Prior2Action (“proof”) Processes (P2A)

Prior2Action (“proof”) Processes (P2A)    draft 6/20/2014 (imported from a WORD doc).
This will not be a detailed response to AAY’s “proof process” within the WayFinder blueprint. That I will attempt later, to be comprehended in the context of what I will be explicating here. This is a draft, composed here and not extracted from other writings. I am calling the process P2A for Prior-to-Action, processes to “certify” that “knowledge” for which an action will be based is the “best” available at the time. This is an exploration from one mind/brain/wrld: nuet/Larry. This is not a proposal, but an initial “brainstorm” about an important issue. Were I to approach it again, it might even have a different focus than P2A.

        Some relevant distinctions:


  • These are two distinct concepts which I personally use the two terms to distinguish.
  • Comprehension relates to a person’s ability to respond correctly to probes related to details about a concept. A concept could be “defined” in terms of the operations requisite to determine comprehension. Ultimately, comprehension is externally evaluated, although a person could apply an “established” operation set, themselves. There can be levels of comprehension.
  • Understanding relates to a person’s subjective satisfaction in using terms involving the concept. Understanding implies closure; no need to further learn about a concept. There can be different degrees of understanding.
  • Understanding is often claimed without adequate comprehension.
  • High levels of comprehension can exist without a strong sense of understanding; when there is not yet closure.


A concept can be adequately comprehended, yet its significance not appreciated.

o   Here I am giving special meaning to the term “significance”.

o    Comprehension implies the ability to distinguish different concepts from each other.

The significance of a concept relates to its impact on the comprehension of conceptual schemes within which the concept is a component.

o    The comprehension of a “conceptual scheme” is similar to, but more complex, than comprehension of a “concept”.

o    We need to distinguish between a set of sems that represent (operationally define) a conceptual scheme and its “representation” in a human mind/brain.

o    Very large conceptual schemes such as “nature” or “universe” or “humankind” are generative and “fractal” in “structure”. They change (galdee) in complex ways.

o    The meta conceptual scheme of representational forms (sysnets, digital & analog, and in mind/brains & wrlds), sems & their perception/composing, languaging all require more collective work.

There can be levels of significance experienced for a concept. Some concepts can move from being almost ignored to having major influence in changing extended conceptual schemes.
Example: the three concepts in this section about relevant distinctions are comprehended by many, but few indicate appreciation of their significance. A few other concepts whose comprehension is trivialized and significance ignored follow.
Crisis-of-Crises. The interaction of crises renders the resolution of single crises difficult to impossible. I borrowed “Crisis-of-Crises” from my UofChicago physics mentor John R. Platt, in his seminal paper “What We Must Do” in SCIENCE in 1969 to which I replied with my essay “The Technology of Non Violent Revolution”. These may be viewed as precursors to WayFinder and UPLIFT. Yet, no one has ever commented on the significance of this concept.

Problemateque. Related to Crisis-of-Crises. Term proposed by Club of Rome in their Limits of Growth simulations. Points to the deficiency of the problem/solution paradigm. Also deficient is the paradigm that questions/answers form the fundamental architecture of knowledge.

Most of the concepts serving as components to UPLIFT and Societal Metamorphosis appear to be comprehended, but with low significance. The significance of “metamorphosis” as more than metaphor when applied to social system change appears to lack all significance to everyone I know.
Social psychology. Findings comprehended, then quickly forgotten or refused to apply.
An analogous situation would be a person comprehending fully the workings of an automobile, but being unaware of their function in transportation, driving, cultural importance, impact on environments, energy consumption, disposal, repair statistics, role in accidents, impact on a person’s finances, etc.
Significance relates to a concepts’ place as a node in a network, whereas comprehension is often limited to being able to properly identify a situation involving the concept; details about the form of the node.

TECHNOLOGY can be viewed as comprised of six aspects: Tools, Techniques, Tasks, Training, Teams, and Time. Persons (usually in teams) apply tools with trained techniques to tasks that take time. The development of technologies involves the same six aspects. The six aspects relate back on each of the six aspects; such as the design and construction of tools or educational systems for training – is a technology. In practice, some of these aspects are emphasized and others ignored.

The full significance of a given technology is another factor often ignored.
P2A processes are technologies (involving TECH6) depending on different levels of comprehension.

        OBJECTIVE for P2A processes:

To provide the “best data/information/knowledge” upon which to base action decisions at any moment. The action decisions may be to develop strategies and programs for future actions.

o   There are no claims for “objective” or “universal” “truths”.

o   This is a “pragmatic” process.

o   All other “objectives” could be reduced to this objective if we view relevant actions as intentional and involving “decisions”.
To be useful, the results of a P2A processes must be readily comprehensible to the decision-makers in a reasonable time frame. This may include an “educational process” to prepare the decision-makers for comprehension, accounting for diversity among decision-makers.

o   If the decisions are “critical”, some evaluation of sufficient comprehension of decision-makers will also be necessary.

There will be many forms of P2A processES. They will be tailored for different groups of decision-makers and different types of decisions.

o   The P2A processes must be “emergent”; it must evolve over time; changing based on feedback – but having utility from the beginning.

o   We need some useful (but not perfect) P2A processes NOW.
Do we need a meta P2A process for our functioning P2A process? Yes, but we can’t go into a regression. The functional P2A process must be a real-time utility; if it takes too much time and effort it won’t be used.

        nuet’s current P2A processes

nuet applies an intuitive P2A process

  1. to perceived individual sems (semiotic structures), usually texts or docs.
  2. to conceptual schemes (subconscious acceptance from analyzed systems of sems). This includes conceptual schemes proposed by others, based on nuet’s analysis of their sems.
  3. to sources, based on their sems passing P2A processes.

nuet’s processes are primarily below consciousness; but nuet can motivate and direct explicit actions by Larry to “investigate”. nuet, through Larry, can explicate on P2A processes, as is being done in this sem.
nuet’s P2A processes have changed (galdee-d) over many decades.

o   These P2A processes are believed (by nuet) to work very well. However, nuet recognizes how whole minds can become trapped and is thus reluctant to claim “total confirmation”. nuet believes itself to be open to de-confirmation; but not to accept a retreat/reduction to a limited worldview already contained within nuet. nuet is open to expansion of context, where nuet is a subsystem in a more comprehensive system. nuet is alert to sems that imply such impact, but none have passed nuet’s P2A processes.
Sems that don’t pass a P2A process are not discarded. Some are intentionally collected and studied.

o   Alternative “wrlds” or “worldviews”, believed/acted-upon by many are important. They are “real” in that they impact the actions of persons. Their sems are physically present.

o   Many sems that fail the P2A process may yet contain valuable data and information.

o   Sems can be dissected into component sems, some of which pass the P2A process.

o   Many sems from alternative worldviews are correct in their analysis of established beliefs but are “wild” in their proposed alternatives. Their analysis of established beliefs is often useful.

There are certain characteristics of sems that trigger an alert.

o   All claims to objective TRUTH are suspect.

o   Specific words or phrases render a sem suspect.

    • “in fact”, “the truth of the matter”, “it is obvious”, “everyone agrees”, “Americans believe”, “experts confirm”, “we know”, etc.
    • Objectification of the mean, norm, or average to represent/replace a statistical distribution raises a flag
    • Ranking multi-dimensional entities – committing the One Dimensional Fallacy, raises a flag. Ranking multi-dimensionally requires arbitrary “weighing” of dimensions.

Some sources earn trust and confidence – with limitations.

    • Contrary are those sources identified as being intentionally deceptive. Those most deceptive should be studied.
    • Fully non-deceptive sources may still contain warps and biases, but remain valuable.
    • Some sources diverge into domains of trust and non-trust.
      • E.g., Richard K. Moore, John Peterson,
    • Some sources are valuable in limited domains, but not useful in other domains.
      • No person is fully consistent, including Larry/nuet.         See Wire Sculpture model.

Some sems are strictly not “true” but are necessary as educational scaffolding to learning complex conceptual schemes. Other sems are used as metaphors or analogies which contain features that are contrary – but are to be ignored.
In areas of significant controversy, nuet’s P2A process seeks the BEST sources of the “opposition”, or “all sides”.

  • In the 1960s, Larry subscribed to Peking Review (air mailed from China and confiscated by the US government until I gave my permission to receive them) and US white papers re the Vietnam War. Often the appendices of white papers contradicted the summaries.

        nuet’s sources

INTRO – Larry/nuet has not yet established a comprehensive search/extraction from cyberspace reesee to his needs. He has not followed the changing potential for this. He is aware that his current info access system may be deficient, but probably not seriously. ANY formal system must be limiting. His input “seems” sufficient.
Current Daily input:

Skims of mass media.

  • BBC radio while sleeping & intermittent
  • Dips into CNN, MSNBC (Rachael), some Cable Specials
  • Intermittent skims of daily newspaper
  • Skim/selective-read weekly SCIENCE journal
  • email inbox of listservs – quick skims of headlines, bookmark in FireFox after skim of articles, some video viewing

o    lists from both positive & supportive sites and those from right-wing, TEA party. It is important to know the sources of others.



      • My books-to-read list expands daily. I borrow many from the public library. Sometimes I read the whole book, others I just skim. I add many books daily to my list from my online activity. Long ago I accepted that I would be unable to read most of what is relevant.
      • My book lists, going back decades, are sources expected to be relevant to nuet as a wrld. I am quick to identify books and articles of potential relevance.
      • I bookmark MANY webpages “to read”; but actually read few. These ToRead lists grow.

> quality articles. They approach 1,000 – an exemplar of future resources to process and act on.

      • A few books on Kindle, that I read intermittently.
      • I read mystery and SciFi novels, and listen to CD recordings.

Other Sources

  • I attend few conferences, primarily because of the expense. They primarily expand my “ignorance”.
  • My online address list numbers about 80, of which 30 are relevant. I skim Facebook and Google+ posts; many of which I am alerted to by email. Sometimes I comment. I don’t schedule reviews of online postings by valued contacts. I don’t regularly explore blogs.
  • Responding to an email often motivates an explication in reply, which I may Bcc to a list.
  • There are many “authors” who I am alert to their postings, which I bookmark and sometimes read – sometimes forwarding to others.

Milieus & Contexts

  • I am open to a wide range of domains – both in support of my views, and those in strong opposition.
  • I tend to distinguish between info relevant to the 21st Century, and those of more distant relevance.
  • My social perception in realtime groups is weak. However, I believe I can comprehend some basics of the wrlds of others, their strengths and weaknesses.
  • My greatest pleasure is explorative dialog in relaxed settings. Recording and editing them is my dream.

        nuet’s META systems.
There are significant meta-contexts for nuet/Larry’s assessment of inputted information.


    • Reality “is” such that it may not fit neatly into a single, logical explanatory system. It may require two (or more) seemingly conflicting explanatory systems, which may follow an exclusionary principle of not being able to be concurrently applied.
    • This builds on the complementarity of Quantum Physics, but not limited to it.
      • EXAMPLE: Are humans determined or are they free? The point of complementarity is that for humans to be determined doesn’t imply that they are not-free. A set of operations applied to human behavior in different circumstances results in the conclusion that humans are determined by a multitude of factors. For humans to “be free” involves a different set of behaviors, and when applied the conclusion is that humans are free, which doesn’t imply that they are not-determined.
      • The same argument applies in physics. The operations to determine whether an entity is a moving particle or a changing field (wave) involves different empirical operations (which happen to be mutually exclusive in application). In physics we cannot ask “Are you a wave or particle?”. If we ask “Are you a wave?” we can get a YES. If we ask “Are you a particle?” we can also get a YES.
    • nuet has integrated this complementarity to its analysis – nuet doesn’t seek closed explanations.
    • That a sem implies conflict with an established explanatory system doesn’t necessarily render it useless.
    • Applied with care, complementarity doesn’t lead to accepting many wild ideas. By considering explicitly the operations used to determine a concept’s applicability, most alternative ideas fail because they lack adequate operational definitions.


  • Long ago Larry adopted SEARCH FOR IGNORANCE as his primary life objective, sharing it with his Intro Psy students.
  • Ignorance == a positive form of knowing – OF what I don’t yet know or comprehend, or can’t yet do or appreciate. This distinction is very important in our search for useful and trustworthy information.
  • There are a few others who have written on this.
  • From the perspective of IGNORANCE I am able to seek full comprehensiveness of my knowledge field. I attempt to map the empty space in my “wire sculpture” model of my competency phase space.
  • Interacting ignorance across many knowledge domains creates a P2A “checklist” for essential boundary constraints between knowledge domains. Some features of domain specific explanatory systems alert conflict in interacting fields of ignorance. I am able to critique a domain specific explanatory system without detailed knowledge of that system, from how it relates to other domains in my ignorance field — what I know OF each discipline. I sometimes am able to suggest new research directions from this perspective; not usually well received because I lack academic basics in the discipline.
  • Persons low on ignorance may be unaware of domains that may impact their P2A assessments.


  • Alternating between perspectives of being Persons-within-Worlds to being Wrlds-simulating-Persons enhances my approaches to “reality”.
  • A person is not “wrong” when they behave “subjectively consistent” with their inner woven/constructed wrld – because no wrld is “objectively consistent”. Most of the time humans behave “subjectively consistent” with their wrld/world.
  • P2A assessments are always conducted within our personal wrld. When a sem reports highly confirmed phenomena that conflicts with our wrld we experience “cognitive dissonance” – which is usually resolved by rejecting the authenticity of the report and denial of the phenomena. This is better comprehended in context with the distinction of two minds: fast/intuitive/emotional and slow/rational/conceptual – both which have conscious and subconscious components.
  • The “wrlds” perspective is useful in comprehending the systems used by others to determine what they believe and trust to back their actions.
  • Seafing others to significantly change their wrlds is a different process from changing a person’s worldview of an objective world.
  • Most talk about “paradigm shifts” implies shifting a single paradigm. Our realities/wrlds are comprised of many interacting and interdependent paradigms. Changing wrlds involves concurrent shifting of systems of paradigms.


  • Do “systems” exist in an objective reality or are they but tools we use to structure our wrlds? This remains controversial.
  • Words read are visual experiences and texts are visual entities. Assemblies of words, for some, can be useful icons – easier to use than “diagrams without words”.
  • Words (and associated concepts) are most useful when they refer to perceptions that can be pointed to by gestures and shared in real time.
  • Abstract concepts (not empirical by perception) are often treated by analogy to yet “exist” and behave according to laws from our immediate perceptual realities. This transfer proved a barrier to our comprehending the microworld (atoms and elementary particles) with their quantum weirdness. Indeed, physicists’ creation of quantum physics in 1926 required their explicitly abandonment of the Bohr atom visual analogy with a solar system.
  • Societal systems and entities (governments, corporations, money, organizations, etc.) are not observable, but are treated as observable and assumed to follow laws of our immediate perceptual realities. Latour refers to them as phantoms. If we are open we may discover that the societal domain may exhibit weirdness just as exhibited in the quantum domain. We can no longer simply assume that the societal domains behave as things in our immediate perceptual realities.
  • This has application when we apply P2A processes to sems that assume societal systems behave “classically” (analogy to “classical physics”, prior to Relativity and Quantum conceptualizations).


    • While I am open to humankind making discoveries well beyond my imagination – in centuries and millennia to follow – I must limit my attention to sems reporting phenomena of significance in the 21st Century. Yet, we can never be sure of what will be potentially relevant. This is a special P2A process.
    • While I believe contemporary humankind is not currently competent to design humanity for beyond this century, we do have the responsibility for selecting the sensitive “initial conditions” for the emergence of “order from chaos” should we survive our Crisis-of-Crises. I don’t believe any person or team is yet sufficiently competent to design Humanity.
    • Some topics I consider not relevant for humankind during our Crisis-of-Crises. I don’t recommend cessation of research, but when scientific resources are scarce, they should not demand large sums. I personally find some of these topics very interesting. However, as resources are diverted from destructive process, and better organized, we might even be able to increase work on these areas – especially as the population competent to perform such R&D greatly expands via uplift.
      • Particle Physics and Cosmology. But who knows what will spin off from new technologies for this research.
      • Consciousness-in-Brain Research. In addition to my assessment that it will take considerable time and a new ethics to apply this new knowledge – which will come in pieces; I fear that the pieces that may come first could be used by power elites to better “control” majorities.

        Some practical thoughts on P2A processes for today and tomorrow.

  • A small icon to communicate a P2A profile for a sem would be very useful.

o   Different persons may require different types of icons to be useful, given diversity in cognition.

o   The process to design, test, & implement P2A processes will be complex and time consuming. A strategy for R&D for P2A will be a challenge.

o   What will suffice now and in the near future for WayFinder and UPLIFT?

  • How will P2A profiles for concepts and conceptual schemes beyond single sems be displayed?

WHO ARE WE? What P2A processes can we apply today to apply to reality claims critical to our working assumptions about existing societal systems, their power and intentions?

  • Establishment “conspiracy theories” about critical assassinations and destructive happenings (Okla City, 911) need P2A processing. What can we determine about what “really happened” and the potential for future critical assassinations and false-flag actions?
  • Established “histories” upon which we base our current strategies need new P2A processing.
  • What is the “real nature” of information flow, distortion and censorship and how does/will-it affect WayFinder and UPLIFT should they become effective.
  • What are the distributions of variables about the global human population relevant to WayFinder and UPLIFT and what new research strategies using cyberspace are needed for a relevant global census of humankind?
  • What can we determine, using P2A processes, about relevant societal processes beyond the ideological frames of “contemporary power players”?
  • What can we determine, using P2A processes, about relevant social processes among emergent movements and alternative organizations?
  • Can we come to a more accurate assessment of (1) the history of humankind, (2) the current “state” of humankind, (3) the best trend forecasts for humankind, and (4) the dynamic activity of human persons emerging in new milieus (cyberspace, refugee camps, unemployed youth populations, migrants, urban poor, rural poor, elite enclaves, indigenous populations, “enslaved and imprisoned”, etc.) ?
  • Can any of the above be accurately and sufficiently accomplished without bias imposed by funding sources?

What P2A process can we quickly design and test for dyads and small groups or teams? Joint processing each other’s resources.

P2A – Strategy & Technology

Technology involves strategy, and strategy is a social technology. Here I refer to P2A Technology as the hardware/software/TECH6 R&D diversified; P2A Strategy are the human O4L&L4O (Organizing-for-Learning=&=Learning-for-Organizing) dynamics facing the realities of constraints.
This is an enterprise well beyond the competencies of a person. I grok P2A is as involved as my SEAFnetwork.

  • Different designs must be tried with different populations and categories of targets for P2A. This includes a system to “manage” the competition.
  • As P2A processes are tried we expect to learn much more about what P2A is attempting to accomplish.
  • Diligence will be needed that P2A doesn’t censor essential work not yet comprehended.
  • Applying P2A to comprehending contemporary reality, as vital as it is, could easily distract work from also applying P2A to the viability of systems details for both WayFinder and UPLIFT, which are not yet adequately formed in our cognition.
  • P2A is not the only domain and enterprise of relevance. WayFinder and UPLIFT both involve a dynamic mix of many such domains and enterprises. Applying O4L&L4O to creating and sustaining dynamic “reesee seaf galdee” of “movements” should be our primary objective. DAUNTING?
  • Alan, we both have worked long and hard attempting to identify and map all relevant domains, and think on strategy and technology. And we did this with very little constructive feedback from others. I greatly feel the lack of essential feedback. We can provide some feedback to each other, and collaborate on creating a functioning reesee collective community/enterprise. Y-Worlds was a good start.
  • Do we need to create a distinct and separate project whose objective is to bring WayFinder and UPLIFT to threshold (where a collective “Movement” has momentum and viability to continue without us)? This may need to be different from WayFinder and UPLIFT as it involves different constraints and time.



Larry Victor


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.