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: http://epsilontheory.com/narrative/before-and-after-the-storm/.
    • 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
      • ..to 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

Author: nuet

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

0 comments