C-66. Harmony and balance
The incompletely instructed condition of behavioral entities, given the Nature of Things, poses a continuing behavioral problem (I:Pbeh) of considerable force (C-41) – in addition to encountered situational problems (I:Psit). It encourages us to engage a metastrategy for living. ADOPT, ADAPT and ADEPT have been introduced in this regard (XI, App. IV, C-9). They are candidates for “big, even biggest, answer” status (to some if not all “big questions”).
Here we focus on harmony (re ADAPT) and balance (re ADEPT). Why do we set aside ADOPT? Harmony and balance as metastrategies pertain in and to a world of change: to our world. As a metastrategy ADOPT does not. It seeks something unchanging. To an ADOPT personality, change per se and /or particular changes evoke a “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead” response. Or in the latter case perhaps conversion: to another ADOPT. (See the fixed rudder of ideologues: C-49.) Those who follow the ADOPT path are singular in their attention to non-singularities (VIII). They are cybernetic, looking to stay on course. Uncertainty, ignorance and elicited criteria do not impose on them. They enjoy a pseudo peace of mind. ADOPT has a place in behavior, but not up front leading the way.
ADAPT says that we can and do change, and we should change in consort with the changes (as circumstances) around us. But it also says we might and should change in response to differences, not just to changes. Harmony more closely resonates with changes. Harmony does not say anything about our making other conditions adapt, which ADEPT’s composing makes possible.
ADAPT would be a more compelling metastrategy if there were an underlying order of things – not the partial order of the Nature of Things, where there is evidence of consequentiality via composing. (Lest, of course, we relegate composing and ADEPT to an ADAPT modality. But when it comes to relegation, ACCORD rules all three! See C-9.) Harmony would then seem more applicable … as our behavior changed in consort/concert with the behavior of other entities. Our step taking, like our body does now, would be able to achieve an equilibrium. But life is not like that. Nor should it be deemed so. ADAPT, like ADOPT, offers a pseudo peace of mind.
ADEPT stands out as a metastrategy because history’s contingent emergent materiality (CEM: App. XI, App. XII) tells us that composing has become and should continue to be the way forward for humanity. ADEPT is in a direct line from the Nature of Things’ CEM-precept of ACCORD. We even compose our knowledge of when adoptions and/or adaptations are relevant. ADEPT readily accommodates the other two candidates when situational problems make them germane. Facing our unrelenting behavioral problem, ADEPT seems destined to lead.
ADEPT, however, has no easy equilibrium assignment. Balance in our step making and taking, as we have seen (XI), is neither simple nor easy. Many conditions (aka “factors”) have to be taken into consideration. We typically find many unbalanced conditions: in us as operating systems and in the operating systems we construct (C-36). These along with other unrealized dynamics (e.g., incomplete interdependencies). Balancing the balanced and unbalanced of capacities and capabilities, the repertoire aspect of the behavioral problem, forever challenges us. It is the price of our freedom TO, to be consequential in this World of Possibility. There is nothing here of a (pseudo peace of) mental tranquility. But there is the “high” of and from ardent minding exercise.
Our questioning practices provide a window on the suitability of the 3A’s for leadership in responding to the Nature of Things. ADOPT yields notoriously few questions. ADAPT brings forth, “What’s happening?” and “How do I get engaged?” ADEPT, however, raises all sorts of pointed questions as it goes about its composing, as it tries to reconstruct what was or is, and constructs what might be.
(c) 2012 R.F. Carter
Here we focus on harmony (re ADAPT) and balance (re ADEPT). Why do we set aside ADOPT? Harmony and balance as metastrategies pertain in and to a world of change: to our world. As a metastrategy ADOPT does not. It seeks something unchanging. To an ADOPT personality, change per se and /or particular changes evoke a “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead” response. Or in the latter case perhaps conversion: to another ADOPT. (See the fixed rudder of ideologues: C-49.) Those who follow the ADOPT path are singular in their attention to non-singularities (VIII). They are cybernetic, looking to stay on course. Uncertainty, ignorance and elicited criteria do not impose on them. They enjoy a pseudo peace of mind. ADOPT has a place in behavior, but not up front leading the way.
ADAPT says that we can and do change, and we should change in consort with the changes (as circumstances) around us. But it also says we might and should change in response to differences, not just to changes. Harmony more closely resonates with changes. Harmony does not say anything about our making other conditions adapt, which ADEPT’s composing makes possible.
ADAPT would be a more compelling metastrategy if there were an underlying order of things – not the partial order of the Nature of Things, where there is evidence of consequentiality via composing. (Lest, of course, we relegate composing and ADEPT to an ADAPT modality. But when it comes to relegation, ACCORD rules all three! See C-9.) Harmony would then seem more applicable … as our behavior changed in consort/concert with the behavior of other entities. Our step taking, like our body does now, would be able to achieve an equilibrium. But life is not like that. Nor should it be deemed so. ADAPT, like ADOPT, offers a pseudo peace of mind.
ADEPT stands out as a metastrategy because history’s contingent emergent materiality (CEM: App. XI, App. XII) tells us that composing has become and should continue to be the way forward for humanity. ADEPT is in a direct line from the Nature of Things’ CEM-precept of ACCORD. We even compose our knowledge of when adoptions and/or adaptations are relevant. ADEPT readily accommodates the other two candidates when situational problems make them germane. Facing our unrelenting behavioral problem, ADEPT seems destined to lead.
ADEPT, however, has no easy equilibrium assignment. Balance in our step making and taking, as we have seen (XI), is neither simple nor easy. Many conditions (aka “factors”) have to be taken into consideration. We typically find many unbalanced conditions: in us as operating systems and in the operating systems we construct (C-36). These along with other unrealized dynamics (e.g., incomplete interdependencies). Balancing the balanced and unbalanced of capacities and capabilities, the repertoire aspect of the behavioral problem, forever challenges us. It is the price of our freedom TO, to be consequential in this World of Possibility. There is nothing here of a (pseudo peace of) mental tranquility. But there is the “high” of and from ardent minding exercise.
Our questioning practices provide a window on the suitability of the 3A’s for leadership in responding to the Nature of Things. ADOPT yields notoriously few questions. ADAPT brings forth, “What’s happening?” and “How do I get engaged?” ADEPT, however, raises all sorts of pointed questions as it goes about its composing, as it tries to reconstruct what was or is, and constructs what might be.
(c) 2012 R.F. Carter
S