C-192. WICF II: a recentering of focal attention
We need to attend to, and then bring about, what is called for (WICF). The B-ness Muddle, between producer and product, poses a problem of process (0:S-P); it focuses on things of nature (observed particulars, of objects or the objectified, and their relationships after the fact). It is not solving our other problems (0:Sp, 0: Ps and 0:P). We need a better foundation for our Solve effort ... that effort which we must make in light of the Nature of Things (think Collisions, hard and soft!), focusing on more than the many things of nature.
We need to focus our attention on WICF rather than on B-ness relationships, such as the imagined thingk, “Universe.” We don’t need a big basket for bodies nearly so much as we need to get the point OF, to Grasp what is called for: the functionality that needed functionality summons. We don’t need WICF merely to allude to body-body relationships, such as the putative processual thingk intervening between thing (WITA: focus of attention) and the word (WISA) for it in a triangle of meaning (Ogden and Richards, Peirce) ... as in:
WICF
< <
WISA ——— WITA
This offers a look back. We also need a look forward, here and now, out front, AT and IN the Frontier of the Expansion, to bring functionality to bear on our problem solving ... in light of the Nature of Things, not just the things and thingks of nature.
Consider:
WTITBTA
WICF
WITA ———WISA
Where: This presents the top-down sketch for a trihedron, a three dimensional six sided figure. With WICF on top. (The two-dimensional WICF re WITA and WISA is but a slice.) => Now tip it over so that WICF appears in front of the other three.* That brings it into Accord with WICF’s Frontier, “out front” place in the Expansion.**
WTITBTA makes the point that implications of the Nature of Things have much to do with WICF. Collisions, per se as well as in particular***, Tell us so if we Read them fully. See the behavioral problem, Pbeh, and the behavioral solution, Sbeh, entailed by the NofT’s.
WITA points to particulars of focal attention … and to its selective agenda function, often in unfortunate neglect of WTITBTA and WICF.
WISA points, as best it can (e.g., making points AT, ABOUT and FOR). But linguistic strength is crucial. B-ness behavioral concepts lacking a foundation in functionality (as with thoughtknots), provide weakness, not affording us the leverage forward we need.
***
* Something very similar should be considered for technology (as a prime WICF contributor) with respect to humanism, art and science: Out front re problem solving. Looking back to and drawing on the historical (but establishment-limited [i.e., paradigmatically, as by B-ness]) resources of humanism, art and science. Resources that HAS says need “< CEM >” development among themselves. Lacking this development (QED re establishments), technology – if properly grounded (i.e., not depending largely on individual initiative and market value for development), might well lead the Way forward. (Just not the primitive Alchemists’ ways.) Technology development, and the leadership for it, have one very distinctive potential advantage here: the R-transform, a meta-technology for technology (e.g., as discussed for the strengthening of our tries [KMmt: making steps to make the steps we take]).
** The human condition, so miniscule in the Universe, and on Earth so modest in geological history, now sparkles brighter than any other thing visible. And invites our closer attention.
*** Collision particulars soon make it known that Arrange (the step’s Grasp < CEM > Involve) has more going for it than the (oft dubiously informed) choice between approach and avoid.
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
We need to focus our attention on WICF rather than on B-ness relationships, such as the imagined thingk, “Universe.” We don’t need a big basket for bodies nearly so much as we need to get the point OF, to Grasp what is called for: the functionality that needed functionality summons. We don’t need WICF merely to allude to body-body relationships, such as the putative processual thingk intervening between thing (WITA: focus of attention) and the word (WISA) for it in a triangle of meaning (Ogden and Richards, Peirce) ... as in:
This offers a look back. We also need a look forward, here and now, out front, AT and IN the Frontier of the Expansion, to bring functionality to bear on our problem solving ... in light of the Nature of Things, not just the things and thingks of nature.
Consider:
Where: This presents the top-down sketch for a trihedron, a three dimensional six sided figure. With WICF on top. (The two-dimensional WICF re WITA and WISA is but a slice.) => Now tip it over so that WICF appears in front of the other three.* That brings it into Accord with WICF’s Frontier, “out front” place in the Expansion.**
WTITBTA makes the point that implications of the Nature of Things have much to do with WICF. Collisions, per se as well as in particular***, Tell us so if we Read them fully. See the behavioral problem, Pbeh, and the behavioral solution, Sbeh, entailed by the NofT’s.
WITA points to particulars of focal attention … and to its selective agenda function, often in unfortunate neglect of WTITBTA and WICF.
WISA points, as best it can (e.g., making points AT, ABOUT and FOR). But linguistic strength is crucial. B-ness behavioral concepts lacking a foundation in functionality (as with thoughtknots), provide weakness, not affording us the leverage forward we need.
* Something very similar should be considered for technology (as a prime WICF contributor) with respect to humanism, art and science: Out front re problem solving. Looking back to and drawing on the historical (but establishment-limited [i.e., paradigmatically, as by B-ness]) resources of humanism, art and science. Resources that HAS says need “< CEM >” development among themselves. Lacking this development (QED re establishments), technology – if properly grounded (i.e., not depending largely on individual initiative and market value for development), might well lead the Way forward. (Just not the primitive Alchemists’ ways.) Technology development, and the leadership for it, have one very distinctive potential advantage here: the R-transform, a meta-technology for technology (e.g., as discussed for the strengthening of our tries [KMmt: making steps to make the steps we take]).
** The human condition, so miniscule in the Universe, and on Earth so modest in geological history, now sparkles brighter than any other thing visible. And invites our closer attention.
*** Collision particulars soon make it known that Arrange (the step’s Grasp < CEM > Involve) has more going for it than the (oft dubiously informed) choice between approach and avoid.
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