Larry/nuet to Anthony Judge 121017

Anthony, your latest arrived and I was intrigued to skim it and read the last few pages. I will not comment on this masterpiece, or on your universe of masterpieces. I wish I had the time to explore your semfield and dialog with you. I regret not having formalized my semfield as elegantly as you have. I conceptualize what is needed, but lack the ability to focus over time. My inner wrld/reality emerges from my whole mind/brain/body without conscious intention (except for editing). Your format resonates with me; but I would need a team for implementation. My unorganized blog, contains only a small fraction of my writings (many trapped in apps that no longer run in Windows).

My comments here are tangential to the theme of your recent post. I have often commented about proprioception, because I am so weak at it. I may take this “fact” as a reason I found your whole adventure into self-experiencing as a direction of exploration I have avoided. I have moved, in thought, away from “individuation”. This not to say your direction isn’t as meaningful as mine, and I expect the complementarity of perspectives to be fundamental. I have yet to adequately comprehend the details of your arguments, and fantastic diagrams.

I see I have posted twice to you, in my blog; 0n 08/28/2016 and  08/25/2017. But at 82 (5 years older than you), I have forgotten most of my concrete past – including these two posts.  I expect I may repeat here, some of what I said, then.


For all of my life, I have lacked mental imagery in all sensory modes, having no sensory remembrances or sensory imagination. I am also on the autism spectrum (recently discovered – which explains a lot about my life). It is difficult to describe my mind, my inner “wrld”, that emerged in compensation for my lacks. I am a strange “savant”, where both my assets and limitations aren’t in conventional categories. Decades ago George Por introduced me to your work.

I do perceive, but weakly compared with what others report. I can feel pain on my body, but generally am not aware of my body (except skin sensation to temperature or touch). My wife claims she can visualize her inner organs. I failed to learn to ski because I can’t proprioceive where my feet are pointing (without looking at them), and control their direction. I have learned to do basic movements like swimming, golfing, & hiking, playing the trumpet and guitar – but nothing special. I am average coordinated.

This past year I developed a new, special propioception – of my hands. My hands now dominate my attention. I believe it is neuropathy, but my PCP attributes it to my elbows. The surface of my hands are continually being experienced. Fingers touching fingers or palm is very strange, feeling mushy and bigger than they look. Everything is stiff, and they “freeze” if I don’t move them. My hands and arms are also very weak. With great difficulty I can still put pills into my weekly dispenser, but frequently drop them. Fortunately, I can still keyboard, but with many errors. In all my life I have never been continually attracted to a proprioception (except during occasions of extreme pain). My autism compels me to continually stim (stimulate) one finger into another. I have difficulty falling to sleep until I relax and stop stimming.

I speculate whether most person’s perception may also contain mental imagery, which they don’t discriminate. Might top musicians actually experience “sound” for a long interval (auditory imagery of prior auditory perception, added to momentary auditory perception). My perception of music is only of a few notes-at-a-time, but I grok a melodic phrase. I can’t replay music in my head and have no sensory idea about a whole musical composition. I read that Mozart claimed he experienced his compositions as a whole, before he heard the notes sequentially.

I am also interested in the creative mental imagery of proprioception and kinetics. Professional dancers have told me that they can “experientially imagine ” (in mental imagery) a danceperformance, while sitting. A workshop guru (Jean Houston) asked the audience, standing tall, to mentally imagine themselves in different positions. When I told her that I (and maybe others) couldn’t experience it, she accused me of being mentally deficient ( I expert I am.)  I am astounded that so many gurus have no knowledge that 3% lack visual imagery (7% lack auditory imagery) – a very old study, needing to be done again.

Given my handicaps, I’ve come to view the CONTENT of our experientials (I usually avoid the term “consciousness”) as immature, embryonic forms; as we emerge from our mammalian/primate substrate and are creating (via our visual languages, now amplified by digital technology) a new Human Reality (HR) distinct from the prior Material Reality (MR) of our known universe. Our visual semiotic structures (sems) liberate information from prior required embedment in matter/energy systems. The cognitive diversity of humankind makes it conceptually much more than a species; more as a family or order. If we survive our Crisis-of-Crises, humankind may metamorphose as a “system” analogous (in some ways) with our bodies. Persons will “specialize” as “cells in tissues”, and our current sense of self and identity will be quite different. I believe that not having to struggle to survive will liberate our experiential fields beyond our  imagining. Our personal, social, and cultural-societal metamorphosis will find us as different “tomorrow” as a butterfly is different from a caterpillar (body, movement potentials, life-styles).



I wish I had the competencies to explore your exciting geometries. I once created a chessboard on a Mobius strip (pawns on both sides of each King’s row), but then lacked the computer visualizations that would permit playing. I did this without visualization. I expect that you can visualize your 3D objects and rotate them in your inner imagery. During the summers in college I worked as a draftsman of machines (for GE) and learned that my fellow draftsmen could visualize and rotate their “parts”, “in their heads”.

I have often wondered about how deep mediators can learn to “control” their experientials; but I don’t accept that these states are “superior” to the diversity of all human experiences.4 or have greater “objectivity”.  I am open to the possibility of person-person interaction beyond the sensory, but don’t find evidence for it today, as a significant contributor to our emergence. It may be different after metamorphosis and humanity becomes an organism, and not an ecology.

I recently have arrived at radical exploration of the critical distinction between HR and MR. The empirical foundation for HR are sems and the collective semfield, not MR. All human news (in reports) is “fake”, in that it there is no MR evidence – for  human interpretations of human actions.

As some neuroscientists already claim, our “conscious exxperientials” are hallucinations, even our experiences of “nature”. This need not be negative. We would avoid much conflict is we accepted that our experienced wrld was not an objective world. We will learn the new science of HR, and develop processes for viable emergence of a humanity based on a common semfield.

Today, our semfield (represented by books, videos, social media and mobile devices) is very crude (dangerous) and incorporates very little “positive design”. In the distant future, the co-created semfield of Humanity may be in parity with our material Nature/Universe. This is awesome to contemplate.

I am currently challenged by the complementarity of our two perspectives. The term “organic” comes up for yours, while mine brings up “analytic”. Yet both play the analysis/synthesis cyclical game.

I expect to more apply your perspective when exploring the “holistic” emergence of inner wrlds within brains/bodies. I welcome Damasio’s insight that emotions are perceived (proprioceptive?) changes in our body’s molecular systems. I also use the metaphor of orchestra/music for brain/mind. Mind being  patterns on the Material Brain, constrained by brain structure, but also independent of it; as musical patterns are independent of the material structures of instruments. I further speculate that this pattern/process is characteristic of life – and is “transmitted” as life begets life.

Contrary to both sides of the debate over when “life begins”, conception or birth; life continues with the merger of two living cells. I further speculate that these patterns of life and mind involve temporal texture and feedpast bootstrapping; sharply distinguishing living systems from strictly material systems. I don’t comprehend the obsession of some humans with the dogma of “unity”, and in opposition to “duality”. I agree with G. Spencer-Brown (Laws of Form) that distinctions are at the logical foundation for conceptual reality.

NARRATIVES, revisited

Human use of stories as a means of sharing goes back to tribal times. The narrative; the unfolding of events-in-time is hard wired into our brains.

Example: An Australian aboriginal was being driven in a car. He asked the driver to slow down, as he was unable to narrate to himself the changing scenes because they were flashing by too fast. Such stories of travels were “maps”, when shared with others. Some persons are better than others in remembering and telling stories. Instructions for doing were related as stories. Happenings in dreams also were shared as narratives.

Narratives remain a powerful means for communication, now enhanced by writing and reading. The time frames for narratives need extending beyond the changing perceptual experience. Histories were an early extension.

I propose a holarchy (nested hierarchy) of narratives:


Might we call this holarchy a STORY FIELD?

Frequent use of the term, “BIG PICTURE” (in English), puzzles me. Is a “Big Scenario” conceived as a static “Picture”? Why do we use a static metaphor to label a complex narrative? “Movies” = Moving Picture Show.

How do persons learn to use this holarchy? Are there persons who lack the competencies to process narratives with long temporal durations? How do the concepts of “causation”, “freedom”, and “determination” weave into our narratives?

Is our seeming inability to explore “multi-dimensional time” or “temporal textures” because of a lock-in to narratives that unfold in linear, one-dimensional time? The paradox of “free creativity” in a “determined world”  can be resolved with “temporal texture”, by a process I label, “feedpast bootstrapping” .

As powerful as our narrativity is, might there be aspects that are blocking our ability to adequately function in this hyper complex world, where most happenings of significance involve durations beyond perception and conventional story telling?

Might the patterns of happenings covering “Global Eras” be shown to have a “Societal Weirdness”, in analogy with Quantum Weirdness of the very, very, small (also beyond direct perception)? “Laws” don’t necessarily “scale”.



The concepts of “cause” and “causation” are human created concepts, within Human Reality (HR). In Material Reality (MR) every “event” has antecedent “events”, with “everything linked to everything”. In HR, persons select out prior events, as if they were objective “causes”, on which to assign credit or blame. But, these “events” also have antecedent conditions.  Concepts of “causation” have relevance in HR, but their frequent mis-use is a source of much of hymn dysfunction.

This will be a difficult epistemic shift to accomplish. We have yet to determine how deep “causation” is wired-into our brains and how much it can be modified. It will take generations to fully shift the whole of humankind, but the early participants in Up2Met should adapt a new perspective on “causation” for their societal thinking and exploration.


Much has been written in philosophy about causation and causality, most of which I am ignorant. The distinction between causation and correlation is important. I don’t know whether others have explored what I hope to share in this essay. I hope to provide a new perspective that may shed light on our challenges facing the looming Crisis-of-Crises.

Recently I read an excellent scientific article the made the same points I make here about causation; but didn’t make the HR/MR distinction. Unfortunately, I’ve been unable to relocate that article


Our use of “causation”, on analysis, is more about what we eliminate as significantly antecedent to an event, than attributing unique agency to a specific person, population, or even concept believed. If our PROBLEM is to discover the “cause” of an event, phenomenon, of specific data-set, arriving at a SOLUTION involves eliminating all antecedent factors other than the one identified as the “cause”.

But first, I will attempt to specify how the term REALITY will be used here.

I won’t attempt to be exhaustive or comprehensive, or reference the vast literature on this concept. Indeed, this is an adventure in seeking a concept (labeled) to fit a need. I can’t point to something and claim “that is reality”. Nor can reality be experienced. Yet, we grok a reality as context for each experience (conscious experiential). In philosophy we seek a context that would be universal (but nit exhaustive) for all experiences for all humans (and for all sentient beings).

“Reality” is a word we use when we think and share our experiences in language. Some specialists characterize the “meaning” of a word through an analysis of its usage, in text or speech – which varies over population, culture, and time. This implies that “meaning” is embedded in the patterns of human language expression (and art), to be found in the collected production of humans.

REALITY exists as a collective pattern in the recorded language (and art) of humankind. These material records are the empirical basis for all our ideas. Our momentary experientials of mother or clouds, a stupid statement or an exciting insight gain meaning only in the context of language.

Deaf children can become adults without any learning of existing languages. I speculate that language emergence is intrinsic in human biology, and that these deaf persons would have emerged their own personal “neural language” for organizing their experiences.


REALITY IS RELATIVE. Which is not to say that some patterns aren’t shared or that some patterns may become universal for all humans. What is important is that no human should claim that their personal reality is THE OBJECTIVE, REALLY REAL TRUTH.

For practical use in this discourse, I will “define” some new terms, related to REPORTS as the BASIS of HUMAN REALITY (HR):

I label each perceivable pattern a “sem” (for semiotic structure) and an organized system of sems a “semfield”. Semfields can be organized both networked and nested. Exemplar sems would be text paragraphs; photographs, drawings, or diagrams; and a short audio/video scenes, including music.

Sems and semfields evolved/emerged in stages through the millennia of humankind “coming to be”. Spoken sounds and gestures gave way to material patterns, at first as scripts for speech. Later, visual language was liberated from speech and spread through manuscripts, printing and now digital formats (coupling back via speech-2-text & text2speech apps).

I expect a new digital visual language to emerge that is independent of speech (it can’t be “read”). We will communicate via verbal language about the new visual language, as builders might talk about the house they are constructing. Collectively constructed and modified semfields will become the foundations of an emergent humanity. View this as an extension of constitutions, legal and scientific documents, and sacred books.

The essence of sems is the information in the patterns “imprinted” on a material surface. All humans, with training, are capable of identifying distinct sets of identical sems (via digital reproduction); although they may differ greatly on their “interpretation” or “meaning” rising from perception.

There is a type of “objectivity” or “universality” to sems, but not of the type for material reality. Two sems may be “the same”, even if the patterns are of different scale. Conventions can classify a set of different patterns as a singular “symbol”, such as various forms of alphabet letters.

Sems and semfields are unique to humans (on Earth) and other “conceptual” systems capable of generating them. Sems uniquely liberate information from all prior bonding to matter/energy systems – in material reality. This is a very powerful new insight, that returns humankind to a special significance “in the scheme of things”, that had been diminished by Galileo, Newton, and Darwin. But, this should not be interpreted as humankind being superior to other beings.

Sems are (hypothesized) as being superimposed on material substrates (hypothesized, given that material reality is never directly experienced).



Here I propose a distinction between “human-reality” (HR) and “material-reality” (MR).

1) MR: a hypothesized/partly-confirmed objective/external/material/physical reality (never directly experienced). Conceptualizing systems where human persons are not components is one way of representing MR (biological systems of human organisms are included in MR).

2) HR: the reality of collective human experience, based on the archives of reproducible reports, authored by humans (or human constructed machines).

This, MR/HR, distinction and its implications are still emergent (in process).

Whether some higher animals use sems remains open. How have sems emerged with language?

Sculptures, buildings, landscapes, road and electrical networks are also sems, but not truly replicable (although their design plans are replicable).

What about patterns in high, abstract, conceptual thought that are never fully “experienced”, “shared”, or “replicated”.

I resist using sub-conscious or non-conscious, as these are higher order processes, beyond “consciousness” and it is not proper to refer to them as sub-classes of consciousness. This would be like labeling a tree trunk as a non-leaf and a branch as a sub-leaf.

In MR every human identified “cause” has antecedent “causes”, leading back in regression to the whole. There are no objective “causes” in MR.

An atomic bomb exploding “causes” massive destruction, but the bomb was designed, manufactured, transported, and dropped. Human activity was involved. Earlier human activity led to the sci/tech that resulted in the bomb and airplane and the historical events leading to the decisions to make and drop the bomb. From a purely MR description of sequences of events, the explosion was distinct in its energy concentration – but there was a continuity of particle/field process. The explosion had antecedent “causes”.

Although HR will be shown quite distinct from MR, the same analysis applies to the assignment of “causes” for reported events in human history.

Consciousness Conference ………….. Abstract

Every other year since 1994, Tucson has hosted THE SCIENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS multi-day conference. I attended every conference until the venue moved to the expensive resort hotels. I presented papers at some. The topics range broadly from hard neuroscience and philosophy to subjective reports, altered-states, and Eastern spirituality.

If my health permits, I hope to attend the CC conference, April 2-7, 2018. I also am considering submitting a paper, the abstract due Dec 15, in 25 days. I have drafted an abstract  (below), currently 994 words, with the maximum being 500 words. I present this draft and the long title below (200 characters, max). This represents an attempt to summarize/outline relationships between of some of my major ideas.

My current efforts to edit the abstract is resulting in its expansion. Others are better able to determine what is best to save/eliminate when editing down to 500 words. The clickable links would not be in the formal abstract.

I will greatly appreciate your reading the abstract, and letting me know if it makes any sense to you. Summarizing radically, new insights is usually impossible. Any suggestions as to what to cut out, to reduce its length to 500 words, would be fantastic. You can comment within this blog, but emails may be easier.

Thank you
reeee seaf galdee nu


: SURVIVE/THRIVE Crisis-of-Crises :
Who Are We?


Epistemes defined as shared unconscious contexts for cultures, comprised of systems of perspectives and paradigms. Usually epistemes slowly evolve, providing a conservative context for changing details in populations.

Epistemes “shift” when their component paradigms change/interact systemically, leading to the emergence of a new episteme, replacing the old.

The new episteme may incorporate features of the old; but the shift is an emergence/replacement, not transformation. The shifts can take decades to centuries, to complete. Epistemes can sometimes be adopted by other cultures. Some of our limiting paradigms are old, having roots in our tribal biology/evolution; but have become dysfunctional for larger human social/societal systems.

Tech innovations have forced changes in paradigms and perspectives, giving rise to potentials for a massive shift of episteme. However, accumulated structural changes in our societal infrastructures now block the needed emergence of a viable new episteme for global humankind. The growing potential is both diverse, vast, and complex, but trapped in self-reinforcing silos; blocking necessary synergy.

We can’t determine or forecast details of this emergence or its multi-millennial trajectory. We can break the blocks and augment critical shifts, creatively contributing to the emergence of our new episteme – essential for our survival/thrival facing our catastrophic Crisis-of-Crises.

A major re-conceptualization of the deep nature of humans and change is at the core of this shifting. Human Reality (HR), {as contained in the holarchy of pictures/scenes/stories/scenarios/../periods/eras, represented in human authored semiotic structures (sems) [reports, artwork]}, is not fully constrained by the laws of Material Reality (MR). Belief that personal HR must be an objective MR, is one dangerous paradigm to be rejected. This shift will be as massive as any prior epistemic shifts, such as agriculture; written language; scientific, industrial & digital revolutions.

Another destructive paradigm is the fallacious practice of ranking multi-dimensional entities. We can compare or rank such entities only one attribute at a time. We can’t rank the USA and North Korea, or Einstein and Trump. Yet, such ranking is a common feature of our current episteme.

An additional paradigm to shift is the myth of singular causes – which are embedded in the narrative reports of HR. There are no causes in MR. There is strong evidence for creative agency in humans and human systems, but human S/R behavior is highly deterministic. Creativity occurs in thinking or behavior that is not in response to stimuli. Concepts of causality & freedom-vs-determinism require serious modification in the epistemic shift.

The Problem/Solution Research Paradigm works for many MR phenomenon; but is dangerous when applied to HR. Yet, with HR=MR as part of our dominant episteme, humankind blithely bumbles along making critical decisions based on fallacious assumptions. Moral justifications, unfortunately, are not “objective” ala MR. Morality must find its justification in HR.

With this HR/MR distinction, humans return to being central to reality – but not with the negative ecological effect of human exceptionalism. Indeed, it may be that the evolutionary emergence of humans heralds a creative break in the evolution/emergence of Gaia. This might be called a Nu Genesis.

It is posited that the emergence of visual, digital language finalized the liberation of information from all prior bonding within matter/energy systems. The letters on this page is a unique phenomenon in Gaia, and possibly in the universe (with the exception of other Gaias).

When these new ideas are examined, one discovers that the empirical foundation of HR is the semfield, the perceived structures created by humans, and not our perceived environments. Our constructed experiences of perceived MR are strongly influenced by our narratives. This is not solipsistic, as within HR is evidence of MR; but MR is never directly experienced. “Nature” is a human construct.

Collectively, these paradigm shifts provide a useful context for comprehending the epidemic of fake news and fake realities, spreading globally. Naive belief in the objectivity of conscious content may lead to the extinction of humankind, and the end of what the future of Gaia, with a maturing HR, offers.

Individual human persons must come to terms with their intrinsic limitations. George Miller’s 7+/-2 Law, modified, informs us that the content of momentary conscious experience must be represented in a contextual system with only a few independent variables. Our inner-woven, unconscious “wrld” may have more variables; which we “sample” moment-by-moment. The “worldviews” of every human stabilizes into a limited a set of fundamental variables, significantly less than the diversity of collective reality.

No individual human should be given power over others. Power must be properly distributed among an uplifted global population. The conscious lives of persons should be greatly enhanced when we realize that we can’t consciously control our personal emergence. We can have creative influence, within the limitations of our DNA and the cultures within which we live.

Given these insights, what might we do? It may a practical fact that contemporary humankind can’t be transFORMed into a viable, sustainable humanity. But there are alternatives to transFORMation: Cultural/Societal Metamorphosis. HR can metamorphose without concurrent transformation of our material infrastructure, and in a time-frame within decades.

Rapidly uplifting the distribution of competencies in the global population is now feasible, with a synergy of our new knowledge, hitech, and utilizing the whole uplifting population as learners/educators – and abandoning mass processes that ignore the extraordinary diversity of human conceptual/cognitive/emotional competencies: Learners for Quality Education. Significant, rapid change in large populations are now possible via a personalized many-to-one process, with an exponential growth potential without broadcasting to masses.

Contemporary HUMANKIND can be conceptualized as a dysfunctional ecology of different, conflicting epistemes. HUMANITY is the name of a future, global human system, with a common core episteme more consistent with the “real nature” of the diverse population of human persons. Humanity can be analogous to a biological organism, with common DNA, but with diverse cell/tissue types.

The shift from HUMANKIND to HUMANITY will not “just happen”; it requires intentional, human creative/organized participation in removing the blocks to the epistemic shift “chomping at the bit” to emerge.


Freedom and Determinism
are conceptual perspectives (human constructs)
in a relationship of complementarity.

The application of these perspectives to the hypothetical functioning of an objective, material (matter/energy | particle/field | substance/qualia) reality is primarily by metaphor. Humankind is far from agreement on the “nature of reality”, in spite of claims by the “knowledge elites” of each culture and era.

Often ignored: the opposite of strict determinism is pure randomness. If a person wants “totally free” choice (free-will) they must resort to a coin-toss for each decision. Their “choice” is to assign the decision to another “process”: a coin-toss or the pattern of tea leaves, interpreted by a “shaman”. What most humans mean by free will, is that they want authority to make a determination based of their personal knowledge and beliefs. They aren’t opposed to determinations; they want to be the determiner.

The “contemporary” “scientific concept” of “causal determinism” is far from “comprehensive” of the many variations of “conceptual schemes” to “explain” “process”. To unpack the prior sentence would require unpacking all the terms in quotes, a process that would lead to a circular/endless regression. So-called “psychic phenomena” is one example of variation. I have proposed another, I call “holistic determination”. Considering “time” to be multi-dimensional or textural opens the options further. I have proposed a process I call “feedpast bootstrapping” that involves “determination” from a duration/time-interval and not a point moment. Within this duration, the “momentary present” can influence its “past”. I hypothesize that living systems have this feature, which distinguishes them from non-living systems.

The Copenhagen Interpretation (Bohr) of Quantum Theory also adds a new take on determinism. A quantum measurement doesn’t measure the state of the system at the moment (just prior) to the measurement operation. Rather, the measurement interaction (between quantum system to be measured and quantum measuring instruments) “selects a state” (from a probability distribution of potential states), often characterized as the “collapse of the wave function”.

Strict determinism for quantum reality requires the “select a state” choice being constrained only statistically, so that the many similar transitions/measurement over a (hypothetical) “ensemble” of similar systems would agree with the theoretical probability distribution. “Ensemble” is a hypothetical collection of “similar systems” in “similar circumstances”; but not a real collection in space-time. I should be noted that quantum phenomena are never observed by human senses. Humans observe changes in the “classical” reality of material objects/instruments. The patterns in observed data often agree with theoretical predictions.

You may have noticed the term “consciousness” was not used in the above explication. This term is the cause of endless confusion and controversy because it is used (indiscriminately) with three different fundamental meanings.

In the same way, tackling the real problem of consciousness depends on distinguishing different aspects of consciousness, and mapping their phenomenological properties (subjective first-person descriptions of what conscious experiences are like) onto underlying biological mechanisms (objective third-person descriptions). A good starting point is to distinguish between conscious level, conscious content, and conscious self. Conscious level has to do with being conscious at all – the difference between being in a dreamless sleep (or under general anesthesia) and being vividly awake and aware. Conscious contents are what populate your conscious experiences when you are conscious – the sights, sounds, smells, emotions, thoughts and beliefs that make up your inner universe. And among these conscious contents is the specific experience of being you. This is conscious self, and is probably the aspect of consciousness that we cling to most tightly.

It is this to this”conscious self” we wish to attribute “agency” or “choice”. Given the above complexity of the concepts labeled freedom and determinism, the reality of human freedom must remain controversial. The article, quoted from above, makes a strong case that “conscious experience” is hallucinatory, a matter of selection and creativity, and not direct perception. A “wrld” emerges in the mind/brain of every person during their life, living among stimuli and action. Humans are wired to confuse their experienced “wrld” with an external, objective “WORLD”, that is “clearly there”! This process was survival selection value for tribal times when there was only the material, biological and social; complex societal levels had not yet emerged.

Today, this confusion of “wrld” for “WORLD” blocks the emergence of a viable, sustainable, “organically integrated” HUMANITY from the current, highly dysfunctional, suicidal, “civilized” HUMANKIND.

Larry/nuet Reports 111317

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{[BM break, need to plunge toilet]}
This insert reminds me of my long intention
to set up recording
for BigData analysis of process;
to assist process improvement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


SYSTEMS as Conceptual Schemes

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

Larry’s condition as of October 2017.

lifetime lack of mental imagery in all sensory modalities

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

lifetime on autism spectrum

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

Larry’s basic physiological subsystems are healthy.

Minor issues:

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

thyroid – gland removed at age 15
stomach (potential ulcers)

Cancer (1997, 2011) in remission.

Crippling arthritis of joints and cervical spine.

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

Neuropathy of hands and feet.

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

Unstable walking

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

Inadequate exercise, muscles weak

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

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

Dementia re memory and spontaneous creativity

Functions in environment as S/R mechanism

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

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

Liberated mind, beyond normal human


Larry/nuet’s Dream Future

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

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

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

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

seaf =support/enable/augment/facilitate

nuet becomes a tool of emergent humanity.

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



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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

On Scenarios for UPLIFT

UPLIFT Experience 2018-2020

Advanced Metamorphosis:
A Mix of Emergence & Transformation

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

Action Strategies for Larry/nuet
-2014 – forgotten!

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


FORECAST: Failed Recoveries from Disasters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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