C-185. Free and independent: Independence was never enough
The American Declaration of Independence concludes, just above the signatories to the document, with two national imperatives: to be independent; and, also, to be free.
Independence, as in the concept of “liberty,” is valued in and of its self when one is constrained (e.g., freedoms OF and FROM). But there is no accompanying guarantee that needed functionality (e.g., freedom TO) will thus be Realized. We may forfeit opportunities to be of consequence, despite this being a world of Possibility … if we lack behavioral body capacity and step making and taking capability (and an effective, materially emergent relationship among them), just as it is frustrated by other constraints on opportunity (e.g., poverty).
After the Revolution: What then? Ready to become Realized as an R-entity (to become an Excalibur in strength) – or merely recognized, acknowledged as a viable international actor? Prepared? Or just poised?
To become a free nation…. “The land of the free,” but not just a place where land was free, and (some) inhabitants free to move about and explore new territorial frontiers -- “opportunity” thereby mocking values some held to embark on a perilous journey and tentative settlement.
This was and is a Realization matter. In which strength to make (!) the most of step making and taking opportunity would lie in the future development of behavioral architecture (after the Revolution: system design [the Constitution] and in developed interdependencies (initially of operating system and control system re the several relevant Unions [nation and states, nation and individuals, states and individuals], then of capabilities and capacities [see Body < CEM > Step] and of needed functionality in developed step making and taking capabilities and their exercise [e.g., in technological development: tools < CEM > procedures] for problem solving [a “working” test of freedom TO: Can we do what we need to do?]).
Free? Poised but not prepared? Then? Even now?
***
The Preamble to the Constitution heeds the problem of needed functionality (“… in order to form a more perfect Union, to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, secure the blessings of LIBERTY to ourselves and our posterity…”). But does the Constitution then established solve the problem? Could it? Must any system design be considered provisional? Shouldn’t it?
What about needed functionality? Given human experience the particulars of functionality in hand then -- and still now – fall short of sufficiency (as re control need/control ability >1 and quality of life’s unsolved problems). Consider too the imbalance and lack of interdependence between matters of power plus decision making (control system) versus strength plus problem solving (operating system). (Arguably worse now than in the day of the Federalist papers?)
Given the Nature of Things (its general behavioral requisite: NF) and particulars of future behavioral history (added functionalities generate further needed functionality [e.g., codification], needed functionality is never completely satisfied. Nor can its particulars be fully Grasped before the fact. So: an operating system must make provisions (e.g., development < CEM > research, not just “research then development”; see HAS) and not be suppressed by a control system characterized by a “responsibility/capability >1+” imbalance and lack of interdependence development in “responsibility < CEM > capability” (thereby defeating emergent step strength). An operating system cannot afford to lose sight of the continuing behavioral problem (Pbeh) and its needed functionality (which Union addresses) in the functional particulars of situational problems (Psits) – where favored functionalities all too often contest for control.
Such is life: life AT and ON the Frontier of History (not frontiers in histories), for those (then and now) at the leading edge of the Expansion. Beginning a Becoming. Not all that well prepared.
** See, for instance, such phenomena as “unreliable” eye witness testimony, human’s pattern recognition (e.g., what a cow looks like – its configuration), the rarity of eidetic imagery capacity in humans (why it’s not selected for).
***
If we don’t know what we don’t know … well, then, one thing to ask is whether we can – and should – do something about knowing. This is what we have done in reforming “know” as an R-word, based on the R-transform Read of the Expansion (rather than the B-transform Read of the universe [a B-ness thingk] as our focus of attention). Then we see the whole message about Realization, starting with “know” as a needed functionality (given the Nature of Things’ incomplete instruction of the human condition), and followed by know’s “capability < CEM > capacity” development (including mind [another R-word] technologies) and their exercise, finishing with an observation (a “know” as a product, potentially functional within any molecular step to which it is called upon to serve).
An observation’s utility, as tested by consequentiality (true or false) can vary from the very dysfunctional to the very functional. The functionality of what is observed can vary from the very bad to the very good. An observed observation can also vary from the very bad to the very good (e.g., in its completeness as well as its accuracy).
AT and ON the Frontier, when designing a nation’s functionality*, provisional human communities have typically reviewed the good and bad of particular steps previously taken. (See “values.”**) Control system dominates over operating system in design: Statutes and norms re the dysfunctional; schooling, formal and informal, re the (more or less) functional. ***
Solving the behavioral problem (getting from needed functionality to functionality) is fundamental to solving situational problems. Needed functionality can sometimes be found (e.g., as a substantive property). But not always. Far from it. That’s why we try things. That’s why we need better try’s (let’s try “try” as an R-word! [See HAS]).
Failing a Grasp of “know” as an R-word – along with many other linguistic terms in similar need of transformation from foggy concept to accessible and applicable (G < = > I) theoretical construct, the “decline and fall” arc of history’s communities, cultures and civilizations seems inevitable. Their foundation is not strong enough. They crumble – even if, and even as, very authoritarian control systems are imposed.
There’s no getting around needed provision for the needed strength of interdependence afforded by “< CEM >” (the how and the what of emergence).**** The roots of step making (e.g., the roots of Compose in Mind’s “communication < CEM > cognition) , like the roots of step taking, need Realization. See C-188.
***
Some of needed functionality could be found in the New World: the functionalities to be found in the things of nature, such as fertile land and copious food supplies, in other natural resources such as water and minerals … functionality that could be put, by steps made and taken, to productive use.
Functionality needed for the new nation was – and is -- something else, something not to be found among the things of nature (and thus known: Kf) but a solution consonant with the Nature of Things’ partial order (ergo: incomplete instruction) and in need of manufacture by trial (and thus known: Kt). Steps to be made, not just taken. Problems to be solved, not just decisions to be made.
Functionality that is more than that which functionalism credits. Functionalism limits itself to found functionalities, to particular functionalities after the fact (and steps seen via B-ness as Bs and BsB). (The distinction parallels that between materiality and materialism. Both functionality and materiality rescue step, and especially step making, from their B-ness confines. Freed from B-ness, Kt can be explicated as, and expanded to, KMmt, [where t is the step taken, m is the step made, and M is the step made to help make steps – i.e., m is typically a protocol {e.g., a recipe, a design}, M is the transform {Read of the Expansion, to make more of step materiality} on which the protocol is based – preferably the R- transform, as here when one is building a nation].
* “Design” is an R-word. The problem solving step we take begins with “design” (i.e., “make”) as a needed functionality. We then need to pursue needed functionality back a step, and can profit by doing so … to the step’s Grasp < CEM > Involve as needed functionality.
** “Value” indexes functionality, needed and/or possessed. With a complication, however: the confounding of need and want. Need and want are more productively viewed interdependently – if they are first established as independent (e.g., not confounded as in the market’s “demand” concept).
*** Formal schooling (aka instruction) is attuned to ADOPT and ADAPT behavioral meta-strategies, much less than to ADEPT – to the detriment of operating system development, as much for the nation as for the individual … and, critically, for their interdependence, for a better effected and more effective Union.
****Interdependence has an impressive, but checkered, history. Consider, for example, its neglected (C-38: What Darwin missed#) and its misinterpreted contribution to progress in the human condition (aka development) that we have noted with respect to evolution. The forward-thrusting back and forth CEM-functionality of body and step interdependence is not to be denied. Nor should we deny ourselves of “< CEM >” for and in building our future. Within-step material interdependencies (e.g., Mind < = > Move, Grasp < = > Involve [within both Mind and Move]) have steadily added to our step strength and quality of life... and much more functionality is possible, and needed.
# As a mechanism (“how things work”), natural selection has a complement and ally with CEM B&F (< CEM>), the mechanism, so to speak, of emergent development. Which is helpful, because natural selection leans backwards (based on particular outcomes) while CEM B&F leans forward in the steps made – or that could be made --and taken AT and ON the Frontier.
In light of the very useful Search feature now available in the home page, parenthetical back references are suspended for Comments as of C-184.
(c) 2018 R. F. Carter
Independence, as in the concept of “liberty,” is valued in and of its self when one is constrained (e.g., freedoms OF and FROM). But there is no accompanying guarantee that needed functionality (e.g., freedom TO) will thus be Realized. We may forfeit opportunities to be of consequence, despite this being a world of Possibility … if we lack behavioral body capacity and step making and taking capability (and an effective, materially emergent relationship among them), just as it is frustrated by other constraints on opportunity (e.g., poverty).
After the Revolution: What then? Ready to become Realized as an R-entity (to become an Excalibur in strength) – or merely recognized, acknowledged as a viable international actor? Prepared? Or just poised?
To become a free nation…. “The land of the free,” but not just a place where land was free, and (some) inhabitants free to move about and explore new territorial frontiers -- “opportunity” thereby mocking values some held to embark on a perilous journey and tentative settlement.
This was and is a Realization matter. In which strength to make (!) the most of step making and taking opportunity would lie in the future development of behavioral architecture (after the Revolution: system design [the Constitution] and in developed interdependencies (initially of operating system and control system re the several relevant Unions [nation and states, nation and individuals, states and individuals], then of capabilities and capacities [see Body < CEM > Step] and of needed functionality in developed step making and taking capabilities and their exercise [e.g., in technological development: tools < CEM > procedures] for problem solving [a “working” test of freedom TO: Can we do what we need to do?]).
Free? Poised but not prepared? Then? Even now?
The Preamble to the Constitution heeds the problem of needed functionality (“… in order to form a more perfect Union, to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, secure the blessings of LIBERTY to ourselves and our posterity…”). But does the Constitution then established solve the problem? Could it? Must any system design be considered provisional? Shouldn’t it?
What about needed functionality? Given human experience the particulars of functionality in hand then -- and still now – fall short of sufficiency (as re control need/control ability >1 and quality of life’s unsolved problems). Consider too the imbalance and lack of interdependence between matters of power plus decision making (control system) versus strength plus problem solving (operating system). (Arguably worse now than in the day of the Federalist papers?)
Given the Nature of Things (its general behavioral requisite: NF) and particulars of future behavioral history (added functionalities generate further needed functionality [e.g., codification], needed functionality is never completely satisfied. Nor can its particulars be fully Grasped before the fact. So: an operating system must make provisions (e.g., development < CEM > research, not just “research then development”; see HAS) and not be suppressed by a control system characterized by a “responsibility/capability >1+” imbalance and lack of interdependence development in “responsibility < CEM > capability” (thereby defeating emergent step strength). An operating system cannot afford to lose sight of the continuing behavioral problem (Pbeh) and its needed functionality (which Union addresses) in the functional particulars of situational problems (Psits) – where favored functionalities all too often contest for control.
Such is life: life AT and ON the Frontier of History (not frontiers in histories), for those (then and now) at the leading edge of the Expansion. Beginning a Becoming. Not all that well prepared.
** See, for instance, such phenomena as “unreliable” eye witness testimony, human’s pattern recognition (e.g., what a cow looks like – its configuration), the rarity of eidetic imagery capacity in humans (why it’s not selected for).
If we don’t know what we don’t know … well, then, one thing to ask is whether we can – and should – do something about knowing. This is what we have done in reforming “know” as an R-word, based on the R-transform Read of the Expansion (rather than the B-transform Read of the universe [a B-ness thingk] as our focus of attention). Then we see the whole message about Realization, starting with “know” as a needed functionality (given the Nature of Things’ incomplete instruction of the human condition), and followed by know’s “capability < CEM > capacity” development (including mind [another R-word] technologies) and their exercise, finishing with an observation (a “know” as a product, potentially functional within any molecular step to which it is called upon to serve).
An observation’s utility, as tested by consequentiality (true or false) can vary from the very dysfunctional to the very functional. The functionality of what is observed can vary from the very bad to the very good. An observed observation can also vary from the very bad to the very good (e.g., in its completeness as well as its accuracy).
AT and ON the Frontier, when designing a nation’s functionality*, provisional human communities have typically reviewed the good and bad of particular steps previously taken. (See “values.”**) Control system dominates over operating system in design: Statutes and norms re the dysfunctional; schooling, formal and informal, re the (more or less) functional. ***
Solving the behavioral problem (getting from needed functionality to functionality) is fundamental to solving situational problems. Needed functionality can sometimes be found (e.g., as a substantive property). But not always. Far from it. That’s why we try things. That’s why we need better try’s (let’s try “try” as an R-word! [See HAS]).
Failing a Grasp of “know” as an R-word – along with many other linguistic terms in similar need of transformation from foggy concept to accessible and applicable (G < = > I) theoretical construct, the “decline and fall” arc of history’s communities, cultures and civilizations seems inevitable. Their foundation is not strong enough. They crumble – even if, and even as, very authoritarian control systems are imposed.
There’s no getting around needed provision for the needed strength of interdependence afforded by “< CEM >” (the how and the what of emergence).**** The roots of step making (e.g., the roots of Compose in Mind’s “communication < CEM > cognition) , like the roots of step taking, need Realization. See C-188.
Some of needed functionality could be found in the New World: the functionalities to be found in the things of nature, such as fertile land and copious food supplies, in other natural resources such as water and minerals … functionality that could be put, by steps made and taken, to productive use.
Functionality needed for the new nation was – and is -- something else, something not to be found among the things of nature (and thus known: Kf) but a solution consonant with the Nature of Things’ partial order (ergo: incomplete instruction) and in need of manufacture by trial (and thus known: Kt). Steps to be made, not just taken. Problems to be solved, not just decisions to be made.
Functionality that is more than that which functionalism credits. Functionalism limits itself to found functionalities, to particular functionalities after the fact (and steps seen via B-ness as Bs and BsB). (The distinction parallels that between materiality and materialism. Both functionality and materiality rescue step, and especially step making, from their B-ness confines. Freed from B-ness, Kt can be explicated as, and expanded to, KMmt, [where t is the step taken, m is the step made, and M is the step made to help make steps – i.e., m is typically a protocol {e.g., a recipe, a design}, M is the transform {Read of the Expansion, to make more of step materiality} on which the protocol is based – preferably the R- transform, as here when one is building a nation].
* “Design” is an R-word. The problem solving step we take begins with “design” (i.e., “make”) as a needed functionality. We then need to pursue needed functionality back a step, and can profit by doing so … to the step’s Grasp < CEM > Involve as needed functionality.
** “Value” indexes functionality, needed and/or possessed. With a complication, however: the confounding of need and want. Need and want are more productively viewed interdependently – if they are first established as independent (e.g., not confounded as in the market’s “demand” concept).
*** Formal schooling (aka instruction) is attuned to ADOPT and ADAPT behavioral meta-strategies, much less than to ADEPT – to the detriment of operating system development, as much for the nation as for the individual … and, critically, for their interdependence, for a better effected and more effective Union.
****Interdependence has an impressive, but checkered, history. Consider, for example, its neglected (C-38: What Darwin missed#) and its misinterpreted contribution to progress in the human condition (aka development) that we have noted with respect to evolution. The forward-thrusting back and forth CEM-functionality of body and step interdependence is not to be denied. Nor should we deny ourselves of “< CEM >” for and in building our future. Within-step material interdependencies (e.g., Mind < = > Move, Grasp < = > Involve [within both Mind and Move]) have steadily added to our step strength and quality of life... and much more functionality is possible, and needed.
# As a mechanism (“how things work”), natural selection has a complement and ally with CEM B&F (< CEM>), the mechanism, so to speak, of emergent development. Which is helpful, because natural selection leans backwards (based on particular outcomes) while CEM B&F leans forward in the steps made – or that could be made --and taken AT and ON the Frontier.
In light of the very useful Search feature now available in the home page, parenthetical back references are suspended for Comments as of C-184.
(c) 2018 R. F. Carter
S