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


nuet Add your comment on this item2

July 4, 2008 Add your comment on this item3

This started as a reply to an email from David Braden, in turn a reply to an essay by Larry Victor on “Higher Immorality”, itself a request from Tom Greco who is completing his new book. After composing, gestating, editing and about to send email to a list, I decided to post this as a QuickDoc and encourage dialog.  In QuickDoc, only those who desire to dialog need contribute and others who receive the url to this doc can read, or not read, as their choice and no one will disturb them further.  I apologize if you received this and would prefer not to receive more from me.View comments on this item Add your comment on this item4

If you respond and wish to read the responses of other (even of your response) please click the SUBSCRIBE button in a Forum. Add your comment on this item5

David, it is only a bit over one day since I first read your message, but it seems like a week ago. [Actually, it has been another day and a half since the wrote the previous sentence.] I have read and re-read it many times and have begun to read various items on the 3DN model and familiarizing myself with AboutUs as a platform.  Add your comment on this item6

I have a long way to go and am not really prepared to comment in any detail as yet. However, I wanted to let you know that I have discovered (what has been in front of me for many months) what you and some others from Onet have been doing. Add your comment on this item7

I want to dig deeper into the 3DN model [I find 3DN awkward to type] and the exciting concept of "bridges". I then hope to participate in the emergence of 3DN in Cyberspace. The term "dimensions" threw me a bit as I had to disengage my old web of meanings for that term. "Stages" is a term that better resonates with me for the model as I partly comprehend it. Add your comment on this item8

My interpretation of 3DN:

Once the first stage has originated and begins to emerge [D1], a network of meta-processes emerge [D2] to maintain and guide the continued emergence of the net. I see two (or more) higher stages.  The third [D3] you sketch below has an increase in density of bridges, and maybe new types of bridges, but within the emergent 3DN. A fourth stage might be the beginning of  reproduction: fission, seeding, budding, (and other forms yet to be invented) AND how the different 3DNs set up relationships and become a second tier "first dimensional 3DN". A parallel fourth stage may be how different 3DNs interact, relate to each other, and begin to form new networks.View comments on this item Add your comment on this item9

The triadic model [3D] pulled from my memory my work on ManyNets. In the 1980s, soon after I discovered Cyberspace, I saw three distinct networks that deeply interacted with each other.  Yet, I felt it was important to view each net as having its own structures and processes.  I want to insert here a link to an old doc on my take on the complementarity of structure and process, Structuring Process / Processing Structure - a concept I will use in what follows.View comments on this item Add your comment on this item10

The three nets were:

  • 1) The physical network of hardware: instruments [computers, peripherals, connections, etc.]; Add your comment on this item11
  • 2) The network of persons using the physical network, and Add your comment on this item12
  • 3) The network of semiotic structures [data, text, graphics,etc.] or "knowledge structures". Add your comment on this item13

I have yet to read any in-depth exploration of the relationship between the three networks.  Related to this I have coined the term Syberspace, with an S, to label the complex network where each person in network (2) above is linked to the mind and holistically constructed worlds of each person. Syberspace is Cyberspace with the persons and their minds included. Add your comment on this item14

Organizing and Organization are two terms that must be treated with care. My distinction above re structure/process must be accessible. Organizing is a process that occurs both within "organizations" and is the process of creating and modifying "organizations".  I would prefer to use "institutions" for the former, as fossil organizations. To further confuse the issue, Humberto Maturana re-defines "ORGANIZATION" as the structure of the Processes occurring in the STRUCTURE of a living system. STRUCTURE would be of the "institution".  Maturana proposes that life of autopoietic systems tends to conserve the identity of ORGANIZATION through the evolution of STRUCTURE. Add your comment on this item15

The above suggests to me that the "nature" of Organizing in the psycho/social/cultural domains is today at the level of development biology was, in analogy, before the discovery of the cell.  We are making considerable headway in exploring the awesome complexity of the molecular organizing processes within biological cells, a dynamic art form well beyond the best works of the greatest artists of human history. The ontogeny of multicelled eukaryotic organisms is not so well developed and currently involves considerable controversy, speculation, and dogma.  There are many, many stages in ontogeny, some involving "organs" and "subsystems" that serve as "scaffolding" for the next stage. View comments on this item Add your comment on this item16

An example is the emergence of the human brain. According to the scenario I was told, the neurons from stem cells, deep in where the brain will come to be, migrate out and form the "inner" or "old" brain. Each new neuron is a free mobile cell.  Then, after the old brain has organized, from the same source other neuron migrate through the web of the inner brain, making connections in the inner brain as they move, as individual mobile cells, to eventually form the mid brain, with its inter-neuron connections.  Finally, the third stage has the same deep source produce more neurons that migrate through the inner web and then the mid web to form the outer or higher brain.  How the neurons "know" where to connect is a scientific challenge. Add your comment on this item17

This is grossly oversimplified. I am not knowledgeable (but I would like to be) on details of these  processes of  ontogeny.  Add your comment on this item18


{the response time  for my typing is slowing down and may  hint to another crash -- I will save this message now and then return to continue, the saved version will remain in storage}.  BACK! Add your comment on this item19


David, and others who are trying to read this. I am enjoying composing and experiencing my deeper concepts emerge - so I will continue. I KNOW that to properly share these semiotic structures should be well designed with many options for feedback.  My longish channeling to my inner mind are as far from the ideal for sharing as could be. Add your comment on this item20

I am coming to believe that ontogeny is the process humankind must create for the emergence of a Planetary Humanity that rivals in viability the physiology of a healthy human.  I believe that it is within the realm of "nature" to create such an ontogeny. BUT, it will not JUST HAPPEN if we only feel good about it.  WE, the vast majority of humans on Planet Earth today MUST be participants.  BUT, NOT ALL AT ONCE. Add your comment on this item21

Indeed, the new ontogeny must start small and protected.  In this model, "persons" are analogous to cellular proteins and "communities" are analogous to biological cells. In a rough and problematic metaphor, human "communities" today are analogous to bacteria or prokaryotic cells, whereas the "nucoms" of the emergent "Human Butterfly" are analogous to eukaryotes.View comments on this item Add your comment on this item22

We must encourage and be part of the growing movement for re-localization and sustainability -- organizing to meet some of the needs of the multitude.  This is Dimension 1 (or stage 1).  But, I don't believe that D2 will emerge "naturally" from D1. Some in D1 may need to originate D2 NOW (concurrently with D1) - and this may be happening in AboutUs.  I sense that those who envision D2 may need to be organizing their "independent" D2 movement, but at the D1 level AND explicitly work to create D2 for themselves.  This would avoid strong resistance of many in D1 who may oppose D2 (because they don't comprehend it). D2 would develop D3 to enable it to integrate eventually with the D1 networks. Add your comment on this item23

"Naturally" is a hot term.  How do we specifically imagine D2 emerging from D1?  Some persons in D1 will begin interacting with others about D2 issues. To do this they will be less involved with D1 issues - which may disturb those fixated on D1. D2 (not directly concerned with basic needs) may be viewed as an alien process, not "natural". It is naive to imagine a D2 system suddenly taking form without some individuals devoting more time explicitly to D2 issues  AND  to issues involved in integrating D2 with D1.  -- added during edit. Add your comment on this item24

Also, if we view the next few decades as the emergence of a Planetary Humanity (maybe still embryonic) it is (in my opinion) VITAL that some persons begin NOW exploring alternative routes for the full emergence. This is essential if WE are to employ SCAFFOLDING, which must be designed and created BEFORE it is to be used. We need to fully apply human creativity, intelligence, and technological competency within a few decades to an analogous process that took billions of years. To me, the full application of human NATURE to this task makes it an enterprise of the intrinsic CREATIVITY OF NATURE.  We will scuttled the voyage of nature if we refuse to apply our uniquely human competencies to this challenge with the reason that it is not "natural". Add your comment on this item25

We need also to consider the insect metamorphosis model, where the  ontogeny of the butterfly emerges within the decaying caterpillar. This model explicitly does not view OUR activities as attempting to transform (morph) our contemporary societal systems, structures or processes, into a sustainable, desirable future form. Morphing is NOT Emergence. However, when we begin to study Societal Metamorphosis in depth, we will discover that a great many competencies, structures, and technologies of
contemporary cultures can be modified and integrated into the new emergent form. Add your comment on this item26

One major barrier to this model is that many in growing D1 networks may come to view D2 and D3 networks as alien and "top-down". I personally am not willing to abandon this model for simple faith that D2 and D3 will "naturally" emerge from D1. If they do, and prove me wrong, I will not protest. However, that means that the issue of how D1 members can come to accept D2 and D3 (and a great many networks with strong cultural differences) as essential and valued (not just tolerated). Add your comment on this item27

There are many models of complex change. They are human creations, they are not necessarily how "reality works". Thus, we can alternatively apply different models to different circumstances as we apply different tools from our tool chest depending on need. The totally all-purpose tools is usually useless or very inefficient. We need a tool chest of models that need not be logically consistent.  Thus, we need to consider, in addition to ontogeny models, ecological models, spiritual/mental models, metamorphic models, even mechanistic models for some processes. Add your comment on this item28


Larry  (nuet)