C-71. Balance requisite extended

In our original introduction to the Balance requisite (XI) as a needed behavioral capability, the primary focus was on the potential dysfunctionality of overemphasizing one of a dynamically interdependent pair (or triad), as, for example, learning over knowing, elementary over basic, ADOPT or ADAPT over ADEPT, efficiency over effectiveness, structure over function … all those and many more to be found in behavior.

Mention was made there too that balance of a kind was also needed among the many such relevant dynamic pairs and triads in order to attain and maintain a condition of neutral equilibrium – needed for behavior (C-69) just as a condition of stable equilibrium is needed for the body — to avert trauma.

Another (second order) extension of the balance requisite has begun to appear in later Applications (XVII’s DPA, especially) and Comments, an extension of enormous significance in humans as multi-step makers and takers, whose steps (aka actions/practices) are often very compound and complex, yet incomplete re needed functionality, behavioral molecules. (See II: “all that it takes.)

This extension looks to the balancing of the interdependency elements of a dynamic pair, as in beyond the balance of structure/function to the balance of structure => function/function => structure. For example, the second order aspect of the learning x knowing pair comprises two elements: the contributions (or distress) of learning for knowing and the contributions (or distress) of knowing for learning.

What we have been seeing of imbalances of this kind is illustrated by the distressing emphasis on what structure contributes to function – to the neglect of what functional needs and capabilities do or might contribute to structure. As, for example, in organizational emphasis on control system over operating system (C-36). And, for another example, the emphasis on interpreting U.S. statutes in terms of the Constitution qua structure (S => F) without recourse to the Constitution’s functionally oriented Preamble (F => S).

This interpretive practice appears to be aligned with our tendency (C-39) to describe human steps in consequence of the human body (B => S) more than human bodies in consequence of human steps (S => B), this although the steps may have as much – or more — to say about shaping the body’s structure than those particular environs which evolutionary theory credits (C-38).

These second order interdependencies give us a way to think positively about the acknowledged complexity of human behavior, our problems and our solutions, a way that does not invoke complexity as a projection of (and exit from?) our confusion (our lack of a behavioral map: App. XVI-XVII), and our lack of behavioral strength through undeveloped capabilities. Otherwise the complexity only grows….

Imbalances of the first and second order seem to have been feeding on themselves, producing clots and clogs of imbalances (XI). Consider, for example, the Family Clot. Here a parent’s own “behavioral problem/situational problem >1″ emphasis may produce a control system => operating system overemphasis … this then distorting other needed developments of family (qua community) interdependent capabilities, such as family communication patterns (Chaffee and MacLeod). The family, of course, is just one of many types of community that may experience this — or some other — clot or clog of dysfunctionality.

Consider, for example:

“Want/need = >1″ This first-order imbalance should give us pause (VIII);

“Want => need/need => want = >1″ This second-order imbalance should bring us to a screeching stop. (Sensory addiction has trumped sensory intelligence.)

Other imbalances readily attach themselves to these two – or any other initiating imbalances (body/step > 1 especially; See C-72). Dysfunction breeds dysfunction. Injury breeds injury.

Although clots and clogs make trouble enough for us, there’s more trouble in the fact that even if they were removed (see 0:S-P, IV; App. XII: the escarpment) we would still confront a condition of missing compositional pieces of behavioral structure (III: the Double Crystal) for the solutions we need. (This is where HAS disciplines [App. XV] bring us a CEM-positive (App. XI) contribution. They bring to bear the needed functionality, especially that of developed compositional capability, dictated by the Nature of Things. The trial in “trial and error” is then no longer so incompletely informed. And the error therein is supplemented, sometimes advisedly replaced, by the more helpful and supportive accident interpretation [App. IX].)

(c) 2012 R.F. Carter