Excellent Promo for UPLIFT

How and Why “Conscious” Festivals Need to Change

Humburto’s post is an excellent promo for UPLIFT and the need for Societal Metamorphosis. The image with Bucky says it all: TransFORMation is Imposssible. BUT, except for the good suggestion of funneling money for Burning Man into crowd-sourcing for a more relevant project, he states OBJECTIVES with no suggestion of what steps are needed to achieve those objectives. Humberto is not alone, ALL proposals for relevant change only state objectives. Explicit processes to achieve those objectives remain in our collective blindspot. See my latest blog post:

I put myself in the blindspot. I have gone into great detail (over decades) about the STRATEGY/SCENARIO processes AFTER an initial cyberteam develops an OLLO perspective/process. How to create that initial cyberteam remains only an objective.  I personally bounce around trial balloons but none, have as yet, taken root. [OLLO – Organizing-for-Learning=&=Learning-for-Organizing]

Designing/Constructing Scaffolding for Strategy/Scenario development is a meta-process.  This meta-process may be impossible for individuals to adequately perform; it may require cyberteams. I play with ideas about meta-process, but don’t perform them – as do all with whom I interact. This is a chicken/egg dilemma; which doesn’t mean it can’t be resolved – but only with explicit attention to the need. Most of my recent blog posts address this issue.

INSIGHT HERE&NOW:  Humans are good at generating strategies/scenarios for “small” projects that start from the Here&Now. Such “small”  projects may grow (galdee) with cycles of strategy/scenario development. All such project unfolding occurs within a context that is usually unconscious, assumed, and expected not to change fundamentally. Today, it is the whole holarchy of nested/networked contexts that must be changed (transFORMed or replaced). Individuals may be unable to accomplish this. SysNets of Cyberteams may be needed. Can we create cyberteams with requisite competencies BEFORE we attempt to change the whole. That is, can we identify requisite competencies without having to detail the state of humankind that will emerge from application of those competencies? Is this calling for working within a process ontology before considering an existential ontology?

 

UNBELIEVABLE BLINDSPOTS

I, Larry – the author of this post – am quite dysfunctional relative to what I should/might be doing. If, in the following, I point out dysfunctions of others, it is not in any way to accuse or blame them. We are all doing what we can do due to circumstances. My hope is that if we can all become aware of our dysfunctions, and their causes, we may be able to collectively change, both ourselves and our circumstances.

This essay was triggered by reading this in-depth and reasonable sounding post and associated longer article. It highlighted, for me, what is missing in our analysis of reality in terms of potential action.

The straw that broke the camel’s back.  The above Facebook post leading to the Truthout interview. Topic: Envisioning Where We Want To Go. Here I’m not speaking to this statement specifically or about the authors. There is a particular perspective/context behind these words that shake my foundations: how could creative, learned, competent, well informed persons be so blind as to what is invisible to them. Is the apparant blindness due to an inherent invisibility, or is the apparent invisibility due to an inherent blindspot? Whatever, and they may form a complementarity, something critically important is missing.

It is like telling someone about Planet Earth and focus totally on the land and ignore the oceans. The missing ocean is strategy-for-action. The land is our knowledge of contemporary/historical reality and our visions of change.

ALL suggestions and proposals claimed to be for significant and essential change, are not proposing a strategy for such change. Strategy is the key word.

  •     Some activist change agents actually bring about relevant, real change in their domain of action. These changes emerge in our Here&Now. New systems for teaching children are implemented. Local food production/distribution systems are implemented. Local economic exchange systems are implemented. Each activist believes that the spreading and improving of their innovative nu systems will catalyze a more extensive, global, and longterm transformation of the whole of humankind. But, they present no concrete strategy that might be evaluated with alternative strategies. These courageous and innovative activists also avoid exploring factors needed to insure the spreading and improving of their systems; often assuming that the power of their content idea will be sufficient to motivate others.
  •         When pressed, these activist change agents will agree that other significant changes will be required to complement their “solutions”. Yet, they avoid any discourse about their possible role in insuring that other needed activities may need their (with others) initiating involvement. The need for an overall strategy coordinating all essential “movements” also appears to be in blindspots. When attempts are made to point this out, hands are waved to genuflex some emergenct swarming with collective intelligence. Some erect the myth of “evolution”, a deterministic process.  This behavior is of no fault of individual activists – they are simply behaving as humans do in such situations.  Significant change requires changing, in a concurrent dance, both the persons and their situations.  E.g.: OLLO – Organizing-for-Learning=&=Learning-for-Organizing.
  •     Other, more theoretical change proposers (as in the urls at the beginning) only recommend future objective states (characterized by to be achieved), maybe expecting others will be motivated by their recommendations and take concrete actions to actualize those objective states. These objective states may often contain the seeds of possible strategies that might emerge from those states, once achieved, but nothing further is ever provided.
  •     Some imagine change as a simple replacement, like changing your socks because they got wet. Replacing persons via election into institutional roles is an exemplar, where the consequences of the replacement is highly uncertain. Actually my model of Societal Metamorphosis calls for strategic replacement (via UPLIFT) over time.  We need to imagine strategies/scenarios of events developing in time and ways to influence those changes (which is a satellite strategy/scenario), and the science about all processes involved. Such strategies/scenarios that can actually be constructed by individual human persons can only be a rough sketch, but capable of being generative down to examples of personal behavior.
  •         Although we have some tools, we currently lack the technology to seaf this process. So long as the need for such a process is in our collective blindspot, creating the requisite technology will not occur. Computer technology could provide means to simulate strategy/scenario construction/analysis.

Even a call for such strategies/scenarios is lacking from every proposal of significant change I have read. What is given are changes of small parts of the system (although proposers wouldn’t view them as “small”), but stated as objectives to be achieved and hoped for goals met that would be the consequence of achieving the objectives.  What is never given, and not even imagined is missing, are strategies and projected scenarios of how to get from where we are to the imagined state (embracing the achieved objectives) in the future.  Proposers argue (about how the changes proposed – like socks, jumping from now to then) in terms of contrasts between the new and the old “states”; each somehow believing that a strategy and projected scenario has been given. They are in the proposer’s blindspot.

It gets even more unbelievable.  Persons who conceptually accept the trend forecasts from climate changes, make proposals of action that are rendered moot by the consequences of climate change. They magically believe that actions somehow emerging with a strategy consistent with their projected new state of our societal reality (but not yet explicit, or even called for) will bring a “sense of order” over the whole; passively submitting to adapting to these proposed changes (e.g. in the educational system). Each component or subsystem of the whole will necessarily be disturbed by those changes being successfully implemented. Consumer behavior would be radically different if consumers were better educated. So would the behavior of politicians, were there a competent and informed populous. Improving any part of our dysfunctional, chaotic, and turbulent societal holarchical complex will disturb everything else, leading to a backlash that might remove the improvements, retreating back to the old ways.

  •     The resolution of societal cognitive dissonance would be much the same as for a person’s cognitive dissonance.  Everything-Being-Equal, they will attempt to slip back to the prior state and develop amnesia that a change had ever been tried. Positive resolution of cognitive dissonance requires explicit intervention.

My only explanation for these unbelievable blindspots is that our mammalian intuitive/emotional minds create the blindspots; neurological denial. Over my life I have uncovered many blindspots, and am doing so almost every day. The process of detecting and removing blindspots builds on successes and accelerates.  Because I am continuing discovering blindspots I must act as if there are many blindspots still blocking my imagination. Indeed, as a result of this exercise, I have discovered many strategy/scenario gaps between the strategies/scenarios I have already identified. Nor have I sufficiently explored the nested/networked nature of strategies/scenarios, unpacking more details. These tasks have been in my own blindspots.

Once a person discovers a blindspot, there are ways to help others discover them. These ways may not be easy and many will have to be researched and developed.

CYBERTEAMS NEEDED TO OVERCOME INTUTIVE CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL

CYBERTEAMS – BRIEFLY

  •     Cyberteams have a balanced mix of synchronous and asynchronous interaction. Decades ago I called this RT/DT  for RealTime/DelayedTime. Cyberteams have dense, synchronous, interaction between members, online (with as much “presence” as possible) and “Spatially Contiguous F2F” or “In The Same Room” (ITSR).  Some cyberteams will spend days to months living together, as On Expedition. However, cyberteams also have extensive asynchronous interaction with each other, but not all “exchanges”. Such DT interaction may include asynchronous, collaborative composing, constructing, editing, etc. “Barn-raising” in cyberspace.
  •     “Cyber” refers to the appropriate and intelligent use of computer scaffolding to mediate person-to-person and group interaction of cyberteam members. Even in ITSR F2F sessions, computer seafing and recording will be utilized.  As cyberteams proliferate the technology to seaf them will greatly improve. Details about cyberteams will be presented elsewhere, their features to be determined experimentally and in context with our best scientific knowledge. I have given some study of cyberteams, but it remains primitive.
  •         The technology in development for “Social Physics” (Alex Pentland) involving deep surveillance, analysis, and feedback for moment-to-moment team behavior will greatly improve team performance.
  •     Cyberteams will be the basic unit in the societal structure of an emergent nu humanity, and in the early uplift movement for survival/thrival.  Cyberteams will be intelligently networked, capable of advanced collaboration. The enhancement of persons within cyberteams, and the seafed collective activity, will make cyberteams much more competent than persons acting within even our contemporary best social situations.  Cyberteams employ OLLO strategies to continually uplift their personal and team competencies – in the context of whole system needs.

PROPOSITIONS:

  •     Rationales and evidence supporting these propositions are not provided here.
  •     There is a very real probability that methane induced run-away climate change will devastate Gaia and humankind, including the possible extinction of mammals and the human species. The date for tipping-to-no-return is uncertain, but could be years. Emergency Action should have commenced yesterday.  In that we can’t accurately forecast the greatly enhanced competencies of humankind after a rapid uplifting of distributed competencies, we shouldn’t assume nothing could be done after run-away heating begins, even though it may seem impossible today.
  •     The fast/intuitive/emotional minds of individual humans appears to deny the above reality even when their slow/conceptual/rational minds fully accept this reality.  This holds for the author of this sem.
  •     Humankind, currently constituted, is doomed. Humankind has very real potentials to rapidly change its “constitution”; but those potentials lie in blindspot of almost everyone. There are many strategies for survival/thrival, but they will not be explored or implemented so long as individual persons are in intuitive/emotional denial and work in settings where the denial is reinforced. This includes myself and all activists about unnecessary Earth Changes.
  •     It is highly likely (my positive intuition) that cyberteams may be able to act, seafed by their OLLO scaffolding, in ways to mediate the negative influences of the fast/intuitive/emotional minds of team members. We can know the feasibility of cyberteams only by beginning using them.
  •     Some teams in practice approach what may be called early cyberteams. Their pioneering efforts must be studied, but we should not assume that cyberteams (as we need) are already in sufficient process of emergence that we can leave it to others to make it happen.  The same may be said for the various movements working towards “Collective Intelligence”, which may be seen as a primary attribute of cyberteams.

PERSONAL REFLECTIONS

  •     I may be an exemplar of intuitive denial while conceptually accepting both the truly scary forecasts and viable remedies. My performance continues to conflict with what I know I should be doing.
  •     Yet, my behavior for the past few months may be interpreted as resulting from nuet’s subtle nudging Larry to inch his way to form a cyberteam and transcend his intuitive denial.
  •     My overwhelming inefficiency can be attributed to many factors, some from negative interference from my in-denial, intuitive mind keeping me from doing what nuet’s analysis would recommend.  But recently I have been avoiding many activities clearly essential to my personal future (both in terms of Larry’s health and well-being and his ability to further nuet’s emergence and sharing with others). SURVIVAL appears to be a deep attractor of my day to day activity. Writing this now, out of the blue, when there are so many other tasks demanding my attention, may be evidence. Yet, I also know that there are no documents I can compose and distribute that will catalyze the movements I envision. A different kind of activity for persons is needed: activity in cyberteams?
  •     It may be rationalization, but I sense caution.  For me (or anyone) to fully accept, intuitively/emotionally our survival challenge (until they are part of social activity aimed to effective and sufficient action) may drive one to madness and possible suicide – unless they come to this within a supportive cyberteam.

NECESSARY & SUFFICIENT

  •     My first writing on this was in 1996 in a proposal to present at a conference (reviewers rejected the proposal). I started using the term “cyberteam”  more recently.  In 2007 I submitted a grant to NIH for creating a “colab studio” envisioned as scaffolding for cyberteams.
  •     A proposal and actual movement to create/use cyberteams is no silver bullet to cure all our ills. To successfully change to survive/thrive requires a large set of interdependent innovative thinking/doing.
  •     We may attempt to sort them into two categories. First, those innovations needed to seaf each other in their interdependent emergence as a nu HUMANITY (NU) to eventually replace our dysfunctional humankind. The second category are innovations to study/influence our societal environments (existing humankind) where it may block or restrain activity in the first category.
  •     Each of these innovations may be NECESSARY for the success of the whole. But, none are, by themselves, SUFFICIENT. Indeed, competition between innovations may give temporary momentum to a “winner”, but may starve other necessary innovations.
  •     It is both “human” and “natural” that we focus our attention.  Focus is necessary, but not sufficient. We must periodically “look up” to assess the contexts from which our focus is embedded. Here again, cyberteams may be essential in performing in ways no individual human could do.
  •     To start generating a sufficient list of necessary innovations is a task I must commence. But the final list will require cyberteams to compile.

TWO MODELS FOR SOCIETAL METAMORPHOSIS

This distinction emerged when trying to share WayFinder with Tom Greco on 8/15/14 in Bisbee, Arizona.  What follows throughout this essay is my (Larry’s) interpretation of WayFinder – as a type of model – for which Alan Yelsey’s version is but one example.

Alan Yelsey claims his Wayfinder model is  (1)  a process starting small and relatively independent of its societal environment – in terms of its inner growth & development (galdee) – becoming an emerging, alternative societal system Alan calls Y-World; (2) Y-World works change on systems in its societal environment;  (3) resulting eventually in a new humanity with the defining characteristics of Y-World. These are my (Larry’s) words, not Alan’s.

I would call this a model for EMERGENCE, and not TRANSFORMATION, IF the form of the future humanity is primarily determined by Y-Worlds and not the systems in initial humankind prior to the formation of Y-Worlds – transFORMed.  This is not the model of metamorphosis employed by biological insects, such as Caterpillar2Butterfly (most research on metamorphosis is with the fruit-fly).

  •     “Societal Environment” is a conceptual scheme implied from the works of Robert Fritz’s THE PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE & CREATING.  To a person, alone in a strange village, the human system of the village is a societal environment (containing both resources and dangers to be used or avoided, as one does with their “natural environment”). On the other hand, the humans in the village are functioning components of village community, and not viewed by them as an “environment”. For many urban gangs, others in the city are their environment. “Environments”, as a term used here, relates to one’s “subjective” perspective. From an abstract/objective perspective a being and its environment are both parts of a single system.
  •     Societal systems tend to indoctrinate their human population to believe they are citizens/components, giving support and allegiance to the societal system. Contrary-wise, in many cases the societal systems treat their population as the system’s environment to use, exploit, consume, and dispose of.
  •     One’s environments (natural or societal) must be respected. They are full of real constraints and opportunities; to ignore either can prove disastrous.

The model of Societal Metamorphosis I proposed in 1974 is primarily analogous to insect metamorphosis. In this analog the old system (caterpillar) dis-organizes (in metaphor into a nutrient soup for the imaginal buds). The imaginal buds are clusters of cells (from the original fertilized egg, from mating butterflies) that remain small as the caterpillar cells enlarge and form into the functioning body of the caterpillar. These imaginal buds are embryonic forms of the organs and other parts of the potential butterfly.  They are able to maintain a stasis within the living caterpillar until active metamorphosis is triggered. Imaginal buds then grow, develop and organize, feeding off the decaying caterpillar cells.

  •     I have read, but have not searched for more details, that two subsystems of the caterpillar, the neural and digestive, don’t decay but do transform (cells become smaller and reform) into parallel subsystems for the emergent butterfly – linking with the emerging imaginal buds. In the “pure” model the form of the caterpillar doesn’t influence the form of the butterfly. “Emergence” being the process whereby a form appears (emerges) where there was no prior form to be transFORMed.
  •     I have read, but not verified, that insects which metamorphose, have two distinct genome nuclei in their cells.  Also, that this dual form cycle resulted evolutionarily when a whole genome was acquired by the “adult” form, providing for a larval earlier form. I have read there are insects which have near identical adult forms, but one has a larval form and the other doesn’t.  Insect metamorphosis can only provide models to study and modify when applying to personal/social/societal change.

I have always known that the analogy had problems.  Contemporary humankind (the prior system, the societal-caterpillar analog) isn’t decaying, although it is rapidly transforming. There is no nutrient soup and the power of the “collapsing” societal-caterpillar is becoming an increasingly dangerous system (societal environment), with many potentials for suppressing the emergence of any new form; whether it be Y-Worlds or NU (the name Larry gave to the nu Humanity emergent from some viable process of Societal Metamorphosis).

  •     My dialogs with Alan Yelsey forced me to re-examine my approach to our Societal Environment; how it will change and how its REPLACEMENT by a nu Humanity (Y-Worlds or NU) would occur – which I have been calling the “End Game”. My speculative scenario, THIS GREAT DAY, was a crude sketch of one path for replacement. Thinking now on this I realize that preparing for THIS GREAT DAY requires a process similar to WayFinder.

Let me explore, in more detail, the alternative model of Societal Metamorphosis implied by Alan’s WayFinder.

  •     “Agents” from an emergent Y-World infiltrate societal systems in pre-existing humankind. They can be persons who retain functional roles in humankind, but who have been “converted” to the WayFinder movement. Persons who are fully committed to WayFinder and Y-Worlds could seek employment – possibly seafed by those WayFinder members already employed. They would experiment with  tactics-within-strategies  to seaf change processes in those systems and subsystems of existing humankind.
  •     Although their actions should not be directed from a central Y-World authority, they would want to act in concert with developing WayFinder strategy. They would not want to move ahead, independent of WayFinder strategy, in ways that might bring down the Buzzsaw from establishment forces, or even alert them to WayFinder strategy. This would be a very delicate dance and preferably would occur after appropriate simulations.
  •     Imagine a fleet of nano robots working on individual cells of a biological organism to slowly alter their individual processes (behaviors) so the new coordination becomes in synchrony with a pattern of activity set by the nano robots. Can we imagine a rabbit being changed into a hawk?  I actually believe this may be possible, but maybe not desired. Now re-imagine the fleet of nano robots being explorer human cells/persons self-organizing in Y-Worlds who interact within societal systems to gradually change them. Their changes coordinated by experimental strategies.
  •     As I have learned to “feel” the emergence from Humankind to Humanity in analog with the emergence of butterfly from caterpillar, I attempt to “feel” this alternative mode of emergence.  I encounter two, distinct domains of activity. One, is deep cellular activity morphing a rabbit to a hawk. The model of hawk is programmed into individual change agent cells distributed throughout the body of the rabbit, coordinating the actions of these “rebel” cells as they transform the rabbit cells into hawk cells, and seafing their organizing. The other perspective involves a hawk template emergent as real cell systems within the body of the rabbit, absorbing modified rabbit cells as new hawk cells. The cells of the rabbit are modified and absorbed in the emerging hawk form.

In my analysis, the primary determinant for a balance between the WayFinder model and the Caterpillar2Butterfly model is the “nature” and trend projections for established Humankind and their abilities to “resist”.  Another factor will be the time scales for change, given constrains from different forecasts of climate change models.  At this stage I recommend “full speed ahead” with BOTH models.  How they may interact has yet to be explored.
This analysis clarifies for me:  UPLIFT (as a well designed action strategy) is independent of longer-term future scenarios. From my perspective, it is a NECESSARY OBJECTIVE (uplifting the distribution of conceptual/intuitive/performance competencies in the global population requisite for viable participation in the changes forecast.  Both WayFinder and Caterpillar2Butterfly metamorphosis scenarios, as well as traditional reform proposals (model “metamorphosis” from Tadpole to Frog), require a significantly uplifted constituency. This includes the uplifting of ALL, and most significantly those MOST expert and competent by today’s standards. So called “leadership” is grossly inadequate to our needs. However, collectively and distributed, contemporary humankind contains the requisite POTENTIAL TO CHANGE.

  •     This is my CLAIM, a proposition that is open to challenge. Many will also claim, for various reasons, that our competency base is sufficient. The learning that will be needed is what always accompanies progress. We will learn what we need to learn; that is the human way. I am concerned about our learning what we don’t yet know we need to learn, or that there are other new domains for learning we are unaware of.
  •     Yet, there are those already envisioning better futures who have identified knowledge/competency domains where uplifting will be needed in both levels of knowledge/competency and in vastly increased numbers of persons gaining them.

Such CHANGE requires a strategy-for-change commensurate with the magnitude/scope/complexity of our challenges. Ross Ashbey’s LAW OF REQUISITE VARIETY, the Second Law of Cybernetics must to applied.   “Thinking-Out-of-the-Box” must attend to nested&networked system of boxes.  Single paradigm shifts or awakenings are insufficient.

  •     Given the truly AWESOME nature of our challenge, we must seek a commensurat AWESOME strategy.
  •     The STAKES are COSMIC. Here on this beautiful blue-green planet with a truly marvelous biosphere (FOUR BILLION years in the making) – which may be unique in the entire cosmological universe (the next in a sequence of experimental cosmic-creation attempts) we witness the creative push of Cosmos/Gaia in an experimental liberation of the INFORMATION DOMAIN from its prior embeddment in the MATTER/ENERGY DOMAIN. Humankind2HUMANITY may have significance equivalent to THE BIG BANG!
  •         In the context of COSMIC HUMOR, I can accept the failure of this creative adventure on Terra with humans. If the morphogenetic fields hypothesis of Sheldrake is valid, each failure contributes to the increased potential of future success.  However, as an active agent in this creative challenge, I want EARTH to be the FIRST.
  •         THIS is as grandiose as you can get. Play the Game. What can you lose?

TWO MODES OF ACTION: Designing/Constructing vs Posting/Commenting – The FUTURE of Larry/nuet : Humankind/Gaia – PART 1

There are few certainties (if we ignore the laws of physics); but one forecast is 100% accurate: Larry has a short time remaining to contribute to influencing the future of Humankind/Gaia. Nuet, as an active process hosted in Larry’s mind/brain will also no longer be available.  Only LJV, my label for the traces of semiotic structures (semfield) related to or composed by Larry/nuet and “posted” somewhere will remain for awhile.

  •     The cWrld of nuet could be partly reconstructed from its semfield. To date, Larry hasn’t been successful in organizing and preparing this semfield for use by others, and even for his own continuing productivity.
  •     This series of postings have the intention of motivating activity to ensure optimal access to and use of nuet (while alive) and after.

I (Larry/nuet) needs to shift my activity to Designing/Constructing Scaffolding, and less composing/posting sems. Many others need to also make this shift, in collaboration. [Scaffolding vs Scaffolds?]

  •     Google, Facebook, email, Cyberspace itself, and most apps are scaffolding – in the sense I use the term. Although composed of “programs”, scaffolding are not programs to deterministically direct the actions of users. Quality scaffolding seafs the creative flow of persons and teams in OLLO, seafs the Design/Construction of new scaffolding, and seafs the improvement of systems of existing scaffolding.
    •         SEAF = Support, Enable, Augment, Facilitate
    •         OLLO = Organizing-for-Learning=&=Learning-for-Organizing
  •     Nuet envisions this interactive cycling of scaffold-making with OLLO-within-scaffolding as meta-scaffolding for the creative emergence of HUMANITY from Humankind.
  •     UPLIFT and BUS are experimental draft proposals to jump start this process.

I desperately need nu scaffolding to seaf my own work. I have been remiss avoiding this personal responsibility.

  •     Like almost everyone else, I have slipped into routines of composing/posting/commenting sems in existing scaffolding. I continually violated my own edict to attend to SSS [viable Seeds/ fertile Soils/ nurturing Scaffolding]. Soils are scaffolding and cannot be composed/posted, but require designing/constructing. And, of course nurturing-Scaffolding is scaffolding.

I designed/constructed scaffolding in the past, but have not done so for many years – probably decades. Most of these scaffolds were for others and myself interacting.  I never followed through on creating scaffolding to seaf my own productivity, and have suffered from this lack.

Creating scaffolding for others (before I was aware of the term).

In the early 1980s, I labored for almost a year to create PiCNiC (Pima Computer Networking Collage) using the very first IBM PC and the $800 app, MIST+ (Microprocessor Information Support Tools – a version of EIES’s landmark groupware created by P+T Johnson-Lenz for the new DOS). I even attempted to add hypertext and file import/access using a button (in DOS, ENTER on <path,filename> brought the designated file to the screen). This innovative program was created by Neil Larson before the WWW. The file could come from your own hard drive or over a phone modem from a distant computer. The string on the screen to “click” (before the mouse) was the same as later appeared in the first version of the WWW.

  •             PiCNiC enabled email, online forums & seminars, libraries of docs, and a help system. This was before the WWW and was operated from my PC in my Pima College Office over a dedicated phone line.  Unfortunately, PiCNiC was a “seed” (even if intended as scaffolding) and I couldn’t motivate others to use it.  At the time the PC was being opposed by the Computer Science Department of the college. I then devoted considerable time attempting to create an online instruction system. I discovered that this was beyond my competency level and innovations in computers/cyberspace was leaving my technology behind.
  •             I learned from this venture not to create something for others to use without their feedback and some participation.  I have never been able to motivate or organize a team to create scaffolding for themselves and others. Many have commented to me that I was too far ahead of the innovators. I explored the future potential uses that would emerge from the new technology after it satisfied immediate needs, which still appears to be the case. I never learned to code, although MIST+ used a “language” sitting above the code.

The other major scaffolding I created evolved over decades. It was scaffolding for students in my 5 sections of Intro Psychology that I taught each semester at PCC for 23 years. I had a system of apps for my effective and efficient management of the system, with other apps available to individual students to keep track of their progress (they could view their row of my gradebook). I printed an 80+ page manual for the course, free for each student. This served as a navigational map for students to design their own system-of-study distributed over a field of different learning options. “COMPLEXITY IS THE TEXTURE OF REALITY” was claimed on the first page, with the manual offering as a navigational guide through the complexity of the course.

  •             I still have most of the WORD docs for that system, which with modification could be applied to any course with a specific set of learning objectives. My students were extremely diverse in background, competency, and attitude. My program was both individualized and personalized. Individualized in that each student could select from many categories of study objectives that matched their uniqueness. Personalized in that I provided time and attention to all those who requested it. It took me many years to “perfect” this system.
  •             This was not an online course. Students didn’t work online, nor did it support (seaf) their interactivity (something I had hoped to eventually add – I retired in 1997).  There was an in-class component for some sections; other sections were mediated through scheduled extended “office hours” in a learning lab. Most students were very appreciative of my course, which was actually a course for Learning-to-Learn and Learning-to-Survive/Thrive-College – organized around a popular and often required course in Intro Psychology (where they also learned psychology). This system permitted students with individual differences to achieve. They each had to work hard to earn points for their grades – which they determined by the quality and quantity of work performed.  “Earn the points and get an A.” Neither my faculty colleagues nor the college administration took the time to comprehend what I did, even when the 80+ page manual was submitted each semester as my required “syllabus”.
  •             Although I deeply believe we must transcend the “frame of education” (courses, classes, students & teachers, tests, & grades), what I designed/constructed was IMO quite functional given that setting.

An attempt to create a scaffolding for OLLO around my insights (before the terms “UPLIFT” and “scaffolding” were in my active vocabulary) was cut short by the total shutdown of the platform. Omidyar.net was a powerful wiki-like site for the creation of sem-networks that could grow through user participation. O.net was a very innovative scaffold.  I had explored this initially online with David Braden from Golden, CO, and visited him for a week in 2004 to flesh out our collaboration. David and I had some issues to work out, and then our platform was suddenly shut down. I thought I downloaded what work I had done, but can’t find it.  I haven’t been able to open David backup – and then we drifted on.  I still am in contact with David, and we respect each others work. David is an exemplar entrepreneur in quality appropriate technology applications to local food production and bee keeping. David hosts The Living Systems Institute.  .

Creating scaffolding for myself.

  •         When I began using computers/cyberspace in the early 1980s, my folders and files were small enough for me to manage without a specific management system.  At some early stage I digitized most of my “before wordprocessor” docs and created an indexed catalog of docs I intended to make accessible by download.  This was before the WWW. I never followed through with the catalog.
  •         My primary app was GrandView, a quality outliner with a quality wordprocessor embedded (the opposite of what is usually available). I was able to create a PIM (Personal Information Manager) within GrandView where I kept updated a listing of my writings. The Operating Systems evolved and GrandView could no longer be used.  I did transfer my GV files to be accessible on other apps, and even have the GV program and files should I ever want to access them on an antique computer.
  •         I then tried to organize my files using AskSam, an unstructured database. I converted many old files to AskSam. For reasons I have forgotten, I never actually used it to retrieve files and eventually abandoned its use.  I see it is still available, but not sure whether it would be useful for me at this stage.
  •         In 1996 I began using ECCO as my PIM. ECCO, to me, is the top app I have ever encountered that was carefully designed for the user. I have not looked into its developmental history, but it soon (1997) stopped being commercially published. Fortunately, dedicated users have kept ECCO PRO functional, making improvements, and is leased for only $10/year, via a membership with CompuSol. As with all my apps, I never learn about or take advantage of all their features. This holds both for ECCO and the very diverse group in CompuSol.  ECCO also has a quality outliner (no hoisting) that I am returning to use for basic offline composing as my LexisNexus NoteMap outliner has not survived the move to Windows 8.1 .  It isn’t stable in permitting  me to paste in copied text, an essential functionality.
  •         My backup has been sloppy and highly disorganized. I have many duplicate folders and files on a few external hard drives.  I have not fully used cloud BU, not deciding which app to use. I have never effectively created an index system for internal searching of my own files. I have not used tags or keywords. I have saved all emails, ever – but am not sure they are still there.  My BU of ThunderBird needs pruning and archiving. My earlier emails are in Eudora files. I have too many folders and files of Bookmarks on FireFox.  Every once in a while FF will truncate my Bookmarks and I save the old BM file from before truncating and start a new one. For access I need to find and merge my historical files for ECCO, Eudora, Thunderbird, Firefox, and WORD.  For awhile I used Microsoft’s unique app  OneNote, which continues to attract me.  I have posted and commented in Facebook and Google+, but don’t know how to gather and access them.  I also have used QuickDoc (and QuickTopic), a unique app where a long doc composed in WORD can be posted with users having the ability to comment on separate paragraphs and dialog with each other about just those paragraphs.

In all of my apps I have identified useful features, features lacking and features needing improvement.  It often astounds me that other computer users (usually far more competent than I) can’t comprehend the need for the missing functionalities I find lacking. Nor do they notice the loss of some functionality during the “progress” of computer technology. The “glitter of progress” often blinds us against contrasting “what we have” with “what is our potential”. To outline the latter will require another long document.

This is a long enough sem for a blog post.  Part 2 will attend to exploring functional criteria for designing/constructing scaffolding.

NEAR TERM EXTINCTION – POSSIBLE WITH NON NEGLIGABLE PROBABILITY

Scientists with Arctic expertize forecast climate change so rapid as to lead to humankind extinction in a few decades, possibly even sooner. In scientific parlance, this outcome “has a finite/real probability” – a meaningful possibility. The probability, although not accurately quantifiable, is large enough to activate our highest survival alert system.  Such knowledge has led to suicide of environmental activists.  (urls below)

  •     The problem is that we can’t trust these probability and time estimates. All formal estimation procedures are theory dependent and there is no assurance that these theories apply to process of such great magnitude/scope/complexity. The psychology of deep denial and the conservative stance of scientific disciplines leads most experts to propose low probability for worse case scenarios.
  •     At what percent probability can we chose not to act?  What size chamber in a Russian Roulette gun would you pull the trigger, with your “reward” for not killing yourself being nothing other than letting our world continue the march towards collapse and possible extinction some decades to centuries later?
  •     The worst of the worse case scenarios is a rapid shift to a Venusian atmosphere with temperatures so high as to kill all but a few bacteria already acclimated to extreme heat. We can’t reject the need for immediate action just because this worst-of-the-worse scenario may be controversial. Least-worst-of-the-worse scenarios, a severe reduction of most multicelled organisms, is still too severe to not take quick and appropriate action. Even “better” scenarios, that may leave a few humans struggling to survive in an environment that will remain threatening for tens of thousands if not millions of years, are not worth the risk just to preserve a very sick societal system with scientifically high probability to collapse (independent of climate change).
  •     Without global heating our exploding consuming/destroying/wasting economy is well on its way raping its biospheric foundation. All the resources exploited for their economic gain are rapidly being depleted. Faith based rationalizations (whether the target of faith is God or The Market) has zero legitimacy in this debate about our future.  There is ample evidence to support the hypothesis that many of our societal leaders are intelligent and creative socio/psycho-paths, with brain dysfunction leading to no compassion or empathy.  Our mess cannot be blamed on any single cause, but the ascending of socio/psycho-paths up the pathways to power (our competitive systems filter them to the top) is a major factor in the intentional blocking of our crisis messages, even to the “well educated”.  See: Merchants of Doubt.
  •     Why do we risk extinction, not only of humankind but of most of the astonishing ecologies of wonderful animals, plants, and even the microbial world we are just now appreciating? Do we stand by and let the view of Earth from the moon change from the Blue-Green sphere we all wowed about to a bleak view like Mars or Venus?
  •     War with Reality.
  •     New methane craters in Siberia.
  •     More Methane
  •     Requiem for Mike Ruppert.

Anyone (leaders, average intelligent persons, and many activists) adequately cognizant of societal dysfunction and distorted reality perception knows that action to confront this emergency within the existing “system” is impossible (until it is too late – and even then unlikely). Most of us with competencies to comprehend our threats and the impossibility to reform for survival are unable to intuitively/emotionally accept this reality. In our deep denial we look to proposed action campaigns without following through by analyzing how such campaigns might succeed in the “real world”.

An “easy solution” – WHICH I DON’T SUPPORT – would entail the total, sudden collapse of all dominant societal systems and powers and a very significant reduction of the global human population. The sources driving climate change ceases to exist.

  •     I put the viable survival of humankind before the survival of any specific humans, human groups, or societal systems. What happens after the runaway heating is stopped? What “mop up” operations may be needed, to be performed by humans, to insure global heating doesn’t smolder (as embers) to resume in the future?  May “putting out the fire and dousing the embers” require coordinated action of human teams/orgs that must have been organized before the collapse and population reduction.
  •     The collapse alone would probably not be sufficient to stop global heating, as the actions of masses attempting to survive collapse may lead to continuing output of greenhouse gases. Only a severe reduction of population would insure stopping global heating (by human agency). Methane feed-forward and the ongoing destruction of carbon sinks may continue even with population reduction.
  •     I forecasted this as one of five alternative future scenarios many decades ago, which I called “The Operation”. However, it is highly unlikely that humankind, as currently constituted, could organize a selective extermination of a majority of the global population – even if necessary for species survival. However, this may be a considered strategy of the TOP ELITE.
  •     A debatable technological alternative would be to somehow induce a rapid cooling intervention. Significant blocking of solar input to Earth’s oceans and atmosphere is possibly beyond our collective technological expertize – yet we cannot claim that such a remedy is impossible. Given the seriousness of our crisis I support continued research on geo-engineering options; but these may have unexpected side effects as damaging as what they try to prevent.We cannot count on this.

The literal survival of the human species may depend on unprecedented actions by a small cadre of informed and dedicated persons, accepting the potential catastrophe and the impossibility of significant societal reform.

I prefer we not delve into these dark scenarios and instead devote our time and energy exploring viable alternatives. And such alternatives do exist. But for various reasons, these alternatives lie in blindspots of those most prepared for relevant action. A study of why humans (throughout history and most recently) have not successfully organized to collectively create a more viable and sustainable societal/cultural systems is needed.  The mess we are in is as much the result of this “lack of success” (I prefer this to “failure) to create alternatives as it is the result of the beliefs of and actions by those in power.

False myths about “who we humans are” are believed by everyone. I personally have to daily fight slipping back into such beliefs and I continue discovering new myths whose belief constrains me.  No individual person is to blame for the mess we are in.  The myth that we are “self-made persons” leads to the cult of individualism and exceptionalism.  Without here going into any detail, it can be strongly hypothesized that every person’s behavior is consistent with their inner constructed world (cWrld) that emerges in their mind/brain during life. Humans and humankind have agency, but it doesn’t lie with the constructed “self” living in its own cWrld. When we choose, our choice is highly determined by a multitude of factors. Moment to moment we humans are as S-R (Stimulus-Response) mechanisms. “Free Will” at this level is an illusion. Our real agency lies in our imaginative and creative competencies to propose/take actions-over-time (not in response to stimuli) which change ourselves so that the nature of our SR mechanism changes to enable our desired S-R behaviors to be our “programmed” behaviors. Such changes require collaborative effort in supportive social systems.

This doc attempts to communicate the NEED for nu ACTION; “nu” in the sense of preparing our future instead of “new” action to remediate the past.  Many other docs are in draft where I share my insights on this issue, from almost five decades of work. I am preparing a different platform and interactive presentation for this. I am personally struggling to accept the EMERGENCY MESSAGE above “in my heart”. I know no individual person can sustain this perspective alone. I hope that collectively we can transcend our intuitive/emotional denial of the critical nature of our situation.  YET, my deep soul yearns to engage the EMERGENCE of HUMANITY/GAIA that follows our biological survival. More than the possible extinction of humankind, I fear the loss of an emergent HUMANITY, a gift of Gaia to Cosmos.

I am not depressed, nor should you be, facing this awesome challenge. This new/nu awareness has catalyzed shifting in nuet and revisions of my models for Uplift and Societal Metamorphosis are in process. The possible success of these models become even more “practical”, by making the actions of the pioneers more immediate. The first draft of this post was much longer, where I attempted to outline a possible scenario. This needs more work. As I have repeatedly claimed: once one abandons all possibility of transforming societies, paths towards creative emergence and replacement open wide.

Need for UPLIFT – As applied O4L&L4O or OLLO

CLAIM: Collectively we currently lack the requisite competencies to learn/organize to meet our challenges. So long as we continue trying to act, assuming all we need to do IS DO, with no significant learning/organizing about organizing/learning, we are unlikely to succeed.

UPLIFT is based on the premise that we can’t organize as we need to because we lack the requisite competencies for organizing as needed to meet the survival/thrival objectives of humankind facing our potentially catastrophic Crisis-of-Crises.  It is also based on the premise that persons can’t learn what they need to learn, to adequately participate in orgs to meet  those same objectives, without better ways of organizing-for-learning, the primary objective of “education” as a social process. For persons to gain those requisite competencies for more reesee organizing they need more reesee learning-for-organizing. Instead of being paralyzed as to what to do first, learning or organizing, we need to integrate both into a “spiral”:
Organizing-for-Learning=&=Learning-for-Organizing [OLLO].

  • In 1973 Donald N. Michael published: On Learning to Plan and Planning to Learn. This was a seminal book for me, being read just prior to my major insights on Societal Metamorphosis. His integration of learning and planning sparked exploration of mutually supportive processes. Michael could just as well used “organizing” instead of “planning”. The subtle difference between “organizing-to-learn” vs “organizing-for-learning” emphasizes the symmetry of the mutual processes.
  • There are many ways to attract persons to join a group that self-organizes with some objectives in mind. The org, the outcome of organization processes, can demonstrate vitality and grow, and even accomplish some of its objectives. The org may become a start-up corporation, activist initiative, creative cooperative, etc.  We do organize and learn; some do better than others. The best “rest on their laurels”, assuming themselves optimally competent and in need of only minor improvement. They don’t invest much time or energy into OLLO for themselves. This is “natural” for humans in contemporary social settings.
  • Both organizing and learning do occur today, both with some outstanding achievements. On the other hand, many orgs are destructive and many persons are not learning what they need to learn or accomplishing what they need to accomplish. Some orgs are too big to either succeed or fail. When our real potentials for learning are examined we can state with confidence that there are no really effective educational processes or institutions – to meed humankind’s needs. Educational processes and institutions are evaluated by comparison. If the best are grossly inadequate it is time to question how we organize-for-learning.  Many books and articles have been written strongly critical of both contemporary organizing and learning processes, of both orgs and schools. Although persons can learn much without formal instruction, we cannot depend on individual self learning to prepare humankind with the requisite competencies they need.

Intelligent tools & technology (computers, The Internet, communications) have greatly transformed both learning and organizing.

  • These transformations are far from over and we can’t forecast accurately their futures. At  the 1988 ENA [Electronic Networking Association] conference in Philadelphia {Theme: Beyond Electronic Mail} George Por and I presented on the potential for “virtual organizing and organizations”.  Although there are “virtual” aspects to most orgs today, there are very few orgs where the core activity is virtual. Wikipedia may be an exception.
      • Many persons and orgs stumble when they email or tweet, believing that others can’t see them, or that videos of speeches can’t  come back to haunt them. Computerized high finance made the collapse of 2008 possible, spreading across the globe. I read that China permits their online users to say almost anything, but they totally forbid organizing online. It has been two and a half decades since I and others proposed we develop processes for effective and efficient (reesee) organizing online. It exists, but far from what I envisioned or we need.
  • Persons do come together and interact online, short term projects have been organized online, collaboration can begin and develop online, and I expect that this paragraph may attract a great many examples where orgs organized online and continued with vitality.  What we haven’t witnessed is a alternative society emerge in cyberspace that has a meaningful effect on the lives of the participants and provides alternative lifestyles. Some elaborate gaming and simulation sites can claim experimentation with creating societal systems. New things are happening in online education, some quite interesting. It is too soon to say whether major shifts in curricula and learning-to-learn will emerge. From my perspective of Learners for Quality Education (LQE), the old structure of disciplines, classes, teachers, students, tests, and grades form a barrier.   Free-4-All learning is not the “education” we need, nor do we need more indoctrination.
  • Innovative app systems may be designed/constructed to “seaf the galdee” of a radically nu educational process for persons who join. It would have “organized structure” that leads to and maintains quality learning environments & processes. It would practice OLLO (Organizing-for-Learning=&=Learning-for-Organizing).  BUS (Bootstrap UPLIFT Scaffolding) proposed such an app system to seaf the emergence of an UPLIFT movement/org, whose long term objective is to uplift the distribution of conceptual/intuitive/performance competencies of the whole global human population – to a distribution level requisite for our survival/thrival.
  • Today we lack the requisite competencies to change as we need to change. Fortunately, by designing from newly discovered basics, we can uplift our competency distribution to levels adequate for our survival/thrival far into the future. But, if we continue to assume we already possess the requisite competencies, all our efforts – no matter how hard we try – will not succeed.

What I feel missing is the vision of what is really both needed and possible. Technologists create, with the tools at hand, systems to serve the immediate, envisioned needs of a select population of potential users. As productive this technique has been, we must transcend. We must imagine MASSIVE actions commensurate with MAGNITUDE of our challenge; but the MASSIVE can only EMERGE.

DANGERS OF ECONO-CENTRISM

The primary danger of an econo-centric society is that it projects the actions of every entity (person to corporation) onto the flat plane of money & finance. All the wonderful complexity and beauty is wiped out, to enable efficiency for accountants. It also enables elites to control. Persons no longer think or act in terms of contributions to themselves, others, or to their social groups; they think and act only to increase their monetary value.

  •     Kenneth Arrow, in a unique 6-week seminar I attended at Stanford in 1967, pointed our that real value is not transitive. You may prefer A over B, and B over C, but not necessarily prefer A over C. Monetized value is transitive. This seriously warps the landscape of real value.
  •     Monetization of multidimensional entities, projected on a one dimensional scale, is frequently commented on as an “over simplification of economics”, as if it still had some utility (by applying theory to make it practical). Actually modern monetization is a deliberate distortion of the scientific reality of exchanges enabling an elite to rule of the masses. This is “utility”, for the elite.
  •     The financial sector of societies is an well organized, criminal enterprise. It even exploits business persons and many corporations. Since finance is an abstract, symbolic system, it doesn’t require much energy to replace it. However, as it has its roots everywhere, its service functions need to be replaced before it is shut down. The political power of finance makes its replacement complex, but not impossible. We must distinguish between the many persons whose lives are dependent on being “workers” in the finance sector (including many managers and some CEOs) and the societal system within which they are only components.

This makes  them  subject  to easy cons to spend their hard earned income on purchases designed to maximize the financial gain of others while filling their propagandized imaginary desires.  Today “investment” is simplistically locked into the financial world and few propose ventures that will increase real value. This is a criticism beyond Capitalism, but to all econo-centric models of society; socialism and communism as well as capitalism.

For decades I have attempted to challenge this critical and high level assumption almost all humans assume (including revolutionaries): that “economics in practice” is THE dominant societal subsystem, an OBJECTIVE FACT. Econo-centrism is the context supporting the market meme.

  •     I never comprehended how economics was considered a “science”; as “economics in practice” simply DEFINED its system-for-study as a system of exchanges artificially selected, intentionally excluding major components and subsystems. I called this a truncated natural system. For example, the labor of wives and mothers are excluded from the formal economy. This act immediately invalidates any authority of “economics in practice” as an “applied science”.  However, there is a “science of exchanges”; but I would be hard pressed to call it “economics”.
  •     To me, it is a feat of masking cognitive dissonance and reality denial for those “scientists of exchange phenomena” to tolerate being on the same planet as practitioners of real-world, so-called, “economics in practice” (actually a technology selectively picking from the “science of exchanges”).

A sustainable society needs a viable economic subsystem. However, it is not obvious that attempts to transform the economic systems in our contemporary societal dysfunction or to attempt to create a new society based on a new economic system are our only options. Yet, the ideology of econo-centrism demands it.

An alternative focus for change is OLLO (Organizing-for-Learning=&=Learning-for-Organizing) where we gain the requisite competencies to seaf needed change. The requisite economic system will follow. OLLO is necessary for a critical organized/learned population to reesee attend to the real magnitude/scope/complexity of our challenges.

REALITY DISTORTION

DENIAL

 

  •     The primary denial today is not about human driven climate change, but the intuitive/emotional deep denial that we are in a very critical crisis: a denial of “reality”.  This includes myself. My conceptual/rational mind is fully aware of the dangers (and opportunities), but my mammalian self can’t accept it. I speculate that this cognitive dissonance is behind much of the weird behavior emergent everywhere and accelerating. A person’s anxiety is projected on a “project” they can act on, even if it requires substantial reality distortion. This includes leaders, activists, and everyone else. Saw this report recently, similar to many. [Please read both pages – comment on near-term extinction forecast coming soon in another post.]  See also blog post.on Deep Denial.
  •     Conceptually my UPLIFT model presents a possible way to avoid the worst. Emotionally I dither in frustration, finding NO action plans for Larry having any possibility of success. Many offer recommendations which, in the context of nuet’s model of our “world” (only partly known to these others), have low probability of “working”.

TWO MODES OF PERCEIVING

 

  •     Viki McCabe in her new book, Coming to our Senses, expands on the perception model of James Gibson: that we (and mammals) directly perceive patterns, and we are hardwired to do so. McCabe proposes this is an alternative hypothesis to the standard perception model: that raw data enters through our senses and is analyzed/organized into patterns by computer-like brain processes and then “experienced”. This direct perception of “structure” is subliminal, not conscious, not part of our experientials. We “input” structure; we also input sensory data which we assemble as “features” of “things assembled according to our theories”.  Our “output” will still be behavior (often structured) and constructed experientials.
  •     Humans identify patterns directly, such as faces, cars, other living beings, buildings, star constellations; both in categories and as unique individuals. This recognition is fast; the visual field with “things” and “features” follows later. Features may be used to rationalize our identification. Sometimes wrong “theories” can lead to visual experientials that are not accurate.
  •     I propose that both modes of “perception” have value. McCabe, in her struggle against established dogma and noting how theory-tainted-experientials have led humankind along dangerous paths, has an expected bias against visual experientials. She makes no reference to visual art. The interaction of these two modes needs further research.

VISUAL EXPERIENTIALS

 

  •     We can either name or give a name to everything we attend to. Try it: look around and try to focus on something that can’t have a name. Our visual experience is deeply linked to languaging and our cWrld  (the conceptual world we “construct” in our mind/brains as we live). We “see” “things”, constructs “projected” from our cWrld. Our cWrld and visual experientials are map-like representations of those structures and features of an “external world” most relevant for our momentary activity and survival. We visually experience our “theories”, according to McCabe.
  •         It is unlikely that our experientials (visual, auditory, proprioceptive and kinesthetic, olfactory, tactile) are there for our enjoyment. McCabe demonstrates that most of our spatial navigation utilizes subliminal “direct perception” of  environmental structures. The function of experientials may be to serve as feedback, to the whole brain, the “conclusion of percept formation” as to what was relevant at the moment and an immediate report of the observed consequences of our actions.  Civilization, with its imposed societal theories absorbed by our emerging cWrlds, can result in erroneous information being fed back to the brain “confirming” their distorted reality.
  •         McCabe/Gibson’s direct perception of structures, (not contributing directly to experientials) a version of mammalian perception, remains essential for our navigating our material and social environments.  It is not known whether this process can be upscaled to assist humankind better comprehend large structures and processes that unfold over years or centuries.   Persons who, over extended time and who learned scientific perspectives, have come a long way in comprehending structures and processes that cannot be directly perceived.  Astounding homing and navigational competencies of many animals, and the competencies of early humans to “read” the seasons, learn the “ways” of plants and animals, navigate long ocean trips indicate that we probably have the competencies to “perceive” patterns across large expanses of space and time.
  •             The term “perception” is troublesome. Most have an automatic sense of “seeing things out there”, which fits the McCabe/Gibson model. Our experientials usually contain information from outside, but their assembly in the construction of visual experientials is strongly influenced by our “theories”. Our “theories” become dominant when we navigate in social and societal worlds. Our language which is fairly accurate when describing the “natural world” becomes problematic when used in terms of the social or societal. We refer to unobservable societal systems (governments, agencies, corporations, etc.) as is they were observable things. This error enables person-hood to be legally given to corporations; but there are much deeper ramifications from treating these “phantoms” (Latour) as “real things”.
  •             McCabe suggests humans can directly perceive patterns in dynamic visual displays created from Big Data.  However, how the visual displays are to be constructed and how viewers are to be trained is a major R&D project. We should expect significant individual differences between persons in what they can and can’t directly perceive.

 

REALITY

NOTE: The following statements about “this reality” emerged from “nuet” in the process of composing this doc.  It is a new, experimental sem requiring future work. Although I believe most are quite relevant, to be comprehended they may require supporting explication.  If you get bogged down, skip ahead.

  •     The “reality” I am concerned about is “what will best enable humankind to survive/thrive for many millennia?”.  What model of “reality” will “best inform” our collective actions?
  •     This “reality” includes (1) the best scientific forecasts of Humankind/Gaia interactions, and (2) the internal behavior of Humankind (personal to planetary dysfunction and potential opportunities) in context with nu emergent ideas for learning change.
  •     This “reality” (the context for our salvation) is today emergent-in-parts distributed in small pockets of the human population.
  •     This “reality” is not a “theory” based on questionable assumptions. It emerges utilizing “direct perception of complex structures” (as described by Viki McCabe in her recent book: Coming to our Senses) and “empirically confirmed” feedback from “evidence”. McCabe joins a “community” of science-oriented authors discovering The Nu Human and exposing dangerous myths about “who we believe we are”. [List elsewhere.]
  •     This “reality” can be contrasted with a wide variety of competitive realities driving different sectors of different populations all over our planet. None of these contemporary realities are evidence based; they are ideological theories reinforced by distorted perceptions.
  •     This “reality” involves a “dynamic dance between existential and process ontologies”. Temporary, rational, conceptual, existential “systems” are proposed as scaffolding to guide action. Non-linear, human intuitive processes within these temporary scaffolds lead to collective activity {“co-intelligence”} resulting in construction of new/nu “systems”. These two meta-processes can cycle in nested/fractal-like integration.
  •     The emergence of this “reality” will require explicit seafing (Support, Enable, Augment, Facilitate). The emergence will require “bootstrapping”. Unique human competencies must be intentionally applied; we cannot depend on biological emergence. Humankind and our dilemma are unique phenomena in Gaia.
  •     The emergence of this “reality” can only occur within close F2F teams/communities functioning as “Learning Expeditions” that are network linked with other Learning Expeditions. Not being a “theory” this “reality” can’t be fully codified; but “parts” of this “reality” can include codified hypotheses for temporary systems.
  •     This “reality” includes a model of its continuing galdee (Growth, Adaptation, Learning, Development, Evolution, Emergence).
  •     This “reality” is embedded in interpersonal interaction with semiotic structures (sems = texts, visuals, programs, etc.).  Contemporary cyber-media is insufficient for the emergence of this “reality”.
  •     Our contemporary system for composing/posting/accessing/processing sems is inadequate to our needs. “Posting Sems” (publishing books and articles, presenting live or by video, posting and commenting online, sending emails & tweets – in various media & devices) into a Sem-Network (with references, footnotes, links, reviews, compendia) lacks adequate “intelligence” to be a useful “representation” for this “reality”. The collected archive of human productivity is not a system, only a network.
      •         Although ignorant of details of work on “World Brains”, I grok that each endeavor occurs in contexts that are too limiting, and possibly attempting too much.
      •         Searching techniques, although essential, cannot provide the requisite “intelligence” for a Sem-World.
      •         Visual maps are essential; but their development must involve a wider diversity of potential users. Contemporary visual maps are inadequate.
  •     This “reality” needs clear, operational distinctions. These distinctions are not proposed for an “objective reality” as might exist if there was no humankind. These distinctions are tools for humans, as this “reality” can be viewed as a “technology”.
  •         Sems are replicable physical structures, containing patterns that are far from random.Their “meaning” from “perceiving” is a relationship between two structures: (1) the content pattern of the sem , and (2) the structure/process of the human being perceiving and processing the sem.
  •             Sems are part of our perceivable environment. However, they are sharply distinguished from the “natural environment” (all other than sems). The full nature of this distinction remains emergent. It may be that the Sem-Field is a “Cosmic Emergent”, a new/nu “fundamental dimension”.  Until sems, “information” has always been embedded in material/energetic systems. The Sem-Field may be a Cosmic Discontinuity where “information” is liberated from its deep embedment in material/energetic systems, to become an “interdependent variable”.
  •             Humans can learn to agree on the structure of sems, even when they may have no interpretation or different interpretations. Sems have the potential for unlimited replication and distribution.This elevates sem structure to a cosmic invariant, equivalent to the invariance of atomic structure.  Sems can be part of messages broadcast into space. We need to research the emergence of sems in human evolution; when the replication of sems became influential.
  •         Humans are embedded in their perceivable environments. A star is part of our perceivable environment, what is beyond the visible horizon is not. Societal systems are not perceivable, as systems; however some structures of societal systems may be directly perceivable subliminally, ala McCabe. “Societal Reality” is primarily a constructed “theory”. Those who have access to detailed information may experience a cognitive dissonance between their theories and their direct, subliminal perception of societal structures.

THE NU HUMAN <LINK>