C-72. The life clog (BFEPS)
Life is not smooth. Even were disruptive circumstances set aside it would still never be smooth. Unbalanced performance is never smooth. And we humans are very unbalanced (XI; C-69), primarily because of a super clog that pervades our lives, a superclog of first- and second-order imbalances that reaches across our history as behavioral entities (App. XI, App. XVI).
What we can do is to improve the smoothness of our life’s performances by bringing them more in accord with the Nature of Things. This by cognizing, then reducing, dynamic imbalances here and there. We can reduce imbalances most plausibly by developing capabilities so as to bring (the lesser) ratio denominators up nearer to equality with the numerators.*
The life clog is enormous. Given the force of the behavioral problem (I; C-41) and the functionality we still need to develop to cope with it, the life clog’s influence is aptly evoked by Camus’ Rock of Sisyphus.
The life clog begins with the failure to give behavior its dynamic due (App. XVI), hence our use of “body” and “step” to talk about entity and behavior, avoiding the bias of “behavioral entity.”
Then much more follows (as we have seen) as other imbalances attach themselves.
Conservatively, for example:
This clog constitutes a public health problem of enormous proportions (App. V), because the aggregate of individual lives thus impacted is multiplied by the further life clog effects on communities and the relationship of individuals to their communities.
And now we see a potential recapitulation of the “mind-body” disaster (VII), wherein the dynamic relationship of step and body was previously violated. On the investment horizon is a planned mapping of the human brain, a B-reductionist effort. As with the genome mapping, useful results can be reasonably expected. But, like the genome results, they figure to be applicable to situational problems – not to the behavioral problem.
Our quality of life (0) demands more of us than what we are giving.
* This probably implies an extensive review and revision of behavioral concepts, affording them theoretical as well as empirical anchoring. (See C-21, C-22, C-28, C-57, C-73.)
(c) 2012 R.F. Carter
What we can do is to improve the smoothness of our life’s performances by bringing them more in accord with the Nature of Things. This by cognizing, then reducing, dynamic imbalances here and there. We can reduce imbalances most plausibly by developing capabilities so as to bring (the lesser) ratio denominators up nearer to equality with the numerators.*
The life clog is enormous. Given the force of the behavioral problem (I; C-41) and the functionality we still need to develop to cope with it, the life clog’s influence is aptly evoked by Camus’ Rock of Sisyphus.
The life clog begins with the failure to give behavior its dynamic due (App. XVI), hence our use of “body” and “step” to talk about entity and behavior, avoiding the bias of “behavioral entity.”
Then much more follows (as we have seen) as other imbalances attach themselves.
Conservatively, for example:
- Body/step > 1; B => S/S => B >1;
- Capacity/capability > 1;
- Structure/function > 1; S=> F/ F=> S > 1;
- Situational problems/behavioral problem > 1; Pbeh => Psit/Psit => Pbeh > 1;
- Circumstantial change/compositional change > 1;
- Order of things/Nature of Things > 1;
- Adopt or adapt/adept > 1;
- Control system => operating system/operating system => control system >1;
- Individual/community > 1;
- B-community/S-community > 1 (C-10);
- Independence/interdependence > 1;
- Decision making/problem solving > 1;
This clog constitutes a public health problem of enormous proportions (App. V), because the aggregate of individual lives thus impacted is multiplied by the further life clog effects on communities and the relationship of individuals to their communities.
And now we see a potential recapitulation of the “mind-body” disaster (VII), wherein the dynamic relationship of step and body was previously violated. On the investment horizon is a planned mapping of the human brain, a B-reductionist effort. As with the genome mapping, useful results can be reasonably expected. But, like the genome results, they figure to be applicable to situational problems – not to the behavioral problem.
Our quality of life (0) demands more of us than what we are giving.
* This probably implies an extensive review and revision of behavioral concepts, affording them theoretical as well as empirical anchoring. (See C-21, C-22, C-28, C-57, C-73.)
(c) 2012 R.F. Carter
S