White Paper

mykljonzun edited this page May 23, 2016 · 1348 revisions

What is Ideologi?

Ideologi (pronounced the same as ideology) is brainstorming unbound: a social utility for consensus generation, co-creation and more. It can be used simultaneously by an unlimited number of participants to rapidly interrogate any possible subject matter, while filtering out the noise commonly associated with group collaboration (i.e. trolling, social bias, polarization and information cascades). As a Peer-to-Peer program that utilizes Ethereum's decentralized application network, it operates without the use of a web server or centralized infrastructure of any kind. All of its processes (messaging, file transfers, score tabulation, commission payouts, escrow, fees, notarization, rewards, settlements, etc.) work without the direct control or manipulation of central administrators or necessary trusted parties. The financial medium of exchange among its users is a cryptocurrency running on Ethereum. Its code is open source (GNU Affero General Public License 3.0) and available for public examination and modification. And since the software isn't owned by a specific organization, the system is controlled completely through consensus generated by its community of users, supporters, developers, and transaction operators (known collectively as ideologists).

Table of Contents

How Ideologi Works

Ideologi uses a novel conversational method called hyperlogues to let ad hoc groups of any size to engage in synchronized high-performance collaboration. Any user can start a hyperlogue on Ideologi by posting an invite to one. Users become participants of a hyperlogue by first accepting the rules of participation as set by its initiator and then submitting an insight that they believe is the best response to the subject of the hyperlogue. During the length of the hyperlogue, unique pairs of submitted insights are sent to each participant for comparative evaluation and feedback. At the same time, participants can review feedback sent to them in order to upgrade their insight, remix and/or duplicate content from insights they evaluated earlier, or to delete their original insight altogether and start from scratch. This ensures that the ideas, concepts, memes, etc. within each hyperlogue will survive, evolve, mate, or perish with each new evaluation, in a similar fashion to natural selection. The purpose of a hyperlogue is to establish the relative value of every insight, incentivize their evolution, and ultimately, produce a prime insight, the highest-valued contribution of the hyperlogue as collectively determined by its participants.

In order to reduce social bias based on participants knowing the identity, social status, or relationships of other participants, all communication among participants within a hyperlogue is anonymous. Doing so neutralizes the normal interference of social bias that is so common with group consensus generation, freeing its users to maximize both their personal creativity and private judgment. The identities of participants are anonymous during a hyperlogue, even to the initiator of the hyperlogue itself. During the entire length of the hyperlogue, participants can only view insights (and their associated scores and feedback) from exchanges that were sent to them via Ideologi.

Ideologi repeats this process of trading insights as many times as was set by the initiator when the rules of the hyperlogue were originally posted. The insight that accumulates the highest amount of Ion is accepted as the prime insight of the hyperlogue.

One of the worst characteristics of classic brainstorming (as documented by researchers and experienced by practitioners) is the lack of definitive agreement at the end of the process. Spawning ideas can be exhilarating to participants, but the deliberations that typically follow afterwards are dreadful. Fresh and promising ideas are compromised or simply abandoned, making the entire exercise a farce. There's no mystery why classic brainstorming has such a negative connotation among so many people.

By using this random iterative sampling protocol, Ideologi builds a matrix of inferences as to which insight is more or less valuable to another insight as collectively perceived by that population of participants. Ideologi can determine (within a range of statistical probability) where each insight ranks within the collective population of participants, even if each participant only completes a handful of exchanges and even if there were millions of insights circulating within a hyperlogue. With each new set of responses from each exchange, Ideologi fills up the missing gaps across a comparative landscape of insights and their associated responses in the hyperlogue. And even though a tiny fraction of participants are given the opportunity to evaluate the prime insight within the hyperlogue, it’s still a certainty that it would have garnered the highest score if every participant made a comparison of every insight. The sampling methodology used here is grounded in the same mathematics used to predict election outcomes, separate spam from friendly e-mail, or give useful product recommendations to customers on an e-commerce web site.

With free access to Ideologi, ad hoc communities that completely lack organizational structure could operate as coherently or more than those with permanent hierarchies. Legions of lone entrepreneurs would be able to work together to produce an endless array of intellectual property (patents, copy-written material, artwork, etc.). A multitude of online users could use it to explore endless opportunities for personal expression and collective purpose.

What Makes Ideologi Unique

Numerous attempts have been made to create a universal portal for collaboration, yet none have “cracked the code” for conducting granular, high-performance, ad hoc collaboration on the web. What makes Ideologi unique is that it uses the best practices of real-world group brainstorming and deliberation to create an entirely new interactive model for collaboration: a universal marketplace of ideas.

Eliminates the “Tragedy of the Comments”. The standard methodology for group collaboration today is the use of comment strings for organizing user feedback. As useful as this is for general interactivity on the web, it’s a terrible method for facilitating large-scale collaborative hyperlogue on the web. In the early days of the Internet, it served as the online representation of one-on-one conversation. Today, comment strings are used even when the number of participants makes coherent hyperlogue impossible. A better solution would use the natural tendency of fragmentation within group hyperlogue as a core element of collaboration. Instead of producing one monolithic string of comments, Ideologi facilitates private tangential discussions during a hyperlogue to maximize the coverage of the conceptual terrain for the topic at hand, regardless of the subject matter or number of users.

Reputation-Free Evaluation. Even though users formally register to participate in Ideologi, all of the interaction among participants during a project is anonymous. Biases such as user reputation or size of a participant’s social network are simply not allowed to skew the evaluation process. Most of the valuations attributed to content submitted by users of other collaborative systems rely heavily on social networking. The problem with that reliance is what social theorists call reputational or information "cascades,” more commonly referred to as groupthink.

“Coopetition”. Ideologi uses gaming theory to loop the motivations of cooperation and competition into each other. For example, giving a glowing review to the proposal that receives the highest score raises the final ranking of the evaluating participant in a project. Even the decision to punish or even purge abusive users is determined by those participants who will benefit the most by passing sound judgment.

Explicit Comparative Evaluation. Allowing users to evaluate any piece of submitted content they want—independent of any requirement of comparing it with other submitted content is the standard mode of most systems today. But this creates an inherent problem. Since users are not formally comparing one piece of content versus another, what do their scores really mean?

Should a user be able to review only one piece of submitted content (e.g. blindly giving a score based on a social networking request from an acquaintance) or should they be required to compare it to at least one other piece of content before making an evaluation? If the collectively perceived value of submitted content is purely relative to the value of other pieces of content, then the real value of content that isn’t based on comparative judgement is unclear at best. The content displayed on systems such as these that have the highest value could very likely be nothing more than accidental (manipulated?) groupthink. Like a feedback loop between a microphone and a nearby speaker, any content could become the “most valued” for no other reason than the momentum of its popularity at the beginning of a collaboration.

The best current example of exclusive comparative voting (made made famous by the notorious web site "Hot or Not") is the Pairwise comparison methodology. Here's how it works: Users are presented with two pieces of content (typically a line of text or a picture) and are asked to decide which one they like the best. It has an impressive amount of analytical grounding. However, there's no facility for submitting commentary for consideration by content originators and/or subsequent evaluators. In other words, there's almost no feedback loop. It's called a "rank reversal" problem.

Evolution through upgrading. By making the upgrading of proposals in a project a full feature, user content is never dated, unless it looses its relevance to the community of participants. This reduces the "post-and-forget" problem with most online collaboration. It makes Ideologi as different to other online brainstorming systems as Amazon.com's e-commerce platform is to eBay's auctioning system.

Fully-Decentralized & Community-Owned. The full realization of Ideologi's capabilities, as outlined in this whitepaper, is only possible as an application running on Ethereum. The protocol that makes Bitcoin work—the blockchain ledger—turns out to be a core technology for creating secure multi-party computing environments. This offers the possibility of a new class of shared decentralized application platforms that run trusted decentralized applications across the public Internet. The first of these platforms to be announced is called Ethereum. It contains a fully-functional ("Turing-complete") programming environment that can create new blockchain-based cryptocurrencies in less than five lines of code.

How to Create a Hyperlogue in Ideologi

To create a hyperlogue in Ideologi, an initiator must first set the rules by which the hyperlogue will function. The purpose of a hyperlogue--whether it's philanthropy, entertainment, commerce, etc.--will greatly affect the way in which rules will be set by the initiator.

While there are only 25 settings listed below, the goal is to continuously add new settings in the future as they are conceptualized and requested by its community.

1. Subject (Values [list]). This is the defined question of the hyperlogue. It includes any reference material (documents, links, etc.) provided by its initiator for review by their participants. An initiator has the ability to allow the participants to make itemized evaluations of insights based on multiple factors, instead of just one. For example, participants could be asked to make separate comparisons based on quality of detail and feasibility.

2. Initiator Identity (Public or Anonymous). If “anonymous,” the initiator is unidentified by both the participants of the hyperlogue and anyone reviewing the records of the project in the archives of Ideologi.

3. Participation (Open or Closed). If "open," then anyone can join (minus those that are registered as "blocked" by the initiator of the hyperlogue). If "closed," then only those occupying an access list maintained by the initiator may participate.

4. Ethics Policy (Internal Monitoring or External Monitoring). The ethics policy by which the submissions of participants must adhere to during the length of the hyperlogue. If "internal monitoring," then monitors are chosen to officiate over any violations during the operation of a hyperlogue will be selected from volunteer participants within that hyperlogue. If "external monitoring," then Ideologi users that are not participating in the hyperlogue can assistance to the hyperlogue. In either case, a cryptocurrency fee will be set by the initiator for distribution to the monitoring volunteers who participated in the hyperlogue.

Any participant of a particular hyperlogue can volunteer to help enforce its EP, provided that the initiator chooses to make this available to their participants. If so, then the monitors will be randomly assigned to investigations regarding ethical violations detected by participants within a hyperlogue.

If three or more participants of an hyperlogue perceive that an insight violates the EP established by the initiator, then that insight will be ejected from the hyperlogue at the end of the phase in which the third violation claim was made. The owner of the insight in question will then be notified that their insight is being evaluated by a randomly selected group of volunteers equal to 3 times the number of violation reports. None of the original notifiers of the violation are allowed to be monitors of the same insight.

The monitors will then review the insight in question, as well as the EP of the hyperlogue, to determine whether it can be identified as a violation. They are then given Ion to be distributed among only two judgment insights as they see fit: Positive for violation and Negative for no violation. The length of the monitoring phase is the same length of time as the phases of the hyperlogue.

If a majority of this Ion accumulated are deposited into the Positive, then the insight in question has been determined to be in violation of the EP. The participant who submitted the violating isight will loose all Ion accumulated in the same hyperlogue. the violating user shall be given one violation on their record in the hyperlogue, loose all Ion accumulated from the hyperlogue thus far, and placed on notice for the period stated within the EP (default is one phase). In the case of the EP proposed for hyperlogues operated by Ideologi Foundation, if participants collect three violations on their Ideologi record within a single month, they shall be banned immediately for participating in all Ideologi-led hyperlogues for one month. The only exception to this rule is for participation in exchanges that are already started at the moment of ruling for the third offense.

If most of the Ion accumulated are negative, then the insight in question has been determined to not be in violation of the EP. Therefore, the participants that originally marked the insight as a violation will each forfeit half of the Ion they've accumulate from the phase in which they accused a participant of violating the EP. This is to designed to reduce the chances of accusations with low-confidence and to protect against cases of false accusation.

If the number of positive and negative observation Ion accumulated during observation are equal (a statistical rarity), then the participants who marked the insight in question as a violation of the EP can go about their business and the user that submitted the violation is allowed to keep any ions accumulated in the exchange through that phase.

5. Auto-Translate (Yes, No). If “yes,” then Ideologi will automatically convert the text of the hyperlogue (objective, proposal, scores, etc) into the native language of each participant (i.e. Google or some other third-party auto-translation service).

6. Ion Charge (Initiator [amount] and Initiator Prize [No or Yes {amount}], Participants [Participation Fee & Initiator Fee [amount if any] & Total Amount of Participant Ion in hyperlogue]). The Initiator has the option to fund the hyperlogue entirely by herself, through participant fees only or shared between herself and participants. This Ion is put into escrow (an automated function of Ideologi) and are only released at the close of the hyperlogue. It is important to note that the initiator has the right to increase their Ion contribution until the start of the hyperlogue. One reason for this might be to attract more participants. However, the initiator cannot lower their contribution once the first submission has accepted participation in the hyperlogue. Initiators can establish an initiator fee, which is a percentage of all the participation fees that goes straight to the initiator at the end of the hyperlogue.

7. Initiator Prize (No or Yes [percentage]). If "yes," then the initiator of a hyperlogue has the right to select one the insights of their hyperlogue (which does not have be the Prime Insight) to receive a bonus, which is a percentage of the total amount of Ion contributed by the initiator. If they did not contribute any Ion to the hyperlogue, the default setting is "no."

8. Mindshare (percentage). In order to incentivize participants into cooperating, initiators allocate a percentage of the total Ion accumulated by a participant in a particular exchange to be transferred to the evaluator that gave them the best feedback in each phase and the one who gave them the highest score

9. Minimum/Maximum Number of Participants (Min # or Max # or Unlimited). The minimum or maximum number of participants that can join the hyperlogue. If the minimum participants are not reached, then the hyperlogue is cancelled. If the maximum number of participants is reached, then no additional participants will be admitted. An initiator has the right to raise the maximum number of participants as many times as she wants until the start of the hyperlogue. However, she can never lower the maximum number of participants once it has been raised. If "unlimited" then the number of Participants within a given hyperlogue is unlimited.

10. Maximum Number of Insights Allowed Per Participant. If the initiator chooses more than one, then participants can submit more than one insight for a particular hyperlogue. As is the case in any hyperlogue, participants will never be able to review their own insights along another in an exchange.

11. Format Requirements (Open [file type, size limit, etc.] or Fixed). If "open" then participants are allowed to submit their own insight, provided that the adhere to the format requested by the initiator. If "fixed," then the initiator will provide a fixed set of insights for participants to score against each other. In the latter case, a comment field (text-only) will be provided to accompany their selection.

12. Start Date. The deadline for submitting a insight to a hyperlogue. It is also the start time for the first exchange of the hyperlogue, when participants login to compare and evaluate insights from their fellow participants. A universal identification code, a hybrid of a universal decimal classification (UDC) code and the ISO 8601 representation of universal time (GMT) is assigned to each hyperlogue.

13. Participant Identification (Public, Anonymous, Initiator & Participant-Only or Participant’s Choice). Initiators can choose from one of these four options in their hyperlogue. If “anonymous” is chosen, then a participant’s identification will not be revealed, even in the historical records of the hyperlogue. If “initiator & participant-only,” then participants will be anonymous to each other, but will be known by the initiator at the close of the hyperlogue. If "participant's choice," then the participant can choose at the beginning of the hyperlogue whether to make their identity public, anonymous, or only known to the initiator.

14. Participation Requirements (Insight & Exchange, Exchange-Only [All or Elimination]). “Insight & Exchange” means that participants must submit an insight as well as participate in exchanges. “Exchange Only” means that a participant can be allowed to participate without submitting their own insight to the hyperlogue. In addition, the choice of whether follow-up exchanges include all initial participants ("all") or just the semi-finalists of the previous exchanges ("elimination"). If “all,” then all participants will continue to make exchanges until the end of the hyperlogue. If “elimination,” then the lowest ranking participants at the end of each exchange will be removed from the hyperlogue and will be notified the total ion accumulation of their participation when the hyperlogue is over.

15. Initiator Participation (No, Yes). If “yes,” then the Initiator is allowing herself to participate in the hyperlogue by submitting her own insight as well as participating in the hyperlogue.

16. Creative License. The initiator gets to choose the terms of intellectual property ownership (standard copyright, Creative Commons, GNU, etc.) that each participant must agree to in order to submit her insight to a hyperlogue.

17. Valuation Methodology (Ion or Descriptors). If the initiator chooses “descriptors,” then participants will choose from a selection of descriptors provided by the initiators of a hyperlogue. This may include words (e.g. Plus, Minus, Interesting, Incoherent, etc.), symbols (+, -, *, /, ?, $) or any other type of media.

18. Exchanges per Phase (Number). The total number of exchanges each participant must make per phase of the hyperlogue.

19. Number of Phases (Number). The total number of phases per hyperlogue.

20. Time per Phase (Days, Hours, Minutes). The total length of time given to complete exchanges per phase of a hyperlogue.

21. Completion Term (Ion Accumulation, Descriptor Accumulation, Number of Phases or Continuous [Ion Half-Life]). If "Ion accumulation," then the initiator sets the amount of Ion needed for an insight to become Prime, thus completing the hyperlogue. If "descriptor accumulation," then the initiator sets the number of descriptors needed for an insight to become Prime. Once an insight achieves that number, then the exchange in which it occurred becomes the last exchange and the hyperlogue is completed. If "Number of Exchanges," then the Prime Insight will be chosen based on Ion accumulated once a certain number of exchanges have occurred. If "continuous," then the hyperlogue is designed to never end. Initiators will determine the Half-Life of accumulated Ion (the number of exchanges it takes for half of the Ion accumulated to be removed from the tally of each insight and distributed to the participants). So, in the first half-life, 50% of the original Ion will be deleted, by the second half-life, half of what is left of the original Ion accumulated will be deleted, and so on. At the end of each exchange, results will be determined and an Ion disbursement will take place with the participants. In this particular scenario, new participants can sign-up at any time before the next phase of each hyperlogue. Their submissions and participation in the hyperlogue will be included in the next exchange. Conversely, dropping out of the hyperlogue (and the withdrawal of one's submission(s) can be done at the end of each exchange.

22. Upgrading Between Phases (Yes, No). Gives each participant the right to upgrade her insight for the next phase of the hyperlogue. The implied benefit is that she can adapt her insight to incorporate any of the ideas uncovered during previous exchanges, as well as any epiphanies experienced since submitting her original insight.

Initiators are limited to using this option only when they choose an intellectual property arrangement that allows insights to be modified or mixed with content from other participants’ insights. In addition, initiator anonymity will not be available if upgrading is allowed.

23. Publication of insights (Participant’s Choice or [Yes or No]). If “yes,” then each insight will be publicly viewable as a complete archive of insights at the end of the hyperlogue. If “no,” then only the participant who submitted the insight, the participants who saw the proposal during a hyperlogue and the initiator will be able to review it.

24. Publication of Outcomes (Yes, No). If “yes,” then the outcomes of the hyperlogue will be available for public review in the archives of Ideologi. If “no,” then each participant will receive their portion of Ion and payments (if any) once the hyperlogue is complete, but will not be able to view the complete results of the hyperlogue.

25. Escrow Period (Days, Hours, Minutes). The results of the hyperlogue, as well as the distribution of the profits, will be held in escrow by an accredited third-party for this time period following the end of the hyperlogue. This allows time for the initiator to investigate any rules or legal challenges to the results of the hyperlogue. If it's determined by either the initiator or a participant that a participant violates the creative licensing agreement for a hyperlogue, or if all or part of the content comprising a proposal violates the intellectual property of another party, then that proposal will be disqualified and its Ion accumulation (or any other valuation method used) and profits (if any) will be nullified. At the end of this period, the hyperlogue will be officially archived.

Once an Initiator has finished establishing the settings of her hyperlogue, participants will be able to review its objective and submit an insight to the hyperlogue. Until the start date, a participant can submit, edit or even cancel and delete their submitted insights to the hyperlogue.

Here’s an example of the rules of a hyperlogue posted in Ideologi...

  1. Subject: “Define the most interesting objective that other participants would want to have initiated as a hyperlogue in Ideologi.” (Values: 1. Quality of Detail; 2. Feasibility.)
  2. Initiator Identity: mykljonzun
  3. Participation: Open
  4. Ethics Policy: Ideologi EP (External Observation)
  5. Auto-Translation: Yes
  6. Ion Charge: Initiator (10,000ion)
  7. Initiator Prize: 10%
  8. Mindshare: 20%
  9. Minimum/Maximum Number of Participants: Maximum (150,000)
  10. Maximum Number of Insights Allowed per Participant: 3
  11. Format Requirements: Open (HTML; Maximum 20K)
  12. Start Date: 12:00 PM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada), 11 November 2007
  13. Participant Identification: Participant’s Choice (Public or Anonymous)
  14. Participation Requirements: Insight & Exchange (All Phases)
  15. Initiator Participation: Yes
  16. Creative License: Creative Commons Deed (Attribution 2.0)
  17. Valuation Method: Ion (100 ionmicro, Pure Comparison)
  18. Exchanges Per Phase: 8
  19. Number of Phases: 3
  20. Time per Phase: 5 Days
  21. Completion Term: Number of Phases (6)
  22. Upgrading Between Phases: Yes
  23. Publication of Insights: Yes
  24. Publication of Outcomes: Yes
  25. Escrow Period (Days): 15 days

Use Case Scenarios

"Kickstarter Unbound"

By any standard, Kickstarter, Indiegogo and all other ad hoc crowdfunding/crowdbuilding platforms are huge successes with even bigger futures. But what about the conceptual development phase before a product or service is ready to be posted onto their sites? And how can fans and supporters of these creations become part of the business, as opposed to simply becoming registered customers? There are several sites that attempt this, but they all fall short for a number of reasons:

  • Poor tools for supporting projects that aren't fully-fleshed-out
  • Too much reliance on trusted parties (such as the owners of the web site)
  • Severely-limited ownership rights for providing input prior to announcement
  • No on-site services for incorporating the community into profit-sharing activities

Ideologi creates an environment where raw general interest can lead to creation of a decentralized organization that successfully supports any output imaginable. and a way to determine the appropriate share of ownership of the finished IP during the collaboration process itself. Both established enterprises and millions of ad hoc users with nothing more than a common interest can use Ideologi to produce anything they can collectively imagine.

"Outsider Trading"

At the dawn of each business morning, an intriguing game begins that will determine the stock prices of several public companies. A financial entrepreneur has organized a contest for thousands of day-traders to predict the most volatile stock of the day. There's a $100 per day fee to enter, but everyone involved knows that the value of participating could be worth millions!

Earlier that morning, each contestant is allowed to enter a stock pick, along with any pertinent data they wish to include to argue their case (charts, spreadsheets, links, etc.). At 8:00 AM, participants are notified that the judging phase of the contest has begun. By logging back to the site, participants now get to view five anonymous submissions from other day-traders. They have 15 minutes to score the stock picks they have been given. They are also allowed to attach commentary as to why they scored a particular stock that way. Once finished, they wait for the system to tabulate their scores.

Some of the stock picks are so compelling that some of the participants decide to not wait for the conclusion of the contest to start making trades. At 8:15, participants are given another five stock picks that they haven't review before. The process continues until 9:15 AM when the hyperlogue is complete.

At that point, the system releases the ranking, itemized scores, and comments to all of its participants, minus their individual identities. At 9:30 AM, it is posted publicly on the Internet for the entire investment community to see.

This "outsider trading" model (as some people are starting to call them) has become as influential as it is profitable. Some argue that the success is only due to the volatility of so many many traders piling on to a particular stock. Participants argue that they are using fundamentals and their broad network of eyes and ears help them to see obscure market opportunities in real time. In either case, they have become a significant player in the market, collectively speaking. Many are beginning to suspect that their newer participants, as anonymous as they may be, must be employed by the major investment firms. The subsequent trades that are beginning to take place in lieu of their stock recommendations have continued to increased, pushing several stocks to dizzying heights, as well as crushing those that are deemed "underperformers" by the collective assessment of independent traders.

"New Athens"

With 60,000 residents, New Athens has become a model for civic involvement around the country. As a city, it has the usual trappings of a standard municipality: a mayor, a council, and other government organs. However, the key to its success is largely based on a remarkable communications platform that does something that political systems have never been able to do before—the realtime synthesis of public intelligence and public opinion!

Like most tech-savvy communities, the residents can go online see the latest news and information related to their city. But now, from the privacy of their own home, any resident has the ability (and therefore the right) to raise an issue of their choosing among their citizenry. As succinctly as they can, they are allowed to post the reason as to why it should be discussed. In order to foster the most open communications, their submissions remain anonymous to everyone, including the city council of New Athens.

At a designated time, participants are alerted by an electronic method of their choosing of the start of the review phase of the issues submitted. By receiving an alert from a now ubiquitous desktop application, citizens see that they have been given the right to review six anonymous submissions out of a total of 6,000 from other residents. They now have three hours to score them. They are also allowed to attach an anonymous comment to explain the reason for their score. Once finished, they await the next phase of the hyperlogue.

A sorting algorithm retires the lowest scoring submissions, leaving 1,000 submissions still in the running for Prime Issue of the month for the residents of New Athens. The submitters of the least interesting issues are not notified of their scores. Like everyone else, they will still believe that they are in the running. The next day, all participants get to review and score 6 more anonymous submissions that each hasn't seen before. Once the sorting engine retires the next batch, only 165 submissions remain. Two more judging periods will complete the review of issues.

In a matter of days, the results are posted on several web sites, including the local newspaper. All of the issues of the city have now been neatly prioritized with a "grade on a curve" score by their fellow citizens with the participants’ identities still listed as publicly anonymous. However, each participant is able to see how she scored and also read the comments left by her anonymous reviewers.

Now that the issues have been prioritized, participants are encouraged to register in order to offer their opinions as to how the city should address the issues. Utilizing the same system that was used to prioritize the issues, new individual hyperlogues are created to propose solutions for the top 20 issues prioritized by the citizens.

In deference to the popular appeal of these virtual deliberations, the submitters of the highest ranking solutions for each issue are allowed to formally address the city council during an open session. If they do not wish to speak or identify themselves, they are allowed to have someone else speak in their place, or to allow a councilperson to address it for them. When the speaker arrives before the council, they will give the access code given to them by the system to verify their selection.

Citizens normally separated by class, gender, age, income and status are starting to develop rational critical hyperlogue with each other about the issues, concerns and perspectives of their fellow citizens. For the city council, managing their citizenry's passive ignorance is being replaced by engaging with the citizenry's collectively-reasoned positions. A new political phenomenon is born: Hyperpolity.

Symbology

About the Name

The word ideologie, "the science of ideas", was coined by the French philosopher Antoine Destutt de Tracy in the late 18th century. What better name could there be for an open platform for engineering ideas? And what better name could there be for those who participate in the various aspects of its community than that of ideologists?

Icon

The Ideologi icon encapsulates several layers of meaning...

  • The green and red cones represent playful twist on the recognizable "gains and losses" symbols of electronic marketplaces, altered in the hope that the number of positive outcomes (green) created through Ideologi will far outweigh any of the negative ones (red).

  • The relationship between top-down, initiator-defined subjects and bottom-up, participant-generated insights communicated in Ideologi hyperlogues.

  • The abstract image of a rose, a longer green "stem" and a shorter red "bulb," tilted toward the beholder as an offering of peace and love. According to J. E. Cirlot's A Dictionary of Symbols, "…a single rose is, in essence, a symbol of completion, of consummate achievement and perfection. Hence, accruing to it are all those ideas associated with these qualities: the mystic Centre, the heart, the garden of Eros, the Paradise of Dante, the Beloved, the emblem of Venus and so on."

  • The sphere represents the noosphere, "the part of the biosphere that is affected by human thought, culture, and knowledge." Its blue color represents the Internet, the ubiquitous medium in which Ideologi operates.

Cryptocurrency

The name of the cryptocurrency that serves as both the medium of trade and store of value, Ion, is named after the true source of Ideologi's power, the countless electrochemical material that make up the myriad of brains connected to it.

Logo

Ideologi's logo is based on the lettering style of Dutch artist M.C. Escher. He became famous through his geometrically surrealist artwork, especially that of physically impossible landscapes. It's an ideal visual metaphor of a phenomenon that exists through the non-heirarchichal interaction of its participants:

The use of a lowercase title emphasizes the humility of its efforts and the approach; its outline form symbolizes the fact that the direction of Ideologi is wholly determined by the collective efforts of its individual participants.

Motto

Libertes Philosophica: “Freedom of Thought.” This phrase was originally coined by Giordano Bruno, the iconoclastic 16th century philosopher who challenged the authorities of his age by making people think beyond mandated dogma.

Ideologi Foundation

Ideologi Foundation, a not-for-profit corporation to be founded by the initiators of Ideologi, will be the custodian of software licenses, trademarks and any other terrestrial legal rights associated with Ideologi. It will have similar goals and objectives of other open source organizations, such as the Linux Foundation (www.linuxfoundation.org) and Apache Foundation (www.apache.org). An operations staff will be employed to manage communications and logistics between programmers, business partners, and members of the Ideologi community.

Ideologi Foundation will be sustained through three distinct revenue sources:

  1. Income from from tax-deductible grants and donations from institutions and supporters of Ideologi. This source will taper-off as the other two sources ramp up.

  2. Fees collected through hyperlogues initiated by Ideologi Foundation where financial transactions are involved.

  3. Management & Consulting Fees associated with providing and/or subcontracting legal and business services for participants of hyperlogues initiated by Ideologi Foundation who plan to co-develop intellectual property for sale or licensing to the public marketplace.

Ideologi makes possible the creation of distributed autonomous organizations: social entities that can integrate an unlimited number of ad hoc participants into a collaborative and cooperative whole without needing a centralized command structure. An explicit role for Ideologi Foundation to play is that of a working laboratory for decentralized organizational design. Its non-profit bylaws, for example, could be written to accommodate an unlimited number of directors, each with a unique set of dynamic responsibilities. Its only limitation would be the collective imagination of its voluntary participants.

Once a mature version of Ideologi software is available and the user base reaches a significant size, Ideologi Foundation will push all of its executive decision-making power out to its community of ideologists. If all goes as planned, Ideologi Foundation will be socially, legally and technologically capable of determining its goals and plan of action without any semblance of classic central authority. It will then be a public resource for the benefit of all.

The Prime Objective

"The significant problems we face can not be solved at the same phase of thinking we were at when we created them." —Albert Einstein

A Gordian knot of conflicts, dilemmas and crises is jeopardizing the evolution of civilization. Organizations, institutions and cultures that have been relied upon for generations are failing to address an increasing number of interrelated problems; their missions and processes cannot keep pace with, let alone make sense of the dynamic flux in which they now exist.

What is needed now more than ever is a radical acceleration of humanity's collective insight: a golden mean by which the talents, perspectives and imagination of the multitude can come together—beyond the boundaries of any legacy cultural framework—to co-create novel solutions for the myriad of existential challenges we face both now and in the future.

A Call to Participate

"If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them."—Henry David Thoreau

We are now seeking developers, donors, supporters, and dreamers who want to help initiate this project of the multitude. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us.

participate@ideologi.org

@ideologi

Clone this wiki locally
You can’t perform that action at this time.
You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session. You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.
Press h to open a hovercard with more details.