ANNOTATION:
response

Considering the mediums of diffusing information we currently 
have the capabilites to assimilate and communicate a variety of 
ideas. Keeping this in consideration there are manifold factors
that differentiate your theory from application. One basic one 
 is the false pretense of priviledge held by various 
institutionalized systems of knowledge. A small example of 
western priviledge can be observed in Aborigine ecological 
burning practices. The brushfires they light have no known 
methodology yet this practice is more effective our modern 
techniques for ecological preservation. In the recent months we 
have seen enormous fires in the American West Coast with little 
effective ways of prevention. Westerners would rather not 
assimilate the ideas of an indigenous Austrailian population
The concept of P'U (the block of wood unworked) or Sundyata 
(Sea of Potentiality) have various implications. Considering 
modern ideas influenced by quantum physics configured to 
becoming rather than being, nonlocality, particle wave duality,
when electrons in electron fields jump energy levels do we know 
where this comes from (Sea of potentiality) maybe an accurate 
description. These are concepts that are thousands of years old
yet we have not considered their powerful implications. 
The point to this babble is simply that we are not objective 
recepticals for information. We adhere to antiquated positions 
of priviledge held by Western pedagodgical institutions. The 
tools for diffusing information are at our disposal what we 
choose to communicate or absorb is engendered in cultural biases. 
The strength of our communication is that it is self-
reflexive. We set paradigms of knowledge and under criticism
they are sometimes shed. If it is beneficial for a particular
group to hold on to antiquated ideas, such as lack of women's 
rights they will retain their bias. If it limits their power
on a global sphere they will lose to more effective systems.
We see natural selection taking place. If a government resorts
to genocide or unsustainable development like one previous 
commentator proposed then we will not be sucessful until we 
change our ideas.

The particular system as a whole can be desribed as progressive 
in itself but we cannot make ideological assumptions expecting 
the nature of man and society to not be self-interested. In order
to progress you must fail over and over again. The system is 
self-critcizing.

The availability of information is certainly not 
ubiquitious thus this global brain is still far from 
actualization.