Bjorn K Holmstrom

This is something I'm worrying about, I feel we are at a great crossroads. The substrate decay guarantees the end of the current order, but it doesn't guarantee the start of a better one. Collapse might default into the lowest complexity because it is the most robust in chaos. Now, something we could look into is the mechanism of turning that awareness into a better system. We often talk about raising consciousness as if that alone will solve the structural gap. But you can have high consciousness people trying to run low-consciousness institutions, and the institution usually wins because its logic is baked into them. To avoid the most brutal outcomes, I think we need more than just the push of political will. We need the architecture of a wiser order, or systems upgrade, built and ready to go before the substrate fails. Yellows job right now might be less about pushing the old systems and more about prototyping the new ones so there's actually a viable option available when the moment arrives.

The prediction of '100 years of neoliberalism' assumes a stable substrate, but I think that substrate is decaying. From a physics/complexity perspective, we’re hitting vertical cost walls that no amount of financialization can overcome: Ecological debt, demographics and complexity cost. The system will likely destabilize not because people vote against it, but because it becomes impossible to maintain.

What would change if we could separate survival security from work requirements?

This is one of the hardest questions. I think it's possible, but not in the way people usually think. I just contemplated this a few days ago, as a what-if, if I would start earning money, what would I do. A trap might be believing our own willpower is enough. Money can change your nervous system, it can make you risk-averse and starts bending your decisions toward protecting wealth instead of purpose. A way I developed that could work is to build external structures before you have the wealth: Automate giving (do 40% off the top of any big inflow) Create a 'pod' of people who can veto your financial decisions Legally pre-commit that 90%+ goes back to commons when you die It's not about being a 'good person' with money. It's about building the plumbing so the money can flow through you instead of pooling and poisoning you. The goal shifts from 'being wealthy' to 'being a useful conduit.' Otherwise, you end up contributing to the very inequality you probably wanted to solve, just by following the default logic of the system. The might be other ways but, yeah... it's unusually hard. The system is designed to capture you.

I appreciate this honest question. I’m reading this from a unique vantage point that might offer a different perspective. I currently live in Sweden and am on long-term sick leave for depression. In a very real, structural sense, I am living a "prototype" of a Universal Basic Income life. My survival needs are met by the state (through the municipality, which puts me under some stress and panic every now and then because of their severe scrutiny), which means my time is my own. I mention this first to acknowledge the immense privilege of this position. As others have noted in this thread, this is a rare "golden ticket" in our current world. But because I have this safety net, I’ve learned something crucial about the wage slavery feeling you’re describing. The slavery feeling isn't about the conditions of the work; it's about the coercion of survival. You have a great job, a kind boss, and meaningful tasks. But a part of your soul knows that if you stopped showing up, your survival would eventually be threatened. That background hum of "I must do this to live" is what chafes, even when the cage is comfortable. In my situation, because the survival terror is removed, I don't "do nothing." I actually work harder than ever on projects that deeply call to me (writing, systems design, spiritual inquiry), but the energy is different. It’s the energy of voluntary contribution rather than mandatory survival. My sense is that you aren't compromising your spirituality by keeping this job, you are using the current system to build your foundation. But the tension you feel is real: it’s the tension of a soul that knows we are meant to contribute from a place of being, not just earning. We need to build a world where everyone has the "floor" that I currently have (what I like to envision as an Adaptive Universal Basic Income or AUBI), so that work becomes a choice of service, not a requirement for life. Until then, perhaps you can reframe your job not as slavery, but as a patron. Your job is the "wealthy patron" that funds your weekends and holidays, which you can dedicate to your spiritual work. You are exploiting the system to fund your soul, not the other way around.

This could create heaven or hell, the difference won't be the technology itself, but the consciousness of the beings wielding it.

This is an interesting discussion. I’ve been thinking about the "invented or discovered" question, and I’d like to offer a viewpoint that bridges both sides. I believe the fundamental principle of mathematics is discovered. It starts with the most basic duality we can conceive: existence and non-existence, something and nothing. You can represent this as 1 and 0. From this single, discovered relationship, an entire logical structure inevitably unfolds. The concepts of quantity, relations, and even infinity follow naturally from this core. This structure exists whether we are here to see it or not. However, the language of mathematics; the symbols, notations, and formal systems we create to describe this structure, is invented. We invent the numeral "2," the plus sign "+," and the rules of calculus to navigate and communicate the relationships we have discovered. This is similar to how we discover the natural phenomenon of a mountain, but invent the word "mountain" and the techniques of climbing to interact with it. So, in short: - The logical structure (based on 0/1, being/non-being) is discovered. - The human language and formalism we build around it is invented. We are discovering a profound truth about reality and then inventing tools to understand and use it. From the absolute, nondual point of view though, it is all the Self looking at itself though.

Architecting open-source pathways for human and planetary flourishing

I find myself pulled in two directions by this discussion, and I'd like to offer a perspective that might bridge the gap, focusing on what I see as the core appeal and the core danger. I think the initial appeal of this Superfascist or Traditionalist position isn't necessarily a desire for fascism, but a powerful, visceral reaction to what we might call the "flatness" of modernity. This is a critique I believe many of us on spiritual paths can empathize with, regardless of our politics. It's the feeling that something fundamental is missing. The danger, as I see it, is in mistaking a specific historical structure for the eternal principle itself. @Enigma777, you rightly say you're advocating for the structure and orientation, not the specific content of premodern theocracies. However, the language of divinely ordained hierarchies, Philosopher-Kings, and organic roles is inextricably linked to a specific, historical model of power. We have to ask: What is the check on this system? While the principle of hierarchy based on wisdom is appealing, the proposed mechanism; a top-down, metaphysically-justified authority, is indistinguishable from the historical systems that caused immense suffering. So, the challenge you've laid out is a vital one: How do we re-integrate the Vertical into our Horizontal world? But the solution cannot be to resurrect a political model that, in practice, has almost always been a vehicle for human pathology. Perhaps the path forward isn't about finding the right Philosopher-King to rule us, but about building societies where: - The pursuit of Truth, Love, and Goodness is the highest cultural value, fostered through education, art, and community. - Leadership is based on demonstrable wisdom, compassion, and competence, not on birthright or an unverifiable claim to metaphysical superiority. - Spiritual authority is separated from political power, to prevent the corruption of both and to protect the freedom of consciousness. - We cultivate inner sovereignty (as @Emerald mentioned) not as a substitute for social order, but as its essential foundation, creating a citizenry that can discern true quality from authoritarian posturing. In conclusion, I believe your diagnosis of our spiritual malaise is sharp and important. But the prescription of Superfascism, even in its purified, metaphysical form, risks treating the disease with a more refined version of the original toxin. The real work for our century is to build bridges to those higher values that don't rely on rebuilding the old, problematic castles of unchecked authority.

Here's what I think keeps me alive: Curiosity (what will happen with mankind and the planet?) and built in self-preservation (I've had suicidal thoughts but don't seem able to act on it). I used to be more depressed than I am now, I've been at the point where everything seemed pointless. Now I occasionally feel compassion and love for all of it, the ultimate shit-show of reality.

What I really want is for us to just… grow up. Collectively. I look at the world and see all this fragmentation, these zero-sum games, this deep trauma we keep passing down. I want us to finally stop and heal those wounds. I want us to have the guts to look at the current multiple crisis not just as some technical problem to fix, but as what it is: a spiritual and relational crisis. We need to shift from a world built on competition and fear to one that's truly grounded in stewardship and justice. My deepest desire is to help build the scaffolding for that new world. The new ways of being and coordinating that make this maturity possible. And ... I want us to build that scaffolding so well that, one day, we don't even need it anymore. It just becomes part of who we are, and the rigid structures can gracefully dissolve. I don't just want us to survive. I want us to finally, truly flourish.

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

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

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

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