1021 system design

there is a difference between
how someone wants us to behave
and how we want to behave

Powerless member change as a hyper-centralized system defense against change

Hyper-centralized systems resist change. The greater the system is the harder it is to change due to complexity of change and risks associated. Most common strategy hyper-centralized system uses to resist change is to request system members who are not decision markers to make changes. Since these members have no power over the system they will start making changes which change their own behavior but will not change the system. These changes can be beneficial or detrimental to the lives of these members, however the system will not be changed, or if there is any change it will be symbolic, far from the change actually required for the real result.

Anarchism, coercion, revolution, change

Main goal of anarchism is to remove coercion from all systems. In error, most anarchist wish to remove institutions which use coercion which can only be attempted through a revolution and has proven ineffective.

Coercion can only be eliminated by itself, and not by elimination of institutions which use it. If institutions are removed while coercion is not directly addressed, coercion will remain within the system and enter new rules.

Most effective way to remove coercion is to keep institutions but remove coercion by offering a move effective and more valuable method than coercion.

Metamodernism and openness as ontological methods for collective intelligence and consciousness growth

Knowledge can be defined as an ontology. Language is the dominant ontology management method in contemporary systems. It is more effective than imagery and other methods because contemporary systems depend highly on abstract yet precise ontologies. Therefore ontology, knowledge, and language are one in this article and will be presented by the “ontology”.

If a goal of a system is to increase collective intelligence and consciousness, system changes should be observed through ontology changes. Ontology changes between traditionalism, modernism, and postmodernism show what kind of language is needed for metamodernism and openness to increase collective intelligence and consciousness.

Traditionalism had a stable ontology. Modernism rapidly expanded the traditional ontology by adding to it and rarely changing it. Postmodernism is mostly focused on changing traditional and modern ontology, adding little to both. Postmodernism depends on closed centralized power to create these ontology changes.

Metamodernism and openness should direct ontology development towards following goals:
– Postmodernism expands instead of changes traditional and modern ontologies,
– Ontology changes are more open and less centralized,
– Adoption of non-binary (oscillating) ontologies.

If ontology development is directed towards these goals a system will experience increase collective intelligence and consciousness growth, and will avoid reductive conflict caused by closed and centralized ontology changes.


Openness is a quality of a centralized system to allow members and non-members direct influence on its decisions, therefore decentralizing it to some extent for the benefit of both the system and its members.

Influence is defined as data, information, and knowledge shared from individuals who do not make decisions to individuals who make decisions. Openness is a complimentary source of decision relevant information to experts which hold centralized decision power. Example of such systems are ones in which decisions are made by engineers, scientists, managers, product designers, editors, politicians.

Openness informs decisions and minimizes risk of damage caused by insufficient informed. Without openness centralized decision makers can cause damage to some or many members. At the same time openness increases benefits and efficiency of centralized decisions through added information, and it increases member education making acceptance easier.

Openness depends on technologies which enable it. If there are no technologies which directly support it, it is diminished. Reduction of information, like in polls or complex requirements for participation, reduces openness.

Openness also depends on the centralized decision makers ability to use the information: skills, culture, cognitive bandwidth, and management.


One of the challenges of the human conditions is to find our own voice. Finding a voice is a way we communicate with subjects – ourselves, people close to us, and the society. Our voice is different from our identity. It is a form of communication – a visual, a sound, speech, an action. Our voice is confirmed by a change it causes, it is a method by which we exercise our power. Our voice defines our identity.

We all have a voice. An engineer designs blueprints, a rapist is violent, an artist makes art, a parent screams, a nurse speaks kindly. We can have many voices for different goals and subjects. Every voice offers an opportunity for our development. Each change created by a voice is a reward. We develop in a direction for which we are most rewarded.

Without a voice we are isolated from ourselves, from those around us, and from the society, and our development regresses. Being denied a voice means that we are denied power. We can be denied a voice directly or indirectly. While direct denial is an obvious form of violence, indirect is more covert and its definition is changing with culture and technology.

Because our voice is part of a human condition, it is important that any system facilitates development of voices and that it eliminates their denial. If a system deliberately or accidentally denies voices it will regress.