I know nothing about this fight, but this sort of fracturing is incredibly common in modern activism. I tend to see it more on the leftward end vs. the rightward end in the USA at least, which I would attribute to the right having more of a shared set of spiritual beliefs and values (mostly based on forms of Christianity) while the left disavows religion and so tends to imbue a religious level of importance in the rightness or wrongness of particular ideas or positions which inevitably come into conflict. While I am not a fan of any of the major religions, I think that leftward-leaning ecological/environmental/populist activism will struggle until we can acknowledge that belief and spirituality are fundamental needs for human beings, and we can begin to find common ground in these areas.
Thank you mark!! I agree, fracturing is very common in modern activism, and it is kind of the death of modern activism because when it becomes in the name of ideas that are in the name of people, as opposed to in the name of people directly in every way, it is very easy to derail.
I wonder if there might be more than one way to practice the love about which you write, Tessa. Sometimes, if only temporarily, formality and distance can help a situation, especially in the public world.
I am an old academic, new to activism, and probably not suited to it personality-wise, but I've been watching. My intuition is that doing very serious work, work which is much larger than the self, is overwhelming, and perhaps even like divine madness at times. I personally don't think essentially private people in relatively new roles should be pressured to have to trust, connect or dialogue with anyone. If someone doing serious work decides they needs space, I think it is perhaps my job, out of the love about which you write, to find a way to support them.
For me, and this is just because of my background perhaps, one approach is to create a dialogue about the ideas, strategies, theories of change, that are at issue, that may differentiate folks, without talking about the folks themselves so personally.
I hope at least it is possible to heal the wounds a little perhaps, just by focusing on the ideas, at some remove from the personalities.
I appreciate what you wrote about Blockchain, I too value principled positions and understand that it might not be wise to assume everyone is capable or willing to live by them. And/or they may have different principles.
I have been listening to folks say that they understand the critique of Blockchain, but have yet to hear anything satisfactory from the fence sitters, stakeholder journalists. If it is a matter of personal interest, a means of protecting oneself from hyperinflation, a business plan, etc. one can simply say this. This would be honest. If there have been miracles of technology that prevent data from being harvested, that would be great to know.
These are some of my thoughts, probably whack, but perhaps a conversation starter:
While some focus on the control system and profit motive driving social impact investing, I keep thinking about Blockchain as a means of recording biomedical information for it's own sake, not just for profit of speculators. I think the model of the world we must prevent is an unregulated biomedical experiment, sans informed consent. Blockchain will work splendidly for this, as it could also facilitate efficient and anonymous mass killing.
I see Blockchain institutionally, as a substitute for our present institutions, which are still staffed by humans. No matter what the libertarians say, no one has really thought through the implications of replacing human institutions all together: smart contracts replacing thousands of years of jurisprudence, ethics, etc. I know our systems are corrupt, serve the rich, etc., but I am not looking forward to the Hunger Games regulated by smart contracts in the smart cities run by psychopath billionaires who "do not believe in democracy."
I do not want governance according to the game theory. Unlike the folks who are salivating at the possibility of living without trust or democracy, I worry that these experiments, in a time of climate breakdown and scarcity, are going to be more like Jonestown than Mayberry.
I see the biomedical experiment in the camps as the model. I am reminded that I recently learned that the Nazis set up monetary systems in some ghettos and many camps. The camp currencies were meager, unstable, would expire, were deflationary to the point of genocide, and at the same time served to deceive people unaware of the coming Final Solution. The Holocaust money encouraged them not to flee.
So for me, personally, when I run into folk who are themselves, or are closely allied with those who are setting up intentional communities with bitcoin or whatever, or are on record celebrating the possibility of such experiments in explicitly undemocratic terms, I feel nervous, uneasy. I personally would need to know more about their thoughts, their understanding of their actions, commitments, the degree to which they are aware of real, concrete dangers.
I don't think I could trust them right away, you know?
But if folks can respond to me, or better, just to the thoughts I've put forth here, not to me personally so much, and put my paranoid bs in order, perhaps that would be a kind of healing, Some of the love about which you write.
Rachael, thank you for your kind and even-headed response. It made me very happy.
There are certainly as many ways to love as there are people, and kindness (from everyone to everyone, and I mean real kindness rooted in being secure, not spinelessness) is the best way. I always pray for kindness.
I think the devil is always in the detail, and for the sake of the very sentiment you described, I am keeping this very low on detail. In my experience, I have discovered that information on its own, due to the emotional brokenness and not very healthy collective habits of our culture (important: the comparison I am about to use is from several years ago and was NOT inspired but the topic of this post), often creates "mutual masturbation clubs" rather than genuine solutions. For example, I was involved in musicians' activism around Big Tech's overtake of the industry and starving musicians out, and there was a noticeable gap between the real world where musicians had to eat and the salon culture of saying, "Big Tech was bad," which it led to nothing useful in real life but made for satisfying conversation inside an echo chamber. And by the time the notion of Big tech being bad became a mainstream idea, Big Tech has managed to completely invert the narrative in such a way that criticizing it the mainstream manner would actually kind of boost their power (sorry, a long nerdy tangent about something I was deeply involved in. :)
So, based on my subjective experience, I have discovered that information on its own just sits there, and the world can have the absolutely best, clearest, absolutely undeniable explanation of what's going on, and without the right circumstances and emotions about it, nothing happens (I mentioned it in this article about Google from 2015 https://tessafightsrobots.com/tessa-lena/unloved-why-google-undeserving-love/)
Specifically, the dangers of transhumanism, Big Tech's philosophy and economic models, digital dependency in general, and many related areas, have been written about extensively for a very long time, by many people, some extremely brilliant and prophetic. For example, Nicholas Carr predicted, in a very ordinary way, a lot of problems that are directly in our faces now. By the way you know his work? His book "The Shallows" has a whole chapter called "The Church of Google." His book on automation is good, too, although 2020 made every dystopian prediction rather timid in comparison.
Also Joseph Weizenbaum, whom I mentioned in this post. He was absolutely brilliant. He wrote Eliza, the first "AI" program, when he was at MIT. He wrote it more or less as a parody, and was shocked when people started interacting with it as if it were alive. He dedicated a lot of his life to drawing the distinction between real humanity /intelligence / life and the machine imitation of it. He was kind of pushed aside, unfortunately, but he was brilliant. And, I believe, also kind.
The list goes on. And each person on that list has definitely made a difference, in different ways, maybe in ways we don't know. So information is important but on its own, it just sits there because people usually strongly prefer being right to being factually correct, and most of us change our minds about facts only when it hurts. It is kind of human nature, for better or for worse. I have gone though that realization at the time of my musicians activism when my friends and I were screaming from the rooftops about Big Tech's economic scams and cruel philosophies, and not one person outside our small circle cared because they were not personally impacted. It taught me that change happens in a more mysterious way, more on the emotional level, as a combination of many things, and that it is unproductive to get mad at "those who just don't understand." To me personally, it was an important lesson, and I think it could be a stepping stone of emotional development that we all go through. I think patience is a great virtue, and no one human is exempt.
And yes, I do think that kindness towards any one of us who is going through a hard time (and jumpiness and irritation ARE signs of going through a hard time) is the best solution. It the solution I try to abide by at all times. At the same time I think that any one of us who is adult by age needs to strive to communicate with others in a respectful, spiritually sound manner. There is a difference between needing space and discounting those who disagree. Each of us has a genius inside us. Supporting each other's genius is the most beautiful thing in the world, But without balance, the tower falls, and then no one wins. I pray for a lot of kindness, for all of us. And for wisdom. May we all find the real wisdom and overcome this challenge.
Oh, also, I realized the part you were responding to was where I said something about seeking and promoting respectful communication. My wording was ambiguous, and I just realized that. I did not mean that one was under any obligation to seek out communication when one didn't feel like communicating (I, for one, am an introvert!!!) I meant that when there is communication, anyone who finds oneself in a position of any influence, has the responsibility to strive for the kind of communication that is respectful and spiritually sound. I see what you mean after I re-read it, thank you for pointing it out!
Thank you, Tessa for your thoughtful response. I enjoyed your 2015 piece on google. It is virtue I think to keep that annoyance alive. It is so interesting to me to know that you have been in this space, critically engaging tech for a while. For me it has been on the back burner, as it were, festering after reading Heidegger.
I think I understand your experience, deep concern and commitment to getting the relationship between theory and practice right. Of course Socrates would disagree with this, but generally knowing the Good does NOT immediately translate into doing the Good. Socrates, I believe, had a full body, existential sense of knowing, so that it wouldn't be knowing if it did not translate into action.
I appreciate your commitment to people's emotional maturity and awareness as a kind precondition for community, especially of activists. I don't quite know how it might apply in the real world, but in the last 10 years or so when I was teaching, I would always begin the course by giving students an introductory assignment that invited them to reflect autobiographically on the materials with a view to what would facilitate their finding a personally vital link between theory and practice. So they could write in a variety of genres, and of course, always share with the class.
I'm still very taken with this idea of trying to find ways to bring people to their own language to facilitate action. What does transhumanism or human capital bond markets mean for one, if one cannot picture it in one's own frame?
In rural areas, it is pretty easy to live in a cash economy, and to do business in person, arranging meetings by cellphone. The electronic infrastucture is less pervasive, because it is less profitable, and there are just a few people out there baling hay and processing carcasses, anyway.
I don't think this "B3W" will fly, so I am non-confrontationally doing something basically low tech in a rural setting, as well as working during the week in Austin, now a big city.
Yes it is above all else a spiritual battle.Only by embracing spiritual values will it be won.
One can look to the Bhagavad Gita -Dharma v Adharma.An embodiment of those values as best as each individual can will be the only real path to victory.Thank you for a beautiful article.Sorry I cannot afford to donate but send love and blessings.
I think it all boils down to "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". I attend a fairly fundamentalist Christian Church and voted for Trump. Do you know how many on the " far right" see what's going on and are resisting it? My church refused to wear masks and met all thru the lock downs. We see the Great Reset as Satanic. You gonna throw the millions of us out because you think we are narrow minded bigots? As far as block chain, and other technologies, all can be used for good or evil. As Tessa says, the motivation all boils down to Love and caring for others. God is Love.
I also believe that God is Love, and I agree with it from a different theological perspective, I think cosmological / religious view is the most intimate part of a person, and our souls guide us to find the way that makes sense to us. I also think that we only benefit from talking to each other and trying to understand. There is no formula for anything, and we always need to dance the dance of protecting own truth while respecting the souls of those who think differently. I don't know much about far right. I have seen a lot of straight out left people being called far right last year. :) I have seen in my old homeland people with ethnic-based ideas, not sure if that is the classic definition of far right, I am notoriously bad with isms and labels since I usually perceive people individually. Ethnic prejudice, every kind of it, makes me very sad because it usually shows generation of broken emotions. Brokenness is of course a cry for a lot of love and a cry for attention, and here we find ourselves where we are, lots of trauma, lots of ideas, and the ultimate need to figure it out, no matter what it takes, and remember that love.
By highlighting conflict as of late, Tessa has put her hand on a hidden axe that can enable us to hack at the roots of a poisonous vine.
Allow me then, to pull the axe out of the darkness and take a mighty swing with it.
Arguments, conflict, war, disagreements of any kind, violent or not, are rooted in individual identity. Identity is nothing real. It is a conglomeration of sorts, a hodgepodge mental creation thrown together as we saunter through life imagining this, that or the other instead of finding out who we are. Identity is not who we really are so much as who we have come to believe we are. It is an empty bucket the world drops over our head and blinds us while making us all look more or less the same.
Through the imposition of childhood trauma, intentional or not, we are forced to abandon our natural, exuberant process of discovering and experiencing our true nature within. To make sure we are loved and cared for within our family/social environment we engage the process of aligning our behavior with what our parents and peers (ie societal norms as dictated by modern civilization designed to service the interests of our so-called “Keepers & Masters”) expect of us.
The effect of this is that we experience something that has been called (and rightfully so) “Soul Murder” by some child psychologists. Tragically, any given childs’ unique being as nature intended never fully develops and in it's place an alternate "self" consisting entirely of mental notions and concepts (unreal, imaginary, existing only in the mind) conforming to externally imposed behavioral mandates is constructed by the intellect portion of our brain as an adaptive survival mechanism.
If this did not happen— if the heart/emotional center of the child were forced to comprehend the truth of its' situation (being murdered by ones’ own parents), the shock of this would overwhelm the delicate child and result in its’ death. Instead, the survival mechanism kicks in and the heart/emotional center is removed from consciousness and stored somewhere deep in the brain “out of harms’ way”.
The intellect, the logical thinking brain then steps in and takes over telling the traumatized body “Never mind. This is not happening. Everything is actually okay.” In place of a childs’ true nature then, a persona, an imposter, a ghost, a heart-less, human-being-as-idea is born.
Consciousness transfer complete, I now have the beginnings of my “Identity". I adopt the beliefs and values of those around me. I act like them. I say the things they want to hear. I wear the clothes they want me to wear. I get a job and leave the family home. As an adult, my identity now morphs and changes, more along the lines of the beliefs and values held by my chosen peer group.
Over time, I come to believe that this mental creation/persona/ghost is actually who I am and accordingly All My Feelings Are Caught Within It. These feelings do not come from the True Heart Center (now long buried) but rather consist of reactionary impulses emanating from the lower "Lizard Brain" concerned only with baser things such as hot/cold, night/day, life/death, hungry/full, fight/flight etc.
"I am my mind. I am what I believe in. I am the way I see things. I am my values. I am my world-view. These constitute my very being and my very life” so sayeth The identity-based human/Lizard.
Therefore, any ideas, concepts, values, beliefs— any and all mental notions or opinions put forth by others in my presence and presented as truth that run counter to my own are felt by my Lizard Brain as nothing short of an existential threat.
Is it any wonder that I take offense and respond with everything I got? After all, my life is on the line!
Sounds silly doesn’t it? Indeed, it may be, but that is absolutely true isn’t it? Ones’ life IS on the line because a belief can only exist in the mind as long as I continue to regard it as the real and true. I have identified with my beliefs. The ersatz "me" has no choice but to counterattack as if my life depended on it.
And so we all delicately, precariously hang like prickly, rotting fruit on the poison vine of modern society values arguing with each other as if it means anything. All the while dystopia looms ever closer. Nothing is resolved, things go from bad to worse, in-fighting among well-intentioned groups defuses them and renders them useless.
The depth of the issues discussed is simply beyond me, so I will pose a basic question or two and make some comments. It sounds like blockchain is a source of great tension, even hysteria, in the anti Great Reset crowd. Am I getting that correctly? But you point out, and I quickly agree, it's just a database, a tool. So what's the big deal? Dismantling the tanks and the fighter jets (or the blockchain) obviously doesn't by itself stop war. As counterpoint I add that insofar as blockchain uniquely advances the distension of society, the upper strata from the lower strata, then it might due to its nature abet the dystopian efforts. But at the core of it, it's about the perceived value of reconciliation or not, war or harmony. As to this world today, I feel skin in the game with respect to public knowledge and perceptions. The propaganda and censorship continue to win. It's daunting. But it's also vulnerable, as all citadels of lies must be. So that's where I strike. (Ever heard of Ivermectin? No, well then, might you consider what I have to say?) I am compelled to do what I can; this monster is real.
Hi Tessa, I think I understand what you are saying in that you feel like AHM is coming from an un-healed place in how she's going about things. I can understand how it may appear that way but I don't think this is necessarily the case. I could be wrong of course. Everything isn't always as it seems... I know we both want truth and love to prevail so the disagreement will sort itself out. That said, the discussion of blockchain was spot on. Thank you! _Nathan
Isn't it everyone's right to raise questions regarding questionable interests and associations of prominent figures (provided the questions have merit) and also to manage their social media account however they see fit?
I must confess I don't understand your position on this issue-what you deem to be "ghost-feeding".
I agree we need love, but to me love isn't supposed to be blind/naive or without discernment.
Obviously, everybody has the right to do about anything. And other people have the right to assess it according to their experience and perspectives and talk about it as they see fit. And then of course, absolutely everybody has the right to agree or disagree with anybody else! That's life!! :)
No argument there. Certainly people can do/say pretty much whatever they please, and don't have to do as I would have them do which is adhere to truth above all else
I do tend to have higher expectations of people who do brand themselves truth tellers though. Do you feel I should lower them for the sake of unity and supposed "love"?
I have no problem with you having and sharing your own perspective and have no intention of chastising you for doing so. I am just trying to understand it better.
I, too, have high standards for the people who brand themselves as truth tellers, which is why I wrote this piece! I believe it to be very confusing when truth tellers come from a place of being wounded, and mask it as having some kind of a higher moral stance, while in reality it is being attached to a ghost that does not allow them to see how important it is to not be arrogant, and how arrogance and rigidity lowers the value of any truth they are telling. I believe that the whole Great Reset is about healing ourselves spiritually, and no argument about logistics and technology is going to do squat, frankly, because it's not where the battle is. Now, we can agree or disagree, and I respect your soul, and there is no need to go back and forth about it because I understand that you view things differently, and come from a different sensory perspective. It is all good by me, and every human being is entitled to carving their owns space and doing their thing without imposing their values on other human beings. And surely, no one should have problems; ever, with anybody else expressing any perspective!
"And surely, no one should have problems; ever, with anybody else expressing any perspective!"
The problem I have isn't with anyone's persepective, (unless you consider lying as a "perspective").
And placed in context out of which your public discussion of what you perceive as the pathologies or negative personality traits of a person who was lied about comes across (to me) as justifying the lie.
I don't see that as promoting healing, unity, love and all those good things (which I think we both want). I see it as contributing to the problem which - as I understand it - is not your intention to do and which certainly you didn't create or cause but nonetheless that is the effect or impact which I feel it has - however good your intentions may be
Just as you seemed to perceive my earlier comment was contributing to a problem. It's not my intention to do so either. My intention is to bring truth and clarity as that is what I feel is required to overcome our current situation and defeat the deranged bastards who seem to be hellbent on trying to enslave us sucking the inherent joy, beauty and wonder from our lives.
I know that you feel emotional and passionate about the issue, and so do I, and obviously, I respect the place you are coming from.
I intentionally kept the story very low on detail because the genre of gossip does not appeal to me (and probably doesn't appeal to you, either, and I know that you are trying to establish facts and not gossip, which again, I respect). The dynamic I was writing about is not exclusive to this situation we have been observing, it is actually broad. However, in the context of the situation you are referring to, based on my own observation of the situation (and it just so happens that I have been observing it for a few month) and luckily was not a part of it, the person in question has created the entire drama from scratch, for effect, albeit sincerely (due to trauma) and was NOT lied about at all. The statement that you believe is a lie, is factual, as in, it is true. But in order to understand what it referred to, one would have to have observed the unfolding of the plot for some time. Which I did, it so happened, although I didn't like it. Thus, I think the best solution in this case is for us to agree to honor each other's perspectives and move on. And let the truth prevail, with love.
I find your dismissal of it as having been a lie - or perhaps a weaponization of de-contextualized facts to construct a demonstrably false narrative regarding someone's intent - frustratingly obtuse, but yes it's your free will to choose to see it that way and I see no point in arguing it. All I can say is I think I am making an objective evaluation in that regard and have trouble believing you are, but yes that is your choice and I hope it ultimately serves the highest good.
That aside my own subjective experience is that I have lost respect for the person whom I feel lied and can no longer listen to their interviews, share their work etc. It's not because I don't have love for them and losing the respect and admiration I once had certainly gives me no joy (quite the opposite) but I just can't change the way I feel, so yes it is "visceral" for me as well and yes I also was witness to how things unfolded from my own position and personal involvement with the individuals.
Oh, and I completely agree with you that one's arrogance is not a reason to publicly (or otherwise) lie about them. Every person holds responsibility for own actions. But I believe that there not been a lie, but instead, it was am unfortunate case of an artificially created drama, and I wish it didn't turn into a sports game with team mentality. As far as I am concerned, I still pray for healing and clarity.
As I said, I have trouble believing you are making an objective evaluation in this regard, but I guess you are entitled to believe as you wish and I hope it serves your highest good.
As I mentioned, I still agree with the rest of your article and feel it offers some valid and valuable insights, but I stand by everything I have said regarding the "drama", and my disagreement with your singling out of the one individual you have as solely responsible for creating it. I think that's deeply unfair as well as unhelpful.
I know nothing about this fight, but this sort of fracturing is incredibly common in modern activism. I tend to see it more on the leftward end vs. the rightward end in the USA at least, which I would attribute to the right having more of a shared set of spiritual beliefs and values (mostly based on forms of Christianity) while the left disavows religion and so tends to imbue a religious level of importance in the rightness or wrongness of particular ideas or positions which inevitably come into conflict. While I am not a fan of any of the major religions, I think that leftward-leaning ecological/environmental/populist activism will struggle until we can acknowledge that belief and spirituality are fundamental needs for human beings, and we can begin to find common ground in these areas.
Thank you mark!! I agree, fracturing is very common in modern activism, and it is kind of the death of modern activism because when it becomes in the name of ideas that are in the name of people, as opposed to in the name of people directly in every way, it is very easy to derail.
And we really should know better because too much depends on it!!
I wonder if there might be more than one way to practice the love about which you write, Tessa. Sometimes, if only temporarily, formality and distance can help a situation, especially in the public world.
I am an old academic, new to activism, and probably not suited to it personality-wise, but I've been watching. My intuition is that doing very serious work, work which is much larger than the self, is overwhelming, and perhaps even like divine madness at times. I personally don't think essentially private people in relatively new roles should be pressured to have to trust, connect or dialogue with anyone. If someone doing serious work decides they needs space, I think it is perhaps my job, out of the love about which you write, to find a way to support them.
For me, and this is just because of my background perhaps, one approach is to create a dialogue about the ideas, strategies, theories of change, that are at issue, that may differentiate folks, without talking about the folks themselves so personally.
I hope at least it is possible to heal the wounds a little perhaps, just by focusing on the ideas, at some remove from the personalities.
I appreciate what you wrote about Blockchain, I too value principled positions and understand that it might not be wise to assume everyone is capable or willing to live by them. And/or they may have different principles.
I have been listening to folks say that they understand the critique of Blockchain, but have yet to hear anything satisfactory from the fence sitters, stakeholder journalists. If it is a matter of personal interest, a means of protecting oneself from hyperinflation, a business plan, etc. one can simply say this. This would be honest. If there have been miracles of technology that prevent data from being harvested, that would be great to know.
These are some of my thoughts, probably whack, but perhaps a conversation starter:
While some focus on the control system and profit motive driving social impact investing, I keep thinking about Blockchain as a means of recording biomedical information for it's own sake, not just for profit of speculators. I think the model of the world we must prevent is an unregulated biomedical experiment, sans informed consent. Blockchain will work splendidly for this, as it could also facilitate efficient and anonymous mass killing.
I see Blockchain institutionally, as a substitute for our present institutions, which are still staffed by humans. No matter what the libertarians say, no one has really thought through the implications of replacing human institutions all together: smart contracts replacing thousands of years of jurisprudence, ethics, etc. I know our systems are corrupt, serve the rich, etc., but I am not looking forward to the Hunger Games regulated by smart contracts in the smart cities run by psychopath billionaires who "do not believe in democracy."
I do not want governance according to the game theory. Unlike the folks who are salivating at the possibility of living without trust or democracy, I worry that these experiments, in a time of climate breakdown and scarcity, are going to be more like Jonestown than Mayberry.
I see the biomedical experiment in the camps as the model. I am reminded that I recently learned that the Nazis set up monetary systems in some ghettos and many camps. The camp currencies were meager, unstable, would expire, were deflationary to the point of genocide, and at the same time served to deceive people unaware of the coming Final Solution. The Holocaust money encouraged them not to flee.
So for me, personally, when I run into folk who are themselves, or are closely allied with those who are setting up intentional communities with bitcoin or whatever, or are on record celebrating the possibility of such experiments in explicitly undemocratic terms, I feel nervous, uneasy. I personally would need to know more about their thoughts, their understanding of their actions, commitments, the degree to which they are aware of real, concrete dangers.
I don't think I could trust them right away, you know?
But if folks can respond to me, or better, just to the thoughts I've put forth here, not to me personally so much, and put my paranoid bs in order, perhaps that would be a kind of healing, Some of the love about which you write.
Rachael, thank you for your kind and even-headed response. It made me very happy.
There are certainly as many ways to love as there are people, and kindness (from everyone to everyone, and I mean real kindness rooted in being secure, not spinelessness) is the best way. I always pray for kindness.
I think the devil is always in the detail, and for the sake of the very sentiment you described, I am keeping this very low on detail. In my experience, I have discovered that information on its own, due to the emotional brokenness and not very healthy collective habits of our culture (important: the comparison I am about to use is from several years ago and was NOT inspired but the topic of this post), often creates "mutual masturbation clubs" rather than genuine solutions. For example, I was involved in musicians' activism around Big Tech's overtake of the industry and starving musicians out, and there was a noticeable gap between the real world where musicians had to eat and the salon culture of saying, "Big Tech was bad," which it led to nothing useful in real life but made for satisfying conversation inside an echo chamber. And by the time the notion of Big tech being bad became a mainstream idea, Big Tech has managed to completely invert the narrative in such a way that criticizing it the mainstream manner would actually kind of boost their power (sorry, a long nerdy tangent about something I was deeply involved in. :)
So, based on my subjective experience, I have discovered that information on its own just sits there, and the world can have the absolutely best, clearest, absolutely undeniable explanation of what's going on, and without the right circumstances and emotions about it, nothing happens (I mentioned it in this article about Google from 2015 https://tessafightsrobots.com/tessa-lena/unloved-why-google-undeserving-love/)
Specifically, the dangers of transhumanism, Big Tech's philosophy and economic models, digital dependency in general, and many related areas, have been written about extensively for a very long time, by many people, some extremely brilliant and prophetic. For example, Nicholas Carr predicted, in a very ordinary way, a lot of problems that are directly in our faces now. By the way you know his work? His book "The Shallows" has a whole chapter called "The Church of Google." His book on automation is good, too, although 2020 made every dystopian prediction rather timid in comparison.
Also Joseph Weizenbaum, whom I mentioned in this post. He was absolutely brilliant. He wrote Eliza, the first "AI" program, when he was at MIT. He wrote it more or less as a parody, and was shocked when people started interacting with it as if it were alive. He dedicated a lot of his life to drawing the distinction between real humanity /intelligence / life and the machine imitation of it. He was kind of pushed aside, unfortunately, but he was brilliant. And, I believe, also kind.
The list goes on. And each person on that list has definitely made a difference, in different ways, maybe in ways we don't know. So information is important but on its own, it just sits there because people usually strongly prefer being right to being factually correct, and most of us change our minds about facts only when it hurts. It is kind of human nature, for better or for worse. I have gone though that realization at the time of my musicians activism when my friends and I were screaming from the rooftops about Big Tech's economic scams and cruel philosophies, and not one person outside our small circle cared because they were not personally impacted. It taught me that change happens in a more mysterious way, more on the emotional level, as a combination of many things, and that it is unproductive to get mad at "those who just don't understand." To me personally, it was an important lesson, and I think it could be a stepping stone of emotional development that we all go through. I think patience is a great virtue, and no one human is exempt.
And yes, I do think that kindness towards any one of us who is going through a hard time (and jumpiness and irritation ARE signs of going through a hard time) is the best solution. It the solution I try to abide by at all times. At the same time I think that any one of us who is adult by age needs to strive to communicate with others in a respectful, spiritually sound manner. There is a difference between needing space and discounting those who disagree. Each of us has a genius inside us. Supporting each other's genius is the most beautiful thing in the world, But without balance, the tower falls, and then no one wins. I pray for a lot of kindness, for all of us. And for wisdom. May we all find the real wisdom and overcome this challenge.
Oh, also, I realized the part you were responding to was where I said something about seeking and promoting respectful communication. My wording was ambiguous, and I just realized that. I did not mean that one was under any obligation to seek out communication when one didn't feel like communicating (I, for one, am an introvert!!!) I meant that when there is communication, anyone who finds oneself in a position of any influence, has the responsibility to strive for the kind of communication that is respectful and spiritually sound. I see what you mean after I re-read it, thank you for pointing it out!
Thank you, Tessa for your thoughtful response. I enjoyed your 2015 piece on google. It is virtue I think to keep that annoyance alive. It is so interesting to me to know that you have been in this space, critically engaging tech for a while. For me it has been on the back burner, as it were, festering after reading Heidegger.
I think I understand your experience, deep concern and commitment to getting the relationship between theory and practice right. Of course Socrates would disagree with this, but generally knowing the Good does NOT immediately translate into doing the Good. Socrates, I believe, had a full body, existential sense of knowing, so that it wouldn't be knowing if it did not translate into action.
I appreciate your commitment to people's emotional maturity and awareness as a kind precondition for community, especially of activists. I don't quite know how it might apply in the real world, but in the last 10 years or so when I was teaching, I would always begin the course by giving students an introductory assignment that invited them to reflect autobiographically on the materials with a view to what would facilitate their finding a personally vital link between theory and practice. So they could write in a variety of genres, and of course, always share with the class.
I'm still very taken with this idea of trying to find ways to bring people to their own language to facilitate action. What does transhumanism or human capital bond markets mean for one, if one cannot picture it in one's own frame?
Thank you for your blog, very much appreciated :)
“How far will we get without adding love, patience, respect, humility, and faith in the wisdom of the universe to the mix?”
Thank you for helping add to to what we all need.
Thank you!!
This is a very "city" view, not a "country" view.
In rural areas, it is pretty easy to live in a cash economy, and to do business in person, arranging meetings by cellphone. The electronic infrastucture is less pervasive, because it is less profitable, and there are just a few people out there baling hay and processing carcasses, anyway.
I don't think this "B3W" will fly, so I am non-confrontationally doing something basically low tech in a rural setting, as well as working during the week in Austin, now a big city.
Build Back Never: https://www.johndayblog.com/2021/06/build-back-never.html
Distributed Solutions: https://www.johndayblog.com/2021/06/distributed-solutions.html
Love is not an abstract. Work lovingly, Y'all. :-)
Thank you John!! Build Back Better lol
Yes it is above all else a spiritual battle.Only by embracing spiritual values will it be won.
One can look to the Bhagavad Gita -Dharma v Adharma.An embodiment of those values as best as each individual can will be the only real path to victory.Thank you for a beautiful article.Sorry I cannot afford to donate but send love and blessings.
I think it all boils down to "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". I attend a fairly fundamentalist Christian Church and voted for Trump. Do you know how many on the " far right" see what's going on and are resisting it? My church refused to wear masks and met all thru the lock downs. We see the Great Reset as Satanic. You gonna throw the millions of us out because you think we are narrow minded bigots? As far as block chain, and other technologies, all can be used for good or evil. As Tessa says, the motivation all boils down to Love and caring for others. God is Love.
I guess I'm boiling today.
I also believe that God is Love, and I agree with it from a different theological perspective, I think cosmological / religious view is the most intimate part of a person, and our souls guide us to find the way that makes sense to us. I also think that we only benefit from talking to each other and trying to understand. There is no formula for anything, and we always need to dance the dance of protecting own truth while respecting the souls of those who think differently. I don't know much about far right. I have seen a lot of straight out left people being called far right last year. :) I have seen in my old homeland people with ethnic-based ideas, not sure if that is the classic definition of far right, I am notoriously bad with isms and labels since I usually perceive people individually. Ethnic prejudice, every kind of it, makes me very sad because it usually shows generation of broken emotions. Brokenness is of course a cry for a lot of love and a cry for attention, and here we find ourselves where we are, lots of trauma, lots of ideas, and the ultimate need to figure it out, no matter what it takes, and remember that love.
By highlighting conflict as of late, Tessa has put her hand on a hidden axe that can enable us to hack at the roots of a poisonous vine.
Allow me then, to pull the axe out of the darkness and take a mighty swing with it.
Arguments, conflict, war, disagreements of any kind, violent or not, are rooted in individual identity. Identity is nothing real. It is a conglomeration of sorts, a hodgepodge mental creation thrown together as we saunter through life imagining this, that or the other instead of finding out who we are. Identity is not who we really are so much as who we have come to believe we are. It is an empty bucket the world drops over our head and blinds us while making us all look more or less the same.
Through the imposition of childhood trauma, intentional or not, we are forced to abandon our natural, exuberant process of discovering and experiencing our true nature within. To make sure we are loved and cared for within our family/social environment we engage the process of aligning our behavior with what our parents and peers (ie societal norms as dictated by modern civilization designed to service the interests of our so-called “Keepers & Masters”) expect of us.
The effect of this is that we experience something that has been called (and rightfully so) “Soul Murder” by some child psychologists. Tragically, any given childs’ unique being as nature intended never fully develops and in it's place an alternate "self" consisting entirely of mental notions and concepts (unreal, imaginary, existing only in the mind) conforming to externally imposed behavioral mandates is constructed by the intellect portion of our brain as an adaptive survival mechanism.
If this did not happen— if the heart/emotional center of the child were forced to comprehend the truth of its' situation (being murdered by ones’ own parents), the shock of this would overwhelm the delicate child and result in its’ death. Instead, the survival mechanism kicks in and the heart/emotional center is removed from consciousness and stored somewhere deep in the brain “out of harms’ way”.
The intellect, the logical thinking brain then steps in and takes over telling the traumatized body “Never mind. This is not happening. Everything is actually okay.” In place of a childs’ true nature then, a persona, an imposter, a ghost, a heart-less, human-being-as-idea is born.
Consciousness transfer complete, I now have the beginnings of my “Identity". I adopt the beliefs and values of those around me. I act like them. I say the things they want to hear. I wear the clothes they want me to wear. I get a job and leave the family home. As an adult, my identity now morphs and changes, more along the lines of the beliefs and values held by my chosen peer group.
Over time, I come to believe that this mental creation/persona/ghost is actually who I am and accordingly All My Feelings Are Caught Within It. These feelings do not come from the True Heart Center (now long buried) but rather consist of reactionary impulses emanating from the lower "Lizard Brain" concerned only with baser things such as hot/cold, night/day, life/death, hungry/full, fight/flight etc.
"I am my mind. I am what I believe in. I am the way I see things. I am my values. I am my world-view. These constitute my very being and my very life” so sayeth The identity-based human/Lizard.
Therefore, any ideas, concepts, values, beliefs— any and all mental notions or opinions put forth by others in my presence and presented as truth that run counter to my own are felt by my Lizard Brain as nothing short of an existential threat.
Is it any wonder that I take offense and respond with everything I got? After all, my life is on the line!
Sounds silly doesn’t it? Indeed, it may be, but that is absolutely true isn’t it? Ones’ life IS on the line because a belief can only exist in the mind as long as I continue to regard it as the real and true. I have identified with my beliefs. The ersatz "me" has no choice but to counterattack as if my life depended on it.
And so we all delicately, precariously hang like prickly, rotting fruit on the poison vine of modern society values arguing with each other as if it means anything. All the while dystopia looms ever closer. Nothing is resolved, things go from bad to worse, in-fighting among well-intentioned groups defuses them and renders them useless.
**picks up axe, holds it out**
Now you know where to strike.
Side note: Julian Huxley, brother of Aldous, was a leading figure in the eugenics movement of the 1930/40s. Weird world.
The depth of the issues discussed is simply beyond me, so I will pose a basic question or two and make some comments. It sounds like blockchain is a source of great tension, even hysteria, in the anti Great Reset crowd. Am I getting that correctly? But you point out, and I quickly agree, it's just a database, a tool. So what's the big deal? Dismantling the tanks and the fighter jets (or the blockchain) obviously doesn't by itself stop war. As counterpoint I add that insofar as blockchain uniquely advances the distension of society, the upper strata from the lower strata, then it might due to its nature abet the dystopian efforts. But at the core of it, it's about the perceived value of reconciliation or not, war or harmony. As to this world today, I feel skin in the game with respect to public knowledge and perceptions. The propaganda and censorship continue to win. It's daunting. But it's also vulnerable, as all citadels of lies must be. So that's where I strike. (Ever heard of Ivermectin? No, well then, might you consider what I have to say?) I am compelled to do what I can; this monster is real.
Hi Tessa, I think I understand what you are saying in that you feel like AHM is coming from an un-healed place in how she's going about things. I can understand how it may appear that way but I don't think this is necessarily the case. I could be wrong of course. Everything isn't always as it seems... I know we both want truth and love to prevail so the disagreement will sort itself out. That said, the discussion of blockchain was spot on. Thank you! _Nathan
“A child that is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth”:
— I did; twice. Though, I'm pretty certain the 1st time was someone else's 'Insurance-job'.
Isn't it everyone's right to raise questions regarding questionable interests and associations of prominent figures (provided the questions have merit) and also to manage their social media account however they see fit?
I must confess I don't understand your position on this issue-what you deem to be "ghost-feeding".
I agree we need love, but to me love isn't supposed to be blind/naive or without discernment.
Obviously, everybody has the right to do about anything. And other people have the right to assess it according to their experience and perspectives and talk about it as they see fit. And then of course, absolutely everybody has the right to agree or disagree with anybody else! That's life!! :)
No argument there. Certainly people can do/say pretty much whatever they please, and don't have to do as I would have them do which is adhere to truth above all else
I do tend to have higher expectations of people who do brand themselves truth tellers though. Do you feel I should lower them for the sake of unity and supposed "love"?
I have no problem with you having and sharing your own perspective and have no intention of chastising you for doing so. I am just trying to understand it better.
That is all.
I, too, have high standards for the people who brand themselves as truth tellers, which is why I wrote this piece! I believe it to be very confusing when truth tellers come from a place of being wounded, and mask it as having some kind of a higher moral stance, while in reality it is being attached to a ghost that does not allow them to see how important it is to not be arrogant, and how arrogance and rigidity lowers the value of any truth they are telling. I believe that the whole Great Reset is about healing ourselves spiritually, and no argument about logistics and technology is going to do squat, frankly, because it's not where the battle is. Now, we can agree or disagree, and I respect your soul, and there is no need to go back and forth about it because I understand that you view things differently, and come from a different sensory perspective. It is all good by me, and every human being is entitled to carving their owns space and doing their thing without imposing their values on other human beings. And surely, no one should have problems; ever, with anybody else expressing any perspective!
"And surely, no one should have problems; ever, with anybody else expressing any perspective!"
The problem I have isn't with anyone's persepective, (unless you consider lying as a "perspective").
And placed in context out of which your public discussion of what you perceive as the pathologies or negative personality traits of a person who was lied about comes across (to me) as justifying the lie.
I don't see that as promoting healing, unity, love and all those good things (which I think we both want). I see it as contributing to the problem which - as I understand it - is not your intention to do and which certainly you didn't create or cause but nonetheless that is the effect or impact which I feel it has - however good your intentions may be
Just as you seemed to perceive my earlier comment was contributing to a problem. It's not my intention to do so either. My intention is to bring truth and clarity as that is what I feel is required to overcome our current situation and defeat the deranged bastards who seem to be hellbent on trying to enslave us sucking the inherent joy, beauty and wonder from our lives.
That is my perspective.
I know that you feel emotional and passionate about the issue, and so do I, and obviously, I respect the place you are coming from.
I intentionally kept the story very low on detail because the genre of gossip does not appeal to me (and probably doesn't appeal to you, either, and I know that you are trying to establish facts and not gossip, which again, I respect). The dynamic I was writing about is not exclusive to this situation we have been observing, it is actually broad. However, in the context of the situation you are referring to, based on my own observation of the situation (and it just so happens that I have been observing it for a few month) and luckily was not a part of it, the person in question has created the entire drama from scratch, for effect, albeit sincerely (due to trauma) and was NOT lied about at all. The statement that you believe is a lie, is factual, as in, it is true. But in order to understand what it referred to, one would have to have observed the unfolding of the plot for some time. Which I did, it so happened, although I didn't like it. Thus, I think the best solution in this case is for us to agree to honor each other's perspectives and move on. And let the truth prevail, with love.
I find your dismissal of it as having been a lie - or perhaps a weaponization of de-contextualized facts to construct a demonstrably false narrative regarding someone's intent - frustratingly obtuse, but yes it's your free will to choose to see it that way and I see no point in arguing it. All I can say is I think I am making an objective evaluation in that regard and have trouble believing you are, but yes that is your choice and I hope it ultimately serves the highest good.
That aside my own subjective experience is that I have lost respect for the person whom I feel lied and can no longer listen to their interviews, share their work etc. It's not because I don't have love for them and losing the respect and admiration I once had certainly gives me no joy (quite the opposite) but I just can't change the way I feel, so yes it is "visceral" for me as well and yes I also was witness to how things unfolded from my own position and personal involvement with the individuals.
Cheers.
Oh, and I completely agree with you that one's arrogance is not a reason to publicly (or otherwise) lie about them. Every person holds responsibility for own actions. But I believe that there not been a lie, but instead, it was am unfortunate case of an artificially created drama, and I wish it didn't turn into a sports game with team mentality. As far as I am concerned, I still pray for healing and clarity.
As I said, I have trouble believing you are making an objective evaluation in this regard, but I guess you are entitled to believe as you wish and I hope it serves your highest good.
As I mentioned, I still agree with the rest of your article and feel it offers some valid and valuable insights, but I stand by everything I have said regarding the "drama", and my disagreement with your singling out of the one individual you have as solely responsible for creating it. I think that's deeply unfair as well as unhelpful.
T-care