C-250. Know thy selves
“Individual” and “community” are familiar as concepts, comprising instances of B-ness individuals and B-ness communities. But we have had, and still have, difficulties and troubles getting them to “work,” to achieve functionality commensurate with needed functionality. As countless unsolved problems attest, principally the behavioral problem, Pbeh, in consequence of the Nature of Things. We need, by procedural technologies, to achieve enhanced operating systems. We need to become the CEM selves that behavioral architecture calls for.
If we treat individual and community as selves, as theoretical constructs, concerned with what they need to be … then we can bring development theory to bear, to produce a more functional operating system. The alternative to an operating system we are all too familiar with: an imposed control system predicated on the results of past behaviors (e.g., policing, penal system, “law and order”).*
As theoretical constructs we can treat individuals and communities as selves with respect to that functionality. Not simply – and all too quickly – as identity instances like “me” and “where I live.” We can treat these selves as Pbeh equals in terms of needed functionality. Other -- and more -- functionality than simply identity. With added value: that which comes to work for one may work for the other, “scaling up” or “scaling down.”**
Theoretical constructs pertain to what individuals and communities are becoming or not becoming, as much as – and much more than -- what they are and have been. This to correct our point of view and perspective to avoid the limitations and bias of B-ness, B-speak and One-ness that bedevil concepts and instances.***
Both individuals and communities lend themselves, behaviorally, to enhancement via architecture’s procedural technologies. It helps then that we have a shared theoretical foundation on which we can build needed procedural techs. A foundation that respects unmet need, that doesn’t presume to Read the future solely on the basis of past behavioral instances.
Prediction from past instances was never adequate as an explanation. It would be, of course, if One-ness could stand as the explanation. The Nature of Things’ partial order dismisses that possibility. One-ness is also not a message that agrees with the Expansion’s principle: to differentiate. And our individual and community desires to be of consequence refract that … spectacularly if we develop our capabilities so that we re able to slice, splice and swing.#
***
Know. Not just learn. The Nature of Things gifts us with incomplete instruction, and no amount of learning (aka information) will change that. We shall always have to come to know, to find out by the steps we make as we endeavor to meet needed functionality with functionalities crafted – not discovered. There is no end to what can be learned, we say. Walk into any library and look around! But for all the learning there is and will be, Know (an R-word) will always be a necessary capability – i.e., mettle.##
The Know mettle is already at a serious disadvantage in child rearing (App. XXIII). Parents and then others “can’t wait” to begin the child’s learning. This even though before “first word” the child has begun to know, via uninformed tries. The Learn/Know >1 ratio rarely gets better. Acculturation triumphs … at least until the particular culture becomes oppressive. But then the Learn-conditioned rebel may just look for an alternative culture – or cult.
We have seen (C-249) that the Know mettle has been underdeveloped, even among scientists, whose profession must include coming to know better (the intransitive) and not just to know things better (the transitive). “Know thy selves knowing” might be an appropriate extension of “Know thyself.”
Selves and Know are architectural, matters of aspiration, beyond that which is learned into that which is possible. That which the consequential self seeks for life’s meaning. That which can be found out ( KMmt) in the Expansion and the S-universe.
***
* Laboring toward a criterion of functional/dysfunctional rather than that of functionality/needed functionality. As Eve laments, why can’t we do something up front to improve our steps and not just depend on sorting the bad and good ones after we see how the steps come out. Think “selvish” and not just “selfish.”
** While someone enamored of One-ness, using a concept, is taken aback by an observed exception among instances (e.g., a black swan), an observer using a theoretical construct would welcome any number of functional equivalents.
*** Theoretical constructs allow us to address what might be and what ought to be, not just what is and has been … with respect to behavior: To build in this World of Possibility. If we look to the Nature of Things and not just at the things of nature, to the Expansion and the S-universe and not just to the B-universe.
# “Swing” to the criterion of CEM (contingent emergent materiality), that is. An indication of balanced composition, as in the alloying of mettles. Balanced to the criterion of optimum CEM, mettles alloyed by balanced ratio or proportion.
## Can the “next big technology” augment the Know capability that the several selves need? The KMmt architecture for the forward-going molecular step (Trial, not try) is suggestive.
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
If we treat individual and community as selves, as theoretical constructs, concerned with what they need to be … then we can bring development theory to bear, to produce a more functional operating system. The alternative to an operating system we are all too familiar with: an imposed control system predicated on the results of past behaviors (e.g., policing, penal system, “law and order”).*
As theoretical constructs we can treat individuals and communities as selves with respect to that functionality. Not simply – and all too quickly – as identity instances like “me” and “where I live.” We can treat these selves as Pbeh equals in terms of needed functionality. Other -- and more -- functionality than simply identity. With added value: that which comes to work for one may work for the other, “scaling up” or “scaling down.”**
Theoretical constructs pertain to what individuals and communities are becoming or not becoming, as much as – and much more than -- what they are and have been. This to correct our point of view and perspective to avoid the limitations and bias of B-ness, B-speak and One-ness that bedevil concepts and instances.***
Both individuals and communities lend themselves, behaviorally, to enhancement via architecture’s procedural technologies. It helps then that we have a shared theoretical foundation on which we can build needed procedural techs. A foundation that respects unmet need, that doesn’t presume to Read the future solely on the basis of past behavioral instances.
Prediction from past instances was never adequate as an explanation. It would be, of course, if One-ness could stand as the explanation. The Nature of Things’ partial order dismisses that possibility. One-ness is also not a message that agrees with the Expansion’s principle: to differentiate. And our individual and community desires to be of consequence refract that … spectacularly if we develop our capabilities so that we re able to slice, splice and swing.#
Know. Not just learn. The Nature of Things gifts us with incomplete instruction, and no amount of learning (aka information) will change that. We shall always have to come to know, to find out by the steps we make as we endeavor to meet needed functionality with functionalities crafted – not discovered. There is no end to what can be learned, we say. Walk into any library and look around! But for all the learning there is and will be, Know (an R-word) will always be a necessary capability – i.e., mettle.##
The Know mettle is already at a serious disadvantage in child rearing (App. XXIII). Parents and then others “can’t wait” to begin the child’s learning. This even though before “first word” the child has begun to know, via uninformed tries. The Learn/Know >1 ratio rarely gets better. Acculturation triumphs … at least until the particular culture becomes oppressive. But then the Learn-conditioned rebel may just look for an alternative culture – or cult.
We have seen (C-249) that the Know mettle has been underdeveloped, even among scientists, whose profession must include coming to know better (the intransitive) and not just to know things better (the transitive). “Know thy selves knowing” might be an appropriate extension of “Know thyself.”
Selves and Know are architectural, matters of aspiration, beyond that which is learned into that which is possible. That which the consequential self seeks for life’s meaning. That which can be found out ( KMmt) in the Expansion and the S-universe.
* Laboring toward a criterion of functional/dysfunctional rather than that of functionality/needed functionality. As Eve laments, why can’t we do something up front to improve our steps and not just depend on sorting the bad and good ones after we see how the steps come out. Think “selvish” and not just “selfish.”
** While someone enamored of One-ness, using a concept, is taken aback by an observed exception among instances (e.g., a black swan), an observer using a theoretical construct would welcome any number of functional equivalents.
*** Theoretical constructs allow us to address what might be and what ought to be, not just what is and has been … with respect to behavior: To build in this World of Possibility. If we look to the Nature of Things and not just at the things of nature, to the Expansion and the S-universe and not just to the B-universe.
# “Swing” to the criterion of CEM (contingent emergent materiality), that is. An indication of balanced composition, as in the alloying of mettles. Balanced to the criterion of optimum CEM, mettles alloyed by balanced ratio or proportion.
## Can the “next big technology” augment the Know capability that the several selves need? The KMmt architecture for the forward-going molecular step (Trial, not try) is suggestive.
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