C-246. Vive la differentiate
Big Bang was the end of whatever B-ness kind of Oneness there was, although B-ness would offer to treat any and every observed condition “objectively”. (Big Bang might have been the behavioral consequence of a prior behavioral condition? A happening after a happening with more happening to follow?) Behavior followed (aka “energy”). A grand Expansion of behavior, forward, seen from the point of view of the Big Bang. Along an extending line of requisite behavioral phenomena governed by the principle of, the imperative to, differentiate. A very material Expansion. “Material” in that the Expansion is IN and OF consequence.* Material in and by material steps as well as in and by material bodies.
The Expansion would come to comprise bodies … and much later professional observers positioned on one of those bodies would see, looking at the Expansion in cross-section, what they deemed an expanding universe: an expanding B-universe. Condemning the behavior-rich Expansion to its current 1-dimensional status as a mere attribute. (Do they imagine that “black holes” are not hypostasized behavior?) And, further, relegating all observed behaviors (“actions”) to the possession of this and/or that body or body-body relationship . Leaving behind – and unfortunately ahead as well – S-universe behavior not so attached.
Behaviors incompletely and inaccurately represented by B-speak (what is said about, WISA, re what is talked about, WITA). Essential behavior: what is called for, WICF, and what there is to be talked about, WTITBTA. And most importantly, behavior per se: of the Expansion itself and its further differentiation into S-universe steps with the emergence of multi-step bodies.**
The concept of “behavior” could hardly be less felicitous. “Behave” is to comport: with a B-universe law, or with a statute or a norm – i.e., to rely on strategies of Adapt and/or Adopt for steps to take. If we assume that a combination of B-ness and One-ness were foundation enough, then why do we find ourselves so much in need of Adept? Why do we find that control systems do not meet the need for operating systems? That justice comes too late? That we lack preparedness?
***
The “universe” misread is understandable. When we need to Grasp something, but that something is an assortment of dispersed things, then so as to Mind and/or Move them, it makes sense to gather them together, to pick then up and/or to see them as One for what we may make of them and with them. So has it been with the B- universe for bodies. But not the S-universe for steps. Instead we have tried to accommodate steps as B-universe materiality: as instances of body and body-body behaviors. Then using B-speak “concepts” to provide a one-ness representation of these behavioral instances.
All of a piece: B-ness, B-speak plus One-ness. As if the Expansion and S-universe had no distinctive principles and phenomena of their own. An impression we might well get when, as now, a pandemic confronts us and finds us wanting … needing procedural technology with which to meet its challenge … and finding tool technology to produce a vaccine but lacking a behavioral science*** that could have furnished help for the needed procedural technology.
Most critically, as if “things of nature“ were all we needed to know about the Nature of Things … about the Expansion and its principles (especially differentiate) and phenomena (especially emergence). Would we even be talking about racism if we Grasped the Expansion’s principle of differentiate?
The laws of the B-universe – what there are of them -- are limited in their applicability. They say how things do or must work -- or how things are supposed to work but don’t (e.g., statutes). Suitable for behavioral strategies of Adapt and Adopt. Principles also apply to how things work. But principles allow of functional equivalence. Suitable for a strategy of Adept. The Expansion’s principle of differentiate applies to the technologies of slice and/or splice … and to endless variations via molecular step extension. The S-universe has principles, such as “Mind before Move” to take advantage of the “next step” option … with ”follow the leader” as a functional – if not pragmatic – equivalent.
S-universe actors (step makers and takers) need a principled operating system (a critical part of the missing procedural tech: see the “behavioral problem”) so as to be prepared for the inevitable succession of situational problems they will meet.
***
One-ness has its stakeholders. Those who for one reason or another turn away from the Nature of Things’ general persisting conditions of partial order (!), consequentiality and discontinuity#. Typically, and very B-nessly, to seek a responsible agent or “cause.” To think conceptually in terms of control systems (e.g., authority and responsibility) rather than theoretically in terms of operating systems (needed capabilities). Even though, personally, they want to make a difference.
***
* Not necessarily a B-ness substance or a B-speak concept. “Consequence,” conceptually, too often points only to an instance of IN consequence rather than to a quality of the Nature of Things: consequentiality (along with partial order and discontinuity). “Consequence” takes the plural; it is thus victim to the ambiguity of the singular. (That ambiguity which is resolved by liberating the Expansion and the S-universe from the jaws of B-ness and B-speak. Open wide the fan of freedom!).
** Enough so to make it as reasonable to speak of an S-universe as it is of a B-universe … so as to lay the groundwork for a step science and procedural technology (mettle alloying) not encumbered by Stone Age behavioral instances. Where we answer not just to the outcome-based ratio of functional/dysfunctional but to the forward-looking ratio of functionality/needed functionality … and with an eye to the ratio of these ratios. Let’s talk about steps, not behaviors.
*** QED … given our Stone Age dependence on B-universe mettle ores (behavioral instances: the extent to now of our procedural technology) with which to construct more productive procedures ... and new solutions. Resulting in disastrous ratios of responsibility/capability >1+. We let survival guide us forward instead of differentiate’s slice and splice. S-universe “behavioral science” – were one to be realized -- would be experimenting with mettle alloying: more Trials, fewer tries.
# “Discontinuity” is a misapprehension. A mistake, logically. Differentiation is the third general persisting condition of the Nature of Things. This did not become apparent until we could see the Expansion fully, freed of B-ness, and see that the Expansion is, in fact, the Nature of Things … and note its principle of differentiate## … “Discontinuity” pertains to a “things of nature” relationship. Hence “supergappiness” as a synonym was ambiguous: Does it pertain to a quality of the Nature of Things or to a quantity of gaps? If we were looking at the totality of structure, then discontinuity was just as apparent as continuity … and thus the source of the misapprehension.
## Differentiate as principle shows The Way: That principle which applies to all phenomena. A far different matter than searching out various principles and various phenomena … and their relationships (i.e., differences [including similarities]). The word “differentiation” as concept defeats differentiate’s effectiveness, however. We can see three distinctive point TO’s: principle of differentiate (science); process of slice and splice (technology); and compositional product (art). Differentiate in the Expansion, slice and splice in the S-universe, and (B-speak-confounded) “composition” in the B-universe.###
### CEM (contingent emergent materiality) is the highest form of differentiate and differentiation.
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
The Expansion would come to comprise bodies … and much later professional observers positioned on one of those bodies would see, looking at the Expansion in cross-section, what they deemed an expanding universe: an expanding B-universe. Condemning the behavior-rich Expansion to its current 1-dimensional status as a mere attribute. (Do they imagine that “black holes” are not hypostasized behavior?) And, further, relegating all observed behaviors (“actions”) to the possession of this and/or that body or body-body relationship . Leaving behind – and unfortunately ahead as well – S-universe behavior not so attached.
Behaviors incompletely and inaccurately represented by B-speak (what is said about, WISA, re what is talked about, WITA). Essential behavior: what is called for, WICF, and what there is to be talked about, WTITBTA. And most importantly, behavior per se: of the Expansion itself and its further differentiation into S-universe steps with the emergence of multi-step bodies.**
The concept of “behavior” could hardly be less felicitous. “Behave” is to comport: with a B-universe law, or with a statute or a norm – i.e., to rely on strategies of Adapt and/or Adopt for steps to take. If we assume that a combination of B-ness and One-ness were foundation enough, then why do we find ourselves so much in need of Adept? Why do we find that control systems do not meet the need for operating systems? That justice comes too late? That we lack preparedness?
The “universe” misread is understandable. When we need to Grasp something, but that something is an assortment of dispersed things, then so as to Mind and/or Move them, it makes sense to gather them together, to pick then up and/or to see them as One for what we may make of them and with them. So has it been with the B- universe for bodies. But not the S-universe for steps. Instead we have tried to accommodate steps as B-universe materiality: as instances of body and body-body behaviors. Then using B-speak “concepts” to provide a one-ness representation of these behavioral instances.
All of a piece: B-ness, B-speak plus One-ness. As if the Expansion and S-universe had no distinctive principles and phenomena of their own. An impression we might well get when, as now, a pandemic confronts us and finds us wanting … needing procedural technology with which to meet its challenge … and finding tool technology to produce a vaccine but lacking a behavioral science*** that could have furnished help for the needed procedural technology.
Most critically, as if “things of nature“ were all we needed to know about the Nature of Things … about the Expansion and its principles (especially differentiate) and phenomena (especially emergence). Would we even be talking about racism if we Grasped the Expansion’s principle of differentiate?
The laws of the B-universe – what there are of them -- are limited in their applicability. They say how things do or must work -- or how things are supposed to work but don’t (e.g., statutes). Suitable for behavioral strategies of Adapt and Adopt. Principles also apply to how things work. But principles allow of functional equivalence. Suitable for a strategy of Adept. The Expansion’s principle of differentiate applies to the technologies of slice and/or splice … and to endless variations via molecular step extension. The S-universe has principles, such as “Mind before Move” to take advantage of the “next step” option … with ”follow the leader” as a functional – if not pragmatic – equivalent.
S-universe actors (step makers and takers) need a principled operating system (a critical part of the missing procedural tech: see the “behavioral problem”) so as to be prepared for the inevitable succession of situational problems they will meet.
One-ness has its stakeholders. Those who for one reason or another turn away from the Nature of Things’ general persisting conditions of partial order (!), consequentiality and discontinuity#. Typically, and very B-nessly, to seek a responsible agent or “cause.” To think conceptually in terms of control systems (e.g., authority and responsibility) rather than theoretically in terms of operating systems (needed capabilities). Even though, personally, they want to make a difference.
* Not necessarily a B-ness substance or a B-speak concept. “Consequence,” conceptually, too often points only to an instance of IN consequence rather than to a quality of the Nature of Things: consequentiality (along with partial order and discontinuity). “Consequence” takes the plural; it is thus victim to the ambiguity of the singular. (That ambiguity which is resolved by liberating the Expansion and the S-universe from the jaws of B-ness and B-speak. Open wide the fan of freedom!).
** Enough so to make it as reasonable to speak of an S-universe as it is of a B-universe … so as to lay the groundwork for a step science and procedural technology (mettle alloying) not encumbered by Stone Age behavioral instances. Where we answer not just to the outcome-based ratio of functional/dysfunctional but to the forward-looking ratio of functionality/needed functionality … and with an eye to the ratio of these ratios. Let’s talk about steps, not behaviors.
*** QED … given our Stone Age dependence on B-universe mettle ores (behavioral instances: the extent to now of our procedural technology) with which to construct more productive procedures ... and new solutions. Resulting in disastrous ratios of responsibility/capability >1+. We let survival guide us forward instead of differentiate’s slice and splice. S-universe “behavioral science” – were one to be realized -- would be experimenting with mettle alloying: more Trials, fewer tries.
# “Discontinuity” is a misapprehension. A mistake, logically. Differentiation is the third general persisting condition of the Nature of Things. This did not become apparent until we could see the Expansion fully, freed of B-ness, and see that the Expansion is, in fact, the Nature of Things … and note its principle of differentiate## … “Discontinuity” pertains to a “things of nature” relationship. Hence “supergappiness” as a synonym was ambiguous: Does it pertain to a quality of the Nature of Things or to a quantity of gaps? If we were looking at the totality of structure, then discontinuity was just as apparent as continuity … and thus the source of the misapprehension.
## Differentiate as principle shows The Way: That principle which applies to all phenomena. A far different matter than searching out various principles and various phenomena … and their relationships (i.e., differences [including similarities]). The word “differentiation” as concept defeats differentiate’s effectiveness, however. We can see three distinctive point TO’s: principle of differentiate (science); process of slice and splice (technology); and compositional product (art). Differentiate in the Expansion, slice and splice in the S-universe, and (B-speak-confounded) “composition” in the B-universe.###
### CEM (contingent emergent materiality) is the highest form of differentiate and differentiation.
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