¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 This post started as a reply to an email from Alex (emails at the end).

¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 Given Larry/nuet’s disabled condition and the changes coming in cyberspace access, dialogs with him need to shift to a single app/platform. This Nuet’s Node blog is inadequate. A team is needed for this. I have many ideas & insights about what we “really need”, in part to liberate us from the “collaborative equilibrium”, Alex cites.

¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 PARADOX: we need now, what we need to create what we need, now. What I have written on this are in many files, very difficult to access and we lack apps/platforms to seaf what we need to do. This paradox can be transcended.

¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 FACT: Our future situations will not be as they are today. Real changes are unstoppable.

¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0 The Trump Phenomenon exhibits truly EVIL behavior, although those doing this truly believe they must do what they are doing. A violent coup is well underway. They will not permit Trump to lose. Some form of civil war is coming to the USA.

¶ 6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 FACT: ~90% of Trump supporters NEVER see news that we see. I do look frequently into their media which presents a totally different reality. Most of the top actors in The Trump Phenomenon are variations of psychopaths. (who also believe they are morally correct).

¶ 7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0 Rebecca Solnit writes about the Mutual Aide  people give each other in crisis, in A Paradise Built in Hell. Mutual Aide disappears when authorities arrive.

¶ 8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 0 Collaboration between tribes is not in our DNA.  Our DNA is strong for tight team/community, “tribal” closeness, and not to trust outsiders. Technologies enabled humankind to form complex societal systems. Contemporary orgs may conceptualize collaboration (beyond trade) but never put the thought, resources, or human-power into collaboration.

¶ 9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 0 I know of one serious attempt to seaf collaboration, which failed to be replicated. Seymour Sarason, prof of community psychology at Yale in the 1970s-80s, was very prolific in many disciplines that should collaborate more. With Elizabeth Lorentz, Sarason created the Resource Exchange Network (REN).

¶ 10 Leave a comment on paragraph 10 0 Voluntary “representatives” from a number of social service agencies in the NE would meet frequently (seafed by Lorentz). They informally worked for collaboration for exchanging & sharing resources.  This early experimental project was successful. However, their attempt to engage the larger social service system was such a failure that they concluded the USA was not ready for collaboration.

¶ 11 Leave a comment on paragraph 11 0 In writing this post I discovered that the two books on REN we absent (intentionally?) from the Wikipedia site on Sarason.

¶ 12 Leave a comment on paragraph 12 0 Whatever the complex blocks to collaboration, we need to create the emergence of REN systems, independent of other organizations and disciplines. This new major enterprise must be assertive in working with orgs in need of collaboration. In writing the prior sentence, I slipped back to the fix-it ideology. I don’t believe we can fix the low collaboration problem in contemporary humankind – to any degree sufficient to save us from extinction. REN systems must be part of the design for UPLIFT/OLLO and Up2Met, for the alternative path to a viable HUMANITY.  I am beginning to ramble within the “Big Picture”.

¶ 13 Leave a comment on paragraph 13 0  

¶ 14 Leave a comment on paragraph 14 0 ================= TEAM CREATION/EMERGENCE

¶ 15 Leave a comment on paragraph 15 0 I have no expectation that the 20+ persons on my contact list will become members of the first UPLIFT team.  I aspire that some of them will engage with each other (and me) about what to do about our extinction challenge and the current state of humankind, including the apparent lack of dialog (let alone action). If they conclude that “the system” can’t be fixed, they may spend some time STUDYING my very, complex proposal summed up now as Up2Met, with docs going back decades. To date, no one has engaged me to better comprehend my proposal; although we may discuss component insights, in isolation.

¶ 16 Leave a comment on paragraph 16 0 It may be that The Trump Phenomenon will motivate some to re-evaluate their ideologies and epistemes. The Trump Phenomena sharply highlights that our best models/theories as to the nature of human persons and human systems (from teams to global societies and criminal cabals) has been grossly inaccurate and incomplete. We have the requisite data; we refuse the epistemic shift requisite for a nu synergy to emerge. What is needed to catalyze this shift? I offer Up2Met as a sample proposal.

¶ 17 Leave a comment on paragraph 17 0  

¶ 18 Leave a comment on paragraph 18 0 I remain open to consider a well developed scenario for the transformation (fixing of) contemporary humankind, that accounts for all the issues I use to claim such a transformation as impossible.

¶ 19 Leave a comment on paragraph 19 0  

¶ 20 Leave a comment on paragraph 20 0 =================== Nuet’s  Archives

¶ 21 Leave a comment on paragraph 21 0 A few years ago I sent  flash drives to Alex and Glistening containing the raw digital files from my archive. I need to repeat this – but it is a highly disorganized mess. My paper archives would only add historical value. Ideally, texts should be organized as resources for online, interactive “education”.

¶ 22 Leave a comment on paragraph 22 0 Ideally, this should be done for many other archives – some from those on my contact list. Their contributions are as significant as mine, and have contributed to many of my insights. I may not have written in depth on their areas of interest, because I respected their expertise.

¶ 23 Leave a comment on paragraph 23 0 We must discover how to approach and engage “young” persons before then commit themselves to a “cause” or “life project”, and provide them with more options.

¶ 24 Leave a comment on paragraph 24 0 All  this I integrate within the conceptual scheme I call UPLIFT. Although we must explore the need to time-capsule our archives, NOW IS THE TIME for integrated, emergent action free from the constraints of contemporary humankind. Humankind is to be engaged as an environment (dangerous, but with resources and potential recruits), and not as a super-system within which we are members. Criminal gangs already take this perspective when they prey on other humans.

¶ 25 Leave a comment on paragraph 25 0  

¶ 26 Leave a comment on paragraph 26 0 ============================ emails

¶ 27 Leave a comment on paragraph 27 0 Alex Gagnon 06/23/2018

¶ 28 Leave a comment on paragraph 28 0 Hi, all,

¶ 29 Leave a comment on paragraph 29 0 My theory is that “collaborative equilibrium” sets in too quickly. I call it “collabrium” or “collaborative equilibrium”. It’s an unhappy equilibrium / inadequate equilibrium that sets in, a form of stagnancy, in groups who are collaborating… It’s hard to say how it comes about… it can be because of a lack of activity, people just end up dropping out, there are no clear objectives also at times, and the collaboration is just a basic failure… it’s a failure to coordinate. If we really needed to, we would coordinate automatically… In Quebec where I live in 1998 in January or so, we had an ice storm that took out the power grid for a huge area, where I happened to live. We lost power for over 3 weeks. It was terrible, people died, frozen in their homes. But a magical thing happened, there was tons of cooperation… everyone suddenly went into survival mode and it was a really amazing thing, to see so many people helping strangers… we organized very rapidly.. and that’s what I think should happen given the state of the Crises of Crises… but it’s not happening at the rate it should be… I can’t explain why…

¶ 30 Leave a comment on paragraph 30 0 Even here in this email thread we have over 20 people involved… surely that’s enough to get a team/crew going… but what are we doing? We’re waiting for someone else to take the lead perhaps, I don’t know. Are we not yet convinced that decisive action is immediately necessary? I really don’t know, I think it’s a conundrum and will become more apparent when 2050 comes around. Then people will really be panicking.. and maybe something will be done. But as long as we are living “comfortable” lives, we are not inclined to take decisive action… don’t ask me why. The proof is in the pudding, we are already beyond all earlier predictions…. we are screwed, we know it.. yet we do nothing, we send emails out to friends.. and have casual conversation..

¶ 31 Leave a comment on paragraph 31 0 You know like you Larry you’re getting old and you’re going to die one of these days, and I wish it wasn’t so, but it’s just a fact of the matter…. what is the plan to take your archives and do what after you pass? What’s your legacy? Who will be in charge of making sure your legacy continues to have an impact? I don’t even want to think about these things, but it’s just a fact of the matter… The goal for me, one of the main goals, is to make sure that there is a proper TRANSMISSION OF WISDOM from one generation to the next. I want to take your archives and give it to young people, in their late teens and early 20s, and say, Here, here’s the archives of an old man, do something inspiring with it. I don’t kow what else to do. The message MUST be transmitted from generation to generation, it’s our only hope.

¶ 32 Leave a comment on paragraph 32 0 A.G. (c) 2018. All Rights Reserved.

¶ 33 Leave a comment on paragraph 33 0  

¶ 34 Leave a comment on paragraph 34 0 On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 7:16 PM larry victor <nuet1370@gmail.com> wrote:

¶ 35 Leave a comment on paragraph 35 0 We need to give more attention to teams and crews, their formation, OLLO, dynamics, creativity, and productivity. “Dialog” will be involved at every stage. Individual differences in cognitive styles MUST be given explicit attention – we can’t assume we are all basically alike. Learning to dialog, and learning how to function within teams and crews will also need to account for this cognitive diversity.

¶ 36 Leave a comment on paragraph 36 0 Our patterns of human interactivity are crude and prmitive, compared to our potentials. We are programmed to adapt, and not learn to change.

¶ 37 Leave a comment on paragraph 37 0 In metaphor, humans in humankind are yet embryonic.

¶ 38 Leave a comment on paragraph 38 0 Metamorphise or Die.

¶ 39 Leave a comment on paragraph 39 0 Larry/nuet

¶ 40 Leave a comment on paragraph 40 0