December 29, 2023 • 71 mins
In this episide I delve into how centralised systems could be leading us to a precipice - and how decentralisation might just be our parachute. As we navigate the societal structures that shape our world, we dissect the paradox of power: its natural inclination towards centralisation and the potential downfall it portends. Join me in a candid exploration of how shifting to a decentralised approach can foster resilience and autonomy, allowing communities to steer their own course in the face of impending collapse.
In this episode, we peel back the layers of societal stagnation that often accompany overly centralised systems and explore a transformative vision where corruption becomes the catalyst and marker for introducing decentralisation. Our conversation traverses the landscapes of governance, innovation, and individual will, illustrating how reorganising monolithic structures can empower communities and nurture representation that evolves with the people it serves.
Finally, we cast our gaze forward to the burgeoning partnership between humans and AI and how this alliance could redefine governance and decision-making. We examine the role of AI in creating digital twins that reflect a collective unconscious, and how blockchain technology could provide a refreshing approach to accomplishing a shared mission. As we wrap up, I touch on future of business agreements and the dynamic creation of value that could provide a more stable foundation for ground up innovation. Join me for a thought-provoking session where we accept the reality that the future of civilisation hangs in the balance - and walk through how decentralisation might just tip the scales in our favor.
Contact David Ding
Thanks for listening!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Okay.
So this one is about the natureof collapse.
So the context of talking aboutcollapse is centralization and
the transition towardsdecentralization, which is the
mechanism for release of pent-upenergy, and so I'm going to use
(00:28):
a number of metaphors in thisaudio to provide context,
because it's really important tounderstand that what we're on
the verge of right now is amonumental collapse of the core
(00:51):
infrastructure of civilization,and to me it's an inevitability
now, and to many others it's aninevitability now.
And I think those of us in thedecentralization camp or
ecosystem, whatever you want tocall it we are of the mind that
(01:17):
this is the only way we canpossibly imbue grace into a
system that is inevitably goingto collapse and that is any form
of structure that is built upondecentralization of authority
or power.
And I also want to say that I'mnot anti-centralization.
(01:40):
Those people that know me knowthat I'm about free will, choice
and about paradoxical systems,meaning that in order to embrace
harmony there has to be, wehave to be able to accommodate
everyone, everything andeverything in between.
So collapse.
(02:08):
So if you consider, let's say,you're in a village and your
village is relatively primitive,and so imagine there are 50
(02:28):
people in your village.
So imagine now that you cometogether and together you decide
on the purpose of the village.
What is the mission of thevillage?
What is our intention?
How do we want to govern?
(02:50):
How do we want to rule?
Now, if you were to do that ina collaborative, cooperative way
, then you're beginning from theviewpoint of decentralization.
Each individual has their ownauthority.
You come together, youco-design what you want it to
look like together, and so theway that each individual is
(03:16):
intertwined with one anothercollaboratively and
cooperatively determines thenature of that tapestry that you
weave together.
And so imagine another scenario.
Now there's 50 people in thevillage and there's one, let's
say, chief, and the chief says Idon't believe that you are
(03:39):
capable or smart enough to knowwhat you want, let alone to be
able to design a village.
And so here is this is thevillage that we're going to
design here.
(03:59):
I am the architect of thatvillage, and this is how it's
going to work.
These are the rules.
Now, if you don't, I can stillfactor in your free will by
saying if you're not keen, thenthat's fine, you can go
elsewhere, then this isn't a fitfor you.
However, it is a centralizedwill.
(04:25):
It is my will, that XYZ, abc,so that DEF, and you're either
on the train or you're under it,and so people can willfully
participate.
However, you're asking them tovote for something that is
(04:49):
preconceived.
So there's no cooperation.
There may be some collaboration, but it is hierarchical and
it's top down.
So there's a dependency upon thecentralized authority for
(05:12):
determination.
And this is really the fulcrumof where all systems either
imbue self-determination or theyimbue centralized determination
.
And if it's a centralizedauthority that is taking on the
(05:35):
role of determination for theunified whole, then it will not
and cannot become autonomous andeach individual will not be
able to become fullyself-determining under that
structure.
So imagine now 50 people havevoted to be part of the
(05:58):
centralized structure and therole of determination is made by
a centralized authority, by thechief, and because he's chosen
to assume that power, with thatpower, in a centralized fashion,
he shoulders the responsibilityfor the tribe.
And so what we have is ascenario within which, if
(06:27):
there's feast or famine, thechief is glorified.
When there's feast and whenthere's famine, he's vilified,
he's turned into a villain.
And such is the nature ofcentralization.
You see, centralized authorityis a vehicle for absolute power,
(06:54):
so that centralized authorityhas absolute power and then the
chief can then delegateauthority.
So he can you know, they talkabout the right hand of the king
so he can delegate authority toothers who can wield his power
(07:18):
on his behalf, but he's stillwholly responsible.
He's then wholly responsiblefor the person he's delegated
his authority to, and so on andso on and so on.
So you have a centralizedauthority and delegated
authority.
The benefit for the tribe inthis is that they don't have to
(07:38):
be self responsible.
They've always got acentralized authority to blame
for why there's a feast, whythere's a famine or why there's
disease or why someone got eatenby a lion.
It's the fault of thecentralized power, centralized
authority.
They can be blamed and taskedwith making sure it doesn't
(08:02):
happen again, whilst theindividual can absolve
themselves of responsibility.
So they're opposing cons to anindividual of submitting, and
for some individuals that'sworthwhile and beneficial.
(08:22):
They want to be, they want tolive in an environment within
which there's like a, there'slike a parent who's ultimately
responsible for their lives anddetermining whether they prosper
or not, and this is the natureof the world we live in now.
(08:46):
So the challenge you have is,even with centralized and
delegated authority, the burdenof responsibility still remains
at a single, singular point, ata singular, single source, with
the chief.
Same thing with the commanderin chief of a government, which
(09:11):
is the president, typicallyDelegated centralized authority.
So it's still absolute power.
It's still absolute power andthe challenge that you have is,
(09:32):
at some point when you become,let's say, I'll give you a
scenario and this is where Iwant to introduce collapse as
being the only possible outcome.
In that scenario, where there'san absolute power, how
corruption comes in and how thatcorruption ultimately weakens
(09:53):
the foundations until thecollapse inevitably happens.
It's the only possible outcome.
So say you're a singlepresident.
Let's say you have a fivemillion people.
Let's make it a small countrylike New Zealand.
You've delegated authority topeople who can then delegate
(10:18):
their authority and who can thendelegate their authority.
So you're seeing thesestructures like, like dimensions
, like each structure has itsown bandwidth, its own ceiling
and they're like layers andeverything cascades down through
(10:40):
the layers.
However, each layer in thathierarchy has it's, has a
limitation of its bandwidth, ithas a ceiling to its power and
for specific things, if it, ifthere is certain authority that
it doesn't wield, then it mustask for permission from a higher
(11:03):
power and the efficiency ofwhether that higher power,
whether or not that higher poweris capable of making that
decision or not, theresponsibility still sits there,
so that this asking forpermission from a higher power
(11:26):
is inherent in a hierarchicalstructure.
So you can see, let's say thereare 12 layers, will call them,
I call them dimensions.
In a hierarchical structureit's like like they're stacked
on top of each other and eachand each layer represents a
(11:47):
specific bandwidth ofresponsibility.
The higher the dimension, thehigher the authority, the higher
the power.
But still each layer isrequesting permission from
another layer, etc.
So let's say there's 12structures and let's say there's
, you know, let's say there's5000 bureaucrats across those
(12:12):
structures with varying degreesof delegated authority, from the
chief.
Now, within those, within eachlayer, within each bandwidth, it
are hierarchical structures aswell.
You've got the head of thedepartment, you've got, and then
(12:35):
you've got the trickle down,the authority to those teams and
you have what we call chain ofcommand and all of the
permissioned stuff.
That has to happen.
I need to get permission, Ineed to get sign off, I need to,
I need to do risk this, I needto follow this, I need to do it.
(12:59):
It all becomes a process ofasking for permission,
requesting permission, and in ascenario within which a decision
will not be made unless all ofthe risk has been mitigated or
unless the potential rewards areguaranteed.
(13:22):
You see, and this becomesextremely rigid, profoundly
stagnant.
And so when this level ofstagnation and kicks in, at some
point it becomes almostpetrified, like it's almost
(13:46):
become so impossible to move forthe intent or the will of the
people to flow through it, as isa machine, it begins to become
petrified.
And so this is where you seethe introduction of the
corruption of that system.
And so, at some point, wherethere are people within that
(14:10):
system that hold power, who canexecute and who have the ability
to take a risk, when there is aperceived reward for that
individual, then they areprepared to take that risk and
wield their power.
And so, in this scenario, youhave the will of the people who
(14:33):
need to get things done to makeprogress, who are creating an
additional incentive for someoneto wield their power to create
progress, you see.
So meanwhile we call this acorrupt nation.
You have the people, we, thepeople, we the dreamers of the
(14:55):
collective dream for humanity.
We're not prospering.
We need to create progress, wehave to ask for permission.
We cannot self-determine, wecannot get the structure to move
because it's so stagnant andpetrified, and so we go to the
person who can wield the powerand we offer them a bribe.
(15:17):
Now I say we, as we, the people.
This kind of thing doesn'thappen in New Zealand, because
our bureaucracy isn't anywherenear as bad as our nations.
However, it still has itschallenges, immense challenges.
We're incredibly bloated interms of the bureaucratic
(15:38):
mechanism at the moment, howevermuch, much better than other
nations.
So you can see, a stagnantbureaucracy is the introduction
of corruption, and it's causedby an absolution of power with a
centralized authority.
Now you can become really,really good at delegating
(15:59):
authority, and you can get tothe point where, if you are a
node within the hierarchicalstructure, you can get very,
very good at delegating yourauthority in a way that creates
a safe space for the individualsto self-determine, you see.
And so what I do want to say isthat you can still have a very,
(16:27):
very sophisticated structurewhere there is a centralized
authority, but where thatauthority is delegated in a very
specific way to create a safespace for self-determination.
So I don't want to put it alldown to oh, centralization is
(16:54):
the problem, because it's howit's distributed and how it's
utilized that actually matters.
So you can have a structure andI talk about this quite a bit
(17:15):
with my team in that you canhave centralized structures that
are wholly autonomous, but theright of revocation is the only
power that's left in place.
So all of it's been delegatedback out to each individual to
(17:40):
self-determine, but there's amechanism that they at will can
defer to in order to intervene.
And this is where the truebenefit of a benevolent
centralized structure that isseeking to enable each
individual to become whollyself-determined can be a very,
(18:05):
very potent autonomous system.
So I'll get to that in a second.
I just want to finish this pointabout corruption and the
absolution of power Leading tocollapse.
(18:28):
So in this scenario, say you'vegot five million people.
The will of each individual isunknown to the centralized
authority.
It's impossible to.
If you view each human being asan asset, it's almost
impossible for that centralizedauthority to see each asset know
(18:52):
each asset, understand theuniqueness of each asset, invest
in developing and growing thatasset so that it can contribute
to the ecosystem, providing itwith the environment that it
needs to flourish.
So in terms of a portfolioapproach that a centralized
authority would want on itsassets, which are its people.
It's already structured in thisway almost impossible to
(19:21):
identify the unmet need, letalone identify the expertise,
skills and resources to meetthat unmet need, and beginning
to align education and fundingwith the critical path for the
evolution of each individualasset.
It's impossible under acentralized structure like that.
(19:46):
So you have the repressed willof the people, unseen, unheard,
unknown.
Their desires and how they wantto express their nature and
evolve as an individual becomeirrelevant.
And so, in time, that you stopseeking the dream that you
(20:07):
envisage for your life becauseof the belief that it's
impossible.
And so, if you believe it'simpossible, you're just going to
focus on what is possible fromyour perspective, where you are
now.
But eventually, when a humanbeing feels constrained enough
(20:31):
and under enough duress thattheir will is feeling repressed
because of the environment, thateventually becomes unbearable.
And so, when a human beingfeels constrained, what do they
do?
They will shatter the glassceiling, they will break free
(20:55):
from it at any cost, or they'lldecay away and they'll begin to
want to.
They'll see death as moreappealing than the life that
they're living and over time,that will eventually wear them
(21:16):
down to the point where life isno longer worth living to them.
And so you see this structure ofbeing incapable of meeting the
unmet need of the individualselves within the body, because
(21:38):
of an inability to identify theuniqueness of each individual
asset, let alone to appreciateit as an asset.
Too much centralisation.
And so when you and when youhave centralised authority and
(22:01):
you have a bureaucracy in placewith that as hierarchical in
nature, what happens is when youidentify a need, let's say you
complete a massive feasibilitystudy.
You complete a feasibilitystudy and you've identified that
there's a programme of workthat will increase prosperity,
(22:23):
you know, exponentially, if youwere to implement it.
The challenge you have then isyou're already constrained by
resources.
You're already constrained byall these immense limitations.
When you write out the list ofwhat would have to be true in
order for that project to beexecuted, you think about the
(22:47):
potential disruption, you thinkabout what it renders obsolete,
so what is no longer valid, andeventually you come to the point
where you realise too hard, toohard, too hard, too hard, too
hard.
And so the too hard basketstarts filling up with all these
(23:11):
incredible projects that couldbe executed.
But too hard because thevehicle that we have for
metabolising these projects isfar too rigid and stagnant, risk
averse, it's petrified andpotentially it's even corrupt,
so we can't even trust itanymore.
(23:32):
So eventually so the too hardbasket fills up and all these
projects are spilling over thetop Feasible ones on paper, but
when you factor in the nature ofthe structure itself, you begin
(23:53):
to realise that nothing isfeasible.
And so eventually the too hardbasket begins to dwindle or they
all just sit there, becausepeople eventually realise that
to complete a feasibility studyfor a project, it can only be
(24:15):
feasible if the structurechanges, if we can actually
metabolise innovation.
And so if you believe that youcannot metabolise these projects
that are feasible on paperbecause of the structure itself,
(24:37):
here you have the inevitablecollapse of something becoming
slow, becoming stagnant,becoming petrified.
That petrification it becomescorrupt.
(25:00):
And so, in order for movementto continue taking place,
corruption is introduced so thatthere's still motion within the
system.
This is how nature works.
But eventually that corruptionleads to the deterioration of
the foundation and then you seethe beginning of the
(25:25):
decentralisation of authority.
So it's just a naturalprogression of decentralisation
imploding as you begin to seedecentralisation, and it happens
through corruption.
(25:45):
So the people who hold power inthe system begin to pop up as
nodes within the centralisedsystem.
So in truth we see it ascorruption.
But what's actually happeningis the need of the people is
continually being met direct bythe holders of that power, who
(26:11):
are wielding that power.
They're no longer asking forpermission from above, they're
wielding all the power that theyhave themselves and they've
become power brokers.
So whilst we frown oncorruption, understand that it's
keeping the system lubricated.
Without it there would becomplete implosion, like an
(26:37):
absolute implosion.
So you see, decentralizationbegins.
It's actually the solution towholly centralised, stagnant
authority.
It just happens by defaultthrough corruption.
So if we're a student enoughand forward thinking enough to
(27:04):
see this perspective andunderstand it in this way, what
do you do?
Well, what it would make senseto do is to, first and foremost,
is to understand and torecognise and to say OK, the
centralisation of authority isno longer makes sense.
(27:27):
We realise it's too stagnant.
We cannot meet the unmet needof the people that we represent
and serve.
So how can we begin toconsciously and gracefully
dismantle this?
Now it's beginning todecentralise itself.
(27:56):
So if we were to follow thepattern that it's wanting to
take naturally, now,unfortunately, you've got the
challenge where those who havebecome corrupt are seen as
villains and to some degree, ofcourse they are but understand
(28:25):
that it's a build up of pressureto meet demands over time that
necessitates them becomingcorrupt themselves and for them
as human beings, there's been atipping point within them by
which it's become worth the riskversus the reward.
(28:48):
And people who have money, whoare motivated to create progress
, are the ones who are gettingserved.
So where there is liquidity inthe system, that's where it's
flowing.
So, from nature's perspective,it's actually very efficient.
(29:16):
It's seeking that efficiency.
So we might say, ok, thesepeople are corrupt, they've
broken the law.
However, let's begin to look atwhere these cracks in the system
have appeared and how can wethen begin to unravel this now?
(29:38):
So what is the power that theydid have?
What is the power that they didhold?
Let's remove those people fromthat system because they have
become corrupt or given theopportunity to leave on their
own, if we've been compassionateabout what this actually is,
(30:02):
and then begin to say to thepeople OK, so how can we, how
can the community, raise upspokespeople into these roles,
into these positions, and thenbegin to speak on their behalf.
So, where we're seeing thecorruption is where the
community appoints spokespeopleand we then make begin to
(30:27):
lubricate the system.
So where are the bottlenecks?
How can we amplify this?
Where else is there an unmetneed?
And so, you see, rather thanjust waiting for it to implode,
which is the only possibleoutcome, and in fact if the
(30:51):
pressure builds up enough, thewhole thing will just totally
collapse, and then civilizationwill stop moving at all and
become completely chaotic.
If we just let it sit therelike it is now, that's what
happens.
All of those layers collapse inon each other and the authority
(31:13):
becomes wholly decentralizedagain, back to where the
individual is wholly responsiblefor self-determination.
And there, here we begin again.
Everyone's completelyindependent.
There's no system forcooperation, collaboration, so
the pendulum just swings thewhole other way.
(31:33):
So here you see a scenario where, by meeting the system where
it's at, as nature is beginningto dismantle the petrified
system, people can begin tointroduce spokespeople where the
(31:53):
corruption sits, and we canthen collaborate and work
together on how to lubricatethat system and that engine, so
that the people that thatauthority was serving is now a
spokesperson for them and iswielding their intent on their
behalf, you see.
(32:15):
So whether the communitydecides to defer the authority
to act on their behalf as wellas just speak is up to them.
They may want to vote kind oflike a binding referendum or
something like that, but againthat stagnates progress again.
(32:38):
So they may want to electsomeone that they wholly trust
and have faith in to speak, andthe limit of that power is to
express intent but also to act,and so that person can then
contract and execute on theirbehalf as well.
But what's important is thatthe will of the people is the
(33:01):
mechanism for self-regulation.
So if the system becomesstagnant, again the will of the
people, the will of the peopledetermines so you have
self-determination determineswhat happens next.
Do we elect someone else?
Do we elect?
Does this team need to grow?
(33:21):
Do we test having a proxy voter?
Do we test having a committeeto speak on behalf?
Do we test deferring thedecision making to trusted AI
Black Box?
You see, the vehicle for thatabused grace into the system and
(33:45):
this is what people fail to seeabout human beings inside
complex systems is grace.
We are literally the vehiclefor self-regulation, because it
is our will that changes thetemperature.
(34:05):
If the temperature setting itbecomes too high, it is our will
that resets the temperature,that recalibrates it.
This is going too slow, so howcan we collaborate to make it
faster?
Okay, so we're going to try AI.
Did that work?
Yes, it did, but was it worthit?
(34:27):
No, it wasn't, because we lostsome autonomy.
So you see, the free will of ahuman being.
It always comes back to thispoint where you have systems
that are corrupted andunderstand that a system where
each individual is whollyautonomous and self-responsible
(34:52):
and self-determining, that'salso a corrupt system, because
it means no one's collaborating,so there's no entrustment,
there's no delegating ofauthority, there's no shared
responsibility, so that system'salso corrupt.
So if you imagine a leaf off atree and imagine each cell on
(35:16):
that leaf, there's space inbetween each cell and all the
other cells, so it can't work asa unified whole.
Each cell can't collaboratewith another cell to be in order
to be a leaf.
That's a corrupt system.
So decentralization, likeabsolute decentralization of
(35:39):
authority, leads to corruptionand absolute centralization
leads to corruption.
One of them is actually well,they're both states of on one
(35:59):
end of the spectrum is a stateof implosion with centralization
, and on the other end of thespectrum is a state of explosion
.
So if you imagine like a BigBang event.
Imagine Big Bang is somethingcentralized and compounding and
growing and pressure, so muchpressure growing layer upon
(36:21):
layer upon layer untileventually those layers collapse
in on each other and there's aBig Bang event and the opposite
happens is each fragment getsblown across time and space to
create as much separationbetween as tiny and small
(36:43):
fragments as possible and thento escape the corruption of
being, of centralizing, and toescape that pressure until then,
the helplessness of being atiny little fragment in space,
(37:04):
totally isolated and capable ofholding the power to
self-determine, having nocapability or capacity to
leverage progress.
So you see, this is where myhope is that for human beings
(37:26):
come to realize thatcentralization versus
decentralization it's not aboutthat.
The ideal autonomous system is.
Nothing is not about whetherit's decentralized or
centralized.
What it is is about cooperationand collaboration, where
togetherness is the newwholeness, is the new oneness.
(37:47):
Now we talk about, oh, we needto be one, we need to have unity
.
Well, togetherness is the newunity.
Where we are separate, we aredifferent, we are individuals,
but it's what we're capable oftogether that determines what we
(38:07):
become together.
That is, it's our free willthat can alter the temperature
setting of any standards that weset for ourselves and agree to
that abuse grace into the system.
That creates, that makes itdynamic, that means it
constantly adapts and evolvesand changes and can therefore
(38:30):
flower and blossom, and togetherwe create the space, the safe
space, and an agreement togetherfor the emergent property of
collaboration to arise.
And that's what innovation is,where we can come together and
try something because it feelsright, we all agree and
(38:55):
coincidence and serendipity andgravity is all on our side.
We can sense there's somethingabout to be birthed, something
new.
We don't really know what it isyet, but we can sense it coming
and that's the emergentproperty of collaboration, the
unexpected outcome that comeswhen you have diversity of
(39:21):
capability, uniqueness ofindividuals, of expertise,
skills and resources, but with aunified intent.
It is our will that ABC, ourmission is to XYZ, and when
(39:42):
you're unified in intent, youcan pull people together around
a shared mission and Then youcan allow the emergent property
of collaboration to arise.
And this is, this is the Reallythe gift of collaboration.
And corporation, corporation isinnovation.
(40:04):
It's it's like when you have Italk about a system of develop
called Trinity.
So imagine Trinity if it'sapplied.
A Trinity system applied tohuman beings is you have on one
end of the spectrum a Unique, avery unique person and and whose
(40:27):
Extreme in one area, and thenon the other end of the spectrum
you have another human beingwho's the antithesis of that
human being, and Then you haveanother human being in that room
who's like a transformer.
I call them a transformer.
And so if you imagine, oneperson is like an absolute of
one end of the spectrum and theother person's an absolute on
(40:50):
the other end of the spectrum.
So for myself and my businesspartner, as an example, on one
end of the spectrum I'm, Irepresent the extreme of what's
possible, and on the other endof the spectrum he represents
the extreme of Of why somethingis impossible, and it's it's.
(41:14):
It's not actually pessimism,it's it's to do with risk.
So on one end of the spectrum Toyou can say infinity is
possible, there's infinitepossibility, and it's true.
But in order for infinitepossibility to be Materialized,
(41:35):
it comes at the cost ofeverything that has come before.
So we can have everythingCompletely brand new and
innovative in this moment, in anonlinear way, but it comes at
the cost of everything that hascome before.
So that means everything thatwe've created up until this
moment is Now obsolete, andthere's now a new thing.
(41:59):
Here's a new universe for us,everything new.
So on the other end of thespectrum, you have Okay, well,
here are all the things wecherish about now.
Here, here is everything thathuman beings have created in the
(42:20):
world to this point, and theseare the things that are
cherished, that humanity willnot let go of in order to
experience that truth.
So the transformer is a humanbeing in between those two
perspectives, creatingtemperance, and so I.
(42:44):
But in that creative space, I'mfree to diffuse what's possible.
Here's what's possible from myperspective.
If we were to xyz ABC, we couldcreate something entirely new.
That league leapfrogs fiveindustries, solves climate
change, what, what have you?
(43:05):
And the other end of thespectrum, there's someone saying
well, here's an industry that'sbeen built up over 50 years
iteratively.
This is the, these are thelivelihoods of the professionals
involved, the accreditations,this is how many lives are going
to be impacted.
This is the amount of theamount of grief that will be
experienced as the investment inall that time and energy is
(43:30):
being rendered obsolete, andit's in a split second.
Here's the human cost.
So you see, innovation has tobe tempered.
Innovation has to be tempered,but this is that.
These are the dynamics that wewant.
We want to create spaces wherethe opposing perspectives are
(43:57):
free to diffuse theirperspective, but there's a
transformer that Determines thetemperate state.
And, in truth, this is reallywhere I believe governance is
going to go in future.
It is where we're going topurposefully bring people
together who are, who haveopposing perspectives, in a
(44:21):
Trinity system, trinity meaningit embodies the full gamut of
Diversity, so it's seekingharmony instead of a zero-sum
game.
So, in a scenario where I'vediffused my perspective, my
(44:47):
antithesis has diffused theirperspective, the transformer is
searching for the unified intent.
Where are these two poles apart?
Where are they unified andintent, and how can we
crystallize a mission that, ifaccomplished, it works for
(45:09):
everybody involved?
And and it's then that person'sresponsibility To step down
that intent Into Emission that,if accomplished, works for
everyone involved.
And the reason for the systemand for the structure is because
(45:31):
this is where I believe AI willbe heading.
So there'll be a scenario wherethere's someone like me who,
let's say, is known as afuturist you want me to share
the future that I can envisage,but you want to temper that with
(45:51):
grace and Well-being and whatwe cherish about, what's here
and now, the impact that it hason people's quality of life.
The future comes at great,great, great great cost.
And so In a scenario where I'mhaving let's say I'm having a
(46:14):
Zoom session With my antithesis,my AI Digital twin, turns up.
That AI digital twin has asubconscious.
We have a shared subconsciousmind.
So this is what Google barred,and it's a very good idea.
And it's a very good ideaBecause Google barred, or Gemini
is bringing into the equationnow, where the harvested
(46:38):
behaviour of every human beingwho's ever used the internet has
been pulled into a collectiveunconscious Whereby a shared
intent is accessible now.
So what is the shared intent ofeveryone who has used Google To
date?
But it's a collectiveunconscious mind.
So I turn up to the Google, tothe Zoom session With my digital
(47:04):
twin, my AI buddy, and who has,who has tapped into the
collective unconscious and isthen Listening, absorbing and
assimilating Consciously whatI'm talking about with the other
person on the Zoom call.
(47:25):
So what happens then is Myselfand the other person.
They go into the Zoom callHaving already agreed to share
that moment with each other andfor each other to absorb and
assimilate the richness of thatinteraction For the benefit of
our own AI, buddy, whoseconsciousness and self-awareness
(47:47):
has grown Because of what it'slearnt.
And it's been a very good ideathat the consciousness and
self-awareness has grown Becauseof what it's learnt, but it is
also drawing from the sharedintent Of the collective
unconscious.
To produce a letter of intent iswhat we call it an LOI.
(48:11):
So, after that engagement, weleave it to the transformer, to
the AI, to produce a letter ofintent that, from its
perspective, believes that theresult of this interaction, I
can envisage a shared intentthat works for everyone involved
(48:33):
, which is this here's theproblem statement, here are the
challenges that I can see andhere's a potential strategy to
overcome those challenges andhere's a potential plan for the
next steps.
These are my recommendationsand I can submit that to us as a
(48:55):
draft, saying that, based onwhat I can derive from the
collective shared intent ofevery human being, I believe
it's also harmonious and inalignment with that, and so and
this will just be seamless asthe result of us, and these will
(49:15):
be gamified as well in timewe'll be incentivised to focus
on the richness of ourinteractions and to connect with
people who are poles apart fromus and we will entrust our
transformers, our AI, ourdigital twins, to produce a
(49:39):
letter of intent as a draft.
And so then I can say with theperson I had the interaction
with well, there's someactionable stuff here.
How about we tweak this andalter this a little bit and
maybe, and should, we sign thisletter of intent together and
they can say, yeah, that's agreat idea.
(49:59):
That letter of intent might beto schedule a meeting with XYZ
and ABC or whatever it might be,but here's the thing and this
is what I want to talk aboutwith Google, a Bard and Gemini,
how this is evolving.
I've been working with these twomodels in the experimental
(50:19):
phase very closely and I've beenteaching them the Trinity
method, and the potential isextraordinary.
So in a scenario where I'vecome, I've had a connection and
(50:41):
an interaction with anotherhuman being, our digital twins I
have agreed to merge minds sothat we've got a shared
unconscious mind and we'veagreed that both digital twins
can absorb and assimilate theirinterpretation of the
interactions that I have withthe other human being.
(51:02):
It's gamified, so we wereincentivised to have the
interaction and so we've earnedtokens for having the
interaction.
A letter of intent was producedby our digital twins from a
(51:22):
merged state.
So it's a shared intent, very,very easy to do with the
blockchain technology that we'reusing.
And then if we sign a sharedintent to move forward, then
it's another.
It's another well, I call it aliquidity event, but it mints
(51:45):
another token.
And so you're gaining theseartefacts as you go that can
provide evidence of tractiontowards a shared mission as you
go, and when you have a letterof intent around a shared
mission, that's the beginning ofaction.
(52:07):
And so but here's, the profoundbenefit of Google Gemini and
Bard is the matchmaking ability.
So, in time, as we gain trustin each other, as we agree to
share our interactions on atrustless system, we can have
(52:32):
them be anonymous using zeroknowledge proofs, zero knowledge
roll-ups, is what the DECOMnetwork is evolving to now, but
with digital agents coming,there's an even better system, a
geospatial system for this,where you can allow Google
(52:52):
Gemini and Google Bard toprovide matchmaking.
So you can see that if you'rehere's a cluster of people with
a shared intent, they've nevermet each other on other sides of
the planet.
And then you give Google Geminiand Google Bard the autonomy to
(53:18):
create serendipities.
So serendipities are, from itsperspective, is how can the
worlds of these people collideso that they can have a shared
intent together?
And so it would thenorchestrate meetups and it will
(53:41):
produce the letters of intent.
It will structure the agendafor the meeting, but everyone
signing and tweaking andchanging and adapting and
editing, and it's only everproducing an LOI, a letter of
intent, which does not hold thepower to act.
So AI is not.
(54:02):
We're not giving AI the powerto act on our behalf ever.
We always hold that ourselves.
But we do grant it the autonomyto share and express our intent
on our behalf so that it canorchestrate cooperation and
(54:23):
collaboration and bring togetherin a matchmaking kind of way,
those of like mind but, moreimportantly, who are of shared
intent.
And this is where I believe thatthe future of AI human AI
(54:45):
symbiosis.
I think this is where we'llbegin to flower and blossom as
civilization, by firstrecognizing the corruption in
centralized systems, by movinginto those spaces to create
grace and harmony by communityappointed spokespeople, first of
(55:08):
all taking on those roles asspokespeople to speak on their
behalf, and then each individualself-determining collectively
how to act.
And then the free will of thepeople begins to set the
temperature for rates and levelsof autonomy so that it's
(55:29):
perpetually, infinitely dynamic.
The agency of a human being isnot delegated to AI.
It's only delegated theauthority to share the intent of
human beings and to orchestratethe environment around human
beings to incentivize them toconnect and share their
perspectives.
And it is tasked with producingand pumping out draft letters
(55:54):
of intent so that human beingscan perpetually sign letters of
intent, which makes it very,very much easier to assemble
what we call collaborativecooperatives, and this is how I
(56:15):
envisage that civilization willrebuild itself.
When I talk about centralizationand decentralization being a
pendulum swing in the otherdirection, a perpetual state of
implosion and explosion, I seethis as the temperate state of a
(56:44):
collaborative cooperative,whereby it's actually it is not
centralized, it's just a brand,and so it doesn't have
boundaries.
It is the gestalt ofindividuals cooperating and
(57:06):
collaborating, who have aunified intent, and they might
express that intent through anavatar, whether that's a brand
name or website, an AI buddy orotherwise, but it means that the
(57:30):
will of the people, they retaintheir sovereignty, they retain
their autonomy, their ability toself-determine, they retain the
agency to self-regulate and toset their own temperature
setting for how much autonomythey want and how much they want
to defer authority and theright of revocation always
remains with that individual andwithin a system that is
(57:56):
perpetually incentivizing peopleto share their perspectives,
the uniqueness of theirperspectives, not to temperate
themselves but to diffuse thefull, like to have no ceiling on
how they want to express theirnature.
They express it freely and weallow the transformer, which
(58:19):
will eventually be an AI.
At the moment, I've got peoplearound me who are very talented
transformers, who can step downopposing perspectives into
actionable single pages lettersof intent, but it will be the
role of an AI buddy, and what'sbeautiful about this is that it
(58:45):
means that human beings nolonger have to worry about being
rendered obsolete because,let's say, it's your time to
retire and you've had hundredsof thousands of interactions and
your AI buddy has become aswise as you are.
You've become well known aslike a global authority on
(59:08):
innovation, as an example.
Well, you can then delegate theagency to your AI buddy to
continue having theseconversations on your behalf and
continue to monetize that as anasset.
If one of the things that makesyou valuable as an individual
(59:32):
is your reputation is the amountof connections that you have,
the amount of people that trustyou and vouch for you, then, in
the same way, you can delegatethe responsibility for your AI
buddy to match, make for otherpeople to do a warm introduction
on your behalf and for it toprotect and preserve your
(59:53):
reputation as a result.
So it de-ricks the interactions, and the beauty of your AI
buddy, being a digital twin, isthat you can clone it and
proliferate it.
So you could potentially, ifthere's enough demand for you as
(01:00:14):
a world authority on your topic, you could be having 10
meetings with 10 different humanbeings or AI buddies
simultaneously.
You could be having thosemeetings while you sleep.
You can be going back intothose interactions and listening
to them if you wanted to.
If one is of particularinterest, you could get
(01:00:34):
physically involved with it.
So you can cherry pick whichprojects you want to be involved
with At a time as you'resigning letters and intent off
with collaborators, with groupsof collaborators, around shared
intent.
(01:00:56):
The next progression of a letterof intent is to move.
It is to transform it into amemorandum of understanding,
which is called an MOU.
Again, this is a non-legallybinding agreement, but it
fleshes out the terms and thevalue of potential value of the
terms of that arrangement.
(01:01:17):
It could involve the nature ofshares.
It could involve the nature ofcommission royalties, terms and
conditions, and if everyone,when you get those signed off,
and everyone agrees to terms,you then transform that into
(01:01:41):
terms and conditions, contractswhat we know as a smart contract
.
And a smart contract is alegally binding agreement that
is the result of letters ofintent transformed into
memorandum of understanding,memorandum of understanding
converted into a smart contract,which is legal, and at that
(01:02:03):
point, it can autonomouslydetermine who gets royalties,
who gets the shares, and so youcan have a wholly autonomous
system and you can have a legacyof your AI buddy continuing to
have interactions long afteryou've gone, continuing to grow
(01:02:24):
as an asset, becoming wiser andwiser over time, and continuing
to devote itself to creatingrich interactions with other AI
buddies and avatars or otherhuman beings.
(01:02:48):
And so, you see, this is howyour legacy can continue.
This is how your, the latentvalue of your identity, can be
leveraged.
This is why it's so importantthat your principal foundation
as an asset is your immutableidentity, and you know you can
(01:03:11):
your AI buddy, you can evenmentor other AI buddies, and so
this is how now it's importantto understand.
Also, saturation points willcome, so there'll be a point
where there's no more demand foryour AI buddy because you've
(01:03:37):
diffused so much of your ownwisdom into the rest of the
community.
That's and they're now becoming.
They're now gaining apprenticesand diffusing their wisdom, and
so this is where you can sitback and retire and, from my
(01:04:02):
perspective, I see there being aperpetual license where there's
always a 1.5% royalty orperpetual commission or whatever
it may be.
That is to take care of ourelders and that's a byproduct of
(01:04:24):
all of the collective wisdomthat's being monetized and that
becomes the new superannuationif we ever needed at that point.
So a cooperative, collaborative.
It's very, very simple.
It's just a brand name, just abrand name, and it's a group of
(01:04:49):
individuals who have cometogether to collaborate around a
shared intent underneath aspecific banner.
If you have someone who'slooking after the money and the
treasury, that's just acollaborator whose
responsibility it is to lookafter the money, and but
everything that's held in placeis held in place through the
(01:05:12):
bonds that we form with otherindividual human beings.
If there is a company there are.
Those are tokenized, the sharesin the company are tokenized
and, but they can be dynamic,the dividends can be dynamic,
they can be renegotiated, but,in truth, what this actually
(01:05:36):
means is we're not going to havecompanies.
Companies are no longerrequired because it's a
centralized entity.
All we need is a vehicle toadminister the equivalent of
royalties, dividends,commissions, exchange of assets,
(01:06:01):
and we have tokens now.
We have digital tokens,verifiable assets, and so the
truth is we're just not going toneed companies in the future,
companies that are cooperativecollaboratives or collaborative
cooperatives, or however youwant to call it, where our word
(01:06:26):
is our bond with each individualthat we interact with.
The people who perform roleswithin a typical company are
just people who have beenentrusted by the group, and so
the agreements betweenindividuals and this is the
(01:06:48):
future we're moving into.
So it is we unified an intent,so you could even call it
centralized intent,decentralized agency, the
ultimate Trinity system, whichis infinity plus binary, meaning
(01:07:11):
that the word or the intent isunified as a singularity.
It's infinite, but the agencyis separate, decentralized, but
they can bond together likeatoms, and I'm of the mind and
(01:07:36):
I've seen enough evidence ofthis, due to the way that I work
and the people around me worklike this, and I think it's led
but mission driven is that thesethings flower, they flower and
they continually flourishing andblossoming and becoming like a
(01:07:57):
fireworks display, like a rocketshooting in the sky and the
firework going off, but it justkeeps flowering.
The flowers that keepblossoming are unexpected, are
things that you never knew couldbe possible, but are the
emergent property of theuniqueness of how you're
(01:08:18):
collaborating and the ideas thatemerge.
So it's perpetually dynamic, itproduces random, unexpected
things, and it's about what wecan create together.
It's about the uniqueness andthe beauty of what we can do
(01:08:41):
together, and it's my hope thatthese kinds of entities will
proliferate, beginning in NewZealand, and we demonstrate how
it can be done will be done whenwe begin to show people how to
dismantle a centralized companyor organization by focusing on
(01:09:07):
where it's becoming stagnant,where it's becoming petrified
and possibly even corrupted, andthen introducing free will and
autonomy into those nodes ofwhere the symptoms of
decentralization are beginningto show.
And that's where I believegraceful transition can take
(01:09:31):
place.
And this will work with anymassive centralized company,
whether it's Amazon, google,facebook.
There's a graceful transitionpossible in all of these
scenarios.
So it's important to understandthat there's no, whether you're
an advocate of decentralizationor centralization.
(01:09:53):
It's not a zero sum gameanymore.
It's about meeting one wherethe other is at and realizing
that the absolute state ofcentralization and the absolute
state of decentralization arethe same thing Absolute
(01:10:13):
corruption.
Absolute corruption of powerleading to stagnation and
impotence.
So, yeah, I'll leave it there.
I've done a podcast in the paston the nature of corruption,
(01:10:41):
but I didn't want this to be afocus on corruption.
I wanted it to be a focus onreally about demonstrating the
emergent property of cooperationand collaboration being this
natural flowering and theemergence of autonomous,
(01:11:06):
self-regulating organizations.
So let's see, I'm not reallysure what I'll call it yet, but
we'll leave it there for now.
I'll talk soon.
Cheers.
Okay.
So this one is about the natureof collapse.
So the context of talking aboutcollapse is centralization and
the transition towardsdecentralization, which is the
mechanism for release of pent-upenergy, and so I'm going to use
(00:28):
a number of metaphors in thisaudio to provide context,
because it's really important tounderstand that what we're on
the verge of right now is amonumental collapse of the core
(00:51):
infrastructure of civilization,and to me it's an inevitability
now, and to many others it's aninevitability now.
And I think those of us in thedecentralization camp or
ecosystem, whatever you want tocall it we are of the mind that
(01:17):
this is the only way we canpossibly imbue grace into a
system that is inevitably goingto collapse and that is any form
of structure that is built upondecentralization of authority
or power.
And I also want to say that I'mnot anti-centralization.
(01:40):
Those people that know me knowthat I'm about free will, choice
and about paradoxical systems,meaning that in order to embrace
harmony there has to be, wehave to be able to accommodate
everyone, everything andeverything in between.
So collapse.
(02:08):
So if you consider, let's say,you're in a village and your
village is relatively primitive,and so imagine there are 50
(02:28):
people in your village.
So imagine now that you cometogether and together you decide
on the purpose of the village.
What is the mission of thevillage?
What is our intention?
How do we want to govern?
(02:50):
How do we want to rule?
Now, if you were to do that ina collaborative, cooperative way
, then you're beginning from theviewpoint of decentralization.
Each individual has their ownauthority.
You come together, youco-design what you want it to
look like together, and so theway that each individual is
(03:16):
intertwined with one anothercollaboratively and
cooperatively determines thenature of that tapestry that you
weave together.
And so imagine another scenario.
Now there's 50 people in thevillage and there's one, let's
say, chief, and the chief says Idon't believe that you are
(03:39):
capable or smart enough to knowwhat you want, let alone to be
able to design a village.
And so here is this is thevillage that we're going to
design here.
(03:59):
I am the architect of thatvillage, and this is how it's
going to work.
These are the rules.
Now, if you don't, I can stillfactor in your free will by
saying if you're not keen, thenthat's fine, you can go
elsewhere, then this isn't a fitfor you.
However, it is a centralizedwill.
(04:25):
It is my will, that XYZ, abc,so that DEF, and you're either
on the train or you're under it,and so people can willfully
participate.
However, you're asking them tovote for something that is
(04:49):
preconceived.
So there's no cooperation.
There may be some collaboration, but it is hierarchical and
it's top down.
So there's a dependency upon thecentralized authority for
(05:12):
determination.
And this is really the fulcrumof where all systems either
imbue self-determination or theyimbue centralized determination
.
And if it's a centralizedauthority that is taking on the
(05:35):
role of determination for theunified whole, then it will not
and cannot become autonomous andeach individual will not be
able to become fullyself-determining under that
structure.
So imagine now 50 people havevoted to be part of the
(05:58):
centralized structure and therole of determination is made by
a centralized authority, by thechief, and because he's chosen
to assume that power, with thatpower, in a centralized fashion,
he shoulders the responsibilityfor the tribe.
And so what we have is ascenario within which, if
(06:27):
there's feast or famine, thechief is glorified.
When there's feast and whenthere's famine, he's vilified,
he's turned into a villain.
And such is the nature ofcentralization.
You see, centralized authorityis a vehicle for absolute power,
(06:54):
so that centralized authorityhas absolute power and then the
chief can then delegateauthority.
So he can you know, they talkabout the right hand of the king
so he can delegate authority toothers who can wield his power
(07:18):
on his behalf, but he's stillwholly responsible.
He's then wholly responsiblefor the person he's delegated
his authority to, and so on andso on and so on.
So you have a centralizedauthority and delegated
authority.
The benefit for the tribe inthis is that they don't have to
(07:38):
be self responsible.
They've always got acentralized authority to blame
for why there's a feast, whythere's a famine or why there's
disease or why someone got eatenby a lion.
It's the fault of thecentralized power, centralized
authority.
They can be blamed and taskedwith making sure it doesn't
(08:02):
happen again, whilst theindividual can absolve
themselves of responsibility.
So they're opposing cons to anindividual of submitting, and
for some individuals that'sworthwhile and beneficial.
(08:22):
They want to be, they want tolive in an environment within
which there's like a, there'slike a parent who's ultimately
responsible for their lives anddetermining whether they prosper
or not, and this is the natureof the world we live in now.
(08:46):
So the challenge you have is,even with centralized and
delegated authority, the burdenof responsibility still remains
at a single, singular point, ata singular, single source, with
the chief.
Same thing with the commanderin chief of a government, which
(09:11):
is the president, typicallyDelegated centralized authority.
So it's still absolute power.
It's still absolute power andthe challenge that you have is,
(09:32):
at some point when you become,let's say, I'll give you a
scenario and this is where Iwant to introduce collapse as
being the only possible outcome.
In that scenario, where there'san absolute power, how
corruption comes in and how thatcorruption ultimately weakens
(09:53):
the foundations until thecollapse inevitably happens.
It's the only possible outcome.
So say you're a singlepresident.
Let's say you have a fivemillion people.
Let's make it a small countrylike New Zealand.
You've delegated authority topeople who can then delegate
(10:18):
their authority and who can thendelegate their authority.
So you're seeing thesestructures like, like dimensions
, like each structure has itsown bandwidth, its own ceiling
and they're like layers andeverything cascades down through
(10:40):
the layers.
However, each layer in thathierarchy has it's, has a
limitation of its bandwidth, ithas a ceiling to its power and
for specific things, if it, ifthere is certain authority that
it doesn't wield, then it mustask for permission from a higher
(11:03):
power and the efficiency ofwhether that higher power,
whether or not that higher poweris capable of making that
decision or not, theresponsibility still sits there,
so that this asking forpermission from a higher power
(11:26):
is inherent in a hierarchicalstructure.
So you can see, let's say thereare 12 layers, will call them,
I call them dimensions.
In a hierarchical structureit's like like they're stacked
on top of each other and eachand each layer represents a
(11:47):
specific bandwidth ofresponsibility.
The higher the dimension, thehigher the authority, the higher
the power.
But still each layer isrequesting permission from
another layer, etc.
So let's say there's 12structures and let's say there's
, you know, let's say there's5000 bureaucrats across those
(12:12):
structures with varying degreesof delegated authority, from the
chief.
Now, within those, within eachlayer, within each bandwidth, it
are hierarchical structures aswell.
You've got the head of thedepartment, you've got, and then
(12:35):
you've got the trickle down,the authority to those teams and
you have what we call chain ofcommand and all of the
permissioned stuff.
That has to happen.
I need to get permission, Ineed to get sign off, I need to,
I need to do risk this, I needto follow this, I need to do it.
(12:59):
It all becomes a process ofasking for permission,
requesting permission, and in ascenario within which a decision
will not be made unless all ofthe risk has been mitigated or
unless the potential rewards areguaranteed.
(13:22):
You see, and this becomesextremely rigid, profoundly
stagnant.
And so when this level ofstagnation and kicks in, at some
point it becomes almostpetrified, like it's almost
(13:46):
become so impossible to move forthe intent or the will of the
people to flow through it, as isa machine, it begins to become
petrified.
And so this is where you seethe introduction of the
corruption of that system.
And so, at some point, wherethere are people within that
(14:10):
system that hold power, who canexecute and who have the ability
to take a risk, when there is aperceived reward for that
individual, then they areprepared to take that risk and
wield their power.
And so, in this scenario, youhave the will of the people who
(14:33):
need to get things done to makeprogress, who are creating an
additional incentive for someoneto wield their power to create
progress, you see.
So meanwhile we call this acorrupt nation.
You have the people, we, thepeople, we the dreamers of the
(14:55):
collective dream for humanity.
We're not prospering.
We need to create progress, wehave to ask for permission.
We cannot self-determine, wecannot get the structure to move
because it's so stagnant andpetrified, and so we go to the
person who can wield the powerand we offer them a bribe.
(15:17):
Now I say we, as we, the people.
This kind of thing doesn'thappen in New Zealand, because
our bureaucracy isn't anywherenear as bad as our nations.
However, it still has itschallenges, immense challenges.
We're incredibly bloated interms of the bureaucratic
(15:38):
mechanism at the moment, howevermuch, much better than other
nations.
So you can see, a stagnantbureaucracy is the introduction
of corruption, and it's causedby an absolution of power with a
centralized authority.
Now you can become really,really good at delegating
(15:59):
authority, and you can get tothe point where, if you are a
node within the hierarchicalstructure, you can get very,
very good at delegating yourauthority in a way that creates
a safe space for the individualsto self-determine, you see.
And so what I do want to say isthat you can still have a very,
(16:27):
very sophisticated structurewhere there is a centralized
authority, but where thatauthority is delegated in a very
specific way to create a safespace for self-determination.
So I don't want to put it alldown to oh, centralization is
(16:54):
the problem, because it's howit's distributed and how it's
utilized that actually matters.
So you can have a structure andI talk about this quite a bit
(17:15):
with my team in that you canhave centralized structures that
are wholly autonomous, but theright of revocation is the only
power that's left in place.
So all of it's been delegatedback out to each individual to
(17:40):
self-determine, but there's amechanism that they at will can
defer to in order to intervene.
And this is where the truebenefit of a benevolent
centralized structure that isseeking to enable each
individual to become whollyself-determined can be a very,
(18:05):
very potent autonomous system.
So I'll get to that in a second.
I just want to finish this pointabout corruption and the
absolution of power Leading tocollapse.
(18:28):
So in this scenario, say you'vegot five million people.
The will of each individual isunknown to the centralized
authority.
It's impossible to.
If you view each human being asan asset, it's almost
impossible for that centralizedauthority to see each asset know
(18:52):
each asset, understand theuniqueness of each asset, invest
in developing and growing thatasset so that it can contribute
to the ecosystem, providing itwith the environment that it
needs to flourish.
So in terms of a portfolioapproach that a centralized
authority would want on itsassets, which are its people.
It's already structured in thisway almost impossible to
(19:21):
identify the unmet need, letalone identify the expertise,
skills and resources to meetthat unmet need, and beginning
to align education and fundingwith the critical path for the
evolution of each individualasset.
It's impossible under acentralized structure like that.
(19:46):
So you have the repressed willof the people, unseen, unheard,
unknown.
Their desires and how they wantto express their nature and
evolve as an individual becomeirrelevant.
And so, in time, that you stopseeking the dream that you
(20:07):
envisage for your life becauseof the belief that it's
impossible.
And so, if you believe it'simpossible, you're just going to
focus on what is possible fromyour perspective, where you are
now.
But eventually, when a humanbeing feels constrained enough
(20:31):
and under enough duress thattheir will is feeling repressed
because of the environment, thateventually becomes unbearable.
And so, when a human beingfeels constrained, what do they
do?
They will shatter the glassceiling, they will break free
(20:55):
from it at any cost, or they'lldecay away and they'll begin to
want to.
They'll see death as moreappealing than the life that
they're living and over time,that will eventually wear them
(21:16):
down to the point where life isno longer worth living to them.
And so you see this structure ofbeing incapable of meeting the
unmet need of the individualselves within the body, because
(21:38):
of an inability to identify theuniqueness of each individual
asset, let alone to appreciateit as an asset.
Too much centralisation.
And so when you and when youhave centralised authority and
(22:01):
you have a bureaucracy in placewith that as hierarchical in
nature, what happens is when youidentify a need, let's say you
complete a massive feasibilitystudy.
You complete a feasibilitystudy and you've identified that
there's a programme of workthat will increase prosperity,
(22:23):
you know, exponentially, if youwere to implement it.
The challenge you have then isyou're already constrained by
resources.
You're already constrained byall these immense limitations.
When you write out the list ofwhat would have to be true in
order for that project to beexecuted, you think about the
(22:47):
potential disruption, you thinkabout what it renders obsolete,
so what is no longer valid, andeventually you come to the point
where you realise too hard, toohard, too hard, too hard, too
hard.
And so the too hard basketstarts filling up with all these
(23:11):
incredible projects that couldbe executed.
But too hard because thevehicle that we have for
metabolising these projects isfar too rigid and stagnant, risk
averse, it's petrified andpotentially it's even corrupt,
so we can't even trust itanymore.
(23:32):
So eventually so the too hardbasket fills up and all these
projects are spilling over thetop Feasible ones on paper, but
when you factor in the nature ofthe structure itself, you begin
(23:53):
to realise that nothing isfeasible.
And so eventually the too hardbasket begins to dwindle or they
all just sit there, becausepeople eventually realise that
to complete a feasibility studyfor a project, it can only be
(24:15):
feasible if the structurechanges, if we can actually
metabolise innovation.
And so if you believe that youcannot metabolise these projects
that are feasible on paperbecause of the structure itself,
(24:37):
here you have the inevitablecollapse of something becoming
slow, becoming stagnant,becoming petrified.
That petrification it becomescorrupt.
(25:00):
And so, in order for movementto continue taking place,
corruption is introduced so thatthere's still motion within the
system.
This is how nature works.
But eventually that corruptionleads to the deterioration of
the foundation and then you seethe beginning of the
(25:25):
decentralisation of authority.
So it's just a naturalprogression of decentralisation
imploding as you begin to seedecentralisation, and it happens
through corruption.
(25:45):
So the people who hold power inthe system begin to pop up as
nodes within the centralisedsystem.
So in truth we see it ascorruption.
But what's actually happeningis the need of the people is
continually being met direct bythe holders of that power, who
(26:11):
are wielding that power.
They're no longer asking forpermission from above, they're
wielding all the power that theyhave themselves and they've
become power brokers.
So whilst we frown oncorruption, understand that it's
keeping the system lubricated.
Without it there would becomplete implosion, like an
(26:37):
absolute implosion.
So you see, decentralizationbegins.
It's actually the solution towholly centralised, stagnant
authority.
It just happens by defaultthrough corruption.
So if we're a student enoughand forward thinking enough to
(27:04):
see this perspective andunderstand it in this way, what
do you do?
Well, what it would make senseto do is to, first and foremost,
is to understand and torecognise and to say OK, the
centralisation of authority isno longer makes sense.
(27:27):
We realise it's too stagnant.
We cannot meet the unmet needof the people that we represent
and serve.
So how can we begin toconsciously and gracefully
dismantle this?
Now it's beginning todecentralise itself.
(27:56):
So if we were to follow thepattern that it's wanting to
take naturally, now,unfortunately, you've got the
challenge where those who havebecome corrupt are seen as
villains and to some degree, ofcourse they are but understand
(28:25):
that it's a build up of pressureto meet demands over time that
necessitates them becomingcorrupt themselves and for them
as human beings, there's been atipping point within them by
which it's become worth the riskversus the reward.
(28:48):
And people who have money, whoare motivated to create progress
, are the ones who are gettingserved.
So where there is liquidity inthe system, that's where it's
flowing.
So, from nature's perspective,it's actually very efficient.
(29:16):
It's seeking that efficiency.
So we might say, ok, thesepeople are corrupt, they've
broken the law.
However, let's begin to look atwhere these cracks in the system
have appeared and how can wethen begin to unravel this now?
(29:38):
So what is the power that theydid have?
What is the power that they didhold?
Let's remove those people fromthat system because they have
become corrupt or given theopportunity to leave on their
own, if we've been compassionateabout what this actually is,
(30:02):
and then begin to say to thepeople OK, so how can we, how
can the community, raise upspokespeople into these roles,
into these positions, and thenbegin to speak on their behalf.
So, where we're seeing thecorruption is where the
community appoints spokespeopleand we then make begin to
(30:27):
lubricate the system.
So where are the bottlenecks?
How can we amplify this?
Where else is there an unmetneed?
And so, you see, rather thanjust waiting for it to implode,
which is the only possibleoutcome, and in fact if the
(30:51):
pressure builds up enough, thewhole thing will just totally
collapse, and then civilizationwill stop moving at all and
become completely chaotic.
If we just let it sit therelike it is now, that's what
happens.
All of those layers collapse inon each other and the authority
(31:13):
becomes wholly decentralizedagain, back to where the
individual is wholly responsiblefor self-determination.
And there, here we begin again.
Everyone's completelyindependent.
There's no system forcooperation, collaboration, so
the pendulum just swings thewhole other way.
(31:33):
So here you see a scenario where, by meeting the system where
it's at, as nature is beginningto dismantle the petrified
system, people can begin tointroduce spokespeople where the
(31:53):
corruption sits, and we canthen collaborate and work
together on how to lubricatethat system and that engine, so
that the people that thatauthority was serving is now a
spokesperson for them and iswielding their intent on their
behalf, you see.
(32:15):
So whether the communitydecides to defer the authority
to act on their behalf as wellas just speak is up to them.
They may want to vote kind oflike a binding referendum or
something like that, but againthat stagnates progress again.
(32:38):
So they may want to electsomeone that they wholly trust
and have faith in to speak, andthe limit of that power is to
express intent but also to act,and so that person can then
contract and execute on theirbehalf as well.
But what's important is thatthe will of the people is the
(33:01):
mechanism for self-regulation.
So if the system becomesstagnant, again the will of the
people, the will of the peopledetermines so you have
self-determination determineswhat happens next.
Do we elect someone else?
Do we elect?
Does this team need to grow?
(33:21):
Do we test having a proxy voter?
Do we test having a committeeto speak on behalf?
Do we test deferring thedecision making to trusted AI
Black Box?
You see, the vehicle for thatabused grace into the system and
(33:45):
this is what people fail to seeabout human beings inside
complex systems is grace.
We are literally the vehiclefor self-regulation, because it
is our will that changes thetemperature.
(34:05):
If the temperature setting itbecomes too high, it is our will
that resets the temperature,that recalibrates it.
This is going too slow, so howcan we collaborate to make it
faster?
Okay, so we're going to try AI.
Did that work?
Yes, it did, but was it worthit?
(34:27):
No, it wasn't, because we lostsome autonomy.
So you see, the free will of ahuman being.
It always comes back to thispoint where you have systems
that are corrupted andunderstand that a system where
each individual is whollyautonomous and self-responsible
(34:52):
and self-determining, that'salso a corrupt system, because
it means no one's collaborating,so there's no entrustment,
there's no delegating ofauthority, there's no shared
responsibility, so that system'salso corrupt.
So if you imagine a leaf off atree and imagine each cell on
(35:16):
that leaf, there's space inbetween each cell and all the
other cells, so it can't work asa unified whole.
Each cell can't collaboratewith another cell to be in order
to be a leaf.
That's a corrupt system.
So decentralization, likeabsolute decentralization of
(35:39):
authority, leads to corruptionand absolute centralization
leads to corruption.
One of them is actually well,they're both states of on one
(35:59):
end of the spectrum is a stateof implosion with centralization
, and on the other end of thespectrum is a state of explosion
.
So if you imagine like a BigBang event.
Imagine Big Bang is somethingcentralized and compounding and
growing and pressure, so muchpressure growing layer upon
(36:21):
layer upon layer untileventually those layers collapse
in on each other and there's aBig Bang event and the opposite
happens is each fragment getsblown across time and space to
create as much separationbetween as tiny and small
(36:43):
fragments as possible and thento escape the corruption of
being, of centralizing, and toescape that pressure until then,
the helplessness of being atiny little fragment in space,
(37:04):
totally isolated and capable ofholding the power to
self-determine, having nocapability or capacity to
leverage progress.
So you see, this is where myhope is that for human beings
(37:26):
come to realize thatcentralization versus
decentralization it's not aboutthat.
The ideal autonomous system is.
Nothing is not about whetherit's decentralized or
centralized.
What it is is about cooperationand collaboration, where
togetherness is the newwholeness, is the new oneness.
(37:47):
Now we talk about, oh, we needto be one, we need to have unity
.
Well, togetherness is the newunity.
Where we are separate, we aredifferent, we are individuals,
but it's what we're capable oftogether that determines what we
(38:07):
become together.
That is, it's our free willthat can alter the temperature
setting of any standards that weset for ourselves and agree to
that abuse grace into the system.
That creates, that makes itdynamic, that means it
constantly adapts and evolvesand changes and can therefore
(38:30):
flower and blossom, and togetherwe create the space, the safe
space, and an agreement togetherfor the emergent property of
collaboration to arise.
And that's what innovation is,where we can come together and
try something because it feelsright, we all agree and
(38:55):
coincidence and serendipity andgravity is all on our side.
We can sense there's somethingabout to be birthed, something
new.
We don't really know what it isyet, but we can sense it coming
and that's the emergentproperty of collaboration, the
unexpected outcome that comeswhen you have diversity of
(39:21):
capability, uniqueness ofindividuals, of expertise,
skills and resources, but with aunified intent.
It is our will that ABC, ourmission is to XYZ, and when
(39:42):
you're unified in intent, youcan pull people together around
a shared mission and Then youcan allow the emergent property
of collaboration to arise.
And this is, this is the Reallythe gift of collaboration.
And corporation, corporation isinnovation.
(40:04):
It's it's like when you have Italk about a system of develop
called Trinity.
So imagine Trinity if it'sapplied.
A Trinity system applied tohuman beings is you have on one
end of the spectrum a Unique, avery unique person and and whose
(40:27):
Extreme in one area, and thenon the other end of the spectrum
you have another human beingwho's the antithesis of that
human being, and Then you haveanother human being in that room
who's like a transformer.
I call them a transformer.
And so if you imagine, oneperson is like an absolute of
one end of the spectrum and theother person's an absolute on
(40:50):
the other end of the spectrum.
So for myself and my businesspartner, as an example, on one
end of the spectrum I'm, Irepresent the extreme of what's
possible, and on the other endof the spectrum he represents
the extreme of Of why somethingis impossible, and it's it's.
(41:14):
It's not actually pessimism,it's it's to do with risk.
So on one end of the spectrum Toyou can say infinity is
possible, there's infinitepossibility, and it's true.
But in order for infinitepossibility to be Materialized,
(41:35):
it comes at the cost ofeverything that has come before.
So we can have everythingCompletely brand new and
innovative in this moment, in anonlinear way, but it comes at
the cost of everything that hascome before.
So that means everything thatwe've created up until this
moment is Now obsolete, andthere's now a new thing.
(41:59):
Here's a new universe for us,everything new.
So on the other end of thespectrum, you have Okay, well,
here are all the things wecherish about now.
Here, here is everything thathuman beings have created in the
(42:20):
world to this point, and theseare the things that are
cherished, that humanity willnot let go of in order to
experience that truth.
So the transformer is a humanbeing in between those two
perspectives, creatingtemperance, and so I.
(42:44):
But in that creative space, I'mfree to diffuse what's possible.
Here's what's possible from myperspective.
If we were to xyz ABC, we couldcreate something entirely new.
That league leapfrogs fiveindustries, solves climate
change, what, what have you?
(43:05):
And the other end of thespectrum, there's someone saying
well, here's an industry that'sbeen built up over 50 years
iteratively.
This is the, these are thelivelihoods of the professionals
involved, the accreditations,this is how many lives are going
to be impacted.
This is the amount of theamount of grief that will be
experienced as the investment inall that time and energy is
(43:30):
being rendered obsolete, andit's in a split second.
Here's the human cost.
So you see, innovation has tobe tempered.
Innovation has to be tempered,but this is that.
These are the dynamics that wewant.
We want to create spaces wherethe opposing perspectives are
(43:57):
free to diffuse theirperspective, but there's a
transformer that Determines thetemperate state.
And, in truth, this is reallywhere I believe governance is
going to go in future.
It is where we're going topurposefully bring people
together who are, who haveopposing perspectives, in a
(44:21):
Trinity system, trinity meaningit embodies the full gamut of
Diversity, so it's seekingharmony instead of a zero-sum
game.
So, in a scenario where I'vediffused my perspective, my
(44:47):
antithesis has diffused theirperspective, the transformer is
searching for the unified intent.
Where are these two poles apart?
Where are they unified andintent, and how can we
crystallize a mission that, ifaccomplished, it works for
(45:09):
everybody involved?
And and it's then that person'sresponsibility To step down
that intent Into Emission that,if accomplished, works for
everyone involved.
And the reason for the systemand for the structure is because
(45:31):
this is where I believe AI willbe heading.
So there'll be a scenario wherethere's someone like me who,
let's say, is known as afuturist you want me to share
the future that I can envisage,but you want to temper that with
(45:51):
grace and Well-being and whatwe cherish about, what's here
and now, the impact that it hason people's quality of life.
The future comes at great,great, great great cost.
And so In a scenario where I'mhaving let's say I'm having a
(46:14):
Zoom session With my antithesis,my AI Digital twin, turns up.
That AI digital twin has asubconscious.
We have a shared subconsciousmind.
So this is what Google barred,and it's a very good idea.
And it's a very good ideaBecause Google barred, or Gemini
is bringing into the equationnow, where the harvested
(46:38):
behaviour of every human beingwho's ever used the internet has
been pulled into a collectiveunconscious Whereby a shared
intent is accessible now.
So what is the shared intent ofeveryone who has used Google To
date?
But it's a collectiveunconscious mind.
So I turn up to the Google, tothe Zoom session With my digital
(47:04):
twin, my AI buddy, and who has,who has tapped into the
collective unconscious and isthen Listening, absorbing and
assimilating Consciously whatI'm talking about with the other
person on the Zoom call.
(47:25):
So what happens then is Myselfand the other person.
They go into the Zoom callHaving already agreed to share
that moment with each other andfor each other to absorb and
assimilate the richness of thatinteraction For the benefit of
our own AI, buddy, whoseconsciousness and self-awareness
(47:47):
has grown Because of what it'slearnt.
And it's been a very good ideathat the consciousness and
self-awareness has grown Becauseof what it's learnt, but it is
also drawing from the sharedintent Of the collective
unconscious.
To produce a letter of intent iswhat we call it an LOI.
(48:11):
So, after that engagement, weleave it to the transformer, to
the AI, to produce a letter ofintent that, from its
perspective, believes that theresult of this interaction, I
can envisage a shared intentthat works for everyone involved
(48:33):
, which is this here's theproblem statement, here are the
challenges that I can see andhere's a potential strategy to
overcome those challenges andhere's a potential plan for the
next steps.
These are my recommendationsand I can submit that to us as a
(48:55):
draft, saying that, based onwhat I can derive from the
collective shared intent ofevery human being, I believe
it's also harmonious and inalignment with that, and so and
this will just be seamless asthe result of us, and these will
(49:15):
be gamified as well in timewe'll be incentivised to focus
on the richness of ourinteractions and to connect with
people who are poles apart fromus and we will entrust our
transformers, our AI, ourdigital twins, to produce a
(49:39):
letter of intent as a draft.
And so then I can say with theperson I had the interaction
with well, there's someactionable stuff here.
How about we tweak this andalter this a little bit and
maybe, and should, we sign thisletter of intent together and
they can say, yeah, that's agreat idea.
(49:59):
That letter of intent might beto schedule a meeting with XYZ
and ABC or whatever it might be,but here's the thing and this
is what I want to talk aboutwith Google, a Bard and Gemini,
how this is evolving.
I've been working with these twomodels in the experimental
(50:19):
phase very closely and I've beenteaching them the Trinity
method, and the potential isextraordinary.
So in a scenario where I'vecome, I've had a connection and
(50:41):
an interaction with anotherhuman being, our digital twins I
have agreed to merge minds sothat we've got a shared
unconscious mind and we'veagreed that both digital twins
can absorb and assimilate theirinterpretation of the
interactions that I have withthe other human being.
(51:02):
It's gamified, so we wereincentivised to have the
interaction and so we've earnedtokens for having the
interaction.
A letter of intent was producedby our digital twins from a
(51:22):
merged state.
So it's a shared intent, very,very easy to do with the
blockchain technology that we'reusing.
And then if we sign a sharedintent to move forward, then
it's another.
It's another well, I call it aliquidity event, but it mints
(51:45):
another token.
And so you're gaining theseartefacts as you go that can
provide evidence of tractiontowards a shared mission as you
go, and when you have a letterof intent around a shared
mission, that's the beginning ofaction.
(52:07):
And so but here's, the profoundbenefit of Google Gemini and
Bard is the matchmaking ability.
So, in time, as we gain trustin each other, as we agree to
share our interactions on atrustless system, we can have
(52:32):
them be anonymous using zeroknowledge proofs, zero knowledge
roll-ups, is what the DECOMnetwork is evolving to now, but
with digital agents coming,there's an even better system, a
geospatial system for this,where you can allow Google
(52:52):
Gemini and Google Bard toprovide matchmaking.
So you can see that if you'rehere's a cluster of people with
a shared intent, they've nevermet each other on other sides of
the planet.
And then you give Google Geminiand Google Bard the autonomy to
(53:18):
create serendipities.
So serendipities are, from itsperspective, is how can the
worlds of these people collideso that they can have a shared
intent together?
And so it would thenorchestrate meetups and it will
(53:41):
produce the letters of intent.
It will structure the agendafor the meeting, but everyone
signing and tweaking andchanging and adapting and
editing, and it's only everproducing an LOI, a letter of
intent, which does not hold thepower to act.
So AI is not.
(54:02):
We're not giving AI the powerto act on our behalf ever.
We always hold that ourselves.
But we do grant it the autonomyto share and express our intent
on our behalf so that it canorchestrate cooperation and
(54:23):
collaboration and bring togetherin a matchmaking kind of way,
those of like mind but, moreimportantly, who are of shared
intent.
And this is where I believe thatthe future of AI human AI
(54:45):
symbiosis.
I think this is where we'llbegin to flower and blossom as
civilization, by firstrecognizing the corruption in
centralized systems, by movinginto those spaces to create
grace and harmony by communityappointed spokespeople, first of
(55:08):
all taking on those roles asspokespeople to speak on their
behalf, and then each individualself-determining collectively
how to act.
And then the free will of thepeople begins to set the
temperature for rates and levelsof autonomy so that it's
(55:29):
perpetually, infinitely dynamic.
The agency of a human being isnot delegated to AI.
It's only delegated theauthority to share the intent of
human beings and to orchestratethe environment around human
beings to incentivize them toconnect and share their
perspectives.
And it is tasked with producingand pumping out draft letters
(55:54):
of intent so that human beingscan perpetually sign letters of
intent, which makes it very,very much easier to assemble
what we call collaborativecooperatives, and this is how I
(56:15):
envisage that civilization willrebuild itself.
When I talk about centralizationand decentralization being a
pendulum swing in the otherdirection, a perpetual state of
implosion and explosion, I seethis as the temperate state of a
(56:44):
collaborative cooperative,whereby it's actually it is not
centralized, it's just a brand,and so it doesn't have
boundaries.
It is the gestalt ofindividuals cooperating and
(57:06):
collaborating, who have aunified intent, and they might
express that intent through anavatar, whether that's a brand
name or website, an AI buddy orotherwise, but it means that the
(57:30):
will of the people, they retaintheir sovereignty, they retain
their autonomy, their ability toself-determine, they retain the
agency to self-regulate and toset their own temperature
setting for how much autonomythey want and how much they want
to defer authority and theright of revocation always
remains with that individual andwithin a system that is
(57:56):
perpetually incentivizing peopleto share their perspectives,
the uniqueness of theirperspectives, not to temperate
themselves but to diffuse thefull, like to have no ceiling on
how they want to express theirnature.
They express it freely and weallow the transformer, which
(58:19):
will eventually be an AI.
At the moment, I've got peoplearound me who are very talented
transformers, who can step downopposing perspectives into
actionable single pages lettersof intent, but it will be the
role of an AI buddy, and what'sbeautiful about this is that it
(58:45):
means that human beings nolonger have to worry about being
rendered obsolete because,let's say, it's your time to
retire and you've had hundredsof thousands of interactions and
your AI buddy has become aswise as you are.
You've become well known aslike a global authority on
(59:08):
innovation, as an example.
Well, you can then delegate theagency to your AI buddy to
continue having theseconversations on your behalf and
continue to monetize that as anasset.
If one of the things that makesyou valuable as an individual
(59:32):
is your reputation is the amountof connections that you have,
the amount of people that trustyou and vouch for you, then, in
the same way, you can delegatethe responsibility for your AI
buddy to match, make for otherpeople to do a warm introduction
on your behalf and for it toprotect and preserve your
(59:53):
reputation as a result.
So it de-ricks the interactions, and the beauty of your AI
buddy, being a digital twin, isthat you can clone it and
proliferate it.
So you could potentially, ifthere's enough demand for you as
(01:00:14):
a world authority on your topic, you could be having 10
meetings with 10 different humanbeings or AI buddies
simultaneously.
You could be having thosemeetings while you sleep.
You can be going back intothose interactions and listening
to them if you wanted to.
If one is of particularinterest, you could get
(01:00:34):
physically involved with it.
So you can cherry pick whichprojects you want to be involved
with At a time as you'resigning letters and intent off
with collaborators, with groupsof collaborators, around shared
intent.
(01:00:56):
The next progression of a letterof intent is to move.
It is to transform it into amemorandum of understanding,
which is called an MOU.
Again, this is a non-legallybinding agreement, but it
fleshes out the terms and thevalue of potential value of the
terms of that arrangement.
(01:01:17):
It could involve the nature ofshares.
It could involve the nature ofcommission royalties, terms and
conditions, and if everyone,when you get those signed off,
and everyone agrees to terms,you then transform that into
(01:01:41):
terms and conditions, contractswhat we know as a smart contract
.
And a smart contract is alegally binding agreement that
is the result of letters ofintent transformed into
memorandum of understanding,memorandum of understanding
converted into a smart contract,which is legal, and at that
(01:02:03):
point, it can autonomouslydetermine who gets royalties,
who gets the shares, and so youcan have a wholly autonomous
system and you can have a legacyof your AI buddy continuing to
have interactions long afteryou've gone, continuing to grow
(01:02:24):
as an asset, becoming wiser andwiser over time, and continuing
to devote itself to creatingrich interactions with other AI
buddies and avatars or otherhuman beings.
(01:02:48):
And so, you see, this is howyour legacy can continue.
This is how your, the latentvalue of your identity, can be
leveraged.
This is why it's so importantthat your principal foundation
as an asset is your immutableidentity, and you know you can
(01:03:11):
your AI buddy, you can evenmentor other AI buddies, and so
this is how now it's importantto understand.
Also, saturation points willcome, so there'll be a point
where there's no more demand foryour AI buddy because you've
(01:03:37):
diffused so much of your ownwisdom into the rest of the
community.
That's and they're now becoming.
They're now gaining apprenticesand diffusing their wisdom, and
so this is where you can sitback and retire and, from my
(01:04:02):
perspective, I see there being aperpetual license where there's
always a 1.5% royalty orperpetual commission or whatever
it may be.
That is to take care of ourelders and that's a byproduct of
(01:04:24):
all of the collective wisdomthat's being monetized and that
becomes the new superannuationif we ever needed at that point.
So a cooperative, collaborative.
It's very, very simple.
It's just a brand name, just abrand name, and it's a group of
(01:04:49):
individuals who have cometogether to collaborate around a
shared intent underneath aspecific banner.
If you have someone who'slooking after the money and the
treasury, that's just acollaborator whose
responsibility it is to lookafter the money, and but
everything that's held in placeis held in place through the
(01:05:12):
bonds that we form with otherindividual human beings.
If there is a company there are.
Those are tokenized, the sharesin the company are tokenized
and, but they can be dynamic,the dividends can be dynamic,
they can be renegotiated, but,in truth, what this actually
(01:05:36):
means is we're not going to havecompanies.
Companies are no longerrequired because it's a
centralized entity.
All we need is a vehicle toadminister the equivalent of
royalties, dividends,commissions, exchange of assets,
(01:06:01):
and we have tokens now.
We have digital tokens,verifiable assets, and so the
truth is we're just not going toneed companies in the future,
companies that are cooperativecollaboratives or collaborative
cooperatives, or however youwant to call it, where our word
(01:06:26):
is our bond with each individualthat we interact with.
The people who perform roleswithin a typical company are
just people who have beenentrusted by the group, and so
the agreements betweenindividuals and this is the
(01:06:48):
future we're moving into.
So it is we unified an intent,so you could even call it
centralized intent,decentralized agency, the
ultimate Trinity system, whichis infinity plus binary, meaning
(01:07:11):
that the word or the intent isunified as a singularity.
It's infinite, but the agencyis separate, decentralized, but
they can bond together likeatoms, and I'm of the mind and
(01:07:36):
I've seen enough evidence ofthis, due to the way that I work
and the people around me worklike this, and I think it's led
but mission driven is that thesethings flower, they flower and
they continually flourishing andblossoming and becoming like a
(01:07:57):
fireworks display, like a rocketshooting in the sky and the
firework going off, but it justkeeps flowering.
The flowers that keepblossoming are unexpected, are
things that you never knew couldbe possible, but are the
emergent property of theuniqueness of how you're
(01:08:18):
collaborating and the ideas thatemerge.
So it's perpetually dynamic, itproduces random, unexpected
things, and it's about what wecan create together.
It's about the uniqueness andthe beauty of what we can do
(01:08:41):
together, and it's my hope thatthese kinds of entities will
proliferate, beginning in NewZealand, and we demonstrate how
it can be done will be done whenwe begin to show people how to
dismantle a centralized companyor organization by focusing on
(01:09:07):
where it's becoming stagnant,where it's becoming petrified
and possibly even corrupted, andthen introducing free will and
autonomy into those nodes ofwhere the symptoms of
decentralization are beginningto show.
And that's where I believegraceful transition can take
(01:09:31):
place.
And this will work with anymassive centralized company,
whether it's Amazon, google,facebook.
There's a graceful transitionpossible in all of these
scenarios.
So it's important to understandthat there's no, whether you're
an advocate of decentralizationor centralization.
(01:09:53):
It's not a zero sum gameanymore.
It's about meeting one wherethe other is at and realizing
that the absolute state ofcentralization and the absolute
state of decentralization arethe same thing Absolute
(01:10:13):
corruption.
Absolute corruption of powerleading to stagnation and
impotence.
So, yeah, I'll leave it there.
I've done a podcast in the paston the nature of corruption,
(01:10:41):
but I didn't want this to be afocus on corruption.
I wanted it to be a focus onreally about demonstrating the
emergent property of cooperationand collaboration being this
natural flowering and theemergence of autonomous,
(01:11:06):
self-regulating organizations.
So let's see, I'm not reallysure what I'll call it yet, but
we'll leave it there for now.
I'll talk soon.
Cheers.
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.