¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 Tony, as usual, in your essay, Global Governance as a Riddle, you present to me as an “apparent impossibility”, an exemplar of the theme of your latest epistle. An enigma for me to contemplate and explore. I wouldn’t have imagined the single person/mind/brain capable of producing the quality and volume of your “texts”, and to the high density you have interwoven them. I wonder about your cognitive experiences when composing and what Intelligent Tools you have created to seaf your “work”.

¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 Reading your latest stimulated a few insights, that I would like to share. This is in addition to my appreciation of the wonderful emergent idea-space you play, as a symphony, in the text within the doc/sem. I would enjoy dialoguing on each sentence.

¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 At this point in my composing, I have many options; and if I gave it the time, I could generate more options.

¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 When we use language <<what is a word?>> we often naively confuse (1) the physical message, (2) the experientials resulting from perceiving a message, and (3) …. {i lost track of this thread while exploring the meanings of “experientials”}…. the “objective, physically real entity, event, or happening” being perceived/experienced and reported. {Trump is the exemplar of totally confusing these three.}

¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0 “reality isn’t what we think/believe it is” is one of my old conceptual models…..

¶ 6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 {{{I am blocked/stuck/confused – too many options.}}}
——————

¶ 7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0 You have “fleshed out optional details” about that vast unknown beyond logic and contemporary science. The many cultures and long history of those “representing beyond” points to a “reality beyond conceivable/comprehendable”, which gives rise to paradox when we attempt to conceive/comprehend. We employ language tricks and claims by many to know what is impossible to know {and what do we “mean” by “know”, and by “mean”?}.

¶ 8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 0 THE LINE is drawn between (1) a determined/unfolding future or (2) “futures constrained but ‘free’ for creative agency” – which is but a label. We humans are not equipped to “comprehend details” beyond the line, but we are driven to speculate.

¶ 9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 0 Given our “global” Crisis-of-Crises, I long ago abandoned any attempt to speculate on “beyond beyond” (as much as it draws me and I accidentally play) and work towards insuring the survival/thrival of Humanity/Gaia. This has narrowed to “Beyond Extinction”. However, knowing that our best conventional knowledge is “fake”, gives me hope.

¶ 10 Leave a comment on paragraph 10 0 Decades ago I began using a distinction between questions and queries, which read the same in our language. Question/Answer and Problem/Solution are two popular paradigms. Both are finite and seek closure. Queries are process invitations, to explore, create, and share.

¶ 11 Leave a comment on paragraph 11 0 Our media is filled with short responses given to queries, confused as questions. We also have far too many proposed solutions to queries confused as problems.

¶ 12 Leave a comment on paragraph 12 0 Our challenge is learning to navigate/influence querying.

¶ 13 Leave a comment on paragraph 13 0 We don’t seek “truth”, but evolving strategies.

¶ 14 Leave a comment on paragraph 14 0 Your essay, Global Governance as a Riddle: But is a solution the answer to the question?, displays many puzzling features of the querying landscape. Relevant to this is the distinction between Material Reality and Human Reality: HR doesn’t obey the laws of MR. Yet, all humans act as if they must, that HR = MR.

¶ 15 Leave a comment on paragraph 15 0 Your essay is great FUN, and I wish I could follow each link.

¶ 16 Leave a comment on paragraph 16 0 PS – as I prepare to post this on my blog, I discover your “topic”: GLOBAL GOVERNANCE, which I had generalized to “REALITY”. It isn’t the size (many holons) in the holarchy called global, that is our difficulty. Rather it is the fact that it is CLOSED and FINITE. Also of relevance: the distinction between “government” as a system and “governance” as a process. We need governance without governments.

¶ 17 Leave a comment on paragraph 17 0 PPS: Reading, I discovered solution in resolution. I DO THIS FREQUENTLY, AND WONDER WHY I HADN’T SEEN IT BEFORE.