C-216. A desirable oneness
To make the most of step making (see Eve’s lament), in addition to a more Forward point of view and perspective (R-sense and technology) and a useful beginning for the next step – and long before the molecular step’s outcome – we need a sense, a reading, of how we are doing in the work of the step, in its composing and its performance.
In what we might call a kind of “common sense” we do. At least sometimes. It’s “how it feels.” Frequently asked questions are, however, aimed primarily at the B-ness body state, in one form or another (e.g., “How are you?”, “How do you feel?”) rather than at step making and taking. Yet there are occasions in step taking when we get a feeling for how it is going.* As, for example, athletic performance “highs.”
How helpful, then, that the Nature of Things’ general persisting conditions provide a basis, needed functionality, on which we can base a step technology to improve matters. Guided by principle. That principle, “CEM”, first and forever evident in History’s Body CEM Step, steers the line of histories, evolutional and developmental. Its insistence on balance and independence, within and between or among steps, gives us what we need to develop more of a more useful “feeling.” (And confirm “Feel” as an R-word.)
We need balance, a ratio of “=1”, a desirable oneness, instead of the off-balanced conditions of “>1”, “>1+”, “>1++”, “>1+++“, for what goes into composing the independent units for the taken step. We get a kind of feeling for each of such imbalanced ratios: e.g., “unfair” (>1); “grossly unfair” (>1+); “getting out of hand” (>1++); “this is insane” (>1+++). Can CEM do better?
CEM presupposes a pragmatic premise: the (constant) quality of consequentiality in the Nature of Things. Thus the importance of a focus on the step, for within the step is where CEM does – or could do – its best work. There, it presupposes Compose, the partnering of molecular step elements to foster the architecture of emergence … that alchemy which is R-sense procedural technology.
(B-ness ratios speak to a different consideration. Take “supply/demand” and “cost/benefit,” for example. They may achieve “=1” – but regressively, as the “invisible hand” represents. Competitive edge can be obtained by studied imbalances in these cases [e.g., a hoarded resource]. To do otherwise requires a “plan” or a “budget” – i.e., still in B-spacetime … until, with the step tech help available in R-spacetime, these become R-words ... until we become progressive, not regressive, in Minding our behavior.**)
***
Let’s bring back the teeter-totter (T-T). Take two children. They are different. Scientifically, we can collect differences – and do. Things of nature, of which there are many, have lots of them. Fascinating stuff. We also have an interest in finding differences that make a difference (a pragmatic attitude re the pragmatic precept) … but all the differences we want and/or need cannot be found. Some have to be found OUT via steps we make and take.
Say we take these children to the playground and put them on the T-T. One child goes up and the other child goes down. And nothing else happens. (“Where’s the fun?”) What about the needed and wanted emergence? Compose is required. At least one of them will have to move – or be moved. And have to come to know this if we aren’t there to teach them.
This is the miracle of CEM. Simple as T-T. What’s distinctive about this is that progress toward the desired emergence is at hand throughout the steps being made and taken to achieve it. It is “self-corrective” in the best way: more than a resultant adjustment; it is also an adjusting along the way. It can be a feeling.
Our behavioral problem, Pbeh, is that we need to make CEM work, to make the most of it in quantity and quality. It has much to offer us. However, as of now, it is occluded by B-ness. We need R-sense and R-ratios to give Feel a more technological boost.
It is not enough to settle for the B-ness concept of “interdependence,” which asserts only that “Grasp = f(Involve)” and “Involve =f(Grasp).” CEM is more than that. It is what is called for (WICF) if and when emergence is WICF. And WICF is what the Nature of Things is talking about (WITA). And we should be (WTITBTA). It happened, as body CEM step for evolution. It can happen for development, happily as much as we need and/or want.
***
*This might well be a useful Grasp of a condition the “emotional intelligence” double concept should be talking about? But better seen as a theoretical construct?
** There may be an argument in and among the things of nature, which includes us, about “progress;” but there is no mistaking the certitude and import conveyed by the Nature of Things: Forward! “How are we doing?” indeed.
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
In what we might call a kind of “common sense” we do. At least sometimes. It’s “how it feels.” Frequently asked questions are, however, aimed primarily at the B-ness body state, in one form or another (e.g., “How are you?”, “How do you feel?”) rather than at step making and taking. Yet there are occasions in step taking when we get a feeling for how it is going.* As, for example, athletic performance “highs.”
How helpful, then, that the Nature of Things’ general persisting conditions provide a basis, needed functionality, on which we can base a step technology to improve matters. Guided by principle. That principle, “CEM”, first and forever evident in History’s Body CEM Step, steers the line of histories, evolutional and developmental. Its insistence on balance and independence, within and between or among steps, gives us what we need to develop more of a more useful “feeling.” (And confirm “Feel” as an R-word.)
We need balance, a ratio of “=1”, a desirable oneness, instead of the off-balanced conditions of “>1”, “>1+”, “>1++”, “>1+++“, for what goes into composing the independent units for the taken step. We get a kind of feeling for each of such imbalanced ratios: e.g., “unfair” (>1); “grossly unfair” (>1+); “getting out of hand” (>1++); “this is insane” (>1+++). Can CEM do better?
CEM presupposes a pragmatic premise: the (constant) quality of consequentiality in the Nature of Things. Thus the importance of a focus on the step, for within the step is where CEM does – or could do – its best work. There, it presupposes Compose, the partnering of molecular step elements to foster the architecture of emergence … that alchemy which is R-sense procedural technology.
(B-ness ratios speak to a different consideration. Take “supply/demand” and “cost/benefit,” for example. They may achieve “=1” – but regressively, as the “invisible hand” represents. Competitive edge can be obtained by studied imbalances in these cases [e.g., a hoarded resource]. To do otherwise requires a “plan” or a “budget” – i.e., still in B-spacetime … until, with the step tech help available in R-spacetime, these become R-words ... until we become progressive, not regressive, in Minding our behavior.**)
Let’s bring back the teeter-totter (T-T). Take two children. They are different. Scientifically, we can collect differences – and do. Things of nature, of which there are many, have lots of them. Fascinating stuff. We also have an interest in finding differences that make a difference (a pragmatic attitude re the pragmatic precept) … but all the differences we want and/or need cannot be found. Some have to be found OUT via steps we make and take.
Say we take these children to the playground and put them on the T-T. One child goes up and the other child goes down. And nothing else happens. (“Where’s the fun?”) What about the needed and wanted emergence? Compose is required. At least one of them will have to move – or be moved. And have to come to know this if we aren’t there to teach them.
This is the miracle of CEM. Simple as T-T. What’s distinctive about this is that progress toward the desired emergence is at hand throughout the steps being made and taken to achieve it. It is “self-corrective” in the best way: more than a resultant adjustment; it is also an adjusting along the way. It can be a feeling.
Our behavioral problem, Pbeh, is that we need to make CEM work, to make the most of it in quantity and quality. It has much to offer us. However, as of now, it is occluded by B-ness. We need R-sense and R-ratios to give Feel a more technological boost.
It is not enough to settle for the B-ness concept of “interdependence,” which asserts only that “Grasp = f(Involve)” and “Involve =f(Grasp).” CEM is more than that. It is what is called for (WICF) if and when emergence is WICF. And WICF is what the Nature of Things is talking about (WITA). And we should be (WTITBTA). It happened, as body CEM step for evolution. It can happen for development, happily as much as we need and/or want.
*This might well be a useful Grasp of a condition the “emotional intelligence” double concept should be talking about? But better seen as a theoretical construct?
** There may be an argument in and among the things of nature, which includes us, about “progress;” but there is no mistaking the certitude and import conveyed by the Nature of Things: Forward! “How are we doing?” indeed.
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