Jiwasa - Belonging Without Remaining in the Same Position

Let It Come. Let It Stay. Let It Be. It May Disobey. Transcend the Self-as-Being. Let It Go.

In an inclusive collective, belonging should not mean remaining in the same place.

Today, I may be the first to perceive a difference. Tomorrow, it may be you.

In one situation, my knowledge may help reorganize the group. In another, what I know may be irrelevant, while another Corpo-Territory occupies a position that is more sensitive to what is happening.

Perhaps this is why we should be careful with a recurring word when we think about collectives: leadership.

Not because no one can guide an action, but because guiding at a particular moment does not need to produce a permanent right to command.

We prefer to begin with another word:

position.

Position in relation to the environment, information, others, and difference.

And, above all:

the possibility of changing position without ceasing to belong.

This is where Jiwasa acquires another dimension.

Jiwasa is “We”: an inclusive We. Belonging without having to reduce one’s Being.

Now we add:

belonging does not require remaining in the same position.

Two Remain Two

In 2025, Ivo Leiva-Cisterna, Paulo Barraza, Eugenio Rodríguez, and Guillaume Dumas made a particularly important Latin American contribution to this discussion.

Using rhythmic sensory stimulation in dyads during a cooperative task, they found increased inter-brain synchrony at the stimulated frequencies and improved cooperative coordination. Their experimental design went beyond associations commonly found in hyperscanning studies and investigated a functional contribution of inter-brain coupling to cooperation in that specific task.

But something fundamental remained:

two remained two.

Two bodies.

Two metabolisms.

Two histories.

Two first-person experiences.

Coordination occurred without requiring us to imagine that the participants fused into a single Being.

This allows us to formulate a hypothesis:

the collective does not need to begin where the individual ends.

It may emerge precisely through relationships among differences that continue to exist.

Synchronizing Does Not Mean Becoming the Same

There is a technological temptation here.

If a certain degree of synchrony favored cooperation, we might imagine that the best collective would be one in which everyone was maximally synchronized.

The study does not demonstrate this.

Inter-brain synchrony does not mean identity, shared consciousness, or identical subjective experiences.

For Jiwasa, perhaps the question should be different:

how much coordination do we need in order to act together without eliminating the very differences that allow the collective to perceive what a single Corpo-Territory could not?

Perhaps a collective needs to:

synchronize enough to coordinate

while

remaining different enough to continue producing alternatives.

Who Is in the Position to Perceive First?

Imagine thirty people crossing a territory.

One notices smoke.

Another knows the path.

Another perceives a change in the wind.

Another knows where water can be found.

Another can calm a frightened child.

Another knows first aid.

Who is the leader?

Perhaps the question is wrong.

We might instead ask:

who, at this particular moment, occupies the position from which a difference relevant to the collective can be perceived?

The starling murmurations investigated by Giorgio Parisi and colleagues offer an interesting analogy. Local interactions among starlings can participate in extraordinary collective reorganizations without a central controller continuously determining the movement of every bird.

Starlings are not human societies.

But they leave us with a powerful question:

how much collective organization can emerge from local relationships without every participant possessing all the information about the collective?

Guiding does not have to mean permanently leading.

Function does not have to become hierarchy.

Difference May Emerge at the Edge

Those at the center are not necessarily in the best position to perceive what is changing.

A community perceives water scarcity before the government office does.

A person with a disability encounters a barrier invisible to those who designed a service.

An Indigenous people perceives territorial changes that have not yet appeared in national statistics.

A child formulates a question no specialist had asked.

The different Corpo-Territory may not be noise.

It may simply occupy another position of perception.

And not every edge is geographical.

There are edges between cultures, languages, forms of knowledge, memory, and imagination.

Between sleep and wakefulness.

What If the Signal Comes from a Dream?

Among different Indigenous peoples of the Americas, dreams may occupy social, relational, and cosmological positions that do not correspond to the idea of an exclusively private experience without collective consequences.

This does not mean claiming:

“Someone dreamed it, therefore it happened.”

But neither does it require concluding:

“It was only a dream, therefore nothing happened.”

There is a third possibility:

a Corpo-Territory perceived something.

We can listen.

Interpret.

Compare.

Disagree.

Decide.

A signal is not truth.

Feeling confirms that something occurred within the experience of that Corpo-Territory; by itself, it does not demonstrate that its interpretation corresponds to the external world.

Yet something whose truth we do not yet know can still produce a question.

One person's dream does not need to become everyone's truth in order to become a question for everyone.

Who Decided What Counts as Knowledge?

This is where Danilo Silva Guimarães becomes fundamental.

In his discussions of Indigenous Psychology, Guimarães warns against treating culturally situated forms of knowledge as universal and argues that a genuine encounter with Indigenous knowledge may require semantic rectifications as well as conceptual and theoretical-practical revisions. Dialogicity, ethnocentrism, decolonization, and epistemic violence become central issues.

This places our own project at risk — and it should.

What if Jiwasa itself is reducing what it intends to include?

We could construct sophisticated categories — Corpo-Territory, belonging, consciousness, synchrony, Personalissima AI — and then invite other forms of knowledge merely to occupy spaces already determined by those categories.

In that case, we would not produce inclusion.

We would produce assimilation.

Perhaps an inclusive collective must allow not only different answers, but different ways of determining what may count as a question, a signal, or knowledge.

Let It Come

This is where we recover a sequence previously developed at BrainLatam.

Let it come.

A difference must be able to arrive before we decide what it means.

It may come from a measurement.

A word.

The territory.

Another Corpo-Territory.

Ancestral knowledge.

Or a dream.

Let It Stay

Let it stay.

We do not need to immediately expel what contradicts our categories.

A difference can remain long enough to encounter other differences, produce relationships, and be interpreted.

By bringing semiotics into dialogue with active inference, Romanini offers tools for thinking about systems navigating dynamic environments, dealing with surprise, meaning, and habit formation.

What initially appears to be disturbance may carry information.

Let It Be

Then comes a more difficult step:

Let it Be.

A dream does not have to immediately become a neurophysiological variable in order to be narrated.

Indigenous knowledge does not first need a scientific translation in order to participate in a conversation.

Another Corpo-Territory does not need to become similar to me in order to belong with me.

Letting Be means allowing existence without demanding reduction as the initial price of belonging.

But movement is still missing.

It May Disobey

Listening is not obeying.

Including is not agreeing.

Recognizing a difference does not mean transforming it into collective truth.

Another Corpo-Territory may say:

“I heard you, but I do not perceive it that way.”

And continue to belong.

Perhaps this is precisely where we discover whether a collective is genuinely inclusive:

when belonging survives the no.

To disobey, in this context, does not simply mean violating common rules. It means preserving the possibility of not adhering, of contesting, of interpreting differently, and of continuing to be part of Us.

If everyone is allowed to speak but belonging depends on agreement, we have participation without freedom.

Transcend the Self-as-Being

It is precisely between Let It Be and It May Disobey that we propose another possibility:

Transcend the Self-as-Being.

In our extended concept of Yãy hã mĩy, we proposed:

Imitate Being in order to transcend the Self-as-Being.

Experiencing another position does not mean permanently becoming the other.

We can experience another configuration and discover another possibility of Being.

This reconnects directly with a question explored in W40/2026.

When investigating transitions, we asked what happens not only in state A or state B, but during the passage A → B.

Now we can bring the same question to the collective:

what happens to Us between Jiwasa-A and Jiwasa-B?

One participant introduces a difference.

It circulates.

It encounters other differences.

Some move closer.

Others disagree.

Positions change.

The collective experiences another configuration.

Jiwasa-A → difference → transition → Jiwasa-B.

But B does not have to be better than A.

And no one needs to remain in B.

We may have:

A → B → A.

Or:

A → B → C.

Transcendence does not necessarily reside in the destination.

It may reside in the movement that made another configuration possible.

To transcend the Self-as-Being, therefore, does not mean permanently abandoning what one was.

It means moving through a difference deeply enough to experience another possibility of Being.

Freedom for the Signal to Circulate

Here, freedom of expression ceases to be only a legal principle.

It also becomes a possible informational condition of the collective.

The Body needs space and movement in order to signal and regulate itself.

Perhaps Jiwasa does too.

If a Corpo-Territory perceives something but understands that expressing it will mean exclusion, humiliation, or loss of belonging, that difference may fail to circulate.

Silencing someone does not necessarily eliminate the signal.

It may only prevent the collective from perceiving it.

This does not mean that every statement is true or that expression cannot encounter limits when it violates the rights of others.

It means something prior:

a collective unable to receive differences may lose access to its own internal changes.

Let It Go

Finally:

Let it go.

Not every signal needs to become consensus.

Not every dream needs to become prediction.

Not every idea needs to become a norm.

Not every experience needs to become identity.

Not every transition needs to become permanence.

Some differences come.

Stay.

Are allowed to Be.

Encounter disobedience.

Move Us.

And go.

But afterward, the collective knows that it could have been different.

Perhaps this is a fundamental property of Jiwasa.

Not merely allowing different ways of Being, but preserving enough movement to experience other ways of Being without losing the right to return, continue, or change again.

An AI That Does Not Turn Everything into Permanence

This creates an important requirement for Personalissima AI.

A centralized architecture could turn everything into data:

a dream becomes a category;

territory becomes coordinates;

belonging becomes a score;

difference becomes a profile.

But perhaps Personalissima AI must also learn to let go.

Not everything needs to be permanently recorded.

Not every transition needs to redefine who that person “is.”

Even from one moment to the next, a Corpo-Territory may change preference, position, and configuration.

An AI that turns every passage into identity risks removing precisely the movement it was supposed to protect.

Continuing to Be Able to Be

We therefore arrive at the ninth hypothesis of W41/2026.

Jiwasa is not unanimity.

It is not maximum synchrony.

It is not the absence of organization.

It is not submission.

And it is not the transformation of different forms of knowledge into a single language.

Jiwasa is belonging without reducing Being.

Our sequence therefore ceases to be merely a phrase:

Let It Come → Let It Stay → Let It Be ⇄ It May Disobey → Transcend the Self-as-Being → Let It Go.

Let It Be preserves difference.

It May Disobey preserves movement.

Transcend the Self-as-Being preserves the possibility of transformation.

Let It Go preserves the freedom not to turn every transformation into permanence.

Jiwasa would not be a collective that has finally found its perfect form.

It would be a collective capable of continuing to find forms without imprisoning its Corpo-Territories within them.

Belonging without remaining in the same position.

Transcending the Self-as-Being without ceasing to be able to Be.

References

LEIVA-CISTERNA, I.; BARRAZA, P.; RODRÍGUEZ, E.; DUMAS, G. Sensory multi-brain stimulation enhances dyadic cooperative behavior. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 20(1), nsaf104, 2025.
A central Latin American contribution to the discussion of inter-brain synchrony, coordination, and cooperation. The study supports the experimental discussion of coordination; it does not demonstrate Jiwasa or collective transcendence.

GUIMARÃES, Danilo Silva. A tarefa histórica da Psicologia Indígena diante dos 60 anos da regulamentação da Psicologia no Brasil. Psicologia: Ciência e Profissão, 42, 2022.
Fundamental to the discussion of dialogicity, epistemic violence, decolonization, and the need to revise our own categories when encountering Indigenous knowledge.

GUIMARÃES, Danilo Silva. Perspectivas em Psicologia Indígena no Brasil: desafios éticos e epistemológicos. Estudos de Psicologia, 2024.
Extends the discussion of epistemological plurality and the limits of incorporating Indigenous knowledge into previously defined categories.

ROMANINI, Vinicius. Semiose, inteligência e inferência ativa. deSignis, 43, 2025.
Provides elements for thinking about difference, surprise, meaning, habits, and reorganization in systems interacting with dynamic environments.

MALDONADO VALERA, C.; LEROY, N.; MAHALUF MEZA, F.; ESCOBEDO MUÑOZ, F. Cohesión social y desarrollo social inclusivo en América Latina y el Caribe: segundo panorama regional. ECLAC/CEPAL, 2026.
Contributes to placing belonging, inequality, institutions, solidarity, coexistence, and dialogue within a Latin American regional scale.

PARISI, Giorgio. In a Flight of Starlings: The Wonders of Complex Systems. 2023.
A complementary conceptual reference on self-organization and emergence. Starling murmurations are used as an analogy for complex systems, not as a direct model of human political organization.

GRAEBER, David; WENGROW, David. The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity. 2021.
A complementary anthropological reference for questioning the naturalization of permanent hierarchies and fixed positions.

W41/2026 — CEPID: From Personalissima AI to the Collective Future

BrainLatam Hypothesis: an inclusive collective may not be one that maximizes agreement, but one that preserves enough space and movement for differences to emerge, circulate, be experienced, contested, and disappear without its Corpo-Territories having to cease belonging.

Let It Come. Let It Stay. Let It Be. It May Disobey. Transcend the Self-as-Being. Let It Go.

Because perhaps collective transcendence is not arriving together at the same place, but continuing to belong while discovering that We, too, could Be otherwise.