It feels good to see many spirits (minds and hearts) working out this at times devilishly complex seeming puzzle. One piece (or maybe the connection spot of two pieces?) that keeps swirling up in front of my inner eye is the difficulty of calibrating my cross-cultural interpretation of "subliminal cues."
As I (feel that I have) learned from Watzlawick (specifically the bit from his 5 axioms -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Watzlawick#Five_basic_axioms -- where he says "one cannot not communicate"): everything a person does, including a "rejection" is a behavior I need to interpret. And how difficult it is to interpret the behaviors of people who come from different cultures.
The "master-protocol built on love" then must accomplish this paradoxical feat: if I imagine becoming proficient in that protocol, I ought to be able to send messages to someone from a different culture (entirely non-proficient in it), and the protocol itself needs to (self-) contain the instructions for how to deduce its structure (and benefit, i.e., value over the existing non-proficiency in the protocol). That seems like a tall order, and indeed maybe that is why it must be built on love, on something *SO UNIVERSAL* that no matter which culture a person comes from, they at the very least recognize that, at its most foundational layer, the protocol speaks to the longing for belonging and love, and not about control or dominance.
Which, as a final point, brings me to "HTTP over TCP" (the transport *CONTROL* protocol)... How much control am I willing to give up and allow the other communication participant to, potentially, upend the apple cart, and waltz unceremoniously (and without apparent protocol) across the room...? Or am I still interested in control (the part of reality that seems somewhat distant from if not orthogonally unintegratible with love...)?
Thank you, Jochen. I’m grateful for the way you’ve named the challenge so clearly—especially around the cross-cultural complexity of “subliminal cues” and Watzlawick’s reminder that we cannot not communicate. That difficulty in interpretation across cultures resonates deeply.
Your framing of the “master-protocol built on love” is powerful: that it must self-contain the instructions for how to deduce its value, even across vast cultural gaps. Yes—what else but love could attempt something so paradoxical? As you put it so well, it must be “so universal that no matter which culture a person comes from, they at the very least recognize… the longing for belonging and love, and not about control or dominance.”
That’s also why I’m exploring Symbiotic Culture not as a new control system, but as something closer to a relational worldview—an operating system that doesn't override cultural difference but helps translate across it. It’s less about standardization and more about resonance.
And your connection to TCP is brilliant. Love, as a protocol, invites the kind of trust that’s willing to give up control—precisely so that something unexpected, even sacred, can emerge in the space between. The overall 5 levels... in this piece I deal with the last two levels, operating system and application protocol.
Logos - the Word "breathed" into Creation
Divine Love - Base level Love as underlying structure of reality
Ancient Blueprint - Sacred Design infusing Creation and Human Society
Relational Worldview - Relational Operating System
Hey Richard, indeed, I experience genuine curiosity and gratitude -- coming back to this post and your reply :)
It does occur to me, probably because just earlier today, I read about the (to date) largest DDoS attack -- https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2025/06/largest-ddos-attack-to-date.html -- that in the absence of "TCP" (control over the high level protocols on a lower level), *purely compassionate love* (that will, like UDP, accept all incoming traffic on a port) can become "overwhelmed."
For one, I am thinking of Karpman's Drama Triangle, and how the (self-) positioning of a person in the "victim" position of the triangle "calls for help." And that, as much as it may initially seem, a loving response is not necessarily to "rescue" such a person, but to apply *genuine curiosity*.
So, I would at least consider that love is a fundamental ingredient of a cross-cultural protocol, possibly paired with curiosity *and with the ability to discern and set boundaries*. I am still very much at a loss for how to set those boundaries with people who I suspect come from a different culture *in a loving way*.
The culture I grew up in definitely lacked this kind of finesse... I suspect that, at least in part, it comes down to communicating my most deeply held preferences (for belonging, but also for an experience of mutual respect and for not being taken advantage of) in such a manner that whoever might feel tempted to take the love I offer as "free lunch" with the necessary grain of salt (and spice): yes, you are welcome to partake in my joy and genuine aliveness, but not at the expense of our experience of the relationship as wholesome.
That is, if the other person's behavior reveals (according to my culture) that I am treated in the "one-down" kind of position, I think *the loving thing to do* is to point out that such a relationship is not sustainable from a "love-protocol perspective", and to then display sufficient integrity not to compromise on that. Otherwise, I am opening myself up to precisely the kind of DDoS attack from people who are smart enough to reverse engineer my lack of TCP into a vulnerability on my end...
It feels good to see many spirits (minds and hearts) working out this at times devilishly complex seeming puzzle. One piece (or maybe the connection spot of two pieces?) that keeps swirling up in front of my inner eye is the difficulty of calibrating my cross-cultural interpretation of "subliminal cues."
As I (feel that I have) learned from Watzlawick (specifically the bit from his 5 axioms -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Watzlawick#Five_basic_axioms -- where he says "one cannot not communicate"): everything a person does, including a "rejection" is a behavior I need to interpret. And how difficult it is to interpret the behaviors of people who come from different cultures.
The "master-protocol built on love" then must accomplish this paradoxical feat: if I imagine becoming proficient in that protocol, I ought to be able to send messages to someone from a different culture (entirely non-proficient in it), and the protocol itself needs to (self-) contain the instructions for how to deduce its structure (and benefit, i.e., value over the existing non-proficiency in the protocol). That seems like a tall order, and indeed maybe that is why it must be built on love, on something *SO UNIVERSAL* that no matter which culture a person comes from, they at the very least recognize that, at its most foundational layer, the protocol speaks to the longing for belonging and love, and not about control or dominance.
Which, as a final point, brings me to "HTTP over TCP" (the transport *CONTROL* protocol)... How much control am I willing to give up and allow the other communication participant to, potentially, upend the apple cart, and waltz unceremoniously (and without apparent protocol) across the room...? Or am I still interested in control (the part of reality that seems somewhat distant from if not orthogonally unintegratible with love...)?
Thank you, Jochen. I’m grateful for the way you’ve named the challenge so clearly—especially around the cross-cultural complexity of “subliminal cues” and Watzlawick’s reminder that we cannot not communicate. That difficulty in interpretation across cultures resonates deeply.
Your framing of the “master-protocol built on love” is powerful: that it must self-contain the instructions for how to deduce its value, even across vast cultural gaps. Yes—what else but love could attempt something so paradoxical? As you put it so well, it must be “so universal that no matter which culture a person comes from, they at the very least recognize… the longing for belonging and love, and not about control or dominance.”
That’s also why I’m exploring Symbiotic Culture not as a new control system, but as something closer to a relational worldview—an operating system that doesn't override cultural difference but helps translate across it. It’s less about standardization and more about resonance.
And your connection to TCP is brilliant. Love, as a protocol, invites the kind of trust that’s willing to give up control—precisely so that something unexpected, even sacred, can emerge in the space between. The overall 5 levels... in this piece I deal with the last two levels, operating system and application protocol.
Logos - the Word "breathed" into Creation
Divine Love - Base level Love as underlying structure of reality
Ancient Blueprint - Sacred Design infusing Creation and Human Society
Relational Worldview - Relational Operating System
Symbiotic Culture DNA - Practical Protocol
Grateful to be in this dialogue with you.
—Richard
Hey Richard, indeed, I experience genuine curiosity and gratitude -- coming back to this post and your reply :)
It does occur to me, probably because just earlier today, I read about the (to date) largest DDoS attack -- https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2025/06/largest-ddos-attack-to-date.html -- that in the absence of "TCP" (control over the high level protocols on a lower level), *purely compassionate love* (that will, like UDP, accept all incoming traffic on a port) can become "overwhelmed."
For one, I am thinking of Karpman's Drama Triangle, and how the (self-) positioning of a person in the "victim" position of the triangle "calls for help." And that, as much as it may initially seem, a loving response is not necessarily to "rescue" such a person, but to apply *genuine curiosity*.
So, I would at least consider that love is a fundamental ingredient of a cross-cultural protocol, possibly paired with curiosity *and with the ability to discern and set boundaries*. I am still very much at a loss for how to set those boundaries with people who I suspect come from a different culture *in a loving way*.
The culture I grew up in definitely lacked this kind of finesse... I suspect that, at least in part, it comes down to communicating my most deeply held preferences (for belonging, but also for an experience of mutual respect and for not being taken advantage of) in such a manner that whoever might feel tempted to take the love I offer as "free lunch" with the necessary grain of salt (and spice): yes, you are welcome to partake in my joy and genuine aliveness, but not at the expense of our experience of the relationship as wholesome.
That is, if the other person's behavior reveals (according to my culture) that I am treated in the "one-down" kind of position, I think *the loving thing to do* is to point out that such a relationship is not sustainable from a "love-protocol perspective", and to then display sufficient integrity not to compromise on that. Otherwise, I am opening myself up to precisely the kind of DDoS attack from people who are smart enough to reverse engineer my lack of TCP into a vulnerability on my end...
🩵 “Love is not just a feeling. It is the underlying design of reality itself: the Logos through which all things hold together.”
Your emphasis on local, face to face relationships amid tech/AI discussions feels like a vital corrective to today’s dislocation.
I also have a personal question I wanted to ask, I left it inbox, when you have time please check it out.