I was just sitting down at my computer, to update my schedule and glance at my emails – before getting to household chores – when I was driven to devote 30 minutes composing what is presented below (in black). There was only minor editing, as each sentence emerged – not having been in consciousness until it unfolded through my fingers on keyboard, accompanied by seeing words appear on the screen – which I, then, read. This is a typical phenomenon for Larry/nuet, “composing”. The two indented paragraphs, preliminary “definitions” for “horizontal” and “vertical”, were late additions, as is the AFTERWORD.
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 In crude metaphor, the vast majority of relevant discourse is “horizontal” and “silo contained”. The “vertical” discourse, that does exist – as a minor contribution – is also “silo contained” and almost totally ignored by “horizontal” discourse. Furthermore, this model/metaphor of two competing positions, “horizontal & “vertical”, grossly oversimplifies reality.
“horizontal” :: realtime exchange of messages, communication -including newspapers and news media broadcasts. Also, book and journal publication of composed docs and readership/commentary. “horizontal” may have content referencing past or future, but have no intended significant relationship to emergent temporal processes. “horizontal” does “dynamics”, but within the context of a “static context”.
“vertical” :: strictly conceptual, referencing the realm of ideas and not concrete actions (although such actions may be topics in the discourse). Can be “extensive” in both “temporal” and “conceptual” domains. Many sysnet “stages of development/emergence – pictures/scenes/stories/scenarios/periods/eras”. Also, sysnets in the conceptual/abstract, such as consideration of deep interdependences/interactions between “classical domains” such as economics/finance/business/corporate/political/governmental/agencies/intelligence/labor/media/education/child-rearing/entertainment/sports/art/etc.
¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 Not only is the interaction/interdependence of these many “classical societal domains” as relevant (to what actually happens) as what seems to happen within each domain (most of what is reported) — but, the “objective reality” of these “classical” domains is seriously questioned.
¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0 The categories of humankind, to which we assign nouns (e.g., governments, corporations, laws, people, etc.) may be far from being “objectively real” (as objects/systems studied by the material sciences).
¶ 6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 I speculate, that in discourse, it is inappropriate to treat a cup (or any object) and a government as members of similar-type categories for the laws of discourse.
¶ 7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0 Discourse about “big scenarios” is literally impossible; blocked by the limits of infrastructures that seaf discourse and the accompanying shared worldviews about the “nature of discourse”, which is oblivious to this blockage.
¶ 8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 0 These patterns have little to do with morality, ethics, or even cognitive competencies and knowledge levels. They are systemic, again in crude metaphor, related to (evolutionary determined) limitations of the human brain (in its great, but unacknowledged, cognitive diversity) and the changing technologies that both enable and constrain human interactions (at many levels beyond the interpersonal).
¶ 11 Leave a comment on paragraph 11 0 Indeed, it is in the domain of discourse where terms such as “understanding” and “comprehension” (to name but a few) are used (without exploration of their deeper meanings) , where we are in greatest need of “change”.