¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 I started this as a personal email to Joe Brewer – and it remains a personal message. However, it is relevant to everyone, so I share it here.
————————-

¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 Joe, I just read your magnificent How It Feels to be A Designer of Culture. I great appreciate your very personal sharing, as I feel such open transparency is one (of many) features we need to cultivate in our new cultures. I often feel I talk a bit too much about myself, not that I don’t believe it necessary, but that it may turn off others or give them the impression that I am superior.

¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 I have noticed this trend in your most recent TheNextEdge posts. I have bookmarked them all to read – when I have time = which will never occur.

¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 For a while I have identified you as the person most likely to resonate with my insights – as I identify with your mental style – although also different from mine.  You once suggested we SKYPE, which I take as meaning you might feel the same. Too busy? Forgotten?

¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0 The past few months, as Larry drifts more into senility, nuet is being liberated. Cascading insights herald shifting and merging of conceptual schemes within nuet. A while back (a few days, maybe a week, depending on what I label as the start – I could look it up, but Larry has lost all memory of personal time) I responded to an email in NCDD on The Great Transition, by Andrew Gaines – which has mushroomed into a flurry of emails and posts that both encourage and overwhelm me. You are on my list so have received them. Half on the list have not responded, which is OK. Take your time. I know I lack the competencies to “lead” the process, which may be premature. It is like you say – in Designing Cultures.

¶ 6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 At this point there are a great many direction for this email message to take.  I am so, so frustrated by the imposed linearity of contemporary discourse. Shortly after discovering hypertext I attempted to compose and correspond in hypertexted webs. We lacked the requisite platforms. Eric Drexler supported an attempt to promote hypertext composing but it never caught on. CRIT, I think was the name. Reality is nested/networked and our behavioral selves are constrained to the linear. Fortunately our mind/brains are more versatile. My “nuet”, hosted by “Larry” (unencumbered by sensory mental imagery) appears to have both nested and networked organization.

¶ 7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0 More than 15 other potential ideas flashed by as I labored to compose the above paragraph.

¶ 8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 0 I just noticed that you focus on CULTURE, a term I seldom use, although it is a very important concept. Why it remains implicit for me is a needed query. Long ago I “defined” culture as the Mind of a Social Group – emergent from the interactivity of the mind/brains of the members, as our personal minds emerge from the interactivity of our neural-molecular sysnets. It just “popped to mind” that I avoid “culture” because there are no more singular cultures – as I attribute to the minds of tribes. Today, everyone is a member of a montage of unstable cultures. How humans, evolved to be in singular tribal cultures, adapt to our current confusion is an important query.

¶ 9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 0 INSIGHT NOW: The intent of UPLIFT is to emerge a eco-holarchy of nested/networked cultures – in rough analogy to the organization of biological entities as Living Systems in ourselves – organelles-cells-tissues-organs-functionalsubsystems-organisms-cultures. Homage to James Greer Miller. Recently I discovered/invented that societal metamorphosis will occur only in the social/societal organization of human systems. The material infrastructure of humankind can’t metamorphose, only be transformed. However, it must be transformed by the emergent HUMANITY, NU, metaphorically emergent from the decaying Humankind.  I see now that CULTURAL METAMORPHOSIS is more appropriate than Societal Metamorphosis.  THANK YOU !!!!!!!!  Actually, is should be Cultural/Societal. Societal is a structure within the Cultural.

¶ 10 Leave a comment on paragraph 10 0 UPLIFT is also a process of cultural emergence. I too encountered the frustration of planned-gatherings never manifesting as planned. Long ago I conceptually resolved this, but have never had the opportunity to test my model. I distinguish two very distinct processes:

¶ 11 Leave a comment on paragraph 11 0 (1) Exploratory Engineering (Drexler – ) of Scaffolding and

¶ 12 Leave a comment on paragraph 12 0 2) Interactive Flow within Scaffolding.

¶ 13 Leave a comment on paragraph 13 0 The intent of designed/constructed scaffolding is to seaf (support, enable, augment {Englebart}, facilitate) learning/organizing of a population of humans living/working/learning within the scaffolding. A while ago I coded it as OLLO (Organizing-for-Learning=&=Learning-for-Organizing) {Homage to Donald Michael}. I also analogized it to cycles of scripting performance and performing to scripts.  The design of new scaffolding (Action/Research) occurs within a sub-section of the scaffolding.

¶ 14 Leave a comment on paragraph 14 0 Thread just petered out of Larry/nuet. Energy left the parts of my brain active in composing the above. Recently I’m speculating on a significant aspect of humans that must be attended to. If fMRI measures blood flow to brain regions, then our brains have limited energy supply. I recently read an article claiming that a person faced with too many unactionable choices usually depleted their brain energy by noon and were functional zombies after. This was applied to the homeless. I wonder about myself – daily faced with a near infinity of TODOs. My escape is to avoid attempting to be personally strategic, although I know it is necessary. I hypothesize that because of my savant nature, having no mental imagery and thus no brain energy to use up, my “higher” conceptual processes can be enhanced.

¶ 15 Leave a comment on paragraph 15 0 Another thought intrudes: Our personal importance for the future of humankind vs any claim to superiority. Larry didn’t intentionally create nuet, and I doubt that Joe intentionally created his inner-woven-wrld.

¶ 16 Leave a comment on paragraph 16 0 This myth, I believe, is a major flaw in our current cultural models of reality. Decades ago I learned that we can objectively rank entities only one dimension at a time. Persons by height or by weight. Bigness is totally subjective. Any measure to rank multi-dimensional ensembles requires an arbitrary/subjective “weighing” of the different variables. We humans have inherited propensities to rank and chose, which is necessary. But, we need to recognize and avoid making objective claims for ranking SUPERIORITY. A major fallacy of politicians. It is scientifically and logically invalid. Why this is never discussed puzzles me.

¶ 17 Leave a comment on paragraph 17 0 Joe, you seem to have come to good terms with your personal and cultural. You are highly respected, your talents are acknowledged and you don’t communicate any sense of “authority”.  I am caught in a dilemma. From nuet, Larry automatically notes the blindspots revealed in the communication of others. Some result in limitation, others simply the absence of certain contexts that would not be relevant to their current projects. What I observe in the highest level collective discourse are blindspots for missing projects and the seeming lack of interest in – at least sketching – longer term scenarios/strategies – to how the old is replaced by the nu, and when all critical trends are positive. I am disturbed by how many good minds are accepting the extinction of humans and are unwilling to explore alternatives.

¶ 18 Leave a comment on paragraph 18 0 Joe, what your are doing, and the waves you are creating to ripple through humankind is truly astounding. You have a team, which must be well organized and competent. And you are open to your own future emergence, yet not waiting around for the next paradigm shift. You acknowledge past shifts, and give no indication that you preclude any more. Unfortunately, from my reading I find very few persons open to future, significant paradigm shifts for themselves. They are focused on awakening others, but don’t anticipate any further awakenings for themselves.

¶ 19 Leave a comment on paragraph 19 0 I don’t know what to do next.  I took this time to message you, when I have many items needing my response – for me to continue energize the dialog around my recent posts.  Most persons are now in conversation among themselves on topics distance from what I presented; which is the pattern in most social media discourse. What I need (and I believe humankind needs) is that my system of insights get seeded in fertile soils and building nurturing scaffolds – to be assessed by competency and used if needed. I need to compose a clear request of what Larry/nuet needs in terms of assistance, with gory details about my current dysfunctional habitat/workspace.

¶ 20 Leave a comment on paragraph 20 0 One, of many things we need, is a place where our personal stories/needs can be shared. At 81 I am aware that only a part of what I have learned – that may be of value to others – is in my highly disorganized archives, destined to be buried. As I read occasional  biographies I discover that many famous persons potentially contributed much more than they are famous for. How much of value does humankind lose? And here I talk about the very small percent of humans fortunate to be seafed in their emergence. I can’t even fantasize on what humanity will be like when most humans are optimally actualized to their full potential. A top conspiracy of civilization has been to hide this potential, and to systemically suppress any significant movement to uplift.

¶ 21 Leave a comment on paragraph 21 0 Joe, I ramble – consciousness wanders Brownian Motion through the web of nuet – where the whole of humankind that is within my inner-woven wrld serves as context for my sequential Heres&Nows. This is longer than enough.

¶ 22 Leave a comment on paragraph 22 0 More. Skimmed your RULES re poverty. This kind of detail needs be applied to hundreds (if not thousands) of relevant topics, AND a process/platform is needed to consider the intersection of each, AND how each is related to the integration of all others. This is an impossibility with our present configurations. Yet, it is what we must aspire to.

¶ 23 Leave a comment on paragraph 23 0 HYPOTHESIS: The sci/tech of systems where humans are fundamental components has not evolved in millennia, whereas the sci/tech of systems where humans are absent has exponentially emerged and continues unabated. We now have fragments of knowledge of human systems to design/launch/seaf an uplifting process to gain the requisite knowledge of human systems to survive/thrive. You and others are working with a subset of this new sci/tech of human systems. Yet we all continue to be limited by obsolete myths of human nature. Learning Change is a growing reservoir of new knowledge fragments – yet all in the context of the montage of myths.  This knowledge has now passed the accelerating volume of information that no human can even begin to encompass all that is relevant. This is a crisis and challenge.

¶ 24 Leave a comment on paragraph 24 0 I am personally at this crisis.  I can no longer give time to feeding my IGNORANCE = Knowing OF what I don’t yet know or comprehend, or can’t yet do or appreciate. I believe accepting and nurturing this form of ignorance is an essential feature of nu educational processes. Yet, I bookmark much of what I forget and never use – especially as Larry’s short term memory fades. We need a dedicated human system to keep secure, accessible, the exploding archive of useful information. The design of future HUMANITY, must account for many of the new realities about humans and human systems.

¶ 25 Leave a comment on paragraph 25 0 Examples of Concerns:

¶ 26 Leave a comment on paragraph 26 0 1) When it is possible that no persons face threats and could be seafed to avoid crises, is this what should be done? Might humans need crises to develop. If crises imply discomfort, how do we plan for crises-for-development?

¶ 27 Leave a comment on paragraph 27 0 2) It takes more than a village to optimally raise a child. What should be the role of parents in the “raising” of their children?

¶ 28 Leave a comment on paragraph 28 0 3) Not attempting to influence the developmental environment of a person is to chose for them the influence of randomness.  Yet, the complexity of human systems is such that they can’t be programmed (except in oppressive ways). How do we chose the developmental scaffolding for persons (children to aged) that optimizes their personal creativity and yet insure that we have an adequate distribution of competencies to maintain the viability, resiliency, sustainability, etc.  of humanity?

¶ 29 Leave a comment on paragraph 29 0 4) We already have, and will gain more and more competencies in influencing the future evolution/emergence of humans, other species and the whole of Gaia. What “rules” must we agree on. There are many alternative futures for humanity/Gaia – and we can’t go to all of them. We must choose.

¶ 30 Leave a comment on paragraph 30 0 Ending writing/editing, not ending thinking,

¶ 31 Leave a comment on paragraph 31 0 Larry/nuet