C-128. Steps, bodies and collisions: R-Sense and R-language

Here (AT and IN the Frontier [C-118]) and now (at the front of CEM-history [App. XVI]), how might we all talk knowingly about materiality, about consequentiality and possibility, about Realization*, about needed functionality for individual, community and the individual-community relationship … about problem solving?

We may afford private languages in and among communities of puzzle solvers. (It’s their puzzle [though for the rest of us that may be a problem!] if their puzzle solutions don’t come together in some oneness [C-127].) But we cannot afford private languages among problem solvers. And we are all problem solvers, given the never-ending behavioral problem (I:Pbeh), and with many situational problems yet to be solved – including Realized effectiveness via union (C-112) for the communities of effort needed to solve the most taxing of those problems.

We need a language designed to talk about Realization, about R-Sense (App. XIX, App. XX), featuring R-words (C-107), with composable behavioral molecular units to Grasp and Involve (VII; C-105) for the stepwise journey from problem’s needed functionality, to achieved functionality … to a solution. An R-language. A language suited for step making and taking, given the Nature of Things’ generality, for its partial order and needed ordering before the fact, and not just for the representation, after the fact, of ordering to be found in and among the particulars of nature (C-48).

Not the abstruse language of mathematical physics community – for sure. (And perhaps we might even talk about some of the things they talk about in a more common R-language [e.g., “dark energy” and “dark matter” as unRealized materiality: C-127].) Not the concept-dense jargon of some other communities (C-124). Not the concept-dense jungle of ordinary discourse (C-124) whose secondary and tertiary Read and Tell terms (C-8) fall short of what we require to better Grasp what we need to be talking about – i.e., the materiality of functionality (step making and taking), especially in regard to needed functionality.

Even the multitude of diverse languages that serve this or that community need an R-language core, to which they can refer for their problem solving transactions.

R-language needs to make the point of R-Sense per se, of the Nature of Things’ generalities and their implications for behavior (i.e., needed functionality -- in general and in particular [e.g., the behavioral problem and situational problems {I}] in consequence of behavioral necessity … re arranging and avoiding collisions), not just the many points the R-transform (C-111, C-122) makes about why and how behavior might and ought to be developed.

How, for example, are we to make the most of imbalances in the Valuation (V)/Realization (R)) ratios (XI; C-82, C-122) as criterial for directing our operational and control efforts if we cannot work to adjust the imbalance by knowing how to give more emphasis to Realization?

R-language as a technology needs to make the most of compositional capability, whose increasing consequentiality can be seen in CEM-history (App. XI). From history’s start as primarily circumstantial change we now have an explosion of compositional change (II), composition giving increasing impetus to both the contingent and emergent aspects of CEM-history. (From the passive “things happen” to making things happen.) Emphasis on composition’s contribution brings with it a need for technological improvement in language’s and message’s cognitive communicative interdependency (X; App. III, App. XX, App. XXI).

It seems reasonable to conceive of, and to compose, an R-primer (re R-Sense) for use at the elementary level where reading and writing (two of the “3R’s”) are now given instruction. (See C-107, C-129.) An R-primer could supplement and complement learning’s current emphasis on late-stage functional particulars (C-97) – i.e., that which is elementary but not basic (XI). Either the elementary or the basic can function as a basis, but basic offers greater generality for Involving and Grasping (VII).

But we need to imbed R-Sense and a CEM-Sense in language for everyone, in school and out, individually and collectively, to make use of in solving their problems, behavioral and situational. (How well, for example, can “talk therapy” work more effectively and efficiently [App. V]?)

* “Realization” is familiar as a concept. But it needs to be developed as a theoretical construct (C-85), so that it’s applicability extends beyond this or that particular, after the fact, to the principled help it can give us before the fact in composing behavioral technology for solutions to our most intractable individual and/or collective problems (e.g., “The Tragedy of the Commons” [see Union: C-112]) . Realization’s basis in the needed functionality, this in consequence of the Nature of Things, affords us the Involve and Grasp, via developed capabilities (not just capacities) we sorely need. Hence: R-Sense. (“Real” is not about to become adopted as an R-word. But it should be seen that way even as we use terms like “realize” and “realization.”)

(c) 2015 R.F. Carter