64 Questions for the Environmental Conservationists of the World:
raising the question as to why they are not effectively addressed

¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 In this powerful listing of 64 questions, Anthony Judge effectively exposes the blindspots and limitations of the contemporary episteme of the top leadership of contemporary humankind related to environmental crises, and their supporters. Is this a bubble he hopes to prick? What are the speculative scenarios of how humankind might recover after this bubble collapses, given that the majority of humans live in a bubble where these environmental concerns are either absent or not high priority? This but one of many powerful essays beautifully presented by Judge.

¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 I just had the insight that the “reality” revealed by these questions is more a BARRIER to epistemic shift than an old episteme/paradigm resisting being replaced.

¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 I resonate strongly with Judge, as I have long attempted to call attention to how “OUR BEST MINDS” often block advancement, because of their “arrogance” of “superior insight”. Example: much of the current economic/political crises results from the gross inadequacy of the “left”, “progressive”, “liberals”, and “enlightened”. These “saviors” dogmatically assume that their take on “REALITY” is sufficiently “objectively true”, that they can devote all their effort and attention in opposing their “enemies” (who block progress). As a “student” in The History and Philosophy of Science, I am well aware of human limitations on the pure objectivity of SCIENCE – while, at the same time, i energetically defend the “scientific episteme” from its many distractors and attackers.

¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 What is Judge’s new episteme “on which he stands to prick” the old episteme? Can we detect limitations of this, new, episteme, and possibly create a new process of “guided epistemic emergence” – but, in no way being “controlled”.

¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0 I speculate that Judge’s new episteme assumes “humankind” to be represented by the best, current scientific evidence of humans, human behavior, and human systems. I speculate that a set of unconscious assumptions limit/block the integration of many separate findings related to humankind and how it might change. That is, much of the component knowledge for the next episteme already exists, but its “integration” is “blocked”. Exploration and explication of this is beyond the scope of this doc, but I look forward to engaging others on this learning expedition. I have some suggested paths to take, that are open to critique, and I am open to learn about other paths.

¶ 6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 To bring closure to this doc, I ask: Would you expect these 64 questions – IF STUDIED AND DEBATED by those we might address – to lead to their abandoning their limiting episteme? I claim that the “human nature” of contemporary humankind would make such a happening highly unlikely. How might the 64 questions be perceived, deferentially? Does the communication infrastructure today enable dialogs/discourses/deliberations that permit/limit requisite learning/organizing cycles to emerge as a viable movement? Informing is not sufficient action, we need a process that “seafs informing”, and much more. (seaf = support/enable/augment/facilitate).

¶ 7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0 I don’t criticize Judge for composing such a quality probe to prick our contemporary epistemic bubble (related to our Climate Crisis). Such compositions are also what I am limited in doing. We must discover action regimes that transcends writing/reading – communicating/informing. The emergent conceptual schemes I write about, UPLIFT and OLLO, are a call to do more and differently. How might a few persons catalyze exponentially growing (real human) processes imagined in UPLIFT and OLLO.

¶ 8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 0 ———————-
The above was composed 14 days ago, shortly after my reading the 64 questions. As I just read and edited the above text, I was aware that “I had not stated”, what was necessary to make it comprehensible. And, what was not stated, can’t be “stated”! I can’t INFORM you of what is needed. This, is in essence, what I was trying to say.

¶ 9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 0 We comprehend sems (semiotic structures) we perceive within “contexts” that are never experienced at the moment of experiencing meaning. This context can be analogous, in metaphor,  to a complex pattern, a “sysnet” (system/network) of “nodes, links, enablers, & constraints” that is beyond description or explication.

¶ 10 Leave a comment on paragraph 10 0 As I write, I find myself sneaking up on another vital & recent insight – from a new direction. I have posted a few essays related to this insight, but haven’t been able to properly explicate it – if it is possible.

¶ 11 Leave a comment on paragraph 11 0 I will copy/paste here part of a recent email reply, related to an essay “The Real Problem” by Anil K Seth  , where I was motivated to attempt summarizing this insight:

Might we separate our study of humankind, independently from our study of material reality? Recently I’ve been exploring a nu meta-perspective: humankind has aspects distinct from material reality (material reality includes biological aspects of human persons). My position is that the concepts and “wrlds” of experience refer back only to reports (authored) by humans. This includes all scientific reports and philosophical analyses. Each report is dependent on contexts, often unconscious and if followed, refer back to other reports. This claims MORE than that all we experience are patterns in our body/brains, influenced by material reality. The phenomenon of humankind is “written on the substrate of material reality”, with qualia meaningful only to humankind.

Contemporary social/societal reality (The Trump Phenomenon) is revealing this. There are no FACTS about humankind, of the kind in material reality. All news is “fake” in the sense that it can’t refer back to a material event,  but only to a collection of contradictory reports and analyses, themselves referring back to historical contextual reports.

For tribal humans, without significant reports, material reality was adequately approximated by brain/consciousness. With our semfields of reports (sems = semiotic structures) and ultra complex societal systems (unobservable, although referred to in language as if observable) in highly dysfunctional modes of organization (called Civilizations) our brains can no longer adequately function to approximate material reality (which we cannot access directly).

The trigger to this was the rise of visual languages, where information was liberated from its prior embeddment in matter/energy systems. The text on this screen is not embedded in matter/energy structures. As far as we know, this is unique to humans on Earth (but likely elsewhere in other biospheres).  The analysis of information presented in this email ignores this significant distinction.  Consciously we live in our inner/woven/integrated/autopoietic “wrlds”, where sems are part of our perceptual reality. As adults, our interpretation of direct perception of material reality is now interpreted in terms of our semfields. Yet, there are many humans who have very limited semfields, except for TV, radio and cell phones.

Sems have the unique character of being capable of accurate reproduction of pattern. Through gestures, all humans can come to agree on the identity of the patterns on a sem; even though they may not share interpretations. For humankind, sems assume the permanence of atoms in material reality (although without the structure).

¶ 17 Leave a comment on paragraph 17 0 This associates with another vital insight. The challenge of “Humankind fixing Climate Change”, is distinct (but dependent on) The challenge of “Humans fixing Humankind”. Read my post on Project DRAWDOWN. Most of Judge’s 64 questions relate to the former challenge. Some of his questions relate to how to “get” humans to act “rightly”, but there seems no query about significantly changing humankind.