C-228. A double whammy
B-ness and B-speak give “double blind” a new meaning. In every culture steps that were at first “knowing steps”:
Mind => Move => Outcome
Become:
Mind: Outcome => Move (communicate) => Observation (On)
And then:
Mind: On => Move => Outcome.
Thus requiring the (“culture-bound”) community member to take two kinds of “learning steps”: (1) to learn the language of the On’s, the what is said about (WISA) technology of the culture; and, (2) to learn the use of the On’s, the “ways” of the culture. The latter will be largely situational – which, like the language itself, makes bodies the focus of attention.
B-ness plus B-speak: a double whammy. This when the message from the Nature of Things, if we Read it completely and accurately, says what is called for (WICF) is the point (i.e., needed functionality). Yet our WISA technology embraces what is talked about (WITA) instead. And WICF may very well need attention to what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA). So too then must WISA technology.
A task for procedural tech to undertake. As for instance with R-sense and R-technologies’ R-words and noun particles. We need tech help. As things stand, to get to WICF, via On’s, we must see (Ask? As via PP) our way through B-speak (e.g., concepts) and B-ness (e.g., thoughtknots).*
***
Once children learn their first language, many of their steps will be guided by observations made and reported by self and others. We pay a price for these two learnings. Part of that price, we can see, is the increased need for Read capability to cope with B-speak’s language weakness.**
Before the learning regime gets going, children will have been busy coming to know some things about and from the moves, nonverbally, they make. Especially their outcomes. Then, what happens when Know meets Learn? “Terrible twos”?
Will children become sensible about steps – especially their making? Do they get the idea that steps can be made? That learned “behaviors,” however compound and complex, are not the only Forward-going option? That these proffered procedural fragments (“Do this, do that”) are not the whole story of Help, of life’s demands and opportunities?
***
* Our even bigger double whammy is the concept – and thoughtknot -- of “behavior.” Which conceals all of WITA, WICF and WTITBTA beneath a B-speak shroud of WISA. “Behavior,” as Stone Age WISA tech, merely labels instances of step making and taking by bodies after the fact – as if this WITA were all there was to be said about needed step strength and materiality, about the “art” and “science” of Help. Somehow we are supposed to work our way past (through? over?) this impediment? That we are so afflicted with a name-based (point AT) WISA technology is understandable. Humans in their earliest days relied for capability (step materiality) on body capacities. “Doing what comes naturally,” so to speak. WICF then asked only a name to point them AT, then “doing what comes naturally to what and/or whom.” (If that much even, on the “reflex” notion of behavior.) B-speak language tech has been trying to catch up ever since, adding parts of speech, prefixes and suffixes. Not, however, with full and accurate Grasp of the Nature of Things’ vector of needed functionality … functionality (R-sense).
What to do? R-sense suggests we Realize being able to enter the nearest “phone booth” and come back out stronger and more consequential in step. We would still have our B-ness and B-speak. But more, much more.
** Story tellers and poets can and do give strength and materiality to the languages. Others may merely add emotion to Tell for emphasis. Print tech imposed further need on secondary and tertiary Read capabilities. A need no less now, but the capabilities are in decline, due to mass media’s increasing communication technology development ratio of transport/content >1++.
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
Mind => Move => Outcome
Become:
Mind: Outcome => Move (communicate) => Observation (On)
And then:
Mind: On => Move => Outcome.
Thus requiring the (“culture-bound”) community member to take two kinds of “learning steps”: (1) to learn the language of the On’s, the what is said about (WISA) technology of the culture; and, (2) to learn the use of the On’s, the “ways” of the culture. The latter will be largely situational – which, like the language itself, makes bodies the focus of attention.
B-ness plus B-speak: a double whammy. This when the message from the Nature of Things, if we Read it completely and accurately, says what is called for (WICF) is the point (i.e., needed functionality). Yet our WISA technology embraces what is talked about (WITA) instead. And WICF may very well need attention to what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA). So too then must WISA technology.
A task for procedural tech to undertake. As for instance with R-sense and R-technologies’ R-words and noun particles. We need tech help. As things stand, to get to WICF, via On’s, we must see (Ask? As via PP) our way through B-speak (e.g., concepts) and B-ness (e.g., thoughtknots).*
Once children learn their first language, many of their steps will be guided by observations made and reported by self and others. We pay a price for these two learnings. Part of that price, we can see, is the increased need for Read capability to cope with B-speak’s language weakness.**
Before the learning regime gets going, children will have been busy coming to know some things about and from the moves, nonverbally, they make. Especially their outcomes. Then, what happens when Know meets Learn? “Terrible twos”?
Will children become sensible about steps – especially their making? Do they get the idea that steps can be made? That learned “behaviors,” however compound and complex, are not the only Forward-going option? That these proffered procedural fragments (“Do this, do that”) are not the whole story of Help, of life’s demands and opportunities?
* Our even bigger double whammy is the concept – and thoughtknot -- of “behavior.” Which conceals all of WITA, WICF and WTITBTA beneath a B-speak shroud of WISA. “Behavior,” as Stone Age WISA tech, merely labels instances of step making and taking by bodies after the fact – as if this WITA were all there was to be said about needed step strength and materiality, about the “art” and “science” of Help. Somehow we are supposed to work our way past (through? over?) this impediment? That we are so afflicted with a name-based (point AT) WISA technology is understandable. Humans in their earliest days relied for capability (step materiality) on body capacities. “Doing what comes naturally,” so to speak. WICF then asked only a name to point them AT, then “doing what comes naturally to what and/or whom.” (If that much even, on the “reflex” notion of behavior.) B-speak language tech has been trying to catch up ever since, adding parts of speech, prefixes and suffixes. Not, however, with full and accurate Grasp of the Nature of Things’ vector of needed functionality … functionality (R-sense).
What to do? R-sense suggests we Realize being able to enter the nearest “phone booth” and come back out stronger and more consequential in step. We would still have our B-ness and B-speak. But more, much more.
** Story tellers and poets can and do give strength and materiality to the languages. Others may merely add emotion to Tell for emphasis. Print tech imposed further need on secondary and tertiary Read capabilities. A need no less now, but the capabilities are in decline, due to mass media’s increasing communication technology development ratio of transport/content >1++.
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