Emerging Meta-System.

Emerging Complex Meta-System for Collaborative Planetary Solutions

Things are evolving quickly and a document to explain this diagram is now available here.





The thought experiment driving the evolution and development of this diagram over 5 years to date is: “if I were a sentient entity at the scale of our planet, given what is currently available, what would I need in order to function?” the subtext to that inquiry is, “what is evident, if anything, that points to the possibility that a higher order entity (corporations not withstanding) may develop from the sum of human interactions?”

So this diagram is a high altitude overview of the minimum requirements that have emerged so far, as far as I can tell. Obviously, there is much more to the picture, and many nested levels of complexity to be revealed through careful research. I have endeavoured to limit the inquiry to genuinely meta-level structure and dynamics for the sake of initial simplicity. I hope to continue refining this inquiry, as I believe that useful and relevant information may be revealed which could enhance our capacity to continue evolving as a species.

I will continue to expand upon the textual exposition of the ideas over time, but what I really need is to discuss the ideas with others in order for the meme to acquire some requisite diversity. My initial idea was to invite all the represented stakeholders on the diagram to participate in a “getting to know you in context” style forum, but have not pulled that together yet as I feel there are some key missing ingredients still – and I need more minds on the job to figure out what those are.



  1. Very good, thank you!

    What’s your view on an alternative viewpoint, which is that following this approach keeps us in our thinking-led, control-based approach to life. It keeps us in our “rationality”. And that another, equally good, approach would be to let go of needing to understand or control, and simply BE what we (each) feel called to be.

    (Ultimately, I sense that both approaches would meet and be(come) the same anyway.)



    1. Finn, I appreciate your inquiry, and it does indeed ask us to consider taking a balanced approach to developing out insights into what may be happening here in our midst. For me personally, I have found that letting go (completely, as in full surrender) and be-coming that which I AM, has given rise to this approach, which I see as “that which is” giving expression to aspects of it’s self as it gradually becomes self aware. The aim of this work is reveal rather than create, and to engender an autopoietic co-enactment among the currently disparate elements of that which seem to me, to seek cohesion.

      I hope this helps.



  2. Reminds me greatly of Clare Graves’ H-U, Don Beck–SDi Turquoise, Buckminster Fuller’s and Ernest Lazlo’s views…like it…the systems are working…growing…continuously engaging and developing…

    Liked by 1 person


  3. Constructive directions from friends include:

    How about crowdfunding to kick start with? based on clear objectives or where we all want this project to be in 3, 6, 9, 12 months time to get it off the ground and obviously on a bigger picture 3, 5, 10 years vision. The initial phase would include presenting the project and its requirements and need for funding to corporations, fund donors, NGOs, activists, philanthropists, billionaires, politicians, rock stars, Russel Brand , movie stars, etc. you get the drift and make the list open and published. We want to know who endorsed it (no need of details of money) and how original their contribution has been. Those who don’t endorse the project can say why constructively. This will only make it stronger.
    Contributions from donors could be, must be, tax deductible.

    Define your goals and list some of the specific problems this can be used to solve. Then explore crowd funding and prepare a convincing presentation. When that’s done, initiate your crowd funding campaign.



    1. Great question David!

      Implicit in the diagram is the paradigm in which we are embedded. All the current initiatives are dependent upon the provision of electricity to the communications infrastructure, by what ever means this is accomplished.

      I am assuming that the current paradigm intends to continue with it’s growth and consumption model unabated, and I am hoping that some of the activity already under way can be better coordinated. I am hoping that a wise and just use of resources becomes a popular aspiration, and a guiding principle for the future of life everywhere on this planet.

      Value and supply systems definitely need a radical re-orientation, energy exchange for the sake of mindless, and even blatantly destructive pursuits could possibly be re-organised so as to provide necessary energy to an emerging co-operative, respectful, and dare I say it, sane network of interactions.

      Of course I need to think through these ideas more fully, and expound upon them in detail if I hope to be of benefit to the future of our species. I am grateful for the conversation starter, and look forward to thinking about these details in more depth.



    1. It does indeed brother – and I will include it in the next iteration of the map – stand by. If you have the time and attention, I would love any other suggestions for inclusions on this map – and, where they may fit, or any other insights that may arise for you in regard to the development of the idea. I can see you have an excellent grounding in the pragmatics relating to the objective of a future worth living in.



      1. Very kind! Another observation would be to consider the difference between mapping the complexity (eg links between agents/institutions) and mapping the process of change of the complex system. The 2nd would seem to be non-complex but remarkably and consistently overlooked.


  4. Mapping the process of change of the complex system, as far as I can imagine at present, would require some animation skills, and a series of system states to iterate the animation through – there is software for this that I don’t know how to use i.e. gource: https://code.google.com/p/gource/ however, a collaborative effort would be welcome. I wonder if anything like this type of meta-systemic overview has been mapped through a software suite like that, or indeed, what other ways this idea may have been approached. All clues welcome! http://www.twitter.com/blindspotting



  5. Both de- and re-generative describe processes, which are ongoing by nature, they are processes which apply to, and have effects upon consecutive states in system interactions. While it is fairly straightforward to illustrate these concepts in terms of biological organisms, drawing the analogy out to the scale of the whole system seems to leave many minds mystified. I wonder how best to illustrate the concepts in terms and diagrams that can be related to from multiple perspectives while at the same time, making sense across paradigms in such a manner that major influential stakeholders buy in for real.



    1. The NPV paradigm will certainly help to build out the value exchange model aspect of the project. Another project aligned with it is URSULA http://www.ursulaproject.org/ which @yocahuna you may like to look at. In conversation about PANACEA with Jordan Greenhall https://medium.com/search?q=Jordan%20Greenhall this morning he shared this:

      “OK, so I find this on the one hand extremely optimism-inducing, and on the other hand extremely depressing. To explain way, I’m going to have to invent a concept: that ideas proceed through a path – art -> theory -> engineering. At the Art level they are subtle, vague, difficult to discern. They can only be expressed thematically and aesthetically – at the edges. Broad strokes, sensibility. At the Theoretical level, they begin to coalesce around shareable and repeatable concepts. Principles. Sometimes even laws. Broad models. At the Engineering level, they begin to be implementable in complex reality. They can be manifested by an increasingly large percentage of the population and have an increasingly large direct impact on the world.

      I’d venture that PANACEA is somewhere between the Art and Theory transition. It frames itself with some “theory” language (i.e., holons, 3X3 matrix, etc), but most of this theory language is gestural. They How and Why of it is still squishy and difficult to share. And impossible to implement. This isn’t a criticism – it is an assessment. I’ve been walking the same road (along with most of the people CCed on this message) and I know that my best stuff is still on the Art side of Theory. So it is.

      If you look at the Ursula Project (http://www.ursulaproject.org/), you’ll see something that feels a lot like PANACEA, but (largely because of the mind-type of the core developer) is closer to Theory. Yet, still far from Engineering.

      I’d venture that this is the deep state of the art. The good news is that this implies that something like this is likely part of the Future. The bad news is that we are still clearly some time from being able to implement. Of course, as we watch the transition from Bitcoin to Blockchain to DAO we are watching big chunks of reality move from art to theory to engineering at what might be an accelerating pace.”

      Liked by 1 person


your thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s