C-253. Beyond editing evolution
From the perspective of the Expansion, and in accord with its principle of differentiation, evolution’s natural selection is but one of several relevant “slice and splice” mechanisms. Collisions are another, as in “survival of the fittest.” Technological development, of procedure as well as tool, offers still another.
How might we improve the human condition? Improving the “supply side” of evolution’s natural selection can respond to the “demand side” for survival of the fittest in the collisions, many and hard, to be encountered in the Nature of Things’ general persisting conditions of partial order, consequentiality and discontinuity of both bodies and steps.
Or we might turn to development, not evolution, as the appropriate response to these general persisting conditions. To development of steps, not just bodies, in view of what is called for (WICF) by the NofT’s conditions ... to the needed functionality imposed by those conditions ... to the technologies with which steps can be strengthened to produce that functionality … to the making of those most capable of survival: the fittingest, the most imbued of behavioral architecture.
Now that we can “edit” the body’s DNA, slicing and splicing, more cognizant of what has been and might come to be in and to the body, can we also pay more attention to slicing and splicing the step? Where development, not evolution, is happening. Or needs to be happening. Where capability, not just capacity, is needed.
We cannot afford to settle for evolution as our engine forward. Nor can we accept evolution as concept and theory for explanation after the fact. Certainly not as a substitute metastrategy (e.g., Adopt + Adapt/Adept >1+++) for needed development. Needed development as contemplated by the concept of “human infrastructure” … a concept itself susceptible to the weakness of a limited “identity” brand of functionality (“persons who” instead of “steps that”) … a concept that does not address the architectural demands of realized selves -- individual, community and union.
***
Consider the concept of “agency.” Instances come to mind readily (e.g., “persons who,” “companies that”). And an evocation of effectiveness, of capability and responsibility. (“Those who can, do.”) But is that Grasp enough? Isn’t there, too, more than a vague (B-speak) sense of the “mind-body problem” here?
Are we not, in light of the Expansion and the S-universe, talking about a becoming of increased CEM: From body CEM step and the step’s Involve CEM Grasp to the step’s Mind CEM Move and the Mind’s and Move’s respective Involves CEM Grasps? To the point of “agency.” And if not, why not? Isn’t this the procedural tech assist that behavioral architecture calls for? (“Those who know, can.”)
This becoming whose need for differential capability is not fulfilled by the gift of evolution nor the dividends of unarranged collisions. This becoming whose requisite work of steps made and taken needs tech help for molecular step development – and a theory FOR as part of that tech help (e.g., the R-transfiguration to bring the Expansion and the S-universe into the picture, the R-transform to move problems and questions into the S-universe from the B-universe).
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
How might we improve the human condition? Improving the “supply side” of evolution’s natural selection can respond to the “demand side” for survival of the fittest in the collisions, many and hard, to be encountered in the Nature of Things’ general persisting conditions of partial order, consequentiality and discontinuity of both bodies and steps.
Or we might turn to development, not evolution, as the appropriate response to these general persisting conditions. To development of steps, not just bodies, in view of what is called for (WICF) by the NofT’s conditions ... to the needed functionality imposed by those conditions ... to the technologies with which steps can be strengthened to produce that functionality … to the making of those most capable of survival: the fittingest, the most imbued of behavioral architecture.
Now that we can “edit” the body’s DNA, slicing and splicing, more cognizant of what has been and might come to be in and to the body, can we also pay more attention to slicing and splicing the step? Where development, not evolution, is happening. Or needs to be happening. Where capability, not just capacity, is needed.
We cannot afford to settle for evolution as our engine forward. Nor can we accept evolution as concept and theory for explanation after the fact. Certainly not as a substitute metastrategy (e.g., Adopt + Adapt/Adept >1+++) for needed development. Needed development as contemplated by the concept of “human infrastructure” … a concept itself susceptible to the weakness of a limited “identity” brand of functionality (“persons who” instead of “steps that”) … a concept that does not address the architectural demands of realized selves -- individual, community and union.
Consider the concept of “agency.” Instances come to mind readily (e.g., “persons who,” “companies that”). And an evocation of effectiveness, of capability and responsibility. (“Those who can, do.”) But is that Grasp enough? Isn’t there, too, more than a vague (B-speak) sense of the “mind-body problem” here?
Are we not, in light of the Expansion and the S-universe, talking about a becoming of increased CEM: From body CEM step and the step’s Involve CEM Grasp to the step’s Mind CEM Move and the Mind’s and Move’s respective Involves CEM Grasps? To the point of “agency.” And if not, why not? Isn’t this the procedural tech assist that behavioral architecture calls for? (“Those who know, can.”)
This becoming whose need for differential capability is not fulfilled by the gift of evolution nor the dividends of unarranged collisions. This becoming whose requisite work of steps made and taken needs tech help for molecular step development – and a theory FOR as part of that tech help (e.g., the R-transfiguration to bring the Expansion and the S-universe into the picture, the R-transform to move problems and questions into the S-universe from the B-universe).
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