I recently worked with a group collaborating with Team Akademi, from Mondragon University, Spain. Great brainstorming workshop on Social Innovation.

I’m pleased that you remain active. I have been aware of some of your work but have not participated because what you were doing was quality – and I could trust it was being done well. There are many domains I am pleased to see viable, and where my participation might be more distraction than help. As much as I would have wanted your participation in my work I couldn’t request it until what I would need would be reasonable for your valuable time.

You make many excellent points in your message which I agree/qualify/disagree. I hope that over time we can converge on mutual comprehension. I agree with you on the vital importance of video and would like to know you special take. There are so many aspects and issues.

Here are a few of my thoughts and attitudes towards video.
There is enough quality video available to provide “learning materials” for an educational program to transform the worldviews of most people. The challenge is motivating others to view these videos in settings where significant learning will occur. If a person were open to view a selected set of videos most of our leaders would be in prison.
Although lacking visual imagery in explicit consciousness re memory and imagination, many of my deeper processes are “spatial”. Also, my thought process is “groking” the relationship between concrete experiential items passing through consciousness, like a multi-level video.
I’ve long desired to learn to use Camstasia with a team, where any work on a computer screen can be easily turned into quality video. I still have the VHS recordings of sessions with you in CA, when it was (and remains) my belief that certain quality dialogs, edited, might be important units of published discourse. Minds in resonance. I still believe this, but my SKYPE is so unstable and Vodburner records with video and auditory quickly going out of sync. Quality systems for this exist, but are too expensive for me.
I also dream of video hypermedia. While viewing a video one could pause and record (or attach) another video linked to that spot on the original video. Basically, make for video the same features of bookmarking and commenting available for eBooks. I see TED-Ed has a new tool where a comments/question window accompanies any video. I don’t know whether links to other videos could be inserted. Branching A/V would be very useful for facilitating conversations on complex issues. Each person could electronically mark points in the conversation (being recorded) to return to. Later conversations could branch from different points in the original conversation. Eventually a hypermedia conversation would emerge. With such a tool we might learn ways to improve sharing complex topics today hampered by linear constraints.

It has never been my intention to write “long missives”, which is why I have never attempted to publish a book of linear text. My dream has always been for an interactive media for collaborative composition of a “living” semiotic structure representing collective realities. Although I can share at any level of discourse, what I have most to contribute are insights on larger contexts or frames or “big bundles of meaning”. Tightly packed text – as even in this message – is an artifact of the economy of print publication before this age of digital electronics. I carefully compose each sentence – such that sometimes they require “study” (more than a passive reading). I have experimented with displaying single sentences presented on the 2D of a screen. Protocols would code symbol form and screen placement to represent “grammar” (a new version of diagrammed sentences). Different words might be programmed to appear on the screen in sequence. Auditory input could accompany the visual. One could learn to “read/study” such semiotic structures rapidly and systems are possible for rapid composition.

I have always desired the unit of discourse be what could be processed in the specious present – usually a short paragraph or multimedia equivalent. As above, I envision (without visualization) these units be diagrammatic, dynamic, multi-media, and navigatable. Given the wide (and important) diversity in cognitive processing in the human population, each unit (SEM – for semiotic structure) should be able to be displayed in a selection of variations. “Translation” for different languages is a challenge, as is our new comprehension about the differences between verbal and visual languages. The vast majority of spoken languages can only be learned by children and attempted codification of these languages into print may record the details but makes them rather difficult to read. Engaging global humankind in discourse remains a challenge. Yet, the same visual can have radically different impact on persons of different cultures. More research is needed in cross-cultural perception.

Big ideas or conceptual schemes can never be represented in the specious present. These are constructed by the creative activity of human mind/brains as they weave many experiences (gained over time) into nested/networked patterns that comprise our inner woven/constructed “worlds”. Once one has such a pattern/process internalized, smaller summaries or abstract SEMS can trigger this deeper activity. But, it is a delusion that summaries can instruct. This is why, once I discovered hypertext (now hypermedia) I chose it to be my medium for composing. Unfortunately, I later learned that most people have yet to learn to “read” hypertext with comfort. Of the tools I am aware of, VUE (Visual Understanding Environments) would be my choice. “Hyper” needs more than one kind of link, which VUE provides. The nodes in VUE can be video and diagrammatic. The problem with VUE is the long learning curve for both “reading” and composing. I would like a lite version of VUE with audio input for feature selection. Unfortunately, the tools that would make discourse more meaningful requires long learning curves (and personalization to account for the diversity of learning styles). And, with the tools rapidly improving (but not always in a useful direction) few people can commit the time and effort.

I also believe we need composition/study tools that integrate both the nested and networked nature of temporal exchange. The nested feature of outliners remains difficult to share. The best route for comprehension of complex conceptual schemes may be sequential reading of an outlined document at different levels. Yet, I seem alone in perceiving the need and only teams can create a useful system (for both composing, online viewing {with suggested protocols}, and collaborative editing).

I believe we need explicit work creating a new multi-media language system independent from spoken language. Although we can read faster than we can listen (except for those trained to listen a higher speeds), most people have their spoken language centers of their brain involved. On the other hand, we can speak faster than we can write. We can learn to process the visual and auditory channels separately – but integrated. One channel can cue about the context/frame for information in the other channel.

On first look, these ideas may seem useful to only a few and the long learning curves would make them prohibitive. I believe that the efficiency and features of our current systems are “primitive” as to what is possible — and with a quality training program it will be worth the time and effort for persons to learn to use these tools. There are also similar tools related to the composing and viewing of video and multi-media.

George, I am excited by much of what I witness emergent in younger generations. I personally lack the ability to learn by experiencing, which is the chosen process of those contributing to the new technologies. I am concerned that only those with those learning styles will be able to use and participate fully. There is so much I might learn from so many domains; but I accept my limitations. I cultivate my growing “ignorance”: knowing OF what I don’t yet know or comprehend and what I can’t yet do or appreciate. I have been blessed/cursed with a unique mind, a freak not to be emulated. My inner woven world contains patterns (alternative contextual frames) I believe will be very valuable to humankind at this critical juncture and I feel it is my mission to share them. I agree that if I cannot share (not necessarily with everyone) my insights may be “wasted”, but not necessarily “worthless”. I don’t seek acceptance of my insights, I seek comprehension and constructive feedback. Many accept my “brilliance” but cherry-pick ideas to fit their worldviews, yet can’t give the time and energy (which I understand) to attempt comprehending from new frames that might be very useful. I have concluded that our contemporary media/apps don’t facilitate my sharing and that linear communication is inadequate.

“what is that I can offer which will be pertinent and helpful to their work. Intergenerational learning must start with the older folks paying attention to how best support the younger ones in *their* blazing new trails for changing the world.” Ingergenerational learning must be a two way process. Everything I attempt to share has the potential of supporting, enabling, augmenting, and facilitating (seafing) the ongoing work of persons of all ages, including those “blazing new trails”. All mentation and work occurs within frames or contexts. Those who have grown up within the new technologies have powerful competencies and insights that I lack. But, my wisdom and uniqueness enables me to see the limitations of their frames – not about what they are doing, but about what is not being done that needs doing by someone, and that would impact their own work. What I offer will not change their frames, other than expand them – providing more options. In spite of the enormous progress in the emergent movement I claim to see projects needed doing (that would greatly enhance the projects underway) that are not being done or even imagined as needing to be done, because of the limiting frames. Productive work requires limiting frames, and most of the time I work myself in limiting frames. But, we need flexibility of frames, and meta-frames to consider the field of potential frames. This meta-work need not involve everyone, but everyone needs to respect the work of others (a topic addressed by Mark Roest).

Again, George, this is overly long for a single post. Yet, I don’t feel I have adequately addressed your points. I am a paradox of radical change and strongly resisting change – as I have come to believe is the human condition. These days are especially challenging. Although currently free of cancer I have not fully recovered my old energy, strength, or stamina. My hearing at high frequencies is gone leading to problems with comprehending some SKYPE exchanges. Quality hearing aides work, but too expensive for me at this time. I returned my dentures and now function without teeth, which effect the clarity of my speech. Again, I haven’t the funds for implants. On top of this I am having to move to a new house with my partner, Eloise – which will consume months of labor. My computer systems are sick and I need to establish a new cyberspace presence: new emails, blogs, and websites – as well as learn new apps.

There is no one in Tucson willing to dialog with me on these matters and most of my online contacts are emotionally supportive but not able to give me the feedback I need. The past few months I’ve been experimenting by posting and commenting in Venessa’s EmergentByDesign blog or TheNextEdge group in Facebook. A few items have generated response on peripheral topics, but my attempts to gain some attention for major insights has failed. Some have responded about the inadequacy of linear threads (such as with Facebook) but are at a loss of what to do. I feel that the chatter is a diversion of energy, but I am not in the loops where work is being done. As you have noted there are a great many blogs, websites, and projects online – but I have yet to see any growing exponentially (a measure I believe critical). I need to know more about Federating and Curating; are they at levels adequate to our needs? And, what are our needs and how can we know we have identified all our critical needs?

Enough for now, with respect, Larry

The differences among ecosystems across the face of the earth are literally staggering — as in, it is a culture shock to go from your culture, still rooted in its ecosystem after 10,000 or 40,000 years, to another, also still rooted in its ecosystem after 10,000 or 40,000 years, Everything is different. For a colonist or empire builder, the solution is to crush the other culture and adapt to the natural environment until you can find a way to cut it down to your size. Today, when at least some of us realize the horror of that path, and we can see the diversity on National Geographic, there is a far better solution to the lack of bandwidth of the average human: you don’t have to know all about the eco-regions and cultures in neighboring countries, or those across the ocean, as long as you know enough to respect the people there. You only really need to deeply understand your own eco-region and the cultures that evolved in it — and the nature of being human, manifested across all cultures. Without empire, each of the 5000 to 7000 remaining languages / cultures can stick to its own reality, in one of 827 eco-regions which were delineated by over 1200 scientists in 2000 and 2001.

It would be great if we could have a meta-council of elders which speaks to that which unites and divides us, and the general principles of returning to social and environmental sanity. I think that we could come to a shared understanding in these areas, articulate it, and build it into the social net environment. We could also build it into a true rendering of the world as we know it, and as it needs to be, to the best of humanity’s collective ability, as a knowledgebase that includes supply chain and project management software, all embedded in a Geographic Information System with digital earth imaging. It would be interoperable, consistent in its information architecture, but fully representative of the diversity of the world and human culture.

Thus, it would create an information environment far richer than the best maps of the past, because more detailed. For eager, curious minds, it will be a candy store that makes sense; for the elders and the younger sages, it will be something we can point to and navigate in within the course of a meeting, and show how the impacts of time and human frailty can cause wrenching change, and how best to navigate it.

I’d love to talk with you about this if you are interested. Beyond that, we are going to be creating a prototype of a sustainable economy with the communities around Water’s Edge, on the Luangwa River in Zambia. Check out ImagineZambia.org, if you like! You may find it draws you in.

Regards,

Mark Roest

> I could go on for months, and who has the time to read – let alone query and question.

You got it! That’s exactly the point. Then why bother with long missives that we know people won’t read, instead engaging the flow with a focused intervention at a systemic leverage point, which can trigger a generative conversation as Venessa’s blogs do.

> I wouldn’t have achieved it had I been more “social”.

Larry, you have one of the most brilliant minds I know, *and* what counts for evolution is only what gets successfully communicated from it. As I recall, you’ve been always struggling with how to convey big bundles of meaning. Over the years, in my similar challenges, I learned to accept (and strangely, even rejoice in) the fact that the knowledge I accumulated in the last 4-5 decades is worthless, unless i am willing to learn from my younger brothers and sisters what is that I can offer which will be pertinent and helpful to their work.

Intergenerational learning must start with the older folks paying attention to how best support the younger ones in *their* blazing new trails for changing the world. To me that includes also the learning of a new language, the language of videos. It’s a radical expansion of my portfolio of capabilities and I feel I need to go that way if i want my messages reach into collective soul deeper… Fortunately, I have a good teacher on that path, a 20-year old guy, who puts up with my stuttering the new language…

There seldom goes a week when I don’t have thoughts related to you and our valuable interactions over many years. {Have you any information about Ingemar?} I continue to use one of your acronyms, D.A.R.E [Designing Augmenting Research for Emergence] as a component of some of my passwords. I remember you alerting me to the coming relevance of “attention”. Your new book interests me greatly as I have only recently encountered the terms “federate” and “curate”. I’ve been aware of your interest in the vastness of resources since you alerted me to the works of Tony Judge. Could you point me to how you are approaching the near infinitude of resources?

Why haven’t I continued personal dialog with you? Why don’t I have personal dialog with any “elder minds”? This is a query I would like to pursue with you. I have come to view myself as a savant (someone with a mix of extreme limitations and compensatory talents) but where both limitations and talents are not recognized categories . My life has been a strange mis-adventure.

There are multiple reasons why my 77 years have been so fallow, and I won’t attempt to go into them now. I am pleased about my reality comprehension, and sometimes can rationalize that I wouldn’t have achieved it had I been more “social”. This speaks to the point of your message re the sacrifices necessary to accomplish specific project such as writing your book. I remember a letter I received from Erich Fromm declining my request that he read my MISSION2000 manuscript, because he had too much yet to write that he had given up reading. How might elder minds relate, to each other and to those younger?

This term, “elder minds”, is new to me, in this message. I am quite different from when I composed MISSION2000 in 1975, although the theme remains core today. Elder minds have advanced through the levels of adult stage development as studied by Spiral Dynamics, Robert Kegan, etc., but also retain warps and blind spots. Maybe we need an association of elder minds (probably already exists). So many ideas I learned from books read decades ago remain relevant today and are not present in recent writings. How do we cope with the Relevancy vs Recency issue? Young activists don’t have time to read all that is fundamental.

I want/need to share with others some “fractal patterns of my whole”. Yet, all I can communicate are small components or nodes of these patterns. None of the communication apps available today are adequate. Many of the apps we called for at the ENA (Electronic Networkers Association) conferences in the late 1980s have yet to materialize, in spite of the awesome progress of the technology. Larger patterns require temporal organization for sharing; it takes time and feedback exchanges. Linear communication is insufficient. Yet, most seem satisfied. More on this later.

There are many persons I would like to really share deep ideas with – but then I post only tiny parts. I sometime send suggestive ideas to email lists, usually getting no response. My own archive of composing is so unorganized that I wait until it is organized to invite others to explore with me. So, I don’t dialog with many who I really would like to share with – and hold back on contacting many others I recognize as having much to share, and whom I need feedback from and possible collaboration.
Is this an issue for other “elder minds”? Do we feel there are significant domains we seem unable to share?
George, the problem is that I could go on for months, and who has the time to read – let alone query and question.

One of many concerns: What is the emergent movement attempting to materially create/produce? Do we need a collaborative, simulated “world”, beyond Wikipedia, which facilitates our collective action? Collective action is mediated by semiotic structures. Project management software guides material construction. Constitutions claim to guide decisions. P2P technology will facilitate process, but “content” is needed. I observe the chatter on blogs and wonder what is to eventually come of it. Many are creating seeds with insufficient attention to fertile soils and nurturing scaffolding. But I don’t know what to do other than create seeds about the need for more attention about soils and scaffolding. My queries that much is MISSING are not noticed. It is a paradox to see so much exciting activity, but from a context that recognizes that it is insufficient and much more is needed. I speculate that my function is to share expanded contexts, but have how clue how to do it.
George, this is long enough, now — although there is much more I desire to share. I am posting this on Venessa’s blog in response to your comment, as I hope to attract the attention of others. Most of my postings and comments the past few months have (experimentally) been on the secret Facebook group TheNextEdge (initiated by Venessa). I am open to explore other venues for issues where linear threading is inadequate.

I thank you for your personal message. I would love to learn about your life all these years, but another time.

Larry