This morning, August 8th, I was compelled to the computer to rapidly title 8 new insights, each which could be explicated in a book. I had more insights yesterday. Activity in this comment session is stimulating galdee in nuet. What to do?

In this situation I cannot find a stable, rational approach and fall back on my  intuitive/emotional mind, not all that trustworthy for global and long term issues (these levels of issues didn’t exist when our mammalian/fast/intuitive/emotional mind evolved).

I have finished reading all comments, but have yet to reply to many. Currently, there are 14 potential participants, but only 6 have actually commented.  Yesterday I invited 28 more to join. Most of the other 21 authors to chapters in The Spanda Journal have yet to be invited, once I can learn their email addresses. However, most of these authors have not yet established an versions of their chapter, let alone set up a comment session.

I am indecisive in how to reply to many of your very useful comments. I could directly reply with a relatively brief comment in terms of nuet’s context. Yet, I grok that your comment needs critique because you don’t yet adequately comprehend that part nuet’s context within which our “differences” may be resolved. Thus, the danger of a direct reply would be further incomprehension – we would debate at a lower level where the real issue is a not shared context.

To comprehend a conceptual scheme of nuet’s contexts doesn’t imply that you must accept it as “true or valid”. I claim that comprehension is prerequisite to evaluation. Nuet comprehends many conceptual schemes that he rejects. Each of you work from your context and your own conceptual schemes. I attempt to comprehend you conceptual schemes before I evaluate them. There are many conceptual schemes out there in the general population and acted on by our ruling elites that I vigorously reject.

I have observed my own conceptual schemes evolve and interact. Many times I have filled a blindspot with conceptual schemes provided by others. Often a conceptual scheme will differentiate into a system of interacting, smaller conceptual schemes. All this requires modification or invention of language terms, which often leads to confusion.

I am very truthful in saying that all your comments are useful and I commend your work as valuable. When I claim that other tasks need performing I am not suggesting you perform them.  I deeply believe that when others can comprehend some of the relevant contexts and conceptual schemes from nuet, they will be able to make their own action decisions (change or remain doing the same). Nuet cannot provide explicit instructions because nuet doesn’t know YOU adequately.

This note is already getting to long, and it is developing feelers to many other ideas that I can’t get into all of them at this time. This is one of our human limitations, we are locked into linear biological life, forced to inch along stems and branches one moment after another, yet our contexted reality is networked and stochastic. Once humanity emerges as a societal butterfly, in analogy, it will be more mobile and fly within the network (but, probably not as “free” individuals, but as integral members of vital/viable social entities (teams, crews, families, communities, tribes).

I need to compose satellite docs on a number of distinctions and issues, a few of many are listed below:

personal, social, societal

 Idea: Humanity may emerge without Societal Entities (large organizations, governments, corporations, etc.) but with Societal Networks with moderating subsystems. Personal agency will be enhanced when embedded in social team/community sysnets – where direct person-to-person contact and sharing is seafed. But, the absolute freedom of radical individualism (a myth) must be abandoned.

squarely facing end games

Social sufficiency doesn’t secure Societal sufficiency for survival/thrival.

NONE of the multitude of excellent social project/activities even attempt to consider viable strategies and scenarios as to how the successful, local phenomenon will spread and distribute to other populations with different cultures and political/economic conditions. FEW are willing to consider what to do about opposition and destructive competition from those resisting change, or selectively underestimate this problem without adequate fact checking. FEW, if any, attempt imagining A VIABLE PROCESS whereby the many diverse ventures can more effectively collaborate, weave synergy, and fully engage in a vital/viable emergent nu humanity – and not wait for magical collective swarming.  FEW, if any, attempt to evaluate what (numbers of) populations and what types of persons (in percentages) are presently unable to comprehend what will be happening to them and what will be needed to UPLIFT them to adequate competency to participate. Why isn’t an UPLIFT (of the magnitude nuet calls for) even assessed as possibly necessary?

We (including Larry) muddle along, “doing our thing”, hoping that our success will miraculously spread and catalyze METAMORPHOSIS. Is this an adequate assessment of Our Times? Do we have enough accurate information to make this assessment? If not, what do we need to do?

 the new/nu humankind

Without question, the theories of human nature and human behavior employed by contemporary decision-makers is highly inaccurate and often deceptively wrong. For different reasons, I propose that those theories held by the best educated and knowledgeable are also sufficiently inaccurate and incomplete to seriously interfere with their efforts to create a better humankind. This includes established scientific theories and models; although much research is laying a base for a new conception of humans and humankind.  See: Learning Change as an exemplar.

For example, everyone chooses their theories of human motivation to fit their preferred model of action. Human motivation is not so simple, nor an attribute that can be considered independent of other attributes.

what is that “system” we call humankind?

A global “census” of all relevant variables in human diversity needs to begin. We lack any accurate knowledge of many very important variables. In, addition, as part of UPLIFT, this self-knowledge of humankind must eventually be made accessible to and learnable by everyone. This enterprise must be ongoing throughout the emergence of an UPLIFT movement.

time constraints

Estimates vary from “extinction by 2030” to “increased CO2 and warming will improve food production” or “its all a hoax to gain power”. I see a distribution of threats and a need to be prepared and flexible. A positive note is that our sun may be entering a cooling phase, similar to our little ice age (1300-1400), which may somewhat moderate the extent of global heating.   I don’t expect a cooling, just a possible reduced warming. We don’t have all the time for “evolution” to “solve our problems”.

Natural disasters will increase in frequency and intensity and may soon overwhelm humankind’s capacity for recovery. Migrations and upheavals will increase. WWIII is not impossible and the global power games are very real and very serious. Internet access for change agents may be limited. I read that in China today, you can report anything in their cyberspace, but no online organizing is permitted. This could happen in the USA. We can’t limit our work as if our societal environment will remain fundamentally unchanged. We can’t accurately forecast the future we can’t influence, so our strategies must be fluid, flexible, and innovative.

Larry/nuet has no need to be correct.  The issue is the multimillennial survival of Humanity/Gaia. I have no assurances that UPLIFT and Societal Metamorphosis can or will manifest. Many other things need be done also. I have less confidence that any other “proposal for survival/thrival” would be more successful. Our Crisis-of-Crises calls for parallel actions. An emerging UPLIFT would seaf other ventures and be a Plan B, if the other ventures don’t manifest.