Who reminds us that 'fascism' is nothing new, and far from rising is coming to its logical conclusion (its ontological truth?) in the world.
I agree with your conclusions regarding your assessment of how and what the problem is that we face. To echo one of the commenters below, it is action that underpins our words, and as you have hinted at, the commons - and the Commoners- that preserve and create the actionable this way of living. We are embodied beings and through the skills of our hands and bodies can craft objects of care from the land.
How many men you have meet in the High places of power know how to weave a basket, what wood is good for chair, when to plant for the best crop and the ingredients of good compost? I think any human without these skills is the most impoverished of us all, that they are the savages, with only the base skill of words and brute force of violence. Without these skills, we are not human and we are not animal.
We are working on a theory of change based in the sharing of skills for community provisioning from a land base. Through the action of embodied learning and situated in place (land and material of the ecological environment) can build the necessary ontology you describe.
I think anyone who prioritises people and relationship would have little to quibble about here. I am in the throes of re-reading The Matter With Things and finding that I am even more drawn to Iain McGilchrist's philosophical take on the world and in particular the folly of certitude.
I used to be in awe of people who seemed so confident in their viewpoint and dazzled by their ability to argue effortlessly in favour of it. It is a little easier these days to perceive the ontological flaws and wonder what chasm their confidence is covering over.
There are elements of Anarchism that are very attractive and while I wouldn't call myself an Anarchist I do believe very strongly in the need for localism and reigniting everyone's interest in influencing the issues that affect them. There does to my mind need to be some structure to hang the processes around and, until we return to a state of complete local self-sufficiency, we are going to need different levels of structure to address wider regional needs and, as long as Nation states persist, national and international matters. Such structures don't preclude a collaborative approach but will necessarily mean fewer people being involved in higher level decisions.
I don't believe in completion any more than I believe in certitude so we travel hopefully in the knowledge that while not having all the answers we can accept an imperfect version of our dream and that tomorrow it may all change again. This thought is my lifeline in these troubling times.
I am very much in agreement. I believe in an anarchism of structure, as Murray Bookchin posited. We need institutions to govern a complex world, but these should be inclusive of everyone and the decisions made at the local level should be supreme. I don't believe in a free-for-all of libertarianism.
I used to think ( when I was a young raver in the 90’s enjoying the second summer of love ) that if all the worlds leaders could just do a strong pill 💊 then all the problems would cease. Ha ha how naive of me.
Although I don’t think I was wrong. I remember chatting to a old squatter about the cultural significance of the anarchist / punk / rave squat scene in Berlin and he said. ‘ we took the Berlin Wall down didn’t we ‘ 🤔
That era of strong psychedelics ( arguable consumed by many millions more people than in the 1960’s ) has changed the minds of generations. I think taking something like LSD or especially DMT does give one some extraordinary insight into the nature of the spiritual world.
Atm there’s another huge rise in many people taking 🍄 mushrooms. Both medicinal and magic. 🪄.
I dont think anyone interested in the nature of reality should discount this valuable tool.
Just thought 💭 I’d pop this in incase anyone finds it interesting.
Lots of people would agree with you. I recommend Daniel Pinchbeck's substack. He explores this realm pretty cogently. Unfortunately I can't take psychedelics for medical reasons, so I will never know.
You know Phil, I agree with you but if it is true that the Silicon Valley bros have all done ayahuasca, sadly it appears to not be enough, especially given the accelerated rate at which they contribute harm (while doubtless telling themselves they are not) (ok, harm is my word, my perception - it's cloudier than that, of course...).
I do believe that getting out of the "status quo" is what we are all invited to, and similar to you (at least, so I perceive, given you're talking psychedelics), I think it's an inside job at first.
Yep well you hit on an important point there. Psychedelics can indeed broaden the mind but after meeting loads of people that are still massive twats after doing stuff like DMT I kinda came to the conclusion that if you can get there without it’s probably a lot healthier.
Yeah, I agree too -- the psychedelic is often an initial illuminator and helps folks perhaps step onto the path of spirit/ heart/ nature/ whatever you want to call it, but as Watts said, "once you get the message, hang up the phone." There is no shortage of ways to be on the path without hallucinogenics, but of course the thing about psychedelics is its effortless - take the drug, enjoy the trip. The real path without psychedelics requires EFFORT -- something modern society seems increasingly allergic to these days (LOL!!)
I rather agree tho many people I like and respect have been on the ayahuasca journey and say that it was revelatory. It doesn't seem to have had much impact in Silicon Valley however, as you say.
"...pretending that you can lay the foundation for a science by just dreaming up whatever you want. That's true of economics, by the way. It ain't no science. It pretends to be, gives itself a Nobel Prize, has an elaborate mathematical structure, but it fails to do one of the most elementary things of a science, which is to ground yourself in pre existing knowledge.
We're happy to have physics sitting on math, chemistry sitting on physics. You know, biology sitting on chemistry. And someday we hope and pray the social so-called sciences are sitting on biology. Where else are they going to sit? We came here through 3 billion years of natural selection and evolution, any functional view of life has to be based on that. So one of these days they're going to have to hook it up. But economists don't do it. They talk. They say, we maximize utility. So you say to an economist, what's utility? And he says, well, anything you want to maximize. Sometimes it's money, sometimes it's food over money, sometimes sex trumps both of them, you know. And what they imagine, though, is that they can have this empty concept utility and then somehow build the so called science upwards from utter nonsense.
And one of the things they do is confuse personal utility with general utility, and they often argue that they're closely aligned. And I'm particularly sensitive to it, because if you watch the kind of nonsense that was generated in the last 10 or 20 years, which helped bring about this near economic collapse from which a lot of people are still suffering very, very acutely. Now in this country, you hear all kinds of garbage Greenspan saying the forces of the market will naturally constrain deception or greed or whatnot."
hi Carne, I'm ok, hi to Karmen and the kids, and thank you for what you're doing and writing. Here are some more links.
We have a podcast in which (very bright) high school students ask experts what they would put into a climate curriculum, since climate change is not taught in NYC public schools. Here are two recent episodes, with stellar interviewers who are just 17:
I think 20 years ago it was easy to see these days coming down the pike. My regret is not being enough of a promoter to get this up and running back then:
A market meritocracy probably will tilt to the right, as the US is now, because it's so easy to destabilize. You end up with two political parties for rich people, and even if there are now fewer rich people in the very right wing party (Kamala Harris had more billionaires behind her than Trump did, and she raised almost double the campaign funds)
The big advantage on the right wing side is that the financiers and others know what they want.
Meritocracy, like economics, is not an answer to life. They are both tools for solving material problems, not for solving aspirational problems or relationships.
The Blackfoot tribe of Native Americans were likely glad to have the most adept hunter lead the hunt, but they did not confer social privilege from that skill into every other domain.
Anthropology is a great guide to previously answered questions about the 'self' and society. The series on YouTube "What is Politics?" is good, and this episode in particular:
I chose Peter Green's book on Alexander the Great for escapist reading a few weeks ago but it's an eerie match for some characters in our present scene.
Endless ambition, reckless behavior, and skill in recruiting are three qualities of Alexander. (Also tactical genius on the battlefield, but leaving that one out for the moment.)
Your comment about positivism and neoclassical economics is funny, since the latter has never been based on empiricism, though it fraudulently claims to be. Thus we have crisis after economic crisis, simply because, as a Buddhist like myself would observe, neoclassical economics does not satisfy the criteria for being considered a relative truth, i.e., it’s isn’t functional. But since they control the academy, they oppose more sensible models like MMT, etc. As for psychedelics, apart from some therapeutic value in treating addiction and PTSD, and causing people to be a little more open minded, they have no other value, despite glowing reports of their benefits. I say this from extensive experience. They’re just entertainment.
But here are a few things that I have found personally helpful navigating these times and a lot of what you start pointing to in this essay (which, by the way, I enjoyed reading and I appreciate that it was thoughtfully, authentically written in the spirit of asking a question, not dumping a bunch of facts.)
To me, you are correct - this is a perverse way of thinking, heavily tilted towards the material. I believe we are in a perceived duality where there is a natural conflict - and there is absolutely a need on the part of those in "power" to maintain the status quo.
I am a largely spiritual/philosophical thinker and, not unlike you, I like to look at patterns and structures. The concept of yugas (or ages) is one cycle that I find fascinating and I may be hanging onto it right now just because it softens that drive for certainty (and certainty, to paraphrase Voltaire, is a "ridiculous state"). But of course it is true to say that we've been burdened by a heavy, (to me) misguided allegiance to "all things material" and the competitive crazy it brings.
But I wonder, can we start to shift definitions, or perceptions, even in our own minds? For me, what has occurred this year is that I am now looking beyond -it's not this or that but the in-between. It's not "let's cycle out of democracy back into communism" but "let's create the new system together."
I also do not believe in power the way the status quo frames it. Every human is sovereign. Yes, we are all influenced and influencable but in our hearts, we are free and sovereign. It's impossible for these illusions of power and control to truly root if we always know this. As of right now in my life, I am homeless with about $100 to my name. No investments, no savings, nothing. And yet, I feel free, I feel safe, I feel optimistic, and I feel joy and peace. Why is this? I also feel empowered. Very few people believe me or understand this, but I simply do.
Call me naive, I understand why you might :)
Anyway, to my mind the journey is and possibly always has been, an internal one that, when undertaken, we then reflect back or ripple out to create meaning in our lives and the lives of those around us.
Can we let the world as it is break our hearts through it's deep loneliness and suffering, and in so doing, open our hearts to co-creating a new world that might just be one of harmony and balance?
(and, of course, because I am this kind of thinker, I must also ask: to what end, harmony and balance, and is it possible that in this friction and pain, we're in fact growing, like we see evidenced in nature? :) )
Very good, calling to mind "The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". The dialectics of division the resolution of which can happen when a systems approach is utilised, but not the simplified one using input and output as the tool for a scientific outcome.
The endless chatter within reductionism pitting the Romantic to the Classical is the tail-chasing cat, funny, and entertaining but that action leads nowhere as the elephant in the room has not been touched, seen or smelt as the interconnected being it is. Action is the only remedy which takes us down another ontological journe,y but with an outcome of truth if we can master the methodologies.
The revolution of all this conundrum has to be initiated by the Universal Laws of Nature but only when we stop pretending we can educate it to be our slave.
I don't have any problem with rationalism, if that means forming cogent thoughts that are truthful and logical. I have no idea what spiritual means. I know what feelings are, emotions, and sensations, and thoughts. I have no idea what spiritual means. It seems to mean nothing.
The structural influence on human behavior is a central concern of a book I have co-authored. We are always interested to learn what other observers of human behavior are writing about structural constraints. An email exchange would be most interesting and informative. We don't apply the term fascism to what is happening politically here in the US. We don't claim to know much about European politics.
Some great comments here and a very thorough laying out of the land Carne, thank you.
I am sharing a link to Chris Hedges,
https://open.substack.com/pub/chrishedges/p/the-western-way-of-genocide?r=1gxl5d&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Who reminds us that 'fascism' is nothing new, and far from rising is coming to its logical conclusion (its ontological truth?) in the world.
I agree with your conclusions regarding your assessment of how and what the problem is that we face. To echo one of the commenters below, it is action that underpins our words, and as you have hinted at, the commons - and the Commoners- that preserve and create the actionable this way of living. We are embodied beings and through the skills of our hands and bodies can craft objects of care from the land.
How many men you have meet in the High places of power know how to weave a basket, what wood is good for chair, when to plant for the best crop and the ingredients of good compost? I think any human without these skills is the most impoverished of us all, that they are the savages, with only the base skill of words and brute force of violence. Without these skills, we are not human and we are not animal.
We are working on a theory of change based in the sharing of skills for community provisioning from a land base. Through the action of embodied learning and situated in place (land and material of the ecological environment) can build the necessary ontology you describe.
Thanks Joel. That makes a lot of sense. I wish you all power to your arm.
I think anyone who prioritises people and relationship would have little to quibble about here. I am in the throes of re-reading The Matter With Things and finding that I am even more drawn to Iain McGilchrist's philosophical take on the world and in particular the folly of certitude.
I used to be in awe of people who seemed so confident in their viewpoint and dazzled by their ability to argue effortlessly in favour of it. It is a little easier these days to perceive the ontological flaws and wonder what chasm their confidence is covering over.
There are elements of Anarchism that are very attractive and while I wouldn't call myself an Anarchist I do believe very strongly in the need for localism and reigniting everyone's interest in influencing the issues that affect them. There does to my mind need to be some structure to hang the processes around and, until we return to a state of complete local self-sufficiency, we are going to need different levels of structure to address wider regional needs and, as long as Nation states persist, national and international matters. Such structures don't preclude a collaborative approach but will necessarily mean fewer people being involved in higher level decisions.
I don't believe in completion any more than I believe in certitude so we travel hopefully in the knowledge that while not having all the answers we can accept an imperfect version of our dream and that tomorrow it may all change again. This thought is my lifeline in these troubling times.
I am very much in agreement. I believe in an anarchism of structure, as Murray Bookchin posited. We need institutions to govern a complex world, but these should be inclusive of everyone and the decisions made at the local level should be supreme. I don't believe in a free-for-all of libertarianism.
I used to think ( when I was a young raver in the 90’s enjoying the second summer of love ) that if all the worlds leaders could just do a strong pill 💊 then all the problems would cease. Ha ha how naive of me.
Although I don’t think I was wrong. I remember chatting to a old squatter about the cultural significance of the anarchist / punk / rave squat scene in Berlin and he said. ‘ we took the Berlin Wall down didn’t we ‘ 🤔
That era of strong psychedelics ( arguable consumed by many millions more people than in the 1960’s ) has changed the minds of generations. I think taking something like LSD or especially DMT does give one some extraordinary insight into the nature of the spiritual world.
Atm there’s another huge rise in many people taking 🍄 mushrooms. Both medicinal and magic. 🪄.
I dont think anyone interested in the nature of reality should discount this valuable tool.
Just thought 💭 I’d pop this in incase anyone finds it interesting.
Lots of people would agree with you. I recommend Daniel Pinchbeck's substack. He explores this realm pretty cogently. Unfortunately I can't take psychedelics for medical reasons, so I will never know.
You know Phil, I agree with you but if it is true that the Silicon Valley bros have all done ayahuasca, sadly it appears to not be enough, especially given the accelerated rate at which they contribute harm (while doubtless telling themselves they are not) (ok, harm is my word, my perception - it's cloudier than that, of course...).
I do believe that getting out of the "status quo" is what we are all invited to, and similar to you (at least, so I perceive, given you're talking psychedelics), I think it's an inside job at first.
Yep well you hit on an important point there. Psychedelics can indeed broaden the mind but after meeting loads of people that are still massive twats after doing stuff like DMT I kinda came to the conclusion that if you can get there without it’s probably a lot healthier.
Yeah, I agree too -- the psychedelic is often an initial illuminator and helps folks perhaps step onto the path of spirit/ heart/ nature/ whatever you want to call it, but as Watts said, "once you get the message, hang up the phone." There is no shortage of ways to be on the path without hallucinogenics, but of course the thing about psychedelics is its effortless - take the drug, enjoy the trip. The real path without psychedelics requires EFFORT -- something modern society seems increasingly allergic to these days (LOL!!)
I rather agree tho many people I like and respect have been on the ayahuasca journey and say that it was revelatory. It doesn't seem to have had much impact in Silicon Valley however, as you say.
I think you're right about the importance of ontology, but what we're dealing with at the moment is not positivism. See this post by John Ganz: https://open.substack.com/pub/johnganz/p/vibes-cartel?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=211poq
Many thanks Mark. Very helpful and instructive for me. It's all a journey.
I have cued this from Robert Trivers: https://youtu.be/JvX3wTjygkg?si=oiuvhsHUJR1Y4-T5&t=554, and here's a short section (the whole talk and the research is worth the watch).
"...pretending that you can lay the foundation for a science by just dreaming up whatever you want. That's true of economics, by the way. It ain't no science. It pretends to be, gives itself a Nobel Prize, has an elaborate mathematical structure, but it fails to do one of the most elementary things of a science, which is to ground yourself in pre existing knowledge.
We're happy to have physics sitting on math, chemistry sitting on physics. You know, biology sitting on chemistry. And someday we hope and pray the social so-called sciences are sitting on biology. Where else are they going to sit? We came here through 3 billion years of natural selection and evolution, any functional view of life has to be based on that. So one of these days they're going to have to hook it up. But economists don't do it. They talk. They say, we maximize utility. So you say to an economist, what's utility? And he says, well, anything you want to maximize. Sometimes it's money, sometimes it's food over money, sometimes sex trumps both of them, you know. And what they imagine, though, is that they can have this empty concept utility and then somehow build the so called science upwards from utter nonsense.
And one of the things they do is confuse personal utility with general utility, and they often argue that they're closely aligned. And I'm particularly sensitive to it, because if you watch the kind of nonsense that was generated in the last 10 or 20 years, which helped bring about this near economic collapse from which a lot of people are still suffering very, very acutely. Now in this country, you hear all kinds of garbage Greenspan saying the forces of the market will naturally constrain deception or greed or whatnot."
Could not agree more. Thanks Richard and I hope you're well. C
hi Carne, I'm ok, hi to Karmen and the kids, and thank you for what you're doing and writing. Here are some more links.
We have a podcast in which (very bright) high school students ask experts what they would put into a climate curriculum, since climate change is not taught in NYC public schools. Here are two recent episodes, with stellar interviewers who are just 17:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/mariana-of-clim%C3%A1ximo-the-importance-of-emotions-how/id1568957841?i=1000688256207
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/adam-aron-psychological-insights-for-building-the/id1568957841?i=1000698412038
It would be great to get you on this podcast!
Also, to take us both back about 20 years, James Fishkin has a new book:
https://academic.oup.com/book/59698?login=false
I think 20 years ago it was easy to see these days coming down the pike. My regret is not being enough of a promoter to get this up and running back then:
https://one-country.com/exec_summary.html
Update: Audrey Tang is going to work in California, and Fishkin may be in this loop too (via Stanford):
https://www.noemamag.com/strengthening-the-connective-tissue-of-democracy/
That's interesting. Hope she makes some impact. Thanks for letting me know. If you see any news about her involvement, please do share.
Another excellent talk, very much related, from the neuroscientist Peter Sterling: https://youtu.be/cGZ53ecu8Jk?si=x_6z2PmELVrc5GuJ
Our minds are built to predict, and to also understand other minds.
Thanks Richard. Excellent stuff.
Some other sources and thoughts:
The constituent basis of society is the 'self,' and this is a visionary understanding of the 'self.'
https://grazianolab.princeton.edu/
A market meritocracy probably will tilt to the right, as the US is now, because it's so easy to destabilize. You end up with two political parties for rich people, and even if there are now fewer rich people in the very right wing party (Kamala Harris had more billionaires behind her than Trump did, and she raised almost double the campaign funds)
https://www.usatoday.com/story/graphics/2024/11/04/billionaires-backing-trump-harris-2024/75936100007/
The big advantage on the right wing side is that the financiers and others know what they want.
Meritocracy, like economics, is not an answer to life. They are both tools for solving material problems, not for solving aspirational problems or relationships.
The Blackfoot tribe of Native Americans were likely glad to have the most adept hunter lead the hunt, but they did not confer social privilege from that skill into every other domain.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2021-06-18/the-blackfoot-wisdom-that-inspired-maslows-hierarchy/
Anthropology is a great guide to previously answered questions about the 'self' and society. The series on YouTube "What is Politics?" is good, and this episode in particular:
https://youtu.be/nJCUubQB8CE
I chose Peter Green's book on Alexander the Great for escapist reading a few weeks ago but it's an eerie match for some characters in our present scene.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/232124.Alexander_of_Macedon_356_323_B_C_
Endless ambition, reckless behavior, and skill in recruiting are three qualities of Alexander. (Also tactical genius on the battlefield, but leaving that one out for the moment.)
Now read this, from a former friend of Musk:
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7288439915485315072?updateEntityUrn=urn%3Ali%3Afs_updateV2%3A%28urn%3Ali%3Aactivity%3A7288439915485315072%2CFEED_DETAIL%2CEMPTY%2CDEFAULT%2Cfalse%29
Your comment about positivism and neoclassical economics is funny, since the latter has never been based on empiricism, though it fraudulently claims to be. Thus we have crisis after economic crisis, simply because, as a Buddhist like myself would observe, neoclassical economics does not satisfy the criteria for being considered a relative truth, i.e., it’s isn’t functional. But since they control the academy, they oppose more sensible models like MMT, etc. As for psychedelics, apart from some therapeutic value in treating addiction and PTSD, and causing people to be a little more open minded, they have no other value, despite glowing reports of their benefits. I say this from extensive experience. They’re just entertainment.
Look, I know nothing - let's start there.
But here are a few things that I have found personally helpful navigating these times and a lot of what you start pointing to in this essay (which, by the way, I enjoyed reading and I appreciate that it was thoughtfully, authentically written in the spirit of asking a question, not dumping a bunch of facts.)
To me, you are correct - this is a perverse way of thinking, heavily tilted towards the material. I believe we are in a perceived duality where there is a natural conflict - and there is absolutely a need on the part of those in "power" to maintain the status quo.
I am a largely spiritual/philosophical thinker and, not unlike you, I like to look at patterns and structures. The concept of yugas (or ages) is one cycle that I find fascinating and I may be hanging onto it right now just because it softens that drive for certainty (and certainty, to paraphrase Voltaire, is a "ridiculous state"). But of course it is true to say that we've been burdened by a heavy, (to me) misguided allegiance to "all things material" and the competitive crazy it brings.
But I wonder, can we start to shift definitions, or perceptions, even in our own minds? For me, what has occurred this year is that I am now looking beyond -it's not this or that but the in-between. It's not "let's cycle out of democracy back into communism" but "let's create the new system together."
I also do not believe in power the way the status quo frames it. Every human is sovereign. Yes, we are all influenced and influencable but in our hearts, we are free and sovereign. It's impossible for these illusions of power and control to truly root if we always know this. As of right now in my life, I am homeless with about $100 to my name. No investments, no savings, nothing. And yet, I feel free, I feel safe, I feel optimistic, and I feel joy and peace. Why is this? I also feel empowered. Very few people believe me or understand this, but I simply do.
Call me naive, I understand why you might :)
Anyway, to my mind the journey is and possibly always has been, an internal one that, when undertaken, we then reflect back or ripple out to create meaning in our lives and the lives of those around us.
Can we let the world as it is break our hearts through it's deep loneliness and suffering, and in so doing, open our hearts to co-creating a new world that might just be one of harmony and balance?
(and, of course, because I am this kind of thinker, I must also ask: to what end, harmony and balance, and is it possible that in this friction and pain, we're in fact growing, like we see evidenced in nature? :) )
Here's to the neverending question!
Very good, calling to mind "The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". The dialectics of division the resolution of which can happen when a systems approach is utilised, but not the simplified one using input and output as the tool for a scientific outcome.
The endless chatter within reductionism pitting the Romantic to the Classical is the tail-chasing cat, funny, and entertaining but that action leads nowhere as the elephant in the room has not been touched, seen or smelt as the interconnected being it is. Action is the only remedy which takes us down another ontological journe,y but with an outcome of truth if we can master the methodologies.
The revolution of all this conundrum has to be initiated by the Universal Laws of Nature but only when we stop pretending we can educate it to be our slave.
I don't have any problem with rationalism, if that means forming cogent thoughts that are truthful and logical. I have no idea what spiritual means. I know what feelings are, emotions, and sensations, and thoughts. I have no idea what spiritual means. It seems to mean nothing.
The structural influence on human behavior is a central concern of a book I have co-authored. We are always interested to learn what other observers of human behavior are writing about structural constraints. An email exchange would be most interesting and informative. We don't apply the term fascism to what is happening politically here in the US. We don't claim to know much about European politics.