Neural-democracy is neither quick nor easy, but it is valuable in that it creates sustainable laws. Like no other system, it seeks to provide an effective voice to those most affected by an issue– the foundational element of any utilitarian endeavor. Therefore, finding the optimal weight of each vote is a perpetual process, and the primary key to creating outcomes that work for everyone. There is no inherent limit to the number of times a law might be established or reversed– a house built, razed, or redesigned– but with each iteration, each period of inertia and adjustment, stability should form, and an optimal dwelling situation found. Similar to machine learning’s gradient descent, we call this ongoing, back-and-forth process of correcting to find the ideal, Dynamic Leveling. The Cult uses this in conjunction with our understanding of input bias, the Frame Effect, Embedded Position, QT Preference voting, noise reduction, and Status Quo in our democracy. However, especially time-sensitive, critical cases may require a unique type of vote we haven’t yet listed. To model that, we look at the synapse– the electrical-chemical bridge where neurons communicate.

“Sparks and soups” is a popular metaphor to express the difference between ionotropic and metabotropic synaptic receptors– ionotropic are fast like an electric spark, metabotropic, relatively slow like bubbling soup. Our neural-democracy, as described to this point, is a metabotropic framework, where decisions are expressed from an “analog” reference– slow, steady, and ongoing, like simmering soup on a warm stove. However, when changes must be made in a more “digital” manner– quickly and decisively– we use the ionotropic method, like an immediate shock of electricity. Although it isn’t a perfect analogy, it is akin to the difference between pondering an issue and reacting to a stimulus, as Daniel Kahneman addressed in his seminal 2011 work Thinking, Fast and Slow, where he describes the difference between system 1 (intuitive) and system 2 (deliberative) thought.

If toxic materials in one house are found to be more than just a threat to a single dwelling, but a system-wide problem for many others, the River Sages may initiate an Ionotropic Sage Declaration (ISD). This decision flips neural-democracy on its head. Instead of voting for the passage of an issue in a detailed, drawn-out, analog manner, the entire electorate must promptly act to “digitally” counter the Sages’ proposal. Votes are “inferred,” which means votes are counted in the affirmative once a member has simply viewed an ISD announcement. From the moment they view the notice until the voting window closes, a member’s only action is to counter a proposed ISD by voting “no.” However, no action infers tacit support, and remains registered as a “yes” vote.

After the Sages have determined the need to immediately deal with the toxic houses, they first decimate an announcement to address the widespread demolition of those houses. Next, the River creates and passes an ISD for demolition, and a highly-promoted bulletin, detailing the Declaration, is posted on all NUC-related outlets, along with a personal notice sent to all members. While urgency is foundational to the ISD process, there’s no actual time limit to counting views, only a minimum amount of verified views that must be met before the proposal becomes an issue, that can then be countered. It’s reasonable to assume almost everyone will see the ISD, but the process will only move forward once a substantial proportion of the Cult has officially acknowledged that they’ve viewed it– a process spelled out in our Voter Guide.

Acting like 2-AG endocannabinoids binding to CB1 receptors to invert the action of the synapse, the electorate has a set period of time to counter the Sages, once the minimum engagement floor has been met. If a predetermined majority of the electorate rejects the Declaration, the Sages are overridden and the ISD fails. However, this must be a strong signal– the percentage of required views of the notice, electorate participation, and majority opposition should all generally be between 67%-99%. Unlike our usual, ongoing, metabotropic votes, ionotropic issues open, and once the clock runs out, close. Once closed upon passage, only a new law or new ISD crafted to address the new situation might reorient the Cult’s actions.

As votes are inferred in the affirmative, the only action a voter might take is to counter the ISD. In such a case, the voter is required to provide feedback– reasoning for their position. This feedback becomes necessary should the ISD fail and need to be adjusted. ISDs are designed to be a fluid, iterative process to accomplish a needed goal, not an concrete issue to be debated for potential adoption as a law. ISDs arise because some time-critical situation needs immediate attention. Should the Sage’s attempt be inadequate, required feedback from the electorate is designated to detail the sticking-point(s), informing the Sages’ redraft of the ISD to be resubmitted. This repeats until an ISD passes, or it becomes clear to the Sages that the electorate is solidly against it.

Whereas the Novel Universe Cult’s leader is Saint TJ– an avatar of the membership’s aggregate voice, and not an actual person who might take definitive actions in a timely manner– Ionotropic Sage Declarations are designed to fill this highly responsive role, allowing the Cult to make drastic pivots to deal with acute threats that might harm the Cult in part or as a whole. Outside of their use as a matter of practice, they should rarely, if ever, be used to address the issues of any particular individual or Body of the Cult.

Being long-standing members with mastery of their fields, the Sages’ expertise is assumed by default, and their rare instances of ionotropic action should be prudent for the Cult as a whole. This type of vote is primarily used when it is clearly needed in a crisis, and obvious to the vast majority of the membership, like that costly gamble to use untested materials in all those recently constructed homes. Therefore, should the electorate repeatedly counter an ISD or series of ISDs, an investigation by a team of Inspector Generals will ensue, and the Sage(s) who initiated and / or led the process may have their status as a Sage indefinitely suspended for inappropriate use of the process. In such cases, the Sage(s) may only regain their position by a new ISD nomination and subsequent metabotropic confirmation by the Cult. Exceptions are SOP ISDs, those ISDs required by our Standard Operating Procedures, such as the confirmation of a new Cult member or nomination of a River Sage.

First, read our philosophy to better understand our Creed.