¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 ? POWER in Human Systems ?

¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 This is a QUERY, seeking exploration; not a question seeking answers.

¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 How do dictators rule? The lack of satisfactory explanations periodically bothers me. What is the psycho-dynamics that leads large populations to “worship” and “obey” some leaders?  How does the conceptual scheme labeled “celebrity” relate to this query? How might this be related to parent-child relationships and sibling relationships?

¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 No single human can rule without full compliance from their close cohorts; so how can one person gain such support? Why does the myth of a single dictator persist?

¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0 “Human Nature” is not an explanation, it simply labels the topic of our query.  Today we are confronted by Trump and Putin, and in our recent past by Hitler and Stalin.

¶ 6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 An alternative to Individual Power is Countervailing Power Sources, where “power” is continually being “negotiated” between different “players”. Individual power need not be “dictatorial”, but having a range of “influence”.

I remember being once informed that Tolstoy, in War and Peace, explored these alternative perspectives. Why this stuck with me, and if it is valid, remain queries.

¶ 8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 0 Do we need to examine what we mean by “alternative”? Are they mutually exclusive or complementary, or comprise a “complementarity”?

¶ 9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 0 MIGHT IT BE ….:

¶ 10 Leave a comment on paragraph 10 0 that, “alternatives” within HUMANKIND
are “real”, in the same sense that
potential quantum states are “real”
(before the collapse of the wave function)?

¶ 11 Leave a comment on paragraph 11 0 that, INDIVIDUAL & COUNTERVAILING powers
comprise a particle/field-like COMPLEMENTARITY
within the unique “science” of
Humankind
or
Qumankind?

¶ 12 Leave a comment on paragraph 12 0 that, there is no EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
backing up the “science” of humankind?

¶ 13 Leave a comment on paragraph 13 0 that, there are no FACTS in the
Pictures, Stories, Scenarios, Conceptual Schemes
of humankind.

¶ 14 Leave a comment on paragraph 14 0 that, Video recordings of “social events”
are incomplete and lack context.

¶ 15 Leave a comment on paragraph 15 0 that, the psychology behind decisions
is never empirical, yet essential
to our comprehension of a “social event”.

¶ 16 Leave a comment on paragraph 16 0  

¶ 17 Leave a comment on paragraph 17 0 BRIEF: humankind is the emergent dance of brains and semfields;
an additional reality superimposed on the material reality of physics.

¶ 18 Leave a comment on paragraph 18 0 Actions of humankind don’t violate the laws of material reality; but these actions are not “determined” by events in material reality.

¶ 19 Leave a comment on paragraph 19 0 In metaphor, humankind is a self-creating musical composition emergent with a material orchestra of musical instruments. The instruments may limit, but not determine, the music played.

¶ 20 Leave a comment on paragraph 20 0 Contemporary humans confuse this critical distinction between humankind and material reality. They attribute “objectivity” to their own thoughts about “human systems”. They further claim that many others are “in error” when reporting their observations as “objective”.

¶ 21 Leave a comment on paragraph 21 0 The Trump Phenomenon, globally in 2016-17, strongly hints to a breakdown of this delusion (the objectivity of humankind) within humankind: although not so comprehended by most human persons.

Alt-facts and alt-realities are discussed in the MSM. MSNBC and FOX display the very same video recordings as “evidence” for radically conflicting so-called “objective stories”.

nuet’s take:

0. ¶ 23 Leave a comment on paragraph 23 0
1. There is an accelerating, radical shifting in the emergence of humankind, that is not determined by the critical state of material reality (resulting from negative consequences on Gaia from unexpected humankind “successes”). Earth Changes (well beyond Climate Change) comprise an “objective” context, both limiting and enhancing this shifting in emergence. The confusion and dysfunctions within humankind renders it incapable of meeting the challenges it has accidentally created for itself.
2. Humankind not only has the full potential to shift their emergence toward viable survival/thrival, but that potential is exponentially growing.
3. Humankind’s current “configuration” blocks actualization of these potentials. The “objective configuration” of contemporary humankind is radically different from what diverse humans comprehend “themselves to be”.
4. There exist viable routes towards survival/thrival for humankind. Unfortunately, these are outside the ability of most humans to comprehend – from their current cognitive states.
5. These cognitive states cannot be changed by the best of our contemporary processes: education and dialog.
6. Humankind’s advances in “computerized digital technology” provides the POTENTIAL media for effective (seafed) “transformation/emergence” of human systems. However, the current levels and configuration of this digital technology (orientated towards control and econo-centrism) blocks the creations of requisite systems and apps.
7. Up2Met is nuet’s current label for a conceptual scheme as context for the emergence of nu  pictures/scenes/stories/scenarios for the whole of humankind to survive/thrive its Crisis-of-Crises, in a few decades – dodging the “climate change bullet”.

¶ 24 Leave a comment on paragraph 24 0 This “HUMAN ENTERPRISE” will not “naturally emerge” from contemporary humankind. It must be a temporally extended system of human actions, with intentional creativity, of a Magnitude/Scope/Complexity (MSC) far, far beyond that imagined by the best of our visionaries – and beyond the current level of comprehension by most human persons. This is why the initial focus is on UPLIFTING the distribution of knowledge/competencies of the global human population.

¶ 25 Leave a comment on paragraph 25 0 Only a radically enhanced, uplifted humankind can lead itself through the necessary Cultural/Societal Metamorphosis, from humankind (caterpillar) to humanity (butterfly).

¶ 26 Leave a comment on paragraph 26 0 Are we (humans) the gift of Cosmos to Gaia, for our multi-billennial future? See:  Nu Genesis.