Many of us are well versed in the structural scaffolding of Ecologies and Holarchies in our attempts to comprehend biological domains.  It might be useful to access the historical record of discourse on attempting to apply these scaffoldings for cognitive and conceptual domains. E.g., Gregory Bateson’s The Ecology of Mind.

In our concrete examples, our domains were about  collective actions of persons in “real” stimulating environments.  What is “out there” was in our attentive view?  Here we attend to the “frames”,”paradigms”, “habits”, or “contexts” that constrain/enable how we experience our realities.


The past few months I have been navigating discourse by “geeks” and “fellow travelers”.  NOTHING NEGATIVE is being implied by this terminology.  “Geek” is usually ascribed to those highly fluent in computer technology; but could be generalized to any population deeply focused on the precise techniques of their endeavors.  Often this population has developed a deeply ingrown culture and communication style which makes it difficult for others outside that population to follow in any depth. What MUST accompany any intensification of focus is a dimming of the periphery, the context.

Over a decade ago I caught the attention of one person by my reference to our TOWER OF BABEL, resulting in periods of intense collaboration and (more recently) distancing (both too busy).  There are literally millions of towers rising (in the emergent movement {ignore-for-the-time the distractors} that are unable to achieve adequate synergy and collaboration – in spite of these objectives being cited as their primary needs and towards which they are devoting most of their energy and time.  Why this disconnect, or is nuet delusional?

How are we distributing our ATTENTION?
A memory bubbles up, of a time with George Por in Santa Cruz, around 2000, before he moved to Europe, where he called my attention to ATTENTION , to attend to. George was right; but George and I were never really able to “collaborate”; although we cross fertilized vital ideas.  George – we haven’t directly connected in years!

May “geek” be a characteristic of our times, of our over specialization and the abandonment of seeking relevant contexts (yet, in another way being alert to this issue)? Yet, at the very same time we seem to broadening the fields of our attention.

MOOT Domains

A phenomenon is moot if whatever happens is “washed out” in the progress of time. For those involved in the discourse (and more) related to an issue, their “bubble” seems  MOST CRITICAL – MOST REALLY REAL.  In cosmic and evolutionary time, most phenomena are moot (which is not to say irrelevant).

HOWEVER, even when a phenomenon is moot, HOW IT COMES DOWN can create a wave that propagates long, long into the future.  A seemingly incidental feature in a phenomenon could set critical initial conditions for the emergence from chaos, even when the most publicized aspects are moot.
aside: ({[  I need to consult DEEP into my evolutionary heritage. I was just now involved in soul discourse with my nearly 13 year old Golden Retriever service dog, Rusty.  Our menagerie of 5 dogs and 7 cats (+6 feral cats outside) provides me a gateway into the Biosphere.]})

Most dominant of moot domains are the critical issues of contemporary news. ALL THE BEST commentators are so far, far out of context.  Even Syria and the Iran/Palestine/Israeli  issue is moot, in the context of Climate Change. All discourse related the the USA Constitution is moot. That document, monumental for its time, even with its many compromise imperfections, is today but an irrelevant artifact.

That is, almost ALL open discourse in all media on all “current issues” are “issues” only by being ARTIFACTS of contextual confusion at higher levels never attended to.  These are ALL lockins. “Raise the water to shift the lockin” and most crises evaporate (but new crises immediately emerge – often also artifacts).

Yet, because a phenomenon is moot to our distant future doesn’t mean we can ignore it.   What seems called for is some nu ways of working with contexts.

What an arrogant statement: just popped up from nuet!   Something profound is brewing. What is the nature of contexts, in the sense of their ecological relationships and their nested configurations?
At this point [ 1/7/2013 5:43 PM ] in this first draft composition I am LOST.  I can’t seem now to link to the inner source of this initial insight.   Time to reflect on time to  share?  At this moment, 1/7/2013 5:44 PM , I decide to hold distribution of this doc, still in NoteMap outliner.
Back, 1/7/2013 11:08 PM . Re-read.  Well, I read the above and made minor edits.  What hit me, and I sense the core of my insight (if that is what this is) the contrast between 1) our primary domains of interest and attention & the contexts that support them AND 2) RoR – the “Rest of Reality” and the subtle contexts that sustain their marginality?