mettles. This behavioral concept, along with a myriad of others to corral behavioral instances (procedural fragments), needs to be explicated in terms of its mettles … which is to say, to become a theoretical construct, our way Forward in this World of Possibility, where Realization, functionality re needed functionality, is the point OF … and R-sense is how we can get that point -- and to that point.
Consider “curiosity” to comprise “Attend,” “Think” and “Ask” (all R-words) as mettles. Attend: to a focus of attention; Think: relate the focus of attention to something else (which may invoke the mettle of “Recall”), using one or more relations*; Ask: call for.**
Consider then the step building (molecular) options: (1) re Attend (e.g., mode [B-ness or R-sense], “objects”), (2) re Think’s relations (e.g., similarity, difference, before, after, inside, outside***) and (3) re Ask’s question types (e.g., combinations of relation and focal object[s], with a missing element or relation, such as outlined in pointed questions [Topic X].#) We have made good use of pointed questions: “What comes after Big Bang?” (The Expansion) and “What comes before collisions?” (The Nature of Things [N of T’s]’ general persisting conditions of partial order, consequentiality and discontinuity).
Given the N of T’s imperative for self-instruction, its partial order a Tell that we come into this World of Possibility incompletely instructed, we are well advised to tax ourselves to develop this needed functionality, even to engage in Mind calisthenics.
The etiology of thingks also argues for exploration into Attend-Think-Ask technology. As answers to pointed questions, their utility depends on the quality of the questions asked. (See App. XXI.) Play with thingks. ##
Curiosity (not further defined) is known to occasion some situational dangers, such as in authoritative employer-employee and parent-child relationships. Research into, and acquisition of, shared Attend-Think-Ask technologies could reduce some of the risk involved in such relationships.
There is risk too in asking pointless questions (e.g., “Huh?”, “What?”, “Eh?”). Along with the risk in asking no questions at all: “Just following along” or not paying attention at all. “Boredom” is self-afflicted, given our options in Attend, Think and Ask.
And then there is the payoff in thingks. What cannot be imagined may never be Realized. What we can make of, and with, “curiosity” is grand indeed. Mettle up! The need for, and opportunity for, productive experiments in and with procedural technology are here and now.
***
* “Cognition,” a behavioral concept, confounds Think (process) with thought (product). For WICF in and by the step, it is crucial to distinguish “relation” and “relationship,” the former a part of a step procedure (Compose) and the latter a step product (composition).
** AT, ON the Frontier, incompletely instructed, but with opportunity for Realization at hand, the next step – i.e., WICF, importunes us to Ask. Weak curiosity is a tragic human failing. An ”up front in the step” weakness that R-sense technology can help strengthen, by doing more about and with step materiality.
*** These relations form the basis for Cognigraphics, a research method in which respondents are given a focus of attention, asked for a word associate, then asked to choose which relation best represents their relationship. Typically in a group of respondents, for a given topic-word associate relationship, many – even all -- of the relations are chosen.
# Pointed questions can be and frequently are the source of thingks. For example, “What comes after life?” “Heaven” and “hell” are thingks. Some thingks can be realized, which gives them a part to play in step making.
## In B-speak – ordinary discourse – thingks come and go unmarked. What is said about (WISA) technology might make apparent the distinction. Here however, as with “play” generally, the line between play and non-play is not well drawn. Some serious, even deadly, thingks are bantered about.
In light of the very useful Search feature now available, parenthetical back references are suspended for Comments as of C-184.
(c) 2020 R. F. Carter
Consider “curiosity” to comprise “Attend,” “Think” and “Ask” (all R-words) as mettles. Attend: to a focus of attention; Think: relate the focus of attention to something else (which may invoke the mettle of “Recall”), using one or more relations*; Ask: call for.**
Consider then the step building (molecular) options: (1) re Attend (e.g., mode [B-ness or R-sense], “objects”), (2) re Think’s relations (e.g., similarity, difference, before, after, inside, outside***) and (3) re Ask’s question types (e.g., combinations of relation and focal object[s], with a missing element or relation, such as outlined in pointed questions [Topic X].#) We have made good use of pointed questions: “What comes after Big Bang?” (The Expansion) and “What comes before collisions?” (The Nature of Things [N of T’s]’ general persisting conditions of partial order, consequentiality and discontinuity).
Given the N of T’s imperative for self-instruction, its partial order a Tell that we come into this World of Possibility incompletely instructed, we are well advised to tax ourselves to develop this needed functionality, even to engage in Mind calisthenics.
The etiology of thingks also argues for exploration into Attend-Think-Ask technology. As answers to pointed questions, their utility depends on the quality of the questions asked. (See App. XXI.) Play with thingks. ##
Curiosity (not further defined) is known to occasion some situational dangers, such as in authoritative employer-employee and parent-child relationships. Research into, and acquisition of, shared Attend-Think-Ask technologies could reduce some of the risk involved in such relationships.
There is risk too in asking pointless questions (e.g., “Huh?”, “What?”, “Eh?”). Along with the risk in asking no questions at all: “Just following along” or not paying attention at all. “Boredom” is self-afflicted, given our options in Attend, Think and Ask.
And then there is the payoff in thingks. What cannot be imagined may never be Realized. What we can make of, and with, “curiosity” is grand indeed. Mettle up! The need for, and opportunity for, productive experiments in and with procedural technology are here and now.
* “Cognition,” a behavioral concept, confounds Think (process) with thought (product). For WICF in and by the step, it is crucial to distinguish “relation” and “relationship,” the former a part of a step procedure (Compose) and the latter a step product (composition).
** AT, ON the Frontier, incompletely instructed, but with opportunity for Realization at hand, the next step – i.e., WICF, importunes us to Ask. Weak curiosity is a tragic human failing. An ”up front in the step” weakness that R-sense technology can help strengthen, by doing more about and with step materiality.
*** These relations form the basis for Cognigraphics, a research method in which respondents are given a focus of attention, asked for a word associate, then asked to choose which relation best represents their relationship. Typically in a group of respondents, for a given topic-word associate relationship, many – even all -- of the relations are chosen.
# Pointed questions can be and frequently are the source of thingks. For example, “What comes after life?” “Heaven” and “hell” are thingks. Some thingks can be realized, which gives them a part to play in step making.
## In B-speak – ordinary discourse – thingks come and go unmarked. What is said about (WISA) technology might make apparent the distinction. Here however, as with “play” generally, the line between play and non-play is not well drawn. Some serious, even deadly, thingks are bantered about.
In light of the very useful Search feature now available, parenthetical back references are suspended for Comments as of C-184.
(c) 2020 R. F. Carter
S