I BELIEVE that the floor and ground won’t suddenly become quicksand and that the water from my faucet won’t immediately kill me. However, I don’t automatically believe that anything I read or hear is an accurate reporting of an “objective” event. Indeed, NO TEXT CAN BE FULLY TRUE, as their interpretations always depend on contexts never included within the texts.

I KNOW, from my analysis of many texts, that many “conspiracies” have been “confirmed to have occurred”, and that many other claimed conspiracies are highly probable of having occurred. However, I don’t BELIEVE that any proposed conspiracies, I may research, must have occurred or be occurring. I BELIEVE that these texts are “real claims”(which I observe) might be valid, but they need not be associated with “real events”.

The possible conspiracy I report here, I would not bet on being real. However, there is something weird going on (within The Trump Phenomenon), and what I speculate might be happening – and if it is – immediate steps should be taken. At least prove that the meeting on June 9, 2016 actually did occur.


Might the June 9, 2016
meeting with Trump Jr.
and the daily increasing participant membership
be a False Flag:
a meeting that NEVER OCCURRED?


Might this be a trap set for the “liberal – left” media – justifying the Trump/GOP claim that Russia-Gate is TOTALLY deceptive fake news by opponents of MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN – a play to the Trump Base?

Might some of the players soon reveal their plot to trap the Democrat/Clinton Conspiracy, when some of the “claimed meeting participants” give evidence to Senate Committees next week. Kushner at the Intelligence Committee on Monday (24th) and Don Jr. & Manifort at the Judiciary Committee on Wednesday (26th).



On first glance, this appears as crazy and impossible as claims the USA never landed on our Moon. But, the “nature” of “truth” vs “fake” is in turmoil, and many of the “games” being played are unique to this moment – both hard to believe they are happening and are being tolerated. We can’t claim with much confidence that many, radically new types of activities may not happen, and also be tolerated as a nu social/societal “reality” begins manifesting (such as have occurred many times in human history).

A new model of reality I have been developing, distinguishes between material systems and humankind (which exists, in a way, only via information) and makes such a hypothesized happening possible. It also may have primed me to think of this option.

If I am correct, then time is very short to call them on their game; if even there is anything that can now be done to minimize the damage.

The plot would work for them only if the meeting NEVER took place at The Trump Towers on June 9. Is it possible to demonstrate that the MATERIAL EVENT (the actual meeting on June 9) took place, or didn’t take place? Were their physical bodies at or around the claimed site of the meeting on the claimed date? Language/symbolic reports claiming presence, such as hotel room registration, will not suffice, as they could be fabricated.

Some of the tweets, and other media reports and documents, will be valid “texts” or observable semiotic structures (sems) with valid sources. Other sems might have been “faked”, as to ascribed source.


For example:

* Are  there independently authenticated photos taken during the meeting?

** Are there independently authenticated photos taken of the claimed participants at the Trump Towers or vicinity on June 9?

*** Are there independently authenticated records of meeting participants being/arriving in NYC on June 9 (or earlier)?

**** Are there independently authenticated persons working at the Trump Towers who can provide evidence that the meeting occurred, or never occurred, as reported?

The plotters may have made mistakes, in their eagerness to expand the meeting membership one person at a time. This, to me, smells of over-confidence. The plotters may have become excited about how well it was going – the MSM and anti-Trump politicians and pundits having taken the bait – hook, line, and sinker.

They may plan to use this gullibility to further establish their claim of Fake News produced by the anti-Trump (Deep State) movement. However, hard evidence they may have planted to substantiate the primary meeting attendees (those non-Trump associates – such as the Russian lawyer – already in the USA) may not exist for the latest, newly revealed, meeting attendees.

Anti-Trump activists must immediately “assemble detective teams” to research the actual meeting. A meeting might well have occurred in the room at the date and time, but not including critical (non Trump associates).

Can the three Trump associates (at the claimed meeting) get away with public exposure of the facts that they had explicitly fabricated the meeting for the MSM?  I doubt they will have any problem with their true believers, who blindly support anything they do. CNN & MSNBC will react in defense. The 3 Trump Associates may claim this was a legitimate strategy to demonstrate how devious the MSM is in wanting to believe the worst about Trump+. It will bring into question everything that has ever been reported in opposition to Trump+. There will be many persons, not fully supporting Trump+, who become cautious about all future critical reporting about Trump+.


The critical revelation of today
(not yet acknowledged by most) is that
Every report is necessarily
and “fake”
(that it is open to many alternative interpretations).

“Facts”, as in the material sciences,
don’t exist in the human sciences.


So-called “fact checking” by the major MSM, quite extensive in this era of fake news, may have missed this because they weren’t looking for it.

This may also be coordinated with a push to move RussiaGate (as a plot by the Deep State) to public attention and solidify their claim of both
(1) NO collusion with Russian  and (2) that WHAT WAS DONE should be legit – in these NEW Trumpian Times. Such “logical contradictions” may not have “purchase power” in the new “ideological realities” emerging.


What is happening in the USA may well NOT BE a (troublesome, but legitimate) variant of an imperfect “republic/democracy”; but a very explicit and dedicated COUP against the American “Constitutional” form of governance. There need not be a single, unified “conspiracy” to validate this claim.

We have no useful info whether the visible Trump+ is (1) a freak happening or (2) a deep conspiracy. Are there powerful global forces behind Trump+, with clear objectives to destroy (what is being labeled The Deep State), where Trump+ is but a tool, later to be abandoned?

Are we witnessing a shift between formal vs informal (systems vs networks) dominance in global econ-politics? Has the informal/networked organizational-pattern of mafias (organized “crime” in earlier decades) migrated from “street” crimes to governmental & financial “crimes”? Are the new “oligarchs” the new “mafia bosses”, at the next level in the holarchy? Might “nation states” and “corporations” no longer be the only societal players, ON TOP?

Don’t assume that because a “process” is “global”, that it has unique accesses to SUPER powers. Organized MASSES can also be SUPER powerful. But, I don’t recommend the use of manipulated MASSES – unless absolutely necessary. Organizing MASSES can disrupt a process, but can’t, by themselves, generate a viable and humane NU PROCESS. Our future viable actions must to BEYOND revolutionary, beyond our contemporary imagination.

Our first action must to initiate processes to seaf us BEYOND BEYOND – to transcend our transcendable limitations.



I was just sitting down at my computer, to update my schedule and glance at my emails – before getting to household chores – when I was driven to devote 30 minutes composing what is presented below (in black). There was only minor editing, as each sentence emerged – not having been in consciousness until it unfolded through my fingers on keyboard, accompanied by seeing words appear on the screen – which I, then, read. This is a typical phenomenon for Larry/nuet, “composing”. The two indented paragraphs, preliminary “definitions” for “horizontal” and “vertical”, were late additions, as is the AFTERWORD.

In crude metaphor, the vast majority of relevant discourse is “horizontal” and “silo contained”. The “vertical” discourse, that does exist – as a minor contribution –  is also “silo contained” and almost totally ignored by “horizontal” discourse. Furthermore, this model/metaphor of two competing positions, “horizontal & “vertical”, grossly oversimplifies reality.

horizontal” :: realtime exchange of messages, communication -including newspapers and news media broadcasts. Also, book and journal publication of composed docs and readership/commentary. “horizontal” may have content referencing past or future, but have no intended significant relationship to emergent temporal processes. “horizontal” does “dynamics”, but within the context of a “static context”.

vertical” :: strictly conceptual, referencing the realm of ideas and not concrete actions (although such actions may be topics in the discourse). Can be “extensive” in both “temporal” and “conceptual” domains. Many sysnet “stages of development/emergence – pictures/scenes/stories/scenarios/periods/eras”.  Also, sysnets in the conceptual/abstract, such as consideration of deep interdependences/interactions between “classical domains” such as economics/finance/business/corporate/political/governmental/agencies/intelligence/labor/media/education/child-rearing/entertainment/sports/art/etc.

Not only is the interaction/interdependence of these many “classical societal domains” as relevant (to what actually happens) as what seems to happen within each domain (most of what is reported) — but, the “objective reality” of these “classical” domains is seriously questioned.

The categories of humankind, to which we assign nouns (e.g., governments, corporations, laws, people, etc.) may be far from being “objectively real” (as objects/systems studied by the material sciences).

I speculate, that in discourse, it is inappropriate to treat a cup (or any object) and a government as members of similar-type categories for the laws of discourse.

Discourse about “big scenarios” is literally impossible; blocked by the limits of infrastructures that seaf discourse and the accompanying shared worldviews about the “nature of discourse”, which is oblivious to this blockage.

These patterns have little to do with morality, ethics, or even cognitive competencies and knowledge levels. They are systemic, again in crude metaphor, related to (evolutionary determined) limitations of the human brain (in its great, but unacknowledged, cognitive diversity) and the changing technologies that both enable and constrain human interactions (at many levels beyond the interpersonal).

Meta-systemic issues arise, related to diverse “factors”, that “block” all attempts to even acknowledge these issues as relevant, or even “real”.

Again, in crude metaphor, this “existential resistance” rests in our gross (now dangerous) “misunderstanding” of “humankind” and “change”.

Indeed, it is in the domain of discourse where terms such as “understanding” and “comprehension” (to name but a few) are used (without exploration of their deeper meanings) , where we are in greatest need of “change”.


Here I  use the format of visual poetry,
to illustrate, how new formats
can assist comprehension.

On re-reading what I composed,
a few hours after composing,
it took time and effort
for me, the author, to comprehend
what I had written.

Yet, what I had intuitively composed,
was “OK” (to me),
given appropriate time and attitude
for the reader.

Some texts require
beyond simple reading.

Economic Models & Value Systems – a nu look

Jason (& Michel), I appreciate your referencing me in the email dialog between yourself and Michel (on 7/1/17). Yes, one of my themes is the inadequacy of the human brain (evolved for tribal situations) to cope with the Magnitude/Scope/Complexity of 21st Century reality.

Another relevant theme is the enormous cognitive diversity in the contemporary human population; both due to brain variations and to variations of developmental environments. It is grossly inappropriate to imagine an “average” human; yet we all do this most of the time. Many populations of humans today live within cultural belief systems that others attribute to the far distant past. Many humans don’t “live in the 21st century”.

Whatever changes we may consider proposing, on this naive view of humankind, would quickly be made moot should a project to significantly UPLIFT the global human population be implemented. Likewise, our forecasts of recommended programs for change will remain highly uncertain so long as we ignore the massive cognitive diversity in global humankind. What do we really know about the distributions of relevant traits, knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, competencies in the global population? We desperately need a global census on relevant dimensions (which, to specify/determine, would be an additional challenge).

When we explore alternative economic or value systems, as Jason and Michel are discussing, we shouldn’t limit alternatives to only those that can be implemented within the global population configured much as it is today – where the different distributed sub-systems are somehow transformed to a new distribution of much more viable and compatible sub-systems.

One alternative is that a target population chooses to radically bootstrap-change itself, in semi-isolation from the rest of humankind. They can apply innovations impossible to implement in human systems dependent on significant relations with global humankind. If this model is successful, persons in general humankind could be attracted to and assisted in shifting to the nu emergent humanity. I call this model: UPLIFT to Cultural/Societal Metamorphosis (Up2Met). In Up2Met, most of the societal institutions in global humankind are not transformed to be part of the nu, emergent humanity. I believe it could be “proven via simulation” that Up2Met has many viable variations; whereas reforming contemporary humankind into a viable humanity is “impossible”.

I don’t have time or background to study and engage with our email dialog – although I am sure I would find it interesting. I have probed to a few fractal levels in a few domains – essential to comprehend “depth” as compared to “scope”.


My critique is not traditional.  “Value in the Commons Economy” is impressive -in its openness to diversity and acceptance of uncertainty. However, it is deeply constrained within “traditional contexts”. Within this limited context, the article has “value”.

Our paradox is the destructive competition between (1) Here&Now, practical & pragmatic, “solutions” to current “problems” and (2) longer-term “processes” exploring “solutionateques” to “problemateques”, and actualizing our vast potentials to begin our relevant participation in our own evolution/emergence. See: Nu Genesis. There is also a massive literature critiquing economic theories and other social science. A recent example.

I skimmed the 50 page PDF article and was impressed by the references and historical information. All of this is what I labeled “top traditional contexts” – and is the best of what humans can do at that holon level of analysis (which, to most, appears far too comprehensive and abstract). The other/larger contexts, I imply, relate to alternative realities – such as if humankind were vastly uplifted in knowledge and competencies – with a common base and yet with very wide diversity.

Each era in human history lacks fundamental insights that are common in future eras. Even when we speculate on what future insights might be key for the next era, beyond our own, we find it very difficult trying to influence contemporary process to anticipate gaining new knowledge and competencies, for future decisions and actions.

Elsewhere, I have cited The Apollo Program as a possible exception, even if within the much simpler domain of physics and space travel. With its objective of putting men on our Moon and returning them safely to Earth, it started without the requisite knowledge and competencies to actualize that objective. An explicit part of the Program was to UPLIFT the knowledge/competencies of NASA to achieve its mission. This objective was different from objectives set and actualized when confronted with war, such as for WWII. The Apollo Program was VISION MOTIVATED, not survival pushed.

Given the threats and challenges of Earth Changes (well beyond Climate Changes) mixed with the seemingly epidemic of human madness and dysfunction, we encounter barriers and resistance, as well as the lack of imagination. [NOTE: The exceptional weirdness of individual leaders (Trump, Christie, McConnell, Putin, etc.) is masking for the public and MSM commentators the greater puzzle as WHY & HOW our “peoples and systems” put and keep them in power. Humankind is far from what we believe it to be.]


One obvious limitation to a general theory of value, is how the field of what might be valued has enlarged over history, and deferentially in different populations, societies, and cultures.

I found the focus (in the longer article) on the identification of value masking the issues of how value is used, and how values change within persons, communities, and societies/cultures. This includes two features of value use that has concerned me for decades, that are not mentioned and I believe brings into question the whole dialog about value – that it is “out of context”.

The missing “contexts” relate to the complex “whole” of a dynamic, evolving & emerging, diverse humankind. It will be very challenging to rectify this deficiency because the best of our “interactivity technology” (as “advanced” as it is, and “rapidly” changing) remains grossly inadequate (by lack of imagination) to meet the real needs of humankind. Part of this is due to our limited comprehension of the Magnitude/Scope/Complexity of issues (and their interactivity) related to emergent humankind. Part is due to intrinsic/systemic limitations of human brains and social system for humans to perform in accordance with idealistic & simplistic (mythological) models of humans and “humanity”. Our cultural/social/societal emergence has been too “successful” and has out-stripped our ability to adequately function within what we have enabled to emerge.

I believe humankind has the potentials to transcend this Crisis-of-Crises; but it will require “us” to accept our “reality” (including what we don’t know) and make long-term survival/thrival TOP PRIORITY. This includes acceptance that a rapid mass conversion of large populations is impossible, and that an emergent strategic enterprise is needed – utilizing the best of our collective knowledge/competencies, well aware of our limitations and deficiencies. We are as children, without parents.

The two missing features are:

1) VALUE IS NOT TRANSITIVE. This has been known by some economists, but relegated to the back burner because it invalidates most of the mathematical processes used by economists. Yet, humans and human system treat the relativity of value as if it is transitive.  TRANSITIVE: If A<B and B<C, then A<C.

[I first learned of this from Nobel economist Kenneth Arrow at a six week summer symposium at Stanford in 1967.]

2) WE CAN “OBJECTIVELY” RANK (by value) ONLY ONE VALUE (or attribute) AT A TIME. Multiple dimensional entities cannot be objectively ranked or referenced – which requires subjective “weighing” of different variables. I have yet to encounter this issue discussed. Yet, this FALLACY is practiced by all humans and probably hard wired in our brains (essential for survival in time of immediate crises).


How is the “common good” defined? Especially, how are values of “stability” ranked with values of “improvement”, when improvement requires some instability – which puts a price on those who would be “hurt” due to instability. Today, there is much talk about the positive nature of DISRUPTIVE TECHNOLOGY. Can a society be “managed” so that the “well-being” of every person is optimized, even when some are forced to change life-styles because of disruptive technology? Examples: (1) education and new jobs for coal miners and (2) what if robotics and automation makes human employment unnecessary to maintain our material infrastructure?

DIFFICULT CHALLENGE: Might the future “survival/health” of Humankind/Gaia be best served by a radical reduction in the global human population? What if such a radical reduction were “proven necessary” for the survival of humankind? This is the ethical “trolley decision”, amplified. Might this already be the “game plan” by a cabal of psychopaths, facing the “reality” of Climate Change?




To me, nomadic is mobile tribal vs stationary tribal. The paradigms of home/place vs mobility/migration calls for deeper study. Our comprehension of the changes from tribal to societal is in it infancy. Yet, in every era and culture, their inner “WRLD“, at that time, is believed to be nearly TRUE and UNIVERSAL Our processes, policies, and practices are as relevant as our beliefs, assumptions, and theories.


I have yet to reply to your many emails. I use the term “semiotic”, yet – not having explored the expansive literature on the concept. I anticipate revolutionary insights (akin to Relativity and Quantum in physics) about Language and Meaning. Meanwhile we play in the sandbox. Except, that the sand is composed of a vast diversity of symbol forms arranged in equally diverse systems of spatial/temporal patterns.

For decades I have speculated that we need a radical change in our visual language representations.. I am awed by the tenacity of older forms, such as these linear symbols in lines; and the resistance to explore the many potentials available with our rapidly emerging digital technology. The lack of imagination is shocking, to me. Personally, I am severely handicapped by our “unimaginative” information representation technology! I speculate much of this limitation is due to the economic factors limiting innovation to short term gains. Almost all sponsored innovations make no learning demands on potential users. Blind marketing dominates. Also, small individual innovations are never adequate and there are no mechanisms to coordinate the emergence of a new visual representation system for languaging – a system-of-projects well beyond the MSC of space exploration, or materials science. .


This is not an explicit topic in your dialog, or in most online dialog. Yet, to me, it SCREAMS LOUDLY behind the scenes. The gross inadequacy of humans to effectively learn and organize is “criminal”, yet “natural”. Pundits pontificate about the takeover of public education by charter schools, while ignoring the gross inadequacy of “education” AT ITS VERY BEST. Evaluation of education is limited to comparison; never as to objectives or goals (which are warped to match performance).

Civilization – the current mode of social/societal organization – depends on the suppression of optimal phenotype actualization of genotype. This is unique to the human species. I have written, extensively – elsewhere, on this issue. I believe this has “evolved” for the pseudo-survival of societal institutions. An knowledgeable/competent/organized public would never tolerate the organizational practices of “civilization”.

Also, the MSC (Magnitude/Scope/Complexity) of any “endeavor” to “right this crisis” is beyond the imagination/capacity of contemporary humans – WITHOUT A SPECIAL PUSH.

Up2Met is a crude, rough draft of a proposed strategy to Actualize the Impossible: Quickly and Radically UPLIFT the distribution of knowledge/competencies of global humankind, to insure the multi-millennial survival/thrival of humanity/Gaia.

MY CONTRAST – Alt Perspective

I believe that, it can be dangerous, to elevate one (or a few) “basic” principals to dominance – leading to a strongly biased perspective of a larger reality (with many more independent dimensions). Such tactics can be useful, when these limitations are acknowledged.

Five decades ago I shifted primary priority from “economics” to “education” as “THE” most important domain for human futuring. Economics (with finance, money, and business) is the dominant domain today – with much thinking reductionist to this domain. Thus, in the Here&Now, we can’t avoid engaging from an “economic perspective”. However, we have the option to concurrently engage more than one domain.

For the far future, after we dodge the Climate Change Bullet, I speculate about one alternative societal system, where economic issues have been optimized and relegated to invisibility (not usually consciously attended to). In my 1975 unpublished manuscript, MISSION_2000, I proposed a two level economic system: Basic Needs and Gourmet.

Using Big Data (no longer a threat to basic privacy), algorithms personalize needs (both present and future) and facilitate automated production/distribution system to optimally meet the personal needs of everyone. The production of some products may be best centralized at a few specific locations and the products distributed. Other products would be produced at localized, automated  stations. Access to this Basic Needs System is “free” to all humans. The system is long-term and ecologically sound. Example: basic food needs production is isolated from weather variation, and may use insects and single cell components to produce nutritious food, processed for pleasant eating.

I envision coordinated teams of persons, with interests in these system, monitoring and managing them. The public would have access to making recommendations and be occasionally polled about possible changes. Such an automated system MUST be “supervised” to ensure “the system” doesn’t mold the “people”, or that small groups don’t attempt “control”. These are issues of “democracy” far beyond contemporary imagination.

The Gourmet System seafs (supports, enables, augments, facilitates)  individuals and teams producing (goods & services) to specific criteria and creativity, for self and gifts. This would include specialized food production (with limitations on killing animals or damaging environments) and craft making of “things”. A future “Internet” would seaf exchange.

A “healthy future humanity of “minds/bodies embedded in viable social/cultural/societal systems” is beyond our best contemporary creative imaginations. This “beyond” is essential to sustain emergence. Contemporary “entertainment” and “possession” addictions will be replaced. Ideas and their representations will replace the material “things” of today. Material things will continue to be valued, but in moderation. A version of the “economic perspective” will arise to assist in the “exchange of ideas”.

“CHANGE” will be experienced and conceptualized quite differently than we do today. We must learn to be open to the exciting challenge of actualizing potential. We must not demand insurance of a concretely imagined future “state”, transformed from our current “state”.


In this different future, the well-being-over-time of the Human Holarchy become our primary motivation. By Human HOLARCHY, I mean not only persons, but also the well-being of relationships, groups, families, communities, societies, orgs, etc. – all in balance with Gaia. By “education” I mean much, much more that what is done by our best educational institutions today.

I go so far as to speculate that our contemporary Crisis-of-Crises will not be resolved by initiating any economic changes, without prior, massive changes in the knowledge and competencies of the whole global population. The future won’t slowly evolve from economic to educational, but the shift to UPLIFTing persons (I avoid the term “people”) to new, levels of knowledge and competencies, requisite for our survival/thrival, must be intentional and strategically systemic.

The PATH (plans, strategies, scenarios, projects, etc.) from “now” to “when” must be organic/emergent (yet with creative design). How these memes appear/modify/distribute will be empirically influenced; based on our new knowledge about ourselves and by avoiding false myths about “human nature”.

The physical resource cost (and environmental damage) for UPLIFT should be much less than the resource cost of “material” economic transformation (without UPLIFT, were it even possible). Once UPLIFTED, the global population would be willing to LIVE-LITE on Earth for a few decades and contribute their coordinated, creative efforts to begin reversing the damages of Climate Change.

This shift should be more than a desperate effort for survival. It might also be viewed as the “birth” of a viable HUMANITY, from the yet embryonic humankind, now gifted with Consciousness and Agency. From an alternative metaphor, this shift is the Cultural/Societal Metamorphosis from the caterpillar (humankind) to the butterfly (humanity). The radical differences between butterfly and caterpillar will be also expected in radical differences between humanity and humankind. Just as the caterpillar can’t imagine the butterfly, so we in humankind can’t fully imagine humanity.

In the current rise of migration, we might view Up2Met as migration-over-time from humankind to humanity.



The conceptual schemes about “creative freedom and agency” will be radically different within humanity as within humankind.

Within humankind, the simplistic notion of freedom is about each person being able to “freely” chose between alternatives; “free” from outside influences. Today, our “freedom” is more the avoidance of others telling us what to do, than our having choices of alternatives.  Each person’s “deep self” should be “fee” to “consciously chose”. This perspective has many fallacies which I won’t discuss here.

Freedom for Humanity involves three essential features:

1) The literal freedom to pull any of the levers, or chose from alternative choices, without outside influence at the moment of choice or threats. We also assume that the choice is accurately recorded and properly processed. We are not insured to “get what we chose”, as that depends on “objective reality”.

2) That the list of choices are of ALL that are relevant; and presented in a way that the distinctions can be accurately comprehended. In humankind, the list of choices is always limited and their distinctions confusing.

3) Each person has the knowledge/competencies to comprehend their alternatives, have the competencies to actually chose, and understand their freedom to chose – without fear of direct consequences for their choices. Most humans in humankind lack these requisites and are often propagandized to believe they don’t need them.


Free Creativity applies only to spontaneous cognition, not to direct responses to stimuli.

All S/R behavior is deterministic, part of the determinism being the momentary states of our brains/bodies as the moment of stimulation. Those “momentary states”, may – in turn – have been deterministically modified by recent activity. WE participate in the choice, not from conscious will, but from our biological state at that moment, interacting with the stimulus. Brain studies reveal that we become consciously aware of making a decision a short moment AFTER our brain signals a decision has been made. The experience of conscious choice is an illusion.

We sit doing nothing, our “mind wanders”, a new idea emerges: “pops to mind”. Most of such instances are deterministic to internal stimuli or  external stimuli, not noticed.

I speculate that we can truly have AGENCY, through the EMERGENCE of a new thought/idea, not “caused” by any event in our brain or world. Our mind/brains are dynamically active, changing in “emergent” ways (not strictly causal). Sometimes new connections can be made, spontaneously creating new patterns – which can have impact on our whole. I have labeled this “creative holistic determination”.

After a shift occurs, the processes are probably highly deterministic – but in very complex ways. Essential “creativity” may be necessary in establishing new behavior routines, but when we are “creating” we may be deterministically apply these practices (which had resulted from creativity). [The artist, Robert Fritz, introduced me to this distinction between creativity and creating. We can learn “creating”.]


I firmly believe that OUR FUTURES are not classically determined (unfolding on a linear temporal path) nor definitively influenced by Here&Now creative interventions. I reject these alternatives, primarily on aesthetic reasons. I believe “reality” has the essence of whim, humor, aesthetics (beauty), creativity, love (essential bondings); but also a type of “stability” to not “go haywire”.

Most of our choices are to gain in the near future, the front edge of our Here&Now. This has been the situation for all life on Earth, until recently. Choices in the Here&Now accumulated over very long time intervals, via “natural selection”, resulting in an increase in the complexity of systems. Choices in the Here&Now were never done with intent to influence the distant future (or even near mid-future).

However, patterns were established that influenced distant futures. Primary was care of progeny, to improve their survival and propagation of their species.

Our choices in the Here&Now, should be taken not to determine the future. They are taken to enable our full freedom for wider choice opportunities at future moments. Without such earlier choices we would often be faced with situations where we are unprepared to chose some alternatives, because their availability depended on earlier choices we failed to make.

We shouldn’t attempt to design big future STATES. We should attempt designing processes that will seaf choices in our sequential Here&Nows, so as to increase and improve our fields of choices, our abilities to competently chose, and our literal freedom to make choices.