I contribute another META view, which is what I end up doing to all my email responses. There are many categories/styles of response – all important to the collective.
Michel’s reference to a larger context, to the highly detailed exploration of one domain given by John, triggered me to think, again, of the “fractal-like-nature” for the structure of the “space of conceptual schemes”.
“interesting, but it goes only so far, as network/complexity models eliminate subjectivity/intersubjectivity, ie. depth, intention, awareness, personal and social history, richard lewontin is good on this.” — Michel Bauwens
However, until I read John’s many cited papers (which I can’t) and analyze Michel’s distinctions, I can’t claim that Michel’s and John’s perspective don’t overlap.
There is software that permits visual exploration of a simulated fractal space. I am pissed, but recognize that what disturbs me is just what I am trying to talk about. Using online search I am unable to find a url that permits navigation into a classical fractal, Mandelbrot_Set. This is a simple zoom, not navigable. It has been a few years, during which an explosion of static art of patterns are displayed as “fractals”, which they are NOT, FRACTALS. The origins of this movement are now hidden. Can someone provide the proper urls? My difficulty is, in part, due to the “negative” tweaking of search algorithms.
ALL ALGORITHMS ARE DICTATORIAL.
FRACTAL-LIKE: Infinite zooming, but the structures at different levels can be different, in ways. If we zoomed by “spatial size” from galactic clusters to quark arrangements, we would find, not only different patterns, but different “laws” governing those patterns. We don’t yet have the requisite software (to my knowledge). VUE, Visual Understanding Environment, is the closest I have encountered, which may require some tweaking to make it fractal-like.
Consider John’s and Michael’s conceptual schemes as two nodes. John’s node is a component node, in the network-of-nodes of Michael; which is itself a component node in a “larger” network-of-nodes. This language is only metaphor. Every node is a shell for a network of nodes “within”. Every network of nodes is “itself” a node, in a larger network. But, the structure/laws for each network, in the holarchy, need not be the same.
It gets much more complex. Any node, in any holon in the holarchy, could be “linked” to any other node anywhere else in the holarchy. The holarchical “tree” transforms into a “hyper-network” A wild/improbable example: a circuit of neurons in one brain may be linked to a community of humans, at another place and time.. This is now proposed for the “Tree of Life” into the “Network of Life”, as whole genomes can be shared across species & families, etc. This might be thought as conceptual entanglement.
========== continued on my blog
SYSNETS, is an additional twist. Networks can conceived to be the “core conceptual skeleton” for related/linked components of systems. Systems arise through constraints on the interaction of nodes in a network.
It is important to remember, that ALL we are talking about, are patterns in “wrlds” of human mind/brains, from which we personally/individually (but, within collectives) share in our semfields. So-called “objective reality” might not include many distinctions, which are part of our human contribution.
Individual humans are all limited by how much of the above can be “consciously experienced in the moment”. Obviously, from my writing this, this must be a structure in “nuet”. I, Larry, can’t navigate this conceptual reality, even though it can exist, potentially, in nuet (and others).
DISCOURSE: Horizontal & Vertical
Almost all human discourse is “horizontal” (t the same level), or “vertical” to only one or two levels. More “vertical” discourse requires new apps and collective semfields, well beyond the mishmash of MSM to scientific journals. We can never expect most humans to be highly competent in vertical discourse (as not being highly competent in most dimensions of competence). But (1) all must respect all levels of honest discourse and (2) meta (vertical) discourse is not MORE important than other discourse, BUT is essential as part of “the whole”. We need dancers, painters, poets, musicians, logicians, mathematicians, mothers, farmers, etc. – and persons skilled in vertical/meta discourse.
Whatever creative work we may do at the horizontal level or within a narrow vertical level can be quickly rendered moot by changes in the contexts at higher vertical levels. The COSMOS doesn’t appear to “protect individuals” (personal or ideological systems), even when “right” from “our perspective”. Both “good” persons and ideas can suddenly “die”.
WHAT MIGHT BE THE PRACTICALITY OF META DISCOURSE?
To adequately respond to this query (more than a question, seeking an answer and closure) we might begin to explore other DOMAINS, independent of UPLIFT and Up2Met. These are “related” to UPLIFT and Up2Met, in that they may be essential to their actualization. Whether they are relevant/essential is unknown.
****** Larry/nuet needs critical feedback on these domains. ****
(1) actualizing Up2Met
UPLIFT & Up2Met are rough sketches of complex conceptual schemes. To make these emergent manifest requires we go beyond conceptualization. It will involve practical design & management of changing human systems far beyond any prior.
For example: the art/science for preparing human systems to perform in a set of possible/projected future situations. will be an essential process to create. And, every person must, eventually, be open to “truly fundamental” change. Today, we are all caterpillars, climbing on twigs and eating leaves. Tomorrow, we will be butterflies, beautiful and agile, flying from flower to flower. Yet, we will all be reluctant to give-up being a caterpillar.
There must be much greater 3C (Communication, Cooperation, Coordination) between different holon levels in emergent humanity, far beyond what exists in humankind.
(2) wrlds vs worlds | HR vs MR
Human Reality (HR) is radically different from Material Reality (MR).
Every human is a hallucinating wrld, deluded into believing they are individual persons in a common, objective world.
These lead to a epistemic shift that (1) provides useful insights about the strange trends in contemporary humankind, and (2) provides useful insights as to what emergent humanity can become and accomplish.
This is a super-radical challenge. This new hypothesis must be critiqued and expanded/improved. How to use these ideas to design action, and how to move others to embrace this new episteme is a challenge of cosmic proportions. Yet, humankind has suppressed potentials of cosmic proportions (which needs to be researched and revealed).
(3) “time” is not one dimensional.
This is the most “far out”, yet – if recognized and explored, might yield the most progress. Alt-time concepts have been a strong interest since high school, and have influenced my PhD research. Yet, none of my “practical” proposals depend on new discoveries about time.
“Reality” may be “projected” by humans on a linear time coordinate system, for the “evolution” of: the physical universe, Gaia, ecologies, species, humankind, and the life of each organism. Considering “leakage” of information “forward and back” on this linear dimension would be a limited attempt to explain “strange” details from our linear perspective. This new “reality” would more optimally be considered within a “temporal texture” context, with our conventional linear time be one “cross-section” or “projection”. Feedpast Bootstrapping, is a possible process I am exploring, that distinguishes life from non-life. The “sponge-like” structure for galaxy distribution in our cosmological universe (films with a high density of galaxies surrounding vast volumes of empty space) hints to a “biological-growth-like” process. Dark matter and energy may be “projections” from other temporal perspectives.