the king carries the story and the story carries the culture. "trickle-down" economics maintains the existing story (which has become the status quo b/c it's a local maximum)
Show this thread
-
this "trickle" doesn't work if you were never part of the main branch of the story yet these disenfranchised are often the first people sacrificed in efforts to "save the king". only in a crisis is it revealed how well the king has ruled. do the soldiers rebel?
Show this thread
The story is top-down but the culture is bottom-up. A king exists as a source of story and meaning, giving direction to the culture and thus becoming the culture. a bridge in tensegrity. A precarious situations always beneath the sword of damocles.
-
-
the king HAS to move the story forward otherwise by definition the story has ended. without a story the culture survives via a new story, but the old story DIES. depending on how centralized the story was, this can have minor to massively destructive effects.
Show this thread -
a story that is "too big to fail" is a fat king story. yet rather than decentralize the culture this creates a backstabbing political court as all efforts are tinged with the desire to replace the king. the stagnating story is seen correctly as a problem to be fixed.
Show this thread -
yet when the story revolves around the story of who gets to tell the story... then there isn't a story being told. or, to be more precise there IS. it's just not about the mundane hooman things. death to hoomans!
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.