The concept of two worlds is certainly a plausible way to look at things, however I would take issue with some of the distinctions that the article makes.

What is the epistemic basis for the "objective world"? Is it not the subjective world? In that case the subjective is also very concerned with the "is".

Perhaps it would be better to view the objective world as a model that explains (some of) the constraints of the subjective world.

Divide the subjective phenomena into two classes. Those that (what are perceived as) other people speak of as similarly constrained to the way the subject experiences them to be constrained. Call these the evidential basis for the objective world. The remaining subjective phenomena including, but not limited to, value statements, correlate only sometimes and perhaps never to the reports of other people. So leave those all in the subjective realm.

It is possible that a subjective notion of truth is implied in the article, but if it is stated to be so explicitly, I missed it.

Many of the assertions that the article makes would seem to require a very subjective notion of truth. "Truth" would be a label given to an experience. Of course it could apply to an experience of visual immediate reality but equally to conjunctions of words with feelings (including moral imperatives) or words with meanings experienced in conjunction with other words. An experience of assent to such conjunction could be labeled "truth".

In that sense, myth cannot be a direct communication of truth. There is no shared evidential basis. At its most successful, words may evoke experiences of assent to conjunctions in the listener. It would not even be meaningful to compare the "similarity" between speaker and listener assent experiences.

Like the joke, "The good news is that I found no typographical errors in your article".

I'm here because of the content that people like you and I create. Without that content, there is no value. Yes, it is owned by concentrations of wealth.

This technology is not going away. It will evolve. I don't see a choice but to talk about how we can move it in positive directions. I see no harm in proposing practical solutions and letting them get ripped apart, until some good proposals come up that lots of people are willing to get behind.

For all the potential dangers that social media create, perhaps it is our last, best hope.

Attempts at underlying change in the past failed. The ability of the greedy individual to concentrate power repeatedly thwarted even the best of initiatives.

Social media has the potential, only the potential of course, to create a vehicle to coordinate a very large number of minds and skills in the interest of the widest possible cooperation.

I propose a grass-roots Universal Moral Framework controlled by everybody and nobody. ESG seems to be a sham, a system of fences run by the foxes to protect the chickens.

It is a little difficult to be optimistic about this suggestion, but I can think of no better.

I'm not sure where the "is" and where the "ought" are in the linked article.

If our genealogy or history is just fact, then the question is, given X, how does that create our self-understanding and how would prefiguring in X lead us to act.

In other parts, the article (and post title) suggests that X is not given and should be invented so as to create a desired (which?) self-understanding and actions?

What meaning, then, does the genealogy of self as animal provide us? What does it prefigure in our actions that we may value?