Hi Joakim,

First of all, thanks for the response and for the time to evaluate the proposal and discuss it. Your proposal is very interesting indeed and in the end, I would be perfectly fine with that division as well, as to me it looks just minorly different from the proposal I wrote. The main point here is that we both were seeking regularity at the cost of institutions (the weeks and months as they are now) that exist like that because they came first, as a product of dominant thinking of past times.

I also see that the week format as a major guideline on our lives (by the government or religions) is something fated to disappear in a long-term future. In the context of a freer mindset, one can have a week of 2, 3, 4, 6, 9… anything, if made possible by the context (fewer strict job regulations, a healthier relationship between employers and employees). One can even argue that the month, being another arbitrary unit, can also disappear.

So, going a bit further, having in mind the only "physical" requirements for our time are the years (and the seasons, tied to the year) and the day, one could even argue for a subdivision of the year that is completely free in its format. I think about what was done by Swatch with its beats, that ditch all second/minute/hour structure in favour of a single, simple unit.

Anyway, I am getting a bit too ahead, I know, but maybe rethinking the calendar as something subdivided more regularly can be as an intermediate step to adopting something as free as described above. Within this intention, I stand for proposals like mine and yours as serious ones, even when destined only to make a small impact, because I have faith that those small impacts will eventually shape a bigger change later.