CWRLDS AND IWRLDS Conceptual & Intuitive Interactive

Recently I had a cascade of insights that resulted in new relationships forming between some major ideas and a great increase in the significance of a set of conceptual schemes. To me, the significance of these insights, about better human futures, ranks with my emergence/transformation distinction, UPLIFT, and societal metamorphosis insights. I recognize that you don’t yet view these insights with the significance I experience them.  I should resist attempting to express this nu insight until I have crafted a better presentation, but since the insight implies that any crafted conceptual presentation will most likely fail to convey significance, it won’t hurt for me to compose a few words on the matter. I may be lucky this time and be comprehended with significance appreciated

There is only one new specific idea from my cascade of insights – the increased density of inter-relationships in the conceptual schemes and greater significance comprise its value. The new idea is that we all host two interacting wrlds: a conceptual/rational wrld and an intuitive/emotional wrld.  [cwrlds & iwrlds] These findings shift focus on very old distinctions, giving them more significance from my perspective. This slight shift from minds to wrlds brings clarity.

  •     “wrld” is the label for the constructed/woven world emergent in our mind/brains during life. Wrlds are what we experience, not a perceived world. We experience changes in our neural-molecular systems. Humankind is hypothesized as 7+ billion wrlds in structural coupling. The significance of wrlds is developed elsewhere.

More than a year ago I started hypothesizing two distinct minds: the old, mammalian  fast/intuitive/emotional mind and a newer slow/rational/cognitive mind that is dependent on our languaging processes.
This was based on two seminal books:
Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman   – This is a seminal book, now referenced by many..
The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion,  Jonathan Haidt   This book uses the Rider/Elephant metaphor.

Shifting from minds to wrlds is important only in calling attention to the structure/process of the intuitive wrld – more than a set of feelings and emotions triggered by stimuli.

Again, nothing is new but much is nu.
I don’t know whether you have read my distinction between “new” and “nu”.  Both refer to some aspect that is novel in the Here&Now or the Present. For “new” the novelty relates to the past; what was and what has changed, or is different, is “new”.  For “nu” the novelty relates to how our prior views of the future have been changed by that novelty.  Many events are both “new” and “nu”, and I am sensitive to both. I believe humans need to begin to distinguish between them and give more attention to “nu”.

  •         I have named the future HUMANITY to rise via societal metamorphosis from humankind, “NU”.
  •         “nu” is the first part of the name I give my conceptual wrld, nuet.  “et” being “extra temporal” or “expeditions temporal”.
  •         My mantra is  “reesee seaf galdee NU”.
  •         I have made visual icons for nu and some of my other concepts.
  • cnuu1


  • Conceptual minds/wrlds are quite new on evolutionary time scales.  I speculate that they emerged as deeper processing for brain data (spin-offs) behind the neural patterns leading to sensory awareness and coordinated behavior – the computational aspects of the brain. At some point this system “took on a mind of its own” – emerging languaging and the conceptual wrld (cwrld).
  • Intuitive wrlds (iwrlds) trace back to our ancestors who lived as little mammals underground while dinosaurs tramped above. Being “social” has been wired in for a very long time.  We know that mammals have sensory/perceptual experiences, using basically the same neural circuity as humans. Some autistics, who may have their cwrld circuity damaged, claim to experience as mammals. Our social world is likely experienced in our iwrld.  This serves as a felt context for any languaging about the social (in cwrld).
  • Our current human crisis may be attributed to insufficient time for the two wrlds to adjust to each other, time before we drive ourselves to extinction. Many have speculated that this may be the fate of all species in the universe where cwrlds emerged.  I hope the that by “formative causation” (Sheldrake) we humans have the opportunity to break the curse – maybe the “first” in the universe.  Isn’t this a goal to compete with the Olympics and World Cup?
  • The interaction of the two wrlds is as old as history – almost all performed as competition.  That competition continues today, in various venues. What is needed is to dance, not fight.  Both wrlds are in the same person.  These wrlds are not conscious beings, their competition is not intrinsically intentional. They relate according to prior mind/brain practices – which do also evolve.  Ours are evolving, — as evidenced by the fantastic accomplishments of humankind – even if we unintentionally damaged Gaia in the process.  NOW WE KNOW BETTER.  Our two wrlds can “learn” to dance in harmony, if we have time.
  • My insight is that we can’t dance at the insistence of our cwrlds.  Our iwrlds won’t permit it, unless our iwrlds also agree to dance.  However, those humans who have demonstrated a strong sensitivity to their iwrlds believe in the superiority of iwrlds over cwrlds.  They claim to have the wisdom of eons.  To these iwrlds, cwrlds are a curse. Yet, iwrld advocates have learned to use languaging in ways to command “tribal coherence” and “consensus”, as well as to block acceptance of information from the cwrlds of others which may threaten their hegemony. Thus the current trend to information closed silo, lies continually repeated even in the presence of evidential refutation – and believed as truths within silos, manufactured consensus, and even an attack of evidence based science trumped by faith.
  • Yet, it is those with strong cwrlds who are aware of our plight and desperately try to involve others.  Not only do they fail in reaching those with undeveloped cwrlds or those with strong iwrlds, but they also fail to reach others with strong cwrlds.  Those of us with strong cwrlds ALSO have powerful iwrlds which we suppress when we attempt to share cwrld information. We all have our moments when our iwrlds are in command, but we try to keep these aspects of our lives separate.
  • There are a few persons who try to dance, or are aware that dancing is necessary. I have no knowledge of how many there are, as I expect most of them don’t capture the attention of those strong in either of their wrlds.
  • These two wrlds have been metaphorically related to brain laterality. Cwrlders are claimed to be left brain dominant.  Iwrlders champion the right brain, claimed to be dominant in emotions and artistic attributes.  Actually, brain laterality is far more complex and this simplistic attribution is not useful – although there are significant laterality aspects.  As to the claim of left brain dominance – cwrlders show more neural metabolism in the left hemisphere when cognition is active – but we are unaware that conceptualization is constrained by the iwrld (said to exist in the right hemisphere). Setting up iwrld constraints could involve less metabolic activity than the cwrld activity.  iwrlds don’t dictate what happens in the cwrld, but their constrains limit what can be conceived or imagined.
  • The upshot of this new insight – which I have been harping on for almost a decade – is that what we activists are doing is not working – and can’t work if our primary effort is composing text seeds and attempting to sow them in cognitive soils dominated by defensive iwrlds, let alone enable the requisite collaboration to create nurturing scaffolding for the new sprouts from those few seeds that are able to germinate.
  • We cwrlders have always noted the importance of setting, staging, and cuing.  We are aware of the importance of  the “personal touch” and how verbal presentations can engage iwrlds.  What we take from the interaction in terms of cwrld information is another question.  Cwrlders confuse their iwrld euphoria, often gained at intellectual conferences, with their relevant cwrld gains.
  • Visuals, I speculate, are part of both iwrlds and cwrlds.  The visuals of texts, diagrams, maps, and graphs are primarily of cwrlds. Art, both representational and abstract probably straddle both wrlds. Visuals are not the golden road to iwrlds; what are has yet to be researched. We know media (as the “message”) informs iwrlds, as does social contact and rituals.
  • And here I am,  attempting to convey this valuable insight using only cwrld technologies.  HELP!!


  •     We humans cannot achieve the needed “meeting of the minds” via language alone, even in social media or in F2F conversation.  This doesn’t imply that we should abandon language and our cwrlds. We need to create nu languages (suited for visual digital presentations) that are experienced in a milieu/context that positively engages our iwrlds. Shifting to so-called “visual languages”, without addressing how to improve cwrld discourse, is an attempt for iwrld dominance.
  •     What are the variables related to iwrlds? iwrlds are the worlds of mammals. How are they organized? How have the basic mammal iwrlds been modified by interacting with cwrlds.  Young human infants life in emergent iwrlds
  •     Is adult stage development (e.g., Robert Kegan’s Objectification, and Graves.Beck/Cowan’s Spiral Dynamics) related to the growth/development of iwrlds and/or different levels of cwrld/iwrld interaction?


  •         I will begin trying to engage others to interact with me as structurally coupling iwrld/cwrld complexes. Can we establish a social/wrld network? Might our approaching each other as wrlds, instead of as persons, enable convergence on mutual comprehension of critical conceptual schemes with an intuitive/emotional drive to design/implement relevant personal/collective action?
  •         Anyone interested in this expedition, please contact me.


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.