Well done explanation of threefold social order ideas. I still have the question of how do we get there from here. Activism and political action are needed to undo some of the most damaging aspects of the current system.
Two examples: The ever increasing war by governments on "misinformation". This is especially bad in Europe, but in the USA also. This campaign against "misinformation" is censorship and the state actors use all sorts justifications such as "protecting people from hate speech", or from dangerous health "misinformation." The censorship has now extended to critics of NATO's war in Ukraine, as, of course, it would.
Another example: The medical system and medical science is thoroughly enmeshed with business interests. I don't think I need to explain this as readers surely know already. Ninety percent of medical research is funded by pharmaceutical companies, these same companies have tremendous influence on regulatory agencies, medical journals, etc.
So my question is this: Dont we need political activism to undo some of these roadblocks to a healthier, three fold differentiated, social organization? The campaign of RFK Jr in the USA is one example. All the activism in the UK around free speech and against censorship would be another.
Thanks Katerina. How to get there from here is such a huge question. I've touch on some of that in recent posts, but I will be developing it further for months and (if there remains a platform for me to do it on) years ahead.
Certainly yes, I agree that we need political activism - for example on free speech, on undoing the monstrosity of corporate personhood and many other things. As I've touched on in earlier posts, I think we also move in the right direction by building the new institutions of the cultural sphere where we can - homeschooling, crowd-funding, withdrawing whereever we can from the activities of companies like Amazon. I think another important point of activism would be that, since the big media platforms and search engines are effectively one of the most central elements of communication and knowledge today, we should be campaigning for all the search algortithms to be in the public domain. (And one day, far from now, to actually be part of the 'cultural sphere' itself. We know they heavily manipulate what we can see and what we can't, so we should be starting the long battle to change that.
We can also challenge those companies who via their 'ESG' claim to be interested in 'the public good' to start channelling a small percentage of their profit direcly and UNCONDITIONALLY to cultural institutions, instead to trying themselves to run the culture. I touched on this general theme of funding the 'institutions of the cultural' in michaelwarden.substack.com/p/the-economist-is-wearing-no-clothes and michaelwarden.substack.com/p/the-circular-economy. It's a pretty complex issue though, so I need to develop it further soon - watch out for a piece sometime in the coming months (there's quite a lot in the queue!) called 'More Thoughts on the Economist's Clothes).
See also the ideas about the role of juries as described in michaelwarden.substack.com/p/the-elephant-in-the-womb-part-two, and the rise of many newly independent (cultural sphere) medical institutions which have arisen in response to the abuses of the covid years. (in the same piece).
I agree that RFK has some good policies and ideas, but however good they are, he is still part of the old world in that I call 'the central government of everything'. We have to get things happening outside of government.
The key thing for me is that whatever small incremental actions can be taken, within government or without, they have to be guided toward a coherent 'big picture'. That's my last point in this current piece - 'simply' getting to understand the complex 'three-fold' archetype more deeply, and making comprehensible to others, is an indispensible activity alongside the 'practical activism' because if we want distributed responsibilities, then we stand a better chance if the means by which we wish to get there is first itself distributed!
That's how I'm looking at it anyway - all other ideas on 'practical action' very much welcomed!
Well done explanation of threefold social order ideas. I still have the question of how do we get there from here. Activism and political action are needed to undo some of the most damaging aspects of the current system.
Two examples: The ever increasing war by governments on "misinformation". This is especially bad in Europe, but in the USA also. This campaign against "misinformation" is censorship and the state actors use all sorts justifications such as "protecting people from hate speech", or from dangerous health "misinformation." The censorship has now extended to critics of NATO's war in Ukraine, as, of course, it would.
Another example: The medical system and medical science is thoroughly enmeshed with business interests. I don't think I need to explain this as readers surely know already. Ninety percent of medical research is funded by pharmaceutical companies, these same companies have tremendous influence on regulatory agencies, medical journals, etc.
So my question is this: Dont we need political activism to undo some of these roadblocks to a healthier, three fold differentiated, social organization? The campaign of RFK Jr in the USA is one example. All the activism in the UK around free speech and against censorship would be another.
Thanks Katerina. How to get there from here is such a huge question. I've touch on some of that in recent posts, but I will be developing it further for months and (if there remains a platform for me to do it on) years ahead.
Certainly yes, I agree that we need political activism - for example on free speech, on undoing the monstrosity of corporate personhood and many other things. As I've touched on in earlier posts, I think we also move in the right direction by building the new institutions of the cultural sphere where we can - homeschooling, crowd-funding, withdrawing whereever we can from the activities of companies like Amazon. I think another important point of activism would be that, since the big media platforms and search engines are effectively one of the most central elements of communication and knowledge today, we should be campaigning for all the search algortithms to be in the public domain. (And one day, far from now, to actually be part of the 'cultural sphere' itself. We know they heavily manipulate what we can see and what we can't, so we should be starting the long battle to change that.
We can also challenge those companies who via their 'ESG' claim to be interested in 'the public good' to start channelling a small percentage of their profit direcly and UNCONDITIONALLY to cultural institutions, instead to trying themselves to run the culture. I touched on this general theme of funding the 'institutions of the cultural' in michaelwarden.substack.com/p/the-economist-is-wearing-no-clothes and michaelwarden.substack.com/p/the-circular-economy. It's a pretty complex issue though, so I need to develop it further soon - watch out for a piece sometime in the coming months (there's quite a lot in the queue!) called 'More Thoughts on the Economist's Clothes).
See also the ideas about the role of juries as described in michaelwarden.substack.com/p/the-elephant-in-the-womb-part-two, and the rise of many newly independent (cultural sphere) medical institutions which have arisen in response to the abuses of the covid years. (in the same piece).
I agree that RFK has some good policies and ideas, but however good they are, he is still part of the old world in that I call 'the central government of everything'. We have to get things happening outside of government.
The key thing for me is that whatever small incremental actions can be taken, within government or without, they have to be guided toward a coherent 'big picture'. That's my last point in this current piece - 'simply' getting to understand the complex 'three-fold' archetype more deeply, and making comprehensible to others, is an indispensible activity alongside the 'practical activism' because if we want distributed responsibilities, then we stand a better chance if the means by which we wish to get there is first itself distributed!
That's how I'm looking at it anyway - all other ideas on 'practical action' very much welcomed!