David & Larry 09/18-19/15 Scaffolding and UPLIFT

David to Larry in Academia.edu 09/18/2015

 

We may be making progress again Larry :-). I do not see what you are proposing to DO with UPLIFT. In my created world the SCAFFOLDING is a pattern of interactions between people and other species that teaches us about the pattern (the processes creating the flows through the pattern). At that point we begin the active and conscious modification of structure in order to improve process in order to improve structure with the goal of increasing flows. Please tell me what it is that will attract people to your sysnet? What is it that they receive for the effort of increasing their competencies? I am sure the answers are clear to you. I just have not been able to understand that part of UPLIFT.

Larry To David 09/19/2015

David, I don’t intend to DO ANYTHING with UPLIFT (a conceptual scheme), other than assist others to comprehend it, assist me in improving on it, and then take action IN THE CONTEXT of that improved conceptual scheme. In my 2010 BUS (Bootstrapping UPLIFT Scaffolding) grant proposal I was seeking money to hire a team to create BUS1.0 – a physical package that would serve as alpha testing scaffolding for experimental members. Improvements would be made on BUS as well as developing variations.

UPLIFT is a word, that labels a system of conceptual schemes within nuet. Within this conceptual scheme are envisioned “uplift” movements, organizations, communities, teams, projects, and members with behavior in the context of the conceptual scheme UPLIFT. UPLIFT can also be comprehended as an objective and goal; and also a very specific process designed to achieve the objective and contribute to the accomplishment of the goal (with the achievement of other, related objectives of other projects). UPLIFT can be comprehended independent of Societal Metamorphosis, although successful Societal Metamorphosis is probably dependent on the success of UPLIFT.

ON SCAFFOLDING

David, we differ significantly in our use of the term scaffolding. I will refer to it (between us) as Lscaffolding, contrasted with Dscaffolding. Lscaffolding is a designed and constructed physical system – which would include instruments, computers, software, and sems (semiotic structures – texts & graphics, videos) . Like the term’s traditional use, it is temporary and facilities actions within it as a workspace or environment. Persons may be part of Lscaffolding if they perform strictly to script, assuming the roles of intelligent machines. Lscaffolding usually doesn’t evolve on its own, although it may be dynamic according to its use by humans. Lscaffolding is the result of exploratory engineering. Lscaffolding is designed to seaf the interactivity of humans using the scaffolding, according to specified objectives. Lscaffolding for UPLIFT, called Uscaffolding is designed with the intent to seaf uplifting of participants. Their interaction among themselves and with the scaffolding will occur as to the potentials of humans as living, creative, caring, bio-psycho beings. We don’t yet adequately comprehend the full scope of human systems. We will learn more, with intention, in the process of UPLIFT. One of the tasks for participants within Uscaffolding is the design and construction of new Uscaffolding. The metaphor Scripting/Performing is useful, with limitations; we script Uscaffolding and perform those scripts. This includes scripts-for-scripting.

I borrowed the term “scaffolding” in the mid 1990s from a brief intro to its use in education. I did not build on its use there, but simply started with a useful metaphor. http://edglossary.org/scaffolding/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instructional_scaffolding . I am sad to say I haven’t followed the development of educational scaffolding over the decades. “We” should definitely refer to educational scaffolding research in the design of seafed learning for UPLIFT.

In terms of your defined Dscaffolding, I propose two types. One that you imagine, with humans and other species weaving interactive flows that have a balance, harmony, and synergy (harmonious emergence). The other is exclusively human and would be the patterns of activity within Lscaffolding and networks of Lscaffolding (actually Uscaffolding is both nested and networked, webbed and holarchical). In my analysis, the latter is prerquisite for the former (on a planetary/long-term scale).

ON ATTRACTING OTHERS

The primary attraction of persons to RETURN for a second (and subsequent) encounters with UPLIFT is that their experiences were such that they “really” want more. What that is will be individualized. Cults have identified some ways, primarily to make the person feel “noticed and important”. CULTS differ from UPLIFT in many significant ways, which I can discuss later. It is OK and intended that persons develop emotional bonds to UPLIFT and the persons they encounter there. Individuals will be seafed/uplifted according to their “needs” – which are not exclusively what are their thoughts-of-needs they bring with them. We need assistance in learning about our needs. Each person and the seafing network they are immediately a member of “dance/play/work” in the scaffolding. The goal is an increasing and improving distribution of competencies of members, individually and collectively. Their primary objective is the continued viability of the UPLIFTING PROCESS (as applied to different types of populations invited). The goal of UPLIFT is a distribution of competencies in the global human population adequate to insure the multi-millennial survival/thrival of Humanity/Gaia.

Persons will be initially invited to attend an uplift event by an already participant (maybe themselves a relatively new member). In conventional terms, persons are “sponsored” to try the “uplift experience”. Persons can request to be sponsored, but there is no group membership drives or meetings. What will initially attract a person will be personal. As UPLIFT emerges, a wealth of materials for use by members in “recruiting” will be available. Elsewhere I have discussed how the actions of each person is fully seafed by their local network.

Uplifting doesn’t occur in an abstract “academic-like” silo. Basic needs must be met, so this domain is one within which uplifting occurs. One might over simplify it with an analogy to work-study programs. But, basic needs are only a platform on which to build a new emergent humanity. Much of the detail will be empirically developed. The “whole” of UPLIFT is emergent, although it involves a component of intentional exploratory design and engineering. There are a multitude of issues that will arise, as each time UPLIFT is made available to persons of different cultures, lifestyles, and beliefs. Social/Societal systems will emerge as UPLIFT itself emerges – and will be influenced by the new distribution of competencies gained – and the better Uscaffolding created.

ISSUES RE CREATING UPLIFT

David, my problem is not with UPLIFT. I am confident the UPLIFT movement/org will galdee rapidly and eventually include most of humankind. My challenge is how to initiate our own uplifting now, without UPLIFT, so as to create UPLIFT. It is the chicken/egg problem. The creation of BUS1.0 will involve “specially competent” persons where their basic needs are not to be provided by an UPLIFT community as when UPLIFT is functioning. The early stages of UPLIFT will be quite different from later stages as UPLIFT spreads to the diversity of human peoples and cultures.

The types of collective intelligence and synergy/collaboration popular in the social media (e.g., George Por and Tom Atlee) may require significant uplifting before they become effective.

GOING META

David, if I may go meta on our dialog process. It is my interpretation of our dialog that you are fixed to fit my ideas in your reality framework. You seem to demand Piagetian assimilation and seem to avoid accommodation, which involves changing reality frameworks. Can you attempt to comprehend nuet, UPLIFT, and the multitude of supporting conceptual schemes as the ways of an alien creature from another reality? Play anthropologist.

In your recent email you ask me, “Let me know if you ever want to learn more about what I am describing”. I have long been asking you “David, do you want to comprehend UPLIFT, beyond trying to fit it into your scheme”? I think I comprehend what you are describing, but I may be way off. You never attend to my specific queries about your scheme, but seem to just repeat what I sense I comprehend . I want more – not about how yours scheme works, but how it fits in with other human aspects of life on planet earth. I have no idea, whatsoever, as how  – what I comprehend you prescribe (which I highly support as ONE major domain in a multi-domain enterprise to fundamentally change humankind), can spread in this realworld (Alice’s Wonderland) of Trump/Putin/CIA/China/etc.

Most humans today are deeply programmed to not attend to your or my messages. Humankind re-engaging Gaia and humans uplifting are alien concepts – which can’t be shared by “informing”. Civilization has tragically dumbed-down humankind, and even the “already educated” are warped.

We are within a extra-ordinary CRISIS-of-Crises, not just one or two crises. The MSC (Magnitude/Scope/Complexity) might as well be infinite, as to whether individual human persons can even begin to comprehend. Beyond Big is an insufficient label. UPLIFT is a response to acknowledging that humankind, today, lacks the requisite distribution of competencies to survive, let alone thrive. UPLIFT doesn’t attempt to solve any of our crises – it attempts to uplift humankind so we have the requisite distribution of competencies to design and implement solutions. “Competencies” include both knowledge and knowhow, both individually and collectively.

David, I just had an insight about our differences. I interpret you as wanting to integrate humankind back into Gaia, while preserving the positive aspects of humans. Humans need to learn (re-learn?) the processes of flows within Gaia and apply them to human interaction with Gaia. Gaia would be different with humans than without humans, but OK. I comprehend humankind as being a fundamental break with prior Gaian processes – even if emergent from within Gaia. I discuss this in my NU GENESIS posts in this blog. Basically: only within humankind has the domain of information been liberated from all prior embedment in matter/energy domains. It is, as if, a totally new dimension was added to the universe. It should be expected that this fundamental change would have an impact.

In my analysis, it is not humankind’s break with Gaia that is the primary source of our difficulty, but more a symptom or consequence of our unique nature that has yet to adapt to itself and with Gaia. Our primary difficulty is our own inability to integrate our mammalian aspects with our nu human aspects in time so as not to “accidentally” damage Gaia. We must attend to “getting our human act together”, birthing humanity from humankind (societal metamorphosis) before we can make the needed new relationships with Gaia. An important BUT: While we do this, we can do what you prescribe with the other living beings we encounter. Re-engaging “nature” as nuly emergent humans, not returning to “nature” as only more intelligent primates.

Humankind in Crisis-of-Crises is the primary, “real” drama of our times. No fiction comes close. All minor dramas are in this context. I attend to it in wonder, as top “entertainment”.  Nothing happening on Planet Earth is not interesting. Yet, nuet’s perspective is close to what I might imagine Gaia’s perspective to be. Most humans are unable to emotionally face the full scope of our Crisis-of-Crises. My lack of sensory memory enables me to comprehend without deep emotional involvement. Yet, comprehending our challenge at its worst has enabled nuet to emerge a path to survival/thrival that is commensurate with our real Crisis-of-Crises.

CLAIM: Making a super-major change (UPLIFT to Societal Metamorphosis) is “actually” the least complex and more viable pathway than so-called “lesser” alternatives. Please evaluate this claim, don’t quickly dismiss it as “unrealistic”.

0 comments