We talk and we talk and we talk and we talk and we talk and we talk………………..

We’re advocates for talking. We’re talking to you right now. Using the ancient way of communicating that we call – words. We have to use these words because there is no other mechanism.

We can tell you stories.
We can show you movies.
We can motivate you with music.
We can make stuff pretty.
We can map data and geography.
We can give you lots of words, words, words, words, words words…………. blather, blather…..

This is the process of communications that we have inherited. We have learned it. It is what we know. It is literally how we think.

But it is not the way the universe works. The universe works as systems, at nano and macro scales, constantly in motion, constantly exchanging, programmed in ways we try to imagine, programmed in ways we succeed in describing but fail at understanding.

As we work to understand, as we try to extract meaning, as we try to put to good use what we know, it helps greatly to have some core anchoring viewpoint to take on complexity and human behavior and problem solving and potential attainment. And to coherently communicate.

Already slowly taking shape is a quantum improvement in how we communicate and it revolves around semiotics. One of our first pioneering examples is the Nurture, Equality, Truth and Systems model set.

When you look at potential leaders, the framing of criteria can be organized around NETS objectives, NETS achievement, NETS principles.

When you look at public policy or corporate policy, it can be framed by NETS.

When you look at human relationships, it can be framed by NETS.

When you look at science, it can be framed by NETS.

Understanding the nature of anything can be framed by NETS.

NETS produces Meaning. Signal from Noise. Common Purpose. a Common Language.

In an instant, one can evaluate the relative meaning of -1 to +3 child development.
Here is how we currently practice early child development.

Here is the mapping of its importance to the future of the person.

NETS. A system that extracts meaning from blather.

Y Worlds

5 thoughts on “Blather

  1. So, how does one read this example of NETS? I can see what you label as important in the lighter shades of grey. I can see the failings mapped in red in contrast to the successes in blue, but how would I learn what they mean? I can agree that a nurturing environment provides loving relationships where exchanges of knowledge are offered with unconditional perception, fostering a love of self in a child’s consciousness. These NETS models are not context dependent, so you could just as easily say that this example of the model depicts a drug rehab clinic. Couldn’t you? I wonder if there will be access to underlying data, via the Proof Processor some other feature, so that we can scrutinize the veracity of these models, or come to understand them in light of the evidence. Anyway, I hope you don’t mind the blather.

  2. Everything we compose is directed at delivering meaning in the most effective manner possible. The 2 red/ 2 blue/neutral grey identify the 5 scales we use to identify the ++, +, neutral, – and — of each variable of each ontology at the level and detail we wish. You are looking at the highest level of the NETS model, and as you know, there are subcells and sub subcells and sub sub subcells that we have developed but you do not see in this high level view. At the highest level of meaning, without even experiencing the detailed sub models, you can instantly identify that in our analysis of child development for children under age -1 to +3, the bright red indicates emergency levels of failure to imbue and immerse children with unconditional love, equality of opportunity to thrive, and the capacity and desire to learn and consciously process the world systemically. The model remains the same for any topic – using any levels of the model – only the patterns (moving and interactive with drill downs and dynamic multi-model side by side capability). The whole idea is that we enable people to impart or view 5 layers of detail with proofs and documentation using an amazing dynamic generative real time graphic interface. Our models will always be alive, always in motion, always in context, always linked in every way to any perspective desired, including source derivations and validity maps and proof processes and complete transparent documentation. THIS CAPACITY DOES NOT YET EXIST. IT IS WHAT WE ARE BUILDING. The 4 color importance map goes from light to dark, and it identifies literally what meaning we wish to impart – with the whitest areas being the most significant. So to read the importance map of NETS for child development, the message we try to convey is that it is essential that children receive enough love to love themselves from early childhood to forever, mother and father included, to feel and get programmed to believe they are equals to everyone, to be nourished in every physical and psycho-social way possible, to have full access to as much meaningful knowledge as they can processes and retain, and to experience life in a world organized as a functional and beneficent system for their benefit and for the benefit of all. If these most previous variables are not fully satisfied in early childhood, the momentum and programming of who they are at that stage will follow them for the rest of their lives – perhaps mitigated by later life experiences, but often not. Beneath the colors are deep proof processes that show how the colors were ultimately arrived at, and would include all participative inputs that oppose the choice or suggest alternative ways of presenting the model. The models are intended to be collectively developed, to be literally alive and changeable, to be adaptable and to transparently show who and why anything and everything became part of the model, from the model itself to the application of the model to anything. Thanks for the blather – back at you. alan

  3. That’s pretty fascinating that there would be subcells within subcells that the user can drill down into, experiencing the systemic layers of the whole idea being conveyed. I get what you’re doing and can appreciate how these visualisations might tell stories which can more rapidly be absorbed. Yet, many people are needed to compile these rich stories, no?

    Also, it seems that aligning multiple models in a coherent way that tells a story would present much difficulty. It seems an exhaustive task for who we are at present: ‘ordinary minds’. Do people think YWorlds is much too ‘science fiction’? What is the evidence that indicates to you that people would actually be interested in being the “We” you so often refer to?

    I can imagine how this method is potentially a much more vibrant way of understanding history and designing preferable futures. Especially compared to the time-wasting blather that so often gets us nowhere. Anyway, I’ll keep an eye out for more posts that fill in the gaps.

  4. If you visit Google’s experiment, exquisiteforest.com, you can see a very primitive example of a multimedia wiki. What we are proposing and developing is an entirely new paradigm for human communications, so like anything truly unique and transformational it will take some time for us to teach it, and for people to get it and use it. But the beauty of our approach is that anyone can simply use our toolsets to create knowledge models and maps, and anyone else can view them and build upon them or introduce alternatives, just like the wikipedia process, except now our community is synthesizing and creating systemic knowledge, not just plugging in existing inaccurate non-systemic non-interactive stuff. Just like a great video game, aligning multiple models (user or developer) is actually simple and intuitive. You see on screen all of the relevant models as thumbnails and pull them into expanded viewing any way one wants. We literally have hundreds of followers who want this – who realize we need a simple elegant was to address complexity – the root of everything. The fact that our approach can and will be realized as multimedia art and expression makes it an incredibly rich and adaptive form of human communication. Visual Y is not about history, it is about discussing anything important, systemic, complex, with all of the variables and relationships available to experience and interact with – high level meaning, supported beneath with cells and documentation and proof processes and detail. We still have to build the engine for all of this. Some folks ask why. We ask Y not?

  5. Hey thanks Alan. That’s cool that anyone can view and build upon the models or introduce alternatives. History is important though, because it is a valuable way of relating past events to present ones. There are relationships between events in time that cannot be overlooked in the proof process, as I’m sure you know. History is inherent in the systemic and complex, and condensing dense narratives into models that convey patterns with high level meanings can make history more accessible. When individuals have a richer sense of where they are in the fullness of time, they are encouraged to take action based on the truth, rather than some media spewed slant that would neglect to address the source of today’s ills — which are often the factual events of yesterday. Catch my gist?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>