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: https://www.laetusinpraesens.org/ ?  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  http://www.un-intelligible.org/  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.

HUMANITY’S SEMFIELD

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.

Author: nuet

01/24/1935. BS-physics RPI 1956; MS-physics UofChicago 1958; PhD-physics Yale 1965; PhD-Edu Psy Uof MInnesota 1970. Auroral Research Byrd Station, Antarctica 11/1960-02/1962. MINNEMAST curriculum dev 1964-68. Woodstock. faculty Pima Community College, Tucson 1974-1997. Transdisciplinary scientist, philosopher, educator, futurist, activist. PC user since 1982. "Wife". daughter, 2 grandsons. 5 dogs & 7 cats. Lacks mental imagery in all sensory domains.

0 comments