C-200. Adam’s (origin-al) “sin”
We need a new story about the beginnings of the human adventure. More than a story about what happened in B-spacetime, about what happened after Eve ate of an apple, about the result of that step taken, about the “sin” attributed to Eve.
A new story about what happened in a different “Garden of Eden.” A story about what happened in R-spacetime, about deprivation not depravity. A story that we have already begun to tell, about Eve’s frustration because Adam depends too much on the results of the steps they had taken to look forward* to and in their next steps. A story about their not being able to do more up front in the steps about the steps they took.** Adam’s (origin-al) “sin” in this story.
Eve’s “sin” is about the responsibility for dysfunctionality, for all that has gone wrong ever since those supposedly halcyon days. Adam’s “sin” is about the lack of capability, about the neglect of needed functionality. (Respectively, a sin of commission and a sin of omission.)
But “sins” misses the point. Except, of course, for those who would make something of bad results … for proprietary and/or economic gain. Or for those who would profit by making what they can from mining the tailings of past steps taken (e.g., A.I.; “big data”; the distribution problems of O:Sp [solutions not available to all]; the correction problems of O:Ps [e.g., definitional problems arising from solutions]).
***
How sinful is the pride and arrogance of the so-called “hard sciences” in their somewhat backwards, somewhat forwards stance? Focused on and enamored of past particulars of behavior as things of nature, primarily in B-spacetime, interested in future functionality to the extent that it demonstrates oneness (see predictability) with past and present functionality (Was-Is-Will be).
What about some other Big Questions: What about “How come?”: History’s < CEM >? What about “What for?”: Nature of Things’ needed functionality? What about “Ought?”: Needed functionality? What about “Might?”: World of Possibility?
Functionality, if we are to be complete and accurate in our investigation and reports of it, calls for R-sense, R-spacetime and its companion technologies. As an add-on. To remedy B-ness inaccuracy and incompleteness – i.e., the sound of one hand clapping, the folly of facing backwards while walking forward, the futility of representing different things in different spacetimes using just one word … the absurdity of a “theory of everything” (re things of nature) when we need a theory ABOUT Everything (re the Nature of Things), too.
***
* The human body faces forward. Shouldn’t the step face forward too? Deny to development and molecular step makers that which evolution has awarded the body? See the body’s sensOry capacities and the step’s sensEry capabilities.
** As capitalism’s investments come largely in consequence of developments rather than in development per se. As, too, “educational” practices and techs emphasize learning over knowing. This imbalance stunts potential development (re Kt [e.g., KMmt]; via L < CEM > K). Lumsdaine’s criticism of Skinner’s reinforcement strategy for programmed learning applies here: reinforcement falters and falls short when students are unable to perform the requisite behavior.
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
A new story about what happened in a different “Garden of Eden.” A story about what happened in R-spacetime, about deprivation not depravity. A story that we have already begun to tell, about Eve’s frustration because Adam depends too much on the results of the steps they had taken to look forward* to and in their next steps. A story about their not being able to do more up front in the steps about the steps they took.** Adam’s (origin-al) “sin” in this story.
Eve’s “sin” is about the responsibility for dysfunctionality, for all that has gone wrong ever since those supposedly halcyon days. Adam’s “sin” is about the lack of capability, about the neglect of needed functionality. (Respectively, a sin of commission and a sin of omission.)
But “sins” misses the point. Except, of course, for those who would make something of bad results … for proprietary and/or economic gain. Or for those who would profit by making what they can from mining the tailings of past steps taken (e.g., A.I.; “big data”; the distribution problems of O:Sp [solutions not available to all]; the correction problems of O:Ps [e.g., definitional problems arising from solutions]).
How sinful is the pride and arrogance of the so-called “hard sciences” in their somewhat backwards, somewhat forwards stance? Focused on and enamored of past particulars of behavior as things of nature, primarily in B-spacetime, interested in future functionality to the extent that it demonstrates oneness (see predictability) with past and present functionality (Was-Is-Will be).
What about some other Big Questions: What about “How come?”: History’s < CEM >? What about “What for?”: Nature of Things’ needed functionality? What about “Ought?”: Needed functionality? What about “Might?”: World of Possibility?
Functionality, if we are to be complete and accurate in our investigation and reports of it, calls for R-sense, R-spacetime and its companion technologies. As an add-on. To remedy B-ness inaccuracy and incompleteness – i.e., the sound of one hand clapping, the folly of facing backwards while walking forward, the futility of representing different things in different spacetimes using just one word … the absurdity of a “theory of everything” (re things of nature) when we need a theory ABOUT Everything (re the Nature of Things), too.
* The human body faces forward. Shouldn’t the step face forward too? Deny to development and molecular step makers that which evolution has awarded the body? See the body’s sensOry capacities and the step’s sensEry capabilities.
** As capitalism’s investments come largely in consequence of developments rather than in development per se. As, too, “educational” practices and techs emphasize learning over knowing. This imbalance stunts potential development (re Kt [e.g., KMmt]; via L < CEM > K). Lumsdaine’s criticism of Skinner’s reinforcement strategy for programmed learning applies here: reinforcement falters and falls short when students are unable to perform the requisite behavior.
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