C-130. What matters?

What matters? Which is to say, “What is material?” (“Matter” is an R-word [App. XX; C-107], as much verb as noun – usage in some observer disciplines notwithstanding.) “Material” makes explicit the consequentiality of step as well as body, and of their several relationships – especially their interdependency (III, VII; App. XI, App. XII; C-112, C-126).

“Material” helps our Grasp of consequential conditions and of consequentiality per se by the strength of its greater Involve (more coverage, more accuracy). Whatever is IN and OF consequence: the stuff of history. It is not limited to logic’s sense of necessary and sufficient condition(s), which is influenced by the search for knowledge of the order of things (oots) rather than for knowledge of the Nature of Things, with its quality of partial order (III). That partial order for which “all that it takes” of body and step materiality pertains to composing solutions to our problems – to provide compositional change and not wait on circumstantial change (II).

Materiality is not limited to a sense of “effect” as something less than an R-word (C-107) – i.e., as only pertaining to the second verb and noun aspects of Realization (App. XX), the transitive verb and the product of its exercise … as if “effect” did not also evoke a sense of needed functionality (first noun) and developed functionality (first verb).

Consider, for example, the difference in materiality between an evolution view and a developmental view of life (C-121). We can illustrate the difference by showing life as a parsing of consequentiality between these views, using a Morse code metaphor:

___ . ___ . ___ . ___ . ___ . ___ . ___ etc.

Where: the dashes represent lives as lived (developed) and the dots represent transitions from one life to another (evolved). The point here is to suggest that more materiality is to be found within lives than between them. (The within-life materiality has the potential to destroy the human – and other – species.)

(This difference in materiality works to the disadvantage of Evolutionism when confronted with Creationism. Creationism comprises more of materiality – though failing to ascribe it to behavioral entity development, given needed functionality in consequence of the Nature of Things [III]… but rather ascribing it all to a fully functional [omnipotent and omniscient] agency [aka source].)

Even more to the point of materiality, and to the progression in history (CEM-history: App. XI, App. XVI) of increasing consequentiality via steps made and taken by more recent behavioral entities, of what humanity could and should amount to … we have not minded well (0:S-P). Continuing the metaphor:

……. . …… . …... . …... . …... . …... . …… etc.

Where the dashes have been rendered into dot sequences, this to represent our skip-minded focus on particulars, of life’s consequentiality observed as sequentially related cross-sections (C-129). (See, for example, use of the “independent-dependent variables” relationship.). Such that we note and speak of related life particulars but miss relevant generality -- esp. the Nature of Things and its general persisting conditions, to which development and lives owe their consequentiality. We have not had satisfactory transverse-section views, such as the Realization mapping needed for problem solving (App. XIX). So the compositional change (II) so prominent in recent CEM-history, due to the Realized confluence of cognitive, communicative and compositional functionalities, is poorly Grasped (C-32, C-85, C-105). We need the SGN correction (C-104).

(The trouble is like that of the clock disassembled into parts. Something appears to be missing … and it is: The remaining materiality that makes the clock work – and not just inside the clock. The step making and taking. We need, and can use, the SGN correction [C-104] to bring the operational clock back into the picture.)

(c) 2015 R.F. Carter