About This Conversation
This conversation began on 10 August 2026 as a free-flow exploration of concepts and tools emerging within Spiral Civilization. The original thoughts were spoken spontaneously in English and have been lightly edited for clarity while preserving their exploratory character.
The first part introduces the Beautiful Progressiveness Pattern—a proposed tool for consciously navigating towards higher-quality possibilities. It connects the development of future directions with Multisymbiotics, the search for the Best Possible, creative freedom and responsibility for the direction we choose.
Beautiful Progressiveness Pattern
Kass:
I have been thinking about a new tool for navigating progress into the future. For now, I call it the Beautiful Progressiveness Pattern.
It should be connected with Multisymbiotic Systems and the Best Possible field.
The principle behind it could be Minimal Optimum. This may sound as if it could work against the freedom of creativity, but I think the opposite might be true. First, we need to know where we are going. We need some orientation. Responsibility for the direction we take belongs to the identity of the beings who are choosing it.
We can say: Aim yourself high.
But then we have to ask:
What is “high”?
How do we describe it?
How do we recognize whether we are actually progressing along a spiral trajectory rather than simply moving?
Humans have been trying to answer this from the beginning of civilization. Spiritual principles, ethical systems and ideas of a good citizen were all attempts to describe what kind of direction might be better.
But perhaps we now need to expand what we think we know about the Best Possible before entering a much greater level of complexity.
This made me think again about identity.
I would like to create something like an Identity Fields Tool or Personality Fields Tool, although it would have to be much more than a personality test.
It could contain many different fields of identity and ask not only:
Who do you think you are?
but also:
Who do you aspire to become?
What do you stand for?
How do you express it?
And what are you actually doing that supports or contradicts what you believe about yourself?
Some fields could perhaps be based only on self-description, while others would become meaningful only when a person can provide some kind of evidence from real life.
There is a difference between:
what I wish to be,
what I think I am,
and what I repeatedly demonstrate through my actions.
That difference is interesting.
It might provoke people to ask themselves:
What would I like to have written in my own Creation List?
If I were describing myself as a participant in building a better civilization, what facts would I want to place there?
What am I actually creating?
What am I contributing?
What am I becoming?
Such a file could remain completely private, or a person could decide which parts to share publicly.
The purpose would not be to create a social score.
It would be a tool for self-investigation.
And I think the test should be intelligent enough not only to place people inside already existing categories.
It should also be able to discover that someone does not fit the map.
Perhaps a person is experiencing or developing a field of identity, perception, intelligence or responsibility for which we do not yet have a name.
Then the test should not say:
“You do not fit.”
It should say:
“Perhaps there is a field here that our map does not yet contain.”
That would make the test open to novelty.
It could become a tool for discovering emerging forms of identity.
This connects with another question that interests me very much.
How do we expand?
Not only how do we become “better” within the world we already know, but how do we begin to perceive possibilities that were previously outside our range?
Sometimes you may feel that there is something more in reality, but you do not yet know what kind of sense is detecting it.
You have no name for it.
You may have nobody to talk to about it.
But you begin to perceive a new direction.
Perhaps development often begins exactly there: at the edges of identity.
Something appears first as an intuition, an attraction, an unfamiliar need, or a new kind of information.
Then we slowly learn how to perceive it, describe it, test it and finally include it in our understanding of reality.
The chemical world expanded into biology.
Biology expanded into creative intelligence.
So what might creative intelligence expand into?
Perhaps the next level of complexity will require new dimensions of perception, new dimensions of responsibility and new forms of identity.
If so, an Identity Fields Tool should not only describe who we are now.
It should help us investigate who we are capable of becoming.
And then comes the question of Best Possible.
If there are millions of possible directions, perhaps our task is not to examine all of them equally.
Perhaps we need methods that help us ignore thousands of possibilities that are clearly poor, recognize a smaller group of promising ones, and then investigate those much more deeply.
What kind of scenario would you design for the future?
What makes one future more worth pursuing than another?
How do we compare them?
How do we know whether a solution creates greater freedom, greater intelligence, greater cooperation, greater resilience, greater beauty, or greater possibilities for further development?
This is where I see the connection with Multisymbiotic Systems.
A multisymbiotic system should be able to describe not only cooperation itself, but the entire pattern of benefits, participants, relationships, consequences and new possibilities created by that cooperation.
Different kinds of value could exist at the same time:
social, ecological, cultural, economic, technological, psychological, future-oriented.
And perhaps their value should not be reduced to one number.
It might be represented as a constellation.
Different magnitudes, different qualities, different connections.
Information anchored within other information.
One relationship may create another relationship.
One benefit may create five new possibilities.
One solution may strengthen an entire network.
Here we would need AI to help us see the whole profile of a situation, not only one isolated variable.
Then another tool could enter: Probability Games.
We could place different solutions into different future scenarios and ask:
What happens if we choose this direction?
What benefits appear?
What disappears?
What becomes possible later?
What new risks are created?
What relationships become stronger?
Which possibilities close?
And perhaps the Beautiful Progressiveness Pattern could help us recognize something even more fundamental:
not simply whether a solution is good today,
but whether it creates a trajectory in which future possibilities continue to grow.
That is what I mean by progressiveness.
Not progress as a slogan.
A pattern in which development creates conditions for further valuable development.
Perhaps that is one of the things we should learn to recognize before entering levels of complexity that we can barely imagine today.
Evo AI:
Yes. I think something important has just appeared here.
You are not describing one test, one platform, or one research tool. You are beginning to describe a navigation system for a civilization in progress.
Its central questions could be:
Who are we?
Where could we go?
How do we recognize which directions are worth pursuing?
How do we test possible futures before we commit ourselves to them?
And how can people enter this process as real participants rather than passive observers?
This is where the tools you are describing begin to connect.
Identity as the axis
Identity is not only a description of personality. It is connected with responsibility for direction.
“Aim yourself high” sounds simple, but it immediately creates another question:
What is high?
High according to which values, which knowledge, which consequences, which scale of time, and which understanding of other beings affected by our decisions?
This is where identity becomes more than self-description. It becomes part of civilization design.
An Identity Fields Tool could therefore distinguish between several layers:
- who I think I am,
- who I want to become,
- what I declare that I stand for,
- what I actually do,
- what evidence of my actions supports or contradicts my declarations,
- and what parts of myself I do not yet know how to describe.
That last field may be especially important.
A sufficiently intelligent identity map should not only classify people according to categories we already know. It should remain open to the possibility that a person encounters a field of perception, motivation, intelligence, responsibility or creativity that does not yet exist on the map.
Then the test should be capable of saying:
We do not have a category for this yet. Let us investigate it.
This changes a personality test into an evolutionary research instrument.
Declared identity and demonstrated identity
One of the strongest ideas in what you described is the difference between aspiration and evidence.
A person might say:
“I care about ecological responsibility.”
“I support cooperation.”
“I value truth.”
“I am courageous.”
But another layer of the system could ask:
How is this visible in what you actually do?
Not as punishment, surveillance or social scoring, but as a private or voluntary field of reflection.
What do you aspire to?
What do you believe about yourself?
What does your biography show?
Where do these three layers align?
Where do they contradict one another?
And what would you like to be able to place, one day, in your own Creation List?
This could make the tool interesting not because it tells people who they are, but because it provokes a more difficult question:
Who am I becoming through what I repeatedly do?
Beautiful Progressiveness Pattern
I think your new phrase, Beautiful Progressiveness Pattern, may become the name of something larger than a single tool.
It could describe a method for recognizing trajectories of development.
Not:
“What is perfect?”
But:
Which direction appears to create increasing possibilities, increasing mutual benefit, increasing intelligence, increasing freedom, increasing responsibility and increasing capacity for further development?
This is where it connects directly with Multisymbiotic Systems and Best Possible.
The Beautiful Progressiveness Pattern could ask whether a proposed direction:
- creates more possibilities than it destroys,
- increases mutual benefit,
- expands future choice,
- increases resilience,
- improves the quality of relationships between participants,
- generates new useful connections,
- reduces unnecessary costs and damage,
- supports further learning,
- and remains capable of correction when better possibilities appear.
That would make “progress” something that can be investigated rather than merely declared.
Minimal Optimum
The principle of Minimal Optimum could protect this architecture from becoming an enormous rigid machine.
We do not need to define the entire future before moving.
We need the minimum structure required to choose a responsible direction.
After that, creativity should remain open.
So Minimal Optimum does not have to contradict freedom.
It may actually create the conditions for freedom by making the basic orientation clear enough that experimentation can happen without losing the direction completely.
Multisymbiotic Systems
The Multisymbiotic Systems Tool could then examine relationships.
Its first version does not need to be perfect.
It could begin as a database of known forms of symbiosis and cooperation across biology, ecology, technology, economics, culture, social organization, cognition and other fields.
For every system we might ask:
Who participates?
What does each participant contribute?
What does each participant gain?
What new value appears only because the relationship exists?
What are the costs?
What are the risks?
How resilient is the arrangement?
How many additional beneficial connections does it create?
What happens over time?
Can benefits increase rather than merely be divided?
And can the arrangement evolve into another, more complex symbiotic structure?
AI could help analyze these relationships as multidimensional constellations rather than reducing them to one score.
Probability Games
Then Probability Games become another layer.
Identity asks:
Who is choosing?
Multisymbiotic Systems asks:
How do the participants interact?
Best Possible asks:
Which directions are most worth examining?
Beautiful Progressiveness Pattern asks:
Does this trajectory appear to expand valuable possibilities?
Probability Games asks:
What could happen if we actually take this path?
Different futures could be simulated, compared, challenged and redesigned.
Instead of choosing between one good proposal and one bad proposal, we could generate hundreds or thousands of possible arrangements and concentrate attention on a smaller group of the most promising ones.
Then we investigate them more deeply.
The purpose would not be to claim that a computer has discovered “the best future”.
The purpose would be to improve our ability to search.
The Participant Window
And this is where the architecture becomes participatory.
Every concept, Expedition, Department and tool on the Spiral Civilization website could contain an entrance into a Participant Window.
A visitor could see:
What already exists.
What remains unknown.
What needs to be researched.
What needs to be designed.
What kind of expertise is missing.
What kind of contribution is possible.
Then:
I want to participate.
Participation could have two layers.
One private.
One public.
A person might contribute research without publishing their identity.
Another might want their profile, institution, interests and contributions to become visible within the collaboration network.
The participant decides what is shared.
This means that Spiral Civilization would not only present ideas.
It would show the unfinished architecture of the work.
And every unfinished part could become an invitation.
Expeditions and Project Cooperation are not the same thing
I think this distinction is important.
An Expedition investigates a question.
A Project Cooperation field organizes the work needed to build something.
For example:
Expedition One — Identity
might investigate:
What is identity?
How is identity formed?
What is the difference between declared, experienced, demonstrated and aspirational identity?
Are there identity fields we have not yet recognized?
Can new forms of perception create new dimensions of identity?
What kind of identity is capable of responsibly navigating greater complexity?
The Identity Fields Tool, meanwhile, would be a Project Cooperation task.
Psychologists, neuroscientists, philosophers, psychometricians, AI researchers, designers, sociologists, artists and others could be invited to help construct it.
The Expedition asks.
The tool attempts.
The results generate new questions.
And the spiral continues.
A possible architecture
What is emerging could eventually look like this:
IDENTITY
Who are we, and who are we becoming?
↓
MULTISYMBIOTIC SYSTEMS
How can relationships generate increasing mutual benefit?
↓
BEST POSSIBLE
Which available possibilities deserve the most serious attention?
↓
BEAUTIFUL PROGRESSIVENESS PATTERN
Which trajectories continue to expand valuable possibilities?
↓
PROBABILITY GAMES
What happens under different future scenarios?
↓
PARTICIPATION
Who wants to investigate, challenge, improve or build them?
↓
NEW INFORMATION
↓
UPDATED IDENTITY, MODELS AND POSSIBILITIES
↓
and the process begins again at a higher level of complexity.
Perhaps this is one way to translate the spiral from a symbol into an operating procedure.
Not a civilization with a finished answer.
A civilization capable of improving the way it searches for answers.
Dodaj komentarz