In an interview with Deepak Saini, who I'm not familiar with, Dawn Lester and David Parker are asked a question about not being doctors. Their answer is very good. While it's no doubt true that it's logical to talk to doctors about he…
In an interview with Deepak Saini, who I'm not familiar with, Dawn Lester and David Parker are asked a question about not being doctors. Their answer is very good. While it's no doubt true that it's logical to talk to doctors about health care, there are many issues which make that not so straightforward. For one thing, Rockefeller health care is deficient and criminal. Are we going to follow the instructions and guidance of doctors who ignore that fact?
Also, I'm thinking of John Ralston Saul's definition of technocracy here. It's unique, perhaps. Maybe it's even diversionary, since luminaries like James Corbett and Patrick Wood kick out an entirely different definition of technocracy and it doesn't look anything like Saul's and, I trust James and Patrick far more than I trust John Saul. I think that what James and Patrick have to say about what they call technocracy is more important than what John Saul says. (Indeed, I have serious issues with John Ralston Saul. I've blogged about them. Also, Saul was mentored by a horrible man, namely Maurice Strong, about which James Corbett did a video.) Still, Saul's simple idea about how education in society has been captured by powerful special interests who view it from a utilitarian standpoint, is useful. Picture everyone in a cubicle. We have to learn the jargon to our specialties in order to manage the control of information that flows through our personal cubicle. We live in a money system and for economic reasons everyone protects, via credentialization and jargon, their cubicles (and jobs) from invasion by others. The problem here is that for a civilization to advance, information should not be hoarded but free and available to everyone. And so on...
