¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 This note is addressed to those about to read a doc by Larry/nuet where some of their ideas or writings are critiqued from
the context of Larry/nuet
– but not to be taken as criticism.

¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 Larry/nuet doesn’t believe he is “superior” to other humans, although his differences may be significant and useful.

¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 The very concept of  ranking “superior” is scientifically invalid;
but automatic ranking and quick deciding for survival is so embedded in our genetic predispositions that we continue to practice “ranking”, often to our great deficit.

¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0  

¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0  Scientifically, we can rank only one dimension or variable at a time.

We can have persons line up as to height, and as to weight. But then who is “bigger”? How are “weight” and “height” weighed? Graph weight and height and draw a curve from 0,0 up to the right. Project each point (representing a person) perpendicular to the curve. The order of points on the curve “ranks” for “Bigger”, relative to the curve – which is arbitrary.

¶ 7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0 When we quantify a multi-variable entity, we assign ARBITRARY “weights” to each variable.

¶ 8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 0  

This “Many Dimensional Fallacy” is blatantly evident in contemporary political comparisons.

I practice, avoiding the fallacy, daily, but find it puzzles everyone. Which coffee is best, which shirt, which book or movie or perfume?
I can have personal preferences, but these are not the result of ranking.

¶ 11 Leave a comment on paragraph 11 0  

¶ 12 Leave a comment on paragraph 12 0 Larry/nuet never intends to tell anyone what to do, although he is aware than it may appear so.

¶ 13 Leave a comment on paragraph 13 0 He may recommend options, and tell why according to his, Larry/nuet’s perspective. Larry/nuet doesn’t have the right to determine others – except when it is a matter of personal defense.

¶ 14 Leave a comment on paragraph 14 0 Larry/nuet will listen to recommendations by others, but never feels obligated to do as recommended.

¶ 15 Leave a comment on paragraph 15 0 Larry/nuet attempts to “return periodically to attention” the fact that he never directly perceives others, even when in direct contact. He always experiences his own mind/brain’s interpretation of others in the context of nuet. Others do exist, and influence patterns of energy impact on Larry’s sensorium. Instead of the traditional model of sensory input being modulated by the brain on its way to experience, we have a new model: of input sensory data being absorbed by the dynamic, worldweaving mind/brain, which later outputs behavior and experientials. We are autopoietic systems (generalized from Maturana and Varela), and can structurally couple, even structurally resonate.

¶ 16 Leave a comment on paragraph 16 0 Due to his savant condition (lacks all mental imagery), Larry/nuet has emerged with some radically unique ideas, compared to all other persons he has encountered in person or via reading. This is, of course, an assessment within Larry/nuet – but should not be rejected just because it is an internal evaluation. In Piaget’s model, Larry/nuet remains very strong in ACCOMMODATING (his mind/brain) to new input, not just assimilating new input into pre-existing categories (often with loss of information and distortion).

¶ 17 Leave a comment on paragraph 17 0 Larry/nuet also practices the “complementarity of perspectives”. It is never imperative to chose between conflicting or logically inconsistent perspectives. Deeper reality may permit multiple perspectives, each valid under different circumstances.

¶ 18 Leave a comment on paragraph 18 0 It is an automatic process of Larry/nuet to “try out” new ideas “from different perspectives” in the context of nuet. What usually follows is active Piaget’s “equilibration” – a mix of accommodation and assimilation. Most others show evidence of quality complex knowledge and conceptual schemes that fit Larry/nuet’s category of IGNORANCE: knowing OF what he doesn’t yet know or comprehend, or can’t yet do or appreciate. The domain of ignorance is either already there, or is added. More and more, excellent proposals and analyses about our Crisis-of-Crises are found already within nuet, but within contexts that qualifies them. When Larry/nuet attempts (again automatically) to comprehend the primary conceptual schemes of another, he discovers many major domains (present within nuet) missing in the other’s “whole”.

¶ 19 Leave a comment on paragraph 19 0 One might say that Larry/nuet automatically perceives that the major ideas of others are  often “out of context”, relative to the (larger) context of nuet. This does not make these ideas not valuable or not correct. The conceptual schemes of others always contain great amounts of detail (the doesn’t command energy in nuet because it is ignorance). Larry/nuet hypothesizes he can hold a larger holistic conceptual scheme because he doesn’t have to expend brain energy on mental imagery.

¶ 20 Leave a comment on paragraph 20 0 Larry/nuet, with his claimed “larger conceptual scheme” is not superior. Larry/nuet’s assets should be useful, as many find computers and databases useful. The utility of Larry/nuet to humankind should be tested, and exploited if valid.

¶ 21 Leave a comment on paragraph 21 0 — to be continued.