ryoko

Don't stop at third. What I proposed is just one of the many possibilities. And I beleive everyone should come up with their own solution. This is not universal.

Third is not an ultimate solution, it's simply the next iteration. Something immediately actionable. The new social dynamics are not predictable. And there's no inherent morality. And beleive me, they are not ones for social contracts. Any and all interaction will be out of pure willingness. Think about open source contributions.

Perhaps I worded it a bit ambiguously: entertainment is what modern humans understand. But it's the same root for creation as play. In modern times we try and compartmentalize entertainment as something inherently consumption, that's not how I see it. What we find meaningful from the immediate aftermath of capitalist values are hedonism and entertainment. This is not something which will change for a few decades or even centuries. If I think back to the roots of capitalism/modern world, it's a history of scarcity, exploitation and struggle to survive[think back 100,000 years ago], finding fruits of it's labor over generations of struggle in perverted forms now. We have advanced technologically, but regressed morally(most wouldn't agree on this, you can argue we are climbing up the spiral and so on. I don't believe in spiral dynamics to begin with). This was the cost I mentioned, we pick up limitations along with way. And stupidity is one such limitation. Each and every human is different. And most tends towards stagnation, their causes; current culture and institutions are not something we can predictably change all over the world. And if it doesn't happen globally, it will just perpetuate new cycles of inequality, coming back to the homelessness dilemma. Now extend this to third worlds economy. The root cause of exploitations and colonizations in the first place was lack of resources availability, more so than greed; greed is a trauma response to scarcity. Those who are already living in abundance feels no need to improve further. They find better expressions of play. A civilization's indicator of abundance is their cultural richness. Same for trauma of scarcity, it's visible from humanity's moral poverty. And the exploitation within a culture shows up as wounds, in every golden age, some faction was always the oppressed. Renaissance era paints a clear picture of this, slavery was thriving in that age. And I'm not surprised the era didn't sustain. This is coming back to bandwidth problem I mentioned. Humans are simply incapable of seeing the full extent of consequences their actions lead to. This blindness is not a flaw, it's what keeps their interactions energy efficient. This is the reason capitalism still exists when there's clearly better alternatives. And the same reasons billionaires aren't depressed about the impact they're causing simply by being part of capitalism. Same reason the masses mistake any alternative for "communism". We can't convince humans for change. They have to change themselves and it's a very personal journey. And this comes back to crises, a real crises unites humankind like nothing else. Every individual have to feel it in their bones to take any meaningful action. Each human's response to the same crisis will be totally different, for they are not facing the same crises. No crisis is objective. One final thing, the 3 hour work in tribal environment frees them up for better "play". And that's the crucial thing about play, it cannot be forced or influenced. We can't judge humans for what they choose to do with their free time if they have no responsibilities. There's no rule book in the forest, no currencies for kindness, other than kindness itself. A currency for things which ought to be natural will inadvertently end up creating newer perversions, doesn't matter if it's forest or utopia. For your questions, this interaction is of interest to me, forces me to articulate things I've spent the last few years navigating. It's deeply selfish. I don't really think verbally, verbal dimensions of sense making is quite limited. But it's an interesting representation. Although this representation is quite limited and it can't transfer over the full extent. Lived experiences and awareness and your own past efforts will heavily influence and bias your receptivity.

Bjorn I wouldn't consider Venus Project as an immediate exit. Their approach is similar to yours; incremental transition. If we assume Venus Project as a fixed goal, there's a reason why it's not a reality. Energy problem is simply a symptom of something deeper. The Venus Project is not combatible with any of the current institutions, Jacques Fresco had been very open and upfront about it; no nations, no money, no politicians, no business. I'd argue this is crucial it needs to be such. In other words, it's a threat to everyone's autonomy. Capitalism allows for humans to do whatever they want, while TVP is only possible with a world truly aligned and working for the betterment. I truly do not believe this is a problem which can be solved by a few individuals. "This is not a problem to be solved", building civilizations is a collective responsibility. And each individual can only contribute in ways they know best, and are capable of. Jacque had advocated for social engineering to have a strong set of values which would build the world capable of adopting the new system. But this is really not an undertaking which aligns with most of the world, nobody wants to have their values incluenced, even though the irony of the matter is, their values are already been implanted by their environment. Jacque had been attempting to reverse engineer this dynamic before the environment is a reality. I have my doubts about how much of this would be a possibility. Environment is a pre-requisite, you can't influence values before it's a reality. Exception is when people are all freed up of their responsibilities and out of sheer luck, everyone has taken an interest on the initiative. You can already see the futility of this. Also consider this dilemma; there's plenty of homeless folks all over the world. They are the ones in desperate need of a good structure immediately, and they deserve the best just as anyone else. But things are not as easy, the habits of homeless people will be optimized for their own modes of survival they had been practicing up till that point, which is, a lot of rest, minimal work, just enough to fulfil the survival. These dynamics do not serve the project. But that doesn't mean they don't deserve to be part of it. They need shelter now, not a utopian CAD file. Giving them luxury may yield gratitude, not builders. Tribal leisure ≠ civilized productivity. If people had free time and unlimited resources, they'd find ways for entertainment, not creation. This is the truest nature of human beings, and there's nothing wrong with it. And this works perfectly fine in a tribal settings, especially tropical forests like our ancestors thirved for millenia before branching out to the rest of the world. There's still communities who live happier than the rest of the world, with no connection to the modern world. And this is a very valid option to consider. Forest tribes work 3h/day. Civilization requires 8h+. Who volunteers for the extra labor? But if you're ready to accept that we're not here for happy living, we're navigating a responsibility we started, we wanted abundance, wanted to live not just in forests, we used our minds to build things, we also built limitations along the way. All the problems in the world are caused by human stupity, not lack of innovation. This stupidity is a symptom, of an ongoing process. What will it lead to hard to tell; real crises, apocalypse, destruction of earth, none of this is out of the equation. And I'm not afraid of any of them. I see it as a natural process. And I wouldn't worry about it one bit. I'm totally cool with human extinciton, or even a perpetual dystopia manufactured by humans. ---- Also regarding third, you had misinterpreted it, here's a better breakdown. Engaged disillutionment is key here. Engaged disillusionment ≠ exit. It’s combat-mode clarity. He participates in capitalism, aware of every micro-consequence, whilst capable of being ruthless. The key difference between third's approach and profit maximization is "awareness". One common theme within Capitalism(and stage Green) is, the avoidance of reality, because any form of meta awareness will simply get in the way, so a convenient "story" is necessary, this keeps the individual and hivemind going, while the third takes in all the pain, while remaining aware of the micro-consequences of his actions, just like an animal. Animals understand what they are doing, a lion killing a gazelle is not unaware of the pain it's causing, I'd argue they even empathize with it's prey's pain, a lion doesn't go on a killing spree for the sheer thrill of it, like a human would. I don't think we humans understand animals properly. In our capitalist approach, the system itself rewards unaware behaviour, through exclusivity; perks only those on the top have. This is not something evil, it's a limitation, of having not enough bandwidth to process the full extent of consequences. But also, this is a natural consequence of over exploitation of resources(including effort of other humans). This dynamic is not uncommon in nature/among other lifeforms, human civilization's accumulated intelligence(technology and other faculties) have amplified this in infinite magnitudes. This is my approach, radical autonomy, even if that makes you evil. Be evil, it doesn't matter. Be ruthless. All of it is part of nature. A lion is not evil for hunting a gazelle. And human beings are infinitely unique and diverse. It's expected of them to blow up the planet a few times over and self destruct. Same is true for the opposite outcome. I'm not particularly attached to any one outcome I think crises can give space for new systems, and sadly only a crises can do it. Human beings need a real cause to take actions. And when you think back, our societies had always been unequal, the only exceptions are indegenous cultures and those civilizations where they valued the whole group over one leader, an organic entity all acting on it's own accord in utmost coherence, out of their own will, see Mohenjodaro, a civilization with no king, built out of people's coordination, and they left the city themselves when resources couldn't be allocated(they depended on the river, it shifted, conditions changed), not because of infighting or wars, they simply decided to step out, despite building such a marvel of a city. That's some level of maturity. This also shows the need for a global network, we're not forest people anymore, we need resources from all over the world.

@Raze Interesting video. Thanks for sharing.

Okay Bjorn, it would have been a crime not to share your work with me. I'm yet to read it in depth. And I'm already disagreeing with the whole structure. I don't agree with you on trying to bring about legal changes, and hoping it would reach anywhere. I find it a waste of time. I'm not saying it won't happen, it's fundamentally against some thing which certain entities need to protect. The following structure has to alter completely into something entirely different, for true change to happen. Read on. ------------- I need to establish some archetypes: the master, the slave and the third. There's many more interpolations of it (third is not a rogue, a rogue would be the master, but in the opposite direction) I'm not talking about individuals here, these archetypes, it's like a sentient entity, more like an energy fields resulting from human interaction. Master slave dynamics is what we have in this world, wide spread. There's structures of power and there's slaves they exploit/exploited. Majority of the world falls under slaves. They are hopeless about trying to change what the master decides, they have no strong opinion of their own, nothing. Mostly because it won't help them survive. This is why alternative frameworks get little to none energy. There's none to spare from slaves. They need all the energy they can gather, for themselves. And the master ensures it happens so(consumerism/materialism). (And when the energy gets mobilized, it's in the form of revolutions, when the slaves get very upset they don't care about dying. All civil wars and revolutions are caused by this. Yes, there may be actors who manipulated/influenced the masses to mobilize, this is just another iteration of master, just in a different direction. I'm not gonna argue on the morality of this. It is just a natural consequence) Leo said, CIA will be out to get them if they really start making moves to abolish private property. But look at the hypocrisy of it. this is the third. the third finds the whole thing absurd and tries to leave everyone be, to the best of their ability. It aligns closely with indigenous values. "There's no point in wasting time with the first two, they will only do what they want". third is close to an animal. They see everything, feel everything. They don't identify as part of this sharade. engaged disillutionment. You have to understand law is not for everyone. The law doesn't apply when they can justify killing someone in the name of "protecting national security". They're out to get Snowden's head. Do you see where I'm going with this? Law is not concerned with what made the human a criminal, it's concerned with treating symptoms, and not getting to the root of the problem. It's that energy problem again. If we can lock all the criminals up in some place, it's much cheaper than solving the root causes. Any change which will ever happen, will be in direct response to a crisis to their masterdom. And not as a proactive response for the well being of slaves. That's not a priority. It will happen, only to the extent of certain baits. And don't get your head filled with fantasies now, revolutions and civil wars do not threaten masterdom, it just sows the seed for a new one, or temporarily gets halted. Because slaves cannot organize well, they never practiced autonomy. The enemy is not an individual here, we're talking about human dynamics. Monsters created by interaction. ------------ Think about how the whole structure of this can change, while the monsters are still alive. Slaves here are not victims, don't feel sorry for them, they are participants. True change requires transcending the game itself

First thing. You misunderstood the term regression. Or may be you can't see it yet. A stage Green person doesn't go into a boxing ring and fight, unless he's already stage red too. For a purely stage Green person, the expression of red comes in different forms. It can be sticking to his community and values despite the hatred from society, etc etc. A stage blue/orange person cannot endure this for various reasons. But they can endure other things. Why do you think that is? They all have red in them already. Just think about an astrologer who is risking his life studying heliocentrism, in the 18th CE. Copernicus is just the last in the line, there's many who came before him and lost their heads simply because of researching something considered heresy. They show immense grit for pursuit of truth. All of these are expressions of red But if they already have red in them, why the talk of integration at all? think about it. --- Something Important: Spiral Dynamics is false. It's not true that blue is higher than red or red is lower than yellow. It's a false notion. And climbing up the spiral is a fallacy. Because there is no up and down. Spiral Dynamics is at best "map fragments which are drawn by a kid", you won't get a complete map by putting it together, human nature is something which cannot be mapped, it's complexity, you can't reduce it through maps, this structure doesn't allow for maps(Imagine trying to map 4D using 1D logic). But the reason we can predict large groups using spiral dynamics is, because of standardization/industrialization and a myriad of other reasons, humans are not human anymore. This is the reason why Spiral Dynamics is very effective for West.

That's a regression. What stage red expresses itself through is one thing. Because they don't know any better. Integration is about getting to the core of it. Try seeing it through NOT the lens of it's expressions.

Disagree. What he mentioned is a cruder version of something very potent. Feeling your own death is a powerful technique. In the Vigyan Bhairav Tantra, this is method 28. "SUPPOSE YOU ARE GRADUALLY BEING DEPRIVED OF STRENGTH OR OF KNOWLEDGE. AT THE INSTANT OF DEPRIVATION, TRANSCEND"

Pain. Build tolerance for pain. That's the core of red. And not just physical. You don't have to engage in physical activities if it doesn't serve your purpose. Build tolerance for pain where it matters for you. And don't turn red into a sharade of tattoos and cockfight bets. It's an insult to red.

Brainstorming

You clearly undermined the values the project is built on. Instead of distorting this into your "dumb revolution with shotguns", how about we see it for what it is? I'm imagining a scenario where that is the case, what does it take to get there. IDK yet. But we'll see.

See you in a thousand years.

@UnbornTao I've been following their articles on different topics to understand their perspectives better, their approach isn't as romantic as it might sound from Youtube content. Sowing seeds of true essence is a vital step before getting into the practicalities. You have to go "through" Green to reach the other end.

Bjorn, don't stop at thought experiments. Alternative systems like that of Venus Project can work way better for the world. Sad thing, the current systems like Nations/Capitalism are sentient and it doesn't like getting destroyed. The reality check is, to see if there's enough energy going into the development of an alternate system, possibly the efforts of majority and surrender of government for greater good. I'd argue most of Leo's takes on the post are horseshit. That's not how you build something new. That's not how you approach something novel. It's clear Leo doesn't want anything to change. I mean imagine the cities getting demolished, private properties getting not private anymore. It threatens his survival.

That's one way to avoid confrontation

It's not enough to run it, people will be pissed at it being so good, and it will self destruct.

@Alexop You don't understand the first thing about "Community". Perhaps you were never part of one, before.

your intent! how can you be so blind about it? Nobody is dismissing growth here. You just do not see anyone's intent for what it is. Perhaps it's your environment, and the choices you had to make to survive. 🤔 I knew someone personally who would take courses from these money gurus for insane amounts and receive no value even in their courses. But pretend like it's high value. It pains to accept the reality, after you've paid a considerable sum. Sunken Coast Fallacy. Here's what happened to his business; he's also labelled as a scammer now. Simply because of deploying sales tactics he learnt from these gurus. It was a gradual process. There's value in his content as well. He's got a unique mind, but what good is it when he is stuck with these manipulative practices. His new business endeavours are failing, because of his karma. It's interesting how people self deceive themselves thoroughly when it comes to survival. Worse thing, these people end up becoming salesmen or sales coaches or something closely related. Everyone who works for him is now a sales person of somesort. Talk about turning programmers into salesmen. Such gross dynamics. The only thing you get from these guys is learn how to become just like them. And this is exactly what they want. Why else do you think those sales gurus show off their lifestyle to you?

@MightyMind Your trauma is uniquely yours.

I totally understand your view on guardrails. It's habitual fallback. That's what we are used to in the current times. It's just too absurd to make any sense. But hey, human beings aren't logical creatures, capable of logic, but not the default. Hence my emphasis on better systems. We shouldn't be feeling guilty about participating in mainstream ways of the world. Honestly, capitalism is making it hard for me to meaningfully contribute to the society. I say this with a heavy heart. Look for instance, your comment on DEI, you just want to have a prosperous environment in your home, but you're being guilt tripped by the comments. I say both are wrong. Just expand your home to include everyone. There's no other way. This logic expands to almost every aspect of our current systems. It perpetuates this suffering for self(whole world) the more we are in denial of certain fundamental realities.

the point is, we shouldn't be thinking along the lines of guardrails. That's what religion does. It tries to control people morally. It won't work for long. Human beings evolve beyond it quickly. Whatever have high maintenance, it's bad design. Guardrails by design are a bad design. Here's an interesting experiment conducted on AI on maximizing score in a boat racing game. There's different ways to score points; avoiding obstacles, winning the race, etc etc. But the way it found to maximize score is to go straight ahead and hit the immediate obstacle, so it gets point for trying, and the game restarts, this when repeated is able to score points more predictably than winning the game through effort. Corruption is a symptom, of the game. It exists because the game's architecture allows it, no amount of punishment/guardrails/guilt tripping will prevent humans from being corrupted.

The whole point of implementing guardrails is to see it fail. Sooner the better.

you missed the whole point. guardrails = patch work better systems = architecture which is "actually" better What do I mean by that? Think about it like this, "if we build this system, how worse can we game it?" , and go from there. When we were building Capitalism and currency by sheer accidental iteration of what was before, did we take into account the human nature of greed? The question is laughable. Human beings will optimize for what's the path of least resistance when it comes to large groups. So, the way Capitalism is meant to be played is by being greedy and hoarding as much as possible. That's the most likely path, if you now start to impose morals into this and start talking about oh it's immoral, you're just building obstacles for yourself.

The world is an unequal place, resource allocation is stagnant and perverted. This invariably creates issues, scarcity drives people to crimes, distorts their sense of survival into something ugly. It's not a problem which is seeking some hotfix, it's the symptom of the very system's existence, it's the hidden cost, a hidden requirement for it to keep functioning. These problems are not something we should tackle morally, human beings cannot empathize. The solution is to design efficient system so that we do not create scenarios for those problems to occur, our systems are simply inefficient to carry us further, it may be better than previous iteration, but not good enough. And the worse part? The systems in place are normalized and taken for granted, even thoughts like this are seen as some alien bullshit. Because to observe it, you need some distance. Here's the deal, the system in place will make sure nobody will have that breathing room to see it, even if they can see it clearly, the system has been made immutable by design. I don't think we humans are capable of true empathy. If we were truly empathizing with victims of war, starvation, poverty, we wouldn't be operate functionally, so we let it recede into the background, that's just how human beings can operate optimally. I think we don't need to be empathizing with those who are at in those scenarios, that's doing nothing. The first step would be to evolve enough to see, this damage is self damage. Your potential for causing others harm is the extent of how much self damage you can tolerate.