Let me just say one more thing about this. So the big risk, the big challenge is that, Peter, for example, is saying, hold on a minute, why are we dealing with all these questions? These are all second principles. We must reassert, in the first place, a first principle inquiry, the purpose inquiry, or else we are lost because we are already untethered from the causing, shaping inquiry.
The problem is, we don't even have a shared frame of reference anymore. And not only that, we no longer have an information and knowledge landscape that enables you to reason constructively.
What you have is entrenched positions. What you have is an ecosystem and a breakdown in the knowledge landscape, together with social media as the tool, and the culture, and the
ethics that unleashes people to the belief and the myth that what I feel is true, period. There is no other higher truth. If I feel angry right now, that's the major truth. If I make up stuff in my head, that becomes true, because there is no longer such a thing as fact. There is no longer such a thing as a verifiable fact, there is only socially-constructed fact. And that belief system, that truth and facts are socially constructed, means I can come up with anything, I can make stuff up and create my own bubble of truth.
And that's part of why we are facing even the challenge that we will need to address.
It really makes one wonder that we're still dealing with these issues. And where are the platforms? And I don't mean just the legal platforms, or the ethical platforms, but, really, why don't we intervene? Or, why are we not trained to say no, or to voice when we see something wrong happening to our colleague, or from our boss, or from a client?