I prefer to imagine (and work to make manifest) positive futures, which I label by Up2Met for UPLIFT to Cultural/Societal Metamorphosis.  Here I will sketch some dystopian or negative futures that I believe may well happen; not only if Up2Met isn’t created, but may be encountered along with Up2Met if we wait too long. There are many such forecasts, both fiction and non-fiction. Some of those I present here, I haven’t heard of (they may be out there) and these insights may have resulted in the context of my rationales for Up2Met. I don’t have competencies (lacking sensory imagery) to compose interesting narratives for these alt-futures; so I welcome anyone to take some of these themes and compose stories on them.

First, a brief introduction to an important distinction I am proposing, which I explicate in a bit more detail in the last section of this essay: Human vs Material Realities/Systems.

Although distinct, these two types of systems interact and co-evolve/emerge.

Material systems include human biological systems: organisms, cells, brains, and their molecular subsystems – in the context of both quantum and classical explanatory systems. The complex infrastructures of human social and societal systems are material systems, as would be descriptions of movement behavior. The intent of behavior would not be included as part of the material system. Obviously, the cosmological universe and the bodies in our solar system are material systems. Evolution is a process primarily within material systemw.

Human systems explicitly refer to the dynamically organizational patterns of humans in relation to their constructed infrastructures and the perceivable messages in their communications and semiotic structures and archives (e.g.: texts and libraries). I call these “semfields”. Although the semfields are part of material reality, their perception, interpretation and creation involves very complex processes with neural-molecular system of body/brains and what we have labeled “minds”. As some have proposed (Penrose and Hameroff), this may involve quantum-like processes and weirdness not present in material reality. Early forms of this type of system may be found in other animals.

Up2Met is an emergent proposal for a humankind-to-humanity transition within human systems/realities.  These changes will be influenced by changes in material systems and will, in turn, effect such changes. However, we can imagine humankind engaging the Up2Met proposal relatively independent of what transpires in the material systems – such as the speed by which climate change alters our material environment. Currently, humankind is driven by such material changes, although adding its own unique twist, often to negative effect. Humankind does have the option to be more creative and with OLLO, uplift their collective competencies to “better direct their influence” on their material systems.

The “futures” outlined below are descriptions of possible material systems and environments for a future humankind. Radically different cultural/societal systems might inhabit such settings. Consideration of human system change, whether by Up2Met or other modes will influence how humankind is impacted by any of these material futures.

I am definitely not calling for any reduction of effort to slow and reverse global heating – which I believe we can technologically achieve, especially with Up2Met, when the whole of humankind eventually becomes an exponentially rising  population of knowledgeable/competent participants working towards our collective survival/thrival. This will not happen immediately and global heating, with consequential disasters, will continue to accelerate. The scenarios I present attempt to provide hope that, even if we fail to immediately slow global heating and life gets very difficult on land, there are options for human survival for centuries – during which Up2Met could bring about a recovery of Gaia and humankind.

What blocks us today are our outmoded societal systems (and consequentially dysfunctional human systems), and a grossly under-developed & incompetent population – who are unable to apply even what we already know what to do; let alone mobilize-this-population (uplifting) in innovative R&D to meet our survival/thrival needs.  The best of our governments, corporations, and other societal institutions are grossly inadequate to this task and show no trend in changing to be more relevant, effective and efficient (let alone more enjoyable and elegant – reeee).

We don’t have accurate estimates of the rate different regions of Earth will become uninhabitable. It could be much sooner than we think, or we might have more decades (in some regions). We shouldn’t bet on best case scenarios nor panic over worst case scenarios.  Humankind will be in deep crisis sometime in the future, even if we could quickly stop greenhouse gases going into our atmosphere and oceans. Those of us who believe this threat is real need to treat it as real, and not be diverted arguing with deniers. We can’t wait until we have converted the deniers. Indeed, we are already in a deep Crisis-of Crises, which is accelerating; not only diverse environmental crises but also personal, social, societal, and cultural crises.

Although I won’t discuss it further here, I sincerely am concerned that our populations will continue to fragment into strongly combative “forces” engaged in variations of civil wars – or be tyrannically ruled by dictatorial systems (to keep the “peace”). Thus, there is also a human system challenge along with the surviving global heating challenge addressed in this essay. That madness in some quarters might result in nuclear holocaust is always a possibility – but it can’t distract us from what we can do. Nuclear Disarmament, much desired, is impossible at this time.


Although the air temperature may get so hot that humans can’t live on land, the large ice cap in the Antarctic will maintain the temperature of freezing or below – until it all melts – which may be a long time.  I actually lived from November 1960 to January 1962 at Old Byrd Station (80 degree S latitude), in buildings 40 feet below the glacier surface, connected by tunnels – where the tunnel temp was well below freezing. Our hottest day saw the surface temp reach 31 degrees F, not yet to melting temp. A considerable large population of humans could live for centuries inside the glacier should the land become uninhabitable. But, we must prepare for this before we are no longer able to live on land.

Those who forecast rapid extinction of humankind due to runaway global heating/warming neglect this option for survival even after most of the landmass is uninhabitable – as least for a while. Others should calculate/estimate how long for the Antarctic Glacier to melt away – but we might have centuries – if not more. The glacier is 2 miles thick in places. There will be many technological issues, but humankind has all the requisite competencies to make the Antarctic inhabitable for centuries into the future. How humankind might organize to accomplish this and how persons would be chosen to migrate is a human system issue, not to be discussed here.


Another alternative for survival are within or on our bodies of water, large lakes and oceans. Again, the phase changes of physics insure that the water won’t get above boiling – and even if the surface boils (which it won’t) the temperature will get cooler the deeper one goes. The oceans nearer the poles will remain cooler. Again, humankind today has the requisite technological knowledge to learn how we might migrate to live within or on the ocean.

Much of Earth land surfaces needs healing, after many tens of thousands of years of exploitation by a growing humankind. This includes the flora and fauna, all life forms – including the soils.

Humans appear to strongly prefer to live in human constructed artificial settings and environments. We like our lawns and gardens, our pets and zoos, our air conditioning and heating. We like views, and some like “camping in nature”, but with the best equipment.  Very few chose to live as early humans might have done when trekking.  Tribal peoples lived in temporary camps or villages.

Why must we locate our habitats (cities) on the best land for our fellow Gaians? This was essential when we had to live near our food supply. Might we help most of the land to recover, and migrate humanity to live primarily in systems on and in the oceans. This might be a goal even when we succeed in dodging the climate change bullet.

Humankind now has the technology to research how human communities could live within glaciers and under water. The area of the oceans is actually larger than the land mass. One might imagine the whole of humankind, all 10 billion of us, migrating to the ice and water. I hope we might soon initiate humane population reduction programs – for whatever our future might be.


Recommendation: Research projects for these two alternative should begin today. They should not become dependent on funding from established organizations, governments, or corporations – but not refuse help – without strings. Initially, this will be a purely conceptual project/enterprise – to design the R&D needed – and won’t be expensive. Indeed, it could be conducted via social media. Actual experimental systems can be done on local glaciers and lakes.

The Seasteading Institute was founded in 2008. “Seasteaders are a diverse global team of marine biologists, nautical engineers, aquaculture farmers, maritime attorneys, medical researchers, security personnel, investors, environmentalists, and artists. We plan to build seasteads to host profitable aquaculture farms, floating healthcare, medical research islands, and sustainable energy powerhouses. Our goal is to maximize entrepreneurial freedom to create blue jobs to welcome anyone to the Next New World.”

In analogy with The Apollo Program, where we didn’t immediately try to launch rockets to the moon. Nor should we immediately try to live in the Antarctic or Oceans. We need a range of forecasts as how the much the Antarctic glacier and the oceans will change as global heating accelerates.

Although, again – not a topic for this essay,  how humans might organize for this, relatively independent of established systems, should be explored. This will not succeed if done within a “capitalist” paradigm. My Up2Met has some experimental proposals.


Today a wildfire is ravaging grassland south of Tucson. I haven’t seen the statistics about the increase in frequency and intensity of “natural” disasters over the past decade. Is this censored? Droughts, floods, winds, fires, ice storms, landslides, tsunamis, and rising tides devastate regions and populations, globally. A major tsunami is long overdue to devastate the coastal regions of the NW USA. In 2016 much of the of the USA (and other regions of Earth) experienced many destructive storm systems; this may become a regular pattern. The atmospheric circulation patterns are shifting and where & when storms occur will be changing, as will how long they will last and their intensity. Critics of Climate Change propose that our best estimates of rate and intensity may be over-estimated, and that we should be more conservative in our preparations – as they will harm our economy. Yet, what if we are under-estimating the rate and intensity? Is it wise to take the risk?

I have long wondered about how strong winds might become, as climate change increases. Might we begin to have hurricane force winds in regions not actually experiencing hurricanes or tornados? Can scientists determine how strong winds have been in our geological past. I read that the planet Venus has continuous very, very strong winds. Do we really know what our weather will be like in our future: 5, 10, 25 years ahead?

Nor have I seen statistics about the extent of recovery for such regions. I suspect that New Orleans and Haiti are but a drop in the bucket of regions that have never adequately recovered. SCIENCE journal reported that the region in Nepal destroyed by an earthquake (2015) shouldn’t be “recovered” as more and stronger quakes are expected.

How well are we able to forecast disasters, and prepare for them. A major tsunami is long overdue to devastate the coastal regions of the NW USA; and there is some preparation. Will it be adequate or is it only window-dressing? What are coastal areas really doing in preparation for rising sea levels – with the great variability as how rapid they will rise.

Changes in some regions may not develop as forecast. Who would have expected more cold and snow accompanying global heating?  If the ocean currents warming Europe are diverted, they may actually experience considerable cooling – for awhile.  Meanwhile, our sun may be entering a special cooling period, which might moderate global warming. For some strange reason, those solar scientists forecasting less heat from the sun, deny global heating from greenhouse gases and warn of a coming Ice Age. If the sun does cool, it might give humankind a grace period. However, the methane currently being released in the Arctic bodes possible runaway heating much sooner than has been forecast.

I invented a cliche: If your region could experience a disaster, expect a disaster one of these years. If you can have floods, expect a flood. If your home is in a forest or grassland, expect a forest or grass fire. If you are in tornado land, expect a tornado.  Every region may not experience a disaster or not recover, but their frequency and severity will most likely increase. What are the various forecasts? Why are the trends not reported?

I also expect a rapid cut back on recovery efforts, and possibly even rescue efforts.  This costs, and “powers that be”, everywhere appear to be sucking up money for themselves. The reaction of effected populations may become more and more difficult to control, requiring greater police/military involvement. Some have predicted that accelerating disasters will eventually lead to a collapse of civilization, or at least in countries with “democratic” governments. A catastrophic drought in Syria set the stage for the current civil war. The wealthy will recover and consume most of the resources for recovery.

I present these potential futures, not to be negative. To face potential danger realistically is a positive act. My vision of Up2Met may have to emerge within a very tragic societal environment. Indeed, after OLLO emergence among those most competent to comprehend and participate – the next populations to OLLO might be refugees (including refugees from disasters).

Decades ago, when Up2Met was still an infant insight, I used the metaphor of Wagon Trains West over a high Mountain Divide in Winter – to the rich lands of California – for the challenges we will encounter. But, we need not suffer on this expedition. As a boy scout in Pennsylvania, I enjoyed long winter tent camping in the snow. Once we actually started out hiking in a blizzard. Our troop was so good at bad weather camping, that we won awards for our campsite at a Jamboree, because it rained most of the time – and we were prepared to enjoy it.

I was cold only one time during my 15 months in the Antarctic. We knew the conditions and always dressed for it. The one time I was cold, was when we sat for two hours riding in a snowcat, even with the heater on. Because we weren’t moving our bodies, our circulation was insufficient to prevent frostbite. Yet, I nearly “froze to death”, two days after leaving the Antarctic. I had run down a beach in New Zealand in my swimming suit when a squall suddenly hit.


Many quality SciFi novels have humans forced to leave Earth and constructing and living in colonies of space stations, initially orbiting Earth.  Neal Stephenson’s  Seveneves was the latest I read. He even included, what I had imagined very long ago, that humans could live in colonies of space stations – as a primary habitat – and not necessarily be moving somewhere. What disappointed me, and for most SciFi, is that humans don’t significantly change, even during millennia living in radically different environments. We can expect humanity to be radically different from contemporary humankind, should we succeed with Up2Met.

Why go to all the bother sending materials and people into space. Why not simply construct space stations and space colonies on the Earth’s surface. (In Seveneves, our Moon had exploded and the fragment were to bombard Earth, making it inhabitable.) Maybe in glaciers or inside oceans, but also on land. Some SciFi has featured domed cities, with wastelands between. The wasteland are usually populated by the scrum of humankind (with a few rebels); but the wasteland could be totally uninhabitable, yet still could be traveled through in suitable vehicles.

Theoretically, humans could live on an Earth totally devoid of its natural life. Over millennia, humans could re-seed Earth with life forms we are preserving in our DNA banks. This NOT the future I desire, nor expect.

As much as I have long been interested in space exploration; and once imagined myself as an astronaut (the Antarctic was preparation), I have come to believe our R&D for space should be postponed until we have learned to survive/thrive here on Earth.  IF we would gain new technologies as spinoff from further space exploration, as we did from what we have already done, some might be continued.  I recommend that we shift our efforts for Mars and The Moon to systems we can live within here on Earth as the climate worsens. This includes new food production system that are not subject to outside weather/climate variations.

Dystopian Alternative.  Some intelligent, creative, yet warped elites may already be planning hitech domed cities with destitute lands between. This has long been a theme of dystopian science fiction. This may be their “solution” to catastrophic climate change. I speculate that a sudden drop in human population would significantly slow the flow of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and oceans. With robotics and automation, elites don’t require many consumers, servants, or soldiers – if they chose not to war. Might a program of significant population reduction be already underway?


My comprehension of  human systems and how they relate to all other systems has been emergent for five decades and continues to rapidly emerge. Much of this resulting from my continuing survey of many discoveries by others. However, I seem to have “organized” this expanding information in ways I have yet to read about by others. In analogy, I evaluate my emergent system of insights as equivalent to the emergence of quantum physics from classical physics – but contrasting material and human sci/tech. I state this not to inflate my ego, but to alert others of the challenge they will face attempting to comprehend my conceptual schemes and many insights. Two long articles attempt to describe parts of Up2Met.



Bootstrap Uplift Scaffolding

Very recently the distinction between human and material realities/systems has clarified and has become very useful.

To some, this distinction may appear “wrong headed”, as they are dedicated to a reunion of humans with Gaia/nature – and believe most of our difficulties are due to the separation that has characterized civilized humankind.  The distinction I propose is quite different from this dangerous human/nature distinction. The distinction I propose may assist in healing the fissure between humankind and Gaia as it exists today.

To some, this new distinction may be analog to the material vs consciousness/spiritual distinction, which they may support. It is related, but different.

To illustrate. Imagine a setting of many humans on and in the Antarctic glacier. We might first describe the material setting: energy, water, food, architecture, transportation.  Independent of this, we may describe how they live, in families or communes, in autocratic or democratic governance, with free market capitalism or commons-based community economic systems, at relative peace or constant conflict. Yet, in my model, these are also materialistic descriptions, although revealing the interaction between the human and material.

Human Systems are comprised of the flow patterns of perception and communication between persons, and between persons and their “semfields” (all the texts, data, audio and video sequences, diagrams, paintings, etc. in all are archives). These flow patterns are both constrained & enabled by technological infrastructures (material), but these are also the product of prior flow patterns. Coupled with this are all the patterns of brain activity of all persons.

These information flows and the brain/mind receiver/processor/composer related processes occur on/within material systems (as substrates), but are not themselves “material”. Old language habits get in the way here; and we have more to work out to render this more comprehensible.

Consider a musical composition being performed by an orchestra. The vibrations of instruments and air are material. Is the temporal pattern, “the composition” material or only imposed on the material? The symbols on this page are material, but the meaning you experience is not material, even if there are corresponding patterns of neural-molecular activity in your brain.

Two points are important here:

(1) The Cultural/Societal Metamorphosis I refer to (resulting from Up2Met) is only of this human system. The material, infrastructure systems can only be transformed, not morphed.

(2) Very significant and radical change in human systems can occur without depending on major, prior changes in the material systems. Human systems morphic changes requires far less material resources (energy & matter) than transforming material systems.

 Until recently, with computerized digital technologies and an exploding semfield, material and human change were strongly coupled.  Living within materials systems more indoctrinated human systems than human systems intentionally reformed the material systems.

We might explain the current behavior of humankind (The Trump Phenomenon) as a disintegration of human system patterns seafed by the new digital technology. This could be positive (in rhe long run), in that new human system patterns (via Up2Met) might be “easier” to emerge from the chaos (not disorder), that any attempts to reform established human system patterns. The Trump Phenomenon has stripped the King of his Clothes – all political news is fake, or propaganda.

Jacques Ellul, in his book, PROPAGANDA, emphasized that propaganda was primarily information by ruling elites to mold popular perspectives in support of their programs.  [ Chomsky’s  Manufacturing Consent ]  Calling the pronouncements and publications of rebels, in opposition to elites, “propaganda”, is a powerful tactic to mask the primary propaganda of elites.  Americans have been subject to extensive propaganda from WWII (and before). So have the populations of all other nations.

Since it is logically valid to rank multi-dimensional entities ONLY ONE DIMENSION AT A TIME, we cannot rank nations (other than as to one attribute at a time). We cannot, scientifically and logically, rank America and North Korea, objectively as one being “holistically” better than the other!

I initially imagined Up2Met emerging within an established and ordered, old humankind, which had powers to resist – which Up2Met could, eventually, manipulate and overcome/replace. In THIS GREAT DAY, I describe one way Up2Met will replace established humankind.

This is changing. Autocrats speak about control, but they are far from having full control of their populations at this time. The most they can do is prohibit some behaviors, not enable better behaviors. Our more immediate future (globally) may witness a consolidation of autocratic oligarchies or a continuing fragmentation with increasing disorder and chaos (the play of new order, emergent) or a mix.

Up2Met must be designed to emerge, no matter what humankind trends to do. Up2Met must also consider the different material futures mentioned here, and be prepared to engage whatever happens. Up2Met may play a significant part if humans must migrate to ice or water. Critically, Up2Met must prepare for sharp reductions in ready access to computer/communication technologies.  Such access is essential to the creation of a viable, sustainable global humanity.

The Up2Met Proposal?

contact me, Larry/nuet
and arrange to participate in
to learn more about Up2Met.

Those doing this, will
learn-to-learn to design/implement
the Up2Met process.

comment to this blog post

read more of the urls linked to this post,
read more of the posts in this blog,
study to comprehend,
query me and others,


I seek to offer for critique:
one model/scenario for long-term change,
which I currently label UPLIFT to Metamorphosis:

( Up2Met )

What follows here is but a brief characterization of the process,
as a basis for future dialog.

The specific challenges facing humankind are not an issue.
This is proposed as a “new theory” of change in human systems.

Please don’t attempt to subsume it within
existing models of personal/social/societal change.

The items below were composed at one setting by Larry/nuet;
and are significantly incomplete.

Not mentioned is how our knowledge of “human nature”,
human systems, and change process in humans and human systems
may radically change.

Human systems are not what the best of science has claimed to know.
Some of our knowledge is accurate;
much is not, and
the patterns-of-the-whole are early emergent.

This is not to criticize past analyses,
but only to recognize the ongoing dynamics of our reality
and learn to work with it.


In Up2Met, details for later stages are to be worked out when participants have bootstrap uplifted themselves to requisite levels of knowledge and competencies to design and execute later stages. Today, we lack that requisite knowledge and competency.  It is possible that the Cultural/Societal Metamorphosis envisioned may not occur as currently imagined, but these alternatives cannot be imagined today.

Yet, Up2Met must sketch/outline – to some detail – a BIG STORY (scenario) from now to when most trends are positive and survival is not threatened.

Up2Met cannot end with a vague: “from here we expect great things to happen“, when many trends remain negative.

The concrete action for NOW, is not to formally launch Up2Met, or even compose a draft. What is NOW needed is the commencement of the OLLO process among a small population of persons prepared to engage in OLLO and eventually design the initiation of an early stage of Up2Met and launch its implementation.

– Organizing-for-Learning=&=Learning-for-Organizing –
which may be viewed as the primary process for UPLIFTING.

Participants in OLLO must accept that they have limitations, as do all human persons, and that our current sets of knowledge & competencies (as useful as they are) are not yet adequate for us to fully engage in what we must do in the future. We must resist too much detail in defining “what we need“, as one of our tasks is to gain requisite knowledge & competencies to learn “what we need“.

At a much smaller scale and with some issues in analogy, The Apollo Program had much of the dynamics of Up2Met.

At the beginning there was the grand vision/mission of humans going to the moon and returning safe.

At the beginning we lacked both the technological and organizational knowledge to achieve that objective.

We learned-to-learn and learned-to-learn-to learn.

It might be useful for someone to explore details of early NASA – not so much about the technology of space flight, but of learning-to-organize-to-do what was needed (and to learn “what was needed”).

Those engaging in OLLO may discover they become prepared (knowledgeable, competent, & organized) to accomplish a great many projects currently needed, but not being done because of the lack of adequately prepared participants.  These many projects would probably be component projects in preparing for CS-Metamorphosis (including protecting endangered populations and possibly blocking catastrophic societal collapses which would delay Up2Met).

The primary task of OLLO is uplifting knowledge, competencies, and organizing – FOR THE PARTICIPANTS, ONLY.  OLLO is not a process for teachers to educate students, or for activists to inform the public.

UPLIFT-with-OLLO is designed to grow exponentially in numbers of participants.  But, it is never to be applied by one group to “uplift” another group. Such techniques may be appropriate, but they are not what is proposed for UPLIFT-with-OLLO.  There is good rationale for this, but it will not be provided here. OLLO may adopt/modify systems/processes from contemporary humankind; but none of our “traditional” systems/processes are “sacred” and none must be imprinted on the nu humanity.  Up2Met never attempts to reform or transform large social or societal systems in contemporary humankind, to become equivalent systems/processes in Up2Met.  Small families and teams can be exceptions – but they are expected to be significantly morphed to be nu-style families or teams in Up2Met.

Up2Met is more an incomplete story-line, at this time, than a plan – but it offers to carry humankind from our current Here&Now, in many stages, to a time when the future appears secure and we have “dodged the bullet”.

There is no intent to define the “state” of future humanity – that will be done (in stages, and always experimental) by those uplifted and organized humans – in earlier stages, who will self-emerge as the nu humanity.

I, Larry/nuet, have no intention of imposing any of my limited ideas and biases on the distant future. However, I will attempt to recommend certain conditions on our near future that will enable us to survive/thrive the next few years and decades – as we “collectively collaborate” in emerging Up2Met.

This is NOT
an idealistic, purely theoretical, abstract

I am accurately aware
of the complex “Crisis-of-Crises” that
threatens and challenges us.

What I imagine, if it occurs, will occur
within the REAL WORLD
(whatever “it” really “is”).

The “options of reality”
are much vaster than most imagine.

our distant ancestors recognized

as both
(  Danger & Opportunity  )

We must attend to both.

CREATIVITY: Personal, Gaian, Cosmic

It is arrogant for humans to claim creativity as their unique contribution to “the whole”, which I will name: Cosmos; a “smaller whole” being Gaia.

Recognizing beauty and elegance in reality, humans have ascribed cosmic creativity to forces/entities they call Divine/Gods.

Creativity is carelessly ascribed as an attribute of a creator, a god or human artists, inventors, or innovators.  Although many acts of creation appear to arise from a “creative” individual, it is more a confluence of creative processes leading to its manifestation in a creation/product – that is recognized and appreciated by others. The human vehicle for creating does leave its unique mark on the original product; but without the milieu within which a human creative act occurs, the act would not be “creative”.

The insight behind this essay was partly triggered by my reading THE CREATIVE SPARK: How Imagination Made Humans Exceptional, by Augustin Fuentes. This book is exceedingly rich in recently discovered details about human prehistory. Fuentes also successfully counters (IMHO) the claims by Steven Pinker and others that primates and humans are intrinsically violent-in-nature, which is being reduced by “civilization”.

The conceptual schemes linked to terms such as violence, force, oppression, exploitation, aggression are very complex and can’t be easily untangled. The debate, as represented by Fuentes and Pinker, is highly dependent on definitions and intentions to propagandize.

Also, Artist and trainer, Robert Fritz, distinguishes creativity from the human process of creating, which can be learned. Fritz’s conceptual scheme, The Path of Least Resistance, provided me with the valuable concept of “societal environments”.

Consider: The emergence of humankind with its unique creative competencies is, itself, a major act of Gaian creativity.  Let us not be arrogant and believe that the “best” of the current state-of-humankind was/is the intent of Gaian creativity. Given the many negatives resulting from humankind’s lack of adequate comprehension about the spinoff- consequences of “creativity” (not humankind’s fault- creativity is always experimental and risky), WE [humankind] must become more intelligently intentional when participating in our own emergence. If we were to leave it to Gaia or God to save us, we would be a cosmic failure, but a puppet.

Our scientific hypotheses of biological evolution don’t include (or account for) creativity.  Evolutionary theories are statistical in terms of the rate and incidence of mutations, which are then selected by the “chance” environment at the moment-of-mutation.  If cosmologists were making biological evolutionary theory they would have proposed  “dark intent” effecting the otherwise “random” mutations and selective environments.

Science also has the proclivity of rejecting anomalous evidence until they have discovered a “mechanism” to account for it [see the history of continental drift and plate tectonics].

Unfortunately, most of our religions ask us only to live “good lives”, in accordance to human created, but considered “sacred”, rites & rules. If we do this, God will reward us – with eternal life (of under-determined quality).

As our trending forecasts dim, many with scientific perspectives dig down into their relevant, personal activities and look to “higher forces” to enable a positive Big Story. Here, I propose, that a few of us shift our intention to looking Beyond Big Stories, to Think Beyond Big and discover/create how we can creatively marshal our contemporary knowledge and competencies to UPLIFT ourselves (by our bootstraps) to a level of distributed knowledge/competencies within the whole human global population, to “solve our problems”.

Actually, this will entail recognizing that we don’t face “problems” and that the “problem/solution paradigm” is inadequate, and contributes to our difficulty.  We need to OLLO to collectively comprehend ALL essentials of our Planetary Problemateque and then push to create a viable Solutionateque (commensurate with the Problemateque).

I have been exploring this alternative for 5 decades and have many details to contribute. I don’t have a detailed program for our future, which is impossible to construct. I can present my ideas/insights for study, comprehension, evaluation, and modification.  I don’t present them to be automatically “accepted” and “followed”.  This can be divided into two major domains:

Big Stories within Big Stories – alternative Scenarios in many Stages; starting from 2017 for years, decades, and centuries.  I will not provide more details here, but I have thought of a few alternative paths to consider.

Very long term visions for the future of Humanity/Gaia.  This is not to imagine alternative “Utopian States” resulting from our surviving our Crisis-of-Crises. Not “State” as in Nation, but “state” as in all the details of relevant reality at any “period”.  Instead, this is to imagine visionary futures resulting from many creative/innovative actions by Gaia, other species, and future emerging humanity. Again, not that we can provide concrete details; but to create a context whereby our actions these next years, decades, centuries, and even millennia, can be placed.

In analogy, imagine our ancestors, who survived the catastrophe which made most dinosaurs extinct, trying to imagine a future state like ours today, in 2017. Or, go back further and imagine our single celled ancestors trying to imagine multi-cellular organisms. What I am asking is that we try to imagine ahead of 2017 to a time where commensurate changes have occurred in Gaia.

One variation: humanity learns to seaf the emergence of “higher cognitive functioning” in many other species – with their own uniqueness (not all like human cognitive functioning). Gaia emerges to an analog of an “organism” – A Planetary Intelligence – and begins to interact with other planetary intelligences in the universe.  Before the 4 billion year (from-our-present) death of our sun, we have moved Earth to a safer place.  This is not a variation of Cowboy Western Science Fiction where humans colonize and exploit other biospheres, having not changed “human nature” over many millions of years.  Future Gaia may not be “human centered”, although our influence, now, will be an important historical event. Humans, as biologically conformed today, may no longer exist.

IT IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT TO EMPHASIZE: I am not proposing a shifting of attention for our immediate challenges and crises (dangers & opportunities) to diversionary activity focused around esoteric fantasies of some far off future.  Indeed, for almost all humans, they will devote most of their time and energy to minute-by-minute activity in their perceptual/behavioral wrlds – BUT WITH A SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT EMPHASIS. With a small portion of their lives, in quality OLLO activity, they will create a much more relevant context for their choices-of and manners-taken for actions in their local settings.

Also, the initial exploratory activity will be taken by a very small percent of humankind, by volunteers who comprehend and commit to their mission – but not necessarily “full time”. They will never be able to impose their proposals on large populations, so there is no top-down threat.  The bulk of humankind will learn to comprehend, accept, and themselves (one by one) participate in Up2Met, the name I give this “movement” – by a process invented/implemented by existing (at the time), active members of Up2Met.

What I imagine we need, and propose as a starting process, is consistent with a recent call by the P2P Foundation: “We must create on the same scale as we can destroy“.   While they propose Big Stories, I propose we must go Beyond Big Stories.



Findhorn film/project
(A New Story for Humanity)
Tom Atlee’s   [2007]     StoryFields
Bateson -[1968]- Koestler
Macy [1946-1953] Conferences


This essay has grown and diversified, as it began to reveal a meta-theme or “strange-attractor-for-discourse”. This meta-theme involves the negative contribution to our worsening Crisis-of-Crises by the inability of positive change movements and agents to sufficiently self-evaluate their assumptions, strategies, & tactics. It points towards a nu perspective where we cease ascribing blame (good-vs-evil characterizations) and recognize that every person acts, with justification, within their inner-woven reality/wrld.

The topic uniting this essay are “stories”, an essential component of human thinking and shared communication. The conceptual scheme of BIG STORIES (big sibling of Big Pictures) will be introduced.

The New Story Hub  takes you to a recent website where you will encounter The Findhorn Community of Scotland hosting a film production and a summit gathering introducing their new film: an inquiry into A NEW STORY FOR HUMANITY: Change-the-Story, Change-the-World.

I viewed the film premiere (Intro, Film, Discussion) online on April 16-17, 2017, in two sessions.  I was so moved after viewing half the film that I had to stop, and return the next day. Although I have much on my plate at this time, I am compelled to compose on some of my thoughts and feelings.     {This continued for a week before posting here.}

Given that my comments may effect your own viewing, I highly recommend you view, at least the film, before reading further.


AUTHOR’S BACKGROUND: I was aware of, and approved of the early founding of Findhorn. A couple, we knew well, spent a summer at Findhorn, and we visited for a few days in 1976.  At that time I had an interest in “intentional communities”, and visited a few others. I had lived in an urban commune in New Haven while attending graduate school at Yale, 1958-60 and 1962-64.  In 1960-62 I wintered over at Byrd Station in the Antarctic (a closed community of 20 men). My life at Rochdale Urban Commune (New Haven) was a very positive experience.  I have been disappointed that successful intentional communities, such as Findhorn, were not successful in spreading to a viable network of related communities (although all have tried – a church in Tucson is a “branch” of Findhorn). I had “dreamed” of living again in an “intentional community” organized around my conceptual schemes of UPLIFT to Cultural/Societal Metamorphosis. Even at age 82, my dream continues. Damanhur, underground in Italy fascinates me, but their “culture” would attract a similar critique as has Findhorn.

NEGATIVITY: Some may criticize my critique as “negative”, when the whole Findhorn enterprise has “positive” intentionality; and as an emotional downer, in direct conflict with their objectives and goals.  It is not my intention to generate “negative feelings”, and feelings are always at the choice of the person to experience or not (although many haven’t yet gained that competency). What I offer are POSITIVE ANALYSES of the film and its message, with my intent to move us to create a better film, message/story, and movement. Critiques are criticism only in the eyes of the reader. What moved me to stop viewing the film half way was my extreme disappointment about the extreme naivete of the well intended participants. Past ambitious gatherings, with similar intent, were far more successful – even those 50 years ago

AUDIENCE: I am also aware (as part of my critique) that many human persons are not cognitively/emotionally prepared to comprehend this critique. This essay is not intended for everyone.  There are many levels of Magnitude/Scope/Complexity {MSC} for ideas (conceptual schemes) within emergent humanity in this 21st century. We hope our future will include an bootstrap uplifting of all human persons & populations in their distributed knowledge, competencies, and organization. Some can be self-moved by reading, viewing, and study. Others (all, for some levels) will require quality seafing (supporting, enabling, augmenting, facilitating) their uplift (crudely, their “education”).

VISION: Unfortunately, no positive movement today includes such an uplift as part of (or even essential to) the success of their program. All change agents expect humans will acquire new practical knowledge and competencies (mostly those currently lacking), and will learn to live in peace (with many other positive attributes). The humans whom change agents envision being the citizens of a nu humankind are fundamentally as we are today – without the negative traits – and their “worldview” being basically a quality integration of the best contemporary worldviews (of change agents). If a major uplift is envisioned, it will come after The Great Transition, or will come as collateral advantage to transiting. That a substantial uplift may be necessary for the success of the transition, is not explicit in any contemporary program/vision (that I am aware of). I have named the uplifting process needed, OLLO (Organizing-for-Learning=&=Learning-for-Organizing).

LIMITATIONS: We human persons are limited to processing small bits of information, sequentially or linearly. Further, each moment is experienced as a gestalt:  the conscious/explicit-figure in relationship with an unconscious context (or ground). The so-called “whole” can never be the figure of conscious attention. Shifting attention to what was prior ground, makes it a new figure in relationship to a new context.  The “Big Picture” is always the conscious figure; it is the context that gives it meaning. If this regression has an end (as claimed by some meditators), and they can “experience pure context”, they cannot communicate any details because we are limited to communicating details of attended figures. There are many other limitations for humans, a discussion or which will be part of the critique.

POTENTIALS: Once we recognize and accept our limitations (we aren’t Gods), we will discover our awesome potentials, whose actualization was blocked by our delusion of near perfection. What I call for is a return to our perspective as a young child: confident about who we are at the time; accepting that we will change (fundamentally, but not being bothered by the prospect; and finding security and guidance among others (parents, siblings, family and friends, a trusting community, society, humankind). When this security and support fails, as it has for the vast majority of humans today, they believe they must (to survive) become omnipotent and superior to all (but deep down knowing their fragility).

FUTURE ACTION: What can a person (or group, team, community) do with this critique? First, no matter how much I write, what you will read will be quite incomplete – and not appropriately tuned for your optimum comprehension. I hope that this may motivate you to re-engage in deep learning and development – for a continuously improving process and not towards a stable finished state-of-being.



I viewed the Intro and half the main film late in the evening of 4/16/17 and the last half of the main film and post-film sharing later morning the next day, 4/17/17.

The film was well made.  My impression of the Findhorn “auditorium” was “old fashioned” and “formal”, as was the format of the Intro and Discussion.

The participants in the film-making process “contributed” by “gift economy” and Findhorn didn’t advertise. I immediately recognized that the population both making and now premiering the film was highly self selective.  There were a few “well-known” promoters of their “views”, and many (names I didn’t know) from movements in different countries. There were no “high conceptual thinkers” and no geeks from the new technology. Many were persons with a personal cause, who were not yet renowned.


This is in high contrast to another conference with BIG SCENARIO concerns, organized by Gregory Bateson in 1968 in Austria, on the topic: The Effects of Conscious Purpose on Human Adaptation. This conference was superbly recorded and analyzed by Gregory’s daughter Mary Catherine in Our Own Metaphor. The very top, expert thinkers Gregory invited simply pontificated from their siloed expertise, avoiding the issue.

Arthur Koestler, reacting to this debacle, and because the Batesons were unable to attend his concurrent conference on Beyond Reductionism , wrote a short story – The Call Girls, a spoof of Bateson’s conference. See: CONSCIOUS PURPOSE IN 2010: BATESON’S PRESCIENT WARNING.

Later (below), I also contrast the Findhorn effort with Tom Atlee’s StoryField gathering of 2007.

The MACY CONFERENCES is an earlier example of BIG STORY Conferences  (1946-1953)

Had I been connected to those devices that indicate emotional response, it would have bounced up and down in response to each short scene in the film. Most of the time there was a negative emotional response, as the statement was either not scientifically confirmed, grossly naive, or represented a deeply personal bias. There we a few, less than 10, short sequences when the speaker appeared to explore beyond the limitations of the group consensus. This, of course, is not an objective assessment of the film and the presenters; but my conceptual/emotional reaction to what I viewed and heard.


IT IS VITALLY IMPORTANT that I condition the above. Each short sequence was given with deep and full sincerity by its author, fully in concert with their POSITIVE worldview (wrld, context). They all spoke with sincerity about  how human person-to-person and person-to-community and person/community-to-Gaia relationships should be conducted – and how civilization has all but destroyed such positive relationships. I deeply agree that future humanity must include the best of these relationships (with the exception of the necessity of belief in a helpful God).

How to achieve and maintain these positive relationship patterns (when we now have 7+ billion persons living in highly complex societies that warp all communities, families, and persons) appears to be beyond the imagination of Findhorn participants. Their belief in Bottom-Up-Determinism is unfounded and potentially dangerous. With this perspective, they totally abandon the need for us to explore STORIES BEYOND BIG.

For example: what might you imagine will happen, as you succeed in building community, that will ensure our survival re climate change? How do your foresee the bottom up movement of Eco-communities succeeding in overthrowing the big corporations and governments – counter the trends towards populism, oligarchy, dictatorships, and The Trump Phenomenon?


My mind was diverted to thinking and analysis many times/minute during viewing. It would take me weeks to compose/attach comments to each sequence. This might be useful and I am willing to be assisted in such a project.



The film starts with an attempted “definition” of old stories – very superficial. This is the story of oppressive civilization: corporations/governments over people, the technological over the “natural”, the suppression of “freedom”, etc. The “new” stories are (actually) all old stories – many from before the dominance of the so-called “new” story. Many are deep cultural stories of indigenous peoples (who dominated the Findhorn storytelling population). The horrible oppression of “the indigenous peoples” by “civilization” doesn’t give them special authority of “being right” in their perspective of reality. No one has such “being right” authority.

There is a confusion about the meaning of “stories”. While the call was for a new BIG story (to replace that of our sick civilization), the gathering tasked with creating the film was unable to even conceive of what a BIG story might entail. For days the writing conference was in turmoil as each person tried to elevate their own story to be the core of the BIG story (my inference). Eventually, they abandoned all effort to imagine a BIG story. They settled on a montage of old, little stories – with the vague hope that the sacred potentials of humans, with God’s guidance, will eventually (without explicit human intention as to form) weave the little stories into one BIG story. The film, and the summit premiering the film championed this – in my evaluation – cop-out. Yet, all self-deluded that they had accomplished something BIG.



A few days before encountering this new Findhorn enterprise, I had begun to re-examine conceptual schemes labeled stories and pictures.

For decades I have opposed the idea of BIG PICTURES, as they are certainly not pictures and are not cable of visualization. Yet, the metaphor of “viewing” is oppressively dominant in contemporary humankind. [The author is of the small population lacking visual mental imagery – both sensory remembrances and imagination; a condition unknown to most humans.]

Although well aware of the importance of narrative and stories for decades, I recently upgraded an insight to re-examine the relevance of “stories” and “storytelling” for humankind. Both are essential, but far from sufficient – as components and fundamental processes in the creation of viable human systems.

In August 2007 I attended a 5-day conference/gathering – The First Annual StoryField Conference  organized by Tom Atlee  and team at the Shambhala Mountain Center, Colorado. Subtitle: “Invoking a New World through Story; a pioneering interdisciplinary gathering of storyteller, artists and experts.”

This was, by far,  the most enjoyable and rewarding F2F conference I have ever experienced.  There were a few similarities with the Findhorn conference, and many striking differences. We didn’t have the objective of formulating a coherent BIG story. We ended with celebrating our dedication to continuing process. Strangely, after considerable effort by a dedicated sub-committee to design and schedule (at Asilomar) a return of “us” a year later – it was canceled (reportedly because too few were able to attend.) Now, looking at the materials online about the vision and concept, The StoryField Conference was light years ahead of the recent Findhorn Conference & film. The StoryField Conference needs reconvening. I identified only one person who attended both StoryField and Findhorn: David Korten.

This confirmed my conclusion that the euphoria of powerful gatherings have great difficulty translating to continuing action strategy. This happened even though “continuation” was an explicit part of the design of the conference, with experts in social media creating online systems.  I have witnessed this too many times.

The “spiritual” power/energy of human gathering/celebrations is probably deep in our DNA. It’s negative sides are the MOB, and the ability of large human groups to submit, in total subjugation, to dictatorial rule (e.g, Nazi Germany and contemporary North Korea). It is also one reason for the sustainability of religion. It also accounts for sports mania, fan groups, armies, and political parties. Humans have a drive to “belong”.

Although the StoryField gathering was much superior to the Findhorn gatherings, neither appears to have had a effect for changing the trends of our “globalizing societal” systems. I predict that a careful study of all efforts towards positive change are inadequate and insufficient – yet this conclusion is denied (by most).  I have many ideas as to how humankind can transcend this blockage to our actualizing our potentials to transit to humanity – which for reasons to be discussed elsewhere, I have difficulty sharing.


This is because our brains/behaviors evolved for life in small tribes, and a much longer evolutionary history living in communities (back to the days, living like prairie dogs under the feet of thunder lizards). 50,000 years is not enough time for humankind to have evolved new brains for living in complex global societal systems approaching 8 billion persons. It is a wonder that we have made it this far, and our looming Crisis-of-Crises is an accumulation of natural mistakes we have made – inadequate to manage the settings that our creative imaginations generated. We are not to blame – but it is now time to awaken to our deep natures/realities and act appropriately – which we must learn-to-learn-to-learn to do.

This crisis is not only for the majorities not yet privileged with access-to/ability-to-comprehend the exponentially exploding knowledge of humankind, poorly distributed. Every person (no matter how genetically gifted, highly educated; and financially, technologically, & personally supported) encounters similar limitations. We (miraculous) humans have created, unwittingly, a situation/setting/environment well beyond our competencies to manage without very significant uplifting and societal re-organization. This will not occur, requisite to our needs, without creative/intelligent design – by ourselves. Neither Gods nor Aliens will do this for us.

Contrary to our overblown human Exceptionalism, our historical path has not been by design. Today, the pinnacle of human design is for commercial devices and processes, where art and engineering are merging – fueled by social media seafed knowledge exchanges. Higher level creativity is blocked by cultural/social/societal constraints. We do have creative visions, but we are yet very poor at designing human futures.  And, that DESIGN, must not be traditional planning and plan execution – it must be much more organic and dynamic.

We now have all the components for the organic/dynamic design/creation of HUMANITY.

But, it cannot be by naive “democratic” agreement by everyone. THIS IS AN UNFORTUNATE FACT: the distribution of human knowledge/competencies/organization has vast inequalities. Relative to our real needs, humankind is grossly DUMB, STUPID, BIASED, FEARFUL, HATEFUL. Yet, our POTENTIAL remains immense.

Those most knowledgeable/competent/organized ARE ALSO inadequate (but with a few current abilities) to perform what is needed. They are further handicapped by their arrogance of superiority and exceptionalism.  Again, this is nothing to blame them for – it is the consequence of of our slow adaptation/evolution/emergence to an exponentially changing world, resulting from our great successes.

small vs BIG

Narrative is but one of our human means of organizing information. It is not useful for persons to elevate stories and storytelling to the most important function of humankind. Indeed, the perspective that one, or but a few, fundamentals determine humankind is a great fallacy and danger for our future survival/thrival.

Early humans, on trek, talked to themselves describing what they saw. Back with their tribe, at fire dialog, they replayed their recording, storytelling, giving story-maps to others for their future journeys.  Recently, an Australian aborigine, when riding in car had to request the driver to slow down because he couldn’t story create at the high speed of the car.

Stories were our primary organization mode before we had visual media, our semfields and visual language. Today, we face the danger of fake stories. Stories are not the only format human use to organize experience. Stories can have negative analogs when applied to phenomena beyond direct perception.

Quantum physics was successful only AFTER the physicists abandoned any attempt to use metaphors from our perceptual reality. The Bohr Atom, an analog “solar system” with “orbiting/spinning planets” was blocking advancement for many years. We may need to abandon some perceptual-world analogs we apply to societal, governance, and economic systems.

There are different levels/types of stories: personal, inter-personal, group, community, social, societal. Can we apply narratives to processes not involving humans?

We continually invent new stories, and also continue to use variation of old, even ancient, stories.

We also make stories-of-stories-of stories. Our novels are a nesting/networking of stories.

TV today reports on the Story of Humankind – in both reality, deception, and fantasy.


What appears universal for all participants in the Findhorn vidao and dialogs, and for almost all expressions of contemporary humans, is that THEY PROPOSE FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE FOR OTHERS, BUT NOT FOR THEMSELVES.

The OLD, BIG story is both: (1) the story of oppressive civilization cited by all Findhorn participants, and (2) all their own stories.  Those who believe/accept the civilization stories come from the same mind/brain processes as the Findhorn participants. ALL humans believe in their reality, their “wrld“. Supporters of Trump and the North Korean leader deeply believe their experienced wrld is the objective world. Their wrlds may not be going as they would prefer, but they are “real”.

One might evaluate a BIG story in terms of the effectiveness of the opposition to the dominant/sub story. Might we find the continuation of war and inequality be “equally” due to the inadequacy of “resistance” (because of their lack of essential stories and false stories that block appropriate actions) as to the perceived “arrogance of the power elites”.

BIG STORIES can contain complex competing stories.

The BIG STORY for the future of humankind2Humanity transition, in relationship with Gaia must, in my analysis, be explicitly explored. We cannot depend on bottom-up emergence, only. There will be many occasions in our future when we could act IF we were prepared to act. But, to be prepared to act (sometime in the future), we must have acted (by design and planning) at a prior time. Corporations, businesses, militaries, farmers do FUTURING.


Who is to do this?


This critically important conceptual scheme will be more fully explicated elsewhere.

Humans are not the systems we think we are. We are much more and much less – and quite different. Much of this we have yet to discover, in useful detail.

This is not a new idea, but one that is very difficult to maintain and almost impossible to live.

Everything a human person experiences is only themselves, patterns of activity in their brains/bodies. As they live, their brains/bodies organize the inputted information into inner “wrlds” – which is the context of all experience and behavior. In terms of Maturana & Varela’s Autopoietic Hypothesis, each human person is an autopoietic system in “structural coupling” with other autopoietic systems. Roughly: autopoietic = self organizing. Autopoietic Social Systems by Luhmann.

The details ARE effected by OTHERS, realities beyond their bodies/brains – but NEVER directly experienced.

Contrary to traditional psychology, perception is not a movement of information from sense organs through the brain to experience and behavior, being filtered and sometimes morphed in the process. This flow-through-with-modification is not accurate (for most perception). Rather, after some filtering and morphing, the information from the senses is “absorbed” by the brain and is used by the brain to change its patterns.  These pattern changes in the brain are not directly caused by the input; rather the input is used by the brain to change itself.  This changed brain then outputs to experience and behavior.

Perception may be comprehended as the link/overlap of subjective & objective.

Patterns in our experience definitively imply patterns-of-reality beyond our own making. We cannot be inventing all that we experience.

We experience only our “processes interpretations” of our “structural coupling” with OTHERS (imagined persons, things & environments). We experience only ourselves, but ourselves “interacting” with others and our hypothesized environments.

The “things” we name in our percepts don’t “exist out there” in any “sense that we experience”. However, there “is” something “beyond us” that correlates with our experienced patterns.


There can be no closure on this, or any other issue or conceptual scheme. We are only pausing for a moment, far from “completing” our “task”.

Were I to make such a call for a “conference”, as I often contemplate, it would be to gather those ready to challenge ALL current beliefs, accept the emergent, yet embryonic nature of humankind, and begin to uplift (via OLLO) our knowledge, competencies, and organizations to nu, cycling emergent “levels” – so as to reach the requisite actualization of our potentials to insure survival and multi-millennial thrival.

I have personally recommended paths to explore, but I can’t say there is only ONE thing most important.  Indeed, I am coming to believe that the patterns of interactivity between knowledge nodes is more significant than the nodes themselves. This also may apply to persons and their patterns of interaction & organization. “Actually”, they are in “complementarity” (generalization of the field/particle “duality” of Quantum Physics).

Also, unfortunately, our tribal brains limit EVERYONE to a working mind with but a few nodes in loose patterns.  “Reality”, as our increasing awareness implies, may have thousands of independent knowledge nodes and types of patterns we can’t imagine. I am coming to believe that seafed emergent teams/crews/small-communities of persons seafed by advanced technologies can become viable “unit/cell” agents/deciders (for activity beyond the very local – in both time and space) for a future humanity. I believe such a perspective can become a “spiritual” motivation.

I strongly regret leaving this without a concrete PROPOSAL FOR ACTION. Many, today, are quite active – yet not, necessarily, relevantly active. Not that we don’t want to be more relevant, we don’t know how. In context with the above, I now insight:

It is not another action we need,
it is an emerging pattern of related actions.
In time,
early actions will complete or fade,
and new actions will emerge and engage

Integrated Patterns of Action
are what is needed.

? HOW ?

3 INSIGHTS about human interactivity

This was extracted from an email, not sent;cut/pasted here, expanded & edited.


I just had an insight.  Human persons, in contemporary humankind, are like bacteria or amoeba – primarily SINGLE CELLS, in limited relationships. As bacteria, they can temporarily form systems with some degree of structure/function. The slime mold has always fascinated me, in its ability to move back and forth between a collection of separated, single celled fungi, or assemble into multi-celled structures and back again into a collection.

The human person, in a future Humanity, will be more like cells in our bodies – both: specialized-in-function and each sharing the potential of our common DNA. No cell or cell type in our bodies is omnipotent. Each has a range of functions to perform, for the whole; and their viability is dependent on the health of the whole organism.

Actually, in a crude biological analogy, the “organelle” of a “cell” may be more an analog of a human person; where “cell” is analog of a viable human community/org. Living Organisms are holarchies of systems, with many levels of nested holons.  See James Greer Miller‘s Living Systems.

We don’t know what a “life” (each of a body’s cells) “experiences” beyond functioning as a component of an organism, . I don’t assume they are purely deterministic and have no mind or spirit – at their levels. What I mean, is that to “surrender” to be a functioning component of a larger organism, doesn’t necessarily imply that our lives are diminished – relative to our lives in our present “isolated” state as “individuals”. Today, the primarily deterministic Nature/Nurture dance gives our “selves” little-to-no “choice” on “who we become”. “Individualism” is a dangerous myth.

I expect that each human person’s “life” will be far richer if they were supported/enabled/augmented/facilitated (seafed) to perform more functional roles for the whole of viable humanity (emergent by dynamic design as we emerged from a newly fertilized egg cell).

In reality, today, every person has actualized very little of their potential – as analog to biological stem cells. We have the potential to be much, much more – but, we can become only one, of many types of human persons. No human can become humanity, nor can we “represent” the “whole of humanity”.

This is not a new insight, but one experienced by many. What is important is that we seldom actually apply it in human strategy planning. The context behind contemporary human behavior (quite varied) is very different from this perspective (humanity as analog to a biological organism).


Below is an example of what I/We need to explore seafing nu relationship patterns.

One small technology: we need a way that others can respond to a single sentence (or paragraph) in a larger text – and develop dialog around that link.

Such apps exist, but have never been put to that use. We need to learn to dialog in hypertext. The app, QuickDoc, facilitates this, but I never have succeeded in getting others to really engage in hypertext dialog.  Part is due to my own forgetfulness and not pushing myself when others have tried responding to my QuickDoc articles.

SEMS: ONE FEATURE OF COLAB SCAFFOLDING, is an example of a QuickdDoc with some (extensive) comments – to selected paragraphs. This was active in 2008; I had completely forgotten about it. Most of the comments are themselves long docs and should be also placed in the QuickDoc format. Note, different participants can dialog among themselves about a comment. I have about 40 QuickDocs, none active. Protocols and committed teams are needed to make QuickDocs meet my requirements. I need to get back to it. I put my Spanda Journal chapter on QuickDoc, but haven’t done anything about it.

A version called QuickTopic could be a substitute for email threads. I think I might give it a try. Actually, QuickDoc is a special feature of QuickTopic, called Quick Doc Review which permits you to upload a WORD doc, and then format it for links.

A Google search for QuickDoc takes you to a very different place, but one which might be worth looking into.

After this return to QuickDoc, I am strongly motivated to shift my UPLIFT correspondence to this media. is another site that permits some commenting from within a document.  The Spanda Journal, in which I published a chapter, used this for the different authors to interact with each other. Few did. I have only read three other chapters in that issue of The Spanda Journal, and I expect that was the case for most of the authors.

I am suddenly reminded of a different app  CritSuite that permitted a person to comment to any point on a page in the internet – but it never took off. It was developed by a team working with the founder of nanotechnology, by Eric Drexler and The Foresight Institute. CritSuite was last updated 1996!

CritSuite couldn’t work for the whole WWW. It worked by processing each webpage through its system, adding the ability to link to it. But, it would be quite useful for a specific semfield of webpages.

A while back YouTube added a crude feature where you could link a piece of text to different moments in the YouTube video – not text in the video. I don’t think it got traction. I fantasize a web of videos, linked to special moments in each of them. An emerging hypervideo dialog!

As is typical of many technological innovations, the applications they were designed to enable were often minor compared to those later uses, unforeseen (by most) at the time of the innovation.

The opposite occurs for conceptual innovations, the early insight is usually far more comprehensive than what later manifests.  The early envisioned GOAL of the conceptual innovation gets replaced by the more practical, initial OBJECTIVE. Doug Englebart’s vision of AUGMENTATION is far from having been achieved. The visions of the ENA (Electronic Networkers Association) in the late 1980s are long forgotten and many not yet achieved in 2017.


At the time of my initial writing the email from which this post was extracted, I had a flash of insight about the features of those domains of attention that have made often astonishing gains, compared to those domains of attention that seem to be stagnant, if not in decline.

The physical sciences have achieved partly because they had a powerful semfield where both students and professional scientists dialoged about VISIBLE sems: initially diagrams and equations on the chalk board.

“Sems” are material patterns/structures that when commonly perceived generate “meanings” among the participants and facilitates their dialog about their “experiences” with the sems. They can gesture to parts of the sems in developing a shared vocabulary. Texts are a common example of sems.

A “semfield” is but a system of related sems. The archive of all human texts, diagrams, drawings and paintings is a massive semfield.

In the 1990s I video taped a major seminar that included the presentation of studies about chalkboard physics. Its significance periodically returns to my mind. {Might I still have the tapes – but probably not a device to play them?}  Persons just talking to each other without a collectively perceived semfield seldom “go” anywhere.

Published literature is a weak semfield, as the texts are seldom jointly studied at the moment of dialog. With all the talk about the USA being a “constitutional” democracy, the actual semfield of the constitution (and the texts of all legislation and legal findings) are seldom specifically referred to, and then often citing short parts “out of context”. Yet, the practice of “law” is a crude example of the use of textual semfields. The problem with the legal semfields is that they are only accumulative. We have yet to master how to effectively dialog about textual semfields.

It is important to note that relative ease whereby the phenomena studied by the material sciences is successful, can be adequately explained by viewing them as “simple” systems, capable of mathematical representation. “Simple” may look complex, but compared to the human sciences, they are quite primitive. As some have said, “the human sciences are not “soft”, compared to the “hard” sciences, but “difficult”.

I recommend the creation/establishment of a special type of dialog that is always about a common “systems for explicit attention”, such as a semfield.

Semfields are one of the most significant tools emergent for humankind, and unique to we humans (on Earth). We are still in our infancy in learning their potential. In the form of “fake news”, semfields have demonstrated a downside, that must be accounted for.


[This post is an unintended repeat of almost the same post from  July 18, 2016.  In April 2017 I discovered a relevant doc on my NoteMap Outliner, and it had no indications (which I usually add – BLUE the Title) that I had posted it. Most of my added links were the same as in 2016. the 2016 post is longer than this post, as I added to it then. I have not attempted to compare edits. I keep this here for reference.

The 2016 post was part of a three week, intense online exchange I had with Andrew Gaines.  In 2017, I had also forgotten about this important encounter, other than his name and that it had not ended well.  After just discovering this forgotten activity, I am amazed at what I had done and how I had forgotten most of it.  Larry’s loss of memory is becoming a serious challenge.]

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 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.  I 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 Great 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 that will eventually involve 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 that 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 any proposed “solution” 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 dangerous, 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 82 – or even if I was 28 – 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?

Curation 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 are 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 conference – 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, Arthur 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 pontificates 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.

{Gaine’s Blitz is reported to have taken place March 2017. Unfortunately, my attempts to dialog with Andrew failed, as he apparently viewed me as a competitor and refused further dialog. He is currently active in online dialog at NCDD. }

In 1976, as part of a summer visit to Great Britain, I visited the experimental commune, Findhorn, in Scotland. I was sad to see that its attempts to spread as a movement failed. They had a requirement, that each new prospective member had to temporarily abandon 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 what has been called a “problemateque”, where an appropriate response might be called a “solutionateque”.

That the problem/solution paradigm may be one of our primary 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

{Apparently, I stopped at this point, forgot, and never returned. I don’t now know what my other analog would be.}


{This short post was just discovered in draft on 4/10/2017, but was initially authored in 10/28/2016. I “remember” now, tht at this time last fall, I had begun to draft potential posts with this blog app. Apparantly, I had forgotten and only now discovered these draft posts.}

I start with the assumption that there are no primary, fundamental rules or conceptual schemes. Thus, although this doc focuses on a conceptual scheme labeled “cybernetics”, and that it is very important, I am not proposing that “cybernetics” be THE foundation idea. This is not to say that what we label “REALITY” won’t have a ranking structure, but that is to be determined – and I assume that humans will never have access to or fully comprehend an ultimate REALITY.

I recently discovered that there are now FOUR ORDERS of cybernetics; the last I looked there were two – and I have yet to digest the two, new levels.


Cybernetics labels the processes by which components and subsystems of a complex ecoholarchy of sysnets interact via the exchange of information.

We can imagine situations where the ability of a node to emit, receive, or process types of information may not be adequate for optimal functioning of the whole. This could occur if parts were damaged, or if evolution has not yet led to the formation of necessary structures.


I propose that humankind has grown in terms of population and global distribution to form cultural/societal systems where the cybernetic competencies of both individual human persons and human social systems are not yet adequate to “handle” the information flows required for sustainability and viability of the whole of humankind, and major subsystems. But, we have the ready potential to quickly gain these competencies. This will involve   OLLO [Organizing-for-Learning=&=Learning-for-Organizing], where Organizing includes the creation of appropriate technology.

Larry/nuet – CHANGING

To all who have been following Larry/nuet.

{This was initially drafted  9/17/2016 and just discovered 4/10/2017, not yet posted. I remains relevant. I have yet to initiate the change I need.}

For a while I must change my daily behavior, and may not be replying to emails or commenting to blog posts as has become my primary behavior in my discretionary time for many months (maybe years, as I no longer have a concrete past – other than when consulting my records).

I must attend to repairing my Here&Now – an expedition that I will record and may later share. I will continue composing and posting some items in this blog. I sense that something significant is emerging, and that our recent dialog is part of it. I want it to continue – in new formats with new protocols to optimize the eeree of our interactivity.

For those who relate to me, it is important that you know some details about Larry and his environment, including his practices with intelligent technology. I have concluded that it is important that those who engage closely with each other must share much more transparency. Our diversity is our strength, and we need to be more aware of it, so as to better help (seaf) each other. I have attempted to describe “nuet” (not too well) but have only talked about Larry’s savant condition.

Imagine a multidimensional phase space for all potential competencies (with levels of potential and proficiency) a human person might possess. Each human would be represented by only a few, of the many, points in this phase space. I use the metaphor of a wire-sculpture – where the empty space is as important as the filled space. We are each a developing wire sculpture during our lives, with the wire growing during life. Human teams/crews will be well designed mergers of a few, well chosen, wire sculptures – where we complement each other. I speculate such teams/crews must be the decider units for future societal systems. We individual humans lack sufficient competencies. How many teams/crews a person can be a member of, at any one time and sequentially, would be empirically determined. Some team/crews may be organized in early childhood and maintained through life. Age distribution within teams/crews would depend on the intended functionality of them.

I encourage others to consider composing a profile of personal assets and limitations, that could later be shared with those whom you would want to know this so as to better relate to you. One of the first activity for new members of the UPLIFT movement would be to explore their assets and limitations, uniquenesses and samenesses, within their local network and begin creating assessment measures to construct competency profiles as part of a Global Uplift Census.

If we succeed in surviving our Crisis-of-Crises, we ALL will have significantly changed lifestyles, and probably will have changed perspectives on “reality”. Shouldn’t we start now? Might our Great Transition be viewed as a massive “migration-in time” between personal lifestyles within different social/societal themes?

How really open to fundamental change are the “already highly educated” and those activists “advanced in development”? I don’t mean that we/they abandon what we/they have gained, or to shift interests, fields, or projects; but to consider significantly expanding the contexts of our/their achievements.

Paradigm shifts don’t necessarily call for the abandonment of prior paradigms; it only makes the prior reality part of a larger reality. In addition to seafing the “education” of others across the planet, to gain the knowledge and competencies we/they now possess, might these “leaders and teachers” also need significant uplifting? Indeed, might this be the place of optimum leverage?

Nuet took over for awhile. Larry, as limited as he is, must create new order in his life, so as to better serve nuet and Humankind/Gaia.

I offer a list of recently read books that have informed me that we humans aren’t as we have believed.
Later – with love,  Larry/nuet

Stages are also Complete

Insight  4/5/2007  and continuation.

That we 21st century humans are but one of many stages in the evolution of our species doesn’t mean we are incomplete or somehow inferior to a later stage – or a completed state.

This was motivated by my recently viewing a tweet by a dear friend, Michael Gentry, where he described himself thus:

“I follow the dharma,
but I don’t call myself a Buddhist.
I’m concerned about the future of the planet,
but I’m not an environmentalist.”

I, Larry, am a whole being,
at each stage in my life
from conception to death.

Yet, my being gains meaning
from stages before and those to follow.

The same applies to Michael’s concept of dharma.
He is both “whole” now, and “forever”,
whatever “forms” may manifest.

I have long been conflicted with ideas of eternal, endless, blissful longevity and a “soul”. “If this exists”, it can have nothing to do with the specifics of this life; almost all which are contingent upon the settings for this life. There is very few, if any, traits or characteristics that are not contingent. All of my DNA is contingent on the circumstances of my mother and father, and their genealogies.

Recently, I discovered that the concept of “a true self” to which many a person hopes to make manifest or achieve, may be another myth. Not that we don’t have inherited determinants (even beyond DNA). Yet:

who we become is very highly determined by our ever present and changing environment. Nature/Nurture is an inseparable mix, each being dominant about some features. Yet, many’s belief in their “true nature” is linked to their belief in an afterlife or a soul.

Must “the part” always be as significant as “the whole”?

Many alternative variations in my life
wouldn’t change the basics of our Cosmos.

Each leaf isn’t as “significant” as the tree.

What do we mean by “SIGNIFICANT”?
Without specifics or reference,
such implied ranking is inappropriate.

There are many human
thoughts and statements
that are meaningless;
yet, we often experience
in association with them.

doesn’t imply

Any yet,
we have no justification of applying the concepts of
importance or significance – in ranking
entities or stages.

is not a process
that can be applied
to everything.

My Personal Peeve:
Human tend to rank multi-dimensional entities,
even when ranking is “objective”
only ONE dimension at a time.

Multi-dimensional ranking must involve
arbitrary “weighing” of relative
importance or significance
of each dimension.

Plot Weight and Height of persons on a graph.
The points form a distribution,
they don’t fall on a curve.
Many curves drawn among the points
could be defined as

This propensity is almost universal,
having its origins to ensure survival
when quick decisions on insufficient information
must be made.

This intuitive action
should NEVER be applied,


I don’t feel I achieved above what I intended.

We often tend to give greater significance
to pair of “things” or “ideas”
for which such ranking
is inappropriate.
It only exists in the confusion of language,
where all statements don’t have meaning.



There is so, so, so much to share and to learn.

These times may truly be the most exciting, ever
– certainly the most confusing.

POTENTIALS expand exponentially,
as does their repressive BLOCKING.

We can’t “communicate” Big Patterns or Large Conceptual Schemes.
That is, the linear temporal exchange of bytes or bits won’t do.


interact with others over our prior semiotic production,
adding and modifying until our exchanges show evidence
of adequate mutual comprehension –
of patterns that cannot be consciously experienced in a moment, and


We humans are good at creating nodes in a vast communication network. We are poor at perceiving patterns in this “flow” and
find it almost impossible to properly share these patterns
(with mutual comprehension).

Actually we are masters at intuiting patterns of the complexity,
of what we worked with in our tribal times, a hard-wired competency. With the creation/development of written languages
and now digital representations, we have accomplished much.
But we still lack minimum competencies for creating and maintaining viable/sustainable social/societal systems.
We blame our problems on imagined failings of others and fail, ourselves, to recognize our difficulties are SYSTEMIC,
with no persons or peoples to be blamed.


Of all the knowledge nodes in our semfield (think Internet),
each human has actually experienced but an infinitesimal fraction, and comprehended and integrated much less.

As for the many categorical domains that have appeared
for these knowledge nodes,
each person is aware of and uses but a small fraction.

Yet, our mind/brains demand closure and understanding.

We confabulate our very limited knowledge to experiencing
believable whole “wrlds”, our personal realities –
which we act within as if they are good approximations
of a common objective reality ( one world).

We do this both,
for our inter-subjective, locally perceivable environments, and
for the nonconfirmable/unobservable societal domains.


One small node is bothering me to report:

Tonight I viewed about 10 minutes of the current Lou Dobbs Tonight on FOX cable. I discovered him (he was once on CNN) on FOX a few weeks ago and am recording him daily; sampling periodically.  I view Dobbs as the mirror of CNN, from the far, far right.  He is polite, reasonable, with an air of authenticity. Tonight he played the very same video clips of Susan Rice as did MSNBC. The commentary was radically different – but also, in other ways, very similar.  What Dobbs considered facts, MSNBC viewed as lies – and vice versa.  I highly recommend periodic dives into Dobbs. For those who only view Dobbs, or who only view MSNBC, there is no reason to doubt the reality being reported. I am not proposing objective equivalence, but this should demonstrate that the battle is between our minds/wrlds and not what might be happening in “objective reality”. It is HERE about which I claim we humans really don’t comprehend “who we are”.


The consequence of the emergence of
has been a continuing and accelerating FRAGMENTATION
of any “coherence” in “consensual reality”.

I fear this will not be repeat of historical crises,
where we can expect eventual “recovery to norms”.
Our advancing technology and other factors
may have pushed us beyond thresholds.
We must view this in the original sense of CRISIS,
a mix of Opportunity and Danger.
Which it becomes will be up to us.


Imagine what aliens visiting from distant star systems,
or aborigines in the Amazon with Internet access,
might “make” of the ALL the conflicting reports
generated by 21st Century humans.

IF they could analyze ALL the reports
(the whole human semfield),
could they construct an “objective model” of Humankind
with very high probability of being accurate?
Maybe, and maybe not.


IF there was a best model,
I would speculate that it wouldn’t be anywhere near
what any sub-population of humans believe to  BE.


I speculate on the possibility that our “collective reality”
doesn’t fit our preconceptions of an “objective reality”.
We might discover a “societal weirdness”
for the unobservable-but-hypothesized societal subsystems,

(financial, economic, governmental, political, religious, professional, media, educational,energy, energy, agricultural, scientific, etc.)

analogous to the quantum weirdness
for the unobservable  domains of the very, very small.


I propose we seriously consider this “wild” speculation, but also
that we don’t devote great attention and resources in exploration.

Rather, to use it, in metaphor, to attract attention to our current limitations in the Sci/Tech of human systems.

I am not calling for, nor expecting, this enterprise to initially
involve many persons, nor require great funding.

While the vast majority, necessarily, continue
– in their own, personally competent (given their wrlds) ways –
a few need to scout and prepare as pathfinders
a viable route out of our Crisis-of-Crises.

Our primary motivation must be positive enthusiasm
for actualizing the awesome potentials of humankind,
in creating a continuously improving process
that doesn’t fixate on constructing a stable STATE
(of momentary existence).


None of the above is new,
Larry/nuet has expressed the same ideas before, many times.

I need to LEARN TO do this in a blog
(a different blog from Nuets Nodes),
putting the realtime production of nuet into the “cloud”.

What actually is the physical form of the internet “cloud”?
What many square miles of massive server sites exist
(some in the Arctic, for cooling)?
How are they distributed
among different nations and blocks of nations?
How much is distributed in storage
within vast networks of business and personal computers?