jordan greenhall

jordan greenhall.png

intrigue –


fractal models

permission-less systems where everyone contributes


how to get the masses?

redefine school – no?


cognitive toolkit, collective & individual, don’t throw away any of it – just becomes increasingly disfunctional

1:24 – mars colony – or social fiction ..

1:28 – michel – how can we experiment so that it’s possible to change

convo where we met him:

reinventors site

Remarkable Reinventor


Jordan Greenhall

Jordan Greenhall is an entrepreneur and angel investor with a focus on the internet and digital media space. Having received his law degree from Harvard and practicing for all of 93 days, he sought greener pastures, becoming an advocate for “efficient, collaborative, open” models of information dispersal.

He Co-founded DivX, Inc. (Formerly, DivXNetworks, Inc.), the digital media giant, in 2000 and served as its Chief Executive Officer & Executive Chairman through 2007. Previously, he served as Vice President of, where he was responsible for developing and implementing, business and content development model.

Jordan was on the Board of Trustees for the Santa Fe Institute and is involved with numerous other institutions and boards.

This Roundtable’s Network Reinventors

Tanja Aitamurto
Michel Bauwens
Bret Weinstein
John Robb
Jake Dunagan
Jim Rutt
David Hodgson


Peter Leyden
Founder and CEO of the company, as well as Host of the series

Peter Leyden has worked for a series of innovative organizations that helped reinvent the fields of media, business and politics: He was managing editor at the original Wired Magazine, worked at Global Business Network, the pioneering think tank on the future, and directed the New Politics Institute that helped those in Washington transition to politics on the Internet. Leyden’s also an entrepreneur who has founded and run two companies: Next Agenda, a new media startup specializing in web video & online tools, and now Reinventors Network. Leyden also is an author and expert on new technologies and trends shaping the future who frequently gives keynote talks about what’s next. More…



co-founder of DivX,_Inc.

video technology


sept 2014 – via ello meet swarm

  • Every day every member of the community receives X units of inactive currency into their account. This is how the currency is created into existence. Inactive currency has a demurrage rate — some percentage of all inactive currency sitting out unused in accounts “evaporates” or is pooled back into some commons pool. More on this later.

nice on that.

everyday anew ness.. equitably.


nov 2014:

the coming great transition 

For the long history of our current system — really up until the middle of the 19th Century, the idea that some would have and some would not was largely uncontroversial. It was a law of nature that someone was going to go hungry. The only question was who.

But by the turn of the 20th Century in the Western world and the middle of the 20th Century in the world at large, important things started to shift. Many scarce resources began to become less scarce. By the early part of the 1900’s, the United States produced more than enough food for every American to have enough to eat. By the late 1960’s, the world produced enough food for everyone on the world to have enough to eat. Hunger was no longer a simple function of lack — it had become a function of our system. It had become a consequence of human choice rather than natural law.

Challenge 1: We are all going to be unemployed

Challenge 2: We don’t need everyone anymore

It means that the great conservative fear of the 19th and 20th Centuries is no longer relevant. People can become free to pursue their lives the way that we want to and if only a fraction use their time to contribute to the common wealth, everything will be OK. If 85% of the population doesnothing, the system doesn’t skip a beat — because the innovative wealth created by the other 15% is more than enough.

Challenge 3: The obsolescence of the carrot and the stick

The abundance economy is the fulfillment of this evolution. It recognizes that when people are freed from the fear-based necessity of contributing their time to unfulfilling and increasingly needless tasks, they can focus on doing what interests and has meaning for them. What they love. And when they do this, they are perfectly positioned to be more creative and more innovative. To put it very simply: creative people create. If all we do is make it easy for them and get out of the way, they need no motivation other than their own passion and curiosity.

short ness


nov 2014:

reinvent everything

what if the grid of needs is simplified to two.. still satisfying your 5 hypotheses.

Our construction of a New Society is as much a consequence of necessity as opportunity. The longer we wait the more the balance will move from opportunity to necessity.



jan 2015:

kickstarter for a new civilization

2 fears – change & chaos..

new sensemaking apparatus

basic income – debt jubilee – moral jubilee (David Graeber)


feb 2015 – sensemaking – constructing a new narrative:

Every experience leaves a trace. Enough similar experiences leave a mark. Enough similar marks leave a groove.

There are two real challenges at this level: bad mappings and supernormal stimuli.

A big part of maturing and becoming capable of effectively navigating the world is the process of identifying and resolving your inherited set of bad mappings. – (links to Venessa)


feb 2015

Jordan intro’s Daniel on fb

talking global systemic change


2013 – Complexity in Governance – Government Futures Lab, Reconstitutional Convention

via Bruce K on fb

we have to free ourselves of that tool kit

if you’re building something that requires a transcendent institution to solve those governance problems you’re prob doing something wrong… has to be decentralized.. imminent inter lockatory feed back loops to enable emergence of structure when and if necessary..

stigmergy ness

architecture is politics

if you’re building a machine that works in spite of incompetent individuals.. you’re f-d cause that’s what you’ll get… has to be fault tolerant to incompetent individuals but fundamental oriented toward building capable individuals at edge – empower individuals


Jordan Greenhall at i4j: Attaching Ourselves to a Well-being Economy via @YouTube

(1600s) notion that there is no better system.. i don’t know.. but probably (was) true.. (but) no longer the case.. no longer in a circumstance where we have to use a system that we know is designed to create winners and losers.. because ..

we are in a circumstance where simultaneously we can create a system where there are no losers. and we must.

..the constant process of competition/development/struggle that was implicit in the genius of the previous system has led us to where we are now. that doesn’t work anymore.

trying to accomplish some system where we can provision individual well-being that is generative via our collectable.. while not inhibiting

short answer – take into account of really powerful fundamental of what happened in late 60s early 70s….up till then primary problem extraction and distribution of scarce – depletable goods.. information is not rivalrous in nature.. we can make it feel rivalrous.. by using patent and copyright and shit like that.. et al.. we have an economic model that can deal with rivalrous goods..


movement toward non rivalrous – hp, yahoo, google

creativity not motivated by carrots and sticks actually destroyed by carrots and sticks.. creativity enabled by mastery/meaning/autonomy – personal and collective because that’s the way human beings are wired..optimal for generating non rivalrous goods..

ni ness – re:wire

things necessary for human beings to achieve fulfillment turn out to be precisely the source of things that max our generation of non rivalrous phenomenon also max our ability to coordinate with each other.. with exponential growth rate

let’s do this first – for maxenergy 


nov 2015

the tpp and need to reclaim

Tinkering with the policy is a distraction.

we need to identify the root of the problem and act at that level.

a nother waydeep/simple/open enough

The first deep problem is that intellectual property is a state-granted (and protected) monopoly.

these high returns represent the beginning of a particularly pernicious feedback loop

feedback loop is broken

the early winners are able to change from adapting their strategy to the market to changing the market to fit their strategy.

perpetuating not us ness

We are talking serious money here, and the key to this vault is guarded exclusively by the scope of copyright provided by law.

rushkoff os law – deeper than ip, money/b

This is bad. But the problems here go even deeper.

Intellectual Property and the Corruption of Sense

The problem is not how we implement intellectual property. The problem is the idea itself.

our entire economic and legal model is built around rivalrous things. Rivalrous, as in, we can rival each-other for their possession. If I have it, you can’t and if I consume it, it is gone forever. Food, water, energy. For ten thousand years the creation, distribution and control of rivalrous goods and services was the raison d’etre of most of social organization.

For the anti-rivalrous, if I have it, you can also have it without my losing it and the more people who have it, the more powerful and valuable it becomes. Language, math, music, ideas.

We can see intellectual property is an effort to use legal legerdemain to make the anti-rivalrous quasi-rivalrous and, therefore, “work” in an economic and legal system fundamentally designed for a rivalrous world.

In the anti-rivalrous world, the more people who have experienced something, the more valuable and powerful it becomes. If we slap a price on a copy, even a very low price, then some people won’t or can’t access it.

it is clear that, if it has not already happened, for the first time in human history we will soon be in a world where the anti-rivalrous is much more important than the rivalrous. The shift from a rivalrous to an anti-rivalrous economy necessarily implies and requires a fundamental shift in everything about how we go about “doing economy”.

i propose the following: A Universal Basic Income. As I have mentioned several times, I consider this to be “baked in” to at least the transition to an “Abundance economy”. It is conceivable that within a generation or two of shifting to an Abundance framework, we will no longer have need of a Basic Income — but for the immediate term, it is the best answer. Ideally, I think that the UBI should empower actual autonomy — it should be no-strings attached and provide enough resources for an individual to live a reasonable life with no additional income.

radical econ – as you say.. temporary tokens

A core component of an anti-rivalrous economy is reputation. When we say that creativity is intrinsically motivated, we mean that it is motivated by a rich mix of deep human needs. Things like esteem, access, collaboration and inspiration. In order to ensure that these “social currencies” flow in the right directions, it is of utmost importance that the actual creators behind the best ideas and expressions are reliably and accurately identified.

i don’t know. i don’t get this. like obligation ness..

i think just a and a.. no labels/reputation.. because of stuff like: danger of a single story et al.. on the need to trust everyone. hold everyone in esteem.

In addition, and perhaps more importantly, an attribution architecture is necessary in order for us to maximize collective intelligence.

i think we max collective intelligence (eudaimoniative surplus) by harnessing tech (chip) to listen (w/o agenda/judgment) – and then do its thing: connect-us/search/leave-a-trail..

so how to create/uncover an operating system that can facilitate that.. mechanism simple enougn – grounding/facilitating the chaos of 7 billion set free to eudaimonia – 100%/singularity ness/third way ness.

The notion is this. Imagine that everyone is issued a “digital wallet” and that every month $500 of a special kind of digital money is automatically deposited into everyone’s wallet. What makes this money special is that it can’t be spent. Instead it can only be pledged. Specifically, it can only be given to “creative projects” that commit to sharing all of the results of their work into the public domain. Once the money is transferred, it becomes “unlocked” and converts into regular old money that can be spent freely.

I would like to suggest that pursuing a major dismantling of intellectual property and the reclaiming of the world of ideas is one of the most important places we could focus our energies in the coming decade.

for (blank)’s sake

do this firstfree art ists

a nother way


my SFI presentation on the fundamental nature of currency (AKA a transdisciplinary/complexity view of currency).

My presentation starts ten minutes in.

a transdisciplinary look at currency – mechanism independent..

12 min – sense making agent.. input.. process.. output

signal.. sensen -> significance..

significance … feed/forward/back -> currency

13 min – currency is a signal that facilitates the coherent coordination of two (or more) sense making agents

currency landscapes: stigmergy.. language… money (as a special case)

14 min – a convivium – new agent on the system..

16 min – bandwidth constraints turn out to be very important… ie: evolution of the brain.. expands portfolios of currencies and the complexities of currencies

17 min – human being as the dunbar sensemaker.. ie: 150 max (soft limit) bandwidth capacity to effectively use set of currencies associated with our level of convivia/organization..

jo freeman ness – structure less ness

this is a very complex currency.. ie: body language, facial expression et al .. meaningless for a cat/bug..

18 min – as humans.. seem to have ability to feedback effectively and  to take over and take ownership over bandwidth capacity and currency system..  so new kinds of currency space.. ie: arts and language…. and accounting.. which leads us to our modern idea of money..

20 min – stealing from David Graeber‘s debt… the narrative economists..myth.. but rather immeshed in social currency..  over time.. externalize social currencies into artifacts.. changed bandwidth capacity..changed convivia we could operate in.

21 min – ledger: origin of money.. ability to record debts.

make it occur externally..

tally stick: also to externalize social currency.. break in half.. combine when debt was settled..

22 min – big move – decontextualization and tokenism… appears primary driver was scale: 1\ population (beyond dunbar) 2\ geographic (hard over space) 3\ kinds of transactions (no longer related to deep social context..

23 min – 3 variables: complexity, bandwidth, scale.. ie: simplify to grow, complexify to profit

24 min – sensemaking agent: the firm

25 min – 1\ trust: sometimes trust is the currency.. externalize.. moves to institution.. further and further.. to token/bitcoin get a trustless environment.. 2\ fetishism/hypertrophication.. begin to optimize for the sign, ie: gdp… 3\ signal jacking/debasement

28 min – current state – emerging currencies… ie: yelp, blogger, vimeo, twitter, … reviews, ratings, …

hierarchy to horizontal convivia, ie: uber… delivers drive a reputation score… so w/in hierarchy via blockchain

33 min – decentralized/autonomous orgs, ie: crypto tokens, ethereum – smart contracts, backfeed – reputation currencies… used to generate a whole new form of human organization..

collective intelligence.. and us as a convivium… gigantic increase in some portion of our bandwidth capacity but not symmetrical.. much more coming in than our dunbar number… ie: for each of you.. 6 convos in this room you should have but don’t have capacity for… so imagine if each person gets a watson..

36 min – q&a – feedback loop in uber.. 1\ reputation ledger allows uber to scale.. unlimited.. 2\ your relationship as rider.. very little consideration w/individual driver..  so trusting the brand..

38 min – 5 for 5.. in uber.. i’ll give you a 5 if you give me a 5

41 min – selling these to fica scores.. emergence of whole cluster of reputation currencies.. and those will then replace fica.. and around will emerge new sets of behaviors.. ie: vouching for people… i could tag you with my virtual vouch.. and you could use in encounters w/others

oh my.

43 min – q: on uber’s motive for reputation currency.. to gain riders.. we don’t see emergence of robust..ness .. so then on blockchain taking on uber like uber took on taxis..

44 min – a: we are making current monetary system.. how to do that deliberately.. to get what we want.. very talked about in blockchain community

48 min – so different space of trusting math/cryptography + cryptographers..

50 min – q: on overarching platform – a: flat out unknown..

ethereum‘s Gavin claiming that… no?

51 min – i’m a seed investor in uber

55 min – hope is to expand bandwidth/capacity… to make highly contextual/rich – that is w/in dunbar level.. scalable..

57 min – anthropology rather than tech of bitcoin.. developed by many people allergic to trust.. didn’t trust govt.. others.. so a deep implication the decontextualization.. and exploring language space….

1:03 – q: wikipedia as ie of currency system de coupled from current systems.. a: relationships between editors and subtribes.. using currencies..  higher order.. relationship of rest of us.. based on diff set of currencies.. movements around debasements of that currency.. to signal jack.. required innovation of new set of tech… and now big pharma has jacked that

1:09 – q: on decentralizing scaling of currencies.. getting many diff kinds.. a:

1:15 – nature of new world… need to get comfortable with being freaked out..

1:16 – bottom line: we have to get a whole lot smarter.. and the way we do is understand collective intelligence… then actual solutions will emerge from that.

perhaps that just comes from slowing down.. listening.. to the rhythm.. we already have.. in each one of us. no?

1:18 – post singularity problem..

1:19 – comment (by jeffrey) on dunbar number… there isn’t a dunbar number there’s a sequence of dunbar numbers… ie: 5 (people you love/hate); goes up by factors of 3…  at same time connectivity currency flow decreases… so like a fractal hierarchy.. ; 15, 45/50 .. that’s why center for institute is 50.. next is 150… which is the one you’ve referred to.. the next is 500, then next is 1500 before it completely dissipates…  we shouldn’t focus on sensemaker as a fixed number of 150…


dec 2015 – calling for a global jubilee

View story at

This is because our current monetary system is extraordinarily fragile. And this is because the core of our current monetary system is debt


This bank created money is at the very center of our monetary system and our economy. Depending on how you measure it, bank created “debt-money” represents somewhere between 85% and 97% of our entire money supply. This is the core of the whole thing.


Whether as a result of default or merely by being paid off, when the debt goes away, so does the money in the money supply.


This means that our productive activities are biased in the directions preferred by debt, such as the production of tangible things like houses and factories. The result here is the unhealthy combination of chronic overcapacity .. and chronic overconsumption ..


Our monetary system and all that is constructed upon it is based on a single premise: that almost everyone will continue to try to pay their debts. The moment this premise is no longer valid — the moment that enough of us *commit* to washing away all debts — the entire global monetary system will come crashing down. …. it won’t really even take that many of us. I estimate that somewhere between 15 Million and 30 Million Americans making a clear and compelling commitment to a global debt jubilee would be enough.


….. review, evaluate and revise them all the way down to their very roots.

While in general we can pretend that the workings of our social structure are simply “the way it is,” there are moments in history where we must wake up to the reality of our responsibility and reclaim our power.


are we not at a time where we could make money irrelevant…? jubilee .. great. let’s wipe out money as well.


feb 2016

View story at

Bitcoin is a self-organizing collective intelligence. As such, what it becomes is entirely a function of what it can do — that is, it is a function of the capacity of its collective intelligence to overcome the challenges that it encounters in its environment.


Every “movement” or “scenius” (to use Brian Eno’s ingenious term for “collective genius”) is a form of self-organizing collective intelligence.


The basic dynamics of a SOCI is as follows. It begins as some sort of attractor — some aesthetic sensibility or yearning — that is able to grab the attention and energy of some group of people. Generally one that is very vague and abstract. Some idea or notion that only makes sense to a relatively small group.

? really..? or is that what we thinking it is.. again – i’m seeing Louis‘ magnets pulling the puck.. and wondering.. why the puck..?


In the end, the development of a SOCI is defined by the challenges it faces, its capacity to surmount those challenges, and the consequences of its solutions on its own further development.

perhaps.. i don’t know. but if so.. how do we know the challenges we keep encountering aren’t manufactured/perpetuated because of our misunderstanding of self-organizing.. (ie: what if it has little to do with attracting others.. but rather facilitating/coordinating the connections of ie: curiosities that already are.. in each person)


  • It solves motivation, reward and collective action problems through an architecture that is responsive to nuanced and changing value landscapes without being bottlenecked by concentrated (and, therefore, intelligence reducing) decision-makers.

whoa. motivation, reward, collective action, .. 3 things that seem irrelevant to being human.. (assuming collective action here is referring to puck like.. action)

their ability to connect with, motivate and apply the attention and energy of their communities is either very narrow


To get a better sense of what I mean here, consider Bitcoin as an extremely early prototype of how this kind of motivational architecture can work.

whoa. motivational architecture.. that’s not what we need. we have the motivation already w/in each one of us.. ie: curiosity. what we need is a means to coordinate that.

motivating anyone who could appreciate and act on this invitation to figure out how they could best give their value to the Bitcoin SOCI in exchange for increasingly valuable coins.

motivating.. to give so you could get..?

The limitations of Bitcoin’s approach to motivation and collective action are well understood and new technical layers like Ethereum’s smart contracts and Backfeed’s distributed governance system magnify the potential intelligence of this kind of SOCI at least as much as the neocortex magnified the intelligence of the mammalian brain.

whoa. smart contracts.. govt system.. is our goal/optimisation.. with capabilities 1\ we already have w/in each one of us 2\ of tech today

I really wish the reality and importance of this new frontier were more broadly understood.

me too.

And whoever gets there first will “win” in a fashion that is rarely seen in history.

it has to be all of us.. or it won’t work. there’s no first for a win.



money ness



We can restore Democracy by disrupting politics. Here is how.” by @jgreenhall…

Fortunately, the money power has repeatedly been shown to have one major weakness that it has not yet reliably patched: it is slow to react to technical innovation. This seems to be particularly true with technical innovation that undermines and disrupts the power structures that it relies on for control — like say the media and the electoral system. Thus, if we can design and implement a technology-based initiative that radically changes the balance of power around both media and elections, we might catch the money power off balance and have window of opportunity.

But remember, this is David and Goliath stuff. David didn’t go toe-to-toe with Goliath. Neither can we. We are likely to get one shot at this. It needs to fly straight. And if it lands, it needs to be terminal. It needs to be the kind of shot that so radically changes the game that the money power is eliminated from the game completely.

yes.. for (blank)’s sake


doing nothing is likely to be much worse. So our challenge is to find an approach that will simultaneously unseat the money power, re-establish effective governance (adequate to deal with our many challenges) and do so without pushing us into crisis.


his suggestion – liquid democracy – So liquid democracy allows everyone to “proxy” their vote to other people — who can exercise their sovereignty on their behalf.


So with liquid democracy, what you have a fluid “swarm” of governance that forms clusters of expertise around *given issues and concerns — expertise that is identified not by credentials or graft, but by real “chains of trust” all the way back down to the individual citizens from whom all sovereignty extends. Rather than a slow moving bureaucracy made up of easy to exploit single points of failure (“representatives”) that change hands only once every few years, you have a platform that can update in realtime and “flow” power and attention where it is needed. In other words, a platform for a resilient and adaptive collective intelligence.

perhaps better – a nother way.. that makes most of these *given issues/concerns irrelevant..

ie: hosting-life-bits – rather than proxy ing or liquifying…

then he goes on to explain how liquid democ party would work.. and the story in my head is that it sounds very much like the charter schools .. allowed to make their own policies… but if a district has 500 policies… they have to match them.. replace each one.. so.. perhaps.. kinder B.. but still b..

2. Ignore all forms of the legacy system (e.g., stop watching TV, stop reading newspapers, become indifferent to debates and conventions) — focus all of your attention on *getting more people signed up to and on the platform. There is only one goal: getting people on and engaged with the platform.

love the idea of getting rid of irrelevants.. but would have to say.. getting people signed up on a liquid democ platform would also be an irrelevant..

(Party members) are rewarded for signing people up, for contributing valuable technique to the wiki, for creating new software that works, etc., etc. The Party must be a crowdsourced collective intelligence.

collective intelligence.. won’t happen via rewarding coercion.. manufacturing consent.. et al..


situational assessment 2017 []

Front One: Communications Infrastructure.

All modern warfighters know that the first step of any conflict is to disrupt the enemy’s communications and control infrastructure.


deleuze war machines


This war is about much more than ideology, money or power. Even the participants likely do not fully understand the stakes. At a deep level, we are right in the middle of an existential conflict between two entirely different and incompatible ways of forming “collective intelligence”.


Their intent is not to play with or even dominate the legacy media — but to eliminate them from the field entirely and to replace them with something else altogether.


Front Two: The Deep State

In ordinary politics, an elected candidate is expected to integrate with and make relatively small fine-tuning changes to the existing state apparatus and the mass of career bureaucrats that make up most of the actual machinery of government (AKA the “deep state”).


Let’s take a look at the “fake news” meme for example. This has all the earmarks of a Deep State initiative. Carefully planned, highly coordinated, coming from all authoritative directions, strategically targeted. My read is that this was a Deep State response to the Communications Infrastructure fight.


I cannot overstate how deeply dangerous this fight is. Classically, when a long-standing hegemony (cf “Pax Americana) is weakened and distracted by intra-elite conflict, rivals like Russia and China will see an opportunity to move from a hegemonic to a multi-polar world and can be tempted into adventurism. In these conditions, even the slightest mistake can push the system into nearly catastrophic conflict.  (trump impeachment as disaster)


Front Three: Globalism

Anti-globalist rhetoric was one of the most enduring and central features of the Trump campaign. Indeed, if Trump clearly stood for anything, resisting the “false song of globalism” was it. And all evidence in the post-election environment is that the Trump Insurgency will indeed be actively anti-globalist.


The Globalists have an odd connection to power. Generally, they must move through influence and threat to elites, with a non-trivial amount of mass level propaganda to smooth the way.


By moving quickly and decisively against the Deep State allies of globalism at home and erecting nationalist resilience to global institutional influence (e.g, high tariffs and protectionist monetary policy), combined with shaping a narrative that points all bad economic news directly at globalists, the Insurgency might well be able to cut most globalist power off at the knees.

Notably, even large multi-national corporations — until recently appearing to be pulling the strings of political policy — seem to be rapidly capitulating to the Insurgency. The two major globalist forces that have not yet been publicly tested are the energy companies and the banks.


Perhaps what is most clear is this: the period of transition as globalist forces struggle to maintain power while nationalist forces are not yet in any form of stable equilibrium with each-other is a moment (possibly lasting years) of extreme danger.


Front Four: The New Culture War

Last week, Reddit user notjafo expressed something important. It is worth reading his entire post, but the gist is this: the left won the culture war of the 1960’s — 1990’s. And the Trump Insurgency does not represent “the next move” of the old right in that old war. It represents the first move of an emergent new culture. One that is directly at war with the “Blue Church” on the ground of culture itself.


This Culture War will be unlike anything we have ever seen. It will take place everywhere all at once, constrained less by geography than by technical platform and by the complex relationship between innovation and power on an exponential technology curve. It will be a struggle over not just the content, but the very sense and nature of identity, meaning and purpose


The War for Collective Intelligence

tldr, it is this: we live in a non-linear world, stop thinking linearly.

Once you have accepted this as the task, you will eventually come to an important conclusion: you can’t. By yourself, you can’t think non-linearly.


 In this environment, for the first time ever in history, the ability to innovate is decisively superior to the ability to deploy power. Prior to today, the rule of “the battle goes to whoever gets there the first with the most” was a decent rule of thumb.


The conflict of the 21st Century is about forming a Collective Intelligence that can outwit and out innovate all of its competitors. The central challenge is to innovate a way of collaborating and cohering individuals that

? the conflict is to quit having competitors – none of us if one of us

Or is there *a different timeline where one of the “children of Blue” discovers an approach that is more intelligent still — one that is more fit to ride the wave of exponential technology and global scale crisis? One that is more fully in line with the true nature of inter-subjective consciousness?

 *god i hope.. a nother way.. for all of us.. ie: collective intelligence doesn’t work if it’s not all of us.. a part\ial dance doesn’t really dance.. to me.. that’s why we have yet gotten to global equity.. not because we haven’t figured out how to win a war..


feb 2017 – 18 min video – Politics Decentralized: A new paradigm of governance


john robb – network tribes.. open source surgeons

wholesale disruption.. only once every 1000 yrs..

eagle and condor ness

if we drop the ball.. could be something we never recover from…. in a historical moment..

7 min – dave snowden model… diff kinds of ordered systems..

9 min – whole tool kit for complicated systems don’t work for complex systems.. we keep trying to treat complex like complicated

10 min – governance as a concept.. complicated.. starting off on wrong foot.. to manage complex human life..

11 min – what might be an authentically complex approach to managing human social org.. collective intelligence.. founded upon meshwork of collab enhancing sovereignty (agency)..

12 min – the problem of collective intelligence is very deeply related to the problem of sovereignty

14 min – challenge: on not knowing how to scale past dunbar number.. things like ie: trust, responsibility, healing..

opp to present w new architecture (now people not trusting).. if they adopt/use/scale.. solves biggest problem…

15 min – i think parameters.. 1\intrinsically resilient to capture control… so deeply de centralized  2\sensitive to.. *down regulate bad faith discourse.. propaganda et al (**probably thru some variety of tokens.. currencies….)  3\id and de cohere master narratives.. what we need is ***your authentic experience.. your perspective.. second thru some other lens is how we get echo chamber..

*gershenfeld sel

**not tokens/currencies.. we can’t keep measuring transactions et al.. that’s a compromise we can’t keep risking/perpetuating

***self-talk as data.. as the day [aka: not part\ial.. for (blank)’s sake…]..   via hosting-life-bits

18 min – things have habit of going from absolutely impossible to completely most surprising ways


and fear no darkness – mar 2017

I was introduced to Strauss and Howe’s stuff back in ’08 by Peter Turchin in the context of a Santa Fe Institute examination of Big History and historical analysis. While the standard academic critiques of the Fourth Turning are accurate (it does lack rigor; it does ‘over fit’ the data

santa fe inst – Sam Bolwes


Reality is not bound by the architectures of narrative. It is only our understanding that feels satisfied with a good story

language ness (very bottom via Jon)


What we mean by crisis can be stated simply: “A crisis is a process of transformation where the old system can no longer be maintained.


From the point of view of the old system, the crisis is death. This is why the old system always struggles like hell to stave off the crisis.


The instinct to preserve the old system at all costs is almost always an adaptive instinct.

Almost. Except when the old system can no longer be maintained.

Hence the crisis.


If we really are in a crisis; if the old system, birthed over seventy years ago in the aftermath of the last great crisis, is really in its death throes, then what should we expect?

Why war of course.

Why We Fight


the nature of crisis war. It all comes back to a notable human frailty: that we cannot learn from other people’s mistakes.


Knowing this and thinking through the lens of Generational theory, it is reasonable to conclude that a great war is all but inevitable. Anyone who fails to look this possible future square in the eyes is delusional. And here is the kicker. If you are the United States and the West and you think that a fight for survival is brewing, then something else becomes clear: there is no better time for that fight than right now.


I am not an optimist. I do not think that our collective chances of making it through the 21st Century are good. Certainly below 50/50. …. If one wants peace, one must first make peace with war.


We are stuck. On the one hand, the natural direction of the world as we know it is a cascading collapse from a thousand directions. On the other hand, as soon as anyone recognizes that a bottleneck is coming and starts racing for the door, the resulting struggle will rapidly spend the remaining sand in the hourglass. History has us trapped.

As absurd and improbable as it might sound, for any of us to survive, we must find a way out of history. Not just the fifty thousand year history of civilization. We must find a way to escape the logic of our genes and find a way out of the billion year history of evolution itself. Soon, very soon if I read my indicators right, a critical mass of people are going to have to come together and help us all level up.

a nother way

deep/simple/open enough for all of us


fb share by Jon – on blue church


*Coherence is one of the most important concepts in the **management of complexity.

*googled: 1\the quality of being logical and consistent 2\the quality of forming a unified whole.

1\ idio sync jaron ness – illogical but consistently authentic/you  2\ sync ness of one ness

perhaps more a decoherence:

when a quantum system is not perfectly isolated, but in contact with its surroundings, the coherence decays with time, a process called quantum decoherence….the loss of information from a system into the environment..Viewed in isolation, the system’s dynamics are non-unitary (although the combined system plus environment evolves in a unitary fashion)

When you take two systems (two paddles) and synchronize them, you *radically simplify the complexity of the overall system. By getting two paddles into coherence, you are able to turn two paddles that you can’t manage into one big paddle **that you can manage……..Decoherence represents a challenge for the practical realization of quantum computers, since such machines are expected to rely heavily on the undisturbed evolution of quantum coherences. Simply put, they require that coherent states be preserved and that decoherence is managed, in order to actually perform quantum computation.

perhaps our problem is thinking we have to manage some computation.. no? we are not computers.. not programmable.. computational.. strategizeable.. measureable.. definable.. manageable.. if we want to remain awake/alive..

*? – less complex or more complex..

**? – manage..?

Fortunately, humans are pretty good at this too. Like dancers or musicians playing together, we have a lot of bandwidth for small group synchrony. Getting into flow together takes some doing, but with a little practice we can manage this complexity.

thinking of Bobby McFerrin‘s sync already in us ie of large audience – could say he’s saying managing (he even says.. watch me play the audience) .. .. and/or .. people holmgren indigenous listening..?

Now add another ten people into the boat. This is a real problem. The complexity of this overall system exceeds the natural control capacity of “group flow”. Try as you might, it is darn near impossible for a group of twelve people to “self organize” into an effective rowing team.

i don’t know.. thinking of swarms.. and ant feeling the proximity of each other.. and thinking of jo freeman: not that it’s impossible.. just need to org differently..  so ie: org fro better listening.. org sans consensus (or missing some voices) based on trust – isn’t the manager like the 10 day care center law..?

org to free up artisis (aka: all of us) to self-org

Unless you put someone in charge.

or is it.. when you put someone in charge..  we do need them.. because then we all stop listening deeply.. to us

Add someone to the front of the boat whose job is nothing but synchronizing the whole team (“stroke!”) and reduce everyone else’s job to responding to the signal coming from that leader (“stroke!”) and *suddenly the system comes back into control

*back into or back under control.. thinking why we haven’t yet

These are the core concepts to understand the Blue Church. The complexity of the system. Our ability to simplify the system. The control bandwidth available to manage the simplified system

The forms of social control that had been used to get us to the 19th Century were inadequate to the levels of novelty and complexity of the 20th Century. *Society cannot function without a regulatory structure adequate to its level of complexity.
The Blue Church was the emergent solution to this problem.

*so .. stigmergy/trust/antifragility/uncertainty ..emergence as structure..

Technology is not neutral.

are we sure.. or have we just not let it be yet

thinking it can listen w/o agenda – at least way better than we can.. ie: listen to self talk and just take it for what it is.. use it as data to connect us..

As Marshall McLuhan wrote, when we innovate technology, “we become what we behold. We shape our tools and then our tools shape us

what if it’s… we shape our tools/mech and our tools set us/shape-ness free

I recommend Understanding Media: the Extensions of Man.

the formal core of the Blue Church: it solves the problem of 20th Century social complexity through the use of mass media to generate *manageable social coherence.

our fear .. if we let people be free to think for themselves.. that unbridled.. 7bn fold curiosity.. will be chaotic.. so.. design the mech to facil the chaos.. not to manage the people

Once you grasp the basic shape of the Blue Church control structure, you begin to see it everywhere. There is a basic bi-directional flow. In the upwards direction there is the flow of “credentialed authority.” The “experts” who are authorized through some legitimizing process to be permitted to form and express their opinions through some form of broadcast media. In the downwards direction, these “good opinions” which anchor and place boundaries around our collective social coherence

in academia: Regardless of the specific subject matter, every class is a lesson in how to play the Blue Church game

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that the academy is propaganda or bullshit. In fact, in many ways, the opposite. It works. This *process of academic credentialization has proven to be a powerful engine for filtering out nonsense and searching for truth.

*oy.. perhaps it’s taken us to our deepest nonsense: not us ness


 Joey Ayoub (@joeyayoub) tweeted at 4:51 AM – 23 Mar 2017 : I genuinely don’t understand what people talk about when they say ‘our way of life’ when I see so many homeless people in London. (

While there have been a lot of digressions (string theory) and inappropriate authorizations (economics), in the main, the 20th Century expertise machine has been the crown jewel of *civilization.

*are we sure civilization is.. what our souls crave..

What I am pointing to here is the formal structure. Broadcast. Asymmetry. An architecture that enables a scalable division of labor for *social sensemaking and decision making. No one could possibly try and understand even a small fraction of what is going on in the world. So we break the problem up into bits, hand the smaller problems up the expertise hierarchy where they are processed and reduced to simple **shared “good opinion” which is then broadcast down and out to the whole population.

*what if those are the things we need to let go of..

because **public consensus always oppresses someone

This gets us *good answers to hard problems and, more importantly, gets us all more or less on the same page. And *this* enables us to **run a modern society.

*hmm.. don’t think it’s gotten us good answers yet.. ie: don’t think it’s gotten us to the roots of healing yet.. or you could say it has gotten us good answers to hard problems.. just not problems deep enough to resonate/heal all of us..

**if that’s our goal.. oy

then ie: is traffic.. which is so not us anyway..

Similarly, as long as we all agree that “free trade is a good idea”, or that “borders should be protected,” or that “healthcare is a human right,” or that “people should be treated equally,” or that “carbon emissions lead to global warming” then the still enormously difficult job of designing and implementing policies based upon these assumptions and frameworks can be managed and the ship of state moved forward. (“Stroke!”)

i would say none of those are deep enough.. see maté basic needs as deep enough.. let’s use that as framework..  or a stroke.. if we must

ie: short bit

Going deeper, the actual playing out of the Blue Church control structure is influenced by three characteristics of human beings:

  1. We are a pack animal constantly trying to make sure we have high status within the pack;
  2. We have a really hard time distinguishing between “having attention” and “deserving attention;”
  3. We principally learn by doing and emulation (not by thinking).

don’t think these really fit with human nature.. they do fit with science of people though

#3 – learn by doing is good.. emulation: effort to match or surpass a person or achievement, typically by imitation.reproduction of the function or action of a different computer, software system, etc… not so much

This social dynamic means that good opinion is self-reinforcing. There is no need for a top-down thought police or such. Once enough people are coherent around good opinion, natural human social dynamics will kick-in to maintain that coherence.

graeber ness on violence – from rev in reverse (i think)

The downside result of this social reinforcement, of course, is the echo chamber where opinions that violate good opinion are removed from discourse — even when they are valuable and important. And the contemporary Blue Church has definitely developed into an echo chamber.

what about the opinion that money is our os.. even though it’s made up.. and .. killing us by perpetuating a measuring ness about us

just saying.. we can see in .. the blue church.. because it’s in us

The habit of seeking authority is not merely a product of Blue Church training. It is, in fact, one of the more hard wired aspects of being human. …our hardwired “attention allocation” functions, we discover that human beings use a pretty simple model: pay attention to the people who other people are paying attention to.

As a society, we are obsessed with who has attention, and conspicuously less interested in whether it is deserved.

as a society.. a civilized society.. but .. i don’t think it’s our nature

In a broadcast world, merely being “on camera” is to be credentialed. Regardless of your actual capabilities, insight, or character, if you can somehow manage to get on camera you are granted actual audience *and* social authority (Kim Kardashian).

actually.. good explanation of our warped credentialing obsession.

Here is the kicker. Being on camera gives you authority even if you aren’t real.

not us.. perpetuating our broken feedback loop.. why maté basic needs are so key

Yes, we humans can discern between real people and fictional characters.

can we…? have we…?

the level of complexity of the 21st Century is simply outside of the control capacity that is possible within the form of the Blue Church. Unless we abandon the Church and move to a new approach, our race into the future will be increasingly out of control.

However, and this is a profoundly important point, we currently know of no form of control structure that is adequate — even in principle.

control structure..? why control structure..?

and maybe we do.. a nother way

The fundamental problem is at least threefold:

  1. Our entire approach to managing complex systems like our environment is flawed. Until the late 20th Century we could get away with this flaw because we weren’t powerful enough to matter. This has changed and as Joe Brewer has been writing about beautifully, we need to level up quickly. We need to *switch from trying to manage complex systems with complicated control structures and invent entirely new techniques for intrinsically up regulating the complex systems that make up our natural world. We don’t yet know how to do this.
  2. Complex systems that include human beings are different. Unlike atmospheres and nitrogen cycles, people can forecast, strategize and adapt hyper-rapidly to our environment. Dave Snowden calls this anthro-complexity. We have to **innovate an entirely new approach to governance that is adequate to the challenging set of problems posed by anthro-complexity. We really don’t know how to do this.
  3. Finally, we have to come to terms with the real nature of technology, the difficult to predict feedback loops of how we affect technology and how it affects us. And then we have to ***figure out how to navigate the actual consequences of exponential technology — on ourselves and on our lived world. Most people aren’t even prepared to think about how to do this.

*we do.. it’s in us.. just listen deeper.. ie: a nother way via 2 convos

**from dave‘s post:

Social complexity now has more specific meaning in academic circles and I don’t want to be confined by that. Cognitive complexity has the human aspect in it, but again it is a little limiting. I’ve also used naturalising sense-making and still do. ..More recently I have been thinking about anthro-complexity (or anthrocomplexity) as being the most accurate label, and possibly the least confining.

and again.. if we listen deep enough.. we do.. this is back to your celebrity ness with a mic.. the attention grabber.. the shiny.. that assists us in our missing it ness

maybe we don’t know how to get there.. but i think this would work.. the key being.. we all already have the means with in us.. to paddle at the right time

***luckily.. people don’t have to think about how the tech is doing it.. that’s beauty.. we spend our days like this..  instead of this..  aka: zinn energy law

.Addressing these challenges is going to require the innovation of an *entirely new approach to how we collectively make sense of and act in the world.

*exactly.. and why we keep missing it.. we keep trying to go partial.. ie: new approach.. but still based on measuring things..

fb share by Michel:

Another contribution from Jordan Greenhall. This post originally appeared on Medium. Jordan Greenhall: There have been a lot of conversations about Bitcoin over the years. Is it a currency or an equity or a commodity? Is it a store of value? Is it a “settlement mechanism”? Is it not money at all, but merely an example of a decentralized application on the Blockchain? [ 1,963 more word ]…/…/16

This is no ordinary SOCI. The deep importance of Bitcoin is that it represents the first example of an entirely new SOCI organism in our landscape. One that clearly represents a new kind of power and capability.

? – it’s a phenom of the shiny.. by people who aren’t themselves.. perpetuating man-made money that measures transactions.. and thus.. continues to compromise us..

1) It is intrinsically global. More to the point, it is geographically unconstrained, and, therefore able to take advantage of any attention and energy anywhere in the world.

as shiny does

2) It is intrinsically virtual. In other words, it is able to connect with resources anywhere with minimal lag and at minimal cost.

These two features combine to mean that in principle this new form of SOCI can attract and *utilize the total collective intelligence of the human species almost instantly. While in practice this level of concentrated collective intelligence isn’t likely to happen the potential of tapping into and connecting precisely the girl in Phuket and the team in Slovenia when where and how they are needed is flat out revolutionary.

rather *perpetuate the compromise of humanity

And, most importantly,

3) It solves motivation, reward and collective action problems through an architecture that is responsive to nuanced and changing value landscapes without being bottlenecked by concentrated (and, therefore, intelligence reducing) decision-makers.

?.. holy cow

Bitcoin-like SOCI use the technical capabilities of the blockchain, crypto-tokens and smart-contracts to provide *a motivational architecture that can be highly adaptive to the real needs of the SOCI without bottlenecking through some concentrated control structure.

rather *motivational architecture  ie: 2 convos via daily curiosities of 7 bn people.. nothing to do with measuring transactions..

 I really wish the reality and importance of this new frontier were more broadly understood.

me too.. we’re so missing it

And whoever gets there first will *“win” in a fashion that is rarely seen in history.

*sign of missing it ness


first intro’d to Jordan Peterson when Jordan was trying to connect with him….re intro’d/intrigued via Greenhall’s fb post here

Seems it is time to prune the old friends tree. I’ve increasingly noticed that Jordan Peterson is a pretty darn good filter. I’m not a strong on Jordan Peterson as David Fuller appears to be, judging from his new Medium post (…/the-man-for-the-times-of-chaos-jordan-…), but I’m easily a 4 out of 5 on Mr. Peterson.

Some folks really, really dislike him. If you are a 1 or a 2 on JP (roughly ranging from “evil misogynist homophobe” to “narcissistic buffoon”) and you are my friend, we should part ways. Ideally amicably.


If someone forms a very negative impression of someone based on a single exposure . . . ? We are getting down to the nitty-gritty and *I can only play with grown-ups.

notes from post on Pederson‘s page.. (initial thought.. dang elitest.. hope i’m wrong).. and *whoa Greenhall


garden of eden – the transition – complex dynamics – july 2017


jordan – from dave snowden 10 yrs ago (1\ simple  2\ complicated  3\ complex  4\ chaos)

..simple enough for kid to get  

indeed.. simple enough ness.. a nother way book2 convos as the day graphic

becoming experts and managing complicated systems.. that no single person could.. frames what we do.. what we are good at doing
complicated vs complex.. complicated: although phase space very large it doesn’t change.. in complex system.. things do change.. all the stuff we really care about are complex..
and a big part of the game we’ve been playing last 15000 yrs.. has been trying to use complicated stuff to manage complex stuff.. impossible..
in a complex system.. things that are causation.. are almost impossible to figure out.. can’t make prediction with precision
one of big problems.. when you have a complicated system.. trying to manage the complex system.. as the complex system changes.. the complicated system has to become more complicated..
ie: district with 500 policies.. and too much ness.. et al
till it becomes so complicated you can’t manage it.. till it does something dave snowden calls: takes a journey thru chaos..
everyday.. as the day..
and chaos is the 4th kind of system.. and we don’t like chaos.. but how it works.. have to break down and go thru chaos to come back into authentic complexity
perhaps authentic complexity is (seeming) chaos.. perhaps not believing/embracing this.. is why we keep spinning our wheels.. (ie: why we haven’t yet gotten to equity).. we can’t let go enough to become ongoingly antifragile..
perhaps our job right now is twofold:
1\ figure out how to position ourselves so that we can in fact endure the chaos.. possibly even be antifragile to the chaos and use the chaos to build something very positive..
indeed.. mech to facil the chaos of 7 bn curious/awake people.. to build/model/be/become.. eudaimoniative surplus
2\ do what we can now to envision what a future looks like that embraces complexity authentically..
try this: a nother way
daniel: more complicated blueprints are not going to get us there.. our motivational tool kit has to change.. as long as homeless ness is ok.. and killing is ok.. is it fair to call that civilization yet.. maybe not aspired to it yet..  maybe birth of civilization is what is on the other side if we navigate towards that..
graeber model law