QuickTopic free message boards logo

The document below has a numbered blue "comment dot" () following selected items. Click a blue dot to add your comment regarding that item. A glasses icon () indicates existing comments on an item; click it to see them. Click the buttons above to navigate between views.

You can add a general comment here:
 Add a general commentAdd a general comment
Show comments in-line

Walt, Add your comment on this item1


On hearing you speak, talking briefly with you, reading  The Next Enlightenment, and reflecting on the other books you wrote, I feel we are kindred explorers of self emergence. We have made many similar uplifting discoveries. I even discovered that you wrote "The Upstart Spring", which I read and enjoyed many years ago. Add your comment on this item2


I would truly enjoy an extended dialog with you, which I am sure would be of mutual benefit. For now I wish to share a few brief insights with you and hope that they are sufficiently motivating to generate a response and possibly dialog. Add your comment on this item3


I composed this a few days after the WFS conference. This email can be viewed and commented upon paragraph by paragraph in a free dialog application called QuickTopic.   Add your comment on this item4

The QuickTopic URL is: l
I encourage you to respond in this modality.  I will make this doc and discussion open to others ONLY with your permission.  Larry
 Add your comment on this item5


I was very pleased for your mention of Robert Kegan.  Although his model of development is but a very small part of my worldview, I have long considered it one key and was concerned that it attracted so little attention.  Since few people are at his higher stages, and you must be at those higher stages to appreciate his model, it was reasonable that he would not be popular, even among psychologists.  I discovered him soon after he published In Over Our Heads, went back to read his 1982 The Evolving Self, and actually purchased a copy of his Subject/Object Interview Manual -- but have yet to use it. Add your comment on this item6


I believe that futurist's attempts to share our concerns about our complex situation cannot be sufficiently comprehended by the majority who are yet in Kegan's lower stages.  With well crafted metaphors and presentations it may be possible to move these people to support more sane policies IF they would not be countered by others playing to their stages.  Any process futurists employ to reach the whole population must take into account Kegan's stages (and other significant cognitive style differences).  The same applies to any attempts to "raise the consciousness" of those decision-makers who cause us the most trouble -- their words demonstrate they function at lower Kegan levels. Add your comment on this item7


A point.  A person can function very well and with considerable complexity at any level of development.  A person may be blocked from moving up a level and spread competencies out horizontally, mastering that level.  Likewise some persons may move up too rapidly through the levels and be underdeveloped at lower (and somewhat more practical) levels.  I believe that I may be one of these so handicapped. Add your comment on this item8


An important aside: I am of a very small minority who lack mental imagery in all sensory modes: visual, auditory, tactile, smell, taste, body and movement.  Nor am I a verbal thinker. I speak and write directly from my subconscious, hearing myself as others hear me, and viewing the words emerge on the monitor screen as I type.  I can sub vocalize, but it is not my primary mode.  I believe that this handicap has made it easier for me to liberate myself from the power of sensory reality, and subsequent cultural reality. Add your comment on this item9


The consequences of Kegan’s model applied to the contemporary human population require serious rethinking of futurist strategy for significant change.  There are no simple was to broadcast salvation. Yet, I remain a “potentialist” (got this from Barbara Marx Hubbard at the WFS conference). The vast diversity of human cognitive competencies and styles demands a very fine grained educational/communication system. No simple set of messages or presentations will work.  At first this challenge is daunting. But applying a radical shift in educational perspective, viewing education as “organizing for learning and learning for organizing”, with learners (at all ages) the focus and primary movers, we can have a system commensurate with the task.  See my presentation Learners for Quality Education. Add your comment on this item10


In 1974 (age 39), after a decade of social activism (along with PhDs in both physics and psychology) and reading Donald Michael’s On Learning to Plan and Planning to Learn, I had a series of major insights, including that "Reform Was Impossible".  That: the transformation of large, complex, dysfunctional social systems was very, very difficult by gradual, incremental applications of operations.  Yet all liberation efforts appeared to have their final goal the influencing of leaders or simply electing new leaders to roles in dysfunctional organizations.  Motivated by the spirit of the 60s and my general systems background I searched for a model of radical and significant change, and discovered in the UofA (Tucson) library the details of insect metamorphosis.  I began composing a model for societal metamorphosis and composed a manuscript, "Mission 2000", a future history reporting the phenomenal changes we had accomplished from 1976 to 2000.  My first publisher went bankrupt before the book came out.  Over the decades I have expanded and elaborated on my model, most of which exists in poorly organized computer files.  Multiple attempts to sustain the efforts of others working with my ideas have not been successful, for various reasons which I won't go into here. I am now in the process of re-organizing them on a new website and will attempt to lead Learning Expeditions into this alternative reality. My rough collection of docs can be found now at:  http://mywebpages.comcast.net/larryvictor137/INDEX.htm  .  This website will in rapid organization and revision. Add your comment on this item11


From metamorphosis I discovered the significance in the distinction between transformation and emergence. The caterpillar doesn't morph into the butterfly.  Permit me to illustrate this first in application to the stage changes in Kegan's model.  After which I will just touch on what the next stage in the model may be, and how we (you and I) may be now in transition to that stage 6th stage. Add your comment on this item12


There are two basic ways to change from stage A to stage B: TransFORMation and Emergence. Add your comment on this item13


            In TransFORMation the FORM of stage A morphs into the FORM of stage B.  Forces begin acting on the system with form A, shifting it by gradual increments into form B.  Initially the inertia of stage A resists the change, but that weakens and eventually the attraction to stage B dominates.  With this process, the system always has only one form at any moment, A or B or the various transitional stages. Add your comment on this item14


            In Emergence a new form begins to appear in “discretionary” times, not as a transformation of a prior form, but the coming into existence of a form from where there was no prior form (to be transformed).  This is not emergence from nothing, but from the chaos of potentialities in the material substrate.  As the new form emerges it also begins to transform and develop -- but this is not a transformation of the old form.  Contemporary SCIENCE is the study of Transformations; there is yet no study of Emergence, or true Origins. Add your comment on this item15


                        There are various scenarios for the interaction of the old form A and the emergent NU form B.  [I use the term "NU" to label changes characterized by what they are to become, reserving "new" for changes in reference to what was.]  Add your comment on this item16


                        A good scenario is where, initially, there is minimal interaction of stages; the nu stage having the opportunity to develop in discretionary times when the old stage is relaxed.  As the nu stage B becomes stronger, it commands more and more time, until the old stage A is present less and less.  Such a pure scenario is unlikely, so there would be tension between the stages when they attempt to occupy the same spacetime; initially the old stage pulling back and later the new stage pushing ahead. Add your comment on this item17


                        With this process, the old stage may remain (as a sometimes useful tool).  As the system progresses through the stages, it develops a repertoire of multiple forms. Add your comment on this item18


            Which way is used to interpret stage change may have a very significant effect on methods to facilitate these changes.  I noted in many WFS conference presentations a diagram showing overlapping rising and falling “bell” curves, each representing a new "stage".  Even though each new stage was shown rising a-new, this was called transFORMation. Add your comment on this item19

I believe that a general systems analysis of our present global situation would demonstrate the near impossibility of transforming contemporary social systems into more functional alternatives.  The concept of a Global Problemateque posits that positive changes in one part of the system will cause an eventual negative reaction by the whole, which feeds back to oppose the original improvement. Add your comment on this item20


Many futurists are waiting for the magical uplift, the quantum discontinuity of conscious evolution.  There is little to no discussion about possible processes AFTER uplift. Will we all know what to do and be competent to do it?  Will the new consciousness simply take command of contemporary social institutions and govern them in more positive ways? Add your comment on this item21

I believe that a general systems design can be made to illustrate viable scenarios where a new humanity can emerge (in record time) once it is free of having to compete with the old system.  We will make decisions of what to do with the physical infrastructure, but we don't need to be burdened with the societal infrastructure (except in a few situations where it is passably OK -- like the initial running of libraries). Add your comment on this item22


Walt, I believe this is enough for you to chew on.  It is only a very small beginning and many MAJOR components have not been mentioned -- such as Learners for Quality Education (actually “mentioned”) - an emergent educational system capable of bootstrapping and uplifting the whole population in a few decades -- a significant minority in only a few years. Add your comment on this item23


As promised, I believe the next aspect to become objectified in Kegan's model is Epistemology.  All the terms we use in this domain: knowledge, truth, data, information, intuition, wisdom, etc. are, to me, vague and very difficult to usefully define.  This, I believe, is because they are still part of our subject. We know that there are other epistemologies (as in an earlier stage we know that there are other persons, who may have different needs) but we cannot yet fully empathize these other epistemologies (as in an earlier stage we transit to a new stage where empathy with others becomes possible).  I am not sure that the new stages of human cognitive enlightenment can be achieved ALONE, but may require talented teams for support and collaboration.  This proposes that our personal dependence on culture (often denied) kicks in at a new level.  To move forward as persons we must embed ourselves more deeply in interpersonal and social/cultural processes.  It may be that our next transition is outside Kegan's model, to a new network of challenges. Add your comment on this item24


I highly recommend Steve Fuller’s  Social Epistemology,  if you have not already read it.  Steve’s work gives, in my opinion, a balanced analysis of the intricate details of science and technology as social and psychological phenomena.  His take on Kuhn is instructive. Add your comment on this item25


I was intrigued by your reporting on inner voices from alt selves, pp 56-7.  Due to my total lack of auditory imagery [exception: every other year I think I hear my name being called] I have never experienced invisible guests or social ghosts.  I have tried to invent a few alt personalities to create a simulated computer conference to attract participants, but I cannot ACT.  I am who I am, seeming one unity with a confusion of diversity, but all bound within the whole.  I am in favor of multiplicity and have interesting ideas about it, but seem to be solid on myself throughout my whole life.  I know I responded differently when I was younger, but I sense that the "observer" was the same and hasn't changed a wit.  WOW, this is NEW to me and shocking. Add your comment on this item26


            One of my most popular Intro Psy lectures was on "creative pathologies".  I detailed schizophrenia and multiple personalities as two very distinct disorders.  The Schizophrenias (plural to be noted) involved  a Single Fragmented Personality, whereas the Multiple Identity Syndrome (as it is now labeled) involves Multiple Whole Personalities.  Their distinction is between two variables:  Whole vs Fragmented and Single vs Multiple, each related to the construction: Personalities. Add your comment on this item27


            I led them to consider my ideal human state in the future:  Where each biological being has a well organized team of discrete "multiple personalities", all based on the being's DNA.  Also, where -- one by one -- a personality of the team enters a dissociative re-organization (a Schizophrenic episode) in the cradle of support from the other personalities.  The system spirals enlightenment. Add your comment on this item28


Larry ( Laurence J. Victor) Add your comment on this item29

August 11, 2003 Add your comment on this item30

ljv137@aol.com Add your comment on this item31