C-111. Realization transform

The Fourier transform does three things very well, although the third may not be as apparent as it should be….
  1. It demonstrates the power of mathematics and mathematical theory as a procedural tool resource (App.VII);
  2. It lends itself to technological solutions of problems that at first acquaintance do not seem tractable (e.g., electronic wave adjustments); and,
  3. It adds to our picture of what we are talking about, giving us a more complete understanding of phenomena of interest and concern to us.
Why bring this up? Because in discussing opposition and absence (C-108), we introduced this last point, in contrasting the ahistorical and historical perspectives:


Where “-1…+1,”as in opposition, represents the ahistorical and “0…1,” as in absence, represents the historical. (But the two are not to be seen as opposed; they are orthogonal: independent, complementary and interdependent [XI].)

When we are talking about behavior, as for problem solving, complete realization is necessary. (Approach-avoidance [-1…+1] simply won’t do. See C-113: History of behavior.) Further, a complete understanding of needed functionality is but the first stage of realization (0…1) –i.e., of achieved functionality and the problem’s solution (App. XIX).

Realization, we see, constitutes a transformation from behavior seen simply in terms of behavioral entity’s approach-avoidance. This “seen simply” however much we may elaborate approach-avoidance, as in valuative terms of relative attraction and/or rate of movement of one behavioral entity to another, or, now quite commonly, by attributing behaviors as entity properties – in some degree of possession or lack of possession, then calculating the correlation between these “variables.” At best this screens P=>S candidates among past solutions, at worst merely beating chance (or competing solutions if in decision-making mode) while ostensibly demonstrating a discovery in the realm of the order of things (III; C-17, C-39). A discovery of limited productivity with respect to solving problems – i.e., realization.

Little wonder then that we consider realization to be a necessary “4th R” for core developmental employment in a more basic education (C-107).

We saw early on (III; VII) the utility of such an R-transform when we parsed the “mind-body problem”:a conceptualization mistaken on all three counts: It’s not two entities, and not a problem but a question.

As a one vs. two entity question it is opaque. But transformed behaviorally, to a minding/moving problem, we can look to needed functionality in each of minding and moving (e.g., developing their respective involve/grasp interdependences: C-105) and begin to develop the strength of capability and power of technology with which to solve our problems.

With the R-transform, the architecture of the step (C-90) becomes as apparent and available to human progress as the more familiar architecture of the body.

The R-transform helps complete our picture of humans as behavioral entities, and to produce the foundation for effective problem solving. A complete SGN correction (C-104) is required, not just for the body emphasis, but also for emphases on particulars (relative to non-universal generality) and the order of things (relative to the Nature of Things and its partial order)… to counter, but then complement, the BPO bias (C-39).

The R-transform works because its stages (App. XIX) capture the thrust of “Life: the double crystal” (III), the interdependence (XI) of body and step (B, S), of structure and function:
  • St-1. B: Body/structure’s needed functionality;
  • St-2. S: Step/function’s capability development;
  • St-3. S => B: Step/function’s shaping (esp. composition) of structures;
  • St-4. B => S: (New) Body/structure’s functionality.
The R-transform is important in another way, in contrast to the mathematical calculus. The calculus transform reduces behavior to movement in body time-space, and thus limits our grasp of behavior. The R-transform expands behavior to complex molecular structures of step making and step taking (C-90), and thereby removes constraints on our grasp of behavior.

In still another important contribution, the R-transform provides a solution for the “Verstehen” problem of differences between observer and actor points of view and perspectives. If both observer and actor can come to share the R-grasp (C-107), they will not seem so alien to each other. The observer will not be looking at “action meaning” while the actor looks at “act meaning.” Both will have both consequentiality and functionality re WICF (C:110: What is called for’s needed functionality) in view.

(c) R.F. Carter