Just to keep on the same page, let’s agree that everything in the document is provisional and up for discussion/debate. If you would like to see specific changes, please comment in the document itself. If you would like to discuss details, please comment in this thread.
There is a lot going on with this paper, so here is just the first section. My plan here is quote first, comment below.
CRD 1 — Reach vs. Depth
Conflict
OBJECTIVE:
Increase Second Renaissance throughput:
durable adoption of wiser views, values, practices, and social forms.
REQUIREMENT A:
Reach enough people to create cultural momentum.
REQUIREMENT B:
Deepen enough people to create real embodied transformation.
PREREQUISITE A:
Prioritize broad public-facing activity:
content, events, media, talks, partnerships, growth.
PREREQUISITE B:
Prioritize deep practice containers:
cohorts, retreats, facilitation, relational work, pocket formation.
CONFLICT:
We cannot prioritize broad reach and deep containers with the same limited attention,
time, money, and leadership capacity.
Assumptions holding the conflict
A → PA:
To reach enough people, we must put most resources into public activity.
B → PB:
To deepen people, we must put most resources into intensive containers.
PA ↔ PB:
Broad activity and deep containers compete for the same scarce organizer capacity.
Hidden assumption:
Reach and depth are separate workstreams rather than stages in one conversion system.
Injection
Build a staged conversion architecture:
public reach → first practice → cohort → contribution → facilitation → pocket/sangha formation.
Dissolved logic
The group does not choose “reach” or “depth.” It designs reach specifically to feed depth, and depth specifically to generate future reach through practitioners, facilitators, pockets, and replication.
Public activity is successful only if it converts people into practice.
Deep practice is successful only if it creates people capable of transmitting the work.
New operating rule
No major public-facing activity without a next-step pathway.
No deep container without a replication or contribution pathway.
This fits the Second Renaissance theory of change: pockets, sangha, and movement are interdependent; pockets trial new ways of life, sangha nourishes them, and movement spreads visibility, participation, and shared narrative.
Requirement A - Skillful means here involves identifying cultural momentum that is happening already, then “surfing” that momentum to take things in directions we might like to go with it. For example, AI is hot topic now, so we should riff off it. Generally, use attention-grabbing headlines to grab attention, then redirect the conversation in unexpected ways.
Requirement B - People generally deepen themselves. But encouragement, role modeling, and social support can certainly facilitate the process.
Prerequisite A: Yes.
Prerequisite B: Yes.
Conflict: This Econ 101 “how to manage scarcity”. To me, the leverage point is leadership capacity. Crafty leadership can work synergies to maximize the impact of time and money. See my comment on Requirement A above. If we get ourselves invited to somebody else’s podcast, conference, substack channel, etc., we save a ton of overhead. Likewise, we will search- and AI-optimize our content by being in the middle of hot conversation topics. There is an art to positioning ourselves for all of the above. If we are going to invest time, energy, and limited cash in some particular initiative, my recommendation is to rehearse the band on the cheap, very off-off-off-Broadway, until we are ready to land on some big stage or another and really make splash. Revolutions are not fully catered and don’t start in the downtown opera hall!
As explained in the following post:
I’ve update the CRT to include the following:
CRD 0 — Strategic Coherence vs. Distributed Legitimacy
Objective:
Use the LTP trees to guide effective Second Renaissance R&D.
Requirement A:
Maintain strategic coherence, clarity, and momentum.
Requirement B:
Ensure distributed legitimacy, plural intelligence, and revisability.
Prerequisite A:
Let the tree creator or a small strategy group maintain the trees decisively.
Prerequisite B:
Let the wider group review, challenge, and revise the trees collectively.
Conflict:
Centralized stewardship seems efficient but risks illegitimacy and blind spots.
Collective revision seems legitimate but risks endless discussion, diffusion, and paralysis.
Hidden assumption:
The group must choose between author-controlled coherence and open-ended collective editing.
Injection:
Create a bounded tree-governance protocol: distributed input, explicit criteria, accountable stewards, transparent decision rules, and time-bounded revision cycles.
New operating rule:
The trees are neither personal property nor open-edit chaos. They are stewarded commons.