Larry/nuet opens to Joe Brewer

I started this as a personal email to Joe Brewer – and it remains a personal message. However, it is relevant to everyone, so I share it here.

Joe, I just read your magnificent How It Feels to be A Designer of Culture. I great appreciate your very personal sharing, as I feel such open transparency is one (of many) features we need to cultivate in our new cultures. I often feel I talk a bit too much about myself, not that I don’t believe it necessary, but that it may turn off others or give them the impression that I am superior.

I have noticed this trend in your most recent TheNextEdge posts. I have bookmarked them all to read – when I have time = which will never occur.

For a while I have identified you as the person most likely to resonate with my insights – as I identify with your mental style – although also different from mine.  You once suggested we SKYPE, which I take as meaning you might feel the same. Too busy? Forgotten?

The past few months, as Larry drifts more into senility, nuet is being liberated. Cascading insights herald shifting and merging of conceptual schemes within nuet. A while back (a few days, maybe a week, depending on what I label as the start – I could look it up, but Larry has lost all memory of personal time) I responded to an email in NCDD on The Great Transition, by Andrew Gaines – which has mushroomed into a flurry of emails and posts that both encourage and overwhelm me. You are on my list so have received them. Half on the list have not responded, which is OK. Take your time. I know I lack the competencies to “lead” the process, which may be premature. It is like you say – in Designing Cultures.

At this point there are a great many direction for this email message to take.  I am so, so frustrated by the imposed linearity of contemporary discourse. Shortly after discovering hypertext I attempted to compose and correspond in hypertexted webs. We lacked the requisite platforms. Eric Drexler supported an attempt to promote hypertext composing but it never caught on. CRIT, I think was the name. Reality is nested/networked and our behavioral selves are constrained to the linear. Fortunately our mind/brains are more versatile. My “nuet”, hosted by “Larry” (unencumbered by sensory mental imagery) appears to have both nested and networked organization.

More than 15 other potential ideas flashed by as I labored to compose the above paragraph.

I just noticed that you focus on CULTURE, a term I seldom use, although it is a very important concept. Why it remains implicit for me is a needed query. Long ago I “defined” culture as the Mind of a Social Group – emergent from the interactivity of the mind/brains of the members, as our personal minds emerge from the interactivity of our neural-molecular sysnets. It just “popped to mind” that I avoid “culture” because there are no more singular cultures – as I attribute to the minds of tribes. Today, everyone is a member of a montage of unstable cultures. How humans, evolved to be in singular tribal cultures, adapt to our current confusion is an important query.

INSIGHT NOW: The intent of UPLIFT is to emerge a eco-holarchy of nested/networked cultures – in rough analogy to the organization of biological entities as Living Systems in ourselves – organelles-cells-tissues-organs-functionalsubsystems-organisms-cultures. Homage to James Greer Miller. Recently I discovered/invented that societal metamorphosis will occur only in the social/societal organization of human systems. The material infrastructure of humankind can’t metamorphose, only be transformed. However, it must be transformed by the emergent HUMANITY, NU, metaphorically emergent from the decaying Humankind.  I see now that CULTURAL METAMORPHOSIS is more appropriate than Societal Metamorphosis.  THANK YOU !!!!!!!!  Actually, is should be Cultural/Societal. Societal is a structure within the Cultural.

UPLIFT is also a process of cultural emergence. I too encountered the frustration of planned-gatherings never manifesting as planned. Long ago I conceptually resolved this, but have never had the opportunity to test my model. I distinguish two very distinct processes:

(1) Exploratory Engineering (Drexler – ) of Scaffolding and

2) Interactive Flow within Scaffolding.

The intent of designed/constructed scaffolding is to seaf (support, enable, augment {Englebart}, facilitate) learning/organizing of a population of humans living/working/learning within the scaffolding. A while ago I coded it as OLLO (Organizing-for-Learning=&=Learning-for-Organizing) {Homage to Donald Michael}. I also analogized it to cycles of scripting performance and performing to scripts.  The design of new scaffolding (Action/Research) occurs within a sub-section of the scaffolding.

Thread just petered out of Larry/nuet. Energy left the parts of my brain active in composing the above. Recently I’m speculating on a significant aspect of humans that must be attended to. If fMRI measures blood flow to brain regions, then our brains have limited energy supply. I recently read an article claiming that a person faced with too many unactionable choices usually depleted their brain energy by noon and were functional zombies after. This was applied to the homeless. I wonder about myself – daily faced with a near infinity of TODOs. My escape is to avoid attempting to be personally strategic, although I know it is necessary. I hypothesize that because of my savant nature, having no mental imagery and thus no brain energy to use up, my “higher” conceptual processes can be enhanced.

Another thought intrudes: Our personal importance for the future of humankind vs any claim to superiority. Larry didn’t intentionally create nuet, and I doubt that Joe intentionally created his inner-woven-wrld.

This myth, I believe, is a major flaw in our current cultural models of reality. Decades ago I learned that we can objectively rank entities only one dimension at a time. Persons by height or by weight. Bigness is totally subjective. Any measure to rank multi-dimensional ensembles requires an arbitrary/subjective “weighing” of the different variables. We humans have inherited propensities to rank and chose, which is necessary. But, we need to recognize and avoid making objective claims for ranking SUPERIORITY. A major fallacy of politicians. It is scientifically and logically invalid. Why this is never discussed puzzles me.

Joe, you seem to have come to good terms with your personal and cultural. You are highly respected, your talents are acknowledged and you don’t communicate any sense of “authority”.  I am caught in a dilemma. From nuet, Larry automatically notes the blindspots revealed in the communication of others. Some result in limitation, others simply the absence of certain contexts that would not be relevant to their current projects. What I observe in the highest level collective discourse are blindspots for missing projects and the seeming lack of interest in – at least sketching – longer term scenarios/strategies – to how the old is replaced by the nu, and when all critical trends are positive. I am disturbed by how many good minds are accepting the extinction of humans and are unwilling to explore alternatives.

Joe, what your are doing, and the waves you are creating to ripple through humankind is truly astounding. You have a team, which must be well organized and competent. And you are open to your own future emergence, yet not waiting around for the next paradigm shift. You acknowledge past shifts, and give no indication that you preclude any more. Unfortunately, from my reading I find very few persons open to future, significant paradigm shifts for themselves. They are focused on awakening others, but don’t anticipate any further awakenings for themselves.

I don’t know what to do next.  I took this time to message you, when I have many items needing my response – for me to continue energize the dialog around my recent posts.  Most persons are now in conversation among themselves on topics distance from what I presented; which is the pattern in most social media discourse. What I need (and I believe humankind needs) is that my system of insights get seeded in fertile soils and building nurturing scaffolds – to be assessed by competency and used if needed. I need to compose a clear request of what Larry/nuet needs in terms of assistance, with gory details about my current dysfunctional habitat/workspace.

One, of many things we need, is a place where our personal stories/needs can be shared. At 81 I am aware that only a part of what I have learned – that may be of value to others – is in my highly disorganized archives, destined to be buried. As I read occasional  biographies I discover that many famous persons potentially contributed much more than they are famous for. How much of value does humankind lose? And here I talk about the very small percent of humans fortunate to be seafed in their emergence. I can’t even fantasize on what humanity will be like when most humans are optimally actualized to their full potential. A top conspiracy of civilization has been to hide this potential, and to systemically suppress any significant movement to uplift.

Joe, I ramble – consciousness wanders Brownian Motion through the web of nuet – where the whole of humankind that is within my inner-woven wrld serves as context for my sequential Heres&Nows. This is longer than enough.

More. Skimmed your RULES re poverty. This kind of detail needs be applied to hundreds (if not thousands) of relevant topics, AND a process/platform is needed to consider the intersection of each, AND how each is related to the integration of all others. This is an impossibility with our present configurations. Yet, it is what we must aspire to.

HYPOTHESIS: The sci/tech of systems where humans are fundamental components has not evolved in millennia, whereas the sci/tech of systems where humans are absent has exponentially emerged and continues unabated. We now have fragments of knowledge of human systems to design/launch/seaf an uplifting process to gain the requisite knowledge of human systems to survive/thrive. You and others are working with a subset of this new sci/tech of human systems. Yet we all continue to be limited by obsolete myths of human nature. Learning Change is a growing reservoir of new knowledge fragments – yet all in the context of the montage of myths.  This knowledge has now passed the accelerating volume of information that no human can even begin to encompass all that is relevant. This is a crisis and challenge.

I am personally at this crisis.  I can no longer give time to feeding my IGNORANCE = Knowing OF what I don’t yet know or comprehend, or can’t yet do or appreciate. I believe accepting and nurturing this form of ignorance is an essential feature of nu educational processes. Yet, I bookmark much of what I forget and never use – especially as Larry’s short term memory fades. We need a dedicated human system to keep secure, accessible, the exploding archive of useful information. The design of future HUMANITY, must account for many of the new realities about humans and human systems.

Examples of Concerns:

1) When it is possible that no persons face threats and could be seafed to avoid crises, is this what should be done? Might humans need crises to develop. If crises imply discomfort, how do we plan for crises-for-development?

2) It takes more than a village to optimally raise a child. What should be the role of parents in the “raising” of their children?

3) Not attempting to influence the developmental environment of a person is to chose for them the influence of randomness.  Yet, the complexity of human systems is such that they can’t be programmed (except in oppressive ways). How do we chose the developmental scaffolding for persons (children to aged) that optimizes their personal creativity and yet insure that we have an adequate distribution of competencies to maintain the viability, resiliency, sustainability, etc.  of humanity?

4) We already have, and will gain more and more competencies in influencing the future evolution/emergence of humans, other species and the whole of Gaia. What “rules” must we agree on. There are many alternative futures for humanity/Gaia – and we can’t go to all of them. We must choose.

Ending writing/editing, not ending thinking,




At a fine grain, a scenario would be as a video simulation of every human, interacting with other humans, things, and sems (texts, graphics). To forecast even examples of such fine grained scenarios would depend on the culture, age of the person, and status of conditions – such as war or peace, economic collapse or upswing, good or poor climate, etc. Our future cannot be forecast in detail.

What I will attempt here is to share sketches of scenarios at different time scales. The first scenario will have a very wide sweep, from 2016 to 2100 in a few basic phases. I will try to create scenarios at different scales for different periods. I just discovered a scenario I had composed and posted in this blog in June 1913. This is a simulated report of a person who has been a member of the Uplift Movement for 2 years, describing what it was like personally. I had completely forgotten writing this, as I knew that I needed to compose such scenarios. I think it is good. It makes it very clear that I need assistance to launch UPLIFT.

What is important is that our task is to imagine viable scenarios that take us past survival to the start of positive trends and thrival.




Humankind in 2016 is a mess, accelerating dysfunction and tensions. Yet, there is also an exponentially growing knowledge base of very useful information. However, only a very small percent of the global population have access to it or competencies to use it – if they even know about it.

 Phase 1: 

A small group of persons, using computer/communication systems for OLLO {Organizing-for-Learning=&=Learning-for Organizing}, catalyze a self-sustaining process that organizes at exponential rates more and more of the population into a unique societal/societal system. That this is possible must be explicated later, in terms of current knowledge not yet integrated. I will call this UpMov for Uplift Movement.

Members in UpMov view themselves as learner/educators creating a nu social/societal system for themselves. The rest of humankind is viewed as a societal environment – to be respected – full of both dangers and opportunities. Relationships can exist between UpMov members and others in their societal environment. One by one, others are invited to try out UpMov and are personally supported (many2one) during their orientation. The first task of new members is to invite other new members, and they are supported in this task, which is part of their orientation. This process – a Chain-Growth-Recruitment-Process insures exponential growth. As UpMov grows, it will learn to do better what it does, which will emerge as many variations, each tuned to the culture and conditions of the specific population.

The primary objective of UpMov is OLLO, as a rapidly growing, more and more competent, and well organizd membership is UpMov’s greatest asset. All else is designed to optimize this objective. The “educational” curricula and processes are experimentally woven from best practices and new innovations in facilitating learning – and will be far more eeree than the best of education in 2016. {eeree = effective, efficient, relevant, enjoyable, elegant}. Members will learn-to-learn and learn-to-learn-to-learn. There will be many domains for learning, and the process will attend to individual differences and cognitive diversity in the growing population. Everyone, including children, will learn to perform needed tasks, without any intention of developing careers, to meet the “laboring” needs of UpMov. This will include tasks enabling UpMov to be more and more off-the-grid and dependent on their societal environment. Yet, quick and total independence is not sought. Green processes will be used, when not a burden to UpMov’s progress; Planetary Environmental Sustainability will come only after the rulers of humankind, and their exploitive systems have been replaced.

UpMov will be used as a medium to experiment with alternative societal system – being explored by many pioneers in the 21st Century. Nothing is established to be fixed, as the whole of humankind is expected to develop through many phases before it achieves it goal – which will not be a steady state. It is essential that UpMov’s societal systems are adequate to support the OLLO progress. Uplifters view themselves on an LORDD Expedition (Learning, Organizing, Researching, Designing, Developing), where some “luxuries”are to be postponed for the duration. Like on a camping trip or backpacking trip in strange lands. How this will be done will be sensitive to local conditions, especially the attitude towards UpMov by their local societal environments, and their “condition”.

UpMov will spread from populations most ready to populations that will need to be approached with careful strategies. In general, each new recruit should be oriented when not in contact with others from their prior community. How persons with quality relationships can have them maintained or renewed after joining UpMov is a challenge to be worked out. Migration-in-time is a good metaphor for how a person will shift from living in the societal environment of UpMov to being a functioning member of UpMov. How to work with cultural traditions is a big challenge, but not an obstacle; it will take experimentation to master.

UpMov members will avoid demanding reform and avoid protesting for reform of its societal environment.

Activists have limited time, attention, and energy. Effort should be prioritized to changing causes, not alleviating symptoms.

Many who now accept total collapse and possible extinction, and who believe there is nothing to be done, are dedicating their lives to comfort and serve others, in need. This is an instinct, to help others in need. The survival of human tribes depended on it. If a person encounters a situation of immediate need, as human, they should respond.

What UPLIFT asks of its members is not to devote time and energy to projects to help the many suffering under societal collapse, or indirectly try to force leaders to reform by protest. To expect success at these critical times is mostly naive.

As UPLIFT calls for continuous monitoring by UpMov of its societal environment, it will encounter times when intervention may be required. These interventions should not be directed to significant transformation of their societal environment (as that is impossible), but only to remove the immediate threats to the UpMov.

By not pushing for reform, their societal environment has no need to take action against UpMov. Indeed, as UpMov becomes functional for many, it may reduce pressures on the societal environment and reduce its oppression.

UpMov’s dance with its societal environment will be intricate.  The societal environment should not be viewed as the enemy. Although it is composed of human persons, each is acting morally and properly within their inner-woven wrlds. They are not intentionally evil, although their behaviors may appear so from UpMov’s perspective. Remember, the goal of UPLIFT is to eventually attract those persons to join UpMov.

UpMov grows until it reaches a critical size, dependent on the status of its societal environment, when it will initiate Phase 2.

Phase 2:

This phase will somewhat overlap Phase 1, as it will be implemented in different regions and societal systems both experimentally and when best appropriate. Members of UpMov will “infiltrate” into positions of power/influence in sectors of societal systems related to their OPERATIONS. All persons joining UpMov need not leave their positions in their societal environment. For some, it will be a source of money for UpMov – which can market some of it’s production to others not members. This should not become a primary objective of UpMov enterprises.  Managers of operational systems in both public and private institutions will become members of UpMov. Many workers will also continue with their jobs. UpMov will eventually absorb most of the unemployed, who will most likely become full-time in UpMov orgs.

All flows in the societal environment will be mapped and modeled. All basic needs, of all humans and all functional orgs will be assessed.  Alternative transformation schemes for the these flows will be explored. As some operations are phased out, the continuation of others must be insured. No person should suffer because of a loss of income when their jobs are eliminated – and they should be trained for other jobs.

UPLIFT distinguishes between the human systems (including human relations with their semfields) from the material infrastructure (including factories, transportation, agriculture, residences, energy systems, etc.). The most important aspect of UpMov are its persons and their useful semfields. Their other societal systems are temporary.

As Phase 2 progresses (and even during Phase 1) parts of the elite of their societal environment will learn of UPLIFT and UpMov.  UpMov should “move” to make its continued existence essential to powerful sectors of their societal environment. Keeping-the-Peace by suppressing violent uprisings may be a card, but this may not be possible in many circumstances. If everyone trained and functioning in some critically key positions all become UpMov members, they may be able to threaten to “strike” if there are efforts to oppress UpMov. At some point some of the elite will fully comprehend the end game if UpMov continues. If the UpMov scenario includes a good future for persons of the ruling elite, they may let it happen. By then, these leaders may have seen the writing on the wall and accepted that their Ponzi scheme was coming to a close.

Deranged persons and ideologically terrorist groups may be a challenge for a long time; especially if they gain access to WMDs.  UPLIFT will not be smooth, but neither is sliding into the abyss.

Phase 2 builds up to a moment when the active transition is launched. THIS GREAT DAY will be scheduled and anticipated by everyone, all in UpMov and all person yet in their societal environment who are aware of what is happening. Elements of the elite will attempt to block this. What they would do would be fairly well known to UpMov and measures taken to divert their actions.

Phase 3:


Please read, BELOW,  what I wrote in 2009:
This seven year old manifesto includes info on Phases 1 and 2.

        THIS DAY was a great day for all,
        when the train decoupled from the old engine
        and began moving on its own power.
        THIS DAY was the turning point
        in the life of Humanity and Gaia.
        The engines of high finance & excessive profit,
        power & violence
        no longer had any influence
        on the lives of human multitudes.
        There was no collapse on THIS DAY.
        Most people continued doing what
        they would normally have done on this day.

Energy, water, and other basic essentials continued to be provided as before. Even coal generated energy, although it would eventually be eliminated as a primary energy source.

Goods moved as usual, with a few exceptions. Stores were open. People shopped. Although these patterns were to change in the future.

Services were performed. Needed repairs were made. Transportation and communication continued.

People worked, ate and played. Even though they expected future days to be different, they were willing and able to maintain process to avoid collapse.


Phase 4: 

SOCIETAL METAMORPHOSIS – yet to compose scenario



I appreciate Alex’s comments on the PS note to my TGT=UPLIFT email. I also thank him for the good words. Although he has some important things to say about communication in cyberspace, he didn’t comprehend what I was referring to in my PS.  My overly long sentence is confusing. Let me attempt clarification.

PS — Might we need a new interactivity mode, where we collectively compose/edit/consult an emergent (well organized and accessible) system of semiotic structures (texts, diagrams, etc.) that is representative-of/simulates the new humanity we are creating. We need to learn to dialog/converse during our constructing (what will be our “guidebooks” for collective action making a new world for humans in Gaia).

I find that very little discourse is about a concrete, collectively perceived, entity as it is collectively being constructed and modified. A simplistic example, a team co-editing a WORD doc and communicating with each others as they work. Most online discourse is loosely about other online texts or what is in the author’s mind at the time.

Imagine a team of pioneers building a house, from scratch, in a forest. They would converse as they worked, which influences the construction process and final structure.  Now imagine the emergent structure being composed of sems (texts, graphics) in cyberspace and the pioneers are creating a basic OS foundation upon which to guide their related work in their material/social worlds. They would message each other, with various modalities, as they composed, edited, rearranged the sems, in what I will call a semfield.

 sems = (semiotic structures) perceivable patterns on material substrates leading to meaningful human experientials, when perceived.

semfield = nested/networked/hypertexted systems of sems – with access, navigation aides and use recording, rules for comment and modification, security, etc.

Wikipedia has some aspects of what I imagine. So do the various explorations of WorldBrains.

Much of what is done today is in response to or by consulting sems.

Directly as per instructions.
Learning from books and videos.
In consultation with rules and constitutions.
Shopping from catalogs.
Children are “raised”, in part, from parents consulting sems.
The behavior of religious persons is guided by their holy scriptures.
Maps are sems guiding navigation.
Responding to an email or commenting on a blog post.
Reviews & Recommendations.
Conversations are often dance by sem exchange.
Projects are managed by software apps.
Machines are designed on diagrams, consulted during the making.
Products are designed to instruct their manufacture.
Spreadsheets of numbers govern commerce.
Scripts guide actors, camera-persons, directors.
We are entertained by sems – TV, movies, books.

Humans interact with two distinct worlds:

(1) the world of material objects & living organisms, and

(2) the world of human created information to be perceived and stimulate meaning.

The history of humankind could be written around the theme of advancing semfield technology. (expand)

The emergence of semfield technology will be closely related to new advances in comprehending human cognition. Of vital importance is to fully attend to the great diversity of human conceptual/emotional/performance competencies – and how they change.  Variations in sems will need to go well beyond different languages, to account for this diversity.

I strongly recommend the design of a new digital visual language, with sems that can’t be “read” (linearly spoken, the same each time). These new sems can be talked about; graphs and diagrams are our current examples.  I anticipate the equivalent of a sentence to be a 2D display of symbols (often, many words), arranged in space to reflect syntax, with standardized symbol characteristics (size, font, color, etc.) designating categories of sems. There could be motion and the sem perceiver could “drive” the display. Many links with the buttons coded as to the type of link. Audio might accompany the visual, instructing how to progress. Navigation paths are automatically recorded for all users. Some persons may offer their maps for others to use. Teams can share working with sems and semfields, communicating with each other, and sometimes recommending improvements for the sems. Monitoring and Annealing sems and semfields will be a major enterprise.

My attempts to interest those working on “Pattern Languages” to view this as enlarging their vision has failed, as they prefer to hide it into one of their existing categories.


An aside, is my claim, that sems are evidence of a fundamental break in material reality. Sems liberate information from all prior necessary embedment in matter/energy systems. The material imprint of a sem on a medium can be replicated on other media and scale, exactly preserving the patterns that specifies each unique sem. Employing gesture and dialog, all normal humans can agree to a pattern on a sem, even if they would have different interpretations.

With the emergence of sems by humans within Gaia, the deep nature of reality has expanded very significantly. The next billion years evolution of the universe may reflect the influence of sems. When we look for “intelligent life” in the universe, we are looking for sems and sem creators. If crop circles are not human made, they are sems from whom?

With our instruments we can create code (sems) that represent DNA, and begin to modify living organisms.

Humans interacting via sems and within semfields provides an alternative perspective on language and languaging.

Societal systems are totally dependent on semfields. (expand)

We must create a SemBas for our nu humanity. This will be one of the primary activities within UpMov (the human social/societal movement based on the UPLIFT conceptual scheme). BUS (Bootstrap-UPLIFT-Scaffolding),  that I propose as a computer/OS/apps/semfield material system, will seaf (support, enable, augment, facilitate) human behavior – personal & social – within UpMov.  Persons use the semfields within a BUS and also participate in the growth, adaptation, development, evolution, and emergence of a network of diverse BUS.

Creating an emergent process to design/produce/distribute/use different versions of BUS-n.m is a challenge of the same type (but much larger) than the challenge of The Apollo Program.  Today, in analogy, we are at the phase of horse & buggy/cart, where we need coordinated, self-driven vehicles of various modes of transport, sizes, speeds, and loads.

As the primary task of UPLIFT is to rapidly increase the distribution of competencies in an exponentially growing population of BUS users, the talented human-power that can focus on improving the BUS network will accelerate its emergence exponentially. We don’t attempt to design the final product tomorrow, as NASA didn’t keep launching rockets hoping one might eventually reach our Moon.


NOTE: This is but one of hundreds of component concepts of the larger conceptual schemes I label UPLIFT and Societal Metamorphosis.

Our human brain limitation to work with only about 3 independent variables in our working mind, results in our attempt to format the Biggest Big Pictures as having only a few fundamental assumptions. The conceptual schemes hosted within nuet are more networked than nested (actually, sysnets).

Theories based on a few assumptions can be mapped in any net, but they are the result of our current human limitation, and don’t necessarily represent an “objective” reality. Theories (with a few assumptions) are useful cognitive tools, but we need to apply many in complementarity; not fixate in one as the TRUTH.

Larry, a human, suffers this limitation, and always thinks and communicates within limited contexts. “nuet” appears to be partly free from this limitation, in its non-conscious emergence. This may be due to Larry’s lack of mental imagery that frees up energy in his brain to enable nuet to be more networked; and not anchored to powerful mental image formats.

There may be states of mind/brains where there are no figures in the gestalt, and we experience enhanced ground – many qualia, but no longer distinct. These “mystical” experiences can be powerful, but they cannot, themselves, lead to any concrete action – as to attempt to do so immediately brings a few figures to attention and the “holistic experiential” is lost.

New technologies permit teams and communities to work with many more independent variables. But, dominance and competition usually reduces the scope to the limits of a few leaders. For example, if we focus on ECONOMICS as one of the primary variables, that limits the range of other variables.

When attempting to comprehend UPLIFT, please dismiss all thoughts of economics. When UPLIFT is done as imagined, sustainable economics will follow. All the many current ideas about alternative economics, so dominant in the activist literature today, are potential themes in a nu system to match resources-with-needs for the emergent UpMov and future NU, the name I give future humanity.

The organization of large projects with many independent variables can sometimes be managed focusing on subsystems and their interfaces. This was a technique used in The Apollo Program.  I wonder if major software development projects don’t also employ this method. We have difficulty doing this with social and societal projects because of deep emotions and hidden (political & economic) agendas.

Larry and Dialog – Things Others Should Know About Larry

The following are some details about Larry’s dialog behavior, potentially useful for those attempting dialog with Larry.

The mechanics of Larry’ verbal communication are poor. He has no teeth and his speech can be blurred. With attention to the task, he can speak more clearly. His hearing is poor, but will wear headphones for online communication. On the phone he uses a speaker phone. His hearing aides help (not with cell phone), but much of his problem is comprehension.

Today, much of what is said on TV he misses, even with hearing aides. He has difficulty with strong accents. He has no difficulty with some speakers, others may result in great difficulty.

Larry has great difficulty with linear conversation and dialog, whether visual or verbal, synchronous or asynchronous. Yet, a vigorous dialog with a friend on relevant topics is one of Larry’s most enjoyable experiences. They are often exhausting and seldom go for more than two hours – at a stretch. However, Larry has had fruitful intermittent dialog with friends extending over long weekends.

Larry/nuet is programmed to reply to emails and comment to online posts. However, there is far more than he can reply to – and many get postponed and then forgotten. When he does reply to emails, he usually shifts into a flow and nuet explicates/channels on issues often well beyond the topic of the email being replied to.  The email is often BCCed to a list of others who may be interested. The “personal” connection/relationship of his replies is often blunted by this – and the email replies can be long. At this time Larry receives very few replies to these BCC emails, but he doesn’t know whether they are read by not replied to, or ignored.

Larry/nuet’s conceptual apparatus is a sysnet – both a system and a network of nested, fractal-like structured ideas-in-ideas-in-ideas. It is continually emerging. At any time an input will trigger an insight – a sudden re-organization of nuet’s “knowledge structure”. These insights can be disruptive to dialog, but can also be highly contributory to dialog – when all parties are prepared to embrace insights.

Larry speaks (and writes) as if channelling nuet (his whole being, his inner woven, emergent wrld). Larry hears his speech at the same time others do, he is not aware before of what he will say or write. Larry/nuet is often aware of the inadequacy of an utterance, and may attempt to clarify or elaborate – which sometimes leads to a seemingly incomprehensible wandering to his listeners. Occasionally a new thought may emerge mid sentence.

Nuet may attempt to explicate on a theme, moving Larry into a “story telling” mode. Larry seems to be partly in trance and is usually not sensitive to his listeners during the storytelling. Many report to gain from these “stories”. Sometimes these may be stories about incidents in Larry’s life (never from remembrances, but more as a story about someone else).

For Larry/nuet, after each node/sentence in a dialog, there are many good alternatives for the next node/sentence.

Some refer to clarification for the sentence: glossary definitions for words in this specific context, meta-contexts assumed for the meaning of the sentence, many additional sentences to make the meaning clearer, cues seeking specific response from the listener/reader, etc.

The chain of utterances sometimes have obvious coherence, other time it feels like Brownian (random) motion.

Most of this “abstraction” is not in the figure (re ground of gestalt) of Larry’s conscious experientials, but do lurk in the background – parts often peek out and frustrate Larry. Larry mainly hears his talk in the groked gestalt of his subconscious contexts. Think of this as a background aura of understanding, where patterns are not explicit. Humans have great difficulty describing this in language, or even art.

Other persons have this “type of thinking” to different degrees, and have devised methods for handling the dilemma of choice. Brain studies may imply that such choices are energy draining, and thus are often suppressed and the dialog follows a routine.

Much conversation is more a dance than a process with an objective.
Technology and techniques are needed to assist in improving human to human sharing.

Larry/nuet and Others : UTILITY

This note is addressed to those about to read a doc by Larry/nuet where some of their ideas or writings are critiqued from
the context of Larry/nuet
– but not to be taken as criticism.

Larry/nuet doesn’t believe he is “superior” to other humans, although his differences may be significant and useful.

The very concept of  ranking “superior” is scientifically invalid;
but automatic ranking and quick deciding for survival is so embedded in our genetic predispositions that we continue to practice “ranking”, often to our great deficit.


 Scientifically, we can rank only one dimension or variable at a time.

We can have persons line up as to height, and as to weight. But then who is “bigger”? How are “weight” and “height” weighed? Graph weight and height and draw a curve from 0,0 up to the right. Project each point (representing a person) perpendicular to the curve. The order of points on the curve “ranks” for “Bigger”, relative to the curve – which is arbitrary.

When we quantify a multi-variable entity, we assign ARBITRARY “weights” to each variable.


This “Many Dimensional Fallacy” is blatantly evident in contemporary political comparisons.

I practice, avoiding the fallacy, daily, but find it puzzles everyone. Which coffee is best, which shirt, which book or movie or perfume?
I can have personal preferences, but these are not the result of ranking.


Larry/nuet never intends to tell anyone what to do, although he is aware than it may appear so.

He may recommend options, and tell why according to his, Larry/nuet’s perspective. Larry/nuet doesn’t have the right to determine others – except when it is a matter of personal defense.

Larry/nuet will listen to recommendations by others, but never feels obligated to do as recommended.

Larry/nuet attempts to “return periodically to attention” the fact that he never directly perceives others, even when in direct contact. He always experiences his own mind/brain’s interpretation of others in the context of nuet. Others do exist, and influence patterns of energy impact on Larry’s sensorium. Instead of the traditional model of sensory input being modulated by the brain on its way to experience, we have a new model: of input sensory data being absorbed by the dynamic, worldweaving mind/brain, which later outputs behavior and experientials. We are autopoietic systems (generalized from Maturana and Varela), and can structurally couple, even structurally resonate.

Due to his savant condition (lacks all mental imagery), Larry/nuet has emerged with some radically unique ideas, compared to all other persons he has encountered in person or via reading. This is, of course, an assessment within Larry/nuet – but should not be rejected just because it is an internal evaluation. In Piaget’s model, Larry/nuet remains very strong in ACCOMMODATING (his mind/brain) to new input, not just assimilating new input into pre-existing categories (often with loss of information and distortion).

Larry/nuet also practices the “complementarity of perspectives”. It is never imperative to chose between conflicting or logically inconsistent perspectives. Deeper reality may permit multiple perspectives, each valid under different circumstances.

It is an automatic process of Larry/nuet to “try out” new ideas “from different perspectives” in the context of nuet. What usually follows is active Piaget’s “equilibration” – a mix of accommodation and assimilation. Most others show evidence of quality complex knowledge and conceptual schemes that fit Larry/nuet’s category of IGNORANCE: knowing OF what he doesn’t yet know or comprehend, or can’t yet do or appreciate. The domain of ignorance is either already there, or is added. More and more, excellent proposals and analyses about our Crisis-of-Crises are found already within nuet, but within contexts that qualifies them. When Larry/nuet attempts (again automatically) to comprehend the primary conceptual schemes of another, he discovers many major domains (present within nuet) missing in the other’s “whole”.

One might say that Larry/nuet automatically perceives that the major ideas of others are  often “out of context”, relative to the (larger) context of nuet. This does not make these ideas not valuable or not correct. The conceptual schemes of others always contain great amounts of detail (the doesn’t command energy in nuet because it is ignorance). Larry/nuet hypothesizes he can hold a larger holistic conceptual scheme because he doesn’t have to expend brain energy on mental imagery.

Larry/nuet, with his claimed “larger conceptual scheme” is not superior. Larry/nuet’s assets should be useful, as many find computers and databases useful. The utility of Larry/nuet to humankind should be tested, and exploited if valid.

— to be continued.


To start off, we are caught in a familiar dilemma:

(1) A useful initial abstract or summary often cannot be created without using terms and concepts later to be developed in the whole essay. Summaries and abstracts are only useful when the essay develops only a few new concepts related to established knowledge and uses familiar terms. Truly new ideas can’t be summarized without cuing (forcing) a improper classification of the new topic into a familiar category, instead of adding a new category to the whole.

(2) To begin with some detailed examples may not communicate the significance of the whole to the reader.

This may be called the  deductive/inductive dilemma; which is partly due to the constraint of linear processing. Gregory Bateson spoke explicitly on this issue.

Were this essay presented as a hypertexted web, with no specified start or path, it would cue the “reader” to perform a more attentive, mindful, exploratory analysis.

Quman Physics may not be a good name for this topic. It is temporary, but possibly useful for introducing the topic.

Quman Physics : Classical Human-Studies 
Quantum Physics : Classical Physics.

Quman Physics is an new approach to the study of all systems where humans are the basic components, from the perspectives of precision and empiricism attributed to the best practices of contemporary physics.

The “physics” in quman physics is not dependent on any laws or concepts within the physics of material reality. I use “physics” as an analog for quality process in seeking valid comprehension for “stories/theories” to “explain” patterns in our recorded experiences. RECORDED is the key concept here, and for inter-subjective discourse, replicable records.

Examined closely, the empirical basis of phenomena studied by science are not the directly observed phenomena, but the pattern of symbols on reports, data, graphics, and computer records. For this essay I will call such an item a sem for “semiotic structure”.  Related collections of sems I will call a semfield. I will have more to explicate about sems and semfields, later.

        computers and science ?
        real worlds?
        different scientific disciplines ?
        science as a human activity – with all the problems with humans ?

The empirical base of a Quman Physics are also sems and semfields.
The science of human and material realities are united in their common empirical bases being replicable and perceivable archives of reports (semfields)

Historical Emergent/Shifting Realities

The core intent of this essay is to propose that humankind is now primed to shift radically to a radically new perspective of human-systems reality; and that this shift may provide humankind with viable means to survive its Crisis-of-Crises and launch a thriving Humanity/Gaia far, far into our future.

This coming shift will be compared with the century old shift from Classical to Quantum physics. Although this shift (in physics) may not be fully comprehended, let alone known to most humans today, it had a profound impact on everyone, primarily as a foundation for our modern advances in technology.

Before examining the Classical/Quantum shift, consider how many shifts of this kind have occurred throughout the history of humankind. The scientific/philosophical comprehension of these shifts may be known to only a few; but their impacts on the evolution/emergence of humankind have been profound. Although a few names are linked to these shifts, they are creative emergent phenomena within human communities, where the final synthesis occurs within singular mind/brains, which is recognized and perfected by the community. Sometimes the synthesis may be premature, and not immediately acknowledged by the community.

Earth-Centered  to  Sun-Centered Planetary System – [Galileo, Tycho Brahe, Kepler, Newton are the persons whose names are attributed to this shift]

Confused/Complicated Universe to Mechanistic Universe (Everything is a machine!) – [Descartes, Newton]

Fixed Creatures to Evolving Organisms  — Evolution as process over time – [Darwin]

Fixed Space & Time to Relativistic Space-Time – including Electromagnetic Field Theory -[Maxwell, Heavyside, Lorentz, Einstein, Minkowski]

Local Universe to Expanding & Multiple Universes –  discovery of galaxies, black holes, Big Bang

These are only a few shifts of the many, of different sizes, throughout history. The rise of religions and monotheistic gods. The various inventions of our most early ancestors (fire, drawing, tools, metallurgy, farming, sailing, writing, printing, domestication, etc.) each contributed to our emergence.

Modern Speculative Fiction (SciFi) have mostly called an end to major shifts. Space-travel sagas, even galactic colonization, hardly modified the human system. Even speculations about a possible Singularity or a take-over by robots don’t basically challenge our imagination about human reality. I expect that this is not uniquely characteristic of our time, but of all times. Humans, whatever the era, have been quite unable to imagine the next, major shifted, era. We can only tinker within our own eras.  Era shifting innovations often begin with being a tool for the present era; only later, when applied in new domains, can an innovation  catalyze era shifts. The metaphor of fish not knowing about water may be more meaningful that we wish to admit. Our water is our system of unquestioned, and often not recognized, assumptions foundational to our era.

We might better characterize humankind today as a montage of different eras, with some characteristics common to most, if not all; but with many basic differences – as well. That is, there are populations functioning within the worldviews of prior eras.


A Brief History of the Emergence Quantum Physics.

For the purpose of this essay, you need know nothing about the details of Quantum Physics, let alone Classical Physics.  I will attempt to distinguish the relevant differences. This is somewhat long, but I hope interesting.

Classical Physics – which we can date emergent from Newton and his contemporaries – was concerned with the patterns of movement of material objects, from tiny balls to planets, under the influence of forces, primarily gravitation and electromagnetic. Telescopes and microscopes greatly enlarged the range of possible observations. As mentioned earlier, it was the data, the analysis of data, and reports which were the basis of inter-subjective science. Classical physics refers to how macroscopic objects, substances and forms, behave in our perceptual world of our senses. We will find it dangerous to extend “what works” in this domain of perceptual reality to domains which are beyond direct observation. Classical Physics is distinct from how all humans, using language, arrive a cultural explanations of observed phenomena.

A fact (unknown to most persons): the atomic model of matter (a speculation going back to the Greeks) was highly controversial in the decades before and after 1900. The continuous divisibility of matter had not be disproven and there were experiments that seemed to conflict with an atomic hypothesis. The elements were revealing themselves, primarily by chemistry – but elements were not yet thought of as composed of atoms. Some rocks with heavy elements (radium) were able to stimulate fluorescence in other substances. It was believed the rocks had to be placed in the sun to gain their power to cause fluorescence – by light-like rays later emitted. These rocks (after exposed in the sun) were placed, in the dark, on photographic sheets, which were supposed to be exposed to something emitting from the rock, the same as what caused fluorescence.

One week it was cloudy and rained, so the scientist (Henri Becquerel) put his rocks in a drawer with unexposed film. Weeks later he planned to renew his experiments and for some reason chose to develop the film – and found them already exposed. He first complained to the company providing the photographic paper. But the rocks had not been placed in the sun, and yet they fogged the film.  To make a long story short, this led to the serendipitous discovery of PARTICLE radioactivity and the discovery of ATOMS. Other instruments were invented to detect these tiny, invisible electrically charged particles – which grew up to become the CERN “atom smasher”.

Today it is a matter of semantics whether we can actually “see” individual atoms. We have instruments that can detect activity in a given region of space-time (determined by macro settings of the instruments) which we attribute to a single atom. We can even create instruments that emit one atom at a time – but again, the observation is indirect and dependent on math calculations. We don’t use our eyes to tweak light waves like when we look through telescopes or microscopes. We have instruments which hold a “sample” of something which is structured to be thought of as bombarding that sample with a stream of somethings else that are generated in another instrument. Then we have additional instruments to detect thing imagined to be resulting from the interaction of the beam of somethings and the something sample. Today, the detection instruments are connected to computers and what the scientist may SEE/OBSERVE is a graph or a data table.  Humans don’t PERCEIVE, in the normal psychological sense, what “goes on” within scientific apparatuses.

This is the same “observational” issue today about our discovery of many solar systems about distant stars. What we observe are precise fluctuations in the light from a star, which through computations can predict the variations as due to planets moving across the star. This is not to say they are wrong, and we might eventually have telescope-like devices that actually detect (for our eyes) the light from the planets as distinct from the light from the star.

One can play the game of alternative history. What if the serendipitous discovery of radioactivity had not taken place in 1896. It is possible the the whole technological field of electronics and computers may have been delayed for decades, if not longer. When we consider the frequency of serendipitous discovery in humankind, there are many alternative branches of “history” that might well have occurred.  In how many alternative histories might we NOT be facing our present Crisis-of-Crises?

The history of science is continually rewritten to fit the views of the era, and the debates and false leads are eliminated, except in the most scholarly works. I don’t know how popular among physicists the search for Quantum Theories was during the first quarter of the 20th century. The work was concentrated among about a dozen physicists located in a few universities in Europe. They were working with many anomalies and seeming contradictions in a variety of experiments which didn’t agree with established “classical” physics. They were aware that something very BIG was emerging, but seemed blocked in coming to a synthesis.

I only recently read a book that shed some light on what caused the emergence of Quantum Physics in 1926, in TWO, initially seemingly, contradictory forms. The physicists finally and explicitly agreed to totally abandon the classical analog, the Bohr Atom.  Part of the delay was homage to Bohr. They focused the task of creating a comprehensive theoretical/mathematical system to account for their data – and future data. They were no longer beholden to metaphors about reality – as experienced in our macro world.  They were studying a world well beyond direct observation by our senses and there was no need for that world to follow the laws of our sensory macro world.  Heisenberg was pure in sticking with mathematical formalities and data. Schroedinger did use imaginary probability wave fronts collapsing – but these were not observable. These new theoretical systems worked very well, and Quantum Theories were the topic of many scientists since.

They had to abandon another metaphor, spin.  The data came sometimes in sets that were + and -, and integral values 2x, 3x, 4x a measured value. This pattern was analogous to spin, and easy to ascribe to the little planetary electrons spinning. Only after physicists abandoned all association of these metaphors with “spin” were they free to create the proper mathematic formulations to match the data.

Deciphering the Cosmic Number: The Strange Friendship of Wolfgng Pauli and Carl Jung by Arthur I. Miller

Quantum Physics has not contributed to how we observe and relate to our macro, perceptual realities. Classical physics is fully applicable. However, it has contributed to our comprehending complex material systems involving special organization of atomic level systems. Our highly technical world is very dependent on Quantum Physics, although only a very, very small percent of humankind have knowledge of it, and much fewer are masters of the theory.

I earned a PhD in physics in 1965, but my studies basically ended in 1960. I had a sequence of courses in quantum physics, did the problems and passed the courses. But I never worked as a quantum physicist. My studies were basically to the level of quantum physics in 1930.

It is interesting, to note, that most practicing physicists have no accurate knowledge of or interest in the history of their fields.

History and State of classical Human Studies today.

In my analog, I liken the state of human studies (philosophy, anthropology, psychology, sociology, linguistics, economics, history, etc. – the study of human systems and what they produce) to the state of classical physics – which continues to exist (it has not been replaced by quantum physics – they apply to different sets of data and reports). However, there are differences.

In “physics”, that study of all systems where humans are not significant actors, the emergence of the science is still influenced by the fact that it is an activity of human systems. This results in errors and delays, but since the empirical foundation is not human systems, human caused blocks are eventually transcended. As one physicist once stated, you have only to wait for the old physicists to die off.

Human Studies also has this problem, but no independent empirical base. Human beliefs about human systems are very important to how human systems function. The science of human systems can be demonstrated as false, but still used by power elites (e.g. economics).

Many of the entities we label in the Societal Domain are no more sensory observable than atoms or quarks. Economics and governments, in general and in specific are not observable as a whole. What we do observe with our senses are interpreted as parts of very large societal systems. Yet, we treat them as if viewing our Moon – which has a back side we have seen only by going behind it in a space ship. The USA, the state of Arizona or the city of Tucson, GE, GM, IBM, the UN, the EU, Great Britain are all PHANTOMS, according to the philosopher Bruno Latour.

I can view the whole geographic spread of Tucson from Mt. Lemmon (not the whole of Tucson, but Tucson viewed from above), and the spread of the USA can be viewed from a satellite, (which is not the “whole” of the USA).  Earth viewed from our Moon, is just that – a view – it is not the “whole” Earth.  We don’t view the inside of each building, or the movements of every person. These societal entities are mental constructs and we should not assume that they will behave according to the same laws of classical physics or human studies of real, observable human behavior.

Indeed, we can’t exclude the possibility that we may discover Societal Weirdness akin to Quantum Weirdness. It is not necessary that weirdness be discovered for the issue of this essay to be significant.

Physiological, Personal, Social, Societal, Global  – are five distinct levels of reality for Human Studies.

The science of the societal and global domains may differ from the science of the personal and social. The difference may be as significant that that between classical and quantum physics – which has me temporarily call this Quman Physics. Quantum Physics was concerned with hypothetical phenomena too small to observe. Quman Physics is concerned with hypothetical phenomena involving humans – over space and time, and too large to be observed.

Quman Physics today

Quman Physics is not anywhere like our mature Quantum Physics. Although many of the concepts that contribute to the emergence of Quman Physics have been discovered and reported by many persons, few of these contributors imagine what is being proposed here.  Whereas Quantum Physics emerged within a highly dialogic community of very intelligent scientists, Quman Physics is emergent (yet embryonic) in the mind brain of one unique human savant: Larry/nuet.  As such, it may be but a mad fantasy of Larry’s. There may be others, but Larry is not yet aware of them.

On the other hand, major shifts in reality usually coalesce in the mind/brains of one or a few persons, before they spread into the population – although they aren’t independent of the contributions of others.  The resistance of others to comprehend Larry’s disorganized attempts to share his complex ideas is par for the course. However, the Magnitude, Scope, and Complexity (MSC) of the shift proposed by Larry/nuet is unique – but so is the totality of our planetary-wide Crisis-of-Crises. We can’t depend on our contemporary knowledge and worldviews to be sufficient for survival/thrival.

The issue for humankind is – might we be in need of major shifts in worldview, to survive/thrive? Why are we not searching for them? What is needed to evaluate Larry/nuet’s Quman Physics proposal.

Larry’s savant nature – compensating for his total lack of mental imagery in all sensory modalities, resulting in no sensory remembrances or imagination – may enable Larry to provide a special service to humankind in time of need. Savants in the past have contributed their services (e.g., Turing). Details on this elsewhere. Larry doesn’t view himself as a “genius”, as related to high IQ and fast thinking competencies. Larry/nuet has talents only in narrow domains.

What is “humankind”, and how does it change, has been among the queries of human persons for centuries. I (Larry/nuet) has just started reading Alexander von Humboldt’s New World by Andrea Wulf.  I am astonished that the queries of many explorative minds at his time (the same time as the beginnings of the USA) are highly relevant today. This reminds me, again, of the importance of the Relevance vs Recency  phenomenon – one of the features of Quman Physics.

Humankind today

There are as many “humankinds” as there are unique humans on Planet Earth today – approaching eight billion; because the conceptual scheme we label “humankind” and any detail ascribed to it, is a pattern of neural-molecular activity in each person’s mind/brain. Humankind is never perceived, or even consciously imagined as a whole. It is a fiction, emergent in each of use, and serves a context for what we do and think. No person consciously constructs their personal humankind, and it is as much a product of each person’s detailed cultural environments during their lives.

Even among the scientifically knowledgeable there is great diversity of “who we are”. This doesn’t account for the diversity as to culture, social class, and age (young children represent a significant percent of the human population). That there is any type of consensus as to “who we are” is a gross fiction. The frontiers of research about humans and human systems are accelerating in their discoveries. However, such discoveries have very little impact on how most humans believe about “who we are”. No wonder we are in trouble.

Elsewhere I have approached this issue from a comparison of the Sci/Tech of systems with humans as basic components with the Sci/Tech of systems where humans are abstracted from them – what they would be/do were there no humans. The quality of the Sci/Tech of the latter far, far exceeds that of the former, which in ways has not really improved in millennia; although it had changed due to use of the Sci/Tech of material systems. For example, material technical innovations moved the evolution of language/communication through memorization & rituals, written, printed, and now digital modalities – and humankind changed.

Humankind also changed as the result of recording/playback of activity, from films, TV, and now, potentially a cell phone in everyone’s hand linked to YouTube. Yet, with all these changes, the basics of “who we are” remained a confused montage of unconfirmed beliefs.

There is no significant intent or action to uplift the human population to a distribution of knowledge levels about “humankind”, even though many are well aware of threats to our very survival, let alone thrival. Why?  Are our leaders (including researchers and activists) so naive as to believe we can pull ourselves up by our bootstraps without uplifting, significantly, almost everyone?

The behavior of “the people” in response to the antics of their “leaders” informs me that THE SITUATION IS VERY CRITICAL. It is hard to identify a nation or population that isn’t in deep trouble. The media is full of simplistic arguments that are basically about “Who we are”.

From the crude ideas about Quman Physics, Larry/nuet can imagine viable means for the population to, by bootstrap, UPLIFT itself. Yet, it appears everyone else, even those totally dedicated to the quality survival/thrival of humankind, appear locked-into their belief in a world characterized by contemporary Human Studies. What is worse, any shift in reality perspective is hidden in their blindspots.



This was composed in the context of my relating the proposal by Andrew Gaines for accelerating The Great Transition with my proposal for UPLIFT.

We cannot accurately forecast details of coming collapses and responses to them. Humankind is both fragile and resilient. The cascade of events following BREXIT is an example of fragility. Yet, sometimes surprising recovery might follow collapses. The power of human to human mutual aide between peoples jointly facing disasters is documented by Rebecca Solnit’s A Paradise Built in Hell.  However, as soon as outside authorities arise, this resilience collapses. The often stated claim that we need to wait until it gets worse for people to act refers only to local social issues.  It never applies to longer term societal issues.  Also, collapses may come in cascades, and we never can tell whether a chain reaction of collapsing dominoes may cover over us like a massive technological collapse tsunami.

We cannot prepare for all scenarios, but there are some basics participants in the movement to Inspire Transition might consider; but surviving collapse must not be our primary focus or activity. If we survive one collapse, we will simply be in the way of the next. We are all eventually doomed if we can’t get to the source and stop the collapses, OR create a nu, emergent quman system that gets stronger each day, better resistant to collapse of their societal environments, and will eventually involve/engage most living humans (person by person). The nu emergent alternative humankind will learn how to manage the sources of collapse and eventually remove them, as they are designed out of the nu humanity created/emergent.

Human was not misspelled, as Quman, in the previous paragraph. I propose we undergo a system of major paradigm shifts, for our whole comprehension of human systems, as significant as the shift to Quantum Physics from Classical Physics.  What I call Quman Physics is like cleaning the smeared windshield, getting accurate maps and sending out scouts, getting sober, and – in metaphor – cooperating in a simulated “Wagon Train” over the “Mountainous Divide in Winter”, into the future (of sunny California).

Before WE attempt to recruit and organize others to join OUR expedition-in-time, WE need to re-examine OUR assumptions about what WE hope to accomplish and the terrain of the land WE will cross. Who is this “WE”?

Initially WE are those who have assumed we knew enough that something very significant was required, to survive/thrive. However, knowing something is wrong and something must be done often doesn’t equip that knower to also know what best to do. However, in a time of crisis, this assumption is often made – and often with disastrous results. For example, many revolutions end up becoming regimes as oppressive as those overturned.

The situation we face today is unprecedented, to say the least. We must be cautious of proposed “solutions” based on what was done in the past – even if successful, then.

Everything has changed so fast and often so significantly that no human knows nearly all of what IS and is HAPPENING, and the trends, many which are very real, if not stopped. As a person who has deliberately tried to be as comprehensive as possible, I have recently given up trying to explore everything that I consider highly relevant. I no longer have a “bucket list” of things to learn, let alone experience. Daily my attention encounters scores of significant new topics, blogs, movements, persons, books or articles that would, in the recent past, be put on my TODO list.  I continue to bookmark some of them, but my lists are already far too long and not well organized for searching. Also, there is no way, at 81 – or even if I was 18 – could I begin to work through this material. And then, what would I do with it, how would I share and discuss it with others, and then plan with others some projects to accomplish. Curating and online sharing is beginning to drown us in social media.

I can’t trust myself to know what best to do – even if I had the resources and a team of committed participants. Nor can I buy into anyone else’s project unless they can explicate to me a clear sketch of strategy to the time when the trends turn positive.

I am not calling for a conference, as was convened by Gregory Bateson (assisted by his daughter, Mary Catherine), in 1968 in Vienna on the critical topic: The Effects of Conscious Purpose of Human Adaptation“, although the topic is close to the one we must explore to better set direction for The Great Transition. Mary Catherine, in her excellent chronicle OUR OWN METAPHOR, “manages to convey the dynamics as well as the content of the deliberations of a small group of brilliant (and intractable) anthropologists, linguists, psychologists. and philosophers”. The Batesons visited Arthur Koestler after their conference. Koestler was disturbed about the scheduling conflict with his Beyond Reductionism Albach Symposium – to which Gregory had been invited, and Koestler had been invited to Gregory’s conference. After learning of what transpired (and didn’t) at Gregory’s conference, Koestler wrote a short story, THE CALL GIRLS. In this story, the world is in crisis and the best minds on the planet are convened in conference to discuss the issues and advise. There, each expert pontificated on his or her expertise, basically repeating their talks given on their lecture circuits, a metaphor for “call girls”.  I read all three decades ago and their significance has been with me since.

Actually, I am calling for Blitz (the name of a month long action project, being organized by Andrew Gaines in 2017), to accomplish what Gregory and Arthur failed to accomplish 48 years ago.

In 1976, as part of a summer visit to Great Britain, I visited the experimental commune, Findhorn, in Scotland. I am sad to see that its attempts to spread as a movement failed. They had a requirement, that each new prospective member had to temporarily not focus on his or her domain of expertise.  They were to bring to the commune their learning-to-learn competencies and to generalize from the competencies of their expertise – but apply it to the objectives and goals of Findhorn.  In a sense this is what we must bring to focus at a Blitz.

The best minds need to build on their specialized expertise to mutually explore domains of relevance. No single or few “domains of expertise”, expanded and improved, will be a key or solution. What we face is not a problem, but called a “problemateque”, where an appropriate response might be called a “solutionateque”.  That the problem/solution paradigm may be one of our difficulties in comprehending Quman Physics, was pointed out many decades ago by The Club of Rome, but mostly ignored.

Ignored for a reason – Problemateques and Solutionateques are but labels for aspects of a new reality that we wait to emerge in the next major shift.  When we accepted Kuhn’s term, paradigm shift, we slipped into another Quman System issue: our ease in letting a name mask the need to better comprehend “what” is being labeled. A (single) paradigm shift is analogous to the solution of a problem. A complex system of interacting paradigm shifts may characterize a “solutionateque”.

Permit me to cite another analog. My first assignment, assigned by the president of the community college I had just joined as faculty (1974) – with my claimed expertise as educator’s educator – was to design a Faculty Development Program for our new campus. My other functions were to teach sections of Intro Psychology and manage the Advising and Counseling System until a permanent head had been hired. I pondered and pondered.

Why should I develop a Faculty Development Program for an Instructional Program and Curriculum that I viewed as not adequate to our objectives – although the program and curriculum were already experimental and of comparative quality with established institutions.  I wrote a 100 page proposal over one weekend calling for an institutional metamorphosis of Pima County Community College. Titled: Education FOR the Future.

Faculty would learn to participate in the emergence of a Complementary College – that would accomplish what the existing curricula and practices were unable to accomplish, with the students learning to be learner/educators. In a meeting with my dean and the college president, we discussed my proposal.  They were quite pleased with the idea, but felt it was far too ambitious for them. I was asked to create a traditional Faculty Development System, which I did. However, this experience led to cascades of insights; so that the following semester I took an unpaid leave of absence to compose my unpublished manuscript, Mission_2000, where I first developed my conceptual scheme of Societal Metamorphosis.

What I take from this analogy, is that when we begin to prepare others for the transition, we will need far better techniques than we currently have today. How will we learn/discover what curricula for The Great Transition should be? How might we integrate mentoring and online courses? Might exploring possible future scenarios inform us of key curricular elements.

The principles I proposed in LQE (Learners for Quality Education) fits with TGT proposal to involve everyone in the learning process.  But, most persons have such poor knowledge about the learning and educational processes (this knowledge which is still being improved by ongoing research) that they will fail if they attempt to create quality education from scratch. That lesson was learned in The Summerhill School experiment. Personal mentoring and tutoring, teacher-to-learner, or peer-to-peer does involve inherited propensities. At the basic level of human interactivity, analogous to tribal relationships – humans are “natural” learners and teachers. But, long, sequentially dependent facilitated learning/development (of topics relevant to societal issues) for widely diverse learners is far, far from a trivial pursuit.

I am not proposing that we wait to start The Great Transition. We need to learn more about what we are about to do. If we can attract those who already have some basic competencies, knowledge, and attitudes – to develop a new educational system, initially FOR THEMSELVES, so as to later design a “college” of similar/related systems for the large diversity of potential learners/transistioneers. Basically, we start The Great Transition with ourselves.

I am not opposed to the TGT Blitz being proposed/outlined by Andrew Gaines, although I estimate he will have difficulty doing all that he hope’s to do (in preparing for the Blitz) and accomplish (during the Blitz). Elsewhere I relate some details of The Story Field Conference, as an example of great success of a conference, but unexpected failure to follow through. From my perspective, the objectives/goals are far more complex than Andrew imagines, the variables being far too diverse.

One reservation came to mind, in part due to the many terrorist attacks and shootings recently. If we are not careful in our assessment of learning progress, and keep a highly supportive community for everyone, we might have a few “members” who chose to go off on their own and “accelerate the need for transition” – which would attract negative attention to TGT. I am not thinking of acts of violence, but possible acts of creative disruption, which may attract the attention of authorities.  I have long been concerned about this for UPLIFT, but more for those who might try to push established systems to reform, that would also bring negative attention to UPLIFT.

As I edit this the GOP convention has completed its first day. The degree of polarization (and its increase) everywhere should inform us of the difficulty we will have finding receptive audiences to our proposals for The Great Transition.


Conserapedia & CAMERA
are phenomena to be investigated:
sophisticated right-wing propaganda.

They are “Wikipedia”-type gateways
to the Alternative Realities
of significant sub-populations in the USA.


Conspiracies have us think of “propaganda”
as strategic information aimed at
shifting the views of others;
enemies use “propaganda” on each other.

The real use of PROPAGANDA is to support
Indoctrination by Power Groups
so as to be able to control their populations.
Power Groups present their

Our MSM is “establishment” propaganda.
The above sites provide propaganda for the “right-wing” people.

This was the theme of a book in 1962
by Jaques Ellul:
PROPAGANDA: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes  (pdf)

Noam Chomsky‘s 1988
Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media  (pdf)
is a “more modern” “history of propaganda” for the USA.

It has been a while since I thought of Ellul. It makes me think of the many writers I read in the 1960 & 70s that presented perspectives very relevant today, but no longer part of our discourse. {I need to make as list of these neglected resources – it goes with being 81.}

We continually confuse
the RECENT with the RELEVANT.

One Political Plaza is a site for anyone to post, but it reflects average persons right-wing opinions.

Future Hitler Ideology is a report on the relationship between Trump propaganda and other Fascist propaganda machines of the past.

The crazy comment threads to many online posts are not propaganda, in the sense used here – designed to influence – but reflects the type of discourse  witnessed in emergent propaganda fields.


Was it necessary to KILL the Dallas shooter with a robot carried bomb?

Why not a canister of gas to put the shooter to sleep and then capture him alive?  Why not more INCAPACITATE & CAPTURE than DRONE BOMB?

Was there a reason some persons or groups didn’t want the shooter to be studied?

The claim now by “authorities” that he was a “lone gunman” doesn’t imply that the shooter’s  “project” wasn’t “managed” and that he didn’t have “handlers”. This is different from the shooter being part of an assassination team.  Who his managers and handlers might be has many candidates: rouge teams in the NRA or other pro-gun orgs, gun manufacturing corporations, militant racist groups, etc.

The technique of identifying mentally disturbed persons and assisting them to “plan” a terrorist attack and then arrest them – is well known. The Orlando terrorist attack has the earmarks of such a plot gone bad, the terrorist acted before he was arrested.

The two prior shootings of black men by police was to be a landmark event which could have called for the response in Dallas; which was successful in diverting attention. It may have backfired, as it has ignited a movement to unite the legitimate concerns of police and black communities.

Yesterday (7/8/16), a well spoken black father, with son, interviewed in Dallas called for our need of divine authority – we can’t govern ourselves, said this drug dealer turned Christian minister and family man. His analysis of the Black/Police phenomenon was good, but his solution was not so good.

There shouldn’t be competition between the personal and the social, but an interdependent complementarity. What I heard from the mayor and police chief of Dallas was significant: they called for us to think about two seeming contradictory ideas as the same time – needs of the Black Community and the needs of the Police Community. It shouldn’t be one or the other. This was the first time I’ve witnessed a META concept introduced in the MSM.

The most successful conspiracy today, is the conspiracy by elite conspirators to paint those investigating conspiracies as “conspiracy theorists” and kooks. Persons of shared interest, gathering together to plan actions – which the keep secret (or, don’t broadcast widely)- is a primary activity of all humans. These “conspiratorial” actions need not be to harm others. Inventors are conspiratorial, as are those planning surprise parties. Bad conspirators create a false myth of “secret” back-room meetings of evil, plotting conspirators. Effective bad conspiracies usually include coverup plans and false leads. One can explore some organizations or agencies as composed of competitive “conspiratorial gangs” (behaving in primitive, tribal ways, often informal) – often acting in conflict with the formal policies of the org. Those others in the org may have some knowledge of the conspiratorial gangs, but are unable or unwilling to oppose them. Many police departments in the USA are populated by conspiratorial gangs, who may form a cabal.