Tom, I enjoyed dialog and dinner, but believe that “progress” requires the same intensity-over-asynchronous-extended-time as exists in F2F dialog – and more. The contexts of most human activity is very limited, whether F2F or online reading and interacting asynchronously. We leave behind our behavior a confusing trail of discourse and records, with very few permanent documents (Bible, US Constitution) or Semiotic Structures for continuing modification (Wikipedia). Published books are not really interactive. Social media is primarily conversational.
I devoted some minutes exploring Colin’s work. Looks quite interesting. I resonate with the importance of considering “negative” forces – as we have long been concerned with psychopathy. I am familiar with many of his book references. I don’t yet know about his Alchemical Quest practice. Hope to find time to explore deeper.
Every day I create a row of 10-20 pinned tabs in my browser of relevant resources encountered online. Today I simply bookmarked the many urls (noted, but unread) into various folders and sub-folders, soon to be forgotten. [As urls, some disappear; I seldom download the actual texts.] Many of my sub-folders have many hundreds of urls.
I should develop a process to make my selections available to interested others online (both past accumulated and ongoing). At age 80, I can’t devote time to this. If anyone comes to value my selections, I will be happy to work with them in making them available to others. Unless there is a ready audience, it it not a high priority.
The full semfield of humankind (all records of all human reporting, writing, and artistic creativity) is beyond imagining and brimming with awesome potential. Our teeny mind/brains are overwhelmed. Compare this with what tribal persons encountered, and that their mind/brains had evolved for that level of complexity – basic brain structures we still have, or so it is claimed. That we can do what we do is a significant fact – to be better comprehended.
I am beginning to acknowledge the significance of a context-knowledge distinction. No matter the Magnitude/Scope/Complexity of systems of conceptual schemes and associated “facts”, they are highly dependent on a diversity of “contexts”, which are mostly not conscious. When we ARE conscious of them, they are no longer in “context”.
This reminds me of the basic theme of Robert Kegan’s “Objectification” scheme in his levels of adult development (alternate to Spiral Dynamics). Shifts up the levels occur when a pattern that has been unconscious (in context) becomes conscious – is “objectified” – becoming part of our potential experiential universe for attention.
Even the scope of meanings we are open to apply to terms is part of the context. Right now I am very sensitive to the great diversity of meanings for the term “language”. So many persons I highly respect are hot on the trail of what they call “Pattern Languages”. (Read my comment – also posted in my blog: ). I am greatly committed to our need to create a nu language system (more than just a “language”), yet – even after considerable study and effort – I don’t comprehend “Pattern Language” as a “language”. The objectives of PLAST extend far beyond their “obsession” with “patterns”.
I speculate that my lack of mental imagery has released me to a process of accelerated “objectification”. I still have contexts that I am unaware of – which is an attribute of contexts. Yet, for many decades I am frequently made aware of contexts and have attempted to integrate these new patterns into the emergent inner-woven-world I call “nuet”. UPLIFT must focus on Kegan’s “objectification”, revealing our contexts. This can best be done in OLLO groups, where persons assist each other in their “objectification”, assisted by Intelligent Technology.
Humankind’s enormous semfield, that has been exponentially growing (beyond massively with computers), in Magnitude, Scope, and Complexity, is a totally new phenomenon on Gaia, and possibly the Universe. We are each as embedded in that part of the semfield we engage, as we are embedded in our “natural” and “social” environments.
Might our galdeeing semfield be analogous to the DATA observed/recorded from macro instruments that gave rise to our Quantum Reality conceptual schemes – which we have applied and which have greatly accelerated the emergence of the whole semfield. Quantum Reality coalesced in 1926 with the leading physicists (exploring this marginal topic) deciding to abandon ALL METAPHORS from our everyday world and focus ONLY ON DATA. Most of us don’t realize that these physicists were outliers, in the margins, and attacked for decades by the physics establishment. Even among them there was great controversy as their contexts shifted. Even today, many physicists can routinely apply the techniques from Quantum Mechanics; yet have not made the “objectification” shifts, themselves. At some point, in my university studies of Quantum Mechanics, I commented to my colleagues that : “QM appears to be only a curve-fitting technique” – implying, by analogy, a means of organizing and utilizing data, and not having any implication to an “objective reality”.
Due to my lack of sensory remembrances, I can’t remember what I learned about the distinction between Heisenberg’s Quantum Matrix Theory and Schroedinger’s Quantum Wave Theory. Initially in conflict, they were eventually shown to be EQUIVALENT in terms of their predictability of DATA. However, their “contexts” are quite different. All our coursework used Wave Theory.
I have just now begun to explore, online – what a treasure tool – past and current thinking about this level of EQUIVALENCE, and what it may imply. This is one big level up from Bohr’s complementarity (wave-particle duality) and Heisenberg’s Indeterminacy Principle (we can’t measure two canonical variables with total accuracy for both – an intrinsic “error” related to Planck’s constant must always exist). Between Matrix Theory, Wave Theory (and other alternative invented more recently – it is reported), we can have wildly different contexts (frames for our conceptions of reality) that are all equivalent to PATTERNS IN DATA. This, I grok, is very significant.
SO, IN ANALOGY, the “data” we have in sems about societal systems may be “explained by” or from within different “contexts”. These “contexts” are, in part, unconscious metaphors from our Naive, Immediate Reality – some embedded in our sensory/perception biology. This includes our transfer of attributes from social groups to societal systems.
INTUITION: a term having radically different meanings. In terms of the mammalian mind/brain, characterized as fast/intuitive/emotional, this term can be useful or dangerous. Intuitions (instinctual behaviors being noted in consciousness) from earlier mammalian/primate/homo-sapien times can have negative effects in contemporary situations. “Intuition” is also used to label spiritual, creative, or holistic INSIGHTS, that emerge from the subconscious and are accepted as true and significant. I consider Larry’s insights as intuitive channeling from nuet. I am also very aware of my many negative mammalian drives and biases.
Tom, I am going to stop now – after another Associate Walk through nuet. Much of the above is new to me, emerging as insights as I wrote. I don’t expect others to immediately comprehend what I have written, as it implies changes of context, which usually can’t be changed by ordinary informing (reading this email). Quality education has never been limited to passive informing – which is one of the danger of purely online education.
I will post this on my blog.
On 11/3/2015 8:50 AM, Thomas Greco wrote:
Colin Davis is a bright young man I’ve met during several of my Bay area presentations.
He has some original ideas.
What do you think of his main thesis?
Thanks for dinner last night.
Thomas H. Greco, Jr. email@example.com PO Box 42663, Tucson, AZ 85733 Mobile phone (USA): 520-820-0575 Beyond Money: http://beyondmoney.net Archive Website: http://www.Reinventingmoney.com Skype/Twitter name: tomazgreco My fourth and latest book, “The End of Money and the Future of Civilization” can be ordered from Chelsea Green Publishing, Amazon.com, or your local bookshop.
——– Forwarded Message ——–
|Subject:||Passing on our book Shadow Tech|
|Date:||Mon, 2 Nov 2015 14:59:11 -0800|
|From:||Colin Davis <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
Hi Tom, Colin Davis here. You may remember when we saw each other at Sergio’s in Martinez last we mentioned that we were writing a book. I wanted to pass it along to you. Your work is listed on page 66 and in the Recommended Works list at the end of the book. I’ll just paste some into below including a direct link to the book PDF.
Looking forward to seeing you again and your next Bay Area event!
“Shadow Tech is an alchemical exploration into the human shadow. Among several models discussed, destructive cultural drives are related to viruses and parasites in biology and information systems. Cyclical destructive behavior is attributed to the “victim-victor cycle”. Culture and mind are shown to be organic operating systems which act as mediums for viral transmission of shadow energies. The authors share their own experiences and alchemical philosophy, as well as effective methods for balancing repressed destructive energies.”
What’s next for those who have taken the “Red Pill”? The authors have found alchemical shadow work to be a powerful tool for balancing their internal states and the raising of their consciousness. The biggest battle for the minds of humanity is not waged “out there” – it’s waged inside the psychic states of every human being.
Direct link to book PDF
Contact us for comments, questions or interviews.Tom,
Colin E. Davis and Melissa Mari