FORECAST: Failed Recoveries from Disasters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Meaning of MEANING

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


  • Larry’s words on “meaning”:


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A False Flag Happening Elevates Trump to “Dictator”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Climate Change Denial (CCD)
is more dangerous than Nazis, Mafias, Serial Killers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anthony Judge’s Episteme

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Social Systems have partial Objectivity.

notes on my documents:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Another, related theme/domain:


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

HUMAN PROBLEMS AREN’T REAL ……………….. In the sense that problems in the material world are real.

The “reality” of problems with human social systems is that they are arbitrarily defined within contexts assumed fixed. A proper resolution of a human social/societal difficulty may be best gained by shifting the context. However, when such difficulties are categorized as “problems in the material sciences” (where the context, the laws of physics, is never questioned), seeking shifts in contexts is not imagined, let alone considered.

Again, I consider human problems with biology – including neuroscience – within material science. This issue becomes clear with the sharp distinction between material reality (up from physics) and the realities of humankind (where reports comprise the empirical base).

A variation of this would be to assert THERE ARE NO FACTS IN HUMANKIND. There is no foundation for truth, no bottom. Wherever you are, there is always further interpretation and uncertainty. As discussed later & elsewhere, the foundation for humankind are sems, semiotic structures, to which all can agree on the identity of static visual patterns – but these must always be interpreted, which always depends on contexts, which will always differ.

Example: There are many challenges in making one’s living space meet one’s desires and needs. The material context includes the building, itself. The context might shift mildly, by considering renovation of the building. A bigger shift would be to seek a different building to make your home or worksite. Here the immediate constraints (contexts) are material, but their choice is arbitrary (including to live “in the wild”).

Resolutions to Humankind’s most serious challenges are blocked by the unconscious assumption that economic, governance, and political (group decision making) systems follow fixed laws (ideologies) akin to the laws of physics. Those who propose different assumptions are treated as pseudo-science and charlatans by scientists: ridiculed and oppressed.

Contemporary reporting of news and analyses clearly reflects this confusion, if one is open to perceive it. Even the most lucid, intelligent, and “evidence based” analyses are out-of-context (re, a greater whole where alternatives exist).


Confusing:[This issue cannot be resolved by simply “changing persons”. This issue is rooted in the material reality of human biology and neuroscience, where the material structure of human persons limits their behavior and mental processes – even with their vast diversity of cognition.]

Human intuition depends on a wired-in context for perception and behavior IN A WRLD, of discrete objects and events that “follow” the laws of so-called “naive reality”. We have discovered that the “directly unobservable very small” don’t “follow” these laws, but “follow” different laws (of quantum physics). I speculate that societal systems (e.g., nation states and corporations) may also not “follow” the laws upon which our intuitions are based. That is, humankind (the contemporary “whole” of everything “human”) need not “follow” the laws of physics or logic. This is not to claim there are no regular and useful patterns in humankind. Rather, our challenge is to discover these patterns and learn to use them for us to transit beyond humankind, via creative emergence to a radically nu configuration of human system we might call HUMANITY.

Humans, being “free” from the constraints of physics-type-laws has long been a spiritual fantasy – however improperly conceptualized and blindly believed, leading us to contemporary humankind with all its dysfunctions (in civilizations beyond tribes). This is not claiming that we can violate laws of physics. Rather, that much of what we imagine/believe are governed by the laws of material science – actually, are independent of these laws. Also, our “need” to adhere to the laws of material reality (when facing challenges within humankind) are not consciously conceptual with intention; but are automatic, unconscious, and never critically evaluated. In other words, we assume a reality about ourselves that is false, and that constrains our “freedom” to act in more advantageous ways (for the multi-millennial survival/thrival of Humanity/Gaia).

Elsewhere I have proposed that humans, with the slow emergence of visual languages, have liberated information from all prior bondage to matter/energy systems (and thus the constraints of physics). Our sems (semiotic structures) organized as semfields (now accessible via digital, computerized technologies) provides us with an “objective base” to which we can all agree (to be part of our individual woven/constructed wrlds). Although we may have different interpretations (“meanings”) for any given sem, we call all learn to agree on the identity of any specific sem (and their identical reproductions).

We can’t move to this nu reality so long as we believe our human situations and challenges are like problems of the material sciences. This distinction is related to, but different from, the challenge proposed by The Club of Rome many decades ago when they proposed “problemateques” seeking “solutionateques”. “Problemateques” acknowledged that beyond a limit of Magnitude/Scope/Complexity (MSC), the Problem/Solution (or Question/Answer) paradigms don’t apply. The cliche, “everything is connected to everything”, signifies that the practice of isolating relevant from irrelevant, in defining problems, has very limited domains of applicability.

We are fortunate that our material reality (even in its great MSC) was susceptible to the Problem/Solution paradigm of scientific (laboratory) research. Material reality is “simple” (in its special sense). Humankind is “complex” (in its own unique sense), by not being constrained by the laws of material reality. We have been able to develop Tech6 (a systemic process involving Tools, Techniques, Teams, Tasks, Training, Time) that is applicable for both material and human realities.



Total solar eclipses exist because, at this time in human history, the sun and moon subtend the same arc in the sky – they both have the same apparent diameter – the moon can just cover the sun.  This is a configuration of very low probability – which all scientists (even Carl Sagan) insist must be just a coincidence.  Speculation that there was a “cause” or “purpose” for this sun/moon configuration, just at the time humans were emerging, is a taboo topic.

Although creatures that navigate at night show evidence of detecting North-South direction from the night sky, there is no evidence that creatures other than humans attend to star patterns in the night sky. However, much life behavior is tuned to the moon phases, and to the relative movements of the sun. Dung beetles do orient to the Milky Way.

Speculate, for a moment, that if it were not for the total solar eclipse humans might have been delayed many millennia in attending to the night sky, specifically the star patterns – and thus, the rapid advance of our Sci/Tech civilization would have delayed.

I haven’t yet read of an estimation of the probability that the sun and moon would subtend the same arc, with such precision, during the evolutionary rise of humankind. Theory claims that earlier the moon was closer and is moving away. With the moon closer, solar eclipses would be much more frequent and taken as a regular “weather” phenomenon by creatures living on the earth at that time.  Later, when the moon is further out, there would be no total solar eclipses and no deep darkening.

Those with eyes able to focus on stars still may not attend to the stars.  We often don’t attend to phenomena that don’t influence us and are not “sudden”, to attract our attention. Individual humans probably noticed the stars occasionally, in the clear night sky, but those experiences were never socially relevant.  That is, until they saw the stars in the daytime, during a total solar eclipse. Seeing constellations in daytime that were then seen only in other seasons at night was probably a significant feature.

Animals are fearful of lightning and thunder, as harbingers of trouble. Do animals see rainbows? Animals react to environmental changes, and there is probably lore about animal behavior during eclipses. I expect there is no evidence of other animals forecasting eclipses.

Very early humans probably treated total solar eclipses as they treated storms.  They adapted.  Later, in advanced tribal times with social structure and shamans, the total solar eclipse became significant.  Are there ancient artworks of eclipses?  What records do we have of early shamans and eclipses?  The role of shamans in human history is very significant, but I won’t go into it here.

Shamans and tribal cultures could elevate eclipses to significant religious events. When shamans could predict solar eclipses with some accuracy they could command much more respect. I have read that total solar eclipses could have been forecast approximately, in tribal times, from basic information available to shamans.

The lack of total accuracy was actually advantageous for the shaman.  He would have the tribe perform rituals to keep the eclipse away (the moon eating the sun); if the prediction failed and there was no eclipse, the ritual was successful.  If the ritual failed, more ritual during the eclipse would assist the shaman in bringing back the sun.  Failure of tribal persons to properly perform the ritual would be cited for the reason the eclipse happened.

Although total solar eclipses are rather frequent somewhere on Earth, they are far less frequent at any specific location: averaging about one every 375 years, many generations. Total solar eclipses would be in the lore of a culture, not a periodic occurrence. Partial eclipses would have been more frequent.

Being able to predict solar eclipses motivated some tribal persons, especially shamans, to attend to the details of the night sky, which launched humankind on it path towards sci/tech civilizations.

The stars provide no useful energy to the Earth. The night sky is pure information. There are the fixed pattern of most stars in relation to each other (the constellations) and the uniform rotation of the overall pattern, varying over each evening and over the seasons.

An early phenomenon that attracted explicit human attention was the changing/unchanging patterns of the starry night sky. They invented ways to improve observation and make records. South Sea islanders learned to use the night sky to navigate thousands of miles in open sea – to Hawaii.

The star field was the first example of invariance. The pattern of a constellation (whether lines between stars, or the spaces between the lines – a cultural variation) was fixed. And yet, it changed in a truly regular ways. The night sky was the exemplar of regularity.

Geological and biological features always exhibit variation. Even mountains look different during different weather conditions.  The night sky became the primary phenomenon for the emergence of mathematics and science for millennia.

The retrograde motion of the brightest “stars” (planets) was the first major scientific challenge, which took millennia  to solve – a process that motivated the creation of instruments, observational procedures, data recording, and mathematical representations – scientific tools and techniques that evolved quickly to be applied to other phenomena. Our solar system, not phenomena on Earth’s surface, was the first for humans to “cut their scientific teeth”.

Where might we be if we hadn’t total solar eclipses to prematurely launch us through our scientific, industrial, and now digital revolutions? Would we have electricity, let alone computers?

In NU GENESIS, I speculate that the Earth/Moon system, set for total solar eclipses, was “somehow caused” by Gaia, to provide Gaia/Earth with the technology to avoid the next asteroid caused major extinction.  Gaia recovered (and gained from) each prior extinction; but another major extinction would wipe out all higher life forms (all mammals and birds). This was risky, as the premature technological advancement outstripped our human systems organization, which now threatens a major extinction of our own making. Might this knowledge of our purpose for Gaia motivate us to avoid the disaster ahead?  Abandoning technology is not an option, for it is needed for us to avoid future asteroid collisions. Contemporary science isn’t at a level to discover what may have “caused” the Earth/Moon system to be as it is now. Nor, should a lack of explanation justify scientific establishments from accepting this as a challenge. Unfortunately, established science does just that; as evidenced by the rejection of Continental Drift data, until plate tectonics provided an explanation.

be a useful Creation Myth
to assist us, facing our

COMMENT ON : The New Human Rights Movement: Reinventing the Economy to End Oppression, by Peter Joseph

Although this book shares with UPLIFT (Up2Met) longterm and significant goals, it is an example of what UPLIFT attempts to reveal has a major flaw – focus on one (or only a few) paradigms as THE “cause/solution”.

The flaw in achieving big goals (ending many problems) with simple (small independent variables) solutions is that the Temporal Implementation of any set of project/objectives to achieve the change requires other changes, not addressed.


The Zeitgeist Movement – (founded by Peter Joseph) does exhibit elements of what I might imagine to occur in an UPLIFT Movement. Exploring their online info (not their 320 page book) I see their focus is primarily about somehow transforming the Capitalist system, with little thought to the organization of a new humanity, beyond a reformed economy and monetary system. To me, that a better humanity will automatically emerge from this socioeconomic transformation is (typical human) naiveté. Joseph seems to have a perspective of sociological determinism, which seems in conflict with his objectives to influence change.


It may appear that UPLIFT also focuses on only one objective:  Uplifting the Distribution of Cognitive Competencies in the Global Human Population, significantly and by means consistent with our best Sci/Tech and accounting for the real potentials/limitations of humankind.

ANY program that doesn’t include a strong emphasis on UPLIFTING, is doomed to failure. The current distribution of Cognitive Competencies in humankind is grossly inadequate to engage our Crisis-of-Crises challenges, with accelerating MSC (Magnitude/Scope/Complexity).

Economic change must and will accompany UPLIFT. UPLIFT accepts the current “state” of humankind and doesn’t propose quick&easy solutions. Magical Awakenings of Everyone is a pipe-dream that blocks viable actions. Economic Centered proposals are also grossly insufficient; although how humans acquire, exchange resources is essential – but shouldn’t be the singular or dominant concern.

Almost everyone concerned with our future propose somewhat specific objectives and goals, while criticizing our current systems and ways.

A human-nature flaw is for humans to confuse stating an objective (solving a problem) as implying they have a solution (to the problem). This is a common delusion. Also, most humans are prone to simple cause-effect solutions; whereas the changes-over-time required by our real challenges involves much greater MSC, and simple causality is inadequate.

Peter Joseph’s intention to remove the class structure of civilization unconsciously implies its continuation, by not facing the impossiblity of most contemporary humans comprehending his goals and operational-plans (if they exist) without significant uplifting, and even be resistant to any attempts to “educate” them.  UPLIFT accepts this challenge. The current epidemic of polarization (The Trump Phenomenon) should illustrate the powerful barrier to change that we face. In this age of silos, informing is a grossly insufficient tactic, in the absence of any coherent strategy for emergence.

Over the decades, I have failed to share the basic insights of UPLIFT (in its many variations) with those who DO respect my mind and DO seek to comprehend, often personal friends or colleagues. The best (historical and contemporary) minds attempting to comprehend human systems change appear unaware of the simplicity of their best efforts. Capitalism vs Alternatives is a cartoon, even when it involves sophisticated mathematics and empirical testing in real systems.

What each individual human “experiences” about the whole of humankind is a highly distorted, tiny fragment – however believed to be their “true and objective wrld”. That Nobel Prize scientists share (at different levels) this same delusion with the uneducated points to a intrinsic limitation of the human brain. This limitation is complex, but might be characterized by Georg Miller’s 7+/-2 Law: limiting the number of independent variables for a “system” a human is capable of attending to in their “realtime” specious present.

Modern humans have invented sophisticated mathematical tools and models to work with and represent systems with far more independent variables. This has not relieved this biological/psychological limitation for holding more compext systems “in our minds”. Nor has our ability to LIST ten to even hundreds of variables, helped. Indeed, it appears that for thinking about real systems (beyond remembering random digits) the limitation is more 2 or 3. Yet, because we can talk about more complex system, we have the delusion that we can “imagine” them and “work with them in our conscious minds”.

Individual humans can have systems with a few more independent variables organized in their “subconscious minds” and move their attention – sequentially – through different sets of 3D perspectives.

My lack of mental imagery (in all sensory modes) appears to have enabled me to move more freely between many, different 3D perspectives and that my subconscious (nuet) has a more general system than others – whose mental imagery limits the scope of their inner wrld. My lack of imagery also enables me to LIVE COMPLEMENTARITY: to not demand any small set of variables to emotionally become an “objective” reality.

Here I begin to wander into the many dimensional reality, for which this mode of discourse is inadequate.



While being motivated to start this composing process, the phrase Epistemic Shift came to mind, with association to the works of Michel Foucault, specifically The Order of Things. That book, is one of the most influential books catalyzing a major step in the emergence of my “epistemic system”. I googled “epistemic shift” and discovered it well in use. I might attribute Foucault for providing me with an introduction to the conceptual scheme, “epistemic shift”, which I quickly identified as a good label for what I was undergoing.

This led to Distinctions between Paradigms and Perspectives (and    Barriers), and between singular shifts, systems of shifts, and cascades of shifts. The term “paradigm” has gained many different meanings since first used by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. In my analysis, Kuhn initially used the term “paradigm” to label a habitual social behavior practiced by a given population, usually a scientific “discipline”. Users began to generalize use of the term to include “ideas”, “conceptual schemes”, or “mental perspectives”. Kuhn later began to use the term without distinguishing between “behavior” or “idea”. I find this distinction very important, and use the term “paradigm” in Kuhn’s original sense for a habitual social behavior. Paradigms and Perspectives are usually paired.


What has only recently become sharply explicit, is that these “shifts” occur with great variation between persons, all exposed to a “common milieu” where the shifts are occurring in their conversant population. And, even more importantly, that many populations within 21st Century humankind have not yet undergone these historical shifts.


PARTIAL LIST OF  labels for prior EPISTEMIC SHIFTS (rough)

Classical Space + Time to SpaceTime Relativity
Classical Reality to Quantum Reality
Linear Thinking to Non Linear Thinking
Separate Origins to Evolution (of Species) – All Life is Related
Geocentric to Heliocentric
Resemblances to Temporal Order (Foucault)
Opinion & Belief to Formal Empiricism & Science
Oral to Visual Languages
Hunting/Gathering to Agriculture
Reading as Ritual to Silent Reading is OK
Social to Societal
Geometric to Algebraic to Computerized Math
Many gods to Father GOD to Spirituality/Atheism
After-Life  to  No After-Life
2D to 3D Perspective in Art
Esoteric Myths to Scientific Causation
Males Superior to Gender Equality
Children as Little Adults to Stage Development
Humans Rule/Own their Environments to Humans Part of Gaia

We need to sort these into those relating to the external world and those related to human systems; although they are never fully independent.

What is important, is not to assume that all humans have made each shift. There are populations of humans who continue to live in the old epistemes. Some of the new epistemes are held by a minority of humans.

Is this long prologue necessary?  We need to better comprehend prior epistemic shifts if we are to explore whether we are now experiencing a new shift – possibly greater and somewhat different from prior shifts.

Here I will assume we have explored prior shifts, and I will jump in with reports of what Larry/nuet groks as a new “Epistemic Shift” emerging

I haven’t yet attempted to analyze how much I have already integrated with some of these nu shifts, and how much I am speculating (in the context of old epistemes) the coming shifts – evidenced by the turmoil contemporary within humankind’s Crisis-of-Crises.


Somewhere I read that the shift to gender equality, among the scientifically knowledgeable, was motivated by the science of genetics. Once it was recognized that both mother and father contribute “equally” to the traits of their offspring, both parents must be cared for. With the prior metaphor of Father=Seed & Mother=Soil, the genders could be treated differently, with the primary traits in the Seed. After Darwin and genetics we learned that both genders contribute seeds.

What we don’t yet know, because it has never been a query: What persons and populations don’t know this scientific fact and it’s implications. What is the distribution of these epistemic differences in the global population? I would wager the vast majority of 21st Century humankind don’t comprehend this.

The point of this illustration is that a shift in knowledge (source of traits) can catalyze major shifts in behavior among those accepting this knowledge. That full gender equality doesn’t yet exist in this small population (scientifically knowledgeable) demonstrates that we must consider multiple and interacting shifts to result in the bigger changes we desire.

[The latest Google flap about gender differences illustrates the sensitivity to this issue. There may be greater depth to the comments by the fired employee than is reported by the MSM. In an RT article, it is claimed that the author called for the removal of discrimination due to imagined differences, to account for real differences (what they are is controversial), and in particular – is in support of equal wages for genders. RT and CNN are both propaganda arms of their respective nations. If so, this illustrates how our epistemes influence our perception and how few actually read what they are willing to comment on. I have just read the Google memo – which explicitly mentions “echo chambers” in Google.  I see a battle of epistemes, requiring deep and careful analysis – and not summary judgement. This is epistemic, in the same sense that the current debate about racial/ethnic quotas in college admissions, is rooted in epistemes, although also involving socio-economic variables and personal vs collective “rights”.]


humankind to HUMANITY (h2H)

This is a symbol (h2H) I will use to label the whole system of shifts we are now within. I cannot “define” it briefly; nor describe different features without shifting the focus from the whole to that part being described. When doing this, each part is experienced by the learner in their old (epistemic) context. From the perspective of the new whole (once comprehended), each part is comprehended differently (than before); with modified relationships between the “parts”. “Whole/Part” is a crude metaphor for the process I refer to.

Given all that has been and is happening, we should expect to be undergoing major epistemic shifts.  Yet, most persons who report significant, life-changing “paradigm shifts” DON’T ANTICIPATE any further such PERSONAL shifts. We never imagine a nesting of Platonic Caves.



I speculate that this epistemic shift is more characterized by the positive interference of the different component paradigm/perspective shifts. than by the component paradigm/perspective shifts, themselves. The pattern in the network of related nodes (paradigm/perspective shifts) will be one characterization/identity of this “doozy” of a shift – should we survive it and later examine it in retrospect. It will involve many more paradigm/perspective shifts, with more interactions between shifts.

Vernor Vinge’s claim that Post-Singularity Reality will be incomprehensible to Pre-Singularity humans applies to the nu epistemic shift we are undergoing. This proves true in the fact that all science (speculative) fiction of the distant future is populated by 20th Century humans (in all their diversity) – even when they are given special traits or powers. Do we resist the fundamental shifts that are our potential and need because we can’t imagine the resultant “state” after the shift? How can we learn to TRUST uncertain change?

The meanings of many older terms change after epistemic shifts; with new distinctions and differentiations. New terms will be coined to label new concepts. Only some by explicit design. Some concepts (re terms) were known to a few; but unknown to many and seldom applied.



(very rough)

Human Cognitive Diversity

Mental Imagery Diversity
Lacking Mental Imagery
Memory Style Diversity
Creativity Diversity
Specious Present Diversity
Consider Impact: Brain Matures until age 26
Reconsider: Infant & Child Development
Persons are S/R Mechanisms with Their Environments
Creativity Emits/Emerges, not in Response – but in Context
7 +/- 2 bandwidth limit – independent variables in specious present
Confabulated Experiential Coherence
Humankind more than a Species – Class or Order
Languaging: Power & Limitations; Evolution/Emergence
Confusions about Consciousness

Humankind vs Material Reality

Information Liberation – Sems & Semfields
Wrlds within Worlds -Autopoiesis & Others
Sci/Tech of Humankind different from Sci/Tech of Material Reality
Sci/Tech of Humankind far inferior to Sci/Tech of Material reality

Sci/Tech of Material Reality  == cosmology, physics, chemistry, biology, neurosciences, molecular biology, genetics  – where whole human persons are not components of systems studied.

Molecular – Beads, Strings, Fabrics
Metaphors – Pros & Cons
Mathematical: Theories vs Poetry

Sci/Tech of Humankind  == psychology, education, medicine, sociology, economics, political science  – where whole human persons are components of systems studied.

Fake Realities – There are no Humankind Sci/Tech Facts
Personal / Social / Societal
Complementarity of Perspectives
Epistemes / Paradigms / Perspectives / Barriers
~50 Human Limitations Recognized, but Ignored
Quman – Societal Reality and (Quantum-like) Weirdness
Beyond Education – LQE (Learners for Quality Education)
Beyond Economic/Political Centrism
Beyond Individualism/Collectivism
Real Creative Agency vs Illusion of Free Will
Relevant Knowledge Ignored by Elites & Decision Makers
Comprehending Belief
Processing Structure / Structuring Process
Owning Children: Parental/Child/Social Rights?
Denial of Potential for Future PERSONAL Major Paradigm Shifts
Preserving Traditions
Rituals as Habit-Breaking Performances

reeee seaf galdee nu

criteria for action = relevant/effective/efficient/enjoyable/elegant
help = support/enable/augment/facilitate
change = grow/adapt/learn/develop/evolve/emerge
NU = name for Humanity after Up2Met
here&now contains pasts and futures
Transformation vs Emergence
Spiral Dynamics – Stages of Development
Conceptual Schemes
Nested/Networked Participatory Apps
Nu Visual Languages & Apps
Goal = Intended Consequence of System of Successful Objectives
Distinguish & Apply: Formative vs Summative Evaluations


Cultural/Societal Metamorphosis
Bootstrap Uplift Scaffolding
Colab Studios
Scripting Performance / Performing Scripts
humankind to HUMANITY (h2H)
Nu Genesis Myth
Earth Changes BEYOND Climate Changes
Multi-Billennial Survival/Thrival of Humanity/Gaia
Ownership vs Operational Management
This Great Day – a transition model
Releasing Blocked Exponentially Emergent Potential



FeedPast Bootstrapping
Holistic Determination
Nu Genesis
New Phenomena Discovered
Planetary Semfields – Uplifting Other Species (David Brin)
Contact with “Alien” Planetary Semfields
Significant Life Extension
Genetic/Bio Engineering of Humans
Humanity & Intelligent Machines