C-112. Union: the far frontier

In setting out a sketch of CEM-history (App. XI: diagram), we placed community as the farthest forward behavioral entity in the progression of contingent emergent materiality, following on the composition, cognition and communication developments that enable us to realize community as a functional – and functionally based – behavioral entity.

Another development needs to follow on community. It is union, our far frontier. It is the yet weakly realized interdependency of individual and community. Weak because community has not been well realized, weak because interdependency has not been well realized as a dynamic consideration, weak for lack of attention to needed balancing* (XI; C-71, C-80, C-82, C-104) –body/step balancing especially. “Union” is an R-word (C-107). Which is to say: union is a needed functionality. Union is not just this or that organization of company workers. Union is something we must all work toward. (Peace lovers take note.) We have settled for a technology of structural solutions for individual-community relationships without a foundation of needed functionality on which to base capability development and with which to invent behavioral technology to bring about a more productive union: that “…more perfect union” set forth purposively in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.(A Constitution, it should be noted, so much in need of dynamic balance between individual and community that the Bill of Rights was deemed immediately necessary.)

Not fully realized, union becomes the behavioral problem (I:Pbeh) underlying Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons” — thelatter situational problem (I:Psit) that for which we now see the potential of technological solution via the Realization transform (C-111). This behavioral problem can also be seen as supporting Churchill’s comment that democracy is very inefficient though still better than the other structural solutions.(Some experimentation of the Kt type, knowing via trying out [C-93], seems called for [C-100]. Union experimentation could even make community experimentation more fruitful [C-10], because it begins with needed functionality rather than a structural model of (late-stage functionality: C-97) entity relationships … making it more a matter of an operating system rather than a control system [C-36] – a control system being the feature of the Constitution’s “checks and balances” structural treatment of legislative, executive and judicial functions.) We could even view the American Revolution as incomplete, having been fought successfully against an oppressive British government practices but not against an oppressive mode of thinking (0:S-P; C-39: the BPO bias), such that we now face a massive impediment (IV), an Escarpment built of crippled minding (App. XVI: diagram; C-56) still to be conquered.

It is union that makes marriage an “as one” (C-23) rather than just a romanticized or legalized “one.” Union is not merely the entity quality of unity. Union is hard-earned capability and, optimally, a highly functional, continually reshaped structural composition. Union is not simply a coming together. Consider, for example, the many balancing (XI; App. XVII), and balancing of balancings (C-82), problems that arise in a lifetime and in a marriage. Union is much of what progressivism is all about (C-108). Union is democracy’s incompletely solved problem. Union is the humanity we need to become (App. XV).

Clearly, we are not talking about “unions” as particular entities here. As communities of a sort they pose difficult union – i.e., individual <=> community – challenges, as we see in anti- trade union situational problems (e.g., “right to work” laws) … these in the wake of unrealized community functionality between employeesand employers. (Internal public relations and communications notwithstanding.)

Somewhat paradoxically, although union is pictured as further forward than community in CEM-history, we are very unlikely to realize community unless we realize union first. (And realization of realization [R-grasp] before that (C-107, C-111.) The interdependence and balance (XI) required for union will have been needed for community building. Community is both IN and OF consequence (C-110). To be become IN, and then OF, consequence will take a union effort.

Union says there are three jobs for every member of a community: Self-realization, community realization and union realization. Unionsounds an alarm when anyone is out of work … when any community’s political and economic development yields a technical (? See C-90: Behavioral architecture) “unemployment problem.” It would be an error to ascribe the latter solely to market forces (C-108, C-111).

Union says too that we court disaster when we neglect the realization of its needed functionality (C-110, C-111) and characterize democracy’s problems in body terms of individual vs. government. Not that realization via a government technology does not pose problems. It obviously does. But realization of needed functionality would prepare us to reconstruct positively (C-83) any less-than-satisfactory technologies.

(* John F. Kennedy’s 1962 “Declaration of Interdependence” pertains to international relations [aka foreign policy]. It does not develop the theme of Realization [App. XIX; C-107] to make more of freedom TO – a freedom won only by becoming able to make something of freedoms OF and FROM. This is also not about the defacto interdependencies, many unbalanced and thus warped (C-82), which arise from behavioral entity transactions. The interdependence (i.e., union) of which we speak herederives as a dynamic principle, as one of the Nature of Things’ requisites and imperatives, requiring balance [XI] if interdependence is to be realized and maintained [C-82; App. XVII].)

(c) R.F. Carter