The critical content in my emails and posts are REFERENCES (pointers to) meta-contexts for which the explicit content the SEM is an entry point or launching pad. I feel that most people simply don’t read my “longish” sems, and I realize that comprehension of them requires more than a quick skim for interesting parts. My hope is that they be “studied”; but special motivation is required for persons to give energy and time to “studying”. I have yet to discover how to provide such motivation.

It may be the paradox that I (and I expect some others) attempt to share useful contexts in messages and posts, even books.  Contexts are not of the nature that can be adequately represented explicitly in communication.  Communication shares “bits” which are sent and perceived within contexts – from which meanings arise.  The delusion that significant conceptual schemes (the “structure” of contexts) can be represented as content in dialog blocks us from exploring and learning how to effectively share (and interact in terms of) contexts.  Contexts are “represented” by the patterns over time (and changes within them) within discourse involving many.  Contexts do change, and we refer to them historically as “worldviews” and there is a large philosophical literature about these changes, and how they differ between cultures over time.  Context change is indirectly referred to by Robert Kegan and the Spiral Dynamics people, which I have referred to as “stages in adult development”. However, their interest is about only a small part of “contexts”.

Most of our day-to-day dysfunction (personal, local to global) is amplified by the media funneling discourse into isolated silos, bubbles, or “towers of babel”. What most disturbs me is that even the best of change agents are locked into their own silos – where they are relevant, but far from sufficient re our many challenges. Sufficiency demands synergy and meaningful collaboration between silos – for which there is not a glimmer of evidence being in process. Can something be done?