The emergence of the conceptual scheme OBJECTIVITY, including the concept of “conceptual scheme” is seldom mentioned as a major transition in human history. I first learned explicitly about epistemic change from Michel Foucault‘s “The Order of Things” & “The Archeology of Knowledge“.

Early humans made no conscious distinction between what we now call our OBJECTIVE or MATERIAL WORLDS (universes, concrete realities) and our personal WRLDS OF HUMAN CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE. We don’t know all the details of this epistemic shift , how it occurred in stages, and how it became distributed among different populations and cultures (including where it is, as yet, not the dominant episteme).

Gods and spirits could effect change in the observable world. Lightening/Thunder and Rainbows were “caused” by “higher entities”. Julian Jaynes hypothesized that there was a shift from “others” speaking to them, as to voices-in-their-heads (auditory hallucinations)  to persons believing the thoughts came from their deeper selves.

The night sky was the first, studied exemplar of a fixed externality. Not only the fixed pattern of stars (constellations), but the regular movement over time, including the movement of sun and moon and their relationship to the changing seasons. The study of these external regularities culminated in Newton’s model of an Objective Universe – where planets and falling apples followed the same “scientific” laws. Indeed, that there were “external regularities”, the study of which we call “SCIENCE”, was an emergent episteme of great impact. This episteme is now being challenged by humans seeking power.

Other epistemic shifts are attached to the names: Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, Bohr/Schrödinger/Heisenberg. Today there are hundreds of epistemic shifts in process that can’t readily be attributed to individual persons. Labeled eras, such as The Enlightenment or The Industrial Revolution, are also accompanied by epistemic change. Diffferent cultures have different epistemes.

How can we tell whether another fundamental epistemic change isn’t underway (possibly blocked) and desperately needed? Should a small community-of-teams undertake exploring this challenge? Might humankind now be sufficiently competent to intentionally/intelligently/compassionately influence epistemic change?



The global wave of seeming “madness” around FAKE news or realities, exemplified by Trump (but not limited to him) has the metaphor of it being revealed that “the king has no clothes on”. What are the “clothes” and who is the “king“?

The “king” is “humankind” and the clothes is “objectivity”. Humankind leaves a trace (in the material world) that can’t be adequately explained by the Science of Objective or Material Reality (SOMR). A systematic explication of SOMR will occur in other documents – follow some links below. However, some basics.

There is no “evidence” (in the sense of inter-subjective observing and reporting on phenomena in the material world) for human intention or belief.

All we have are records of concrete human behavior (videos or reports {by observer-authors or journalists}), which must be interpreted by readers/viewers, each in terms of their own personal contexts. [Material structures (e.g., architecture, agriculture) created by humans are also semiotic, and a full theory of SOMR must include them.] I have labeled these “sems” (semiotic structures) and an organized collection of sems, a “semfield“.

The empirical foundation for HUMANKIND is limited to interpretation of reports (taken, temporarily now, as digitized patterns of symbols, visual & auditory). Most modern reports can be accurately replicated, ensuring “identity of pattern” for all; but not similar interpretations.


The successes of Sci/Tech for the material world (even when never directly observed in consciousness) has given rise (among many persons and populations) to the belief that this OBJECTIVITY can be applied to human THOUGHTS & REPORTS about reality. Indeed, it is believed that “interpretations of experience”, as reported, are OBJECTIVE FACTS. In a sense, Human Problems Aren’t Real.

However, they are only reports, patterns created by humans, superimposed on material substrates. Their objectivity exists only in the patterns (as text on this screen). To what extent may our scientific knowledge of systems not containing humans (or not involving direct human interference during the interval studied) NOT APPLY to our knowledge gained from the “scientific” study of systems with humans as primary components and/or participants?

This belief, in their experiences as objective truth, necessarily leads humans into conflict. I have no knowledge of the distribution of this dangerous episteme among all human populations. I believe that it is rooted in what we call intuition, or the fast reality of Daniel Kahneman in Thinking: Fast and Slow (pdf).

Ample scientific evidence on the fallibility of experience has done little to diminish our use of this episteme. Our early tribal ancestors needed to act quickly in emergencies, with no time to consider alternative interpretations. Also, the challenges of tribal life (with the societal yet to emerge) was adequately navigated with an episteme that didn’t sharply discriminate between material and human realities. Today, and for millennia, the primary environment for most humans has been human created – even the USA National Parks were modified to be “wild gardens”. Urban life, now augmented by “life on the screen” takes humans far from “material nature”.

Is it possible to “educate” persons to live/believe in a different episteme? A different issue: is it possible to incrementally change intertwined social/societal systems & subsystems so as to implement such “education” (personalized), to migrate a significant/selected portion of the global population to a new episteme to avoid foretasted disasters?

All I can claim is that the answer “no” is not proven, even if intuition makes it feel so. Might the extreme tragedy, if we fail to shift epistemes (the elimination of our potential futures, more tragic than the death of all humans), provide sufficient motivation/challenge – for those competent to comprehend the issues – TO ACT.

On Scenarios for UPLIFT

UPLIFT Experience 2018-2020

Advanced Metamorphosis:
A Mix of Emergence & Transformation

Two Modes of Action:
Designing/Constructing & Posting/Commenting

Action Strategies for Larry/nuet
-2014 – forgotten!

Is Humankind a Unique Cosmic Phenomenon?
– 3/2016 – also forgotten!!


FORECAST: Failed Recoveries from Disasters

Forecast: If not repressed, in a few months there will be an “uprising” of all those who have not experienced recovery from disasters, primarily hurricanes Harvey and Irma – then attracting those who never recovered from prior disasters (including fires, tornadoes, landslides, and droughts).

Are there enough workers to do the recovery? Think, every building, bridge, etc. will need work. The military might be called in. Workers from all over may be recruited, but they will leave behind work undone. The USA is short competent workers. Will we be open to immigrant workers? Who will pay them? What “agency” has the competency to organize/coordinate this work?

Are there enough supplies to use in the recovery? With a “just in time” economy, there will be major shortages and a lag to produce more. There could be a massive logistics effort to round up what is needed, but who will decide to do it and who will pay for it.

Might the wealthy commandeer workers and supplies, leaving nothing for the rest?

How will those no longer working/earning and those whose business is no longer making money pay for their needs? FEMA will give out some initial support, but far from enough. What will be the impact on the rest of the USA (and world) from the lack of productivity and markets in Houston and Florida?

What is the full story of recovery from prior disasters? Who didn’t recover and how was it kept silent from the media? The MSM and governments treat each disaster as separate.

What about the losses from the fire in Montana? There are probably crisises in many places around the globe. The recent earthquake in Mexico. The massive floods this summer in many places, as bad as in the USA, but not reported here. What if other hurricanes take out another city or more?

How might this destabilize the current political game in the USA? In other countries? The global refuge crisis is, in part, the result of climate change. A long drought in Syria launched the current crisis there. What are the forecasts about climate change refugees for the decades ahead?

Our best science claims that Climate Change will significantly increase in frequency and extent of destruction in the next decades. We really don’t know how strong regular winds will become, or how weather patterns may shift – causing regions to get unexpected, extreme weather.

Might this start a shift of the general population to accept the dangers of climate change? Even if the MSM tries to block it, the news will spread in the population. Those who were lied to may become quite angry at the climate deniers.

The climate deniers, their beneficiaries and supporters, will not give up easily. Today, there are no secure laws or practices – power and deception are dominant. Evidence need not trump ignorance.

Current events have proven the inadequacy of so-called electoral democracy, when the citizenry is not uplifted and permitted to be propagandized and dumbed down.

Why have the most competent and most knowledgeable persons not explored the various scenes/stories/scenarios/schemes from now until the climate change catastrophe has been reversed? Are we permanently locked into “pragmatic presentism”? Have we really become addicted to the ideology of “intuitive flowing”, the “emergence of the good” without longterm “futuring”? Has the knowledge that too detailed plans always fail, blinded us to exploring measured mixes of “planning” and “flowing” (a variation of OLLO)?

Because it is impossible to quickly change everyone, doesn’t preclude that starting small might eventually make an enormous difference. “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has” – Margaret Mead.

NEED: A growing, OLLO, movement that explores longterm options for THE WHOLE OF HUMANKIND.

PS – The longer Trump&Team remain in power, chances of removing him get worse and worse. Pence&Team are fixing the electoral system to insure we have a one party system. Unfortunately, the establishment Democrats are blinded by their own ideology and impotent. While we still have the “freedom”, “we” need to organize so as to remain “functional” within a “high authoritative system”.

The Meaning of MEANING

  • This is a record of an email thread, and Larry/nuet’s response to each comment in the thread. The thread resulted from a single question about part of an earlier email by myself, and a chain of responses, about “meaning”. Common to many threads, they didn’t refer back to an original idea or text. Rather, such threads are analog to the party game of trying to pass a message around a circle of persons – leading to distortion. Here the theme of the messages change as each new comment is about a small part of the previous comment, and is irrelevant to the themes of the original message and earlier comments. THIS THREAD, however, did prove interesting. How might we develop an app and protocols to keep dialog on theme?
  • The next section are my comments, mostly in temporal order of comments, and addressed to the named commenters. The following section are sequence of copy/pastes of each email comment, for reference. Sorry, I didn’t have the time to click/link these to my responses.


  • Larry’s words on “meaning”:


    • I’ve not ignored “meaning” in my schema, as Linda claims. Nor, do I claim “life is deterministic”. I propose that S/R behavior is deterministic. The denial of that part of life which is deterministic is the cause of much of our difficulty. The agency we do have can be directed us to develop desirable and useful determined behaviors. Too much freedom would be hell. There are relatively few auto accidents because our driving is mostly deterministic behavior.
    • Linda’s “collective meaning” might be defined as “observed common usage of terms by a population”. This is essential for populations to collectively act towards shared objectives and goals. This approaches tautology. Our challenge is how to accomplish this given the wide diversity of human cognitive systems and the inadequacy of contemporary media for “meaningful” dialog.
    • Bohmian Dialog Processes may assist a convergence in word usage for that group during that session. Whether the psychological structures (being) become similar because of shared meanings is only speculative. More permanent change is a much more complex undertaking, and requires designed patterns for dialog formats across many, many dialog sessions.
    • “meaning” is a word, a term, a visual pattern and sound pattern; different for different cultures and languages. I can Google “meaning”  and get various definitions, synonyms, and patterns of usage in sentences. We find it is related, in English, to the verb to “mean”. To “mean” is to point with intention, to the “meaning” of something.
    • What has meaning? Words, sentences, paragraphs, text of various sizes, images, things, happenings.
    • For me, the “meaning” of any “figure of attention” in a “conscious experience” is the ground or context for the gestalt/whole of the experience,mostly groked or subconscious. These “meanings” are private; but we can write and share reports attempting to describe that meaning for us, to others.
    • Linda calls for a greater consensus for the usage of critical terms, or common, shared “definitions”. I support her on this and go so far as to coin special terms to sharpen what I refer to and to distinguish it from other terms pointing to different referents.
    • Research has demonstrated that any individual person will use many terms with different referents (meanings?) at different times. Each person will have a different distribution of usage patterns for each term. Scientific and philosophical texts attempt greater precision in their usage of specific terms. Some claim that ambiguity of usage enhances creative use of a language – English is claimed as being the most ambiguous of languages.
    • Jason, we often think in language, even sub vocalize. My even when thinking visually, every “figure of attention” has a word associated with it. Even if “something strange”. The languages we learn becomes a scaffolding for our thinking about our visual world. For literate humans, “texts” become a new and special visual world, that follows different “rules & laws” than the non-textual world. The “meaning of meaning” becomes significant for talking/working with other humans, as distinct from working with material things.
    • Nirmalan, Up2Met is my proposal for consciously changing meaning – from individual to global humankind.
    • Linda, your recommendations for social action don’t explicitly include significant development&learning of participants in actions. Unless activists change their “meaning systems” they will be unable to do what is needed. Today’s population of activists (and those to be recruited to activism) lack the requisite knowledge and competencies to do as needed. Simply implying they will learn-by-doing is insufficient.  UPLIFT is much more than learning, as I have described in OLLO. Explicit attention must be given to make learning-by-doing reeee (relevant, effective, efficient, enjoyable, elegant). Reeee OLLO is required to replace our trivialized “education”.
    • Nirmalan, stories are essential elements of our cognitive processes. However, I propose we enlarge the conceptual scheme to a holarchy of BIG: Pictures, Scenes, Stories, Scenarios, Schemes. For societal issues we must go well beyond “stories”.
    • Stan, I agree with you that MUCH positive is happening. I see our POTENTIALS for radical/rapid change growing/adapting/developing/evolving/emerging exponentially. Most is invisible or not comprehended by the vast majority, as well as by most of the “already educated”. In my analysis, it is long past ready to synergize – but is blocked. The blockage is not only by opposition from establishments, but by outmoded assumptions still held by change agent and potential activists.Computers and The Internet potentially provide the tools/technology, but the specific forms (for economic/commercial interests) are actually contributing to the blockage.
    • Stan, your efforts with Community Magic and Helpfulness are quality exemplars of what we need in terms of new, viable SOCIAL systems – which involve real persons as components. According to my working model of humankind, just as the SOCIAL is a different type of system from the PERSONAL, so the SOCIETAL is different from both. The components of societal are social systems. Creative or destructive persons can influence societal systems, but are not components of them (except at a deeper level as components of social systems). The OLLO of communities within societal scaffolding has, as yet, a very primitive Sci/Tech. I speculate that if we were to systemically “action research” with the three levels (personal, social, societal) we would make rapid headway.
    • Stan, on thinking on what you are doing in Wikidelphia, and in all of Philadelphia, stimulates an insight. The three level model may to too crude. I imagine you working at a level that overlaps social and societal. Another way of making this distinction is the ratio of synchronous vs asynchronous interactions, and whether “individuals” are treated as “persons” or as “roles”. When I first came to Tucson in 1971 I worked as the “principal” of the educational component of a residential treatment center for emotionally disturbed boys. I started at a small site, where there were no written messages for or between employees. We met in a F2F meeting every morning, and walked to the office if we needed anything. This was a social system, for personnel. Our success led us moving to a much larger site, in the desert, now including girls and with greatly increased staff. No more F2F meetings. Written messages from management to personnel. A RADICAL change. A rapid decline in discipline and patient success rate, in my analysis.
    • Linda, I have to avoid using the term “people”, and use “persons” instead. For me, people implies too much similarity – that we can take actions that will reach ALL the people. This I deeply believe is impossible, as our cognitive diversity is far to vast. Also, stories must be comprehended before they can be meaningful. Most humans will need to have their cognitive processes enhanced before they can adequately comprehend the stories (scenarios & schemes) they need. “Education” (generalized to include the media) must do much more than inform. Also, I doubt that there are key stories that will catalyze the “emergent process” we need.
    • Tom Greco, COMPLEMENTARITY is the missing element, in a nu episteme. More>>
      • Consider two propositions/perspectives A & B in a relationship of complementarity.
        • If A, doesn’t imply not-B.
        • If B, doesn’t imply not-A.
        • Often, we cannot simultaneously perform the operations to assess A and B.
        • In physics, the operation to assess whether an entity is a particle precludes performing the operation to access whether it is a wave; and vise versa.
        • Particles and Field are two distinct conceptual schemes. Particles both “create” fields and “react” to fields.
      • Either/Or is not applicable in all situations.
      • It is the demand for purity of “freedom” and “equality” that contributes to the paradox. Also, when one begins to “unpack” the conceptual schemes associated with these two labels, the intertwining of their conceptual schemes is revealed.
      • Once I created four levels of “freedom”:
    • The ability to actually chose between options.
    • Having access to all options.
    • Having the competencies to comprehend the options and the competencies to chose.
    • Being able to learn about the field of potential options, how to uplift to comprehend more.
      • alone is stupid. We know how fragile the psychology of choice is to circumstances. (2-4) imply a social/societal/cultural context for personal choice.
        • One might speculate that the push for freedom(1) results in giving the powerful elite moral justification to oppress others.
        • “EQUALITY” immediatly faces the logical “truth” that RANKING (which includes “equal”) can “objectively” apply to only one aspect/variable at a time. There is no logical sense to seek “equality” of multiple dimensional entities. We can rank persons as to height or weight, but not according to “bigness”. Bigness requires we assign “subjective” weights to height vs weight. The IQ test is logically invalid because we assign equal weight to each test item.  Any test can have its scores correlated with other criteria, which can have limited applicability. “Intelligence” is a multidimensional concept, which is distinct from other such attributes, such as empathy, wisdom, creativity, productivity, etc.
        • Unfortunately, humans are programmed to commit this logical fallacy, much of the time. In tribal times, this was probably the best process for survival. It is proving disasterous in these far more complex times.
  • Tom Atlee, Just terminology. I use “complementarity” for your “healthy polarity”. For me, “polarity” implies opposition. There are oppositional relationships as well as relationships of complementarity. The Yin/Yang symbol represents it well. I believe populations today are not “polarized”, but “fragmented”. It is our psychology the moves us to sort them into two camps, which we also find structured in two party politics.
  • Linda, “freedom for whom” illustrates that consideration of single concepts, alone, is a meaningless activity.
  • Nirmalan, All important concepts & conceptual schemes are complex and interdependent. The concept that each term can have a definition that makes it an “independent” atom/node in a language matrix has been very dangerous. “Explanation” is an endless process, which we arbitrarily terminate (conclude).
  • Michel Bauwens, The increase in commons is impressive and encouraging. We “times are ripe”, innovations can go viral. Comprehending the process and relevant factors, the spread of innovations can be seafed (supported, enabled, augmented, facilitated). Can a spread of commons in different cultures and populations be seafed? Whether such viral spreading of a few innovations will catalyze a fundamental holistic shift is a different issue. I speculate that the interaction between many different innovations must be given systemic attention. I am greatly interested in how to create SEAFwebs and OLLO expeditions and drive them viral. OLLO = Organizing-for-Learning=&=Learning-for Organizing.
  • Michel Bauwens, You are right, in your comment to Tom Greco, about the dependency of freedom on equality. I don’t need to tell you that there are many kinds of “equality”. Here you imply a quality of “opportunity”. As I commented earlier, also in response to Tom, there are a few dimensions of freedom also involved. Some of these cannot be rectified quickly by changes in law.
  • Albert, a url you recommend to Luhmann would have been useful. He has so many texts, the one most target to autopoiesis is in French. I have long groked the applicability of autopoiesis to social systems (probably not societal systems). Maturana and Varela were adamant in opposition to the extension of autopoiesis beyond biology.
    • Email contributions:

    • Tom Greco 9/4/17
      • Jason, what do you mean by “feedpast bootstrapping?”
    • Jason 9/4/17
      • It is a term Larry introduced. A non-linear property of time, akin to the quantum process whereby the future affects the past, applying to human creativity. When one gets a “creative vision” perhaps it is a process of the future “feeding” creativity in the present, i.e. the brain somehow tapping into a circular property of time. Hopefully I’ve done a good job at attempting to explain this.
    • Larry 9/6/17
      • Yes, Jason, you got the gist of feedpast bootstrapping. The concept emerged during my summer between high school and college, and was a theme of a short story I wrote. An early human, in great need, threw his spear. It would have missed, but his need was so just, that the Big Bang was altered, slightly different, so his spear throw would hit his target. For me, ALL of physics implies a deterministic universe. Quantum Mechanics simply makes the determinism statistical – we can’t predict, but it remains determined.  Feedpast Bootstrapping might alter the probabilities at the quantum level, but leave the long term distributions random – thus not violating quantum physics. Manipulating at the quantum level is not sufficient to account for most so-called “psychic phenomena”. But, quantum style statistics may exist also at the larger “societal” levels, not necessarily directly related to the quantum phenomena at the small.
      • I grok that humans emotionally treat mortality and determinism similarily: denial. The evidence is very, very strong that our responses to stimuli are strictly determined by (1) the stimuli AND (2) our “state” at the moment of stimulation. After the stimulation, the “state” changes, and is slightly different for the next stimulus. Activity anywhere in our bodies also can be treated as stimuli for the brain. Damasio hypothesizes that the sum total of CHANGES in our body as stimuli onto the brain is experienced as emotion.
      • In quantum theory, the order of stimulus and change-due-to-stimulus is reversed. In classical reality, a stimulus changes the state of a system, a new state coming to be after the stimuli. In quantum theory, the order is reversed. A “state” before stimulus, in not a fixed set of values for variables, but a probability distribution of a great many potential discrete states. The stimuli (or observation) select just one “state” from the distribution, and that is what the result of measurement is. Immediately after, the system expands again into a probability distribution of many potential states. The basic nature of quantum reality are interfering probability distributions (waves) punctuated by many collapses to temporary discrete states. The cosmology of this remains highly controversial.
      • I speculate that human societal reality (the sum of all reports) is also of this nature. Each report (writing and reqding) selects one “reality”, temporarily. All possible “realities”, as partly described by reports, “exist” as potential – but with different probabilities (related to the relative number of persons knowing of the report). This is a very crude “theory”. In today’s nomenclature, all reports are “fake”, but “true” to the authors.
      • I speculate that human creative agency occurs ONLY as emergent patterns in the brain, that are NOT responses to stimuli. The whole brain “shifts” between two distinct configurations, which is experienced as an insight. After such an “inner” shift, the state of the brain may be in position to respond differently from the “determined” response expected (if without the creative insight). I have no ideas about the nature of our creative agency. Does it exist for groups, independent of the individual group members? Does it change as one grows? Did this agency begin with the Big Bang, or did it emerge during our Universe’s evolution? How might it have “worked” to make the our Sun’s and Moon’s subtended arcs the same, so as to provide total solar eclipses to stimulate premature interest in “science”?
      • “Quantum systems” can shift between two distinct states without having to transform continuously between them. Creative insights may be such shifts in our brains, probably at molecular as well as neuronal levels. Might humankind, as a whole, make such massive shifts? Possibly, but I don’t think such a shift will save us. More, I grok that once we are underway with Up2Met, we may encounter such shifts. We may not be aware of such shifts, as our memories may also shift.
      • None of these speculation may be our reality. Yet, they give me support for the possibility of the magnitude/scope/complexity (msc) of the changes we need.
      • Up2Met is an emergent conceptual scheme of msc beyond any other conceptual scheme I am aware of. I don’t experience Up2Met; it is the unconscious context of my thinking.
    • Linda 9/7/17
      • Hi Larry: I don’t have time to read all the posts, but honestly at the quantum level in terms of human systems, you are leaving out the importance that ‘meaning’ plays, which is huge. Especially ‘collective meaning’.  Bohm used to say (and I think it is his most important insight that he contributes to social change) that a change in meaning is a change in being.
      • So, if we want to transform ourselves, we need to all agree to a new meaning around how we can move forward (I’m thinking climate change here, but it could be about the monetary system or anything else that fundamentally affects every single one of us). That is why getting people into Dialogue about core assumptions is so key to making change in our world.  We can’t do it by ourselves, but when we all agree to a new meaning about something, it deeply impacts the actions we take which then changes the world.  And, I don’t think we ALL have to agree, but there obviously needs to be a large and important % of us or at least those in a position of some power to make change happen.
      • Life is not deterministic, please.
    • Jason 9/7/17
      • Apropos of meaning, even the language I think in affects my thought. Subtle at times, yet when vigilant of it, it becomes apparent.
    • Linda 9/7/17
      • It is so subtle that it is mostly overlooked and have felt most of my life that I have been swimming upstream, but hey, as far as I can tell, meaning lies at the very root of what we humans co-create together, so it has never been off my radar, even when I turn to other ventures.
    • Nirmalan 9/7/17
      • Any idea as to how a change in meaning can be consciously brought about…?
    • Linda 9/7/17
      • Well, first you have to get people’s attention back to being engaged citizens again. The right has so dismantled our democratic infrastructure that people feel hopeless or are simply not engaging in politics any more. But, I do feel that we are close to a crisis of some impact that will throw enough people out of work that suddenly they will realize they have to DO something about the situation we are all finding ourselves in right now politically.
        Then, there can be some potential for something like citizen dialogue again that can from the grass-roots eventually cement itself into another reform movement like what we’ve seen before during the years of FDR, etc.
      • I’m right now very focused on what is called “community rights” work. I’m getting involved as I write this with an organization that is forming out of Paul Cienfuego’s many years of community rights work. You can google community rights US and find the web-site.
      • You can also look at the web-site of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund. I think I sent links awhile back to their online democracy school’s videos on the subject. Very promising arena for changing consciousness around our  many wicked problems.
      • Once local communities begin the waking up process, people like myself, knowledgeable about Dialogue and Deliberation methods can help communities make the shift to new ways of organizing ourselves…at least that is my current hope.
      • Always open to other ways of thinking about all of this, but this my best thinking right now after a long summer of reading and reflection. Currently, reading a great book by Nichols and McChesney called “Get Ready”…it outlines the history and is optimistic about the future, though it will be many years of a lot of social transformation work to be sure.
    • Nirmalan 9/7/17
      • Has the story of our world got anything to do with it…?
      • I mean…if we change the story…will the meaning change…?
      • …for example if we stop trying to “be good” and go to heaven…will we start doing things differently…..?
    • Stan 9/8/17
      • Hi Everyone…
      • It’s my theory that the changes we wish for are already happening… The Internet is a big source of change in human interaction and will make a much more RAPID change in societies than did the invention of the printing press, or broadcast media.
      • The Internet will bring forth the “Age of Helpfulness.” (not just the Age of Aquarius).   See my theory on “Level 2 Social Media” which will ultimately take full advantage of the coming “Web 3.0” technology by applying “artificial intelligence” to the process of people helping other people.
      • In other words, some people will form an ever more self-aware nervous system for humanity and more and more people will come to understand the blessings of connectedness and, yes, ultimately helpfulness will dissipate destructive behaviors caused by fear and hate.
      • It might take more than a week or a month.
      • Oh, I forgot to mention that before Helpfulness can fix everything, we have to figure out how to avoid killing off all life on Earth… Yes… there’s that… 
    • Linda 9/8/17
      • That’s the main thing, I agree, except by the time that people wake up to that fact of climate change, it will be basically too late. It may already be. But even our feeble attempt here to create meaning together is a tiny step in the right direction.  And, yes, the world needs a new story.   Our democracy needs a new story which is what will start to push our political parties again to the left and a more humane-based world…but who knows if the environment can wait long enough for us to make this transition.  It is all one big lottery bet at this point.
    • Tom Greco 9/8/17
      • That Nature smiles at the union of freedom and equality in our utopias. For freedom and equality are sworn and everlasting enemies, and when one prevails the other dies. Leave men free, and their natural inequalities will multiply almost geometrically, as in England and America in the nineteenth century under laissez-faire. To check the growth of inequality, liberty must be sacrificed, as in Russia after 1917. Even when repressed, inequality grows; only the man who is below the average in economic ability desires equality; those who are conscious of superior ability desire freedom, and in the end superior ability has its way.
      • Will and Ariel Durant, The Lessons of History, 1968
      • Is that true? If so, what is the missing element that has the power to provide the happy balance?
      • I found this quote on a long-winded blog post that Christopher Quigley referred me to:
    • Tom Atlee 9/8/17
      • Freedom and Equality are interacting, mutually engaging polarities, not a tension we can just solve by choosing one over the other or by balancing for all time. The balancing effort must be ongoing. Nature (including human and social nature) provide an ongoing rough balance, but that approach may involve a lot of unnecessary pain and suffering.  Consciously managing the balance can minimize the downside and optimize the shifting benefit to all aliveness in the system – but we have to learn how and develop the skills and mindfulness to pull it off….
      • See Polarity Management 
    • Linda 9/8/17
      • balancing freedom and equality….but I ask freedom for whom? If the elite classes want freedom to do as they please through through unchecked capitalism, it isn’t freedom for the rest of us with all the environmental mess and growing inequality involved. But, the two polls do indeed need to be in some conscious balance.  We are way out of balance right now, obviously.
    • Nirmalan 9/8/17
      • Equitable freedom.
      • Not all want the same stuff to do the same thing…
      • So its freedom to do ones things which is uniquely different from the thing others want to do…
      • Its far more complex than this…but that takes time to explain…
    • Michel Bauwens 9/8/17
      • this may be of interest to some here and confirms Stan’s intuition about the speed of social change, we uncovered a tenfold increase of urban commons in the city of Ghent, which mirrors the general situation in western and southern Europe, perhaps less so the East, after consultation and four months of inquire, we proposed a new institutional design for public-commons cooperation for the city of Ghent in the Flanders:
      • Urban commons, as the fourth wave of commoning (after natural resources, social commons and knowledge commons), are based on the self-organization, sharing of resources, reciprocity arrangements, (re)generative market functions that are commons friendly, and ‘commons accords’ with supportive administrations where they exist.
    • Michel Bauwens 9/8/17
      • Thomas,
      • this is definitely not true, unless you mean the freedom to extract and exploit ? freedom is dependent on equality, and a lack of equalithy destroys the freedom of the many
    • Linda 9/10/17
      • Hi Michael: This is an amazing report you sent us around the urban commons in Ghent. I was entirely unaware of this development in Europe.  Very exciting.  Are there people in the US following this development who you know?  I’m going to send it to the head of the US Transition Town organization as I’m trying to set up a time to talk with her anyways.  She might know.  This is a remarkable development if it just sort of sprung up and now the government is adapting to it.
    • Albert 9/10/17
      • See Niklas Luhman: ‘Autopoietic Social Systems’ as developed from Maturana and Varela 🙂
    • Larry to Jason 9/4/17 long (with many url links: )
      • Jason, when composing this I got carried away creating links. I don’t expect you to even look at most. The links to posts in my blog are long, but they provide other examples of my attempts to share and how difficult it has been. I am on a temp computer and spellchecking doesn’t appear to be working for this wordprocessor in Thunderbird.
      • When I finished writing that “latest set of replies”, I felt that it might be one of the best “summaries” I have written. I have attempted hundreds. I am pleased you also agree. What I must do is develop “measures of comprehension” to assess the levels of your (& other’s) comprehension of Up2Met. To me, “comprehension” is externally assessed by comparison with a “standard conceptual scheme” (for Up2Met, as I would query you). In contrast, to me, “understanding” is a personal level of “satisfaction”, a willingness to bring “closure” to learning “more”. Understanding is never a measure of comprehension.
      • I imagine the process of emergence being a cycling of the design/engineering of SCAFFOLDING and the FLOWING of spontaneous, collective behavior within the scaffolding. Sometimes Scripting/Performing cycles. Learning can be integrated into the scaffolding (e.g., curricula). Scaffolds can be revised for the next team, and even tuned during flowing. Your analogy is apt, but involving many cycles of engineering and flow.
      • I favor “exploratory engineering”, as used by Eric Drexler. {From my archives, 12/12/15}: “InMyAnalysis, science and technology are siblings; tech is not applied science – but it does apply science, and science uses tech. However, technology has its own dyanmics, distinct from science. I recently was reminded of Eric Drexler’s distinction between normal and EXPLORATORY engineering. I don’t believe a well financed project involving currently “established” scientists, historians, etc. will be able to transcend their siloing and necessary conservative behavior in their “disciplines” (re Foucault in Discipline and Punish).  I also think back on Gregory Bateson’s fiasco, in his attempt to gather the best minds to consider the ecological impact of human consciousness. The antics of experts at Bateson’s conference, in Europe, was satired by Arthur Koestler in his The Call Girls. The Bateson conference is described and analyzed in detail by Gregory’s daughter, Mary Catherine – who attended and recorded the conference in her book, Our Own Metaphor: A Personal Account of a Conference on the Effects of Conscious Purpose on Human Adaptation. Gregory and Mary Catherine visted Arthur after the conference, which Koestler had declined to attend because he was hosting his own Alpbach Symposium on Beyond Reductionism, which he wanted Gregory to attend.”
    • It appears I wrote this blog post on 05/10/17, but a few months ago, and had totally forgotten. It came up when I searched my blog for “Koestler”. In another search of my blog, I discovered this long forgotten and long doc where I touch upon many of the issue mentioned above, as I attempted to share Up2Met with Linda. Another, attempting to share Up2Met with David. Another with David Braden, with whom I have dialoged on this for more than 10 years, without sharing comprehension. Yet, we continue. All others have important ideas and ask very important questions – but never about the prsctical processes or possible scenarios involved in Up2Met. We have enjoyable and rewarding dialog. But, at 82, I still await hearing “I get it, what should WE do?”
    • Jason, based on my poor memory, you appear to comprehend the “practical” aspects of my ideas, more than anyone else. Many “sense” I am proposing “big changes”, but seem unable to even ask me concrete questions, as you have. My indicator of initial comprehension is a person requesting to devote a little time (a few hours per week) attempting to comprehend more, and beginning to assist me in sharing with others and eventually launching Up2Met as an emergent human system.
    • Organizing and editing my writings is a Learning Expedition for the first team in Up2Met. It is a task well beyond my competencies to undertake alone. This is NOT for my heritage; I have no interest in my being historical. I believe my archive contains some unique insights and ideas essential for our survival/thrival.
    • I anticipate most of those doing the hard work will be young persons who have not yet committed to a lifelong cause or profession. For those already full-time engaged and committed, I imagine them initially serving as a “board of directors”. Once Up2Met’s participant population begins to expand exponentially, I anticipate every participant will be significantly changing life-styles.

Jason, I send this only to you, at this time. I don’t want others to misinterpret my claims that they don’t, yet, comprehend Up2Met; although many have expressed this explicitly


The deep purpose of our approach with North Korea
may be to cause a small nuclear war that will
deter the economic expansion of China.

It has been argued that WWI & WWII were permitted, even encouraged to occur, by those “powerful forces” who would gain from the war; and who would not be effected by the losses. There are those who gain from every war, and would do so again, even considering the losses of others.  For some, war is a tool.

Perpetrators of False Flag actions bear the cost, but they are done for a much greater gain – for themselves.

China’s global economic expansion may fail, and internally China may collapse. China’s political/economic systems are different, but not necessarily better (in the long run) or worse than the USA’s systems. China and the USA will be in greater and greater competition.

A limited nuclear exchange, wiping out both Koreas, would be like a global 9/11 False Flag. Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) kept the nukes at bay during the cold war. Talk by some of the Deep State planning preemptive nuclear attacks on Russia (and China) is mad, and conflicts the the logic of MAD. MAD would avoid a nuclear holocaust after the destruction of The Koreas (and possibly some of Japan). Even a nuke attack on one USA city would be “worth the cost” of preserving USA dollar hegemony.

Trump’s rants against North Korea are playing into this game, but Trump is not the architect and may not be in on the intent. Who are Trump’s real handlers, that is the primary question? North Korea won’t start it – their actions are strictly defensive, via MAD. A false flag event, blamed on NK, would be an excuse to attack them, and NK would return fire, destroying SK.

The primary purpose of this would be the destabilization of China, blocking China’s further globalization and forcing China to withdraw from many of their global adventures. MAD would keep China and the USA from exchanging nukes. Specifically how this would weaken China remains the weak link in this speculative scenario. Radioactive fallout on China might be catastrophic and might trigger internal revolts.

This plot may not be fully successful for the plotters in the USA. But, in their limited ideological thinking, they may not anticipate failure.

In the late 1950s, I published an article in The Minority of One journal, titled: “War with China, Now or Later?”  This was my take on the USA’s increasing interest in SE Asia (before the official start of The Vietnam War). I was wrong, then. I hope I am wrong now.

A False Flag Happening Elevates Trump to “Dictator”.

The Donald will not be in on the planning, but may be informed of it shortly before it happens. The Donald is but a tool of his handlers (who are NOT most of those around him in the WH and DC). The Donald will be a figure head (to keep his large base active). He will continue to be disruptive, so long as his disruptions enable his handlers to do as they had planned. When The Donald is of no more use to his handlers he will be “removed” in a way that will not anger his diehard supporters.

Pundits, of the political spectrum from Alt-Right to Progressive, all think in the context of continuing processes within the current institutional systems of the USA, with some variations. Today, the “talk” is about GOP challengers to Trump in 2020. I can’t imagine Trump remaining POTUS nearly that long. How he leaves or is removed, has many options. Nor, will (weak) hopes that “all will return to normal” likely to happen.

The FRAGMENTATION (well beyond polarization), reinforced by the siloing potential of the new media, is destined to continue. Many talk about expecting “things happening”, where there are no longer
mechanisms/process/structures needed for those things to happen.

Pundits focus on the polls that ONLY 1/3 of Americans STRONGLY support Trump. I wager very, very few of polled encounter negative information about Trump that they don’t immediately classify as fake or fraud. 1/3 ideologically blind followers is a SCARY FORCE. The militias and the emergent Alt-Right organizations are there to organize and train the “new troops”. I expect there are already systems to organize this 1/3 into a revolutionary force, should Trump be impeached or assassinated, or other wise removed from office. They may have local and state police forces behind them. The military will be divided. The USA, as we know it, will cease to exist. Much is already gone.

We cannot assume that Mueller’s Investigation, or the congressional investigations will eventually remove Trump, or that the GOP will lose control in the next elections. There are no hard and fast rules, anymore. The courts are rapidly being packed. What might be the consequences of a cyber attack shutting down our electrical grid? Could Trump (and handlers) be stopped declaring an emergency and assuming  top executive powers? There is nothing in our Constitution for “Restarting America”.

It is now clear the the 911 downing of the twin towers catalyzed the many changes in the USA since. If one examines ALL the reports about 911, there can be only one conclusion: it was a False Flag to produce the changes in the USA that followed. The details of the “plotters and players” have yet to be worked out. The plotters weren’t any formal parts of the USA; thus not an “inside job”, in the normal sense. But, persons who worked in USA orgs were part of the plot, as well as global participation. The coverup was part of the plot. Many of these persons are still alive, and their conspiratorial organizations still in existence. However, the current “plotters and players” remains unknown – related to the neocons and neoliberals. A competitive “plotters & players”, behind The Trump Phenomenon, may be [BRICS+] .

WHEN? Any time. As long as the plot is “winning” (according to their expectations) the false flag event will probably be delayed. An approaching impeachment might or might not trigger the false flag. It depends on Pence and other criteria – such as how the military and intelligence agencies would “swing”. They could live with, even benefit from another 911. What is coming is too uncertain. There would be parts of the military and agencies that would resist.

I don’t know how Pence and most of the GOP fit into this story. Pence may be made an offer he couldn’t refuse.

WILD CARD. The military execute a peaceful coup and organize a new election.

Climate Change Denial (CCD)
is more dangerous than Nazis, Mafias, Serial Killers

Climate Change Denial quite literally threatens the future life of humanity and is ensuring massive suffering. The behavior of human backers of CCD (Deniers, persons who participate in the societal phenomenon: Denial) may be more “civil” and less “crude” than the “evil killers of persons” of the past. Indeed, “civilization” depends on the “civility” of elite leaders in their cooperation and coordination in suppressing and exploiting “the masses”. Yet, assassinations and coups were frequent.

makes populations suffer.
CCD denies humankind
the THRIVAL it has earned.

Populations rose up to defend themselves against viscous enemies before. Why are those who fear the catastrophic effects of Climate Change so damn passive? And, here I include myself.

Read: Climate Warming Denial and the Limits of Free Speech.

I treat DEATH, my own and that of most others, as NOT EMOTIONALLY REAL. The threat is not immediate – except for those trapped in disasters, but they experience a flood. No one EXPERIENCES Climate Change. Climate Change – as a long-term PROCESS – cannot be EXPERIENCED.

If CCD hadn’t existed, and humankind had begun taking measures a few decades ago (when CC became a scientific reality) MANY deaths would have been avoided, many trillions of dollars saved, many disasters lessened, fewer displaced persons, and probably a more peaceful planet. Life would still be a major challenge.

Climate Change isn’t the kind of phenomenon that directly “causes” specific happenings, such as floods. Floods and CC are different classes of phenomena. But, CCD and the collective impact of CC on Earth are of the same class. CCD is the cause of many human deaths, much human suffering, great economic loss, tragic environmental destruction and literally threatens the extinction of humankind.

We have the obligation to STOP CCD in its track, with any viable means. How, is our challenge. NOTE: this is distinct from stopping CC and recovering. This is a human-human challenge, with the same seriousness as if your house were invaded by ISIS recruits or you were kidnapped for ransom.

These are not evil persons; but they commit evil acts.  They must be stopped, but not with vengeance or hatred. Every human behaves consistent with their experienced wrld, and believe their actions are justified. White supremacists believe in their “scientific evidence” for the inferiority of non-white “races”and feel justified defending themselves. Climate Change Deniers experience wrlds where their “evidence” confirms that Climate Change Activists are part of a deep plot, and it is their obligation to defend their world against these hoaxers.


Many, competent futures oriented persons, seeking fundamental change, remain locked in the transFORMation episteme/paradigm. That is, the new will come about only by modification of the old, or contemporary. It is process that is ideologically locked in, not goal. The new FORM, of whatever, can be very radically different from the prior form. It is that the process must act on the old, change it incrementally, preserving continuity. I just had an insight to use The Discovery of the Americas as a possible analog for an alternative to transFORMation: Emergence.

Was the United States a transformation of Europe, or the emergence of a new country? Initially, the States, before united, we different as the European States were different. Analogies are never perfect. Other countries and peoples influenced the American Emergence. Many, many features of European societies were incorporated into the colonies – and as “colonies”, they were intended as extensions of the motherland – a tranformational growth. But, that is only one interpretation. What emerged in North America was quite different from what was continuing to develop in Europe; and happenings in The Americas influenced Europe’s continuing transformations.

The isolation of The Americas contributed to the weakness of interference from Europe, and enabled new processes to emerge. However, there never was any intention of the “colonists” to create a radically new episteme. They wanted to be “free” from European control, but to preserve the “Best of Europe”. The “unoccupied” land to the west encouraged very early IMPERIALIASM, which has continued long after the 50 States were “unified”. This “imperialism” is paradigm propensity in all human systems; that within NU will be suppressed.

NU is my name for a new “continent” in digital spacetime. It can be constructed and maintained to be quite isolated from material societies and mainstream digital spacetime. However, this independence has yet to be significantly explored. Most of the past/contemporary emergence of new Sci/Tech is “organic” and not designed or engineered. Once “mature and established”, Sci/Tech is often engineered and limited.

An emergent NU will not be demanding of high energy, and can usually piggyback on the digital technology of the old order. This may take some creativity, and there will always be a danger of being shut off. With the rise of renewal energy sources and nu food production systems, Nu can be relatively independent of major economic and financial systems. So long as NU makes no attempt to convert other systems, it might be left alone until it is too powerful to stop.  Nu might even make itself indispensable to existing systems, faced with climate disasters.

The primary resource for NU are competent and creative human persons, motivated to create a new social/societal system, NU. Their basic needs can be greatly reduced compared to the high consumption societies. They can earn purchase power in the existing economy for needs available only there. They can organize planetary in cyberspace, without requiring a geographical homeland. Members can live either among other humans, or within communal settings. They probably will require periodic, extended retreats.

The human Sci/Tech now exists to seaf the spread of NU among the planetary population, exponentially growing and organizing. The will have their own internal & experimental economic/financial subsystems, fully independent from established systems. Members of NU can interact with established systems.

Whereas the relative isolation of The Americas seafed their independent emergence, so the relative isolation of NU would seaf its independent emergence.

There are many scenarios for the ultimate transition to NU. Insect metamorphosis is another metaphor for emergence vs transformation.