¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 (composed 7/13/2017 7:00-11:49 AM)
(first posted 8/18/2017)
(first edit 8/20/2017)

¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 INSIGHT: Although
Objective Reality can’t be Directly Experienced,
Some Objective Information can be Known.

¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 Social Systems have partial Objectivity.

notes on my documents:

¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 Again, a ramble – a seemingly random walk through the mind of Larry/nuet. Please, join me on this walk, follow my path of symbolic crumbs, my temporary semfield. Artists and musicians (artists of the auditory) are permitted to present discrete products for perception, enjoyment, and possible enlightenment. This is even permitted for authors of fiction. So-called “non-fiction” texts, however, are always judged in “subjective context”.

¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0 Readers of my docs don’t know of the temporal pattern in their creation. I start a linear composition; although each new section may result from a spontaneous insight during the writing of the prior section, and the relationship between sections may not clear. I often go back and expand and edit; adding depth. Although I grok a common context for any doc, when I read it; this cannot be expected for others.

¶ 6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 On writing this intro after writing much of what follows, I realize — I just lost what I was to add. This FORGETTING may also play a role for others attempting to comprehend my text. When I read and write, what I have just prior read is not accessible. I am never actually “conscious of the whole”. Although I believe that such “consciousness of wholes” is an illusion, I speculate that others (with mental imagery) may actually experience the content of what they are sensing at the moment – in real context with conscious experiences of immediately past content, in superimposed mental imagery.

¶ 7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0 Whenever I compose a document, such as this, I am also generating new insights – some of which I attempt to report, while other insights may effect what I write.

¶ 8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 0 What I do write is spontaneously emergent from my subconscious. I may sit for moments between writing sentences, but usually not having concrete thoughts. I observe myself starting to type as verbal thoughts accompany my typing. What I will type has been determined before I type, and I sub-vocally verbalize what I read with my eyes. My typing/reading lags a fraction of a second behind my verbalizing – but both are but unfolding of behavioral programs from nuet. Having a perceived emergent sentence input back to nuet will often result in spontaneous actions to edit. Usually the edit generalizes the sentence, attempting to make it more “precise”. I am aware that this style of writing is very difficult for others to read, let alone comprehend.

¶ 9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 0 Ideally, these composed semfields should be the focus of interactive dialog among readers in their movement towards collective comprehension. This may or may not include my participation in the dialog.

¶ 10 Leave a comment on paragraph 10 0 In an ideal metaphor: my documents (semfields) might be imagined as a complex set of paintings and short video sequences. They unfortunately have an imposed order-for-processing, that may not be useful for every reader. Some readers will face too many new terms and acronyms, a situation I often face when reading philosophical texts.

NOTE ON INSIGHT:

¶ 11 Leave a comment on paragraph 11 0 A few different incidents triggered the slow emergence (a few days unfolding) of this insight:

¶ 12 Leave a comment on paragraph 12 0 1) Reading parts of The Knowledge Illusion by Steven Sloman and Phillip Fernbach , in context with concurrently inching through The Enigma of Reason by Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber. Both are recent (2017) publications. Both books reported on knowledge that supports my thinking (related to Up2Met), but the four authors don’t appear to have, yet, experienced the fundamental insight: Humankind’s Collective Knowledge/Beliefs in WhoWeAre is Fundamentally and Dangerously Flawed. Although exposing many myths about humankind, they write within the context of many false assumptions about “human nature” and humankind.

¶ 13 Leave a comment on paragraph 13 0 2) The accelerating fragmentation (well beyond polarization and ….) of “wrlds within worlds” and the deep and seemingly intractable siloing of the very best minds.

¶ 14 Leave a comment on paragraph 14 0 3) The breakdowns of my personal systems: body, conscious mind (Larry’s senility), family & friends, habitat, online network of contacts – with no personal agency to reverse this trend. All this in context with the apparent accelerating breakdown of human and societal systems – with no apparent acknowledgement of, let alone viable movements to rectify, this trend. Time is very short, if my unique insights (a system of nu memes with a potentially very positive option to secure the multi-millennial survival/thrival of Humanity/Gaia) are to become active within human discourse.

¶ 15 Leave a comment on paragraph 15 0 4) In context with these personal and existential Crises-of-Crises, I re-examine my possible status as a “unique savant”, specially gifted to minimize some of the effects of our human limitations, making Larry/nuet a potentially useful TOOL to be used by humankind, providing a tentative “map” for the transition from humankind to humanity. This unique status was recently greatly enhanced by the discovery that Larry has/does exhibit behavior indicative of the some – but not all – traits for the Autism Spectrum or Asbergers Syndrome .  My long time known lack of mental imagery in all sensory modalities makes me an exception within Autism/Asperger; but my inability to view myself as a member of a social category is very real (objective), and significant for others (to know) to better comprehend my insights.

SHIFTS:

¶ 16 Leave a comment on paragraph 16 0 This insight is shifting me away from a bias that may have been blocking the comprehension of others to my primary insight.

¶ 17 Leave a comment on paragraph 17 0 My bias was in my emotional/intuitive support of “Subjectivity over Objectivity”. My whole behavior/thinking reflected this bias, even though I explicitly sought to present a balanced parity between these two crude perspectives of what we label “REALITY” (a conceptual scheme too slippery to grab hold of).

¶ 18 Leave a comment on paragraph 18 0 RELATIVITY might be better contrasted with OBJECTIVITY, too sketch this bias. Everything is not all Relative! What is “Objective” in my Up2Met proposal/model, given that I believe we can’t directly experience Objective Reality?

¶ 19 Leave a comment on paragraph 19 0 ———-

¶ 20 Leave a comment on paragraph 20 0 I am also shifting in my exploration of my difficulty in sharing my larger conceptual schemes. I take note, from The Knowledge Illusion, that collective comprehension of major conceptual schemes are located in intimate, communicating groups, and NOT within the knowledge/minds of individual participants. That individuals believe they actually posses explicit knowledge content can be empirically demonstrated as illusion.

¶ 21 Leave a comment on paragraph 21 0 I recognize that I never have had a group attentive to the conceptual schemes that have been emerging within Larry/nuet over these eight decades. I may have temporarily participated in such knowledge exploring groups on other, more limited, content.

¶ 22 Leave a comment on paragraph 22 0  

This may be a condition for many persons of “genius”. The recent TV series, Genius – featuring Einstein – illustrated his difficulty in “relating personally” with others. Fortunately, Einstein’s radical insights – initially strongly rejected by the then scientific establishment – were in physics and thus capable of eventual empirical confirmation. This foundation in empirical science permits scientific discourse groups to cohere about objective, observable entities – The Scientific Literature, including data. Relevant scientific discourse is not only mind-to-mind about mental ideas, but also mind-to-mind about shared, concrete observables: texts, including math and data representations.

This “shared confirmation” process used in the material sciences is not nearly as strong in the human sciences, and often absent or warped in discourse about so-called “real events in the real world” as conveyed in the various media.

My proposal that humankind shift its foundation for human sciences to sems and semfields, and away from the illusionary “objective reality consciously observed” provides a possible resolution of our dilemma. This proposal is not easy to implement, let alone comprehend.

¶ 26 Leave a comment on paragraph 26 0 Larry’s wrld, named “nuet”, and its dominant model of “personal-to-societal-reality-change” I label “Up2Met”, has emerged with little positive feedback from others. Up2Met has been woven from multiple, significant inputs from many others (by reading and conversation) – over my lifetime. What is unique about Up2Met are the nu relationships that nuet wove between the content nodes from others. Also, each node in Up2Met has been modified by their interactivity within emergent nuet. Thus every term I use in my texts may have a different meaning for others, than I have for myself. The lack of positive feedback and deep dialog with others has resulted in an isolation of Up2Met from useful dialog with others.

I need to search for and explore work on such “SHARED KNOWLEDGE GROUPS”, and their differences. Scientific groups, as contrasted with other groups: ideological, political, economic, intelligence, media, military, religious, artistic, hobby, pathological, etc. What has been the impact (and forecasted impacts) of technology on these groups and their performance? How might insights about SHARED KNOWLEDGE GROUPS assist us in comprehending and responding to the fragmentation of humankind as being revealed by The Trump Phenomenon?

¶ 28 Leave a comment on paragraph 28 0 The shift in the conceptual scheme about “terms/words and their meanings in usage” as demonstrated in the 2013 masterpiece, Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking, Doug Hofstadter & Emmanuel Sander has yet to be recognized, acknowledged, and integrated.

THE OBJECTIVITY OF SOCIAL GROUPS:

¶ 29 Leave a comment on paragraph 29 0 For many years my focus has been on PERSONAL vs SOCIETAL systems, with lesser attention to SOCIAL systems. I now recognize that this is partly due to my inability to emotionally feel authentic membership in social systems or societal categories.

¶ 30 Leave a comment on paragraph 30 0 I have never experienced myself as a son, brother, father, parent, husband, friend, student, teacher, scientist, futurist, American, male, short, N-years old, etc. I comprehend these categories. As not experiencing mental imagery, I also don’t experience emotional empathy – IN THE WAY OTHERS DO.

¶ 31 Leave a comment on paragraph 31 0 I learned of my lack of mental imagery when I actually had a brief visual image (at age 22), and learned what I was missing. Since then, I have scientifically explored mental imagery. I now am learning that my empathy is not missing, but focused on “conceptualizations” about human situations and not on “personal relationships”. Indeed, I am driven to be behaviorally submissive to other’s imposed constraints; even though I may often object verbally. Indeed, my brief emotional outbursts are always an automatic response to being “dissed”. I don’t first consciously notice being dissed; those thoughts come after the emotional outburst has done its damage. My emotional outbursts often lead to emotional outbursts from others, although often not by their SHOUTING, which they perceive as thus, not emotional. The analysis written here emerged as I wrote, although much content is old.

¶ 32 Leave a comment on paragraph 32 0 The Objectivity of Social Groups was clarified, for me, in The Knowledge Illusion. Yet, this can only be experienced AUTOPOETICALLY (Maturana & Varela) in the context of personal “wrlds” – we only experience patterns in our biological dynamics. For example, Damasio’s insight that emotions are experiences of specific body changes.

¶ 33 Leave a comment on paragraph 33 0 It is now apparent to me, that the person who recommended the book to me, has his dominant reality focused on personal relationships and social groups. His attention to individuals is to their accomplishments and not their “persons”.

¶ 34 Leave a comment on paragraph 34 0 I have long been aware of the unconscious dance between persons in direct sensory contact with each other; anthropologically, and more recently via mirror neurons. I was drawn to John Lilly’s insight about the objective reality of DYADS: two persons locked in an intimate dance. Once I explored the objectivity of relationship vs entity-in-relationships. I came to view them as complementarities (ala quantum physics). Recently I have explored this in terms of NODES and LINKS, and the distinctions between SYSTEMS and NETWORKS.

¶ 35 Leave a comment on paragraph 35 0 I have always let there be an opening to the total subjectivity of wrlds via possible “psychic events”: a “direct” influence of one mind on another mind – bypassing the sensory systems. There are two levels for this. (1) a pattern in one brain can be imposed on another brain through a new type of coupling, with both persons actually consciously experiencing the same. (2) The dynamics of the pattern in one brain can be influenced by patterns in another brain; but not as far as imposing patterns. There may be weak evidence for (2), but I doubt (1) will ever be observed. Partly because, for me, the momentary conscious experience has no reality beyond being a pattern in an emergent, larger process. I seriously question the objective existence of “consciousness”, as a “spiritual-like entity”, that may even survive biological death. My rejection results from the total lack of positive evidence AND the psychological explanations for the ideological reasons for such beliefs. I also reject the “superiority” of “consciousness” on aesthetic grounds – it is an ugly concept, for me.

¶ 36 Leave a comment on paragraph 36 0 I witness I ramble, as usual, straying away from any “point” – that others often accuse me of never making. Maybe I don’t believe in the objectivity of points.

TAKE-AWAY:

¶ 37 Leave a comment on paragraph 37 0 This will be the last content added to this doc. There will be minor edits. This is already too long for relaxed reading. Most readers will quickly shift to skim mode, if not starting with that mode. Faced today with a virtual infinity of relevant information, and using presentation media emphasizing short pieces (the extreme being tweets), no one can give needed attention to any document.

¶ 38 Leave a comment on paragraph 38 0 Yet, we must – in some ways – seaf the emergence of NU WAYS to interact and “progress”.

¶ 39 Leave a comment on paragraph 39 0 Conversation is an inadequate mode, except for simple, mundane objectives – or the simple but positive enjoyment of verbal dancing.
Facilitated/Mediated conversation can be useful for limited objectives. However, without accounting for the cognitive diversity of participants (which is not seafed with today’s technology), the objectives are further limited. This includes diverse cultural and personal differences that give enhanced authority to some participants over others.
Writing, Reading, and comment exchanges – also valuable for some domains – is also limiting.

¶ 40 Leave a comment on paragraph 40 0 Humankind has emerged processes for sharing complex conceptual schemes. We loosely label them “EDUCATION” and “R&D”. What characterize both is the deep integration of learning and organizing – emergent within a specific group of persons, over time. Persons change (learn) as their pattern of interactivity changes (organizes). I have labeled this cycling process OLLO: Organizing-for-Learning-&=Learning-for-Organizing.

¶ 41 Leave a comment on paragraph 41 0 What was missing in my prior attempts at explicating OLLO was specific attention to the group and the distinction between COLLECTIVE knowledge and INDIVIDUAL knowledge. In spite of my intention to attend to networks (over nodes/systems) I was maintaining bias towards personal knowledge and agency. This was reinforced by my attention to the wrlds vs worlds distinction – as vital as it is.

¶ 42 Leave a comment on paragraph 42 0 I am again reminded of my addiction to composing/reading, to the abandonment of creating/emerging Structure/Processes for OLLO. Texts about OLLO won’t bring OLLO to being. I use the term “composing”, instead of “writing” for what I do – and am doing at this moment. There is an element of creating/emerging – but hardly systematic. I (we) need to be far more systematic in our processes, related to our objectives and goals. We continue under the illusion that the BEST of what we are DOING will be adequate – while the EVIDENCE is very clear that much more & different IS NEEDED.

¶ 43 Leave a comment on paragraph 43 0 POPS TO MIND:
Another, related theme/domain:
HUMANKIND IS NOT AS WE BELIEVE/CONCEPTUALIZE “IT TO BE”!

¶ 44 Leave a comment on paragraph 44 0  

¶ 45 Leave a comment on paragraph 45 0 >> metaphor re Humankind-to-HUMANITY<<
Horse or Tractor
It makes a difference
when we need to
Maintain or Train or Heal/Repair.