C-241. “Why?” =/= “How come?” “What for?”
Biologists have good reason to want to distinguish and ask the questions of “How come?” and “What for?” relative to the question of “Why?” … and even to prefer them. We might and ought to Read the “How come, What for” pair as a point TO: (1) to the distinction between the ahistorical and the historical; (2) to the Nature of Things’ needed functionality in consequence of the general persisting conditions of partial order, consequentiality and discontinuity; (3) to the line (aka Frontier) between B-spacetime and R-spacetime; (4) to the failure of WISA tech re WITA to have done justice to WICF and WTITBTA, matters of the S-universe and the Expansion; (5) the importance of pointed questions;* (6) an application of the Expansion’s principle of differentiation.
WICF as a problem makes “What for?” relevant as an S-universe question. WTITBTA as a coverage problem makes “How come?” relevant as an Expansion question.** Consider the latter in regard to the incomplete Read of the collision phenomenon: How come collisions? Because of the Nature of Things’ and Expansion’s partial order, consequentiality and discontinuity.
The pair make a big question bigger. They expand our perspective beyond the “instantial” technology of objectifying every focus of attention so as to make B-speak (WISA) applicable to WITA. Is “Why?” that much better a question than “Huh?”? Not much. Just as in the case of, “For every effect there is a cause”: instancing (aka objectifying) gives us a weak Grasp of matters.
Consider that in the absence of the S-universe perspective, we have been depending for guidance on the ratio of functional/dysfunctional (good-bad) re behavioral outcomes, advancing incrementally (e.g., “new improved”). The ratio of functionality/needed functionality, which is the S-universe perspective, points to the question not only of “What for?” but also to the questions, “What might be?” and “What ought to be?”.
“Effect” as an R-word in the S-universe points to each and every phase of the R-path from needed functionality to functionality.*** And in sharing meaning with every other R-word, by their common Involve, R-words can be more firmly Grasped.
***
* See Topic X. A pointed question may be as compound and complex as a model re past instances or as a conjecture re past or future conditions. We might see a conjecture as the culmination of a history of prior pointed questions. And perhaps more to the point of a theory FOR than a theory OF or ABOUT.
** See the Expansion as actor (C-237.1).
*** See Message theory (App. XX). “Ingredients,” “factors,” “contributors,” “causes,” etc. (WISA concepts all) Grasp weakly all that it takes (ATIT): the problem of effectiveness.
In light of the very useful Search feature now available, parenthetical back references are suspended for Comments as of C-184.
(c) 2021 R. F. Carter
WICF as a problem makes “What for?” relevant as an S-universe question. WTITBTA as a coverage problem makes “How come?” relevant as an Expansion question.** Consider the latter in regard to the incomplete Read of the collision phenomenon: How come collisions? Because of the Nature of Things’ and Expansion’s partial order, consequentiality and discontinuity.
The pair make a big question bigger. They expand our perspective beyond the “instantial” technology of objectifying every focus of attention so as to make B-speak (WISA) applicable to WITA. Is “Why?” that much better a question than “Huh?”? Not much. Just as in the case of, “For every effect there is a cause”: instancing (aka objectifying) gives us a weak Grasp of matters.
Consider that in the absence of the S-universe perspective, we have been depending for guidance on the ratio of functional/dysfunctional (good-bad) re behavioral outcomes, advancing incrementally (e.g., “new improved”). The ratio of functionality/needed functionality, which is the S-universe perspective, points to the question not only of “What for?” but also to the questions, “What might be?” and “What ought to be?”.
“Effect” as an R-word in the S-universe points to each and every phase of the R-path from needed functionality to functionality.*** And in sharing meaning with every other R-word, by their common Involve, R-words can be more firmly Grasped.
* See Topic X. A pointed question may be as compound and complex as a model re past instances or as a conjecture re past or future conditions. We might see a conjecture as the culmination of a history of prior pointed questions. And perhaps more to the point of a theory FOR than a theory OF or ABOUT.
** See the Expansion as actor (C-237.1).
*** See Message theory (App. XX). “Ingredients,” “factors,” “contributors,” “causes,” etc. (WISA concepts all) Grasp weakly all that it takes (ATIT): the problem of effectiveness.
In light of the very useful Search feature now available, parenthetical back references are suspended for Comments as of C-184.
(c) 2021 R. F. Carter
S