ONE / MANY COMPLEMENTARITY 1

 

early draft

Larry Victor (nuet)  11/06/2005 2

 

            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. 3

             

            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. 4

             

            There are two different types of situations where the one is essential for the many, and the many is essential for the one. 5

             

            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. 6

             

            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). 7

            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. 8

             

            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. 9

             

            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. 10

             

            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. 11

             

            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. 12

             

            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. 13

             

            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. 14

             

             

            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. 15

             

            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. 16

             

            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. 17