Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[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 yesterday at 09:31 PM 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?

[ryoko]

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. 

Edited 16 hours ago by ryoko

[ryoko]

5 hours ago, Bjorn K Holmstrom said:

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?

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. 

[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. 

[ryoko]

One crucial thing about FOSS ecosystem is, there's already something tangible, something the individuals can use immediately, in the form of programs or tools, this is what encourages contribution. The percentage of contributors(in the form of code, money, community support) to users is very stark, the only driving factor in FOSS ecosystem is care. People care enough about something to work together. Tie this back with the radical autonomy I outlined before. There's no form of duty or obligation. The only driving factor for contributions is "we want to make this better". There will be users who want to contribute but cannot do it, because of scarcity and lack of skills, but the programs and tools are not excluded for them. The GNU GPL and similar licences give everyone the access to do with the program what they please, with the only requirement being, the freedom never gets compromised along the road, everyone can do what you did with your own version of the program. 

And tech allows for making infinite copies of the program with basically 0 cost, this doesn't happen in the material world. They are weaving ecosystems of abundance. But you can see the state of FOSS programs, they are always struggling for investments, and make little to no profit. This is a reality we have to face. It's no wonder a material version of FOSS ecosystem is not a reality, it would be cool to have infinite space to build and 0 cost for duplication. But earth is already claimed by humans and nations. 

Richard Stallman worked for nearly a decade with no outside contribution while he was building GNU OS. He is a clear example of the third. So is Linus, although his journey involved working in corporate America for building up his own fortune first, before he was active in the Linux ecosystem. And so is Terry Davis, doesn't matter if he created something completely unusable, he did what he wanted to do, took him nearly a decade, and that's all that matters. He is an inspiration to a generation of programmers, more so than the first 2. This goes to show the dynamics and richness of humans doing their own thing. These guys are clearly outliers, and it's futile trying to make a rule out of outliers. Hence the implied unpredictability. 

 

 

Edited 11 hours ago by ryoko

[Bjorn K Holmstrom]

Ryoko, that's a powerful analysis, and your FOSS analogy is the perfect ground for this discussion.

You've put your finger on the core dynamic: FOSS is a massive, global collaboration driven by care, yet it is perpetually plagued by an energy problem. It produces immense value but runs on the heroic self-sacrifice of a few outliers, often leading to burnout.

This is the exact contradiction my work is trying to address. Rather than presenting a finished solution, this leads me to a set of open inquiries.

1. Could the FOSS energy problem be addressed with a new economic architecture? I'm exploring systems designed to value and reward the very care you identified, without the corporate profit motive. For example, a system like the GGF's AUBI 'Hearts', which circulates value based on contributions to community well-being.
2. You said Thirds aren't ones for social contracts, and interactions must be from pure willingness. I agree. But could they use a set of non-coercive Meta-Governance protocols, like open standards, to voluntarily align their work, preventing the need for a central authority to become a new master?
3. Finally, you mentioned the need for an environment as a prerequisite. Is it possible to design protected social and economic containers, like the BAZ concept, where these heroic outliers can thrive without having to work in corporate America first to fund their real work?

I'm not presenting these as final answers, but as the core questions my work is built around. From your perspective of ruthless clarity, do you see any potential in this approach, designing new economic, coordination, and social protocols, or does this, too, inevitably fall back into the same master-slave dynamic?

[ryoko]

I see immense potential in these endeavors you've been mentioning. AUBI and BAZs closely align with my own values. But I bet our interpretations are massively different. We need systems which evolves and are not fixed in stones, this is why a utopian vision and beyond is a good anchor. The problem in the world is, no individual established the concept of money or capitalism, it just came about, and it doesn't want to die. This shouldn't repeat. There must be immense flexibility, just like the freedom we have in FOSS, freedom to modify and alter the systems in place, freedom to iterate, freedom to branch off, freedom to opt out. Just be prepared for massive failures. 

Your concern for whether this will fall into master-slave dynamics is premonition, this is why I mentioned homelessness, colonization, inequality multiple times. It is totally possible to bring about changes which might be concern of immediate environment, but that's not enough in the long run. Many countries are still being exploited for profits, there are things which need addressing. Any and all solutions, expect it to adopt the hypocrisies of current world. Because a country/individual will first attempt to improve itself, not improve it's neighbors to bring them to an equal footing, this is why a true global identity is crucial for these endeavors. I'm not being moral here, I would do the same, first take care of my own survival before I help the next person, this is mostly constraints of our current world, it will force everyone to be ruthless as long as we are operating out of scarcity and trauma, but I'm not blind to the fact that it's absolutely not the way. It won't solve anything. 

Not having a global government is such a massive roadblock, people's identities clash over so much, look at what America is doing, and it's the most developed economy? I see you're blind to so many things, you don't take into account the gravity of these, and how these will come back to haunt an established order later if not integrated early on. I fundamentally disagree with a lot of things. 

But let's face it. Coordination cannot be pre-designed for thirds. It must emerge organically like Mohenjo-daro's river-guided consensus. Current frameworks like BAZs still carry the master-slave infection vectors of "governance" and "contracts". I can assure you, trying to use BAZ as a means to tackle problems will fail immensely. Because, that's not radical autonomy. That's just another institution at this point. Just because it's gonna be a failure doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted. Be fully conscious of the consequences and roadblocks. Seeing the problems as is, and bring them to the surface and making it see the light and being immensely aware of it, whilst seeing one's own limitations and seeing what's actually causing problems, will go a long way. Imagine Trump telling the world: "Guys, we are traumatized, we can't live without exploiting you all, we will be so hurt if we are not doing what we are doing. Just the idea of facing the consequences of what we are doing, will get in the way. So we are going to be the same, don't expect us to change, we are not backing down." and that's putting it too compassionately

Edited 1 hour ago by ryoko

[Ishanga]

@Bjorn K Holmstrom @ryoko

Cool discussion Guys, I was into Venus Project long ago, I still think on some level it is the way, but as mentioned we have to evolve our Consciousness levels globally for it too work for sure..

I think we are at a critical stage in Humanity and Us surviving as a species.. There are powers that want Us to have a high Consciousness existence but there are more powers that don't and unfortunately they control the world today, and with the way things are I am not sure we are going to make it.

I watched a video on the 5 extinction events recently and what is next to come, ecologically we are already in the 6th extinction event, its happening now, from what I gathered there is pretty well nothing we can do to stop it, other than prepare for life to change dramatically in the next decades, its happening faster now than ever!  For sure if we can deal with what is happening, the population levels will drop dramatically, Life today will look like paradise compared to what is next to come!

Also fighting against Us is just the plane crazy that is everywhere and gaining more momentum, I see the world in two ways, Nature is Beautiful, its provided Us with everything we need to Flourish, and then there is Us Human Beings, completely unaware of our True Nature and Burning up the planet to try to fulfill basic emotional needs and wants, its just crazy IMO.

Venus Project is just a basic idea, it can happen, someone thought of it and it can work if we apply it, but its going to be a slow process and time is of the essence. Then there is this thing with Free Energy and such things that keep coming up once in awhile but are thwarted by the power elites that don't want things to change..

Anyways was glad to come upon this discussion, great stuff!!

Edited 9 hours ago by Ishanga

[Bjorn K Holmstrom]

@Ishanga, thank you for joining and sharing this perspective. You've perfectly articulated the daunting scale of the challenge, the convergence of ecological overshoot, entrenched power, and a crisis of consciousness. Your feeling that the current trajectory seems unstoppable is a rational one, shared by many who are paying attention.

You're right; time is of the essence, and waiting for a top-down solution or a global awakening is not a strategy. This is precisely why the work moves beyond just a vision like the Venus Project.

The approach isn't to fight the existing system head-on, but to build functional alternatives now, however small, that are designed to be more resilient, equitable, and regenerative. The goal is to have these prototypes, these new "social operating systems", tested and ready as life does change dramatically. They won't stop the sixth extinction, but they might provide the seeds for how we organize and care for each other within it.

It's about moving from a feeling of powerlessness to a practice of building power, community by community.

[Ishanga]

@Bjorn K Holmstrom Thanks!

Now its just a matter of How to do this, to build functional alternatives now, with all this polarity in politics and society!

What I find frustrating about politics is when one side thinks they have all the answers and the other side does not, here in Canada we have Question period, a daily hashing of ideas and criticism, its super childish and fake imo, anyone that has any sort of reasonable intelligence can see the game being played, its embarrassing actually, we can and should be doing much better than this! 

The only answer I can come up with is too fulfil my desire for Spiritual Enlightenment or close too it, be the light I want to see in the world, and get off the grid somehow or win the lottery lol!!! 

[Bjorn K Holmstrom]

@ryoko, this is exactly the level of strategic critique that is necessary. Thank you.

You are right to be skeptical of BAZs. Your central argument, that any new structure risks becoming "just another institution" that replicates the hypocrisies of the old world, prioritizing itself and failing to address global inequity, is the most valid criticism there is.

So, let me reframe the intention, because we may be closer than it seems.

A BAZ is not conceived as a finished, perfect system. It is an embodied hypothesis. It is the immune response of the outliers, given a temporary form to be tested. We should expect most to fail. The critical function is not their success, but the data their failure generates for a shared protocol library, strengthening the entire ecosystem's intelligence.

This is where the FOSS model is paramount. A BAZ must earn the pure willingness of its participants every day. If it becomes coercive or insular, the principle is to fork it or leave, to exercise the freedom to opt-out you champion. The Meta-Governance Framework is not a government for these zones; it is the proposed set of interoperability standards that would allow sovereign, autonomous experiments to voluntarily coordinate resource and knowledge exchange, without requiring a global government.

Your point on nations is correct; they will act in their self-interest. The strategy is not to convince them otherwise but to make the alternative coordination model so effective that it becomes a more attractive partner for crisis response and innovation than other nations stuck in the old paradigm.

Your Trump analogy is brutally insightful. It names the trauma at the core of the master system. The work, then, is to design containers where that trauma is not the primary driver. This isn't about morality; it's about social technology. Can we design a system that doesn't run on exploitation? The only way to know is to build it and see.

The question shifts from "Is this the perfect solution?" to "Does this experimental process itself constitute a valid and ruthlessly clear form of engagement with the problem?"

I believe it does, but only if it's guided by a final, and perhaps the most important, design principle: Liberatory Impermanence.

The entire governance architecture is designed with the awareness that its highest purpose is to become unnecessary. The frameworks are not the final state; they are a temporary scaffolding designed to help humanity build the capacity for what my work calls 'natural coordination', a state where communities can interact and solve problems based on the pure willingness you described, without needing the formal structure at all.

It is a system designed to work towards its own graceful dissolution. This, I believe, is the ultimate expression of transcending the game.

Edited 8 hours ago by Bjorn K Holmstrom

[ryoko]

Bjorn, I think we should move these discussions to https://www.actualized.org/forum/forum/16-self-actualization-journals/ or a seperate thread in relevant topic

As a brainstorming ground, having ideas public is a good way to find holes in the logic. 

 

P.S - Society, Politics section is a good pick. 

Edited 1 hour ago by ryoko

[Rafael Thundercat]

2 hours ago, ryoko said:

Bjorn, I think we should move these discussions to https://www.actualized.org/forum/forum/16-self-actualization-journals/ or a seperate thread in relevant topic

As a brainstorming ground, having ideas public is a good way to find holes in the logic. 

Finally you noticed the need to this move

[Leo Gura]

If you want to discuss the Venus Project, please start a new thread.