5am this morning, 1/12/2013 , thinking in bed, I started comprehending nuet from new perspectives.
I speak here not of “nuet”, the inner/woven world hosted by Larry. I speak of its representation in a system of sems to be studied and discussed by others – in seeking what may be useful in Nuet. To distinguish these two, I will refer to the inner/woven world as “nuet” (no caps) and “Nuet” (always an initial cap) as its semiotic representation.
Nuet is actually a quite simple conceptual scheme, relative to many conceptual schemes in science and philosophy. It is the very, large scope of Nuet, in a fractal-like “structure”, that makes it difficult for almost everyone – those wanting simplicity as well as those respecting complexity – to comprehend.
To comprehend Nuet requires diligence. Nuet is not conducive to either a deductive or inductive approach. There are no basic set of principles to work from – basics shift and are relative. No amount of collecting component ideas will lead to better focus on the “Whole of Nuet”.
This insight resolves some of the puzzlement I (Larry/nuet) have over why others have great difficulty comprehending what Larry views as quite simple concepts and conceptual schemes. Nowhere in Nuet is present the complexity Larry experienced in his studies as a physicist and his brief forays into philosophical literature. Indeed, there is much of the detailed specialization in many disciplines that it is very, very difficult – to literally impossible – for Larry to follow.
- Nuet appears complicated to those not experienced in Big Thinking, as is expected. Nuet appears as “something else” to those fluent with complexity; and that “something else” is what I am seeking to identify.
- When what Larry actually mastered, and didn’t master, in his physics/math education – and all his other learning’s – it is revealed that Larry’s cognitive process is quite simple and limited in comparison to many. Where Larry did learn complex systems it took a great amount of focused effort – far more than many of his fellow students needed to apply. Larry also encountered fellow students who had greater difficulty than he, and he attempted to assist them when possible.
nuet, in Larry, emerged – nuet was not CONSTRUCTED. Never constructed in the sense of conscious agency construction. nuet was, also, not constructed according to any unconscious program – although its emergence resulted from the structural coupling of Larry’s biology linked to his genome and the “others” encountered in his living.
- A while back I shifted from “constructed” to “woven” without clear reasons. “Constructed” is the term common in psychology for the phenomenon of creating inner worlds.
- “Construction” is usually viewed as an accumulative process, the new building on the old. To the extent that nuet/Larry has “memory”, the metaphor of “construction” can be applied. But, Larry’s lack of sensory mental imagery implies NO conscious experiential past is ever re-experienced. There is no recorded past for nuet to be constructed upon.
- Some theories of human memory posit a re-creation of the prior process (to some extent) and not a process analogous to playing a recording. Larry never experiences a replay from his past. He has no episodial sensory memory. He often has wondered why he bothers experiencing life (such as reading a book, viewing a movie, or even wintering over in the Antarctic) when he has no sensory memory of his past.
- Others often inquire of Larry – what does he experience of his past – and they counter his claim for “no memory” when he tells stories of his life with great detail (but only very specific types of detail). Some photos from the past are recognized, with an associated contextual feeling, but don’t lead to further related experiences from the past.
- nuet can channel to Larry the telling of STORIES. For Larry, the stories are about the telling of the story, about the telling of the story. Like may photos, he recognizes a prior encounter with the photo, not with the experience that gave rise to the photo.
- Larry contrasts this with the claims by some others being able to re-experience almost any moment of their lives.
Using the epistemological metaphors of Quantum Physics: nuet can be conceived as a probabilistic wave-function expanding, then being collapsed to a specific bio/mental “state” on frequent encounters with Others; only to expand again between collapses. For nuet, structural coupling is analogous to quantum interference of two systems: nuet and the “other complex”. There is no “past” (in the classical sense) in Quantum Epistemology (nuet’s interpretation).
nuet does contain many stories, maintained over many expansions/collapses of his wave-function. But, these are not nuet’s foundations. nuet is process, with no objective foundations. This is but a speculative exercise.
However Larry/nuet came to be this way, their 70+ years of emergence involved a great variety of experiences in a great many different domains – leading to the vast scope of nuet. This can be detailed later.
nuet may be better viewed as an emergent ecology than as an growing/evolving organism/system. Actually. both metaphors need be applied. How to view other nuet-like inner/woven worlds in others (who have sensory memories) is a challenge.
Back to Nuet. It is not necessary that all of nuet be made available in Nuet, for Nuet to be useful. Indeed, such a task is impossible. If others can comprehend how nuet may be different, they may be able to assist in creating Nuet that is more useful.
However, given these insights I wonder what different kinds of inner/woven, even inner/constructed worlds there are distributed in the whole human population. This opens the query into the reality of human diversity, past, current, and futures emergent.
Let me now focus on the relative SIMPLICITY of Nuet – which is quite an admission for Larry who has long championed complexification over simplification in striving for greater comprehension.
- For nuet, complexity is the texture of reality. Complexity is navigated with maps and aides, and some expeditions into complexity requires extensive training and planning, and learning to use appropriate tools. Without being prepared for a domains of complexity, it appears COMPLICATED, unpleasant, and a waste of time.
- Larry’s first day teaching his Intro Psy classes had the statement COMPLEXITY IS THE TEXTURE OF REALITY on the board. His course had many parts and many options for students. He gave each student an 80 page course manual – how to navigate the course for optimal learning, high grades, and enjoyment. The majority of his students (not all) took the challenge and years later, encountering Larry, they thanked him for what he provided them with his course – a course on college survival/thrival. Larry/nuet has long felt that learning Nuet requires a similar approach: adequately comprehending Nuet may require committed participation in an educational process, a learning expedition.
- Larry’s conative dysfunction diverted him from following through on his many attempts to create such an educational process. He never was able to interest others sufficiently, by only reading his docs, to assist him in this venture. This issue continues today.
I have no knowledge as to how much of what I have written and made available over the decades on the basics of Nuet have been read or comprehended. The feedback from others has been mostly very general and I can’t remember anyone ever engaging me in serious queries about any significant parts of my writings.
- This forced a shift in my focus from exploring reality and attempting to share my findings to how do different people explore their realities and what are ways of sharing realities with others. Decade after decade I learned more and more about humans and how they functioned; absorbing the research of others and weaving it into an emergent perspective of “human nature and how it changes”. These findings actually encouraged me as to the future of humankind, even as I remained blocked from sharing my findings.
Not only has there never been any detailed query for clarification or on how to make-it-happen for the Whole-of-Nuet; but Larry has yet to be queried about details on any of the sub-projects in the Nuet scenario.
My exemplar is SEAFing. True, I have yet to compose a major doc on seafing; but I have inserted sufficient information in many of my other docs to have hopefully generated interest. Others have begun using the term “seafing”, but without queries.
This, even when I made the following claims for seafing:
- Seafing is essential if movements, projects, and teams are to achieve necessary collaboration and synergy. Arguments made for this case are never challenged, and the slowness of collaboration and synergy is frequently acknowledged.
- Seafing is proposed as providing an enzymatic accelerator for other social activity. Seafing is proposed as potentially making viable social projects that would otherwise fail, and increasing the rate of social activity orders of magnitude – essential for our time constraints re Climate Change.
- Seafing would greatly improve individual and team productivity – and I have described how Larry’s productivity would be increased orders-of-magnitude by seafing – and a possible reason why little results are being seen from a flurry of actions in cyberspace is the lack of seafing.
- I simply cannot comprehend why NO ONE as even inquired as what might need to be done to create a SeafNet.
- My guess is that everyone is in the osmosis mode and believes that seafing is already in the works from the hive/crowd/cloud activity of the new tech elites, and nothing specific more needs be done. Yet every person also has specific projects that they champion that must be supported (because these support their livelihoods or reputations?). Are humans far, far more self centered;truly living in the bubble of their inner/woven worlds than we are able to acknowledge? The polarization and bizarre bubbles we observe around us might cause us to wonder if we, too, aren’t so isolated (in our autopoietic bubbles)?
The same mystery surrounds other component ideas in the Nuet scenario for survival/thrival of Humanity/Gaia. Pat Larry on the back, advise him to simplify and focus (become more normal).
It also appears that Larry’s claim for the significance of Nuet – a clear vision/mission/scenario alternative is not viewed as creditable. Even among those dedicated to concrete action for our truly Big Challenges are unable to project scenarios through the endgame. It is as if they believe such a process is impossible. Do their inner/woven worlds prohibit it? The concrete actions they are engaged with disappear (IMHO) Into the fog of wishful thinking but a few years ahead – although they “wave their hands” to cover their inability to discourse about future scenario details.
- The easy excuse to avoid scenario speculation is that there are just too, too many possibilities. There may be psychological distractions that block scenario speculation. A few persons have admitted that their visualization was too powerful and their experiences to disturbing to continue – given that they can’t avoid conflicts forecast in endgame encounters.
To Larry/nuet this implies a deep dream-like state all humans are mesmerized into illusionary actions – including Larry when his real actions are evaluated. THIS WILL BE THE TOPIC OF ANOTHER DOC. Consider a few more examples.
Larry/nuet is aware of NO HUMAN who treats metamorphosis as a viable model, instead it is always – if thought of at all – a motivating metaphor. I here explore creating basic categories of humans related to their views of our future endgame.
- Rapture or some other ENDING of all reality as we know it. Cosmos wakes from dreaming. Just waiting, or attempting to accelerate rapture.
- Inevitable Collapse of all as we know it. Some look forward to it. Some work towards their personal survival. A few hope to seed the rebirth after collapse. Others expect the collapse but work in ways they believe might slow it, or lessen the suffering.
- Refuse to think about it; get totally involved in Here&Now activity.
- Reformists, who have greatly attenuated views of reality and believe in the ability of humans to “do the right thing” when the crunch comes. Deep down everyone can be reached. Sociopaths don’t exist in their reality – other than as serial killers.
- Emergists, who sense the true powers of humans and are excited by all the powers of the new technologies. They are devoting all their time in their specific activities and don’t see any value in scenario speculation. When confronted, most emergists see the endgame as reformist.
- This list is not exhaustive. Where does Larry/nuet fit in? Seafed Metamorphosis.
If we are locked-into our own personal world-bubbles – what is the constraining bubble for Larry/nuet? Is it possible for a person to discover their own bubble? Can structured activities with others enable us to discover our bubbles and create processes to emerge from our bubbles. This might be viewed as a process for merging our inner/woven worlds – with more powerful tech enhanced ways of structural coupling.
- We can do this only if we can recognize and accept our bubbles. WE ARE WORLDS, NOT PERSONS LIVING IN WORLDS. But, our worlds can have much greater overlap.
- The “overlap” we have in our common shared perceptual spaces, where gestures and expressions assist convergence should NOT be extended to hypothetical worlds beyond our immediate senses. These never to be perceived worlds are in cataclysmic conflict today.
Worlds of human systems may differ from “natural” worlds, as much as quantum reality differs from classical reality.
- This is an insight of powerful import, potentially – but at this stage highly speculative. We need not claim that “this is the way these different worlds really are”; only that thinking of human and natural worlds from different perspectives may be a very useful strategy.
- Reference to the quantum/classical distinction is used only in analogy to the MAGNITUDE of the shift. This is not dependent on my speculations elsewhere that human mind/brains might involve analogous expanding/collapsing probabilistic wave-functions of Quantum Physics.
- The thinking here is necessarily “circular” – or a closed knot. “My world is in my mind and my mind is in my world.” Part of the lyrics of a song I wrote, to the tune of East Side, West Side.
Inside, Outside, Back and Forth We Go.
My Mind is in My World, and My World is in My Mind.
‘Round and ‘Round We Cycle, N’er Beginning or End.
My World is in My Mind, and my Mind is in My World.
Adopting this new perspective toward human worlds might be considered a variant of the movement against “ego”. We need not only give up our addiction to our ego-self, but our addiction to believing that the human social world we “know” and seemingly “live in” is NOT mostly a fiction or our own doing. Removing the sense of “objectivity” from our hypothesized “human social world” we radically defuse the primary source of human conflict. Extrapolating and expanding this speculation is one of our immediate challenges.