C-262.3 Operating system: R-path
“Operating systems” are familiar as products. As technologies of tool and procedure, and of their production and usage. But with the R-zone, the focus on functionality changes to process and the actor: To the behavioral problem, Pbeh and Sbeh. To behavior, not behaviors. To functionality re needed functionality, not just functionalities re needed functionalities. Operating systems are about going forward.
Most significantly, the operating system works on the basis of principle, not just law. It addresses the key questions of WICF and WTITBTA, not just of WITA and WISA. Optimally it works for our selves in Accord with The Expansion’s principles: toward CEM via DIFion and Extension. CEM works paradigmatically: as both theory FOR and as method (the way Forward via ratio adjustments toward balance). As well as in Accord with the Nature of Things’ general persisting conditions.
An operating system (O.S.) is an imperative given the R-zone. An operating system for “self” – and even better, for selves: individual and community. As much – even more – about the steps we make than the steps we take. An operating system is also the theoretical answer to the theoretical question: “What might we do, what ought we do, about the R-zone. This is work for theory FOR, not work for concepts, theory FOR to use before the fact, in our next step(s), here and now AT, ON the Frontier of The Expansion and in our own expansions (our Nature of Things’ lives).*
“Control system” (C.S.) speaks to the many steps qua behaviors we take each day to profit from past collisions that we avoided or arranged – or didn’t avoid or arrange but should have. Especially behaviors by other behavioral entities. For example, to manage One-ness infractions, such as breaking a law, violating a norm, repelling strangers or avoiding hard collisions. It is tempting in this light to conceive of an O.S. as no more than a super C.S. But that underestimates our needed functionality.** The O.S. is about behavior, not behaviors.
Paradoxically, behaviors are a problem (Quality of life: O:Sp, O:Ps, O:P, O:S-P); behavior (Pbeh, Sbeh) is the problem and the solution. (The ambiguity of the singular! Resolved via the R-transform: from B-universe “behavior” to S-universe “step.”) The O.S. is our solution to the problem of the R-zone: to attend to all that is material in life (WICF and WTITBTA, not just WITA), and especially to the total informative contribution we need to make to life and its optimization via CEM. To know, not just to learn.
But as far back in human memory as the Ten Commandments, control systems have been invoked. There have been and always will be human behaviors to surveil and correct. And then too there are many non-human behaviors that need the attention of a control system. And control systems for control systems….
O.S. development has not so far been Mind’s best effort. Too much like negative concept formation (“Which of these are not instances of this concept?”). Not Forward enough (Ahead/Forward >1++). Too limited as in the case of the “information processing” concept. And with respect to Quality of life problem types, O:Ps (i.e., C.S.: situational problem deriving from situational solution) is only one of four. Both problems of O:P (lack of CEM-Community and CEM-Union) and O:S-P (Mind re Mind procedural tech error) which point to our O.S. need, are more grave (“I + O = E”).
Forward how? Conceptually, by “imagination.” But in the B-universe perspective “to imagine” concerns itself with picture accuracy: with what is and what might not be there in B-spacetime to observe. Theoretically, given the R-zone, to imagine is to provide implication (“direction” or better, messaging Forward) for our molecular step building … the Mind for the Move. The sensEry capability extending the sensOry capacity. The Nature of Things’ R-zone, and for us the O.S. significance before the fact … and the importance of asymmetric cognitive relations (i.e., differences that make a difference) and cognitive relating – architecturally.
***
Optimally, we would construct – or reconstruct – our operating system (O.S.: CEM-selves***) ala behavioral architecture, using procedural technology: with mettles and CEM dynamics, to achieve an O.S. with which to work most productively in The Expansion: AT, ON the Frontier. In our next step on the R-path Forward. In the R-zone. Positively. Forwarding like the engine in relation to a car’s other “control” features.
Advances in organic chemistry illustrate the applicable procedural technology. To copy a beneficial substance, a thing of nature, and especially to be able to do so in quantity when that substance is rare, the substance must be Grasped molecularly. Then, though the substance is found only rarely, Grasp and Involve of the components and their relationships may be procedurally replicated.
Further, what one finds out working molecularly can be forwarded in the S-universe, the World of Possibility, for the construction of new materiality, which can then be tested for functionality. First, for integrity; second, for needed functionality.
First, “Integrity” speaks conceptually to the theory FOR’s behavioral requisite of Singularity (Topic VIII). Lest Move be frustrated by Mind’s ambivalence – or blindness. We see this needed singularity in democracy’s tragic erosion of trust and community via lies and related corruptions.
Second, the “as one” functionality of “We, the people” is missing.# We need it for the CEM-community, that Selve to which individuals as Selves can relate in CEM-Union. If we “know (all of) our Selves” then we can constitute and/or reconstitute the needed steps OF and FOR our democracy.
***
* Theory FOR is why the actor’s point of view and perspective shouldn’t be deflated by an observer’s after-the-fact theory OF. Theories OF sometimes resemble summaries more than theories. (Curious, given how we readily grasp that “model” in B-speak serves both OF and FOR functionalities. Albeit “unknowingly”?) And theories OF may depend too much on population (i.e., aggregate) studies and not enough on communities – especially experimental Community. Utopian efforts are based on shared values: i.e., functionalities. They seem destined to fail when they do not attend to all of needed functionality: i.e., producing new value. Society for General Systems Research membership is a telling phenomenon: Some are looking to find system. Some are looking to make system. Some may think there is no difference. But this is a difference that makes a difference.
** Instances of functionality, f, that meet needed functionalities, nf’s, (e.g., Edison’s, ”I see a need and I invent something for it”) fall considerably short of the totality of functionality, F, re needed functionality, NF ... under the general persisting conditions of the Nature of Things: partial order (R-zone’s point TO), consequentiality (all of materiality) and discontinuity (of step as well as body).
*** Using B-speak procedural technology, we could attach “CEM-“ as a prefix to words to signify a “conceptual term to theoretical construct” transformation, similar to our capitalizing R-words to signify S-universe, not B-universe, applicability. “CEM-Community,“ “CEM-Union” and “CEM-Forward” give added emphasis to the “thinking about thinking” procedural tech problem to which we have sought solution with BFEPS. CEM, however, has more work than that to do. “CEM-pragmatism,” “CEM-positivism.” “CEM-existentialism,” “CEM-functionalism” and so on do have a point to make re practices. And then there are the practitioners (e.g., “CEM-pragmatist,” “CEM-positivist”).
# We have met the enemy and it is the not-we. (To translate from the B-speak of Walt Kelly. And counter the B-speak ambiguity of the plural.)
(c) 2023 R. F. Carter
Most significantly, the operating system works on the basis of principle, not just law. It addresses the key questions of WICF and WTITBTA, not just of WITA and WISA. Optimally it works for our selves in Accord with The Expansion’s principles: toward CEM via DIFion and Extension. CEM works paradigmatically: as both theory FOR and as method (the way Forward via ratio adjustments toward balance). As well as in Accord with the Nature of Things’ general persisting conditions.
An operating system (O.S.) is an imperative given the R-zone. An operating system for “self” – and even better, for selves: individual and community. As much – even more – about the steps we make than the steps we take. An operating system is also the theoretical answer to the theoretical question: “What might we do, what ought we do, about the R-zone. This is work for theory FOR, not work for concepts, theory FOR to use before the fact, in our next step(s), here and now AT, ON the Frontier of The Expansion and in our own expansions (our Nature of Things’ lives).*
“Control system” (C.S.) speaks to the many steps qua behaviors we take each day to profit from past collisions that we avoided or arranged – or didn’t avoid or arrange but should have. Especially behaviors by other behavioral entities. For example, to manage One-ness infractions, such as breaking a law, violating a norm, repelling strangers or avoiding hard collisions. It is tempting in this light to conceive of an O.S. as no more than a super C.S. But that underestimates our needed functionality.** The O.S. is about behavior, not behaviors.
Paradoxically, behaviors are a problem (Quality of life: O:Sp, O:Ps, O:P, O:S-P); behavior (Pbeh, Sbeh) is the problem and the solution. (The ambiguity of the singular! Resolved via the R-transform: from B-universe “behavior” to S-universe “step.”) The O.S. is our solution to the problem of the R-zone: to attend to all that is material in life (WICF and WTITBTA, not just WITA), and especially to the total informative contribution we need to make to life and its optimization via CEM. To know, not just to learn.
But as far back in human memory as the Ten Commandments, control systems have been invoked. There have been and always will be human behaviors to surveil and correct. And then too there are many non-human behaviors that need the attention of a control system. And control systems for control systems….
O.S. development has not so far been Mind’s best effort. Too much like negative concept formation (“Which of these are not instances of this concept?”). Not Forward enough (Ahead/Forward >1++). Too limited as in the case of the “information processing” concept. And with respect to Quality of life problem types, O:Ps (i.e., C.S.: situational problem deriving from situational solution) is only one of four. Both problems of O:P (lack of CEM-Community and CEM-Union) and O:S-P (Mind re Mind procedural tech error) which point to our O.S. need, are more grave (“I + O = E”).
Forward how? Conceptually, by “imagination.” But in the B-universe perspective “to imagine” concerns itself with picture accuracy: with what is and what might not be there in B-spacetime to observe. Theoretically, given the R-zone, to imagine is to provide implication (“direction” or better, messaging Forward) for our molecular step building … the Mind for the Move. The sensEry capability extending the sensOry capacity. The Nature of Things’ R-zone, and for us the O.S. significance before the fact … and the importance of asymmetric cognitive relations (i.e., differences that make a difference) and cognitive relating – architecturally.
Optimally, we would construct – or reconstruct – our operating system (O.S.: CEM-selves***) ala behavioral architecture, using procedural technology: with mettles and CEM dynamics, to achieve an O.S. with which to work most productively in The Expansion: AT, ON the Frontier. In our next step on the R-path Forward. In the R-zone. Positively. Forwarding like the engine in relation to a car’s other “control” features.
Advances in organic chemistry illustrate the applicable procedural technology. To copy a beneficial substance, a thing of nature, and especially to be able to do so in quantity when that substance is rare, the substance must be Grasped molecularly. Then, though the substance is found only rarely, Grasp and Involve of the components and their relationships may be procedurally replicated.
Further, what one finds out working molecularly can be forwarded in the S-universe, the World of Possibility, for the construction of new materiality, which can then be tested for functionality. First, for integrity; second, for needed functionality.
First, “Integrity” speaks conceptually to the theory FOR’s behavioral requisite of Singularity (Topic VIII). Lest Move be frustrated by Mind’s ambivalence – or blindness. We see this needed singularity in democracy’s tragic erosion of trust and community via lies and related corruptions.
Second, the “as one” functionality of “We, the people” is missing.# We need it for the CEM-community, that Selve to which individuals as Selves can relate in CEM-Union. If we “know (all of) our Selves” then we can constitute and/or reconstitute the needed steps OF and FOR our democracy.
* Theory FOR is why the actor’s point of view and perspective shouldn’t be deflated by an observer’s after-the-fact theory OF. Theories OF sometimes resemble summaries more than theories. (Curious, given how we readily grasp that “model” in B-speak serves both OF and FOR functionalities. Albeit “unknowingly”?) And theories OF may depend too much on population (i.e., aggregate) studies and not enough on communities – especially experimental Community. Utopian efforts are based on shared values: i.e., functionalities. They seem destined to fail when they do not attend to all of needed functionality: i.e., producing new value. Society for General Systems Research membership is a telling phenomenon: Some are looking to find system. Some are looking to make system. Some may think there is no difference. But this is a difference that makes a difference.
** Instances of functionality, f, that meet needed functionalities, nf’s, (e.g., Edison’s, ”I see a need and I invent something for it”) fall considerably short of the totality of functionality, F, re needed functionality, NF ... under the general persisting conditions of the Nature of Things: partial order (R-zone’s point TO), consequentiality (all of materiality) and discontinuity (of step as well as body).
*** Using B-speak procedural technology, we could attach “CEM-“ as a prefix to words to signify a “conceptual term to theoretical construct” transformation, similar to our capitalizing R-words to signify S-universe, not B-universe, applicability. “CEM-Community,“ “CEM-Union” and “CEM-Forward” give added emphasis to the “thinking about thinking” procedural tech problem to which we have sought solution with BFEPS. CEM, however, has more work than that to do. “CEM-pragmatism,” “CEM-positivism.” “CEM-existentialism,” “CEM-functionalism” and so on do have a point to make re practices. And then there are the practitioners (e.g., “CEM-pragmatist,” “CEM-positivist”).
# We have met the enemy and it is the not-we. (To translate from the B-speak of Walt Kelly. And counter the B-speak ambiguity of the plural.)
(c) 2023 R. F. Carter
S