First, we need to bridge unification and conciliation synthesis to concepts that would be familiar to us. This is easy enough because each interstitial form of mixed synthesis has an intrinsic attributes’ correlation. We’ll call this relationship Status Reciprocity:
- Unification leads to Centralization.
- Conciliation leads to Decentralization.
We briefly mention these concepts on the “Attribute Position” section, when we described interstitial and intrinsic attributes:
Trajectory of Attributes Dynamics
| ATTRIBUTE POSITION (Beginning) | ATTRIBUTE DISPOSITION (End) |
|---|---|
| Intrinsic Attributes | Centralization / Decentralization |
| Interstitial Attributes | Unification / Conciliation |
Now we are indeed at the end of our trajectory. Therefore, we should assemble these elements together:
| STATUS RECIPROCITY | Dysfunctional Status | Functional Status |
|---|---|---|
| Intrinsic Attributes | Centralization | Decentralization |
| Interstitial Attributes | Unification | Conciliation |
From now on, every time that we see a centralized system we can assume that it has a unification synthesis status underneath. The same is true between decentralized systems and conciliation synthesis. These status reciprocity gives us a methodology to apply our Conciliatorics knowledge systematically. We can tackle this type of questions:
- What are the highest dangers that blocks decentralization?
- How could a centralized system become decentralized?
- What are the trade-off of each intrinsic status?
- Are there philosophical frameworks that may enhance decentralization objectives?
We can also focus on specific decentralized systems that are in need of continuous maintenance, and may aspire to iterated imperdurable functionality. An example of these types of systems are blockchain implementations. Smart contracts, decentralized applications (dApps), and DAOs are often designed with a decentralization philosophy that is uncommon in other types of digital systems. Their versatility also contributes to a diverse range of implementation frameworks, which allows for direct exploration of Conciliatorics principles.
We consider DAOs a fertile ground for applied Conciliatorics. Not only they have to deal with decentralization at the programming level, but also in their governance structures and voting systems. The behavior of DAO members heavily influences in decentralized objectives, making perdurable dysfunctionality a constant risk. DAOs frequently experience status decay, eventually becoming abandoned—a concrete example of status end state.
But applied Conciliatorics can expand into many fields. Real world governance may be an interesting environment for analysis and even theoretical contribution. Local organizations could benefit from taking into account iterated imperdurability as a guiding principle. Conciliatorics may also provide design heuristics, evaluation criteria, and community practices to support long-term decentralization efforts. The implementation possibilities are endless, and their exploration will in return promote a stronger theoretical foundation.
We hope that our analytical journey encourages people to get involved in discussion and feedback, and even find ways to apply these ideas into their daily life.
🔖 End of Part 5 🔖