C-147. A new identity: R-entity

R-entity establishes a new identity for the human condition, an identity more representative of the human condition. Compare the limited sense of identity furnished by what the particular behaviors of particular entities can tell us via the concept of “behavioral entity (BE).” (C-97,114,124,144). R-identity embraces the full history of humans: CEM-history (App. XI-XII) … the history yet to be made along with the history already made, in which humans are both IN and OF consequence. It personifies the R-sense (C-128) of Realization (App. XIX) as life’s force and course (C-41,139).

The R-shift to the missing link (C-144) occasioned by the R-transform (C-111) has brought this about, reminding us that Realization – as by evolution, development and their interdependency (C-121) – starts with needed functionality (its “0” point: C-108). This needed functionality has roots in the Nature of Things, with its general persisting conditions (III), and flowers profusely along Realization’s different paths for meeting that needed functionality … most notably (VI) in the Grasp- Involve interdependency (VII). (See Biology and beyond [C-105].) The R-transform has effected the needed SGN correction (C-104,135) to compensate for the BPO bias (C-39) now so prevalent in concept-heavy representations of humanity as BE’s (e.g., as characterized in terms of quantities of qualities assigned the particular foci of attention … inviting the confounding of Valuation with Realization [C-122] and thus aborting Realization).

It cannot be said too often or too loud: We need to get out of this muddle! (C-114) ... a muddle of particular purposes and properties of particular persons, this impediment to human Realization (IV; App. XVI: an escarpment built of and by dysfunctional minding: 0:S-P).

R-entity calls on us (C-110) to take a position, a perspective that can help us bring about a further, more productive Realization of humanity… a shared way forward with purpose and progress. This is the point OF advocating HAS discipline (App. XV), working to effect an interdependency of humanism, art and science. This is the re-positioning which we see in the theoretical constructs of Frontier (C-118) and Pioneer (C-119). This R-entity is a Pioneer IN and ON the Frontier. Always on the leading edge of history -- unless oblivious to the Nature of Things.


The R-entity can enjoy more freedoms (C-40). BE can appreciate freedoms OF, FROM and FOR – of liberty, sanctuary and an open road (i.e., lack of impediments). But only the R-entity can come to enjoy freedom TO, the “opportunity” we speak of that depends on our becoming, not just being, capable of making and taking the steps we need in light of needed functionality … of coming to Grasp and Involve R-sense, as individuals and/or collectively.

This identity, the R-entity, is how any and every individual, any and every company, any and every state, should see itself. Realization is the implicit purpose and path of any entity. (This is why the preamble to the U.S. Constitution is so important. It expresses, albeit with a loose Grasp, needed functionality for the new nation. As a Declaration of Interdependence its needed functionality is not as well delineated as its predecessor Declaration of Independence. Were it so expressed, Grasped and Involved, the structures initially set out to establish functionality would never have been considered sacrosanct [They weren’t for long!] and not in need of further development in light of current and future needed functionality – some of it in consequence of the [limited] functionality achieved by this initiating structure [C-115]. See App. XXII with respect to “a more perfect union” – functionally, that is, and in regard to problem solving.)

It’s not just that some entities are more behavioral than others. In terms of CEM-history the “more behavioral” might excuse humans for thinking themselves as something special (C-3) – although our quality of life (0), unequal as it is amongst us, plus our many unsolved problems (which is to say our underrealized status), hardly condones self-aggrandizement. Some entities are less Realized than others. And have little prospect of further Realization.

This is not the “person who” of the muddle’s BE. It’s not the aggregate data of statistics, based on after-the-fact observations of persons to whom are assigned this or that attribute … this under the banner and shelter of the BPO bias to the detriment of employing the R-transform to achieve the SGN correction for a better Grasp of the human condition.


Notationally, we might prefer “bE” (bE is a bit much) to “BE” to represent the concept of “behavioral entity.” In terms of the needed balance between body and step, and thereon their more effective interdependence, the bE notation points up the entity (aka body) bias and imbalance (and impeded development of their interdependence) of our current Read of the human condition … which R-entity, the T-transform-based theoretical construct, tries to correct (C-135).

The bE notation should remind us to be alert to our muddled condition (C-114), the unfortunate habit of regarding ourselves as instances of late-stage functionality, as responding to the question of Source more than to the question of Course (C-139).

In light of CEM-history (App. XI: continuing interdependence of body and step) we make a crucial mistake in knowing ourselves solely as late-stage entities (bE). As R-entities we can add to what we know about ourselves by what we can come to do in consequence of interdependent development (C-138: CC = capacity capability). Fitting, indeed, in this World of Possibility, where composition is an imperative (X) … given the Nature of Things’ general persisting conditions (III).

(c) 2016 R. F. Carter