¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 The “reality” of problems with human social systems is that they are arbitrarily defined within contexts assumed fixed. A proper resolution of a human social/societal difficulty may be best gained by shifting the context. However, when such difficulties are categorized as “problems in the material sciences” (where the context, the laws of physics, is never questioned), seeking shifts in contexts is not imagined, let alone considered.
Again, I consider human problems with biology – including neuroscience – within material science. This issue becomes clear with the sharp distinction between material reality (up from physics) and the realities of humankind (where reports comprise the empirical base).
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 A variation of this would be to assert THERE ARE NO FACTS IN HUMANKIND. There is no foundation for truth, no bottom. Wherever you are, there is always further interpretation and uncertainty. As discussed later & elsewhere, the foundation for humankind are sems, semiotic structures, to which all can agree on the identity of static visual patterns – but these must always be interpreted, which always depends on contexts, which will always differ.
¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 Example: There are many challenges in making one’s living space meet one’s desires and needs. The material context includes the building, itself. The context might shift mildly, by considering renovation of the building. A bigger shift would be to seek a different building to make your home or worksite. Here the immediate constraints (contexts) are material, but their choice is arbitrary (including to live “in the wild”).
¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0 Resolutions to Humankind’s most serious challenges are blocked by the unconscious assumption that economic, governance, and political (group decision making) systems follow fixed laws (ideologies) akin to the laws of physics. Those who propose different assumptions are treated as pseudo-science and charlatans by scientists: ridiculed and oppressed.
¶ 6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 Contemporary reporting of news and analyses clearly reflects this confusion, if one is open to perceive it. Even the most lucid, intelligent, and “evidence based” analyses are out-of-context (re, a greater whole where alternatives exist).
Confusing:[This issue cannot be resolved by simply “changing persons”. This issue is rooted in the material reality of human biology and neuroscience, where the material structure of human persons limits their behavior and mental processes – even with their vast diversity of cognition.]
¶ 9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 0 Human intuition depends on a wired-in context for perception and behavior IN A WRLD, of discrete objects and events that “follow” the laws of so-called “naive reality”. We have discovered that the “directly unobservable very small” don’t “follow” these laws, but “follow” different laws (of quantum physics). I speculate that societal systems (e.g., nation states and corporations) may also not “follow” the laws upon which our intuitions are based. That is, humankind (the contemporary “whole” of everything “human”) need not “follow” the laws of physics or logic. This is not to claim there are no regular and useful patterns in humankind. Rather, our challenge is to discover these patterns and learn to use them for us to transit beyond humankind, via creative emergence to a radically nu configuration of human systems we might call HUMANITY.
¶ 10 Leave a comment on paragraph 10 0 Humans, being “free” from the constraints of physics-type-laws has long been a spiritual fantasy – however improperly conceptualized and blindly believed, leading us to contemporary humankind with all its dysfunctions (in civilizations beyond tribes). This is not claiming that we can violate laws of physics. Rather, that much of what we imagine/believe are governed by the laws of material science – actually, are independent of these laws. Also, our “need” to adhere to the laws of material reality (when facing challenges within humankind) are not consciously conceptual with intention; but are automatic, unconscious, and never critically evaluated. In other words, we assume a reality about ourselves that is false, and that constrains our “freedom” to act in more advantageous ways (for the multi-millennial survival/thrival of Humanity/Gaia).
¶ 12 Leave a comment on paragraph 12 0 We can’t move to this nu reality so long as we believe our human situations and challenges are like problems of the material sciences. This distinction is related to, but different from, the challenge proposed by The Club of Rome many decades ago when they proposed “problemateques” seeking “solutionateques”. “Problemateques” acknowledged that beyond a limit of Magnitude/Scope/Complexity (MSC), the Problem/Solution (or Question/Answer) paradigms don’t apply. The cliche, “everything is connected to everything”, signifies that the practice of isolating relevant from irrelevant, in defining problems, has very limited domains of applicability.
¶ 13 Leave a comment on paragraph 13 0 We are fortunate that our material reality (even in its great MSC) was susceptible to the Problem/Solution paradigm of scientific (laboratory) research. Material reality is “simple” (in its special sense). Humankind is “complex” (in its own unique sense), by not being constrained by the laws of material reality. We have been able to develop Tech6 (a systemic process involving Tools, Techniques, Teams, Tasks, Training, Time) that is applicable for both material and human realities.