Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[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 August 31, 2025 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 August 31, 2025 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 August 31, 2025 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 August 31, 2025 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 August 31, 2025 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.

[Bjorn K Holmstrom]

7 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. 

 

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

Agreed, maybe you want to start a thread, or know of a relevant one, if you want to respond to my latest post (I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts)?

[samijiben]

How do you figure the dog dies before you pull the trigger?

This is not Einstein's physics. This is Gura's physics. 

[samijiben]

I also believe you are strawmanning the fuck out of Israel.

If savages came into your backyard, raping the women and burning the babies, what happens next?

To call it a genocide is intellectual laziness. The issue is more nuanced than that. 

[Leo Gura]

10 minutes ago, samijiben said:

How do you figure the dog dies before you pull the trigger?

This is not Einstein's physics. This is Gura's physics. 

 

 

9 minutes ago, samijiben said:

I also believe you are strawmanning the fuck out of Israel.

To call it a genocide is intellectual laziness. The issue is more nuanced than that. 

I call it ethnic cleansing. Which is what they explicitly say they do. Their own leaders say it. This is a matter of historical record, not opinion. Palestinians were and continue to be cleansed off that land. There's just no serious doubt that that's what Israeli settlement policy has always been. The settlers themselves admit it.

[LordFall]

21 minutes ago, samijiben said:

I also believe you are strawmanning the fuck out of Israel.

If savages came into your backyard, raping the women and burning the babies, what happens next?

To call it a genocide is intellectual laziness. The issue is more nuanced than that. 

Are you sure you're not projecting your own intellectual laziness?

Are they defending themselves or going above and beyond to release their anger and rage on innocent people and killing tens of thousands? 

[Hojo]

If you shoot something at the speed of light and it leaves the gun before firing does that mean you conserve all energy it takes to fire it.

[Nemra]

@Leo Gura, isn't "true belief" oxymoronic or contradictory?

[Davino]

@Nemra You can believe something and that ending up to be true. In the same way you can believe something which ends up being false. The stage of true believe, I think it might point to the right presumption or intuitive without the revelatory experience.

For example, you believe 5meo could trigger an Awakening. However, you haven't tried it yet. That is most likely a true believe. Once you try it and have an Awakening, then it's experience.

That's what I think is trying to point out, but I'm not a Mahavira's or Jain scholar.