C-88. Four stages of linguistic being

The four stages of consequentiality (App. XIX: Nature of Things => needed functionality; needed functionality => developed functionality; exercised functionality => structures (behavioral and entity); structures => functions) are also stages of being and becoming. They are stages of realization. They offer a much better sense of behavioral entities than entity-characterizing concepts like “existence.” This because we get theoretical explication (C-85) rather than dubious definition (so much incomplete, so often inaccurate).

Thus, when we speak of “living languages” the four stages of consequentiality should give us reason and a procedural tool (App. VII) to, first, look anew at languages as they now operate, seeing them as behavioral molecular technologies … and then second, to see what we still need from language development and how we might proceed to improve language technology as a procedural tool (cf. App. XX: Message theory; C-55).

Consider what common languages now employ to convey Stages 1-4 as a sensery Read of the behavioral entity’s being and becoming:






Linguistic term:





Where Stage 1 pertains to needed functionality (given the Nature of Things), Stage 2 to developing functional capability (e.g., to relate), Stage 3 to exercising functionality to producerelationships (e.g., structures), and Stage 4 to functions performed by structures (e.g., BE activities). (See App. XIX.)

The following tabulation of (Webster’s College World) dictionary entries for six behavioral terms help to tell the story here:

Stage/L Term


























(* A book as a “good read” and a poker player’s revealing “tell” would qualify. Also see quantitative measures and other indications as reads and tells.)

We see that needed functionality (1) may be presumed for each of these behavioral terms, but a point (!) has not been made of this – which, given our unrealized developmental needs and tendencies toward a passive “evolutionary” metastrategy for “living language” and our way forward, is not good.

Were it to be argued that the cell entries for Stage 4 afford a definition for the Stage 1 condition – with the Hume correction for incompleteness included, there is a linguistic Tell that raises an important objection: The noun in Stage 4 usage takes the plural; the same noun in Stage 1 does not. The needed functionality of Stage 1 may actually be what the concept of “essence” has been trying to reach for via the central tendency of a concept rather than via a shared historical root. (A case of B-reductionism instead of S-reductionism [III]?)

To look at this in another way, a common noun in Stage 4 deals with particulars while the same noun in Stage 1 deals with a generality (III). (A generality which differs from the plural’s generality: Universal =/= general.)This is why for optimal realization of behavior, theoretical explication and its constructs are to be preferred to definition and concepts as procedural tools (App. VII; C-81, C-85). Concepts still have a part to play, but more for introduction and summary than for explanation (App. XVIII).

“Message” stands forlorn, overlooked as a verb. (But not for long. See App. XX.) “Communication” (employing the stage-compressing “-ion” form) relegates message to a “what” between sender and receiver. “Sense” as a verb is not treated much better… apparently because sensery capability is confounded and confused with sensory capacity (XI), as via the encompassing term “ability” – and captive to it linguistically.

It should be noted that verb and noun fractals (C-40) supplement the verb and noun linguistic terms. For example, for verbs, “sort out” and “find out” have more to say than “sort” and “find.” For nouns, (a) point AT and (a) point TO differ in what they are talking about from the verb fractals “point at” and “point to.”

Adjectival and adverbial forms of these terms adhere to the Stage 4 perspective, utilizing the object-attribute plus inside-outside relation ideational technology. (Adverbs, it seems, climb on board via a hypostatization of verbs – a nominalization all too familiar as a treatment of behaviors.)

=> Note: Suffixes such as “-ion,” “-ity” and “-ment”share the dubious quality of compressing into noun form,and thus incompletely presenting, the four stages of consequentiality (sic!). Languages, as do our lives, provide an incomplete realization (sic!) of the Nature of Things. Development (sic!) is a big loser here. We are the biggest loser, lacking awareness and capabilitiesneeded to solve our problems – some, like these of languages, of our own creation.Realization (sic!) is itself in need of realization (!) … in need of our coming to the understanding that this term, like so many others, pertains to the four stages of being and becoming. Presence (App. XIX) demands no less.

(c) 2013 R.F. Carter