C-175. Regulation(s)

Functioning, we have said, entails further needed functionality (C-114: “… nf => f => nf => f => nf…” ). When we compose step-taking procedures and/or bodies that possess this or that functionality – or find and use instances of either, we confront four kinds of new problems (i.e. of needed functionality) … roughly “things that need to be attended to”:

(1) Integration of the new functionality with the old, such as conducted by the U.S. Supreme Court, so that new laws are in accord with the Constitution. See codifying also. And: “A place for everything and everything in its place;” “new employees fitting in.”

(2) Importantly, correction of imbalance in step making (App. XVII: DPA) that would otherwise stunt or distort our “< = >”composing of steps, weakening step strength (C-173,184).

(3) More familiarly, preventing missteps. We employ statutes, norms or even arbitrary authority. First order solutions. As distinguished from….

(4) Second order solutions, to correct the problems our first-order solutions engender (O:Ps). See “fixes,” correcting “side effects,” et al.

(5) A “size” problem in the seemingly endless expansion of additional functionality and of functionaries with the responsibility – and authority -- to intrude regulation into our lives. (See, for example, a political sense among individuals of being “over-regulated” by government – this despite Union [App. XXII; C112] being a crucial solution to problem solving per se.)

(6) The very neglected problem (C-144: The other “missing link”) of the entrance to the string segment shown above (“…nf=>f => nf => f => nf …”), which is some point on the Expansion (C-163,169) – and now notably our leading edge: the Frontier (C-118). Some point, but it’s not the beginning point: which is the needed functionality (NF) occasioned by the Nature of Things (III: NofTs) and its general persisting conditions of partial order, consequentiality and (post “Big Bang”) entity discontinuity (separateness): ”NofTs =>NF => f => nf => f => nf…” is the appropriate consideration then ... and this initiating NF should be a concern here and now. For the functionality achieved during the Expansion never exhausts this initiating NF (see C-41: the [continuing] force of the behavioral problem).

Thus, for example, in looking at, say, market regulations, we should consider the CEM-history (App. XI) of the technology involved, its place in Realization as a body < = > step composition, but also like Realization itself (App. XIX; C-111), its beginning in the NofTs’ NF. Then we might reinvent the technology, so as to minimize the need for more regulation.

Never is exhausted the need for “regulation.” Like so many behavioral concepts (C-124), the term (what is said about [WISA]) obscures what is being talked about (WITA) and what is called for (WICF) … and the interdependence of the three.* Thus our concern to see “regulate” as an R-word (App. XX; C-107,171), in anticipation of improving the step and step < = > body materiality of technology in this domain. (“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”)

Redesign is never irrelevant. (“Design” is an R-word.) What holds promise for “regulate” (“govern” might be a preferable R-word here) holds promise elsewhere. See, for example, App. XXIV re work and job. And the next Comment, C-176, re a new beginning for Humanism.

*Primary focus on the body-body, ahistorical relationship of “word and thing” alludes to some mediating (B-[B]]-B) entity (e.g., Ogden and Richards’ “idea”; Peirce’s “interpretant”). These mediating entities, however, embody and thus miss much of the rich, varied history of functionality involved. They also miss the interdependence of WISA, WITA and WICF. The last of these, WICF, invokes a vast step-making and step-taking domain of needed functionality, it points to both the initiating NF condition and the consequent “nf” conditions (See C-178: Word power; word strength … where WTITBTA [what there is to be talked about] is added to the WISA, WITA and WICF considerations.)

(c) 2017 R. F. Carter