I am not seeking a single category within which to place nuet, as a simple answer to the title question. Comprehending nuet is an unending query.

Fabio Barone comments to my Spanda Journal chapter:

    Larry, I am happy you yourself address the notion of “arrogant” and “lone” world-savior. This is indeed something many of us show, and you yourself point to some of the contributions of others consisting  is “proposing their own ‘solution'”. I wonder to what level Larry, or rather nuet, is willing to give in to his own perception of “completenes” of vision. Mind you, I am aware that you are aware of the need for others to jump in, contribute, learn and nurture this bud. But it’s not clear to me how far you are open to open up this work (with all due respect and best intentions 🙂 ).

Fabio, I am wide open to quality challenge – I seek it, but seem unable to get it.  Please challenge me.  In your msg, did you mean “completeness” of vision. I don’t view my vision as complete. It has expanded considerably over the decades. True, my primary themes have not changed, only strengthened over time. And, I am well aware of the possibility of circular cherry picking evidence to match hypotheses. I have tried to test this the best one can, and feel confident that I am not on a totally wrong track. I have tried to compare my hypotheses with all competition I am aware of, and find them lacking.  My models are lacking much also, but not in areas to be filled or corrected by alternative hypotheses.  My comprehension of who we humans are and how we may change has developed greatly over the decades, and continues to expand. There is so much that I wish we had empirical evidence to assist us, but we don’t – so we must consider many alternatives as possible.

There are many domains championed by some which I see no evidence to depend on them “saving us”. Yet, I am open to the help from aliens, or the need to fight aliens, or the emergence of super-abilities (as in TV and films), or a super-Awakening that spreads and everyone lives happily ever-after. Whatever the awakening, we humans will need to do somethings after.  Unless, as one good friend believes, this is all a dream and we will awaken to a radically different reality – maybe even without planets and biological life. I accept the empirical evidence for some psychic phenomena, but don’t depend on it helping us now. I am aware of the Singularity and trans-human movements, and if it happens, then I will live with it. I also don’t see advancements in hard technology converging to save us, or move us toward thrivability. But, I could be wrong, and would be pleasantly surprised. I do expect major advances in soft technology – in working with human systems.  I claim there has been no real advancement in human systems technology in millennia – it changes as it has because of new hard technology to use – but the human aspect remains unchanged. Time to change it.

But Fabio, you put your finger on a significant distinction. Is nuet open to modification? This is independent of Larry’s disabilities. Is Larry open to a critique of nuet?  Larry says YES,  BRING IT ON!  This is what Larry has been asking for a long, long time. But, can nuet be significantly changed? This is a different query and depends on the nature of nuet; and is distinct from emotional resistance Larry may have to changing nuet.

Fabio’s query is one I have lived with for many decades. What am I implying by claiming myself A Minority of One? How do I “come off” to others, as possibly “arrogant”, “rigid and unchanging”, even claiming “special powers”. I can’t preface everything I write/say with an explanation of how I view myself in the context of humankind and the diversity of other persons. I have expressed many times that I am as much in need of radical change as anyone, maybe more than most. I have played with the conceptual scheme of personal metamorphosis – and applied to myself.  I would like a nu butterfly/Larry to emerge from this caterpillar/Larry.  I include myself among those I recommend requiring very significant, positive change. But, the “charge” remains; Larry/nuet considers himself very unique and that uniqueness makes him (from his perspective – fully acknowledged) of special value to humankind in Crisis-of-Crises. This doesn’t make Larry “superior” or nuet “infallible”.

I probably don’t express it enough: I am not asking anyone to accept my ideas without careful and fair evaluation. I firmly believe that EVALUATION MUST FOLLOW COMPREHENSION, period. Actually, no knowledgeable persons actually reject my proposals; they usually ignore them or report they don’t comprehend (even enough to ask me questions). There are a great many conceptual schemes that I comprehend but don’t accept as representing “reality”. Many conceptual schemes have limited domains of applicability – like tools in a tool chest. Within nuet are many such “false” conceptual schemes, believed by many to be “true”, and which nuet deems are very dangerous to the future of Humankind/Gaia.

This has led me to employ the metaphor of “blindspot” to characterize the difficulty others claim in comprehending my larger conceptual schemes. Nuet can be viewed as a sysnet of nested/networked conceptual schemes. Even some of my component conceptual schemes and smaller concepts are often only partly comprehended (in my evaluation of their reports to me) by others. This is because each component of the whole of nuet gets a “twist” from the unique nature of that “whole”, and comprehension is always in the context of the person attempting to comprehend – whereas my comprehension is in the context of nuet. This, of course, holds for everyone – total comprehension of whole persons is impossible.

I probably should attempt to be precise on my use of comprehension and conceptual scheme, but not here.

Let me start with some aspects of what nuet is NOT:

Nuet is not superior to any other mind/world hosted by a human brain/body.

First, there is the One Dimensional Fallacy: entities can be validly ranked only one dimension at a time. Ranking multi-dimensional entities requires arbitrary weighing of each dimensions, implying no objective ranking. So, we can’t rank persons as generally superior to others without a subjective bias.

Larry is strikingly inferior to most humans in many aspects and competencies. Larry/nuet has come to view himself as a “savant”, but where his disabilities and special compensatory abilities are not in conventional categories – so Larry/nuet is viewed as more  an “eccentric with a wild imagination”.

Larry/nuet would not like others to have his limitations, so as to gain his insights.

Larry/nuet is not an exemplar of the future human.

Larry cannot be a leader, even with the guidance of nuet. Nuet can “channel” expressions by Larry, but is unable to control, let alone influence Larry’s behaviors or emotions. Larry wishes nuet did have that agency.

Larry’s handicaps have really hampered his ability to adequately engage others in the emergence of nuet. On the other hand, it is a hypothesis within nuet, that Larry’s weakness to routine and social pressure would have led any “success” to his entrapment in a professional discipline and the full blown emergence of nuet would have been blocked. It was a risky tradeoff.

Nuet doesn’t claim to have THE TRUTH – a concept not valid within nuet.

Nuet contains multiple, alternative forecasts, no predictions of the future.

What, then, are some of the unique aspects of nuet:

Nuet embraces a generalization of Bohr’s complementarity. Whatever “reality really is” can’t be represented by a single, logically consistent explanatory system. [See fuller explication elsewhere.] Two or more conceptual schemes that appear in conflict may all be valid in different domains of applicability.

Nuet attempts to apply complementarity to both existential and process ontologies.

Nuet is generative, with potentially fractal-like depth. Nuet is very sensitive to probing and can be triggered to cascades of Piagetian accommodations.

Nuet is a galdeeing “conceptual entity”, resulting from bio-mental processes characteristic of neural systems I call “worldweaving”. It has self-organizing aspects involving both deep creativity and deterministic unfolding.

I am witnessing worldweaving at this moment in a new kitten to our household. Whimsy was rescued very young as a feral kitten being beaten up by other cats. After a few days in the guest room, with frequent visits, Whimsy has taken the whole house, its five dogs and seven other cats as its world to weave.  Whimsy is fearless, fun-loving, and highly explorative. There is no place she won’t investigate, or no being she won’t engage, including our plates of food when we eat. She is also quick to learn where she isn’t to go. She (we think female) has moved from a scratching devil to a cuddling lover. She has claimed our 2 year old male cat, Milo, as a playmate – and Milo reciprocates. Whimsy looks outside, but won’t go out, even through the doggie door. This house and its inhabitants are enough variety for the time.  We are concerned about Whimsy exploring the outside, as she probably won’t stay within the yard, and her strong curiosity may get her killed by a car, which was the unfortunate fate of Milo’s sister, Togi.  Whimsy is my exemplar of the powers of uplift when the galdeeing environment is matched to the emerging being. UPLIFT aims that this will exist for every human child.

Milo and Whimsy play
Milo and Whimsy play

Most major conceptual schemes and worldviews proposed by competent others can be “integrated” into nuet, where nuet assigns domains of applicability – often yet to be empirically determined. For example, different modes of economics and governance are but limited models with no universal applicability.

Nuet is very sensitive to perceived “blindspots” in the contexts of all others as revealed by their communication, in comparison with the context of nuet. All humans confabulate for closure, which has its advantages and disadvantages. Again, I know Larry/nuet has blindspots because, over time, many have been discovered – often pointed out by others. We need to develop teams that can, as a team, account for all the blindspots.
Nuet makes some strong claims, based on the knowledge assimilated over Larry’s lifetime. These claims are open to challenge, but will not be abandoned because others may claim them “wrong”. Nuet is even willing to negotiate “rules of evidence” – in a time where digital evidence is easy to fabricate. Examples:

The transFORMation of large, complex, highly dysfunctional societal systems is a practical impossibility in the time available.

UPLIFT and Societal Metamorphosis are processes that may be viable and achievable in short time frames – although this seems quite impossible in contemporary contexts..

Humans are very diverse in cognitive abilities, a critical aspect for a viable humanity. We cannot model social systems on the belief that human traits can be accurately expressed in terms of statistical norms and deviations. The distributions must be treated in their fullest.

In analogy to biological development, humankind is either embryonic (about to be born as humanity) or a young infant. Actually, each stage-in-life can be used as an analogical tool, with none being ideologically applied.

Our established theories about humans and humankind (including how they change) are seriously inadequate to our needs. We await advancements of analogous significance as the heliocentric solar system and biological evolution.  This revolution is well underway, many component insights exist, but their synergy is being blocked. This includes how humans and human social/societal systems change. Bertini’s Learning Change Project  is one exemplar of that potential accumulating.

Human extinction is a high enough “probability” to be taken very seriously.

Deception, Exploitation, Corruption, and Conspiracy are core practices in human social and societal systems – but need not be.

The change-agent movement is not trending sufficiently towards success, in spite of a great many innovative actions, and appears unaware of needed change.  Very little strategy activity is even contemplated. They wait in silos for magical swarming, or believe that their good action, when successful, will catalyze a shifting of the whole.

No individual humans are to blame for our condition, even “monsters” and “tyrants”. It is a dangerous fallacy that humans believe they can consciously chose who they will become. Humans have creative agency, but not as we currently believe. Our Crisis-of-Crises is systemic, not moral or ethical.  This doesn’t mean we should tolerate “learned evil”.