CABALS, Corporations, Governments – revisited

This is a very rough draft in progress. I present an insight, that if true, would be highly significant for the “future direction of humankind”. I welcome others to join me in this Learning Expedition.

INSIGHT: 3, instead of 2, fundamental social/societal systems are now at play. To Corporations and Governments I propose we add CABALS (of Conspiratorial Gangs [CG]. CGs have probably existed since the rise of humankind, and Cabals of CGs, have also been influential in different eras and places. What I propose is different in this 21st century is the globalization of cabals and their enhanced power using Intelligent Technology.

CONSEQUENCE:  Trump, the GOP, and Russia are NOT the primary players in the game unfolding across Planet Earth.

CABALS – re-defined.

The term, CABAL, took on its present meaning from a group of ministers of King Charles II of England (Sir Thomas Clifford, Lord Arlington, the Duke of Buckingham, Lord Ashley, and Lord Lauderdale), whose initial letters coincidentally spelled CABAL, and who were the signatories of the Secret Treaty of Dover that allied England to France in a prospective war against the Netherlands.

If we were strict to the dictionary, what I have labeled “conspiratorial gangs” are cabals, and what I have labeled “cabals” are meta-cabals.

What distinguishes cabals and CGs from governments and corporations is the absence of formal (constitutional) organization. In this sense of “Organized Crime”, their “organization” is more fluid (yet, could be strictly enforced by threats-of-force, at any moment).  I will add another acronym, LOC, for “LEGAL ORGANIZED CRIME”. LOC exists when cabals of CGs infiltrate governments and corporations and permit criminal acts. Not all acts by cabals need be “criminal”, in the legal sense – but just as heinous, such as letting people (incidentally) starve to gain profit.


The Russian Revolution was strongly influenced by a CG (Lenin, etc.) and CGs must have existed through the history of the USSR. The “fall” of the USSR might be attributed to cabals (oligarchs from the “West” and those desiring to be oligarchs in Russia).  Secret agencies, like the old KGB, were probably rife with smaller CGs (in competition for power) – including Putin.

Contemporary Russia is probably a mix of “more formal” governments and corporations, all infiltrated by CGs which can direct operations, such as manipulating elections in other nations. In a sense, neither Russia or America EXIST.

For those neither Russian or American, can they blame “the USA” for all the bad things done by Trump and the GOP – when the majority of US citizens oppose these actions, as well at the Democratic Party. Can we blame “the Russians” for everything done by “the Kremlin” – and the cabals within them?


In the case of the USA, the grand scheme of global cabals (possibly led by Russian cabals) is to install a cabal deep into USA governmental systems (Federal to Local).  Political corruption is but a consequence of cabal action.

Cabals in corporations maneuver their formal leadership to steal from the citizenry. This has been going on for decades in the USA, while the governments in the EU had more control to limit their cabals. This may be breaking down in the EU, and other viable nations/economies.

An intriguing query is why the cabals influencing the USA would let the infrastructure decay, to the extent that the USA may lose its economic leadership,  let alone global hegemony.  I speculate that the dominant cabal in the USA, since WWII – and until “recently”, has not included organized criminal cabals (“Mafias”).  There may now be a global cabal (within BRICS & more) that believes it necessary to blunt the military hegemony of the USA (subverting Ukraine, Iraq, Syria, etc.).  The old cabal, that included all past USA Presidents, is in competition with a rapidly emergent global cabal (seafed by IT).

The decades long history of Donald Trump is rich with evidence of his deep involvement with organized crime.  Decades ago, facing bankruptcy and ruin, he was “hired” by a cabal of bankers to be a promotional front man. Trumps skills at disruption were recognized, as well as the ease to manipulate him. He is pure ego.

Why commentators with left perspectives continue as if Trump is in control of USA policy, is a query of high significance. Add to this the absence of commentary of USA military push around Russia that gives Russia legitimacy to defense – cyber defense. This query leads us beyond the scope of this essay: humans cognition doesn’t occur as our best science claims. Every human is locked into self reinforcing silos; from which it is difficult (not impossible) to escape.  The current mix of IT and Social Media have aggravated this situation, while proving the tools to escape.


Was the rise of the GOP  in control of all three branches of government the result of a cabal plot? Or, was it partly due to the stupidity of Democrats? What “organized role” was played by the new hyper-wealthy? How global is this rise of hyper-wealthy, or is it unique to the USA.

In a sense, the hyper-wealthy can organize a cabal around themselves; some being more transparent/secret than  others. Both corporations and the hyper-wealthy influence governments. Campaign financing for politicians who support them to writing and composing legislation, as does ALEC, has rendered USA governments but an arm of the economy. This is presented in the mass media as corporations having to fight unfair regulations by governments.


It seems strange supporting the FBI against Trump, when but a few years ago we were critical of the FBI (and other agencies).  We now listen, with support, to retired agency leaders who we earlier accused of falsehoods.

I have come to view these agencies differently, under the light of their being infected by cabals.  Those actions by agencies we object to, may be orchestrated by cabals within the agency; and not adequately comprehended/supported by the main rank&file of agency workers. Organizational loyalty can be very powerful.


It boggles my mind when I see concurrent support of
1) polls revealing the gross ignorance of the vast majority of the population, and
2) polls by the same persons, given credence as if their warped opinions should be taken as guidance in a democratic process.


On the morning of 02/12/18, on trips out with Eloise, I had a cascade of insights – hints of which I wrote with pen-on-pad.  I transcribe them below, with comments or links to posted comments.

cogangs   Mafia   cabal   Trump/Putin
competency sets for UPLIFT ** personal uplift competencies

This was an extended insight related to the real potential of the emergent UPLIFT TEAM. It included the realization that Stan Pokras, through his desire to learn more about UPLIFT, has “essentially joined” “our” emergent team.

I had many detailed thoughts about the practical, Down2Earth aspects or our specific doings, this year. We must begin exploring this query, elsewhere.

One thread was about inventorying our competencies (skills and handicaps). What necessary competencies need by the team may not be strong in any of us (five initial members). I remembered my many prior thoughts about developing a Skills Assessment Process and a Skills Database (from my 1976 Mission_2000 manuscript, and many subsequent times).

This is a theme we should attend to, as it is an early, essential component of the UPLIFT Process.  I recommend we each begin drafting a short bio of ourselves relevant to UPLIFT. Should include personal quirks and life-story-sketches, as well as special knowledge and competencies.

nuet’s ASSETS  MSC  weak: specifics/acculturation

The insights and ideas, currently hosted in nuet, may well be of great significance to the survival/thrival of Humankind on Gaia. The future of Larry (Laurence Joseph Victor) is not relevant, other than – initially – to seaf nuet with the UPLIFT Team. This assessment of nuet’s value is, obviously relative to Larry/nuet.  My challenge is to motivate others to devote time & energy to learning about uplift, BEFORE they adequately comprehend its importance. Thus, the need to present other values/ reasons for exploring nuet and UPLIFT.

One “argument”, too long and involved for this post, attempts to establish the savant nature of Larry; justifying why he may be so uniquely-unique as to  give credence to his synergy-of-insights.  How do epistemic and paradigmatic shifts occur? This is far from claiming the significance of Larry, other than he hosts nuet.

What are the meta-characteristics of Larry/nuet that “mark” him as a potentially useful savant? In compensation for Larry’s sever disabilities (lack of mental imagery and autistic traits) he has developed special assets (rare in humankind and useful at this time). He has discussed these assets elsewhere.

My primary asset is automatically activating deep, alternative contexts to most figures of attention within his experiences. Larry/nuet is a super divergent thinker, but with the ability to focus deep in convergence, when necessary. His gift is actually being able to process at all holon levels. Most others are unable to notice his talents in both the highly abstract and the highly concrete. Larry/nuet strengths lie in his ability to navigate all holon levels. Had he the time, he would be an inventor of useful tools. Larry/nuet has recently coined the acronym, MCS (Magnitude/Scope/Complexity), to characterize the architecture of his wrld, called nuet.

Larry/nuet’s handicaps cluster around his difficulty in sharing.

(1) Although he can  privately focus/attend to tiny details related to his own work, he has great difficulty giving extended intention to fine details presented by others. He has literally, no sensory remembrances and lacks visual imagination. His  inner, unconscious models can be highly “spatial”; however, this is never experienced “concretely”. He has difficulty sharing because he lacks a “visual screen” on which to “project” remembrances and created images. Without auditory mental imagery, Larry has no ability to replay a sound, so his speech recognition can be quite poor.

(2) Larry’s “autism” blocked  his psychologically becoming a member in conventional categories: son, brother, father, husband, friend, student, teacher, physicist, American, etc. His mind resists acculturation. Teamwork will  be difficult.

These two  handicaps limit what Larry can do to seaf our UPLIFT Team.

Additionally, Larry’s body is in decline, although his internal organs and physiological systems appear strong. Over  decade ago an MRI revealed a  highly damaged cervical spine, but without symptoms, until recently.

On 10/01/2017, while driving our KIA, stationary, in line waiting for a left turn, I was rear ended. At the time I experienced no body injuries, not even a jarring. Three weeks later I began to have very strange feelings and limited functioning of both hands.  This got progressively worse. I can’t  pick up small objects, button shirts, remove and replace credit cards to my wallet, etc. Three weeks ago this “sensation” moved up both my arms. Yesterday (o2/13/18), during incensed difficulty with mobility,  identified the cause as the feelings in my hands and arms now in my legs. I expect this is due to my cervical spine.  Thursday (o2/15/18) I will have minor carpal tunnel surgery on both arms – to rule this out before they “attack my cervical spine.

I have no trouble keyboarding, except for many typos. Yet, at any day I may not be able to be online. This leads me to be concerned whether nuet and nurt’s writings will be accessible with Larry severely handicapped.

Organizing around Learning , not Economics

UPLIFT has many faces/perspectives like the Elephant and the Wise Men.  When attending to one face, it is easy to ignore the other faces. This is the mis-match between the “band-width” of human realtime cognition and the Magnitude/Scope/Complexity of conceptual schemes to be explored.

One face of UPLIFT that seems difficult to accept: In the human systems processes within UPLIFT, “education” (via OLLO) replaces “economics” as a “driving force”. Analogy: structural integrity is essential for any building construction, but it is never the driving force of architectural design.  In UPLIFT, “economics” retreats into an (essential) background, whereas Organizing-around-Learning become foreground. In designing UPLIFT to optimize “the uplifting of humankind”, various models of “economics” would be applied. We remove all ideology from economics, and view it as a technological discipline, not a scientific discipline.  Another analogy: nutrition is a essential aspect of food, but it need not “drive” our eating styles. Fads in eating styles, based on incomplete knowledge of nutrition, are analogous to different economic styles.

No matter  how progressive or radical proposals appear for a better future, MOST start with tinkering with economic systems. The exceptions are those proposals based on religious conversion. Almost everyone imagines a good, future education as being like our contemporary best. What if our contemporary best is grossly inadequate? (from email to Stan 2/13/18)

Collective Leadership
(Governance Subsystems vs Governmental Components)

This theme is very well attended to today, with many labels and in many guises. Michel Bauwen’s Peer2Peer and Commons   is explicit in both rationales and means to “decentralize”, and more. Tom Greco researches variations of “local currency” systems.  I could search and list thousands of orgs calling for and/or creating human systems without “leaders with power”.

Here, I propose we explore the decision-making of our emergent UPLIFT Team, including our decisions from here on out.

My prior thinking on this theme distinguished between Decision-Making COMPONENTS or  SUBSYSTEMS of a system/org/group/population.  My exemplar is to contrast GOVERNMENTS (components) with GOVERNANCE Subsystems.  Governance being a process without explicit leadership bosses. Although there have been governance subsystems for all of human history, governments have dominated (for many reasons, some genetic propensities which require “handling”).  Our Sci/Tech of governance remains embryonic/primitive, especially in the face of advanced technology (which enhances the “power” of both Governmental Orgs and Governance Subsystems).

Governance and Government are but two modes of organized decision-making.  There will be many times when the Government Model is more appropriate. I climbed high mountains only behind a competent leader (government). Wintering over in the Antarctic, 1960-61, we 19 men chose to follow orders from our young, inexperienced MD, lieutenant – only when appropriate. Doc Walker was so informed. There was never a need to challenge his decisions; but he often consulted with us as would not be done in the military. We were 10 seabees and 10 civilian scientists.

Sandwiching my stint in the Antarctic, I lived in an urban commune at Yale in New Haven, where ALL decisions had to be unanimous. At the time, serving as “president” (with one hour labor credit per week and having the responsibility of busywork representing Rochdale to Yale),  I moderated a meeting where one objection, to a proposal, turned around all others, when their “case was made”.  The four “elected offices”, at The Rochdale Cooperative wielded no “power”.

On the other hand, decision-making should be limited to those who both comprehend the choices (to an adequate level) and are “free”/competent to choose.  Most humans today don’t meet minimum requirements to choose between many options; which is one rationally for UPLIFT.

Designing/Establishing/Maintaining  a Just/Viable/Competent social/societal Decision-Making systems is daunting. I forego further explication, here.

However, the Decision-Making Process needs to be established (yet experimental) BEFORE there is a major increase in membership.

Potential & Emergence

Although the close relationship between potential nd emergence should be obvious, that direct linkage just became explicit.

As I type this, the need to add “ignorance” to this, popped-to-mind. “IGNORANCE” = Positive knowledge OF what you don’t YET know or comprehend; or can’t YET do or appreciate.

In a “sense”, what “is-to-come”, already “exists” – as potential and ignorance.  Potential <=> nu .

History of Sci/Tech – many shifts/disruptions

This is  continuing theme, the implications of the content in the History and Philosophy of Science on our personal/social/societal futures.

Scientific establishments (as human orgs with human members) rewrite they own historical myths to propagandize students into their “discipline”. Although scientists may speak about Scientific Revolutions and Paradigm Shifts, ESTABLISHED  SCIENCE in any era, believes/performs as-if they are “near the truth”; having only to work out some fine details.

As difficult it is to imagine, given the wonders of contemporary Sci/Tech, that we are about to undergo Revolutions and Shifts what will dwarf what hav gone before.  this will primarily be in the human sciences, but will spill over to the material sciences. The naive and false belief in the “nature” of Sci/Tech by both the “elites” and the “masses” blocks their ability to prepare for then. They can’t stop or control them.  Indeed the “elites/masses” comprehension of Sci/Tech lags far, far behind what is already accepted by the Sci/Tech communities.

Note: New Sci/Tech findings in most disciplines are not known by sci/techs in other Sci/Tech disciplines. Most sci/techs are highly specialized and don’t transfer their Sci/Tech knowledge outside their narrow discipline.



MINDSHIFT: Analysis of Comments on Trump’s SOTU

MINDSHIFT: Analysis of Comments on Trump’s SOTU

It isn’t Trump, his tweets and speeches, or his actions that are most relevant today  (01/31/2018).

What all others report about Trump and his behavior is revealing, and vitally significant.

Everyone (from progressive pundits to Trump’s base) ALL report that they KNOW what Trump actually said and intended. They report their personal interpreted experiences of a perceived “objective reality” (video sems and tweets). They may also report their “feelings”, but these are distinct from their reported “direct perceptions”.

We have quality video of the SOTU speech, which is what most persons experienced. We could play them again, and have groups discuss what they experienced, perceived, and believed was “said” and “intended’.

This is not new, that humans confuse their personal, “conscious experiences” with “direct perception of objective reality”: naive realism. This had survival value in tribal times, but can have dangerous consequences today.

Some persons can learn to conceptually question their personal experiences & interpretations; even though they continue to meta-experience their experiences as objectively real. I frequently “awake” from the “hypnotic state” of believing I’m directly observing an external, objective reality. It is from a kind of super-imposed, conceptual “mindfulness” that we can be aware of this “illusion”.

What is STRIKING, in these Times-of-Trump is how these distinctions are being amplified in the media; yet, few seem to comprehend the deep significance – even as the term “fake” goes viral. Our media silos contribute. What surprises me is that the persons on CNN an MSNBC (FOX and Breitbart knowingly speak only to their choir) act as if many persons, of other persuasions, are watching. Most Trump supporters never perceive reports critical of Trump. And if they do, it is enfolded/warped in critiques by Trump defenders. PREACHING TO THE CHOIR. They may be addressing the “undecided.” To my knowledge, there are no studied attempts to infiltrate the pro-Trump media sites and experimentally try to engage them in meaningful dialog.

Another Observation: The future, beyond tomorrow, is virtually absent. Vague reference to the mid-term elections and the 2020 POTUS elections is all there is. MSNBC report as if there will be a “constitutional” decision (court/legislative/electoral) process to decide. However, there may be no longer any legal frameworks accepted by both sides. There are many, different “Constitutions”. Trump/GOP can simply ignore requests from Democrats or the “left” media. Trump and his handlers (Global Organized Crime, including some banks) will not accept defeat. Speculation: Future elections will be either rigged in their favor or prohibited. Another false-flag event may be used to shift emergency powers to Trump. POWER RULES.


Nor does the USA, China or any “nation” or “state” – in the same “sense of existence” as tables, trees, houses, persons, and even villages.

When is the action of a part not considered an action of the whole? The answer depends on our definitions for “action”, “part”, whole”, and “considered”. Is my writing this an action of the USA? Is EVERY action of a legal official of the USA government an action of the government. When The Donald shits, it that an act by POTUS? Are The Donald’s tweets the acts of POTUS? Naive realism  applied to large, complex populations of humans can cause us great difficulty. This is an issue beyond that of naive realism for all experience.

If a rouge group (conspiratorial gang – CG) of members of a formal organization acts (contrary to the policies and bylaws of the org), are these to be considered acts by the org?  Conspiracy defined.

Trump and Putin have known connections with Organized Crime. The organized crime cabal in Russia, (CGs in Russia) may have hacked the 2016 elections in the USA. It can be  “rightly” claimed that Russia (the official nation state) did not formally participate in the hacking of the election. Trump and Putin are radically different players.

What prompted me to revisit this theme was the recent announcement of the rolling back of regulations on the payday loan scams. This is clearly in line with the corruption of Legal-Organized-Crime (LOC).

The slow coup underway in the USA may be the work of an international cabal of CGs. The org structures/processes of CGs and CABALS of CGs is different from that of most institutions. Details of differences need to be worked out. The historical roles of CGs in so-called formal societal systems must also be explored.

The ontology/epistemology of societal systems needs revisiting. We project too much from our naive reality of the immediately perceived onto the non-observable too small or too big. We may discover a Societal Weirdness as strange as Quantum Weirdness.

Because we use nouns as labels for things, doesn’t necessarily imply “how these ‘things’ exist”.

What does the above contribute to our actions in our contemporary real wrlds?

Meta, Fractal, Vertical DISCOURSE

I contribute another META view, which is what I end up doing to all my email responses. There are many categories/styles of response – all important to the collective.

Michel’s reference to a larger context, to the highly detailed exploration of one domain given by John, triggered me to think, again, of the “fractal-like-nature” for the structure of the “space of conceptual schemes”.

“interesting, but it goes only so far, as network/complexity models eliminate subjectivity/intersubjectivity, ie. depth, intention, awareness, personal and social history,  richard lewontin is good on this.” — Michel Bauwens

However, until I read John’s many cited papers (which I can’t) and analyze Michel’s distinctions, I can’t claim that Michel’s and John’s perspective don’t overlap.

There is software that permits visual exploration of a simulated fractal space. I am pissed, but recognize that what disturbs me is just what I am trying to talk about. Using online search I am unable to find a url that permits navigation into a classical fractal, Mandelbrot_Set.  This is a simple zoom, not navigable. It has been a few years, during which an explosion of static art of patterns are displayed as “fractals”, which they are NOT, FRACTALS. The origins of this movement are now  hidden. Can someone provide the proper urls? My difficulty is, in part, due to the “negative” tweaking of search algorithms.


FRACTAL-LIKE: Infinite zooming, but the structures at different levels can be different, in ways. If we zoomed by “spatial size” from galactic clusters to quark arrangements, we would find, not only different patterns, but different “laws” governing those patterns. We don’t yet have the requisite software (to my knowledge). VUE, Visual Understanding Environment, is the closest I have encountered, which may require some tweaking to make it fractal-like.


Consider John’s and Michael’s conceptual schemes as two nodes. John’s node is a component node, in the network-of-nodes of Michael; which is itself a component node in a “larger” network-of-nodes. This language is only metaphor. Every node is a shell for a network of nodes “within”. Every network of nodes is “itself” a node, in a larger network. But, the structure/laws for each network, in the holarchy, need not be the same.

It gets much more complex. Any node, in any holon in the holarchy, could be “linked” to any other node anywhere else in the holarchy. The holarchical “tree” transforms into a “hyper-network” A wild/improbable example: a circuit of neurons in one brain may be linked to  a community of humans, at another place and time.. This is now proposed for the “Tree of Life” into the “Network of Life”, as whole genomes can be shared across species & families, etc.  This might be thought as conceptual entanglement.

========== continued on my blog

SYSNETS, is an additional twist.  Networks can conceived to be the “core conceptual skeleton” for related/linked components of systems. Systems arise through constraints on the interaction of nodes in a network.

It is important to remember, that ALL we are talking about, are patterns in “wrlds” of human mind/brains, from which we personally/individually (but, within collectives) share in our semfields. So-called “objective reality” might not include many distinctions, which are part of our human contribution.

Individual humans are all limited by how much of the above can be “consciously experienced in the moment”. Obviously, from my  writing this, this must be a structure in “nuet”. I, Larry, can’t navigate this conceptual reality, even though  it can exist, potentially, in nuet (and others).

DISCOURSE: Horizontal & Vertical

Almost all human discourse is “horizontal” (t the same level), or “vertical” to only one or two levels. More “vertical” discourse requires new apps and collective semfields, well beyond the mishmash of MSM to scientific journals. We can never expect most humans to be highly competent in vertical discourse (as not being highly competent in most dimensions of competence). But (1) all must respect all levels of honest discourse and (2) meta (vertical) discourse is not MORE important than other discourse, BUT is essential as part of “the whole”. We need dancers, painters, poets, musicians, logicians, mathematicians, mothers,  farmers, etc. – and persons skilled in vertical/meta discourse.

Whatever creative work we may do at the horizontal level or within a narrow vertical level can be quickly rendered moot by changes in the contexts at higher vertical levels. The COSMOS doesn’t appear to “protect individuals” (personal or ideological systems), even when “right” from “our perspective”.  Both “good” persons and ideas can suddenly “die”.


To adequately respond to this query (more than a question, seeking an answer and closure) we might begin to explore other DOMAINS,  independent of UPLIFT and Up2Met. These are “related” to UPLIFT and Up2Met, in that they may be essential to their actualization.  Whether they are relevant/essential is unknown.

****** Larry/nuet needs critical feedback on these domains. ****

(1) actualizing  Up2Met

UPLIFT & Up2Met are rough sketches of complex conceptual schemes. To make these emergent manifest requires we go beyond conceptualization. It will involve practical design & management of changing human systems far beyond any prior.

For example: the art/science for preparing human systems to perform in a set of possible/projected future situations. will be an essential process to create. And, every person must, eventually, be open to “truly fundamental” change. Today, we are all caterpillars, climbing on twigs and eating leaves. Tomorrow, we will be butterflies, beautiful and agile, flying from flower to flower. Yet, we will all be reluctant to give-up being a caterpillar.

There must be much greater 3C (Communication, Cooperation, Coordination) between different holon levels in emergent humanity, far beyond what exists in humankind.

(2) wrlds vs worlds |  HR vs MR

Human Reality (HR) is radically different from Material Reality (MR).

Every human is a hallucinating wrld, deluded into believing they are individual persons in a common, objective world.

These lead to a epistemic shift that (1) provides useful insights about the strange trends in contemporary humankind, and (2) provides useful insights as to what emergent humanity can become and accomplish.

This is a super-radical challenge. This new hypothesis must be critiqued and expanded/improved. How to use these ideas to design action, and how to move others to embrace this new episteme is a challenge of cosmic proportions. Yet, humankind has suppressed potentials of cosmic proportions (which needs to be researched and revealed).

(3)  “time” is not one dimensional.

This is the most “far out”, yet – if recognized and explored, might yield the most progress. Alt-time concepts have been a strong interest since high school, and have influenced my PhD research. Yet, none of my “practical” proposals depend on new discoveries about time.

“Reality” may be “projected” by humans on a linear time coordinate system, for the “evolution” of: the physical universe, Gaia, ecologies, species, humankind, and the life of each organism.  Considering “leakage” of information “forward and back” on this linear dimension would be a limited attempt to explain “strange” details from our linear perspective.  This new “reality” would more optimally be considered within a “temporal texture” context, with our conventional linear time be one “cross-section” or “projection”. Feedpast Bootstrapping, is a possible process I am exploring, that distinguishes life from non-life. The “sponge-like” structure for galaxy distribution in our cosmological universe (films with a high density of galaxies  surrounding vast volumes of empty space) hints to a “biological-growth-like” process.  Dark matter and energy may be “projections” from other temporal perspectives.


BOHM-IAN DIALOG – revisited


What “Bohmian Dialog” IS and ISN’T.

It is futile to debate “meaning” or “conventional usage” of terms. The issue is the variety practices claiming to be “Bohmian”, and 1) whether they are what David Bohm prescribed and 2) whether they contribute to progress in human mutual comprehension/understanding.

I haven’t explored the literature, in depth. I recently viewed old video interviews with Bohm, where he only mentioned “dialog” as an aside. But, from this limited resource, I speculate/propose that David Bohm’s “dialog” was MUCH MORE LIMITED than future proponents claim “is the practice”.

David’s explorations beyond physics, involving “dialog” with Krishnamurti, shifted the “focus” of dialog to “vast existential issues”. This gave the impression of dialog without FOCUS. This was a series of dyadic dialog – only two persons – which can be more open.

David’s INTENT was to improve COLLECTIVE HUMAN processes WHEN attending to SPECIFIC ISSUES. Gather together a group of persons and facilitate their interaction to CONVERGE on a MUTUAL interpretation, that can lead to significant ACTION. David’s motivation was PRAGMATIC, not existential.

As I comprehend the contemporary interpretation of B-Dialog, it is to just gather together a group and proceed with a process, hoping to result in a “convergence of minds” on topics of the group’s “choice”. The objective of this B-Dialog Movement is to motivate persons to engage in transformative activities, to better prepare them for the future. This may be a valuable goal, but to succeed it will require substantial strategy and research.

That participants report that a dialog was enjoyable, enlightening, meaningful, rewarding, or useful is not sufficient evidence for the efficacy of the practice.

Improving “dialog”.

Consider dialog as a component of more extended societal processes. Example, dialog as part of legislative sessions, in court proceedings, in educational processes, in planning sessions, in evaluation sessions, in training sessions, as recreational, about poetry, music, etc., ETC.

NEED: Compose a comprehensive categorization of different types of “dialog”. Include: self dialog; dyadic; small to large groups; mixed synchronous (direct F2F, or realtime online) & asynchronous; degrees & types of facilitation or leadership; singular or series; variations of intent; nature of participants; dialog in relation to a semfield, dialogs with observers; ability to interact with recordings of dialog; training for dialog; text dialog; mixed text and voice dialog; open conversation; topic restricted; comment dialog to presentations; instructional and teaching dialog; ETC.

NEED: Feedback/Analysis processes (including viewing of recorded dialogs) to research/improve both the dialog phenomenon and the consequences of dialogs on participants and others. Given the large variety of dialogs, this should result in an extensive action matrix.

Important will be the pre-selection of participants and their preparation – considering the vast diversity of cognitive styles. There is never a random group; even when there are no specified criteria for “selection”.

Personal Wrld Hypothesis


This is a convoluted story. The process of your accurately comprehending this hypothesis will dynamically interact with the topic, itself – your experiencing your experiencing. Also, comprehending need not imply believing or accepting; yet it is “in our nature” to often confound them.

Here I am APPLYING a hypotheses, arrived at from the study of specific phenomena, to different categories of phenomena. If this new application “works”, it will strengthen the hypothesis.

The phenomenon to which the new hypothesis is being applied is sexual abuse and its apparent cover-up by all players, from the victims-and-their-supporters, to the “abusers”, and the institutional and societal cover ups. The specific case being many young girls abused by their renowned and respected, gymnastic doctor.

The phenomenon within which this hypothesis emerged is the FAKE NEWS claims in relation to the Trump Phenomenon, in the USA and globally (the new rise of “authoritarianism”).

I have yet to give this new hypothesis a name/label. To “name” a concept, insight, idea, or conceptual scheme is to encase it in a straitjacket; yet symbolic labels are necessary for working with them in languaging. I shall now name this hypothesis the Personal Wrld Hypothesis: PWH.

I further speculate that PWH may be the key catalyst for a necessary, radical epistemic shift, for the whole of humankind; to resolve our accelerating Crisis-of-Crises, that threatens our very survival/thrival.

Back to the application: According to PWH, every sexual abuser lives in a wrld, of their unconscious creation, where their behavior is justified. These personal wrlds of sexual abusers will be quite different. Even in those wrlds where the person conceptually knows their behavior is “wrong”, there are “reasons why”.

We are all “pathological individualists”.

———— PWH Foundations

The scientific foundation for PWH as been an “established conclusion of neuroscience” for decades and a “philosophical option” for probably centuries. But, typical to the slow movement of scientific “facts” into the “social/societal practices of human systems”, this foundation discovery is yet ignored (and difficult to “psychologically believe”, even by those who conceptually accept its “truth”).

The “fact” behind PWH: Personal, “conscious” experientials are “hallucinations” created by our personal brains/bodies. Our “conscious experientials” are a consequence of patterns of neural-molecular activity in the physiological systems of our brains. I use the term “wrld” to label the “holistic, systemic, emergent pattern” of this neural-molecular activity within each human person, from conception to death.

Humans don’t “directly access/experience” an objective/external “world”.

That objective/external worlds “exist” is evident in the information patterns we do experience. PWH is not a claim for pure solipsism . We create scientific “conceptual models of objective reality” from our “recorded/shared writings” about our hallucinatory experientials. We automatically & unconsciously select, warp, and invent details, “from our senses” to “project hallucinatory experientials on our screen of consciousness”. These hallucinations are “real” and can have “meaning”.

WRLDS are “universe shattering innovations”, recently “emergent in COSMOS”, for which we human can be “proud”, being “vehicles” in this “uplifting of reality”. It is our confusing wrlds with worlds, that is temporarily causing  difficulty.


All of the ideas in PWH are “hypothetical”. It emerges from the hallucinations of Larry/nuet. All terms in “parentheses” require special definition. The “logic is circular”. There are “alternative models” (although lacking inter subjectively confirmed evidence) such as “telepathic mind-mind resonance” and “GODS”.

Larry/nuet’s hallucinatory take: humans are yet embryonic emergents within “COSMOS”, and lack the “cognitive tools” for “comprehending ultimate reality”. We “humans can do” only what we are “equipped to do”. Humans are not the “finished product” of evolution.

————– 2018 Consequences of PWH.


MYSELF (Larry/nuet), YOU (readers), EVERYONE (Trump, Sanders, Putin, Newton, Soros, Bannon, Clinton, Einstein, Hildegard von Bingen, Copernicus, Mao, Feynman, Dahlmer, Jesus, Plato, Maddow, etc.) are WRLDS, not just persons or selves.

EXERCISE: Attend carefully to the speech of anyone. Observe how they claim knowledge of an objective reality/world. What do they really know, from their personal observations? EVERYTHING THEY SAY (except for detailed descriptions of their immediate conscious experiences) is THEIR ANALYSIS of REPORTS THEY PERCEIVED.

The Relevant Wrld of most human persons is not what they perceive, but what they imagine/speculate/believe is a “reality behind” their perceptual experiences. Humans continually CREATE the reality context for their moment-by-moment perceptions. This “creation” is neither conscious nor intentional; it is a “natural process” that evolved/emerged for humans. Our wrlds “Creatively Emerge”, they are not “Consciously Created”.

We EACH AGREE with those reports which “support” our wrlds, and “object” to those which don’t.


What is the “nature/extent of the system” required to “do the job”?
Many have recommended that I write/publish a book.
What is needed is a high quality “Educational System”, well beyond passive responses to the reading of a published book.


99% of what I observe/read is HORIZONTAL CHATTER. An exchange of information limited to an unconsciously accepted episteme. These exchanges range from fake, trivial, informative, to profound. This episteme has been very successful and is very resistant being replaced.

This is the dominant episteme of the USA and the Global Capitalist Regime. There are numerous other epistemes in play, from those of small indigenous tribes to large populations beyond “The West”. There may be remnants of most historical epistemes in small populations, today. Films are periodically made to shock us to recognize the vast diversity of human cultures and behaviors.

Curation is an accelerator of this exchange. Participants are eager to share their most recent discoveries (articles/reports). There is a slow increase in accepted knowledge, within the populations participating. This is greatly facilitated by new varieties of cyberspace access to these docs.

Participants and recipients, in this exchange, are unaware that they are “being indoctrinated into the ideology” of this episteme. Dialog and discourse challenging this episteme is not only absent, but the category non-existent. This absence of alternatives, is not recognized.

Those persons whose episteme are different, discover the impossibility of communicating across epistemes. How to confront this is our primary challenge.

One of my rare adventures into “poetry” as medium, I composed JABBER, JABBER, JABBER  to express my “discomfort”.

RED PLENTY – Guardian quotes and comments

Below are 3 selected quotes from the Guardian review of Red Plenty on August 6, 2010. Also, I read ALL the many comments, quite a few relevant also below. This comment section was the most mature I have ever encountered to a post. Even the biased and angry comments were informative, as to their wrlds. The spread and contrast of ideas expressed below, is itself a phenomenon of human ideas emergent.


President Kennedy’s aide Arthur Schlesinger wrote a White House memo sounding the alarm over “the all-out Soviet commitment to cybernetics”. While the Soviet moment lasted, it looked like somewhere which was incubating a rival version of modern life: one which had to be reckoned with, learned from, in case it really did outpace the west, and leave the lands of capitalism stumbling along behind.

The USSR’s pioneering computer scientists were heavily involved, and so was the authentic genius Leonid Kantorovich, nearest Soviet counterpart to John Von Neumann and later to be the only ever Soviet winner of the Nobel prize for economics. Their thinking drew on the uncorrupted traditions of Soviet mathematics. While parts of it merely smuggled elements of rational pricing into the Soviet context, other parts were truly directed at outdoing market processes. The effort failed, of course, for reasons which are an irony-laminated comedy in themselves. The sumps of the command economy were dark and deep and not accessible to academics; Stalinist industrialization had welded a set of incentives into place which clever software could not touch; the system was administered by rent-seeking gangsters; the mathematicians were relying (at two removes) on conventional neoclassical economics to characterize the market processes they were trying to simulate, and the neoclassicists may just be wrong about how capitalism works.

But if the horrible society of the Soviet Union left any legacy worth considering, if a pearl were ever secreted by the Soviet Union’s very diseased oyster, this is it. And so follows the oddest implication of the Soviet moment. It may not be over. It may yet turn out to be unfinished business. For, from the point of view of “economic cybernetics”, the market is only an algorithm. It is only one possible means of sharing out and co-ordinating economic activity: a means with very considerable advantages, in terms of all the autonomous activity and exploration of economic possibilities it allows, but not the only one, and not necessarily the best either, even at allowing autonomy and decentralization. In the 20th century, devising the actual apparatus for a red plenty was an afterthought to the ideology. In the 21st century, it may be the algorithm that appears ahead of a politics to advocate it. In which case, the contest of plenties will be on again. And every year our processing power increases.


farfrom 6 Aug 2010 17:50 0 1 They produced a highly educate population , the result was that few wanted to actually produce stuff, food and work in factories , so these jobs fell to the less talented. So shoddy goods were produced and and the cabbages were left unpicked in the fields . Somewhat like the British and Americans now who are closing down the factories and borrowing money to buy factory products from Asia. The soviets had institutes to research just about everything. These were easy jobs for life, most of what was produced were papers, the content of which was frequently garbage , however the Americans used to obtain them one way or another and scrutinize them for the rare gem . Such as stealth technology for aircraft. Whether living conditions are better now for the majority is doubtful , One person from there said conditions were best under Brezneff.

is69eh6t8j9p 6 Aug 2010 19:19 0 1 What a particularly shit feature – a bit like writing about the lives of Jews during the twentieth century without bothering to mention the Holocaust. Get one thing absolutely crystal clear – the Soviet Union was the turning point in the war against Hitler. I believe that every single concentration camp except for Dachau was liberated by Russian troops. Eight million of Hitler’s eleven million casualties were due to taking on the USSR, who themselves lost thirty million. These sorts of events are almost beyond comprehension today. We tend to think of the Cold War as a time when the West and Russia, both tooled up with nukes, would never actually fight because of M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction). However, during the period when only the U.S. was a nuclear power, policy was called Massive Retaliation, which planned for the radioactive destruction of China and Russia together, forcing Stalin to go nuclear too. Sputnik, Gagarin, Leonov, and Tereshkova was not mindless propoganda, but genuine technological achievements which symbolised the pride and rebirth of a devastated nation. The world was different then – everything changes – but Francis Spufford owes his life to the USSR he despises so much, displaying not a shred of intellect or compassion to judge so smugly and quickly.

Nanome 7 Aug 2010 0:11 0 1 Oh dear, mention the USSR and you get a rant and a rerun of WWII! Just to get back on thread, what Spufford appears to me to be saying is that the dreams of universal justice and plenty that inspired the likes of Kruschev and Gorbachev were undeliverable because the only half way efficient production and distribution system available was the market. Now, however, he seems to be saying, we have the mathematical and computing tools to run a system without money. Given the World Wide Web, the exponential increase in processing power, the rise of parallel computing, and the leaps and bounds in database power and management, he might just be right. Perhaps those of us with some knowledge of the relevant technologies should stop arguing about who won the war and start building the model?

grumpyoldman 7 Aug 2010 0:16 1 2 And let us not forget that the extent to which my generation benefited from the existence of the USSR, in all its brutality and insanity. As long as there was a possibility, however remote, that the Soviet model might actually succeed, as long as capitalism was terrified of the spread of communism, then the onus was on capitalism to outdo communism’s economic and social model. This actually favored social-democratic solutions to the problems of the post-war period. Those solutions may be summarized as the post-war settlement, which brought enormous benefits in health, education, and living standards to the people of Western Europe, and the United States. With the collapse of Communism, free market fundamentalism, which had been brewing since the seventies, seized its opportunity and became virtually the only game in town. The result has been a huge shift to the right, whose chickens are now coming home to roost. The current assault in the US and in Europe on the last vestiges of the post-war settlement, the huge increases in inequality, the waste, the lunatic resource wars, the wholesale pollution, the barmy sacrifices being imposed on the working and middle classes by a tiny global elite, are just the beginning of really unpleasant times ahead. History will look back at my generation in the West and say, in Harold McMillan’s immortal words, “You never had it so good.”

FrankLittle 7 Aug 2010 1:54 1 2 The Soviet Union was just a mirror image of America, albeit a state capitalist one. It had an elite, a middle class and of course a working class, the chances of a Soviet worker buying a luxury item were the same chances that a poor working class American had, virtually nil. Soviet citizens bought goods on the black market, the American poor steal. America had it’s ‘class’ enemies in the reds, commies and trade unionists, while the Soviets ranted on about kulaks and saboteurs, America had it’s hatred of the blacks and it’s indigenous people, while the Soviet union used the Jews to blame for it’s economic problems, not all Americans hated blacks, not all Russians hated Jews, some blacks became part of the Elite in America, some Jews became part of the elite of the Soviet Union. The soviets withdrew the party card from it’s dissidents, America withdrew the credit card i.e. left wing critics of capitalism in America would find it very difficult, if not impossible, to find a job, has would their equivalent in the Soviet Union. Both societies were corrupt, in the Soviet Union there was the officials to bribe, while in America, Mafia corruption was rife amongst the politicians and the police, graft was normal practice. The main difference was that where America drew all it’s wealth exploited from it’s satellites in the rest of the Americas to the centre, the Soviets spread theirs around, the satellite countries of the Soviet Union had health care, subsidized housing, education, subsidized art and leisure facilities etc, maybe if the Soviets had truly learnt the lessons of the ‘market’, they would have left the majority of the people in their satellite countries in absolute poverty as America did in say Ecuador and Brazil. For those Americans who do not see the rest of the Americas as ‘satellites’ then that brings me to the power of ‘propaganda’, both America and the Soviet Union became experts at distorting facts in the interest of their world view and both spent vast amounts of money on it. For those who point out that in the World War II, Soviets traded with the Germans before they invaded, so too did the Americans until they lost shipping and Japan attacked Pearl Harbour. It was once thought that machines could be used to benefit mankind, mankind is still waiting, so ‘economic cybernetics’?

Salongvaenster 7 Aug 2010 3:45 0 1 This article/extract is, I suppose, some kind of progress, in that while trashing the Soviet “experiment”, it does, at least, make a case for trying to see things through Soviet eyes and does not smack of unreconstructed, neocon triumphalism and self-congratulation at capitalism’s having “won” the Cold War (jibes about “ugly suits” notwithstanding). Personally, I think the degeneration of the Russian Revolution into the corrupt mess that the Soviet Union became is one of the big issues of the last 100 years. Unfortunately it seems to have become an ideological battleground where the waters have got incredibly muddy – Robert Service, for one, seems to have a made it his mission to shaft Lenin and Trotsky in his biographies of them. Even in more balanced works, though, despite increased access to new sources and information, the ever bigger tomes with ever more details seem to shed less light than ever on the whole story. The key question as to what went wrong, is skated over and the blame conveniently attributed to individual villains (Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin – take your pick according to your politics). From what was at base a humanistic attempt to create a fair and just society, the Russian Revolution very quickly descended into a quagmire of violence and retribution as the forces of reaction (the Whites and their foreign allies, UK, US etc) began their “terror” against the upstart Bolshevik government, not least because of the example it gave to the hungry and dispossessed outside Russia. As ever in wartime, liberties and concern for the foe went out of the window as the Bolsheviks fought for their very existence – the mentality produced by the Civil War and the material destruction that followed in its wake left Russia worse off than it had been under the Czars. Trotsky himself said the Bolsheviks had saved the Revolution, but destroyed Russia in the process. In such a state, the window of opportunity for power-hungry “fixers” ( such as Stalin), while not inevitable, became much more likely and with the fears among some in the Politburo that Trotsky would become another Bonaparte, due to his position and popularity, it is not surprising that the outcome was what it was. Ghastly as the development was, there are still many lessons to be learned from what subsequently happened in the Soviet Union. For anyone who cares about alternatives to the irrational and wasteful system laughingly called the “market economy”, the history of the Soviet Union can offer food for thought. Depressing though it is, by trying to understand why the high hopes of 1917 were dashed in the years that followed and ended up in what Trotsky called the “irresponsible tyranny of the bureaucracy over the people” , it may yet help us in some way to move beyond an economic system in which 80% of the world’s population are living in poverty, while at the same time vast sums of capital and vast sums of labour stand unemployed side-by-side in the industrialized world. Capitalism – a rational system or what? Let’s hope more articles/books like this appear to challenge the conventional wisdom on what actually happened in the Soviet Union.

NapoleonKaramazov 7 Aug 2010 4:09 Contributor 0 1 Jesus Christ, I really don’t have much wisdom to add on this. I simply stayed up past my bedtime reading this, and after finishing it I was too tired to make any analysis. I still think people ought to read it before commenting though. Any ‘analysis’ I can make is just hackneyed and cliched. Yes, Soviet technology was at it’s white heat, but at the same time there were millions who were literally peasants. Many were ironically like indentured labourers of the feudal era, there was no free movement from them. I suppose you could say that it was just cosmos based Potemkin village. Of course many offspring of peasants were turned into scientists and engineers. What it also explains is why nostalgia for the USSR is so strong in Russia and the former USSR, particularly among the elderly. I think there is a clear difference in age. Those who passed through adolescence/early adulthood in the 80s Soviet Union are less happy about it, those who reached maturity in the 60s are. What happened after the collapse was an unforeseen tragedy of course. The introduction of shock therapy, the collapse in provision of public services. What woulbe truly revolutionary if a historian interested in Russia, instead of going over the Soviet crimes again and again which we know everything about, focused on the the mass deaths due to the chaos of the 90s- I would reckon the figure could be anywhere between 10-25 million people who died needless deaths to to unemployment, suicide, collapse of health and social care provision alcoholism, drug addiction, sex trafficking, organised crime, the bastard oligarchs etc. Not to mention media stereotypes of Russians which make me want to explode. So too do mail order brides. When in the 13thc the Mongols swept across the Eurasian landmass, they would carry off the womenfolk of the defeated enemy- now the modern equivalent is boorish and vain western men assuming they have a ‘right’ to a Svetlana or Natasha, and they see themselves as saving them from a life of poverty. Although to be fair, many of these Russian brides can be gold diggers- all I can say is good on them, if a man is such a loser that he needs to buy a wife off the internet, he deserves everything heaped against him.

JordiPujol 7 Aug 2010 5:06 0 1 A fascinating, thought provoking, read, thank you. I do think, reading some of the comments, that people really need to accept that the Soviet Union was not an attempt to give effect to Marx’s ideas. I suspect the logic is that if the Soviet Union equals Marxist experiment and the Soviet Union failed, then Marx was somehow “wrong”. Nothing however could be further from the truth. Marx’s analysis continues to offer incredible insight into and understanding of the economic forces that we are all subject to. If for example the British middle classes want to understand why they are finding it increasingly difficult to hang on to the things that their parents took for granted, why they are increasingly exposed to the uncertainties and insecurities that used to be the preserve of the working classes, they should read their Marx! Just going back to the Soviet Union, Lenin seized power in a putsch; the proletariat couldn’t have seized power in a revolution, as they didn’t really yet exist in what was still to a very large extent a peasant society. The United States and Russia were two huge land masses which had to be industrialized if they were to be global superpowers. The US had the Civil War to decide what economic model was going to be used to achieve that and chose free market capitalism. Stalin chose central planning and he industrialized the Soviet Union in an astonishingly short period of time. The human and other costs were of course horrendous. Instead of having his own version of the American Dream to motivate people, he found it more effective to use terror. However, neither Lenin’s seizure of power nor Stalin’s industrialization were Marxist experiments.

JorgeyBorgey 8 Aug 2010 3:11 0 1 I really enjoyed the article. However, if Soviet-style Communism died in 1990, Laissez Faire Capitalism died in 2009. We haven’t realized yet, it’s just that we believe our own propaganda, unlike those canny Russians! Now we have a system not based on production or job-creation, but the constant cycling of capital, that does nothing but further impoverish the poor, and enrich the already wealthy. The 2008-2010 Credit crunch was not due to over-production, or due to Keynesian employment-induced inflation – but due to people profiting out of nothing other than cycling of capital; making money out of money, without creating any finite or constant or productive.

boiledonions 8 Aug 2010 11:17 0 1 This is a superb article and this is the first time I’ve read all the comments. I enjoyed the ones I disagreed with as much as those with which I did agree. I agree with many the many posters who have urged other posters to actually read the article. It is not a rosy affectionate recollection of how wonderful life was in the Soviet Union. It stresses that the Soviet Union was responsible for appalling crimes against humanity in terms of both psychological and physical brutality. Probably to avoid the kinds of comments that have been levelled against the article anyway. The reaction against this article is very interesting and reminds me of something John Major said: “we should understand a little less and condemn a little more”. This is, of course, a ridiculous sentiment. We should all seek to understand things in their complexity while reserving value judgements. I think there are two very valuable things that come out of this article. The first is that history is quite complicated, and the second is that you can draw comparisons between the Soviet union and modern technological capitalism. As much as I would like to get drawn into a debate about whether or western democracy is all that democratic and who killed the most people, Sovietism or capitalism, this is not the point of the article. The main point of this article is that for a few years, there was a belief on both sides of the wall that the Soviet union would outstrip the West in terms of material wealth. The article tries to locate the source of this erroneous belief. The comparison here is that many in the West have a unquestioned belief in the ability of our economic system to continue to supply us with wealth and security. Just as the belief in the Soviet system was wrong, perhaps our belief in our economic system is wrong. Even a cursory look at our economic system would suggest that it’s deeply flawed: “the neoclassicists may just be wrong about how capitalism works.” Nevertheless, it’s worth a detailed look and possibly an overhaul. As a side-note, like many East Germans I long for the world in which my parents lived: North London of the eighties, a time when my father worked in a job earning only an average wage but could afford afford a house and a car and holidays and my mother had the choice to stay at home or go to work. That now seems like a time of unbridled opulence.

augiemarch 9 Aug 2010 16:40 0 1 In the interests of trying to understand how we’ve ended up where we are today . . . ‘At any fine museum of natural history — say, in New York, Cleveland, or Paris — the visitor will find a hall of ancient life, a display of evolution that begins with the trilobite fossils and passes by giant nautiloids, dinosaurs, cave bears, and other extinct animals fascinating to children. Evolutionists have been preoccupied with the history of animal life in the last five hundred million years. But we now know that life itself evolved much earlier than that. The fossil record begins nearly four thousand million years ago! Until the 1960s, scientists ignored fossil evidence for the evolution of life, because it was uninterpretable. I work in evolutionary biology, but with cells and microorganisms. Richard Dawkins, John Maynard Smith, George Williams, Richard Lewontin, Niles Eldredge, and Stephen Jay Gould all come out of the zoological tradition, which suggests to me that, in the words of our colleague Simon Robson, they deal with a data set some three billion years out of date. Eldredge and Gould and their many colleagues tend to codify an incredible ignorance of where the real action is in evolution, as they limit the domain of interest to animals — including, of course, people.’ Lynn Margulis [Worth reading, ‘What is Life ?’, a book she co-wrote with Dorion Sagan.]

JoeChip 9 Aug 2010 20:09 0 1 Mixing a couple of blogs in our ‘left wing’ newspapers – does anybody think our beloved leaders are Aliens? Thatcher with that weird accent was suspect. Reagans hair was also v dubious. In Euroland Berlesconi is permanently in for facial corrections. Sarkozy looks like a character from yer proper Marx (Groucho) films. Merkel has a distinctive ‘waxy’ ‘Tussauds’ appearance. Blair had a slightly schoolboyish manic silly appearance. Cameron another ‘not quite correct’ waxed look. Additionally his ‘coalition’ group all speak with an odd accent unshared with the rest of their country. Look at the Generals – funny spotted uniforms and berets. No genuine General would adopt such bizarre garb – where all all the twiddly bits and medals, the insignia and little coloured rectangles and the buttons! The USA has recently displayed most of the non humans. Look at the unfinished face of Cheney and that non terrestrial slanted mouth. What about Bush? a definite rush job there for all to see. No Humans can garble garble. The list goes on, McCain, Sarah Palin, – how unreal can these ‘things from space’ be? These creatures will fight against any sensible political future for humankind. Marx/Lenin/Trotsky – vilify them. The environment – inconsequential. Get the Oil. Blow the tops off mountains. Strip the Forests. Air and water pollution. Poison the Oceans….no worries they will all be aboard their flying saucers before long – we’ll be left arguing without doubt!

augiemarch 16 Aug 2010 1:20 0 1 Every now and then, you read a book, that shows you that the English language is alive and kicking . . . that far from having run out of having anything decent to read, there is another branch, another voice. For me, it is always about how you come about a book, that matters, almost as much : I have been skimming the papers for months now, without reading anything of interest, and then I came across the above article last Saturday. It enticed me, yet upon reflection, it does not the book justice. I would have read the book in one hit, were it not for the fact that i am a full-time, stay at home father to a 9 month old baby, and now that I’ve finished it, I’m left with that familiar feeling when you’ve read something highly original. It felt like I was reading a book written 50 years before the events it covers, rather than the reverse. Thank you Mr. Spufford, I’m not sure if when I read another one of your books, I will be left with this feeling, but I hope I do. I also hope the book gets translated into many other languages . . . especially for the benefit of Asian readers. Nice one.

Vornoff 26 Aug 2010 0:58 0 1 Nice article. May be one of the best short accounts of the Soviet history by a Western author I’ve ever read in terms of objectivity and knowledge of the subject. BTW as to cybernetics the SU had many great computer scientists besides Kantorovich (who was rather in optimization theory) including Alexey Lyapunov, Nikolay Brusentsov etc. The greatest genius of Russian mathematics Andrey Kolmogorov made many contributions to this field. Yet the SU was very week in application of their theoretical works or pilot samples to broad use.


This simple insight, that Climate Change is Fundamentally Waste Mismanagement, may provide an avenue for catalyzing mass action to recycle/reclaim ALL waste.

This insight was jointly catalyzed by brief emails from Linda and Jason.

Hard waste, in dumps and plastic in water, is visible waste. Carbon dioxide and methane are invisible waste products from our energy and food industries.

Waste, improperly managed, results in more than pollution. It is what pollution does to our life support systems and Gaia that is critical. We might adjust to the ugliness and odor of waste, but we can’t adapt to a rapidly changing climate system. The effects of pollution on water (oceans to ground water) is of the same type of phenomenon (“climate” change in the fluids of oceans) as pollution of gaseous fluids (air and atmosphere).

To properly manage our waste production will, singularly, fix our climate crisis. This is not to say the enterprise will be easy.

But, our first challenge (for our survival/thrival) is to prepare/inform/mobilize/organize persons-in-diverse populations as to the “real nature” of our Crisis-of-Crises: our accelerating, dysfunctional human psychological/social/societal/cultural systems. Only after this UPLIFT is underway do we have the “real opportunity” to fix our waste management system. We must fix ourselves first.

We need to stop shitting on our dinner plates.


Old BIASES Uncovered re MLK & JFK

This is composed/posted on MLK Day, 01/15/2018.  Viewing/Listening to the urls, listed below, revealed some biases I had formed about MLK and JFK, in the years surrounding their assassinations.

The report on how JFK, at great risk to his election, literally saved the life of MLK, was new information for me. Many of the speeches by MLK are more relevant today because 1) their depth and strength is lacking in contemporary messages of the continuing challenge, and 2) the messages are, more critical today, with many populations unable to comprehend the messages – blocked by biases.

Remembering a true American hero



address_at_the_conclusion_of_selma_march : the-brutality-of-the-dying-order



I was very active, from Yale/New Haven, in most leftest movements, primarily anti-Vietnam War and Civil Rights, that continued after my move to Minneapolis.  I was biased to be over-sensitive and not adequately critical of reported criticisms of both MLK and JFK.

Then, I accepted the invalid practice of judging/ranking complex/multi-dimensional entities (persons, nations, theories). Today, both MLK and JFK are described (by me) with long lists of both positive and negative traits and actions (relative to  different sets of criteria). These lists cannot, objectively, be reduced to a singular positive or negative summary judgement. This practice is in our DNA, having value in tribal times, but dangerous to apply today.

Every position of human judgement has subjective bias. Because I agreed with most of the progressive analysis, I blindly accepted some of their specific criticisms of MLK and JFK as “true”. The material accessed from here, pointed our that these criticisms were, themselves, biased and inaccurate.

Although I was on the March on Washington and was close to MLK when he gave his “I have a Dream” speech, many in our group from Yale were critical of MLK for “blocking more radical groups and being too conservative in tactics” when faced with oppression. The info here corrects this opinion. MLK’s strategies and tactics were far from conservative and he was being maligned by the more “radical” – which I accepted, uncritically. This is not to say that there isn’t a long list of, what we now would sort  as negative actions and traits of MLK. Also, both MLK and JFK adapted/evolved/emerged as a result of circumstances.

JFK is a more complex issue. I had read that he put racist judges on the bench, in the south.  I even re-wrote the lyrics of a many versed  folksong, in criticism of JFK and RFK. I was in Honolulu, for one night – in route to the Antarctic – on the eve of JFK’s election. The celebrations were intense, as it was Hawaii’s first presidential election as a state. For more than the next year, my news of the world was limited, due to my isolation. During the winter months, May – Sept, our major sources, were Voice of the Andes and Radio Moscow (from South America). I became more radicalized from the books and literature I took with me. Castro’s liberation of Cuba also occurred while I was On-the-Ice. It was only much later that I learned that the Bay of Pigs invasion was launched (by the CIA) over the objection of JFK, a major stimulus for his movement “left”. Norma Cousins was a mediator between Kennedy and Khrushchev, and the Cuban Missile Crisis was never as critical as the media reported. These actions by JFK lead to his assassination. I had turned, and was actually supportive of RFK for POTUS,  when he was assassinated.  The “systems” that organized the assassinations of MLK, JFK, RFK and the 9/11 Attack, continue to exist.

This discovery of my earlier biases reinforces my more recent paradigm shift: to diligently avoid ranking persons, nations, or theories. It is also consistent with my new paradigm for viewing each and every person as a private, inner wrld – which justifies their actions and beliefs – even when they are unable to achieve their objectives and blame their failures on objective oppositions. These two paradigms shifts, both from what was useful in tribal times, are most critical for humankind to transcend. This requires uplifting to new social reinforcements, because the propensities for these old practices are “wired-in” to our DNA.

The 8 decade emergence of nuet has witnessed a great many biases uncovered, and transcended. nuet may be “programmed” for this. Larry/nuet quickly & automatically intuits biases and blindspots in his assimilation of the “words” of others. These are not experienced as oppositional to Larry/nuets own views, but different. All experienced worldviews are partial, in relation to a larger, unconscious “context”. However, Larry’s attempt to share his insights about expanding cotext is usually taken as opposition to the presentation.

Larry/nuet’s experience is that most others attempt to warp/assimilate all information from others into their current worldview and paradigms. The psychological process complementary to assimilation, accommodation, is where Larry/nuet seems to excel.  nuet is primed to accommodate (modify context) to new input, instead of automatic assimilation (to old context).

This may be partly due to Larry’s lack of mental imagery in all sensory modalities and being on the Autism Spectrum. Can persons learn to accommodate more is an empirical challenge – and relative to their cognitive diversity. The whole of a future, viable Humanity will find value for all, in the distribution of relative assimilation/accommodation. What will be essential is: 1) that we accept our personal limitations, 2) respect different cognitive styles, 3) accept the gained personal agency in being a viable, essential component of a “greater system”, than being an autonomous “individual”.