Larry/nuet Reports 111317

Initiating this new sem/essay is my very first act after doing my preliminaries after rising at 10am. I dressed, fed some cats, warmed coffee,  put strawberries & 2 pastries on a plate, brushed my hair and sat down at my “computer”. I also chose to open directly a new post in my blog. Usually I start with outliners in either ECCO or NoteMap. I already have corrected many typos in just those few sentences above. And, many topics are already competing in my mind for what to say next.

Tom’s brief email asked about my condition and how I was progressing on the three tasks assigned to me by PCOA (Pima Council Of Aging), in the meeting he took me to. My direct answer is nothing yet – the paper listing the three tasks in pinned to my desk above my monitor. Why I am delaying that task has been a frequent thought since I pinned up the reminder, but Tom’s query brought it to the fore.

I just reached for my coffee cup, only to be surprised it wasn’t there. Another lypo, a new term I coined, in analogy with typo, to label  a missing or misplaced act in the sequence of routine acts in living. I experience about 30 lypos daily. When I tell others of this, they all claim to have lypos, but only a few a week. I anticipate more and more lypos. I wish I had the time to study lypos and relate them to neuroscience. My frequency of typos have also increased, for many reasons.

Thinking, periodically on how to respond to Tom, an insight emerged: SIMPLIFICATION IS NOT ALWAYS THE BEST METHOD TO NAVIGATE COMPLEXITY. That is, to simply reduce the number of independent variables may not be the best strategy. This is a long established method in the paradigm, Problem Solving, or reducing complexity to a set of independent Problems/Solutions. The scientific disciplines have succeeded using this paradigm because this paradigm appears to work (fairly well) with material systems (systems where human persons are not components). This theme needs further explication/exploration; but here I must return to this day (111317) and the issues facing me (Larry/nuet).

I am unable to reduce my immediate tasks to simply leaving my situation with Eloise & Tommy at the Koralee House and establishing a more secure assisted living situation elsewhere. There are no simple reasons for this.

Emotionally, I fear the unknown, especially with my deteriorating competencies. My situation here has stabilized and I no longer fear Tommy, although I don’t want to live under his rule and Eloise’s acquiescence. However, this situation remains fluid. Eloise’s friend Sally, promising a visit this month, may “see” what is happening here and give some guidance to Eloise.

I sense a fear, or reservation, for my exploring the real benefits I have with  my extended care insurance policy with Bankers Life, the first task assigned to me by PCOA. Bankers Life has many negative reviews online, and I fear my benefits will be limited. Yet, this is a task I will intend to. It has been delayed by many other tasks that seem to consume my days. It is on my TODO list.

AH! My TODO lists. Comprehending them, my dependence on them, and how they constrain my life is probably a key feature in understanding Larry/nuet.  What I should do here is produce a Camtasia (app) video of the monitor displays of my TODO lists and my manipulation of them. Indeed, I notice that learning to use Camtasia isn’t even EXPLICITLY on my TODO lists.

{[BM break, need to plunge toilet]}
This insert reminds me of my long intention
to set up recording
key-stroke/mouse-movement/screen-changes,
for BigData analysis of process;
to assist process improvement.

And, this reminds me that I have recently (unintentionally) abandoned
a strong dimension of my overall work:
designing the TECH6 systems for
“reeee seafing the galdee” of NU.
In everyday terms: designing nu app systems.

I can attribute my abandonment of this important domain
to my lypos, and to the runaway “improvements” of many apps
to which I haven’t adapted to; while
many of the features I need and desire
continue to be outside the imagination
of app designers and most app users.

This digression should reveal that my interests and needs run the full scale from what I do/experience moment-by-moment to multi-millennial changes in Humanity/Gaia, and all holons between.

This is the Scope, one of three “domains”, that
I have chosen to characterize
the crude architecture of reports about “reality”:
MSC = Magnitude/Scope/Complexity

A while back, in composing this sem, I was reminded of my very recent re-encounter with Doug Englebart. This 8 minute video compilation illustrates how I identify with Englebart in attempting to introduce a new system of paradigms or a shifting of epistemes. The “A” in SEAF, for Augment, is in tribute to Englebart for bringing focus on this vital process – AUGMENTATION – which has, unfortunately, disappeared in contemporary dialog. [SEAF = Support/ Enable/ Augment/Facilitate ; are four , subtly distinct aspects of “social helping”.]

The above, seeming ramble, is not diversion from topic. Rather, it illustrates the mind-flow of Larry/nuet – when attending to task.

I am able to focus narrowly on some tasks, and even enjoy the doing, such as washing dishes (transforming dirty to clean) or preparing a meal. However, when the task involves my mind (or nuet), the isolation of a task from the whole is very difficult, if not impossible. Also, what would have been accomplished had I DISCIPLINED myself to responding succinctly to Tom’s query about my progress on the three PCOA assigned tasks?

I just glanced at the list of tasks. Tasks 2 and 3 relate to finances. Actually, a good portion of my labor this past week was working with Quicken, trying to balance and comprehend our confused financial situation. I actually reassigned some accounts to Eloise’s CHASE bank account, and away from my BBVA COMPASS bank account. One complex task for me will be to create two distinct Quicken systems, for myself and for Eloise. A problem, is that I doubt Eloise has the competencies to learn to use Quicken. She has been resistant in learning some of the basic features of computers – I am always fixing her hangups and crashes.

I have known and lived with Eloise more than half my 82 years! We have developed many co-dependencies, some useful – others not. It is not only my deep responsibility to her, but the realization that I don’t really know all that I will need when separated from her.

SHIFTING TO THE IMMEDIATE

I would like to “set up shop” at another location, for working/sleeping/living for a few days at a time; while keeping (for awhile) my room at Koralee. A small apartment at Linda’s complex would be perfect – as I could literally walk between.  Transportation – discuss later. I am thinking of installing a video surveillance system, to be seen at Koralee. Already I wear (and pay for) a device around my neck, with a button to push for assistance, if needed.  I have enough hardware to not need to move my computers, and I need to set up interactivity between different stations (including my cell).

-INTERMISSION –
JAMIE CALLS, RESCHEDULE YOGA
ELOISE RETURNS,
PREP TO GO OUT

now, it is near midnight – two days from where I left off

I would have to consult my daily record of my doings to report all that has happened. I won’t give detail, but these interruptions have become typical to my life. I returned here to edit and conclude. I would like to continue this theme, but my insights are more and more frequent and I must attempt to record them and attempt to share.

Daily I encounter a few quality essays/docs/articles/radio/tv that trigger a new insight – usually awareness of a blindspot of the author (of  excellence) or how a different or expanded context would give greater relevance to the report. Yesterday, Rachael Maddow’s hour stimulated me to devote 2 hours composing in NoteMap on MODERN ESPIONAGE  – which I will soon edit and post on my blog. These triggered insights divert me from composing more on the major epistemic shifts emerging over the past few months.

These epistemic shifts create a nu context for UPLIFT and Up2Met, which only comprise a proposed alternative strategy for humankind. The epistemic shifts propose a truly radically new perspective about WHO WE ARE. Some of my more recent blog posts have skirted around this. Nuet is ready to dive deeply AND seriously work on new strategies for sharing and organizing – initiating Up2Met via SEAFwebs and OLLO.  But, my nu epistemes about “human nature” will be necessary for the design of viable strategies.

This highly significant agenda has to pierce through the fog of Larry’s dementia and easy distractability. Tonight, after wasting 4 hours viewing TV, I had prepared to go to bed and listen to a CD novel for a few hours until my hands stop attracting attention and I can fall asleep. I did just this on the evening of the 13th, when I had started this essay in the morning and had intended to work on it after TV. Fortunately, tonight I was motivated to override my routine and started keyboarding here. It has been more than an  hour, and there are other essays I want to work on, and many emails to reply to.

I MUST CONCLUDE THIS NOW.  Fortunately I am composing within my blog, so I only have to edit typos and update. I have yet to inform others about it by email.

SYSTEMS within EPISTEMES

PROLOGUE

I start composing 8am in October 6th, 2017. Using, for the first time a split keyboard and my malware cleaned ASUS computer – which is really slowing me down; keyboard not doing as I hoped in compensating for my severely neuropathic fingers. I will persist for awhile. I am also initiating composing directly on my blog in WordPress, although it lacks the outlining and full character features of WORD or NoteMap. I regret not having attended to my more immediate needs for seafing composing sems.

For two weeks I have been delaying initiating this essay. Primarily because of multiple distractions at family and home, in addition to my body deterioration and accelerating senility. Secondarily, because of the absence of feedback from my audience to my earlier posts and emails.

Earlier this morning, I lay in bed listening to a CD, which I had borrowed from the library, thinking it was a spy novel. Instead it was the memoir of Michael V. Hayden‘s lifetime in USA Intelligence Agencies, including Director of both the NSA and CIA, entitled: Playing to the Edge. As I listened, this morning, there arose a serendipitous insight that here was a powerful exemplar of the interaction of complex systems development within unconscious epistemes. Last night, after I discovered it wasn’t a novel, I had debated whether to continue listening. Then, I only questioned whether Hayden really believed all he was writing about, and whatever he was hiding was for national security (as he admitted in the book’s prologue). [So far, every fourth word I type is mis-spelled and I correct, slowing this process down, considerably. Using a new keyboard so as to accommodate my neuropathic fingers.]

This morning, as I finished the second disc and started the third, I became convinced of Michael Hayden’s deep sincerity and “patriotism”, his strong professional commitment, but masked by an episteme blocking alternative systems-at-play from his attention. I do not believe he gave any serious consideration to “false flag” of “inside job” “conspiracies” about the 911 phenomenon. He was on the “right side” in the battle against “evil”; yet was deeply concerned about the forced choices he had to make between “security” and “liberty”, including limited relevance of the US Constitution and formal bureaucratic processes that handicap “what is right”.

However, what hit me strongest this morning, and drove me to this interface , after warming a cup of old coffee, was the awesome detail of intelligence systems and legal systems explicated, and how the systems needed to be radically changed because of the continuing waves of technological innovation. Hayden is forthright in reporting intelligence failures (but not all, from my analysis). I expect the rest of this book to further illustrate the psychology of epistemes influencing human invention of systems models to “explain experience”. {Hayden on Comey’s firing by Trump.}

It is now three days later. Hayden’s memoir captured my full attention to the very end. Although we inhabit quite different epistemes, I expect we would have positive dialogs. From my reading, I don’t believe Michael is capable of intentional deception, as I am also so “handicapped”.

Person’s can be intentionally deceptive and still believe they possess the truth; as they justify their deception as necessary for the “greater good”. “Anything goes” to fight “evil”.

I won’t attempt a detailed analysis here. Michael’s episteme doesn’t permit his nation to be “bad”, although it can make mistakes, many of which he can identify. Thus, “terrorism” is a real threat that must be comprehended (as a system) and opposed (by all means necessary). He is well aware of the delicate decisions that must be made – from his comprehension of complex cultural/social systems (for which he had experienced a great variety, in his career).

What was also informative, was his “opinion” of those in the US government and press who, he claimed (and I am tempted to believe him) grossly distorted his positions so as to attack their (distorted) views of the the CIA and Intelligence, in general – to justify their own epistemes. Over the years I have carelessly accepted these claims, even when I was well aware of the need for secrecy and even covert actions, in the “real-world”. Too many humans are fake purists. Many persons Michael criticizes I had respected unconditionally. I would need to hear their “side”; but my approach is not to blame anyone. We are all trapped in our systems-within-epistemes. I wonder how Michael Hayden views Donald Trump and the confused GOP, today?

Yet, what is important about Playing to the Edge  is  how it illustrates the contrast between societal systems and hidden epistemes. I wonder how others might so interpret this book?

 

SYSTEMS as Conceptual Schemes

Systems thinking models reality as having a distinct (and real) separation between a material entity (the system) and its material environment.  A whole “… system of systems of systems …” remains pure metaphor.

Systems thinking can get very complex, involving nested subsystems and components, in networks and holarchies.

I prefer to work with four models: systems, networks, holarchies, ecologies. In this perspective, I restrict “system” to label a network of components (treated as objects with properties), with lawful relationships between components (including subsystems, which can “share” the same components), all embedded in an “environment”. Such “systems” are components of networks, holarchies and ecologies.

That our material reality actually “contains” these distinctions and separations is unknown. These distinctions “exist” in the mind/brains or “wrlds” of each human person; although most persons aren’t so concrete, or don’t consistently apply the “systems perspective”.

That is, a “systems perspective” of reality is a recent innovation within humankind’s emergence. It has not yet spread to the majority, and has mixed applicability among those who claim to be “systems thinkers”.

Many professional “systems scientists and philosophers” are dogmatic in their belief in the material existence of systems and are oblivious to the role of epistemes. Michael Hayden may be an exemplar of this.

 

 

ENVYING STEPHEN HAWKING

I am growing into an envy for the lifestyle of Stephen Hawking.

I see the acceptance of handicaps and the new/nu freedoms/competencies released.

new = freedoms known but blocked or undeveloped
nu = freedoms discovered, unknown before, potentials, ready for actualization.

As I elder, more and more attention/time/energy is devoted to my disabled, uncomfortable, and distracting body. Less and less attention/time/energy is devoted to creating/composing/doing relevant/rewarding/enjoyable “activities”.

Larry’s condition as of October 2017.

lifetime lack of mental imagery in all sensory modalities

total absence of any sensory remembrances of past events, even of a moment ago
memories only of conceptualized “report”of a supposed objective event
distant past events “remembered” only as prior conceptual “memories”
specific locations trigger such “memories” of events occurring at those locations (almost always embarrassing and sexual)
zero sensory imagination, no visual thinking
occasional sub vocalization – always emerges from subconscious
writing/typing emerges
sometimes sub vocalization accompanies emergence of symbols on screen, often in-process editing – grammar correction or generalization

lifetime on autism spectrum

inadequate relations with fellow humans
frequent lack of interest in persons, forget their existence, no concrete memories of past encounters
avoidance of realtime encounters – both phone and F2F, email OK – but forget to reply if not immediately
HOWEVER, was comfortable lecturing to classes of students.
HOWEVER, will sometimes speak up after lectures or in meetings, often “politely confrontational”.
feel lost and “out-of-place” at-parties and in-crowds.
procrastinate making phone calls
HOWEVER, can enter long dialog with strangers on topics of interest – sometime I enter “lecture/sharing mode”.
Unsure about Larry, Confident about nuet.
quick trigger to SHOUTING when dissed, limited to “family”

Larry’s basic physiological subsystems are healthy.

Minor issues:

Cervical spine in bad shape, not causing symptoms expected.
Colon polyps, occasional blood in stool
Flap between juncture to stomach/lungs collects food, resulting in coughing when eating
Take meds for

thyroid – gland removed at age 15
hypertension
depression
stomach (potential ulcers)
joints
sleep

Cancer (1997, 2011) in remission.

Crippling arthritis of joints and cervical spine.

fingers and hands severely deformed, no blood indication of rheumatoid
elbows are bone on bone, replacement only option
left arm useless for most activity – extreme pain
recent problem is hard upper left arm muscle – “charlie-horse”, docs ignore

Neuropathy of hands and feet.

Hands feel stiff and enlarged, feeling of fingers on fingers “strange”
compulsion to “stim” fingers on fingers, even using rubber finger tips

Unstable walking

need to focus and slow down
drift, stumble on rough ground, many corrected potential falls
a few actual falls, bruises only
2011 test revealed a 17 degree shift in vision of “front”, never did correction exercises

Inadequate exercise, muscles weak

weekly guided yoga-stretching, online – – for 10+ years
can’t motivate to practice between weekly sessions
practice yoga-stretching only when “waiting” for appointments

Lack of fingers/hands/arms strength and dexterity.
Eye focus ok at all distances, corrections needed for best clarity
Hearing aides needed for low volume, audio perception/discrimination weak
No teeth, slurred speech – slow eating (helps keep weight stable)

Dementia re memory and spontaneous creativity

Functions in environment as S/R mechanism

INCLUDES stimulus when reading (self/others) and sustained focus
INCLUDES stimulus of many significant insights
WANDER between episodes of focus
less frequent insights or motivation to read/write when wandering

some memory/thinking on amplification of lifelong issues
forget most of sems/docs I have written, surprised to discover them
no recall of specifics of anything I have written
remembrances limited to generalities, often awed at details rediscovered

Liberated mind, beyond normal human

 

Larry/nuet’s Dream Future

Like Stephen Hawking, Larry’s body is maintained by competent-teams.

nuet is galdeed as best possible, seafed by a system-of-teams.

Larry/nuet = Larry is body, nuet is sum-of patterns in body/brain /mind, an inner “wrld”, the immediate correlate of all experience.

galdee = grow/adapt/learn/develop/evolve/emerge

seaf =support/enable/augment/facilitate

nuet becomes a tool of emergent humanity.

The technologies for Hawking/Victor are developed for all humans, as “life extension”.

NEED: FUNDAMENTAL EPISTEMIC CHANGE

PAST EPISTEMIC CHANGES

The emergence of the conceptual scheme OBJECTIVITY, including the concept of “conceptual scheme” is seldom mentioned as a major transition in human history. I first learned explicitly about epistemic change from Michel Foucault‘s “The Order of Things” & “The Archeology of Knowledge“.

Early humans made no conscious distinction between what we now call our OBJECTIVE or MATERIAL WORLDS (universes, concrete realities) and our personal WRLDS OF HUMAN CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE. We don’t know all the details of this epistemic shift , how it occurred in stages, and how it became distributed among different populations and cultures (including where it is, as yet, not the dominant episteme).

Gods and spirits could effect change in the observable world. Lightening/Thunder and Rainbows were “caused” by “higher entities”. Julian Jaynes hypothesized that there was a shift from “others” speaking to them, as to voices-in-their-heads (auditory hallucinations)  to persons believing the thoughts came from their deeper selves.

The night sky was the first, studied exemplar of a fixed externality. Not only the fixed pattern of stars (constellations), but the regular movement over time, including the movement of sun and moon and their relationship to the changing seasons. The study of these external regularities culminated in Newton’s model of an Objective Universe – where planets and falling apples followed the same “scientific” laws. Indeed, that there were “external regularities”, the study of which we call “SCIENCE”, was an emergent episteme of great impact. This episteme is now being challenged by humans seeking power.

Other epistemic shifts are attached to the names: Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, Bohr/Schrödinger/Heisenberg. Today there are hundreds of epistemic shifts in process that can’t readily be attributed to individual persons. Labeled eras, such as The Enlightenment or The Industrial Revolution, are also accompanied by epistemic change. Diffferent cultures have different epistemes.

How can we tell whether another fundamental epistemic change isn’t underway (possibly blocked) and desperately needed? Should a small community-of-teams undertake exploring this challenge? Might humankind now be sufficiently competent to intentionally/intelligently/compassionately influence epistemic change?

 

HINTS OF A NEW EPISTEME

The global wave of seeming “madness” around FAKE news or realities, exemplified by Trump (but not limited to him) has the metaphor of it being revealed that “the king has no clothes on”. What are the “clothes” and who is the “king“?

The “king” is “humankind” and the clothes is “objectivity”. Humankind leaves a trace (in the material world) that can’t be adequately explained by the Science of Objective or Material Reality (SOMR). A systematic explication of SOMR will occur in other documents – follow some links below. However, some basics.

There is no “evidence” (in the sense of inter-subjective observing and reporting on phenomena in the material world) for human intention or belief.

All we have are records of concrete human behavior (videos or reports {by observer-authors or journalists}), which must be interpreted by readers/viewers, each in terms of their own personal contexts. [Material structures (e.g., architecture, agriculture) created by humans are also semiotic, and a full theory of SOMR must include them.] I have labeled these “sems” (semiotic structures) and an organized collection of sems, a “semfield“.

The empirical foundation for HUMANKIND is limited to interpretation of reports (taken, temporarily now, as digitized patterns of symbols, visual & auditory). Most modern reports can be accurately replicated, ensuring “identity of pattern” for all; but not similar interpretations.

PROBLEMS WITH THE CURRENT EPISTEME

The successes of Sci/Tech for the material world (even when never directly observed in consciousness) has given rise (among many persons and populations) to the belief that this OBJECTIVITY can be applied to human THOUGHTS & REPORTS about reality. Indeed, it is believed that “interpretations of experience”, as reported, are OBJECTIVE FACTS. In a sense, Human Problems Aren’t Real.

However, they are only reports, patterns created by humans, superimposed on material substrates. Their objectivity exists only in the patterns (as text on this screen). To what extent may our scientific knowledge of systems not containing humans (or not involving direct human interference during the interval studied) NOT APPLY to our knowledge gained from the “scientific” study of systems with humans as primary components and/or participants?

This belief, in their experiences as objective truth, necessarily leads humans into conflict. I have no knowledge of the distribution of this dangerous episteme among all human populations. I believe that it is rooted in what we call intuition, or the fast reality of Daniel Kahneman in Thinking: Fast and Slow (pdf).

Ample scientific evidence on the fallibility of experience has done little to diminish our use of this episteme. Our early tribal ancestors needed to act quickly in emergencies, with no time to consider alternative interpretations. Also, the challenges of tribal life (with the societal yet to emerge) was adequately navigated with an episteme that didn’t sharply discriminate between material and human realities. Today, and for millennia, the primary environment for most humans has been human created – even the USA National Parks were modified to be “wild gardens”. Urban life, now augmented by “life on the screen” takes humans far from “material nature”.

Is it possible to “educate” persons to live/believe in a different episteme? A different issue: is it possible to incrementally change intertwined social/societal systems & subsystems so as to implement such “education” (personalized), to migrate a significant/selected portion of the global population to a new episteme to avoid foretasted disasters?

All I can claim is that the answer “no” is not proven, even if intuition makes it feel so. Might the extreme tragedy, if we fail to shift epistemes (the elimination of our potential futures, more tragic than the death of all humans), provide sufficient motivation/challenge – for those competent to comprehend the issues – TO ACT.

On Scenarios for UPLIFT

UPLIFT Experience 2018-2020

Advanced Metamorphosis:
A Mix of Emergence & Transformation

Two Modes of Action:
Designing/Constructing & Posting/Commenting

Action Strategies for Larry/nuet
-2014 – forgotten!

Is Humankind a Unique Cosmic Phenomenon?
– 3/2016 – also forgotten!!

 

FORECAST: Failed Recoveries from Disasters

Forecast: If not repressed, in a few months there will be an “uprising” of all those who have not experienced recovery from disasters, primarily hurricanes Harvey and Irma – then attracting those who never recovered from prior disasters (including fires, tornadoes, landslides, and droughts).

Are there enough workers to do the recovery? Think, every building, bridge, etc. will need work. The military might be called in. Workers from all over may be recruited, but they will leave behind work undone. The USA is short competent workers. Will we be open to immigrant workers? Who will pay them? What “agency” has the competency to organize/coordinate this work?

Are there enough supplies to use in the recovery? With a “just in time” economy, there will be major shortages and a lag to produce more. There could be a massive logistics effort to round up what is needed, but who will decide to do it and who will pay for it.

Might the wealthy commandeer workers and supplies, leaving nothing for the rest?

How will those no longer working/earning and those whose business is no longer making money pay for their needs? FEMA will give out some initial support, but far from enough. What will be the impact on the rest of the USA (and world) from the lack of productivity and markets in Houston and Florida?

What is the full story of recovery from prior disasters? Who didn’t recover and how was it kept silent from the media? The MSM and governments treat each disaster as separate.

What about the losses from the fire in Montana? There are probably crisises in many places around the globe. The recent earthquake in Mexico. The massive floods this summer in many places, as bad as in the USA, but not reported here. What if other hurricanes take out another city or more?

How might this destabilize the current political game in the USA? In other countries? The global refuge crisis is, in part, the result of climate change. A long drought in Syria launched the current crisis there. What are the forecasts about climate change refugees for the decades ahead?

Our best science claims that Climate Change will significantly increase in frequency and extent of destruction in the next decades. We really don’t know how strong regular winds will become, or how weather patterns may shift – causing regions to get unexpected, extreme weather.

Might this start a shift of the general population to accept the dangers of climate change? Even if the MSM tries to block it, the news will spread in the population. Those who were lied to may become quite angry at the climate deniers.

The climate deniers, their beneficiaries and supporters, will not give up easily. Today, there are no secure laws or practices – power and deception are dominant. Evidence need not trump ignorance.

Current events have proven the inadequacy of so-called electoral democracy, when the citizenry is not uplifted and permitted to be propagandized and dumbed down.

Why have the most competent and most knowledgeable persons not explored the various scenes/stories/scenarios/schemes from now until the climate change catastrophe has been reversed? Are we permanently locked into “pragmatic presentism”? Have we really become addicted to the ideology of “intuitive flowing”, the “emergence of the good” without longterm “futuring”? Has the knowledge that too detailed plans always fail, blinded us to exploring measured mixes of “planning” and “flowing” (a variation of OLLO)?

Because it is impossible to quickly change everyone, doesn’t preclude that starting small might eventually make an enormous difference. “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has” – Margaret Mead.

NEED: A growing, OLLO, movement that explores longterm options for THE WHOLE OF HUMANKIND.

PS – The longer Trump&Team remain in power, chances of removing him get worse and worse. Pence&Team are fixing the electoral system to insure we have a one party system. Unfortunately, the establishment Democrats are blinded by their own ideology and impotent. While we still have the “freedom”, “we” need to organize so as to remain “functional” within a “high authoritative system”.

The Meaning of MEANING

  • This is a record of an email thread, and Larry/nuet’s response to each comment in the thread. The thread resulted from a single question about part of an earlier email by myself, and a chain of responses, about “meaning”. Common to many threads, they didn’t refer back to an original idea or text. Rather, such threads are analog to the party game of trying to pass a message around a circle of persons – leading to distortion. Here the theme of the messages change as each new comment is about a small part of the previous comment, and is irrelevant to the themes of the original message and earlier comments. THIS THREAD, however, did prove interesting. How might we develop an app and protocols to keep dialog on theme?
  • The next section are my comments, mostly in temporal order of comments, and addressed to the named commenters. The following section are sequence of copy/pastes of each email comment, for reference. Sorry, I didn’t have the time to click/link these to my responses.

 

  • Larry’s words on “meaning”:

     

    • I’ve not ignored “meaning” in my schema, as Linda claims. Nor, do I claim “life is deterministic”. I propose that S/R behavior is deterministic. The denial of that part of life which is deterministic is the cause of much of our difficulty. The agency we do have can be directed us to develop desirable and useful determined behaviors. Too much freedom would be hell. There are relatively few auto accidents because our driving is mostly deterministic behavior.
    • Linda’s “collective meaning” might be defined as “observed common usage of terms by a population”. This is essential for populations to collectively act towards shared objectives and goals. This approaches tautology. Our challenge is how to accomplish this given the wide diversity of human cognitive systems and the inadequacy of contemporary media for “meaningful” dialog.
    • Bohmian Dialog Processes may assist a convergence in word usage for that group during that session. Whether the psychological structures (being) become similar because of shared meanings is only speculative. More permanent change is a much more complex undertaking, and requires designed patterns for dialog formats across many, many dialog sessions.
    • “meaning” is a word, a term, a visual pattern and sound pattern; different for different cultures and languages. I can Google “meaning”  and get various definitions, synonyms, and patterns of usage in sentences. We find it is related, in English, to the verb to “mean”. To “mean” is to point with intention, to the “meaning” of something.
    • What has meaning? Words, sentences, paragraphs, text of various sizes, images, things, happenings.
    • For me, the “meaning” of any “figure of attention” in a “conscious experience” is the ground or context for the gestalt/whole of the experience,mostly groked or subconscious. These “meanings” are private; but we can write and share reports attempting to describe that meaning for us, to others.
    • Linda calls for a greater consensus for the usage of critical terms, or common, shared “definitions”. I support her on this and go so far as to coin special terms to sharpen what I refer to and to distinguish it from other terms pointing to different referents.
    • Research has demonstrated that any individual person will use many terms with different referents (meanings?) at different times. Each person will have a different distribution of usage patterns for each term. Scientific and philosophical texts attempt greater precision in their usage of specific terms. Some claim that ambiguity of usage enhances creative use of a language – English is claimed as being the most ambiguous of languages.
    • Jason, we often think in language, even sub vocalize. My even when thinking visually, every “figure of attention” has a word associated with it. Even if “something strange”. The languages we learn becomes a scaffolding for our thinking about our visual world. For literate humans, “texts” become a new and special visual world, that follows different “rules & laws” than the non-textual world. The “meaning of meaning” becomes significant for talking/working with other humans, as distinct from working with material things.
    • Nirmalan, Up2Met is my proposal for consciously changing meaning – from individual to global humankind.
    • Linda, your recommendations for social action don’t explicitly include significant development&learning of participants in actions. Unless activists change their “meaning systems” they will be unable to do what is needed. Today’s population of activists (and those to be recruited to activism) lack the requisite knowledge and competencies to do as needed. Simply implying they will learn-by-doing is insufficient.  UPLIFT is much more than learning, as I have described in OLLO. Explicit attention must be given to make learning-by-doing reeee (relevant, effective, efficient, enjoyable, elegant). Reeee OLLO is required to replace our trivialized “education”.
    • Nirmalan, stories are essential elements of our cognitive processes. However, I propose we enlarge the conceptual scheme to a holarchy of BIG: Pictures, Scenes, Stories, Scenarios, Schemes. For societal issues we must go well beyond “stories”.
    • Stan, I agree with you that MUCH positive is happening. I see our POTENTIALS for radical/rapid change growing/adapting/developing/evolving/emerging exponentially. Most is invisible or not comprehended by the vast majority, as well as by most of the “already educated”. In my analysis, it is long past ready to synergize – but is blocked. The blockage is not only by opposition from establishments, but by outmoded assumptions still held by change agent and potential activists.Computers and The Internet potentially provide the tools/technology, but the specific forms (for economic/commercial interests) are actually contributing to the blockage.
    • Stan, your efforts with Community Magic and Helpfulness are quality exemplars of what we need in terms of new, viable SOCIAL systems – which involve real persons as components. According to my working model of humankind, just as the SOCIAL is a different type of system from the PERSONAL, so the SOCIETAL is different from both. The components of societal are social systems. Creative or destructive persons can influence societal systems, but are not components of them (except at a deeper level as components of social systems). The OLLO of communities within societal scaffolding has, as yet, a very primitive Sci/Tech. I speculate that if we were to systemically “action research” with the three levels (personal, social, societal) we would make rapid headway.
    • Stan, on thinking on what you are doing in Wikidelphia, and in all of Philadelphia, stimulates an insight. The three level model may to too crude. I imagine you working at a level that overlaps social and societal. Another way of making this distinction is the ratio of synchronous vs asynchronous interactions, and whether “individuals” are treated as “persons” or as “roles”. When I first came to Tucson in 1971 I worked as the “principal” of the educational component of a residential treatment center for emotionally disturbed boys. I started at a small site, where there were no written messages for or between employees. We met in a F2F meeting every morning, and walked to the office if we needed anything. This was a social system, for personnel. Our success led us moving to a much larger site, in the desert, now including girls and with greatly increased staff. No more F2F meetings. Written messages from management to personnel. A RADICAL change. A rapid decline in discipline and patient success rate, in my analysis.
    • Linda, I have to avoid using the term “people”, and use “persons” instead. For me, people implies too much similarity – that we can take actions that will reach ALL the people. This I deeply believe is impossible, as our cognitive diversity is far to vast. Also, stories must be comprehended before they can be meaningful. Most humans will need to have their cognitive processes enhanced before they can adequately comprehend the stories (scenarios & schemes) they need. “Education” (generalized to include the media) must do much more than inform. Also, I doubt that there are key stories that will catalyze the “emergent process” we need.
    • Tom Greco, COMPLEMENTARITY is the missing element, in a nu episteme. More>>
      • Consider two propositions/perspectives A & B in a relationship of complementarity.
        • If A, doesn’t imply not-B.
        • If B, doesn’t imply not-A.
        • Often, we cannot simultaneously perform the operations to assess A and B.
        • In physics, the operation to assess whether an entity is a particle precludes performing the operation to access whether it is a wave; and vise versa.
        • Particles and Field are two distinct conceptual schemes. Particles both “create” fields and “react” to fields.
      • Either/Or is not applicable in all situations.
      • It is the demand for purity of “freedom” and “equality” that contributes to the paradox. Also, when one begins to “unpack” the conceptual schemes associated with these two labels, the intertwining of their conceptual schemes is revealed.
      • Once I created four levels of “freedom”:
    • The ability to actually chose between options.
    • Having access to all options.
    • Having the competencies to comprehend the options and the competencies to chose.
    • Being able to learn about the field of potential options, how to uplift to comprehend more.
      • alone is stupid. We know how fragile the psychology of choice is to circumstances. (2-4) imply a social/societal/cultural context for personal choice.
        • One might speculate that the push for freedom(1) results in giving the powerful elite moral justification to oppress others.
        • “EQUALITY” immediatly faces the logical “truth” that RANKING (which includes “equal”) can “objectively” apply to only one aspect/variable at a time. There is no logical sense to seek “equality” of multiple dimensional entities. We can rank persons as to height or weight, but not according to “bigness”. Bigness requires we assign “subjective” weights to height vs weight. The IQ test is logically invalid because we assign equal weight to each test item.  Any test can have its scores correlated with other criteria, which can have limited applicability. “Intelligence” is a multidimensional concept, which is distinct from other such attributes, such as empathy, wisdom, creativity, productivity, etc.
        • Unfortunately, humans are programmed to commit this logical fallacy, much of the time. In tribal times, this was probably the best process for survival. It is proving disasterous in these far more complex times.
  • Tom Atlee, Just terminology. I use “complementarity” for your “healthy polarity”. For me, “polarity” implies opposition. There are oppositional relationships as well as relationships of complementarity. The Yin/Yang symbol represents it well. I believe populations today are not “polarized”, but “fragmented”. It is our psychology the moves us to sort them into two camps, which we also find structured in two party politics.
  • Linda, “freedom for whom” illustrates that consideration of single concepts, alone, is a meaningless activity.
  • Nirmalan, All important concepts & conceptual schemes are complex and interdependent. The concept that each term can have a definition that makes it an “independent” atom/node in a language matrix has been very dangerous. “Explanation” is an endless process, which we arbitrarily terminate (conclude).
  • Michel Bauwens, The increase in commons is impressive and encouraging. We “times are ripe”, innovations can go viral. Comprehending the process and relevant factors, the spread of innovations can be seafed (supported, enabled, augmented, facilitated). Can a spread of commons in different cultures and populations be seafed? Whether such viral spreading of a few innovations will catalyze a fundamental holistic shift is a different issue. I speculate that the interaction between many different innovations must be given systemic attention. I am greatly interested in how to create SEAFwebs and OLLO expeditions and drive them viral. OLLO = Organizing-for-Learning=&=Learning-for Organizing.
  • Michel Bauwens, You are right, in your comment to Tom Greco, about the dependency of freedom on equality. I don’t need to tell you that there are many kinds of “equality”. Here you imply a quality of “opportunity”. As I commented earlier, also in response to Tom, there are a few dimensions of freedom also involved. Some of these cannot be rectified quickly by changes in law.
  • Albert, a url you recommend to Luhmann would have been useful. He has so many texts, the one most target to autopoiesis is in French. I have long groked the applicability of autopoiesis to social systems (probably not societal systems). Maturana and Varela were adamant in opposition to the extension of autopoiesis beyond biology.
    • Email contributions:

    • Tom Greco 9/4/17
      • Jason, what do you mean by “feedpast bootstrapping?”
    • Jason 9/4/17
      • It is a term Larry introduced. A non-linear property of time, akin to the quantum process whereby the future affects the past, applying to human creativity. When one gets a “creative vision” perhaps it is a process of the future “feeding” creativity in the present, i.e. the brain somehow tapping into a circular property of time. Hopefully I’ve done a good job at attempting to explain this.
    • Larry 9/6/17
      • Yes, Jason, you got the gist of feedpast bootstrapping. The concept emerged during my summer between high school and college, and was a theme of a short story I wrote. An early human, in great need, threw his spear. It would have missed, but his need was so just, that the Big Bang was altered, slightly different, so his spear throw would hit his target. For me, ALL of physics implies a deterministic universe. Quantum Mechanics simply makes the determinism statistical – we can’t predict, but it remains determined.  Feedpast Bootstrapping might alter the probabilities at the quantum level, but leave the long term distributions random – thus not violating quantum physics. Manipulating at the quantum level is not sufficient to account for most so-called “psychic phenomena”. But, quantum style statistics may exist also at the larger “societal” levels, not necessarily directly related to the quantum phenomena at the small.
      • I grok that humans emotionally treat mortality and determinism similarily: denial. The evidence is very, very strong that our responses to stimuli are strictly determined by (1) the stimuli AND (2) our “state” at the moment of stimulation. After the stimulation, the “state” changes, and is slightly different for the next stimulus. Activity anywhere in our bodies also can be treated as stimuli for the brain. Damasio hypothesizes that the sum total of CHANGES in our body as stimuli onto the brain is experienced as emotion.
      • In quantum theory, the order of stimulus and change-due-to-stimulus is reversed. In classical reality, a stimulus changes the state of a system, a new state coming to be after the stimuli. In quantum theory, the order is reversed. A “state” before stimulus, in not a fixed set of values for variables, but a probability distribution of a great many potential discrete states. The stimuli (or observation) select just one “state” from the distribution, and that is what the result of measurement is. Immediately after, the system expands again into a probability distribution of many potential states. The basic nature of quantum reality are interfering probability distributions (waves) punctuated by many collapses to temporary discrete states. The cosmology of this remains highly controversial.
      • I speculate that human societal reality (the sum of all reports) is also of this nature. Each report (writing and reqding) selects one “reality”, temporarily. All possible “realities”, as partly described by reports, “exist” as potential – but with different probabilities (related to the relative number of persons knowing of the report). This is a very crude “theory”. In today’s nomenclature, all reports are “fake”, but “true” to the authors.
      • I speculate that human creative agency occurs ONLY as emergent patterns in the brain, that are NOT responses to stimuli. The whole brain “shifts” between two distinct configurations, which is experienced as an insight. After such an “inner” shift, the state of the brain may be in position to respond differently from the “determined” response expected (if without the creative insight). I have no ideas about the nature of our creative agency. Does it exist for groups, independent of the individual group members? Does it change as one grows? Did this agency begin with the Big Bang, or did it emerge during our Universe’s evolution? How might it have “worked” to make the our Sun’s and Moon’s subtended arcs the same, so as to provide total solar eclipses to stimulate premature interest in “science”?
      • “Quantum systems” can shift between two distinct states without having to transform continuously between them. Creative insights may be such shifts in our brains, probably at molecular as well as neuronal levels. Might humankind, as a whole, make such massive shifts? Possibly, but I don’t think such a shift will save us. More, I grok that once we are underway with Up2Met, we may encounter such shifts. We may not be aware of such shifts, as our memories may also shift.
      • None of these speculation may be our reality. Yet, they give me support for the possibility of the magnitude/scope/complexity (msc) of the changes we need.
      • Up2Met is an emergent conceptual scheme of msc beyond any other conceptual scheme I am aware of. I don’t experience Up2Met; it is the unconscious context of my thinking.
    • Linda 9/7/17
      • Hi Larry: I don’t have time to read all the posts, but honestly at the quantum level in terms of human systems, you are leaving out the importance that ‘meaning’ plays, which is huge. Especially ‘collective meaning’.  Bohm used to say (and I think it is his most important insight that he contributes to social change) that a change in meaning is a change in being.
      • So, if we want to transform ourselves, we need to all agree to a new meaning around how we can move forward (I’m thinking climate change here, but it could be about the monetary system or anything else that fundamentally affects every single one of us). That is why getting people into Dialogue about core assumptions is so key to making change in our world.  We can’t do it by ourselves, but when we all agree to a new meaning about something, it deeply impacts the actions we take which then changes the world.  And, I don’t think we ALL have to agree, but there obviously needs to be a large and important % of us or at least those in a position of some power to make change happen.
      • Life is not deterministic, please.
    • Jason 9/7/17
      • Apropos of meaning, even the language I think in affects my thought. Subtle at times, yet when vigilant of it, it becomes apparent.
    • Linda 9/7/17
      • It is so subtle that it is mostly overlooked and have felt most of my life that I have been swimming upstream, but hey, as far as I can tell, meaning lies at the very root of what we humans co-create together, so it has never been off my radar, even when I turn to other ventures.
    • Nirmalan 9/7/17
      • Any idea as to how a change in meaning can be consciously brought about…?
    • Linda 9/7/17
      • Well, first you have to get people’s attention back to being engaged citizens again. The right has so dismantled our democratic infrastructure that people feel hopeless or are simply not engaging in politics any more. But, I do feel that we are close to a crisis of some impact that will throw enough people out of work that suddenly they will realize they have to DO something about the situation we are all finding ourselves in right now politically.
        Then, there can be some potential for something like citizen dialogue again that can from the grass-roots eventually cement itself into another reform movement like what we’ve seen before during the years of FDR, etc.
      • I’m right now very focused on what is called “community rights” work. I’m getting involved as I write this with an organization that is forming out of Paul Cienfuego’s many years of community rights work. You can google community rights US and find the web-site.
      • You can also look at the web-site of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund. I think I sent links awhile back to their online democracy school’s videos on the subject. Very promising arena for changing consciousness around our  many wicked problems.
      • Once local communities begin the waking up process, people like myself, knowledgeable about Dialogue and Deliberation methods can help communities make the shift to new ways of organizing ourselves…at least that is my current hope.
      • Always open to other ways of thinking about all of this, but this my best thinking right now after a long summer of reading and reflection. Currently, reading a great book by Nichols and McChesney called “Get Ready”…it outlines the history and is optimistic about the future, though it will be many years of a lot of social transformation work to be sure.
    • Nirmalan 9/7/17
      • Has the story of our world got anything to do with it…?
      • I mean…if we change the story…will the meaning change…?
      • …for example if we stop trying to “be good” and go to heaven…will we start doing things differently…..?
    • Stan 9/8/17
      • Hi Everyone…
      • It’s my theory that the changes we wish for are already happening… The Internet is a big source of change in human interaction and will make a much more RAPID change in societies than did the invention of the printing press, or broadcast media.
      • The Internet will bring forth the “Age of Helpfulness.” (not just the Age of Aquarius).   See my theory on “Level 2 Social Media” which will ultimately take full advantage of the coming “Web 3.0” technology by applying “artificial intelligence” to the process of people helping other people.
      • In other words, some people will form an ever more self-aware nervous system for humanity and more and more people will come to understand the blessings of connectedness and, yes, ultimately helpfulness will dissipate destructive behaviors caused by fear and hate.
      • It might take more than a week or a month.
      • Oh, I forgot to mention that before Helpfulness can fix everything, we have to figure out how to avoid killing off all life on Earth… Yes… there’s that… 
    • Linda 9/8/17
      • That’s the main thing, I agree, except by the time that people wake up to that fact of climate change, it will be basically too late. It may already be. But even our feeble attempt here to create meaning together is a tiny step in the right direction.  And, yes, the world needs a new story.   Our democracy needs a new story which is what will start to push our political parties again to the left and a more humane-based world…but who knows if the environment can wait long enough for us to make this transition.  It is all one big lottery bet at this point.
    • Tom Greco 9/8/17
      • That Nature smiles at the union of freedom and equality in our utopias. For freedom and equality are sworn and everlasting enemies, and when one prevails the other dies. Leave men free, and their natural inequalities will multiply almost geometrically, as in England and America in the nineteenth century under laissez-faire. To check the growth of inequality, liberty must be sacrificed, as in Russia after 1917. Even when repressed, inequality grows; only the man who is below the average in economic ability desires equality; those who are conscious of superior ability desire freedom, and in the end superior ability has its way.
      • Will and Ariel Durant, The Lessons of History, 1968
      • Is that true? If so, what is the missing element that has the power to provide the happy balance?
      • I found this quote on a long-winded blog post that Christopher Quigley referred me to: http://epsilontheory.com/narrative/before-and-after-the-storm/.
    • Tom Atlee 9/8/17
      • Freedom and Equality are interacting, mutually engaging polarities, not a tension we can just solve by choosing one over the other or by balancing for all time. The balancing effort must be ongoing. Nature (including human and social nature) provide an ongoing rough balance, but that approach may involve a lot of unnecessary pain and suffering.  Consciously managing the balance can minimize the downside and optimize the shifting benefit to all aliveness in the system – but we have to learn how and develop the skills and mindfulness to pull it off….
      • See Polarity Management 
    • Linda 9/8/17
      • ..to balancing freedom and equality….but I ask freedom for whom? If the elite classes want freedom to do as they please through through unchecked capitalism, it isn’t freedom for the rest of us with all the environmental mess and growing inequality involved. But, the two polls do indeed need to be in some conscious balance.  We are way out of balance right now, obviously.
    • Nirmalan 9/8/17
      • Equitable freedom.
      • Not all want the same stuff to do the same thing…
      • So its freedom to do ones things which is uniquely different from the thing others want to do…
      • Its far more complex than this…but that takes time to explain…
    • Michel Bauwens 9/8/17
      • this may be of interest to some here and confirms Stan’s intuition about the speed of social change, we uncovered a tenfold increase of urban commons in the city of Ghent, which mirrors the general situation in western and southern Europe, perhaps less so the East, after consultation and four months of inquire, we proposed a new institutional design for public-commons cooperation for the city of Ghent in the Flanders:
      • Urban commons, as the fourth wave of commoning (after natural resources, social commons and knowledge commons), are based on the self-organization, sharing of resources, reciprocity arrangements, (re)generative market functions that are commons friendly, and ‘commons accords’ with supportive administrations where they exist.
    • Michel Bauwens 9/8/17
      • Thomas,
      • this is definitely not true, unless you mean the freedom to extract and exploit ? freedom is dependent on equality, and a lack of equalithy destroys the freedom of the many
    • Linda 9/10/17
      • Hi Michael: This is an amazing report you sent us around the urban commons in Ghent. I was entirely unaware of this development in Europe.  Very exciting.  Are there people in the US following this development who you know?  I’m going to send it to the head of the US Transition Town organization as I’m trying to set up a time to talk with her anyways.  She might know.  This is a remarkable development if it just sort of sprung up and now the government is adapting to it.
    • Albert 9/10/17
      • See Niklas Luhman: ‘Autopoietic Social Systems’ as developed from Maturana and Varela 🙂
    • Larry to Jason 9/4/17 long (with many url links: )
      • Jason, when composing this I got carried away creating links. I don’t expect you to even look at most. The links to posts in my blog are long, but they provide other examples of my attempts to share and how difficult it has been. I am on a temp computer and spellchecking doesn’t appear to be working for this wordprocessor in Thunderbird.
      • When I finished writing that “latest set of replies”, I felt that it might be one of the best “summaries” I have written. I have attempted hundreds. I am pleased you also agree. What I must do is develop “measures of comprehension” to assess the levels of your (& other’s) comprehension of Up2Met. To me, “comprehension” is externally assessed by comparison with a “standard conceptual scheme” (for Up2Met, as I would query you). In contrast, to me, “understanding” is a personal level of “satisfaction”, a willingness to bring “closure” to learning “more”. Understanding is never a measure of comprehension.
      • I imagine the process of emergence being a cycling of the design/engineering of SCAFFOLDING and the FLOWING of spontaneous, collective behavior within the scaffolding. Sometimes Scripting/Performing cycles. Learning can be integrated into the scaffolding (e.g., curricula). Scaffolds can be revised for the next team, and even tuned during flowing. Your analogy is apt, but involving many cycles of engineering and flow.
      • I favor “exploratory engineering”, as used by Eric Drexler. {From my archives, 12/12/15}: “InMyAnalysis, science and technology are siblings; tech is not applied science – but it does apply science, and science uses tech. However, technology has its own dyanmics, distinct from science. I recently was reminded of Eric Drexler’s distinction between normal and EXPLORATORY engineering. I don’t believe a well financed project involving currently “established” scientists, historians, etc. will be able to transcend their siloing and necessary conservative behavior in their “disciplines” (re Foucault in Discipline and Punish).  I also think back on Gregory Bateson’s fiasco, in his attempt to gather the best minds to consider the ecological impact of human consciousness. The antics of experts at Bateson’s conference, in Europe, was satired by Arthur Koestler in his The Call Girls. The Bateson conference is described and analyzed in detail by Gregory’s daughter, Mary Catherine – who attended and recorded the conference in her book, Our Own Metaphor: A Personal Account of a Conference on the Effects of Conscious Purpose on Human Adaptation. Gregory and Mary Catherine visted Arthur after the conference, which Koestler had declined to attend because he was hosting his own Alpbach Symposium on Beyond Reductionism, which he wanted Gregory to attend.”
    • It appears I wrote this blog post on 05/10/17, but a few months ago, and had totally forgotten. It came up when I searched my blog for “Koestler”. In another search of my blog, I discovered this long forgotten and long doc where I touch upon many of the issue mentioned above, as I attempted to share Up2Met with Linda. Another, attempting to share Up2Met with David. Another with David Braden, with whom I have dialoged on this for more than 10 years, without sharing comprehension. Yet, we continue. All others have important ideas and ask very important questions – but never about the prsctical processes or possible scenarios involved in Up2Met. We have enjoyable and rewarding dialog. But, at 82, I still await hearing “I get it, what should WE do?”
    • Jason, based on my poor memory, you appear to comprehend the “practical” aspects of my ideas, more than anyone else. Many “sense” I am proposing “big changes”, but seem unable to even ask me concrete questions, as you have. My indicator of initial comprehension is a person requesting to devote a little time (a few hours per week) attempting to comprehend more, and beginning to assist me in sharing with others and eventually launching Up2Met as an emergent human system.
    • Organizing and editing my writings is a Learning Expedition for the first team in Up2Met. It is a task well beyond my competencies to undertake alone. This is NOT for my heritage; I have no interest in my being historical. I believe my archive contains some unique insights and ideas essential for our survival/thrival.
    • I anticipate most of those doing the hard work will be young persons who have not yet committed to a lifelong cause or profession. For those already full-time engaged and committed, I imagine them initially serving as a “board of directors”. Once Up2Met’s participant population begins to expand exponentially, I anticipate every participant will be significantly changing life-styles.

Jason, I send this only to you, at this time. I don’t want others to misinterpret my claims that they don’t, yet, comprehend Up2Met; although many have expressed this explicitly

3 SCARY INSIGHTS

The deep purpose of our approach with North Korea
may be to cause a small nuclear war that will
deter the economic expansion of China.

It has been argued that WWI & WWII were permitted, even encouraged to occur, by those “powerful forces” who would gain from the war; and who would not be effected by the losses. There are those who gain from every war, and would do so again, even considering the losses of others.  For some, war is a tool.

Perpetrators of False Flag actions bear the cost, but they are done for a much greater gain – for themselves.

China’s global economic expansion may fail, and internally China may collapse. China’s political/economic systems are different, but not necessarily better (in the long run) or worse than the USA’s systems. China and the USA will be in greater and greater competition.

A limited nuclear exchange, wiping out both Koreas, would be like a global 9/11 False Flag. Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) kept the nukes at bay during the cold war. Talk by some of the Deep State planning preemptive nuclear attacks on Russia (and China) is mad, and conflicts the the logic of MAD. MAD would avoid a nuclear holocaust after the destruction of The Koreas (and possibly some of Japan). Even a nuke attack on one USA city would be “worth the cost” of preserving USA dollar hegemony.

Trump’s rants against North Korea are playing into this game, but Trump is not the architect and may not be in on the intent. Who are Trump’s real handlers, that is the primary question? North Korea won’t start it – their actions are strictly defensive, via MAD. A false flag event, blamed on NK, would be an excuse to attack them, and NK would return fire, destroying SK.

The primary purpose of this would be the destabilization of China, blocking China’s further globalization and forcing China to withdraw from many of their global adventures. MAD would keep China and the USA from exchanging nukes. Specifically how this would weaken China remains the weak link in this speculative scenario. Radioactive fallout on China might be catastrophic and might trigger internal revolts.

This plot may not be fully successful for the plotters in the USA. But, in their limited ideological thinking, they may not anticipate failure.

In the late 1950s, I published an article in The Minority of One journal, titled: “War with China, Now or Later?”  This was my take on the USA’s increasing interest in SE Asia (before the official start of The Vietnam War). I was wrong, then. I hope I am wrong now.

A False Flag Happening Elevates Trump to “Dictator”.

The Donald will not be in on the planning, but may be informed of it shortly before it happens. The Donald is but a tool of his handlers (who are NOT most of those around him in the WH and DC). The Donald will be a figure head (to keep his large base active). He will continue to be disruptive, so long as his disruptions enable his handlers to do as they had planned. When The Donald is of no more use to his handlers he will be “removed” in a way that will not anger his diehard supporters.

Pundits, of the political spectrum from Alt-Right to Progressive, all think in the context of continuing processes within the current institutional systems of the USA, with some variations. Today, the “talk” is about GOP challengers to Trump in 2020. I can’t imagine Trump remaining POTUS nearly that long. How he leaves or is removed, has many options. Nor, will (weak) hopes that “all will return to normal” likely to happen.

The FRAGMENTATION (well beyond polarization), reinforced by the siloing potential of the new media, is destined to continue. Many talk about expecting “things happening”, where there are no longer
mechanisms/process/structures needed for those things to happen.

Pundits focus on the polls that ONLY 1/3 of Americans STRONGLY support Trump. I wager very, very few of polled encounter negative information about Trump that they don’t immediately classify as fake or fraud. 1/3 ideologically blind followers is a SCARY FORCE. The militias and the emergent Alt-Right organizations are there to organize and train the “new troops”. I expect there are already systems to organize this 1/3 into a revolutionary force, should Trump be impeached or assassinated, or other wise removed from office. They may have local and state police forces behind them. The military will be divided. The USA, as we know it, will cease to exist. Much is already gone.

We cannot assume that Mueller’s Investigation, or the congressional investigations will eventually remove Trump, or that the GOP will lose control in the next elections. There are no hard and fast rules, anymore. The courts are rapidly being packed. What might be the consequences of a cyber attack shutting down our electrical grid? Could Trump (and handlers) be stopped declaring an emergency and assuming  top executive powers? There is nothing in our Constitution for “Restarting America”.

It is now clear the the 911 downing of the twin towers catalyzed the many changes in the USA since. If one examines ALL the reports about 911, there can be only one conclusion: it was a False Flag to produce the changes in the USA that followed. The details of the “plotters and players” have yet to be worked out. The plotters weren’t any formal parts of the USA; thus not an “inside job”, in the normal sense. But, persons who worked in USA orgs were part of the plot, as well as global participation. The coverup was part of the plot. Many of these persons are still alive, and their conspiratorial organizations still in existence. However, the current “plotters and players” remains unknown – related to the neocons and neoliberals. A competitive “plotters & players”, behind The Trump Phenomenon, may be [BRICS+] .

WHEN? Any time. As long as the plot is “winning” (according to their expectations) the false flag event will probably be delayed. An approaching impeachment might or might not trigger the false flag. It depends on Pence and other criteria – such as how the military and intelligence agencies would “swing”. They could live with, even benefit from another 911. What is coming is too uncertain. There would be parts of the military and agencies that would resist.

I don’t know how Pence and most of the GOP fit into this story. Pence may be made an offer he couldn’t refuse.

WILD CARD. The military execute a peaceful coup and organize a new election.

Climate Change Denial (CCD)
is more dangerous than Nazis, Mafias, Serial Killers
for the WHOLE OF HUMANKIND.

Climate Change Denial quite literally threatens the future life of humanity and is ensuring massive suffering. The behavior of human backers of CCD (Deniers, persons who participate in the societal phenomenon: Denial) may be more “civil” and less “crude” than the “evil killers of persons” of the past. Indeed, “civilization” depends on the “civility” of elite leaders in their cooperation and coordination in suppressing and exploiting “the masses”. Yet, assassinations and coups were frequent.

CCD KILLS POPULATIONS.
CCD
makes populations suffer.
CCD denies humankind
the THRIVAL it has earned.

Populations rose up to defend themselves against viscous enemies before. Why are those who fear the catastrophic effects of Climate Change so damn passive? And, here I include myself.

Read: Climate Warming Denial and the Limits of Free Speech.

I treat DEATH, my own and that of most others, as NOT EMOTIONALLY REAL. The threat is not immediate – except for those trapped in disasters, but they experience a flood. No one EXPERIENCES Climate Change. Climate Change – as a long-term PROCESS – cannot be EXPERIENCED.

If CCD hadn’t existed, and humankind had begun taking measures a few decades ago (when CC became a scientific reality) MANY deaths would have been avoided, many trillions of dollars saved, many disasters lessened, fewer displaced persons, and probably a more peaceful planet. Life would still be a major challenge.

Climate Change isn’t the kind of phenomenon that directly “causes” specific happenings, such as floods. Floods and CC are different classes of phenomena. But, CCD and the collective impact of CC on Earth are of the same class. CCD is the cause of many human deaths, much human suffering, great economic loss, tragic environmental destruction and literally threatens the extinction of humankind.

We have the obligation to STOP CCD in its track, with any viable means. How, is our challenge. NOTE: this is distinct from stopping CC and recovering. This is a human-human challenge, with the same seriousness as if your house were invaded by ISIS recruits or you were kidnapped for ransom.

These are not evil persons; but they commit evil acts.  They must be stopped, but not with vengeance or hatred. Every human behaves consistent with their experienced wrld, and believe their actions are justified. White supremacists believe in their “scientific evidence” for the inferiority of non-white “races”and feel justified defending themselves. Climate Change Deniers experience wrlds where their “evidence” confirms that Climate Change Activists are part of a deep plot, and it is their obligation to defend their world against these hoaxers.

NU – ANALOG TO THE DISCOVERY OF THE AMERICAS

Many, competent futures oriented persons, seeking fundamental change, remain locked in the transFORMation episteme/paradigm. That is, the new will come about only by modification of the old, or contemporary. It is process that is ideologically locked in, not goal. The new FORM, of whatever, can be very radically different from the prior form. It is that the process must act on the old, change it incrementally, preserving continuity. I just had an insight to use The Discovery of the Americas as a possible analog for an alternative to transFORMation: Emergence.

Was the United States a transformation of Europe, or the emergence of a new country? Initially, the States, before united, we different as the European States were different. Analogies are never perfect. Other countries and peoples influenced the American Emergence. Many, many features of European societies were incorporated into the colonies – and as “colonies”, they were intended as extensions of the motherland – a tranformational growth. But, that is only one interpretation. What emerged in North America was quite different from what was continuing to develop in Europe; and happenings in The Americas influenced Europe’s continuing transformations.

The isolation of The Americas contributed to the weakness of interference from Europe, and enabled new processes to emerge. However, there never was any intention of the “colonists” to create a radically new episteme. They wanted to be “free” from European control, but to preserve the “Best of Europe”. The “unoccupied” land to the west encouraged very early IMPERIALIASM, which has continued long after the 50 States were “unified”. This “imperialism” is paradigm propensity in all human systems; that within NU will be suppressed.

NU is my name for a new “continent” in digital spacetime. It can be constructed and maintained to be quite isolated from material societies and mainstream digital spacetime. However, this independence has yet to be significantly explored. Most of the past/contemporary emergence of new Sci/Tech is “organic” and not designed or engineered. Once “mature and established”, Sci/Tech is often engineered and limited.

An emergent NU will not be demanding of high energy, and can usually piggyback on the digital technology of the old order. This may take some creativity, and there will always be a danger of being shut off. With the rise of renewal energy sources and nu food production systems, Nu can be relatively independent of major economic and financial systems. So long as NU makes no attempt to convert other systems, it might be left alone until it is too powerful to stop.  Nu might even make itself indispensable to existing systems, faced with climate disasters.

The primary resource for NU are competent and creative human persons, motivated to create a new social/societal system, NU. Their basic needs can be greatly reduced compared to the high consumption societies. They can earn purchase power in the existing economy for needs available only there. They can organize planetary in cyberspace, without requiring a geographical homeland. Members can live either among other humans, or within communal settings. They probably will require periodic, extended retreats.

The human Sci/Tech now exists to seaf the spread of NU among the planetary population, exponentially growing and organizing. The will have their own internal & experimental economic/financial subsystems, fully independent from established systems. Members of NU can interact with established systems.

Whereas the relative isolation of The Americas seafed their independent emergence, so the relative isolation of NU would seaf its independent emergence.

There are many scenarios for the ultimate transition to NU. Insect metamorphosis is another metaphor for emergence vs transformation.

Anthony Judge’s Episteme

64 Questions for the Environmental Conservationists of the World:
raising the question as to why they are not effectively addressed

In this powerful listing of 64 questions, Anthony Judge effectively exposes the blindspots and limitations of the contemporary episteme of the top leadership of contemporary humankind related to environmental crises, and their supporters. Is this a bubble he hopes to prick? What are the speculative scenarios of how humankind might recover after this bubble collapses, given that the majority of humans live in a bubble where these environmental concerns are either absent or not high priority? This but one of many powerful essays beautifully presented by Judge.

I just had the insight that the “reality” revealed by these questions is more a BARRIER to epistemic shift than an old episteme/paradigm resisting being replaced.

I resonate strongly with Judge, as I have long attempted to call attention to how “OUR BEST MINDS” often block advancement, because of their “arrogance” of “superior insight”. Example: much of the current economic/political crises results from the gross inadequacy of the “left”, “progressive”, “liberals”, and “enlightened”. These “saviors” dogmatically assume that their take on “REALITY” is sufficiently “objectively true”, that they can devote all their effort and attention in opposing their “enemies” (who block progress). As a “student” in The History and Philosophy of Science, I am well aware of human limitations on the pure objectivity of SCIENCE – while, at the same time, i energetically defend the “scientific episteme” from its many distractors and attackers.

What is Judge’s new episteme “on which he stands to prick” the old episteme? Can we detect limitations of this, new, episteme, and possibly create a new process of “guided epistemic emergence” – but, in no way being “controlled”.

I speculate that Judge’s new episteme assumes “humankind” to be represented by the best, current scientific evidence of humans, human behavior, and human systems. I speculate that a set of unconscious assumptions limit/block the integration of many separate findings related to humankind and how it might change. That is, much of the component knowledge for the next episteme already exists, but its “integration” is “blocked”. Exploration and explication of this is beyond the scope of this doc, but I look forward to engaging others on this learning expedition. I have some suggested paths to take, that are open to critique, and I am open to learn about other paths.

To bring closure to this doc, I ask: Would you expect these 64 questions – IF STUDIED AND DEBATED by those we might address – to lead to their abandoning their limiting episteme? I claim that the “human nature” of contemporary humankind would make such a happening highly unlikely. How might the 64 questions be perceived, deferentially? Does the communication infrastructure today enable dialogs/discourses/deliberations that permit/limit requisite learning/organizing cycles to emerge as a viable movement? Informing is not sufficient action, we need a process that “seafs informing”, and much more. (seaf = support/enable/augment/facilitate).

I don’t criticize Judge for composing such a quality probe to prick our contemporary epistemic bubble (related to our Climate Crisis). Such compositions are also what I am limited in doing. We must discover action regimes that transcends writing/reading – communicating/informing. The emergent conceptual schemes I write about, UPLIFT and OLLO, are a call to do more and differently. How might a few persons catalyze exponentially growing (real human) processes imagined in UPLIFT and OLLO.

———————-
The above was composed 14 days ago, shortly after my reading the 64 questions. As I just read and edited the above text, I was aware that “I had not stated”, what was necessary to make it comprehensible. And, what was not stated, can’t be “stated”! I can’t INFORM you of what is needed. This, is in essence, what I was trying to say.

We comprehend sems (semiotic structures) we perceive within “contexts” that are never experienced at the moment of experiencing meaning. This context can be analogous, in metaphor,  to a complex pattern, a “sysnet” (system/network) of “nodes, links, enablers, & constraints” that is beyond description or explication.

As I write, I find myself sneaking up on another vital & recent insight – from a new direction. I have posted a few essays related to this insight, but haven’t been able to properly explicate it – if it is possible.

I will copy/paste here part of a recent email reply, related to an essay “The Real Problem” by Anil K Seth  , where I was motivated to attempt summarizing this insight:

Might we separate our study of humankind, independently from our study of material reality? Recently I’ve been exploring a nu meta-perspective: humankind has aspects distinct from material reality (material reality includes biological aspects of human persons). My position is that the concepts and “wrlds” of experience refer back only to reports (authored) by humans. This includes all scientific reports and philosophical analyses. Each report is dependent on contexts, often unconscious and if followed, refer back to other reports. This claims MORE than that all we experience are patterns in our body/brains, influenced by material reality. The phenomenon of humankind is “written on the substrate of material reality”, with qualia meaningful only to humankind.

Contemporary social/societal reality (The Trump Phenomenon) is revealing this. There are no FACTS about humankind, of the kind in material reality. All news is “fake” in the sense that it can’t refer back to a material event,  but only to a collection of contradictory reports and analyses, themselves referring back to historical contextual reports.

For tribal humans, without significant reports, material reality was adequately approximated by brain/consciousness. With our semfields of reports (sems = semiotic structures) and ultra complex societal systems (unobservable, although referred to in language as if observable) in highly dysfunctional modes of organization (called Civilizations) our brains can no longer adequately function to approximate material reality (which we cannot access directly).

The trigger to this was the rise of visual languages, where information was liberated from its prior embeddment in matter/energy systems. The text on this screen is not embedded in matter/energy structures. As far as we know, this is unique to humans on Earth (but likely elsewhere in other biospheres).  The analysis of information presented in this email ignores this significant distinction.  Consciously we live in our inner/woven/integrated/autopoietic “wrlds”, where sems are part of our perceptual reality. As adults, our interpretation of direct perception of material reality is now interpreted in terms of our semfields. Yet, there are many humans who have very limited semfields, except for TV, radio and cell phones.

Sems have the unique character of being capable of accurate reproduction of pattern. Through gestures, all humans can come to agree on the identity of the patterns on a sem; even though they may not share interpretations. For humankind, sems assume the permanence of atoms in material reality (although without the structure).

This associates with another vital insight. The challenge of “Humankind fixing Climate Change”, is distinct (but dependent on) The challenge of “Humans fixing Humankind”. Read my post on Project DRAWDOWN. Most of Judge’s 64 questions relate to the former challenge. Some of his questions relate to how to “get” humans to act “rightly”, but there seems no query about significantly changing humankind.

EXPERIENCE & OBJECTIVITY – a nu look

(composed 7/13/2017 7:00-11:49 AM)
(first posted 8/18/2017)
(first edit 8/20/2017)

INSIGHT: Although
Objective Reality can’t be Directly Experienced,
Some Objective Information can be Known.

Social Systems have partial Objectivity.

notes on my documents:

Again, a ramble – a seemingly random walk through the mind of Larry/nuet. Please, join me on this walk, follow my path of symbolic crumbs, my temporary semfield. Artists and musicians (artists of the auditory) are permitted to present discrete products for perception, enjoyment, and possible enlightenment. This is even permitted for authors of fiction. So-called “non-fiction” texts, however, are always judged in “subjective context”.

Readers of my docs don’t know of the temporal pattern in their creation. I start a linear composition; although each new section may result from a spontaneous insight during the writing of the prior section, and the relationship between sections may not clear. I often go back and expand and edit; adding depth. Although I grok a common context for any doc, when I read it; this cannot be expected for others.

On writing this intro after writing much of what follows, I realize — I just lost what I was to add. This FORGETTING may also play a role for others attempting to comprehend my text. When I read and write, what I have just prior read is not accessible. I am never actually “conscious of the whole”. Although I believe that such “consciousness of wholes” is an illusion, I speculate that others (with mental imagery) may actually experience the content of what they are sensing at the moment – in real context with conscious experiences of immediately past content, in superimposed mental imagery.

Whenever I compose a document, such as this, I am also generating new insights – some of which I attempt to report, while other insights may effect what I write.

What I do write is spontaneously emergent from my subconscious. I may sit for moments between writing sentences, but usually not having concrete thoughts. I observe myself starting to type as verbal thoughts accompany my typing. What I will type has been determined before I type, and I sub-vocally verbalize what I read with my eyes. My typing/reading lags a fraction of a second behind my verbalizing – but both are but unfolding of behavioral programs from nuet. Having a perceived emergent sentence input back to nuet will often result in spontaneous actions to edit. Usually the edit generalizes the sentence, attempting to make it more “precise”. I am aware that this style of writing is very difficult for others to read, let alone comprehend.

Ideally, these composed semfields should be the focus of interactive dialog among readers in their movement towards collective comprehension. This may or may not include my participation in the dialog.

In an ideal metaphor: my documents (semfields) might be imagined as a complex set of paintings and short video sequences. They unfortunately have an imposed order-for-processing, that may not be useful for every reader. Some readers will face too many new terms and acronyms, a situation I often face when reading philosophical texts.

NOTE ON INSIGHT:

A few different incidents triggered the slow emergence (a few days unfolding) of this insight:

1) Reading parts of The Knowledge Illusion by Steven Sloman and Phillip Fernbach , in context with concurrently inching through The Enigma of Reason by Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber. Both are recent (2017) publications. Both books reported on knowledge that supports my thinking (related to Up2Met), but the four authors don’t appear to have, yet, experienced the fundamental insight: Humankind’s Collective Knowledge/Beliefs in WhoWeAre is Fundamentally and Dangerously Flawed. Although exposing many myths about humankind, they write within the context of many false assumptions about “human nature” and humankind.

2) The accelerating fragmentation (well beyond polarization and ….) of “wrlds within worlds” and the deep and seemingly intractable siloing of the very best minds.

3) The breakdowns of my personal systems: body, conscious mind (Larry’s senility), family & friends, habitat, online network of contacts – with no personal agency to reverse this trend. All this in context with the apparent accelerating breakdown of human and societal systems – with no apparent acknowledgement of, let alone viable movements to rectify, this trend. Time is very short, if my unique insights (a system of nu memes with a potentially very positive option to secure the multi-millennial survival/thrival of Humanity/Gaia) are to become active within human discourse.

4) In context with these personal and existential Crises-of-Crises, I re-examine my possible status as a “unique savant”, specially gifted to minimize some of the effects of our human limitations, making Larry/nuet a potentially useful TOOL to be used by humankind, providing a tentative “map” for the transition from humankind to humanity. This unique status was recently greatly enhanced by the discovery that Larry has/does exhibit behavior indicative of the some – but not all – traits for the Autism Spectrum or Asbergers Syndrome .  My long time known lack of mental imagery in all sensory modalities makes me an exception within Autism/Asperger; but my inability to view myself as a member of a social category is very real (objective), and significant for others (to know) to better comprehend my insights.

SHIFTS:

This insight is shifting me away from a bias that may have been blocking the comprehension of others to my primary insight.

My bias was in my emotional/intuitive support of “Subjectivity over Objectivity”. My whole behavior/thinking reflected this bias, even though I explicitly sought to present a balanced parity between these two crude perspectives of what we label “REALITY” (a conceptual scheme too slippery to grab hold of).

RELATIVITY might be better contrasted with OBJECTIVITY, too sketch this bias. Everything is not all Relative! What is “Objective” in my Up2Met proposal/model, given that I believe we can’t directly experience Objective Reality?

———-

I am also shifting in my exploration of my difficulty in sharing my larger conceptual schemes. I take note, from The Knowledge Illusion, that collective comprehension of major conceptual schemes are located in intimate, communicating groups, and NOT within the knowledge/minds of individual participants. That individuals believe they actually posses explicit knowledge content can be empirically demonstrated as illusion.

I recognize that I never have had a group attentive to the conceptual schemes that have been emerging within Larry/nuet over these eight decades. I may have temporarily participated in such knowledge exploring groups on other, more limited, content.

 

This may be a condition for many persons of “genius”. The recent TV series, Genius – featuring Einstein – illustrated his difficulty in “relating personally” with others. Fortunately, Einstein’s radical insights – initially strongly rejected by the then scientific establishment – were in physics and thus capable of eventual empirical confirmation. This foundation in empirical science permits scientific discourse groups to cohere about objective, observable entities – The Scientific Literature, including data. Relevant scientific discourse is not only mind-to-mind about mental ideas, but also mind-to-mind about shared, concrete observables: texts, including math and data representations.

This “shared confirmation” process used in the material sciences is not nearly as strong in the human sciences, and often absent or warped in discourse about so-called “real events in the real world” as conveyed in the various media.

My proposal that humankind shift its foundation for human sciences to sems and semfields, and away from the illusionary “objective reality consciously observed” provides a possible resolution of our dilemma. This proposal is not easy to implement, let alone comprehend.

Larry’s wrld, named “nuet”, and its dominant model of “personal-to-societal-reality-change” I label “Up2Met”, has emerged with little positive feedback from others. Up2Met has been woven from multiple, significant inputs from many others (by reading and conversation) – over my lifetime. What is unique about Up2Met are the nu relationships that nuet wove between the content nodes from others. Also, each node in Up2Met has been modified by their interactivity within emergent nuet. Thus every term I use in my texts may have a different meaning for others, than I have for myself. The lack of positive feedback and deep dialog with others has resulted in an isolation of Up2Met from useful dialog with others.

I need to search for and explore work on such “SHARED KNOWLEDGE GROUPS”, and their differences. Scientific groups, as contrasted with other groups: ideological, political, economic, intelligence, media, military, religious, artistic, hobby, pathological, etc. What has been the impact (and forecasted impacts) of technology on these groups and their performance? How might insights about SHARED KNOWLEDGE GROUPS assist us in comprehending and responding to the fragmentation of humankind as being revealed by The Trump Phenomenon?

The shift in the conceptual scheme about “terms/words and their meanings in usage” as demonstrated in the 2013 masterpiece, Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking, Doug Hofstadter & Emmanuel Sander has yet to be recognized, acknowledged, and integrated.

THE OBJECTIVITY OF SOCIAL GROUPS:

For many years my focus has been on PERSONAL vs SOCIETAL systems, with lesser attention to SOCIAL systems. I now recognize that this is partly due to my inability to emotionally feel authentic membership in social systems or societal categories.

I have never experienced myself as a son, brother, father, parent, husband, friend, student, teacher, scientist, futurist, American, male, short, N-years old, etc. I comprehend these categories. As not experiencing mental imagery, I also don’t experience emotional empathy – IN THE WAY OTHERS DO.

I learned of my lack of mental imagery when I actually had a brief visual image (at age 22), and learned what I was missing. Since then, I have scientifically explored mental imagery. I now am learning that my empathy is not missing, but focused on “conceptualizations” about human situations and not on “personal relationships”. Indeed, I am driven to be behaviorally submissive to other’s imposed constraints; even though I may often object verbally. Indeed, my brief emotional outbursts are always an automatic response to being “dissed”. I don’t first consciously notice being dissed; those thoughts come after the emotional outburst has done its damage. My emotional outbursts often lead to emotional outbursts from others, although often not by their SHOUTING, which they perceive as thus, not emotional. The analysis written here emerged as I wrote, although much content is old.

The Objectivity of Social Groups was clarified, for me, in The Knowledge Illusion. Yet, this can only be experienced AUTOPOETICALLY (Maturana & Varela) in the context of personal “wrlds” – we only experience patterns in our biological dynamics. For example, Damasio’s insight that emotions are experiences of specific body changes.

It is now apparent to me, that the person who recommended the book to me, has his dominant reality focused on personal relationships and social groups. His attention to individuals is to their accomplishments and not their “persons”.

I have long been aware of the unconscious dance between persons in direct sensory contact with each other; anthropologically, and more recently via mirror neurons. I was drawn to John Lilly’s insight about the objective reality of DYADS: two persons locked in an intimate dance. Once I explored the objectivity of relationship vs entity-in-relationships. I came to view them as complementarities (ala quantum physics). Recently I have explored this in terms of NODES and LINKS, and the distinctions between SYSTEMS and NETWORKS.

I have always let there be an opening to the total subjectivity of wrlds via possible “psychic events”: a “direct” influence of one mind on another mind – bypassing the sensory systems. There are two levels for this. (1) a pattern in one brain can be imposed on another brain through a new type of coupling, with both persons actually consciously experiencing the same. (2) The dynamics of the pattern in one brain can be influenced by patterns in another brain; but not as far as imposing patterns. There may be weak evidence for (2), but I doubt (1) will ever be observed. Partly because, for me, the momentary conscious experience has no reality beyond being a pattern in an emergent, larger process. I seriously question the objective existence of “consciousness”, as a “spiritual-like entity”, that may even survive biological death. My rejection results from the total lack of positive evidence AND the psychological explanations for the ideological reasons for such beliefs. I also reject the “superiority” of “consciousness” on aesthetic grounds – it is an ugly concept, for me.

I witness I ramble, as usual, straying away from any “point” – that others often accuse me of never making. Maybe I don’t believe in the objectivity of points.

TAKE-AWAY:

This will be the last content added to this doc. There will be minor edits. This is already too long for relaxed reading. Most readers will quickly shift to skim mode, if not starting with that mode. Faced today with a virtual infinity of relevant information, and using presentation media emphasizing short pieces (the extreme being tweets), no one can give needed attention to any document.

Yet, we must – in some ways – seaf the emergence of NU WAYS to interact and “progress”.

Conversation is an inadequate mode, except for simple, mundane objectives – or the simple but positive enjoyment of verbal dancing.
Facilitated/Mediated conversation can be useful for limited objectives. However, without accounting for the cognitive diversity of participants (which is not seafed with today’s technology), the objectives are further limited. This includes diverse cultural and personal differences that give enhanced authority to some participants over others.
Writing, Reading, and comment exchanges – also valuable for some domains – is also limiting.

Humankind has emerged processes for sharing complex conceptual schemes. We loosely label them “EDUCATION” and “R&D”. What characterize both is the deep integration of learning and organizing – emergent within a specific group of persons, over time. Persons change (learn) as their pattern of interactivity changes (organizes). I have labeled this cycling process OLLO: Organizing-for-Learning-&=Learning-for-Organizing.

What was missing in my prior attempts at explicating OLLO was specific attention to the group and the distinction between COLLECTIVE knowledge and INDIVIDUAL knowledge. In spite of my intention to attend to networks (over nodes/systems) I was maintaining bias towards personal knowledge and agency. This was reinforced by my attention to the wrlds vs worlds distinction – as vital as it is.

I am again reminded of my addiction to composing/reading, to the abandonment of creating/emerging Structure/Processes for OLLO. Texts about OLLO won’t bring OLLO to being. I use the term “composing”, instead of “writing” for what I do – and am doing at this moment. There is an element of creating/emerging – but hardly systematic. I (we) need to be far more systematic in our processes, related to our objectives and goals. We continue under the illusion that the BEST of what we are DOING will be adequate – while the EVIDENCE is very clear that much more & different IS NEEDED.

POPS TO MIND:
Another, related theme/domain:
HUMANKIND IS NOT AS WE BELIEVE/CONCEPTUALIZE “IT TO BE”!

 

>> metaphor re Humankind-to-HUMANITY<<
Horse or Tractor
It makes a difference
when we need to
Maintain or Train or Heal/Repair.