C-61: Flawed agenda II.
The entity-biased agenda of observer-observed-observation (C-54), with behavior relegated to catch up as it can, and has in practice, yielded some very dysfunctional consequences (O: S-P, Ps). The neglect of behavior in the face of the Nature of Things’ behavioral necessity principles (III) is egregious. Right behind that, however, is another serious technology development bias.
We can illustrate these two faults by raising another point in regard to the earlier Wittgenstein discussion (C-55). Which is worse: language’s failure to represent all conditions in and/or of consequence that are in need of representation; or, language’s misrepresentation of conditions in and/or of consequence? The second of these alternatives introduces a common variant of the minding agenda, itself also flawed:
Og(On): Od => Mg(cmu) => On(cog+cmu)
Where: A previous observation, the product of cognition and communication processes, now expressed in language, is employed to mind the condition now being observed. Cognition becomes recognition. In this manner much of cognitive and communicative functionality is lost or abandoned.
This is mind-binding. Stereotypers and ideologues dramatically show the usage. But concepts embracing, and only defined by, examples indicate further, very widespread usage. It’s not just naming. What makes this practice possible and so prevalent? Language. Language, which has been imperfectly and incompletely developed as a minding technology, language which embodies behavior (when it does!) poorly. These are “words that hurt a lot,” far more than what Sapir and Whorf – and Wittgenstein – envisioned.
So that which we depend on for daily individual and/or community functioning, that which is far more than the façade of our cultures, that which we may mourn the death of for a peoples, that which is essential to composing – and our future … all that is as much, if not more, barrier (IV; C-56, C-57, C-58) than facilitator.
It makes a difference that languages were not well invented (App. XIII; C-48). We should do something about it. In the spirit of the Vermont farmer (C-18): Let’s not take the old way back to Boston … or to anywhere else.
(c) 2012 R.F. Carter
We can illustrate these two faults by raising another point in regard to the earlier Wittgenstein discussion (C-55). Which is worse: language’s failure to represent all conditions in and/or of consequence that are in need of representation; or, language’s misrepresentation of conditions in and/or of consequence? The second of these alternatives introduces a common variant of the minding agenda, itself also flawed:
Og(On): Od => Mg(cmu) => On(cog+cmu)
Where: A previous observation, the product of cognition and communication processes, now expressed in language, is employed to mind the condition now being observed. Cognition becomes recognition. In this manner much of cognitive and communicative functionality is lost or abandoned.
This is mind-binding. Stereotypers and ideologues dramatically show the usage. But concepts embracing, and only defined by, examples indicate further, very widespread usage. It’s not just naming. What makes this practice possible and so prevalent? Language. Language, which has been imperfectly and incompletely developed as a minding technology, language which embodies behavior (when it does!) poorly. These are “words that hurt a lot,” far more than what Sapir and Whorf – and Wittgenstein – envisioned.
So that which we depend on for daily individual and/or community functioning, that which is far more than the façade of our cultures, that which we may mourn the death of for a peoples, that which is essential to composing – and our future … all that is as much, if not more, barrier (IV; C-56, C-57, C-58) than facilitator.
It makes a difference that languages were not well invented (App. XIII; C-48). We should do something about it. In the spirit of the Vermont farmer (C-18): Let’s not take the old way back to Boston … or to anywhere else.
(c) 2012 R.F. Carter
S