1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 Every other year since 1994, Tucson has hosted THE SCIENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS multi-day conference. I attended every conference until the venue moved to the expensive resort hotels. I presented papers at some. The topics range broadly from hard neuroscience and philosophy to subjective reports, altered-states, and Eastern spirituality.

2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 If my health permits, I hope to attend the CC conference, April 2-7, 2018. I also am considering submitting a paper, the abstract due Dec 15, in 25 days. I have drafted an abstract  (below), currently 994 words, with the maximum being 500 words. I present this draft and the long title below (200 characters, max). This represents an attempt to summarize/outline relationships between of some of my major ideas.

3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 My current efforts to edit the abstract is resulting in its expansion. Others are better able to determine what is best to save/eliminate when editing down to 500 words. The clickable links would not be in the formal abstract.

4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 I will greatly appreciate your reading the abstract, and letting me know if it makes any sense to you. Summarizing radically, new insights is usually impossible. Any suggestions as to what to cut out, to reduce its length to 500 words, would be fantastic. You can comment within this blog, but emails may be easier.

5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0 Thank you
reeee seaf galdee nu

6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 **********************

: SURVIVE/THRIVE Crisis-of-Crises :
Who Are We?

8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 0 ———————-

9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 0 Epistemes defined as shared unconscious contexts for cultures, comprised of systems of perspectives and paradigms. Usually epistemes slowly evolve, providing a conservative context for changing details in populations.

10 Leave a comment on paragraph 10 0 Epistemes “shift” when their component paradigms change/interact systemically, leading to the emergence of a new episteme, replacing the old.

11 Leave a comment on paragraph 11 0 The new episteme may incorporate features of the old; but the shift is an emergence/replacement, not transformation. The shifts can take decades to centuries, to complete. Epistemes can sometimes be adopted by other cultures. Some of our limiting paradigms are old, having roots in our tribal biology/evolution; but have become dysfunctional for larger human social/societal systems.

12 Leave a comment on paragraph 12 0 Tech innovations have forced changes in paradigms and perspectives, giving rise to potentials for a massive shift of episteme. However, accumulated structural changes in our societal infrastructures now block the needed emergence of a viable new episteme for global humankind. The growing potential is both diverse, vast, and complex, but trapped in self-reinforcing silos; blocking necessary synergy.

13 Leave a comment on paragraph 13 0 We can’t determine or forecast details of this emergence or its multi-millennial trajectory. We can break the blocks and augment critical shifts, creatively contributing to the emergence of our new episteme – essential for our survival/thrival facing our catastrophic Crisis-of-Crises.

14 Leave a comment on paragraph 14 0 A major re-conceptualization of the deep nature of humans and change is at the core of this shifting. Human Reality (HR), {as contained in the holarchy of pictures/scenes/stories/scenarios/../periods/eras, represented in human authored semiotic structures (sems) [reports, artwork]}, is not fully constrained by the laws of Material Reality (MR). Belief that personal HR must be an objective MR, is one dangerous paradigm to be rejected. This shift will be as massive as any prior epistemic shifts, such as agriculture; written language; scientific, industrial & digital revolutions.

15 Leave a comment on paragraph 15 0 Another destructive paradigm is the fallacious practice of ranking multi-dimensional entities. We can compare or rank such entities only one attribute at a time. We can’t rank the USA and North Korea, or Einstein and Trump. Yet, such ranking is a common feature of our current episteme.

16 Leave a comment on paragraph 16 0 An additional paradigm to shift is the myth of singular causes – which are embedded in the narrative reports of HR. There are no causes in MR. There is strong evidence for creative agency in humans and human systems, but human S/R behavior is highly deterministic. Creativity occurs in thinking or behavior that is not in response to stimuli. Concepts of causality & freedom-vs-determinism require serious modification in the epistemic shift.

17 Leave a comment on paragraph 17 0 The Problem/Solution Research Paradigm works for many MR phenomenon; but is dangerous when applied to HR. Yet, with HR=MR as part of our dominant episteme, humankind blithely bumbles along making critical decisions based on fallacious assumptions. Moral justifications, unfortunately, are not “objective” ala MR. Morality must find its justification in HR.

18 Leave a comment on paragraph 18 0 With this HR/MR distinction, humans return to being central to reality – but not with the negative ecological effect of human exceptionalism. Indeed, it may be that the evolutionary emergence of humans heralds a creative break in the evolution/emergence of Gaia. This might be called a Nu Genesis.

19 Leave a comment on paragraph 19 0 It is posited that the emergence of visual, digital language finalized the liberation of information from all prior bonding within matter/energy systems. The letters on this page is a unique phenomenon in Gaia, and possibly in the universe (with the exception of other Gaias).

20 Leave a comment on paragraph 20 0 When these new ideas are examined, one discovers that the empirical foundation of HR is the semfield, the perceived structures created by humans, and not our perceived environments. Our constructed experiences of perceived MR are strongly influenced by our narratives. This is not solipsistic, as within HR is evidence of MR; but MR is never directly experienced. “Nature” is a human construct.

21 Leave a comment on paragraph 21 0 Collectively, these paradigm shifts provide a useful context for comprehending the epidemic of fake news and fake realities, spreading globally. Naive belief in the objectivity of conscious content may lead to the extinction of humankind, and the end of what the future of Gaia, with a maturing HR, offers.

22 Leave a comment on paragraph 22 0 Individual human persons must come to terms with their intrinsic limitations. George Miller’s 7+/-2 Law, modified, informs us that the content of momentary conscious experience must be represented in a contextual system with only a few independent variables. Our inner-woven, unconscious “wrld” may have more variables; which we “sample” moment-by-moment. The “worldviews” of every human stabilizes into a limited a set of fundamental variables, significantly less than the diversity of collective reality.

23 Leave a comment on paragraph 23 0 No individual human should be given power over others. Power must be properly distributed among an uplifted global population. The conscious lives of persons should be greatly enhanced when we realize that we can’t consciously control our personal emergence. We can have creative influence, within the limitations of our DNA and the cultures within which we live.

24 Leave a comment on paragraph 24 0 Given these insights, what might we do? It may a practical fact that contemporary humankind can’t be transFORMed into a viable, sustainable humanity. But there are alternatives to transFORMation: Cultural/Societal Metamorphosis. HR can metamorphose without concurrent transformation of our material infrastructure, and in a time-frame within decades.

25 Leave a comment on paragraph 25 0 Rapidly uplifting the distribution of competencies in the global population is now feasible, with a synergy of our new knowledge, hitech, and utilizing the whole uplifting population as learners/educators – and abandoning mass processes that ignore the extraordinary diversity of human conceptual/cognitive/emotional competencies: Learners for Quality Education. Significant, rapid change in large populations are now possible via a personalized many-to-one process, with an exponential growth potential without broadcasting to masses.

26 Leave a comment on paragraph 26 0 Contemporary HUMANKIND can be conceptualized as a dysfunctional ecology of different, conflicting epistemes. HUMANITY is the name of a future, global human system, with a common core episteme more consistent with the “real nature” of the diverse population of human persons. Humanity can be analogous to a biological organism, with common DNA, but with diverse cell/tissue types.

27 Leave a comment on paragraph 27 0 The shift from HUMANKIND to HUMANITY will not “just happen”; it requires intentional, human creative/organized participation in removing the blocks to the epistemic shift “chomping at the bit” to emerge.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *