UPLIFT IN ABSTRACT 1

Comments for item 1
39 michael 10-09-2010 01:04 AM ET (US) Regarding item 1	I realize that this is an abstract, but setting the stage would be helpful. What is the current situation, that supports the need for Uplift? What factors brought about the current situation?
69 michael 10-09-2010 11:51 AM ET (US) Regarding item 1	Why can't I edit my comments the following day? I wanted to add "At some point it would be helpful to provide references (hyperlinks) that support your arguments. Many are opinions that aren't always convincing to me", rather than entering a new comment.

       Draft document by Larry Victor    October 2, 2010 2

This is intended as but one chapter in a larger document about UPLIFT.

This is not an “abstract” or summary of this larger document. The term “abstract” is used in the sense that this is one, of many projections, or “abstractions” from the whole. Major and significant features of the whole UPLIFT conceptual scheme are missing in this document. 3

        PREFACE

        This section could stand alone, and be expanded. It presents a context for comprehending UPLIFT in terms of a new model for basic reality, the evolution of humankind, and the rise and fall of civilizations. 4

        This section should be heavily illustrated with dynamic diagrams demonstrating visually the social networking and connectivity concepts and the trinity model of self/data/world. 5

Comments for item 5
3 Glisten 10-03-2010 01:28 AM ET (US) Regarding item 5	Working on these diagrams as the data comes to hand and begins to form itself into a coherent picture.
4 Larry Victor 10-03-2010 02:53 AM ET (US) Regarding item 5	/m3 Glad to see you responding, Glisten. You are the first to do so. Without internal visualization I can "imagine" all sorts of visuals to assist comprehension. Maybe this is what I want and need BECAUSE I can't experience them mentally. I can "imagine" what they might be - why is this? I would like to eventually put the whole book on UPLIFT in VUE. Have you learned to spontaneously compose in VUE? I sense that once one get sufficiently familiar with it, one could flow compose - and return later to craft. Since I think hypertext I really desire a hypertext composing tool. Edited 10-03-2010 02:54 AM

        This present version is a very rough draft.

        MODELS AND ABSTRACTIONS -- SOCIAL NETWORKS 6

        All our explanations about things in our environments are models, or internal representations, simplifications, abstractions from an assumed “deeper reality". 7

Comments for item 7
40 michael 10-09-2010 01:12 AM ET (US) Regarding item 7	Also metaphors, similes, analogies

        Actually, this is all we can ever know about anything. And anything we say or write about everything is about a model. 8

        Some of the time we don't get into trouble when we assume our model is the whole reality. 9

Comments for item 9
42 michael 10-09-2010 01:16 AM ET (US) Regarding item 9	You mean when we're delusional? It's OK as long as we don't harm ourselves and other living beings?

        But often we do get into trouble; especially for things we can't actually point to, such as societies and economies and populations. 10

Comments for item 10
41 michael 10-09-2010 01:14 AM ET (US) Regarding item 10	Does that mean we can't describe them?

        So, I propose here a simplified model of humankind on Earth.  I will add different layers to the model as we go along. 11

        First imagine a vast network where each node in the net is a person alive on planet Earth. But, we won't first imagine them where they might be on the Earth's surface, but simply as a network where each person has different kinds of links with other persons. 12

        This network changes as people live their lives, connecting up with others, and learning about others. 13

        We can imagine many different types of links between person nodes. 14

        One kind of link would indicate that those persons are in direct synchronous contact, such as F2F or on telephone or in computer chat. 15

        We could change the color, texture, width, etc. of each link to represent different aspects of the synchronous contact. 16

        Another kind of link would indicate asynchronous contact, again with a variety of qualities of contact. 17

        A totally other kind of link would represent a person simply knowing of another person, never having met them personally. 18

        Some of these links could be of people observed, extensively, in the media. Others might be authors, etc. 19

        We don't need to go further into detail.  We could create our network as detailed as we like - in our imagination. 20

        There is a scientific study of these types of networks. 21

        A recent book, Connected:  The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives by  Nicholis Christakis & James Fowler. 22

                          Christakis on TED: http://www.ted.com/talks/nicholas_christakis_how_social_networks_predict_epidemics.html?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2010-09-21&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email 23

                          Example of polarization in social networks of red and blue blogs in the USA.   24

        C:\Users\Owner\Searches\Pictures\My Scans\2010-10 (Oct)\WEB-RED-BLUE0001.jpg 25

Comments for item 25
2 Larry Victor 10-02-2010 07:36 PM ET (US) Regarding item 25	Picture wouldn't load. Will try later.
43 michael 10-09-2010 01:24 AM ET (US) Regarding item 25	These pictures/documents appear to be on your computer rather than on the web.

        With special tools for analysis, these social networks could identify those living in families, working at a common place of employment or attending the same educational classes, or any other grouping or organization were persons come together.  All patterns of interpersonal communication could be identified. 26

Comments for item 26
44 michael 10-09-2010 01:26 AM ET (US) Regarding item 26	This could probably be done now with Facebook, Linkedin and other social networking sites.

        Remember, this is an imaginary model; although some rather large social networks are actually being studied.  To actually make such a model real one would need a powerful surveillance system with equally powerful data processing tools.  But, even if we can't actually manifest this model, we usually assume that such a changing network is a fundamental pattern of humankind. 27

        It must be stated that there are enormous gaps between (1) having the recorded data of every persons social network, (2) being able to process, present, and analyze this data, and (3) being able to attempt to somewhat influence and control individuals and social networks. 28

        Selective individuals and groups could be affected; but the image of a full control of the social network of most individuals is well beyond contemporary competencies, and may be theoretically impossible. 29

Comments for item 29
45 michael 10-09-2010 01:31 AM ET (US) Regarding item 29	Do you mean full control over all aspects or full control to significantly influence a social network?
76 Stan 08-21-2016 08:17 PM ET (US) Regarding item 29	Perhaps that's the goal... Google appears to be working on this... They not only follow what we do on the Internet, but also where we go on a daily basis. I went to a retirement party at a restaurant recently. A few days later, a message from Google appeared on my phone asking me to provide my impression of the restaurant. I hadn't indicated to any APP that I was interested in that restaurant. Yet, Google knew that I had been there.

        TRINITY: SELF/DATA/WORLD 30

Comments for item 30
49 michael 10-09-2010 01:57 AM ET (US) Regarding item 30	This section is difficult for me to "grok", perhaps because I have insufficient data. Are you describing a model of a person that will be useful in describing the uplift process or experience? As you have said, any model is limited, and this limitation seems problematic. Perhaps it will become clear as I read more.

        Now let us stretch our minds a bit and examine in greater depth the nature of each node, each person. 31

        First, imagine that we had a complete record of everything each person did, including what they may have experienced (read, viewed, etc) and created or produced.  All data about that person would be on record somewhere. 32

        Some, but not all, of this data is what many are concerned about re "identity theft". 33

        This might include data from physiological measures of the person's body and brain. 34

        We will postpone consideration of how this data might be collected, stored, or accessed. 35

Comments for item 35
46 michael 10-09-2010 01:32 AM ET (US) Regarding item 35	Or used?

        However, none of this data is a component of a person, as a biological being. It is external. 36

        Second, imagine each person as an Autopoietic Entity, according to the views of Chilean biologists Maturana and Varela. What is of concern for us here, are the conscious experiences of Autopoietic Entities. 37

Comments for item 37

47 michael 10-09-2010 01:39 AM ET (US) Regarding item 37

This is a rather complex concept - who is your audience? Maturana and Varela define autopoiesis indirectly through how an autopoietic machine/system operates. As a characteristic process of self-production or homeostatic organization. It is the outcome of a direct trial to characterize the organization that makes living beings selfcontained unities and makes explicit the relationships among its components that must remain invariant under a continuous structural transformation and material processing [4].

        We model each person as an open physical system, of extraordinary complexity. 38

        In terms of our first model of data records, we could model the detailed biological structure and processes from molecule to organ.  We could record the intake of air, water and food and excrements. We could know what external energies were impinging on the being's sensoria, and record the patterns of stimulation as they move through the neural networks, and record the associated behaviors and reports of conscious experience. 39

        Yet, ALL of this is within the first model of data (although some of this date could be part of sensoria stimulation, as feedback). 40

        An Autopoietic Entity is imagined to BE, to EXIST as itself, in itself.  It changes. For humans, we start as fertilized single cells (from the merging of two other cells - life does not begin at conception, it continues). Embryonic and fetal development occurs until birth, and then there is growth, maturity, eldering and eventually death. But, again, this is from the external point of view from the data.  For the Autopoietic Entity there is just being and change. 41

        Conscious experience is part of the Autopoietic Entity.  It cannot be observed as data; but behavior can lead to reports - which are quite different "things" than the experiences themselves. 42

        Physiological data can correlate with data from reports of experiences; but neither of these ARE the experiences. 43

        Third, the conscious experiences of Autopoietic Entities have pattern and content.  Reports of some of these experiences flow through the social networks and are physical stimuli leading to further experiences.  A powerful feature of Autopoietic Entities, called "cognition", organizes the information in these reports into "constructed/woven worlds". 44

        This is NOT done by the consciousness, nor directed by the experiencer. I shall call this fundamental process "Worldweaving". 45

        All our conscious experience is in the (unconscious) context of our inner constructed/woven worlds. 46

        We never experience our worlds; we experience only small figures in the gestalt of the contextual ground (which it itself but a small part of our whole world). 47

        The conventional term "constructed" is problematic as it implies an intentional "making" or "producing". 48

        Although ancient persons were aware of this, most people believe in a "naive realism", where they misinterpret their experiences as of an external, objective, world.  With the best of our knowledge, we can only experience ourselves within our own constructed/woven worlds. 49

        When being's share the same space, and can point and gesture in agreement, it is usually safe to treat our experiences as of a shared external environment. 50

        Our brains probably evolved with this assumption hard wired.  It is only with the advent of advanced human cognition that the assumption of "naive realism" causes great difficulty. 51

        Now, there is ”circularity" in this model of a trinity of being: data/self/world. 52

        This trinity model is itself a product of looping between the three models. Data are essential ingredients for experience and for the construction/weaving of inner worlds.  Worldweaving is not consciously initiated or performed; it is intrinsic to the reality of who we are. Yet, all what we do is totally dependent on being in context with our created/woven worlds. 53

        In the context of this model, we humans are but a stage (maybe even an early stage) in the development/evolution/emergence of COSMOS. 54

Comments for item 54
50 michael 10-09-2010 02:06 AM ET (US) Regarding item 54	I believe that to say "we humans" doesn't recognize the bell curve of consciousness or the spiral dynamics/integral theory model.

        COSMOS = the   {....whole..Holistic..WHOLE....} -- I can say no more of relevance. 55

        We should not be arrogant and assume that we can untangle this knot. 56

Comments for item 56
21 Jeremy Horne 10-06-2010 01:02 AM ET (US) Regarding item 56	As a dialectician, how can one realize that there is a whole unless s/he realizes that there are parts? Conversely, how can one realize that there are parts unless s/he realizes that there is a whole? One is realized in terms of the other. At this level of cognition, one worries less about whether reality is accurately being represented than the apprehension that there is a whole and parts. One is concerned more about the process rather than how it is instantiated. Someone of a paradox arises here in terms of Platonism. Phenomenological reality cannot be represented, but perhaps there is another aspect that comes clear to us, process, itself, as reality.
31 Larry Victor 10-06-2010 04:01 AM ET (US) Regarding item 56	/m21 Jeremy, I welcome your contributions. Two general points: 1) I am open to consider the ideas of anyone, including the great philosophers - but I cannot make any of them foundations for what I envision emerging. 2) This is a very rough draft and there are many grammatical errors. I welcome any corrections, but they may not be the best thing from you at this early stage. This topic is tangential to my theme. I realize there is debate on this issue. I feel that Bohr's Complementarity, Godel's Completeness, and more recently Chaos destabilizes rationality. What "is" "is" beyond us at this time. If we push too hard we encounter the turbulence of mystery. And, for me this is good. If I had the time I would really like to explore this with you. Our current formulation of wholes/parts are as you say. But I have alternatives. 1) Wholes are always incomplete, as a regression into nested contexts doesn't end. 2) Parts are complete, by definition. And, we must distinguish between the structure of our semiotic structures and what might be beyond them, their "context". We can't wait to learn more about these issues while Humanity/GAIA is threatened, and we have a very narrow window to leap forward beyond our highest imaginations.
51 michael 10-09-2010 02:07 AM ET (US) Regarding item 56	We agree to disagree on this point.

        But, by accepting what we are, to the best of our abilities, we can be part of the continued emergence of COSMOS. 57

        So, our initial model of a vast, changing social network as been mystified with this trinity model of each node, each person. 58

        Personally, I view myself as a trinity:  Larry/LJV/nuet. 59

        Larry = my physiological and mental being. 60

        LJV (Laurence Joseph Victor) is my personal data in media and cyberspace. 61

        "nuet"  is the name I give to my internal woven world. 62

Comments for item 62
48 michael 10-09-2010 01:49 AM ET (US) Regarding item 62	Sounds like your highest imagined self. Do you stop here?

        nu = an alternative to "new" (changes in the Here&Now referenced to what has been). "nu" refers to changes in the Here&Now referenced to what might be. 63

        et = extra-temporal (aka: extra-terrestrial), explorer-in-time, an alternative-human, emergence/transformation. 64

        SEMIOTIC STRUCTURES 65

        It is discomforting to many to lose the security of a common external world.  Fortunately we can regain that security when we accept that worlds are not composed only of material (matter and energy), but also of information.  Information is the foundation of what we exchange in our communications and what we use as components for constructing our inner worlds. 66

Comments for item 66
52 michael 10-09-2010 02:13 AM ET (US) Regarding item 66	Isn't it possible that there is a common physical external world, but there are 6 billion interpretations of that external world, providing the context for each person's inner world?

        Our ideas and theories about the material world are represented in information. 67

Comments for item 67
53 michael 10-09-2010 02:17 AM ET (US) Regarding item 67	That would include visuals? Anything that can be represented digitally?

        In your experiential fields you encounter physical patterns created by others (and yourself): semiotic structures. 68

        OTHERS..... 69

        Although, autopoetically, all we experience is ourselves, there is ample evidence in our experience for the existence of others. 70

        But, we can never experience these others directly - at least through commonly accepted means. 71

        Some will claim, through telepathy or other mystical experience to directly experience others. 72

        But all we have is their data reports. 73

Comments for item 73
54 michael 10-09-2010 02:22 AM ET (US) Regarding item 73	Isn't that all we have for our experience of ourselves?

        To date, there are no means to confirm that the experiences reported were "direct". 74

        There appears to be an emotional drive for many for "direct experience". 75

        This may be "natural" until a person has learned to comprehend the more complex reality, and that "meaningful contact" with others remains possible even though it can never by "mythologically direct". 76

Comments for item 76
55 michael 10-09-2010 02:24 AM ET (US) Regarding item 76	As Byron Katie would say, "can you be absolutely certain that is true?"

        One can explore the potential negative consequences of "direct experience" and conclude that it is "good" that we can't have it. 77

Comments for item 77
56 michael 10-09-2010 02:28 AM ET (US) Regarding item 77	What would be the negative consequences? One could say the same thing about rigpa, as it would make it difficult for a person to carry out their day-to-day responsibilities.

        Humberto Maturana (author of Autopoiesis) defines "love" as the unconditional respect for the existence of others. 78

Comments for item 78
57 michael 10-09-2010 02:30 AM ET (US) Regarding item 78	I prefer acceptance over respect.

        The exemplar of these semiotic structures are TEXTS, but they also include architecture, landscapes, paintings and other art forms, music and assemblages of all the above, which compose the texture of culture. 79

        I shall call all such physical structures, created by humans that when perceived by other humans generate "meaning", SEMIOTIC STRUCTURES. 80

        What is very special about semiotic structures is that they can be replicated and copied with assurance that the PATTERN is preserved and can be agreed to be the same by different observers of the semiotic structures. 81

        To my knowledge, these features of semiotic structures have not been yet acknowledged in "The Literature" (a collection of semiotic structures). 82

        A common aspect of material reality is that you can never enter a river at the same point. 83

        Each time you observe a physical object it is at a different time and may have changed. 84

        This is not the case for semiotic structures. 85

Comments for item 85
58 michael 10-09-2010 02:42 AM ET (US) Regarding item 85	Aren't you also observing a semiotic structure at a different time and it may have also changed (over millennia)?

        Different persons may have radically different interpretations and meanings to a given, commonly observed semiotic structure; but they can always agree that the physical pattern of that structure is the same for all. 86

Comments for item 86
22 Jeremy Horne 10-06-2010 01:09 AM ET (US) Regarding item 86	This is problematical, as an exploration of the idea of "objectivity" quickly reveals. Patterns are tricky. 2-4-6-8...what is the next? "10" you say? No, it is 9, and without giving any rule, we go on, and every time one think they know what comes next, something else happens. Often, agreement is by convention, not because of an inherent reality that people see. A cruder example is standards organizations, where conviviality reigns over common sense in adopting common design or vocabulary.
32 Larry Victor 10-06-2010 04:12 AM ET (US) Regarding item 86	/m22 Jeremy, I don't feel you comprehend what I am talking about. Given any pattern of discrete marks or symbols on a page, any person (properly prepared) can make a copy of the pattern that others will agree is an accurate copy. There are some qualifications, but they are easy to handle. This require NO ability to interpret or understand the pattern. It relates to the similarity of our visual perception for discrete marks. This is NOT asking for them to come up with something new. It is simply an act of replication. The ARE some fine details for this that need consideration: for beings with radically different perception systems; but for humankind at this time, we CAN recognize copies of semiotic structure (at least discrete marks on a surface [text and diagrams]- continuous flow gradients may be more difficult). As I state (later in the doc), I discovered this by surprise, empirically. I was sure math phobic students could not perceive the pattern of complex symbolism. I was proven wrong! Edited 10-06-2010 05:53 AM

        Everyone can be trained to identify accurate copies from those with variations. 87

Comments for item 87
59 michael 10-09-2010 02:47 AM ET (US) Regarding item 87	I find myself reacting to your use of absolutes like "everyone", "never" and "always". Maybe you acknowledge room for exceptions, but your choice of words excludes them.

        Different persons may disagree as to whether small details in an observed semiotic structure are part of the defined pattern. 88

        But, they can agree as to what is to be considered the pattern for interpretation. 89

        I discovered this in an experiment where I asked math phobic persons to copy accurately very complex mathematical expressions (and text in languages using different scripts). I expected that many wouldn't see details (such as subscripts, and 2D spatial arrangement of symbols). I was surprised that everyone could accurately replicate even the most complex patterns. 90

        Initially some would ignore certain features, but when the criteria were full replication of all details, these ignored features were recognized. 91

        Naive realism has caused humankind its primary difficulties, as it clouded our ability to accurately assess reality. 92

Comments for item 92
60 michael 10-09-2010 02:49 AM ET (US) Regarding item 92	Do you mean reality with a capital R?

        In the future we must abandon all attempts to discover an ultimate physical or social reality, as that is impossible. 93

        What we have access to are our semiotic structures.  These can be preserved, copied and made available for all to see and study. 94

        If you think about it, all that you know about your world and universe you have gained from semiotic structures. 95

Comments for item 95
61 michael 10-09-2010 02:52 AM ET (US) Regarding item 95	I would disagree. I believe we can have experiences with no reference to anything.

        Semiotic structures are part of our local observed environments. 96

        They provide the context for your constructed world where you find meaning in all your experiences - of wilderness, of sunsets, of fun gatherings of people. 97

        When semiotic structures lead to conflicting interpretations, there are information processing means to gather all relevant semiotic structures and compare them. 98

        Not necessarily to decide on one interpretation, but given a specific situation where a decision of action is needed, as set of actions best fitting the data at that time can be recommended 99

        SUMMING UPi 100

        In this circular complexity, everything we say is limited to the trinity of realities. 101

        All communication is an exchange of semiotic structures. Yet the actual experience of the semiotic structures is within our own woven world. We must interpret semiotic structures in the context of these worlds, which can continue to change, evolve and emerge, in part due to what we perceive. 102

        We continue to talk as if there is an external world, comprised of others.  Actually there is a COSMOS beyond our woven worlds; it is only that we cannot directly experience it. Yet, we know it is composed of others. 103

Comments for item 103
62 michael 10-09-2010 02:57 AM ET (US) Regarding item 103	I think you would find that many, besides myself, would disagree that the COSMOS cannot be directly experienced. How can you posit the existence of the COSMOS if it can't be (hasn't been) experienced? Edited 10-09-2010 03:00 AM

        We do have knowledge about others and some things beyond ourselves; but this knowledge comes from inference from our own woven worlds and not from direct experience. 104

Comments for item 104
63 michael 10-09-2010 03:01 AM ET (US) Regarding item 104	Ditto.

        SOCIAL NETWORKS IN CIVILIZATION 105

        Imagine our social network showing the evolution of humankind, from tribal communities and hunting/gathering to the formation of early civilizations, the modern rise of globalism, and our contemporary Crisis-of-Crises.  Most of this detail will be left for later. 106

Comments for item 106
64 michael 10-09-2010 11:29 AM ET (US) Regarding item 106	Could this detail be addressed now, As an introduction, rather than later? It would provide a context in which to view Uplift.

        The success of tribal communities and agriculture resulted in communities growing too large for tribal viability, communities dividing and organizing as networks of similar communities, and communities of diverse cultures being forced to interact in "relative peace" by tyrannical methods. 107

Comments for item 107
65 michael 10-09-2010 11:34 AM ET (US) Regarding item 107	Perhaps a qualifier would be appropriate - "often" by tyrannical methods

        The xenophobia of tribal communities was constrained from overt conflict, by default, by the force of authority. 108

Comments for item 108
66 michael 10-09-2010 11:36 AM ET (US) Regarding item 108	Even today, this xenophobia results in tribal conflicts, despite authority.

        Societal evolution emerged without much deliberate intention, and without clear comprehension of what was happening. 109

Comments for item 109
67 michael 10-09-2010 11:40 AM ET (US) Regarding item 109	What period are you referring to? The rise of the great civilizations of history seems to me to have been conscious and intentional.

        Very roughly: social networks of individuals form communities & networks of communities organize into societies. 110

        Constructed worlds rationalized what was being done, rather than providing any intelligent guidance. 111

        This is consistent with Leon Festinger's theory on the resolution of cognitive dissonance: dissonance is usually resolved by a movement of the perspective or worldview to match the behavior. 112

        Idealists' belief that once "awakened" to new ideas, most people can change their behavior is empirically false. 113

        Very special conditions are required for the resolution of cognitive dissonance to be made in favor of new ideas. 114

        Only today are we equipped to provide those special conditions. 115

        The default scenario was the rise of CIVILIZATIONS. 116

        “Default” meaning that lacking the knowledge and insight to act otherwise, humankind confronted with tribal success and tribal xenophobia, drifted towards the only stable societies had the characteristics of civilization. 117

        CIVILIZATION was/is a system of class distinction and power. A small elite, using a bureaucratic technology, coordinates the actions of the masses for the benefit of the elite (and those working in the bureaucracy), and suppress revolt of the masses. 118

Comments for item 118
77 Stan 08-21-2016 09:13 PM ET (US) Regarding item 118	This makes a lot of sense. It offers a direction-related notion of how civilizations are constructed. That is, who benefits.

        All civilizations eventually become unstable; but without viable alternatives, what emerges from the ashes of a civilization was another civilization. 119

        A paradox of civilization is that concentrated power successfully suppresses tribal rivalries, as demonstrated in Tito's Yugoslavia, Sadam's Iraq, the USSR and modern China.  The disintegration of the USA in the 21st Century into polarized factions follows this pattern. 120

        Humankind has yet to learn how communities with radically diverse cultures can interact peacefully and organize as viable societies. 121

        Until this is learned, human evolution must cycle through the formation and collapse of civilizations. 122

Comments for item 122
23 Jeremy Horne 10-06-2010 01:16 AM ET (US) Regarding item 122	As somewhat of a sidebar, this raises the issue of whether civilizations are organic, as people like Spengler argued. One may discuss the individual composed of organisms (cells, organelles, etc.), and societies of individuals, and the world of societies. The next step, given the organic model would be to have a healthy social organism and ultimately a world one.
33 Larry Victor 10-06-2010 04:51 AM ET (US) Regarding item 122	/m23 Jeremy, this, too, is an interesting issue - and eventually needs to be clarified for UPLIFT. What constitutes "organic" has change drastically over time, and the term is used in many different ways today. Organic Chemistry is but a branch of reductionist physics; although very large organic molecules seem to have emergent properties. Older attempts to model human societies from biological system used mechanistic models of biology. Many still believe that is all there are in COSMOS: mechanisms. I have some "wild" speculations about what separates animate from inanimate, living from non-living, organic from mechanistic. Mechanistic systems are usually framed within a temporal sequence of momentary states. Each new momentary state results from a transFORMation of the prior state. In mechanistic systems there is stipulated no leakage of information, matter, or energy between momentary states. I speculate that living system have (limited) leakage of information between what are now seen as useful models (not necessarily, reality) of momentary states. "FEEDPAST BOOTSTRAPPING" is a process I propose that permits some information from a "present" to influence a "past". This is crude metaphor. Deeper: some "BEINGS" (SYSTEMS are mechanistic)have "temporal resonance". I am "feedpast bootstrapping" myself as I age. Humankind is "feedpast bootstrapping" from its primate past. One of my earliest writings on this was presented at the 1994 meeting of the International Society for Systems Science at Asilomar, CA,: https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AcqHxOX...xNmdwMm1ydGM4&hl=en Actually, there is little in this doc about feedpast bootstrapping, but it contains seeds of many of the ideas incorporated in UPLIFT. My vision of UPLIFT is not dependent on this organic/mechanistic distinction or the reality of feedpast bootstrapping, at least for those who work on the movement process. Edited 10-06-2010 04:52 AM

        Civilizations survive/thrive by their ability to control the semiotic structures and the indoctrination of (almost) everyone (elite, bureaucracy and masses) to weave "consistent" worlds. 123

        Civilizations collapse when their technological infrastructure becomes unstable and is unable to sustain the overarching, indoctrinated and propagandized "culture". 124

        The rise of technology, first with energy and then with information processing, has greatly disrupted previous historical processes. 125

        The Internet and computers have both (1) provided the elite with almost unlimited power and (2) provides the human population with the means to move beyond civilization. 126

        The outcome is uncertain. 127

        THE CURSE OF CIVILIZATION 128

        The consequence of civilization is to severely suppress the actualization of a viable phenotype from the human genotype. 129

        GENOTYPE = the inherited (DNA) potential distributed in the human population. 130

        A few are born geniuses, and a few are born retarded. Given a healthy pregnancy, most newborns are healthy and viable. 131

        Most of the inheritances we are concerned with are for propensities, with a variation distributed in the population of newborns. 132

        There is no valid Nature/Nurture debate. Nature provides propensities, Nurture selects which traits are to manifest or not. 133

        That civilization manifests some very negative traits for the majority doesn't imply that many of these traits may not manifest with alternatives to civilization. 134

        PHENOTYPE = the development of traits of living humans, in their environment; a distribution of features of all living humans. 135

        The phenotype contains distributions of persons suffering, dying unnecessarily, starving, in deep poverty and stunted and retarded in cognitive development. 136

        Even the elite and the most privileged in civilization are deficient in many competencies within their potentials. 137

        The potential genotype of humans is awesome; the actual phenotype is a temporary tragedy. 138

        It is unlikely that a species can survive with such a suppressed phenotype. 139

        Civilization's most humanistic visions call for a simple rising of the masses to a level of passive subservience to civilization, everyone in peace, "educated" and "employed", but minimally aware of their real potentials. 140

        In civilization, only a very small elite are assisted in partially actualizing their genetic potentials. 141

        Democracy, in civilization, is relegated to periodic voting on issues and candidates controlled by the elite. 142

        Today, our Crisis-of-Crises - on honest analysis - requires the mobilization and training/education of a very large percent of the population, to both actively create what is needed and for others to not oppose these changes. 143

        UPLIFT is a process/scenario to quickly move the DISTRIBUTION of human competencies to a level required for multi-millennial survival/thrival of a new Humanity in harmony with GAIA. 144

        UPLIFT is a process/scenario whose objective is to make the manifested phenotype commensurate with the potentials of the genotype. 145

Comments for item 145
24 Jeremy Horne 10-06-2010 01:21 AM ET (US) Regarding item 145	It is worthy to have the discussion of the Classical notion of virtue - a person do the best at what s/he is able to do. We have lost all notion of this in the present world. Given virtue, one can address successfully the bell curve of the human genotype.
34 Larry Victor 10-06-2010 05:07 AM ET (US) Regarding item 145	/m24 Jeremy. Here I am speaking from beyond humankind. Virtue is within. I believe that an "objective" assessment of our genetic potentials contrasted with the distribution of manifested traits in the global population would reveal an enormous gap - uncharacteristic of most other species. It is much more than what a person is able to do; it is what he or she has the potential to "learn to do" (and "learn-to-learn to do"). The only quote I have really treasured is: "If I may conclude with a micro-riddle within the macro-riddle, I will just add that what we all need at this point in human evolution is to learn what it takes to learn what we should learn -- and learn it."  Aurelio Peccei in his 1979 foreword to the Club of Rome's little book: No Limits To Learning: Bridging the Human Gap, A report to the Club of Rome, by Botkin, Elmandjra, Malitza. It is not who we ARE (our current distribution of competencies) but what we might be (our UPLIFTED distribution).

        UPLIFT directly challenges the premises of civilization: that special elites, aided by a bureaucratic technology, must rule the vast majority - who can never be lifted to requisite competency, because they are intrinsically inferior to the elite (according to the constructed worldview of the elite). 146

        In our trinity model, civilization severely suppresses the Worldweaving processes in everyone, but especially the vast majority, rendering them subservient to the rule of the elite.  But, the elite also are severely retarded. 147

        ORGANIZATIONS IN CIVILIZATIONS 148

        Again, reality is much more complex than models. So, in simplicity, most organizations or institutions in civilizations have the same basic format: elites/bureaucracies/workers-consumers. 149

        This pattern would be evidenced in an analysis of social networks and semiotic structures. 150

        But if we looked in greater detail we would discover a fine structure: small social networks {cogangs} within organizations that don't follow the normal organizational flowcharts and where membership in social networks often overlaps many different organizations. 151

        I call these "conspiratorial gangs" or "cogangs". 152

        Cogangs probably have many features of early tribal communities, with some obvious differences, as well. 153

        I have been motivated in my cogang model by the work of Peter Dale Scott on "Deep Politics". 154

        Cogangs view the whole of humankind as an environment for them to prey upon for mutual benefit. 155

Comments for item 155
25 Jeremy Horne 10-06-2010 01:27 AM ET (US) Regarding item 155	If one goes back to Hobbes, s/he can argue successfully that we really haven't emerged from a state of nature; there still is the war of all against all. The cogangs are not unlike a pack of animals taking down the most vulnerable of the society.
35 Larry Victor 10-06-2010 05:18 AM ET (US) Regarding item 155	/m25 Jeremy, From my very limited reading of Hobbes, his biology was strictly mechanistic. Cogangs is a concept for an alternative framing of social reality. And yes, they prey on what is best to prey on for their survival and livelihood. Cogangs can exist at all levels of society. Probably most people are seldom, if ever, members of viable cogangs - although they may fantasize. Cogangs may reflect a consequence of excessive individualism that seems to accompany "consciousness". Individuals join cogangs primarily to enhance their personal needs and desires. This may be what Hobbes was talking about. As humans gained consciousness they became separated from "nature". I will need to include an essay on how "nature" is changing.

        Youth gangs and drug cartels are versions of cogangs, as are those embedded in the highest levels of human society, e.g, bankers and CEOs. 156

        Cogangs are fluid in both membership and their coming into and going out of existence, in temporary collaboration with other cogangs, and often engaging in cogang competition and open warfare. 157

        The movement of personnel between governmental agencies and corporations occurs through cogangs. 158

        I use "conspiratorial" in a general sense that the members of a cogang are not normally open to others as to their intentions or strategies. 159

        Probably many of the false flag actions and assassinations often attributed to a "conspiracy" within an formal organization are done by cogangs operating within different organizations. 160

        Large gatherings, such as Bilderbergs, are not themselves conspiracies, but are venues where cogangs can mingle with their representatives. 161

        One joint conspiratorial action of all cogangs is to totally discredit all serious investigation of "conspiracy" and to brand "conspiratorial thinking" as the highest level of stupidity and foolishness. 162

        Although organizations are very real in one sense (e.g., the constitutional identity given to corporations) they are quite mythological in another sense. 163

        Many people treat social organizations, in the context of naive realism, as if they were objects with clear boundaries. 164

        A superficial model of reality is that these "organizational objects" interact with each other; and that to change society we must change how these organizations function and interact. 165

        However, many of the most significant acts by organizations are not instigated or executed within the formal system of the organizations (except in retrospect), but are manipulated by cogangs. 166

        Thus, so called formal means of people influencing organizations (both public and private) is often futile. 167

        Thus, the processes for change in conventional social reality, reform and transformation, are not really viable for significant change. 168

        Reform is a means by which the organizations of civilization change and adapt to each other. 169

        But, the high frequency of tyranny, imperialism, and war demonstrates that the cogangs are quite willing to sacrifice multitudes for their narrow, personal gains (although usually embedded in deeply believed ideologies). 170

        The upshot of all this is that humankind cannot transcend civilization by any action within civilization. 171

        And, it is a sacred tenet of Western Civilization that the ONLY SAFE means to change is from within. 172

        Thus, from the perspective of civilization, UPLIFT isn't possible and even the idea must be suppressed. 173

        EMERGENCE AND EVOLUTION OF NEW ORGANIZATIONS 174

        Again, within our abstract model, we can imagine the social network of individuals change from loose and disorganized associations; changing until it reflects the characteristics of organizations characteristic of civilization. 175

        Throughout the rise and fall of civilizations we might observe the emergence of new movements and organizations, which eventually transform the pattern of organized organizations. 176

        The movement from a few followers of Jesus to a viable movement of "Christians" to eventually become a ruling bureaucracy in Europe is a story yet to be comprehended. 177

        A major factor in social change is technological innovation. 178

        E.g., as described in the Toffler's book, POWER SHIFT. 179

        We would see organizations emerge and form and link into the networks of pre-existing organizations. 180

        A few of these new organizations would have major transformative power over the organization of organizations. 181

        We must, in this analysis, remain alerted to the influence of conspiratorial gangs (cogangs) throughout history. 182

        It is through cogangs that unique persons at unique moments can wield awesome power. 183

        Tolstoy's query as to the competitive role of individuals and collective processes is resolved: that both are important.  At special moments, special individuals can have great impact.  However, their momentary (quantum) impact is usually quickly dampened by more traditional processes - even though their action did change the course of history. And, their special powers are augmented by the special circumstances of the moment that they are able to use. 184

        Some convergence and seeming organization may be observed in the data which never coalesced into traditional organizations. 185

        Usually these convergent social network patterns plateaued and never impacted significantly the progress of civilization. 186

        Actually these periodic "infections" of mainstream are explicitly attended to, and after each "infection" is suppressed. 187

        THE SYSTEM learns and prepares to better confront future "infections". 188

        In analogy, this is an exemplar of improper use of antibiotics leading to bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics. 189

        Unfortunately, the limited comprehension of activists (over history) to their real effect on systems, has actually led to increasing the power of establishments. 190

Comments for item 190
26 Jeremy Horne 10-06-2010 01:31 AM ET (US) Regarding item 190	... in the manner of antibiotic resistance. God point
36 Larry Victor 10-06-2010 05:39 AM ET (US) Regarding item 190	/m26 Jeremy, I have been "making this point" for over a decade but have yet had ONE PERSON to make a comment about it. I have composed essays proposing that opponents to establishments may, in their naive and often premature action, actually increase the power of these establishments. Even the antibiotic metaphor garners no response. Yet, I agree, it is appropriate. Deep down, it is VERY DIFFICULT for someone to assess that their actions have actually been contributing to the power of that which they oppose, and contributes to the resistance against that which they are working to achieve. In a way, this is at the CORE of the need for UPLIFT. This is one of my strongest arguments against transFORMation. No one deeply committed to working from within a system to change that system is able to accept -INDIVIDUALLY- that they are really part of the problem, as Pogo stated. Thus, only via the EMERGENCE of UPLIFT will it be possible for change agents to shift strategy. YET, for the actions we take today to hopefully modify our immediate situations, some look at this issue could produce small positive results. For example: The reports of most protest actions are now tightly controlled by the media, that the ONLY rationale for such an event should be the internal organization of participants. But, this never happens. NO REPORT OF EVIL DOINGS by establishments will ever be permitted to reach the majority. Yet, most activists compose "seeds" which are consumed by the choir. IF these activists would realize that their actions are actually counter-productive to their goals, they might begin to design and create actions that might be viable.

        This has accelerated in modern times amplified by the use of computer systems. 191

Comments for item 191
5 Glisten 10-03-2010 03:43 AM ET (US) Regarding item 191	This is a vitally important point which could bear a deeper analytic expose.
13 Larry Victor 10-03-2010 05:54 PM ET (US) Regarding item 191	For activists to assume their responsibility in the current mess will be strongly resisted. Contemporary activism is part of the SYSTEM. The role of computers and media technology in accelerating this phenomenon does call for careful analysis. I don't believe that this will be easy, as those deep in the technology are very defensive. For example, the strong reaction to Jaron Lanier's critique and my own naivete about the cloud, hives, even Open Source; that it took Lanier's book to alert me to. I sense that this analysis will be done within UPLIFT and have primary impact on the systems that emerge in UPLIFT. Attempts to modify contemporary activist behavior or computer/media technology will probably be futile. We need to create systems where different semiotic structures related to these issues can be viewed and compared. Current media and forums are inadequate.

        The changes in social networks representative of UPLIFT will be qualitatively different from what has occurred throughout the history of civilization. 192

        Explicitly, UPLIFT will NOT attempt to reform or transform existing systems, for significant change. 193

        UPLIFT may occasionally attempt minor actions against establishment actions so as to better facilitate UPLIFT actions; but these are never with the intention to significantly reform Establishmenst. 194

        The goal of UPLIFT is to Support, Enable, Augment, and Facilitate (SEAF) a totally new emergent pattern of organization in new, emergent social networks to a new global system that REPLACES the Old Order with a well crafted, whole-people-supported, new imaginative and scientifically viable alternative to civilization. 195

        PREFACE TO UPLIFT 196

        Although the viability of civilization has been critiqued by a few throughout history, it is only in the past few decades that distributed human knowledge has reached a level to permit humankind to transcend civilization. 197

        This distributed knowledge is not yet organized in useful formats, being locked into the competitive ideologies of professional disciplines. 198

        Our ancestors should not be blamed for not transcending civilization. 199

        In analogy with individual human development, humankind is more like an infant than an adolescent.  Humankind had/has no parent.  Our evolution/emergence, by necessity, has been experimental, WITH OURSELVES A CAPTAINS OF THE EXPERIMENT. 200

Comments for item 200
27 Jeremy Horne 10-06-2010 01:32 AM ET (US) Regarding item 200	Lord of the Flies still stands.
37 Larry Victor 10-06-2010 05:48 AM ET (US) Regarding item 200	/m27 LORD OF THE FLIES, may not stand! I re-read it a few years ago, and viewed the movie. There are "truths" and "untruths". What happens when a mix of somewhat developed beings are thrust together can vary greatly. That early Brit experiment in giving very young students control of their educations process led to a system of highly detailed rules and laws governing all behavior. Tyranny from below. I can't remember the name. The UPLIFT scenario is FAR, FAR from Lord of the Flies. The Bootstrap Uplift Scaffolding is designed to dampen the negative aspects, while enhancing the positive. That we have NO parents or leaders in this venture is important.

        We can compose scenarios where the very ugly happenings for human persons during the multi-millennial era of rising and collapsing civilizations can be viewed as necessary "growing pains". 201

        This is little consolation for those billions who experience the suffering; but we must reflect that in our own embryonic development, from first fertilized cell to newborn, many of our own cells intentionally die (apoptosis) as our whole grows and develops. 202

        We start imagining the social network, globally today.  Without going into detail, the patterns are disturbing; although many will disagree. 203

        Almost all semiotic structures projecting future changes call for reform, or transFORMation. 204

        As Daniel Quinn as pointed out, Western Civilization has been reified, a sacred and absolute mode of reality, permitting NO alternatives. 205

        Historically, efforts of reform usually are adopted and civilization continues; reforms never have the intention of altering the basic ideology of civilization. 206

        Today the corporations control the media and educational systems sufficiently to effectively suppress any movement of ideas critical of civilization from small minority fringes to majority populations. 207

        So far, in discussing this model, we have focused on the changing patterns in the data about social networks. To better comprehend UPLIFT, we need to add the changing patterns found in recorded semiotic structures: what humans have reported what they believed about reality and themselves. 208

        What we find most striking is how civilization very significantly retards the learning and cognitive development of almost everyone. 209

        Even the small minority, who are most advanced, on examination, are also highly restrained by the milieu. 210

        Most persons adapt, adjust, and plateau early to their environment. Even when the environments may suddenly shift, as for refuges, there is usually a quick adjustment to the new situation. 211

        Some may take advantage of their environments while others may simply accept what they can find. Yet, both quickly settle down to a stasis. 212

        Even those who become aggressive predators adjust to that pattern. 213

        Many persons are open to learning what will enhance their lives within their adjusted pattern; but make little effort to significantly change their environment. 214

        Major exceptions are revolutionary movements, where an ideology of oppression leads to organizing in opposition to their rulers. 215

        However, on deeper analysis, revolutionary ideology is highly constrained by opposition to the ruling ideology and seldom gives sufficient attention to constructing a viable alternative. 216

        Revolutions have always leaded to but another variant of civilization, as the default mode. 217

Comments for item 217
28 Jeremy Horne 10-06-2010 01:36 AM ET (US) Regarding item 217	Change "have always leaded " to "have always led"

        Revolutionaries are always so busy and preoccupied by their struggle that all attempts to improve the knowledge and competencies of their people quickly revert to propaganda. 218

        In UPLIFT we will observe parallel and interactive changes in both the social networks and the semiotic structures of those participating in UPLIFT. 219

        UPLIFT involves much more than a "raising of consciousness" or "awakening". Both of these are very superficial changes in perspectives, and by themselves seldom lead to significant growth or progress. 220

        UPLIFT may be viewed as a sequence of awakenings, each facilitated by new technologies of social networking that have embraced a bootstrap strategy for both future changes in persons and collective uplift of the whole human population. 221

        A MODEL FOR UPLIFT 222

        Here we will speculate what future humans (or alien observers) might discover in changing patterns of social networks and semiotic structures (in cyberspace and other media) as evidence of the emergence of an UPLIFT process. 223

        This model will not discuss factors that might make such a process both possible and potentially viable today. 224

        The ideology of civilization will claim that UPLIFT is both impossible or highly unlikely, and ultimately undesirable. 225

        DATA FEATURES FOR UPLIFT 226

        The social network for UPLIFT would initiate with a small number of persons, who prior to the initiation of UPLIFT would exhibit some unique patterns representing design and preparation for the formal initiation of UPLIFT. 227

        These preliminary behaviors in preparation for UPLIFT will be discussed elsewhere. 228

Comments for item 228
6 Glisten 10-03-2010 03:50 AM ET (US) Regarding item 228	This area is of specific interest to me.
11 Larry Victor 10-03-2010 05:39 PM ET (US) Regarding item 228	Yes, it is THE critical area. IMHO the publication of semiotic structures for UPLIFT will not be sufficient for the successful launch of UPLIFT. This area involves where I started with BUS Bootstrap Uplift Scaffolding (Scenario,Scheme,System) But, this involves more than composing and publishing on BUS, but the actual construction and seeding of the initial form of BUS. Critical here is the temporal depth of the scaffolding so that it is ample to handle the initial input of members - and a process where the scaffolding is immediately improved and expanded to handle increasing membership. An issue. Should this be done by traditional methods, or should we begin the mangle immediately by using scaled down scaffolding for our initial team? One strategy: the initial team, by engineering design, create an initial BUS for themselves - and others they will recruit.

        These ARE very important, and may be the primary challenge for UPLIFT.  For, once UPLIFT is initiated it may be emerging in harmony with "natural", "spiritual", and "cosmic" processes.  The design and initial implementation of UPLIFT SCAFFOLDINGS will probably occur within resistive environments. 229

        The emergent social network for UPLIFT would exhibit a much greater density of links than in conventional social networks; but there would also be a unique fine structure to the UPLIFT social network. 230

        New members to the UPLIFT social network would be actively recruited and supported by an individual member, who is seafed (supported, enabled, augmented, and facilitated) by a small social network (that had emerged by similar processes). 231

        There will be no mass media promotion of UPLIFT. 232

        One would not observe a sudden increase in membership without extensive linkages of members. 233

        There would not appear a large increase in a membership list.  With an exception that persons may learn of UPLIFT and request that they be recruited; but being on the recruitment list does not imply the person is, yet, a member of the UPLIFT process. 234

        This is much, much more than asking someone to be your "friend" in Facebook. 235

        Learning materials and special networking tools will be available for the "recruiter".  And these will improve over time, and become a general resource for the whole emerging UPLIFT social network. 236

        A very early task for a new member is to initiate recruitment of a few potentially new members.  This early responsibility will be actively seafed by the person and social supportive network that recruited that new member.  They will not be expected to perform this early recruitment by themselves. 237

        A fine detailed pattern would be observed, which I call the CHAIN GROWTH RECRUITMENT PROCESS, or CGRP. 238

        In one version, CGRP entails each new member actively participating in the recruitment of at least 14 new members. 239

        For example, the new member (A) would quickly recruit B and C as new members, and be active in supporting them in their learning about UPLIFT and themselves beginning to each recruit two new members. B would recruit and support D and E; and C would recruit F and G.  A would be working with B and C in their recruitment of D, E, F and G and A would be interacting with them. 240

        CGRP carries this process one more level.  D, E, F, and G would each begin to recruit two new members. They would be assisted and supported in this by A, B and C. 241

        Once these eight new recruits are recruiting, A may retire from the formal CGRP process, having been active in the recruitment of 2+4+8=14 new members. 242

        This intensive follow-up and support of the recruitment process should insure that it continues, so long as a population of potential recruits exists. 243

        In this process all 14 recruits and the initial member A are all interacting with each other. These 15 members for a core web in the UPLIFT social network. Actually, it can include the 14 members who were part of the core web that recruited member A. 244

Comments for item 244
29 Jeremy Horne 10-06-2010 01:42 AM ET (US) Regarding item 244	" for a core " to " form a core "

        These numbers are but examples. Sometimes a member may recruit more than two, and occasionally be limited to but one. What is to be avoided in CGRP is attempts at mass recruitment. 245

        The concept that a "hive mind" might spontaneously emerge from a large but unorganized social network needs careful analysis. 246

        If a truly viable web emerges in a "hive", it will most likely be via a process similar to CGRP within the "hive". 247

        Otherwise, mass organization within a "hive" would most likely be typical of civilization organizations with elites, bureaucracies and masses of sheep. 248

        Over time many of the connections in a core web would weaken and be abandoned. Yet, a unique strength for these initial relationships may be quite strong and persist. 249

        A striking pattern to be revealed in UPLIFT emergence would be an exponential growth of a densely linked social network. Such an exponential growth is essential if UPLIFT is to succeed. 250

        Exponential growth should be a primary criterion for all social movements. 251

        More fine structure for an emerging UPLIFT social network. 252

        SEAFING. The work of existing members in assisting a new member, in their early recruitment of other new members, is an example of the seafing process. The emergence of a seafing network and seafing as a new economic domain (within the UPLIFT process) is critical for the success of UPLIFT. 253

        Seafing will be a new emergent social technology. 254

        In the complexity of our reality, individuals and teams are usually unable to utilize the many resources available to them. 255

        If they are very active in learning and organizing for their own causes they will find little time or energy to attempt to utilize was is often not in a form conducive for use. 256

        Thus, potential synergy is effectively blocked. 257

        There have been many attempts to assist organization improve, but these seem always to take on characteristics of civilization, making a profit, and attempting only reform.  And these helper organizations are themselves blocked from their own improvement. 258

        The work of Seymour Sarason has contributed to my comprehension of this process; and also the works of Donald Michael. 259

        The technology of CGRP will start off rather crude, but as more and more participate AND that it will be intentional in the design and management of CGRP, that they will learn and improve their process. 260

        Specifically, the process will intentionally attend to the personal and individual differences (and similarities) for each person in the social network. 261

        There will not be a convergence to a few simple formats for recruitment; rather an expansion to utilize the vast and viable diversity of humans. 262

        A seafing “sysnet” may be observed in the data from the UPLIFT social networks and associated semiotic structures. 263

        We may be able to distinguish social systems of individuals working on a specific project and another social system of individuals supporting, enabling, augmenting, and facilitating (seafing) them. 264

        I was initially motivated to develop the seafing concept after reading THE SUPPORT ECONOMY by Shoshana Zuboff and James Maxim (2002). 265

        Consistent with THE SUPPORT ECONOMY, some teams of a seafing network would work closely with those they are seafing, becoming mentors for them and assisting them in linking with others.  To support this, others in the seafing network will organize information about the global resource network, maintain and improve it, and respond to requests by the mentor seafing teams. 266

        Zuboff and Maxim forecast that such support systems would become a wholly new level of economic activity.  I agree, but I cannot foresee it occurring within the ideology of civilization, where competitiveness and greed are dominant. 267

        One would observe a rapidly increasing competency and viability to the seafing network, which would be observed to rapidly accelerate the growth and viability of UPLIFT itself. 268

        In metaphor, seafing may be viewed as an enzymatic process; greatly accelerating processes that without seafing would be too slow to become viable. 269

        In biological cells, large molecules slowly interact. But, when another molecule, of similar components and closely related form, engages both interacting molecules, the interaction can be greatly speeded up. 270

        Life could not exist with its current viability without these enzyme molecules. 271

        Seafers and the seafing network are social analogs of molecular enzymes. 272

        The UPLIFT process will begin in only a few "locations" or existing social networks.  But, after a few iterations of revisions of scaffolding versions, many seed sites for UPLIFT will appear globally.  Each tuned to the specifics of the culture and receptive population. 273

        It will be very important that the interaction between different spreading UPLIFT social networks be intentionally seafed. 274

        One population for a second generation UPLIFT would be in the rings of urban slums around major cities in the world. 275

        The potentials of this population are discussed by Steward Brand in WHOLE EARTH DISCIPLINE. 276

        UPLIFT webs will also emerge as cogangs in establishment organizations. 277

Comments for item 277
7 Glisten 10-03-2010 04:51 AM ET (US) Regarding item 277	As a potentially influential penetration of the current civilisational structure, I think this area possibly needs to "lead the charge" for change. Bringing radical transformative energy to areas of global leadership and nexus' of power could well catalyse a swift realignment of relations between systemic structures. This has been proposed and action is underway... Edited 10-03-2010 04:53 AM
14 Larry Victor 10-03-2010 06:28 PM ET (US) Regarding item 277	Here is where I recommend caution. My initial view is that the UPLIFT cogangs infiltrate but make no attempt to push for radical reform within the system. They can recruit, but primarily for action within the UPLIFT movement. "Bringing radical transformative energy to areas of global leadership and nexus' of power could well catalyse a swift realignment of relations between systemic structures." This is potentially very dangerous. I really see no possibility of a "swift realignment", as it refutes my premises for the need of UPLIFT. I am open to consider a mixed strategy with more tinkering with establishments than I currently feel safe. In fields of power an individual who may have a new view has very little freedom for action. If Obama actually has a good perspective (beyond his rhetoric), his behavior has been both dangerous (continuing the Wars and destruction of democracy) and stupid (trying to deal the obstructionists). Everyone in public office or public exposure is very limited in what they can say or do. Especially with computer searches digging up any detail to distort and make viral. If comparative semiotic structures related to the JFK, RFK, MLK assassinations (and some others) and 9/11 were made, IMHO we would be forced to conclude that cogangs were involved in all. These cogangs continue to exist, and get stronger. Any leader who really attempts to rock the boat will find the Buzzsaw descending. I speculate that many good people are blocked from acting today because of this threat - to themselves and their loved ones. We do need people to "lead the charge" - but within the UPLIFT scenario. They can lead in proper promotion for UPLIFT, but in a way not to attract attention. I am open to quality argument and evidence that "Bringing radical transformative energy to areas of global leadership and nexus' of power" could have a cumulative positive effect; but I cannot support such action on faith alone. Let me cite a small example. Only a small percent of the pledged aid to Haiti has been received and used. The USA aid has been blocked by a few senators on a trivial matter. None of the good people in USA politics or media are willing to take this on. This is NOT the action of a few right-wing senators. It is due to the global corporate strategy of turning Haiti in a global sweat shop. Actor Sean Penn and other celebrities have been strong in trying to make this known to the American public. They even get a few minutes on TV, occasionally. But, the global corporate agenda trumps. Those who have careers (hoping to do good things) know they must remain silent on this issue, or their careers will be sabotaged. I don't know the details of what is "underway". There are many overt strategies of action that would make life somewhat better for many and which would not threaten UPLIFT. Other mild overt actions may actually enhance the success of UPLIFT. But we must be cautious so as not to bring the Buzzsaw down on us.
19 JohnR 10-04-2010 08:13 PM ET (US) Regarding item 277	This is an important issue... Perhaps there is a middle ground between the two options that you both suggest - in some ways a slightly deceptive option. Rather than seek commitment to clearly expressed goals, one could use the approach that many 'isms' have used. It involves only expressing sub-goals that would be appealing to people and expressing them in ways that obscure the likely ramifications (which may not be appealing to many). My answer on quora discussed this approach... http://www.quora.com/Do-individuals-in-a-c...nswer/John-Ringland
20 Larry Victor 10-05-2010 07:13 PM ET (US) Regarding item 277	/m19 John, I fully agree with you. In my initial design of BUS (Bootstrap Uplift Scaffolding) I am explicit that we initially attract persons according to some of their personal needs. The full comprehension of UPLIFT is emergent and will take time. However, some easy metaphors for UPLIFT are possible, and can be improved by empirical feedback. As to how much about UPLIFT must be comprehended by those who will participate in the initial design of BUS is "up in the air". If I had much money I might be able to hire the expertize to do what is needed. To get voluntary support requires some comprehension about UPLIFT. So far, from the feedback from others, everyone is yet missing relevant domains and most people still try to fit UPLIFT into their existing conceptual schemes rather than consider it as an alternative/expansion. I must point out that many significant aspect of UPLIFT are NOT covered in UPLIFT IN ABSTRACT. The scope of UPLIFT is larger than any other contemporary conceptual scheme (I know of) and it is difficult for others to grok its scope. My own consciousness, at any period, can only grok a small part of the UPLIFT conceptual scheme. I need to consult back frequently to my outlines to alert me to domains I am missing. This factor is relevant in attempts to share the UPLIFT conceptual scheme to others - it is larger than some human consciousness to even grok in experiential presence. The concept that conceptual schemes can be so large in scope to beyond human consciousness, yet can be contained in constructed/woven worlds, needs explication and dialog. Thanks, John, for joining in. Larry
30 Larry Victor 10-06-2010 03:37 AM ET (US) Regarding item 277	/m19 John, I didn't address your first point: "Perhaps there is a middle ground between the two options that you both suggest - in some ways a slightly deceptive option." I take it you mean between full UPLIFT replacement of the existing order and somehow getting some players in the existing order to agree to radical reform. I believe the deep structure, millennia long, of the existing order is deeply flawed and will be enormously difficult to reformed. I cannot imagine any viable scenario, but I am open to listen. But, I want to study a scenario, not a vague hope. I speculate that any such reform would take far too long, cost greatly in lives and biosphere destruction. And, I am dubious that any reform process would leave humankind with a system (local to planetary)of near quality as emergence/replacement would accomplish. Finally, we must really study the power structure, anew. My feeling is that any serious attempt by a subset of the elite to challenge the top elite would be put down. And, I don't believe they could organize under the radar - which UPLIFT might be able to do. The infusion of the UPLIFT movement into the ranks of establishments could be done without great problems, so long as they don't attempt to radically change those establishments. Their roles would be to mollify excesses and to be in place for replacement: THIS GREAT DAY. ROUGH DRAFT: http://home.comcast.net/~larryvictor/NUCOM/THIS%20GREAT%20DAY.htm Edited 10-06-2010 05:50 AM

        But, they will not be dedicated to significant reform of those organizations or to self gain; but they will be "in place" for the eventual replacement of the established orders by the emergent and well organized and highly competent UPLIFT population. 278

        One challenge of UPLIFT globally will be to transcend the competitive ideologies of the developed and developing worlds. UPLIFT seeks no approval from existing institutions. 279

        The content of the semiotic structures representing interaction between members of UPLIFT will also be unique, and results from the design of UPLIFT SCAFFOLDING. 280

        The full complexity of UPLIFT cannot be adequately comprehended by most new members; nor will it be attempted. Long-term (unique) educational processes will seaf the learning and development of all members, personalized to their unique cognitive profiles. 281

        Yet, a variety of Introductions to UPLIFT will be designed and empirically tested. 282

        The primary focus of initial UPLIFT recruitment will be INTERPERSONAL LEARNING. 283

        This taps into a deep intrinsic need of most (normal) humans. 284

        Alienation within civilization is an important tool for suppression. 285

        But, it will attempt to avoid traditional topics of potential controversy. 286

        Humans, when appropriately approached, have a great interest in human differences. 287

        Scaffolding (as evidenced in semiotic structures) would reveal protocols to assist persons exploring their differences in cognitive potentials and competencies. 288

        This would be in formats to collect personal data, to assist the UPLIFT seafing system in personalizing and indivualizing processes. 289

        Fun questionnaires and facilitated interview protocols will make these sessions interesting and useful. 290

        Measures would be taken to protect the "privacy" of each person, but the "transparency" necessary for a viable society must be stressed. 291

        David Brin's THE TRANSPARENT SOCIETY presents well these issues. 292

        Based on competency profiles, all other areas of learning and organizing will be seafed. 293

        Personal survival needs during collapse will be of primary interest to everyone, and cannot be avoided. However, all effort should be made that the UPLIFT process not be captured by this need. 294

        The slow growth and improvement of Relocalization projects and Transition Cities can be attributed to their primitive means for learning and organization, usually imitating the systems of civilization. 295

        The UPLIFT process should greatly improve how persons learn and organize for community and survival. But a narrow focus on local action and community, as essential as that focus should be as part of the whole, to be narrow and exclusive on local action and community (as if often the tendency) breeds longer term disaster. 296

        However, a vital component of early UPLIFT will be to access knowledge and needs and a to create a seafing system assisting persons moving towards meeting those needs, as best possible and consistent with "realities". 297

        An examination of the content of semiotic structures related to UPLIFT would see a minimum of discussion and effort to reform existing systems. 298

        Indeed, to avoid such efforts would likely reduce efforts of establishments to hinder or counter UPLIFT processes. 299

        At some point in the UPLIFT process there will be an organized effort to replace the old order with a new order; but this process must not be premature, and when initiated, its success should be only a formality. 300

        This is not to exclude special targeted actions by parts of the UPLIFT movement to block especially negative actions by establishments. 301

        But, if the likelihood of such counter efforts is expected to be unsuccessful, they should not be taken if they are likely to bring down power against UPLIFT. 302

        Actually, UPLIFT may actually reduce some stress on establishments and make some UPLIFT activities appear useful. 303

        However, UPLIFT should never be dependent on establishments for their success. 304

        Even temporary and short term support from some establishments should be resisted, as dependence is likely to occur. 305

        UPLIFT SCENARIOS 306

        UPLIFT scenarios are very sensitive to many factors. 307

        Primary is whether the UPLIFT concepts can rapidly mobilize and organize an initial cadre of those with essential competencies to design the initial UPLIFT SCAFFOLDING and keep its growth and improvement ahead of the growth of UPLIFT membership. 308

        The success of UPLIFT is dependent on the ability of a few to tap into the distribution of relevant knowledge and create the scaffolding that will seaf the UPLIFT process. 309

        UPLIFT is not a process that will spontaneously arise from the "hive mind", or from the "grassroots". 310

        UPLIFT is dependent on the intrinsic potentials of humans, not on suppressed contemporary competencies. 311

        UPLIFT must involve INTELLIGENT DESIGN, by the human species.  The potential is there. 312

        UPLIFT is an intelligent, creative process - a "Miraculous Happening" as yet unique to "nature", but not excluded by "nature". 313

        UPLIFT scenarios are also very sensitive to the nature and speed of global societal collapse and Black Swans. 314

        If and when UPLIFT succeeds, how the new global order emergent through the UPLIFT process will encounter and replace established old orders is difficult to imagine in any detail. 315

        However, negative scenarios, based on the ideology of civilization, should be examined but not believed. 316

        The power of the UPLIFT movement may well be so superior to the disarray of established orders that the transition will be much easier than we can now imagine. 317

        FACTORS FOR THE SUCCESS OF UPLIFT 318

        Not included in this model are many factors about humankind, reality, and change for which the success of UPLIFT is dependent. 319

        One cluster of factors relate to the hidden potentials of a new UPLIFT educational/organizational process, based on new knowledge distributed among many disciplines. 320

        Another cluster of factors relate to new views of contemporary societal reality, facing the great power of corporations using high technology (as well as some deep weaknesses).  Will the collapse be too rapid and the oppression during collapse too severe to permit UPLIFT? 321

        Another factor will be whether the UPLIFT movement can shift fundamental protocols early enough so that a comparison of semiotic structures can become the primary means of Dialog/Deliberation/Decision to replace the competition for claims of absolute truth. 322

        It is a matter of "faith" that a large population having its distribution of cognitive competencies significantly uplifted will be able to collectively design and implement new participatory "democratic" processes and equitable and fair economic and financial systems; all in the face of global economic collapse, accelerating Earth Changes, including many major catastrophes. 323

        UPLIFT will not immediately reduce human suffering. Civilization and empire continue to be the primary cause of human suffering, and will continue so long as civilization and empire continue. 324

Comments for item 324
9 Glisten 10-03-2010 06:33 AM ET (US) Regarding item 324	I would here promote the notion that the primary source of human suffering is not so much in the civilisational structures themselves but rather arises from the naive realist prevailing altitude of consciousness which gives them their current set of characteristic behaviors.
15 Larry Victor 10-03-2010 06:34 PM ET (US) Regarding item 324	I see the two perspectives as fully complementary. Which is primary is a chicken/egg debate. Naive realism can be a tool of Civilization or a cause of Civilization. What is important is to accept the unpleasant fact that we cannot wave a magic wand and immediately eliminate suffering - except maybe to kill everyone, after which they won't suffer.

        The objective of UPLIFT is to get at the root causes of human suffering; but not in the old mode within civilization to simply make the suffering tolerable (or no longer conscious). 325

Comments for item 325
10 Glisten 10-03-2010 06:38 AM ET (US) Regarding item 325	I agree, it is consciousness of the situation which empowers liberation from its constraints. The primary task as I see it is to empower those with the potential to realise this to actually do so, and to begin to act from this higher altitude (this action is not going to arise from the current prevailing worldview).
16 Larry Victor 10-03-2010 06:44 PM ET (US) Regarding item 325	The key here is "empower". IMHO "awakening" or "consciousness rising" is not empowerment, but a prelude to empowerment. The technologies I propose for UPLIFT is the empowerment. But, empowerment to create a new humanity, NOT to oppose or foment revolution against Civilization. UPLIFT is a means to replace Civilization by NU. The spirit of vision is the soil from which relevant action emerges. But,it is attention to full realities and details of strategy that lead to patterns of action that characterize viable emergence. But, in my conception of UPLIFT, many people will be attracted and become members long before they have a robust vision of NU (or even of the larger UPLIFT scenario). We can't wait for that; as such involve a sequence of awakenings, usually seafed. People can be attracted to UPLIFT by more limited visions and be provided with the means for immediate empowerment through BUS.

        In a strange way, this deep focus on the reduction of suffering has blinded humankind from seeking a way to eliminate (or significantly reduce) the causes of human suffering. 326

        Both the religions that preach survival after death, and "quality eternity" and those practices that aim at enabling a person to live in a situation of suffering and yet not consciously suffer, have blocked humankind's efforts to move BEYOND SUFFERING. 327

        Thus, it is imperative that the UPLIFT movement not be diverted to efforts to reduce human suffering - among those NOT PART OF THE UPLIFT MOVEMENT. 328

        However, a highly positive and early objective/consequence of being a member of the UPLIFT movement would be an immediate reduction of suffering. 329