Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0
Have you “seen” one viable
to “save” humankind from potential extinction?
Or to achieve a “state” where all trends are positive?
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 Some “Power Institutions” (financial, corporate, governmental, political, military, intelligence, media, religious, etc.) acknowledge coming disasters; but they envision gaining from them – as they have in the past. They accept massive collapses, including a significant dying-off of half, or more, of the global population. Technology will keep the global elite living well, or so they expect. They have computer enabled “plans” for THEIR survival/thrival; however based on questionable assumptions. Their whole system is unstable because of infighting, internal deception and conspiracy.
They don’t attempt to “control” everything – e.g., the poor can do as they wish, within enforced constraints. They are masters at “surfing chaos”, for their benefit.
FACT: In metaphor, the whole of humankind is sick, mad, insane, mis-informed, stupid and bent on unintentional suicide. But, this not need be humankind’s actual destiny:>
FACT: The very best minds and communities, most aware of our Crisis-of-Crises, are ALL locked in silos that block anyone doing what MORE IS IN NEED OF DOING, AND DOING DIFFERENTLY, IN NU CONTEXTS. It is NOT that what is being done is not important. It is that the GOALS will not be manifest even if THEIR EFFORTS ACHIEVE ALL THEIR OBJECTIVES.
FACT: We confuse Objectives with Goals.
¶ 9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 0 Those most aware of this Crisis-of-Crises are locked in their silos, with many significant blindspots. For their mental health, they must believe that what they are doing will eventually succeed in “saving the planet”. Some view THEIR action (once going globally viral), as THE catalyst for holistic transformation. Most activists accept that many different actions are needed, to organize and emerge in viable harmony. They trust in the multitude of diverse actions and the “hidden hand” that will “make it all happen”.
¶ 10 Leave a comment on paragraph 10 0 Yet, as I query at the beginning, there is no serious exploration of how this “coming together” might happen. Nor is their any dialog about anything “we” might need to do to improve how “we come together” – and successfully confront opposition. The impacts, of the current trends towards extreme polarization, each in their fake reality media umbrellas, on the positive activist community is yet in process.
¶ 11 Leave a comment on paragraph 11 0 Some may conclude that the eventual coming together of ALL humankind seems impossible (in the time frame needed). One option is despair and retreat, or turning to futile violence – especially, if they can’t “see” any positive options. Others might emerge a nu awareness of “the whole” and seek to discover/create/design a nu process of “coming together” – being free from many outmoded assumptions about “human nature”. Who we humans “really are – in our awesome diversity” will be an ongoing query/challenge as we OLLO to survive/thrive.
¶ 12 Leave a comment on paragraph 12 0 Elsewhere I explicate our vast potentials and explore alternative viable paths to positive futures. One might think that such positive futures would attract interest; but my experience is that any attempt to view positive is “blocked”, by even those whose express “optimism” about our future.
¶ 13 Leave a comment on paragraph 13 0 In this essay I want to explore these “blocks” and how they may be overcome. As I state this objective, I am over whelmed by the Magnitude of the Task. I won’t be able to achieve my objective in this essay. This, coincidentally, points to a major block: Our current processes of interactivity are systemically insufficient for us to learn/process “conceptual schemes” of the MSC (Magnitude/Scope/Complexity) required to be useful resolving our Crisis-of-Crisis.
Simply, we don’t give adequate time/attention to the requisite tasks. We are addicted to shorter & shorter exchanges, exemplified by “tweets”. Also, our current infotech apps reinforce this addiction and make it difficult to engage in conceptual activity that requires synergy-over-time. Indeed, the need for such temporarily extended, systemic discourse is beyond the imagination of most – including those with higher education achievements.
I am “painfully” aware of this limitation. I don’t have the tools/tech I need. Even if I had, it would require OLLO processes to attract/train other to use these tools/tech. I, nor an one person, can “bridge this gap”. Teams/communities can.
I again refer to The Apollo Program as an exemplar. When we started on our OLLO EXPEDITION, to land humans on our Moon and return safely back to Earth, we couldn’t even put a small object in orbit. I leave it to you to explore similarities with our challenge.
¶ 17 Leave a comment on paragraph 17 0 Another major block is our lack of attention to how we humans interact with each other in context with our writing (our semfields); especially as this interaction is rapidly being changed by technology (from texting on mobile devices, to searching vast databases, to confronting the implications of social media). Indeed, we are so enveloped within this geyser of change that we can’t distinguish “the planet from the seed”, let alone “the forest from the trees”. We need to OLLO ourselves to devote some learned attention to cognitively working beyond our immediacy. I have labeled this as treating the whole of humankind as a PHENEMENON, observed from “beyond”.
The current exploding crisis of FAKE REALITY (exemplified by Trump, but characteristic of all human perspectives, including our own) may actually be a positive event – forcing some of us to consider The Phenomenon of Humankind.
Elsewhere I have proposed a fundamental distinction between Human Reality (HR) and Material Reality (MR), which I believe essential for our survival. This is a nu and useful perspective for humans to be both “part of nature” and to be “unique beyond nature”. I won’t explicate further on this here.
¶ 20 Leave a comment on paragraph 20 0 What is the “phenomenon” of the interactivity, today, among those most aware and/or most active? I venture that the vast majority of their effort is devoted to writing & reading sems (semiotic structures). In contrast, a very small portion of their attention is devoted to the “Process of Organizing with Others”. Most submit to following the organizational structures of their social media apps and other formal scaffolding. Do apps like “Meet-Up” actually lead to viable human organizing? Are “meetings” an adequate format for “doing together”? Decades ago I proposed the need for RT/DT technology. RealTime / DelayedTime: integrating synchronous and asynchronous interactivity; we still need it.
¶ 21 Leave a comment on paragraph 21 0 Also missing are adequate apps (& training to use, considering individual differences) for interactivity focused about the emergence of a semfield. The exemplar for this was a small group of scientists/mathematicians around a chalkboard, discussing what they were writing. Singular reviews of books is inadequate. A college class dedicated to one work approximates – but they don’t continue to the emergence of a comprehensive and useful semfield. Legal process interactivity with constitutions and records is an archaic model. The collected and accessed “Scientific Literature” is the foundation of the Scientific Process; but it is slow and cumbersome – and is running into problems with fraud and the absence of raw data (for independent analysis).
Elsewhere I characterize the distinguishing characteristic of humans (from all other life) as its deep dependence on its semfields (and what is produced using semfields). Semfields are a second and essential “environment”, as relevant as (but not replacing) our “natural environment”. Indeed, semfields are totally unique in the whole cosmic universe! Sems (semiotic structures) liberate information from all prior bonding within matter/energy systems. The pattern of symbols you are now reading are independent of physics, in contrast with your DNA which is dependent on the physics of matter/energy.
This fact returns us to consider the high uniqueness we represent in the whole cosmos, an importance that was (rightly) taken from our “religious importance” by the discoveries of Material Reality. This recovered unique importance of humans should not be taken as license to exploit – as such exploitation is leading us to extinction – and the LOSS to cosmos of what our uniqueness would contribute to the future of cosmos. There are likely other such unique pockets in our and other galaxies. But, what is unique with us humans is “beyond life”, but based on life. Biological life is MR.
¶ 24 Leave a comment on paragraph 24 0 I appears I have drifted away from my intention to focus on our blocks. Instead, I have cited a few insights that, in our ignoring them, contribute to the power of our blocks.