I am very pleased witnessing the emerging dialog between Bill, David, Linda, and Nirmalan. Also the comments by Glistening and Alex. I have recently posted a general comment about comments in my blog, will copy a few paragraphs here, and then make some other observations. I am also working on some point-by-point responses to some of your longer comments – particularly where you contribute your own work – which I find most interesting.
I have finished reading all comments, but have yet to reply to many. Currently, there are 15 potential participants, but only 6 have actually commented. Yesterday I invited 28 more to join. Most of the other 21 authors to chapters in The Spanda Journal will be invited, once I can learn their email addresses. However, most of these authors have not yet established an Academia.com versions of their chapter, let alone set up a comment session.
I am indecisive in how to reply to many of your very useful comments. I could directly reply with a relatively brief comment in terms of nuet’s context. Yet, I grok that your comment needs critique because you don’t yet adequately comprehend that part of nuet’s context within which our “differences” may be resolved. Thus, the danger of a direct reply would be further incomprehension – we would debate at a lower level where the real issue is a inadequate shared context.
I am very truthful in saying that all your comments are useful and I commend your work as valuable. When I claim that other tasks need performing I am not suggesting you perform them. I deeply believe that when others can comprehend some of the relevant contexts and conceptual schemes from nuet, they will be able to make their own action decisions (change or remain doing the same). Nuet cannot provide explicit instructions because nuet doesn’t know YOU adequately.
Larry/nuet has no need to be correct. The issue is the multi-millennial survival of Humanity/Gaia. I have no assurances that UPLIFT and Societal Metamorphosis can or will manifest. Many other things need be done also. I have less confidence that any other “proposal for survival/thrival” would be more successful. Our Crisis-of-Crises calls for parallel actions. An emerging UPLIFT would seaf other ventures and be a Plan B, if the other ventures don’t manifest.
I find it especially delightful to see you using my coined terminology. Alex, independently noted their importance. But to see these terms used over and over makes my little heart patter. It also signals a recognition that our language and how it is presented must evolve (another really major topic). Bill, I also appreciate your recognition of the importance of distinctions. G. Spencer-Brown in “Laws of Form” posits distinctions are THE basic element of structure and developed a symbolic logic system for it, employed by Maturana and Varela. http://www.enolagaia.com/GSB.html .
A small point, reeee has 4, not 3 e’s . But I oscillate using reeee or reesee, with the “s” being “sufficient”. Yet, in some applications, sufficient is not appropriate – although keeping “sufficiency” in mind is important. Sufficiency is the measure of the synergy of many successful actions, and can’t be a measure of single actions. I want sufficiency to be there to require workers in a project to consider what other actions must be taken by others, so that the actions they take can actually lead to their envisioned goals. It may not be safe to simply assume all others will be doing their parts, especially of some of those parts have yet to be identified.
I want to later explore the distinction between the Societal Metamorphosis of Global Humankind and the Social Metamorphosis of Organizations, which is the focus of your dialog so far. Actually, my initial insight into metamorphosis came when I proposed the establishment of a COMPLEMENTARY COLLEGE within our larger Pima County Community College, in Tucson, AZ – in 1975 – as explicit metamorphosis to my campus dean and college chancellor. The Complementary College would start doing what the formal college was unable to do (for various reasons), in my later terminology “seafing” the functioning of the formal college. Every member of the Complementary College would be manager/staffworker/educator/learner in what I later (1978) called Learners for Quality Education (LQE). I recently have returned to exploring Organizational Metamorphosis, sparked by dialog with Alan Yelsey and his WayFinder/Y-Worlds models. My main concern about Organizational Metamorphosis leading to a Global Societal Metamorphosis (without UPLIFT and the SSS for Global Societal Metamorphosis) is our grave and dangerous under-estimation of the intelligence/power/determination of the financial/intelligence complex of the established elites. This dialog will eventually be massive in scope and complexity, but we can begin some talk here. Later.
I also want later to explore UPLIFT as the primary process, beyond uplifting for specific purposes or competencies. That OLLO is, at core, about “seafing learning to learn seafing”. The primary organizing is for quality learning – of all types and levels. Organizing for basic support, like economics, food, shelter, transportation, etc. are important, but quite secondary, in nuet’s conception of UPLIFT. All other systems will flow from the OLLO needs of UPLIFT.
Related to this is the system of evidence that leads me to believe that UPLIFT can be very rapid and global in scope. This requires challenging many long held assumptions about learning and even “human nature”, and depends on acknowledgement of our vast diversity (instead of ignoring it in contemporary education). In many projects we must begin without a comprehensive “proof of concept” by a few smaller examples.
Also related is our acceptance of the need for our own uplifting – indeed our own personal metamorphosis. Are we willing to permit a new person emerge and replace our old person? Can we imagine new insights, new massive awakening within ourselves – as strong or stronger than those prior which shifted us to where we are now? I believe personal metamorphosis can only viably occur in teams, and we emerge as a highly functional component of a special team – in a systnet of other specialized teams. This will require the abandonment of some mythical beliefs about individual rights and freedoms. Linda, a participant here, offers Bohmian dialog as a possible starting point for this venture.
I could continue this list to tens, even hundreds, maybe thousands of topics, issues, projects, etc. Which leads to one of the insights from this morning: we humans are not biologically equipped to do, as individuals, what the fundamental units of humanity need to do. We cannot be the basic “cells” of a nu humanity. That we consciously choose who we become is a false and dangerous myth. We can have some personal agency, but not what we currently desire to believe. I am confident that metamorphosed humans persons, developed to be analogs of “organelles” in “cells” (teams) will be more creative, “happy”, and more of all those aspects we mistakenly seek through advancing radical individualism. But, today we don’t face only the radical individualism of those conniving to retain power, but a strong thread of individualism remains within our best change agents. The book, “Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect” by Matthew Lieberman explodes our myth of radical individualism.
Thanks for attending to long winded Larry, “channeling” nuet.