I KNOW you DON’T KNOW, even though I don’t know what you claim to know – draft

even though I don’t know what you claim to know.

I confront this all the time.

Because of their
expertise, experience, special education, credentials
many persons claim detailed knowledge
that can be demonstrated they actually don’t know.
This is a condition that faces everyone,
as we all confuse knowledge and belief – to some extent.

But, there is a deeper issue:
Persons sometimes deny that there is
something to know or knowledge to be gained;
either it is impossible to know, or
we can’t learn it at this time, or
we don’t need to know it.

For some, this “missing” knowledge
is in a blindspot;
the category for their query doesn’t exist.
Yet, as for blindspots,
we are unaware of their existence;
there isn’t a gap, indicating something missing.
We confabulate and cover over the gap
with imaginary content.

The intent of this doc is to explore this blindspot.
But first, an exploration of the first mentioned type of not knowing,
personal and close to home.


Example, close to home:
My grandson has been addicted for a decade.
He can function at a regular job, and live a “normal” life;
but, it blocks further growth.
He desperately wants to be free,
and has tried detox & rehab, at some expense and pain, many times.

His mother, did get clean from a much worse addiction,
has been clean for over a decade,
works in the addiction rehab field, and
is currently in grad school to run her own clinic.

His grandmother earned advanced degrees in addiction treatment,
worked for many years at many levels in the field, but
has not had direct contact with the field in more than a decade.

Both, mother and grandmother,
insist that THEY know what their grandson needs
to be clean and stay clean.

Others, observing this phenomenon for a decade,
believe they may be functioning as enablers
for their grandson’s addiction:
which they vehemently deny in such force
that it cuts off all future dialog.

I was once addicted to tobacco, for 15 years;
even after being an aggressive non-smoker.
I started smoking cigarettes at Woodstock!
I was unable to stop smoking, after trying everything.
One day I remembered that when driving in the UK,
I had suddenly switched left & right, in an instant.
So, I instantly returned to be a non-smoker,
and since then never have the urge to smoke.

I have no substance addictions, but
I am “addicted” to many life-style routines,
which I find nearly impossible to change.
With 2 PhDs in physics and psychology,
I have some comprehension of evidence and knowledge claims.
I have read about substance addiction, but am no expert.

I am IGNORANT of substance additions and cures.
That is, I know OF what
I don’t yet know or comprehend, and what I can’t yet do or appreciate.
I know OF what I can learn if needed.

is an essential, positive concept
for the nu Humanity

About addiction:
My ignorance informs me there is great diversity
in how persons recover from addictions.
No one can claim that they know,
what is needed in a specific situation;
as with my grandson and his history of multiple failures.
Might it be that having a secure, safe haven
to return to if his rehab fails,
he gives-up when he should continue?
A solution is not to deny him safe haven,
but attend to this and seek a viable treatment;
that is not just a more expensive treatment center,
as are now being promoted by many experts as to what is needed.


Meta Comment:
Although many characterize my ideas as too “abstract”,
most of my conceptual schemes have application
in both the personal/local and the societal/global.
Indeed, conceptual schemes emerge
through a dialog of alternative applications.

This is consistent, with the concept of analogy/metaphor
being at the core of human comprehension. [Hofstadter]


Contemporary human discourse, on vital issues,
is dominated by many claims of knowledge
that are not confirmed;
yet acted upon as if THE truth, and the WHOLE truth.

Some of this claimed knowledge is useful,
when recognized as conditional.
Utility emerges through the interaction
of different conceptual schemes;
within meta-contexts, and
applied to specific situations or phenomena.
No single conceptual scheme has much utility.

This “philosophy” is quite simple
compared to the many complex philosophies
debated the past few decades and currently emergent,
of which I am quite IGNORANT.
Yet, to these philosophers, their ideas seem clear and simple.
The few occasions, when I have dipped into deep philosophy,
I have gained useful insights.
I also recognize that a “mind must be trained”
to read, study, and dialog on these conceptual schemes
at a level to gain adequate comprehension.
They are never memorized.

So I have learned, over decades of futile efforts
to share my insights and overall “worldview” with others,
that my “philosophy” is not “simple” to others.


 At this point, returning after a few hours, there are a great many different paths I might take. This is because the structure/organization of conceptual schemes are, in approximation both nested and networked, with a fractal-like quality. There are no preferred paths for learning conceptual schemes. As they are “conceptual”, they are only represented by semiotic structured fields (semfields), which can be observed and studied by all humans (although “conceptual” interpretations may differ).

I will let the title of this doc determine the path.

WHAT do we really KNOW,
that is distinguished from our BELIEFS ?

I address this to the best mind/brains in humankind,
who are not only concerned about our futures, but
are dedicated to making a significant contribution.

I could make a link to a list
of the names of such persons I know of,
which is a small percent of those who are out there.
I discover a few new persons-of-interest daily
and wonder why I hadn’t known of them before.

I am not seeking here
a comprehensive philosophy/theory of knowledge/belief.
I am seeking a pragmatic tool
to “pick the lock” of our “silo/cage”
so we can begin doing what we must do.

I observe a rapid increase (maybe exponential)
of quality dialog/conversation/discourse
on a growing multitude of topics/issues/projects/etc.,
all relevant to our present/future.

I observe nothing, even speculative,
of a scenario through what I call

That is, we need first draft stories
of how we synergize/collaborate/cooperate
to overcome our Crisis-of-Crises:
Societal Collapse & Catastrophic Climate Change,
and the multitude of other associated crises,
in the short time allotted.

Why the vacuum?
This is a query, not a question.
There are no short, simple answers.

This query has been at the top of my agenda
for almost five decades.
I have written what could be published
in a dozen large treatises;
and yet it would not be the needed STORY.

A story or scenario has to be experienced over time,
line reading a serial novel or viewing a video series.
I doubt whether a single novel or film would suffice.

Any specific version of this scenario
would be comprehended by only a small percent of the population.
Even if the first draft were to target 1 % of the global population,
it might probably need many variations.

The “resolution” to our “difficulty” may be that
the story cannot be “written”, as others are written.
That is, “we” must research this challenge,
to gain the knowledge and competencies
to develop scenarios and strategies for
the end game.

—– to be continued  06/27/2016

WARRING or LOVING: 7+ BILLION DIFFERENT WORLDS (structurally coupling) – draft


The concept of a Catastrophic Climate Change leading to the extinction of humankind and a major scaring of Gaia concerns and disturbs me, but doesn’t frighten me. Nor do the personal madness of Trump, etc. the Tea Party and suicide bombers, ISIS, natural disasters or my own death frighten me.

What frightens me is the awareness of the accelerating shift to madness in the whole human population. The dedicated followers of Trump and Cruz and of ISIS are what frighten me. And, not what they believe; but how difficult it will be to change how they believe – and – how, how-they-believe may lead to massacres as were witnessed in Rwanda and we observe today in the Shia/Sunnis hatred.

When I observe persons behaving strangely I ask myself: What inner-world has emerged in their mind/brain that fully justifies their behavior as right and proper?

Naive Realism

Strongly counter-intuitive are the scientific findings that no one directly experiences an objective/external world. What we experience in our so-called “consciousness” and the contexts for our behavior result from patterns of neural-molecular activity in our bodies, primarily our neural systems and brains.

I could be argued that evolution chose an efficient means to manage this complexity, by creating the theater of a self, living in an external world, containing other selves. Believing that what-we-experience is objectively real is called Naive Realism. This is probably a deep mammalian (even vertebrate) trait, modulated by our unique human features. Until the rise of civilization and written languages, where all we had to attend to was in our immediate perceivable environments, Naive Realism was a useful approach.

It is “natural” for humans to treat language terms and linked concepts associated with unobserables as observables. Quarks, electrons, cities, and corporations are treated as “material objects” in Naive Realism.  In physics, the empirical studies of the unobservable very small has yielded a quantum weirdness, where the LAWS of Naive Realism no longer apply. I conjecture that we will encounter a societal weirdness when we are open to study the unobservable very large as we did for the unobservable very small.

The Mammalian Template

It has been recently noted that humans are of two minds. The old/fast/mammalian/intuitive/emotional MIND, and the new/slow/human/conceptual/rational MIND. In this essay I will abbreviate and call them the mammal or human minds.

An earlier classification had us with a Triune Brain: Reptile/Mammal/Human, which we might be well to attend to. What we might be neglecting in all this is a CELLULAR “mind”.

to be continue  06/27/2016


This will be a fun challenge, and I will make every effort to keep it that way. I will try not to mention any view other than what is positive and encouraging in this year 2016 on Planet Earth.

Never before,
in the long history of Gaia and Humankind,
has there been greater

There are more good persons,
more competent, knowledgeable, and compassionate
than ever before.

The collected Knowledge of Humankind
is not only greater, but is
increasing, accelerating at
finer and finer fractal detail.

Human sub-populations comprehend in great detail,
the “workings” in a great many domains of knowledge;
being more and more accessible to all.

Technology is at it highest state of development,
with many new advances in the works.

The entrepreneurial spirit is awakening,
with innovative creativity flourishing,
many are living fulfilling lives.

There are more quality services, than ever before,
to maintain a person’s health, and
means to heal, when needed.

There is more interest in the future,
and persons organizing to create a quality future.

Persons are interacting with each other
more than ever before,
using new, technologies for

The records of human creative productivity
are accessible as never before;
and with tools, techniques, and platforms for
collective creating, editing, and distributing
Semiotic Structures
(texts, artforms, graphics, videos).

Cross Cultural Knowledge & Appreciation
is spreading rapidly.

Every human has the potential
to dialog with any other human;
even with automatic translation.

Much factual information is quickly searchable,
making the enormous wealth of human knowledge
accessible on need; and this is rapidly improving.

All of the above riches
are potentially available
to the vast majority of humankind,
who are in great need of these riches.

Humankind will itself gain immensely
when these riches are universal for all.

There exists ready potentials to gain requisite
knowledge and strategies
to rapidly uplift the global human population
to a level of competencies
to secure
the multi-millennial survival/thrival
of Gaia & Humanity.

*** ***

I could expand at length on each of the above riches possessed by humankind in 2016.  I will refrain from listing the many barriers we face in moving forward, extending these riches to everyone and securing them for the far distant future. Instead, I will attempt to sketch a future history – from a time when humankind has achieved balance and sustainability, reporting on events and activities from 2016.


Late in 2016 an insight went viral in the activist communities.
We became aware that we had blindspots;
that there were domains of knowledge and potential action
of which we were blocked from acknowledging and exploring.

For some of us, we discovered that we also lived in silos,
as many others we had previously observed;
all humans live/work in silos.

Individual human persons have limitations;
there are achievements only teams or orgs can do,
which individual humans can’t do;
yet many persons refuse to accept this limitation.
Of course, we all accept this for many collective accomplishments;
yet we assume we can comprehend all that is relevant.
We know we can’t know everything, but we seldom acknowledge
that we must fundamentally change before
we can adequately comprehend our future options.

We need to accept, and act on the knowledge,
that we are as Societal Children.
And as children, we accept our limitations,
and work to overcome them.
PROBLEM: We have no Societal Parents.
SOLUTION: Bootstrapping.

— more to come —


We accept that we can’t live forever (at least now), can’t grow 25 feet tall or be fully mature but only 1 inch tall. We can’t teleport or levitate, without technological assist. We can’t trans-mutate into another animal. We can’t transform a refrigerator into an automobile.

When your beloved pet dog is dying of old age and cancer, you accept the inevitability of their death; you consider their becoming young and vital as impossible. Maybe, with a massive army of healing robots smaller than a biological cell, repairs could be made and the old physiology transformed into a new physiology, Rusty could be made young again – maybe even turned into another breed or another mammal. We lack that technology today.

I hypothesize that humankind, in 2016, is analogous to that dying dog. Humankind can’t be transformed into Humanity. We can’t become an army of transforming agents to repair and coordinate all the dysfunctional systems and subsystems in humankind. Yet, from my perspective, that is what the change agent communities have as their vague goal.

AWESOME  FANTASTIC  UNBELIEVABLE are terms I would use to describe the great many projects underway by change agents, globally, with the far-off goal of eventually transforming humankind. I have yet to observe even a sketchy draft of a strategy through the “endgame”, when we are truly secure that the survival/thrival of humankind is ensured.

The contemporary “process” for this transition or “endgame”, if only implicit, is primarily ecological (with social systems instead of organisms) and analogies with swarming. The “coming together” is viewed as “organic” and not resulting from “engineering design” – which has the connotation of top down control. This issue is mostly in everyone’s blindspot.

There are so many exciting projects related to a great many aspects of human systems. I learn of a few new ones each day. There are a few that are decades old, and continue; some have ceased to function. I sense that the new digital technology is augmenting their quality.

Most of them are “brain children” of  unique, talented persons. Some attract a team of participants. Three that excite me the most at this time are:

Michel Bauwens
Joe Brewer
Giorgio Bertini

but, there are hundreds of other I know OF, many who are doing excellent work. I have yet to engage in quality dialog with the three explorers, for reasons I may examine later.

I venture to claim that there is no significant interaction or sharing between most, if not any, of these projects. By “significant” I mean that their interaction is noticeably improving what each is doing. I am sure than many know OF each other, and some may be in regular dialog, and they do learn from each other, that can be useful.

Each of these projects is a theme or thread to weave a new humanity. There may be some themes currently missing that are essential – which I will come to later. Each is in an early stage of development, some more along than others. I agree that each theme has value, and am very pleased by the progress being made; as I have neither the competencies or time to do their work. So I trust their ability.

I may be wrong, but from what I observe, I conclude:

  1. Change agent projects exist in virtual silos. Although each might ideally desire closer interaction, each is too busy with internal issues and deadlines that there is not time to explore better interaction. Probably few have a designated person or team with responsibility for “foreign relations” (with other projects).
  2. Most change agent”s projects have a goal of replacing an existing subsystem in our existing society with an alternative they are developing. How they might then engage with the other subsystems of society would yet have to be explored – and whether those other subsystems would be the old ones, or new ones being developed by other change agent projects. Some projects are at a stage where there are a few exemplar experiments in place. The actual transition from old to new is seldom examined.
  3. Working on their projects doesn’t give persons sufficient time to explore the deep nature of existing humankind, its resistance and opposition to change and its power and willingness to oppress. Also, many persons can’t emotionally tolerate deep diving into the abyss of humankind’s dysfunction and threats. Nor should they, but some change agents must attend to the transition, the “endgame”; even about what to avoid in challenging establishments prematurely.
  4. What trending future of existing humankind (e.g., with forecast increasing disruption due to climate change disasters, economic collapses, violence and war, etc.) are taken into account for planning the transition. Are plans underway if cyberspace access becomes limited?
  5. Have the change agent projects explored the receptivity of their proposals by the persons of different cultures, independent of their leaders? Given the polarization of populations, what “educational” processes are considered to prepare persons for the changes proposed?

to be continued …  06/27/2016


Are we all critically dysfunctional,
relative to our needs to perform optimally facing our
Crisis-of-Crises and Abrupt Catastrophic Climate Change?

To put it another way:
Does each of us
need to change

Must all humans migrate to
new settings and communities

new life/work/play-styles?

There are many types of dysfunction, and each type is relative to tasks we have difficulty functioning adequately to meet needs. I offer one possible dimension of functionality, related to the degree of disorder<>order  in the behavior of a person, team, institution, society, or the whole of humankind.

I know persons whose lives are a dream come true. Everything is in order, including just the right amount of fractal chaos (the font of emergent order, distinct from dis-order). What they are doing is relevant to the future needs of humankind. Many others are aware of what they are doing, and approve. They have no motivation to change, they enjoy life, and feel good about their accomplishments. They are not bored. How I might consider them dysfunctional, I will get to soon.

At the other extreme is someone like myself. I live in a highly disordered habit, have a disordered work space (both physical and digital), and live with good persons, but who are also disordered and dysfunctional. I do things that I hope will contribute to a better future. Although I know that I am not having the effect we need, I am addicted to my lifestyle and seem quite unable to will myself to change – although I plan to all the time.

The vast majority of humans are trapped in situations somewhere in between. Whatever the setting, a refuge camp or a high ranking position in an established institution, there is a range of dysfunction: disorder<>order.  Many are changing, but not necessarily becoming more functional. Importantly, the collective functionality of humankind is today grossly inadequate to our needs for survival/thrival. My query seeks to call attention to this AND that there are no trends towards the needed functionality – although many would claim their are such trends and that they are part of that activity.

What is Missing ?
A system may be said to be dysfunctional
if it is missing a vital component,
or a necessary relationship is broken.

Humankind is dysfunctional,
not because all human persons are dysfunctional.

Humankind is dysfunctional,
because critical task, requisite for functionality
are not being performed, and
and are often viewed as unnecessary,
or are in the blindspots of most,
totally oblivious to the need.

System Dysfunction <> Personal Dysfunction


to be continued …. 06/27/2016

FAMILY revisited

Here unfolds the conceptual scheme of “family”, by nuet to set the context for an analysis of Larry’s relationship to “family”.

Posit: FAMILY is the most important entity for biological survival for mammals, primates, and early humans.

Posit: FAMILY is the primary entity exhibiting mutual aide between members. Genetic relationships are dominant, but not required.

Human ability to conceptualize enabled survival relationships to spread to tribe, nations of similar tribes, and the confusion we call Civilization.

Today, for many humans, FAMILY remains the primary entity for personal psychological identity. Member health, habitat, resources, and security – for the family is what dominates the personal attention of family members.

Rising to compete with family are the uniquely personal interests of members.  Such interests can be their personal conscious experiences, their creative insights, infatuation with specific others, activities or ideas, dedication to an ideology, or player in societal systems. This list is not exclusive.


The above conceptual scheme was constructed for Larry/nuet to re-examine his life and work.

I (Larry/nuet) just (06/13/16) recognize that my primary attention has never been to family. This is consistent with my failure to identify with any roles: son, husband, father, lover, employee, student, teacher, scientist, physicist, philosopher, etc. I never considered a career. This may be due to my lack of mental imagery in all sensory modalities, and how I compensated for these disabilities – developing a “savant” nature of high, specific abilities & disabilities.

My current realization is that my significant other has her primary attention to our “family”, as she imagines it – often in fantasy. It also dominates my 48 year old daughter – because she lacks the “family” she desires.

I give some time and attention to our family needs. I water the plants, vacuum & mop the floors, shop for needs, care for others’ health, care for our pets (who are part of our family), and budget daily on Quicken. I have stated that I refuse to assume other habitat centered responsibilities. I also give time and attention to the creative interests of other family members, and contribute money to their activities.

Again, it comes to my attention that no family member has assisted me in any way for what most interests me. None have the slightest interest in what I do – except that I spend too much time sitting at the computer.

This is not their fault. I have never successfully worked in a team. I have never worked closely with another person on a project that I had conceptualized.  I have attempted to organize teams and enlist the aide of others – but was never successful.

—-to be continued   06/27/2016


That we “perceive” an external world
is becoming a dangerous belief,
although quite useful until recently.


Look around you, attending to different things. Try to find a thing without a name. You may find a thing that you can name “a thing that doesn’t yet have a name”, and you can invent a name. Then everything you can attend to does or can have a name.  What does that imply?

Our so-called perceptual experiences are “interpretations” in terms of our concepts and the languages we use to express these conceptualizations.

Most of the time we don’t think words as we experience what psychology calls percepts. Yet, the concepts and their associated words are the subconscious context of our experiences. There are probably no settings on Earth where you wouldn’t perceive in terms of language. An exception might be some rapidly changing, abstract, psychedelic digital video. Yet, we probably would automatically try to find “things” to name, as we project animals or faces on clouds.

Imagine how a mammal, without language, would experience the same setting. Imagine what a 3 month old child would experience. We can’t imagine how to experience without language. Yet, we believe we are literally observing known things, that are “out there”, and we could move so as to touch some of them.

How big and how far away is the moon?  Imagine it would come towards you at a constant speed. How long would it take and how big might it get? My knowing its size, I can imagine it getting bigger and bigger and bigger, until filling the sky.  Others, not knowing its size might expect it to land like a large balloon. Imagine this with a star.

You observe an object on the horizon as you look out to sea. How big is it? What is it? Is it a rowboat or an enormous Cruise Ship?

I read that Native Australians not well acquainted with “civilization” say, to themselves, the names of things they see as the move through their environment. They remember and later repeat these names as stories of their travels, and these names, remembered and repeated, serve as a map for others to follow the same trail. This really frustrated one Native Australian who, when riding in a car, was forced to say names too fast.

The many names aboriginal peoples have for the many plants, animals, and other features of their natural environment, probably give them a quite different experience than what urban humans would experience in the same natural setting.  And the many things with names in my cluttered office would be a confusing visual pattern for an aboriginal person not familiar with modern settings.

In the early 1950s, new to television, I was fascinated by a program where a team of experts were given an object and tried to identify it and tell things about it. Today I comprehend their experiences as illustrating the power of human conceptions and language in providing a very rich context within which to place that observed object.


OK, our human perception is always associated with words, although not always explicitly.  How is that dangerous?

Social vs Societal

To comprehend the danger of believing perception to be “real”
we need first to comprehend a distinction between two concepts labeled:
social and societal.

is all that human persons literally perceive of real other persons,
in their presence, on the phone, or even in video;
including their own behavior.

Literature can report the social.
We can describe social patterns,
and invent theories about those patterns.

is all that is imagined by humans as patterns
of human-human interactions
configured over extended space and time,
but never directly perceived by humans.

We have a large variety of names for these
unobservable, phantom societal systems:
organizations, cities, nations, governments,
businesses, agencies, economies, universities,
etc etc. etc.

We observe social, in physical settings
(buildings, rooms, furniture, shops, cars, stores, etc.),
that we infer are part of societal systems,
within which humans behave, move, and interact ;
but, we are not directly observing them.
We also study reports of other social events
(including reports of detailed observations: data),
and construct conceptual schemes (models),
and hypotheses & theories.

The societal is as observable as the sub-atomic.
Both are conceptualized from data
observed in our immediate perception.

Humans evolved in tribes, were there was social, but no significant societal. Early humans did imagine things they couldn’t normally perceive, such as strange monsters and gods – which probably were related to their dream experiences and mental imagery.

Today, we use this same basic neural-molecular architecture as we attempt to understand and comprehend our global civilization of more than seven billion persons. We model, in our imaginations, the complex systems of orgs within orgs within orgs – and networked – as if they are all directly observable. Video from sites global, now taken with cell phones, on cable or online, reinforces this illusion.

When you see persons working in a building, you are not literally seeing the organization they work for, or even the whole building.

Whatever a person has learned about their world (from whatever were their information sources during their life) forms the context of how they perceive/interpret their moment by moment lives – including encountering “the news”.

Scholars might attempt to assemble all the basic reports about all societal systems, and come to some scientific approximation of the structure/dynamics of local to global human activity. This, however, is not what serves as the conceptual context of the societal for the vast majority of humans.

Each persons “world” is limited by the information they input, and how it is processed, remembered, and used. In our delusion of “naive realism” we interpret our percepts as direct from light and sound, from things in our environment. We know it is processed, filtered and distorted, but what we see we believe is basically what is “really” in front of us. Fortunately, for successful navigation and selecting things, our inner world does sufficiently match the “real world out there”. But, what is “out there” don’t have the names we give them in our inner world.

I will later explicate on how we can differ greatly in interpretation/perception of the same “out there”, specifically our homes or workplaces. This will strengthen further, the issue I attend to next: how our confusion of the societal with the social contributes to our Crisis-of-Crises and our efforts to create a Solutionateque for our Problemateque.


— to be continued and linked  6/27/2016



I am familiar only with the governments in the USA, and know that some governments in other nations are better in providing some some services than in the USA.

No governments are omnipotent. Today, economic systems are often the most dominant; but neither are they omnipotent.  All persons function within a network of Societal Systems, from local, through regional, state, and many international or global. These Societal Systems also interact.

The call of the 99% vs the 1% or 0.1% in terms of wealth is, unfortunately, a distraction too abstract. What is important to persons is the inequality of power over their own lives. And NOT primarily the power of a police state to threaten the life and freedom of a person, although that condition IS vital. NOR is it primarily the ability of a person to be “free” to do much of what they please. It is the power to design and manipulate their Societal Systems – which INDIRECTLY constrains or enables much of what they do in their life path.

I was motivated to write this by a radio program where a graduate student from Syria to the USA, not wanting to falsify his situation and claim asylum, has been denied renewal of his visa. A commentator, who once ran the immigration program now threatening this person, responded by claiming how broken the USA immigration system is, and it isn’t going to get better because of the USA House of Representatives. The “House” as we know, has been taken over by a coup that started with well organized (conspiratorial) gerrymandering.

The lesson about fish not being aware of water is apropos of Americans being unaware of what is really happening in their political and economic Societal Systems. Even the most astute analysts and commentators speak out-of-context. This is NOT A DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. Enough said, I avoid a major diversion.

Flawed immigration practice is but one of many thousands of injustices imposed on a great many persons by diverse “Societal Systems”. However, persons don’t directly observe these “systems”, they only observe images of individuals in power or seeking power. They never comprehend that these persons gain and maintain power because of “the system”, and in a way are also “part of the system”.

How do “systems” change, and new “systems” get established? This is a good place to insert this query, but a response will be delayed until later on.


The accurate histories of governments, local to federal, in the USA are not pleasant reads. Genocide of Native Americans and Slavery are two that stand out. There have been a few significant gains (abolition, women suffrage, unions, public education, etc.), but none of these gains are complete and “the system” continues to chip away at human rights.

“Systems” only give-in or accept a change when they can find a way to benefit from the change and have some control over the new situation. Corporations permitted unions when they were needed to discipline workers.  Women gained rights when they were needed in the labor force. Powers will adapt, when it is for their benefit.

It is an accepted doctrine that freedom must be a continuous struggle, that “the system” can seldom be trusted and “the people” must always be alert and diligent. The popularity of Bernie and Donald in the 2016 USA presidential race highlights this. Yet, “the people” are manipulated to seek another “governmental system”.  Even those who speak about “less government”, in practice seek it, and when in power, implement “more government” where they want it.

That governments are not the only means to have governance is in the blindspot of almost everyone.

Why is this an accepted doctrine? There are many answers, and this is more a query than a question. Queries call for ongoing exploration and not closure with a definitive answer.

The propagated myth, is that IT IS THE WAY IT IS. Most religious systems (yes, they are social/societal systems) claim original sin and justice will be gained only in heaven. “Human Nature” is defined, by “the system”, as having inherent flaws. Conflict and wars will always exist. Social Darwinism (a doctrine that doesn’t follow from a study of Darwin, and was not proposed by scientists, but by politicians) claims competition to be the primary process of life – there will always be winners and losers. This justifies the “freedom to neglect losers” by winners. This false characterization of human nature is the foundation of so-called “scientific” economics – THE most powerful “system” in contemporary humankind.

Those who seem to benefit from “the system” as it is, act to preserve the status quo (or strengthen their power). Those who don’t benefit much, and who are hurt by “the system” have no voice or power – and it is “the system” that enforces that condition.

In English, the continued use of “the people” reinforces the erroneous characterization of a unified body. Politicians, of all stripes, claim support from “the people”. I, diligently, try to avoid using that term; I prefer person or persons.

Although the real performance of USA “democracy” is severely critiqued, there are many who scream “constitutionalism”; as if a set of documents [written before electricity, fast transport and instant communication, intelligent technologies (computers), TV – at a time when women and slaves had no rights] — contains ALL that we need to govern ourselves well.

Scholars of the USA Constitution and subsequent documents point out that it was written explicitly to ensure dominance by propertied male citizens. The so-called “balance of powers” between the executive, congress, and judiciary has been shown to be open to hacking, primarily by economic forces. Honestly, there are no routes back to even past level functionality for USA governments – there already has occurred phase changes. And, there is no reason to return to an intrinsically unjust system, when there are far better options – if only our conditioning would permit their exploration.

Examined with any care, electoral democracy is an exceedingly poor process to determine “the will of the people”. It makes more sense as a means for elites to manipulate their populations with the illusion that they do have some say in what goes on. As the Toffler’s put it, continuous lobbying significantly overcomes the batch process of periodic votes.

That persons can vote on issues without adequate comprehension, and subject to questionable propaganda, is stupid. Emotionally driven, ideological opinion is not a good basis for policy decisions. There are many reservations about the adequacy of “representative” democracy. Yet, this simplistic model is offered to populations having just thrown off tyranny.

Only a competent and trustworthy population can safely govern itself with a process we might label “democracy”. Our current intelligent technologies provides us with tool to create a just process where informed persons can participate in their own self-governance.

As I write this, the UK has voted, by a narrow margin, to exit the EU. I read that supporters of OUT were similar to Trump supporters. If that is true, this is evidence that a significant UPLIFT in the global population’s competencies is desperately needed. Even if Trump doesn’t become POTUS, the substantial minority that support him is scary. To be fair, I’m not pleased by the knowledge and competency of most Americans, from far right to radical/progressive left (and this one dimensional ordering of “beliefs” is – itself – an embarrassment.


That the whole world appears powerless in the face of Abrupt Climate Catastrophe  is evidence that humankind lacks adequate GOVERNANCE, which cannot be provided by GOVERNMENTS.

Earlier, I posed a query: How do “systems” change, and new “systems” get established?  This query is the topic of whole academic disciplines, and I won’t attempt to explicate it here, primarily because it remains an ongoing query. Yet, a few remarks:

Our recorded “histories” are both incomplete and full of inaccuracies. First off, they are His-Stories. And they focus on the succession of rulers and the “rise and fall of civilizations”. Only recently has the story of persons (peoples) gained scholarship and reporting. It is difficult to “learn from history”, as so often recommended, when “establishment history” is all the the vast majority are ever permitted to know.

Elsewhere I have proposed that “Civilization” is the default mode for organizing dense populations of humans with diverse cultures. The mode of organization is characterized by its “class structure”: privileged elites, a tech-bureaucracy to serve the elites (with possible paths to become elites), and conditioned & controlled masses. There have been many different variation of this basic theme. Civilization is default because no knowledge of other options existed. Today, knowledge of options exists – but not well distributed within humankind.

I have identified another characteristic of civilization. Civilization systemically suppresses the actualization of the genotype of the population to the full expression in the emergent phenotype. Civilized humans are the only species that systematically suppresses the actualization of their children, throughout their lives. Even those persons fortunate to have experienced “quality” education and supportive families and communities are far from optimally actualizing their potentials.

I could go on with more examples, but we should consider how we might act on this information.

  1. We must learn to be realistic about what we hope to accomplish working within existing systems, including attempting to transform them. We must carefully examine our idealism about “capitalism” and”democracy” as flawed ideologies.
  2. We must learn to distinguish between our distribution of ready competencies and our potentials for acquiring new competencies. This includes honest assessment of current policies and practices in assisting others to acquire competencies – and what forces may block such achievements.
  3. We must learn to accept that our estimates on the rate and extent of human change are far from accurate. With new technologies and far better knowledge about the individual differences of persons – we might expect “magical” accomplishments in learning/development.

There are more, but this is enough to illustrate that the most important activity for us to engage today is LEARNING. Every person and the whole of humankind lack the requisite competencies to survive/thrive. But, we have great potentials to bootstrap ourselves to a sufficient distribution to survive, and then continue uplift to create/implement thrival in the distant millennia.


A special message to those who read and agree with this document: You and I are in the greatest need for uplift.  Our past achievements and the competencies we have already acquired blind us to acknowledging the changes we yet need, the new learning/development we yet must experience – to do what we need to do. This is a special challenge for us, as we have no parents or mentors to teach us. We must bootstrap our own uplift, so we can be part of the larger movement to uplift the whole of humankind.

In no way am I disregarding the competencies we have already acquired. Many of us have already acquired some essential competencies and can seaf others in acquiring them. But, we each lack competencies that most of us all may be missing, or have not developed them to adequate levels. Many competencies are as tools, that work best in conjunction with other tools in quality technologies.

The knowledge of new facts is NOT what most of us need; although some new facts will always prove useful. It is premature to outline a curriculum for our uplift. We can all make recommendations.

One final word: OLLO.  Organizing-for-Learning=&=Learning-for Organizing  shines a bright light on the dialectical complementarity of learning and organizing.  We learn to improve organizing and we organize to improve learning – cycling higher & higher.


PARADOXES FOR UPLIFT – rough draft, a start


When the UPLIFT proposal calls for a rapid & significant uplift (in the distribution) of cognitive/emotional/performance competencies in the global human population in the period of a decade – it is usually automatically rejected as impossible. Human change takes a long time, often many generations – history informs us. Common sense tells us how difficult it is to get humans to change. Educational process takes years to develop competencies. Witness the increasing polarization and the performance of many persons “hearing” others only with strong bias. We are drifting more and more into silos. Even the “well educated” and “best adjusted” humans have difficulty relating on more than a few dimensions.

Also, how is this to be possible globally, with all the variations of languages, cultures, socioeconomic levels, ages, and different learning styles?

The resolution of this paradox involves (1) the exposure of many false myths about “learning and education”, (2) a synergistic application of much what has “recently” been learned about “learning and education” [e.g., see Learning Change ]   and (3) the application of a cyclical, experimental, collaborative process of learner & educator with use of our new Intelligent Technology.

Proposition: Human persons and human systems are both 1) very difficult (to impossible) to change; and 2) are quite changeable, quickly – depending on the many variables of the situation.

UPLIFT can be analogous to NASA’s learning expedition getting Man-to-Moon-and-back.  When The Apollo Program started, we couldn’t even get a satellite into orbit. The USSR beat us for this objective with Sputnik. We experimented and learned – and succeeded in less than a decade. True, UPLIFT is a much more ambitious project and we have much to learn; but our Sci/Tech has advanced greatly in the roughly half century since that ambitious project. The viability of UPLIFT cannot be evaluated without careful examination, with an open mind.

Those participating in UPLIFT will also be very highly motivated. UPLIFT may be THE human enterprise required to equip humankind with the competencies to survive both SocioEconomic Collapse and Catastrophic Climate Change.

That those persons not yet participating in UPLIFT don’t believe in its potential is not a argument against the viability of UPLIFT.  UPLIFT includes a PRSOS process to Promote, Recruit, Select, Orient, Support (SEAF) individual persons, one-by-one, with personal attention to their individual differences, persons from the general population into stages of engagement with the nu Humanity emergent within UPLIFT.

The UPLIFT process employs a CGRP (Chain-Growth-Recruitment-Process) that if properly applied guarantees rapid, exponential growth of the population engaging in UPLIFT.  Most of the global human population can become engaged in UPLIFT within a decade. Details on this later.




Human cognition has biological limits. For example, we can’t process information as fast as computers; but humans can perform creative syntheses that computers can’t (yet?) do. Many animals have perceptual and motor skills that exceed those of humans. One well known limitation of human cognition is that we can only attend to systems with a few independent variables at a time in our conscious working mind.

Historically, this is George Miller’s 7+/-2 rule, or 5-9 random numbers we can hold in memory. Actually, the number is closer to only 3.  Technologies can permit us to navigate over time working with systems with a few more independent variables.

The phrase, “we can only attend to systems”, erroneously implies that a “system out there” has so many independent variables. In reality, we humans have “models of systems” in our mind/brains which we apply, as tools, to the data we receive from our environment.

The “systems” first studied by humans and science were those best comprehended by using our tools: physical structure in 3D space that didn’t change or had regular cycles or simple change patterns.

Beyond the momentary experience of this limitation, it also results in our models or theories often being limited to a few basic assumptions. Different competing models or theories often focus on different basics. This is most evident in the social sciences, and very significant for our comprehension of “learning and education”.

Human cognition & behavior, and change involves many more dimensions (independent variables) than 3 or 5-9. It may range into the hundreds.

The human brain (and other mammalian brains) are the most complex systems in the known universe. The physics and cosmology of the universe from elementary particles to galactic clusters is many orders of magnitude less complex that the neural-molecular activity in a biological cells, let-alone billions of cells within a brain within a body within a family within a community within a society within humankind within Gaia on Earth. Add to this “mind” and “spirit”. To attempt to creatively change human persons within human families/communities/societies is cosmically monumental – to say the least. Indeed, it is credit to human ingenuity that we have done as well as we have, with these limitations.

Our new technologies now provide us with augmenting tools and techniques to work with greater complexity. But, we have yet to adequately accept our own limitations and NOT force our “understanding” of human nature and change be contained in overly simplified models.

This is specially evident in our diverse attempts at education. Each established educational practice is based on only a few variables of human nature. This is further handicapped by depending on human persons, as teachers, to attend to many learners. Even the very best (in comparison) of educational practices is grossly inadequate compared to the potentials for augmented human learning.

Proposition: Augmented (seafed) human learning can be rapid and very reeee (relevant, effective, efficient, enjoyable, elegant) when there is a quality match between the cognitive state/competencies of the learner and the specifics of their learning environment. The challenge is to create an educational system that continually matches the diversity of the learner population with learning experiences tuned to the uniqueness of each learner and their learning objectives. This can only be accomplished by learner/educators, over time, experimentally within an OLLO process: Organizing-for-Learning=&=Learning-for-Organizing. More on this later.

Can I demonstrate this today, no. But, we couldn’t demonstrate getting to our Moon before we launched The Apollo Program. There are many pieces of scientific evidence that support the possibility of UPLIFT. As we desperately need UPLIFT, we can be motivated to join this challenge.

Also, imagine – as the hundreds, thousand, million, billions of humans become participants in OLLO – how this organized, creative effort will be applied to this challenge. In analogy, imagine every student in every school learning to be an educator and applying that knowledge and skill to enhancing their own learning (in the future) and the learning of others.  I started thinking on these lines in 1978, which developed into a conceptual scheme I call LQE (Learners for Quality Education).

—- to be continued

CREATING HUMANITY — rough draft, a start

To survive the climate catastrophe “we” must create Humanity.

Who are “we”? I call “we”, humankind [the social/societal system composed of human persons interacting with each other and living/working/playing/loving on/in/with “humankind constructed things” and Gaia].

Humanity is a term I reserve for the human system when most humans are functioning in harmony in analogy with how all the diverse cells in our bodies function as components of an viable organism. Humanity as organism, is but one, of many, analogies (or metaphors) for Humanity. Humanity doesn’t map completely onto any analogy; and each analogy will have features not represented in Humanity. We can’t fully describe Humanity today anymore than our primate ancestors could have imagined “civilization”.

Another analogy would view humankind as a caterpillar metamorphosing into a butterfly called Humanity. One feature of the caterpillar/butterfly analogy that doesn’t map to Humanity is the fact that butterflies don’t grow or change.  The Humanity we will create is more like a new born baby, with a long future ahead and with no plans as to who it will grow/develop/evolve to.

The time we have to create Humanity is determined by the time we have before the climate catastrophe blocks our efforts to create Humanity. My first estimate is two decades – when the state-of-Humanity’s-emergence is competent to initiate the beginning of a decrease in the rate of global heating such that runaway global heating won’t occur. It may then take centuries for Humanity to lower the temperature and assist Gaia’s recovery.

In a sense, the first and most essential attributes of Humanity are those that enable it to stop runaway global heating. If these criteria are not met, all else is moot – humankind goes extinct and there is no Humanity.

It is critically important to distinguish collapse and extinction. Even if there were no climate threat at all, humankind is strongly trending to global and deep societal collapse, with a collapse of many life supporting infrastructures. When all the information is examined without ideology, societal collapse is probably as scientifically sound a forecast as climate catastrophe.

Unfortunately, both trends feed of each other. Climate induced disasters destabilize societies and destabilized societies are unable to curb the causes of climate change.  The progress towards extinction could be called an ecological collapse, but it is quite different from economic and governance collapse. Societal collapse, on it own, is not likely to lead to extinction. Historically, a better society often emerged from the ashes of a collapsed society – but it has taken centuries and more.

The concept of Disruptive Innovations is gaining traction in dialog. This concept acknowledges that successfully seafed innovations result in shifts in human behavior, often to the extent as to disrupt traditional patterns. This is viewed as positive today by entrepreneurs, who focus on their gain and let those who lose fall into the bin of Social Darwinism. Humane societies would assist those disrupted by innovations, so there is no loss of living standard as they transit to new life/work styles. Such a policy would greatly enhance societal progress as obsolete and inefficient practices could be quickly phased out.  Much of the current resistance to Green Energy comes from the loss of employment (and profits) by those working in of dependent on the fossil fuel sector.

It is important to make other distinctions, between

1) the threat of runaway global heating, leading to massive extinctions;

2) climate change, with associated weather turbulence, and their effects on the biosphere and humankind, short of extinction;

3) other damage to the biosphere by human action, not directly due to climate change, which also has an effect on humankind; and

4) what damages humankind has done to itself, such a obesity and war.

How must we humans be LIVING so as to dodge climate catastrophe?

Please hold off in imagining how we might get from here&now (humankind) to there&when (Humanity). There may be more than one model for Humanity that meets this minimal criteria.

Let me first cite a model that might meet the criteria, but which I would not want to label with the term, Humanity.

The elites of humankind come to accept the threat of climate catastrophe. In addition to stopping runaway global heating, they also require that “they” will be “in control” and be “living well” on into the future. From a practical perspective, “they” realize that the dominant ideologies they have employed may have to be abandoned. A quick and dirty way of quickly reducing  greenhouse gas emissions would be to significantly reduce the human population. This, alone, may not stop runaway global heating; but it would be a big step. They were all going to die anyway if global heating isn’t stopped. With the new high tech advancements (AI, robotics, 3D printers, GMO, etc.) “they” no longer need a large population of “average” consumers and workers as part of their new economy. This resolves the problem of a future with vastly insufficient jobs for “average” workers. For the some hundred million elites (and some slaves), they can construct self-contained artificial biospheres, like space colonies – but on Earth – and means of transportation between them. These could withstand any changes in the Earth’s atmosphere and water due to global heating.  Think 21st Century Noah’s Ark.

Soon we might be watching a TV series or read books that explores fictional scenarios on this theme; some already come close.

There may be some logistic difficulties with this model.

1) Many humans will be needed to construct the domed cities and all the infrastructure systems necessary for food, water, and air for survival over indefinite periods. This labor may be difficult to control, especially when the labor force witnesses what is happening to others. The population reduction may not run smoothly and revolts may interfere with the elites plans, or even topple them from their thrones (in some regions).

2) It is unlikely that the different elites within humankind could find unity of action. Warfare between different survival projects may well derail the whole endeavor.

3) The exponentially accelerating disasters due to global heating may be so disruptive of societies as to make the construction of survival biospheres impossible.

4) I firmly believe that these strategies are being explored in deep/dark agencies at different locations on Earth, today. In this document I don’t want to speculate further on this negative scenario.  Rather, I want to explore other models for Humanity, that will be an attractive opportunity for the whole of humankind.

Let us attempt to list some essential characteristics of humans as they work creating Humanity.
… to be continued

A Call to ARMS (and to MINDS & HEARTS)

This is the draft of a serial story of
humankind birthing Humanity,
to survive/thrive our Crisis-of-Crises,
and launch a multi millennial expedition
into a glorious future for Humanity/Gaia.

of the Solutionateque
must be commensurate with the MSC
of our Problemateque.
The Second Law of Cybernetics, or
Ashbys Law of Requisite Variety

**” This is a central law for the proper functioning of every mechanical and biological entity. It has been totally ignored by the social scientists and their patrons, the state elite, because it constitutes a refutation of the pretended absolute necessity of concentrating power in a central apparatus (the state) as the only way to solve problems (or, in general, to deal with reality) in a complex society.
** In fact, the law expresses the exactly opposite view, declaring, with the support of logical reasoning and empirical evidence, that only variety can master variety, reducing disturbances and promoting harmonious order.
** Regulation is then possible only if the regulating system is as various and flexible (responsive to changes) as the system to be regulated.
** This principle then disposes of the myth (still cherished by journalists and sociologists in search of easy popularity) that extraordinarily complex situations demand the concentration of extraordinary powers in a central entity.
** Once we get rid of that myth we are ready to explore all the rich implications of the Law of Requisite Variety and we, as individuals, can advance greatly towards finding real and appropriate solutions for the (supposedly) intractable problems of contemporary life.”

This scientific law is as strong against violation
as the physics law of energy conservation.


What must be shared and engaged cannot be explicated briefly.

We cannot post an AD to attract a following.

Here, I start a ramble, not knowing what I will say next,
although I sense what must eventually be shared.

Our world, as I know it, is experiencing a Crisis-of-Crises.

Crisis = Danger / Opportunity

Humankind faces multiple dangers:

  1. The collapse of globalized civilization
    (due to internal contradictions & conflicts),
    with an accompanying die back of the population,
    and a great increase of violence & suffering.
  2. Massive destruction of our supportive biosphere,
    including but not exclusively due to global heating.
  3. Destruction, without recovery, of our
    habitats, workspaces, & infrastructures,
    as a consequence of changes resulting from global heating
    (e.g., storms, floods, fires, landslides, epidemics).
  4. The significant potential for
    Abrupt Climate Catastrophe,
    that may lead to the extinction of humankind,
    and leave a terrible scar on Gaia.

Humankind faces the loss of multiple opportunities:

  1. Humankind to unite/synergize, and
    utilize all our knowledge gains to survive/thrive
    2. Humankind to continue evolving/emerging,
    becoming a viable, planetary “organism”, Humanity,
    with new relationships with Gaia.
    3. Humanity to develop technical competencies
    to protect Gaia from future events
    which would destroy most life,
    such as asteroid collisions or super-volcanic eruptions.
    4. Humanity, with its unique conceptual competencies,
    to guide the multi millennial evolution of Gaia
    to become a “conscious biospheric organism”
    prepared to relate with other such systems
    in the Cosmos.

Note, that – although the threat of extinction is due to human caused global heating – climate change is not our only challenge. Yet, all else is moot if we trigger runaway global heating and become extinct.

To me, the loss of our potential future is far more distressing,
than the death of all humans – no new births – ever!

There are no human traditions, customs, beliefs or creations; and
no human persons or specific populations whose preservation
takes precedent over the survival/thrival of Humankind.

GLOSSARY:  nu is contrasted with new,

nu refers to novel changes in the present with reference to the future.
new refers to novel changes in the present with reference to the past.
Our Here&Now is a mix of new & nu.


Humankind Migrates to Humanity

Imagine a future “state” of Humankind/Gaia,
where most of the new ideas being explored today
are working in balance – a viable Humanity.

Don’t be concerned about how that “state” was achieved,
that challenge will be addressed later.

Yet, imagine that Humanity starting small,
with only a few persons, living an early form of that new “state”.
Imagine further that new persons join that young “state”
and participate in its growth and improvement,
until all of humankind are fully participatory citizens of the nu Humanity.

This story, in analogy, is one of persons, one-by-one,
migrating – over time -between parallel worlds.
The nu world gets better and better,
attracting more and more, faster and faster.
to walk through the magic mirror,
from the old to the nu.

is the name I have given this nu world.

In this “idealized” story,
there is no interaction between parallel worlds.
Each person, in the old world, simply “picks-up”
and migrates to the nu world.
There they will be assisted and oriented,
becoming a participatory citizen of NU.

Migration is in human inheritance. We moved on, when things got bad and when we discovered somewhere else was better. We populated the planet and the great diversity of environments contributed to our great diversity.  Propensities are inherited.

Today, spatial migration is difficult because there a no uninhibited spaces to migrate to. Unfortunately, that never stopped our ancestors from colonizing spaces already occupied.  War and terror are fueling new waves of migration and climate change is anticipated to fan the flames. With almost everywhere sinking into harder times, few will welcome the migrants.  Warming temps are forecast decimating much agriculture, leading to food crises and more migration.

The migration I anticipate is desired migration-in-time.  We systematically transit from one culture/community/society to a different culture/community/society. The transit will vary, depending on circumstances from rapid to gradual. We don’t transform the old to the nu; we move from the old to the nu.

One very important difference about migrating-in-time is that the nu culture/community/society will immediately welcome you and assist your adapting and learning.  This will be radically different from most cases of migration-in-space, where the migrants are often alone, isolated, and opposed.

We will explore migration-in-time in more detail later, when we have some other insights to use in weaving a better vision/mission.

One additional observation. It is only the patterns of human interaction and organization that characterize the old and nu “humankind”. The physical infrastructures and environments are transformed by the “humankind” living within them.


The sum/total of all human bodies/brains/minds as they interact with each other within the context of their material environments (which includes their material creations and texts).

In a humankind=physiology analogy, the food in our bodies, air in our lungs, and even our microbiol communities are not considered part of our physiology – which includes only our biological cells.

This invented distinction is necessary to comprehend how changing humankind is enabled/constrained, BUT NOT DETERMINED, by our material environments.

Humankind is a biological/psychological/social/cultural system, but limited to only the biological, living human beings. Imagine only the human bodies are observable, all else is invisible.