Align with some of your general themes, and you have some major errors in logic that lead to systemic failure as currently structured.
The term “synergistic dialectical synthesis” is not found by google, not a well defined term – why use it?
Say what you mean in terms that are most likely to be understood.
What exactly does it mean?
How to define value?
Markets cannot do so, as they are scarcity based and generate zeros when presented with any universal abundance (a clear failure).
Exactly what system is proposed as a replacement for markets as a value metric generator?
Markets perform many functions other than value generation – eg communication, arbitrage between value systems and distributed decision making.
How exactly will those functions be replaced?
What if the notion of truth is an over simplification?
What if reality requires a fundamental tension between order and chaos (all levels – Heisenberg writ large)?
What if the very notion of dialectic is an approximation to something that works in certain contexts and fails in others?
What if reason itself has context sensitive utility?
Completely align with vectoring towards abundance as a design criteria – but abundance of what at the cost of the displacement of what? Gaining any sort of alignment on that is a non-trivial task.
I suggest that we may need to take a creative approach.
“omni-consideration” another new term – not well defined elsewhere. Why use such opaque terms?
How do you define “psychopathy”? That is a really important question !!! Cannot use any sort of mass measure or median, and novelty must always be beyond such bounded measures, and the presence of novelty must increase exponentially.
The definition of such base value metrics is foundational to any such enterprise.
I suggest that the minimum such agreed metric must be respect for individual life and individual liberty (in that order), which will require of such individuals responsible action in social and ecological contexts, and the expression of such responsibility will be a constantly evolving expression requiring periodic conversations and negotiations of new levels of agreements.
The notion of “determine behavior” is too strong. If freedom is to have any meaning, then the best that can be asked is “influence behaviour”.
In respect of Governance and World View I suggest that increasing complexity demands that such boundaries as are agreed as necessary be kept to the absolute minimum necessary, and that must be an ongoing conversation as new dimensions of complexity are explored. Only in an environment that restrictions are keep to the minimum necessary for survival and freedom can self expression and the necessary emergent diversity flourish.
Any system may be captured.
The only effective strategy against capture is distributed and diverse systems at all levels, coupled with exponentially expanding instantiations of variations on the theme of “eternal vigilance”.
I strongly suspect that the information encoding density of some systems is extremely dense, and requires very complex decoding systems. In a very real sense, that is what we are, or can be. Non-fungibility of information may be a non-decidable set of conjectures.
There already exist some 20 levels of self reproducing and self maintaining systems. Allocation of resources between the levels of systems already existent, and those emergent is a non-trivial function.
Expansion of systems into orbit and beyond is a relatively trivial exercise once full automation of systems of production is achieved (Drexler machines).
“Needs to avoid/ be resilient to attack from the current economic system including any of its associated systems (media, law, military, etc). It also needs to be resilient to attack from and able to out-compete any other emerging autopoietic systems that don’t vector towards post-transition viability.”
How exactly, in a realm of maximally computationally complex systems, might one make such a decision???
Nice theory, but no certainty available in practice.
In practice, all we can do is work with the probabilities we have, and enroll others in aligning with us and adding their vigilance to ours. The universal values of individual life and individual liberty provide the greatest probability of achieving that; and that must involve some very complex negotiations.
To avoid being seen as a threat, we need to not actually be a threat. That does actually take a bit of thinking about. It goes deep, very deep, even deeper that Jordan Peterson has gone so far.
The current system cannot be allowed to collapse.
The current system cannot be allowed to remain as the dominant system.
Both of those notions are central to any possibility of survival.
Eliminate either, and by definition, we become a threat.
It is deep.
It is non-trivial.
As a strategy that works against the probability of capture, can I suggest fractal resilience in the set of required boundary conditions, with as much free space (in algorithmic and strategic spaces as well as all lower level spaces) as possible.
In terms of the structural flaws of the current economic system, just be straight. Markets cannot deal meaningfully with universal abundance.
Markets, once the bastion of freedom, and the greatest barrier against tyranny, are now, in the presence of the exponentially expanding ability to fully automate the production of goods and services, becoming the greatest source of existential risk to the things they once preserved (individual life and individual liberty).
On the issue of Ownership we part company – seriously.
It is not private ownership that is the issue. It is the very notion of markets.
In the presence of markets, private ownership tends to concentrate wealth – exponentially.
That is a function of markets, not a function of private ownership.
Private ownership is an essential risk mitigation strategy, an essential aspect of distribution and resilience.
Developing non-market mechanisms that ensure that everyone has a sufficient minimum of private property, while allowing free movement and allocation above that, is the real trick.
The only alternative to private ownership is central control, and that is vulnerable to capture and fails the resilience test.
The ideas that “Ultimately, all the perverse incentives require private ownership and would cease without it” is utter nonsense – pure dogma without basis in logic or strategy or mathematics.
Need to go back to the drawing board on that issue.
Some really good stuff in this, and it doesn’t make explicitly clear the essential strategic reality of evolution that cooperation is only stable when there is greater threat from external sources than from within the population. That usually translates to contexts where there are sufficient resources for all. When there are insufficient resources, or there are behavioural sources of threat from within the population of others like self, then competitive modalities tend to dominate.
So yes – focus on generating win-win, and do so in a context that is conscious of the many levels of strategy and strategic triggers in every one of us human beings.
We are very complex entities.
Over simplify us at peril.
We can be the most cooperative species on the planet, and we can also retaliate hard when we detect cheating, and many aspects of our existing political, legal and financial systems are quite easy to characterise as “cheating systems”.
So it is a very complex path. Many levels to consider, simultaneously.
Agree with most of those things – except the idea of threat in the deepest of strategic senses – and be very clear what I was saying about threat.
The sum of threats from external sources must exceed the sum of threats from internal sources if cooperation is to stabilise. That can mean maximising external threat, or minimising internal threats – both work – the latter is more stable psychologically (less people in extreme anxiety or catatonic shock).
So we need to work at creating a safe internal environment (which is at odds with the idea of raw competition being in some way a fundamental good). Competition in this sense has many values, and they cannot be allowed to impinge on aspects that pose significant risk to individuals.
That level of balance does not appear to be commonly understood.
Continuing the theme of being explicitly clear about what is involved at the strategic level – it seems to me that doing this requires building a concensus across political, psychological, philosophical and religious dimensions and traditions.
That is a non-trivial exercise.
I see the approach of Jordan Peterson carrying the essence of something, though Jordan himself is carrying too much anger to carry it across all dimensions.