C-223. Can we make Reading easier?
Develop “Read CEM Tell” so as to make the teaching and learning of “reading and writing” easier – and better? What is said about (WISA) needs a lot of work (i.e., re WITA, WICF and WTITBTA), but this might – should – be a good place to start. And these “4 W’s” are related to each other.
We can readily make Read seem easier. For the troublesome introductory Read instruction that we are talking about is couched in one of many common languages: B-speaks,* a secondary Read and Tell (R&T) type. Secondary, that is, relative to the primary and tertiary R&T types. The secondary is at least familiar to the child, as a WISA tech, having heard it from before their 1st word spoken and spoken by them from then on. Primary R&T works (when it does) without words spoken or written. (Open your eyes and mind: Read what you see, words excluded. [Emulate Sherlock Holmes!]) Tertiary R&T works (when it does) when words [as terms?} have systemic standing. (You will have to Read the whole book to Grasp WITA. And you may have to learn a new language to do that.)**
Children should be confronted with the three types. They need this as part of R-sense. The primary, for example, to Read emotions as feelings, postures (“attitudes”) and relationships (between bodies and/or steps). The tertiary if only, for no other reason, to point TO the long developmental road (life) ahead, of which WISA is but a slice. The secondary R&T is the “easy” portion.
Easy but difficult. Too difficult, in too many ways: One difficulty is how to teach secondary R&T. Too many ways. Too many learner differences. And too many languages. Another difficulty is the obtuseness of secondary language’s WISA technology. There is an appalling gap between the nouns (subject and object of the sentence, into which gap are piled an assortment of parts of speech, plus some adjunct noun features [e.g., prefixes and suffixes]), plus punctuation and verbs. Nothing is really easy about WISA.
We use picture books to help teach secondary Reading, leveraging – hopefully -- the child forward from naming into wording. Only to confront concepts. Category labels, courtesy of B-speak’s B-ness, with instances as the collected B’s. A more name- than language-infused terminology. Only to confront double concepts (thoughtknots and tangles), WITA again Grasped weakly and nominally. Only to confront an unexplicated (but “parsed”?) language. (Are “intransitive” vs. “transitive,” adverbs and verb particles the best we can do re WISA’s verb technology?) Where grammatic usage is subject to continuing surveillance and correction (O:Ps) … by adversial “authorities.”
Words’ work (WISA) should also soon begin to be leveraged by language’s sentences. And to some extent it is. But incompletely and inaccurately. We got B-speak. And every language different.
Could – should – every language be the same? Demolishing what is or can be helpful about cultural differences? A universal language, constructed on the skeleton of similar differences to be found in the languages we have? A replacement language. Not necessarily.
In B-speak languages, there is a terrible WISA imbalance. Provision for R&T about step making and taking (i.e., WICF) is very weak (a ratio of body/step >1++, minimum). Further, B-speak technology registers steps typically as body attributes or body-body relationships: in terms (sic) of “behaviors.”***
But we know from History (the Nature of Things) that we need a balance of body and step. Indeed we were given it as History: Body CEM Step. The History that won’t end until the Expansion does – unlike, perhaps, this or that history. The ever-attendant behavioral problem, Pbeh, is as forever as life and History are.
If current languages are so imbalanced in what and how they give voice to WICF, in their R&T technology, doesn’t this suggest that about half of our WISA challenge is to compensate for this imbalance? And isn’t it fortunate that R-words bring with them a shared language to give words’ work re steps the leverage it has been missing? Cutting the secondary R&T work in half. That would make reading easier. #
And better: making the work of reading worth the effort.
Makes a good case for a general, rather than a universal, language. A Frontier (R-sense) language. (See the Frontier dictionary [C-211].)
***
Why learn to Read? To make use of this or that community’s and/or culture’s language technology, to enable participation and engagement therein. To be sure. To make use of this “window on the world.” To be sure. But also: To separate and buy R-spacetime from B-spacetime, to employ R-sense and R-technologies to make the most of our World of Possibility opportunity.
***
* Committee-sourced, which doesn’t help. Nor does the B-ness bias.
** The secondary and the tertiary are not clearly demarcated, although “jargon” may flag the tertiary. Hence the very troublesome confounding and confusion with regard to concepts (secondary) and theoretical constructs (tertiary). And the latter may migrate into the former (e.g., becoming Freudian concepts instead of Freudian [theoretical] constructs).
*** Adjectives, verbs, adverbs, tense. With considerable assistance from prepositions (see verb and noun particles). And “behaviors,” steps seen in and as after-the-fact particulars (procedural fragments) – i.e., as things of nature, as “objects” (of attention). And attached to bodies: Bs and BsB. These Bs and BsB are black holes in historical accounts and with respect to History. They are the dots which we must connect in order to have some Grasp of the Expansion and of Emergence. A very weak Grasp as things stand. Consider, for example, the difficulty over the centuries that observers have had in discerning a pattern to history – applying, for example, the metaphors, concepts and ascriptions of “evolution,” “stream,” “change,” “progress,” “dialectic,” “spirit,” “will,” “providence” and (Yes!) “development.” (“Pattern” because behavior visited via dots of Bs and BsB is truly a problem in pattern recognition.)
# It should also make primary and tertiary reading easier, because R-sense and R-technology could lend assistance there. The expanded Involve that R-spacetime (the World of Possibility) affords gives us a stronger Grasp … in part by bringing WICF and WTITBTA into the WISA picture. WISA re (only) WITA is pretty much an unending exercise. As in our adding words to the dictionary. More growing than living?
In light of the very useful Search feature now available, parenthetical back references are suspended for Comments as of C-184.
(c) 2020 R. F. Carter
We can readily make Read seem easier. For the troublesome introductory Read instruction that we are talking about is couched in one of many common languages: B-speaks,* a secondary Read and Tell (R&T) type. Secondary, that is, relative to the primary and tertiary R&T types. The secondary is at least familiar to the child, as a WISA tech, having heard it from before their 1st word spoken and spoken by them from then on. Primary R&T works (when it does) without words spoken or written. (Open your eyes and mind: Read what you see, words excluded. [Emulate Sherlock Holmes!]) Tertiary R&T works (when it does) when words [as terms?} have systemic standing. (You will have to Read the whole book to Grasp WITA. And you may have to learn a new language to do that.)**
Children should be confronted with the three types. They need this as part of R-sense. The primary, for example, to Read emotions as feelings, postures (“attitudes”) and relationships (between bodies and/or steps). The tertiary if only, for no other reason, to point TO the long developmental road (life) ahead, of which WISA is but a slice. The secondary R&T is the “easy” portion.
Easy but difficult. Too difficult, in too many ways: One difficulty is how to teach secondary R&T. Too many ways. Too many learner differences. And too many languages. Another difficulty is the obtuseness of secondary language’s WISA technology. There is an appalling gap between the nouns (subject and object of the sentence, into which gap are piled an assortment of parts of speech, plus some adjunct noun features [e.g., prefixes and suffixes]), plus punctuation and verbs. Nothing is really easy about WISA.
We use picture books to help teach secondary Reading, leveraging – hopefully -- the child forward from naming into wording. Only to confront concepts. Category labels, courtesy of B-speak’s B-ness, with instances as the collected B’s. A more name- than language-infused terminology. Only to confront double concepts (thoughtknots and tangles), WITA again Grasped weakly and nominally. Only to confront an unexplicated (but “parsed”?) language. (Are “intransitive” vs. “transitive,” adverbs and verb particles the best we can do re WISA’s verb technology?) Where grammatic usage is subject to continuing surveillance and correction (O:Ps) … by adversial “authorities.”
Words’ work (WISA) should also soon begin to be leveraged by language’s sentences. And to some extent it is. But incompletely and inaccurately. We got B-speak. And every language different.
Could – should – every language be the same? Demolishing what is or can be helpful about cultural differences? A universal language, constructed on the skeleton of similar differences to be found in the languages we have? A replacement language. Not necessarily.
In B-speak languages, there is a terrible WISA imbalance. Provision for R&T about step making and taking (i.e., WICF) is very weak (a ratio of body/step >1++, minimum). Further, B-speak technology registers steps typically as body attributes or body-body relationships: in terms (sic) of “behaviors.”***
But we know from History (the Nature of Things) that we need a balance of body and step. Indeed we were given it as History: Body CEM Step. The History that won’t end until the Expansion does – unlike, perhaps, this or that history. The ever-attendant behavioral problem, Pbeh, is as forever as life and History are.
If current languages are so imbalanced in what and how they give voice to WICF, in their R&T technology, doesn’t this suggest that about half of our WISA challenge is to compensate for this imbalance? And isn’t it fortunate that R-words bring with them a shared language to give words’ work re steps the leverage it has been missing? Cutting the secondary R&T work in half. That would make reading easier. #
And better: making the work of reading worth the effort.
Makes a good case for a general, rather than a universal, language. A Frontier (R-sense) language. (See the Frontier dictionary [C-211].)
Why learn to Read? To make use of this or that community’s and/or culture’s language technology, to enable participation and engagement therein. To be sure. To make use of this “window on the world.” To be sure. But also: To separate and buy R-spacetime from B-spacetime, to employ R-sense and R-technologies to make the most of our World of Possibility opportunity.
* Committee-sourced, which doesn’t help. Nor does the B-ness bias.
** The secondary and the tertiary are not clearly demarcated, although “jargon” may flag the tertiary. Hence the very troublesome confounding and confusion with regard to concepts (secondary) and theoretical constructs (tertiary). And the latter may migrate into the former (e.g., becoming Freudian concepts instead of Freudian [theoretical] constructs).
*** Adjectives, verbs, adverbs, tense. With considerable assistance from prepositions (see verb and noun particles). And “behaviors,” steps seen in and as after-the-fact particulars (procedural fragments) – i.e., as things of nature, as “objects” (of attention). And attached to bodies: Bs and BsB. These Bs and BsB are black holes in historical accounts and with respect to History. They are the dots which we must connect in order to have some Grasp of the Expansion and of Emergence. A very weak Grasp as things stand. Consider, for example, the difficulty over the centuries that observers have had in discerning a pattern to history – applying, for example, the metaphors, concepts and ascriptions of “evolution,” “stream,” “change,” “progress,” “dialectic,” “spirit,” “will,” “providence” and (Yes!) “development.” (“Pattern” because behavior visited via dots of Bs and BsB is truly a problem in pattern recognition.)
# It should also make primary and tertiary reading easier, because R-sense and R-technology could lend assistance there. The expanded Involve that R-spacetime (the World of Possibility) affords gives us a stronger Grasp … in part by bringing WICF and WTITBTA into the WISA picture. WISA re (only) WITA is pretty much an unending exercise. As in our adding words to the dictionary. More growing than living?
In light of the very useful Search feature now available, parenthetical back references are suspended for Comments as of C-184.
(c) 2020 R. F. Carter
S