Nate sounds like a really good guy and I applaud his efforts to introduce integrity and pro-social aims to business. It would have been interesting to hear how much success he has had in this endeavour. I can't help thinking it must be a little like getting turkeys to vote for Christmas! Unless his proposals lead to more and sustained profit I wonder how he manages to convince boards to sign up.
Having said that, I am fully on board with his thinking about the democratisation of change, the artificiality of separating rationality and emotions and the necessary death of paternalism. What I took away most though was the idea that everything should have its demise built in. That feels so right.
I completely agree with the sense that corporations are turkeys wanting to avoid Christmas at all costs! I am perplexed by the mechanisms through which we connect with 'organisations' (which as Nate noted are dynamic beings propelled by people with unique experiences and beliefs) and help them see the benefit of a new set of organising principles not solely related to profit (since the extinction of the human race doesn't seem compelling enough lol). I like the concept that humans and enterprise should be adhering to a universal principle that everything they do should be life-affirming. You think of the myriad ways their actions are life-limiting currently.... Amazing episode. I was glued!
I appreciate the regular mention of Greek philosophers in these podcasts. We have to be careful in how we interpret them. As Peter Kingsley demonstrated in his breakthrough book, Ancient Philosophy, Mystery and Magic; Empedocles and Pythagorean Tradition, those ancient dialogues and writings come down to us in our modern language and we assume that the translations are accurate or authentic. To this day, philosophers routinely misinterpret these ancient writings and pass these errors down to their pupils. Mediterranean philosophy up through the time of Plato was more infused with mysticism than we appreciate. A discussion of Plato’s Forms is a good example of how we can be lead astray by our literal interpretation of the dialogues that we read today. What needs to keep in mind that as many of his peers did, Plato took part in the Mystery initiations that took place at Eleusis. These initiations took place longer than any of them knew, and although that they existed was common knowledge, openly discussing what occurred there was forbidden and enforced by the penalty of death. One can catch snatches of Plato’s experience at Eleusis in his dialogues, for example in the Phaedo where he describes the remembrance that “some” have had of their soul’s journey: “we were admitted to the sight of apparitions innocent and simple and calm and happy, which we beheld shining in pure light, pure ourselves and not yet enshrined in that living tomb which we carry about.”
One of my professors in San Francisco, who himself was pretty ancient at the time, once remarked that the Republic is really a metaphor for how one should conduct oneself, not for how the state should be organized. My own feeling about Plato’s Forms is that he developed them at least in part to reconcile with the otherworldly experience he undoubtedly had at his mystery initiation. There, one is confronted with another reality, and becomes convinced that this is in fact the supreme reality, not the one that we encounter in our daily lives. This is nothing more than mysticism in a nutshell. While some have said that the Forms were Plato’s method of coming to grips with universals, in the sense that the thing that constitutes a chair, despite the fact that every individual chair is unique, is something pure and that must exist somewhere, is only part of the story, but nevertheless also hints at the existence of another realm or more real reality.
Suffice it to say that I do not agree in any way that Plato would have agreed with the notion that humanity is meant to conquer his environment and I’m quite certain that he would’ve found that idea as ridiculous as the idea that one could conquer oneself.
The demon ‘Profit’! Specifically, shareholders profit. It would be interesting to develop a business structure that ensured the purpose of any business was pro-social and all externalities had been costed in together with a system of investment that rewarded shareholders with the product of that business rather than money. I guess the idea is to divorce money from the reward so that there is less reason to subvert the pro-social aims. This might require something like a universal basic income, of course, but that’s another story….
Nate sounds like a really good guy and I applaud his efforts to introduce integrity and pro-social aims to business. It would have been interesting to hear how much success he has had in this endeavour. I can't help thinking it must be a little like getting turkeys to vote for Christmas! Unless his proposals lead to more and sustained profit I wonder how he manages to convince boards to sign up.
Having said that, I am fully on board with his thinking about the democratisation of change, the artificiality of separating rationality and emotions and the necessary death of paternalism. What I took away most though was the idea that everything should have its demise built in. That feels so right.
I completely agree with the sense that corporations are turkeys wanting to avoid Christmas at all costs! I am perplexed by the mechanisms through which we connect with 'organisations' (which as Nate noted are dynamic beings propelled by people with unique experiences and beliefs) and help them see the benefit of a new set of organising principles not solely related to profit (since the extinction of the human race doesn't seem compelling enough lol). I like the concept that humans and enterprise should be adhering to a universal principle that everything they do should be life-affirming. You think of the myriad ways their actions are life-limiting currently.... Amazing episode. I was glued!
I appreciate the regular mention of Greek philosophers in these podcasts. We have to be careful in how we interpret them. As Peter Kingsley demonstrated in his breakthrough book, Ancient Philosophy, Mystery and Magic; Empedocles and Pythagorean Tradition, those ancient dialogues and writings come down to us in our modern language and we assume that the translations are accurate or authentic. To this day, philosophers routinely misinterpret these ancient writings and pass these errors down to their pupils. Mediterranean philosophy up through the time of Plato was more infused with mysticism than we appreciate. A discussion of Plato’s Forms is a good example of how we can be lead astray by our literal interpretation of the dialogues that we read today. What needs to keep in mind that as many of his peers did, Plato took part in the Mystery initiations that took place at Eleusis. These initiations took place longer than any of them knew, and although that they existed was common knowledge, openly discussing what occurred there was forbidden and enforced by the penalty of death. One can catch snatches of Plato’s experience at Eleusis in his dialogues, for example in the Phaedo where he describes the remembrance that “some” have had of their soul’s journey: “we were admitted to the sight of apparitions innocent and simple and calm and happy, which we beheld shining in pure light, pure ourselves and not yet enshrined in that living tomb which we carry about.”
One of my professors in San Francisco, who himself was pretty ancient at the time, once remarked that the Republic is really a metaphor for how one should conduct oneself, not for how the state should be organized. My own feeling about Plato’s Forms is that he developed them at least in part to reconcile with the otherworldly experience he undoubtedly had at his mystery initiation. There, one is confronted with another reality, and becomes convinced that this is in fact the supreme reality, not the one that we encounter in our daily lives. This is nothing more than mysticism in a nutshell. While some have said that the Forms were Plato’s method of coming to grips with universals, in the sense that the thing that constitutes a chair, despite the fact that every individual chair is unique, is something pure and that must exist somewhere, is only part of the story, but nevertheless also hints at the existence of another realm or more real reality.
Suffice it to say that I do not agree in any way that Plato would have agreed with the notion that humanity is meant to conquer his environment and I’m quite certain that he would’ve found that idea as ridiculous as the idea that one could conquer oneself.
The demon ‘Profit’! Specifically, shareholders profit. It would be interesting to develop a business structure that ensured the purpose of any business was pro-social and all externalities had been costed in together with a system of investment that rewarded shareholders with the product of that business rather than money. I guess the idea is to divorce money from the reward so that there is less reason to subvert the pro-social aims. This might require something like a universal basic income, of course, but that’s another story….