IMAGINE – GEDANKEN EXPERIMENT – HUMANITY’S CONCEPTION – PATTERNS OF INTERACTION

Composing this doc has been a wild ride. It is in context with other equally wild docs – not yet posted. This probably should be in a well organized collection – but this is yet to come. I can’t continue to write more until I get some feedback.  I will copy/paste this from my outliner NoteMap and attempt to edit it into a readable form.   Larry/nuet

DISCLOSURE:  My ego has had no influence in this statement: IF I am anywhere near “correct & useful” in my recent speculations, of which this is but one part – context might shift of the same magnitude as those between classical and relativity/quantum in physics.  This shift may motivate further insights by many on how we can survive/thrive our Crisis-of-Crises and actually get down to the nitty-gritty business of conceiving Humanity.

————————–

Gedanken (imaginary) experiments are popular in physics, but rather rare in the human sciences.  This experiment reduces humans to dancing data points, to illustrate some vital new aspects about social behavior and societal systems; but the very important body/mind/spirit of humans will not be lost in the whole scheme.

Imagine the ultimate of surveillance.  Every human has implanted devices that transmit GPS data, physiological and chemical status of body and waves from neural systems, A/V camera views and microphone recording, all conversations recorded and all messages sent and received – including pages of text or videos viewed and recordings of what was done with hands. All of this non intrusive, enabling persons to go about their business.  The data is collected continuously, processed, and presented in selected displays for your pleasure and/or enlightenment.

Imagine gedanken displays to represent certain common types of human social behavior.  These are not recorded behavior of actual persons, but what we might expect to observe on displays in typical situations.  Although, they could have been recorded.

  •     A family as members move about and interact, with some going off for a day to school or a day at work, with after school sports and a movie after dinner.  What we might attend to were moments when members were directly interacting and when they were acting alone. We might create a representative highly interactive family and a family with little interaction. We might even represent family abuse or holiday celebrations.
  •     A sports event with players, staff, and audience.  Maybe including their coming to and leaving the event, tail-gating parties or city occupation by fans after winning a major championship. [I experienced this in Athens in 1988.]
  •     Battles during wars – such displays probably already exist for producing live enactments.
  •     Farming, Fishing, Manufacturing, Teaching School — every type of activity could be represented in a display.
  •     Days of a CEO or President, Legislators, Judges & Lawyers, Police Officers, Prisoners & Guards.
  •     Dialog, Deliberation, and Deciding activities.  Social networking, Facebook, Twitter, email exchanges. Conference activity.
  •     Patterns could be explored for a day, for a week, for months.
  •     Different color links could be used for different types of relationships between people.  Size, shape and color (even changing properties) could be used for each hypothetical person/node, signalling mood, or learning inner states, or competency levels.
  •      Some of this is actually being done today with real populations in Network Analysis.

Consider now attempting to represent when a stable pattern of activity is attempted to be changed.  Are there patterns which would demonstrate either success or failure of change – and for different types of change?  Might this inform us of the types of change patterns we must work for – no matter what the “nature” of the change might be?

One would first have to establish the status quo pattern with variation over a sufficient period of time. The “status quo” could also vary with trends and environments of the situation – being “dynamically stable”.  At this time I am excluding from consideration cases where the pattern is already in the midst of major evolution or transition – although this might actually be the case for humankind projected decades ahead.

Categories for Origins of Change:

  •         (A)  a sub- population not previously relevant becomes active, increases in numbers and begins to interact more and more with themselves and then more frequently with persons in the status quo situation, potentially altering their behavior pattern from the status quo;
  •         (B) some of those active in the status quo situation (spontaneously) begin to act differently, interacting more and concurrently creating new patterns and then these new patterns may further interact with the remaining patterns in the status quo situation;
  •         (C) some combination: the new active (B) may bring active those of (A); or (A) active may catalyze active (B).   There may be more variations, but this is only a learning exercise.

Categories for Outcomes of Change:

  •         (1) failure of permanent change – after an initial period of growth, the new activity dies away and all returns to the status quo (with minor modifications);
  •         (2) collapse – the new activity severely disrupts the status quo pattern with no new coherent pattern emerging;
  •         (3) transformation – the original major behavior pattern is shifted by gradual incrementalsm until a new and significantly different behavior pattern exists;
  •         (4) emergent metamorphosis – interactions spread to more and new patterns emerge and coalesce – outside the status quo situation – eventually attracting all members from the old pattern to join the new and the old is abandoned or replaced;
  •         (5) conflictual revolution – two conflicting whole patterns emerge and compete, the result being the victory of one over the other, a strange hybridization, or collapse;

    My Favored Origins and Outcomes.
(C4) is the general change scenario I believe necessary for success, if our pattern is the whole contemporary pattern of humankind on Earth in 2013.
(C3) is the only positive scenario imagined by those aware of our Crisis-of-Crises, (C4) being outside their imagination for reasons I hope to explore here. I will not go here into the many reasons why C3 is unlikely to succeed, the outcome being scenarios (1) –  leading to  (2) or (5), and then to (2).

  •         Transformation requires an “operator” that acts on the old FORM to incrementally change it into a new form.  Forms never transform themselves, that is the process of emergence.
  •             Your trip from conception to birth was a mix of emergence and transformation. The baby didn’t morph from that first fertilized cell. Yet the growth in cell numbers, cell differentiation, and the organization of cells proceeded with some order – much based on biophysical laws that guided morphogenesis. DNA/protein systems (not only the DNA sequences) played an instrumental role in this magical process.
  •             Agents (operators of transformation) usually lack resources, requisite competencies and game-plans to strategize the transformation of large, highly complex and often dysfunctional systems, especially when most components and subsystems resist THEIR OWN CHANGE.
  •             Transformation in these cases can only be accomplished (possibly) by an INVASIVE OPERATOR imposing reform from outside the status quo system.
  •             If, by a miraculous process an indigenous operator-system for transformation were to emerge from within the old system and gained the requisite resources, competencies and strategies to bring about a successful transformation — the question must be asked  WHY bother – WHY not enable this indigenous operator-system to simply continue emerging and fulfill strategy (C4).  That is, any possibly successful attempt at (C3) must be preceded by successful movement towards (C4).

    What are the basic, essential patterns to emerge for (C4) Emergent Metamorphosis?

  •         These are so simple and obvious, that it appears they are missed or not noticed.
  •         THERE MUST BE MORE AND BETTER QUALITY INTERACTIVITY IN PATTERNS THAT FURTHER MORE AND BETTER QUALITY PATTERNS – A BOOTSTRAP.
  •         What are the requisite factors: WHAT EVER IT TAKES – EXPERIMENT – DEMAND EMERGENCE.
  •         More interactivity, greater density and quality of interactions, more seafed learning by persons and webs and more organization for all processes. Build holarchies. Build seafwebs and seafnets to provide recognized needs. Cycle: Organizing for Learning & Learning for Organizing.
  •         In the display the nodes grow and gain brighter colors; they spend more times with a variety of other nodes. They sometimes cluster as crews and teams. Different teams cluster. Ecohol emerges.
  •         Personal security and basic survival needs are requisite – but beyond that all personal gain must come from the emergent viability of the emergent nu humanity (even in its embryonic infancy).  Humankind is in the process of birthing as Humanity – and each of us are participatory DNA/protein complexes.
  •         More and more activity must be conducted in Perceptual/Gesture space (which can include online activity).  Seaf everyone learning more personal details about others they relate to – as in a true tribe.
  •         Create a common semiotic world in Cyberspace which can be visited by groups and learn.  We abandon futile discourse about fictitious SOCIETAL SYSTEMS, such as governments, corporations, jobs, schools, etc.  Concentrate on PATTERNS WITHIN PATTERNS WITHIN PATTERNS.
  •         Learning and Organizing, Organizing and Learning are to two fundamental complementary processes. Everything else can emerge from them; without them, little else can successfully emerge.

Exponential Growth Essential

  •     You would not have been born if the membership number of cells in your body didn’t rapidly increase (virtually exponentially). Some parts grew faster than others, and differentiated more. Some parts slowed and others (scaffolding) actually removed themselves.
  •     For decades my measure whether a social change movement was viable was whether it was exponentially growing – not only in numbers, but in functional competency.  Circumstances, as the crises of the 1960 did give a rapid rise in change activity – but it soon plateaued.  A common technique of established orders is to absorb a new movement and make it just another part of it – with now restricted growth.  Innovators and inventors are bought off. Artists are given the materials and freedom to create for the state or economy. Everyone is morphed into a consumer and the concept of citizen buried.  Media pushed fear and information bottles divides and conquers. Every few years, every decade the spirit will rise and emergent activity will commence – but it never takes off because it is blind to what is happening and what is really needed.  Is this our last opportunity to successfully emerge Humanity?

Seriously study the activity patterns of all those involved in “change movements”.  When have there been, or even are today, movements emerging far better than most others?  What do others seem to be repeating over and over again – somehow believing just one more time will be golden.

  •     Leadership of movements get frozen in their ways and must keep power and control.  Many activists simply get tired and the natural resistance for persons against change locks them in.  However, we all have natural inclinations for exciting change – if it can be activated and seafed.
  •     Many think they are growing and changing, when it is but a comfortable illusion.  Many have never learned to expand their visionary horizons.
  •     All movements employ outmoded and very low reesee methods to seaf learning among both members and potential recruits.
  •     As Sarason pointed out for the 1960s movements, and also valid today – activists are all so busy with their causes that they have no time to become better at what they are doing or seek helpful collaboration and synergy.  Change movements freeze into Towers of Babel.

WHAT TO DO?
Everyone can keep doing what they are doing – BUT – let us ALL start doing something else – the same basic thing – as if our lives depended on it.
Spread out our web of “tangible love” and truly begin spending quality time with others – but in an explicit expedition to eventually emerge a new planetary humanity. Have “justified faith” that we have it within us to “learn what it takes to learn what we need to learn, and learn it”.  Respect diversity-in-unity. Truly and seriously cycle Organizing for Learning and Learning for Organizing.  From this all other competencies we need can be acquired.  Account for the real biological/psychological demands of persons. Recognize the limits of individual persons (no matter how competent or talented) and account for requisite numbers of players, competency distributions, and time required to properly accomplish projects.  Avoid over dependency on external resources, but don’t sacrifice for principal.
My sketch proposal for a BUS (Bootstrap UPLIFT Scaffolding) could be one model to investigate.

    FAITH AND LOVE – revisited
It is interesting me using these two terms here. Blind faith, believing only because you want to believe, and usually in spite of conflicting evidence has always been a dangerous attitude/behavior.  I add JUSTIFIED to FAITH, to marry these two disparate ideas. I have justified faith in the potentials of uplift as the best scenario for humankind at this time. I am not sure uplift will succeed, and can list many concerns.  My faith is in the deep, innate potentials of humans to transcend their growth imperfections and be a beacon for conscious emergence in the whole of Gaia.  I champion uplift because of my feeling faith, at my core. To deny it would be dishonest with myself and all that I know. However, my faith is grounded, not on fact or certainty, but on evidence at my tangible level that justifies my faith in uplift.
Love (like consciousness) were terms I dislike because they labeled, carelessly, many quite contradictory concepts.  To me, the use of these terms only generated confusion and eventually conflict – over different “meanings” given to the terms. TANGIBLE love is what I experience towards specific, very real persons. It is evidence of an unbreakable bond. Relationships may be rocky at times, and I might even experience waves of anger, even temporary hatred, toward that person-in-action. But, to that specific person AS A LEGITIMATE OTHER, there is only the bond of love.  Years ago I discovered that Humberto Maturana defined love as the unconditional respect for the existence (and right to exist) of OTHERS.
To me, this “abstraction” gains its meaning only in the instantiation of each concrete example of tangible love. The love of humankind is too dilute to feel, although I can conceptualize how everyone in tangible love with all others they relate to, could be a powerful meme.  At the right time I can feel my tangible love for Gaia – and it occurs only when I am immersed in nature – where the concrete flows among the abstract scaffoldings.
In the context of UPLIFT, ….

    Keep to the fundamentals:  EMERGENCE TO METAMORPHOSIS.  We start living-the-creating of the Societal Butterfly, in free flow play and serious exercise performance/practice.   Try to keep focus in building the emergent patterns of more and better interactivity.  If we keep mindful of what we are doing, we shouldn’t fear becoming trapped in a rush of bland chit-chat, or mind numbing, indoctrinating & addicting entertainment activities.  if you’re coding or creating tools and technologies, keep it up – but you might view it from a new context.  Eventually many will desire to shift basic life/work-styles — but that should be lovingly and creatively seafed by our growing uplift movement.  The focus should always be what do WE NEED, not what some distant multitudes need. That larger need must emerge from meeting our needs – to become truly competent to meet those larger needs.
THE GLUE THAT HOLDS US TOGETHER
It seems so clear, and so seemingly impossible that it was so cloudy but a few days ago.  Am I in delusion; we shall see?
What is the glue that holds our biological multi-cellularity together – that give rise to the unity of our being encompassing the vast diversity of cell types and variations within types. Shall we explore an analogy here with emergent social systems and a potential global Humanity as “unified” as our bodies.
I feel that the glue is through direct, tangible cell-cell interactivity and connectivity.  There is more to our commonality than that all our cells share the same DNA – indeed, this fact may have blocked our awareness of an even bigger unity.  Our very cells are all related.  Imagine the connectivity of a type of quantum-like entanglement linking us all together during the cascade of cell replication and differentiation..
Why am I starting to refer to my cells as myself?  Because I am my cells, as much as I am any of my organs, my whole body, or even the microbiol world I host that number 10 times myself within me.  When I first discovered that I was porus to a continuing flow of microbiol lifeforms who live in/on me as their Gaia, I was overwhelmed with emotional awe.  The “cytoplasm” (contained by the cell membrane system) and the “nucleus” is an integrated, holistically functioning bio/chemical/molecular “eco/hol/sys/net”.

  •         The stupid media debate as to when life begins has the clear answer: human life doesn’t begin at either conception or birth or any stage between or before. LIFE CONTINUES. Two living cells merge, become one, and then become two again, and again, and again, and again. They all share not only the same set of DNA (which we now know continues to change after conception) and the same phenomenal “mix” of large and small molecules, organelles and other structures/processes that comprise what is so loosely called “cytoplasm”.
  •             A seminal book in my life is Jan Sapp’s Beyond the Gene: Cytoplasmic Inheritance and the Struggle for Authority in Genetics (1987),  where I was first introduced to the concept of “cytoplasmic inheritance” and how the whole field of origination, emergence, and inheritance had been captured by the seemingly universal concept of “genetics”.  Inheritance is beyond genetics – and now we finally have epi-genetics.  Sapp’s 2009 The New Foundation of Evolution displays the detailed history of attempts at classifying ALL life across both space and time.
  •         What is common is the “respect” of each “normal” cell for all others (“cancer” being the exception).  Some cells are in contact, but most interact through the exchange of molecules. Each cell does its thing, according to its unique nature at the moment and the situation at the moment. What a dance! Most of my cells don’t have to learn what to do – their competencies are innate in their cellular nature. They only require signalling to produce the awesome coordination of my whole body in motion.

Each of my cells, in connection with other of my cells, expresses “tangible love”,  a respect for the other as both same and different. This is more than a “glue” that bonds all my cells into my whole; it provides the foundation for emergence from conception to birth and beyond.

  •     What is it that bonds persons to social webs, as in families and tribes and in the menagerie of social systems that comprise contemporary humankind? Humans interacting with other humans they specifically know as unique beings.  Messages can be broadcast and orders delivered to anonymous audiences, but can you believe these are the primary channels for the “commerce” of human interactivity? This may be the pattern for insect hives, but not yet for humankind – although some dream of it.
  •         Just as the basic substance of our being are our biological cells (cytoplasm + nucleus), so the basic substance of human social organizational patterns are our bio-material-mental beings in TANGIBLE LOVE with other similar/different beings.  It is the CONTENT of discourse that gives rise to multi-cellular systems of our bodies and gives rise to the multi-human social systems of our “societies”.  But, what is it that seafs this discourse of content, both within us (cells or humans) or between us?
  •         “Careful Listening” and “Appropriate Attention” are two factors rising from my memory. Empathy, honesty, and respect are others.  The equivalent of these factors for our biological cells are embedded in their material structure. Cells don’t have to learn (or be taught) how to function as cells in a multi-cellular system. But, humans need to learn the competencies for multi-being emergence. Recommending these is not new; but what is new is full recognition that this is ONLY THE BEGINNING. We can’t relax and wallow in the pleasures of loving relationships.
  •         Early human tribes may have been autopoietic systems (Maturana) where they “grew” the adults to later be components of their tribe from children generated by the tribal members.  Although it remains controversial in anthropology, that tribes can evolve and have effects on their members, is – for me – a considered hypothesis. Individual persons evolved to thrive in tribes, and tribes evolved  to generate persons.  This was extremely successful.
  •         What humans have not inherited is how tribes with significantly different cultures and languages could organize into a multi-tribal system.  When tribes reproduced they might organize into multi-tribal “nations” – but nations were stable because they were, in analogy, a tissue of relatively similar cells.  Viability with complexity requires respected diversity – which early human tribes were unable to create or learn.  The default mode for semi-stable organizations of diverse tribes we call Civilization.  Elsewhere I characterize the difficulty with Civilization as a mode of organization and why we are ending the Era of Civilization (but most don’t know it). Collectively we now have the knowhow and competencies to transcend Beyond Civilization.
  •         We need new types of tribal organization that respects the vast cognitive/emotive/performance competency distribution of individual humans – with a strong mix of inheritance and new tribal “raising of children”.  For many today there is no deep bond keeping one in the modern equivalent of your “tribe” (the people you hang with – in play and work and whatever).  Most of us are free to begin creating our own nu-tribal systems – which rise from a real, tangible webbing of human-human bonds. Persons getting to know other persons, and learning how to do this better and better.  There are many social and psychological techniques associated with the new computer/communication technologies that can be used by the nu emergents to bootstrap their uplift.

I ramble again as I attempt to weave a pattern of process — NOT A PATTERN TO BE VISUALIZED, although it may contain activities involving visualization of other patterns.  Without my own visualizations, I imagine we nu humans as brilliant white blobs – feeling each other out.  We temporarily shed concern of content (such as climate change, starvation, collapse, the future of my children, etc.) and concentrate on relating and emerging in the most fundamental way:  Organizing-for-Learning=&=Learning-for-Organizing – and all that entails.   Which may include visionary imaginings from now to the birth of Humanity a few decades from now.

I feel I have missed telling how this nuly conceived embryonic humanity can grow and develop.  I have some crude sketches from Mission_2000 through Earth_2002 to today’s BUS.  But, this emergence will be ours.

The premise of UPLIFT is that humankind today lacks the requisite competencies to decide and do what is needed. But, we have ample competencies to learn-to-learn and learn-to-learn-to-learn – to eventually make the wise decisions and make manifest a far better world. So, we put aside all moot projects until we emerge to the task.

Author: nuet

01/24/1935. BS-physics RPI 1956; MS-physics UofChicago 1958; PhD-physics Yale 1965; PhD-Edu Psy Uof MInnesota 1970. Auroral Research Byrd Station, Antarctica 11/1960-02/1962. MINNEMAST curriculum dev 1964-68. Woodstock. faculty Pima Community College, Tucson 1974-1997. Transdisciplinary scientist, philosopher, educator, futurist, activist. PC user since 1982. "Wife". daughter, 2 grandsons. 5 dogs & 7 cats. Lacks mental imagery in all sensory domains.

0 comments