The Sandorian Grove: Dynamic Colloidal Leadership Vs Static Pyramid Models    
 Dynamic Colloidal Leadership Vs Static Pyramid Models3 comments
picture21 Oct 2010 @ 14:07, by Max Sandor

the following was written as part of materials for the first post-workshop meet-up groups of participants of our Countdown 2012 Worldshop Worldtour [link] . It is of such an importance that we posted it here for everyone to have a glimpse.]

"Dynamic Colloidal Leadership Vs Static Pyramid Models"
As we experience dramatic and accelerating shifts in consciousness, globally and individually, we have to revise what we think we know for sure, the bastions of traditions and frozen concepts, not to challenge rebelliously just for the sake of contradiction like children often do with their parents, but with a clear mind and a critical eye for our own belief systems that were never examined in themselves but taken for granted.

One of the pillars of social domination and suppression which mirrored down in the New Age Memes as 'sacred' and 'unshakeable' truth is the myth of the pyramid as a superior model for everything from focusing energy to social structures. This concept is not only dominating 'secret societies' and justification for royal sovereignty but has been thoroughly implanted in the mind of our civilization as 'natural' for the leadership structures from communist to democratic systems.

Just a brief analysis of the flow of information in pyramidal hierarchies shows the complete lack of redundancy and therefore a minimal error-tolerance. Even 'mixed' and 'multi-level' models, while enhancing error tolerance, are still prone to critical paths of systemic failure due to structural deficiencies. Diving a bit in the history of these models, WHICH PERVADE OUR SOCIETY AT LARGE, will show that they are largely self-imposed (cp Ruefli&Storbeck: [link] ) and are therefore clearly contrary to the 'scientific method'.

But let's leave the theory aside and look directly at living systems: nature doesn't arrange itself in pyramidal hierarchies, far from it. Which yields to the argument that stops all arguments: the pyramid as a god-given structure. Period.

Another view, or rather belief-system, if we look closely, is the that the refined Human mind would be superior because it can impose square angles on a nature that isn't square (Albert Pike, "Morals and Dogma"). This may be very appealing for minds that are about to evolve from literal to symbolic abstractions but for systemic thinkers, as Buckminster Fuller has shown sufficiently and abundantly, it is just simply a ridiculous outflow of the hybris of 'pyramidal authorities' (sic!) bound by exclusively linear thinking.

Let us now look at dynamic social structures and its so-called 'morphogenetic fields', We investigate these structures since over ten years using three different modalities: clusters of individuals such as families (which we dubbed 'Skywork', see, task-oriented groups (dubbed 'teamshape' ), and larger global structures (recently dubbed 'Kraftwerk' ). Each of these modalities, while following certain common standards since they are fractal instances of social interaction as such, have their own rules of engagement to bring about a solution or establish a new trend. We know of other groups that work in that direction, most notably Otto Scharmer's 'Presencing' and Hellinger's 'Constellations'.

One aspect that became obvious VERY fast, was the observation that social structures gravitate towards triangular structures [link] following a principle already described in the Indian Vedas thousands of years ago (the 'Gunas') and that they start crystallizing following a scheme outlined in [link] before clustering OR subdividing in a fractal fashion.

Invariably, the results were unmistakable: stability and survival in social structures is gravitating towards cells which are fractals of the structure pointed to above.

For a lack of a better name, we called it a 'colloidal leadership structure'.
We use 'colloidal' in the sense of it being a 'state of matter', a 'condition of order' within particles. (see [link] )

In a 'colloidal leadership' scenario all subgroups work towards the common goal with a minimal set of agreed-upon rules, Notable is the complete absence of 'personal command lines' and the ability of modifying its own rules as needed to adapt to the challenge of the task at hand.

If this seems to theoretical, have a look at the most successful accomplishments of recent times: projects like Linux, Wikipedia, even the Internet as such, are based on the colloidal concept and NOT on the pyramidal structure.

Back in the mid 1990's, Flemming Funch [link] and I spent innumerable hours discussing the organizational structure of the dream of a 'New Civilization' (from which the New Civilization Network [link] was born in 1995). We dived into all kinds of models, from Flemming's Holoworld to my 'Freeworld' design and J.Fresco's Venus Project. (some of them outlined in my BLOG-precursor 'The Logs of JD Flora'
[link] ).

These days we witness the biggest challenge to the ruling class the history has ever seen: Peter Joseph's Zeitgeist Movement [link] which promotes Fresco's Resource-Based-Economy (RBE) to replace monetary-based systems.

It's sudden success was only possible because its basic Meme was allowed to 'run free' and naturally develop a colloidal social structure. If it averts the danger of re-crystallizing in pyramidal or other linear structures, it may very well be unstoppable.

Yet, as the pre-calculated drama of this year election in Brazil unfolds (see previous BLOG entry), we can see that the pyramidal powers ALSO start employing colloidal strategies to change, or more precisely 'manipulate', public opinion. Of course, the goal in this is to cloak the true powers-that-be and to reaffirm and solidify the pre-existing pyramidal power structure, a barely masked global feudalistic umpire.

[< Back] [The Sandorian Grove]



26 Oct 2010 @ 10:20 by Oriana @ : Dynamic Colloidal Leadership Vs Static P
it is "awesome" to see how, yet again, the same "concepts" just simply "turn up" in different parts of the world; that the Morphogenetic Field is a living, breathing, evolving "field" that is accessible to whoever cares to go "fishing".
My musing: Who/What is "behind" this?
The Nature itself of "evolution" is a flow that just keeps on flowing. It cares very little for who would care to "stop" it.
My question is: is it REALLY stoppable? or is that, just like many other things - see time - just a considerazion or an illusion?  

5 Dec 2015 @ 05:44 by Lipozene @ : Lipozene
Thanks on your marvelous posting! I quite enjoyed reading it, you can be a great author.I will be sure to bookmark your blog and will often come .  

24 Sep 2016 @ 17:27 by xender for pc @ : xender
MAX SANDOR Very use full and interesting
xender for pc  

Your Name:
Your URL: (or email)
For verification, please type the word you see on the left:

Other articles in
23 Sep 2016 @ 17:18: A summary of the summaries of Max Sandor's projects
23 Sep 2016 @ 17:04: Project Summary 6. Game Theory - why and how do we manifest?
23 Sep 2016 @ 17:02: Project Summary 5: Polar Dynamics - theory and praxis of polarities
23 Sep 2016 @ 17:01: Project Summary 4: Quantum Fá - a practical guide to this Universe
23 Sep 2016 @ 16:45: Project Summary 3: The Book of Numbers
22 Sep 2016 @ 16:12: Project Summary 2: UrTon - the basis of spoken languages
18 Sep 2016 @ 00:32: Project Summary 1: The ConCur Paradigm - the structure of Reality
9 Aug 2016 @ 14:35: Robot Psychologist (by Awaz)
9 Aug 2016 @ 14:35: Project Summary 7: Archetypology of the Human Being
1 Aug 2016 @ 00:40: Victory, submission or what else? Sign and symbol of the Rio 2016 Kickoff

[< Back] [The Sandorian Grove] [PermaLink]?  [TrackBack]?