C-217. The teeter-totter principle and test
R-sense says that steps Forward (“progress”), from self-fulfillment to any other kind of solution, in part or in full, whether to a behavioral or a situational problem, is essentially a call for emergence. When emergence is what is needed, the call then is for the CEM dynamic. This is the teeter-totter principle.
This in turn calls for step component independence (and perhaps a call for the pragmatic precept) and step balance: the teeter-totter test (T-TT: the call for ratio analysis of step components, such as the partnering of support and help in a service program of care).
In this R-sense, T-TT is evaluative. Functionality is linked to value. For emergence: That’s the point isn’t it? Given the Nature of Things, we are in need of functionality. It has value. We are especially in need of CEM functionality with respect to three of the problem types we have identified: Pbeh, O:P* and O:S-P. Pbeh because the behavioral problem, typically not separated from the situational problem, gets reduced to B-ness “person who” treatment. O:P because collective capability is called for and CEM’s Union is not there to provide it. O:S-P because every thing and only as a thing is seen in B-spacetime (4D or N-D).
***
T-TT goes beyond the DPA (dynamic profile assay) of App. XVII in giving added emphasis to degree of imbalance: >1 but also >1+, >1++ and >1+++. The greater the imbalance, the less TT’s desired emergent effect. Thus, for example, not much progress can be expected under the “leadership” of someone whose decision making/problem solving ratio is >1+++. Nor, unfortunately, can much of a protest be expected in a culture whose members possess the same ratio. Considerable dysfunction can be expected, as problems – new and old -- pile up.
Combined, say, with ratios of agree/understanding >1+++ and responsibility/capability >1++, such an analysis of leadership would be revealing with respect to the growing dysfunction. Agatha Christie’s Jane Marple would see through a demand for the relegation of a national responsibility to states. And she would have a local example to point TO.
This R-sense of matters, using the T-TT, seems a helpful diagnostic complement to the conventional B-ness approach, in which persons are described in terms of attributes. As, for example, the diagnostic categories of psychiatry or the (rougher) concepts of psychology. From which, the way Forward is moot? Try this? Try that? See, for example, the strategy of softening the problematic situation to enable resolution -- if not solution.
Which Grasp is stronger?
***
Message theory, because it deals directly with WICF, can help us discuss the T-T principle. The phases of step development, for strength and emergence, can be represented as a sequence of noun … verb … verb … noun. Or: “What … How … How … What.” From needed functionality to achieved functionality (the nouns) via two functionality (the verbs) phases.
The first How points to the exercise of some capability or capabilities. The second How points to the CEM technology opportunity.** Which pertains to multiple capabilities being brought to bear on an “object” (focus of attention) and “objective” (the second What).
Too often we shortcut matters, trying to get from What to What by setting a “goal“ … and by whatever it takes (WIT) to accomplish this. In a word, we Try. And learn from our mistakes. Or do we? All that it takes (ATIT) Tells us that something is missing. The needed verbs – i.e., functionalities.
If we represent this message sequence in color, from red for the first What, yellow for the first How, green for the second How and blue for the second What … well, then, we should anticipate that WIT’s lack of concern for How development is going to produce purple – as in perplexity.
The T-T principle urges us to prefer Trial, informed by ratios and T-TT, over Tries.
***
* H.S. Kim has laid out the collective behavior problem in terms of “co-“ activities. He notes that just the basic functional requisites (VII: exposure, focal attention, cognition, questioning, memory) taken together quickly impose a large number of possible molecular step structures … each the potential focus of development and research. For a simple example, cognition governing focal attention (as re surveillance).
** “Intransitive” and “transitive” verbs are pertinent point AT’s in B-speak. But they do not indicate the strength to be gained by CEM’s Compose partners in the R-sense roles. Capacity and capability in the first How, then again and more pointedly in the second How.
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
This in turn calls for step component independence (and perhaps a call for the pragmatic precept) and step balance: the teeter-totter test (T-TT: the call for ratio analysis of step components, such as the partnering of support and help in a service program of care).
In this R-sense, T-TT is evaluative. Functionality is linked to value. For emergence: That’s the point isn’t it? Given the Nature of Things, we are in need of functionality. It has value. We are especially in need of CEM functionality with respect to three of the problem types we have identified: Pbeh, O:P* and O:S-P. Pbeh because the behavioral problem, typically not separated from the situational problem, gets reduced to B-ness “person who” treatment. O:P because collective capability is called for and CEM’s Union is not there to provide it. O:S-P because every thing and only as a thing is seen in B-spacetime (4D or N-D).
T-TT goes beyond the DPA (dynamic profile assay) of App. XVII in giving added emphasis to degree of imbalance: >1 but also >1+, >1++ and >1+++. The greater the imbalance, the less TT’s desired emergent effect. Thus, for example, not much progress can be expected under the “leadership” of someone whose decision making/problem solving ratio is >1+++. Nor, unfortunately, can much of a protest be expected in a culture whose members possess the same ratio. Considerable dysfunction can be expected, as problems – new and old -- pile up.
Combined, say, with ratios of agree/understanding >1+++ and responsibility/capability >1++, such an analysis of leadership would be revealing with respect to the growing dysfunction. Agatha Christie’s Jane Marple would see through a demand for the relegation of a national responsibility to states. And she would have a local example to point TO.
This R-sense of matters, using the T-TT, seems a helpful diagnostic complement to the conventional B-ness approach, in which persons are described in terms of attributes. As, for example, the diagnostic categories of psychiatry or the (rougher) concepts of psychology. From which, the way Forward is moot? Try this? Try that? See, for example, the strategy of softening the problematic situation to enable resolution -- if not solution.
Which Grasp is stronger?
Message theory, because it deals directly with WICF, can help us discuss the T-T principle. The phases of step development, for strength and emergence, can be represented as a sequence of noun … verb … verb … noun. Or: “What … How … How … What.” From needed functionality to achieved functionality (the nouns) via two functionality (the verbs) phases.
The first How points to the exercise of some capability or capabilities. The second How points to the CEM technology opportunity.** Which pertains to multiple capabilities being brought to bear on an “object” (focus of attention) and “objective” (the second What).
Too often we shortcut matters, trying to get from What to What by setting a “goal“ … and by whatever it takes (WIT) to accomplish this. In a word, we Try. And learn from our mistakes. Or do we? All that it takes (ATIT) Tells us that something is missing. The needed verbs – i.e., functionalities.
If we represent this message sequence in color, from red for the first What, yellow for the first How, green for the second How and blue for the second What … well, then, we should anticipate that WIT’s lack of concern for How development is going to produce purple – as in perplexity.
The T-T principle urges us to prefer Trial, informed by ratios and T-TT, over Tries.
* H.S. Kim has laid out the collective behavior problem in terms of “co-“ activities. He notes that just the basic functional requisites (VII: exposure, focal attention, cognition, questioning, memory) taken together quickly impose a large number of possible molecular step structures … each the potential focus of development and research. For a simple example, cognition governing focal attention (as re surveillance).
** “Intransitive” and “transitive” verbs are pertinent point AT’s in B-speak. But they do not indicate the strength to be gained by CEM’s Compose partners in the R-sense roles. Capacity and capability in the first How, then again and more pointedly in the second How.
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