C-261.2. Our dying Grasp: a double threat
How do we test for death? Brain dead. No heart beat. We test behaviorally: our behavior viz. the patient’s behavior. Should it not follow then that any and every way by which we diminish our behavior is suicidal? Evolutionary theory re bodies notwithstanding, we must attend developmentally to survival.
We are dying. These are perilous times. We appear less like someone poised AT, ON the Frontier prepared to make and take a next step. More like someone desperately hanging on to the edge of a precipice. Given our behaviors.
Especially our Mind’s Grasp: The backward (after the fact: ATF/BTF >1+) look at behavior via past behaviors); the inside- out look at behavior as merely an entity property or relationship rather than a distinctive materiality – as if the multi-step entity were not qualitatively different from the one-step entity; the upside-down look at behavior as entity subsidiary (e.g., “expanding” re “The Universe,” “behavioral entity”); the Cinderella effect (“-ion” et al suffixes which confound behavioral process with product [e.g., “communication,” “understanding”] and sometimes producer as well [e.g., “agency”]); the cognitive tautology of concepts and instances, where “behavior” may be outside as concept and/or inside as instance … One-ness notions, which reduce Mind’s Know (i.e., in behavior’s molecular step) to finding order, in disregard of the needed Find/Make (orderings) balance, which emphasize similarities over differences and also continuities over discontinuities (i.e., at odds with the pragmatic precept), which confound theories OF with theories FOR; which promote proprietary claims of vested authority, which emphasize lawful over principled in disregard of The Expansion’s principles – especially, for behavior, the CEM principle, which see behavior as determined for us (e.g., as “fate,” “doing what comes naturally,” and conceptually as the “unconscious.”)
All this and more packaged in B-speak ambiguity and confounding with its own severe body/step >1+++ imbalance. An incomplete and inaccurate Grasp. Our dying Grasp.
Get a Grasp!
***
Behaviorally, our needed functionality, is architectural.** Instances of behavior, we have pointed out, are more like ore than the step mettles we need with which to build the solutions we need. Solutions which require a theory FOR behavior qua steps, not just OF behaviors as activities.
Transition in our thinking from concepts to theoretical constructs could not be more urgent if our steps are to be more constructive, more productive … if functional development is to be more firmly grounded. And if procedural technology is to be more helpful.
Consider, for example, the conceptual dither over matters, economic and politic, of “change.” Changes, not change, are pretty much what is said about what is talked about (WISA-WITA), especially regarding relative emphasis for decision making among behaviors (not behavior). Not the problematic relationship between them: How a better Grasp, re needed functionality, of change would improve our materiality. Not just WISA-WITA but also for what is called for (WICF) with respect to what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA).
“Change” in B-speak is a thoughtknot; it can point either AT or TO things (e.g., entities) or behaviors (e.g., actions) … with ample instances of each. But what of WICF? Are we to rely on instances when they have failed to produce enough of needed functionality? ***
Decision making is captive to the instances on which the concepts like “change” are based. Hardly the developmental basis for innovative procedural improvement. More like a dog chasing its tail. The various “-isms” clamor on behalf of this or that activity: more of an appeal to aggregate power, to vote or combat, than to stronger steps re needed functionality.
We can make better use of the concepts we have by applying the CEM principle and technology (independence, ratios and balance#) to their relationships. Thus, for example, we should be attending to the “climate,“ conceptually speaking, of the growing imbalance of decision making/problem solving (>1++). Just as we should be attending to the growing imbalance of “identity”/”agency” (>1++)##, which threatens the viability of community and democracy.
Do what we may to improve the use of concepts, for advance in procedural technology we need to have the Mind resources of the Conjecture and its theoretical constructs.
***
* The notion and hope that someday concepts and theory (OF) would somehow come together (“meld?”) seems ill-fated and ill-advised. And, like many other ideas, an artifact of a One-ness notion about Everything.
** Architecture embraces all of art, science, technology (procedural as well as tool) and humanity as contributors to problem solving – i.e., needed functionality.. Limited perspectives, such as technologies based on sciences, offer less than we need – and less than is possible in this World of Possibility, as revealed by the Involves and Grasp of The Expansion-Nature of Thigs and the S-universe.
*** As in the all-too-familiar calculus of functional/dysfunctional vs. Functionality/Needed Functionality. (In the World of Possibility choice is the next worse thing to no choice.)
# See the teeter-totter test for adjusting and advancing ratio balance toward CEM.
## Abetted and exacerbated by algorithmic analysis of population –i.e., aggregate – “big data,” especially re behaviors. Big business giving us the business. Promoting Identity over agency, conceptually speaking, as the path ahead for us – not we.
c) 2023 R. F. Carter
We are dying. These are perilous times. We appear less like someone poised AT, ON the Frontier prepared to make and take a next step. More like someone desperately hanging on to the edge of a precipice. Given our behaviors.
Especially our Mind’s Grasp: The backward (after the fact: ATF/BTF >1+) look at behavior via past behaviors); the inside- out look at behavior as merely an entity property or relationship rather than a distinctive materiality – as if the multi-step entity were not qualitatively different from the one-step entity; the upside-down look at behavior as entity subsidiary (e.g., “expanding” re “The Universe,” “behavioral entity”); the Cinderella effect (“-ion” et al suffixes which confound behavioral process with product [e.g., “communication,” “understanding”] and sometimes producer as well [e.g., “agency”]); the cognitive tautology of concepts and instances, where “behavior” may be outside as concept and/or inside as instance … One-ness notions, which reduce Mind’s Know (i.e., in behavior’s molecular step) to finding order, in disregard of the needed Find/Make (orderings) balance, which emphasize similarities over differences and also continuities over discontinuities (i.e., at odds with the pragmatic precept), which confound theories OF with theories FOR; which promote proprietary claims of vested authority, which emphasize lawful over principled in disregard of The Expansion’s principles – especially, for behavior, the CEM principle, which see behavior as determined for us (e.g., as “fate,” “doing what comes naturally,” and conceptually as the “unconscious.”)
All this and more packaged in B-speak ambiguity and confounding with its own severe body/step >1+++ imbalance. An incomplete and inaccurate Grasp. Our dying Grasp.
Get a Grasp!
Behaviorally, our needed functionality, is architectural.** Instances of behavior, we have pointed out, are more like ore than the step mettles we need with which to build the solutions we need. Solutions which require a theory FOR behavior qua steps, not just OF behaviors as activities.
Transition in our thinking from concepts to theoretical constructs could not be more urgent if our steps are to be more constructive, more productive … if functional development is to be more firmly grounded. And if procedural technology is to be more helpful.
Consider, for example, the conceptual dither over matters, economic and politic, of “change.” Changes, not change, are pretty much what is said about what is talked about (WISA-WITA), especially regarding relative emphasis for decision making among behaviors (not behavior). Not the problematic relationship between them: How a better Grasp, re needed functionality, of change would improve our materiality. Not just WISA-WITA but also for what is called for (WICF) with respect to what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA).
“Change” in B-speak is a thoughtknot; it can point either AT or TO things (e.g., entities) or behaviors (e.g., actions) … with ample instances of each. But what of WICF? Are we to rely on instances when they have failed to produce enough of needed functionality? ***
Decision making is captive to the instances on which the concepts like “change” are based. Hardly the developmental basis for innovative procedural improvement. More like a dog chasing its tail. The various “-isms” clamor on behalf of this or that activity: more of an appeal to aggregate power, to vote or combat, than to stronger steps re needed functionality.
We can make better use of the concepts we have by applying the CEM principle and technology (independence, ratios and balance#) to their relationships. Thus, for example, we should be attending to the “climate,“ conceptually speaking, of the growing imbalance of decision making/problem solving (>1++). Just as we should be attending to the growing imbalance of “identity”/”agency” (>1++)##, which threatens the viability of community and democracy.
Do what we may to improve the use of concepts, for advance in procedural technology we need to have the Mind resources of the Conjecture and its theoretical constructs.
* The notion and hope that someday concepts and theory (OF) would somehow come together (“meld?”) seems ill-fated and ill-advised. And, like many other ideas, an artifact of a One-ness notion about Everything.
** Architecture embraces all of art, science, technology (procedural as well as tool) and humanity as contributors to problem solving – i.e., needed functionality.. Limited perspectives, such as technologies based on sciences, offer less than we need – and less than is possible in this World of Possibility, as revealed by the Involves and Grasp of The Expansion-Nature of Thigs and the S-universe.
*** As in the all-too-familiar calculus of functional/dysfunctional vs. Functionality/Needed Functionality. (In the World of Possibility choice is the next worse thing to no choice.)
# See the teeter-totter test for adjusting and advancing ratio balance toward CEM.
## Abetted and exacerbated by algorithmic analysis of population –i.e., aggregate – “big data,” especially re behaviors. Big business giving us the business. Promoting Identity over agency, conceptually speaking, as the path ahead for us – not we.
c) 2023 R. F. Carter
S