C-208. Breakout from B-ness
Let’s reconsider the Kantian apriori. What does the observer, as actor, bring to the encounter with the observed – other than a hypothesized capacity to apply cognitive categories to Grasp the observed? The observer-actor brings two capabilities predicated on capacities due to the Nature of Things: 1/ the next step (the second G. G. Simpson concern); and, 2/ the front of the next step (Eve’s concern).
And where is the observer relative to the observed? Here and now, AT, ON the Frontier of the Expansion, not just in the B-ness and B-speak’s imputed “universe.”
What a difference a difference can make. The Nature of Things distinguished from things of nature. And now we see more Difs =>Difs, applying R-sense in R-spacetime using the R-transform to Read the Expansion. Rescuing the step from body property and/or body-body connector, from its categorical Grasp as “behavior.”
And all this not because empiricism, the study of after-the-fact particulars, is a mistake. It is, however, a mis-Read: incomplete and inaccurate with respect to the fact of collisions: the Nature of Things’ general persisting conditions: partial order, consequentiality and discontinuity (independence of steps, of bodies).
***
As needed functionality increases, from the weakly solved behavioral problem (Pbeh: O:S-P)* and from unsolved situational problems (Psits; O:Sp,Ps)** the human circumstance gets hotter and hotter … and here we sit around with folded fans … using these folded fans to point AT/TO what and/or whom seems responsible.
B-ness is the folding of that fan. R(realization)-spacetime is folded into B-spacetime. At the expense of what is called for (WICF) and what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA). Proactive development is forfeit to passive evolution (“evolution” as concept and theory, especially) when we need to focus attention on needed emergent functionality, why we need it and how to make it work.***
How does human functionality look when evolution’s natural selection is confounded with development’s “CEM” (contingent emergent materiality)? Picture them first as a one-dimensional line of history from Big Bang to the present: Human functionality is a very slowly rising slope for a very long time. In recent centuries the slope begins to trend upward – thanks to development.#
However, if we pull evolution and development apart, two-dimensionally (as by graphing with two axes), with development’s CEM on the vertical axis and evolution’s natural selection on the horizontal axis, we see that functionality is increasingly more a matter of development as CEM increases.
And that if we successfully introduce CEM technology, CEM and development will increase too … perhaps spectacularly.
When it comes to functionality we have depended too much on B-ness technology. Step making and taking technologies abound: Our many and various ways of doing things (e.g., practices, actions, behaviors, habits, traditions, customs … et al). But in and with B-ness technology. Especially with B-speak, linguistic tech.
R-sense technology has been lacking, captive to and oppressed by B-ness.
***
There is a natural experiment that illustrates the phenomenon of unfolding the fan, of separating R-spacetime and B-spacetime. As we get into our nineties, even as we practice efficiently some daily activities, they seem to take longer. They do, measured in B-spacetime.
Can we unfold the fan earlier in our lives, technologically, to our advantage? Yes. Reading offers us this service. “Lost in another world,” some would say. “Found another world” would be more apt. The World of Possibility, where the Reader can indulge in stops to think, stops to reread, stops to question, stops to disagree … opportunities to apply the pragmatic precept … responding to the never-ending need for differences that make differences that is problem solving.
Unfold the fan and the World of Possibility opens up. It’s what the R-transform does. Once we focus attention on functionality, on the Expansion.## Look to the butterfly’s two wings: Flight! Not look just at any later effects of a breeze generated by the butterfly’s flight.
***
* For our lack of Grasp of the Nature of Things: needed functionality given the general persisting conditions of partial order, consequentiality and discontinuity (separate bodies). Conditions that are, and have been, there to see in the phenomenon, not just the phenomena, of collisions.
** In terms of quality of life (O:QL point): O:Sp, solution with remaining problems (e.g., distribution); O:Ps, problem arising from solution (e.g., needed corrections in usage); O:P, problem without solution or with incomplete solution (e.g., climate control); O:S-P, problem with the solution’s method (e.g., B-ness techs).
*** For the behavioral problem especially. And, by extension, O:P – problems whose solutions require collective behavior (e.g., the importance of “…toward a more perfect Union” and of the procedural technology we need to find the way there).
# i.e, that which is happening within generations rather than between generations.
## The Expansion in consequence of Big Bang, not the attribute of the fictitious B-ness “universe.”
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
And where is the observer relative to the observed? Here and now, AT, ON the Frontier of the Expansion, not just in the B-ness and B-speak’s imputed “universe.”
What a difference a difference can make. The Nature of Things distinguished from things of nature. And now we see more Difs =>Difs, applying R-sense in R-spacetime using the R-transform to Read the Expansion. Rescuing the step from body property and/or body-body connector, from its categorical Grasp as “behavior.”
And all this not because empiricism, the study of after-the-fact particulars, is a mistake. It is, however, a mis-Read: incomplete and inaccurate with respect to the fact of collisions: the Nature of Things’ general persisting conditions: partial order, consequentiality and discontinuity (independence of steps, of bodies).
As needed functionality increases, from the weakly solved behavioral problem (Pbeh: O:S-P)* and from unsolved situational problems (Psits; O:Sp,Ps)** the human circumstance gets hotter and hotter … and here we sit around with folded fans … using these folded fans to point AT/TO what and/or whom seems responsible.
B-ness is the folding of that fan. R(realization)-spacetime is folded into B-spacetime. At the expense of what is called for (WICF) and what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA). Proactive development is forfeit to passive evolution (“evolution” as concept and theory, especially) when we need to focus attention on needed emergent functionality, why we need it and how to make it work.***
How does human functionality look when evolution’s natural selection is confounded with development’s “CEM” (contingent emergent materiality)? Picture them first as a one-dimensional line of history from Big Bang to the present: Human functionality is a very slowly rising slope for a very long time. In recent centuries the slope begins to trend upward – thanks to development.#
However, if we pull evolution and development apart, two-dimensionally (as by graphing with two axes), with development’s CEM on the vertical axis and evolution’s natural selection on the horizontal axis, we see that functionality is increasingly more a matter of development as CEM increases.
And that if we successfully introduce CEM technology, CEM and development will increase too … perhaps spectacularly.
When it comes to functionality we have depended too much on B-ness technology. Step making and taking technologies abound: Our many and various ways of doing things (e.g., practices, actions, behaviors, habits, traditions, customs … et al). But in and with B-ness technology. Especially with B-speak, linguistic tech.
R-sense technology has been lacking, captive to and oppressed by B-ness.
There is a natural experiment that illustrates the phenomenon of unfolding the fan, of separating R-spacetime and B-spacetime. As we get into our nineties, even as we practice efficiently some daily activities, they seem to take longer. They do, measured in B-spacetime.
Can we unfold the fan earlier in our lives, technologically, to our advantage? Yes. Reading offers us this service. “Lost in another world,” some would say. “Found another world” would be more apt. The World of Possibility, where the Reader can indulge in stops to think, stops to reread, stops to question, stops to disagree … opportunities to apply the pragmatic precept … responding to the never-ending need for differences that make differences that is problem solving.
Unfold the fan and the World of Possibility opens up. It’s what the R-transform does. Once we focus attention on functionality, on the Expansion.## Look to the butterfly’s two wings: Flight! Not look just at any later effects of a breeze generated by the butterfly’s flight.
* For our lack of Grasp of the Nature of Things: needed functionality given the general persisting conditions of partial order, consequentiality and discontinuity (separate bodies). Conditions that are, and have been, there to see in the phenomenon, not just the phenomena, of collisions.
** In terms of quality of life (O:QL point): O:Sp, solution with remaining problems (e.g., distribution); O:Ps, problem arising from solution (e.g., needed corrections in usage); O:P, problem without solution or with incomplete solution (e.g., climate control); O:S-P, problem with the solution’s method (e.g., B-ness techs).
*** For the behavioral problem especially. And, by extension, O:P – problems whose solutions require collective behavior (e.g., the importance of “…toward a more perfect Union” and of the procedural technology we need to find the way there).
# i.e, that which is happening within generations rather than between generations.
## The Expansion in consequence of Big Bang, not the attribute of the fictitious B-ness “universe.”
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