netsWe believe that human society benefits from clear objectives driven by cooperatively developed principles. Experience has taught us that believing in absolutes leads to a corruption of promise, compassion and intellectual potential. To live up to our potential requires a careful, conscious and studied choice of viewpoints and perspectives, framed by understanding. That choice of viewpoint must consider that human thought is a complex individualized melding of ever-changing matter and energy, genetics and code, life experience, conscious and subconscious processing and chance. None of us can be relied on for intellectual accuracy and objectivity in all things. No absolutes. That is why our cooperative intends to be a generous and effective community of equals. And that is why, to avoid anything absolute or assumed, we are building an institute and literally a profession around our concept of proof – Y Proof Process. We believe there needs to be a protocol for the process of building a proof of anything.  Our process will rely on the Visual Y language to represent the high levels of proof process and incorporates documented evidence, validated sources and the logic and understanding of scientific reasoning. The Y Proof Process is a bridge between the pursuit of Truth and the benefit of Systems.

nurtureequalitytruthsystems

So Y Worlds has adopted these four principles (Nurture, Equality, Truth and Systems) as a system of thought.  We think they have organic properties that could function as the highest levels of connective tissue for civilization if put into practice. They are objectives through which we can measure useful dimensions of human progress. They are the highest levels of connective tissue for civilization. They can be thought of as the tip of a large scale ontological framework of understanding. We believe they are the distilled essence of what the history of humankind, and our study of human behavior,  teaches us is necessary to fully realize our potential.

We need to start any understanding with Nurture and a commitment to Equality. We need to arrive at understanding through a never ending pursuit of Truth. And we need to organize the knowledge we gather, and the viewpoints we take, around the concept of Systems – everything is a system and is connected to other systems.

It takes well constructed systems to achieve Nurture, Equality and Truth. It takes Nurture, Equality and Truth to construct systems that achieve their potential. Nurture is inextricably tied to Equality. Truth is inextricably tied to Systems. We ask you to understand them as a framework that embraces complexity and systemic composition. NETS is part of our evolving visual systemic language – composed of adaptive, generative dynamic models that organize and communicate complexity. Y Worlds Cooperative plans to develop many more systemic models to represent the meaning we seek in knowledge.

 Daily-Grey

The NETS model can be used in a variety of ways:

Checklist : It immediately identifies four critical variables that together frame a view of ourselves and our world.

Systemic Reference : It introduces a set of principles and a systemic framework for human centric exploration, thought and action.

Metric : Using dynamic patterns that carry meaning, the marks of NETS can instantly convey which elements of the model are in play and can characterize the elements in terms of intensity, complexity, interrelationship, state, actualization and realization.

Y Worlds Model : Integrated with other Y Models, the NETS model focuses attention on all of the dimensions of Nurture, Equality, Truth and Systems when applied to human consciousness, human subconsciousness, exchanges, laws, actions, ideas, objectives, outcomes, and the systemic function and scaffolding of civilizations.

The elements of NETS are made up of cells and sub-cells that represent degrees of detail and allow the deconstruction and/or reconstruction of the 4 principles. We encourage you to join us in thinking about NETS and how it should evolve. We think our motivation and intent behind the development of NETS was oriented towards the objective of the pursuit of Nurture, Equality, Truth and Systems. There are many other ways to achieve our intent, there are many similar initiatives, and there are many thoughtful approaches that have very little in common with ours. Our Cooperative must always be open and actively seeking new and better ideas and new and better proofs that satisfy our needs and objectives. This is just a start. NETS anchors everything we do so that we can take on the challenge of complexity with a conscious, thoughtful choice about our perspective. Any anchor can be modified or pulled.


by Dynamique

8 thoughts on “NETS

  1. Great design, meant to be spiritual or just Jungian? I’m fascinated, intrigued and think this is a great step for civilization.

  2. I have only just discovered this site and am already in awe of what it aims to achieve. I fully admit that it may be only the current limit of my understanding causing my questions, but there are some points I would like to raise. I do not, as yet, understand the semiotic implementation of the language, it’s grammar and lexical structure is almost completely opaque to me so far. So I want to firstly say that it must be completely open to be usable. It would be a wonderful proof of it’s efficacy if already I could communicate to you, a thought or an idea, a problem or an emotion using the graphical notation of this language in such a way that you could reasonably understand the intent of my communication without the recourse to traditional forms of language. It’s a high expectation definitely but if the language could become this open and so robust as to allow it, it’s propensity to further our comprehension of complex issues would be a very tangible and applicable thing to practice.

    I am very interested in how we can use symbols and a graphical interface to tackle ideas and concepts that are often too abstract and/or complex to be sufficiently handled by our current use of language, or where by, in the least discourse on such matters could be more efficient and accurate.

    At the heart of such a system you need to first overcome the inherited artefacts of our current linguistic system. As an initial step towards this end I would like to propose that the visual marks used to encode information always describe the type of meaning they carry. I will below use the cannon of words to elaborate this point but maintain the hope and aspiration that we could at times dispense with the need for them. I believe when we communicate something there is always an implicit value pertaining to type of information attached, though frequently we are not aware ourselves of this. Type of information falls into two distinct categories :

    Empirical / quantitative / truth / proved / paradigm / scientific
    Observation / opinion / emotion / anthropic

    These express the basic blocks of value that can be used within a communication schematic, this division between human subjective driven opinions and emotions, as opposed to empirical and objective data, is what seems to be the thing most lacking in our current communication model. It is perhaps the biggest cause of misrepresentation and sender-encode / receiver-decode errors that we currently experience at all scales of human to human communication. I think that any new form of language’s potential greatest contribution could be a way to resolve the conflicts of inherent subjectivity in thought against rational reasoning, with any given problem and allow us to resolve these conflicts in thinking into agreed actions. Here principles and imperatives such as NETS can they be used as at test for the ‘acceptability’ of the outcome?

    I have just noticed your use of color as a tool for encoding what would seem to be very similar to these concepts -> http://yworlds.com/content/uploads/2012/07/color_scale_03.png This is great, the application of the brown and green scale to statement blocks of information (as opposed to relationship blocks) succinctly and immediately draws the distinction between the two types of information and their value that we intend to assert in a statement. I am captivated by what you are doing and convinced of the importance it could have in furthering mutual understanding in the future as it develops over time.

  3. Hi Francis and Ben:

    We have the opportunity to invent a better way for everyone to communicate.
    We look forward to your participation.

    Alan
    Y Worlds

  4. Alan,
    My initial assessment is that mastering emerging complexity in systems thinking world is returning the locus of control to the autopoietic identity and narrative of person as an observer consciously understanding that every utterance is just ‘a’ observation in the flow of attaining mutual satisfaction in a world of others. The fundamental “observer error” you point to that there is no absolutes is the first step in a “speaker/presenter/communicator” accepting the responsibility of the permanence of “uncertainty as a continuous clearing for learning” and having a new ethical fundament that empowers “hearers” to participate in a triadic enfolding experience of new discourse where the “imaginational seeds” of autopoietic artistic sculpturing arises and in the simplicity of our deep rooted humanness in wholeness, maturity and transcendence of absolutes.
    Mushin

  5. Hi Mushin:

    We are about to launch our new web site and I think some of the current site was affected by some code changes.
    We hope to have the new site up and running June 1. Soren Brier is a wonderful example of another person reaching many of the same conclusions we have through an independent process. We are talking with him and encourage everyone to read through Cybersemiotics. Thanks for posting and we’ll see if others respond. Alan

  6. Alan, congratulations on the new site and the gathering momentum. And thank you for the link to the article, Mushin! It elegantly clarifies what to many is an uncomfortably fluid topic. I was struck by the convergence of Peirce/Brier approaches and Y Worlds’, right down to the Triad! Identifying the transition from “Law” to “Code” is a brilliant way to conceive of/incorporate the fully actuated “end user.”
    I am charged up to explore every “language” ever shared, in service of collective learning. We will need wide ranging fluency to promote widespread mastery of these new, digitally enabled algorithms. (I have pasted links to four of my recent favorites, below.)
    I am looking forward to connecting language and signs to create meaning in conjunction with each of you!
    Tom Leckrone
    @semprephi

    – Whistling language of Canary Islands wrested from extinction in 1990s:
    http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/curious-fact-of-the-week-the-whistle-language

    – NYT on Italian gestures:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/world/europe/when-italians-chat-hands-and-fingers-do-the-talking.html?_r=0

    – Sumerian Base-60 Numbering System:
    http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Babylonian_numerals.html

    – I Ching Transformation metaphors with 64 symbols:
    http://www.laetusinpraesens.org/docs/chingndx.php
    accompanying diagram:
    http://www.laetusinpraesens.org/docs/ching/achngcot.php

  7. Thanks Tom. We welcome you and look forward to great exchanges that lead us to tangible enterprise, generative collaborations and sustainable value. Bear with us as the new beta site continues to evolve and propagate.

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>