C-205. What we do about what we do about what we do….
…. And what we have done, what we might do, what we ought to do….
B-ness is the prime example of the O:S-P type problem, where the problem lies not in this or that incompletely distributed solution (O:Sp), not in this or that consequence of a solution (O:Ps), not in this or that unsolved problem (O:P), but in the manner of problem solving.
We take steps. Step after step. Forward in R-spacetime -- whether behaviors qua body movement are observed as ahead, sideways or back in B-spacetime. We make steps to take. We make and take steps to make things that take steps (i.e., tool and/or procedure technologies). All this in light of needed functionality, engendered by the Nature of Things and marked by hard and soft collisions. AS and IN our distinctive part of, and our Frontier place ON and AT, the Expansion.
On the behavioral spectrum as, say, defined by professional observer domains, we are on the other end of the stick from physics and chemistry. There, observers of one-steppers follow the dictate of “is as does.” Here and now, ON and AT the Frontier, we do lots of things in lots of ways. And in view of our unsolved problems, we need to do a lot more and consider new ways. “Might” and “Ought” are big questions in this World of Possibility.*
We come to know (K). Found functionality (Kf), as in physics and chemistry and to a helpful, but limited, extent in human histories, falls short of our World of Possibility’s needed functionality. So we try things (Kt) to come to know. “Trial and error.” (But this is “try and fail.” “Trial” should imply more. Knowing via KMmt, using the R-transform to Read the Expansion, making steps by making a point.) Eve’s lament (C-187) is relevant. Why do we depend so much on step outcomes to improve our behavior? Why not a more helpful Read of step making and taking? In relation to needed functionality and possibility, not just particular step outcomes after the fact?** Pursuant to making steps? Adding something more, the Expansion and R-sense, to our Frontier agenda for our focal attention and consideration respectively.
We assign communicative terms (WISA: names, words, labels et al) to steps taken (e.g. “actions,” concepts), over an extensive array of relationships (e.g., intrapersonal, interpersonal, public) … and languages to further our communicative functionality – albeit not far enough, the B-ness nominalism being applied to globs of steps (e.g., “walking,” “eating”) without attention to step molecularity: its components and dynamics. Without attention to the step’s basic structure: Grasp < CEM > Involve. Without developmental attention to “< CEM > sense.” Not a good recipe for step making, not for emergence.
***
* Which “world” are we talking about? See the distinction between “weltanschauung” and “weltansicht” –one’s conception of the universe and life versus one’s Expansion attitude toward life and reality. It’s a difference that makes a difference in light of WTITBTA and WICF.
** As steps taken accumulate, we have a store of them from which to choose – if to decide is the Frontier option we exercise. The only option? How advisable is that? Given our problems unsolved and poorly solved? We create technologies of tool and procedure to enhance our problem-solving steps, adding more steps to take – and choose among. And then more technologies (e.g., “new and improved”). But what about technology to improve technology to improve technology? Meta-strategy re strategies re tactics, as in the Trial’s KMmt.
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
B-ness is the prime example of the O:S-P type problem, where the problem lies not in this or that incompletely distributed solution (O:Sp), not in this or that consequence of a solution (O:Ps), not in this or that unsolved problem (O:P), but in the manner of problem solving.
We take steps. Step after step. Forward in R-spacetime -- whether behaviors qua body movement are observed as ahead, sideways or back in B-spacetime. We make steps to take. We make and take steps to make things that take steps (i.e., tool and/or procedure technologies). All this in light of needed functionality, engendered by the Nature of Things and marked by hard and soft collisions. AS and IN our distinctive part of, and our Frontier place ON and AT, the Expansion.
On the behavioral spectrum as, say, defined by professional observer domains, we are on the other end of the stick from physics and chemistry. There, observers of one-steppers follow the dictate of “is as does.” Here and now, ON and AT the Frontier, we do lots of things in lots of ways. And in view of our unsolved problems, we need to do a lot more and consider new ways. “Might” and “Ought” are big questions in this World of Possibility.*
We come to know (K). Found functionality (Kf), as in physics and chemistry and to a helpful, but limited, extent in human histories, falls short of our World of Possibility’s needed functionality. So we try things (Kt) to come to know. “Trial and error.” (But this is “try and fail.” “Trial” should imply more. Knowing via KMmt, using the R-transform to Read the Expansion, making steps by making a point.) Eve’s lament (C-187) is relevant. Why do we depend so much on step outcomes to improve our behavior? Why not a more helpful Read of step making and taking? In relation to needed functionality and possibility, not just particular step outcomes after the fact?** Pursuant to making steps? Adding something more, the Expansion and R-sense, to our Frontier agenda for our focal attention and consideration respectively.
We assign communicative terms (WISA: names, words, labels et al) to steps taken (e.g. “actions,” concepts), over an extensive array of relationships (e.g., intrapersonal, interpersonal, public) … and languages to further our communicative functionality – albeit not far enough, the B-ness nominalism being applied to globs of steps (e.g., “walking,” “eating”) without attention to step molecularity: its components and dynamics. Without attention to the step’s basic structure: Grasp < CEM > Involve. Without developmental attention to “< CEM > sense.” Not a good recipe for step making, not for emergence.
* Which “world” are we talking about? See the distinction between “weltanschauung” and “weltansicht” –one’s conception of the universe and life versus one’s Expansion attitude toward life and reality. It’s a difference that makes a difference in light of WTITBTA and WICF.
** As steps taken accumulate, we have a store of them from which to choose – if to decide is the Frontier option we exercise. The only option? How advisable is that? Given our problems unsolved and poorly solved? We create technologies of tool and procedure to enhance our problem-solving steps, adding more steps to take – and choose among. And then more technologies (e.g., “new and improved”). But what about technology to improve technology to improve technology? Meta-strategy re strategies re tactics, as in the Trial’s KMmt.
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