01-29-2026, 07:04 PM
As this sort of ranges across the enclaves, governance, and cultural modules, I chose to put it all here:
Federation mechanism:
“By having it be locally motivated and governed, it allows people to make what they feel works best for themselves. I think that by using the enclave fractalization system to our advantage here, it would be possible to specifically design a "breakway" mechanism. When people no longer want to live in the existing enclave/community, they can simply go through a basic process similar to the creation of a new enclave to make an alternative. While this alt is distinct and approaches things its own way, its still connected to the overall meta-cultural ecosystem. This way, you can have people opt into whatever mechanisms they prefer while still being participants of the larger whole.”
To address this, a system should be created that allows for seamless integration between enclaves. When an enclave reaches operational capacity (1200 people), it is then allowed to integrate into the larger federation of enclaves. As each enclave represents a self sufficient unit, the surplus production (of ideas, goods, etc under the label of “resources”) can be concentrate or distributed across the federation network as needed.
Proximity of the enclave networks allows for the natural formation of a functional arcology system – namely, that each enclave is itself a village-neighborhood in form. As a consequence of this, the concentration of resources means that this federation arcology-like system is significantly more robust and agile in comparison to classical social structures.
When taking in account enclaves separated by distance, federating becomes digital in nature when available. However, the barriers to digital access are significant, as it requires either the presence of meshnets in sufficient quantity and quality or interaction with the existing infrastructure for digital transmission. It also limits the ability of enclaves to share tangible resources, instead relying in data and information exchange instead.
Adapting to this reality would require the shift of the framework to accommodate an information quality type – namely in the form of technologies that can be locally developed – to assist new enclaves and exclaves in setting themselves up.
The ideal form of these should be in the formation of at least 24-48 enclaves in a network in close proximity, creating a minimally viable cultural node within an arcology-like system.
In practice, the superstructure mirrors formations of other similar creations historically – namely in the Hakka Tulou and the Kasbah. In both cases, the center of the structure is communal, with habitation on the exterior wings and/or rings. This is an echo of the fractal arrangement that this framework as a whole is mimicking.
By leaning into this superstructure element, it allows for more adaptability locally with cultural norms. As the enclaves network together into larger, more sophisticated community buildings and resource utilization, they will adapt to their local circumstances. However, the greatest power of this system is in the network effect.
Fediverse/digital infrastructure is critical to the success of this. It allows for a centralized library of information that is contributed to by all members of the framework and beyond – an archive of operational knowledge. This is distinct from a classical library in the sense that the information stored here is specifically and implicitly designed to allow for an enclave to grow into these larger meta structural systems by means of local technologies.
Likewise, the hard limit of 1,200 people per enclave can be adapted into a range based on the needs of the local cultural population. Treating 1,200 people as a minimal functional baseline gives flexibility, and by using a ratio of the population instead of a hard number, you can let people govern the cladification process more locally. Meaning that if you say 16% of the population past X capacity means its time to split off, it gives flexibility which is one of the best components of this framework.
As already mentioned, 1,200 people as the minimal functional baseline is to be used as a guidestone. In practice, 1,400 (14%) people should be the approximate time when an enclave splits.
Guidestone:
1,200 people is the suggested minimum group size. 12%-16% beyond the ideal should be the point where a new enclave is formed.
Guilds:
“A norm, once built, is difficult to break down which reinforces the stability of the system. Likewise, by using 3's in the most basic unit of decision making, you're effectively baking consensus into the frameworks smallest possible decision units. From that smallest unit, you scale up, which will come more naturally to people as they're already accustomed to this mechanism. The Haudenosaunee consensus method was my own inspiration for my own systemic approach and could be a good one to look into for this as well. This is an area I've dived into pretty extensively, so just lmk if that is something I can help with.”
A suggested I made to modify the guild structure was to introduce a triumvirate mechanism in important roles. Beyond just the lottery mechanism – itself dependent upon a highly educated, motivated, and capable population – you also need a system that is fundamentally balanced in order to deal with the potential pitfalls of cliques and other similar power structures forming within the system.
By breaking important individual roles into a triumvirate, you’re able to help mitigate this somewhat by forcing all three to come to consensus on important decisions. As used as an example, the Resource Coordinate role is, in truth, 3 people serving in the position. Fractally, this reflects the larger meta-structure of the framework and on an even larger level represents an ideation towards the simplest most balanced shape in the form if a triangle.
You aim to integrate people at all levels conceptually, so that at no point is a person confused at the scales of things. Meaning that if I am a person who is part of an enclave and I wish to interact with the larger Federation, I intuitively understand that no matter where I go, there will always be 3 people serving that individual role. Regardless of population level, this should be the basic unit.
This creates trust within the overall system. If it is well designed at each level, it should be able to inhibit structural weak points seen in most other systems. However, it will still run the fundamental risk of all systems: it relies on the people to make it work. You can only account for that to a certain degree.
This should be planned for and accounted for to the best of our ability. Guilds, as they stand, should also be rebranded – “guild” carries with it a great deal of historical connotation. Selective use of terms is going to be important, so I would suggest something more service-oriented.
There are a multitude of cultural options. I personally favor:
“Gotong-royong is a conception of sociality ethos familiar to Indonesia. In Indonesian languages especially Javanese, gotong means 'carrying a burden using one's shoulder', while royong means 'together' or 'communally', thus the combined phrase gotong royong can be translated literally as 'joint bearing of burdens'. It translate to working together, helping each other or mutual assistance.[7] The village's public facilities, such as irrigation, streets, and houses of worship (mosque, church or pura) are usually constructed through gotong royong, where the funds and materials are collected mutually. Traditional communal events, such as the slametan ceremony, are also usually held in the gotong royong ethos of communal work spirit, which each member of society is expected to contribute to and participate in the endeavour harmoniously.”
There are other options though. All of these essentially boil down to descriptions of Community Work and Mutualistic organizations.
To look at the root of the Guild system, if we wish to keep it regardless of the potential context, we can see clearly how its origins influenced the mutualism movement:
“Originating from an adaptation of guild system at the 18th century (see guild and mount of piety) and widespread at the 19th century, today there are many mutualist associations worldwide integrated into modern society. Nowadays, mutualism is linked to financial firms, insurers, unions, entities to promote solidarity economics, trade associations and religious movements. The characteristic sign of mutual movement is its institutional neutrality about political, religious, racial and union affiliations of its members. Mutuals movement and cooperatives movement have many points in common, around the idea of professional mutual aid.[4]”
This means that if Guilds remain the preferred name, that their description can be refocused onto this root. By leaning onto that history, it gives credence and validity while also learning from the potential mistakes of the past. Ultimately, this will require further conversation and discussion on whether its the right choice for the framework.
One final barrier of note is that while audits do work, there needs to be a balance between too few audits and too many. Too many results in what I see in social work right now: a focus on paperwork over purpose. An audit should focus on holistic human outcomes, not “pragmatic” outcomes designed to benefit the system itself. This encourages adaptability and mitigates some of the more bureaucratic impulses.
Free Movement
Free movement is a critical part of the framework, as it allows for people to self-select for the enclave that they prefer to inhabit. They can look at the various options based on profiles on the fediverse or from whatever media systems exist within the federation to determine for themselves what practices they prefer.
When it comes to closed networked proximity enclaves, its much easier to manage FOM in comparison to diverse and spread out exclaves. Isolated groups in particular will struggle most with this, as they are beholden to the environments that they inhabit.
To work through this might require cooperation with larger existing nation-states in some capacity, which will likely be a challenge as FOM challenges their sovereignty on a fundamental level. While this is a core component of the federation, it is likely to be one that cannot be realistically realized in the near-term due to realpolitik constraints.
Federation mechanism:
“By having it be locally motivated and governed, it allows people to make what they feel works best for themselves. I think that by using the enclave fractalization system to our advantage here, it would be possible to specifically design a "breakway" mechanism. When people no longer want to live in the existing enclave/community, they can simply go through a basic process similar to the creation of a new enclave to make an alternative. While this alt is distinct and approaches things its own way, its still connected to the overall meta-cultural ecosystem. This way, you can have people opt into whatever mechanisms they prefer while still being participants of the larger whole.”
To address this, a system should be created that allows for seamless integration between enclaves. When an enclave reaches operational capacity (1200 people), it is then allowed to integrate into the larger federation of enclaves. As each enclave represents a self sufficient unit, the surplus production (of ideas, goods, etc under the label of “resources”) can be concentrate or distributed across the federation network as needed.
Proximity of the enclave networks allows for the natural formation of a functional arcology system – namely, that each enclave is itself a village-neighborhood in form. As a consequence of this, the concentration of resources means that this federation arcology-like system is significantly more robust and agile in comparison to classical social structures.
When taking in account enclaves separated by distance, federating becomes digital in nature when available. However, the barriers to digital access are significant, as it requires either the presence of meshnets in sufficient quantity and quality or interaction with the existing infrastructure for digital transmission. It also limits the ability of enclaves to share tangible resources, instead relying in data and information exchange instead.
Adapting to this reality would require the shift of the framework to accommodate an information quality type – namely in the form of technologies that can be locally developed – to assist new enclaves and exclaves in setting themselves up.
The ideal form of these should be in the formation of at least 24-48 enclaves in a network in close proximity, creating a minimally viable cultural node within an arcology-like system.
In practice, the superstructure mirrors formations of other similar creations historically – namely in the Hakka Tulou and the Kasbah. In both cases, the center of the structure is communal, with habitation on the exterior wings and/or rings. This is an echo of the fractal arrangement that this framework as a whole is mimicking.
By leaning into this superstructure element, it allows for more adaptability locally with cultural norms. As the enclaves network together into larger, more sophisticated community buildings and resource utilization, they will adapt to their local circumstances. However, the greatest power of this system is in the network effect.
Fediverse/digital infrastructure is critical to the success of this. It allows for a centralized library of information that is contributed to by all members of the framework and beyond – an archive of operational knowledge. This is distinct from a classical library in the sense that the information stored here is specifically and implicitly designed to allow for an enclave to grow into these larger meta structural systems by means of local technologies.
Likewise, the hard limit of 1,200 people per enclave can be adapted into a range based on the needs of the local cultural population. Treating 1,200 people as a minimal functional baseline gives flexibility, and by using a ratio of the population instead of a hard number, you can let people govern the cladification process more locally. Meaning that if you say 16% of the population past X capacity means its time to split off, it gives flexibility which is one of the best components of this framework.
As already mentioned, 1,200 people as the minimal functional baseline is to be used as a guidestone. In practice, 1,400 (14%) people should be the approximate time when an enclave splits.
Guidestone:
1,200 people is the suggested minimum group size. 12%-16% beyond the ideal should be the point where a new enclave is formed.
Guilds:
“A norm, once built, is difficult to break down which reinforces the stability of the system. Likewise, by using 3's in the most basic unit of decision making, you're effectively baking consensus into the frameworks smallest possible decision units. From that smallest unit, you scale up, which will come more naturally to people as they're already accustomed to this mechanism. The Haudenosaunee consensus method was my own inspiration for my own systemic approach and could be a good one to look into for this as well. This is an area I've dived into pretty extensively, so just lmk if that is something I can help with.”
A suggested I made to modify the guild structure was to introduce a triumvirate mechanism in important roles. Beyond just the lottery mechanism – itself dependent upon a highly educated, motivated, and capable population – you also need a system that is fundamentally balanced in order to deal with the potential pitfalls of cliques and other similar power structures forming within the system.
By breaking important individual roles into a triumvirate, you’re able to help mitigate this somewhat by forcing all three to come to consensus on important decisions. As used as an example, the Resource Coordinate role is, in truth, 3 people serving in the position. Fractally, this reflects the larger meta-structure of the framework and on an even larger level represents an ideation towards the simplest most balanced shape in the form if a triangle.
You aim to integrate people at all levels conceptually, so that at no point is a person confused at the scales of things. Meaning that if I am a person who is part of an enclave and I wish to interact with the larger Federation, I intuitively understand that no matter where I go, there will always be 3 people serving that individual role. Regardless of population level, this should be the basic unit.
This creates trust within the overall system. If it is well designed at each level, it should be able to inhibit structural weak points seen in most other systems. However, it will still run the fundamental risk of all systems: it relies on the people to make it work. You can only account for that to a certain degree.
This should be planned for and accounted for to the best of our ability. Guilds, as they stand, should also be rebranded – “guild” carries with it a great deal of historical connotation. Selective use of terms is going to be important, so I would suggest something more service-oriented.
There are a multitude of cultural options. I personally favor:
“Gotong-royong is a conception of sociality ethos familiar to Indonesia. In Indonesian languages especially Javanese, gotong means 'carrying a burden using one's shoulder', while royong means 'together' or 'communally', thus the combined phrase gotong royong can be translated literally as 'joint bearing of burdens'. It translate to working together, helping each other or mutual assistance.[7] The village's public facilities, such as irrigation, streets, and houses of worship (mosque, church or pura) are usually constructed through gotong royong, where the funds and materials are collected mutually. Traditional communal events, such as the slametan ceremony, are also usually held in the gotong royong ethos of communal work spirit, which each member of society is expected to contribute to and participate in the endeavour harmoniously.”
There are other options though. All of these essentially boil down to descriptions of Community Work and Mutualistic organizations.
To look at the root of the Guild system, if we wish to keep it regardless of the potential context, we can see clearly how its origins influenced the mutualism movement:
“Originating from an adaptation of guild system at the 18th century (see guild and mount of piety) and widespread at the 19th century, today there are many mutualist associations worldwide integrated into modern society. Nowadays, mutualism is linked to financial firms, insurers, unions, entities to promote solidarity economics, trade associations and religious movements. The characteristic sign of mutual movement is its institutional neutrality about political, religious, racial and union affiliations of its members. Mutuals movement and cooperatives movement have many points in common, around the idea of professional mutual aid.[4]”
This means that if Guilds remain the preferred name, that their description can be refocused onto this root. By leaning onto that history, it gives credence and validity while also learning from the potential mistakes of the past. Ultimately, this will require further conversation and discussion on whether its the right choice for the framework.
One final barrier of note is that while audits do work, there needs to be a balance between too few audits and too many. Too many results in what I see in social work right now: a focus on paperwork over purpose. An audit should focus on holistic human outcomes, not “pragmatic” outcomes designed to benefit the system itself. This encourages adaptability and mitigates some of the more bureaucratic impulses.
Free Movement
Free movement is a critical part of the framework, as it allows for people to self-select for the enclave that they prefer to inhabit. They can look at the various options based on profiles on the fediverse or from whatever media systems exist within the federation to determine for themselves what practices they prefer.
When it comes to closed networked proximity enclaves, its much easier to manage FOM in comparison to diverse and spread out exclaves. Isolated groups in particular will struggle most with this, as they are beholden to the environments that they inhabit.
To work through this might require cooperation with larger existing nation-states in some capacity, which will likely be a challenge as FOM challenges their sovereignty on a fundamental level. While this is a core component of the federation, it is likely to be one that cannot be realistically realized in the near-term due to realpolitik constraints.
![[-]](https://www.inyourbrains.com/Forums/images/tek/collapse.png)
