borkedsys wor convo

will ruddick (@wor) and @borkedsys in little (huge) twitter convo nov 10 ish 2025 [https://x.com/borkedsys/status/1987883205119054222?s=20]:

borkedsys: We’ve been trained to think the current system is the peak of human achievement. It isn’t. It’s just the most familiar. When people see a parallel system actually working cleaner, smarter, fairer they switch automatically.

to me.. yeah that.. ie: graeber model law et al

will’s 1st reply [https://x.com/wor/status/1988095724089995743?s=20]:

will: I observe a stream of generalizations, ideological statments and platitudes. I feel disappointed and detached and close to unfollowing … I need actual examples of practice. I request that you share what you are doing and trying

all i have is ie: on the ground ness.. which to me was more than enough.. but i completely understand how it’s not for others.. so back to thinking restate/update 7.18 ness et al .. esp this part: [i think all our part\ial initiatives/efforts are keeping us from the sync/simultaneousness we need for global freedom/equity .. i think we keep getting distracted/disjointed by irrelevants (money/measuring/et-al) necessary to maintain/incentivize the partial ness.. and if i’m wrong.. thankfully.. there are plenty of amazing people/initiatives/efforts going that route]

borkedsys: I’m not claiming to have a full, finished solution. System change isn’t something one person builds alone. What I do here is map patterns and highlight emerging prototypes. If you want examples, there are many, but the real work is collaborative by design

actually.. what we need is a sabbatical ish transition.. because.. nothing to date has gotten to the root of problem.. and so we keep perpetuating the same song.. the whac-a-mole-ing ness of sea world.. of not-us ness.. of part\ial ness

legit freedom will only happen if it’s all of us.. and in order to be all of us.. has to be sans any form of measuring, accounting, people telling other people what to do

how we gather in a space is huge.. need to try spaces of permission where people have nothing to prove to facil curiosity over decision making.. because the finite set of choices of decision making is unmooring us.. keeping us from us..

ie: imagine if we listen to the itch-in-8b-souls 1st thing everyday & use that data to connect us (tech as it could be.. ai as augmenting interconnectedness)

the thing we’ve not yet tried/seen: the unconditional part of left to own devices ness

[‘in an undisturbed ecosystem ..the individual left to its own devices.. serves the whole’ –dana meadows]

there’s a legit use of tech (nonjudgmental exponential labeling) to facil the seeming chaos of a global detox leap/dance.. for (blank)’s sake..

[this is what i’ve actually tried/see – again – on the ground ness et al]

and again.. to me what we need: whatever for a year.. a legit sabbatical ish transition

will: I’m tired of people finding patterns and talking about stuff that they don’t actually try themselves. Our struggle to walk our talk seems 100% more interesting to me.

borkedsys: Fair. We all want more real-world action. I’m looking to connect with others who want to build too. Until then, I’m contributing through analysis and communication. Different roles, same direction

will: If we can move toward elegant simplicity of shared protocols and applications of those across many ecosystems and their economies. Then we have legs and common language. We start walking our talk and do the doing. Trust growing from ourselves. There is no need to convince everyone. There are no enemies. There is nothing to rally against. There is only practice. Moving at the speed of trust.

already on each heart ness.. will on convince ness

convo very resonating.. as i’m sure this is how i appear to many.. lately to ie: michel bauwens; nika dubrovsky; and probably lots of others

but i do believe that i did ‘practice’.. and then came costello screen\service law and warning ness et al..

and.. deeper.. i do believe we can’t convince others.. just need to get to problem deep enough.. that it’s what each soul already craves

borkedsys: Beautifully said. That’s exactly where I want to see this go… shared protocols, aligned practice, trust networks. The architecture of cooperation is the real revolution.

will: Consider these loops. 1. Make one small, clear promise. Get explicit acceptance from somone else. Fullfill your promise fast. *Show proof. Repeat. 2. Accept one small, clear promise from someone else. Confirm terms. Help them fulfill their promise fast. Show proof. Repeat. …. until trust becomes something we can see and stand on.

*so you (will) do think you have to convince someone.. see to me.. this is the pivotal/missing piece.. this unconditionality ness.. and to me.. it’s the thing we’ve not yet tried/seen: the unconditional part of left to own devices ness

we’re not ‘leaving anyone to their own devices’.. if we need proof/promises/commitments.. et al

again.. ‘in an undisturbed ecosystem ..the individual left to its own devices.. serves the whole’ –dana meadows et al

borkedsys: Yes, those trust loops are the human side of what I’d call feedback integrity. When verified reciprocity becomes the norm, you lay the groundwork for the same logic to scale through systems… exactly the Integral direction.

what we need to try/see (what we actually did in on the ground ness): spaces of permission where people have nothing to prove 

will: When does this happen? When do we willingly offer the opportunity to others to be trusted by us.. and as well when to we get offered the opportunity to be trusted … When/how do we give trust a chance?

has to be from the get go.. otherwise.. not legit trust.. ie: pearson unconditional law et al

borkedsys: Trust begins when one person risks coherence in a chaotic field… a clear promise, fulfilled fast, witnessed openly. That signal teaches the network what reliability feels like. From there, trust isn’t declared, it propagates.

to me.. if you have promises.. there is no trust.. ie: why do you have to promise anything? we need to trust the dance.. reliability to me is a cancerous distraction if we’re legit alive/free.. because for that.. need to be always embracing uncertainty.. carhart-harris entropy law et al..

will: Probably you and, even better, groups can hold space for trust to grow.

borkedsys: Agreed. I think small groups could experiment with these loops… clear promises, fast fulfillment, visible proof and study what patterns emerge. That’s the practical bridge between theory and architecture.

oof.. again.. from legit on the ground ness.. i’m telling you.. this is a cancerous distraction

but.. i realize not convince able.. rather.. unjustifiable strategy ness of a sabbatical ish transition to a nother way

___________

__________

_________

_________

________

_________

__________