C-157. Who has not dreamed of flying like an eagle?

… Of Grasping the air to rise above the Earth and soar like a cloud until swooping down to effect a collision … a hard collision if, like an eagle, to Grasp by Involve, then to Involve by Grasp, this bodily (B) sustenance for future step (S) making and taking (III,VII; C-105).

We have achieved something of such flight, albeit by substituting power for strength to escape the Earth’s grasp – lest we suffer the winged fate of Icarus.

How else than with wings might we take flight? And not, say, just from the Earth’s gravity but from the stream of life and its relentless aging of the behavioral entities that it sweeps along in B-spacetime. Escape, rather, to the land of the living, to the realm of Realized entities (C-147) and the World of Possibility (III), to Course’s Frontier (C-139,118) … where there is the possibility of agency, of compositional change (II), for R-entities OF consequence and not just IN consequence.

Better flight by stronger means is what the three transforms of Language (C-156), Evaluation (C-154) and Realization (C-111) offer. “In and out of the stream” makes the same point. So does “stand apart” (C-155-6). Technologies, protocols existing and those needed, are distinctive in their stand apart character … as invented entities, in body and/or step (App. VII,XXIII). They are protocols pertinent to – if not always derived from, transforms applied to and in Course’s stream of history (which is to say, consequentiality: general and particular).

This is the promise of the R-transform and the offerings made by R-protocols (C-151). This is also the potential promise of the V- and L-transforms, the transforms implicit in the V-protocols (Valuation technologies) and L-protocols (Language technologies) familiar to us … but with a different transform history (e.g., Language protocols and Valuation protocols, which appear to have been developed ad hoc, incrementally and severally, seem to be lacking in a transform base). Having been schooled to ADOPT these protocols (e.g., the “3R’s,” “prices”), essentially on faith and demonstrated utility, their transform quality, such as it is, is lost to us behind the productivity of the practiced protocols. That they lift us from the stream of life is not obvious – although occasioned notices of “abstractness” hint at it.

Up to now our Grasp of what these transforms do (and might do!) has been stunted by weak minding (0:S-P). Blame collisions … if blame you must. Their B particulars continually repel or attract. They are sometimes fatal, sometimes life sustaining. They command attention: Focal attention. But what about the Course sagacity of a pilot, especially one technologically equipped? What of the sensEry capability of humans and not just the sensOry capacity (XI; C-96) of the envied eagle’s eyes?
We suffer from particularitis.* So too are weakened the protocols we ADOPT, biased as they are by attention to particulars, to the extent of Grasping (loosely, especially if by concepts [C-124]) any and all conditions as objects (aka “things”) of (and by) focal attention. Hence the BPO bias (C-39: bodies, particulars, order of things), for which the SGN correction (C-104: steps, generality, Nature of Things) is needed. And which the R-transform furnishes, its base in needed functionality (C-144) rooted in the Nature of Things. Unlike the other two transforms. Which is why the meta-strategic question of the balance and interdependence among the three transforms (XI; C-71) must be entertained in developing technological protocols to extend the effectiveness of human endeavor.

*Suffer is not all the consequentiality that transpires, however. We make careers of sorting and arranging particulars. Much of administration, scholarship, decision making --for example. Because we can particularize anything via focal attention and objectification, unit quality and/or quantity pose no barrier to this “p-itis”practice or to a vocation so indentured.


We too can climb and soar like an eagle. We can imagine. And by means of step development, not necessarily body evolution … to compose, to create, to invent … to write, to dance, to sing … to “make art,” and an art of art (App. XXIII). “Art”, it should be noted, is an R-word (C-107), an indispensable asset in Realization, in response to needed functionality.

Jokingly, a camp supervisor may instruct a naïve youngster, “Go get a skyhook,” to aid in setting up a tent. Still, something like that is involved, imaginatively, when we employ language protocols to Grasp our way forward.

Many of humans’ thingks (C-27) “crash and burn.” Many more should (0:Ps). But some have come to fly gloriously and productively.

(c) 2016 R. F. Carter