C-163. The Expansion

What is the secret of the universe?

There is none … no universe, that is. (C-160).

“Secrets of the universe?” The other particulars within this hypothetical outer object (courtesy of focal attention) that might be found … thus echoing in and by “universe” the other, outward direction the reductivist search for particles within entities (aka bodies) takes us … along with a working assumption of an underlying order within this putative universe (C-39: BPO bias)?

How best, then, to Read and Tell the history of the human condition? And of the Expansion (III: aka Everything), in which humans recently figure so prominently via their materiality, the consequentiality of their step making and step taking? (This is not an invitation to reassume a majesty for humanity, having been humbled [see Copernicus] on our place in the universe. Humility still applies given what relatively little we have Realized of and in the Expansion (e.g., quality of life and its unsolved problems [0] – especially the behavioral problem [I]). How best when we are used to and used for a discussion about every particular in the universe (aka “cosmos”): particulars of entities, their parts, their possessions, their positions, their relationships – all of these as things (foci of attention) that we describe in “objective” terms (if not for being an entity, then as if an entity), via the linguistic protocols (C-156) we use ... even if like the supposed universe (C-160) the thing may be a thingk (C-27), an artifact of the bias in our attention to collision-relevant entities (parties to, but only a portion of the collision event) and the inside-outside cognitive relation (X) embedded in the language?

So much for history! For its before-the-fact incomplete predictability (III: World of Possibility; App. XI,XII,XVI; C-118-9) for the “future” that will become the past … the “past” of which stories will be told in the absence of a Grasp (VII; C-105) of the Expansion that would allow of more complete and accurate histories to be told. Sequenced ahistorical differences via cross-sectional slices of Expansion’s Course (C-139) substitute for a stronger Grasp of CEM-history’s consequentiality (C-138). Science (aka knowing) will remain an underdeveloped capability, its harder and hardest challenges weakly met (App. VI-VIII, XV; C-93,152).

A very critical instance of technological determinism. Time to change our game (C-161)? (Lest “Instinct plus outstinct equals extinct” become tragically predictive [C-166].)


Focusing our attention on the Expansion would and should change things. But nothing is lost. Bodies are still very much in the picture. (It was the behavior of bodies that was Hubbard’s Expansion Tell. “Entropy: yes; contraction: no”?) Entities are not lost to sight. But now they are joined by what else we know and can come to know about the Expansion … that Course (C-139) of things which has blossomed profusely and profoundly in the human condition.

Something is added: more attention to steps and their balanced relationships with bodies (not just as the “behavioral entities” [XI; C-71,114]), more attention to the general that is not universal (III), more attention to partial order (not just the already ordered). See SGN correction (III; C-104,135). Once the correction is made, then the consequentiality of interdependency (“”) can be explored, for body step, for minding moving within the step, for Grasp <=> Involve within both minding and moving, et al … so, for prime example, art can contribute testable solutions (C-93: Kt) for humanity’s problems ... via HAS disciplines (App. XV). The matter of materiality, of effectiveness (BFEPS).

Attention to all that is material (C-78) – i.e., OF consequence and not just IN consequence. For example, that change which is differences made in step structure that will make a difference (App. XXIII; C-90: Behavioral architecture). The (conceptual) universe comprises an aggregate of entities most of which, their distinctiveness in character and consequentiality notwithstanding, don’t amount to that much behaviorally. But compare this to human multi-step behavior within the Expansion! (Just one footprint on the surface of a sibling planet would make that point!)

As in our discussion of Course (C-139), we can start from where we have dug ourselves to the bottom of this sense-impeded pit and begin to dig our way out the same way we got here. We can make the Expansion the thing, the condition, we Read and Talk about – and need to talk about more.

How best then to Read Course? Collisions, per se and in their particulars. Per se, as in the evidence for partial order and consequentiality as general persisting conditions (III). Particulars because humans often arrange collisions, or arrange to avoid them, to meet needed functionality (C-144) – that life and death concern which is as much a matter of development as of evolution (C-38,121) in the context of the Expansion.


Boltzmann says that we can make tertiary Reads (i.e., construct interpretive structures) and then see how well they work re whatever it is that we are talking about – or need to be. This gives capabilities and technologies (e.g., questioning, cognition, imagination and logics) ways to help us to look for what we might not see otherwise – as, for example, what transforms have done for us (the Fourier transform) and could do for us (the R-, L-, V-transforms [C-111,154,156]).

Hence, Einstein’s point that imagination is more important than knowledge. Sometimes it has to come first, to construct a way of sensEry, not just of sensOry, minding (C-96).

Einstein, to better mind entity (aka body [B] and body-body relationship) behavior within the universe, conceived a 4-dimensional B-spacetime. Humanists, psychologists, social scientists et al have conceived an N-dimensional behavioral entity (C-114) framework comprised of B’s (qua objects) and their attributes … whose objects and attributes can be viewed cognitively (via the inside-outside relation) in either or both of two ways: attributes as concepts for which objects are instances, and/or attributes that characterize and identify objects (X).

Functionality in these two models is of the ahistorical “Y= f(X)” (or “X=f[Y]”) type. Both models demonstrate mathematical construction at work (V-protocols: e.g., calculus and statistics) that do not make the most of the V-transform … and of the Expansion’s interdependence potential re that transform with the R-transform. The Expansion’s biological domain, especially our part in it, demands more than this limited kind of functionality. The Expansion is profoundly historical and rich in functionality – some needed, some working and some not working well.

In a way then, what is called for (C-110) is a different spacetime, with and within which we can produce a more complete and accurate Grasp of the Expansion. Something like B S(tep) spacetime. To Grasp any and every material condition, body and/or step, before as well as after the fact (C-118-9: for Frontier Pioneers) – i.e., historically as well as ahistorically and to Grasp the materiality of “” in the Expansion’s CEM-history, most especially in the current moments of Course, the human Course in that CEM-history.

(c) 2016 R. F. Carter