FAQ about Politics and Society

3 Flares Twitter 3 Facebook 0 Google+ 0 LinkedIn 0 Email -- 3 Flares ×

Do you consider yourself a social activist?

No. Without meaning any disrespect to social activism, I see lot’s of people who react to the system and want to fix it. I don’t see myself in this dynamics.

I prefer creation than reaction. I prefer to imagine and invent something so new that the old doesn’t need to exist anymore. Eventually it will fall from the branch by itself. Reacting leads to what I call symbiotic polarization: right wing and left wing ; unions and corporations, press and power ; Jews and Muslims ; pro and anti nuclear energy ; pro and anti GMOs ; ecologists and liberals ; the 99% and the 1% ; the “we” and the terrorists ; etc. Each side becomes the problem of the other, each side evolves proportionally to the other, and therefore traps itself in the paradigm of the other. In the end it produces a very stable social body, set down on two opposed legs.

Even if we don’t see ennemies, looking at the world like a problem to solve does place us in a form of reaction too. We enclose ourselves in the statement of the problem, therefore in its paradigm. Living in a reality represented as a problem –climate warming, social inequalities, pollution, ignorance, consumerism, imperialism, etc– doesn’t attract me at all. I feel locked and limited. And I see joy collapse.

I love to lit the spark and make the artist snort! I love to spring up new worlds! And if in these new realities old problems don’t appear again, good!

Art manifests itself in thousand different ways. Some we know them well: music, writing, painting, dance, architecture… I also include science. Yes. The statement of new theories, empirical imagination, technical innovation, the invention of new languages to give substance to new realities of our sense experience… many forms that arise from the being! Like all arts, science faces academism, the sterile repeating of the model. I think most people perceive science from its academic side. It doesn’t interest me. I love art-science, the one that invents new worlds.

Science, writing, martial arts and music thrill me up to the stars.

Back To Top

Do you belong to, or see yourself belonging to a political movement or ideology?

No. Communism, capitalism, socialism, anarchism, liberalism, royalism… belong to a long list of ideological categories that belong to pyramidal collective intelligence, to the past. They don’t make sense anymore for who has migrated towards holomidal collective intelligence.

Back To Top

By leaving money, don’t you basically say that you do not recognize Nation-States?

As far as my understanding and knowledge goes, modern Nation-States use constitutions as their collective ground. None of the constitutions I know stipulate that money defines citizenship. Citizens bind themselves through fundamental and universal values. The vow of wealth not only respects these agreements, but brings them to the next level by means of a greater freedom. For instance in France, how can one honor “Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité” (Liberty, Equality, Fraternity) in a society where conventional money triggers competition and predation? Humanity will make a great step the day when Nations respects their own constitutions. A requirement that they follow very poorly today.

Back To Top

Do you recognize society’s right to tax its members for the communal obligation to support the roads, the health care system, social security, etc?

From the broader perspective of material wealth, I do agree that anyone should contribute to the community by sharing wealth. It doesn’t say with which technology and which units we represent this wealth.

Conventional money does not serve well the process of community contribution and solidarity because of the perverse effects induced by its very structure (Pareto condensation, centralization, scarcity, opacity, proprietarization). If we really want to honor our communal contribution, we should use appropriate technologies that sustain mutualism rather than power concentration. We possess such technologies today. Soon they will kick in.

Back To Top

If governments only did things you liked, like they didn’t have an army, or worked diligently and well at ending pollution, poverty, etc, would you then use money that these government issue?

The discipline of collective intelligence helps understand how social species — those of humanity in particular — operate like living entities, and how a currency system works exactly like DNA. We demonstrate that poverty, pollution, social disparities, exist as consequences of scarce money. Selfishness, cupidity, the drive for conquest and domination certainly belong to human psyche, but in most cases scarce money stirs them up, causing all the predatory ideologies we know.

I can hardly see how States, large organizations and society in general, will evolve towards a sustainable and virtuous future while using the conventional monetary system.

I just try to embody another way of living, hoping that it serves better happiness and life. I couldn’t become more pragmatic.

Back To Top

Do you have an objection about ownership? If you pay for something in another currency system, do you still feel that you own it?

Ownership constitutes one of the marks of fabric of pyramidal collective intelligence (the form of collective intelligence that widely prevails in modern societies). Ownership comes exclusively from a cultural origin, not a universal one as the law can make us believe.

From the evolution of consciousness perspective, the sense of ownership (owning something) exists as a temporary developmental ladder of a human being, specially in pyramidal societies. A human who has spiritually evolved enough doesn’t feel interested in possessing something. He/she prefers to become the servant or the keeper for the next generations. Primary peoples have socially developed this level of wisdom a long time ago.

Given that ownership stands at the heart of pyramidal collective intelligence societies, most people don’t go over this stage in their personal journey, as nothing encourages them to do so. One remains entangled in the social thread of his time. Those who want to pursue the spiritual journey and walk the path to freedom realize the illusory aspect of property and possession. They become conscious of the archaic mechanisms of fear and separation that operate unconsciously under the banner of ownership.

The means we use to get to material goods influences the relationships we establish with them. Do they come from robberies, conquests, barter, purchase, loans, gifts, donations? Depending on the mean of acquisition, the fates and social dynamics attached to each object differ wildly.

Conventional scarce money requires conquering for the most part. Each purchase, as neutral as it may seem, becomes affiliated to its origin: a conquest. This spirit of conquest, competition, proprietarization, possession, floats in the air, in the culture, to the point we don’t think about it anymore. It infuses every single transaction made with scarce money. We don’t see that anymore with the use of sufficient currencies that exist in direct proportion with our capacity to exchange (like the air we breathe, we use only what we need). As for the gift economy, it creates a dynamics that leaves all the previous flaws aside.

Therefore the very design of a currency triggers specific states of consciousness. Predatory, archaic, conquering in the case of scarce money. Open and generous in the case of sufficient currencies. Compassionate and creative in the case of technologies supporting a gift economy. The obsession of possessing torments us less in an economy of free currencies than in an economy of scarce money. It leaves us completely in the case of gift economy.

More and more people will realize how the evolution of consciousness of humanity implies the use of a new language, alive and non-Aristotelian: the language of flows. A revolution as important as the writing in its time.

Back To Top

What important challenges do you face?

My journey provides me with such an experience and opens so many new perspectives that I often have the feeling that I live in a blind and deaf world, still enclosed in its obscurantism, its beliefs and its barbary. This state of affairs doesn’t put weight on me, I welcome life in its current form with serenity, patience and joy, without judging it. What feels more challenging consists in finding and building my own adjustments: how can I plainly and freely live my deep nature, with no concession, while keeping a harmonious relationship with my peers? What generative rules should I lay down? Each day provides its share of small steps to make.

Back To Top

Don’t your economic choices and life style place you above the law?

I invite you to read this article.

Back To Top


  1. Hal says:

    Would you consider Martin Luther King Jr. a real politician or just another activist?

  2. jf says:

    Mmh, great question. I have a hard time to put people in boxes, and I don’t have enough knowledge of Martin Luther King’s life, just the general knowledge. As far as I know, he had a very good sense of political moves in a highly complex context. He had Kennedy’s support, yet he had to provoke social situations as Kennedy had tied hands. And he had a profound mysticism in him that made him transcend fear of attachment to power or fame. So, can we put him in a box? The killers certainly did.

Leave a Comment


3 Flares Twitter 3 Facebook 0 Google+ 0 LinkedIn 0 Email -- 3 Flares ×