C-260.4 Conceptual deflation: very serious business
When it comes to the matter of Humanity, conceptual deflation is indeed very serious business. What can we do with it conceptually and/or theoretically? What have we done with Humanity using B-speak?
What does “the human condition” mean? Consider it in the light of B-speak’s use of adjectives, which can – and too often does -- produce double concepts (serious thoughtknots) and here the conceptual deflation of “human” in “human condition”. When what we desperately need is theory FOR to guide us, as Humanity, for needed functionality … in the Nature of Things’ absence of a fully determined path.
This is a place where we should invoke the pragmatic precept (PP). Is there a difference here, obscured by B-speak, that makes a difference? Would it make sense to say, “The human condition is not just a human condition”? It does, actually. There’s a difference between “the” and “a”.*
Let’s talk about two human conditions, HC-1 and HC-2. Take HC-2 first. With HC-2, we can, and usually do with B-speak, take an “objective” view. Any and every condition we talk about is treated objectively and homogeneously – as a focus of attention. Whether the condition is an entity or not. HC-2 covers all conditions objectively relevant to humans: as instances relevant to humans as instances. Even humans. Conceptually.
But what about “Humanity”? Especially what if we see it as needed functionality, Grasping it within the Involve of the Expansion and the Nature of Things? See it as sometimes lacking (i.e., an operating system)? Or Grasp it as a wanted state (e.g., such as “flow” [M. Csikszentmihalyi])? Or Grasp it as functionality (i.e., Help [an R-word])?
What about “Humanity” as a different kind of “human condition”: “More human.” Let that be HC-1. A condition that we might, ought to, explore for itself and not just in regard to its “interface” potential with all the other human-related conditions.** (Including what is conceptually seen as “self-consciousness,” how we see our selves “objectively.” Doesn’t “observer: observed” Tell us to respect the HC-1/HC-2 difference? [PP])
The distinction between the behavioral problem, Pbeh, and the situational problem, Psit, has been pointing to the difference between the HC-1 and HC-2 conditions. The companion distinction: between the behavioral solution, Sbeh, and the situational solution, Ssit, makes the same point.
Is that good enough, however?
***
Humanity and HC-1 point to the operating system (O.S.) that selves need so much. Communities need it of necessity, lacking corporal form. For individual re community the CEM of Union to be realized too. Realized in the Expansion (History) and by our next steps In the S-universe. “Humanity” does not serve us well if we see it as but the aggregate of humans.*** It needs to be a theoretical construct. But like other “-ity” suffixed terms, it does not lend itself to the R-word language of the Expansion’s Realization.
“Help” does. It’s an R-word. So let’s talk about Help, especially in its many-layered technological form. As discussed in App. I, Help needs Help which needs Help … up, at least, to five layers and removes, and involving both the helper and the helped along with the helping. An underdeveloped technology, especially procedural, considering our success elsewhere in meeting needed functionality with tool functionality.
W need to be able to talk about Humanity, HC-1 and O.S., in regard to functionality re needed functionality—i.e., in the S-universe and in the embrace of the Expansion – i.e., the Nature of Things – because needed functionality is not going away. The absence of a predetermined R(ealization)-path persists … and functionality needed is being added to by the consequences of the functionalities attained: NF/F >1++.#
O.S. development for HC-1 requires theory FOR and the theoretical constructs of the Expansion and the S-universe. B-speak concepts can take us only so far. As in the case of “empathy” re Help. The existentialist emphasis on HC-1 (e.g., Sartre’s conceptual “authenticity”) registers a Slice (of the HC-1, HC-2 “situational”) confounding. But it seems – perhaps in disdain for the metaphysical – to have missed the circumstances of the Nature of Things’ general persisting conditions and the Expansion’s principles … circumstances of fundamental consequence for human development (HC-2 re HC-1). We can be non-physical without being metaphysical. Then we can Splice and Swing (e.g., Kierkegaard conceptual “well balanced character”) with the help of procedural tech.
We can make a conceptually useful point TO, via PP, between “identity” and “agency” as two segments of needed functionality: “identity” for when as HC-1 you have a furnished path – as a scripted actor, and “agency” for when as HC-1 you don’t: it’s up to you to furnish your own path – as an actor without a script. The difference between just taking steps and having to make them. If you decline the step-making option, you probably indulge in the simplicity of “identity politics.” An ever-growing ratio: identity/agency >1++. And you are missing out on what the Expansion and S-universe have to offer you in the World of Possibility.##
Because you still have to make “identity” and “agency” work, procedurally – and with procedural technology Help.
***
Consider our case of the “climates.” Global warming qua climate is an HC-2 condition. Our “decision making/problem solving >1++” ratio, qua climate, is an HC-1 condition. The two conditions are obviously related: for the prospect of solving global warming as well as for the origin of global warming as a problem.
Problems, actually. All four quality of life problems are in evidence: O:Sp – reliefs from the effects of global warming are not, and probably will not, be evenly distributed; O:Ps – it will take more than laws and individual voluntarism to correct the deleterious effects of inadequately solved “energy” problems; O:P – needed collective capability still eludes us -- international meetings and agreements notwithstanding; and, O:S-P – B-ness based and biased (Body/Step >1+++) Mind technologies got us here and block our way Forward.
Is this yet again another “Tragedy of the Commons problem?” Ostensibly without technical solution (Harden)? It need not be. Not here AT, ON the Frontier of the Expansion, with the next step option to begin anew with “front of the step” Mind procedural technologies to Help us find our principled way. Forward.
Our way Forward first to We. As in our Forward principle of “Solve community first.” “We” as a theoretical construct, a theory FOR construct, not just as a concept. Pointing to needed functionality. The challenge of behavioral architecture, an HC-1 matter of building with the molecular step’s mettles and mettle alloying.
***
* Yes, it’s the B-speak “ambiguity of the singular” again.
** Usually packaged situationally (“This is the situation … actors included”). This is a reason why the B-ness “agenda” formulation of “observer: observed” has not been adequate to our disposition with respect to – and for! -- our selve(s) development. (See “Know thy selves” relative to “Know thyself.”)
*** No more than “humanism” serves us … as a compendium of practices, ideas, beliefs and other assorted instances. We need to be “humanists” in the pursuit of Humanity. Operating in the S-universe and the Expansion. And not operating as a mere population in accord with evolutionary more than developmental perspective.
# Very strikingly in the matter of “big government.” Instead of investing more attention to O.S. development (Eve’s lament re selves) we have tended to add more control system (C.S.), based on results. Our “C.S./O.S. >1+” ratio re development should be a warning signal of imbalanced dynamics. “Big government” is the price we pay. Those wishing for “a simpler life” might, ought to attend more to O.S. development – and the foundations for it. A more balanced O.S./C.S. This dynamics problem is very extensive. Consider our policy challenge in regard to policing: C.S. with respect to criminal behavior vs. O.S. with respect to helping the selves of community and individual. Technology, both tool and procedure, have advanced each salient tactically. But what of the strategy and, crucially, the metastrategy, underlying these advances? Don’t we have to do something at the earliest stages of each life about an R-path for O.S. and C.S.? It seems more of an investment problem than just an educational problem.
# # To suffer the consequences IN and OF an ever-growing “world” of possibilities. The matter of making “identity” and “agency” work, beyond the conceptual distinction, still requires a theory FOR: our =>R=> transfiguration to complete the needed S-universe Message information of functionality re needed functionality: the R-word verbs. Like “humanity,” they speak to unmet needs but offer no operating system.
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
What does “the human condition” mean? Consider it in the light of B-speak’s use of adjectives, which can – and too often does -- produce double concepts (serious thoughtknots) and here the conceptual deflation of “human” in “human condition”. When what we desperately need is theory FOR to guide us, as Humanity, for needed functionality … in the Nature of Things’ absence of a fully determined path.
This is a place where we should invoke the pragmatic precept (PP). Is there a difference here, obscured by B-speak, that makes a difference? Would it make sense to say, “The human condition is not just a human condition”? It does, actually. There’s a difference between “the” and “a”.*
Let’s talk about two human conditions, HC-1 and HC-2. Take HC-2 first. With HC-2, we can, and usually do with B-speak, take an “objective” view. Any and every condition we talk about is treated objectively and homogeneously – as a focus of attention. Whether the condition is an entity or not. HC-2 covers all conditions objectively relevant to humans: as instances relevant to humans as instances. Even humans. Conceptually.
But what about “Humanity”? Especially what if we see it as needed functionality, Grasping it within the Involve of the Expansion and the Nature of Things? See it as sometimes lacking (i.e., an operating system)? Or Grasp it as a wanted state (e.g., such as “flow” [M. Csikszentmihalyi])? Or Grasp it as functionality (i.e., Help [an R-word])?
What about “Humanity” as a different kind of “human condition”: “More human.” Let that be HC-1. A condition that we might, ought to, explore for itself and not just in regard to its “interface” potential with all the other human-related conditions.** (Including what is conceptually seen as “self-consciousness,” how we see our selves “objectively.” Doesn’t “observer: observed” Tell us to respect the HC-1/HC-2 difference? [PP])
The distinction between the behavioral problem, Pbeh, and the situational problem, Psit, has been pointing to the difference between the HC-1 and HC-2 conditions. The companion distinction: between the behavioral solution, Sbeh, and the situational solution, Ssit, makes the same point.
Is that good enough, however?
Humanity and HC-1 point to the operating system (O.S.) that selves need so much. Communities need it of necessity, lacking corporal form. For individual re community the CEM of Union to be realized too. Realized in the Expansion (History) and by our next steps In the S-universe. “Humanity” does not serve us well if we see it as but the aggregate of humans.*** It needs to be a theoretical construct. But like other “-ity” suffixed terms, it does not lend itself to the R-word language of the Expansion’s Realization.
“Help” does. It’s an R-word. So let’s talk about Help, especially in its many-layered technological form. As discussed in App. I, Help needs Help which needs Help … up, at least, to five layers and removes, and involving both the helper and the helped along with the helping. An underdeveloped technology, especially procedural, considering our success elsewhere in meeting needed functionality with tool functionality.
W need to be able to talk about Humanity, HC-1 and O.S., in regard to functionality re needed functionality—i.e., in the S-universe and in the embrace of the Expansion – i.e., the Nature of Things – because needed functionality is not going away. The absence of a predetermined R(ealization)-path persists … and functionality needed is being added to by the consequences of the functionalities attained: NF/F >1++.#
O.S. development for HC-1 requires theory FOR and the theoretical constructs of the Expansion and the S-universe. B-speak concepts can take us only so far. As in the case of “empathy” re Help. The existentialist emphasis on HC-1 (e.g., Sartre’s conceptual “authenticity”) registers a Slice (of the HC-1, HC-2 “situational”) confounding. But it seems – perhaps in disdain for the metaphysical – to have missed the circumstances of the Nature of Things’ general persisting conditions and the Expansion’s principles … circumstances of fundamental consequence for human development (HC-2 re HC-1). We can be non-physical without being metaphysical. Then we can Splice and Swing (e.g., Kierkegaard conceptual “well balanced character”) with the help of procedural tech.
We can make a conceptually useful point TO, via PP, between “identity” and “agency” as two segments of needed functionality: “identity” for when as HC-1 you have a furnished path – as a scripted actor, and “agency” for when as HC-1 you don’t: it’s up to you to furnish your own path – as an actor without a script. The difference between just taking steps and having to make them. If you decline the step-making option, you probably indulge in the simplicity of “identity politics.” An ever-growing ratio: identity/agency >1++. And you are missing out on what the Expansion and S-universe have to offer you in the World of Possibility.##
Because you still have to make “identity” and “agency” work, procedurally – and with procedural technology Help.
Consider our case of the “climates.” Global warming qua climate is an HC-2 condition. Our “decision making/problem solving >1++” ratio, qua climate, is an HC-1 condition. The two conditions are obviously related: for the prospect of solving global warming as well as for the origin of global warming as a problem.
Problems, actually. All four quality of life problems are in evidence: O:Sp – reliefs from the effects of global warming are not, and probably will not, be evenly distributed; O:Ps – it will take more than laws and individual voluntarism to correct the deleterious effects of inadequately solved “energy” problems; O:P – needed collective capability still eludes us -- international meetings and agreements notwithstanding; and, O:S-P – B-ness based and biased (Body/Step >1+++) Mind technologies got us here and block our way Forward.
Is this yet again another “Tragedy of the Commons problem?” Ostensibly without technical solution (Harden)? It need not be. Not here AT, ON the Frontier of the Expansion, with the next step option to begin anew with “front of the step” Mind procedural technologies to Help us find our principled way. Forward.
Our way Forward first to We. As in our Forward principle of “Solve community first.” “We” as a theoretical construct, a theory FOR construct, not just as a concept. Pointing to needed functionality. The challenge of behavioral architecture, an HC-1 matter of building with the molecular step’s mettles and mettle alloying.
* Yes, it’s the B-speak “ambiguity of the singular” again.
** Usually packaged situationally (“This is the situation … actors included”). This is a reason why the B-ness “agenda” formulation of “observer: observed” has not been adequate to our disposition with respect to – and for! -- our selve(s) development. (See “Know thy selves” relative to “Know thyself.”)
*** No more than “humanism” serves us … as a compendium of practices, ideas, beliefs and other assorted instances. We need to be “humanists” in the pursuit of Humanity. Operating in the S-universe and the Expansion. And not operating as a mere population in accord with evolutionary more than developmental perspective.
# Very strikingly in the matter of “big government.” Instead of investing more attention to O.S. development (Eve’s lament re selves) we have tended to add more control system (C.S.), based on results. Our “C.S./O.S. >1+” ratio re development should be a warning signal of imbalanced dynamics. “Big government” is the price we pay. Those wishing for “a simpler life” might, ought to attend more to O.S. development – and the foundations for it. A more balanced O.S./C.S. This dynamics problem is very extensive. Consider our policy challenge in regard to policing: C.S. with respect to criminal behavior vs. O.S. with respect to helping the selves of community and individual. Technology, both tool and procedure, have advanced each salient tactically. But what of the strategy and, crucially, the metastrategy, underlying these advances? Don’t we have to do something at the earliest stages of each life about an R-path for O.S. and C.S.? It seems more of an investment problem than just an educational problem.
# # To suffer the consequences IN and OF an ever-growing “world” of possibilities. The matter of making “identity” and “agency” work, beyond the conceptual distinction, still requires a theory FOR: our =>R=> transfiguration to complete the needed S-universe Message information of functionality re needed functionality: the R-word verbs. Like “humanity,” they speak to unmet needs but offer no operating system.
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