Sapiocracy Approach: Charting Humanity’s Ethical Future with Dr. Leon Tsvasman

“Human reality isn’t just what is. It’s a weave of potentialities, kept alive by the energy of focused attention. This energy sustains values like
freedom and life. When it wanes, wars ignite.”
Leon Tsvasman


In “The Age of Sapiocracy: On the Radical Ethics of Data-Driven Civilization” (2023, Ergon Publishing), Dr. Leon Tsvasman embarks on a visionary quest to redefine the fabric of governance, economy, and human potential in the wake of ethical, data-driven paradigms. Drawing from the rich soils of anthropology, teleology, and cybernetics—the science of communication and control across living beings and machines—Tsvasman weaves a narrative that imagines society anew. Central to his discourse is the innovative concept of Sapiocracy, a model of governance that synergizes human intellect with artificial intelligence to forge ethical, resilient civilizations. With a polymath’s versatility, Tsvasman traverses disciplinary boundaries, offering a critical lens on prevailing power dynamics and championing a future marked by autonomous governance, unleashed creativity, and profound insights. His critique navigates the intricate challenges besetting our global community, coupling rigorous analysis with visionary solutions. By reimagining AI’s function in shaping governance and economic structures, and by acknowledging the symbiotic interplay between complexity and human ingenuity as pivotal for advancement, “The Age of Sapiocracy” dares to sketch a future where technology and humanity coalesce for the greater good. This scholarly endeavor does more than just theorize an integrated future; it charts a tangible course towards it, urging a deep reconsideration of our latent capabilities, ethical imperatives, and digital coexistence. Through Tsvasman’s lens, readers are compelled to engage in a dialogue about evolving into a more enlightened, unified, and ethically grounded society.

Tsvasman’s book proposes both a blueprint for ethical, data-driven governance attuned to human potential as well as explores this vision through a polymathic lens, integrating epistemological (theory of acquiring knowledge), anthropological, and cybernetic insights. Dr. Tsvasman argues for a society anchored in a self-regulating infrastructure and radical innovation. This framework aims to dissect Tsvasman’s multifaceted layers, offering a nuanced critique of the philosophical depth and societal implications outlined in the book.

“The Age of Sapiocracy” emerges as a cohesive and meticulously conceived work, blending cybernetic and philosophical thought in a manner that redefines the human and worldly perspective. This book methodologically and ethically weaves through the unfinished parameters of many philosophies, suggesting a depth and coherence one might expect from a multi-volume series. Yet, its concise, aphoristic richness and innovative approach to contemporary discourse and media saturation allow the author to leapfrog over traditional explanatory layers. This not only elevates the work’s practicality but also signals the potential for the insights within to be transformed into viable solutions and preventive strategies across technology, economy, education, and culture. It implies that the author, and likewise any reader who grasps the interconnectedness it presents, can actualize these problem-solving potentials.

Tsvasman’s perspective on governance: The transition of governance into the hands of AI is not merely a technological shift, but fundamentally an ethical revolution. As Heinz von Foerster eloquently put it, ‘Act always so as to increase the number of choices.’ (Heinz von Foerster, 1993) This principle highlights the ethical foundation of our vision for AI-driven governance: a society in which decisions enhance the freedom and well-being of all, adhering to the principle of responsible and expansive ethics.

Tsvasman’s economic philosophy diverges sharply from traditional social enabling ideologies by advocating a radical subject-oriented approach, which he terms “subject-potentiality-oriented.” This approach emphasizes the individual’s creative capacities as the cornerstone of economic development, contrasting with Marxism’s collective practice focus. Tsvasman argues that the conventional pragmatic view of the ego, often reduced to a manipulable constant for instrumentalizing subject potentiality towards survival in actuality, misses the essence of true subject-centeredness. Instead, it becomes a manipulative valuation, exploiting subject potentiality for pragmatic survival purposes, which fails to recognize the individual’s intrinsic value and creative potential. Therefore, Tsvasman calls for a profound reevaluation of economic models to prioritize individual creativity and potential, aiming to establish an economy that supports well-being and fosters innovation through the free development of each individual. He argues that the liberation of individual potential is key to collective progress, challenging the traditional dichotomy between individualism and collectivism. This radical perspective challenges the instrumentalization of human potential, advocating for a shift towards recognizing and harnessing the unique contributions of every subject-immanent potential emancipation as the foundation for a thriving, innovative economy.

In the following sections, we will explore this book in three ways: (1) via short synopses of the chapters; (2) via posing questions regarding their meaning and content; and (3) via a consultation with the author, Dr. Leon Tsvasman.

Dr. Tsvasman begins his book with the following observation: “In a world marred by corruption, totalitarianism, and autocracy, this book serves as a beacon for transformative thought, shedding light on insights often obscured by entrenched power structures devoid of ethical orientation.”


How can we ensure that ethics, both practical and applied, are taken seriously to realize human potential and advancement? What exactly constitutes “radical ethics”? And what is sapiocracy, along with its scope and limitations? Moreover, how does economics integrate into this discourse?

Dr. Tsvasman provides enlightening insights on these queries.

On the Foundation of Sapiocracy: Dr. Tsvasman elucidates that Sapiocracy represents an advanced iteration of democracy, aiming not merely at survival but at achieving self-transcendence—the pinnacle of human ambition. Unlike autocracies, which substitute genuine meaning with superficial constructs to support ideologies, Sapiocracy fosters an environment where individuals are encouraged to explore their meaning and orientation potential.

Within a Sapiocracy, where governance is a symbiotic effort between humans and AI, an ethical democracy flourishes, amplifying human significance in an increasingly complex world. This is in sharp contrast to autocratic regimes, where intellectual efforts paradoxically seek to undermine their own significance, breeding ideological discord.

On the Role of AI in Sapiocracy: Dr. Tsvasman is adamant that governance should be automated. Sapiocracy advocates for AI-driven governance to replace traditional power dynamics, proposing a bold, yet essential transformation for societal advancement.

On Sapiocracy and Economic Shifts: Amid the shift towards a data-centric civilization, the “Sapiocratic Economic Manifesto” emerges as a foundational document, drawing from sociocybernetic roots of human society. It calls for a profound reconceptualization of economics, spotlighting human potential as the cornerstone of sustainable innovation in an era dominated by AI.

On Complexity and Potentiality: Dr. Tsvasman highlights that complexity, when viewed in relation to conventional actuality, underscores a reductionist tendency. However, humans inherently possess a more intricate complexity, both in nature and in the untapped realms of our potentiality, indicating a perpetual state of evolution.

On the Ethical Imperative: Aligning with Heinz von Foerster’s cybernetic ethical imperative, the narrative urges actions that expand the realm of possibilities, honoring each individual’s unique potential. Tsvasman’s discourse on complexity challenges the reductionist barriers that conventional actuality imposes. His perspective echoes our evolutionary view on human complexity and potentiality, advocating for a society that embraces challenges as opportunities for growth and innovation.

Potentiality-Driven Economy: The manifesto advocates transcending conventional economic models to focus on realizing profound aspirations and unlocking human capabilities. It redefines money as a sophisticated informational tool for resource allocation, stressing equitable distribution and authentic value creation.

Ethical and Epistemological Pathway: Sapiocracy, in its essence, elevates democracy by intertwining it with a profound ethical and epistemological depth, catalyzing not merely governance but a shared orientation towards self-transcendence and authentic personal enlightenment. It counters the intellectual stagnation endemic to autocratic regimes with a model that’s both dynamic and ethically nuanced. By adopting and expanding upon Kant’s categorical imperative within a framework of cybernetic structural coupling, Sapiocracy advocates for a universally relevant ethical principle, thus fostering a society where actions and decisions are intrinsically guided by the pursuit of justice, equity, and universal welfare. This sophisticated approach transforms Sapiocracy from a political structure to an ethically driven societal ethos, aiming to create an environment where ethical engagement and individual growth are fundamental to the societal fabric, eschewing the traditional emphasis on the collective for a focus on the intrinsic value and potential of the individual.

Inspirations for the Potential: A visionary exploration into the potential era showcases the transformative interaction between humans and AI, envisaging a future where human potential is not just recognized but fully actualized through digital evolution.

Return to a General Overview of The Age of Sapiocracy

Dr. Tsvasman’s tome extends a profound invitation to explore life’s vast potentialities, the origins of intelligence, and the crucial concepts and instruments vital for humanity’s thriving in an ever-evolving world. This work, characterized by its unique, non-linear composition and adorned with lyrical prose, skillfully employs geometric dimensions—Point, Line, Plane, Ball—as allegorical guides through its thematic expanse. It subtly reflects Spinoza’s methodically structured ethical exploration in his Ethics, yet imbues it with a personal, biographically rooted life-philosophical narrative, drawing from childhood-inspired cosmological inquiries and integrating these formal elements into its discourse.

The Age of Sapiocracy is marked by structural ingenuity, moving beyond traditional chapter formats to adopt a geometric-symbolic architecture that escorts readers from foundational theories toward the envisagement of a “Sapiocratic society.” This innovative approach not only highlights the discourse’s layered complexity but also harmonizes with the dialectical progression of thought. This dialectical voyage, underscored by a blend of communication, arguments, counterarguments, and discussions, is crucial in the modern dialogue on artificial intelligence, machine learning, deep learning, and data science.

With its lyrical prelude, the book invites readers into contemplation on the quintessence of life and the path of human advancement. It sets the stage for an examination of current civilization models’ limitations and the potentialities of a Sapiocratic future. Emphasizing the critical balance between vitality and governance, the advent of intelligence, and the essential tools for navigating our complex reality, the narrative crafts a compelling argument for a future where human potential can fully unfurl within the sophisticated weave of a Sapiocratic society.


What roles do the geometrical symbols ((·), (-), (o), (n)) play regarding a holistic approach to the set of ideas you convey in your book? Is there an overlap or interplay between Spinoza’s Ethics, your ethics, and the geometrical figures?

Dialectical Co-Intelligence as Ethical Governance

Central to Dr. Tsvasman’s discourse is the principle of dialectical co-intelligence. This concept delves into the intricate dynamics between the outsourced tactical efficiency—manifested through AI-driven swarm intelligence within a bio-socio-technological framework aiming for autopoiesis—and the emancipation of human attention towards self-regulation. Autopoiesis describes systems capable of generating their own components to sustain themselves, akin to cells that partake in self-creation and self-repair. This is juxtaposed with Allopoiesis, which pertains to systems producing entities external to themselves, such as oil rigs or assembly lines that manufacture distinct products.

Dr. Tsvasman’s approach critiques reductionist tendencies and champions a sapiocratic paradigm, wherein AI acts as a catalyst for human creativity and empathy. Through this lens, AI is envisaged not merely as a tool but as a pivotal force in augmenting collective wisdom and ethical decision-making capabilities. This framework not only underscores the potential symbiosis between human intellect and artificial intelligence but also highlights a shift towards a more interconnected and ethically governed society.


What roles does AI play as a whole for a humanity? What role will humanity play, say, in relation to ethics in respect to AI?

Dr. Tsvasman provocatively reimagines AI’s role within our civilization, not as a mere extension of human intellect but as a pivotal force for decluttering existential redundancies and amplifying human capacities. This redefinition sees AI as an essential partner in humanity’s co-evolutionary path towards a society that prizes human flourishing above all.

In discussing AI’s relationship with humanity, especially concerning ethics, Dr. Tsvasman acknowledges a distinct boundary: the uncharted territory of potentiality, brimming with dormant abilities and forward-looking possibilities, remains elusive to the digital realm. This domain, he argues, necessitates our ethically driven, collective stewardship. It’s within this vibrant space of human potentiality that the delicate equilibrium between our digitized reality and the untapped, undigitized potential sways. Thus, despite our digitized advancements, the intrinsic human essence remains irreplaceable, perpetually igniting the flames of potentiality beyond the confines of automation. This underscores the crucial role of comprehensive education and the relentless quest for coherence in theories that resonate with those valuing the essence of human potential.

Empathetic Efficiency vs. Contemporary Evils
Tsvasman introduces the notion of empathetic efficiency, appealing to the feminine principle as a blueprint for self-regulation and empowerment, starkly contrasting the manipulative guile of present-day malevolencies. He champions systemic thinking and genuine intellectual curiosity as the antidotes to the trivialization perpetrated by redundant power structures.

Redefining Currency and Value
Advocating a shift from traditional economic indicators, Tsvasman calls for a valuation system that prioritizes human potentiality and ecological sustainability, emphasizing the inherent value of energy and complexity reduction for collective prosperity.

Education as a Pillar of Autonomy and Foresight
Education, as envisioned by Tsvasman, champions self-regulation through inspired orientation, underscoring mentorship’s superiority over external controls. He envisages a societal blueprint that eschews power-laden control mechanisms in favor of autonomy and foresight, thus facilitating the full expression of human potentialities. The concept of education in Sapiocracy, promoting self-regulation through inspired guidance, finds parallels in John Dewey’s ideas on education as a process of living experience and social interaction. ‘Education is not preparation for life; education is life itself.’ (John Dewey) Dewey’s emphasis on experiential learning reinforces the basis for a Sapiocracy-driven education system, advocating for an educational framework that cultivates autonomy, innovation, and a profound understanding of societal responsibilities.

Conclusive Vision: A Sapiocratic Ethos
“The Age of Sapiocracy” articulates a bold reevaluation of our civilizational underpinnings, promoting a future harmonized through ethical governance. It beckons readers to embrace the vision of an enlightened civilization characterized by genuine intersubjectivity and human thriving.

This reflective summary meticulously underscores the intellectual and transformative aspirations of Tsvasman’s thesis, heralding “The Age of Sapiocracy” as a seminal contribution to discussions on governance, technology, and the essence of human potential.


Where does the corruption and top-down dictating from corporate, political, and military elites or the “power structures” originate? Must the situation worsen with respect to Artificial Intelligence (AI), machine and deep learning, mass inequality, and corruption before it improves? Is the improvement or diminishment of corruption, inequality, and autocracy an inevitability?

The perception of top-down control within corporate, political, and military echelons, commonly criticized as the locus of corruption, is often a symptom rather than the source of deeper systemic issues. This phenomenon, rooted in the mechanistic efficiencies of an era dominated by analog media and conventional organizational structures, reflects a broader misalignment between societal governance and the intrinsic potential of human cognition and creativity. Such structures prioritize tactical efficiency—streamlining processes for immediate gains—over strategic effectiveness, which seeks long-term, sustainable progress through the actualization of human potential.

At the heart of this misalignment is a critical underestimation of genuine intersubjectivity—the potential for individuals to transcend mere transactional interactions and engage in meaningful, transformative relationships. This potential is stifled by existing sociocratic forms that perpetuate power imbalances and inhibit the emergence of a society organized around the principles of self-regulation, creativity, and insight.

Artificial Intelligence (AI), with its capacity to process and synthesize vast amounts of data, presents an unprecedented opportunity to shift from these traditional paradigms towards a model that values human potentiality and intersubjectivity. Rather than exacerbating existing inequalities, AI can serve as a catalyst for societal transformation, enabling consequently democratic forms of governance and fostering a culture of innovation and ethical enabling.

However, the trajectory of this transformation is not predetermined. The question of whether societal conditions must deteriorate further before they improve hinges on our collective ability to harness AI ethically and effectively. Historical patterns suggest that crises often precede significant changes, yet it’s imperative to challenge the notion that decline is a necessary precursor to progress. Instead, proactive engagement and innovative thinking can guide us toward a more equitable and enlightened society without the prerequisite of further deterioration.

“The Age of Sapiocracy” envisions a future where governance is informed by the collective wisdom of a well-informed populace, supported by AI. This vision proposes a radical departure from traditional power structures, advocating for a society that prioritizes the holistic development of human potential in concert with technological advancements. Such a society would not only address the immediate challenges of corruption, inequality, and autocracy but also lay the foundation for a sustainable future characterized by ethical governance, social justice, and universal access to knowledge.

In essence, the potential of AI to either mitigate or exacerbate societal challenges underscores the critical need for a concerted effort to develop ethical frameworks and governance models that prioritize human well-being and creativity. As we stand on the precipice of significant technological advancements, our collective responsibility is to ensure that these tools are wielded with wisdom and foresight, paving the way for a future that embraces the full spectrum of human potential in the digital age.

In “The Age of Sapiocracy,” Dr. Tsvasman embarks on an ambitious journey through the interstices of governance, technology, and human potential, presenting a vision of society that is as compelling as it is provocative. While the book thrives on its bold theoretical frameworks and the depth of its philosophical inquiry, one might critique its relative scarcity of concrete examples. This scarcity, rather than diminishing the work’s value, intriguingly serves to invite the reader into a more active engagement, challenging us to fill these gaps with our own experiences and observations.

Moreover, Dr. Tsvasman’s experimental narrative approach, which weaves together insights from various disciplines into a rich tapestry of ideas, might initially disorient readers accustomed to more traditional academic discourse. Yet, this very experimentation is one of the book’s greatest strengths, reflecting the complexity and interconnectedness of the digital age. It encourages a departure from linear thinking, pushing us towards a more holistic understanding of societal structures.

The book’s emphasis on a sapiocratic society, where knowledge and wisdom transcend political and economic interests, is both its most visionary aspect and a point of contention. Critics might argue that the leap from our current state to the envisioned sapiocracy requires not just a shift in governance but a profound transformation in human consciousness. Dr. Tsvasman’s work, rich in philosophical underpinnings, sometimes skirts the edge of how such a transformation could be practically achieved, leaving a space ripe for further exploration and debate.

Essentially, “The Age of Sapiocracy” is a daring exploration of future possibilities. Its perceived weaknesses—like the lack of detailed practical applications and its avant-garde narrative structure—are, paradoxically, what make it a seminal work. They compel the reader to engage with the text not just intellectually but imaginatively, co-creating the future Dr. Tsvasman envisions. This book is not merely to be read; it is to be pondered, debated, and ultimately used as a springboard for individual and collective transformation.