C-232. A simple matter
We want to celebrate compositional change, the strength and materiality of the steps that we make and take. Circumstantial change we live with. We can do something, but only something, about that … in so far as we can draw on step strength and materiality.
We need to live with both kinds of change. If we can. The step’s Mind capability needs to be Adept, capable of seeing its way in both regards, able to switch back and forth as required, as when adapting to circumstances that cannot be changed. This is not easy with B-speak technology for what is said about (WISA).
Consider B-speak’s “intransitive” verb. It serves only to distinguish the sentence condition in which the verb lacks an object. How drastic and revealing then to be reminded that in Message theory (App. XX) the so-called “intransitive” (V-1) points TO needed functionality …and beyond that to the Nature of Things. And it’s where the mettles are, where Compose can begin to do its alloying job to strengthen steps for greater materiality.*
Consider too B-speak’s “cause and effect” conception of things. Which is to say, two circumstances … and two concepts: “cause” and “effect.” Contrast this with “Effect,” an R-word, a theoretical construct (courtesy of R-sense) … with its point TO the four-phase Message theory vector from needed functionality to functionality (two nouns, two verbs) in Accord with the Nature of Things.**
As R-words, “Effect” and “Compose” are synonyms. About what steps need to do and can do. A simple matter, then, to call on R-sense and its technologies to make the most of compositional change … and make the most of life.
***
* Note here the pragmatic precept, PP, distinction between the behavioral problem and solution, Pbeh and Sbeh, and the situational problem and solution, Psit and Ssit. B-speak is situational. There is no point TO from its intransitive to needed functionality – i.e., Pbeh – and any Help on Sbeh must derive from Grasp of the situation … which is to say, the things of nature rather than the Nature of Things. Hence our need for the R-transform’s transfiguration of the Expansion (from mere adjective to the Involve for Grasping two universes).
** With our contemporary unbalanced (>1++) mass media ratio of transport/message functionality, we need an “information theory” technology for messages to convey the various Points (e.g., TO, OUT, ABOUT, AT, FOR, OF) that Mind, an R-word, requires.*** B-speak fumbles to serve this need. And Shannon’s “information theory” serves transport, not message.
*** Among many authors venturing to define “communication,” Stevens stands out in this regard. The others treat it as transport: the transfer of information. The “information” is commonly understood to imply points AT and ABOUT – i.e., B-speak. As if this limited technology met our needed functionality to deal with what is called for, WICF, and what there is to be talked about, WTITBTA. Risky B-speak, not just risky B-ness.
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
We need to live with both kinds of change. If we can. The step’s Mind capability needs to be Adept, capable of seeing its way in both regards, able to switch back and forth as required, as when adapting to circumstances that cannot be changed. This is not easy with B-speak technology for what is said about (WISA).
Consider B-speak’s “intransitive” verb. It serves only to distinguish the sentence condition in which the verb lacks an object. How drastic and revealing then to be reminded that in Message theory (App. XX) the so-called “intransitive” (V-1) points TO needed functionality …and beyond that to the Nature of Things. And it’s where the mettles are, where Compose can begin to do its alloying job to strengthen steps for greater materiality.*
Consider too B-speak’s “cause and effect” conception of things. Which is to say, two circumstances … and two concepts: “cause” and “effect.” Contrast this with “Effect,” an R-word, a theoretical construct (courtesy of R-sense) … with its point TO the four-phase Message theory vector from needed functionality to functionality (two nouns, two verbs) in Accord with the Nature of Things.**
As R-words, “Effect” and “Compose” are synonyms. About what steps need to do and can do. A simple matter, then, to call on R-sense and its technologies to make the most of compositional change … and make the most of life.
* Note here the pragmatic precept, PP, distinction between the behavioral problem and solution, Pbeh and Sbeh, and the situational problem and solution, Psit and Ssit. B-speak is situational. There is no point TO from its intransitive to needed functionality – i.e., Pbeh – and any Help on Sbeh must derive from Grasp of the situation … which is to say, the things of nature rather than the Nature of Things. Hence our need for the R-transform’s transfiguration of the Expansion (from mere adjective to the Involve for Grasping two universes).
** With our contemporary unbalanced (>1++) mass media ratio of transport/message functionality, we need an “information theory” technology for messages to convey the various Points (e.g., TO, OUT, ABOUT, AT, FOR, OF) that Mind, an R-word, requires.*** B-speak fumbles to serve this need. And Shannon’s “information theory” serves transport, not message.
*** Among many authors venturing to define “communication,” Stevens stands out in this regard. The others treat it as transport: the transfer of information. The “information” is commonly understood to imply points AT and ABOUT – i.e., B-speak. As if this limited technology met our needed functionality to deal with what is called for, WICF, and what there is to be talked about, WTITBTA. Risky B-speak, not just risky B-ness.
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