C-45. The good news
The basis of the fundamental behavioral force, the behavioral problem (C-41), is bad news for those who are too dependent on the order of things rather than the Nature of Things (III) as a comprehensive and accurate perspective on life. Those, for example, who like Shakespeare’s Henry IV let wishing breed the thought that such an order obtains and would furnish, by adoption and/or adaptation, a guide to life. And those whose livelihood as professional observers is to uncover aspects of ordering and orderings (after the fact), for whom all other phenomena are to be set aside as random variation, error, chance, individual differences, etc. – i.e., playing the “5% solution” game (C-17).
That basis, in the fundamental force, comprises the Nature of Things’ general persisting conditions of partial order, consequentiality and discontinuity. Partial order brings the bad news for those addicted to the order of things. The good news for all comes from consequentiality and the discontinuity among behavioral entities.
Far from all the consequentiality has been wrapped up for us by and/or in the ordering of things. The world as one of possibility says as much. Behavioral structure, once we free it of the BPO bias (C-38, C-39), offers what looks like an endless opportunity to be, and become more, molecularly consequential (C-11, C-16, C-37). Any behaviors that are IN consequence of the fundamental behavioral force, and are probably OF consequence too, can hardly be written off. (Much of behavioral analysis now being done – of particular behaviors* – is after the fact, but the behaviors as they happened were before the fact, in response to the behavioral problem and its force as well as situational problems. Thus many observed orderings need to be reinterpreted for their before-the-fact circumstances – i.e., as in consequence of the Nature of Things.
Discontinuity, the separation of behavioral entities, enables each of us to be independently consequential – interdependently if we will, as with communities. While professional observers run experiments to test (C-44: to evaluate) order hypotheses we can each of us experiment in compositional change (II, C-47), also using outcomes to evaluate our orderings. We both employ pointed questions (X), a capability that derives from our cognitive and communicative development (App. III).
The Nature of Things readily accommodates whatever order of things there is to be found. (But vice versa?) So too does problem solving with its needed capabilities of art, science and humanism (App. VIII) welcome any useful order of things**.
We will never be little gods. We lack the omniscience and omnipotence. But with the Nature of Things’ omnipresent conditions and their resultant behavioral force we can and should never lack for consequentiality.
* Consequentiality is behavior: Behavior per se is the manifestation of consequentiality per se. Behaviors, the particulars, becloud this fact – courtesy of the BPO bias (and its confusion of universals re particulars with the Nature of Things’ generalities [III]).
** Applied physics, chemistry and biology can profitably employ the 5% solution (C-17) to screen for order — and potential consequentiality, and applicability to problem solving, as in materials science and medical research. And so can any self-styled social or behavioral science. Formulaic tests of causal hypotheses about human behaviors neglect the screening potential inherent in the off-diagonal cell entries when correlating N-dimensional measures in the BPO mode.
(c) 2012 R. F. Carter
That basis, in the fundamental force, comprises the Nature of Things’ general persisting conditions of partial order, consequentiality and discontinuity. Partial order brings the bad news for those addicted to the order of things. The good news for all comes from consequentiality and the discontinuity among behavioral entities.
Far from all the consequentiality has been wrapped up for us by and/or in the ordering of things. The world as one of possibility says as much. Behavioral structure, once we free it of the BPO bias (C-38, C-39), offers what looks like an endless opportunity to be, and become more, molecularly consequential (C-11, C-16, C-37). Any behaviors that are IN consequence of the fundamental behavioral force, and are probably OF consequence too, can hardly be written off. (Much of behavioral analysis now being done – of particular behaviors* – is after the fact, but the behaviors as they happened were before the fact, in response to the behavioral problem and its force as well as situational problems. Thus many observed orderings need to be reinterpreted for their before-the-fact circumstances – i.e., as in consequence of the Nature of Things.
Discontinuity, the separation of behavioral entities, enables each of us to be independently consequential – interdependently if we will, as with communities. While professional observers run experiments to test (C-44: to evaluate) order hypotheses we can each of us experiment in compositional change (II, C-47), also using outcomes to evaluate our orderings. We both employ pointed questions (X), a capability that derives from our cognitive and communicative development (App. III).
The Nature of Things readily accommodates whatever order of things there is to be found. (But vice versa?) So too does problem solving with its needed capabilities of art, science and humanism (App. VIII) welcome any useful order of things**.
We will never be little gods. We lack the omniscience and omnipotence. But with the Nature of Things’ omnipresent conditions and their resultant behavioral force we can and should never lack for consequentiality.
* Consequentiality is behavior: Behavior per se is the manifestation of consequentiality per se. Behaviors, the particulars, becloud this fact – courtesy of the BPO bias (and its confusion of universals re particulars with the Nature of Things’ generalities [III]).
** Applied physics, chemistry and biology can profitably employ the 5% solution (C-17) to screen for order — and potential consequentiality, and applicability to problem solving, as in materials science and medical research. And so can any self-styled social or behavioral science. Formulaic tests of causal hypotheses about human behaviors neglect the screening potential inherent in the off-diagonal cell entries when correlating N-dimensional measures in the BPO mode.
(c) 2012 R. F. Carter
S