9 Comments
founding
Oct 21, 2022Liked by Rachel Donald

Fabulous.

This conversation took actual effort and patience to follow but totally worth the time and investment.

Thank you so much.

Expand full comment
Oct 20, 2022Liked by Rachel Donald

There is so much in this episode that it's going to take many listens. I got to about episode 20 in John's 50 part series about a year ago, but got a bit lost, so it was really useful to hear this distilled version. I think this goes hand in hand with the Jeremy Lent episode. If people individually and collectively have lost the meaning of their existence and grip on reality, how can they be expected to engage with, or even care about the existential problems we face.

Question: Is it possible to describe meaning without using the word "meaning"?

I'd be interested to know if John was talking about something specific when he said that he was witnessing a new movement of meaning growing..not his exact words, or was it a general impression. I heard someone once describe this as being like mycelium, a vast network growing underground, that we don't see or perceive until at some point like magic, the fruiting bodies will start to appear.

As always, insightful and searching questions from the interviewer. Even John was impressed.

Expand full comment
author

Thanks so much, Tim!

Expand full comment
founding

Spot on Tim, this is a very interesting but 'thought dense' episode, a lot to work through.

On the second listen pieces started to come together for me - I'll give it a bit of space then listen again :)

Expand full comment

What if one way for humanity to resolve our meaning crisis in the 21st Century is through a new public discourse about fiduciary/non-fiduciary, as new 21st Century Global Citizens in a new 21st Century Global Commons of Fiduciary Money; and one of the transformations we have to go through as society to arrive at this new process of collective wisdoming about fiduciary/non-fiduciary is a radical rethinking of our received wisdom about the social structures through which humans in society make social decisions?

To talk about talking about money, and finance and enterprise, and how we shape our economy and society, as one way to wisdom runs against the conventional wisdom that money is the anti-wisdom, but what if money is actually the fundamental no-thing of human being in the 21st Century (money does not exist in Nature: it is a nothing; it exists only as an agreement within a society; as a relationship between people who may not have any other relationship connecting them but their shared participation in commercial/financial exchanges) that connects us all as Earthlings collaboratively co-creating, out of the world of Nature into which we all are born, the world of technology solutions in which we live, for living our best lives?

Expand full comment
Oct 21, 2022·edited Oct 21, 2022

If I understood John's description of no-thingness correctly, he was describing the notion that there are no actual "things", or that "things" had no meaning in and of themselves, but that what mattered was the relationship between everything. You or I have no meaning if there's just us as individuals. We, and indeed everything, only exist in terms of our relationships with the rest of reality. I heard a similar thought from the philosopher Alan Watts recently, and at the time it stopped me in my tracks.

The problem, I think, with defining all of those relationships in terms of money, is that money only exists as a concept for humans. Where does that leave the rest of the living organisms on the planet? Are they reduced to transactions on a balance sheet somewhere?

Expand full comment

You are right. I did not mean to suggest that all the relationships that define us as humans are transactional and constructed using money. I see the different kinds of love John and Rachel discussed as interpersonal relationships to others.

My thought is that we also define ourselves in some ways transactionally, through enterprise and exchange that shapes our economy and that there is meaning to be found in those transactional relationships that can be positive and life-affirming. So we should include them in our search for meaning. Because if we leave them out, we leave out a meaningful part of what it means to be human.

Expand full comment

Thanks for the clarification Tim. Maybe this is a part of what some describe as 'Social Capital'.

Expand full comment

Personally, I am not energized by the attempts to turn all the non-monetary aspects of our being human into “capitals”, so that will get priced into the existing system we are embedded in, of putting a price on everything, so we can extract profits by trading.

The power of Fiduciary Money is that it is not extractive, or externalizing, or reductionist or uncaring.

To the contrary, it has a legal duty to be interactive, accountable, inclusive and caring. So, it can and should be supporting enterprises in doing business in ways that prioritize social and environmental equity in the conduct of commerce.

Expand full comment