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. Any existing comments on that item are shown within a yellow rectangle beneath the item. A glasses icon () next to the 'Add a general comment' link below indicates existing general comments; click it to see them. Click the buttons above to navigate between views.

You can add a general comment here:
 View general commentsAdd a general commentAdd a general comment
Hide comments

ONE / MANY COMPLEMENTARITY Add your comment on this item1


early draft

Larry Victor (nuet)  11/06/2005 Add your comment on this item2


            No matter how imaginative or innovative the ideas of one person may be, unless they are comprehended by others who collaborate to better comprehend them (beyond the originator) and work to distribute the ideas to the many, there will be no significant impact of what emerged in the mind/brain (wetware) of that one person. Add your comment on this item3


            Likewise, in the ecoweb of human interactivity there are many essential roles to be performed that can only be played by one person, and if that person (with his/er unique set of competencies) is not at the social node that needs those competencies at the right time, a composite process involving the many may not succeed. Add your comment on this item4


            There are two different types of situations where the one is essential for the many, and the many is essential for the one. Add your comment on this item5


            In the first type, where a new conceptual scheme galdees in the mind/brain of one person (from a unique synergy of composite ideas that happen to be in the mind/brain of one person), an organized many (or multitude) is necessary to seaf that idea to manifestation. It may be years or decades or never when such potent syntheses of diverse ideas may rise again in one mind/brain. Add your comment on this item6


            The following is based on the idea that the human mind/brain is the only known system capable of creative and intuitive synthesis. No computers come even near to attempting this, although many may make such claims. Team assistance and favorable environments are often critical, but it is within the nature of the human mind/brain (of which our knowledge remains VERY limited, in spite of the claims of modern neuroscience) that can host imaginative worldmaking (or worldweaving). Add your comment on this item7

            Some students of history say that if that one person were not there, someone else would have soon come up with the same idea, as the "time was ripe".  This can be true many times, maybe most times. But, I propose that there may be other times when the situation is too unique that if the new composite conceptual scheme is not seafed at the right time and circumstances it is unlikely to either rise again in another mind (the time is NOT ripe for multiple mutations) or if it does arise again the circumstances may  be less favorable for seafing.  In this type, the composite conceptual scheme leads to the creation of scaffolding on which the multitude self-organizes. Add your comment on this item8
Comments for item 8
Larry VictorPerson was signed in when posted
03:21 PM ET (US)
Regarding item 8
This is now a favorite topic of alternative universe speculation. In its most radical version, every moment is a moment of choice and causes branching in the network of multiple universes.

This also has generated new What if? fiction. What if Hitler had been assassinated? What if JFK had not been assassinated?

What do the unique traits of people in power contribute to the consequences of their reign, vs how much are they mere conditioned tools of their position?

Are individuals a total product of the DNA and environment, or to what extent does creative initiative (with no causal source) play in the life of each person?


            Einstein is a case of the time being ripe, which is why his ideas were almost immediately accepted (by those who were working in his field of specialization). If it hadn't been Einstein, it would soon have been someone else.  Mendel is a case where his idea was ignored for decades until it was independently discovered and then it was recognized that he had discovered it much earlier. Add your comment on this item9


            The discovery of radioactivity was accidental and it did take the imagination of R to wonder why his photographic plates were cloudy and to pursue the puzzle. It could have been decades before radioactivity (and the whole of atomic and quantum physics) was discovered.  It would be an interesting exercise in speculation to imagine other ways the existence of rays might have been discovered - as many of the other ways of detecting rays were invented BECAUSE we knew that there were rays to look for.  The embarrassing case of the non existent N-rays demonstrates the drive to discover rays post the discovery that there were rays. Add your comment on this item10


            In the second type, it is not so much a powerful system of ideas but a special combination of competencies (such as those which combine to create quality leaders, or in synergizing diverse techniques into a new composite process).  As in the first type, the time could be ripe for many to experiment with synergizing the diverse techniques, and there may be competition among variants of the composite process. At other times, it might be rare circumstances that bring the critical techniques to the attention of one person, who may need to be in a special state of mind (frame) to recognize how the techniques synergize and have application.  But, as in the first type, unless the many can comprehend the significance of the new composite process, the person being at the right place at the right time may not be recognized. Add your comment on this item11


            The two types call for different processes whereby the one person can enlist the collaboration of the many.  In the second type, demonstrations of pilot and experimental versions of the composite process may be possible, which may attract new participants.  In the first type, it is a complex system of ideas in one mind/brain that must be explicated - expressed in primitive sems.  Often the significance of the new composite conceptual scheme cannot be recognized until most of the component ideas are better comprehended (from outside traditional boxes) and linked.  Until this time, there will be few to assist the one person, fortunate or unfortunate, to have hosted the emergence of the composite conceptual scheme. Add your comment on this item12


            This first type often requires the emergence of a new educational process to seaf the galdee of the new composite conceptual scheme; whereas for the second type a dynamic ecology of innovation, a new technological process seafs the galdee of the new composite process. Add your comment on this item13


            Historically, we can see this in the dance of technique and ideas in the co-evolution of science/technology.  Innovations in scientific instrumentation and in mathematical symbolism  provided scaffolding for the emergence of new ideas. AND, breakthroughs in ideas (often involving the challenging of basic assumptions and frames) and imagination of new things to do but lacking the appropriate tools for the doing provided motivation for the emergence of new technologies and techniques. Add your comment on this item14



            Sometimes the new composite conceptual scheme is of a level of complexity beyond all previous conceptual schemes, and is not easily recognized as a new "type" of idea. Add your comment on this item15


            The importance of this seeming academic exercise is that the composite conceptual schemes we need to survive/thrive our Crisis of Crises may exist and yet not be recognized by those who are waiting patiently for them. Add your comment on this item16


            I humbly propose that nuet hosts a good candidate for a new "integral" composite conceptual scheme; and given the above, it calls for an investigation of nuet's claims as to whether they are worth seafing. Nuet's composite conceptual scheme also suggests a new composite technology of nu tools and techniques. Add your comment on this item17
Comments for item 17
Larry VictorPerson was signed in when posted
03:29 PM ET (US)
Regarding item 17
I have long considered the question: When did persons with very special attributes recognize that they were REALLY special, and might have a significant impact? How did such realizations effect their lives?

This question is always coupled with the studies of delusions of grandeur and the pathological arrogance of self importance among so many.

How many people of importance in history are known only because of circumstance - being at the right place at the right time - and not because of anything unique that they contributed?

Can we ever know of how many persons existed with significant potentials to contribute, but who were not at the right place at the right time, or were unable to attract others to help seaf their ideas or innovations?
Edited 11-06-2005 03:31 PM