C-161. The hard part: Behavioral metastrategy

After the fact, from our observations of behavioral particulars, the “3A’s” of ADAPT (Aa), ADOPT (Ao) and ADEPT (Ae) are quite evident. Evidence of Ao and Ae phenomena has by now been found in a variety of nonhuman species. History needs more accounting than the facts of evolution can give it ... and conceptually the materiality of and for development is too easily dismissed (e.g., “cognitive evolution”).

Together, the 3A’S could be said to constitute a metastrategy for behavior (C-9) – especially if and when brought together (e.g., Ae: Aa and/or Ao). Toward Accord, that is. Accord comprises them interdependently, not just in aggregate. Alone, Aa is limited by the availability of order to which one can adapt. (See Lewin’s comment on the limits of Greek lawfulness qua regularity and frequency.) Alone, Ao is limited functionally by the available and sometimes flawed solutions from which to choose. (See the QL-point, re where we stand in solving our problems [0].) Ae, at least, takes cognizance of, and works compositionally toward meeting, still needed functionality (C-41,115,144)… such as the needed functional interdependencies of Aa, Ao and Ae.

What the Course of the human condition (App. XI: CEM-history; C-139) tells us is that it is evident that our employment of discovered after-the-fact functionalities and implied strategies has not yet produced the quality of life we need and want (see 0: Sp,S-P,Ps,P). The behavioral problem (I; C-1) remains unsolved. For all the emphasis we do give Ae -- the most proactive of the 3A, and for all the 3A lessons we have absorbed from past behaviors, our behavioral metastrategy still seems inadequate (see C-158).

G-abduction (C-159) offers an assist forward. The “hard part” of the human condition is the instruction we don’t have because of the Nature of Things’ partial order (III).* (Not that detecting the order there to be observed is any picnic! See C-93: Kf..) When it comes to needed functionality, NF, in consequence of the Nature of Things, the Instruct (an R-word: C-107) need that is implicit in Ae (i.e., compositional capability) is key. Instruct is a Realization matter (App. XIX; C-111).. It’s not just the particulars already there … to be needed and/or wanted. Instruct is a general persisting condition of NF (App. XX: N-1). And any amount of Instruct particulars (N-2 functionalities) will just generate additional NF (C-115).

What those concerned only with discovering available Instructs dismiss in their analyses as “random error” (i.e., regard cavalierly via “all other things being equal” or as “chance”) is better regarded as more still of the World of Possibility and, with the R-entity’s (C-147) developmental boosts in capabilities and their exercise, the R-path to Realized possibility – especially of self-possibility (C-!49: Excalibur).


The transformation to R-entity is from behavioral entity, bE (C-114). The latter, we have seen, emphasizes bodies (aka entities), as parties to collisions, with steps (aka behaviors) as body properties. Thereby missing out on much of the potential materiality of steps, of behavior per se (the crux of focusing on the Expansion [C-160,163] to Grasp all of consequentiality). And the materiality of bodies too, considering the body step interdependence when effort is made to develop that materiality (e.g., as for Union [App. XXII; C-112]).

Step particulars (e.g., “how to’s” for the behavioral entity), arbitrary in unit size and content, have been developed and, ad hoc via language (L-) and valuation (V-) protocols, they have come to constitute a weakly platformed technology (C-157). A technology of sorts (sic!) – i.e., a way of identifying and valuing step particulars (e.g., as for decision making). A behavioral technology very much wedded to the history of trying to solve this and that situational problem (I:Psit) … without all that much attention to the behavioral problem (I:Pbeh): i.e., to the HOW behind the “how to’s,” the still latent materiality of the unRealized molecular step(s) that we might compose.

Consequently, there is no obvious way to “get there from here.” The concept of “innovation” points us toward the particulars (but just those) it points to. We “know” an innovation, something “new and improved,” when we see one … even when we can only imagine one. This, however, steers us down a path of evolution, of creeping forward on the efforts of gifted behavioral entities – with consequences that include underperforming solutions and unanticipated dysfunctional consequences (0: S-P,Ps) … a journey of perpetually calling for more innovations. Calling for … not preparing for (App. XIII) ... for lack of knowing what is called for (C-110).

How might the “bE => RE” transformation be achieved? Such that we do better on the behavioral problem? Such that we have a technology for technology – an approach to composing technologies (and producing innovations)? Such that we get around behind the particulars “how to’s” to HOW more generally**?

That is the behavioral metastrategy we would prize. Not a HOW like what we have imagined as magical (e.g., “Open Sesame!”) … but the “magic” of HOW, of what an effective behavioral metastrategy would do as a platform to strengthen our problem solving efforts, to meet our ever-increasing NF (C-115). A developmental and not just an evolutionary strategy (C-121).


Transformation via transforms. How the Fourier transform helped solve problems in the physics domain can also apply further on in CEM-history, where we are now, where compositional change is outpacing circumstantial change (i.e., rate of change) even in our stumbling ad hoc way … developing protocols without the foundation available via transforms. We can do this by invoking the Realization transform and then working with it together with the Linguistic and Valuation transforms, so as to be better guided in the development of protocols (technologies) to meet NF.

Fundamentally, the appropriate behavioral metastrategy comes down to aligning the V-transform and the L-transform with the R-transform. Realization’s base of NF is the key. For it is the NF with which Realization begins that has the highest – and shared – value … and that most deserves L-transform attention (despite its very apparent neglect#).

Give design (itself an R-word) a boost. And with the analytical power inherent in developing the respective transforms together, become more critical of settling (too contentedly) for the protocols we now employ (e.g., overworking words to do a language job, as by providing inexhaustible [?] prefixed and suffixed terms to what would be more effectively and efficiently handled as R-words [re the interdependence of Realization and Language]). And/or be more critical of accepting “the invisible hand” as a satisfactory protocol … and as a substitute for developing new work and job protocols via the interdependence of the Realization and Valuation transforms.


“What’s your game?” Thus, colloquially, do we bring up the question of behavioral metastrategy. More formally, as in the scientific realm, we talk about a paradigm, about how we go about doing our thing (App. VI). Paradigm change, then, is a game-changer (C-160,163). Focusing our attention on the Expansion (C-163) could thus be a game-changer across the board … the HAS board of humanism, art and science (App. VIII,XII,XV).

Surely the mounting evidence of Ao and Ae steps across a broad spectrum of biology’s species presents a Kuhnian paradigmatic challenge to the limited Grasp of behavior offered by perspective and concepts that emphasize bodies and body-body relationships (“forces”), a challenge that a refocus on the Expansion can readily meet.

*“Ignorance” misses the crucial point. It also tends to assign responsibility (C-114) on what is essentially a capability matter. And incomplete instruction (i.e., a degree of indeterminism) is what gives us the opportunity to be consequential on our own ... with origins (C-160) flourishing.

** Generally. Not a universal HOW, such as a “how to” by waving one’s hand and what you need and/or want happens (III).
# Note in App. XX where we show for several common behavioral terms that the aspects of Realization receiving dictionary definitional attention trend heavily toward transitive verb (V-2) and product (N-2) usages – as if NF had only particular consequences and not a (shared) general previous history (C-144) ... and a wide open future. Suffixes have thrown a wider net, but provide a looser conceptual Grasp (VII; C-105,124).

(c) 2016 R. F. Carter