Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[ryoko]

@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. 

Edited August 28, 2025 by ryoko

[Daniel Balan]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It is an error in reasoning to regard all nationalization efforts as the same.

Airports in America are nationalized. They work just fine.

Obviously communism and even socialism is wrong. But that doesn't mean nationalizing some industries is wrong. It has to be done in an intelligent and selective way.

USSR is an outdated model. Study China instead. China proves that it can work.

It makes my skin crawl just when I hear the word nationalization. For me personally the communist regime gave me PTSD. I was born in 2000, 11 years after communism ended in my country, but even to this day I can still observe and feel the communist aftertaste all over the place. I've also been in Germany and it blew my mind to see how much more developed that country is. Also there I felt no communist aftertaste whatsoever. It felt all so capitalistic and fresh, whereas in my country everything still had that soviet shit vibe. Everything from the buildings, the cars, the philosophy of the average people, to the way business is done. 

I like the state to provide the infrastructure and the safety mechanisms necessary for the individual people to run businesses and manage them. From my experience a private owned factory will always deliver better products compared to a public funded and managed one. I still have a lot to learn about economy but I have a really strong bias against government owned factories and businesses because of my background of living all my life in what resulted of half a century of communism. I think that the government can only produce amazing services like policing, maintaining roads etc. I have the opinion that the government does a horrible job at producing goods like cars, chainsaws, tractors, excavators, trucks, goods made from steel and iron etc. Because the people that manage and work for the state owned factories don't really care about the end products, don't strive to work out of their way for the survival of that factory whereas if the factory is private owned, the owners work to make that factory profitable like their life depended on it, which usually generate amazing goods and products. 

Edited August 28, 2025 by Daniel Balan

[UnbornTao]

17 minutes ago, ryoko said:

@UnbornTao Agree. I've been following their articles on different perspectives from their telegram, their approach isn't as romantic as it might sound from Youtube content. I think 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. 

Oh yeah, I agree.

[Leo Gura]

9 hours ago, ryoko said:

I mean imagine the cities getting demolished, private properties getting not private anymore. It threatens his survival. 

That threatens everyone's survival.

Be careful that your revolution does not end up eating you.

Notice how people here push back on me even when I post a video on nationalization. And you think you can just abolish private property? That will start a civil war. You want me to advocate for a civil war in the middle of a fascist takeover of America?

You think Wall Street and DC will allow you to abolish private property? This is a joke. You don't understand how power works. You might as well charge the White House lawn in a full frontal assault with a shotgun. You'll get further. I'm not going to fill my audience's mind with pie-in-sky political ideas. This would be irresponsible for me to do.

Edited August 29, 2025 by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Daniel Balan said:

It makes my skin crawl just when I hear the word nationalization.

I understand.

But you are comparing historically underdeveloped Eastern Europe with Germany -- an industrial powerhouse and a top world economy.

[ryoko]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

That threatens everyone's survival.

See you in a thousand years. 

[ryoko]

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. 

Edited August 29, 2025 by ryoko

[Leo Gura]

@ryoko You talked about abolishing private property, but with no indication of understanding how serious that change is.

Wall Street would literally rather assassinate you than let you make that change. I don't think you understand that.

If you lead a serious movement to abolish private property in America, the CIA will assassinate you. And I'm not sure I would blame them because you are barking up a very dangerous tree.

Edited August 29, 2025 by Leo Gura

[Bjorn K Holmstrom]

13 hours ago, ryoko said:

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. 

@ryoko, thanks for jumping in, this is exactly the kind of thinking the topic needs.

You're right to point to The Venus Project. It's a great concrete example of the kind of holistic, systemic redesign I was alluding to in my thought experiment. It's a vision that tries to leap beyond the left/right, capitalism/socialism debates entirely, which I appreciate as rare and valuable.

Your point about current systems being sentient and resistant to change is well put. It's the core of the challenge. It's not just about having a better idea; it's about navigating the immense inertia and active defense mechanisms of a deeply entrenched global system. The question of energy input, whether a critical mass of people can be mobilized, is the crucial question.

I appreciate your candid take on Leo's post. I think there's a useful distinction to be made. His diagnosis of the flaws in libertarianism (and human nature) might have some brutal truth to it, even if his prescription (implying a need for strong control) and his dismissal of alternatives feel limiting.

Your comment makes me wonder if the path forward doesn't require both lines of thinking:

The critical/deconstructive work (what Leo does): To tear down naive illusions about our current systems and human nature.

The visionary/constructive work (what the Venus Project, you and I are doing): To design and build compelling alternatives.

Maybe the conflict between them is a necessary tension. The critic keeps the visionary grounded, and the visionary pushes the critic toward something new.

Thanks again for bringing a concrete model into the discussion. It adds a crucial layer of practicality.

Your point about energy input and mobilizing a critical mass is exactly the bottleneck that occupies most of my thinking. It's why I'm less interested in perfect blueprints and more in what is called governance interoperability, how we can build protocols and frameworks that allow different systems (new, old, traditional, technological) to coordinate effectively without requiring everyone to agree on one monolithic utopia first.

This might be a long shot, but given your line of thinking, I wonder if you've come across or would be interested in the Global Governance Frameworks project I'm involved in? (github: https://github.com/GlobalGovernanceFrameworks / website: https://www.globalgovernanceframeworks.org).

It's trying to tackle that exact energy input problem you mentioned. It doesn't assume a blank slate or a global revolution. Instead, it's a open-source repository of ideas and patterns, like a toolkit, for how different governance models (including things inspired by The Venus Project, but also Indigenous governance, reformed UN structures, and new financial systems) could actually interoperate and coordinate.

A core part of it involves enabling the formation of Bioregional Autonomous Zones (BAZs), precisely the kind of prototypes you're talking about. And you've put your finger on the absolute core challenge: I share your skepticism about the willingness and energy to form them at scale. The frameworks are designed to make that initial energy requirement much lower by providing a supportive operating system and clear pathways.

I'd be genuinely curious to hear your perspective on it, if you have the time and interest. No pressure at all, just thought it might resonate with the systems-level approach you're clearly taking.

[Daniel Balan]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

@ryoko You talked about abolishing private property, but with no indication of understanding how serious that change is.

Wall Street would literally rather assassinate you than let you make that change. I don't think you understand that.

If you lead a serious movement to abolish private property in America, the CIA will assassinate you. And I'm not sure I would blame them because you are barking up a very dangerous tree.

To be frank I'd assasinate anyone who proposed the abolishing of private property. My grandparents worked their soul off to buy 2 acres of arable land, and I'd go to jail for life just to make sure I unalive any communist or fascist that proposes the nationalization of private property. Here in Europe 2 or 3 generations of people have been sacrificed for stupid retarded communist or fascist nationalization policies. 

How is this fairness that I get to live in a rat box of 2 square metters designed for me by the government while the socialist leaders live in 2000 square metters mansions? 

I've had enough of this nonsense.

Edited August 29, 2025 by Daniel Balan

[Daniel Balan]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I understand.

But you are comparing historically underdeveloped Eastern Europe with Germany -- an industrial powerhouse and a top world economy.

You know why I compare Germany with Eastern Europe? It is because in 1945 both Germany and Eastern Europe were all leveled to the ground by the war.

For example the entire city of Warsaw was leveled to the ground, almost no building was still standing, that was the case for much of Germany as well.

Germany was also divided for half a century, yet after 1945 West Germany has started in the same place as my country, my country was in an even better starting point because Romania saw little fighting on its territory during WW2. Yet during the time that Romanaia was a vassal state for Russia, while it was under the most brutal form of Communism in Europe( National Communism) my country wasn't even able to develop even 20% of the success that West Germany has achieved since 1945.

I'd argue that the reasons for this are the brutal communist regime that was 1000 more inferior to the capitalist system of west Germany, and the second reason is the development of the people.

While in 1945 Germans moved from blue to Orange, Romanians just stepped into Blue, with many to this day at stage Red or even Purple. Development levels and the capitalist system is what allowed Germany to rebuild and develop into a giant powerhouse while the communist bloc was spiraling into deeper and deeper poverty. The 20th century proved beyond doubt that socialism and communism are obsolete, backward, regressive ideologies. 

[ryoko]

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.

Quote

"600 years ago, the land was nobody's property, they just started living there and started telling themselves it's theirs? Now they're hurt about giving it up. Look at the world economy right now, there's such a thing as purchasing power, it is a direct consequence of colonization, among many other factors. The value of the same thing is not the same in different regions. A water bottle in the middle of the desert can be "charged" more. Clearly the medium of money is never supposed to be there in the equation, it's not elemental. It's quite absurd. Human beings invented technology to survive from the world, now they can't get enough of creating trouble for themselves?"

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

Edited August 29, 2025 by ryoko

[Rafael Thundercat]

@ryoko why your whole narrative sounds like the whole narrative of Matrix Movie? 

[Raze]

Leo misunderstands the Bible and Judaism. It doesn’t actually say Palestine belongs to jews. And for most of jewish history it wasn’t considered to be land they should take. In the Talmud the three oaths actually say they shouldn’t retake it until the messiah returns. The idea of religious Zionism is relatively new and only formed after atheist Jews founded Israel.

 

 

[ExploringReality]

https://www.actualized.org/insights/actualized-quotes-296

What do you mean by that? Can you try to say something about that, trying to get a hit on that 

Seems like that insight hit you like a freight train. Throw me a Hadukan  

Edited August 30, 2025 by ExploringReality

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@ExploringReality

If you flip it, I bet you a Zen master would slap you with:

'There is no self to criticize, and no other to be criticized. Yet still words appear.' 

I had a think on it and to criticize you need a subject (the critic, the self), the object (what is being criticized) and a perspective.

If there is no self there, no one can be selfish. So, to flip it back, if there is a self - the criticism is selfish!

As always it is one of Leo's posts that isn't explicit and makes you dig for the answer...

Or so I perceive !

 

[ryoko]

@Raze Interesting video. Thanks for sharing. 

[Bjorn K Holmstrom]

20 hours ago, ryoko said:

Okay Bjorn, it would have been a crime not to share your work with me.

[... abbreviated (see original post)...]

True change requires transcending the game itself

Ryoko, thank you for this. This is exactly the kind of brutal, systems-level clarity that is often missing from these discussions. I'm not going to dismiss your archetype model, in fact, I think it's a painfully accurate lens for describing the current human condition. You've correctly identified the core problem: energy dynamics and the self-perpetuating nature of the master-slave game.

I agree with you on almost every point of diagnosis:

• Law is indeed a tool of power. I'm not naive to the fact that the rules get broken by those who write them. The frameworks I'm working on aren't about appealing to the morality of the master; they are about building counter-power and creating new rules that are harder to subvert.
• The energy problem is everything. The majority are indeed drained, consuming just to survive (myself included). This is why the frameworks prioritize creating immediate material benefits (like the Adaptive Universal Basic Income's 'Hearts' and 'Leaves' system) to generate energy and agency at the local level, rather than demanding selfless sacrifice.
• You are right about the Third. This aligns deeply with the Indigenous principles in the framework, disengagement from the absurdity and a return to values based on land and relationality, not extraction.

Where I perhaps see a different path is in the strategy of transcending the game.

You're absolutely right that you cannot beat the master at its own game on its own terms. But I see two potential paths to transcendence:

1. The Path of Immediate Exit: To become the Third entirely, to disengage and build something completely new outside the existing structure. This is what projects like the Venus Project or certain ecovillages attempt. The challenge, as you note, is the immense energy required and the constant pressure from the master structure.
2. The Path of Changing the Game's Rules: This is the path I'm exploring. It involves using whatever leverage exists within the current system to create protected spaces (Bioregional Autonomous Zones) where the energy dynamics can change. It's about building the new system in the shell of the old, not through revolution, but through strategic parasitism.

You might argue the master will never allow this. But I see the master system; nation-states, capitalism, as already undergoing a forced metamorphosis under the immense pressure of the polycrisis (climate breakdown, supply chain collapse, rising inequality). It's not about asking for permission; it's about being ready with a viable alternative when the current system fails to deliver.

We see this already happening: dozens of UBI trials are being launched not out of charity, but because governments are desperately searching for solutions to automation and instability. Digital democracy tools are being adopted because traditional governance is too slow and illegitimate. Rights of Nature laws are being passed because environmental regulation is failing. These aren't signs of a confident master; they are signs of a system in crisis, throwing out old rules and experimenting with new ones.

The frameworks I'm working with are designed to meet this moment of crisis and opportunity. They aim to provide a coherent, tested set of patterns for these desperate experiments to latch onto, helping them coalesce into something new rather than just being isolated, temporary fixes that get re-absorbed by the old game.

The legal and institutional components aren't there because I believe the 'master' will play fair. They are there for three reasons:

• To create a protective shell: To legally shield the emerging BAZs and alternative systems from the immediate, crushing force of the old system, using its own rules against it (e.g., Rights of Nature laws, digital sovereignty protocols).
• To coordinate the new game: If we eventually have 10,000 BAZs and alternative communities, how do they cooperate, trade, and defend themselves without recreating the master-slave dynamic? That is what the meta-governance and interoperability protocols are for; to govern the relations between free communities, not to govern the slaves.
• To be ready for the crisis: When the next major crisis hits the master system (and it will), the frameworks offer a pre-designed, viable alternative. Without a plan, collapse just leads to a new master; a warlord or a corporation, filling the vacuum. With a plan, it could lead to a rapid reformation.

In essence, I see these frameworks not as a petition to the masters, but as a blueprint for the slaves to build their own house next door, with its own rules, and then tear down the connecting wall when they're ready.

You might be right that it's impossible. But it's the only form of energy investment I see that has a non-zero chance of creating something truly different without requiring a bloody revolution that historically just replaces one master with another.

I would be genuinely interested in your thoughts on this strategic perspective. How would you propose the Third actually organizes and protects itself without any structure at all?

[ryoko]

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.

Edited August 30, 2025 by ryoko

[Bjorn K Holmstrom]

Ryoko, I appreciate you moving the conversation to this deeper philosophical level. Your distinction between exit and engaged disillusionment is a crucial one, and your systems-level view of human dynamics as a natural process is compelling.

There's a stark clarity to your diagnosis that I find valuable. You're right to point out the circular trap of systems like The Venus Project that require a change in human nature before they can function. And your naturalistic framing, seeing human folly, crisis, or even extinction as part of a process without moral judgment, is a perspective that forces a necessary confrontation with reality.

However, from within this same naturalistic view, I'd offer a different interpretation of the data.

You state that with free time and resources, people would choose entertainment over creation, framing it as the "truest nature of human beings." Yet we also see overwhelming evidence of the opposite: people gardening, writing, coding open-source software, making art, and building communities, often for no monetary reward. Isn't this also part of our nature? The desire to create, contribute, and connect seems just as fundamental as the desire for leisure. Perhaps the environment doesn't just suppress one tendency and allow the other; it selects for which aspect of our complex nature is expressed.

This is where I find my own expression of engaged disillusionment.

I accept your premise that we are embedded in a process and that crisis is the primary catalyst for change. I don't operate from a place of hope, but from a place of orientation.

From the absolute view, all outcomes are part of the whole. But from the relative view within the process, I am a node with agency. My particular orientation, is to act as if the universe is leaning towards greater complexity, consciousness, and coordination. This isn't a belief I need to defend, but a mode of participation I choose.

Therefore, the frameworks I work on are not a blueprint for a utopia that requires new humans. They are:

• A set of patterns designed for the humans we actually have.
• A strategic toolkit for the moment of crisis you accurately predict, meant to provide a better, more coherent alternative than collapse into violence or corporate feudalism.
• An exercise in changing the environmental selection pressures (e.g., through an AUBI) to see if it elicits our cooperative and creative nature, rather than just our survivalist one.
• A proposed social contract for the Thirds. You've described the third as an individual with ruthless clarity. The ultimate question your work explores is: If a critical mass of individuals achieves this state, how do they coordinate their actions and build a new world without inadvertently recreating the old power structures? The Meta-Governance Framework and the Emergent Governance Protocol are my proposed answer; a set of non-coercive protocols for sovereign agents to align and create together.

It is my form of ruthless clarity, to build without attachment to the outcome, but with full commitment to the act of building itself as a valid participation in the process.

I am curious, from your stance of engaged disillusionment: what does your participation in this conversation itself constitute? If the outcome is truly irrelevant, what is the nature of the engagement?