I appreciate you getting back to me on this, Benjamin. It helps me. Though we aren't connected IRL, I still hope the content of my words can have meaningful, compounding impact on those thinkers who are engaged in similar thought and looking for deep and comprehensive frameworks to understand our moment.

Perhaps it's a matter of time (and your lack of it), perhaps it's also a matter of complexity, and I'm sure it's mostly a product of the level of prioritization you have assigned to it. You'd rather put your energy elsewhere right now. And that's fine. Though, I imagine you may still have some interest in digging in a bit more deeply into your own framework, given that coherence, resonance, alignment, and impact are deep values of yours. So I'll try to condense my points into a sentence or two for your ease, and propose a few options for you to respond with, since I have the time/willingness:

1. Your main objects of criticism seem to be these: extraction, profit-maximization, commodification, transaction, death, "the machine", and the abstraction/quantification of values.

2. I believe that criticism asserts the negativity of something, and therefore tends to lean into a binary against what is positive. I try to see the continuity of all things, and therefore to appreciate the relative positivity of all these so-called "negative" objects of criticism. All systems extract AND regenerate, grow AND die, abstract AND concretize, and have positive and negative elements, though positivity is MORE fundamental.

3. I've tried to develop a comprehensive, coherent philosophy that fluidly bridges ethics and ontology and epistemology. I conclude, from many perspectives, that everything is alive/growing/adapting/evolving/learning/conscious/intentional: all movement is conscious striving towards what is desired; the Buddhist concept of "basic goodness", everyone trying their best. Death is an innate part of life -- it is a form of living itself -- all change is death and rebirth.

4. Applying this to computation and capitalism: the earth/cosmos is conscious, computers and capitalism are made of earth/nature, and so both are striving towards better/evolution/adaptation. When we desire MORE of a good thing, that "more" represents a greater amount of that good thing, regardless of how abstract it is -- there is no ultimate binary between quality and quantity, and quantity seems to be an increasingly precise descriptor of the universal striving towards more good and more life.

5. So, quantification, abstraction, optimization, efficiency, computation, and transaction can be seen to all exist on a spectrum, and exist universally. I believe that by wanting more good things (which we all do), we all want more efficient creation of those good things, more optimal selection of "the good", more accurate understanding, defining, and tracking those good things and how they fit together, and more intentional/optimal transaction/reciprocity of resources/energy.

6. I believe that more cooperation, more intentionality, and more unity necessitates more "centralization", or more unity in understanding and coordination pathways, as well as more decentralization, because both represent the expansion of the spectrum of life/consciousness.

7. If you've read this, Ill propose a few options for quick response:

a. you could just say "I agree with everything except numbers #xyz"

b. you could say "I think you misunderstand what I'm arguing, and I basically agree with everything you say"

c. you could say "I don't think any of this is worth engaging with any further"

d. you could say "this is why I fundamentally disagree with your approach: ..."

Hope this makes things easier. Wishing you, and all, all the best.

You can find the link to my paper describing all this in more detail and rigor through the "Synthetic Topologies of Positive Realizations" link on my personal website bio.site/fazepoint. This work is inherently collaborative, feedback encouraged.