C-260.12 Starting anew
Stop! However conceived (e.g., “a new beginning,” “starting over”) the reason for this “pause” before the next step – the Frontier’s continuing behavioral option –probably has something to do with needed functionality.
Onward =/= forward: invoking the pragmatic precept. Onward =/= Forward, most especially. As here and now, AT and ON the Frontier for Forward Progress. For our R-Excalibur development. In the S-universe and the Expansion.
Onward may well be just simply more of the same, a looking backwards from the Frontier. Subject to the kind of technological determinism we have seen with B-ness and B-speak … B-speak, in which its dictionary may consider “onward” and “forward” synonyms. Further illustrated by “AI” technologies of tool and procedure – i.e., looking backwards for more efficiency when forwards for more effectiveness is what is called for (WICF).
Humanity’s Mind needs more and better procedural technology. Lacking fully programmed instruction, we need to think more about “Think” – i.e., develop Mind (an R-word). We don’t have to “start over” in the sense of “going back to the beginning.” Not in B-ness terms anyway. The R-transform, =R=>, provides what we need to begin anew with more – and more helpful – technology.
It’s too easy to overlook an important Tell of “alchemy”: It points to Behavior. It said then and in spirit still says, “Develop! Progress is possible.”
Those who can, do. Those who know, can. But science (i.e., to know), as well as architecture (i.e., to build), needs a rewind to the Build (R-word) of technology for what we can’t do but need the Know tech to Know how to do. And they need a Forward foundation for their molecular step extension as much, if not more, than an upward foundation for their B-ness skyscrapers.
With two universes, our “world,” conceptually speaking, can – might be, ought to be -- a different world. The S-universe World of Possibility. Of freedom TO. (That does not follow automatically after freedoms From and OF … that must be built, that can not abide those who stand apart from or against needed development of needed Slicing steps).This world in which we need to be and with which we need to start over. Our next step(s) should show that. Our next big technology -- of Mind tech procedures – will have to help our step making and taking as we work to help our selves. We need to see matters differently, more completely and accurately as with the R-transform to Read the Expansion and its Frontier, to operate in the S-universe as well as the B-universe.
“Free will? Yes. But only if we are able to exercise the Frontier’s “next step” option. And willing to exercise it. Complacency and least effort lurk. Our next step option, based on the Nature of Things’ general persisting condition of step discontinuity: our freedom FROM prior step and steps, and our freedom OF this next step. But “free will” also depends on our freedom TO build the next step: our architectural capability, an S-universe undertaking.
Starting anew is a good idea, because so far our problem-solving steps are not impressive and our problems appear to becoming more frequent and difficult. (As exemplified by the alarming ratio of transport/message >1++ in communication and information technologies [computer-powered Internet and linguistic erosion].) We need to make and take molecular steps to solve them, especially tech-enhanced steps (procedural techs, to the needed nth degree) that will enable us to make and take those needed steps. We need to solve the Solve problem … a circumstance pointed to by the distinction between the Sbeh and Ssit conditions paralleling that between the Pbeh and Psit conditions.
We need to be operating in the S-universe as well as the B-universe. Building molecular steps according to principles of the Expansion. Building an operating system (O.S.) to alleviate our dependence on faltering control systems (C.S.) to improve our behavioral conduct. (C.S./O.S. >1++ -- more a matter of behaviors than of Behavior qua functionality).
Have we been significantly constrained from the steps we need in order to bring about our needed functionality? Yes. By Mind technologies geared to the B-universe: B-ness and B-speak (O:S-P). Underestimating the totality of consequentiality to the distress of our effectiveness. Squeezing the life out of steps, as in the concept-deflating linguistic usages of “human condition,” “expanding universe” and “behavioral entity.” Also “behavioral science” and “behavioral architecture,” among countless other B-speak reductions of materiality for Behavioral terms (the oppressive upside-down Mind tech fallacy). What concepts have and do cost us. Science is Behavior (Simpson). We might and should do more of it and do it better, as with S-universe Trials (KMmt). There is an architecture FOR, not just OF, Behavior to be had (i.e., the molecular step) … as (very much) needed functionality. Seen now only after the fact, and vaguely through the Mind tech fogs of B-ness and B-speak. (As noted by, “Instinct plus outstinct = extinct.”)
Masking and confounding different types of problems in the all-encompassing conceptual guise of “problematic situations.” Promoting “laws” (e.g., an “ordered universe”) to the disadvantage of needed and applicable principles. Emphasizing Adopt and Adapt strategies to the neglect of Adept … and, crucially, the Accord metastrategy.
***
A new start for next step architecture needs a sound foundation. Past instances of behavior are not the material we need for the “behavioral foundations of effective problem solving” (BFEPS.org). We need steps. Molecular step building needs a theory FOR, not the conceptual fruits of experience. “Step,” an R-word, provides the needed materiality given its embeddedness in the needed functionality of the Nature of Things’ general persisting conditions.
Step as the requisite architectural unit has the further theoretical contribution to make as the developmental complement to Darwin’s natural selection mechanism. It fills the huge materiality gap, the vast stretches of consequentiality in life, between evolution’s generations. A life in which collision after collision raises the question of survival for both natural selection and the “I CEM G” of steps made and taken … their capability (not just capacity) to arrange and avoid collisions as needed. Our failure to see the full Involve of Totality: missing the Expansion and the S-universe, has left us with our Stone Age conceptual and Instances Grasp of Behavior.
Also, the step’s basic structure (Involve CEM Grasp) follows the Expansion’s principle of differentiation: 1/ in its bi-ness (Slice); 2/ in its resolution (Splice); and 3/ in its contingent emergent materiality, CEM (Swing). When the step is differentiated into Mind CEM Move, “I CEM G” applies within each of Mind and Move … and to further extended differentiation in molecular step construction.
And this in Accord with the fact of History: the CEM of body and step once the Expansion reached the discontinuity condition for both body and step (i.e., multi-step “animation”) from its beginning, post-Big Bang, as undifferentiated behavior qua “energy.”
In light of the very useful Search feature now available, parenthetical back references are suspended for Comments as of C-184.
(c) 2022 R. F. Carter
Onward =/= forward: invoking the pragmatic precept. Onward =/= Forward, most especially. As here and now, AT and ON the Frontier for Forward Progress. For our R-Excalibur development. In the S-universe and the Expansion.
Onward may well be just simply more of the same, a looking backwards from the Frontier. Subject to the kind of technological determinism we have seen with B-ness and B-speak … B-speak, in which its dictionary may consider “onward” and “forward” synonyms. Further illustrated by “AI” technologies of tool and procedure – i.e., looking backwards for more efficiency when forwards for more effectiveness is what is called for (WICF).
Humanity’s Mind needs more and better procedural technology. Lacking fully programmed instruction, we need to think more about “Think” – i.e., develop Mind (an R-word). We don’t have to “start over” in the sense of “going back to the beginning.” Not in B-ness terms anyway. The R-transform, =R=>, provides what we need to begin anew with more – and more helpful – technology.
It’s too easy to overlook an important Tell of “alchemy”: It points to Behavior. It said then and in spirit still says, “Develop! Progress is possible.”
Those who can, do. Those who know, can. But science (i.e., to know), as well as architecture (i.e., to build), needs a rewind to the Build (R-word) of technology for what we can’t do but need the Know tech to Know how to do. And they need a Forward foundation for their molecular step extension as much, if not more, than an upward foundation for their B-ness skyscrapers.
With two universes, our “world,” conceptually speaking, can – might be, ought to be -- a different world. The S-universe World of Possibility. Of freedom TO. (That does not follow automatically after freedoms From and OF … that must be built, that can not abide those who stand apart from or against needed development of needed Slicing steps).This world in which we need to be and with which we need to start over. Our next step(s) should show that. Our next big technology -- of Mind tech procedures – will have to help our step making and taking as we work to help our selves. We need to see matters differently, more completely and accurately as with the R-transform to Read the Expansion and its Frontier, to operate in the S-universe as well as the B-universe.
“Free will? Yes. But only if we are able to exercise the Frontier’s “next step” option. And willing to exercise it. Complacency and least effort lurk. Our next step option, based on the Nature of Things’ general persisting condition of step discontinuity: our freedom FROM prior step and steps, and our freedom OF this next step. But “free will” also depends on our freedom TO build the next step: our architectural capability, an S-universe undertaking.
Starting anew is a good idea, because so far our problem-solving steps are not impressive and our problems appear to becoming more frequent and difficult. (As exemplified by the alarming ratio of transport/message >1++ in communication and information technologies [computer-powered Internet and linguistic erosion].) We need to make and take molecular steps to solve them, especially tech-enhanced steps (procedural techs, to the needed nth degree) that will enable us to make and take those needed steps. We need to solve the Solve problem … a circumstance pointed to by the distinction between the Sbeh and Ssit conditions paralleling that between the Pbeh and Psit conditions.
We need to be operating in the S-universe as well as the B-universe. Building molecular steps according to principles of the Expansion. Building an operating system (O.S.) to alleviate our dependence on faltering control systems (C.S.) to improve our behavioral conduct. (C.S./O.S. >1++ -- more a matter of behaviors than of Behavior qua functionality).
Have we been significantly constrained from the steps we need in order to bring about our needed functionality? Yes. By Mind technologies geared to the B-universe: B-ness and B-speak (O:S-P). Underestimating the totality of consequentiality to the distress of our effectiveness. Squeezing the life out of steps, as in the concept-deflating linguistic usages of “human condition,” “expanding universe” and “behavioral entity.” Also “behavioral science” and “behavioral architecture,” among countless other B-speak reductions of materiality for Behavioral terms (the oppressive upside-down Mind tech fallacy). What concepts have and do cost us. Science is Behavior (Simpson). We might and should do more of it and do it better, as with S-universe Trials (KMmt). There is an architecture FOR, not just OF, Behavior to be had (i.e., the molecular step) … as (very much) needed functionality. Seen now only after the fact, and vaguely through the Mind tech fogs of B-ness and B-speak. (As noted by, “Instinct plus outstinct = extinct.”)
Masking and confounding different types of problems in the all-encompassing conceptual guise of “problematic situations.” Promoting “laws” (e.g., an “ordered universe”) to the disadvantage of needed and applicable principles. Emphasizing Adopt and Adapt strategies to the neglect of Adept … and, crucially, the Accord metastrategy.
A new start for next step architecture needs a sound foundation. Past instances of behavior are not the material we need for the “behavioral foundations of effective problem solving” (BFEPS.org). We need steps. Molecular step building needs a theory FOR, not the conceptual fruits of experience. “Step,” an R-word, provides the needed materiality given its embeddedness in the needed functionality of the Nature of Things’ general persisting conditions.
Step as the requisite architectural unit has the further theoretical contribution to make as the developmental complement to Darwin’s natural selection mechanism. It fills the huge materiality gap, the vast stretches of consequentiality in life, between evolution’s generations. A life in which collision after collision raises the question of survival for both natural selection and the “I CEM G” of steps made and taken … their capability (not just capacity) to arrange and avoid collisions as needed. Our failure to see the full Involve of Totality: missing the Expansion and the S-universe, has left us with our Stone Age conceptual and Instances Grasp of Behavior.
Also, the step’s basic structure (Involve CEM Grasp) follows the Expansion’s principle of differentiation: 1/ in its bi-ness (Slice); 2/ in its resolution (Splice); and 3/ in its contingent emergent materiality, CEM (Swing). When the step is differentiated into Mind CEM Move, “I CEM G” applies within each of Mind and Move … and to further extended differentiation in molecular step construction.
And this in Accord with the fact of History: the CEM of body and step once the Expansion reached the discontinuity condition for both body and step (i.e., multi-step “animation”) from its beginning, post-Big Bang, as undifferentiated behavior qua “energy.”
In light of the very useful Search feature now available, parenthetical back references are suspended for Comments as of C-184.
(c) 2022 R. F. Carter
S