Dear community,
I think I went into too much detail in my first thread ( RFC: Endogenous Parameterization for Post-Asset Economies (The Ontological Protocol v3.3) ).
It would probably have been better to start with an overview, the vision, and what led to the vision in the first place.
I will now try to make up for this here:
First of all, I am not a programmer, engineer, or anything of the sort. I am genuinely a philosopher and sociologist with a strong affinity for technology. So what I can contribute is logical analysis, deduction from ontological, epistemological, and ethical foundations, and evaluation on a sociological level.
In order to be as accessible as possible, I would like to start with the following hypothesis, which can be understood as metaphorically or literally as it fits into your own worldview:
There are three hierarchically structured, interrelated âoperating systemsâ of humanity:
- Physics: Non-negotiable and immediate and continuous effect â> the core on which everything else is based
- Biology: Manipulable, but very slow to change and changeability, medium to long-term effect â> runs on physics
- Culture: Constant negotiation, the only OS that runs exclusively on the biological OS âhumanâ, extremely dynamic, short- and medium-term effect â rarely long-term â> runs on biology
The âcodeâ in which all these interdependent systems are written is ultimately probably nothing more than logic, mathematics, or perhaps even more fundamentally: logos.
Why am I writing these metaphorical introductory lines?
Because it may make it easier to understand how I arrived at my current diagnosis and what role the âontological protocolâ I propose could play in it.
Since physics is non-negotiable and biology is extremely sluggish, but culture must be compatible with physics and biology in order to function (sustainably), I believe it is essential to take a closer look at culture.
It should be quite obvious that there is not just one operating system/culture in this world.
In addition to the countless âsubâ cultures, I believe that until around 1990 there were four globally dominant cultural operating systems â two of which are political and two of which are economic.
- Democracy
- Communism/socialism
- Capitalism
- Planned economy
With the fall of the Soviet Union, operating systems 2 and 4 largely collapsed or lost so much significance that 1 and 3 were able to become hegemonic.
The problem with this is that without the diversity (competition) of 1 with 2 and 3 with 4, 3 was able to execute its greatest advantage almost perfectly â> assimilation.
Capitalism assimilates all other operating systems incredibly well, like no other operating system before it, as long as they do not radically contradict it (as the combination of the two OSs communism/socialism and planned economy did).
In principle, the ability to assimilate is a true superpower of capitalism â almost all âsubâ cultures can run on it. The problem, however, is that capitalism (hence its superpower) is a purely formal operating system â> i.e., it has no inherent ethics.
Ethics has (in the past!) âplayedâ the operating system of democracy onto capitalism, so to speak. However, after the end of its opponents communism/socialism and the planned economy, capitalism has been given âfree reinâ to assimilate democracy, so to speak. To date, this has led to a formalization (bureaucratization) of democracy, whereby democracy has gradually lost its ability to âethicizeâ capitalism.
And what do we do with that now? And how could âThe Ontological Protocolâ help here?
The problem we face, as I see it, is this:
We have an operating system that has become so hegemonic that it runs almost always and everywhere, but is unable to sustain itself.
Why?
Because in the long run, it contradicts the two underlying operating systems of physics and biology â at least in its current form.
What capitalism lacks here is its âethicizationâ. But democracy is failing here in real time. As an already heavily assimilated âshellâ of itself, it simply can no longer compensate for capitalismâs ethical gap.
And this is where the Ontological Protocol comes into play:
The attempt is to create a cybernetic protocol that no longer understands ethics as a kind of âcatalogue of rulesâ (in the style of âmake a wishâ), but rather as an adaptation of capitalism to the underlying and hardly negotiable operating systems of physics and biology.
And I have attempted this adaptation, this feedback, using thermodynamics and information theory.
I have already carried out numerous simulations and always come to the same conclusion:
such (not necessarily this!) cybernetic capitalism could indeed be a kind of political-economic operating system that contains all the advantages of capitalism and at least greatly cushions its disadvantages.
But in order to validate this and, above all (if something of this kind is really viable), to realize it, I need youâthe community!
Because, as I said, I am only a philosopher and sociologist. My skills lie in theory, structure, and systematics. I have already stretched myself far into areas where my abilities have long since ceased to be sufficient. But perhaps â so I hope â it is precisely this stretching that enables me to connect with you â the programmers and engineers.
I will hold the baton for as long as I have to. I donât know whether it will be taken up and carried on. Nor do I know whether it is even worth carrying on.
Itâs up to you to tell me.
And itâs up to all of us to write a new, viable operating system for this world.
If Iâm wrong about âThe Ontological Protocolâ, then itâs back to the drawing board. And feel free to use me â if you want â as what I am:
Maybe even a philosopher and sociologist can contribute something here.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
