¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 Hi, again, Joe Brewer ,

¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 I identify you
as our  #1 catalyst for change
and fully support your innovations and enterprise.

¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 If one looks through the “right lens”, they would discover a cornucopia of viable projects-for-change emerging globally. None of this is reported in the MSM and the full scope of this activity is yet hidden to most online explorers. Indeed, most projects are aware of only a few, out of thousands of related projects.

¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 Yet, I detect something missing, seriously critical for the success of these many ventures. More disturbing, no one seems aware that something critical is missing, and thus nothing is being done to discover and develop appropriate strategies. All are deeply engaged in their projects and all assume a “coming-together”, a nu synergy emergent from their collective endeavors. This is their faith, without substantiation or concern about validity.

¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0 Do we really “get-it”? Are there levels of “getting-it”?

¶ 6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 I see no evidence of a “coming together”, and evidence of many blocking factors. There is an enormous blindspot about the “endgame”, when the new movements confront established orders. Indeed, there is a shrieking vacuum for speculative, long-term  scenarios to a “state” when there are no more negative/catastrophic trends.  We appear locked in a “presentism”, oblivious of “futures cognition of a type required”. Long-term scenario are automatically rejected as top-down; while the sufficiency of bottom-up, alone, is blindly assumed true. “Grassroots” ignores the vast, essential diversity of humankind.

¶ 7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0 What if every human has intrinsic cognitive limitations that blocks comprehensive comprehension of systems beyond a certain complexity? Individually, we reach closure prematurely, but are satisfied. This is related to George Miller’s 7+/- 2 limitations of independent variables a human brain can handle in “working mind”.

¶ 8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 0 This is but one small piece in a speculative proposition: HUMANS AND HUMANKIND ARE NOT AS WE ASSUME/BELIEVE THEM TO BE. Basing our future strategies on false assumptions about our “nature”, may well lead to disaster.

¶ 9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 0 I am pleased in the tasks (a) & (b) to see the recognition of the distinction between having the processes to apply (to saving the planet) and humankind implementing those processes. I claim that THIS is our primary challenge:  discovering what blocks humankind from doing what needs doing. I suggest a second level  challenge: admit that even with our very best efforts, we will – today – fail to discover our blockage BECAUSE we currently lack the requisite competencies and the appropriate episteme to discover the appropriate “reality” for our “Crisis-of-Crises.

¶ 10 Leave a comment on paragraph 10 0 This realization is very positive, as “we” are fully capable of OLLO (Organizing-for-Learning=&=Learning-for Organizing) to gain the requisite competencies and appropriate episteme. We only need to recognize this as a required enterprise, in addition to continuing with our projects; without which our projects will not accomplish their intended goals.

¶ 11 Leave a comment on paragraph 11 0 Explore http://nuet.us/ for some preliminary work.

¶ 12 Leave a comment on paragraph 12 0 In summary: we don’t adequately comprehend our challenge because we fail to comprehend our critical, current limitations that block us doing what needs doing. How is our “belief in the nature of humans and humankind” false and what is a better model to use in our future planning and actions? This is our top challenge.  {Read Joe’s immediate reply to this, below.}

¶ 13 Leave a comment on paragraph 13 0 ===========  Joe’s FB post: