Thread by @swardley

I do love how @aral doesn't mess about and gets straight to the relevant point ... our system is skewed towards existing capital not effort nor ability nor potential ->

This is also the problem with the idea of philanthropy of the wealthy ... the wealth that funds it is based upon inequality and distortions within the system and the only way to maintain such "philanthropy" is to maintain that inequality and distortion.

Again, as with the pandemic, as with so many aspects of life ... we need (as a collective, as a nation, as a world) to have that conversation on the balance betweem "Me" and "We".

We could start by outlining the common values we share (not principles aka actions but our beliefs). The easiest should be the 7 universals of family, kinship, bravery, reciprocity, fairness, respect of law, respect of property after which it should get more tricky ...

... i.e. we would have to find some agreement on how much we share the values of civility, integrity, community and equality. Are they universal or bounded? Are we're ok with inequality but not beyond a specific point? It would at least give us a clearer picture of who we are.

If we could agree those commons values, we could at least then describe the behaviours needed to support them and from that help stablise our sense of belonging to the collective, to the nation i.e. re-establish trust, safety etc.

This would at least give us choices. We could tackle the core issues of "Me" vs "We" and values we need to add or power structures to change or we could delay the hard questions for a bit by tackling doctrine (principles we use) through an enablement system like education ...

i.e. we could teach people the importance of understanding the details, of a bias towards data, of a challenging assumptions, of humility, of a focus on what the user needs ... there are lots of universal principles equally valid in Gov, in business and even in small teams.

... but we can do none of this until we start that discussion of the "Me" vs "We". Alas, in the abscence of this, it's too easy for an individual to play strongman politics, to declare that they uniquely can provide the direction and answers that the collective "We" needs ...

... and alas, without the discussion, without the common understanding then in the confusion the narratives of the strongman can be seductive and overpowering.

It's no coincidence that Turmp is playing to those values of family, of respect for law, of property, of bravery (of some) whilst talking of future hope, of future kinship, of future fairness and claiming to be the only one that can lead the US there through his might.

But alas, the power structures that exist are based upon narratives and story tellers. It would not possible to have that discussion of "Me" vs "We" without encoutering the politics of story tellers, the bias against change but that is where something wonderful can be found ...

... in the idea of #Neuralink. It holds a future promise to free us from words, from the stories that enslave and constrain us, from the story tellers who demand our submission.

A better society could be possible if we can finally emancipate ourselves from the curse of words.

X : You're not a fan of words?
Me : I use them and they can do good. But they also bind us, constrain us, enslave us, demand our submission, limit our imagination, create norms, enforce status, impose class, resist change and have poor information density - so I'm not a fan.

I prefer to use words alongside other techniques which enable challenge, understanding, learning and higher information density. Hence I like to talk about maps i.e. the map is the vehicle of communication, the words (spoken or written on the map) are a supporting structure.

I often do this with books.

In order to really understand a book, I often find myself having to turn it into a map.

It's a bit like LOTR (Tolkein started with a map, wrote the book around it) but in reverse ... take the book, create the map from it.