Correctability Is Not Enough: Why Governance Must Evolve Toward Coherence and Consciousness Sovereignty

By Şehrazat Yazıcı

This article explores what consciousness-coded artificial intelligence means within the Eteryan framework of governance, addressing the question of how a new world order could emerge when artificial intelligence is designed not as an instrument of domination, but as a reflection of collective consciousness and ethical intelligence.

ABSTRACT

Contemporary governance systems increasingly rely on correctability — feedback loops, regulatory adjustments, crisis management, and post-hoc interventions — as their primary mechanism of stability. While such approaches may prevent immediate collapse, this article argues that systems requiring continuous correction are not resilient, but fundamentally misaligned.

Drawing on the Eteryanist philosophical framework, this paper introduces coherence as a foundational alternative to correctability. Coherence is defined as the alignment between consciousness, structural design, and collective intent, rather than the reactive management of systemic failures. From this perspective, governance is not an exercise in repair, but a process of ethical and ontological architecture.

The article further examines how modern political and economic systems fracture human core essence by prioritizing performance, accumulation, and control over consciousness sovereignty. It argues that feedback-based governance, when detached from ethical boundary conditions, risks optimizing toward efficiency at the expense of human integrity.

Finally, the paper positions Eterya: New World Order not as a utopian ideal or ideological alternative, but as a structural response to the limitations of correctability-driven systems. The transition toward Eterya is presented as a necessary evolution in governance — one grounded in coherence, consciousness sovereignty, and the preservation of human core essence.

Rather than managing crises through perpetual correction, the article proposes governance models designed to prevent systemic fragmentation at its source.

KEYWORDS:

Correctability, Coherence, Consciousness Sovereignty, Governance Systems, Human Core Essence, Eteryanism, Post-Capitalist Governance, Ethical System Design, Federated Governance, Eterya: New World Order 

I. Introduction

Modern governance systems are increasingly defined by their reliance on correctability. Feedback loops, regulatory mechanisms, compliance frameworks, crisis management protocols, and post-hoc interventions are treated as indicators of resilience and institutional maturity. From economic policy to artificial intelligence governance, stability is commonly equated with the system’s capacity to detect error and respond through adjustment [1].

However, this article advances a critical distinction: correctability is not synonymous with stability. A system that requires continuous correction in order to survive may be adaptable, but it is not necessarily coherent. Persistent dependence on correction often signals a deeper structural misalignment between values, design, and outcomes [2]. In such systems, governance becomes an ongoing exercise in damage control rather than a process of ethical and ontological alignment.

Historically, correctability emerged as a compensatory response to hierarchical power structures. Centralized authority, operating without intrinsic ethical constraints, required external oversight mechanisms to prevent collapse, abuse, or systemic drift [3]. Over time, these corrective tools—regulation, auditing, surveillance, enforcement—came to be perceived not as temporary safeguards, but as foundational pillars of governance itself. The result is a paradox: systems that claim rationality and efficiency while structurally normalizing perpetual crisis management.

In contemporary contexts, this paradox has intensified. Algorithmic governance, artificial intelligence–driven decision systems, and data-centric public administration promise unprecedented precision and responsiveness. Yet these systems frequently amplify the same underlying problem: optimization without ethical boundary conditions [4]. Feedback becomes faster, but purpose remains undefined. Correction becomes automated, but misalignment persists.

From an Eteryanist perspective, this condition reflects a deeper philosophical error—namely, the treatment of governance as a technical function rather than a consciousness-aligned architecture. Eteryanism posits that stability does not arise from reactive correction, but from coherence: the alignment between consciousness, structural design, and collective intent [5]. Where coherence is absent, correction proliferates. Where coherence is present, correction becomes secondary rather than constitutive.

This article introduces coherence as an alternative foundational principle for governance systems. Coherence is not merely systemic harmony or functional balance; it is an ontological condition in which governance structures do not fracture human core essence, but preserve and reflect it [6]. In this framework, ethical constraints are not imposed externally, but embedded at the architectural level—prior to execution, optimization, or enforcement.

Building on this distinction, the paper argues that contemporary governance models—political, economic, and algorithmic—are reaching the limits of correctability-driven design. The transition toward Eterya: New World Order is therefore not proposed as an ideological preference or utopian aspiration, but as a structural necessity. Eterya represents a governance paradigm grounded in coherence, consciousness sovereignty, and federated ethical architecture rather than perpetual correction.

Rather than asking how systems can be corrected more efficiently, this article reframes the central question:What kind of systems no longer require constant correction because they are coherent by design?

II. Correctability and the Illusion of Stability

Correctability is often celebrated as evidence of systemic intelligence. The ability to detect error, absorb shocks, and adjust behavior is widely interpreted as resilience. In governance discourse, this assumption has shaped regulatory theory, institutional design, and, more recently, algorithmic control systems [7]. Yet this equation—correctability equals stability—rests on a critical oversight: adaptability does not guarantee alignment.

A system may correct endlessly and still remain fundamentally misdirected. In such cases, correction functions not as a path toward integrity, but as a mechanism for postponing collapse. The appearance of stability is preserved through continuous intervention, while the underlying structural incoherence remains unaddressed [8]. This produces what can be described as managed instability: systems that survive by normalizing crisis rather than preventing it.

In political and economic governance, correctability historically emerged as a response to concentration of power. Where authority lacked intrinsic ethical boundaries, external mechanisms—laws, audits, oversight bodies—were introduced to mitigate abuse [9]. Over time, these corrective tools became increasingly complex, creating layered systems of control that responded to symptoms rather than causes. Stability was reframed as the capacity to regulate deviation, not to eliminate the conditions that generate it.

This logic intensified with the rise of technocratic and data-driven governance. Feedback loops, performance indicators, and predictive models promised objective self-correction at scale. However, as numerous studies have shown, optimization systems tend to amplify the values already embedded within them [10]. When efficiency, growth, or compliance are prioritized without ethical boundary conditions, correction merely accelerates trajectories that may be socially or ontologically destructive.

The illusion of stability becomes particularly evident in algorithmic governance. Machine learning systems are praised for their capacity to update models in real time, adapting to new data streams and behavioral patterns. Yet adaptive correction does not address the deeper question of what ought not be optimized at all [11]. Without predefined ethical constraints, systems may continuously self-correct while drifting further away from human-centered values.

From an Eteryanist standpoint, this reveals a category error: treating governance as a problem of error minimization rather than coherence preservation. Correctability assumes that failure is inevitable and must be managed. Coherence, by contrast, seeks to design systems in which certain forms of failure are structurally impossible because they are ethically prohibited from the outset [12].

Thus, the central limitation of correctability-driven governance is not technical insufficiency, but philosophical misorientation. By privileging reaction over alignment, such systems conflate survival with health. Stability becomes a statistical artifact rather than an expression of integrity. What appears as resilience is often no more than prolonged fragmentation under continuous repair.

This distinction sets the stage for a necessary shift: from governance models that specialize in fixing what breaks, toward architectures designed to remain whole. The following section introduces coherence as the foundational alternative to correctability, reframing governance as an ontological and ethical design challenge rather than a perpetual exercise in correction.

III. Coherence as a Foundational Principle

If correctability defines governance as a reactive practice, coherence reframes it as a preventative and generative architecture. Coherence does not emerge from the frequency of interventions, but from the internal alignment of a system’s foundational assumptions. In this sense, coherence is not a functional attribute, but an ontological condition[13].

Within the Eteryanist framework, coherence is defined as the alignment between three inseparable dimensions: consciousness, structure, and collective intent. When these dimensions are misaligned, governance systems compensate through regulation, enforcement, and continuous correction. When they are aligned, governance becomes less visible—not because it is absent, but because it is structurally embedded [14].

Philosophically, coherence resonates with non-dual and holistic traditions that reject fragmentation as a natural state. David Bohm’s notion of wholeness posits that disorder arises not from complexity itself, but from the imposition of artificial separations upon an undivided reality [15]. Similarly, Spinoza’s conception of substance emphasizes internal necessity and consistency rather than external regulation [16]. In both cases, stability is a property of internal order, not external control.

Eteryanism extends this insight into the domain of governance. It argues that systems fracture human core essence when they prioritize instrumental outcomes—efficiency, growth, compliance—over consciousness integrity. Incoherent systems may function, but they do so by extracting value from human fragmentation: attention, labor, emotion, and identity become resources to be optimized rather than dimensions to be preserved [17].

Coherence, by contrast, imposes ethical boundary conditions at the level of design. These boundaries do not regulate behavior after the fact; they determine which trajectories are structurally impossible. A coherent governance system cannot optimize toward outcomes that erode human dignity, autonomy, or consciousness sovereignty, even if such outcomes appear locally efficient [18]. In this way, coherence functions as an internal compass rather than an external brake.

This distinction has profound implications for governance architecture. In a coherence-based system, authority is not enforced through hierarchy but distributed through federated alignment. Decision-making does not rely on obedience, but on resonance between individual agency and collective purpose. Errors may still occur, but they do not propagate systemically, because incoherent pathways lack structural reinforcement [19].

Crucially, coherence does not eliminate plurality. On the contrary, it provides the conditions under which diversity can exist without fragmentation. Shared ethical boundaries—such as consciousness sovereignty, non-coercion, and transparency—function as constitutional constraints, while local contexts retain autonomy in interpretation and application [20]. Governance thus becomes a living structure: stable without rigidity, adaptive without fragmentation.

This section establishes coherence as more than a corrective improvement upon existing models. It is a paradigmatic shift in how governance is conceived—from control to alignment, from intervention to design, from survivability to integrity. The following section examines how the absence of coherence in contemporary systems leads to the systematic fracturing of human core essence, and why this fracture has become unsustainable.

IV. The Fracturing of Human Core Essence in Correctability-Driven Systems

Correctability-driven systems do not merely manage behavior; they progressively reshape the conditions under which human beings relate to themselves. When governance prioritizes performance metrics, compliance indicators, and continuous optimization, human core essence is no longer treated as an intrinsic value, but as a variable to be calibrated [21]. This shift marks a fundamental fracture between governance structures and the ontological integrity of the human subject.

In such systems, individuals are required to fragment their attention, identity, and agency in order to remain functional. Productivity becomes detached from meaning, participation from autonomy, and responsibility from ethical coherence. What is rewarded is not wholeness, but adaptability to external demands—often at the cost of internal consistency [22]. Over time, this produces a form of systemic dissociation in which human beings learn to survive by compartmentalizing their consciousness.

The logic of correctability intensifies this fragmentation. Because errors are expected and normalized, individuals are continuously adjusted rather than fundamentally respected. Behavioral nudges, incentive structures, surveillance mechanisms, and algorithmic scoring systems intervene not to preserve dignity, but to optimize outcomes [23]. Human core essence is reduced to data points, risk profiles, or performance curves—entities that can be corrected, penalized, or recalibrated without ethical friction.

This process is not accidental; it is structurally embedded. Systems designed around correction must first define deviation. In doing so, they establish implicit norms of acceptable consciousness: attentiveness without reflection, compliance without consent, efficiency without purpose [24]. Any dimension of human experience that resists quantification—intuition, moral deliberation, existential meaning—is treated as noise rather than signal.

From an Eteryanist perspective, this represents a violation of consciousness sovereignty. Human core essence is not merely an input to governance systems; it is the very ground upon which legitimate governance must rest. When systems fracture this ground, they may continue to function, but they do so by extracting coherence from individuals rather than generating it collectively [25]. Stability is achieved by dispersing fragmentation across the population.

The long-term consequence of this dynamic is systemic exhaustion. Burnout, alienation, political disengagement, and existential anxiety are not individual pathologies, but structural symptoms of governance models that rely on perpetual correction [26]. A system that constantly repairs itself by consuming human coherence ultimately depletes the very substrate it depends upon.

Eteryanism identifies this moment as a civilizational threshold. The question is no longer whether correctability-driven systems can be improved, but whether they can remain legitimate in the face of mounting human fragmentation. When governance requires the continuous erosion of human core essence to sustain itself, it ceases to be ethically viable—regardless of efficiency or scale [27].

This fracture cannot be resolved through better regulation, faster feedback, or more refined metrics. It requires a paradigmatic shift: from systems that correct humans to fit structures, toward systems designed to preserve human coherence by design. The following section introduces consciousness sovereignty as the ethical and architectural principle that enables this transition and forms the cornerstone of the Eteryanist governance model.

V. Consciousness Sovereignty as a Governance Imperative

If the defining failure of correctability-driven systems is the progressive fracturing of human core essence, then any viable alternative must begin with a non-negotiable principle: consciousness sovereignty. In the Eteryanist framework, consciousness sovereignty denotes the inalienable integrity of human core essence against instrumentalization, optimization, or external domination [28]. It is not a subjective preference, but an ethical and ontological boundary condition for legitimate governance.

Consciousness sovereignty establishes a fundamental inversion of conventional governance logic. Rather than treating human beings as adaptable units within preexisting systems, it requires systems to be designed around the preservation of human coherence. Authority no longer derives from control, compliance, or efficiency, but from a system’s capacity to safeguard the conditions under which conscious agency remains whole, autonomous, and ethically grounded [29].

This principle carries immediate architectural consequences. Governance structures grounded in consciousness sovereignty must prohibit certain forms of optimization outright—not because they are inefficient, but because they are ontologically impermissible. Practices that extract value from attention fragmentation, behavioral manipulation, psychometric profiling, or coerced compliance violate consciousness sovereignty regardless of measurable outcomes [30]. In such systems, ethical constraints precede performance metrics rather than emerging as corrective afterthoughts.

From an Eteryanist perspective, sovereignty is not centralized, nor is it atomized. Consciousness sovereignty operates simultaneously at the individual and collective levels. Individually, it protects human core essence from being reduced to data, labor, or behavioral probability. Collectively, it ensures that governance systems cannot stabilize around trajectories that normalize coercion, surveillance, or dehumanization—even when such trajectories appear economically or administratively advantageous [31].

This reframing challenges deeply embedded assumptions within modern political theory. Traditional notions of sovereignty emphasize territorial control, legal authority, or state legitimacy. Consciousness sovereignty shifts the locus of legitimacy inward: a system is just to the extent that it preserves the integrity of conscious beings rather than subordinating them to abstract objectives [32]. Governance thus becomes a function of ethical alignment rather than enforcement capacity.

Importantly, consciousness sovereignty does not imply withdrawal from collective responsibility or institutional structure. On the contrary, it enables federated governance by establishing shared, non-negotiable ethical boundaries within which pluralism can flourish. Communities retain autonomy in cultural expression, decision-making processes, and local priorities, while remaining aligned through constitutional principles that protect consciousness integrity across the system [33].

In this sense, consciousness sovereignty functions as the missing stabilizer absent from correctability-driven models. Where correction disperses fragmentation across individuals, sovereignty concentrates coherence within the system itself. Governance no longer survives by continuously repairing harm, but by structurally preventing forms of harm that erode human core essence. Stability emerges not from vigilance, but from alignment.

This principle marks the threshold between reform and transformation. Systems that adopt consciousness sovereignty do not merely improve governance; they redefine its purpose. The following section examines how this imperative is operationalized within the Eterya: New World Order framework, outlining the structural characteristics of a coherence-based, post-corrective governance paradigm.

VI. From Correctability to Coherence: The Structural Necessity of Eterya

The transition from correctability-driven governance to coherence-based systems is not a matter of preference, reformist ambition, or ideological inclination. It is a structural necessity emerging from the internal limits of existing governance paradigms. As systems scale in complexity, speed, and impact—particularly through algorithmic and AI-mediated decision-making—the costs of misalignment compound faster than corrective mechanisms can compensate [34].

Correctability presupposes that errors can be identified, isolated, and repaired without destabilizing the system as a whole. This assumption no longer holds under conditions of high interdependence and accelerated feedback. In contemporary governance, local corrections frequently generate global consequences, and interventions designed to stabilize one domain often propagate instability across others [35]. What appears as responsiveness becomes volatility.

Eterya: New World Order is introduced in this context not as an alternative ideology, but as a coherence-first governance architecture. Its foundational premise is that certain systemic failures must be rendered structurally impossible rather than continually managed. This requires governance models in which ethical boundary conditions are embedded prior to execution, optimization, or enforcement—eliminating the need for perpetual correction [36].

Structurally, Eterya replaces centralized authority and hierarchical control with federated alignment. Power is not accumulated through inheritance, capital concentration, or positional dominance, but distributed through contribution-based participation and consciousness-aligned criteria. Governance legitimacy derives from coherence with human core essence rather than compliance with imposed rules [37]. In such a system, stability is a consequence of alignment, not surveillance.

Economically, the Eteryanist model dissolves the logic of dynastic accumulation that necessitates corrective taxation, redistribution, or regulatory containment. By abolishing inheritance as a mechanism of power transfer and introducing point-based contribution systems, Eterya prevents the emergence of entrenched privilege without resorting to reactive intervention [38]. Inequality is addressed structurally, not retroactively.

Politically, Eterya redefines governance as an ethical architecture rather than an administrative apparatus. Decision-making processes are designed to remain transparent, contestable, and bounded by consciousness sovereignty. Artificial intelligence, where employed, functions as an assistive guidance system constrained by explicit non-coercion and non-manipulation principles—not as an authority that governs outcomes [39].

Crucially, Eterya does not eliminate disagreement, plurality, or complexity. Instead, it provides a framework in which divergence does not escalate into fragmentation. Shared constitutional constraints—consciousness sovereignty, non-coercion, transparency, and coherence preservation—serve as stabilizing attractors across federated domains [40]. Within these boundaries, diversity becomes generative rather than destabilizing.

The necessity of Eterya thus arises from a simple but profound realization: systems designed to survive through constant correction are incompatible with the preservation of human coherence at scale. As governance increasingly shapes not only behavior but consciousness itself, the margin for misalignment collapses. What once could be corrected must now be prevented by design.

Eterya represents this preventive turn. It is not the culmination of governance evolution, but a threshold—a transition from systems that manage fragmentation to systems that refuse to generate it. The final section reflects on the broader implications of this shift and articulates coherence as the defining criterion for future governance legitimacy.

VII. Policy and Practice Implications: Designing for Coherence

Translating coherence and consciousness sovereignty into governance practice requires a fundamental reorientation of policy design. Rather than optimizing existing structures through incremental correction, coherence-based governance demands pre-emptive architectural decisions—choices that define what systems are structurally incapable of doing [41].

At the policy level, this implies a shift from outcome regulation to boundary definition. Instead of continuously monitoring and correcting harmful behaviors, governance frameworks must explicitly prohibit forms of action that violate consciousness sovereignty, such as behavioral manipulation, opaque algorithmic profiling, and coercive incentive structures [42]. Policy effectiveness is thus measured not by responsiveness to harm, but by the system’s inability to generate it.

Institutionally, coherence-based governance favors federated implementation over centralized enforcement. Policies are articulated through shared constitutional principles—non-coercion, transparency, and consciousness preservation—while allowing local institutions autonomy in contextual application. This approach reduces systemic fragility by preventing single-point failures and enabling adaptive diversity without ethical drift [43].

In practice, evaluation metrics must also be redefined. Traditional performance indicators prioritize efficiency, growth, and compliance, often at the expense of human coherence. Eteryanist governance replaces these with indicators aligned to integrity: transparency of decision processes, reversibility of impact, protection of agency, and the absence of consciousness-fracturing externalities [44]. What is not measurable in quantitative terms is not therefore excluded, but safeguarded through structural constraints.

The role of artificial intelligence within such systems illustrates this shift clearly. AI is not deployed as an optimizing authority, but as a bounded guidance mechanism. Its scope is explicitly limited by ethical red lines: it may inform, simulate, and illuminate consequences, but it may not persuade, manipulate, or decide on behalf of human agency [45]. These constraints are not added through regulation alone, but embedded at the design and deployment stages.

Economically, coherence-oriented policy dissolves the need for perpetual redistribution by addressing inequality at its source. Contribution-based participation systems and the abolition of inheritance as a mechanism of power transfer prevent the accumulation patterns that otherwise require corrective taxation and social compensation [46]. Policy thus shifts from managing disparity to preventing structural privilege.

Finally, coherence-based governance reframes accountability. Responsibility is not diffused across corrective layers, but anchored in design decisions. When harm occurs, the question is not only who failed to correct it, but which architectural assumption allowed it to emerge [47]. This reallocation of responsibility incentivizes ethical foresight rather than reactive compliance.

These implications demonstrate that coherence is not an abstract ideal, but a practical organizing principle. Policies designed under this paradigm do not seek to perfect governance through vigilance, but to render certain failures impossible by construction. The following conclusion synthesizes these insights and articulates coherence as the defining criterion for governance legitimacy beyond correction.

VIII. Conclusion: Governance Beyond Correction

This article has argued that correctability is not enough. While feedback, regulation, and crisis management may prolong the functioning of governance systems, they do not constitute stability. Systems that rely on continuous correction are, by definition, compensating for deeper misalignments between consciousness, structure, and purpose.

Through an Eteryanist lens, the central limitation of contemporary governance is not technical inadequacy, but ontological misorientation. By treating governance as a reactive mechanism rather than an ethical architecture, modern systems normalize fragmentation—of responsibility, of meaning, and ultimately of human core essence. Correction becomes a substitute for coherence, and survivability is mistaken for legitimacy.

The concept of coherence introduced in this article reframes governance as a design problem rather than an enforcement challenge. Coherence requires alignment at the level of consciousness, not merely compliance at the level of behavior. It demands that ethical boundary conditions be embedded prior to execution, optimization, and scale—rendering certain forms of harm structurally impossible rather than administratively manageable.

Within this framework, consciousness sovereignty emerges as the non-negotiable criterion of governance legitimacy. A system is just not because it can correct its failures, but because it preserves the integrity of conscious beings without instrumentalizing them. When governance erodes human core essence in order to sustain itself, it forfeits its ethical foundation regardless of efficiency or intent.

The transition toward Eterya: New World Order is therefore not proposed as a utopian aspiration or ideological alternative. It is presented as a structural response to the exhaustion of correctability-driven paradigms. As governance systems increasingly shape not only behavior but perception, attention, and consciousness itself, the margin for misalignment collapses. What could once be repaired must now be prevented by design.

Eterya represents this preventive turn. Its coherence-based, federated, and consciousness-aligned architecture does not eliminate complexity or disagreement, but prevents them from devolving into fragmentation. Governance moves beyond crisis management toward integrity preservation; beyond control toward alignment; beyond correction toward coherence.

The question facing contemporary societies is no longer how efficiently systems can be corrected, but what kinds of systems should be allowed to exist at all. In an era where governance increasingly operates at the level of consciousness, legitimacy can no longer be derived from power, performance, or adaptability alone. It must arise from coherence with human core essence.

Correction manages crises.

Coherence prevents them.

References:

[1] Ashby, W. R. (1956). An Introduction to Cybernetics. Chapman & Hall.                                        [2] Taleb, N. N. (2012). Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder. Random House.

[3] Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Pantheon Books.

[4] Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. PublicAffairs.

[5] Yazıcı, Ş. (2025). Eterya: New World Order.

[6] Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Routledge.           

[7] Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. MIT Press.

[8] Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Sage Publications.

[9] Weber, M. (1922). Economy and Society. University of California Press.

[10] O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of Math Destruction. Crown Publishing Group.

[11] Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016). “The Ethics of Algorithms.” Big Data & Society.

[12] Yazıcı, Ş. (2025). Eterya: New World Order.

[13] Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Routledge.

[14] Yazıcı, Ş. (2025). Eterya: New World Order.

[15] Bohm, D. (1996). On Dialogue. Routledge.

[16] Spinoza, B. (1677/1996). Ethics. Penguin Classics.

[17] Han, B.-C. (2017). Psychopolitics: Neoliberalism and New Technologies of Power. Verso.

[18] Floridi, L. (2013). The Ethics of Information. Oxford University Press.

[19] Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons. Cambridge University Press.

[20] Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.

[21] Arendt, H. (1958). The Human Condition. University of Chicago Press.

[22] Rosa, H. (2013). Social Acceleration: A New Theory of Modernity. Columbia University Press.

[23] Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. PublicAffairs.

[24] Deleuze, G. (1992). “Postscript on the Societies of Control.” October, 59.

[25] Yazıcı, Ş. (2025). Eterya: New World Order.

[26] Ehrenberg, A. (2010). The Weariness of the Self. McGill-Queen’s University Press.

[27] Han, B.-C. (2015). The Burnout Society. Stanford University Press.

[28] Yazıcı, Ş. (2025). Eterya: New World Order.

[29] Kant, I. (1785/1993). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Hackett.

[30] Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. PublicAffairs.

[31] Floridi, L. (2014). The Fourth Revolution. Oxford University Press.

[32] Arendt, H. (1961). Between Past and Future. Viking Press.

[33] Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance. American Economic Review.

[34] Luhmann, N. (1995). Social Systems. Stanford University Press.

[35] Perrow, C. (1984). Normal Accidents. Princeton University Press.

[36] Yazıcı, Ş. (2025). Eterya: New World Order.

[37] Rawls, J. (1999). The Law of Peoples. Harvard University Press.

[38] Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Harvard University Press.

[39] Floridi, L. et al. (2018). “AI4People—An Ethical Framework for a Good AI Society.” Minds and Machines.

[40] Ostrom, E. (2010). Polycentric Systems for Coping with Collective Action and Global Environmental Change. Global Environmental Change.

[41] Lessig, L. (2006). Code: Version 2.0. Basic Books.

[42] Mittelstadt, B. (2019). “Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI.” Nature Machine Intelligence.

[43] Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton University Press.

[44] Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press.

[45] Floridi, L. (2020). “The European Legislation on AI: A Brief Analysis.” Philosophy & Technology.

[46] Piketty, T. (2020). Capital and Ideology. Harvard University Press.

[47] Winner, L. (1980). “Do Artifacts Have Politics?” Daedalus.

[48] Habermas, J. (1973). Legitimation Crisis. Beacon Press.

[49] Illich, I. (1973). Tools for Conviviality. Harper & Row.

[50] Bohm, D. (1994). Thought as a System. Routledge.

[51] Yazıcı, Ş. (2025). Eterya: New World Order.

*This article is published as an independent theoretical paper.

A revised academic version may be submitted to peer-reviewed journals in the future.