C-198. Lost: the Vermont farmer II
After the Boston tourists had left (He had said, in response to a request for directions back to Boston, “I wouldn’t start from here”), the farmer remarked to his team of horses, “I wouldn’t have started from Boston either."
His view of the Human Condition. Where we begin. The steps we take, like the bodies we possess, have beginnings. These beginnings vary by our view of the human condition, in general not just in its particulars. “Know thyself.”
Boston, re the human condition, is like the tip of an iceberg. That iceberg is but a fragment of a glacier. That glacier but one of many covering portions of planet Earth. Farmer, tourists, horses, Boston, iceberg, glacier, Earth … all things of nature, together obscuring the Nature of Things.
These “things of nature” (t’s of n), humans included, offer one view of objects* in terms of a “universe” of particulars seen after the fact. Seen qua bodies in B-spacetime, the things of nature comprise B-ness. Risky B-ness. The focus of attention on behavioral particulars after the fact limits Mind’s needed functionality, for Points, in consequence of the Nature of Things’ incomplete instruction.
This perspective looks back from the Frontier, and ahead only as “Was-Is-Will be” applies. Enough of the Universe and of universal laws! Because they are not general enough. We are imbalanced. Not Involve enough to Grasp all the functionality there is to be found, not enough by far for the functionality we need to solve humanity’s problems.
Focus just on the t’s of n also risks seeing universals as the only generality. This despite the generality of the Nature of Thing’s three constants: partial order, consequentiality and discontinuity (of bodies). Which hold AT and ON the moving Frontier of the Expansion.
The Nature of Things’ three constants are made apparent by and in body-body collisions. And by the incomplete instruction in consequence of partial order … for step making and taking, re arranging collisions and re arranging to avoid them.
Ergo: What is called for (WICF). And the technological question (and problem), re “called for,” of language’s what is said about (WISA). Not only WISA re what is talked about (WITA), but also in regard to what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA) – but isn’t and needs to be (WICF). The Nature of Things needs to be talked about if we are to become as technologically advanced looking forward as we have become looking backward. WICF needs WISA for all three.
B-spacetime, so avidly developed technologically, serves us well looking backward. But looking forward, we need R-sense (i.e., R-spacetime). Hence the needed technological developments following on refocused attention: from body to step, to the Expansion (from “expanding universe”) and of its Read via the R-transform, with the companion language development of R-words.
We need to exert control of collisions by steps we take (and make!), using the back and forth step molecularity between Grasp and Involve that, if properly employed, yields contingent emergent materiality (< CEM >).** New and better functionality. The functionality we need. To produce it via Compose before the fact when it is not to be found among after-the-fact things. Hence the need for R-sense and the Involve of R-spacetime with which to Grasp the need for and production of functionality.
Step functionality that is still available, via development, when and while found body resources of functionality become scarcer. (See capacity < CEM > capability.)
***
Think like Einstein. Use thingks. But not just about the same things. Where are we? Where do we stand? In the universe (a thingk), vanishingly small? Inconsequential? Or AT and ON the Frontier, the moving edge of the Expansion … which, given the Nature of Things’ partial order, is History’s forever middle of things*** where consequentiality blooms via step making and taking. The Expansion swells here, locally. The middle of things, which given the Nature of Things is a continuing challenge in maintaining a balance between attention to before-the-fact and after-the fact, to past and future by enlarging the present (as a slice of the future).
***
* Objects of attention if not always of substance (aka body).
** The same < CEM > mechanism that has been History’s “body < CEM > step” path forward, this same mechanism that energizes the step’s “Mind < CEM > Move” and of countless other within-step developments of capability that can and might strengthen our problem-solving steps. The complement to evolution’s plodding between-generation natural selection mechanism in the story of humanity.
*** The here and now of the human condition. Consider, for example, the material implications for journalism practice, of a broader functionality, beyond the passing record of historyies’ most-recent things (“news”) to a continuing History-based surveillance. Frontier journalism, re our place in History (the Expansion’s consequentiality per se), could hardly be more important. As, for example, to monitor ratios (for independence, balance and < CEM > development) as “social indicators.” Consider then our technologically impoverished social indicators: unbalanced, sometimes confounded (e.g., concept of “consumer confidence”) and weak (e.g., public opinion polls).
Journalism needs to expand. It may have to expand to survive, given the recent damaging trend in social media technology (i.e., transport/message >1++). Democracy needs it. Union (individual < CEM > community) may not survive without needed message technology to (at least!) balance the surfeit of uncensored bits.
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) 2020 R. F. Carter
His view of the Human Condition. Where we begin. The steps we take, like the bodies we possess, have beginnings. These beginnings vary by our view of the human condition, in general not just in its particulars. “Know thyself.”
Boston, re the human condition, is like the tip of an iceberg. That iceberg is but a fragment of a glacier. That glacier but one of many covering portions of planet Earth. Farmer, tourists, horses, Boston, iceberg, glacier, Earth … all things of nature, together obscuring the Nature of Things.
These “things of nature” (t’s of n), humans included, offer one view of objects* in terms of a “universe” of particulars seen after the fact. Seen qua bodies in B-spacetime, the things of nature comprise B-ness. Risky B-ness. The focus of attention on behavioral particulars after the fact limits Mind’s needed functionality, for Points, in consequence of the Nature of Things’ incomplete instruction.
This perspective looks back from the Frontier, and ahead only as “Was-Is-Will be” applies. Enough of the Universe and of universal laws! Because they are not general enough. We are imbalanced. Not Involve enough to Grasp all the functionality there is to be found, not enough by far for the functionality we need to solve humanity’s problems.
Focus just on the t’s of n also risks seeing universals as the only generality. This despite the generality of the Nature of Thing’s three constants: partial order, consequentiality and discontinuity (of bodies). Which hold AT and ON the moving Frontier of the Expansion.
The Nature of Things’ three constants are made apparent by and in body-body collisions. And by the incomplete instruction in consequence of partial order … for step making and taking, re arranging collisions and re arranging to avoid them.
Ergo: What is called for (WICF). And the technological question (and problem), re “called for,” of language’s what is said about (WISA). Not only WISA re what is talked about (WITA), but also in regard to what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA) – but isn’t and needs to be (WICF). The Nature of Things needs to be talked about if we are to become as technologically advanced looking forward as we have become looking backward. WICF needs WISA for all three.
B-spacetime, so avidly developed technologically, serves us well looking backward. But looking forward, we need R-sense (i.e., R-spacetime). Hence the needed technological developments following on refocused attention: from body to step, to the Expansion (from “expanding universe”) and of its Read via the R-transform, with the companion language development of R-words.
We need to exert control of collisions by steps we take (and make!), using the back and forth step molecularity between Grasp and Involve that, if properly employed, yields contingent emergent materiality (< CEM >).** New and better functionality. The functionality we need. To produce it via Compose before the fact when it is not to be found among after-the-fact things. Hence the need for R-sense and the Involve of R-spacetime with which to Grasp the need for and production of functionality.
Step functionality that is still available, via development, when and while found body resources of functionality become scarcer. (See capacity < CEM > capability.)
Think like Einstein. Use thingks. But not just about the same things. Where are we? Where do we stand? In the universe (a thingk), vanishingly small? Inconsequential? Or AT and ON the Frontier, the moving edge of the Expansion … which, given the Nature of Things’ partial order, is History’s forever middle of things*** where consequentiality blooms via step making and taking. The Expansion swells here, locally. The middle of things, which given the Nature of Things is a continuing challenge in maintaining a balance between attention to before-the-fact and after-the fact, to past and future by enlarging the present (as a slice of the future).
* Objects of attention if not always of substance (aka body).
** The same < CEM > mechanism that has been History’s “body < CEM > step” path forward, this same mechanism that energizes the step’s “Mind < CEM > Move” and of countless other within-step developments of capability that can and might strengthen our problem-solving steps. The complement to evolution’s plodding between-generation natural selection mechanism in the story of humanity.
*** The here and now of the human condition. Consider, for example, the material implications for journalism practice, of a broader functionality, beyond the passing record of historyies’ most-recent things (“news”) to a continuing History-based surveillance. Frontier journalism, re our place in History (the Expansion’s consequentiality per se), could hardly be more important. As, for example, to monitor ratios (for independence, balance and < CEM > development) as “social indicators.” Consider then our technologically impoverished social indicators: unbalanced, sometimes confounded (e.g., concept of “consumer confidence”) and weak (e.g., public opinion polls).
Journalism needs to expand. It may have to expand to survive, given the recent damaging trend in social media technology (i.e., transport/message >1++). Democracy needs it. Union (individual < CEM > community) may not survive without needed message technology to (at least!) balance the surfeit of uncensored bits.
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) 2020 R. F. Carter
S