The second reading was as pleasant as the first,, straightforward sensible thinking and presentation.
"Why does any of this matter? It matters because the need to keep separate the formulation of laws, the executive power to enforce them, and the judgement of whether and when they have been broken, is not ‘somebody’s idea’ - it is inherent in the nature of things. And it matters because all the other triplicities are equally ‘inherent in the nature of things’. Which means that recognizing them may sometimes help us get a handle on why things break down, and what we might be able to do to get them back on track."
Learning to recognize and respect the inherent nature of things is the current challenge for humanity. My personal self development project revolves around the notion that 'order' and 'liberty' are elements of every event or experience. The theory is that if both elements are respected and there is aspiration for balance, one may better reduce reactive mind engagement and cultivate a more creative relationship with the 'inherent nature of things'. I liken it to a coin with two sides and thickness, with thickness providing substance, and an active entry to engagement with the divine.
The entry is facilitated by the constant asking of the question; What is the proper response for this particular situation? There are better decision making aids available than the simple trust the experts attitude that many live by. Experts do great work, when they stay in their lane, but become stupid and reckless, as would be expected. when outside their lane.
Hi Sounder – long delay responding, but |I have been inundated with other things!
Yes – what you nicely frame as 'reactive mind productions' are one of the enemies of being able to perceive 'what is inherent in the nature of things'. I'm right with you that regaining the ability to perceive that way is the great challenge of our time for humanity. Not just because of 'reactive mind' though – I'd say also because of the modernist addiction to theorising and ideology.
“I find myself relating some of what you have said to the schism that is going on between 'pro' and 'anti' Enlightenment camps. I think the 'anti' camp are wrong about much - dangerously so - but they are right that the modern propensity to theorise, to be led by 'ideas', instead of by experience, by what life is showing us, leads us into much trouble”.
As for 'experts', a couple of quotes regarding the suggestion than we need wider participation in matters for instance of 'economics'.: Rudolf Steiner:
“every human being has a share in the working of the ´body social´, and it cannot be left to ´experts”.
And to some extent echoing him, Milton Friedman:
"To paraphrase Clemenceau, money is much too serious a business to be left to central bankers¨.
Yes, reactive mind is only one of the issues, reliance on abstractions, modeling and theories seems to contribute more noise than signal, and on and on no doubt. I have a saying that I do not use anymore since folk have become more fragile, it is; An idea is something that you have, an ideology is something that has you. Of course, all ideas will be tested by experience. (Don't fall for your own delusions.) I remember a person once writing that empiricists build empires and idealists then ride them back into the dirt. Interesting thesis.
Yes, Kathleen is the center of my Substack universe while my star cruiser is parked down at the repair shop.
That is so well said! I love the two quotes especiallly the one about ideas and ideology! And the rigourous ongoing work of not falling for one's own delusions!
A lot to chew on here, Michael! Thank you for laying out the fundamentals of the repeating tripartite structure and the need to separate them all, across all arenas.
My question always revolves around: can the system be rebuilt ethically? Or is it going to need a total re-imagining?
Hi Mary – a long delay answering this one. But I always try to catch up in the end! Hum-dinger of a question too!
So: I don't think the system can be rebuilt ethically. Yet I am not a revolutionary (even though I might sometimes sound like one!) If that's a conundrum, here's another: The change we need will never, now or later, be given to us by government, because it's not in their interest to do so. But I'm not an anarchist either.
Ufff!! The question is huge. (That's why I'm working hard on my book – a project without which the substacks would be flowing a lot faster! And will when it is finished ;-)
My attempt to answer here will really be pretty much a scratch on the surface of what I would like to say. But I write this stuff because I want to engage people, so I'm super-happy to have your question, and the challenge of finding a meaningful reply in few words!
As I see it, we will always need laws, and so we will always need an elected legislature. To be consistent with the deep and long-evolving patterns of triplicity, we must move toward a society in which cultural and commercial elements give each other what they need in order to flourish. (A bit more on that in my earlier pieces 'THE ECONOMIST'S NEW CLOTHES' and 'THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY'), both driven through the broad participation of the population, and in which an elected legislature confines itself to determining the parameters of the exchanges between them, plus the rights of those operating them.
To move in that direction (or indeed to move in any coherent and worthwhile direction, at any time) we must have sound and timeless principles to guide incremental short-term action continuously toward long term goals. (Such principles, in any form, seem absent from the stage at present, and we have instead all the piecemeal opinions and rotating ideology that lead us, by accident or design, deeper into the hall of mirrors). So yes – ultimately a complete revisioning (and the implications go so, so much deeper, but at least I won't run out of material for future pieces). A complete revisioning, but approached in an evolutionary manner, according to good principles which in fact were always there, and even under-pinned most of the progress we have already seen over the past few hundred years.
In keeping with the claim that this kind of relationship between 'making laws, trading commodities, and culture' represents a natural archetypal principle, the right kind of 'new institutions' are already trying to break through, sometimes well, like home-schooling, the big flurry of new independent medical organisations over the past couple of years, and the principle of crowd-funding. All those are indeed, as they should be, being driven by the people, not by government. (Though crowd-funding, originally a spontaneous idea from the people, is for now usurped by the by the big corporates, with consequences that we have already seen in 'Trudeau vs. Truckers'. Even Theresa May's notion of putting consumers on the board of big corporations is at least somewhat consistent with the archetype. (Politicians will never willingly devolve powers away from themselves, but they might from time to time do smaller things consistent with the archetype). Others are sound principles, in essence consistent with the archetype, but breaking through in a corrupted form (because of a corrupted environment). I'm speaking here of 'ESG' which I'll come back to in a moment.
The reason I'll come back to it, is that it relates to the other big important change in order to have 'a society in which cultural and commercial elements give each other what they need in order to flourish': A flow of unconditional funding from the commercial to the cultural. Culture provides commerce with the talent and, ultimately, the innovation, which are it's life blood. The reciprocal move is for commerce to divert some of their profits, unconditionally, back to the sustenance, and expansion, of the cultural.
Now there are other ways of arranging funding from the commercial to cultural (implying also smaller taxes to a smaller government) and I've touched on some of them in 'THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY' – though a pending article is needed at some time to take it further. But ESG represents one of several ways it could be done, in corrupted form. In ESG corporations set themselves up to be champions of a better society. We should call their bluff by demanding that instead of trying to make themselves into an unelected government, they provide unconditional funding to independent organisations, whose job it should properly be. (I think we'd soon see how real their commitment to society is, but nonetheless, it would be great if there were some kind of big public campaign on this, just to bring attention to it.
You expressed a huge question in a single sentence – sorry I couldn't do the same with the reply ;-)
The second reading was as pleasant as the first,, straightforward sensible thinking and presentation.
"Why does any of this matter? It matters because the need to keep separate the formulation of laws, the executive power to enforce them, and the judgement of whether and when they have been broken, is not ‘somebody’s idea’ - it is inherent in the nature of things. And it matters because all the other triplicities are equally ‘inherent in the nature of things’. Which means that recognizing them may sometimes help us get a handle on why things break down, and what we might be able to do to get them back on track."
Learning to recognize and respect the inherent nature of things is the current challenge for humanity. My personal self development project revolves around the notion that 'order' and 'liberty' are elements of every event or experience. The theory is that if both elements are respected and there is aspiration for balance, one may better reduce reactive mind engagement and cultivate a more creative relationship with the 'inherent nature of things'. I liken it to a coin with two sides and thickness, with thickness providing substance, and an active entry to engagement with the divine.
The entry is facilitated by the constant asking of the question; What is the proper response for this particular situation? There are better decision making aids available than the simple trust the experts attitude that many live by. Experts do great work, when they stay in their lane, but become stupid and reckless, as would be expected. when outside their lane.
Hi Sounder – long delay responding, but |I have been inundated with other things!
Yes – what you nicely frame as 'reactive mind productions' are one of the enemies of being able to perceive 'what is inherent in the nature of things'. I'm right with you that regaining the ability to perceive that way is the great challenge of our time for humanity. Not just because of 'reactive mind' though – I'd say also because of the modernist addiction to theorising and ideology.
Do you know the Substack of Kathleen Devanney? She wrote a great piece recently on a similar theme: https://devanneykathleen.substack.com/p/knots-loosening I had to weigh in with an echo of what she wrote:
“I find myself relating some of what you have said to the schism that is going on between 'pro' and 'anti' Enlightenment camps. I think the 'anti' camp are wrong about much - dangerously so - but they are right that the modern propensity to theorise, to be led by 'ideas', instead of by experience, by what life is showing us, leads us into much trouble”.
As for 'experts', a couple of quotes regarding the suggestion than we need wider participation in matters for instance of 'economics'.: Rudolf Steiner:
“every human being has a share in the working of the ´body social´, and it cannot be left to ´experts”.
And to some extent echoing him, Milton Friedman:
"To paraphrase Clemenceau, money is much too serious a business to be left to central bankers¨.
Yes, reactive mind is only one of the issues, reliance on abstractions, modeling and theories seems to contribute more noise than signal, and on and on no doubt. I have a saying that I do not use anymore since folk have become more fragile, it is; An idea is something that you have, an ideology is something that has you. Of course, all ideas will be tested by experience. (Don't fall for your own delusions.) I remember a person once writing that empiricists build empires and idealists then ride them back into the dirt. Interesting thesis.
Yes, Kathleen is the center of my Substack universe while my star cruiser is parked down at the repair shop.
That is so well said! I love the two quotes especiallly the one about ideas and ideology! And the rigourous ongoing work of not falling for one's own delusions!
A lot to chew on here, Michael! Thank you for laying out the fundamentals of the repeating tripartite structure and the need to separate them all, across all arenas.
My question always revolves around: can the system be rebuilt ethically? Or is it going to need a total re-imagining?
Great work...
Hi Mary – a long delay answering this one. But I always try to catch up in the end! Hum-dinger of a question too!
So: I don't think the system can be rebuilt ethically. Yet I am not a revolutionary (even though I might sometimes sound like one!) If that's a conundrum, here's another: The change we need will never, now or later, be given to us by government, because it's not in their interest to do so. But I'm not an anarchist either.
Ufff!! The question is huge. (That's why I'm working hard on my book – a project without which the substacks would be flowing a lot faster! And will when it is finished ;-)
My attempt to answer here will really be pretty much a scratch on the surface of what I would like to say. But I write this stuff because I want to engage people, so I'm super-happy to have your question, and the challenge of finding a meaningful reply in few words!
As I see it, we will always need laws, and so we will always need an elected legislature. To be consistent with the deep and long-evolving patterns of triplicity, we must move toward a society in which cultural and commercial elements give each other what they need in order to flourish. (A bit more on that in my earlier pieces 'THE ECONOMIST'S NEW CLOTHES' and 'THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY'), both driven through the broad participation of the population, and in which an elected legislature confines itself to determining the parameters of the exchanges between them, plus the rights of those operating them.
To move in that direction (or indeed to move in any coherent and worthwhile direction, at any time) we must have sound and timeless principles to guide incremental short-term action continuously toward long term goals. (Such principles, in any form, seem absent from the stage at present, and we have instead all the piecemeal opinions and rotating ideology that lead us, by accident or design, deeper into the hall of mirrors). So yes – ultimately a complete revisioning (and the implications go so, so much deeper, but at least I won't run out of material for future pieces). A complete revisioning, but approached in an evolutionary manner, according to good principles which in fact were always there, and even under-pinned most of the progress we have already seen over the past few hundred years.
In keeping with the claim that this kind of relationship between 'making laws, trading commodities, and culture' represents a natural archetypal principle, the right kind of 'new institutions' are already trying to break through, sometimes well, like home-schooling, the big flurry of new independent medical organisations over the past couple of years, and the principle of crowd-funding. All those are indeed, as they should be, being driven by the people, not by government. (Though crowd-funding, originally a spontaneous idea from the people, is for now usurped by the by the big corporates, with consequences that we have already seen in 'Trudeau vs. Truckers'. Even Theresa May's notion of putting consumers on the board of big corporations is at least somewhat consistent with the archetype. (Politicians will never willingly devolve powers away from themselves, but they might from time to time do smaller things consistent with the archetype). Others are sound principles, in essence consistent with the archetype, but breaking through in a corrupted form (because of a corrupted environment). I'm speaking here of 'ESG' which I'll come back to in a moment.
The reason I'll come back to it, is that it relates to the other big important change in order to have 'a society in which cultural and commercial elements give each other what they need in order to flourish': A flow of unconditional funding from the commercial to the cultural. Culture provides commerce with the talent and, ultimately, the innovation, which are it's life blood. The reciprocal move is for commerce to divert some of their profits, unconditionally, back to the sustenance, and expansion, of the cultural.
Now there are other ways of arranging funding from the commercial to cultural (implying also smaller taxes to a smaller government) and I've touched on some of them in 'THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY' – though a pending article is needed at some time to take it further. But ESG represents one of several ways it could be done, in corrupted form. In ESG corporations set themselves up to be champions of a better society. We should call their bluff by demanding that instead of trying to make themselves into an unelected government, they provide unconditional funding to independent organisations, whose job it should properly be. (I think we'd soon see how real their commitment to society is, but nonetheless, it would be great if there were some kind of big public campaign on this, just to bring attention to it.
You expressed a huge question in a single sentence – sorry I couldn't do the same with the reply ;-)
And thanks again for engaging!