Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0
At 83, Larry Victor has yet to adequately share
enough of his wrld (nuet) with others,
sufficient for just a few persons (initially)
to devote some of their time (beyond dialog with Larry)
attempting to better comprehend “nuet” sufficiently –
Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0
so they can assess the value of what can be learned from Larry/nuet
(critical to the Survival/Thrival of Humankind/Gaia),
to be so motivated as to join Larry (and others)
Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0
in a systemic effort to:
1) learn more about nuet’s insights and conceptual schemes, and
2) develop them into an emergent social/cultural process [UPLIFT via OLLO]
to launch a Cultural/Societal Evolution/Emergence [Up2Met].
¶ 6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 Others may also have such a “grandiose” challenge, and also discovered it difficult to share and engage others. There is always the possibility that the specific challenge is a delusional fantasy; or possible, but not technically feasible, at this time. Human history is full of instances when a person’s creative insights were “ahead of their time”. Larry is well aware of this possibility for nuet’s significance and utility. Over the decades he has tested and modified his ideas. He knows that his ideas are far from complete and anticipates parts to be challenged and modified by others. Indeed, he needs collaborators to move nuet from its current host, Larry, to become hosted by an uplifting, emergent collective – with the potential of engaging the majority of contemporary humankind, in a few decades – sufficient to bring humankind to a time when all future trends are positive and extinction has been avoided.
¶ 7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0 This is an objective that many would agree is both desired and necessary. Some humans either don’t believe in the threat, or welcome it. Many are fearful and can only hope for miracles. A few are working on their significant innovations, which they believe might catalyze the transition needed. Like Larry, they seek support and collaborators for their innovation.
¶ 8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 0 So, how is Larry’s nuet any different? This is what I will attempt to convey in this essay; but without being specific about nuet’s content and the sketch of what is proposed, simply labeled Up2Met. I feel forced to do this, because the type of idea that is Up2Met (a meta conceptual scheme) is not a category of idea in the minds/wrlds of most persons. Up2Met cannot be learned/comprehended without (1) there already exists a mind/wrld category for it, or (2) the person is open and able to create a new category for it (and not attempt to force Up2Met into a pre-existing category where it won’t fit).
Transformation/Evolution vs Emergence
¶ 9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 0 Modern science currently accepts only one category of basic change for systems: transFORMation. This is the scaffolding on which change in material systems (quantum through macroscopic to cosmic) is mapped. Humankind can ONLY be transFORMed, moment-to-moment from one form to another form to another form – a temporal sequence of forms/states. Such as from humankind in 2018 to humanity in 2100. One step at a time.
¶ 10 Leave a comment on paragraph 10 0 If we tracked all the molecules, atoms, quarks, photons, and fields for the Earth’s surface from 2018 to 2100, we could classify it as a sequential transition (although we may not be able to account for “why” some moment-to-moment changes occurred as they did, or what might be “forms” being transformed). We could say the same for a caterpillar hatching from a fertilized eggs laid by a butterfly, exchanging atoms and photons with its environment; and even as the caterpillar underwent metamorphosis, emerging a butterfly. We could track all the tiny parts, and view it as a “transition of tiny parts, without forms”.
¶ 11 Leave a comment on paragraph 11 0 What about the forms in transformation? For the caterpillar, it would be its tubular body, many legs, antennae and eyes – and when alive crawling on twigs and chewing leaves. In transition, these forms of the caterpillar don’t transform into corresponding forms of the butterfly. In metamorphosis, the functional biological cells of the caterpillar undergo apoptosis, their molecular components being absorbed by cells making up “imaginal buds”, which were part of the whole caterpillar from embryonic development, but not functional components of the caterpillar. The caterpillar doesn’t morph into a butterfly (thin down, absorb many legs, sprout fewer , longer legs and wings). The flying behavior of the butterfly is radically different from the crawling behavior of the caterpillar. The form of the butterfly EMERGED from the disintegrating forms of the caterpillar, there was no transformation. There is no attempt for the caterpillar/butterfly to conserve its traditional forms of legs, segmented body, eyes, etc. – maybe modified – as new forms for the butterfly. The butterfly emerged its own parts (wings, legs, head, etc.) from the growth/transformation/merging of the imaginal buds into the whole, new butterfly form.
¶ 12 Leave a comment on paragraph 12 0 In 1975, challenged to design a faculty-development-program for a new campus of a community college, I had a cascade of insights leading to model the change of our campus as institutional/societal metamorphosis, instead of transformation. My dean and college president thanked me for my work, but didn’t approve my proposal. I designed a traditional faculty-development-program for my campus. I took an unpaid leave the next semester to write my manuscript: Mission_2000. My publisher went bankrupt and it never was published. In Mission_2000, I presented a rough sketch/scenario of how global humankind might transit from dysfunctional humankind to viable humanity in 25 years, via Societal Metamorphosis. [The Mission_2000 manuscript is currently in digital fragments, awaiting assembly within new apps.]
¶ 13 Leave a comment on paragraph 13 0 It is not my intent in this essay to describe the specific ways our Societal Metamorphosis might manifest; or how feasible it might be to manifest – a task to follow this essay. The above is to demonstrate a new category of large system change: emergence by metamorphosis, different from traditional transformation. What I must explore is how very difficult it has been, over 4+ decades, to find ONE OTHER PERSON, who adequately comprehends the category of Cultural/Societal Metamorphosis.
¶ 14 Leave a comment on paragraph 14 0 Consequently, they are unable to engage working with the processes needed to manifest the Met in Up2Met. Some persons come closer to threshold comprehension than others. Why adequate comprehension is so difficult has been my primary challenge, for decades – distracting me from systemic development of Up2Met.
¶ 15 Leave a comment on paragraph 15 0 Many others can imagine new, different models of economics, governance, religion – growing and replacing older models/forms. The transitions can be violent or peaceful. They view the past as sometimes involving the collapse and the later rise of new societies and civilizations; but there is always some aspects conserved. The conceptual scheme for systems change, initiated by Darwin and later called Evolution, has now become the singular mode of human systems transformation. Before Darwin, the term “evolution” referred to the process analogous to what we now call “embryonic development”, changes from conception to birth.
¶ 16 Leave a comment on paragraph 16 0 Many revolutionary activists will invent new societal subsystems (e.g. economic/financial, or technological). They imagine their innovation spreading and catalyzing changes in all other subsystems so as to adapt to their innovational change. History is full of such changes, e.g. the car replacing the horse as means for transportation. For some, yet mysterious reasons, the biological exemplar of caterpillar-butterfly metamorphosis appears to be conceived ONLY AS METAPHOR, and never as STRUCTURAL ANALOGY.
EPISTEMIC SHIFTS in HUMAN HISTORY
¶ 17 Leave a comment on paragraph 17 0 I won’t attempt a chronological citing of such shifts; although I would like to see such, if composed. One series of shifts relate to the centrality of Earth in Cosmos. The early epistemes had the local region as central; this region expanded and eventually shifted from a flat surface to a spherical surface. The moving stars (planets) shifted from epicycles around central Earth, to other planets orbiting our Sun, and Earth became just another planet. The stars became distant suns, first in an isolated galaxy; then other galaxies were discovered and we learned we are a very, very small part in a vast, expanding (now accelerating) universe of galaxies. Recently the behavior of observed matter no long follow the rules of physics, to scientists invented invisible “dark” matter and energy to “fix” the data.
¶ 18 Leave a comment on paragraph 18 0 Another set of shifts involved our increased knowledge about life. Early human cultures had different categories for plants and animals, depending on what sample they observed in their settings. Collections of strange living forms became popular in zoos, museums, botanical gardens, and private collections. It took the invention of the microscope to reveal the cellular nature of life, and even more instrumentation to reveal the molecular nature of cells. This exploration continues, as the simplistic spiral form of DNA gives way to complex molecular systems. Evolution remains a controversial shift for many humans, and the detailed processes in evolution still under investigation; such as “epigenetic’s”.
¶ 19 Leave a comment on paragraph 19 0 Other sets of shifts involve how we viewed human minds, bodies, “souls”, relationships (e.g. – the roles of children), tribes & clans, communities, cities, states, nations, etc.
¶ 21 Leave a comment on paragraph 21 0 What unexpected episteme will emerge fueled by the global network of personal cell phones (actually computers) and the technological innovations of the past century – coupled with the coming impact of Earth Changes (well beyond Climate Change)? Today, our dominant episteme currently ignores almost all scientific evidence about the diversity of human persons and human social/societal systems, including our many limitations and conceptual blindspots. Our media reflects the dominant episteme and reinforces it.
¶ 22 Leave a comment on paragraph 22 0 Although some persons detected and reported on “problems” with the dominant episteme, few envisioned a shift- but expected “solutions” to be found to “fix things” and only modify their episteme. Most didn’t think in terms of epistemes or their shifting. The few that did were unable to accurately forecast any details about the future epistemes – other than that they would lack some “truths” of their current epistemes.
¶ 23 Leave a comment on paragraph 23 0 This holds for today. We can identify many features of our dominant episteme that are wrong and won’t exist as “truths” in the next episteme; but we are unable to forecast the “nature” of the next episteme. However, WE ARE the first to be able to navigate the shifting process and intentionally influence the emergence of the next episteme – or create a new process of continuing, dynamic epistemic emergence.
SOME (FALSE STRUCTURAL/SYSTEMIC)
FEATURES OF OUR CURRENT EPISTEME
¶ 25 Leave a comment on paragraph 25 0 The following features are systemic and are common to most epistemes in human civilizations, common to the different epistemes in our history. This list doesn’t include features that are unique to our times and cultures. This implies the potential for an epistemic shift Beyond Civilization (that has been speculated by some).
¶ 36 Leave a comment on paragraph 36 0 Savants are persons who exhibit competencies, in a few dimensions, far beyond the average. Often savants also have severe lack of competencies in other dimensions. Their special assets may result, in part, in compensation for their lacks and limitations. Neuroscience has yet to comprehend savants.
¶ 37 Leave a comment on paragraph 37 0 Larry/nuet has come to view himself as a savant. Others don’t perceive him as a savant, because the dimensions of his lacks and assets are not categories/dimensions within their worldviews of humans. Larry’s lack of mental imagery in all sensory modalities is a phenomenon unknown to most persons, and not considered a significant “individual difference” by those aware of this lack.
¶ 39 Leave a comment on paragraph 39 0 Cyberspace discourse today can be viewed as between millions (if not billions) of “TOPICS”. There are attempts to organize these topics in systems of categories, such as complexity (topics within topics within topics) and relevance (to some “interest”).
¶ 41 Leave a comment on paragraph 41 0 Others categorize the writings of Larry/nuet as another “topic”, at the level of discourse as their own “topic”. As such, Larry/nuet’s insights have no direct relevance on their “topic”, as do none of the other “topics” in the menagerie of contemporary discourse. They find great difficulty comprehending dialog and discourse about epistemes and epistemic shifts. This is a characteristic of all epistemes within civilized humankind, throughout history.
¶ 42 Leave a comment on paragraph 42 0 Larry/nuet just had an important insight: he should seek interaction with those other humans who study epistemes and their shifts. One was Julian Jaynes (now deceased), who – in The Origin of Consciousness and the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind” – identified an epistemic shift during the century long composing of the Iliad, with many authors (collected under the pseudonym of “Homer”). In Greece and surroundings, humans shifted from believing auditory mental imagery (voices in their heads) were from Gods to from within themselves. Today, I know persons who believe their “voices” are from God, telling them what to do.