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

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

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


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


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

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



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

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

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

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

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


For example:

* Are  there independently authenticated photos taken during the meeting?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Some texts require
beyond simple reading.

Economic Models & Value Systems – a nu look

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

The two missing features are:

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

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

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


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

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




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


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

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


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

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

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

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

MY CONTRAST – Alt Perspective

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

Freedom for Humanity involves three essential features:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

QUERY: Leadership & Power in Human Systems

? POWER in Human Systems ?

This is a QUERY, seeking exploration; not a question seeking answers.

How do dictators rule? The lack of satisfactory explanations periodically bothers me. What is the psycho-dynamics that leads large populations to “worship” and “obey” some leaders?  How does the conceptual scheme labeled “celebrity” relate to this query? How might this be related to parent-child relationships and sibling relationships?

No single human can rule without full compliance from their close cohorts; so how can one person gain such support? Why does the myth of a single dictator persist?

“Human Nature” is not an explanation, it simply labels the topic of our query.  Today we are confronted by Trump and Putin, and in our recent past by Hitler and Stalin.

An alternative to Individual Power is Countervailing Power Sources, where “power” is continually being “negotiated” between different “players”. Individual power need not be “dictatorial”, but having a range of “influence”.

I remember being once informed that Tolstoy, in War and Peace, explored these alternative perspectives. Why this stuck with me, and if it is valid, remain queries.

Do we need to examine what we mean by “alternative”? Are they mutually exclusive or complementary, or comprise a “complementarity”?


that, “alternatives” within HUMANKIND
are “real”, in the same sense that
potential quantum states are “real”
(before the collapse of the wave function)?

comprise a particle/field-like COMPLEMENTARITY
within the unique “science” of

that, there is no EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
backing up the “science” of humankind?

that, there are no FACTS in the
Pictures, Stories, Scenarios, Conceptual Schemes
of humankind.

that, Video recordings of “social events”
are incomplete and lack context.

that, the psychology behind decisions
is never empirical, yet essential
to our comprehension of a “social event”.


BRIEF: humankind is the emergent dance of brains and semfields;
an additional reality superimposed on the material reality of physics.

Actions of humankind don’t violate the laws of material reality; but these actions are not “determined” by events in material reality.

In metaphor, humankind is a self-creating musical composition emergent with a material orchestra of musical instruments. The instruments may limit, but not determine, the music played.

Contemporary humans confuse this critical distinction between humankind and material reality. They attribute “objectivity” to their own thoughts about “human systems”. They further claim that many others are “in error” when reporting their observations as “objective”.

The Trump Phenomenon, globally in 2016-17, strongly hints to a breakdown of this delusion (the objectivity of humankind) within humankind: although not so comprehended by most human persons.

Alt-facts and alt-realities are discussed in the MSM. MSNBC and FOX display the very same video recordings as “evidence” for radically conflicting so-called “objective stories”.

nuet’s take:

  1. There is an accelerating, radical shifting in the emergence of humankind, that is not determined by the critical state of material reality (resulting from negative consequences on Gaia from unexpected humankind “successes”). Earth Changes (well beyond Climate Change) comprise an “objective” context, both limiting and enhancing this shifting in emergence. The confusion and dysfunctions within humankind renders it incapable of meeting the challenges it has accidentally created for itself.
  2. Humankind not only has the full potential to shift their emergence toward viable survival/thrival, but that potential is exponentially growing.
  3. Humankind’s current “configuration” blocks actualization of these potentials. The “objective configuration” of contemporary humankind is radically different from what diverse humans comprehend “themselves to be”.
  4. There exist viable routes towards survival/thrival for humankind. Unfortunately, these are outside the ability of most humans to comprehend – from their current cognitive states.
  5. These cognitive states cannot be changed by the best of our contemporary processes: education and dialog.
  6. Humankind’s advances in “computerized digital technology” provides the POTENTIAL media for effective (seafed) “transformation/emergence” of human systems. However, the current levels and configuration of this digital technology (orientated towards control and econo-centrism) blocks the creations of requisite systems and apps.
  7. Up2Met is nuet’s current label for a conceptual scheme as context for the emergence of nu  pictures/scenes/stories/scenarios for the whole of humankind to survive/thrive its Crisis-of-Crises, in a few decades – dodging the “climate change bullet”.

This “HUMAN ENTERPRISE” will not “naturally emerge” from contemporary humankind. It must be a temporally extended system of human actions, with intentional creativity, of a Magnitude/Scope/Complexity (MSC) far, far beyond that imagined by the best of our visionaries – and beyond the current level of comprehension by most human persons. This is why the initial focus is on UPLIFTING the distribution of knowledge/competencies of the global human population.

Only a radically enhanced, uplifted humankind can lead itself through the necessary Cultural/Societal Metamorphosis, from humankind (caterpillar) to humanity (butterfly).

Are we (humans) the gift of Cosmos to Gaia, for our multi-billennial future? See:  Nu Genesis.

Serendipity & Synchronicity with Quantum Night

A few days ago (from 6/23/2017), on one of my escape-from-senility adventures, I reviewed the 614 books I had borrowed from the Tucson Public Library over the past few years.  I was reminded of authors I valued highly and searched to discover any new writings. Three authors of speculative fiction stood out: Robert Sawyer, David Brin, and Daniel Suarez. I ordered one recent book by each from the library. I just finished Quantum Night by  Robert Sawyer. This coincidence, the close serendipity and synchronicity, with my own imagining and our accelerating global Crisis-of-Crises, at this time was exciting.

Quantum Night was first published in March 2016, when Trump was but a GOP primary candidate for POTUS; and viewed as a “joke” by many. POTUS in Quantum Night (2020) is a psychopath, eerily similar to The Donald. The multiple crises in Sawyer’s 2020 are potential forecasts for our real reality, on into the 21st Century.

Sawyer reports his intention, in writing this novel, was to alert “us” (humankind, in my terminology) of the deep reality of our Dark Side. As an appendix, he lists 51 highly relevant books . I was aware of most of them, have read many – which are in my own list of relevant books for the survival/thrival of Humanity/Gaia.

I have read many of Sawyer’s prior novels and heard his keynote presentation in 2010, in Tucson, at the Science of Consciousness Conferences, held every other year since the 1994 (which I attended). I learned, from the book, of another presentation at the 2016 conference – where he likely spoke about Quantum Night. Unfortunately I have been unable to attend the more recent conferences because of their excessive cost – even with my living in Tucson.

It is obvious that Sawyer was influenced by the persons and ideas discussed, over many years, at these conferences. He makes specific reference, in the text of the novel, to David Chalmers, Stuart Hameroff, and Roger Penrose – and bases the scientific (quantum) hypothesis, in the novel, on their theoretical work on consciousness.  Within the novel are explicit references to the works of many other scientists, whose work attempts to better comprehend the complexity of “human nature”.

Yet, Robert Sawyer’s integration of these many discoveries and insights is masterful, as is his attempt to alert us the the reality of three basic human types: (Q1) Zombies (humans lacking consciousness, ala Chalmers, or simple S/R mechanisms), (Q2) Psychopaths (humans conscious, but without conscience), and (Q3) the “Quicks” (conscious with conscience) among us. I wonder on the data Sawyer consulted to arrive at his 4:2:1 contemporary ratio for these three fundamental  human types.

In my writings, I have attempted to alert others to the vast COGNITIVE DIVERSITY within humankind, for which the three types are very rough categories. I focus on the great diversity among the “Quicks”. Sawyer doesn’t attend to diversity within the three types. I also believe the three categories are more themes or threads that can occur in every human, at different times and in different circumstances and mixes (along with other relevant themes).

The three types are discrete, in the novel, due to their material association with three distinct states of quantum entanglement coherence in the micro-tubular structures within each neuron (an extrapolation of the “Orch OR” hypothesis by Hameroff and Penrose). The drama in the novel hinges on means to shift persons (and whole populations) between the three states.  Of all the novelist scientific extrapolations (acknowledged by Sawyer), I find this the most unlikely – but also necessary for the novel’s drama.

Sawyer, having his primary characters, in Quantum Night, exist (at different times) in all three types is a insightful way to illustrate the differences between the types. How his characters relate to each other between their state differences (and similarities), and how they thought of themselves having been in other states – was well done.  Also of merit, is his weaving in issues of Utilitarianism, Ethics, and Free Will.

The novel’s ending was not satisfying to me, but he could hardly have done differently – within the context of a novel. Miraculous, heroic, individual human intervention, AGAIN, saves humankind from catastrophe. The future was left to emerge, seemingly without critical, human, creative, positive contribution – which is, unfortunately, typical of all longer-term futures thinking today. It is this paradox that my Up2Met model attempts to address.

I was also frustrated by leaving humankind with all the “Quicks”, now being psychopaths. Even if, now only 1 of 7 from 2 of 7, from their positions in societies they could do real damage. The prior “Quicks” were the most talented and competent in many disciplines, their creativity having been nurtured during their lifetimes. Prior Psychopaths, now having conscience, is hardly sufficient to assist humankind free itself from the systemic traps they have laid for themselves.

UPLIFTING the whole population, in many different domains of knowledge and competencies, remains – to me – a primary prerequisite in any successful transition. Why & how such a challenge is deemed so impossible, to be excluded from the imagination of the most imaginative, is my primary query.

Quantum Night was, and is, a scary concept. I also believe the Crisis-of-Crises we face is systemic, in the cognitive diversity of humankind whose minds are warped by the effects of their own creations. We literally and significantly are NOT who we think we are. We all have limitations, which within our delusion of superiority and exceptionalism, block us from doing what we have the potentials to do – were we to acknowledge and accept our limitations.

The Sci/Tech of humans and humankind, cited by Sawyer, reports many patterns – but there is no coherent theory/model of humankind – in its diversity and complexity. We transfer the successes of the Sci/Tech of material systems (without human persons as components) to the Sci/Tech of systems with human persons as key components, which is unfounded and dangerous.  Humankind requires a unique Sci/Tech, which I call Quman Physics.

In the context of Sawyers’ three types, our difficulties are not the result of Zombies or Psychopaths. We haven’t “fixed humankind”  because of the arrogance of the “Quicks” and their belief – in any era or culture – that they basically know reality. This may be the curse of “consciousness” (a phenomenon not yet adequately identified, let alone comprehended). Zombies and psychopaths continue to cause trouble because the type with the potential to “do the right things” don’t adequately attend to their own uplift.

However we might call or list those traits that have given humans the “advantage”, we have not yet had sufficient time to adapt to our own creativity and productivity. And, even with the few persons who accept the “fact” that our experienced wrlds are totally subjective (we experience and behave DIRECTLY from patterned neural-molecular activity in our brains/bodies); we can’t avoid behaving as if we directly perceive an objective world -THAT IS ALSO PERCEIVED SIMILARLY BY OTHERS (but who may interpret it differently). So, if others act strangely, it is because they are ignorant or deceptive.

Note: we never directly perceive others; we experience patterns in our brain/bodies that have been influenced by (hypothetical) energy signals from others onto our sensory organs. Some of the time, what we experience is sufficiently similar to what others “experience”, so as to have no problems.

Our brains worked well with the complexity of tribal life and environments. (1) Our brains haven’t evolved to meet our current needs (which is unlikely without DNA manipulation – for which we are not yet knowledgeable to perform correctly – even if we have the tools to do it) AND (2) We have yet to design/engineer/emerge learning/organizing systems to seaf (support, enable,augment, facilitate) our contemporary brains to work better together.

Some persons can be so influenced by their own internal contexts as to actually experience others as saints or ogres. This is the confused state of most humans unaware of the basics of psychology: what they experience is believed to be objectively real. This causes great difficulty when they think they actually “observe” “meta-things” such as governments and corporations.

Fortunately, humankind – with its emergent visual languages – have created patterns (information) independent of the material nature of the substrate on which the pattern is superimposed (written).  I call these sems (semiotic structures).  What is unique about sems (from all other “objects” or “figures of attention” in the hypothetical material world) is that by gestures and language diverse persons can come-to-agree that two patterns are identical (although they will always differ on their “meanings”). This is not the case for any other “percept” in the universe. Sems are the magical key to accuracy and precision in communication. We have to explore this strange phenomenon and learn to utilize it in guiding the future, multi-millennial emergence of Humanity/Gaia on Planet Earth.

THE FUSE IS LIT – will Project DRAWDOWN be sufficient?

The fuse has been lit,
the bomb has been readied –
but we still have time.

Time to do what?
Stopping the Bomb & Extinguishing the Fuse
they are only OBJECTIVES.

What must BE DONE to stop a bomb or extinguish a fuse?


Many decades ago I learned this distinction when writing and reviewing grant proposals. Some applications called for statements about both “objectives” and “operations” (strategies and procedures for achieving the objectives). Many applicants claimed that performing their operations, as proposed, was equivalent to achieving their objectives. Some granting agencies accepted this unconscious deception. The procedures may or may not yield the stated objectives, but not achieving objectives is also a valid scientific accomplishment – indeed, this is the most common result of scientific research. Accountants managing the grants appeared not able to comprehend this distinction.

Also important was specifically stating the Operational Measures to determine whether the objectives were achieved, or not. Again, that the operations were performed – with no reporting of results – was sometimes accepted as a successful project.


Most humans confuse “identifying a problem” with “proposing a solution”; a favorite among politicians, editorialists, and journalists.

Unfortunately, for many humans, hearing about an objective implies that a solution exists – and is known to the person stating the objective.

“Stopping Climate Change”
is another objective,
not an action or even a strategy.

Project Drawdown : The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming – is a very useful endevour. BUT, it is not a strategy of actions for addressing climate change. It is a very large list of viable objectives, if achieved, might collectively lead to the end of our Climate Change Threat.  It is also a powerful resource to inform others about the issues; which will contribute significantly to achieving the objective.

How to get persons and institutions to organize and work in collaboration so as to achieve these objectives is OUR primary challenge – in a highly dysfunctional mix of social/societal systems, often in denial of the need and many openly opposed to the proposed drawdowns.

The vast majority of the global human population is not yet competent to comprehend these objectives or have the skills to perform the requisite actions..

The fragmented communication/media systems existing today renders educating/organizing populations very difficult, if not impossible.

Even Naomi Klein’s This Changes Everything  assertion that humankind needs to transcend Capitalism (to avert Climate Change Disasters) is only an objective, not a proposed action or strategy.

It is the confusion of well stated objectives with viable action strategies (based on realities) that blocks progress. Action strategies (of the needed Magnitude/Scope/Complexity) require a Sci/Tech of human systems that, as yet, doesn’t exist.  The Sci/Tech of material systems, used in the Drawdown projects, are much more advanced, and sufficient to achieve their objectives. It is the task of motivating/training/guiding/organizing humans and human systems to actually perform these projects (beyond demonstrations) that is our primary challenge.

Project Drawdown is call for a script or choreography for a drama/dance, that if performed, would assist humankind surviving/thriving the challenges of our Crisis-of-Crises. But, it is NOT THE SCRIPT OR CHOREOGRAPHY. Nor does it help us know how to interest and train humans to do what is needed.

Only a Project UPLIFT, to systemically bootstrap the learning/organizing (OLLO) of human populations to the requisite knowledge/competencies to actually make manifest the many sub-projects in Project DRAWDOWN, can we be assured of a better future.

I let you to consider whether the trending shifts in political/economic perspectives and polices (from Trump/GOP in the USA to crises everywhere) gives you any confidence that Project DRAWDOWN will “fly”.

Project DRAWDOWN is a truly masterful production by highly talented and committed persons. Unfortunately, it may actually make “dodging the bullet of climate change” MORE DIFFICULT.   It will attract persons to become involved in these (important) projects, making it more difficult attracting others to support OLLO projects for Project UPLIFT (UP2Met).

It may be that the architects of Project DRAWDOWN are well aware of these issues and have objectives and strategies to meet these needs. The production of the book and online system for Project DRAWDOWN would be an wise initial task for a more comprehensive project involving how to seaf (support, enable, augment, facilitate) humans to actually, successfully design and implement Project DRAWDOWN.  But, Project DRAWDOWN will not necessarily lead to Project UPLIFT (which has its own rationale and contexts).

Kegan’s Theory of Development

Robert Kegan’s Theory of Human Development Randy G. Litchfield
Methodist Theological School in Ohio

Based on The Evolving Self (Cambridge: Harvard, 1982)


A person is as much an activity as a thing

People construct their realities; they are meaning making creatures

People move through periods of stability and change

People have two great yearnings that exist in life long tension:

To be included

To be independent


Development is evolutionary motion

Focuses on the changes in the way people differentiate between their sense of self and their environment–boundary issues

Development is a life long process of differentiation and integration

Movement to make meanings, resolve discrepancies, preserve and enhance personal integrity

Movement out of “embeddedness”

Development driven by responding to a complex world–encountering and resolving disequilibriums

Each stage of development is a theory of the previous stage

Development includes moving back and forth between inclusion and independence

Corrective to male/female dichotomies of development

We revisit issues but on new levels of complexity




Incorporative Self (Stage 0) Ending around age 2?

Self is: Reflexes (seeing, moving)

Self has: No separable objects to “have”

Child and environment appear to be extensions of one another

Ending of stage with permanence of objects

Impulsive Self (Stage 1) Ending between ages 5 and 7?

Self is: Impulses and perceptions

Self has: Reflexes (seeing, moving)

Reflexes are embedded in what coordinates them–perceptions and impulses

Only understand objects as they are presently perceived

Impulses acted upon because their is not a “self” developed to coordinate and control them–no ambivalence

Imperial Self (Stage 2) ending between 12 and 16?

Self is: Needs, interests, wishes

Self has: Impulses and perceptions

“Imperial” because there is an absence of a shared reality with others

Awareness of a private life–people don’t know what I’m thinking

Emergence of a self-concept, a consistent notion of “me”

I now have something to do with what happens in the world

Can’t imagine the feelings of other’s interior responses (empathy)

Only understand consequences of external behavior

What will happen if someone finds out

Others viewed in terms of meeting my needs, wishes, interests

Interpersonal Self (Stage 3)

Self is: Interpersonal, mutual with other people

Self has: Needs, interests, and wishes

Ability to negotiate my needs leads to mutuality

Enter into empathetic and reciprocal obligations

Person embodies many different voices

The self is the shared reality

Interpersonal but not intimate

“There is no self to share with another; instead the other is required to bring the self into being.”–You are the other needed to complete me

Not good with anger because it puts relationships at risk; instead feel sad, wounded or incomplete

Institutional Self (Stage 4)

Self is: Identity, “psychic administration,” ideology

Self has: Relationships with other people

Institutional as in regulating relationships; the self is an administrator of relations

Self-reflective of one’s roles, norms, and self-concept

Ideological state–Truth depends on a faction/class/group

Defensive when chaos threatens order/structure of the self

In Stage 3 the question is “Do you like me?”

In Stage 4 the question is “Does my government still stand?”

Interindividual Self (Stage 5)

Self is: A weaving of personal systems

Self has: Identity, “psychic administration,” ideology

I am not my work roles, career, duties; I have these but they are not me

Now there is a self who runs the organization

Understanding of the systems and groups that have shaped the person and of which the self is a part

Capable of seeking out information that causes changes in behavior

Capable of constructive negative judgements about oneself

Capable of intimacy because now there is a self one can give to others

Metaphors about the Shifts We Need

Brief metaphors about the magnitude of paradigm shifts we need:

The “vehicle” you are driving through life is having difficulty.
It will be critical whether you treat it analogous to a
CAR   or   HORSE.


What is “humankind”?
Are we using the appropriate “categories”?

What if “humankind”
doesn’t always function according to
the Laws of Logic & Physics?

What if everything everyone experiences
is part of Humankind.

“Objective Realities”
are conceptual, constructed/woven contexts
“created/emergent as maps”,
but always experienced within Humankind.

What the term, in our language, “Humankind” labels,
cannot be “defined” in a few paragraphs,
or even in a few books.

The “entity/meaning” (for “Humankind”) will emerge in our mind/brains
throughout our lives;
different “surfaces” for each,
but with a shared “essence”.

(Surfaces and Essences – Doug Hofstadter


This is NOT a shift to “consciousness/spiritual” perspectives.
It is a meta shift, transcendent of the duality of the
Material (matter/energy) vs Transcendent (mind/spirit).
Human REASONING will apply to both.

REASONing is a process of dialog,
with self or with others,
seeking REASONs for taking important actions,
within out Lives, within Humankind.

Reasoning doesn’t seek truth,
nor must be logically valid.

My interpretations of:
The Enigma of Reason, by Hugo Sperber   2017


The awesome Magnitude/Scope/Complexity [MSC]
of Humankind’s POTENTIAL,
at this juncture in our evolution/emergence,
is invisible to human experience;
so is not recognized or acknowledged.

Our POTENTIALS are expanding exponentially/fractically,
gaining in utility and viability;
meaningful only in the context of a
SCIENCE” of Humankind ,
not in the
science of material reality.

Our challenges in Material Reality
can only be adequately met
by a nu, uplifted Humanity,
metamorphosed from Humankind by

These potentials are evident only as patterns
in our collective semfields, primarily online.

These patterns emerge as Conceptual Schemes
that serve as contexts for our
Pictures / Scenes / Stories / Scenarios,
little to BIG.


our collective, symbolic/semiotic records (sems),
are the essential/critical “environments” for Humankind.

Conversations are temporary semfields, in sound.
Texts are symbolic patterns “printed” on material substrates.
Architectures are “shaped” materials, imposed “form”.

Our SEMFIELDS are as important
as our material ENVIRONMENT.

Today we witness the fragmentation
of our semfields,
as they expand into new media.

This is not a decay from a “ideal”semfield,
a “perfect state” of our myths.
Our semfields are yet embryonic,
in early stages of emergence.


is in the overlap of the
Material World and Humankind’s 7,000+ personal Wrlds.

are features of Humankind Science:
patterns in semfields,
experienced by humans.

Material Reality “exists” independent of humankind;
but, our experiences of Material Reality
are created by ourselves.


All the above points to a system of Perspective/Paradigm Shifts,
of equivalent importance as the:

GeoCentric to HelioCentric shift,
or the
Classical to Relativistic/Quantum shifts.

Humans + Semfields
as significant as
The Cosmological Universe


EXPERIENTIAL TOPOGRAPHY – Paths to a Better Future


For decades I have noticed the virtual absence of quality Big Pictures presented by the best minds, and the seeming absence-of-existence of such in the wrlds of most persons. “Pictures” has long been an inappropriate metaphor for concepts we seek.  I believe this absence of Big THINKING to be very dangerous for the future of Humankind/Gaia.

This essay was catalyzed by a cascade of insights expanding the nested categories of temporal description. Story and Scenario, older terms, shifted to include Scenes, Pictures, and to crystallize Scenarios as composed of Stories. Like “coming into focus”, what was fuzzy, clarified.

I am prone to favor sets & holarchies: e.g., reeee {relevant, effective, efficient, enjoyable, elegant} & galdee {grow, adapt, learn, develop, evolve, emerge}. Here I explore two new holarchies: categories of experientials and categories of wrlds.

I believe deeply that these sharper distinctions are critical to our survival/thrival.  We MUST be working at the requisite level of REALITY, that is relevant to our Crisis-of-Crises.

As in my more frequent posts, I distinguish between subjective and objective realities, and our frquent confusion between them.


Each human has their own private momentary experientials in the so-called specious present. We talk about and report on what we may call our “conscious experiences”; but we cannot ever actually experience what others claim to experience. What we experience when reading these reports may be quite different from the experiences that generated the reports.

Everything I discuss here is related to what I have experienced as features and patterns in my momentary experientials and recorded. I sometimes re-experience my recorded messages in a later momentary experience.

When you ponder this weird, complex whole, we wonder how the complexity of our wrlds (our personal worlds) can exist when all we have are brief experiential moments. How does this immense whole fit in this tiny window? I won’t attempt to solve this puzzle here; and I don’t expect humans yet have the requisite competencies to solve it any time in the near future.

   Wrlds & Worlds:

PHENOMENOLOGY is a multi-faceted academic/research discipline dedicated to the study of Personal Conscious Experience.  I have only “dipped my toe” into this vast ocean of heavy discourse. It is all relevant, but none of it presents the conclusive “truth-of-the-matter”. Nor does this essay attempt an answer – but only to refine the query.

From this perspective of QUERY (in search of unconstrained discourse & exploration), to replace the Question/Answer (or Problem/Solution) Paradigms seeking definitive closure, ALL DOCUMENTS I READ can be subsumed into a continuing query. What is important to note (as “fact”) is that almost everyone writing assume that THEIR IDEAS are objective truths. This universal tendency may be embedded in the foundations of all human languages. This is my “state of mind” most of the time, I believe in my experiential reality and my experienced interpretations. Yet, I conceptually accept that all I experience are patterns in my body/brain. My knowledge of history informs me that much of my “truths” will be superseded.


These terms need to be assigned to tentative descriptions of the components of experiences they label. This list is not complete.



  • SSPSSS  is a nested hierarchy (temporal holarchy) of our mental experiences “mapped in time”.
  • SnapShots result from pulsed sensory information from the sensorium to the brain.

Pictures result from scanning SnapShots
Processing STRUCTURE / Structuring PROCESS

Scenes are composed of Pictures
Stories are composed of Scenes
Scenarios are composed of Stories
Conceptual Schemes discuss atemporal patterns in the temporal holarchy.

Our conventional categories are quite limited. The term “Big Pictures” (in English) dominates anything beyond the immediate; while any critical thinking reveals that the metaphor “picture” is grossly inadequate.  It appears that most persons have very limited competencies in Meta-Cognition – which is the inner category of experientials that attends to the inner topology of all experientials.

Of special interest for this essay are those categories considered “BIG”: Big Pictures, Big Scenes, Big Stories, Big Scenarios. Also: how the non-temporal Conceptual Schemes enable us to integrate the topology.

SSPSSS is a crude model for a much more complex and integrated “reality”. However, it may be useful in assisting us better comprehend ourselves and live.


For decades it has been my practice to actively seek news and analyses from the “best” of all sides. During the Vietnam War I subscribed to English versions of Chinese newspapers – written for the Chinese, and similarily from Cuba. The USA State Department collected my mail and asked me whether I wanted “enemy propaganda”. I also read my government’s White Papers.

Today I daily access Brietbart News and RT, as well as radical progressive sites, and sites where average persons (right and left) vent, emotionally at each other.  I skim the NYTimes and WashPost. Many online colleagues curate and share their findings. I continually look for different sources with different slants.  Most sources are clustered in sharing similar “facts” and “perspectives”.

Recently (May 2017) I noticed that the very same SCENES (video and text reported) were used by both FOX, Breitbart, CNN and MSNBCLawrence O’Donnell (MSNBC) and Lou Dobbs (FOX) nightly weave radically different stories from the very same scenes. Dobbs is quite eager to show a scene, that to O’Donnell clearly reveals Trump corruption, which Dobbs uses to illustrate the fake news from the Deep State. There are some scenes presented by one side that are ignored by other sides; but the bulk scenes are common. In fact, sometimes a scene in Dobbs is richer in the evidence that O’Donnell values than was included in a shorter scene shown by O’Donnell. Both sides use the same “reports of facts”. It appears that  “left” and “right”  journalists sort scenes into the same two piles. They differ as to their labeling the piles: True or Fake. It appears automatic for both sides: what the other says “is true” MUST BE FAKE – NOT TO BE TAKEN AT FACE VALUE!. This attitude precludes any meaningful dialog.


Human have the propensity, in certain settings, to exhibit herd behavior. Within their herd, individual persons can almost never change.  Today, the herds are locked into social media silos.

What might Trump supporters come to perceive, when viewing MSNBC in non threatening & supportive settings – away from others from their herds? We must ask the same for anti-Trump persons viewing Lou Dobbs in similar supportive settings.

IMPORTANT DISTINCTION.  There are those supportive of Trump who are quite willing to condemn Obama and Clinton, but still support most of the myths of established USA history.  There are other Trump supporters who attack the whole history of the USA, as corrupt and imperalistic from the beginning. Jefferson pushing the United States westward in North America was the beginning of American Imperialism. Since WWII the USA has intentionally toppled nations and set the stages for US corporate exploitation. Since WWII the imperialism of the USA has caused more deaths and suffering by any nation in human history.  In this Spring of 2017, there are those fully aware of the psychological dysfunction of Donald Trump and who oppose almost all of his polices BUT WHO SUPPORT HIM AS POTUS because he has stopped the planned first strike nuclear attack by the USA on Russia by Hillary Clinton’s crowd.

Today there is not polarization, but fragmentation. There are no longer just two sides.

In my (Larry/nuet’s) analysis, this trendings cannot be stopped or managed. However, there are many trending scenarios – all negative. The “SYSTEM” can’t be transFORMed! However, some strategic actions might slow the collapse and provide time to initiate an alternative to transFORMation: EMERGENCE via Up2Met (UPLIFT to Cultural/Societal Metamorphosis). This option is based on the proposition that only a well organized, highly knowledgeable and competent GLOBAL POPULATION, can make manifest the desired/needed transition. Contrary to almost universal (false) belief, radical/rapid change, such an UPLIFT, is both possible and viable. The potentials for UPLIFT are growing exponentially in the population, in spite of its suffering. However, the coming together in synergy is blocked and its very conception branded as unrealistic.  I have proposed an experimental model, requiring the engagement of 30-300 persons, PART TIME, to catalyze UPLIFT via OLLO. Once catalyzed, Up2Met should eventually engage 90% of the global population in a few decades, and possibly much less.

Much of the relevance of this depends on our acceptance that we really don’t comprehend what is happening, or what humankind really is, and who we really are. SSPSSS is one of many conceptual tools we can use to BOOTSTRAP OUR UPLIFT.

These are far from simple ideas, but once a person learns many of the components and relationships, their coherence become clear. Here I present a small selection of essays I have written over the decades, as my wrld emerged.

[1] Uplifting Humankind, Spanda Journal chapter 2015
[2] Bootstrap UPLIFT Scaffolding, InnoCentive Proposal 2010
[3] The Fundamental Reality of Text, ISSS Asilomar presentation 1994
[4] Practical Speculations at the Edge of Science, ISSS Asilomar 1994
[5] Learners for Quality Education, Learning Paradigm Conf 1997
[6] Paradigmatic Constraints on Education, NISOD Conf 1983
[7] SEAFwebs for NU, QuickDoc 2005
[8] Commentary on Michael Schrage’s Serious Play, QuickDoc 2001
[9] UPLIFT Dissected in Detail, QuickDoc 2010
[10] Technology of Non Violent Revolution, QuickDoc 1970
[11] COLAB STUDIOS, NEH grant proposal 2007


We also tend to divide our SSPSSS into three groupings: Past, Present, Future.

Present is a mix of short term past and short term projected future.

“Temporal Integration” is a scientifically described human process where our current perceptions are integrated with recent remembrances into an experienced  Here&Now  (structures within Momentary Experientials) that has duration.

* Both Past and Futures are hypothetical, in different ways.

* HisSTORY (or HerSTORY) are continually being rewritten.

* NEWS is but a set of recent stories, selected by different biases to report.

* Future SSS (Scenes/Stories/Scenarios) can have a variety ot textures and can involve probability and statistics.

* One need, is for persons to compose different future STORIES to attach to alternative, hypothetical future SCENARIOS.



Dialogs about “realities” are part of our momentary experientials – which are “real” in the sense that we “experience”.

There are patterns within our inner wrlds that imply we don’t invent them (the patterns), but they come from OTHER than ourselves – although our experiencing of these patterns is always within ourselves. We call these “inter-subjective” and are associated with hypothetical “objective” realities.  For local settings within which we move and sense, the match between subjective and objective is good enough not to be concerned about the difference – most of the time.  For “constructed” realities beyond our direct sensory experience, believing the subjective is objective can be very dangerous.

We can experience walls of building and properly infer a 3D building – when we walk around it and within it. The city is more difficult to experience as a whole – even from an airplane. It isn’t the whole city we see – only a view of a region from an airplane. We don’t see inside buildings, underground infrastructures, people moving about, etc.  It gets much worse when we consider the “objective” reality of societal systems (corporations or governments).

The topological categories of wrlds shift from probably accurately objective for Scenes and Stories, to having less and less objective validity for Big Stores and Big Scenarios.  Different human cultures have different Conceptual Schemes they apply to their experiences.

No matter how experienced, we face a Crisis-of-Crises related to our Big Scenarios (including Total Collapse to Extinction). Imaginative, positive Big Scenarios are exceeding rare and always naive.


We are only now acknowledging (due to The Trump Phenomenon as lens)  significantly different global past scenarios for different nations and cultures – for the same ensemble of stories. ALL past scenarios are propaganda, in strong bias for the nation or peoples telling their stories, within their scenarios. Each past scenario is highly selective of what stories to include, which to censor, and which to rewrite or totally fabricate. For example, the past scenarios for the USA range from the best to the worst nation ever existing – and both scenarios have many “factual reports” supporting them.

In 2017 there is no reasonably acceptable OBJECTIVE past (local to global) scenario for which to base future actions.  However, such an objective past scenario could be constructed from the records (our semfield).

I propose that the distinctions present in the SSPSSS model will be useful in our developing processes to uplift ourselves from our Crises-of-Crises and begin to design/create/implement/maintain SCAFFOLDING within which human persons, engaged in OLLO (Organizing-for-Learning=&=Learning-for-Organizing), can bootstrap humankind into humanity, and develop a new, viable multi-millennial relationship with Gaia.

What faces us is a VERY GREAT LEAP to a radically different REALITY.

This is not the time for tinkering with tradition or established beliefs.

Agustin Fuentes,
in his masterful work,
How Imagination Made Humans Exceptional
reports on the foundation for our

on fake news


is but a popular term frequently used about the


(becoming more frequent beginning with the Era of Trump)


NEWS labels information new, with respect to a specific date and time duration, usually a day. But there is also “breaking news”, reports of activities underway concurrent to the reporting. If you returned from a long trip away from your normal source of news, a review for the duration of you absence would be “news” to you.

News, as used here, doesn’t distinguish among: 1] claimed objective descriptions of happenings; 2] interpretations of (1); and 3] commentary about both (1) and (2).

FAKE labels an evaluation of an item (of news) relative to a “CONTEXT” deemed as “REALITY” by those claiming the item to be fake. Fake also implies that the author and distributor of the news called “fake” (as attributed to by the persons calling the news fake) actually accepts the reality of those accusing them of faking, a deliberate attempt at deception. However, authors and distributors of fake news hope that readers of their news statements will believe them to be true.

Accusers of news statements being fake, often have alternative statements, using much of the same terminology as the so-called “fake news”, but formatted to result (for some readers) in meaning “counter” to the news called fake. This they might label, TRUE NEWS.

True and Fake are attributes assigned to statements by persons perceiving statements, which may include their authors.

********  TOPICS FOR DEVELOPMENT  *********

Fake News About Fake News
Weaponized News  Media Matters Radio
The Truth about TRUTH
Theory Laden Facts & Belief Laden Theories

No documents can claim TRUTH,
because the CONTEXT can never be part of the document.
Context is the foundation for interpretation,
which are evaluated re “truth-value”.


sometimes triggered by new information,
but not necessarily in the knowledge domain of the insight.


These local differences
global differences.

Control – E accuses L of controlling; L’s complaints about being controlled are viewed by E as L attempting to control. E has total say for all of the house and property, at Koralee Place, except the one room used by L – which E would control if she had the power. L’s suggestions to modify the house are seen by E as L attempting control. E cannot conceive that she controls.

Negativity – E accuses L of always being negative. Larry claims that pointing out possible improvements is not being negative; that accurate feedback is essential for progress.  “Positive Negatives?”
Info that triggers negative emotions in a person aren’t necessarily “bad”.  Warning a population of a coming tsunami stimulates negative emotions but is a positive act.

False/True Facts – E, L, and T differ on what “facts” re true and important vs false or irrelevant. E values cleanliness over order, whereas L values order over cleanliness. T is inconsistent as to order and cleanliness. E, L, and T imagine/conceptualize alternative futures differently.  There is no meta-area to compare these alternatives because the differences aren’t about concrete imagined happenings; but are about the deep nature or reality and change.