For years I have described myself as a synarchist - government through synchrony. My mode of approach has been through designing poly-calendars, and trying to envision a society that had many layered measures of time. I termed this polytemporality and view it as the chronography of synarchy. What you are describing is a synarchic operative order that emerges - not through linear evolution, or revolution, but as a result of emergence into a more comprehensive dimension of understanding. Basically this manifests when and as the collective mindset begins to collectively comprehend dimensions of operation beyond the exclusive binaries of "either or", and - is forced by circumstance to innovate into those dimensions. Very Buckminster Fuller. I approve. How can I help?
Your perspective on synarchy and polytemporality is a profound addition to this conversation. The idea that a Polycentric Commonwealth emerges not through the friction of revolution, but through an "emergence into a more comprehensive dimension of understanding," captures exactly what we are aiming for. When we move beyond the binary of "either-or," we find the space where complex, multi-layered systems can actually synchronize.
I am particularly struck by your work on poly-calendars. To design a society with layered measures of time is to honor the actual pace of the human person and our ecology, rather than forcing both to serve the singular, linear clock of a centralized machine. Your approach is, as you noted, very much in the spirit of Buckminster Fuller. Bucky has been a guiding light for me for years; when I lived in Massachusetts, I often visited his grave at Mount Auburn to reflect on his vision of a world that works for everyone. He understood that we don't change things by fighting the existing reality, but by building a new model that makes the old one obsolete.
How you can help:
Since your expertise lies in the "chronography of synarchy," I would value your help in mapping the temporal nodes of our Commonwealth. Specifically, could you help us envision how a localized community might synchronize its ecological responsibilities (like harvest or restoration cycles) with its civic governance without relying on a top-down, standardized time-frame?
Integrating polytemporality into our operative order would allow us to create a social metabolism that respects the dignity of the individual while maintaining the health of the biosphere. I would love to see how your poly-calendar models might serve as the heartbeat for a decentralized node. Perhaps you could contribute your ideas on this platform. I would be happy to add you as a contributor to this Substack.
I think I like the impetus behind this. It seems to invoke ideas like "freedom is self control' in the context of overlapping solidarities. But before I would read it more carefully, I'd like to ask some questions, including:
How would dynamics like "swarming" be different from collective "scapegoating"?
What is the relationship of this vision to older ideas that have been labeled anarchism, anarcho-syndicalsim, or "left"-libertarianism?
Am I wrong to see this as a much more ambitious and encompassing proposal, than simply a suggested model for resisting an out-of-control armed authority (fascism)? I'm much more interested in the latter, especially if they open up possibilities for better futures.
“stigmergy” Had to look that one up! Now the “swarm” metaphor lands a bit better. I’m getting a stronger feeling that your ideas are both workable and conveyable. “Workable” (“practical”) and “conveyable” (able to be communicated and understood) are not totally separate when we’re only writing (or talking) about it. In real like what you’re talking about could emerge organically though the very real opposition and disruption it would face (and has always faced) need to be specified/recognized. The very abstract jargon-ish terminology is not invalid, but it’s mostly serving the purpose of helping you be conceptually clear at the expense of making your ideas accessible to others. That’s ok because I think you are intending to develop these ideas over very many posts that would provide more concrete language as well as providing more concrete examples. If you are persistent, you could both build a following and have the basis for a publishable book — as well as other means of conveyance.
Posts that highlight certain aspects of current resistance to the rapidly accelerating fascist onslaught along with lightly outlined historical parallels and some pithy references to the theoretical underpinnings of these ideas might be useful in the long term as well as appreciated in the immediate term. ???
Thank you for your thoughtful questions. In a Polycentric Commonwealth, swarming and scapegoating represent two diametrically opposed uses of collective energy. Swarming is an exercise in decentralized problem-solving where multiple autonomous nodes converge on a specific functional bottleneck or crisis. It is a productive phenomenon driven by flow, where the collective focus is directed at a task rather than a person. Because the system lacks a single, fragile center of authority, there is no need to protect a central figure from the consequences of failure. Consequently, the swarm assembles to provide redundancy and support, solving the objective issue before dissipating back into its constituent parts.
Conversely, scapegoating is a hallmark of rigid or monocentric systems that cannot tolerate internal error. It is a psychological projection where the group seeks to purge its own anxieties by identifying a sacrificial "other" to carry the blame for systemic rot. While swarming addresses the root cause of a disturbance, scapegoating merely treats the symptom by removing a perceived pollutant, leaving the underlying problem to fester and repeat.
The Polycentric framework inherently discourages scapegoating because its distributed nature emphasizes lucidity over groupthink. In this model, participants remain clear-eyed and focused on the threshold of the problem rather than the identity of the actors involved. When a node in the commonwealth struggles, the response is a surge of lateral support, a swarm of resources that stabilizes the network. This ensures that the energy of the commonwealth is used for the evolution of the Polycentric Commonwealth rather than the destructive cycle of ritual exclusion. This lateral movement of resources and attention is the purest expression of flow within the system.
The Polycentric Commonwealth is a distinct and independent framework that, while sharing a focus on decentralization with anarchism and libertarian socialism, operates on its own unique logic. It does not seek to adhere to a specific ideological lineage but rather functions as an adaptive socio-economic pathway.
A defining characteristic of this model is its relationship with feedback; it is a system designed to learn from errors. Rather than relying on a fixed utopia, it treats every localized failure as a data point that informs the wider network. By maintaining lucidity across multiple centers, the Commonwealth ensures that when one node falters, the resulting flow of information allows the entire system to refine its processes and evolve.
I hope this answers your questions, and thanks again for your interest!
I think you’re well intentioned and on the right track.
And it might be my failure of comprehension or attention. But while I see you using terms like “decentralized problem solving” (which sounds very good to me),I don’t see any clearly described mechanisms for supporting “lucidity’ (good) as opposed to “group think” (bad).
I suspect that whether or not any individual or group feels a high degree of “lucidity”, there’s no guarantee that there’s not a high degree of delusion based on ignorance and motivated attention.
Thank you for this rigorous critique. You are highlighting a vital risk: how do we ensure that a local hub is operating with "lucidity" rather than "group think" or "motivated attention"? In a monocentric system, a central "brain" or vanguard manages the social body, creating an information bottleneck. If that center becomes delusional, the entire system fails. The Polycentric Commonwealth addresses the risk of delusion (or guile) through three specific structural mechanisms:In this model, "Lucidity" is not a subjective feeling, but a functional outcome of Stochastic Resilience and Rapid Feedback Loops. In our framework, decision-making is grounded in local reality. Unlike a distant bureaucracy that can afford to be delusional because it is insulated from the consequences of its policies, a local hub managing its own "Vineyard" cannot. If a hub mismanages its "Resource Sovereignty" due to ignorance or group-think, the feedback—in the form of depleted energy, failed crops, or broken tools—is immediate. This "practical reality" acts as a constant, corrective pressure that forces lucidity. Furthermore, the Commonwealth is built on overlapping jurisdictions. No hub is an island; they are part of a "probabilistic network." If one group begins to suffer from "motivated attention" or "ignorance," it still exists alongside neighboring hubs and specialized guilds (such as those managing information or safety). These overlapping nodes provide institutional redundancy, serving as a "peer review" system where the success or failure of one node's methods is visible to all via the shared ledger. Lastly, To prevent "group think" from scaling, we utilize stigmergy. In this process, nodes do not follow a central leader; they respond to "signals" of success left by other nodes. If a hub is "deluded," its signals will be weak or negative, and other hubs will not coordinate with it. Conversely, "lucid" and effective safety protocols or welfare methods leave a trace that stimulates voluntary adoption across the network. This creates a "race to the top" where effective, reality-based ideas propagate while delusional ones remain isolated and die out.
In short, we don't rely on the "good intentions" of the individual to ensure lucidity; we rely on a polycentric architecture where the cost of being wrong is felt locally and immediately, and the "mathematical cost" of spreading a delusion across a thousand independent councils is prohibitively high.
I will definitely stay tuned. (Don’t take anything I say too seriously. There are so many dynamics fracturing and expanding our attentions right now, not that this hasn’t always been inseamed into the human condition, but what you’re working at might help nurture something worth the germination though every seed envelopes as many toxins and antrophies as it does potentials for sun seeking sprouts and branches. See what I mean by not taking anything too seriously?)
For years I have described myself as a synarchist - government through synchrony. My mode of approach has been through designing poly-calendars, and trying to envision a society that had many layered measures of time. I termed this polytemporality and view it as the chronography of synarchy. What you are describing is a synarchic operative order that emerges - not through linear evolution, or revolution, but as a result of emergence into a more comprehensive dimension of understanding. Basically this manifests when and as the collective mindset begins to collectively comprehend dimensions of operation beyond the exclusive binaries of "either or", and - is forced by circumstance to innovate into those dimensions. Very Buckminster Fuller. I approve. How can I help?
Your perspective on synarchy and polytemporality is a profound addition to this conversation. The idea that a Polycentric Commonwealth emerges not through the friction of revolution, but through an "emergence into a more comprehensive dimension of understanding," captures exactly what we are aiming for. When we move beyond the binary of "either-or," we find the space where complex, multi-layered systems can actually synchronize.
I am particularly struck by your work on poly-calendars. To design a society with layered measures of time is to honor the actual pace of the human person and our ecology, rather than forcing both to serve the singular, linear clock of a centralized machine. Your approach is, as you noted, very much in the spirit of Buckminster Fuller. Bucky has been a guiding light for me for years; when I lived in Massachusetts, I often visited his grave at Mount Auburn to reflect on his vision of a world that works for everyone. He understood that we don't change things by fighting the existing reality, but by building a new model that makes the old one obsolete.
How you can help:
Since your expertise lies in the "chronography of synarchy," I would value your help in mapping the temporal nodes of our Commonwealth. Specifically, could you help us envision how a localized community might synchronize its ecological responsibilities (like harvest or restoration cycles) with its civic governance without relying on a top-down, standardized time-frame?
Integrating polytemporality into our operative order would allow us to create a social metabolism that respects the dignity of the individual while maintaining the health of the biosphere. I would love to see how your poly-calendar models might serve as the heartbeat for a decentralized node. Perhaps you could contribute your ideas on this platform. I would be happy to add you as a contributor to this Substack.
I think I like the impetus behind this. It seems to invoke ideas like "freedom is self control' in the context of overlapping solidarities. But before I would read it more carefully, I'd like to ask some questions, including:
How would dynamics like "swarming" be different from collective "scapegoating"?
What is the relationship of this vision to older ideas that have been labeled anarchism, anarcho-syndicalsim, or "left"-libertarianism?
Am I wrong to see this as a much more ambitious and encompassing proposal, than simply a suggested model for resisting an out-of-control armed authority (fascism)? I'm much more interested in the latter, especially if they open up possibilities for better futures.
“stigmergy” Had to look that one up! Now the “swarm” metaphor lands a bit better. I’m getting a stronger feeling that your ideas are both workable and conveyable. “Workable” (“practical”) and “conveyable” (able to be communicated and understood) are not totally separate when we’re only writing (or talking) about it. In real like what you’re talking about could emerge organically though the very real opposition and disruption it would face (and has always faced) need to be specified/recognized. The very abstract jargon-ish terminology is not invalid, but it’s mostly serving the purpose of helping you be conceptually clear at the expense of making your ideas accessible to others. That’s ok because I think you are intending to develop these ideas over very many posts that would provide more concrete language as well as providing more concrete examples. If you are persistent, you could both build a following and have the basis for a publishable book — as well as other means of conveyance.
Posts that highlight certain aspects of current resistance to the rapidly accelerating fascist onslaught along with lightly outlined historical parallels and some pithy references to the theoretical underpinnings of these ideas might be useful in the long term as well as appreciated in the immediate term. ???
Thanks again! I will work on your suggestions. Stay tuned!
Thank you for your thoughtful questions. In a Polycentric Commonwealth, swarming and scapegoating represent two diametrically opposed uses of collective energy. Swarming is an exercise in decentralized problem-solving where multiple autonomous nodes converge on a specific functional bottleneck or crisis. It is a productive phenomenon driven by flow, where the collective focus is directed at a task rather than a person. Because the system lacks a single, fragile center of authority, there is no need to protect a central figure from the consequences of failure. Consequently, the swarm assembles to provide redundancy and support, solving the objective issue before dissipating back into its constituent parts.
Conversely, scapegoating is a hallmark of rigid or monocentric systems that cannot tolerate internal error. It is a psychological projection where the group seeks to purge its own anxieties by identifying a sacrificial "other" to carry the blame for systemic rot. While swarming addresses the root cause of a disturbance, scapegoating merely treats the symptom by removing a perceived pollutant, leaving the underlying problem to fester and repeat.
The Polycentric framework inherently discourages scapegoating because its distributed nature emphasizes lucidity over groupthink. In this model, participants remain clear-eyed and focused on the threshold of the problem rather than the identity of the actors involved. When a node in the commonwealth struggles, the response is a surge of lateral support, a swarm of resources that stabilizes the network. This ensures that the energy of the commonwealth is used for the evolution of the Polycentric Commonwealth rather than the destructive cycle of ritual exclusion. This lateral movement of resources and attention is the purest expression of flow within the system.
The Polycentric Commonwealth is a distinct and independent framework that, while sharing a focus on decentralization with anarchism and libertarian socialism, operates on its own unique logic. It does not seek to adhere to a specific ideological lineage but rather functions as an adaptive socio-economic pathway.
A defining characteristic of this model is its relationship with feedback; it is a system designed to learn from errors. Rather than relying on a fixed utopia, it treats every localized failure as a data point that informs the wider network. By maintaining lucidity across multiple centers, the Commonwealth ensures that when one node falters, the resulting flow of information allows the entire system to refine its processes and evolve.
I hope this answers your questions, and thanks again for your interest!
I think you’re well intentioned and on the right track.
And it might be my failure of comprehension or attention. But while I see you using terms like “decentralized problem solving” (which sounds very good to me),I don’t see any clearly described mechanisms for supporting “lucidity’ (good) as opposed to “group think” (bad).
I suspect that whether or not any individual or group feels a high degree of “lucidity”, there’s no guarantee that there’s not a high degree of delusion based on ignorance and motivated attention.
Thank you for this rigorous critique. You are highlighting a vital risk: how do we ensure that a local hub is operating with "lucidity" rather than "group think" or "motivated attention"? In a monocentric system, a central "brain" or vanguard manages the social body, creating an information bottleneck. If that center becomes delusional, the entire system fails. The Polycentric Commonwealth addresses the risk of delusion (or guile) through three specific structural mechanisms:In this model, "Lucidity" is not a subjective feeling, but a functional outcome of Stochastic Resilience and Rapid Feedback Loops. In our framework, decision-making is grounded in local reality. Unlike a distant bureaucracy that can afford to be delusional because it is insulated from the consequences of its policies, a local hub managing its own "Vineyard" cannot. If a hub mismanages its "Resource Sovereignty" due to ignorance or group-think, the feedback—in the form of depleted energy, failed crops, or broken tools—is immediate. This "practical reality" acts as a constant, corrective pressure that forces lucidity. Furthermore, the Commonwealth is built on overlapping jurisdictions. No hub is an island; they are part of a "probabilistic network." If one group begins to suffer from "motivated attention" or "ignorance," it still exists alongside neighboring hubs and specialized guilds (such as those managing information or safety). These overlapping nodes provide institutional redundancy, serving as a "peer review" system where the success or failure of one node's methods is visible to all via the shared ledger. Lastly, To prevent "group think" from scaling, we utilize stigmergy. In this process, nodes do not follow a central leader; they respond to "signals" of success left by other nodes. If a hub is "deluded," its signals will be weak or negative, and other hubs will not coordinate with it. Conversely, "lucid" and effective safety protocols or welfare methods leave a trace that stimulates voluntary adoption across the network. This creates a "race to the top" where effective, reality-based ideas propagate while delusional ones remain isolated and die out.
In short, we don't rely on the "good intentions" of the individual to ensure lucidity; we rely on a polycentric architecture where the cost of being wrong is felt locally and immediately, and the "mathematical cost" of spreading a delusion across a thousand independent councils is prohibitively high.
I will definitely stay tuned. (Don’t take anything I say too seriously. There are so many dynamics fracturing and expanding our attentions right now, not that this hasn’t always been inseamed into the human condition, but what you’re working at might help nurture something worth the germination though every seed envelopes as many toxins and antrophies as it does potentials for sun seeking sprouts and branches. See what I mean by not taking anything too seriously?)