Larry/nuet to Tony on “STATE” and his Semfield: “Laetus-in-Praesens”

[This started as a comment to a doc by Tony from a url on his recent email. As I engaged more his whole works I began to comment on it, and feel that I need to share these with others.]

Tony, while waiting to see my doctor the other day I encountered one of your docs on my cell, and got into it. There was something about the topic that keeps coming back and I am now trying to write about it. It was one you linked me to in your latest email.   .

What interested my was your complex analysis of the meaning of “state”. This triggered my recent explorations of two ideas.

(1) Media reports of disasters seem to be locked-in to each disaster as distinct and separate “states” – a block of space-time – isolated from any thinking on trends.  Every evening news report, for many months, tells of disasters, primarily the big three:  FWF (Floods, Winds, Fires). The TV could run stock video and most wouldn’t know the difference. Other than references to Katrina and Sandy (both hurricanes) there is no mention of other disasters and no mention of Climate Change. This is probably intentional, as considering more disasters coming could give rise to panic and force the issue of Climate Change – not wanted by many.  A while back I posted a comment that said: If you can be flooded, you will be flooded. If your area can burn, it will burn. It just takes time.

These are no longer isolated incidents (states) to be compared, and to recover from. Looking back, they involve stories of courage and survival. Read Rebecca Solnit’s A Paradise Built in Hell: The Extraordinary Communities That Arise in Disasters.  We know everyone doesn’t recover. I await the expose documenting how recovery from disasters is slowing and may eventually cease.

(2) The growing elevation of “phenomena” to a focus for my attention, almost to replace “system”. My exemplar phenomenon: Elections 2016 in USA.  One might consider a phenomenon as a nonlinear interaction of many systems.  A phenomenon can impact many systems not initially part of the phenomenon. My exemplar is global in scope and will have effects far into the future. Should we call these effects into the future, and precursors from the past as part of the phenomenon? I grok “phenomena” as having many of the aspects you gave to “state”.

Tony, the above is a tiny drop in an ocean compared to the “power and glory” (there are no good words to label your works) of Eliciting a Universe of Meaning. I could only skim it, but did recognize a few persons and works mentioned. Whenever I stopped to read, it was exciting. AND, the LINKS!

I try to imagine you composing your works and the access system you must have for your files. How much of it is accessible in your own memory?  I have 1/1000 of yours, and I can remember only a few – without a good search system – past intentions to create one never fulfilled.

I just metamorphed/imagined your docs as Amusement Parks. Teams would navigate and play within your scaffolding. What wonderful dialogs would emerge, even over a single paragraph. One might caution about getting lost, if one wandered down url links to other docs.

Have you graphed a map of all your docs and their links?  Imagine a learning expedition that hops from doc to doc – and assembles those parts into another doc.  Have you considered the utility of linking points within different docs; not that you should do it, considering the time needed. Could an AI program make attempts – versions of the site protected from alteration.

What is this: ?  Not the short sequence of symbols, the url.  Not the page of symbols that appears. Not all the words, sentences, paragraphs, pages, diagrams, links in this file, or every other file. I call this a SEMFIELD.  Wikipedia is another semfield.  They are also “sites” in “cyberspace”. Where is the semfield “laetus-in-praesens” located?  Is it’s “existence” (as a “thing”) of similar nature to that of a rainbow?  Is  a different, distinct semfield?  Are there more?

Do you edit or rewrite older docs?  I just discovered your FAQ , to be explored later. This is an excellent guide to potential readers. And your MAP .  I encountered an external “review” that couldn’t conclude whether your site is “safe for children” and that it probably wasn’t fraudulent!   Is it safe for the elites of humankind?

Tony, do your have a short name for  “laetus-in-praesens”?  I shall refer to it as LIP, until otherwise.  LIP = [Joy in the Present]. An interesting choice.  “Metascape” just popped to my mind. The content of LIP is “meta” – and is atemporal.  That resonates with my “Here&Now”, the “specious present” that contains Past, Present, and Future (with alternatives). LIP “IS” – as replicated semiotic structures – continuing “out there” for all Here&Nows.  Has LIP been translated? Who have read significant parts? Is there an archive of dialog on LIP?

A person could read all of LIP – as it was created by one person, who did other things. One might consider all the texts referenced within LIP that were not written by Anthony Judge.  LIP might be an excellent “text” for a core curriculum for young activists. Persons and Teams could record their travels/expeditions within LIP, with commentary and associated dialog.

LIP is far, far from comprehensive re human knowledge – nor does LIP intend to be comprehensive. What is the projection of LIP on a quality taxonomy of human knowledge? For what LIP does cover, are there biases and are there alternative positions?  Has anyone taken issue on any parts of LIP?  Where else is LIP explored as I call for here?

LIP is the product of one mind/brain; probably not much influenced by feedback on the product, LIP – because few read with comprehension and provided feedback.  Larry/nuet has faced similar conditions, and his work, Nuets Nodes (NN) and other docs, have not been effected by others — OTHER than much written is about the lack of attention, blindspots, and self analysis as to WHY? Both LIP and NN are difficult to read. With LIP I am drawn in many concurrent,competing directions: (1) STUDY each part, think and comment; (2) SKIM ahead to grok the whole; and/or (3) follow the links. (4) would be to compose my own docs in response to what I “got” from engaging a part of LIP.

What should others do who value LIP and want to make it more accessible and useful?  What might they do, while Tony is with us, to access what he has not yet put into words. What services can LIP provide for relevant projects now and in the future?  Can the practical essence of LIP be extracted to serve us in our transition from humankind to humanity?

How much of LIP is redundant – statements made in a doc to make a point clear, but which are in other docs, probably worded differently.

Where would we be at if I had engaged with Tony when I first knew of him, decades ago? How would Larry/nuet have been changed?

Will any of Larry/nuet’s insights lead to alterations and/or additions to LIP?

CONCLUSION:  Tony Judge and his semfields are gems, valuable human resources. Within are perspectives I speculate are essential for humankind to comprehend and apply, to succeed in “his/er” transition to Humanity. {Recently I read we shouldn’t use “it” as pronoun for humankind. Do we need another category of pronouns, or is it OK to consider humankind as having “gender”?}

Yet, there is a paradox.  Tony’s concerns, analyses, and recommendations are expressed in a form nearly impossible for a person to adequately engage – and do something with others related to it. I won’t be able to even begin exploring LIP, although I probably will peek in now-and-again. There is so much else to attend to.

I (Larry/nuet) also learned, that even had I organized all my life’s writings for quality access by others, they would not have been adequately engaged. I view a “nuet” semfield as relevant, although on different issues, as is Tony’s LIP semfield. How many other eeree semfields by individual persons are out there?

I propose that there are nu collective ways teams/crews/tribes can engage these “personally authored” semfield resources and begin construction/emergence of a “master” semfield for emergent humanity.


That which every human can access/perceive,
and know that it is the same “pattern” all others access/perceive.

Humans can dialog about different interpretations,
with processes seafing convergence.

All that happens beyond our immediate experience
can only be known via reports (sems in semfields).
There is no objective reality to be observed.
Yet, OTHER can impact our lives.
We learn about and share OTHER via our Semfields.

SEAFING revisited, Mutual & Web

SEAF = Support  Enable  Augment  Facilitate

Being aware of our personal limitations gives us the collective potential
to seaf ourselves to live much fuller personal lives
than we do not acknowledging our personal limitations.

FINDING: All humans require seafing to live optimally in complex human orgs. Special seafing will be required to uplift our dysfunctional humankind to a viable humanity.

All humans are severely dysfunctional, relative to what needs doing, much of which we don’t yet know (what needs doing), so learning that  – is what we most need to be doing. Those most functional in their life notch may be the most in need of seafing. Not because of what they are doing (which most likely is making things worse – indirectly), but because only they have existing knowledge/competencies to start their new learning/development so as to be prepared to begin actions to eventually turn everyone around; yet they are often the most resistive to real change.

There is no blame. Each person is where-they-are-at by their particular mix of Nature/Nurture-over-time, with a little personal agency that seldom was significant.  Recognizing and taking advantage of a rare opportunity is probably the type of personal agency most powerful. Who we are is more a matter of chance, than choice. Drive is not agency, but a Nature/Nurture developed tool that can be used by agency. Drive doesn’t always lead to the best actions.

Human persons emerge by their brain’s OS organizing the outcomes of events in their lives, most of the events not being chosen.  When some persons get to a point where they can partly determine their events, the set of events from which they can chose has been very severely limited – and they are not free to chose events outside this narrow set. The set, itself, is seldom, if ever, chosen.

FINDING: No one can change significantly by themselves. Our over dependence on personal agency and conscious will is detrimental to the viability of human social/societal/cultural systems, and the survival/thrival of humankind/Gaia.

Of course, it all depends on how we define “significantly”. In a sense, the statement is a tautology when “significantly” is defined as what is beyond  the competencies of the individual person to comprehend on their own.

This is a “finding”, in that scientific evidence could be assembled that demonstrates how individual persons are significantly limited in their accurate perception and comprehension of all that may be relevant to their lives and future well-being, from their available stimuli and without  seafing/helping  by others.

SEAFing & HELPing


 HELPing is action taken in the Here&Now in response to needs (perceived and comprehended) present in the Here&Now. Much helping is hard-wired, in mammals and is essential in nuturing young.  The Mutual Aide with tribes is helping.

SEAFing is action taken in the Here&Now consistent within strategies of actions based on temporal analysis of complex situations, relating Here&Now conditions to cyberspace accessible data, information, and possible assistance by coordinated teams & persons.

Within close groups of intimate persons, seafing and helping are integrated. Seafing intimates involves considerable subconscious analysis of the other in terms of the person’s own needs – with intention to CHANGE the other, which makes it seafing.


INSIGHT: Deep seafing refers to seafing when the seafed person’s deep psychology is used, along with the deep psychology of close associates, friends, co-workers, colleagues as well as analyzed futures scenarios/strategies that may involve the future changes for seafed person.

The “personal rights” of a person being deep seafed is a topic what needs extensive exploration.  Should the person being deep seafed be provided access to all (or limited) information about him/er self and the process? Should they be assisted in comprehending the information, if requested?

In the context of this doc, persons can never be “totally free”(a delusional myth in the ideology of individualism). As infants they were subject to the whims of others; all through life they encounter unanticipated others, events, circumstances, and opportunities. Their development of cognitive skills for navigating life is also mostly out of a person’s agency.

Yet, the societal/cultural entity that will have seafing as a subsystem must be carefully secure against invasion by destructive forces.

Mini Semfields for Mutual Aide

This is an exploratory topic.  It relates to possibly soon to be created, teams of persons, who mutually explore their deep psychology, involving a private semfield for the team, and a mutual seafing system.

Whether such teams should be observed/monitored and/or whether interaction between experimental teams should be explored are additional topics.

Refer to my Wire Sculpture metaphor for competency phase spaces for persons and teams.


There is a human propensity to chose between alternative actions – essential for quick survival decisions.  This propensity to treat alternatives as competitive causes serious difficulty when planning or strategizing future actions.

“Complementarity” is a relationship between alternative perspectives that was found necessary in Quantum Physics. You may know it as the wave/particle duality. Light and matter can be observed as a wave (field) or particle, depending on the situation; but only one at a time, when observed. I have generalized this to claim that reality (whatever “it” “is”) cannot be comprehended by one, single, logically consistent, explanatory scheme.

Human persons as (1) having “free” conscious agency and (2) being determined as components of social systems are in a complementarity relationship, they are not competitive.  Free/Determined is analog to Wave/Particle, in complementarity.

It is not nature OR nurture, but nature AND nurture.  It is not mind OR heart, but mind AND heart. But, the AND may not imply a kind of total integration as in everyday metaphor.

When a person acts in belief of their conscious will, that action is REAL in terms of their effects on the processes within their brains/wrlds. They can WILL (not always achieved) their inner wrld to change to meet their desires; even if their inner wrld is conflicted with evidence (they could perceive, but don’t) with an intersubjective (consequential) world. WILL can often have strong so-called, sub-conscious components.

The so-called REAL WORLD, that OBJECTIVE REALITY (that bites us in the ass when we ignore it)  IS REAL (consequential), but our knowledge of IT is never direct and always hypothetical within our inner wrlds.

SEAFing and HELPing

On 8/22/2016, I could only skim an email from a colleague requesting Seafing or Helping. I was so dizzy I couldn’t sit up, the side effect from a new med I had just started taking to improve my memory. I had the same reaction from my previous memory med. Writing this I am not dizzy but my balance and perceptions are still not “normal”, and I can’t find good words to describe my state. I have since read the email and this event has cast useful light on the distinction I am making between seafing and helping.

In a grossly inefficient manner (low eeree), Banner Medical Center (UofArizona) provides a weak form of seafing. They assess my biological condition and prescribe treatment in the form of recommended medications, which I must perform the behavior of acquiring and taking the med. Banner doesn’t do any behavior for me that I could do myself.

The following is an exercise in exploring distinctions, not a call to use the terms “help” and “seaf” in this precise manner. For some readers, it will seem to “picky”. However, if we were to use this distinction and assess the ratio of helping vs seafing being done, I would expect that helping would be much more frequent – whereas, our survival/thrival may call for much more seafing.

Seafing (supporting, enabling, augmenting, facilitating) might be viewed as meta-helping. Seafers might provide information, from an assessment of a person’s (team’s, org’s) situation and needs, from which the person can plan and execute change. With the person’s permission, the seafers may undertake to alter some of the environment of the person being seafed. Seafers may also provide guidance (education, training, counseling) for the changes to be undertaken. Such changes may be in concert with changes others are making.

The line between seafing and helping may not be sharp.

Helping, as used here, refers to a person or system doing some of the tasks the entity being helped can’t do, but would need being done to achieve their (the entity’s) objectives and goals. Helping may involve doing more of what the person being helped is already doing. A helper joins the helpee in his/er activity.

Persons from the seafers team might also chose to help, but it should not be classified as seafing. The objective of seafing is to improve the “commons”, by assisting a person change to better fit the needs of the commons AND also improve the overall well-being of the person. Seafing feeds emergence; helping only adds “energy/momentum” to an ongoing activity. Helping may also contribute to emergence, but by accident not intention.

Before my dizzy spell, I had started a new post titled: SEAFING revisited, Mutual & Web, wherein I will attempt a comprehensive explication of this conceptual scheme. I was doing this for two reasons: 1) the significance of SEAFing for all that we do in the future, and 2) my personal needs for being seafed at this time. I was confronted, myself, with the distinction between seafing and helping. My colleague’s request for seafing and/or helping simply highlighted the need for clarification.

During my many hours lying in bed, metaphors for the helping/seafing distinction kept popping to mind.

Think of a person pushing/rolling a large boulder to the top of a hill.

  • You can HELP the person by pushing with him/er.
  • You can SEAF the person by clearing the path, making it easier to roll.
  • You can SEAF the person by giving him/er water, food, even encouragement.
  • You can SEAF the person by organizing others to HELP him/er.
  • You can SEAF the person by suggesting s/he use a block & tackle and drag the boulder up the hill.

I had the idea of a “seafing boulder rolling down a hill”. Instead of the destruction we imagine caused by a stone boulder, imagine a “seafing sphere” that would seaf all things it encountered as it rolled through the people on the hill.
Is gifting money or resources helping or seafing? It may be both or neither.

Gifting would be HELPING when it enables the persons gifted to do more of what they are doing, and/or to do what they had planned to do, but had not yet started.

Gifting would be SEAFING when it is used to explore and test new aspects or relationships of what is being done with the doings of others, or with expanded objectives or goals.

Gifting would be neither helping of seafing when it is used to improve the quality of life of the persons being gifted. Only, if gifting the persons did it improve the work of the persons, would it be viewed as helping/seafing.


Helping/Seafing Persons in NEED.

Persons surviving disasters, or any persons in danger or under the influence of “forces” that oppress or block advancement, are in NEED.

HELPING persons in NEED would keep them alive and/or repair what they had lost.

SEAFING persons in NEED would improve their actions to remove themselves from being in NEED.


Implications of this will be the subject of other posts.


These insights came to me in the evening of August 19 and morning of the 20th, 2016, as I lay in bed listening to a audio novel on CD. It is a slightly different perspective of what has been brewing within nuet for quite a while, related to my perspective that we humans host “wrlds” that emerge (wrld-weaving) as patterned activity in our brains – and that all human behavior and (conscious) experientials emerge from this autopoietic “musical dance on the mind/brain”. What we moment-by-moment perceive as the WORLD is better hypothesized as ourselves reacting to our structural coupling with Gaia and other humans. “wrlds” are what we each know about and experience in our lives. Humankind is composed of 7+ billion, structurally coupling “wrlds”. Vastly different wrlds.

As was recently debated online, a rainbow is perceived as a thing, and can be physically represented in terms of light coming from raindrops into one’s eyes – yet it is different from each perspective and is created within our mind/brains. Rainbows aren’t physical things “out there”. There are processes “out there” that can be used in our creating “rainbows” in our mind/brains.

We never directly perceive each other, but experience what our mind/brains have created from structurally coupling with the light and sound coming to me from you. We don’t perceive input processed by our brains – modulated by our wrlds. Rather, the input patterns modulate our wrlds to emit behaviors and experientials.

Maturana and Varela claim, using Spencer-Brown’s Logic of Forms, that the two perspectives (information transfer vs structural coupling) are logically equivalent.  I have not followed their argument.

Structural Coupling can be dynamic and resonating, as is evidenced by mirror neurons responding to voice and gestures. Wrlds aren’t alone, it is only that there is no direct contact between minds. This has many positive aspects when you think about it.

Also, although the natural brain process of wrld-weaving is within each person, the wrld that is woven is as much (or more) from the structural coupling with all that one encounters during life. “Nature” provides the wrld-weaving OS (which can be modified) while “Nurture” provides the content threads to be woven.

Unfortunately, today, the patterns-of-nurture that humans encounter are far from optimal for their wrld’s emergence; many times suppressing actualization of innate potentials. This is the “crime” of the current mode of societal organization called “Civilization”.

All the above was already known to me.  My new insights were how the wrlds of others might be, if lacking certain conceptual schemes – such as an “environment” or “society” or “system”.

Scientifically we know our environment is an ecology of living systems among various physical structures, landscapes, oceans, atmospheres, etc. – a changing complexity that we use “systems” to label.  This is a conceptual scheme, a framework within our wrld for organizing the patterns.

The wrld of a newborn doesn’t yet have these frameworks, and tribal humans didn’t either; they are probably not inherited. Humans, with language, weave “abstract” entities in mind, “phantoms” that are never perceived, but can be “imagined”. We wrld-weave within systems of categories.

We have yet to uncover the role of dreams, mental imagery, and hallucinations in the development of wrlds. I speculate that our “consciousness” may have started with dreams and later applied to perceptions – which are well utilized by animals without language.

Birds must have excellent inner “maps” of their surroundings, as they fly away from and then all return to the flock from large distances. Even butterflys migrate in generational hops. Squirrels know where they have stored nuts for winter. Early humans did the same, even as they migrated.

Australian natives learn their culture’s names of things and when they walk on journeys they recite to themselves and remember the things observed. Later they may tell others the story of their trip, which is remembered as a “map” for others to follow the same route. A living native was frustrated, when riding in a car; having to ask the driver to slow down because he couldn’t name things he saw because they came by too fast.

Tribal persons would learn the names and uses of many things in their surroundings and evolved to care for their surroundings. They did not usually TAKE, extract – but they did DUMP, which eventually corrupted their surroundings.  Their wrlds we composed of sensorally perceived things with relative locations to other things (including the moving sun, moon, and stars).

Modern humans do the same for their immediate surroundings. For those not educated in the sciences, the wider world is a montage of different surroundings, regions that can have special names and attributes (including characteristics of their peoples). But, they are unaware of the complex relationships between components of the globe. They may assign mythological attributes from metaphors from their more immediate realities. This can often become confusing, especially if they view TV.

Terms like government, economy, environment, society don’t mean for them what they mean for those who have learned the conceptual schemes. We have yet to study (or maybe some have and I don’t know about it) how their realities are organized. From their perspective, it is OK to take, as “out there” is but a collection of things for the taking – not a system where what is taken may disturb other important things.

What we (educated & enlightened humans) must not do, is assume that our reality is shared by most other humans living on Earth today. Their wrlds are alien to ours – and many of ours are alien to each other.

For example, most persons familiar with the conceptual scheme of “systems” are unaware of how this even limits their wrld. Crudely, a system is composed of components with properties, linked by relations, and embedded in an environment of things and stimuli. Specific knowledge of a system enables a person to sometimes forecast how the system will respond to changes. Some systems can be mathematically described and forecasts can become predictions. This conceptual scheme can be intuitively comprehended by persons working with machines, for example, that can be viewed as systems, without having any formal instructions about General Systems.  This frame called “systems” can then be applied to many different things, but each in isolation.

A person may acknowledge that components can be viewed as smaller systems and that a system can be a component of a larger system, where each system is called a “holon” in a “holarchy”. What is often ignored is that holons at separated levels in a holarchy can interact. Molecules from cells can effect experience and behavior, and can interact with social systems that distribute molecules (eventually) to cells. Networks and webs are “things” different from “systems”, but are often called systems. “Systems” often becomes the scientific replacement for “things”.

I use four frames for organizing: systems (holons), networks, ecologies, and holarchies.  [sys/net/eco/hol]  I take them to be conceptual tools I use to organize my experiences. They may not be “out there” anymore than a rainbow is “out there”.

We are far from ready to create a taxonomy of wrlds in our global population, but we need to make a good estimation of distributions soon. Otherwise we don’t know who we are.  Ethnicity, gender, age, wealth, health, education are grossly insufficient to characterize humankind. Our cognitive profiles, learning styles, imagery competencies, etc. are much more important for us to comprehend our diversity of wrlds.

How do wrlds change, evolve and emerge? How do different wrlds interact (structurally couple – via language)? How do our use of media effect wrlds. Paradigm shifts, a concept many decades old, hints to a shifting of wrlds. Most formal education is devoted to the assimilation of new information to fit a pre-existing wrld. Accommodations and equilibration do occur, as Piaget proposed – but his application was child development. How wrlds change and shift for adults in turbulent and stressful times is a major challenge, today.  Different psychiatric states can be also viewed as different wrlds.

What exactly was my recent insight? I groked the diversity of wrlds, with an increased awareness that many humans don’t have what I have as societies or sci/tech or evolution/emergence within the frames of their wrlds. They lack categories I use; although they may hear or read terms for those categories.

Last night I was interrupted at this computer, and shut down early, by Milo, a beautiful male cat, who insisted on my attention for an hour. A few months ago Milo had a few weeks of hourly seizures, which we were able to cure with a medication I learned about online. I am convinced Milo is expressing thanks to me, as I held him many, many times during his seizures.  I  sometimes wonder about the scale of wrlds from Milo through chimps to the taxonomy of human wrlds.

A sys/net/eco/hol of wrlds hosted by humankind is emerging towards the “birthing” of humanity via Cultural/Societal Metamorphosis. UPLIFT is a conceptual scheme that intentionally and systemically seafs the merging and shifting of wrlds – one-at-a time (analogous to the embryonic development from fertilized egg to baby – each cell in mitosis to become two cells). One human, already uplifting within a seafing network of others uplifting, engages a person from the societal environment of UpMov and they become TWO members – both change in the process. Then each of the TWO, become FOUR, then EIGHT, on to the exponential viral penetration of the UPLIFT meme into the global human population.  Diversity within Unity.

Four decades ago (minus two years), alone on a hill top near Perth, Scotland, I raised my arms in the air and shouted:  HUMANKIND METAMORPHOSIZE , many times. Am I beginning to hear the echos?




I have just viewed a half-hour discussion on empathy, that is very enlightening to me. This post reports my brief reaction to the video, not a crafted explication on:  Is Empathy Possible? , which is the query of their debate.

The “furious debate” is between Edwin Rutsch, founder of the Center for Building a Culture of Empathy and Sam Vaknin, a well educated, intellectual, expert on narcissism and psychopathy – also “formally” diagnosed as (borderline) lacking empathy – who is the producer of the video.

To me, they are cross-talking – yet, there is, to me, considerable  “empathy” demonstrated in their dialog.

Is emotional embodiment when experiencing others necessary for “empathy”? How is Sam’s disassociation of his experiencing others without emotion different from Eastern disciplines who claim being able to experience without emotional involvement?

I rephrase the query: Can humankind create a viable humanity even if persons cannot fully share each other’s conscious experiences?

Edwin cites mirror neurons and other physiological correlates to conscious experiences as evidence for shared consciousness, that IMA is correctly refuted by Sam.  However, Sam’s example that we can’t prove we both share the same experience of red, to imply we can’t agree make inter-subjective agreements about a common, “objective reality” is not fully accurate. Different persons can agree on the identity of patterns (e.g. text or diagrams on surfaces, visually perceived), even if they differ on interpretations of the patterns.

It is true, the overall experience of perceiving and comparing patterns will have features which are different between viewers; thus their whole experiences can’t be compared.  But need they be? Is there a positive aspect that humans are limited to being autopoietic systems, capable of structural coupling, having some “privacy” and “uniqueness”?  Might the ultimate consequence of total empathy lead to a bland oneness?

Both Edwin and Sam exhibit the all-to-human trait of believing what they experience to be “real” (with minor imperfections). They assume that humans, at our stage of evolution/emergence can possess (some) ultimate truths.

I am exploring the potentials of a semfield of shared patterns (sems – semiotic structures) to be created as a common empirical foundation for the structural coupling  of humans (and eventually other beings).

This relates to a shift in perspective I think is needed in how humans approach their experiences. For everyday living in our immediate settings we can’t avoid our mammalian predisposition to believe what we experience is of an external reality. This is necessary for eeree functioning. The exception may be when inter-personally relating to other humans.

There is very strong evidence that the content of consciousness, our experientials, are associated with body/brain processes (possibly at levels not yet explored, such as the microtubles within neurons). The “screen” on which these “experientials” are displayed and the “experiencer” remains a mystery, although some claim to “know”. Even if some content may result from “sources beyond perception or body” (e.g., Transcendental Reality, TR), it is obviously (from an analysis of reports of TR) filtered through the contextual “wrld” that emerges during the life of a person.

For topics beyond the experiential immediate, it will often be necessary to distinguish:

1) A common, objective, external WORLD within which all humans live, but who may perceive and interpret differently.  In this reality, a person (teacher) attempts to have the other person look more objectively and experience what is really there (as assumed by the teacher).

2) Objective reality cannot be directly known. Each human autopoietically emerges an internal/woven “wrld” during their lives in structural coupling with Gaia and other humans (and possibly with TR). To change others one must tweak the structural coupling to move the other to change their wrlds.  This is primitive in contemporary humankind, in what I call Adult Stage Development with linear stages as in Spiral Dynamics   and the Objectification model of Robert Kegan. We need new non linear developmental models.

The issue of how to “treat” persons born with structures that would lead to propensities to be dangerous to humanity cannot be avoided. This is not different on how to “treat” situations where a mis-match of nature & nurture may also result in persons dangerous to humanity.

Elsewhere  I have discussed how the lack of emotional empathy in a small percent of the population had positive survival value for tribes. Given the strong empathy within tribes, a “psychopath” may occasionally be needed when some members of the tribe must be sacrificed to save the tribe. Tribes lacked the special hierarchical structures that “psychopaths” use today to “climb to the top”.

BOOKS, relevant on the nu human

Recent books I have read which cite changes in how we conceive of humans and humankind.  Many of these findings are not incorporated in how we think and behave. These are not all that do this, and there are many older books that do this also. We just haven’t connected the dots.

More dots from Giorgio Bertini’s Learning Change

About Time: Cosmology and Culture at the Twilight of the Big Bang, Adam Frank

AntiFragile, Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Coming to Our Senses: Perceiving Complexity to Avoid Catastrophes, Viki McCabe

Denial: Self-Deception, False Beliefs, and the Origins of the Human Mind, Ajit Varki and Danny Brower.

Present Shock, Douglas Rushkoff

Scarcity: Why Having Too Little Means So Much, Sendhil Mullainathan & Elda Shafir (economist and psychologist)

Smarter Than You Think: How Technology is Changing our Minds for the Better, Clive Thompson

Social Physics: How Good Ideas Spread, Alex Pentland

Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect,  Matthew Lieberman

Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking, Doug Hofstadter & Emmanuel Sander

The Infinite Resource, Ramez Naam

The Innovators: How a Group of Hacker, Geniuses, and Geeks Created the Digital Revolution  by Walter Isaacson

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion,  Jonathan Haidt

Thinking, Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman

Who Owns the Future, Jaron Lanier

Willful Blindness: Why We Ignore the Obvious at Our Peril, Margaret Heffernan

The Man Who Wasn’t There: Investigations into the Strange New Science of the Self, Anil Amanthaswarmy

The Silo Effect: The Peril of Expertise and the Promise of Breaking Down Barriers, Gillian Tett

Peers, Inc.  Robin Chase

The Organized Mind: Thinking Straight in the Age of Information Overload, Daniel J. Levitin

The Upright Thinkers:  The Human Journey from Living in Trees to Understaidning the Cosmos , Leonard Mlodinow

Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in the Digital Age, Sherry Turkle

The Path: What Chinese Philosophers Can Teach Us About the Good Life, Michael Puett & Christine Gross-Loh

Hope in the Dark: , Untold Histories, Wild Possibilities, Revecca Solnit

A Paradise Built in Hell: The Extraordinary Communities That Arise in Disasters  Rebecca Solnit

The Hope: a Guide to Sacred Activism, Andrew Harvey

Ignorance: How It Drives Science, Stuart Firestein

HUMAN SYSTEMS – revisited

PROPOSITION:  The sci/tech of Human-Systems (systems with human persons as the basic components) is vastly inferior to the sci/tech of systems where humans and human agency don’t (or is assumed don’t) exist as part of or influencing the system.

All our knowledge of systems is within human systems, as humans observe and record data for later human observation and analysis. All that we experience is ourselves, as autopoietic systems.

This proposition implies that all our models and efforts to influence human systems seriously lack the robustness and dependability of sci/tech foundations for the sci/tech advances of the past few centuries and continuing to accelerate.

This has been noted by the hard/soft distinction, often as a put-down by hard to soft. The soft defend by rightly pointing out that they focus on far more complex systems and that their sci/tech is more “difficult”, vs the relatively “easy” systems of physics.

Human systems are indeed more difficult to study for reasons beyond their greater complexity; namely that humans are studying humans.

Might it be, that the primary reasons why humankind is facing a potentially catastrophic Crisis-of-Crises and appears unable to rectify  this situation is that we are using inaccurate, incomplete, and often false models and theories about everything human – while, at the same time, believing “we” are the best.  “We” being not the whole of humankind, but ourselves and those others we identify as being “good”, the “best”, “sacred”, “uniquely endowed”, etc.

Might this arrogance come, in part, from the recent advances in the research of our bodies and brains. For this essay I will classify such research as not of human systems, as the systems studied are molecular, cellular, and physiological. All truly human systems, for this essay, have at least one, whole human person in a relevant  material environment not containing any other humans. Human systems may contain many human persons, and always material objects and environments (of which we may have quality scientific knowledge about how they function).

Functional MRIs of human brains while having selected experiences, and the influence of the human microbiome on responses to psychological tests are not – in this framework – the study of human systems. The results of such experiments may well greatly assist our studies of human systems – just as how an airplane flys or how nuclear fission happens, influences human systems.

I won’t attempt to cite a complete list of academic disciplines that would be included as studying human systems. The would include, psychology, sociology, anthropology, archeology, economics. Agriculture, as the study of plant growth is not a human system study, but why and we “grow” the plants we do, would be a feature of a human system study. For what I hope to clarify in this essay, it isn’t important that the demarcation between human and non-human systems be sharp.

Personal, Social , Societal – 3 distinct systems

The first two systems, personal and social, are “observable”. The third systems, societal, are no more observable than quarks, yet we often treat them as if they were observable and use metaphors from the personal and social in communicating about them – which can cause difficulty.

What do we mean when we observer something?  When we meet our friend a number of times, how do we really know it is the same person? We never observe the whole of a thing at the same time.

Things that have identity permanence are mental constructs and when we observe different parts/views at different times, these assemble as related (coherent?) patterns of brain activity. This is wired into our mammalian perceptual system and we intuit the presences of familiar things – be it persons, families, or tribes.

Societies didn’t exist until well after this perceptual process had evolved. We observe many instances that are said to occur within an economic, government, corporate, educational system – societal systems.  Using our intuition competencies that emerged for persons, families, and tribes we believe that we “observe” these societal systems when we perceive a small part. But, these societal systems are as phantoms – illusions – there but not there.

I propose that today, we – persons and social systems – by being within societal systems, no long function as persons and tribes functioned when there were no societal systems. This has forced expressions/behaviors by persons and social systems of a far greater variety than before. Societal systems – even if unobservable – constrain the development (nurture) of human persons’ propensities/potentials (nature), so that there is a much greater variation/diversity among human person’s phenotypes than in tribal times. This, in turn increases the variety of social systems and, subsequently, societal systems.

personal 2 PLANETARY, direct link needed

I recently wrote on P4P, P&P, and P2P. I want to add another, p2P for personal2PLANETARY, where I propose we link DIRECTLY personal to PLANETARY, in addition to their parts as holons in the holarchy from personal, through teams/communities/societies/global-humankind to Gaia and Planet Earth.

I propose this direct relationship be created within our minds, our emergent, inner, woven/constructed wrlds, to assist us in navigating the Great Transition that awaits us.

I am moved to propose this direct relationship because of the gross inadequacy of my person in meeting the challenges faced by our planet, which are the result of our (humankind’s) premature expansion and destructive impact on Gaia. I speculate that each of us are dysfunctional in relation to what we “could and should” be doing and avenues for change are blocked.

Although it is natural that biological organisms must give primary focus to their personal situations (wrlds), as do most humans.  Yet, humans usually avoid attending realistically to their patterns of significant change. This is not a feature of other creatures, and humans have yet to evolve to adequately adapt to their potentials to act on forecasts, which come from our special languaging competencies – where we can represent alternative futures in our minds.

PERSONAL  – By “personal” I mean to include our subjective experiences of ourselves and of others, explored to depth-without-limits. We will only comprehend the domain of “personal” to the extent that we know how we know, what we know, about ourselves and others – our differences and our similarities.

As a starter, I propose that small groups of persons engage in extended dialog to probe as deeply as possible about each other and record the dialog -with recordings to be viewed and discussed by members of the group. This may involve some features of Bohmian Dialog, but should not be viewed as a practice variation – this process must emerge to meet its own needs.

I speculate that a viable, future humanity may be structured to have every person a member of a set of such “intimate groups”, some temporary and others emergent over the life of a person (with a flow of person in and out of the group).

I propose that we attempt to start this now. This to also include a “clearinghouse” for all such groups, so we begin to collect data so as to better comprehend the phenomenon.

PLANETARY  – By “planetary” I refer to the conceptual schemes and experientials humans have and dialog about in reference to the “whole” of what we call our planet Earth, and in particular Gaia and Humankind.

If necessary, it is OK to anthropomorphize how different systems, components and subsystems might “experience” their existence and relation to “others”. The science fiction of Italo Calvino is my exemplar.

I took a diversion and Googled Italo Calvino, and read his bio with great interest. I had known him only for his two collections of short stories: Cosmicomics and t zero . His very rich life illustrates how important depth-personal can be; that I had known only a tiny sliver of his life and achievements. I recommend you read his bio and the brief description of the short stories above to get a sense of his anthropomorphism. I need to reread his stories, and regret not knowing Italian as I expect much is lost in the translation. [Larry’s paternal grandparents both emigrated from Italy, Victor was a shortening of Divittario on Ellis Island. Genealogy traces Depampholis (grandmothers maiden, first name: Lucretia) back to Machiavelli and Lucretia Borgia.]

I am not calling for a mystical contact with a “real” Gaia (I leave that possibility for another time), but that we attempt – within ourselves and between ourselves – to better “model” THE BIG PICTURE (which isn’t a “picture”) and our personal relationship to OUR PLANET.

I got caught up in the P 2 & 4 P  notation. It may be better that we link with GAIA instead of Planet Earth. That part of Earth not Gaia is of limited  relevance to us – except for the atmosphere (storms and greenhouse gasses); the oceans, seas, lakes and rivers (acidification, pollution, expansion); the glaciers (shrinking mountain and melting ice caps); and the land (soils, earthquakes from fracking, etc.).

personal to PLANETARY –  As person to person, where the other person is Earth, and Gaia – in our minds.

The other human persons you directly relate to are those in your mind – the neural-molecular patterns in your brain that represent an “objective” other. Our perceived world is scientifically a “virtual reality” created by ourselves, autopoietically, from hypothesized sensory stimulation. This is not solipism, as the details of these patterns are evidence of “others”; our experiences are not total fantasy.[Searching, I discovered an article on autopoietic social systems by Luhmann, which may be of some relevance.]

COMMENTARY  My thinking has shifted during the writing of the above. The primary urge was to probe depth intimacy of interpersonal relations. I generalize from my own needs to the lack of what we all need – as one essential aspect of change – which we could begin to explore tomorrow. Somehow, nuet inserted planetary in the mix, and has been doing so for a while. Gaia (the most relevant part of Earth for us) has been a frequent idea in Larry’s consciousness for many decades.

At the end of writing and a trigger to writing this commentary, was the insight that by focusing on interpersonal relationships of human2human and human2planet we might avoid the trap of getting caught up in the mess of contemporary society, and to break temporarily from the transformation-vs-emergence debate. Do we need “get to know each other better”, before we begin thinking and talking about what to do to change humankind?

hope the above means something


Stan reports on his effort to promote a shift in public attention to and participation within a milieu of “helpfulness”. While I fully commend and support Stan’s effort, his project stimulated a cascade of thought and insights related to “helping”. The following illustrates what happens when nuet is stimulated to output information to Larry’s fingers. This is a record of a flow of ideas, not a crafted essay.

Many persons are unaware that they can be helped, or are even aware of what they may be helped to do. Some may view an offer to help as attempting to manipulate or control. It can be dangerous or inappropriate to help when the assistance is not observed or requested. However, there are times when helping may call for intervention.

MUTUAL AIDE. One of my favorite books, long ago, was Mutual Aide by Peter Kropotkin. Few people know that “anarchism” originated as a means of living with caring mutual governance – but no government (a control organ for the body politic). This perspective was far more dangerous to emergent Capitalism than Communism, and was successfully branded as a call for disorder & violence – nihilism. Their success is evident by the almost total absence of this perspective in any contemporary discourse.

I view helpfulness more as ever present cooperation, where much is accomplished mutually, rather than alone. It also includes the attitude where a person is open to request help or assistance, when it would be beneficial. I seem to want to avoid the term “need” as the core of helpfulness. True needs need to be met, when possible.

SEAFING. The process I have labeled “seafing” does not call for others to do something for you, but to Support, Enable, Augment, and/or Facilitate your doing. Others may seaf you in doing something you could not do alone, mutual aide, but seafing won’t do for you what you could do – and were able to do.

I take an unpopular approach to suffering, in the sense that many persons are suffering as a result of their environmental/societal conditions. If resources are limited, one must chose between alleviating suffering (symptom) or work to remove the causes of the suffering. There are movements and persons whose sole focus is to alleviate suffering and ignore the causes. They are needed, as in the current support of refuges, and I would do nothing to stop this form of helping. But, when “charity” appeases one’s conscience, permitting the cause of suffering to continue, one must wonder. There are belief systems (ideologies) which assert the inevitability of suffering (original sin, for example – or negative karma), and who depend on the continued existence of suffering to give their life meaning.

Most people are not aware of the many opportunities available to them. If you ask a person if they need help, what they ask for may probably not be what would be most beneficial for them. I am not saying that you or I should determine what another might find useful or rewarding, if assisted. But it may be possible to expand their horizons and increase their options to chose.

Recently I encountered online a site where persons listed their NEEDS and ASSETS. Unfortunately I can’t find it. This would be the bare bones of a CrowdHelping app. In my 1975 Mission_2000, I proposed a few societal subsystems; one being the M2A Skills Exchange.  I just retrieved that part (which has been on my old COMCAST website that closed) and put it on my blog. It has been quite a while since I read this. In 1975 there were no Personal Computers. This was just off the top of my head, with no consultation. In the Mission_2000 scenario, this first edition (a future history, written as if from the year 2000) would be revised many times by the Mission_2000 Movement in the 25 years.

Mutual aide and quality interpersonal relationships is at the core of the uplift process. Without this the movement won’t succeed.  Last month I discovered a scenario I composed in 2013 that I totally forgot I had written. It is a report of a person who had been a member of the uplift movement for 2 years, telling of what those years were like.  It may give you a feel of the potential.

I am a person desperately in need of help. My TODO list scrolls many pages.  A decade or more ago, an alternative money/exchange system was established in Tucson, and a skills exchange was one of the features of the system. It floundered because of the lack of a large enough initial set of useful skills offered. I had no skills others wanted, except “education”.  One suggestion would be a Mutual Aide Network on computers and use of apps. I believe our eeree could be greatly improved.

LATER—–  8/9/2016 12:08 PM   From geisterblitz when showering:


It is appropriate to manipulate the environments of very young children, for their “best interest” (according to theories about child development). We do the same for severely disabled persons and persons in severe medical crises. Sometimes we need to manipulate the bodies of persons, without their permission. Manipulation is not universally inappropriate.

When might we conclude a person is a “societal child”, not having the appropriate competencies to engage in a situation without causing unacceptable damage? What if the situation doesn’t lead to immediate consequences for the person helped, but may effect others negatively (by your analysis) “down the road”?

There are many situations where it is appropriate to manipulate others; so we can’t take a ideological stance against all manipulation. Yet, who is to decide when and what manipulation is appropriate?

It would be inappropriate to help a serial killer, a child abuser, a terrorist, a dictator, etc. Except, maybe in a limited way as an undercover agent setting them up to be stopped.

It would be inappropriate to help a person bent on self destruction. Assisted suicide is a complex, possible exception.

When is it appropriate to help a person maintain in a situation that is unhealthy for them (from collective analysis), yet they insist on being helped in this way?

When is it appropriate to organize an intervention to break a person from dangerous behavior?

When is it appropriate to create an educational system which will indoctrinate those who engage it?

When it it appropriate to work to change an educational system which doesn’t work (as intended) or has inappropriate objectives?

When is it appropriate to create new social and societal systems with well stated objectives?

When is it appropriate to work to change social and societal systems which are dangerous – such as those supporting increasingly destructive climate change?

When is it appropriate to take the life of another person? [Trolley dilemma, social psych experiment.  ]


What actions are appropriate to stop actions by persons and societies that threaten the very existence of humankind and severely damage Gaia?




Most helping professions focus on helping those with problems, not helping other achieve objectives (personal and social). Most helping professions focus on treating symptoms, not eliminating causes of problems.

Charity, Donations, Contributions, Volunteer Work.  When does organized public help give societal decision makers an excuse not to change policy to eliminate the cause of the problems that require help?