The term “adaptation” is in frequent use by those concerned about the future of humankind and Gaia.

I find the implications of the term “adaptation” limiting to what humankind can do. Humans can be assumed to have creative agency. Through “adaptation”, this creative agency is to be applied to the changing roles of humans and humankind in their changing environments. This focus seems to preclude humankind emerging aspects for its own internal functioning that are not determined by or related to their environment. The environment must be considered, but some human changes are not done with any intent for “adapting”.

This focus also appears to preclude strategic actions by humankind to systemically change their environment, not adapt to it. Unfortunately, this is what humankind has foolishly been doing for millennia, and we are now on course altering our environment such as to threaten our very extinction.

It is true, that humans and humankind will always be functional within some environment, which will both limit and enable what they can and cannot do. Humans have the competencies to create their own environments (e.g., on a space station, or when I spent 14 months on the glacier in Antarctica).

We may also think of each human person adapting to their social environments. Growing up can be viewed as an adaptation process. However, the current myth of Western Culture has each person attempting to find their “true self” through “free will”, which involves both adapting to and manipulating their environments. The powerful role on the environment on determining who we are growth-up is grossly underestimated.

Artists and musicians would resist viewing their creations as adaptation.

Although from an outside perspective, once we have worked our way through our Crisis-of-Crises, including Climate Change, it could be described as adaptation. We would have adjusted human processes to be in better relationships with Gaia and Earth. And, this appears the focus of our research today; what can humans and humankind do to curtail greenhouse gas emissions and begin recovery. But, we would do more than adapt, we would also attempt to modify our current environment, if only to repair damage done. But, it is our environment that is attracting our attention as we seek ways of adapting to more and more disasters. We seek to BOTH adapt to the consequences of ongoing climate change AND change our ways so that the causes of climate change will be altered.

THIS IS DANGEROUS, THIS FOCUS ON ADAPTATION.  We acknowledge that human activity has caused the increase of greenhouse gases, and that we have done other damage to the biosphere. Why do we assume that we can significantly change the “ways of humankind” so that we can do what is needed?

Our most critical task is to rapidly and significantly change humankind so that it will be able to implement those actions needed for adapting to climate change and other challenges from our environment. If you are aware of the Theater of the Absurd springing up everywhere on this globe, you may wonder is this assumption that “civilization can be significantly transformed” might be questioned.

Some, who are deeply aware of all of the above, have concluded that humankind will soon become extinct. Their “sacred activism” is to “go out” with grace, and assist others to do the same. I would be with them if I wasn’t aware of a viable out: UPLIFT to Societal Metamorphosis

I am confident that humankind has the potential competencies to beat climate change; especially if a growing population of uplifted persons can apply their new competencies to the challenge.

What deeply concerns me is whether humankind-without-uplifting will let itself actualize those competencies. Again, we must be concerned with “adaptation”. If change agents attempt to organize themselves and then attempt to transform our societal systems and institutions – to adapt to their societal environment and change it – they may fail. Some systems get so large, complex, and dysfunctional that they can’t be saved or significantly transformed. It is possible that our corporations, governments, and other societal systems — all in turbulence — cannot significantly change to properly address climate change. As I write this, a possible next POTUS claims climate change is a hoax and that there is no drought in California. A large and growing population of humans elevate personal belief and opinion far above scientific evidence and rational analysis. Frankly, it is “the people” that concern me most, not “the leaders”; the global human population may severely lack the distribution of competencies and systems to transform. Fortunately, there is an alternative to transformation: creative emergence.

UPLIFT to Societal Metamorphosis is a hypothetical system of strategies/scenarios that proposes a way out of the above dilemma. In UPLIFT, a nu humanity self-organizes utilizing the best Sci/Tech available without attempting to transform its societal environment – the rest of humankind. UPLIFT attracts persons one-by-one to itself, and implementing an OLLO process (Organizing-for-Learning=&=Learning-for-Organizing), self-creates a nu social organism – a societal butterfly. Strategically, UPLIFT will take control of the material infrastructure of humankind away from its owners (financial and political) and then direct the transformation of that material infrastructure to dodge the worst of climate change and move on to a glorious millennial future.

I am well aware, that on first examination, this appears highly impossible. There is nothing specific I can say briefly that would convince you of the viability of UPLIFT. It will take time and your commitment to challenge many of you assumptions about “human nature”.  If you accept that the best of business as usual will not save us, then it may be in your and our best interest to explore the conceptual scheme of UPLIFT.

Strategies-of-Strategies for Crises-of-Crises

Solutionatiques for Problematiques

whatever we do
a more competent, knowledgeable, compassionate, organized
would be a positive.

why then, is improving humankind
not a primary intent of activists;
but treated as a consequence that will follow
actions from our  current levels/distribution of competencies?

possibly because activists
have a greatly inaccurate assessment of
the real potentials of OLLO
(Organizing-for Learning=&=Learning-for-Organizing),
partly due to their own negative experiences with

partly also, because
activists avoid longterm/global STRATEGY thinking,
mis-interpreted as too “top-down”, too complex, rigid planning,
and where they lack “expertise”.

Because activists talk about “systems thinking”
they assume they are sufficiently knowledgeable and
are already applying that knowledge to their activism.

The quality/extent of our activism
must be commensurate with the

of our challenges.


No “activist
(person, team, community, sysnet, or movement),
no matter the high quality of their tactics, strategies & commitments,
can succeed in achieving their objectives/goals
without viable & sufficient
with fellow “activists
(persons, teams, communities sysnets, or movements),.

is a temporary label for the “whole” of our intended endevour,
including both mind and body,
conscious & pre-conscious, social & societal,
extended in-time and in-space.

Our CHALLENGE is beyond experiencing;
but can be “embedded” in the “whole” of humankind,
pre-consciously collectivised as potential,
capable of actualization.

of our
is far, far beyond
what humankind has ever previously encountered.
No previous solutions will work,
as our challenge is NOT A PROBLEM to solve.

No person or group, no matter how accomplished,
can adequately comprehend at the requisite MSC levels.

The awesome MSC & Beauty of “Reality”
is far, far beyond the full cognitive grasp of humankind,
let alone individual humans,
in this early stage of our evolution/emergence.

On The Other Hand,
Humankind’s readily actualizable potentials
are more than adequate.
Awareness and acceptance of this gift is blocked
by our addiction to the myth of
Individual Consciousness as THE CENTER.

CHALLENGE  = (commensurate) = Crises-of Crises

Piecemeal activism
within the context of
the Problem/Solution paradigm
will not suffice.
We must do more than “think outside boxes”,
we must abandon the nested boxes metaphor as inadequate.

This meta-perspective is not new.
It is behind Second Order Cybernetics‘s Law of Requisite Variety,
and behind the Club of Rome‘s thinking
about Limits of Growth.
However, it is much more than these, and
has yet to be utilized by our best actions.

Activists do much that is good, relevant, & necessary;
but there is much no one is doing, that is ESSENTIAL.
Few, if any, propose such doings,
none are adequately pursued,
and most deny the need, if they comprehend the need.

WHY?  – later


APPLICATION for Earth Change Crisies-of-Crises

Earth > Climate > Warming
Climate Change is unique in its potential catastrophic impact,
and the very short timelines for action.

our Climate Change Crisis-of-Crises is not
what changing climate will do to Humankind/Gaia,
which is the effect, not the cause.
Our primary Challenge
is to radically change the thinking/behavior of humankind,
so as to implement the many viable actions
humans can take to quickly stop
greenhouse gas increase in the atmosphere,
and moderate the effect of existing Climate Change.

No amount of Sci/Tech innovation relevant to Climate Change
will be meaningful to our Crisis/Challenge unless they are implemented,
which will require the participation of
the whole of Humankind.

Our Current Situation
It should be evident that:

1) Most leaders and people don’t comprehend
the criticality of our Crisis-of-Crises.
The world they “know”, patterns of activity in their brain,
simply don’t contain the relevant information
organized in a manner to be comprehended.
Their worldviews are reinforced by their environments
with deep defense mechanism that resist change.

2) No means
currently being used or proposed to be used,
working within the current societal and infrastructure systems can
significantly change this global distribution of worldviews.
Even our “best” remain trapped in information silos and
calls for collective actions don’t gain traction.
Many complain, but no one is really ready to change.

3) There is no evidence any “miracles” can happen.
“Awakenings” never occur as imagined.
Even if they did, what
competencies humankind would possess when awakened, and
what they would quickly need to learn,
has not been seriously considered.

4) Likewise, i
t is  pipe dream that humankind would
quickly re-emerge in sustainable systems
after a major collapse.
Disaster can mobilize small groups of people to
take powerful collective actions for survival,
but this is never the case for large, diverse populations.


To act in ways we haven’t done before or
currently planning to act.


1) Human, human social/societal systems, “human nature”, Humankind
are not as our best, established scientific minds claim.
The diversity of views on “humanness”
by the varied cultures on Earth is very great.

The Sci/Tech of human systems
(systems where human persons are basic components)
is far, far, far less developed
than the Sci/Tech of material systems
where human person are not components
(cosmology, physics, chemistry, biology, geology).

2) A new Sci/Tech of human systems is
“bursting at its seams” to rapidly emerge.
Much of our quality, partial knowledge of human systems
needs only to reinterpreted and organized,
to lead the whole of global humankind
on an UPLIFTing expedition
to rapidly acquire the requisite
insights and competencies
to “dodge the bullet” of catastrophic Climate Change.

3) Humans are “paradoxical”:
they are both
very resistant  & very easy
to change.

Changing human thinking and behavior
doesn’t require great amounts of physical energy;
uplifting humankind’s collective cognitive competencies
won’t worsen Gaia or aggravate Climate Change.

Personal & Social change must be integrated,
and progress spirally to higher and higher levels.

We now have the intelligent technology
to determine and account for
the vast cognitive diversity within humankind.
This will greatly accelerate
the emergence of a nu Humanity.

4) UPLIFTing Humankind is not a top-down process,
it will not be directed or managed by elites.
It will be generative, bootstrapping, & self-organizing,
but not grassroots or bottom-up, either.

Emergent nu Humanity
will be both nested and networked
(systems, networks, holarchies, ecologies).

Patterns, Personal to Planetary,
are all real & relevant.
(neighborhood, community, region, …. , global)

The nu humanizing process
will be designed to “go viral”.
The designing will be continuous, and
participated in by all.

No mass organizing or broadcasting.
Recruitment of new members to the UPLIFT movement,
will be by small team invitation of persons,
with personalized orientation and meaningful involvement.
The process for each person,
within UPLIFT, for all time
must be personalized.
It will also be tailored to
different cultures, languages, and situations.

The whole UPLIFT process can grow exponentially,
involving a majority of humankind in a decade.
This, seemingly impossible objective is accomplished
by utilizing more accurate Sci/Tech knowledge about humankind.
Also, the first task/responsibility of a new member
is to be part of a team recruiting new members.
to ensure exponential growth.

Exponential population growth
of the UPLIFT movement
is the prime factor,
in view of our Crisis-of-Crises.

Ensuring UPLIFT is always
the best possible process for all
will best ensure its success.

< < < < |MORE TO COME| > > > >

The above is not sufficient to convince anyone,
no small or even large presentation will suffice.
That we continue attempting to influence anyone
with singular processes is one root of our difficulty.

We need a new sharing/educational process/system:
(Organizing-for Learning=&=Learning-for-Organizing)

EPIGENETICS CONTROVERSY – Political or Scientific


How epigenetics can blur the line between nature and nurture 
by   Siddhartha Mukherjee
Author of new book:
The Gene: An Intimate History

Recommended by a dear friend, Jamie Lantz,  I read The New Yorker article with great interest. It was a creative essay that wove together identical twins, family, personal experience, and speculation on the newness of epigenetics.

I was puzzled by a single paragraph where Mukherjee talks about a very strange cell – ” Where Allis describes “Tetrahymena as carrying two very distinct collections of genes”. That is the case also for insects that metamorphose – each cell of the caterpillar and butterfly have two nuclii, one for each form. Then the topic was dropped and there was nothing about how that assisted in their study.

“Allis soon found his ideal subject: a bizarre single-celled microbe called Tetrahymena. Blob-shaped cells surrounded by dozens of tiny, whiskery projections called cilia, Tetrahymena are improbable-looking—each a hairy Barbapapa, or a Mr. Potato Head who fell into a vat of Rogaine. “Perhaps the strangest thing about this strange organism is that it carries two very distinct collections of genes,” he told me. “One is completely shut off during its normal life cycle and another is completely turned on. It’s really black-and-white.” Then, during reproduction, an entirely different nucleus wakes up and goes into action. “So we could now ask, What signal, or mechanism, allows Tetrahymena to regulate one set of genes versus the next?”

I then discovered, since I had to Google search to find the article, that this New Yorker article has given rise to a great controversy.  I accessed 3 articles that refer to it. The first summarizes the controversy, the other two contain the actual critiques by other scientists.  I have only skimmed the 2 very long articles.  My take is that his critics took his piece as a scientific statement, which it wasn’t – but it could be seen as such by those without scientific backgrounds.

Mukherjee apparently has responded point-by-point to his critics, and they WERE online – as reported in the comments – but I have yet to locate them.  It appears that the continuing debate has been removed from public access.  It will be interesting to see how a future issue of The New Yorker reports this controversy.

Mukherjee’s article (Ma) did leave out much and would give a biased view – to someone expecting it to be comprehensive.  But, what was deeper in the emotionality of the ctitics (and even more in the comments to the long articles) is Mukherjee SPECULATION that epigenetic heredity was possible. That he used Lamark was viewed by some as a crime, associating it with Lysenko. Mukherjee was CLEAR that he was speculating on the possibility of epigenetic transfer across generations. He acknowledged it was controversial.

It was strange , for me first reading Ma ,that it first talked about epigenetics within a cell and species – with NO MENTION of inheritance – because the “Lamarkian” inheritance aspect was ALL I had previously known about epigenetics – from my random reading.  I knew it was controversial, but not aware of the extent.

I also sense in some of his critics that they might also object to scientists writing for non-scientists.  I thought this was left behind decades ago.  Carl Sagan was dismissed by many astrophysicists because of his lay writing.  I believe that a careful read of the critical articles would be very informative about the controversial field of epigenetics.

Certainly Ma was far, far from a quality explication of the topic.  Were I an expert in the field I might have also objected to Ma. On the other hand, I really liked his metaphors about the gene and the other material that can also contain codes. He was clear, in my view, in simplifying epigenetics as epi–genetics. That he didn’t cite ALL the different ways epigenetics might work is not critical for the objective of his essay.  Also, that other means (e.g., transcription) are cited today as more potent in epigenetics than what M cited, may not be the case tomorrow.  I recently read how the physical proximity (IN THE COILED chromosome) of two genes (very distant ON THE SAME STRAND) is an important factor.  We are SO FAR from adequately comprehending this that the anger of M’s critics embarrasses me – acting like politicians. Their critique was NOT a scientific critique, but political.

ADAPT or COLLAPSE, Transform or Emerge

Reading the comments in this post/thread depressed me more than anything I have read in months. I am forced to get this out of my head, NOW [ 4/29/2016 ], as I am about to write about a chapter of a book read a few days ago – that was the MOST encouraging thing I have read in many months.  I am writing this before reading the thread again – and I may have mis-read.

[ 5/6/2016 ] In the week since I composed the following there have been many more comments added to the thread, including an interesting diversion into folk music. Yet, there was a return to the initial theme about collapse/emergence and CAS (Complex Adaptive Systems).

WE ARE NOT COMPLEX ADAPTIVE SYSTEMS. We are much more. CAS is one of many conceptual models we can apply in our attempts to comprehend “reality” in ways to be useful. Ontology is confused with Epistemology. CAS ignores creative intervention and doesn’t distinguish between transformation and emergence. Humans, in our yet very early stage of evolution/emergence shouldn’t be making claims about objective reality. Such claims, unfortunately embedded in many human languages, is one source of the dysfunction of humankind. CAS may be a very useful tool, to be used in conjunction with other tools.

That all human social/societal activity is materially rooted in the behavior of individual human bodies/brains/minds doesn’t locate a “causal origin” at the level of local human behavior. Information effecting the development of each human individual, from birth to death, contributes strongly to who that person grows up to be and how they will behave (adapt) to their momentary environments. The primary “free-will” agency of humans is not adaptation, but spontaneous, creative insights that modify adaptation/behavior patterns. There are “causal flows” up and down the nested/networked living system holarchy, from organelle to humankind.

What I concluded (on my first reading of this thread) was many persons proposing that the often expressed concern about “collapse” was probably overblown and somehow wrong. I agree that we should avoid hysteria or panic about potential collapse, and that for 5 decades I have championed thinking that humankind can survive/thrive. Indeed, my life mission is to catalyze a process that will ensure multi-millennial survival/thrival of humanity/Gaia. My overall approach is positive and hopeful; but I don’t suppress information about relevant dangers. We are not destined to succeed; we might fail. I felt that the advice was to “relax”, life always adapts, births follow deaths, “all will be well, eventually”. I recognize that contributors view themselves a change agents, and who will continue to be active for positive causes.

I will avoid attempting to define “collapse”. Species do go extinct – after collapse. More species are extinct than now live. Civilizations and societal organizations have collapsed, or ceased to exist. Most didn’t recover, although descendants of some persons did, eventually, reorganize. In that it is scientifically invalid to objectively rank “things” except one dimension at a time, we cannot objectively say that humankind today has “overall” progressed in relation to past eras. We have a lot that is new, both good and bad.

I claim no knowledge about what WILL happen about our Human/Gaian Crisis-of-Crises. All I know comes from the analysis of reports, from often conflicting sources. There are many hypothesized endgames.  The worst is a shift to a Venus-like global heating that wipes out all life, except possibly those that today already live at high temps. At a somewhat  “lesser” level, most multi-celled life could be wiped out – and by “adaptive” processes, multi-celled life might emerge, again, a billion years later.

These extremes cannot be calculated as improbable, as we lack the requisite data to make the calculations. Today I saw a map of the Earth with different climate zones if we increased 4 degrees C above “normal”. We could adapt to grow food on the Antarctic peninsula and in the Arctic. Winds are increasing in force, and doing great damage, and the floods, fires, landslides! What do we know about the distribution of winds and floods (“weather”) during different climate eras? Today, the fact, that most regions devastated by natural disasters are not recovering, is not reported. We are only beginning to experience the local effects of climate change. Our globalized supply chains render us highly fragile. If we weren’t facing severe Earth Changes (beyond Climate Change), a collapse of global civilizations would eventually “adapt” (but lacking the easily available natural resources we had for our first emergence).

Our sun may be entering a cooling phase, which would provide a bit more time to do what we need to do. We avoided prior forecast collapses by technological innovations in food production to counter population increases. Will we be able to do it again? Do you want to gamble? The 1972 Limits of Growth forecast is actually on track. Do you witness exponential growth of positive developments within human systems? All positive improvements plateau. “Exemplars never enter mainstream on their own merits.” Technology fixes some things, but causes other problems. I have recently concluded that the sci/tech of systems with humans as components  is many orders of magnitude behind the sci/tech of non-human systems. Human systems have become more dangerous as they use hitech with outmoded models about human nature and human change. We don’t know who we are, but believe we do.

The systems that emerge from adaptation are not necessarily good. One billion humans living “well” in hi tech domes with wastelands between, which I speculate is a goal for some psychopathic leaders, is not an adaptation I look forward to. I have not explicitly studied CAS theory, but what I read from its adherents, they minimize the role of creative intervention.  We are in this mess because of misguided human intervention, and it may take more intervention to turn things around – so we might relax in a future time when adaptation can again be the OK rule. The metaphor I use for “these times” is attempting to create a wagon train to cross high mountains in the winter, seeking “California” on the other side. With foresight, our expedition can be reeee (relevant, effective, efficient, enjoyable, elegant).

It was the next-to-last chapter in Peers INC by Robin Chase that recently moved me with positive HOPE.  Robin presents a workable model for a new means of living (I want to avoid the term, “economy”), that has the potential to rapidly scale – globally, and possibly moderate the Climate Crisis (of which she is very well informed). I am continually being excited by new discoveries leading to new insights of how dysfunctional humankind can transit (not morph) into a sustainable humanity. However, Robin’s proposed model is the first I have learned of that can be applied by both the dying societal caterpillar (civilization) and by the creatively emergent societal butterfly (NU Humanity).

Actually, in my model, it is only the human systems that undergo societal metamorphosis. The material, infrastructure systems are transformed. Peers INC (or P4P – Platforms for Participation) is the first, workable model for rapid, global infrastructure transformation I have encountered. I have reasons to doubt that contemporary social/societal systems can transform to possess requisite competencies to guide the infrastructure transformation – which is why I promote Human System Metamorphosis.

Yet, Peers INC will not be sufficient. Indeed, Robin’s position in 2007 was basically the same as in her 2015 book. The P4P, Peers INC movement may also plateau. The benefits of Peers INC may not be recognized or valued.

I read another significant book between writing and editing this post.  Hope in the Dark, by Rebecca Solnit.

P4P P&P P2P Viable Innovations/Insights

P4P = Platforms for Participation

P&P = Peers & Platforms  (Peers INC)

P2P = Peer to Peer

A few days ago I was excited with renewed hope while reading the next-to-last chapter in Robin Chase‘s 2015 book: Peers INC.

The whole book was interesting, but I was initially resistive to her subtitle: How People and Platforms Are Inventing the Collaborative Economy and Reinventing Capitalism.  It is a matter of semantics, but “capitalism” is a dirty {econo-centric} word for me; yet she is strategically correct in using it to attract – and not offend – other readers.  She probably has different definitions and connotations than I.

In Chapter 10, “Addressing Our Biggest Challenges, Climate Change and Sustainability Need Peers Inc, Robin “opens up” to her deep concerns about the potentially catastrophic consequences of accelerating climate change. She presents a model for alternative economic organization/processes she had developed earlier in the book, as a practical means for a rapidly scaling transformation to meet the requirements of curbing climate change. Robin demonstrates a rare balance between fully-emotionally acknowledging the scary future and clear-headed thinking/working to attend to the challenge.

The model Robin presents is already being applied and undergoing rapid expansion in the global economy. She didn’t invent it, though she was an early entrepreneur as co-founder of Zipcar, and other Peers INC business ventures.  Although I have long been aware of many variations on the theme of alternative economics (such as:  peer-to-peer, evonomics, people-centered economic development, alternative exchange systems, commons, cyber-currencies, gig economy, etc. )  I have not witnessed their (sustained exponential) growth sufficient for me to believe they will be able to catalyze the overall changes needed.

I have not yet researched how any of these variations view Robin’s Peer INC model. I view her model as more abstract and generative (yet real) to be used in a variety of different domains.  Cited examples of current applications of the Peers INC model include: The Internet, The WWW, Wikipedia, BitCoin, Uber, Zipcar, Buzzcar, Airbnb, Skype, Zoom, oDesk, elance, TaskRabbit, Blablacar, GetAround, Lyft, WhatsApp, MeetUp, Etsy, YouTube, Facebook, DuoLingo, Quirky, TopCoder,, mesh networks , crowdsourcing .

P4P, which I will use now as the label for the model introduced as Peer INC, involves the coupling of two entities/domains: a network of peers/participants and a platform/app that services the network of peers, in a variety of ways depending on the architecture of the platform. Specific instances of P4P continue to emerge, and are not limited to economic activity.  I haven’t yet comprehended how “Block Chain” fits into the picture; as a name for the apps for P4P or some other concept.

My appreciation of Robin Chase contributes to my attending to her P4P model. Her 2007 TED presentation is a great intro. A more recent, 2014 talk about FUEL is concerned directly with the application of P4P with climate change issues. Peer Incorportated  is her blog. Her Twitter account.   Quote: “Lets speed up the pace of evolution to avoid revolution.” In 2014 Robin joined the BOD of Tucows. I associate Robin with another vital woman, Shoshana Zuboff, whose concept of The Support Economy catalyzed my conceptual scheme about SEAFing (Supporting, Enabling, Augmenting, Facilitating). {I just discovered Shoshana’s new interest in “Big other: surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization“.} Robin and P4P renews my interest in SEAFweb {I just re-discovered this doc, and have no memory of composing it.} as another, essential P4P. Indeed, my proposed BUS (Bootstrap UPLIFT Scaffolding) is a P4P.  I wonder if Shoshana and Robin know of each other?

A SEAFweb is essential to seaf how peers can gain access to the info and contacts they need to survive/thrive in the  nearly infinite explosion of sem production. Zuboff envisioned a support economy as a meta-economy to support the first-order economy. SEAFweb generalizes it beyond the economic domain.

In her book, Robin discusses three ways of funding/establishing the INC or Platform. The first two are government (The Internet) and corporations (INC). The analyzes in depth the dangers of too much control by the owners of the platform, and the balance that is needed between peers and platform. The third approach to create Platforms is to use P4P itself: Crowd-Sourcing/Funding (10 platforms 22 platforms).


(Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Enjoyability, Elegance)
(Platforms for Participation)

P4P is reeee for me because of the light it shines on its context (within nuet).

P4P is an up-welling, evolutionary force within humankind, not the result of an application of clear, comprehensive ideas. Its emergence is by bootstrap. The conceptual scheme for P4P is also emerging in this process, and is not yet complete.

Yet, for Larry/nuet, P4P provides a concrete, workable mechanism to rapidly re-organize our local-to-global destructive processes to quickly reduce greenhouse gas emissions (and other destructive behaviors) and “Dodge the Bullet”.

Is there a P4P application for turning around population growth?

The path and outcome of the interactions of P4P with industrial/financial capitalism is unknown. A successful transition is not ensured, as many other factors are involved and the time is short.   SEAFweb and UPLIFT may be necessary.

The conceptual scheme of P4P consolidates for nuet a recently emerging distinction I am discovering in my UPLIFT conceptual scheme.

  1. The metamorphosis of the human-human social/societal sysnets, and
  2. The transformation of the material infrastructure of humankind.

The absence of this distinction may be one reason that the viability of my proposed Societal Metamorphosis was not adequately comprehended. We don’t attempt to transform (morph) governments, corporations, or other “organizations” or “institutions”. On the other hand, grids, buildings, farms, roads, bridges will be transformed (which includes destruction and new construction).

For example, Supply Chain Systems must be carefully transformed to minimize disruption. This cannot be accomplished with the involvement of owners and financers, as such transformations will not be in their (selfish) interests. They are not relevant stakeholders in the nu emergent humanity. On the other hand, operational managers may partake in OLLO processes [Organizing-for-Learning=&=Learning-for-Organizing], and be participants in the transformation processes.

The UPLIFT conceptual scheme acknowledges the powerful symbiosis between the mental perspectives of persons and the societal and physical structures they live/work within. Dismantling this symbiosis and creating a new symbiosis is an explicit challenge for the OLLO process of UPLIFT.

It is an interesting speculation as to how the P4P Movement may impact on the Localization Movement (which appears to have slowed in growth of participation and agendas) and the emerging Local Security-from-Disasters movement.


Many of the drivers view the management of the UBER platform as pimps. Robin proposes a series of stages a P4P must go through, and many are yet in transition or have slipped out of the sequence. The balance between the two Ps is fragile, as it reflects the balance between personal/self-interest and collective-holistic-interest; between need/greed and the commons.

Can/should there be a limit to the size of a P4P?  Do we need meta P4Ps to seaf smaller P4Ps?  How will the different P4Ps interact? Taking into account the vast diversity of cognitive competencies of individual persons and the diversity of cultures, how are persons to reeee learn about the changes (past, current, coming ahead)?

How will the warfare between USA/EU and BRICS, and other global/regional conflicts impact the emergence/transformation to P4P? Might the lack of sponsored recovery to natural (including the “natural” of oil spills, etc.) disasters give impetus to P4P?

Both, P4P and our contemporary system resulting from unplanned globalization, depend on digital systems (The Internet). It is imperative that this important, meta P4P be secure to all possible disruptions. We need a network of mesh-networks as BU. If Earth gets washed by an EMP from the sun, we need a “Pony Express” BU manual distribution system for flash drives.


While I remain excited about P4P, this exercise has, again, engaged me with my …WHOLE-Holistic-whole… and our dire need for meta-strategic activity. P4P is but one, significant – to be sure, innovation in a massive zoo of old and new/nu human activities. All this, when we are the edge of discovering that the conceptual schemes we believe and apply about “human nature and change” are mostly myths – partially true to be attractive, but dangerous when applied ideologically.

I am motivated to reFrame BUS for UPLIFT as a P4P. But, MORE must be involved. My own activity is low reeee and unlikely to improve on-its-own. Nuet can generate TODO lists continuously – but they are useless when not processed and implemented. TODO lists for myself, for UPLIFT teams, and for future humanity.

WE need to create/use a P4P for us, now.  WE need a platform well beyond current social media, to a”integrate” Seafed-Cyber-Teams with Emergent-Sem-Fields (SCT/ESF). This I must explicate.

PS-Aside:  During a break in composing/editing this I skim-reviewed a book, UNPRECEDENTED: Can Civilization Survive the CO2 Crisis? by David Ray Griffin (an author I highly respect). It is overdue at the library. t contains a seemingly comprehensive list of recommended actions needed to be taken by different populations and sectors of humankind. What struck me as missing was HOW to motivate/educate/organize so that these actions can occur and synergize. This is typical today, in face of our Crisis-of-Crises challenges: persons recommend actions to be taken. They assume that making the action specific will cause the action to take place.  Politicians are cruder with this process, citing the objectives they will accomplish if elected, as if to point out needs automatically implies they can be met – and they can do it.  Is there a P4P for what we need?

Griffin, and others, reference the efforts to win WWII and Apollo program as exemplars of mega-projects. This analogy may distract us from our primary challenge: changing humankind so it has the competencies to do what is needed. Contemporary humankind is not yet competent to respond to its todo list. We devote our efforts on developing the Sci/Tech of what we can do (with material systems) to curb climate change and recover; but we ignore developing the human-system Sci/Tech for the essential uplifting of the distribution of human competencies to the requisite levels for survival/thrival.4 – so we can apply this knowledge.  Applying our current human-system Sci/Tech is inadequate; a fact we must quickly learn to accept.

Conferences & Consciousness

reflections on conscious experiences
a conference on consciousness

This morning, 4/28/2016, I set my alarm, which didn’t go off – but I woke anyway, to attend one session of a scientific conference on the nature of consciousness.  I stayed for only this one session. It was worth my time and effort,  for a variety of reasons. I chose not to attend the second session (on a topic of low interest).

In SUMMARY, I gained:

1) Useful information, in a quality presentation, on the limits of the 50 years experimental research that proposed to demonstrate that the brain makes a decision a short duration before a person becomes aware of making the decision.  More recent experiments demonstrate that the rise in readiness potential is not caused by a subconscious (brain) decision, but is only part of the random variation of brain processes. This doesn’t confirm the existence of “free-will”, but removes one, often cited, argument proposing “free-will” is an illusion. The value of this research was acknowledged by many.

2) The professional debate about consciousness, agency and free-will remains as confused and divided as before. All panel presentations were from different contexts. Yet, no one appears to consider “context” as affecting their experiences leading to their own ideas. This is not the place to survey all the variety of opinion (as there is no hard evidence), or hypotheses as to why these opinions arose and are defended.

3) The topic of “retro–time” or “backward flow of time” were mentioned frequently, from both interpretations of Quantum Theory (translation) and from  the psychology and neuroscience of the experience of the Flow of Time (FOT).  I need to followup on the work of Ron Gruber  (who said TIME will be the next major scientific revolution”, which I have been claiming for a long time). In one panel presentation, I comprehended nothing (due to accent), but did note the important distinction between spatial and temporal entanglement , which I had not thought of before. I realize that I have not attempted to relate these findings with my ideas of temporal texture and feedpast bootstrapping.

4) A reinforcement of my long-term analysis that large conferences of this type are both obsolete and grossly ineffective in furthering the spread of knowledge. They are better than nothing, but violate all our best knowledge about learning and communication.


QUALIFICATION: Even with a hearing aide, my comprehension of speech is poor. However, I did comprehend 90+% of most presentations; two were mostly unintelligible. Comments/Questions during Q&A were mostly unintelligible.  But, mostly unintelligible to the panel, as well. Almost all who spoke from the standing line tried, at length, to promote their personal opinions. I had an association with the quality of comments to many online blogs, although missing the negative smears.

The Session:

The Science of Consciousness PL5: Conscious Intention and Free Will,
Aaron Schurger, Fifty Years Without Free Will.

Panel: Free Will and the Brain: Ruth Kastner, Daniel Sheehan, Ron Gruber, Marcin Nowakowski, Matti Vuorre, Julia Mossbridge

The Presentation:  Fifty Years Without Free-Will, Aaron Schurger

“How are actions initiated by the human brain when there is no external sensory cue or other immediate imperative? How do subtle ongoing interactions within the brain and between the brain, body, and sensory context influence the spontaneous initiation of action? How should we approach the problem of trying to identify the neural events that cause spontaneous voluntary action? Much is understood about how the brain decides between competing alternatives, leading to different behavioral responses. But far less is known about how the brain decides “when” to perform an action, or “whether” to perform an action in the first place, especially in a context where there is no sensory cue to act such as during foraging. Fifty years ago, in 1965, scientists discovered a slow buildup of neural activity that precedes the onset of spontaneous self-initiated movements (movements made without any cue telling you when to move). This buildup was dubbed the “readiness potential” or bereitschaftspotential, and has since been confirmed at the single-neuron level. For the past five decades it has been assumed to reflect a process of “planning and preparation for movement”. In the 1980s the readiness potential was used to argue that we do not have conscious free will, because the readiness potential appears to begin even before we are aware of our own conscious decision to act. Now we and others have challenged that long-standing interpretation by showing that the early part of the readiness potential might reflect sub-threshold random fluctuations in brain activity that
have an influence on the precise moment that the movement begins. These fluctuations thus appear as part of the “signal” when we analyze the data time-locked to the time of movement onset. This fundamental insight leads to novel and testable predictions concerning both objective (brain signals and behavior) and subjective (the perceived time of the conscious intention) phenomena, and may also have important, philosophical implications.” PL5 [178]

The Presentation (short): Consciousness Needs the Flow of Time and Therefore Perceptual Completion, Ronald Gruber (& Richard A. Block)

“Penrose suggested that consciousness needs time to flow. We chose experimentally to examine  what is required. We assert that the flow of time has two components, or kinds of processes. Lower-level processes result in perceptual completion and provide the dynamic experiential phenomena between discrete observations in all fundamental perceptions, such as motion perception.  Upper-level processes result in objects (including the observer) appearing to move from the present into the past. If perception is discrete, not continuous (and current evidence suggests that is so), perceptual completion for continuity is required to fill the gaps. Object persistence is then deduced from the percept of continuity. Unless objects are perceived as persistent (“same”), the conscious observer cannot perceive himself or herself as moving “through time.” To demonstrate that the brain is capable of providing perceptual completion of continuity, we examined the spatial limit of the classic  phi phenomenon with overlapping stimuli flicker. We discovered that by appropriately adjusting  the stimulus duration and interstimulus interval, the flicker disappeared, and an apparent singular stimulus was perceived. This is an illusory percept that fills the gap between the overlapping stimuli.  The illusory percept seems to be one of visual persistence, not iconic memory. Thus, under the  discrete-perception theory, observation of any continuously appearing stimulus is in effect a series of discrete percepts separated by illusory percepts to fill the gaps. A somewhat similar phenomenon  is color phi. Our newly revealed illusory percept occurs “backwards in time.” In short, consciousness needs the illusory percept of perceptual completion.”  C6[220]


From the above, it appears I DID GAIN considerably from my few hours at a realtime, large audience conference gathering. Most of this was because of the special relevance to my areas of interest, and were not part of the conference intention. I cannot assess the valuable, but incidental values of large gatherings of intense collective minds, and the opportunity for making new & refreshing old contacts, and for small, more intimate, dialogs. Yet, it appears that the presentation mode has not significantly changed since the advent of computers. (PowerPoint notwithstanding)

Decades ago I was introduced (by George Por) to a powerful critique of conferencing researched by Anthony Judge.  Two examples (just now searched): Minding the Future:Thought experiment on presenting new information, and Development beyond ‘Science’ to ‘Wisdom: Facilitating the emergence of configurative understanding in ‘Councils of the Wise‘ through computer conferencing dialogue. In conjunction with my larger UPLIFT proposal, this issue needs serious re-examination. I could write books on this.

The inertia for continuing conferencing as usual results from many factors. 1) the money made by conference facilities and conference planners, 2) the prestige of conference organizers and stars, 3) the role of making conference presentations for employment security/advancement, 4) ability to get funded travel and “vacation”, 5) habit and unconcern about the need for significantly advanced learning, 6) limiting societal paradigms, 7) lack of useful tools and quality tool-use-training for participants in alternative information-sharing/learning modalities. But, primarily, 8) most conference organizers/presenters/attendees are unaware of the greater potentials missed, and for their “normal” needs, the traditional conference venue is probably sufficient.

My imagination explores new/nu modes of human-human interactivity, cyborg-like coupled with semfields, in a cyclical emergent UPLIFT via OLLO (Organizing-for-Learning=&=Learning-for-Organizing). Verbal dialog will be intimately integrated with new, more powerful visual displays (which represent the structure and relationships of the content explicated by speech). Internet linked COLAB STUDIOS will be distributed for team/community realtime participation. All activity will be recorded/edited and made accessible in a hyperlinked web of sems (the emergent semfield). A RT/DT (RealTime/DelayedTime or Synchronous/Asynchronous) Synergy will emerge.

After devoting hours to this blog post, I am now motivated to attend the next two day sessions of the Consciousness Conference. Yet, for all the new insights gained today, they are not high priority for me to pursue at this time. I don’t know whether I will actually read, let alone study, most of the long documents linked by url above.

My current task is to compose on my insights from reading Peers INC by Robin Chase, The Path: What Chinese Philosophers Can Teach Us About the Good Life, by Michael Puett & Christine Gross-Loh, Hope in the Dark: Untold Histories, Wild Possibilities, by Rebecca Solnit, and (of somewhat lesser importance) Top Brain, Bottom Brain: Surprising Insights into How You Think, by Stephen M. Kosslyn.

Then, there is the exploration of anything I can possibly do to catalyze a shifting of path of the USA in the near future. Why persons follow our “leaders” worries me much more than the “leaders”.

Experientials * Consciousness * Meaning * eSouls

This doc was catalyzed by my reading an essay on consciousness as a quantum phenomenon by Stuart Hameroff, followed by a few hours of meditation. I attended most of the CoC meetings cited and my friend, Albert Lundquist has been trying to inform me about the Hameroff and Penrose “Orch OR” hypothesis, without success of my comprehension, for a very long time. This doc provided a partial clarification.

Are qualia abstract constructs in the fundamental circularity of reality?

While “consciousness” (many meanings) and the “hard problem” are vital topics, the very nature of the queries is convoluted and confusing. What keeps me from deeply engaging in this exploration is my deep belief that humankind is no where near competent to comprehend the “answer/truth”. It is premature to battle over hypotheses. Yet, to query is our nature; if only we weren’t so insistent achieving absolute truth, now.

To me, we have yet to adequately outline the taxonomic phenomenology of so-called “conscious experience” and the great diversity that exists within humankind (and other life). “Consciousness”, as a phenomenon beyond “experience”, even as a proposed “dimension of reality” beyond the “physical”, carries us well beyond science. Ancients are often cited with expertise, as well as moderns.

I describe my waking “conscious experience” as an integrated mix of experientials, thoughts, affections, and meanings – with an occasional grok.   Experientials may have “qualia“, which I limit to hypothesized “sensory related”. “Meanings” are related to language, but not always explicitly in the experience.

For me, the whole conscious experience, the striking experientals, the powerful emotions, the illusions of ego & agency; are all artifacts of a “process/phenomenon” associated with neural-molecular, biological systems, but not necessarily produced by these systems..

Whether brain activity produces consciousness or consciousness produces brain activity, is a useless chicken/egg debate. The musical analogies with “Orch OR” resonates with my own musical analogy for brain (orchestra) and mind (composition performed). Compositions performed by musical orchestras are not embedded within the instruments. “Mind”, in my modeling, is the field of integrated potentials for patterns of brain/body activity. However, the bio-molecular brain is always active at some level (even at microtubules) and thus there is always a process THAT IS MORE THAN THE STRUCTURE.  Some aspect of mind may be “permanent” in continuing process and not physically stored within the material brain. That is, although material parts of the brain may be associated with a process, examining those parts would never reveal the pattern of the process except by making it “play”. Furthermore, the process can change (from within the process, not “from the brain”) and the process can affect change in the brain structure. Brain and Mind mutually resonate and change each other.

This relates to the “debate” between substance/classical/existential  and  process/change/becoming  philosophies/ontologies. My take is to use them as perspectives in complementarity – until we know more.

I, Larry, label my mind, “nuet”. Larry doesn’t experience nuet.  In my model, in analogy, nuet “outputs” so-called “conscious experience” (and behavior). Each conscious “pulse” (or specious present) is like the collapse of a potential, complex field (analogous to a quantum probability field).  One function of this is feedback to the whole brain as to the result of the collapse – that new momentary state of the brain. Sequences of such events, organized by the whole mind/brain, can give the mind/brain creative agency over itself.

This quantum-like model need not couple with the quantum processes of the microworld, or the microtubule systems as proposed in “Orch Or”. Probability potential mathematical models can be applied to many distinct phenomena. It is a human creation (in part determined by the whole “nature of humans”), as a way for us to organize our recorded experiences (sems). How the quantum, micro, perceptual, macro, cosmic realities relate is for humankind yet to discover – in the distant future.

I speculated on this quantum-like model as part of my 2nd PhD thesis, in 1970, at the University of Minnesota: “On Understanding Laws of Invariance“. The “quantum collapse of mind” is of a whole complex system, not simple systems such as in physics. Physical systems can interact in quantum collapse, but these are many orders of magnitude less complex than whole “quantum mind collapse”. The process may not scale, it may not relate only to Planck’s constant.

I find the “meaning” part of conscious experience more important than the experientials, as they are an interpretation of the experientials in context with my whole. The experience of meaning is not verbal, although verbal-like thought can accompany. My groks are experienced as “pointers” to a process in my larger mind, but not experienced.  I grok when nuet is undergoing massive accommodations. Each insight has an associated grok. Piaget’s equilibration = assimilation/accommodation is a good first approximation of this.

Consciousness isn’t about an external, objective reality. It is the mind/brain telling itself a summary of its interpretation of recent (hypothesized) input in the context of how the whole mind/brain (my “nuet”) has created my “world”, my “reality”. Inter-subjective influenced experiences confirm individual, personal experiences can often differ from the inter-subjective (are “inaccurate”).

In using the terms sub-conscious, un-conscious, and non-conscious we attempt to base everything on consciousness. I use the analog of mental consciousness = leaf, with other parts of the mind/tree being sub-leaf, un-leaf, and non-leaf ) for branch, trunk and roots; to illustrate the fallacy of this approach.

As a lifelong student of time and space-time, I am aware that the physics of space-time isn’t all inclusive of “temporarily”; and I don’t believe that we have yet witnessed all the “scientific revolutions” related to “time”. I speculate on the different “durations” of specious presents among persons. How do top composers experience their music? Some report temporally extensive experiences in brief physical durations. I have explored conceptualizations of multi-dimensional time and temporal texture.

I don’t believe in a God or an afterlife. But, I speculate on what I have come to label an “eSoul”.  Speculate that each “conscious experience” is “recorded” in a “spiritual spacetime”. For a given organism, these are linked, as they live, from conception to death. At death, they “continue” in this “spiritual spacetime”. This is a passive record, not a living system, not the person in an afterlife. I call these eSouls.  However, “information” from these eSouls can sometimes be accessed by living beings. Experiences by very young children of recently deceased relatives, interpreted as evidence of reincarnation, may result from this phenomenon. Sheldrake‘s speculations about morphogenetic fields and causative formation, and The Presence of the Past, may be related to this.

My speculations about “feedpast bootstrapping” would have implications for conscious experience, and may even be related to its material correlates. In feedpast bootstrapping, information may move back & forth “in time” within short durations in living systems (only). It is difficult to imagine this in a framework of conventional space-time and events.  It may relate to the mind patterns being spread over durations in a “temporal resonance”. This might be related to the bio/psychological phenomenon called “temporal integration” (visual and auditory). Linear sequential momentary states model may be replaced by overlapping duration entity (strings?) model. The latter reducing to the former under special conditions, as Einstein mechanics reduces to Newtonian mechanics when v<<c.

I am concerned about the emotional, religious, and ideological importance given to everyday conscious experience. This excessive focus severely warps, in my analysis, our progress towards better comprehending “reality” and our future survival/thrival.

Mental Imagery, Memory, Experientials & Consciousness

PROLOGUE:  I just finished drying after a nice hot shower, still in my robe, highly motivated to report on my insights gained while showering. I asked Eloise whether she could experience showering in her mental imagery. She replied in the affirmative and also confirmed she could experience change in showering temperature in her mental imagery of showering. She also confirmed that her mental imagery of the pleasures of showering motivated her to shower frequently. My lack of such imagery results in no motivation to shower, and the surprise, each time, to the great pleasure of showing. Also, my weak skin perception doesn’t motivate me to shower due to “coatings” on my skin, whose perception motivates others to shower.

As I write this I have a conceptual memory of the efforts needed to shower while wintering over at Byrd Station in the Antarctic in 1961. We had to go to the surface and cut snow blocks to put in the snow melter to give me water for showering. Excess heat from our generating system melted snow for station use. Snow on the glacier surface has the composition of Styrofoam, as it results from packed windblown snow – the Antarctic is actually a desert with very little new snow. None of the above memories are experienced in mental imagery. They are experienced as I read what I write, but never a replay of the original experiences.

This experience in the shower triggered a cascade of conceptual thoughts about the relationships between mental imagery (which I lack in all sensory modalities), memory, experientials, and “consciousness”.


During the era when behaviorism dominated psychological research the topic of mental imagery was taboo in the professional psychological literature. I was one of the first to subscribe to the new Journal on Mental Imagery. I was surprised to discover that most reported research asked subjects “what did you experience”, not “describe your experience”. They would report “I was riding a horse jumping over a fence”, never “I felt the wind in my face , lifting from the saddle, but viewing myself on the horse from the right”.

From my readings about “consciousness” I can’t recall any reporting of sensory details of actual conscious experiences.  Extreme conscious experiences, such as psychedelic experiences, out-of-body experiences, and near-death-experiences may have some experiential descriptors – but are seldom explored. A light in a tunnel is a more conceptual than sensory descriptive. Artists, such as van Gogh, may paint what they are actually visually experiencing. The mental imagery of deep mediators is seldom described – and often cited as beyond description.

Talking with others, I recently discovered that mental imagery is often an overlay on direct visual perception, but usually not discriminated. In that I lack visual mental imagery with eyes closed, it is not present as an overlay on my eyes open visual perceptions.

Even phenomenology, the professional study of direct experience, seems to avoid details of the experience and focuses more on the conceptual analysis of the content and process. I am not well versed in phenomenology, and may be wrong. Reading phenomenologists never sparked my interest to read more.

Since mental imagery is so important to most people, it is strange that there is little verbal interaction about it. Medical professionals ask you to rate your pain on a scale of zero to ten; but 5 may be quite different between persons.

It is a frequent cliche to query whether my experience of red is the same as your experience of red. It is less frequently known that different cultures have different categories for named colors – yet they can all match colors on the spectrum, but give many color experiences the same name.

A few decades ago I discovered that research in reading never asked subjects “what was your experience” reading a passage, but “what did you experience” that sought a conceptual label for the experience and not a quality description of the experience. The role of mental imagery in reading was ignored in the research. I am not aware of what is done today. For those with powerful mental imagery, reading a novel involves viewing the movie in mental imagery. When I asked imagers what they experienced when reading highly conceptual passages, the most common response was “nothing”; which results in many with quality visual imagery avoiding reading conceptual literature (an ignored crisis in reading).


Today there is attention to those who have extraordinary memories – able to tell conceptually what happened on any given date. This leads to a naive discussion of how memories are stored and accessed in the brain. Strange, there is no reporting on how these special persons actually experience their memories. There is evidence that they re-experience, but the nature of the re-experience is not explored.

I recently discovered that the experience of grief involves a persistent mental image of the person recently deceased. Since I have no mental imagery I have never experience grief – unless I focus on a picture of the person or animal deceased. “Memories” are not only of events.


I use quotes for “consciousness” because of the vast variation of meaning given to the term, which I experience, but which seems not to be observed by those using the term. Two major different meanings associate with experientials (“experience”) and agency. The term “experience” also has different meanings: experientials-in-mind and having-done (experienced) some activity, place, or thing.

Different cultures (and persons within cultures) can differ greatly as to the role of “consciousness” with “reality” and “truth”.

I wonder why few persons recognize the inversion of significance in the use of sub- and un- prefixes for “consciousness”. An analog for me would be to describe a tree as leaf, sub-leaf (branches), and un-leaf (trunk and roots). Some Freudian psychotherapists “view” the unconscious as only a repository of repressed, negative thoughts and ignore it as the font of creativity. Adherents of “Eastern” beliefs resist any attempts by “materialist, reductionist, false science” to explain life and consciousness as emergent from matter/energy systems. Some believe our experiences of objective reality are illusions within faulty consciousness. I am not here singling out those believers, as contemporary scientists are equally narrow in their attention to  the “reality of experientials”. Both beliefs systems demand a single logically consistent explanatory system for the “whole of reality”, while ignoring that an alternative exists, utilized in quantum physics as the principle of complementarity of perspectives.


The above is relevant in context to a critical query: Is our contemporary comprehension of “human nature”, human change, and humankind adequate to guide us in surviving/thriving our Crisis-or-Crises?

Is there a massive gap between our Sci/Tech of systems without humans as components (physics, chemistry, biology) and our Sci/Tech of systems where humans are the primary components?

If so, what is blocking us from this realization and from taking actions to remedy the situation?


Four relevant urls re Climate Change, new to me  (the last three accessed from the first)

conversations that mind and matter   John Kellden




These are part of the evidence for asserting that humankind, today, doesn’t adequately comprehend itself. Millions of sems are reported about “human nature”, but there is no significant effort to synergize this information to counter our dangerously false intuitive myths about ourselves that is leading us over the cliff.

One of our most troublesome problems is our deep belief in the primacy of the individual (and/or “consciousness”), as great among the most educated & competent as among everyone – but each with their own diversity We must not give into the MOB, but must UPLIFT scientifically and with spiritual empathy to nu personal competencies in a distribution of diversity where humanity functions as a “whole”,  analogous to how our complex bodies/minds function when healthy.

This is our challenge, gifted to us by Gaia, to uplift the emergence of human systems coupled with their created semfields (information liberated from being embedded in matter/energy systems). HUMANITY will emerge as an intricate cyborg between (1) synergized human personal, social, and societal systems and (2) their technological infrastructures and semfields (imagine a radically transformed Internet). This emergent cyborg, humanity, will develop nu, healthy relationships with Gaia (eventually seafing the uplift of Gaia).

That our individual mind/brains are not equipped to work with massive conceptual schemes, “Big Pictures”, or extended time frames is not necessarily a negative, any more than the fact that none of our individual biological cells are omnipotent to do everything. Our attempts to continue imagining the NORMAL human contributes to our difficulty. Our diversity is our strength and potential, but we must better comprehend our diversity and function in terms of this enhanced comprehension.


Of equal parity with our obsession with ourselves (radical individualism) is our lock-in to the transformation paradigm of social/societal change. No amount of perceived failures at reform or “transFORMation” move us to consider alternatives.

[[[Attempting again.]]]  For five decades I have been exploring/developing an alternative conceptual scheme I label UPLIFT to Societal Metamorphosis. That this conceptual scheme is “bigger” than the conceptual scheme “Surviving Climate Change”, the findings at the beginning of this essay may explain part of why I have had difficulty sharing this conceptual scheme with others to a level of comprehension that would lead to their being motivated to participate.

July 17, 2014  DEEP DENIAL


June 29, 2015   Note on Emotional/Intuitive Denial

[[[ My attempts to add to this post are not being saved when I update. Very frustrating. Parts that had been saved disappeared, and don’t show on the edit list. ]]]

[[[Attempting Again.]]]



GRATITUDE, yes, but more …. on Oliver Sacks

I just finished (03/25/2016) reading Oliver Sack’s Gratitude, which triggered many personal insights – nothing profound, but quite meaningful.

I was lying on Eloise’s bed, in her bedroom with the door closed, reading Gratitude.  Xerces (cat) was under the bed and I didn’t want him to escape again. I had called Eloise earlier, as I had not talked with her yesterday and I was a bit concerned. She and Stephanie were camping on the beach in Carlsbad, California. Yesterday they went on a boat to view whales and dolphins.  Eloise had fallen while getting on the boat. Her cast/boot had caught on something. She was not injured, bruised knee and cheek OK. Piper (dog) was frightened by the screaming children, but enjoyed the boat ride. They are trying to stay another day and waiting to see. I am pleased they are having a good time and accept that my decision to stay behind was correct.

Albert loaned me his copy of Gratitude, so I canceled my order with the library. I was quite surprised that it was such a small book, four short essays (published in the NYTimes) and a brief introduction. I have waited a week before reading; indeed, I had forgotten I had it to read – as my memory is failing. I am 81, Oliver died at 82.

Oliver motivated me to attempt composing in like form. Why did I start writ.. and change to composing, which has long been my choice of label. Only at this moment do I associate it with music. Is it more my channeling nuet and not the act of my fingers typing (not even writing), more mental that physical? I experience both my fingers and my viewing the letters emerge on the screen.

There were many insights generated by my reading Gratitude. I can’t recall any of them at this moment, so I will need to look back into the book, periodically as I compose.
I noticed Oliver’s (or Sack’s, which?) frequent reference to specific persons, dead but read, and alive and met. He quoted David Hume, who I have not read and can’t remember his specific “philosophy”. Should I read some Hume?

Looking back to the book: Hume was commenting on facing aging & death, and Oliver distinguished both his similarities and differences with Hume. Hume had titled his essay “My Own Life”, which Oliver used to title his essay. This triggered a too brief comparison between myself and Oliver Sachs:


In many ways, Oliver Sachs made his mark, he was successful in contributing, he was able to share his valuable insights and was recognized. I have been stimulated many times by his insights, well expressed by his “story telling”. Although I believe my composing is also a form of “telling stories”, this is not so perceived by others.

This past year I have been praised by two persons for the quality and precision of my text. They acknowledge the density, but appreciate it. The density of my text is a barrier to most. Yet, one of these persons has ceased corresponding (I also have failed to attempt resumption) and the other is too recent (it is up to me to respond to her last comment in a blog thread).

Unlike Oliver, I have yet to share my insights. Although I do converse with others, face to face and online, the dialog is seldom about the content of my insights. Occasionally my “piece” will be praised, as a whole, but never feedback on the content.  I have been told, when I ask, that they can’t even think of questions to ask me. When there is reference to content, it is always related to another idea that they associate my insight, which is usually far from the mark.

So, I face my ending of life unfulfilled. I have great gratitude for my having discovered so much of potential value to humankind and Gaia, but do remain frustrated that I am unable to share. My “creativity” is respected, but others don’t know what to do with me.  A few may inquire about my health if they don’t hear from me, but no one asks for more about my insights, ideas, or proposals. Sometimes I am asked for my views on an issue of concern by another.  I am quite perplexed about my inability to share what I deeply believe is of high value to others, and In My Analysis, may be critical to “the survival/thrival of Humankind/Gaia”. I wonder if what I had put in quotes, in the prior sentence, stimulates “meaning” in others?

————————-    (04/02/2016  Many days have gone by and commenting more on Gratitude doesn’t have high priority. I will post this now on my blog. This is not to say that what Gratitude did for me wasn’t important. Not enough people read me or my blog, so I am not denying others my further comments. Hopefully, they will also read Oliver Sacks.