Findhorn film/project
(A New Story for Humanity)
Tom Atlee’s   [2007]     StoryFields
Bateson -[1968]- Koestler
Macy [1946-1953] Conferences


This essay has grown and diversified, as it began to reveal a meta-theme or “strange-attractor-for-discourse”. This meta-theme involves the negative contribution to our worsening Crisis-of-Crises by the inability of positive change movements and agents to sufficiently self-evaluate their assumptions, strategies, & tactics. It points towards a nu perspective where we cease ascribing blame (good-vs-evil characterizations) and recognize that every person acts, with justification, within their inner-woven reality/wrld.

The topic uniting this essay are “stories”, an essential component of human thinking and shared communication. The conceptual scheme of BIG STORIES (big sibling of Big Pictures) will be introduced.

The New Story Hub  takes you to a recent website where you will encounter The Findhorn Community of Scotland hosting a film production and a summit gathering introducing their new film: an inquiry into A NEW STORY FOR HUMANITY: Change-the-Story, Change-the-World.

I viewed the film premiere (Intro, Film, Discussion) online on April 16-17, 2017, in two sessions.  I was so moved after viewing half the film that I had to stop, and return the next day. Although I have much on my plate at this time, I am compelled to compose on some of my thoughts and feelings.     {This continued for a week before posting here.}

Given that my comments may effect your own viewing, I highly recommend you view, at least the film, before reading further.


AUTHOR’S BACKGROUND: I was aware of, and approved of the early founding of Findhorn. A couple, we knew well, spent a summer at Findhorn, and we visited for a few days in 1976.  At that time I had an interest in “intentional communities”, and visited a few others. I had lived in an urban commune in New Haven while attending graduate school at Yale, 1958-60 and 1962-64.  In 1960-62 I wintered over at Byrd Station in the Antarctic (a closed community of 20 men). My life at Rochdale Urban Commune (New Haven) was a very positive experience.  I have been disappointed that successful intentional communities, such as Findhorn, were not successful in spreading to a viable network of related communities (although all have tried – a church in Tucson is a “branch” of Findhorn). I had “dreamed” of living again in an “intentional community” organized around my conceptual schemes of UPLIFT to Cultural/Societal Metamorphosis. Even at age 82, my dream continues. Damanhur, underground in Italy fascinates me, but their “culture” would attract a similar critique as has Findhorn.

NEGATIVITY: Some may criticize my critique as “negative”, when the whole Findhorn enterprise has “positive” intentionality; and as an emotional downer, in direct conflict with their objectives and goals.  It is not my intention to generate “negative feelings”, and feelings are always at the choice of the person to experience or not (although many haven’t yet gained that competency). What I offer are POSITIVE ANALYSES of the film and its message, with my intent to move us to create a better film, message/story, and movement. Critiques are criticism only in the eyes of the reader. What moved me to stop viewing the film half way was my extreme disappointment about the extreme naivete of the well intended participants. Past ambitious gatherings, with similar intent, were far more successful – even those 50 years ago

AUDIENCE: I am also aware (as part of my critique) that many human persons are not cognitively/emotionally prepared to comprehend this critique. This essay is not intended for everyone.  There are many levels of Magnitude/Scope/Complexity {MSC} for ideas (conceptual schemes) within emergent humanity in this 21st century. We hope our future will include an bootstrap uplifting of all human persons & populations in their distributed knowledge, competencies, and organization. Some can be self-moved by reading, viewing, and study. Others (all, for some levels) will require quality seafing (supporting, enabling, augmenting, facilitating) their uplift (crudely, their “education”).

VISION: Unfortunately, no positive movement today includes such an uplift as part of (or even essential to) the success of their program. All change agents expect humans will acquire new practical knowledge and competencies (mostly those currently lacking), and will learn to live in peace (with many other positive attributes). The humans whom change agents envision being the citizens of a nu humankind are fundamentally as we are today – without the negative traits – and their “worldview” being basically a quality integration of the best contemporary worldviews (of change agents). If a major uplift is envisioned, it will come after The Great Transition, or will come as collateral advantage to transiting. That a substantial uplift may be necessary for the success of the transition, is not explicit in any contemporary program/vision (that I am aware of). I have named the uplifting process needed, OLLO (Organizing-for-Learning=&=Learning-for-Organizing).

LIMITATIONS: We human persons are limited to processing small bits of information, sequentially or linearly. Further, each moment is experienced as a gestalt:  the conscious/explicit-figure in relationship with an unconscious context (or ground). The so-called “whole” can never be the figure of conscious attention. Shifting attention to what was prior ground, makes it a new figure in relationship to a new context.  The “Big Picture” is always the conscious figure; it is the context that gives it meaning. If this regression has an end (as claimed by some meditators), and they can “experience pure context”, they cannot communicate any details because we are limited to communicating details of attended figures. There are many other limitations for humans, a discussion or which will be part of the critique.

POTENTIALS: Once we recognize and accept our limitations (we aren’t Gods), we will discover our awesome potentials, whose actualization was blocked by our delusion of near perfection. What I call for is a return to our perspective as a young child: confident about who we are at the time; accepting that we will change (fundamentally, but not being bothered by the prospect; and finding security and guidance among others (parents, siblings, family and friends, a trusting community, society, humankind). When this security and support fails, as it has for the vast majority of humans today, they believe they must (to survive) become omnipotent and superior to all (but deep down knowing their fragility).

FUTURE ACTION: What can a person (or group, team, community) do with this critique? First, no matter how much I write, what you will read will be quite incomplete – and not appropriately tuned for your optimum comprehension. I hope that this may motivate you to re-engage in deep learning and development – for a continuously improving process and not towards a stable finished state-of-being.



I viewed the Intro and half the main film late in the evening of 4/16/17 and the last half of the main film and post-film sharing later morning the next day, 4/17/17.

The film was well made.  My impression of the Findhorn “auditorium” was “old fashioned” and “formal”, as was the format of the Intro and Discussion.

The participants in the film-making process “contributed” by “gift economy” and Findhorn didn’t advertise. I immediately recognized that the population both making and now premiering the film was highly self selective.  There were a few “well-known” promoters of their “views”, and many (names I didn’t know) from movements in different countries. There were no “high conceptual thinkers” and no geeks from the new technology. Many were persons with a personal cause, who were not yet renowned.


This is in high contrast to another conference with BIG SCENARIO concerns, organized by Gregory Bateson in 1968 in Austria, on the topic: The Effects of Conscious Purpose on Human Adaptation. This conference was superbly recorded and analyzed by Gregory’s daughter Mary Catherine in Our Own Metaphor. The very top, expert thinkers Gregory invited simply pontificated from their siloed expertise, avoiding the issue.

Arthur Koestler, reacting to this debacle, and because the Batesons were unable to attend his concurrent conference on Beyond Reductionism , wrote a short story – The Call Girls, a spoof of Bateson’s conference. See: CONSCIOUS PURPOSE IN 2010: BATESON’S PRESCIENT WARNING.

Later (below), I also contrast the Findhorn effort with Tom Atlee’s StoryField gathering of 2007.

The MACY CONFERENCES is an earlier example of BIG STORY Conferences  (1946-1953)

Had I been connected to those devices that indicate emotional response, it would have bounced up and down in response to each short scene in the film. Most of the time there was a negative emotional response, as the statement was either not scientifically confirmed, grossly naive, or represented a deeply personal bias. There we a few, less than 10, short sequences when the speaker appeared to explore beyond the limitations of the group consensus. This, of course, is not an objective assessment of the film and the presenters; but my conceptual/emotional reaction to what I viewed and heard.


IT IS VITALLY IMPORTANT that I condition the above. Each short sequence was given with deep and full sincerity by its author, fully in concert with their POSITIVE worldview (wrld, context). They all spoke with sincerity about  how human person-to-person and person-to-community and person/community-to-Gaia relationships should be conducted – and how civilization has all but destroyed such positive relationships. I deeply agree that future humanity must include the best of these relationships (with the exception of the necessity of belief in a helpful God).

How to achieve and maintain these positive relationship patterns (when we now have 7+ billion persons living in highly complex societies that warp all communities, families, and persons) appears to be beyond the imagination of Findhorn participants. Their belief in Bottom-Up-Determinism is unfounded and potentially dangerous. With this perspective, they totally abandon the need for us to explore STORIES BEYOND BIG.

For example: what might you imagine will happen, as you succeed in building community, that will ensure our survival re climate change? How do your foresee the bottom up movement of Eco-communities succeeding in overthrowing the big corporations and governments – counter the trends towards populism, oligarchy, dictatorships, and The Trump Phenomenon?


My mind was diverted to thinking and analysis many times/minute during viewing. It would take me weeks to compose/attach comments to each sequence. This might be useful and I am willing to be assisted in such a project.



The film starts with an attempted “definition” of old stories – very superficial. This is the story of oppressive civilization: corporations/governments over people, the technological over the “natural”, the suppression of “freedom”, etc. The “new” stories are (actually) all old stories – many from before the dominance of the so-called “new” story. Many are deep cultural stories of indigenous peoples (who dominated the Findhorn storytelling population). The horrible oppression of “the indigenous peoples” by “civilization” doesn’t give them special authority of “being right” in their perspective of reality. No one has such “being right” authority.

There is a confusion about the meaning of “stories”. While the call was for a new BIG story (to replace that of our sick civilization), the gathering tasked with creating the film was unable to even conceive of what a BIG story might entail. For days the writing conference was in turmoil as each person tried to elevate their own story to be the core of the BIG story (my inference). Eventually, they abandoned all effort to imagine a BIG story. They settled on a montage of old, little stories – with the vague hope that the sacred potentials of humans, with God’s guidance, will eventually (without explicit human intention as to form) weave the little stories into one BIG story. The film, and the summit premiering the film championed this – in my evaluation – cop-out. Yet, all self-deluded that they had accomplished something BIG.



A few days before encountering this new Findhorn enterprise, I had begun to re-examine conceptual schemes labeled stories and pictures.

For decades I have opposed the idea of BIG PICTURES, as they are certainly not pictures and are not cable of visualization. Yet, the metaphor of “viewing” is oppressively dominant in contemporary humankind. [The author is of the small population lacking visual mental imagery – both sensory remembrances and imagination; a condition unknown to most humans.]

Although well aware of the importance of narrative and stories for decades, I recently upgraded an insight to re-examine the relevance of “stories” and “storytelling” for humankind. Both are essential, but far from sufficient – as components and fundamental processes in the creation of viable human systems.

In August 2007 I attended a 5-day conference/gathering – The First Annual StoryField Conference  organized by Tom Atlee  and team at the Shambhala Mountain Center, Colorado. Subtitle: “Invoking a New World through Story; a pioneering interdisciplinary gathering of storyteller, artists and experts.”

This was, by far,  the most enjoyable and rewarding F2F conference I have ever experienced.  There were a few similarities with the Findhorn conference, and many striking differences. We didn’t have the objective of formulating a coherent BIG story. We ended with celebrating our dedication to continuing process. Strangely, after considerable effort by a dedicated sub-committee to design and schedule (at Asilomar) a return of “us” a year later – it was canceled (reportedly because too few were able to attend.) Now, looking at the materials online about the vision and concept, The StoryField Conference was light years ahead of the recent Findhorn Conference & film. The StoryField Conference needs reconvening. I identified only one person who attended both StoryField and Findhorn: David Korten.

This confirmed my conclusion that the euphoria of powerful gatherings have great difficulty translating to continuing action strategy. This happened even though “continuation” was an explicit part of the design of the conference, with experts in social media creating online systems.  I have witnessed this too many times.

The “spiritual” power/energy of human gathering/celebrations is probably deep in our DNA. It’s negative sides are the MOB, and the ability of large human groups to submit, in total subjugation, to dictatorial rule (e.g, Nazi Germany and contemporary North Korea). It is also one reason for the sustainability of religion. It also accounts for sports mania, fan groups, armies, and political parties. Humans have a drive to “belong”.

Although the StoryField gathering was much superior to the Findhorn gatherings, neither appears to have had a effect for changing the trends of our “globalizing societal” systems. I predict that a careful study of all efforts towards positive change are inadequate and insufficient – yet this conclusion is denied (by most).  I have many ideas as to how humankind can transcend this blockage to our actualizing our potentials to transit to humanity – which for reasons to be discussed elsewhere, I have difficulty sharing.


This is because our brains/behaviors evolved for life in small tribes, and a much longer evolutionary history living in communities (back to the days, living like prairie dogs under the feet of thunder lizards). 50,000 years is not enough time for humankind to have evolved new brains for living in complex global societal systems approaching 8 billion persons. It is a wonder that we have made it this far, and our looming Crisis-of-Crises is an accumulation of natural mistakes we have made – inadequate to manage the settings that our creative imaginations generated. We are not to blame – but it is now time to awaken to our deep natures/realities and act appropriately – which we must learn-to-learn-to-learn to do.

This crisis is not only for the majorities not yet privileged with access-to/ability-to-comprehend the exponentially exploding knowledge of humankind, poorly distributed. Every person (no matter how genetically gifted, highly educated; and financially, technologically, & personally supported) encounters similar limitations. We (miraculous) humans have created, unwittingly, a situation/setting/environment well beyond our competencies to manage without very significant uplifting and societal re-organization. This will not occur, requisite to our needs, without creative/intelligent design – by ourselves. Neither Gods nor Aliens will do this for us.

Contrary to our overblown human Exceptionalism, our historical path has not been by design. Today, the pinnacle of human design is for commercial devices and processes, where art and engineering are merging – fueled by social media seafed knowledge exchanges. Higher level creativity is blocked by cultural/social/societal constraints. We do have creative visions, but we are yet very poor at designing human futures.  And, that DESIGN, must not be traditional planning and plan execution – it must be much more organic and dynamic.

We now have all the components for the organic/dynamic design/creation of HUMANITY.

But, it cannot be by naive “democratic” agreement by everyone. THIS IS AN UNFORTUNATE FACT: the distribution of human knowledge/competencies/organization has vast inequalities. Relative to our real needs, humankind is grossly DUMB, STUPID, BIASED, FEARFUL, HATEFUL. Yet, our POTENTIAL remains immense.

Those most knowledgeable/competent/organized ARE ALSO inadequate (but with a few current abilities) to perform what is needed. They are further handicapped by their arrogance of superiority and exceptionalism.  Again, this is nothing to blame them for – it is the consequence of of our slow adaptation/evolution/emergence to an exponentially changing world, resulting from our great successes.

small vs BIG

Narrative is but one of our human means of organizing information. It is not useful for persons to elevate stories and storytelling to the most important function of humankind. Indeed, the perspective that one, or but a few, fundamentals determine humankind is a great fallacy and danger for our future survival/thrival.

Early humans, on trek, talked to themselves describing what they saw. Back with their tribe, at fire dialog, they replayed their recording, storytelling, giving story-maps to others for their future journeys.  Recently, an Australian aborigine, when riding in car had to request the driver to slow down because he couldn’t story create at the high speed of the car.

Stories were our primary organization mode before we had visual media, our semfields and visual language. Today, we face the danger of fake stories. Stories are not the only format human use to organize experience. Stories can have negative analogs when applied to phenomena beyond direct perception.

Quantum physics was successful only AFTER the physicists abandoned any attempt to use metaphors from our perceptual reality. The Bohr Atom, an analog “solar system” with “orbiting/spinning planets” was blocking advancement for many years. We may need to abandon some perceptual-world analogs we apply to societal, governance, and economic systems.

There are different levels/types of stories: personal, inter-personal, group, community, social, societal. Can we apply narratives to processes not involving humans?

We continually invent new stories, and also continue to use variation of old, even ancient, stories.

We also make stories-of-stories-of stories. Our novels are a nesting/networking of stories.

TV today reports on the Story of Humankind – in both reality, deception, and fantasy.


What appears universal for all participants in the Findhorn vidao and dialogs, and for almost all expressions of contemporary humans, is that THEY PROPOSE FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE FOR OTHERS, BUT NOT FOR THEMSELVES.

The OLD, BIG story is both: (1) the story of oppressive civilization cited by all Findhorn participants, and (2) all their own stories.  Those who believe/accept the civilization stories come from the same mind/brain processes as the Findhorn participants. ALL humans believe in their reality, their “wrld“. Supporters of Trump and the North Korean leader deeply believe their experienced wrld is the objective world. Their wrlds may not be going as they would prefer, but they are “real”.

One might evaluate a BIG story in terms of the effectiveness of the opposition to the dominant/sub story. Might we find the continuation of war and inequality be “equally” due to the inadequacy of “resistance” (because of their lack of essential stories and false stories that block appropriate actions) as to the perceived “arrogance of the power elites”.

BIG STORIES can contain complex competing stories.

The BIG STORY for the future of humankind2Humanity transition, in relationship with Gaia must, in my analysis, be explicitly explored. We cannot depend on bottom-up emergence, only. There will be many occasions in our future when we could act IF we were prepared to act. But, to be prepared to act (sometime in the future), we must have acted (by design and planning) at a prior time. Corporations, businesses, militaries, farmers do FUTURING.


Who is to do this?


This critically important conceptual scheme will be more fully explicated elsewhere.

Humans are not the systems we think we are. We are much more and much less – and quite different. Much of this we have yet to discover, in useful detail.

This is not a new idea, but one that is very difficult to maintain and almost impossible to live.

Everything a human person experiences is only themselves, patterns of activity in their brains/bodies. As they live, their brains/bodies organize the inputted information into inner “wrlds” – which is the context of all experience and behavior. In terms of Maturana & Varela’s Autopoietic Hypothesis, each human person is an autopoietic system in “structural coupling” with other autopoietic systems. Roughly: autopoietic = self organizing. Autopoietic Social Systems by Luhmann.

The details ARE effected by OTHERS, realities beyond their bodies/brains – but NEVER directly experienced.

Contrary to traditional psychology, perception is not a movement of information from sense organs through the brain to experience and behavior, being filtered and sometimes morphed in the process. This flow-through-with-modification is not accurate (for most perception). Rather, after some filtering and morphing, the information from the senses is “absorbed” by the brain and is used by the brain to change its patterns.  These pattern changes in the brain are not directly caused by the input; rather the input is used by the brain to change itself.  This changed brain then outputs to experience and behavior.

Perception may be comprehended as the link/overlap of subjective & objective.

Patterns in our experience definitively imply patterns-of-reality beyond our own making. We cannot be inventing all that we experience.

We experience only our “processes interpretations” of our “structural coupling” with OTHERS (imagined persons, things & environments). We experience only ourselves, but ourselves “interacting” with others and our hypothesized environments.

The “things” we name in our percepts don’t “exist out there” in any “sense that we experience”. However, there “is” something “beyond us” that correlates with our experienced patterns.


There can be no closure on this, or any other issue or conceptual scheme. We are only pausing for a moment, far from “completing” our “task”.

Were I to make such a call for a “conference”, as I often contemplate, it would be to gather those ready to challenge ALL current beliefs, accept the emergent, yet embryonic nature of humankind, and begin to uplift (via OLLO) our knowledge, competencies, and organizations to nu, cycling emergent “levels” – so as to reach the requisite actualization of our potentials to insure survival and multi-millennial thrival.

I have personally recommended paths to explore, but I can’t say there is only ONE thing most important.  Indeed, I am coming to believe that the patterns of interactivity between knowledge nodes is more significant than the nodes themselves. This also may apply to persons and their patterns of interaction & organization. “Actually”, they are in “complementarity” (generalization of the field/particle “duality” of Quantum Physics).

Also, unfortunately, our tribal brains limit EVERYONE to a working mind with but a few nodes in loose patterns.  “Reality”, as our increasing awareness implies, may have thousands of independent knowledge nodes and types of patterns we can’t imagine. I am coming to believe that seafed emergent teams/crews/small-communities of persons seafed by advanced technologies can become viable “unit/cell” agents/deciders (for activity beyond the very local – in both time and space) for a future humanity. I believe such a perspective can become a “spiritual” motivation.

I strongly regret leaving this without a concrete PROPOSAL FOR ACTION. Many, today, are quite active – yet not, necessarily, relevantly active. Not that we don’t want to be more relevant, we don’t know how. In context with the above, I now insight:

It is not another action we need,
it is an emerging pattern of related actions.
In time,
early actions will complete or fade,
and new actions will emerge and engage

Integrated Patterns of Action
are what is needed.

? HOW ?

3 INSIGHTS about human interactivity

This was extracted from an email, not sent;cut/pasted here, expanded & edited.


I just had an insight.  Human persons, in contemporary humankind, are like bacteria or amoeba – primarily SINGLE CELLS, in limited relationships. As bacteria, they can temporarily form systems with some degree of structure/function. The slime mold has always fascinated me, in its ability to move back and forth between a collection of separated, single celled fungi, or assemble into multi-celled structures and back again into a collection.

The human person, in a future Humanity, will be more like cells in our bodies – both: specialized-in-function and each sharing the potential of our common DNA. No cell or cell type in our bodies is omnipotent. Each has a range of functions to perform, for the whole; and their viability is dependent on the health of the whole organism.

Actually, in a crude biological analogy, the “organelle” of a “cell” may be more an analog of a human person; where “cell” is analog of a viable human community/org. Living Organisms are holarchies of systems, with many levels of nested holons.  See James Greer Miller‘s Living Systems.

We don’t know what a “life” (each of a body’s cells) “experiences” beyond functioning as a component of an organism, . I don’t assume they are purely deterministic and have no mind or spirit – at their levels. What I mean, is that to “surrender” to be a functioning component of a larger organism, doesn’t necessarily imply that our lives are diminished – relative to our lives in our present “isolated” state as “individuals”. Today, the primarily deterministic Nature/Nurture dance gives our “selves” little-to-no “choice” on “who we become”. “Individualism” is a dangerous myth.

I expect that each human person’s “life” will be far richer if they were supported/enabled/augmented/facilitated (seafed) to perform more functional roles for the whole of viable humanity (emergent by dynamic design as we emerged from a newly fertilized egg cell).

In reality, today, every person has actualized very little of their potential – as analog to biological stem cells. We have the potential to be much, much more – but, we can become only one, of many types of human persons. No human can become humanity, nor can we “represent” the “whole of humanity”.

This is not a new insight, but one experienced by many. What is important is that we seldom actually apply it in human strategy planning. The context behind contemporary human behavior (quite varied) is very different from this perspective (humanity as analog to a biological organism).


Below is an example of what I/We need to explore seafing nu relationship patterns.

One small technology: we need a way that others can respond to a single sentence (or paragraph) in a larger text – and develop dialog around that link.

Such apps exist, but have never been put to that use. We need to learn to dialog in hypertext. The app, QuickDoc, facilitates this, but I never have succeeded in getting others to really engage in hypertext dialog.  Part is due to my own forgetfulness and not pushing myself when others have tried responding to my QuickDoc articles.

SEMS: ONE FEATURE OF COLAB SCAFFOLDING, is an example of a QuickdDoc with some (extensive) comments – to selected paragraphs. This was active in 2008; I had completely forgotten about it. Most of the comments are themselves long docs and should be also placed in the QuickDoc format. Note, different participants can dialog among themselves about a comment. I have about 40 QuickDocs, none active. Protocols and committed teams are needed to make QuickDocs meet my requirements. I need to get back to it. I put my Spanda Journal chapter on QuickDoc, but haven’t done anything about it.

A version called QuickTopic could be a substitute for email threads. I think I might give it a try. Actually, QuickDoc is a special feature of QuickTopic, called Quick Doc Review which permits you to upload a WORD doc, and then format it for links.

A Google search for QuickDoc takes you to a very different place, but one which might be worth looking into.

After this return to QuickDoc, I am strongly motivated to shift my UPLIFT correspondence to this media. is another site that permits some commenting from within a document.  The Spanda Journal, in which I published a chapter, used this for the different authors to interact with each other. Few did. I have only read three other chapters in that issue of The Spanda Journal, and I expect that was the case for most of the authors.

I am suddenly reminded of a different app  CritSuite that permitted a person to comment to any point on a page in the internet – but it never took off. It was developed by a team working with the founder of nanotechnology, by Eric Drexler and The Foresight Institute. CritSuite was last updated 1996!

CritSuite couldn’t work for the whole WWW. It worked by processing each webpage through its system, adding the ability to link to it. But, it would be quite useful for a specific semfield of webpages.

A while back YouTube added a crude feature where you could link a piece of text to different moments in the YouTube video – not text in the video. I don’t think it got traction. I fantasize a web of videos, linked to special moments in each of them. An emerging hypervideo dialog!

As is typical of many technological innovations, the applications they were designed to enable were often minor compared to those later uses, unforeseen (by most) at the time of the innovation.

The opposite occurs for conceptual innovations, the early insight is usually far more comprehensive than what later manifests.  The early envisioned GOAL of the conceptual innovation gets replaced by the more practical, initial OBJECTIVE. Doug Englebart’s vision of AUGMENTATION is far from having been achieved. The visions of the ENA (Electronic Networkers Association) in the late 1980s are long forgotten and many not yet achieved in 2017.


At the time of my initial writing the email from which this post was extracted, I had a flash of insight about the features of those domains of attention that have made often astonishing gains, compared to those domains of attention that seem to be stagnant, if not in decline.

The physical sciences have achieved partly because they had a powerful semfield where both students and professional scientists dialoged about VISIBLE sems: initially diagrams and equations on the chalk board.

“Sems” are material patterns/structures that when commonly perceived generate “meanings” among the participants and facilitates their dialog about their “experiences” with the sems. They can gesture to parts of the sems in developing a shared vocabulary. Texts are a common example of sems.

A “semfield” is but a system of related sems. The archive of all human texts, diagrams, drawings and paintings is a massive semfield.

In the 1990s I video taped a major seminar that included the presentation of studies about chalkboard physics. Its significance periodically returns to my mind. {Might I still have the tapes – but probably not a device to play them?}  Persons just talking to each other without a collectively perceived semfield seldom “go” anywhere.

Published literature is a weak semfield, as the texts are seldom jointly studied at the moment of dialog. With all the talk about the USA being a “constitutional” democracy, the actual semfield of the constitution (and the texts of all legislation and legal findings) are seldom specifically referred to, and then often citing short parts “out of context”. Yet, the practice of “law” is a crude example of the use of textual semfields. The problem with the legal semfields is that they are only accumulative. We have yet to master how to effectively dialog about textual semfields.

It is important to note that relative ease whereby the phenomena studied by the material sciences is successful, can be adequately explained by viewing them as “simple” systems, capable of mathematical representation. “Simple” may look complex, but compared to the human sciences, they are quite primitive. As some have said, “the human sciences are not “soft”, compared to the “hard” sciences, but “difficult”.

I recommend the creation/establishment of a special type of dialog that is always about a common “systems for explicit attention”, such as a semfield.

Semfields are one of the most significant tools emergent for humankind, and unique to we humans (on Earth). We are still in our infancy in learning their potential. In the form of “fake news”, semfields have demonstrated a downside, that must be accounted for.


[This post is an unintended repeat of almost the same post from  July 18, 2016.  In April 2017 I discovered a relevant doc on my NoteMap Outliner, and it had no indications (which I usually add – BLUE the Title) that I had posted it. Most of my added links were the same as in 2016. the 2016 post is longer than this post, as I added to it then. I have not attempted to compare edits. I keep this here for reference.

The 2016 post was part of a three week, intense online exchange I had with Andrew Gaines.  In 2017, I had also forgotten about this important encounter, other than his name and that it had not ended well.  After just discovering this forgotten activity, I am amazed at what I had done and how I had forgotten most of it.  Larry’s loss of memory is becoming a serious challenge.]

We cannot accurately forecast details of coming collapses and responses to them. Humankind is both fragile and resilient. The cascade of events following BREXIT is an example of fragility. Yet, sometimes surprising recovery follow collapses.

The power of human to human mutual aide between peoples jointly facing disasters is documented by Rebecca Solnit’s A Paradise Built in Hell.  However, as soon as outside authorities arise, this resilience collapses.

The often stated claim, that we need to wait until it gets worse for people to act, refers only to local social issues.  I never applies to longer term societal issues.  Also, collapses may come in cascades, and we never can tell whether a chain reaction of collapsing dominoes may cover over us like a massive technological collapse tsunami.

We cannot prepare for all scenarios, but there are some basics participants in The Great Transition might consider, but surviving collapse must not be our primary focus or activity. If we survive one collapse, we will simply be in the way of the next. We are all eventually doomed if we can’t get to the source and stop the collapses, OR create a nu, emergent quman system that gets stronger each day, better resistant to collapse of their societal environments and that will eventually involve most living humans (person by person).

The nu emergent alternative humankind will learn how to manage the sources of collapse and eventually remove them as they are designed out of the nu humanity created/emergent. Human was not misspelled, as quman, in the previous paragraph. I propose we undergo a system of major paradigm shifts, for our whole comprehension of human systems, as significant as the shift to Quantum Physics from Classical Physics.

What I call Quman Physics is like cleaning the smeared windshield, getting accurate maps and sending out scouts, getting sober, and – in metaphor – cooperating in a simulated “Wagon Train” over the “Mountainous Divide in Winter”, into the future (of sunny California).

Before WE attempt to recruit and organize others to join OUR expedition-in-time, WE need to re-examine OUR assumptions about what WE hope to accomplish and the terrain of the land WE will cross. Who is this “WE”?

Initially WE are those who have assumed we knew enough that something very significant was required, to survive/thrive. However, knowing something is wrong and that something must be done, often doesn’t equip that knower to also know what best to do.

However, in a time of crisis, this assumption is often made – and often with disastrous results. For example, many revolutions end up becoming regimes as oppressive as those overturned. The situation we face today is unprecedented, to say the least.

We must be cautious of any proposed “solution” based on what was done in the past – even if successful, then. Everything has changed so fast and often so significantly that no human knows nearly all of what IS and is HAPPENING, and the trends, many which are very dangerous, if not stopped.

As a person who has deliberately tried to be as comprehensive as possible, I have recently given up trying to explore everything that I consider highly relevant. I no longer have a “bucket list” of things to learn, let alone experience. Daily my attention encounters scores of significant new topics, blogs, movements, persons, books or articles that would, in the recent past, be put on my TODO list.  I continue to bookmark some of them, but my lists are already far too long and not well organized for searching. Also, there is no way, at 82 – or even if I was 28 – could I begin to work through this material. And then, what would I do with it, how would I share and discuss it with others, and then plan with others some projects to accomplish?

Curation and online sharing is beginning to drown us in social media. I can’t trust myself to know what best to do – even if I had the resources and a team of committed participants. Nor can I buy into anyone else’s project unless they can explicate to me a clear sketch of strategy to the time when the trends are positive.

I am not calling for a conference, as was convened by Gregory Bateson (assisted by his daughter, Mary Catherine), in 1968 in Vienna on the critical topic: “The Effects of Conscious Purpose of Human Adaptation“, although the topic is close to the one we must explore to better set direction for The Great Transition.


Mary Catherine, in her excellent chronicle, Our Own Metaphor, “manages to convey the dynamics as well as the content of the deliberations of a small group of brilliant (and intractable) anthropologists, linguists, psychologists. and philosophers”.

The Batesons visited Arthur Koestler after their conference. Koestler was disturbed about the scheduling conflict with his Beyond Reductionism conference – to which Gregory had been invited; and Koestler had been invited to Gregory’s conference. After learning of what transpired (and didn’t) at Gregory’s conference, Arthur wrote a short story, The Call Girls.

In this story, the world is in crisis and the best minds on the planet are convened in conference to discuss the issues and advise. There, each expert pontificates on his or her expertise, basically repeating their talks given on their lecture circuits, a metaphor for “call girls”.

I read all three decades ago and their significance has been with me since. Actually, I am calling for Blitz (the name of a month long action project, being organized by Andrew Gaines in 2017), to accomplish what Gregory and Arthur failed to accomplish 48 years ago.

{Gaine’s Blitz is reported to have taken place March 2017. Unfortunately, my attempts to dialog with Andrew failed, as he apparently viewed me as a competitor and refused further dialog. He is currently active in online dialog at NCDD. }

In 1976, as part of a summer visit to Great Britain, I visited the experimental commune, Findhorn, in Scotland. I was sad to see that its attempts to spread as a movement failed. They had a requirement, that each new prospective member had to temporarily abandon focus on his or her domain of expertise.  They were to bring to the commune their learning-to-learn competencies and to generalize from the competencies of their expertise – but apply it to the objectives and goals of Findhorn.

In a sense this is what we must bring to focus at a Blitz. The best minds need to build on their specialized expertise to mutually explore domains of relevance. No single or few “domains of expertise”, expanded and improved, will be a key or solution. What we face is not a problem, but what has been called a “problemateque”, where an appropriate response might be called a “solutionateque”.

That the problem/solution paradigm may be one of our primary difficulties in comprehending Quman Physics was pointed out many decades ago by The Club of Rome, but mostly ignored. Ignored for a reason – Problemateques and Solutionateques are but labels for aspects of a new reality that we wait to emerge in the next major shift.

When we accepted Kuhn’s term, paradigm shift, we slipped into another Quman System issue: our ease in letting a name mask the need to better comprehend “what” is being labeled. A (single) paradigm shift is analogous to the solution of a problem. A complex system of interacting paradigm shifts may characterize a “solutionateque”.

Permit me to cite another analog. My first

{Apparently, I stopped at this point, forgot, and never returned. I don’t now know what my other analog would be.}


{This short post was just discovered in draft on 4/10/2017, but was initially authored in 10/28/2016. I “remember” now, tht at this time last fall, I had begun to draft potential posts with this blog app. Apparantly, I had forgotten and only now discovered these draft posts.}

I start with the assumption that there are no primary, fundamental rules or conceptual schemes. Thus, although this doc focuses on a conceptual scheme labeled “cybernetics”, and that it is very important, I am not proposing that “cybernetics” be THE foundation idea. This is not to say that what we label “REALITY” won’t have a ranking structure, but that is to be determined – and I assume that humans will never have access to or fully comprehend an ultimate REALITY.

I recently discovered that there are now FOUR ORDERS of cybernetics; the last I looked there were two – and I have yet to digest the two, new levels.


Cybernetics labels the processes by which components and subsystems of a complex ecoholarchy of sysnets interact via the exchange of information.

We can imagine situations where the ability of a node to emit, receive, or process types of information may not be adequate for optimal functioning of the whole. This could occur if parts were damaged, or if evolution has not yet led to the formation of necessary structures.


I propose that humankind has grown in terms of population and global distribution to form cultural/societal systems where the cybernetic competencies of both individual human persons and human social systems are not yet adequate to “handle” the information flows required for sustainability and viability of the whole of humankind, and major subsystems. But, we have the ready potential to quickly gain these competencies. This will involve   OLLO [Organizing-for-Learning=&=Learning-for-Organizing], where Organizing includes the creation of appropriate technology.

Larry/nuet – CHANGING

To all who have been following Larry/nuet.

{This was initially drafted  9/17/2016 and just discovered 4/10/2017, not yet posted. I remains relevant. I have yet to initiate the change I need.}

For a while I must change my daily behavior, and may not be replying to emails or commenting to blog posts as has become my primary behavior in my discretionary time for many months (maybe years, as I no longer have a concrete past – other than when consulting my records).

I must attend to repairing my Here&Now – an expedition that I will record and may later share. I will continue composing and posting some items in this blog. I sense that something significant is emerging, and that our recent dialog is part of it. I want it to continue – in new formats with new protocols to optimize the eeree of our interactivity.

For those who relate to me, it is important that you know some details about Larry and his environment, including his practices with intelligent technology. I have concluded that it is important that those who engage closely with each other must share much more transparency. Our diversity is our strength, and we need to be more aware of it, so as to better help (seaf) each other. I have attempted to describe “nuet” (not too well) but have only talked about Larry’s savant condition.

Imagine a multidimensional phase space for all potential competencies (with levels of potential and proficiency) a human person might possess. Each human would be represented by only a few, of the many, points in this phase space. I use the metaphor of a wire-sculpture – where the empty space is as important as the filled space. We are each a developing wire sculpture during our lives, with the wire growing during life. Human teams/crews will be well designed mergers of a few, well chosen, wire sculptures – where we complement each other. I speculate such teams/crews must be the decider units for future societal systems. We individual humans lack sufficient competencies. How many teams/crews a person can be a member of, at any one time and sequentially, would be empirically determined. Some team/crews may be organized in early childhood and maintained through life. Age distribution within teams/crews would depend on the intended functionality of them.

I encourage others to consider composing a profile of personal assets and limitations, that could later be shared with those whom you would want to know this so as to better relate to you. One of the first activity for new members of the UPLIFT movement would be to explore their assets and limitations, uniquenesses and samenesses, within their local network and begin creating assessment measures to construct competency profiles as part of a Global Uplift Census.

If we succeed in surviving our Crisis-of-Crises, we ALL will have significantly changed lifestyles, and probably will have changed perspectives on “reality”. Shouldn’t we start now? Might our Great Transition be viewed as a massive “migration-in time” between personal lifestyles within different social/societal themes?

How really open to fundamental change are the “already highly educated” and those activists “advanced in development”? I don’t mean that we/they abandon what we/they have gained, or to shift interests, fields, or projects; but to consider significantly expanding the contexts of our/their achievements.

Paradigm shifts don’t necessarily call for the abandonment of prior paradigms; it only makes the prior reality part of a larger reality. In addition to seafing the “education” of others across the planet, to gain the knowledge and competencies we/they now possess, might these “leaders and teachers” also need significant uplifting? Indeed, might this be the place of optimum leverage?

Nuet took over for awhile. Larry, as limited as he is, must create new order in his life, so as to better serve nuet and Humankind/Gaia.

I offer a list of recently read books that have informed me that we humans aren’t as we have believed.
Later – with love,  Larry/nuet

Stages are also Complete

Insight  4/5/2007  and continuation.

That we 21st century humans are but one of many stages in the evolution of our species doesn’t mean we are incomplete or somehow inferior to a later stage – or a completed state.

This was motivated by my recently viewing a tweet by a dear friend, Michael Gentry, where he described himself thus:

“I follow the dharma,
but I don’t call myself a Buddhist.
I’m concerned about the future of the planet,
but I’m not an environmentalist.”

I, Larry, am a whole being,
at each stage in my life
from conception to death.

Yet, my being gains meaning
from stages before and those to follow.

The same applies to Michael’s concept of dharma.
He is both “whole” now, and “forever”,
whatever “forms” may manifest.

I have long been conflicted with ideas of eternal, endless, blissful longevity and a “soul”. “If this exists”, it can have nothing to do with the specifics of this life; almost all which are contingent upon the settings for this life. There is very few, if any, traits or characteristics that are not contingent. All of my DNA is contingent on the circumstances of my mother and father, and their genealogies.

Recently, I discovered that the concept of “a true self” to which many a person hopes to make manifest or achieve, may be another myth. Not that we don’t have inherited determinants (even beyond DNA). Yet:

who we become is very highly determined by our ever present and changing environment. Nature/Nurture is an inseparable mix, each being dominant about some features. Yet, many’s belief in their “true nature” is linked to their belief in an afterlife or a soul.

Must “the part” always be as significant as “the whole”?

Many alternative variations in my life
wouldn’t change the basics of our Cosmos.

Each leaf isn’t as “significant” as the tree.

What do we mean by “SIGNIFICANT”?
Without specifics or reference,
such implied ranking is inappropriate.

There are many human
thoughts and statements
that are meaningless;
yet, we often experience
in association with them.

doesn’t imply

Any yet,
we have no justification of applying the concepts of
importance or significance – in ranking
entities or stages.

is not a process
that can be applied
to everything.

My Personal Peeve:
Human tend to rank multi-dimensional entities,
even when ranking is “objective”
only ONE dimension at a time.

Multi-dimensional ranking must involve
arbitrary “weighing” of relative
importance or significance
of each dimension.

Plot Weight and Height of persons on a graph.
The points form a distribution,
they don’t fall on a curve.
Many curves drawn among the points
could be defined as

This propensity is almost universal,
having its origins to ensure survival
when quick decisions on insufficient information
must be made.

This intuitive action
should NEVER be applied,


I don’t feel I achieved above what I intended.

We often tend to give greater significance
to pair of “things” or “ideas”
for which such ranking
is inappropriate.
It only exists in the confusion of language,
where all statements don’t have meaning.



There is so, so, so much to share and to learn.

These times may truly be the most exciting, ever
– certainly the most confusing.

POTENTIALS expand exponentially,
as does their repressive BLOCKING.

We can’t “communicate” Big Patterns or Large Conceptual Schemes.
That is, the linear temporal exchange of bytes or bits won’t do.


interact with others over our prior semiotic production,
adding and modifying until our exchanges show evidence
of adequate mutual comprehension –
of patterns that cannot be consciously experienced in a moment, and


We humans are good at creating nodes in a vast communication network. We are poor at perceiving patterns in this “flow” and
find it almost impossible to properly share these patterns
(with mutual comprehension).

Actually we are masters at intuiting patterns of the complexity,
of what we worked with in our tribal times, a hard-wired competency. With the creation/development of written languages
and now digital representations, we have accomplished much.
But we still lack minimum competencies for creating and maintaining viable/sustainable social/societal systems.
We blame our problems on imagined failings of others and fail, ourselves, to recognize our difficulties are SYSTEMIC,
with no persons or peoples to be blamed.


Of all the knowledge nodes in our semfield (think Internet),
each human has actually experienced but an infinitesimal fraction, and comprehended and integrated much less.

As for the many categorical domains that have appeared
for these knowledge nodes,
each person is aware of and uses but a small fraction.

Yet, our mind/brains demand closure and understanding.

We confabulate our very limited knowledge to experiencing
believable whole “wrlds”, our personal realities –
which we act within as if they are good approximations
of a common objective reality ( one world).

We do this both,
for our inter-subjective, locally perceivable environments, and
for the nonconfirmable/unobservable societal domains.


One small node is bothering me to report:

Tonight I viewed about 10 minutes of the current Lou Dobbs Tonight on FOX cable. I discovered him (he was once on CNN) on FOX a few weeks ago and am recording him daily; sampling periodically.  I view Dobbs as the mirror of CNN, from the far, far right.  He is polite, reasonable, with an air of authenticity. Tonight he played the very same video clips of Susan Rice as did MSNBC. The commentary was radically different – but also, in other ways, very similar.  What Dobbs considered facts, MSNBC viewed as lies – and vice versa.  I highly recommend periodic dives into Dobbs. For those who only view Dobbs, or who only view MSNBC, there is no reason to doubt the reality being reported. I am not proposing objective equivalence, but this should demonstrate that the battle is between our minds/wrlds and not what might be happening in “objective reality”. It is HERE about which I claim we humans really don’t comprehend “who we are”.


The consequence of the emergence of
has been a continuing and accelerating FRAGMENTATION
of any “coherence” in “consensual reality”.

I fear this will not be repeat of historical crises,
where we can expect eventual “recovery to norms”.
Our advancing technology and other factors
may have pushed us beyond thresholds.
We must view this in the original sense of CRISIS,
a mix of Opportunity and Danger.
Which it becomes will be up to us.


Imagine what aliens visiting from distant star systems,
or aborigines in the Amazon with Internet access,
might “make” of the ALL the conflicting reports
generated by 21st Century humans.

IF they could analyze ALL the reports
(the whole human semfield),
could they construct an “objective model” of Humankind
with very high probability of being accurate?
Maybe, and maybe not.


IF there was a best model,
I would speculate that it wouldn’t be anywhere near
what any sub-population of humans believe to  BE.


I speculate on the possibility that our “collective reality”
doesn’t fit our preconceptions of an “objective reality”.
We might discover a “societal weirdness”
for the unobservable-but-hypothesized societal subsystems,

(financial, economic, governmental, political, religious, professional, media, educational,energy, energy, agricultural, scientific, etc.)

analogous to the quantum weirdness
for the unobservable  domains of the very, very small.


I propose we seriously consider this “wild” speculation, but also
that we don’t devote great attention and resources in exploration.

Rather, to use it, in metaphor, to attract attention to our current limitations in the Sci/Tech of human systems.

I am not calling for, nor expecting, this enterprise to initially
involve many persons, nor require great funding.

While the vast majority, necessarily, continue
– in their own, personally competent (given their wrlds) ways –
a few need to scout and prepare as pathfinders
a viable route out of our Crisis-of-Crises.

Our primary motivation must be positive enthusiasm
for actualizing the awesome potentials of humankind,
in creating a continuously improving process
that doesn’t fixate on constructing a stable STATE
(of momentary existence).


None of the above is new,
Larry/nuet has expressed the same ideas before, many times.

I need to LEARN TO do this in a blog
(a different blog from Nuets Nodes),
putting the realtime production of nuet into the “cloud”.

What actually is the physical form of the internet “cloud”?
What many square miles of massive server sites exist
(some in the Arctic, for cooling)?
How are they distributed
among different nations and blocks of nations?
How much is distributed in storage
within vast networks of business and personal computers?



HyperDimensional Physics – Maxwell & Quaternions

Proposition: Technology is NOT applied Science.
Sci/Tech are sibling disciplines. That Tech uses empirical evidence, research, and math – doesn’t make them sciences.  Science’s objectives and contexts are comprehensions. Tech’s objectives are designing/creating real systems. Science uses instrumentation from Tech. Tech uses Science’s formulations of processes. One person can be both scientist and technologist (engineer). Smil’s article is primarily a History of Tech, which did get its start from Maxwell.

James Clerk Maxwell was surely a genius, of whom I know almost nothing – need to read this Wikipedia biography.  Yet, for me, Maxwell’s Equations are the Mona Lisa of Science, far superior in beauty than Einstein’s (in my opinion).

I learned Maxwell in two graduate courses at the University of Chicago, 1957-58, taught by Nobel winner & genius  Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, which I have written about elsewhere. These were the two best classes in my whole educational career. I have completely forgotten this physics/math.

Very significant; don’t let the physics stop you.

Maxwell’s equations were not his, but were produced by Heaviside after Maxwell’s death. Maxwell’s own equations were in quaternions:

“Maxwell expressed electromagnetism in the algebra of quaternions and made the electromagnetic potential the centrepiece of his theory.. In 1881 Oliver Heaviside replaced Maxwell’s electromagnetic potential field by ‘force fields’ as the centrepiece of electromagnetic theory. Heaviside reduced the complexity of Maxwell’s theory down to four differential equations, known now collectively as Maxwell’s Laws or Maxwell’s equations. According to Heaviside, the electromagnetic potential field was arbitrary and needed to be “murdered”.. The use of scalar and vector potentials is now standard in the solution of Maxwell’s equations.

Somewhere, long ago, I read that Heaviside, in reducing the equations from quaternions to vectors, eliminated an important and very real type of force/interaction from the field.  These had to do with the direct interaction of rotating bodies, such as Jupiter and its moons – which was claimed to result in the specific latitude location of the Great Spot.

Is this Fake Science, or a neglected phenomenon; seen today as just local/temporary specifics of a real system, not resulting from a deeper system of interactions?  The great internet provides: I Googled “quaternions Jupiter Great Spot“, which led to HYPERDIMENSIONAL PHYSICS:  Now I have more to read, with less and less time!  I just had to read – ignore the politics – I report below.

I don’t BELIEVE that any of the physics is valid. HyperDimensional Reality may be mathematical poetry.  Not all of the phenomena reported need be true, while some might be. Scientists are known to have hobby interests as well as those we know about. Newton had a strong interest in Astrology.

Maxwell on “rotation”:

“There are physical quantities of another
kind [in the aether] which are
related to directions in space, but which are not vectors. Stresses and strains in
solid bodies are examples, and so are some of the properties of bodies
considered in the theory of elasticity and in the theory of double [rotated]
refraction. Quantities of this class require for their definition nine
[part of the “27-line”…]
numerical specifications. They are expressed in the language of
quaternions by linear and vector functions of a vector…”
[[Hyperdimensional Physics, Part 2 page 11]]

    The Great Spot: Part 2  pp 18


Even now, Jupiter’s four major  satellites
(which have collective masses
approximately 1/10,000th of Jupiter itself),
during the course of their complex orbital
interactions, are historically known to cause
time-altered behavior in a variety of well-known Jovian phenomena–
Including — “anomalous” latitude and longitude motions
of the Great Red Spot itself.

As we presented at the U.N. in 1992,
the Great Red Spot — a mysterious vortex
located for over 300 years at that
“infamous” 19.5 degrees S. Latitude, via
the circumscribed tetrahedral geometry of
the equally infamous “27 line problem” —

Is the classic “hyperdimensional signature”
of HyperDimensional physics operating within Jupiter?
The existence of decades of recorded “anomalous motions” of this Spot, neatly synchronized with the highly predictable motions
of Jupiter’s own moons,
are clearly NOT the result of conventional
“gravitational” or “tidal” interactions —
in view of the relatively insignificant masses of the moons
compared to Jupiter itself;

but, following Maxwell and Whittaker,
the hyperdimensional effects of these same moons
— via the long “lever” of angular momentum
on the constantly changing, vorticular scalar stress
potentials inside  Jupiter — that is a very different story …


1) The energy from the sun doesn’t come from nuclear fusion at the core, but from the angular momentum in hyperdimensional space. This accounts for the missing neutrinos from the sun that are expected from the nuclear fusion, but which are not observed as predicted.

2)  There are predicted more large planets, far out, to account for some observations.

3)  Situations can arise that can explode a whole planet from hyperdimensional stress.

4)  HD plays a role in periodic climate change – not to replace greenhouse gases – but an additional factor.

The author of HD makes claims about secret government inventions using this technology, which makes one wonder – but not enough to not give some consideration to the possible reality of these claims.  The history of basic physics described shows centuries of alternative perspectives. There is reference to an experiment by Bohm, and many other anomalous experimental results.

Cut/Pasted from an email: Larry on Larry/nuet & Societal/Quantum Reality Analog

At this stage in my life, I am in very serious consideration of WHAT TO DO NEXT.  Larry is in rapid decline, but may live another decade. What Larry is now unable to do will eventually  be reported elsewhere in detail. Larry’s limitations appear to have released nuet’s emergence (within Larry/nuet), but the new insights are not being adequately reported or distributed, mostly due to Larry’s limitations and to the general lack of interest by others.

Larry/nuet fights himself making “ego claims” of significant uniqueness for humankind today. His significant contributions are meta-meta – whatever that term signifies. They relate to alternative contexts from which to “view” everything else. Others, who attend to Larry’s output, focus on specific modifications of conventional conceptual schemes – which can only be adequately appreciated in the “nu contexts”. These “specific” insights are properly categorized with the quality insights and recommendations of others. The “barriers” to adequate sharing are primarily in the current mismatch between our sharing technologies and the “true” nature of how human mind/brains function. Also, that the “unit” to create/process, in “domains of high Magnitude/Scope/Complexity” MSC, may not be the human individual but “designed crews” with “communities”.  The “tribal needs”, and limitations, of our biological mind/brains must be acknowledged.

Larry/nuet is struggling to design a process whereby Larry/nuet can be seafed and managed by teams of others. Primarily to extract/process/distribute what is of value to humankind. What needs be done, to make use of what Larry/nuet has created, will be very useful for many other selves/wrlds who have not nearly shared all that they have created/produced in their lifetimes. There is also a desperate need to process/distribute all that currently exists in digital reports. For the whole of humankind, for millennia, there has been an enormous gap between the semiotic resources in perceivable form and the distribution of persons who have access to AND ability to comprehend and use, these resources. With the population increase, I estimate, that this ratio/distribution may be getting worse. Even those “most in the know” actually know less-and-less. Furthermore, our tribal mind/brains limit us to work with conceptual schemes with only a few independent variables (about 3, or 5+/-9) in working memory, whereas the MSC of our relevant reality is much “greater”. Big Pictures are not accessible to individual human persons, in the ways we anticipate.

I (and others) find it difficult distinguishing between the general themes of my collective insights and the many specifics I use to illustrate them. I am not stuck on any of the details or specifics, any more than I accept “established/contemporary” details or specifics.  I would like to read what some authors/researchers determine about what the best mind/brains at different time in our history knew AND DIDN’T KNOW, about what our best mind/brains, today KNOW. And then speculate on how much of our current, accepted knowledge may have radically different interpretations, in our distant (or not so distant) futures, from what we comprehend/understand today.


Larry/nuet is stuck in routines. His primary means of communicating today is expanding on a reply to an email and BCCing it to a few others. I also draft blog posts, and announce a few to others in occasional emails. I generate from 3-10 insights daily, most of which I make a note to myself – as I remember only what I am triggered to by seeing a reminder, somewhere. A few of these I may come back to and draft a few paragraphs. Some are repetitive, and many of my more recently posted items I have no memory composing or posting.

I recognize the content and its relevance, but don’t remember the actual writing. When I scan/scroll through my “production” I am pleasantly surprised by all I have written, but also disturbed that I have not properly organized them and have not adequately distributed them to others.

I have zero/no interest in my being known or remembered. I am only concerned that some of my insights may be critically valuable to humankind at this critical juncture. My days are also consumed by personal and habitat needs, which can be performed only slowly and carefully. My general health remains good, but I must move slowly so as not to fall (I have fallen a few times, with bruises that take months to heal). I have very little strength in my arms and hands, and have very painful elbows and disintegrating knees. But, my increasing senility is more disturbing. I am reminded of things to do only when seeing them, or noticing them in my many hundreds of items long TODO lists. But, unless I do the task immediately on seeing it on my TODO list, I forget about it. Many items on my TODO list are major projects, not singular tasks. For Larry/nuet to be effective, he needs management.

I am going to continue composing here, as I am motivated to explicate.  I am learning very much about how persons differ greatly about their inner wrlds, even what they believe to exist in their so-called common habitat setting. I, my partner (ex-wife, of more than half my 82 years) and my grandson live with me host three significantly different realities/wrlds.

If I, or they, point/gesture to and dialog about a shared physical object, we can all agree to its physical nature. But, what is or is not relevant to them or I differ greatly. It is very, very difficult to communicate about these differences, as they are beyond our common experiences. On issue: I react to clutter, they react to dirt. I am burdened by seeing everything that needs be done in this habitat, and if I pointed them out to Eloise or Tommy, they would agree that there was a task to be performed – someday. I can imagine the time and effort to perform these tasks and that planning/scheduling might be needed if many are to be undertaken. They see only what can be done today or tomorrow; the rest are lumped into a “vague future”. The eventual accomplishment of all the tasks is expected, but they are oblivious to the extent of work really needed. It is easy to generalize this to all humans facing the many tasks needed to be performed.  And these are tasks we can point to and agree exist. Those tasks that can’t be pointed to, are most difficult to share about their even existing.

I have long come to the conclusion that we aren’t persons living in a common world, with different interpretations about that world. Rather, each of our experiences are of internal, self-created (not consciously or by intention) “wrlds” which we have delusions/illusions of being “objectively real”. This is the natural result of our tribal mind/brains. The Trump Phenomenon reflects on how our wrlds have become more and more different (even when we interact only with those in our silos – where we differ significantly even in the silos).

We must shift to the recognition and acceptance that everything other than what we can jointly share in our common perceptual reality via gestures, is inferred from reading or viewing reports, or listening to others telling about reports they experienced.  These reports comprise our SemFields, a “reality” totally unique to humans.  Sems (Semiotic Structures) have perceived patterns which all can agree to. These patterns don’t contain knowledge, but transmit information to human persons processing the perceived patterns. Through collective discourse within common semfields, persons come to share common interpretations. However, almost all believe their interpretations of semfields are accurate knowledge about an external, objective reality. The patterns we do experience do strongly imply an “other”, solipsism is not consistent with our experiences. But, we have no direct knowledge of “others”.

I speculate that the “objective” realities emergent from semfields may have a weirdness analogous to quantum weirdness. This speculation is not necessary for us to resolve our challenges; but if the speculation is correct, acknowledging it may be requisite to our survival/thrival. An “objective reality” of our universe, planet and Gaia “existed” – in some form – “before” (in one sense of temporal sequence) the emergence of humankind. Yet, all our knowledge of and our experiences of this “external” reality is interpreted within our wrlds as we perceive our local settings, which now include access to semfields (on screens or pages). An “objective nature” for all aspects of humankind (governments, economies, histories, organizations, cities, etc.) are not actually experienced and is strictly hypothetical, based on human/social sciences and established “knowledge”.

“We” expect that, behind all the differing reports of so-called objective happenings and existences, there “really exists a real world” that moves along in a classical mode of causation, with humans mis-perceiving and acting “in error” – with the net result (theoretically, but not practically) capable of computation might we know how each action “actually” effects the “objective” situation. We assume that the “societal – over time” behaves according to the same logic and laws we have discovered which adequately explain all we directly, collectively, perceive and communicate – in our local settings.

A few persons now know that hypothesized “worlds” of the very small & unobservable don’t behave according to the laws of our local/perceptual settings. We have discovered what we call, “quantum weirdness” for this hypothesized domain.  Might there be a “societal weirdness” for all those hypothetical entities we believe are “out there” but never actually “perceive”?

Humankind, although composed of biological beings interacting via physical communication processes, and constructing physical systems, might – as a whole – function differently than the “classical” model we have come to believe as real.  Humankind, involving aspects unique to itself and different from physical and biological systems, intelligent wrlds interacting via perceived semfields, may be an “alien process within itself”. Humankind’s interaction with Gaia may be strictly classical; however how humankind itself emerges may not be strictly according to contemporary models of human learning and relating.

Indeed, the general human myth of conscious free will is in conflict with all basic science. “Conscious Free Will” IS a “weirdness” that we believe give each human agency to effect the societal.

In Quantum Reality, an observation doesn’t result in knowledge about the state of the observed system before the measurement, with the measurement disturbing the system so we don’t have accurate knowledge of the future of the system measured, after the measurement. This is an incorrect interpretation of quantum measurement.  In Quantum Reality, systems exist (between measurements) as fields of probability distributions for different sets of measurement results (and their mathematical structures that enable computations) that unfold in time and interact with other fields of probability for other physical systems interacting with them. The act of measurement – the measuring instrument, itself – at the “level” of the system being measured – is also a probability distribution field. The act of measurement “collapses” these probability fields resulting in the creation, at the moment of measurement, of a unique state of the measurement instrument yielding one, concrete number – the result of the measurement. The result of each measurement of quantum systems is created by the act of measurement; it only existed as one of many possible results before the measurement.  The system measured is assumed to be in that one unique state, resulting from the measurement, and then immediately begins expanding into another probability distribution of alternative values for any future measurement of that same system. Controversy exists as to this interpretation.

Historically, this conceptual scheme required the team of physicists to deliberately abandon any attempt to use classical models of physical systems as metaphor for the quantum systems. In practice, the Bohr Atom, of electrons in orbit about the nucleus blocked the advance of quantum physics. Only when this metaphor was intentionally abandoned, and the requirements it imposed on the quantum systems, did the full emergence of a highly confirmable Quantum Physics emerge.  In analogy, we might need to abandon our models of institutions as “objective” systems of biological persons communicating by physical signals in the physical settings of buildings distributed around the planet.  Instead we have self-emergent wrlds within each person, interacting with their jointly created and perceived semfields (which are patterns on surfaces such as paper sheets or monitor screens).  This approach can also be applied to our own brains, which are not “observable” in our ordinary sense (we observe only very, very small parts or processes – useful, but not the same as “observing a brain”).

Our mental life may be better explained as a complex sequence of expanding and collapsing probability fields, with the measurement/experiences being the result of collapses.  The whole of neural-molecular activity in brains may require more than the application of classical biology and molecular physics – for which we still have a long way to go

None of this speculation need be true or real. Indeed, from different dialogs we discover logical holes in our best conceptualization about reality and truth. We humans are so very young, and our accomplishments – as vast as they are – may end up temporary in the yet-to-emerge multi-billionial future emergence of Humanity/Gaia.

Feedpast Bootstrapping and Arrival (the movie) ++ MUCH MUCH MORE


Just returned from viewing the movie ARRIVAL, and was blown away.
The alt-time theme of the movie
{as I interpreted it}
is an example of a hypothesis about
Temporal Texture & Feedpast Bootstrapping
that I developed a few decades ago.

my interest and research in
alternative models of temporality
started in high school.

But, first to the movie,
temporal texture
feedpast bootstrapping.

This essay started as a simple report on my excitement about a movie that included some of my insights from the past. As I delve deeper, I am speculating that viewing this movie, for me, at this time –
may be an actual incident of the type of alt-time event I am talking about.

At least it is an exercise that takes me back three decades, and my discovering, right now as I write, that all my basic conceptual schemes I use today
were collected in my publications in 1994, where I first discuss
feedpast bootstrapping and temporal texture, and many other insights.
This discovery, and the high relevance of the 1994 paper is
very, very significant to me at this stage of my work.

As to the movie, to which we arrived a few minutes late and the arrival of alien, lens shaped vehicles had already occurred and a woman was looking out over the sea from windows in her home, drinking a glass of wine; and then the scene flashed to TV news reports of: The Arrival of twelve very large, dark lens, standing on edge, at 12 different locations on Earth.

The movie was quite enjoyable, and given rave reviews by many. I won’t go into the drama theme. Discussing the alternative temporality featured in the movie shouldn’t spoil it for those who haven’t yet (hint hint) seen it. Some of the links below may be spoilers and should be avoided should you wish to see the movie.

I missed some of the speaking, even with my hearing aides. I never heard what the Chinese leader said to the heroine, and it may not have been an intelligible phrase {it was Mandarin: “In war there are no winners, only widows.”} . I must read the novella, The Story of Your Life, by Ted Chiang, on which the movie was based. All the violence and international intrigue in the movie was not in the book.

Since first drafting this post I have explored online, many reviews and
detailed analyses of the plot and the powerful treatment of “time”.
I discovered aspects I had missed; but my commentary below
is not about the theme in the movie, but how that theme
might have some real applications for our present challenges.
Some of the reviewers claim that the alt-time perspective,
in the book and movie, insures a strict determinism;
which is quite contrary to my model  of alt-time,
which provides “scientific foundations” for
fundamental creative agency and a sharp distinction between
the animate and inanimate, between the living and non-living.

Here I provide a few links to those who desire to read what others say:
Yumpu: The Story of Your Life (the text/novella)

The heroine has day & night dreams which feature herself, often with a young girl child at different ages. These were puzzling me, as she implied in conversation that she hadn’t time for relationships (but she might have been divorced and had a child, who was no longer with her). I kept this puzzle in the background and was fascinated by the new-style “language” being learned by the heroine.

{At 82 and having cognitive difficulties I find myself often missing parts of video dramas, and forgetting what had just went before. Due to my lack of visual imagery, I can never re-experience any scene, once it is gone from my real vision.}

Later in the movie, their query of why the aliens were at Earth was “answered”: they we giving humans the gift of a new language that would enable those who learned it to experience time differently.

Instead of temporal experiences being as beads on a linear chain, they could be experienced in different orders – and her dreams had been snippets from her possible futures experienced like flashbacks. With this insight, they were able to change the direction of the relationship between the aliens and humans.

Although I hadn’t imagined feedpast bootstrapping occurring at this level, nor being actually “experienced”, the movie theme is definitely a variation on the conceptual schemes I worked on long ago, and are part of my thinking today.


One of my earliest publication on temporal texture and feedpast bootstrapping can be found here:

Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting,
International Society for the Systems Sciences, Asilomar, CA.
June 14-19, 1994.

My early interests in alt-temporality were about time travel (would occur if we could travel faster than light), multi-dimensional times, and different reported experiences of temporality. Learning Einstein’s Relativity Theories trained my mind to think about different relative perspectives – example: how you might experience another person experiencing you experiencing them experiencing you. The works of R.D. Laing also contributed to my sense of relative experiencing. Valid scientific research in so-called “psychic phenomena” also explored alternative ideas about time, as did some science fiction (I prefer speculative fiction involving science).  However, none of my alt-temporality insights were borrowed from these readings; but emerged within me, sometimes influenced by them.

My insights about temporal texture and feedpast bootstrapping first arose from challenges to fundamentally distinguish life from non-life (animate from inanimate) – and this related to the controversy about computers becoming alive. Later, I realized these two insights contributed to releasing fundamental creativity from the strictures of statistical determinism.


It is easiest to imagine, only in metaphor, how a message conveying information within a system, back in time within the system to an earlier state of that system might alter the future of that system from the state receiving information (coming from its possible future state).  That old future scenario (to the state which sent the message) is wiped out of that reality, which then emerges as a new and different future scenario (reality).

Time Loops

I called the first temporal sequence (scenario), from the state receiving the message to the future state sending the message, and back to the initial state, a “time loop”. This “time loop” is composed of the first scenario (of everything within the radius of the speed of light from the object receiving the message from its future) and including the message “back in time” and arriving at the initial state. As the system emerges “again” through a somewhat different scenario, there will be no “memory” evidence of the time loop.

Indirect empirical evidence for “time loops” might be found when the occurrence of some processes occur significantly more frequently than the “plain physics” of the process predicts.  This would be evidence of bootstrapping.

{Both the terms “loop” and “bootstrapping” appear in the discussion of the movie, Arrival.}

Although I initially thought of this as sending messages between different observers at different spatial locations (sending messages into the past using superluminary phenomena had been my earliest thinking), I later came to consider there being no “sender”  and no “message moving” to be later “received”.

Rather, an earlier “state of a living system” does a quantum-like shift to a different “state of that living system” – “instantaneously” – and the shift can be “holistically caused” by a specific configuration of that future state. Rather than a message sent to the past, a system simply jumps BACK to a prior state, with a variation due to some holistic aspect of the state initiating the jump back. A living system has the ability to “blink back” to a prior state (modified somewhat). Everything causally determined by the scenario from the moment of the first state (before the shift) is wiped from reality.

Think of this as “quantum-like jumps” backward in time for special types of systems. In the 1974 paper I called this HOLISTIC DETERMINISM.

NOTE: The above explication is actually new for this moment of composing. My evolving concepts from sending messages to the past
has shifted more strongly away from point events
(sending and receiving messages)
to whole system quantum jumps.

This perspective shift avoids the paradox of thinking about a future state (yet to occur) having an influence on an earlier state (that has occurred, at least once). Temporal intervals can “shift scenarios”, within their durations.
Later, we will explore analogies with the collapse of probability wave functions
in quantum physics for the alternative scenarios during a temporal interval.

Feedpast Bootstrap Applications

My first proposed application of this is within biological cells and biological systems such as brain subsystems, with the shift being less than a few seconds and probably fractions of seconds. In traditional biology this interval is called “temporal integration”, where different processes at different (but close) rates “integrate” to a holistic outcome.

Temporal Integration and Rhythms: That’s What Language and Animal Behavior Are Made of, Geoffrey E. Gerstner pp 329-359; Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues: Spring 1995. This issue contains papers from a conference, THE CRISIS OF TEXT, organized by Paul C. Wohlmuth.  I (Laurence J. Victor) contributed a chapter to the same journal issue: Travel Guide to Cyberspace 2020: Simulated Instructions, pp435-462. I met Paul at the Asilimor Conference in 1994 and he invited me to video tape his conference in San Diego and present a paper. Unfortunately, Paul died shortly after his conference and nothing was done with the video tapes.  I used two cameras, one on the presenter, the other on persons at the table. They were recorded on one video tape with split screen. I think I still have them, and haven’t seen them in decades. Paul had been fascinated by the second paper I gave in 1994 at the Asilimor Conference: The Fundamental Reality of Text. This is where I first presented my views of the special nature of text and sems (semiotic structures). Paul’s conference was the second most exciting conference I have attended. The first most exciting conference was the Story Field Conference hosted by Tom Atlee in June 2005.

Feedpast Bootstrapping could apply to any scale of living systems, in both space and time. It could involve the whole of Gaia, a biome, a species, an organism, or a cell. It could have influence on development and evolution/emergence. It could be involved in human creativity.

Quite young, when I learned the truth about Santa Claus, I included “god” in the same category. I attended church (for my mom) and Lutheran youth league (for my own social life). My dad, while attending first grade at a Catholic school, the priest refused to permit my dad to ride back home on his tricycle. So, he shifted to public school and became an atheist. I have difficulty balancing the pros and cons of organized religion and have a strong zero in belief of a type of god imagined by these religions.

Yet, ALL the evidence encountered in my life scientifically moves me to consider a holistic creative influence in living systems, from Gaia to organelles. Feedpast bootstrapping is my imagined process – which is early, rough and crude – anticipates radical changes as humankind metamorphoses into humanity and emerges for many millennia, seafing higher “intelligence and consciousness” within Gaia and many other beings.

Might feedpast bootstrapping come to play as we face catastrophe in our Crisis-of-Crises due to disastrous Earth changes, including climate change. I don’t expect to wake up some morning living in a true utopia. Yet, an increase of relevant creativity, from unexpected sources, may play a role.  The meteoric rise of The Trump Phenomenon may actually be a shift to shake us out of our trance, sliding down the chute to extinction. The coming scientific revelations as to the deep structures behind this (Trump) phenomenon (more than what is currently being proposed) may enable the alternative processes for personal/local/community/global change that I have been working on for five decades, be recognized as potentially viable, studied and implemented. It may take a Gaian/Humankind feedpast bootstrapping process – UPLIFTING OLLO – to manifest.

I don’t believe we can intentionally trigger feedpast bootstrapping. Yet, there are things we may begin doing which support/enable/augment/facilitate (seaf) feedpast bootstrapping (creative application) to occur.

Feedpast bootstrapping is but another “process of natural reality”. If it is “real”, we will discover scientific-like “laws” as to if, when & where it occurs.

Personally, I often have wondered on my Book Store Genie (or now, my Internet Genie). So many times I “chance” upon a book or other source of knowledge JUST AT THE RIGHT TIME, to find myself SHIFTING direction. One can rationalize it away by arguing that I am primed to recognize its significance when I just randomly encounter it.  The strong feelings/emotions I have with such discoveries encourages me to think otherwise.  I don’t believe there is a being watching over me and leading me to a book – or viewing ARRIVAL tonight (last night, tis now morning).


This is long enough and I am tired.  I will come back and edit, but I may not write much more, here, in THIS post.  I need yet to say a bit about Temporal Texture.

As much as I remember, the film didn’t use the words “texture”, “web”, or “net”. My alt-temporality models have events distributed as in a web and not along a line. Not all of the events need occur.  However, the model in Arrival was still linear (objectively), but didn’t progress in the heroine’s mind linearly. Possible events in her future, experienced in her dreams, would probably not have occurred had she not become aware of this shifting of her time sense, and acted on it to alter the direction activities were trending.

Some commenters on the movie’s model of alt-time claimed that it presented reality as highly deterministic. My exploratory models of alt-time, to the contrary, seek processes & realities that permit “real” creative innovational intervention, breaking deterministic sequences.

Additionally, this is strongly related to what I have recently been working on – how our societal systems may reveal a Societal Weirdness in analogy to Quantum Weirdness, as both domains are beyond ordinary observation. Speculating: alternative societal realities may co-exist and interact as societal probability functions and how we believe nations and economies function may be radically in error in dangerous ways.

Also looking ahead. Just as the realities of classical and quantum physics differ, I anticipate significant differences between the realities of living and non-living system, and between biological systems and uniquely human systems (due to their liberating information from matter/energy bondage). These differences, acknowledged and applied, may be necessary to secure our future survival/thrival.

<< === more later === >>