Bjorn K Holmstrom

There is a third option between 'God is a douchebag' and 'Cancer is optimal/perfect'. I was reading a study on evolutionary biology this morning that describes a concept called adaptive tracking. It suggests that nature is never optimal or perfect because the environment changes faster than the organism can adapt. We are endlessly chasing a moving target. This creates a permanent lag. The suffering: That lag manifests as friction, pain, and mismatch (e.g., our bodies not being adapted to modern toxins, or society not being adapted to tech). The interpretation: The ego looks at the lag and says: 'This is a design flaw. The architect is evil.' ( @strangelooper ) The mystic looks at the lag and says: 'This is the necessary tension of becoming. It is perfect because it drives movement.' ( @Breakingthewall ) Both are true at different layers. The pain is real (it's not optimal for the organism), but the mechanism that causes it is necessary for evolution to happen at all. If the system were perfectly optimized/pain-free, it would be static. It would be a dead rock. To be alive is to be in the lag. The goal isn't to resent the architect of existence, but to close the gap where we can (agency).

I resonate with @zazen's distinction between the container and consciousness. I’d like to offer a third possibility that often gets lost in the reform vs. reject debate. There is a path for the mystic bridge. During my time in the Basque country, I immersed myself deeply in the works of Ibn Arabi. What I found was not a medieval rule set nor a toxic belief system, but a profound map of theophany (divine self-disclosure). The mistake we often make (both critics and fundamentalists) is reading religious code as flat law rather than vertical symbol. Flat law: 'cut off the hand' = physical punishment. Vertical symbol: 'cut off the hand' = severing the ego's attachment to appropriation. The mystic bridge is a role anyone with enough aspiration and immersion can take. It involves inhabiting the esoteric heart of a tradition so fully that you can connect it to the esoteric heart of others (Christianity, Buddhism, secular humanism). You don't need to delete the religion to solve the friction; you need to elevate the user's access level to it. As @Apparition of Jack hinted at, the sufi/mystical current isn't just a nice version of Islam; it's the source code access that allows for true integration without losing the sacred.

Thank you both. @Natasha Tori Maru, your specific example of managing construction bids and Gantt charts was exactly the proof of concept my analytical mind needed. I realized I was holding onto a belief that friction = fuel. That if I didn't feel the resistance/anxiety, the heavy stones wouldn't move. But reading your description, I see that friction is actually just heat loss: wasted energy. What you describe sounds more like becoming a superconductor: zero resistance allows for massive amounts of energy/action to flow through without the system overheating (burnout). And @Ishanga, the shift to do what is needed resonates deeply. It moves the motivation from neurotic self-preservation to systemic necessity. If the me isn't the bottleneck, the work just happens because the situation demands it. I actually felt a physical release of tension reading these replies. Time to test this effortless construction in the real world.

That sounds like a beautiful state of flow/Wu Wei, Natasha. I have tasted that, and it is indeed effortless power. I'd love to feel it again. To answer your question: What I fear dissolving is the 'Strategist' or the 'Architect'. In my experience, navigating daily life (eating, sleeping, tasks) can be done in flow. But building entirely new infrastructures (like a political movement or complex software systems) often requires holding a painful tension between 'what is' and 'what needs to be.' My fear is that if I dissolve all resistance to the present moment, I will lose the friction required to change the future. If I accept the world as perfect/effortless, why would I spend 10 years fighting to upgrade its operating system? The 'upgrade' I am seeking is the ability to hold that strategic tension/vision without it collapsing into anxiety. To build the cathedral without suffering, but with the will to move heavy stones that don't want to move. Does your effortless power extend to long-term strategic warfare (metaphorically) against rigid systems? I am genuinely curious.

This thread hits home for me. I went deep on the spiritual path, had mystical experiences that shifted my entire way of being, but eventually, I felt a strong pull to come back (or to be more truthful, I came back a bit on a whim). Actually, I probably was subtly afraid of losing myself completely, and the primal safety/survival instinct kicked in when I came back. @Joshe mentioned that identity structures allow for persistence, and I think that is crucial. I realized that my normal self, the architect, the person who can function in society, is actually the most beneficial vehicle for mankind right now. The challenge isn't just expanding consciousness; it's integrating that expansion into a structure that can actually do things in the world (like fixing the corporate boardrooms Leo mentioned). If we dissolve too much, we lose the agency required to change the system. So for me, the goal shifted from transcending the human form to upgrading it.

Interesting critique of Spiral Dynamics. Agree that the West has a 'linear bias'. But the question is: How do we build a society that combines pre-rational wisdom (ecological balance) with rational technology (AI, fusion)? China's model seems to be 'Orange on steroids' rather than a return to wisdom. Isn't the goal a synthesis? That's what I'm trying to sketch with the 'Butterfly Party' (Fjärilspartiet) in Sweden – infrastructure for post-rational resilience.

Practice meditation (which I had a natural aptitude for, now somewhat diminished) and yoga earlier

I have had two hospitalization episodes, one 2019 (initial emptiness with job search, leading to the diagnosis 'inorganic psychosis' a broad term they seem to use when they don't really understand the circumstances) and one 2023 (depression, not taking care of myself). Each time I was around a month, or a bit longer in the wards. The bio is the Signature, available under Settings->Account Settings (click your name in the top right corner of the forum page to find the menu)

Thanks Leo, I appreciate the concern and the suggestion. Regarding the oral meds: The system here is rigid. They use injections (depots) specifically to enforce compliance. Switching to oral usually requires 'earned trust' or stability that my current doctors (I get a new one almost every time I renew my sick leave permit/valdation (once per 3rd month)) aren't willing to grant yet (unlike one of my previous doctors, who was ready to take me off entirely before he was replaced). On the 'both ways' point: You are right in principle. I don't want to live on sick pay if I am well. The catch-22 is that the depression has been very real, but it wasn't just random biology. It was largely triggered by the deep existential friction of trying to force myself into applying for 'normal' work. That felt completely meaningless, like an eternal loop of endless job applications. That misalignment is actually what initiated my hospitalization in the first place. I am actively trying to build my own exit ramp, though. I'm currently applying for innovation grants for a civil resilience infrastructure project (CivicBase). That feels like the most honest way out—transcending the patient role by building something of value, rather than just fighting the diagnosis. AUBI (or UBI) would be the game-changer here—not just for me, but for anyone who breaks because they can't fit into the standard boxes. It would allow us to contribute through alignment rather than crashing into compliance.

I relate heavily to the OP and the frustration expressed here. I’ve been living a version of this same trap since 2018. My brief story: I was a rational materialist engineer (Engineering Physics) who got into yoga and meditation. In 2018, on a flight to Sweden, I had a sudden, massive shift in perception where reality literally looked and felt like the 1980s for several minutes. I was calm, but the disconnect from consensus reality eventually led to a crisis of meaning. The system’s response was a diagnosis of "Inorganic Psychosis." I’ve been on bi-weekly antipsychotic injections for seven years. Like many of you, I have questioned whether I still need this medication. I am functional, I build complex systems (I’m currently architecting an open-source project called Global Governance Frameworks), and I haven't had a recurrence in years. But I am trapped in what I call the Conditional Reality Loop. The Systemic Trap: It’s not just about "bad doctors." It is a structural design flaw in how our society handles consciousness. The Diagnosis justifies the medication. The Medication confirms the diagnosis (if you stay stable, "it's working"). The Diagnosis is the ticket to economic survival (sick leave/benefits). The Trap: If I question the medication, I am questioning the diagnosis. If I question the diagnosis, I risk losing the economic support that keeps me housed. I literally cannot afford to find out if I am "sane" or not. The price of truth-seeking is the risk of homelessness. This is why I believe we need Adaptive Universal Basic Income (AUBI). It’s not just about money; it is the necessary infrastructure for consciousness exploration. Until we decouple survival from "patient status," genuine mental health recovery is economically disincentivized. We aren't just fighting a medical system; we are fighting an economic one that treats consciousness exploration as a liability. Has anyone else felt this specific economic double-bind? Where you could potentially get better, but the risks of trying are too high?

I resonate with this deeply. I spent two years without money, living off the land and scraps, and found exactly that peace you describe. When you unplug from the comparison game, the lack disappears because the present moment is usually sufficient. However, I've come to believe there is a trap in stopping there. While we can train ourselves to be at peace in a harsh system, we shouldn't have to. If we only focus on making ourselves peaceful, we risk becoming tolerant of systems that grind others down. It's easy for us to say 'just detach' when we are healthy and single; it's much harder to say that to a single mother working three jobs who can't feed her kids. My view is: Do the inner work to find peace, but use that peace to build systems that don't require extraordinary spiritual strength just to survive. We can walk and chew gum at the same time: Detach from the brainwashing of consumerism, but actively redesign the economic plumbing so it stops generating artificial scarcity.

Your anxiety about money isn't pathology - it's pattern recognition. You're sensing that the system structurally produces scarcity while demanding you maintain psychological abundance. That's not a bug in your consciousness; it's an accurate read of contradictory incentive structures. The question isn't "How do I align with abundance within this system?" but "What systems of exchange actually enable care to circulate?" You've already listed the real constraints: health sacrifice, relationship trade-offs, corruption. These aren't limiting beliefs - they're design flaws in current economic architecture, the inevitable result of a financial monoculture that only values extraction. Consider: What would change if your community had a parallel currency that recognized care work, ecological restoration, mutual aid? Not as mystical manifestation, but as engineered protocols that make visible and liquid the value you're already creating? The real spiritual economic abundance isn't transcending the need for fair systems - it's recognizing that just systems are spiritual technology, and consciousness work that ignores this builds towers on sand.

Hi Judy, I wanted to offer a different perspective because I see you trying to solve a biological problem with a mathematical tool. You are asking "How many hours?" and "Is this low-conscious?" These are questions from the thinking mind. But relaxation isn't a calculation; it is a somatic skill. I come from a background in sports and yoga, and a lesson I learned is that "relaxation" isn't just something you do (like watching TV or reading). It is the cessation of resistance. It is the ability to drop the tension in your nervous system instantly. Here is why I think you are struggling with the all or nothing swing (hyperactive vs. depressed): First, you might be lacking a braking system Right now, it sounds like your nervous system only has two gears: Full throttle (anxiety/doing) and engine failure (depression/napping). Because you don't have a way to gently slow down, you run until you crash. This is why you feel the need to go unconscious (TV/sleep). it’s a safety mechanism because your body doesn't know how to idle. Second, I think you shouldn't moralize your fatigue There is a lot of talk here about low consciousness. If your battery is at 5%, going into power save mode, like watching TV and zoning out, is not a moral failure. It’s a biological necessity. Don't add guilt to your exhaustion, that just burns more energy. Third, maybe you could try the floor experiment (a practical tool), a micro-skill, which I use every other day (I should use it more often actually): Lie flat on the floor (hard surface or a thin carpet, no pillow). Close your eyes. For just a minute, or 6-10 deep breaths, stop holding yourself up. Let gravity take 100% of your weight. Let yourself breathe naturally into your whole body. Feel the tension draining out of your back into the ground. If you can master the skill of dropping the weight physically, you might start to learn how to do it mentally. It works even better if you do some physical exercise, stretching or yoga asanas beforehand (resting on the floor is called Savasana, corpse pose in yoga, if you want to look it up. My version is a simplification, the complete asana involves moving your body before letting go). Since you mentioned headaches, getting a professional massage can also be a good way to force this release. Sometimes we need external help to remind the muscles what "off" feels like. Eventually, you want to move from repairing, like crashing after work, to protecting; structuring your day so the stress doesn't get in. But for now, stop trying to think your way into relaxation, your mind is part of the thing that is tired. Hope this is helpful

@Leo Gura, you mentioned that "Marxists have no clue how to replace this system with something better.". You are right, because they usually suggest removing the market (the distributed computational engine of value), which leads to the stagnation, as @Daniel Balan describes. But the defenders of capitalism are missing the physics of the situation. Capitalism is the best system for a world with infinite frontiers. It is a suicide machine for a world with planetary boundaries. We are currently undergoing a phase transition from the first world to the second. When resources were effectively infinite, capitalism optimized for growth and innovation. It beat feudalism (order) and communism (central planning) because it processed information faster. We are now hitting the "vertical cost curve" of a closed system (climate, demographics, war). In this environment, capitalism’s optimization function; capital accumulation via externalization, becomes a generator of existential risk. It incentivizes "free-riding" on planetary stability. In the best case scenario, the next system won't be a return to central planning. It will be a regenerative market economy. It keeps the price signal (the engine) but changes the objective function (the goal): Instead of maximizing GDP (throughput), it maximizes integration (system health). It can use asset-backed currencies to make planetary healing more profitable than extraction. It can use unconditional economic floors ((Adaptive)UBI) to solve the precarity trap without seizing the means of production. We don't need to "smash capitalism." We need to patch the kernel so it optimizes for planetary stability instead of relative gain.

This is something I'm worrying about, I feel we are at a great crossroads. The substrate decay guarantees the end of the current order, but it doesn't guarantee the start of a better one. Collapse might default into the lowest complexity because it is the most robust in chaos. Now, something we could look into is the mechanism of turning that awareness into a better system. We often talk about raising consciousness as if that alone will solve the structural gap. But you can have high consciousness people trying to run low-consciousness institutions, and the institution usually wins because its logic is baked into them. To avoid the most brutal outcomes, I think we need more than just the push of political will. We need the architecture of a wiser order, or systems upgrade, built and ready to go before the substrate fails. Yellows job right now might be less about pushing the old systems and more about prototyping the new ones so there's actually a viable option available when the moment arrives.

The prediction of '100 years of neoliberalism' assumes a stable substrate, but I think that substrate is decaying. From a physics/complexity perspective, we’re hitting vertical cost walls that no amount of financialization can overcome: Ecological debt, demographics and complexity cost. The system will likely destabilize not because people vote against it, but because it becomes impossible to maintain.

What would change if we could separate survival security from work requirements?

This is one of the hardest questions. I think it's possible, but not in the way people usually think. I just contemplated this a few days ago, as a what-if, if I would start earning money, what would I do. A trap might be believing our own willpower is enough. Money can change your nervous system, it can make you risk-averse and starts bending your decisions toward protecting wealth instead of purpose. A way I developed that could work is to build external structures before you have the wealth: Automate giving (do 40% off the top of any big inflow) Create a 'pod' of people who can veto your financial decisions Legally pre-commit that 90%+ goes back to commons when you die It's not about being a 'good person' with money. It's about building the plumbing so the money can flow through you instead of pooling and poisoning you. The goal shifts from 'being wealthy' to 'being a useful conduit.' Otherwise, you end up contributing to the very inequality you probably wanted to solve, just by following the default logic of the system. The might be other ways but, yeah... it's unusually hard. The system is designed to capture you.

I appreciate this honest question. I’m reading this from a unique vantage point that might offer a different perspective. I currently live in Sweden and am on long-term sick leave for depression. In a very real, structural sense, I am living a "prototype" of a Universal Basic Income life. My survival needs are met by the state (through the municipality, which puts me under some stress and panic every now and then because of their severe scrutiny), which means my time is my own. I mention this first to acknowledge the immense privilege of this position. As others have noted in this thread, this is a rare "golden ticket" in our current world. But because I have this safety net, I’ve learned something crucial about the wage slavery feeling you’re describing. The slavery feeling isn't about the conditions of the work; it's about the coercion of survival. You have a great job, a kind boss, and meaningful tasks. But a part of your soul knows that if you stopped showing up, your survival would eventually be threatened. That background hum of "I must do this to live" is what chafes, even when the cage is comfortable. In my situation, because the survival terror is removed, I don't "do nothing." I actually work harder than ever on projects that deeply call to me (writing, systems design, spiritual inquiry), but the energy is different. It’s the energy of voluntary contribution rather than mandatory survival. My sense is that you aren't compromising your spirituality by keeping this job, you are using the current system to build your foundation. But the tension you feel is real: it’s the tension of a soul that knows we are meant to contribute from a place of being, not just earning. We need to build a world where everyone has the "floor" that I currently have (what I like to envision as an Adaptive Universal Basic Income or AUBI), so that work becomes a choice of service, not a requirement for life. Until then, perhaps you can reframe your job not as slavery, but as a patron. Your job is the "wealthy patron" that funds your weekends and holidays, which you can dedicate to your spiritual work. You are exploiting the system to fund your soul, not the other way around.

This could create heaven or hell, the difference won't be the technology itself, but the consciousness of the beings wielding it.

This is an interesting discussion. I’ve been thinking about the "invented or discovered" question, and I’d like to offer a viewpoint that bridges both sides. I believe the fundamental principle of mathematics is discovered. It starts with the most basic duality we can conceive: existence and non-existence, something and nothing. You can represent this as 1 and 0. From this single, discovered relationship, an entire logical structure inevitably unfolds. The concepts of quantity, relations, and even infinity follow naturally from this core. This structure exists whether we are here to see it or not. However, the language of mathematics; the symbols, notations, and formal systems we create to describe this structure, is invented. We invent the numeral "2," the plus sign "+," and the rules of calculus to navigate and communicate the relationships we have discovered. This is similar to how we discover the natural phenomenon of a mountain, but invent the word "mountain" and the techniques of climbing to interact with it. So, in short: - The logical structure (based on 0/1, being/non-being) is discovered. - The human language and formalism we build around it is invented. We are discovering a profound truth about reality and then inventing tools to understand and use it. From the absolute, nondual point of view though, it is all the Self looking at itself though.

Architecting open-source pathways for human and planetary flourishing

I find myself pulled in two directions by this discussion, and I'd like to offer a perspective that might bridge the gap, focusing on what I see as the core appeal and the core danger. I think the initial appeal of this Superfascist or Traditionalist position isn't necessarily a desire for fascism, but a powerful, visceral reaction to what we might call the "flatness" of modernity. This is a critique I believe many of us on spiritual paths can empathize with, regardless of our politics. It's the feeling that something fundamental is missing. The danger, as I see it, is in mistaking a specific historical structure for the eternal principle itself. @Enigma777, you rightly say you're advocating for the structure and orientation, not the specific content of premodern theocracies. However, the language of divinely ordained hierarchies, Philosopher-Kings, and organic roles is inextricably linked to a specific, historical model of power. We have to ask: What is the check on this system? While the principle of hierarchy based on wisdom is appealing, the proposed mechanism; a top-down, metaphysically-justified authority, is indistinguishable from the historical systems that caused immense suffering. So, the challenge you've laid out is a vital one: How do we re-integrate the Vertical into our Horizontal world? But the solution cannot be to resurrect a political model that, in practice, has almost always been a vehicle for human pathology. Perhaps the path forward isn't about finding the right Philosopher-King to rule us, but about building societies where: - The pursuit of Truth, Love, and Goodness is the highest cultural value, fostered through education, art, and community. - Leadership is based on demonstrable wisdom, compassion, and competence, not on birthright or an unverifiable claim to metaphysical superiority. - Spiritual authority is separated from political power, to prevent the corruption of both and to protect the freedom of consciousness. - We cultivate inner sovereignty (as @Emerald mentioned) not as a substitute for social order, but as its essential foundation, creating a citizenry that can discern true quality from authoritarian posturing. In conclusion, I believe your diagnosis of our spiritual malaise is sharp and important. But the prescription of Superfascism, even in its purified, metaphysical form, risks treating the disease with a more refined version of the original toxin. The real work for our century is to build bridges to those higher values that don't rely on rebuilding the old, problematic castles of unchecked authority.

Here's what I think keeps me alive: Curiosity (what will happen with mankind and the planet?) and built in self-preservation (I've had suicidal thoughts but don't seem able to act on it). I used to be more depressed than I am now, I've been at the point where everything seemed pointless. Now I occasionally feel compassion and love for all of it, the ultimate shit-show of reality.

What I really want is for us to just… grow up. Collectively. I look at the world and see all this fragmentation, these zero-sum games, this deep trauma we keep passing down. I want us to finally stop and heal those wounds. I want us to have the guts to look at the current multiple crisis not just as some technical problem to fix, but as what it is: a spiritual and relational crisis. We need to shift from a world built on competition and fear to one that's truly grounded in stewardship and justice. My deepest desire is to help build the scaffolding for that new world. The new ways of being and coordinating that make this maturity possible. And ... I want us to build that scaffolding so well that, one day, we don't even need it anymore. It just becomes part of who we are, and the rigid structures can gracefully dissolve. I don't just want us to survive. I want us to finally, truly flourish.