¶ 1
Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0
email to info@globalgea.net on 2/2/2013 — no response as of 3/29/2013
Bill Veltrop and fellow Metamorphosis Supporters.
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 Bill just replied briefly to my recent post in TNE introducing me to GlobalGEA. It will take me a while to explore your site, and since there are thousands of viable sites emerging it will be hard to keep up. Our convergence on metamorphosis will move some of my attention to you. All my online docs can be accessed from http://nuet.posterous.com/links-to-online-docs, a new blog/website and scattered posts and comments on Facebook and Google+.
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 The first thing that caught my attention was your proposition METAMORPHOSIS AS METAPHOR. For over four decades I have been proposing that we treat metamorphosis as a concrete gameplan/strategy/scenario for action; more than metaphor. I find it is so very easy for persons and movements to slip back into supporting transformational morphing of Civilization into the Societal Butterfly we need. The societal butterfly must be created and civilization replaced, it won’t just happen.
¶ 4
Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0
I won’t go into my arguments here, as they are covered in my online docs. To point you specifically to them:
This is a version of my scenario for Y2K, but contains links to my initial 1975 version, MISSION_2000 and other background.
¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0 I just reread an email I wrote to George Por in 2004 that gives some different history and controversy. Many of the links from this doc don’t work.
¶ 6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 I call my current scenario UPLIFT with a specific starter: BUS (Bootstrap Uplift Scaffolding) – which is in revision.
¶ 7
Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0
item in FAQ of GlobalGEA
Is there a difference between “metamorphosis” and “transformation?”
We use both terms and see them as synonyms in the context of our work. We use “metamorphosis” because it turns out to be a wonderfully robust metaphor that helps us appreciate the profound nature of the transformation we see as essential throughout today’s social systems. The metamorphosis of the Monarch caterpillar is magical. The metamorphosis of our social systems can be equally magical in terms of the potential for generative ripple effects.
Another reason is that “metamorphosis” emphasizes both appreciative inclusion of the old and its transcendence.
Lastly, “transformation” is widely used to refer to any kind of big change. Its utility to describe the profound changes we want to evoke has been watered down.
¶ 8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 0
¶ 9
Leave a comment on paragraph 9 0
my comment to this FAQ on 3/29/2013
As a person who has been working to catalyze Societal Metamorphosis through Learning Expeditions since the 1970s (and using those terms), and struggling to clarify the essential distinction between transformation and emergent metamorphosis, it both saddens and frustrates me to see them declared as synonyms. The caterpillar doesn’t morph into the butterfly, which you acknowledge using the inaccurate description of insect metamorphosis provided by Norie Huddle. She confuses “imaginal cells” with “imaginal buds” or “imaginal discs” – which are embryonic components of the coming butterfly present in the caterpillar from very early on. To my knowledge the scientific literature of metamorphosis doesn’t refer to imaginal cells, a term unfortunately now viral – all leading back to Norie Huddle. Nor am I aware that the caterpillar destroys imaginal cells. However, metamorphosis is a process in many species and there will be variations.
¶ 10 Leave a comment on paragraph 10 0 The critical issue is that by declaring synonymy you exclude from consideration the very viable model of a true emergent metamorphic emergence of a nu humanity which avoids the probably impossible task of transforming global civilization. This is a difficult enough meme to share without having it declared null & void before evaluation.
¶ 11 Leave a comment on paragraph 11 0 Everything else you are proposing in GlobalGEA is impressive and I was initially very excited when I discovered you. What you call Regional Metamorphosis is valid, and the creation of imaginal buds appropriate. Whether they lead to attempted transformation or metamorphic replacement will depend on circumstances. I hope to engage some participants in GlobalGEA in constructive discourse on the option of full metamorphic emergence of Humanity from humankind, models for which I have worked on for many decades.
One Responses
The following was submitted as a comment for the main page for Blue Star Silicon Valley prospectus by GlobalGEA.
March 29, 2013 at 4:38 pm
Your proposed BSSV strategy is well thought out and sufficiently detailed for successful implementation – which I highly recommend.
I bring up an important issue that is not intended, in any way, to be disruptive of your initial processes. Yet, the awesome magnitude of the planetary challenge facing a successful BSSV (and other similar Regional Ventures) demands continued assessment of the objectives of BSSV to be sufficient for the successful achievement of the goals (a far, far better Humanity in tune with Gaia). Those who are to lead expeditions must be as open to continued significant change as those they lead.
I call attention to a primary concern captured in the quote by Tom Atlee: “change the social systems”. This common phrasing contains a strong bias for fixing systems instead of creating wholly new systems (indeed, systems of systems). Many forces will push BSSV, if not to reform existing systems, but to design replacement systems to fit within the larger societal system-of-systems. While this approach might be attempted (and the initial ease of this approach would make it more tempting), some effort should be given to the alternative of true emergent metamorphosis by attempting design of the whole of a nu Humanity. Such an endeavor is not as impossible as it may initially appear, once it is given adequate attention.