¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 I have troubling concerns that the best of our analysts’ assessments and reporting of “states” and potential trends of the “reality of humankind”, from personal & local to regional & global, is limited and seemingly oblivious to “deeper” processes behind the “surface symptoms” they consider “fundamental”. If I am correct, we are in serious trouble.

¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 Unfortunately, this “deeper reality” is impossible to simply convey (even in a long essay) that can be comprehended, by even the best minds – working in an episteme (worldview) that “is allergic to” mis-perceived aspects of the new “deeper reality”. So, I must first use some metaphors to characterize my/our challenge.

¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 At every era, the majority of the best minds believed in the ultimate truth of their fundamental knowledge. They anticipated “filling in the gaps”, but strongly resisted proposals (by a few “radicals”) that some of their fundamentals may be “wrong”. This is not a moral judgement, but a “fact” about our inherited/intrinsic propensities. It requires “special nature/nurture mixed-dances” to override this propensity (and then, only partially).

¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 This is true today, for our best minds, specifically about the “nature of humankind” ( as distinct from our much superior comprehension of Material Reality).

¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0 Consider the “view of humankind”, by the best minds, before we had knowledge of biological cells, let alone knowledge of molecular biology; or our knowledge of human behavior before we had knowledge of neurons, “neural networks”, synapses, or brain architecture. What we now know are but surface consequences of underlying processes (symptoms), were then “viewed” as fundamental reality. Sometimes unobservable entities or forces (gods, spirits  , phlogiston  , humours  & essences  , etc.) were often assumed, to create “coherence” to the “story of humankind”.

¶ 6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 What are our assumed “crutches” that support our contemporary episteme?

¶ 7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0 One set of such crutches relates to assumptions we use when talking about humans in social, political, or economic contexts. Most persons in “Western” societies view the “individual” as possessing competencies they don’t have – as evidenced by a wealth of scientific studies, readily accessible, but ignored in all media discourse about “current events” and “projections”. This is a unique blindness, but characteristic of the deeper reality of “human nature” (that remains “hidden”, as did the “cells” and “molecules” for our ancestors).

Characteristic are our beliefs in the objectivity of conflict, each side adamant the other is wrong/evil and that they are right/good.

¶ 9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 0 The current conflict between USA/NATO & Russia/China is a “Hatfield-McCoy”  perpetual feud. Both sides are both, continuously offensive and defensive. Both media and participants are locked-into “championing their side”. Such conflict can escalate to destructive wars. This dynamic is manipulated by “economic players” who profit from conflict.

The same perpetual “feud” applies to political party conflicts. Recently, Information Technology (IT) has intensified the conflict, creating insulated silos immune to interference. Today, these conflict verge on the potential of “civil wars” and Rwanda-style genocidal exercises  . If Trump/GOP win future elections (which will be rigged), the other sides will be severely oppressed (resistance will probably be put down). If the “established” and “progressive” wings of the Democratic Party can unite and win control of congress, the Trump base may revolt, violently. None of this is discussed in either the MSM or Alt-media.

Careful analysis of the polarization of the USA is very disturbing. Neither side will accept defeat. In addition, this conflict is influenced by many “forces”.

¶ 12 Leave a comment on paragraph 12 0 We may “view” all these processes, from “above” as a phenomenon unfolding.

¶ 13 Leave a comment on paragraph 13 0  

¶ 14 Leave a comment on paragraph 14 0 However, our “hidden” and “deeper” reality won’t be found in new material structures, of brains or cells. I will attempt (elsewhere) to argue for a sharp distinction between Material Reality (MR) and Human Reality (HR).

¶ 15 Leave a comment on paragraph 15 0 Our contemporary blindspot is that HR must follow the “laws” of MR. Also, we assume a confirmable “objective” reality for HR, similar to that for MR, which – I will argue – doesn’t exist. Briefly, the empirical basis for HR is limited to published reports (semiotic structures). Contrary to common belief, we don’t share Material Reality (MR), nor do we directly experience MR. Contemporary science had confirmed that we are autopoietic  beings, only experiencing our own internal processes. Luhmann hypothesizes that social systems are also autopoietic.

¶ 16 Leave a comment on paragraph 16 0 I anticipate a new episteme for humankind will involve “systemic” “structural coupling”  of “wrlds” (internally emergent/woven/constructed simulated “worlds” within each human person) and “socsys” (social systems in analogy to wrlds.

¶ 17 Leave a comment on paragraph 17 0 Sems (semiotic structures – e.g. digital texts and videos) and semfields (systems of sems) will be the link between HR and MR. Sems are uniquely human, representing human created liberation of information forms from all prior embedment in matter/energy systems (MR). Sems are replicable and serve, in analog, as “atom types” for HR, as material atoms are assumed “identical” in MR.
—————–

¶ 18 Leave a comment on paragraph 18 0 From prior experiences in attempting to share these ideas, I don’t expect the brief summaries above, will result in your comprehending the integrated system of conceptual schemes I am proposing. Nothing in the above addresses how these insights may affect the trends we find, disturbing, within humankind – this also requires extended interactive learning (OLLO).

¶ 19 Leave a comment on paragraph 19 0 All the component ideas for this new episteme currently exist in “The Literature”, some going back many decades, even centuries. The emergence of the new episteme (I label “NU”) is but a unique re-weaving of old concepts (slightly modified to “fit”) into a nu “tapestry” of experienced/shared semfields.

¶ 20 Leave a comment on paragraph 20 0 It will probably be useful to examine prior epistemic shifts:

(1) A nu episteme initiates within a small population. Its “spreading” to other populations usually required “educational processes”, in addition to simpler information exchanges.

(2) A nu episteme never spreads to all human populations. Contemporary humankind contains many semi-informationally-isolated populations living with (modified) epistemes of our past.

(3) A nu episteme “matures” as it emerges. Some of the deeper aspects of a nu episteme were not noticed or comprehended by the early founders of the new episteme. The founders only identify those features of the old that are changing, and weaving in nu patterns; they never comprehend the precise features of a new “mature” episteme. There are many different types of social/societal systems that can emerge from the current nu episteme (still a “seed”).

(4) Any new episteme will only be temporary. Epistemic shifts may continue to occur in periodic bursts. Or, humans may change to create a continuous process of epistemic emergence.

¶ 25 Leave a comment on paragraph 25 0  

¶ 26 Leave a comment on paragraph 26 0 ————————–
TIME FOR CLOSURE. This essay is already too long. One thing for sure, the nu episteme will create new technologies and languages for the “reeee galdee seaf” of human dialog/discourse/decision-making.

¶ 27 Leave a comment on paragraph 27 0 reeee galdee seaf =
relevant/effective/efficient/enjoyable/elegant
growth/adaptation/learning/development/evolution/emergence
to
support/enable/augment/facilitate