We all see the world through our own eyes. Not everyone is swimming in a sea of Tik Tok and Instagram but you and your ilk probably are. Why? Because you were born in a place and time where they were available and the internet became part of you. You are part of the system and emotionally react to the stories that are fed to you. That humanness is what clever young people are trying to put into AI to make it really intelligent.
The guilt you feel at being helpless to save children in Gaza serves a purpose to those who order the wars and "pandemics" etc. They can make reality be whatever they want as they control the system and they can divide and distract us using media. You are helping them by including words in your article that perpetuate their story lines.
When they build their smart cities we will be told it will be for our own good and for the planet. The fact that "they" own the mines and central banks should be shelved under "best not to look at". Like the accepted science that maybe, just maybe, should be debated.
Cybernetic management won't stop at urban development if they can manage humans better than they do at the moment. Those of us who resist will be of particular use for educational or entertainmnet purposes.
That's a great quote from Freud. Similar to the idea that the meaning of life is life itself. I'm a recovering addict myself which has made the concept of "lack" and objeit petit a really appealing to me. I found your work through searching that and Rollins work. Addicts experience the void to a heightened degree and will engage any behavior they can find to fill the void. Your comment about Hegelian existentialism is apt because in recovery programs the solution to that void is found largely in service to other people and spirituality. I've found this to be the best possible answer to the lack. The spirituality is left open to the individual and seems broadly to be the cultivation of relationship. Relationship to oneself, others, and the Universe (God, Tao, Nature, Etc.)
This was excellent. Your writing style is very compelling. It's so funny I was just catching up on your video about living your best life last night. Any thoughts on how to counter the apathy and banality? It's just one thing after another and somehow I'm culpable for it all. Sometimes it's so much that it you revert to that passive nihilism just to avoid breaking. Keep up the great work!
Thank you for the kind comment, mate. I really appreciate it. And indeed, I, too, see the culpability towards apathy in myself. Frankly, I don't think there's a remedy to it as nihilism constitutes to our subjectivity. Freud wrote in a letter, "The moment a man questions the meaning and value of life, he is sick, since objectively neither has any existence; by asking this question one is merely admitting to a store of unsatisfied libido to which something else must have happened, a kind of fermentation leading to sadness and depression." Having said that, I think the way we can bear to live through this narcissism is through a kind of Hegelian existentialism where we see our self-consciousness in the other, not merely as an outer but immanent to both ourselves and the other. Keen to hear your thoughts. What do you think?
There's a lot in here that I thought about commenting on, but I'll keep it to two things.
1) I think you're wrong that "a reevaluation of your relationship to work or the need to not be slaves of capital is considered too radical and disruptive for the system." . There is a huge and ever growing body of literature and content which takes up the class/exploitation question. I think this is mostly due to an anachronistic fidelity to marxist theory, which is in turn an masked expression of christian habits of thought. This is in fact part of the paralysis. The young and idealistic are hoovered up into a dead-end, exhausted ideology. But the idea of abandoning it feels like defeat because being a "leftist" is people's identity, much as being a christian once was.
2) The most important theme here, for me, is the question of what qualifies as a genuine effort to fight oppression. Tweeting, protests, etc, they are not enough.
I agree that this super important. Here's how I think about it:
The most important thing is having, or seeking, a convincing *theory of change*. If you don't have one, then basically all you should be doing is looking for one. But be warned, if you come up with one that isn't "everyone join a union and buy my book", be prepared for a lot of blank stares.
What I wonder, is if someone approached you and looked you dead in the eyes and said: "Listen to me! We really can change the world, it starts right here with you and me! I've got a plan", could you bear the cringe and take them seriously or would you have to engage in abjection, and mentally cut yourself off from the grandiose lunatic?
1. I'd probably like to you elaborate on "This is in fact part of the paralysis. The young and idealistic are hoovered up into a dead-end, exhausted ideology." I assume you're saying Marxism is this exhausted ideology? My point in the essay was that the neoliberal capitalist ideology of the day attempts to exhaust people by giving them a pseudo-freedom and deny the reevaluation of their social relations and so on. However, this does not mean that we still don't have a sort of inner subjective freedom, perhaps a violent one, to negate these imperatives even without knowing where one will end up. To reappropriate the famous quote attributed to Rosa Luxemburg:
"Before a revolution happens, it is perceived as impossible; after it happens, it is seen as having been inevitable."
2. Some good observations here. I haven't got much to add as I need to think about it more, but I think these points also tangentially relate to the politics of the Freudian Death Drive. If you're interested, I had a chat with Todd McGowan on the topic: https://youtu.be/I4obiftU_kI?si=UMhHUfws-vncsluY
Thanks for your response. We're both in luck, because elaborating is one of my favourate things to do. You're right that I mean marxism as the exhausted ideology. I am not defending the neoliberal status quo by saying that. Among my critiques of Marxism is the fact it's impotent in the face of the neoliberal Triumph.
I am extremely amenible to the idea that we are far less free, than public discourse seems to assume.
I have already seen the McGowan interview, and actually linked to it from this essay which I published yesterday:
The big takeaway for me (as evident by the context of the link) was to do with the concept of alienation as freedom, which I like a lot. I also mentioned it in a discussion about Nietzsche's "last man" recently, when someone said the last man was the "fully alienated" man, and I responded that I think that has it backwards. The last man, rather, is the man without alienation.
The I don't actually remember how the death drive ties in, though. Maybe you can give me a TLDR of it?
Last I checked, I wasn't complicit in any genocide. There's a lot of substance to chew on here, but dishing out guilt trips for simply trying to exist in a world with unspeakable injustice before I'd even had my morning coffee was too much to bear. To be alive and aware is a heavy weight, but this made me feel 10,000 lbs.
That's a fair criticism, Lauren. In all honesty, making the reader feel like "10,000 lbs" was one of the goals of this piece. Firstly, that's what watching The Zone of Interest does to one, so I wanted to capture that in writing. Secondly, I believe the purpose of philosophy is to uproot us from the normal, comfortable state of being. However, if my essay made you feel defeated and cynical, then I'd say I've failed as a writer, as my intention wasn't malice but metamorphosis. But of course, the readers are to judge that.
We all see the world through our own eyes. Not everyone is swimming in a sea of Tik Tok and Instagram but you and your ilk probably are. Why? Because you were born in a place and time where they were available and the internet became part of you. You are part of the system and emotionally react to the stories that are fed to you. That humanness is what clever young people are trying to put into AI to make it really intelligent.
The guilt you feel at being helpless to save children in Gaza serves a purpose to those who order the wars and "pandemics" etc. They can make reality be whatever they want as they control the system and they can divide and distract us using media. You are helping them by including words in your article that perpetuate their story lines.
When they build their smart cities we will be told it will be for our own good and for the planet. The fact that "they" own the mines and central banks should be shelved under "best not to look at". Like the accepted science that maybe, just maybe, should be debated.
Cybernetic management won't stop at urban development if they can manage humans better than they do at the moment. Those of us who resist will be of particular use for educational or entertainmnet purposes.
That's a great quote from Freud. Similar to the idea that the meaning of life is life itself. I'm a recovering addict myself which has made the concept of "lack" and objeit petit a really appealing to me. I found your work through searching that and Rollins work. Addicts experience the void to a heightened degree and will engage any behavior they can find to fill the void. Your comment about Hegelian existentialism is apt because in recovery programs the solution to that void is found largely in service to other people and spirituality. I've found this to be the best possible answer to the lack. The spirituality is left open to the individual and seems broadly to be the cultivation of relationship. Relationship to oneself, others, and the Universe (God, Tao, Nature, Etc.)
Astutely put. And I'm glad you've come across Peter Rollins. He's somewhat of an intellectual hero of mine!
This was excellent. Your writing style is very compelling. It's so funny I was just catching up on your video about living your best life last night. Any thoughts on how to counter the apathy and banality? It's just one thing after another and somehow I'm culpable for it all. Sometimes it's so much that it you revert to that passive nihilism just to avoid breaking. Keep up the great work!
Thank you for the kind comment, mate. I really appreciate it. And indeed, I, too, see the culpability towards apathy in myself. Frankly, I don't think there's a remedy to it as nihilism constitutes to our subjectivity. Freud wrote in a letter, "The moment a man questions the meaning and value of life, he is sick, since objectively neither has any existence; by asking this question one is merely admitting to a store of unsatisfied libido to which something else must have happened, a kind of fermentation leading to sadness and depression." Having said that, I think the way we can bear to live through this narcissism is through a kind of Hegelian existentialism where we see our self-consciousness in the other, not merely as an outer but immanent to both ourselves and the other. Keen to hear your thoughts. What do you think?
Great review of a great movie.
There's a lot in here that I thought about commenting on, but I'll keep it to two things.
1) I think you're wrong that "a reevaluation of your relationship to work or the need to not be slaves of capital is considered too radical and disruptive for the system." . There is a huge and ever growing body of literature and content which takes up the class/exploitation question. I think this is mostly due to an anachronistic fidelity to marxist theory, which is in turn an masked expression of christian habits of thought. This is in fact part of the paralysis. The young and idealistic are hoovered up into a dead-end, exhausted ideology. But the idea of abandoning it feels like defeat because being a "leftist" is people's identity, much as being a christian once was.
2) The most important theme here, for me, is the question of what qualifies as a genuine effort to fight oppression. Tweeting, protests, etc, they are not enough.
I agree that this super important. Here's how I think about it:
The most important thing is having, or seeking, a convincing *theory of change*. If you don't have one, then basically all you should be doing is looking for one. But be warned, if you come up with one that isn't "everyone join a union and buy my book", be prepared for a lot of blank stares.
What I wonder, is if someone approached you and looked you dead in the eyes and said: "Listen to me! We really can change the world, it starts right here with you and me! I've got a plan", could you bear the cringe and take them seriously or would you have to engage in abjection, and mentally cut yourself off from the grandiose lunatic?
Thanks, Austin.
On your points:
1. I'd probably like to you elaborate on "This is in fact part of the paralysis. The young and idealistic are hoovered up into a dead-end, exhausted ideology." I assume you're saying Marxism is this exhausted ideology? My point in the essay was that the neoliberal capitalist ideology of the day attempts to exhaust people by giving them a pseudo-freedom and deny the reevaluation of their social relations and so on. However, this does not mean that we still don't have a sort of inner subjective freedom, perhaps a violent one, to negate these imperatives even without knowing where one will end up. To reappropriate the famous quote attributed to Rosa Luxemburg:
"Before a revolution happens, it is perceived as impossible; after it happens, it is seen as having been inevitable."
2. Some good observations here. I haven't got much to add as I need to think about it more, but I think these points also tangentially relate to the politics of the Freudian Death Drive. If you're interested, I had a chat with Todd McGowan on the topic: https://youtu.be/I4obiftU_kI?si=UMhHUfws-vncsluY
Hey Rahul,
Thanks for your response. We're both in luck, because elaborating is one of my favourate things to do. You're right that I mean marxism as the exhausted ideology. I am not defending the neoliberal status quo by saying that. Among my critiques of Marxism is the fact it's impotent in the face of the neoliberal Triumph.
I am extremely amenible to the idea that we are far less free, than public discourse seems to assume.
I have already seen the McGowan interview, and actually linked to it from this essay which I published yesterday:
https://www.writeinstone.com/blog/post/metamodernism-as-the-higher-naivety
The big takeaway for me (as evident by the context of the link) was to do with the concept of alienation as freedom, which I like a lot. I also mentioned it in a discussion about Nietzsche's "last man" recently, when someone said the last man was the "fully alienated" man, and I responded that I think that has it backwards. The last man, rather, is the man without alienation.
The I don't actually remember how the death drive ties in, though. Maybe you can give me a TLDR of it?
Last I checked, I wasn't complicit in any genocide. There's a lot of substance to chew on here, but dishing out guilt trips for simply trying to exist in a world with unspeakable injustice before I'd even had my morning coffee was too much to bear. To be alive and aware is a heavy weight, but this made me feel 10,000 lbs.
That's a fair criticism, Lauren. In all honesty, making the reader feel like "10,000 lbs" was one of the goals of this piece. Firstly, that's what watching The Zone of Interest does to one, so I wanted to capture that in writing. Secondly, I believe the purpose of philosophy is to uproot us from the normal, comfortable state of being. However, if my essay made you feel defeated and cynical, then I'd say I've failed as a writer, as my intention wasn't malice but metamorphosis. But of course, the readers are to judge that.