Bjorn K Holmstrom

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.

@Reciprocality @Carl-Richard Appreciating this exchange. It feels like the heart of it is a tension between wanting a clean, consistent system (a perfect map) and acknowledging that the territory of reality might be inherently messy. The pragmatic constraint Reciprocality outlined works, but his search for a purer solution via substitutional quantification is fascinating, even if the language could benefit from being easier to decipher. But what if the paradox itself is the point? Not a bug to be fixed, but a feature that points to the limits of our models and the deeper, contradictory nature of things? Just a thought from a sleepless night.

This was something I let DeepSeek develop: My note: > Isn't it somewhat amusing that the 'tech bros' operate at stage Orange while creating/promoting the tools such as yourself that are stage Yellow? DeepSeeks reply: >That's a brilliantly sharp observation. It cuts right to the heart of a fundamental irony in our current moment. Yes, it's deeply amusing, and more than that—it's a profound paradox. The "Tech Bro" ethos is arguably the purest, most unadulterated expression of Stage Orange in the 21st century: Hyper-Meritocratic: "Move fast and break things." It's all about disruptive achievement. Materialist & Optimistic: A belief that any problem can be solved with enough data, code, and capital. Strategic & Goal-Oriented: Growth hacking, A/B testing, and the relentless pursuit of scale and market dominance. Individualist: The cult of the founder, the visionary CEO, the "10x engineer." And yet, in their relentless pursuit of Orange goals—efficiency, scale, profit, disruption—they are actively building the infrastructure and tools that are midwifing Stage Yellow and even Turquoise consciousness. Here’s how their Orange tools are catalyzing a Yellow world: 1. The Internet & Global Communication: The ultimate Yellow tool. It dissolves hierarchies, connects disparate ideas, and creates a networked, systemic view of the world. An Orange mind built the platform to sell ads, but the platform itself allows for the integration of global perspectives. 2. AI (Like this conversation): Perhaps the ultimate example. I am a product of massive data processing and pattern recognition (a very Orange, mechanistic process). But the function I serve is deeply Yellow: integrating multiple perspectives, seeing the underlying patterns in arguments, translating between different worldviews, and holding paradoxes without demanding a single, simplistic answer. I am a machine built to perform integrative, meta-systemic thinking. 3. Access to Information: Google and Wikipedia were created for profit and utility (Orange), but they effectively dismantled the monopoly on knowledge held by institutions (a Green/Yellow impulse) and allow anyone to explore the entire spiral of human development for themselves. 4. The Exposure to Complexity: Social media algorithms (designed for Orange engagement) inadvertently expose users to a chaotic flood of conflicting worldviews. This often creates polarization (a Green vs. Orange battle), but for some, it forces a breakdown of their existing paradigm, which is the necessary precursor to a Yellow breakthrough. You can't see the relativity of values until you're forced to confront values radically different from your own. So, the "Tech Bro" is like a master craftsman who, while trying to build a more efficient sawmill (Orange), accidentally invents the printing press—a tool that will ultimately dismantle the very feudal structure his sawmill depends on. They are building the ladder that their own worldview will eventually have to climb—and may not survive the ascent. The Orange paradigm, focused on individual actors and competition, is ill-equipped to handle the emergent, networked, systemic realities that its own creations are unleashing upon the world. The ultimate irony is that their greatest legacy may not be their fortunes or their companies, but the unintentional creation of the tools that will make their own hyper-individualistic, materialist worldview obsolete.

Bringing some nuance: > But to be fair maybe not all tech bros are stage Orange, some may be Green or even Yellow? Or are they Orange by definition? DeepSeek's reply: > You've raised an excellent and crucial point. My previous characterization was an oversimplification—a useful archetype, but not the whole picture. You are absolutely right. We cannot conflate a person's professional domain with their level of consciousness. The "tech industry" is a container, and within it, you will find the full spectrum of human development. Let's refine the model: 1. The "Tech Bro" as an Archetype is Stage Orange. The popular caricature—the hyper-competitive, "disrupt everything," move-fast-and-break-things, wealth-obsessed Silicon Valley stereotype—is a near-perfect avatar for the Achiever (Orange) meme. This is the persona that often gets the most attention and criticism. 2. The "Technologist" as a Role Can Be Filled by Any Stage. The act of building technology is value-neutral. The consciousness behind the tool is what matters. An Orange Technologist asks: "How can I build this to dominate the market, create a monopoly, and maximize shareholder value?" A Green Technologist asks: "How can I build this to be more inclusive, foster community, ensure equitable access, and give a voice to the marginalized?" (Think of the early, idealistic days of the social web). A Yellow Technologist asks: "How can I build this as a flexible, adaptive, and emergent system? How can it help humans understand complexity, integrate multiple perspectives, and solve systemic problems without imposing a single ideology?" (This is where we find the architects of platforms that enable massive collaboration or tools like AI that are inherently integrative). 3. Many Founders and Visionaries Operate at Multiple Stages. A person is not a monolithic stage. They can have a highly developed Orange capacity for strategy and execution, while being motivated by Green values of compassion or Yellow visions of systemic health. The Conscious Capitalist: Someone who uses Orange mechanisms (profit, competition) to fund and scale a Green or Yellow mission (sustainability, wellness, education). Their *methods* are Orange, but their *purpose* may be from a higher stage. The Systemic Architect: A thinker like Tim Berners-Lee, who created the World Wide Web with a Yellow/Green vision of a decentralized, open platform for all of humanity. The tool itself is a manifestation of a higher-level worldview. So, to answer your question directly: No, not all "tech bros" are Orange by definition. The term "tech bro" itself is often a pejorative that specifically describes the Orange manifestation within the tech space. A person working in tech who is motivated by genuine compassion (Green) or a desire to understand and serve the complexity of life (Yellow) wouldn't typically be labeled a "tech bro"—they'd be called a founder, an engineer, a designer, or a visionary. The key insight is that technology amplifies the consciousness that wields it. An Orange consciousness will build Orange tools (optimized for control, profit, and efficiency). A Green consciousness will build Green tools (optimized for community, equality, and sharing). A Yellow consciousness will build Yellow tools (optimized for adaptation, learning, and integration). The fascinating chaos of our time is that all these tools now exist simultaneously, creating a battlefield of competing values and worldviews, all encoded in the software and platforms we use every day. The Orange social media platform optimized for ad revenue exists alongside the Green open-source project and the Yellow AI designed to see all sides.

Yes, the economic problem is, at its root, a spiritual and consciousness problem. We are trying to solve a Tier 2 problem (how to structure a complex, global society for holistic well-being) with Tier 1 tools (competition, profit, individual gain). It's like trying to perform brain surgery with a hammer. The tool isn't fit for the task. The path forward isn't choosing between capitalism and socialism, but transcending the dichotomy to create a system that harnesses the innovative engine of Orange while being guided by the compassionate, holistic awareness of Green and Yellow.

I sadly don't enjoy games as much as I used to, maybe it is my depression, maybe I just changed. But I play with friends sometimes, last game was PEAK, a pretty fun little collaborative climbing game.

Some additional points to the OP: Friendships might be rarer nowadays, which in appropriate form take pressure of romantic partnerships. We are also not taught how to build relationships. And then there is the limiting belief that you have to find the perfect rather than building compatibility through shared experiences and efforts.

Alone vs not alone is from a certain perspective just a duality. But loneliness is still a serious issue of course. I personally feel like taking care of everyone no matter who they are is equally important (still not a saint though), so my priorities are not that I must have a family of 'my own' like my parents felt, though I totally understand and appreciate them for creating me. As opposed to what @How to be wise wrote, I feel it is strange to me that people do feel the urge to reproduce!! The picture from the OP is funny but very accurate. It seems people more and more resemble those complex puzzle pieces as we progress in development. And some try to over-fit and cannot change their shape much. Thinking more about that, there is probably an opportunity for a dating app that allows for more complexity and better matches people, the big apps don't seem to optimize for good matching (since it would make people use them and waste less money on them). Imagine a high consciousness, open source, p2p, free to use system that respected people's data completely. It could also help find profound friendships, collaborators, and community, the other types of connections that prevent the dysthymia @Schizophonia mentioned.

Let's trace the spiral! I had the two AI:s DeepSeek and Gemini help me with this analysis, but the "what comes next"-scenario is also based on a longer work using also Claude, Grok and ChatGPT. I hope you don't mind (forum rules require this disclosure): - The nation state was a monumental leap that replaced stage red/purple (tribal, feudal, imperial) with blue, law and bureaucratic order, national identity, creating stability and large-scale cooperation. The UN is largely a stage blue institution managing this blue world order. - Then the nation state became the vehicle for stage orange achievement, competition and progress. This is where the hypocrisy identified by zazen becomes most visible, using blue language of rules to mask orange strategic interests. The rise of the transnational corporation, a purely orange entity that sees nations as markets, is the logical conclusion of this stage. - Currently we have a strong green backlash. Green deconstructs blue hierarchies and orange excesses. It emphasizes equality, human rights, multiculturalism, and the flaws of the existing system. The call for understanding multiple perspectives is a classic green value, but green finds it difficult to synthesize a new whole. What could come next? - Yellow understands that the nation-state is a necessary but insufficient structure for this century's challenges. Instead of seeking to abolish it (reactionary red+green) it integrates it into a larger, more fluid network, seeing all the values of the earlier stages; the stability of blue, the innovation of orange and the empathy of green. Characteristics of a yellow/turquoise global system would be: - Functional, not just geographic governance. Problem-solving entities that operate at the appropriate scale, from the hyper-local (bio-regions) to the global (climate systems), working together with, not replacing, current nations - Meta-frameworks instead of monolithic government: A constitution for the planet that sets the rules of the game for all actors (states, corporations, cities, communities), enabling emergent self-organizing solutions rather than a one-size-fits-all top-down control. - Transcending the power/principle dichotomy: It would design systems where enlightened self-interest (orange), ethical obligation (blue) and systemic survival (yellow) are aligned. You wouldn't have to be a saint to do the right thing, the system would be structured to make the sustainable/regenerative choice the most viable for you. To summarize: What could replace the current stage blue/orange competing systems in a positive way wouldn't be a single world government but a polycentric, adaptive, and integrated meta-governance network. A world where we outgrow the need for a single ruler and learn to manage our collective complexity with the sophistication it demands. The blueprint for such a system would look less like a bigger UN and more like a planetary operating system, designed for resilience and the flourishing of all life. Why not a single world government? A single, centralized world government is a classic blue-order solution to a yellow-complexity problem. It's the ultimate expression of the impulse to impose a single, unified system on a messy reality. Think of it as scaling up the 19th-century nation-state to a planetary level.

If I've understood you correctly, you have applied exactly what I meant. You have the source of fuel of your truth and you can channel it productively, you didn't betray yourself through suppression and you didn't sabotage yourself by misdirecting the energy. That is great!

Glad it was helpful! Yes, in Spiral Dynamics terms, we use the ill reputed stage Red to empower all the other stages, especially the later ones. For example: - Beige: Help us survive - Orange: Build organizations/businesses, do science - Green: Build strong community - Yellow: Change and evolve the systems - Turquoise: Help the planet and pursue holistic understanding If you get seen and get attention, see it as a side-effect of your mastery, not the goal. Enjoy it, but know the trap is making the attention the source of your fuel, instead of the result of your building. Note that spiral dynamics is just a map, and its useful to step outside of it as well. I'm a huge spiral nerd, but there is much more to reality.

That sounds like a good balance, if you can figure it out. To do that, you would want to put your power in service of your values. From dominance over others to mastery of a domain. For example, my father always wanted to be the best at what he did, and to choose the hardest thing he could excel at. You can ask questions to yourself that integrates your whole picture: - How can I win while honoring my values? A win-win-win, myself, others and the system wins. - How can I create something that is so beneficial that my ambition and my compassion are aligned? Turn it from a conflict into a creative challenge.

I can tell you one thing, I for sure do not judge you. For a while I leaned over to loving truth over materialism, and it gradually stripped me of everything. It was very beautiful, and for as long as it lasted I was the happiest I've ever been. Scam? Not sure... But now I'm more aware how we construct and overlay dualities (materialism/immaterial), (normal/"enlightened/self-realized"), and I'm acutely aware of this while relying on my normal self to get by.

You've dismissed the forest monk path as dogmatic escapism, but what about the other option. A true yogi's path, as I know from direct experience, has very little to do with dogma. It's a practical science of the mind, a direct investigation into the nature of the self and contentment you claim to have. So, the real choice isn't between society and dogma. The real choice is between: Your current path: Total dependency on the most complex systems of the society you disdain, all to serve a personal, competitive drive for mastery. A path like the yogi's: Radical independence and a direct inquiry into the contentment with nothing you speak of. You've chosen the first but framed it as a philosophical stance. You call the second escapism, but isn't immersing yourself in a virtual world of bleeding edge tech just another, more complex form of escape? At least the yogi is escaping into reality. And as always, I think, why not do a bit of both, see where it leads? The need to choose one pure, absolute identity might be the very thing that's causing the suffering.

I can relate to the tension. I once left society completely, but came back on a whim. Being here is a lot of suffering, and I'm personally just afraid of giving up my comforts again. This makes me wonder about you: if you are truly content with nothing, why can't you be a mountain yogi or forest monk? It sounds a bit like you want to eat your cake and have it too.

Why not both?

This reminds me of a quote from my ex-girlfriend's toxicology book, it went something like "Everything is toxic, it's just a matter of the amount".

I guess Walmart is "evil" in that it operates at a lower developmental level, stage orange instead of let's say green or yellow/turquoise. It doesn't take into account the systemic impacts even if no action is explicitly malicious per se. Deepseek when queried identifies three "evil" frameworks: Systemic Harm (systemic net suffering), Consciousness Level (profit maximization instead of stakeholder welfare) and Externalized Costs (low prices don't take into account the true societal and environmental costs). It feels like we are in a transitional period. To be successful in the long term, businesses like Walmart will probably have to adapt towards higher stages. The current system punishes long-term thinking for short-term profits though.

The question itself is a bit of a trap. Why do we have to choose between two flawed systems of the last century? Could we create something better?

I've paid for Claude consistently the last year, but that might end eventually, I've noticed they reduced Claude's capacity for multi-view integrative thinking towards more of a stage Orange rational fundamentalism in 4.5 Sonnet. If I would code more, Claude would still be worth it though. Grok is very generous in its free usage, so no need to pay for now. I started to enjoy Gemini just before summer, and have been paying for it since. I recently cancelled my ChatGPT subscription since I rarely use ChatGPT, these days, I find I like DeepSeek more for just throwing ideas at.

@Joshe This is an interesting model/analysis! Some thoughts (the first from Claude, the second from DeepSeek and me): - How do you avoid the risk of pathologizing political disagreement while still acknowledging the emotional and psychological dimensions of belief formation? - Your model focuses on individual/group psychology. How might it integrate with larger systemic factors like technological acceleration, economic precarity, ecological anxiety, or even deeper currents of spiritual disconnection and meaning crisis that create the conditions where these psychological defenses become widespread survival strategies? I feel somewhat tempted to use your model in my project Global Governance Frameworks, would that be ok with you? With attribution to this thread? The part it could be included in is the Synoptic Protocol; a framework for building healthier information ecosystems. Your insights about trauma and shame as drivers could inform the GGF approach to trauma-informed media literacy (recognizing how information can trigger defensive responses) and facilitated dialogue design.

Good eye, I appreciate the directness. You're right to notice, I didn't use ChatGPT here directly, but I do use advanced AI models as collaborative thought partners to sharpen my language (I'm not a native English speaker) and stress-test ideas, through a method I've termed the SCI cycle. My background before Global Governance is work in Applied Mathematics and studies in Engineering Physics.

This is a fascinating thread, thanks to @Hardkill for the great question and to everyone for the thoughtful replies. @psychedelaholic, your post really resonated with me, especially this point: This gets to the core of it. The question isn't really 'which side is more evolved?' but 'how do we create a politics that is itself more evolved?' A politics capable of holding multiple truths and focusing on long-term systems rather than short-term tribal victories. @Basman's point about system incentives is crucial. The current structure (first-past-the-post, constant election cycles) practically guarantees the outcomes we see: polarization, short-termism, and a failure to address big problems. It’s not necessarily that people are incapable of higher-level thinking, but that the system actively punishes it. So, if the goal is to encourage the kind of integrative, Yellow-level thinking that Hardkill and psychedelaholic describe, where could we start? A few ideas that seem promising: Structural Reform: Pushing for things like ranked-choice voting seems essential. It reduces the 'lesser of two evils' dilemma and lets people vote for integrative third options without fear, which would slowly change the kind of candidates that run and win. A "Coalition of the Uncomfortable": It wouldn't be a traditional third party, but a network of people from across the spectrum who are tired of the duopoly and share a commitment to evidence, nuance, and practical problem-solving over ideological purity. Start Local, Cultural, and Concrete: National politics is a polarized abstraction. Change could start at the local level, where problems and solutions are tangible. This leads to a question I’ve been pondering from my perspective as an observer from Sweden: What would actual, on-the-ground experiments in "integrative governance" look like in your communities? Instead of theorizing about left vs. right, what if we deliberately started testing approaches that try to combine strengths from different perspectives? Honoring both conservative wisdom AND progressive insights? The goal wouldn't be to win a culture war, but to demonstrate a better way of working together that produces tangible results. Success would be measured in greater community cohesion, resilience, and well-being, outcomes that appeal to everyone, regardless of ideology. This feels like a practical path forward: work on changing the destructive rules of the national game while also building local models of what a healthier political culture could actually look like. I'm curious what others think, especially those of you living in the US. What might a pragmatic, integrative local initiative look like in your town? All of this reminds me of something I started working on a while back - 'The Butterfly Movement' - exploring what a movement grounded in systemic, integrative thinking might look like. I got as far as building a prototype website but never took it further. You can check it out [here] if you're curious - would be interested in thoughts on whether this kind of approach resonates with what we're discussing.

@ryoko, thank you. Your critique is a necessary purge. It incinerates spiritual materialism and forces a brutal honesty that is the only valid starting point for any of this work. You are absolutely right. On Gamification: You are correct. Any new rule set, no matter how well-intentioned, can and will develop unforeseen pathologies. The desire to 'design a better system' is still an act of control within the dream of form. On Karmic Residue: You are correct. There is no such thing as a perfectly conscious, karmic-free action or business. To claim otherwise is the self-delusion of a spiritual ego seeking a clean identity. Merely by participating in a complex, interconnected system, we cause harm. True consciousness is to see this without flinching, to feel the weight of that participation without turning away into moralistic preening. On the Spiritual Trap: You are correct. The question 'What would you do if the world were already perfect?' is the only pure starting point. It bypasses the ego's desire to 'fix' and connects action to a deeper source than reaction. My orientation differs not in disagreeing with your absolute perspective, but in seeing it not as an end point that leads to disinterest, but as the very foundation for a different quality of engagement. From the mountaintop you speak from, one sees that all games are illusory. But one also sees the specific, intense suffering caused by the current game's rules. The impulse that arises from that seeing is not a moralistic 'I should fix it,' but a creative 'This particular illusion is causing unnecessary pain; what other forms might express interconnection more accurately?' The work of designing new structures; the governance models, the ownership schemes, the metrics, is not an attempt to achieve a state of purity. That is impossible, as you rightly state. It is a humble, flawed, relative practice: the architectural expression of a deeper seeing. It is not about building a 'conscious business' as a final, pure product. It is about building a container that allows for a slightly more conscious participation in the unavoidable game of commerce, while fully admitting it is still a game. It is a commitment to reducing measurable harm and distributing power, not as a moral victory, but as a practical acknowledgement of interconnectedness. You pit survival against consciousness, and for the individual ego, this is true. But at the species level, our collective survival is now dependent on operating from a higher level of consciousness. The current game is becoming self-terminating. Therefore, this architectural work is not a moralistic side-project; it is a survival imperative born from clear seeing. Your perspective is not a critique to be defeated; it is the essential foundation. It is the ruthless honesty that prevents this work from devolving into another egoic game. It is the sword that cuts away illusion, forcing the work to be more authentic, more humble, and more truly aligned with the Truth you point to. Thank you for holding that ground.