C-84. Communism, Socialism, utopias and community
Communism and Socialism envision a structural makeover – i.e., a Stage 4 (of consequentiality) solution which consists of replacing one structure with another one, with the expectation (or at least hope) that with this new structure functionality will increase and dysfunction decrease. Some allusion to, if not consideration of, Stage 3 consequentiality is made, although not all that judiciously, as we see in a notion such as “The end justifies the means.”
Utopias appear to be envisioned on the basis of previously registered values, from observation of Stage 4 practices and their outcomes. Then it seems to follow that such values, if shared, will furnish the design for a better Stage 4 (of structure with implied functions). On the record, utopian efforts have been found wanting re Stages 1-3, as, for instance re needed evaluative (not just valuative: C-31) contributions. Shared values, as important as they are (consider the alternative!), are not foundation, preparedness enough. Where is the muscle – i.e., the capability needed? (See HAS discipline: App. XV.)
These three propositions about community can be seen as ideas about communities and about behaviors (Stage 4 consequentiality). What they clearly are not is a good idea about community as behavior – of community as needed functionality, as developed functionality and as structural embodiment in consequence of exercised functionality (Stages 1-3).
These three propositions are weak ideas, more concepts than theoretical constructs. Absent is the strength which could and should come from development of needed capabilities – especially the minding capabilities (cognition, communication and composition) we see as very relevant to realization of community (from our understanding of it to our constitution of it as a behavioral entity) here and now in the frontier of history (App. XI, App. XII, App. XVI). Invoking the theoretical constructs of App. XIX, the Presence with which to compose a better Present.
Experimental communities (App. II; C-10), working on the Nature of Things foundation for behavior, and looking toward positive restructuring, would be an appropriate infrastructural investment for any society (App. XIII). Realization of community as an effective behavioral entity is beyond the horizon of the Stage 4 perspective that we now have on what we term “communities.”
In the “old world” manner of speaking in terms of concepts much more often than in terms of theoretical constructs, we might speak of the community difference. But it is as a theoretical construct that we need to see this. The “community difference” says that community as change agency (II; App. II) is initially a in response to needed functionality, then realized further by capabilities developed and exercised in a behavioral entity possessed of both step and body structures. We would stymie ourselves in problem solving were we to retain a concept of community predicated pretty much on Stage 4 observations of particular entities (behavioral perhaps primarily only in their relationships).
(c) 2013 R.F. Carter
Utopias appear to be envisioned on the basis of previously registered values, from observation of Stage 4 practices and their outcomes. Then it seems to follow that such values, if shared, will furnish the design for a better Stage 4 (of structure with implied functions). On the record, utopian efforts have been found wanting re Stages 1-3, as, for instance re needed evaluative (not just valuative: C-31) contributions. Shared values, as important as they are (consider the alternative!), are not foundation, preparedness enough. Where is the muscle – i.e., the capability needed? (See HAS discipline: App. XV.)
These three propositions about community can be seen as ideas about communities and about behaviors (Stage 4 consequentiality). What they clearly are not is a good idea about community as behavior – of community as needed functionality, as developed functionality and as structural embodiment in consequence of exercised functionality (Stages 1-3).
These three propositions are weak ideas, more concepts than theoretical constructs. Absent is the strength which could and should come from development of needed capabilities – especially the minding capabilities (cognition, communication and composition) we see as very relevant to realization of community (from our understanding of it to our constitution of it as a behavioral entity) here and now in the frontier of history (App. XI, App. XII, App. XVI). Invoking the theoretical constructs of App. XIX, the Presence with which to compose a better Present.
Experimental communities (App. II; C-10), working on the Nature of Things foundation for behavior, and looking toward positive restructuring, would be an appropriate infrastructural investment for any society (App. XIII). Realization of community as an effective behavioral entity is beyond the horizon of the Stage 4 perspective that we now have on what we term “communities.”
In the “old world” manner of speaking in terms of concepts much more often than in terms of theoretical constructs, we might speak of the community difference. But it is as a theoretical construct that we need to see this. The “community difference” says that community as change agency (II; App. II) is initially a in response to needed functionality, then realized further by capabilities developed and exercised in a behavioral entity possessed of both step and body structures. We would stymie ourselves in problem solving were we to retain a concept of community predicated pretty much on Stage 4 observations of particular entities (behavioral perhaps primarily only in their relationships).
(c) 2013 R.F. Carter
S