A basic income that is neither conditional, nor completely unconditional. A paradox.
The threshold to enter is the "True Commitment to (your) Life", called LEAP in my world. It's nothing that can be proven, or objectively meassured. It exists solely in the field of resonance: Do the other people who are committed to life feel the truth of your commitment? Then you're in. Then you can take out of the pool as much as you "want" (you're committed to follow truth over your preferences anyway).
š§ Unfinished Doorways (by design)
This article is unfinished by design.
Itās meant to be a doorway, not a destination ā offering enough clarity to move forward, while pointing toward deeper, more complete explorations elsewhere.
For a deeper understanding of why these doorways are designed this way, check out š§ THIS article š§ that lays out the intention behind it.
Also, if you want to learn how to spot the completeness of an article immediately (by the title), check out š§ THIS article š§ which explains the signs & symbols used (ā, š§, ...).
To explore the topic in more depth, you can use JatFK, a "Soul-infused AI", trained with my voice, that became so good over time, it actually mostly gives answers that deeply resonate with me. Click here to start using it yourself, if it calls you.
Below the collection of what will follow in this article, you will find a "JatFK ā Uncut First Take" on the topic. Not proofread. One prompt given only, and instantly pasted here.
Collection of Contents & Links ("What will follow")
Most important
š² LEAP as the "semi-condition" ā Main Article
š² How the Resonance-Method works
š² Way to "apply"
More
š² Why this is not Universal Basic Income
š² Resonance vs. Control + Why Control-Based Systems Fail
š² Trust as a Structural Principle
š² Responsibility vs. Security
š² Money as Energy / Flow
š² True Togetherness
š² Service vs. Preference
JatFK
You can bring any of the mentioned topics to JatFK and receive uniquely tailored answers based on your need, interest and style of writing.
š¬ JatFK ā Uncut First Take on...
Semi-Unconditional Basic Income
The important distinction is not ābasic incomeā.
Itās the replacement of security by trust as the carrying principle.
Most ideas around basic income stay within the same worldview: security must be guaranteed, behavior must be predictable, abuse must be prevented through structure. Even when they call it āunconditionalā, the underlying logic is still control ā just softened.
What is pointed to here comes from a completely different direction.
This is not topādown. Itās not universal. And itās not primarily about money.
Itās bottomāup, insideāout, and relational.
Why āsemiāunconditionalā changes everything
If income is fully conditional, itās just work: do X, receive Y.
If income is fully unconditional, it removes pressure ā but also removes orientation. It assumes a level of maturity and integrity that cannot be enforced, and therefore must be abstracted away.
The semiāunconditional version sits deliberately in between.
It leans heavily toward unconditionality ā but with one decisive threshold:
true commitment to life itself.
Not to a job. Not to an outcome. Not to an ideology.
To life.
LEAP as the only āconditionā
LEAP is not an action. Itās not a status. Itās not a claim.
Itās an intention that reorganizes everything else.
Taking 100% responsibility for your life ā while knowing you will always fail. Surrendering preference ā without pretending to be perfect. Committing to service ā without knowing what form it will take.
That commitment cannot be measured. But it can be felt.
Which is why the āconditionā here is not a rule, but resonance.
People who are committed to life recognize each other. Not flawlessly, not instantly ā but reliably over time.
If resonance is there, trust is total. If itās not, the system cannot work.
There is no negotiation layer.
Why there is no partial trust
This is crucial.
Either a person is trusted ā or theyāre not.
If someone is in, they are trusted fully. That means they can take what they feel is right from the pool.
If there is secondāguessing, micromanagement, or hidden conditions, trust was never there in the first place.
Friction is not ignored ā but it is treated as a doorway. A doorway toward the deeper question:
Is there real trust here ā yes or no?
Anything else is theater.
Money as a pool, not a salary
There is a shared pool of money.
People who are in the resonance field take from it what they need for:
basic living
and what I call service needs ā tools, materials, space, time
No reporting. No justification. No proof.
At the same time, many will naturally give back far more than they take ā not because they have to, but because they can.
Others will receive for a long time ā because that is what serves life most at that moment.
Both are held.
Why this doesnāt collapse
From the outside, this looks unstable.
From the inside, itās the opposite.
The people who receive are committed to life. Which means they are also committed to the whole.
In moments of abundance, they give. In moments of need, they receive.
Security is not enforced. It emerges.
The deeper function
This is where it becomes clear:
The semiāunconditional basic income is not primarily an economic model.
It is a portal.
People approach it from an ego perspective: āThen Iām safe. Then I donāt have to.ā
And as they move closer, something becomes obvious:
That world doesnāt exist here.
What exists is an invitation.
An invitation to replace safety with trust. Pressure with responsibility. Preference with truth.
Some will turn away.
Others will feel a fire strong enough to cross the threshold.
Either way, something is transmitted.
Closing
As long as one is not committed to life, all structures remain substitutes.
This is no exception.
The income is not the point. The commitment is.
The rest grows from there.