C-209. Should foundations tithe?
Tithe may serve where tax is unacceptable, perhaps unfeasible. Where a resource greater than what we now have needs to be turned to.
We all, individually and collectively, but perhaps foundations most especially, need to be attentive to the relationship between responsibility and capability. Obviously so perhaps, given some of the dysfunction we have visited upon ourselves from neglect of the relationship. As, for example, the feckless lottery winner whose new capacity will challenge his capability to make best use of it. What emerges? Lots of things change, but what is solved?
Even more importantly, however, we should also attend the ratio of the two, given the all-too-frequent cases of responsibility/capability >1+ . And of >1++ . And, disastrously, of >1+++. This as control systems (e.g., stipulated responsibility) overrun operating systems (C.S./O.S. >1+++).
In all these (>1) cases, the independence and balanced emphasis demanded by the Nature of Things for needed functionality, by History’s and development theory’s CEM dynamic, are vitiated if not completely destroyed. To this, foundations should be self-conscious of their own responsibility/capability ratio.
With respect to capability, wherein developing the step’s molecularity can make the most of potential emergence, a foundation’s tithe should serve to explore the CEM dynamic for Support and Help* … to study their developmental history and to experiment in new developmental protocols. First of all, we need to apply the pragmatic precept to Support and Help. They are often confounded. That lack of independence prevents their thriving from the infusion of CEM.
Current support/help >1+ (even >1++) seems characteristic of foundation activity. This although doubt often is raised about pouring money into problem-solving enterprises that fail to live up to their promise. Still, oftentimes, support seems the only help we can give – or be given. (For lack of CEM developed capabilities?).
It seems clear that the imbalance noted is due in some part to Help being so difficult to render. For lack of a Grasp of the structure of process, of an art of behavioral architecture, of a science of the molecular step, of procedural technology appropriate to the human condition.** For lack of R-sense. For lack of R-technology (e.g., R-spacetime, R-transform, R-words). Without the Involve of R-spacetime and the assistance of other R-techs – i.e., procedural techs -- our B-ness crippled Grasp remains too weak to build needed Forward steps.
***
Foundations should tithe. But to whom? A foundation re foundations? Perhaps. Perhaps a foundation to forward foundations. A foundation more forward than current foundations. More forward in that it takes steps, and especially next steps, much more seriously than the cavalier, B-ness tainted concept of “behavior.” And more constructively, as in the theoretical construct of the molecular step.
A Forward Foundation focused on functionality, to serve forward steps … in their making and not just in their taking. Functionality that could help us Solve our problems.
A Forward Foundation that looks to step building, that provides principles for going forward. Principles that derive from the Nature of Things’ general persisting conditions of the Expansion: partial order, consequentiality (History per se), and discontinuity of bodies (aka independence). What a complete and accurate Read of collisions should lead us to.
A Forward Foundation, so to speak. Alert to all six problem types: The Nature of Thing’s Pbeh; the things of nature’s Psit; the quality of life’s four problems of Sp, Ps, P and, especially, S-P.***
Tithe to UnfoldFan.org? To FF.org? To Nextstep.org? To NewFrontier.org? Or some such enterprise. Preferably undertaken collectively. And, of course, not proprietarily.
***
*Both Support and Help should be seen as R-words. They, separately and/or together, need R-sense, tech re techs of R-spacetime and the R-transform, to be fully realized. That is: Grasped and Involved … effectively (i.e CEM).
Help’s contribution to a more emergent CEM relationship with Support is handicapped by our weak Grasp and development of Help. Think what is called for (WICF). WICF and Help are virtually synonymous. Endless problems of relevance, both in timing and content, plague us in what we do, try to do and fail to do .... for ourselves, for our communities, for others. We lack the strength of a molecular step’s Grasp CEM Involve.
** To cite four ways we do or might speak, conceptually and theoretically, about the Grasp we need to develop. Procedural tech (next step) is one of four main categories of technological development. The others are tool tech and two tool use techs (one about how to use tools and the other about how to make use of tools). All are directly applicable to the human condition, H.
Consider this modification to the suggestion in C-195:
H(h,a&s)T
Where “h,a&s” are establishment fields and disciplines: humanities, arts and sciences. They comprise practices based on things of nature. H is the human condition and T is technology. They are based on the Nature of Things.
“h,a&s” has made limited, sometimes unproductive use of tech. Especially of procedural tech: Witness O:S-P. How problems are solved – and not solved. As when handicapped by B-ness.
Consider too this Read of H(h,a&s)T: WTITBTA (WISA:WITA) WICF. To emphasize our neglect of the Nature of Things and of R-spacetime and R-technology development. How much better Grasp of matters is: WICF =f(WTITBTA, WITA and WISA) than the B-ness “stimulus-response” or “stimulus-response-reinforcement.”
*** Where and how B-ness (O:S-P) folded R-spacetime into B-spacetime, affording us an incomplete and inaccurate picture of step making and taking. R-spacetime, this World of Possibility, is hard to see when, via B-ness technology, it is visible only at the very edge of B-spacetime: AT, ON the Frontier of the Expansion.
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
We all, individually and collectively, but perhaps foundations most especially, need to be attentive to the relationship between responsibility and capability. Obviously so perhaps, given some of the dysfunction we have visited upon ourselves from neglect of the relationship. As, for example, the feckless lottery winner whose new capacity will challenge his capability to make best use of it. What emerges? Lots of things change, but what is solved?
Even more importantly, however, we should also attend the ratio of the two, given the all-too-frequent cases of responsibility/capability >1+ . And of >1++ . And, disastrously, of >1+++. This as control systems (e.g., stipulated responsibility) overrun operating systems (C.S./O.S. >1+++).
In all these (>1) cases, the independence and balanced emphasis demanded by the Nature of Things for needed functionality, by History’s and development theory’s CEM dynamic, are vitiated if not completely destroyed. To this, foundations should be self-conscious of their own responsibility/capability ratio.
With respect to capability, wherein developing the step’s molecularity can make the most of potential emergence, a foundation’s tithe should serve to explore the CEM dynamic for Support and Help* … to study their developmental history and to experiment in new developmental protocols. First of all, we need to apply the pragmatic precept to Support and Help. They are often confounded. That lack of independence prevents their thriving from the infusion of CEM.
Current support/help >1+ (even >1++) seems characteristic of foundation activity. This although doubt often is raised about pouring money into problem-solving enterprises that fail to live up to their promise. Still, oftentimes, support seems the only help we can give – or be given. (For lack of CEM developed capabilities?).
It seems clear that the imbalance noted is due in some part to Help being so difficult to render. For lack of a Grasp of the structure of process, of an art of behavioral architecture, of a science of the molecular step, of procedural technology appropriate to the human condition.** For lack of R-sense. For lack of R-technology (e.g., R-spacetime, R-transform, R-words). Without the Involve of R-spacetime and the assistance of other R-techs – i.e., procedural techs -- our B-ness crippled Grasp remains too weak to build needed Forward steps.
Foundations should tithe. But to whom? A foundation re foundations? Perhaps. Perhaps a foundation to forward foundations. A foundation more forward than current foundations. More forward in that it takes steps, and especially next steps, much more seriously than the cavalier, B-ness tainted concept of “behavior.” And more constructively, as in the theoretical construct of the molecular step.
A Forward Foundation focused on functionality, to serve forward steps … in their making and not just in their taking. Functionality that could help us Solve our problems.
A Forward Foundation that looks to step building, that provides principles for going forward. Principles that derive from the Nature of Things’ general persisting conditions of the Expansion: partial order, consequentiality (History per se), and discontinuity of bodies (aka independence). What a complete and accurate Read of collisions should lead us to.
A Forward Foundation, so to speak. Alert to all six problem types: The Nature of Thing’s Pbeh; the things of nature’s Psit; the quality of life’s four problems of Sp, Ps, P and, especially, S-P.***
Tithe to UnfoldFan.org? To FF.org? To Nextstep.org? To NewFrontier.org? Or some such enterprise. Preferably undertaken collectively. And, of course, not proprietarily.
*Both Support and Help should be seen as R-words. They, separately and/or together, need R-sense, tech re techs of R-spacetime and the R-transform, to be fully realized. That is: Grasped and Involved … effectively (i.e CEM).
Help’s contribution to a more emergent CEM relationship with Support is handicapped by our weak Grasp and development of Help. Think what is called for (WICF). WICF and Help are virtually synonymous. Endless problems of relevance, both in timing and content, plague us in what we do, try to do and fail to do .... for ourselves, for our communities, for others. We lack the strength of a molecular step’s Grasp CEM Involve.
** To cite four ways we do or might speak, conceptually and theoretically, about the Grasp we need to develop. Procedural tech (next step) is one of four main categories of technological development. The others are tool tech and two tool use techs (one about how to use tools and the other about how to make use of tools). All are directly applicable to the human condition, H.
Consider this modification to the suggestion in C-195:
Where “h,a&s” are establishment fields and disciplines: humanities, arts and sciences. They comprise practices based on things of nature. H is the human condition and T is technology. They are based on the Nature of Things.
“h,a&s” has made limited, sometimes unproductive use of tech. Especially of procedural tech: Witness O:S-P. How problems are solved – and not solved. As when handicapped by B-ness.
Consider too this Read of H(h,a&s)T: WTITBTA (WISA:WITA) WICF. To emphasize our neglect of the Nature of Things and of R-spacetime and R-technology development. How much better Grasp of matters is: WICF =f(WTITBTA, WITA and WISA) than the B-ness “stimulus-response” or “stimulus-response-reinforcement.”
*** Where and how B-ness (O:S-P) folded R-spacetime into B-spacetime, affording us an incomplete and inaccurate picture of step making and taking. R-spacetime, this World of Possibility, is hard to see when, via B-ness technology, it is visible only at the very edge of B-spacetime: AT, ON the Frontier of the Expansion.
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