Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Content

[Pictured: Morcom Rose Garden, Oakland California]

NOTE: I made a mistake about the schedule so this main post focuses on chapter 1 and then my chapter 2 post is in the comments, beside yours!

I also want to add that Valentin and BrEaNs have volunteered imgur links to their reading spots and some pics for the book report or for just community existeicineing. And I think that is great. The survey at the end will request some media but if you just throw up some imgur links they're lovely to see and will be very useful for early book report aesthetic construction. & its just a nice extra touch to the weekly threads.

-----------------------

Bird-watching is the opposite of looking something up online. (p. 8)

Privilege:

Something very kind of funny about this book is how it sometimes unlocks my disdain for coastal lefty intellectuals. There was some discussion about privilege in previous thread and I think it's more interesting to unpack here. Basically I think it's valuble to separate your Subjective and Objective Tastes on the matter. Subjectively I totally have the sigh privilege reaction and yet I think the book Objectively completely retains its value despite it's subjectivity and specificity and style.

u might catch me in a little eyeroll when Odell describes the election of Donald Trump leaving her bereft in shock, unable to create art, birdwatching for weeks to cope with this unprecedented travesty, and when she deviates into describing conceptual art i kind of want her to get on with it, (and try to avoid reading every sentence of this book in the tone of a TED talk cause it will ruin a lot of it) but I think it's mostly me just indulging the Death Instinct. I am toooo cool for this.

In actuality, I also felt rather shattered and fucky and angry in 2016 and 2017, it was pivotal for culture, and also if Odell was speaking about these art things in any other circumstance I would be rapt. It's just that I have gotten really used to reading hard philosophy and have a predilection towards Object oriented art and lack finesse in visual mediums.

I think her initial address of the Privilege Critique on page 12 is fine, (just because this right is denied to many people doesn't make it any less of a right) but I think there's more obvious points. Doing nothing doesn't require a lakefront cottage, and the attention economy does not only prey upon the free time and fear and anxiety of the affluent. EVERYONE deserves their attention, their mind, their efficacy. For example, if your grassroots leftist coalition is totally tumorous because of the influence of reactionary online political conventions that you are all constantly steeped in, slurred together with your memes and anxious 24 news cycle and reaction fractals, you can expect your coalition to collapse into toxicity and stupidity, annihilating its effectiveness. Organizing a meaningful group to operate against a profit incentive REQUIRES embodiment, REQUIRES nothing.

I don't say this glibly I say it thinking of my leftist friends whose sincere efforts have been wildly ineffective, vs my leftist friends who have been able to build communities (and businesses) and take care of each other and themselves, creating joy and opportunity and space for Nothing and Meaning.

I'm reminded of this iconic quote from a Contrapoints ramble about LGBTQ internet callout posts (her Patreon rambles are not like unscripted hangs, they are literal video essays I suggest all of you subscribe to her patreon immediately)

"Lilith and Rainbow broke up, and now Lilith has gone public with accusations that Rainbow is a manipulator, who gaslit the entire household about doing the dishes, and"

Creativity:

dont let me get in my zone dont let me get in my zone

John Cleese was right

John Cleese's 5 prerequisites for creativity:

1. Space 2. Time 3. Time 4. Confidence 5. A̶ 2̶2̶ i̶n̶c̶h̶ w̶a̶i̶s̶t̶  Humor

Scott Polach was right

Boredom breeds creativity. I know that when I don't listen to music and I go on along walk, I think. I think and I have 20 new ideas for art and work and life. Words simply magically come to me if I allow myself to be bored. And yet instead I often opt to fill the time and space with noise that I barely pay attention to, but has enough traction to kill my passive creativity. (Lately its been Critical Role compilations of Jester , what can I say I don't even watch the show in full which would be a more meaningful exercise in attention.)

Haweya has written well of this in an analogous sense opting for the term Originality.

"Originality starts by putting our attention in a place where it isn’t  being actively assaulted. If we spend hours upon hours on these  platforms, we unwittingly adopt their ways of being."

The things I hate about online discourse is how impossibly online it is. How things seem to mean more, to be more real in real life, over real time. That hyperfeed of speech and media and ideas feels so real when you're in it, but coming out of it is a lot like waking up from a dream. Real stuff happens in real life and you often realize you were hallucinating the importance of all that other stuff.

In terms of art, it makes me think of "Content Creation" instead of Art Creation. Art requires being offline. It requires being alone and having individual passions and not satisfyin them by curating a pinterest board or a playlist or looking up reddit threads talking about it, but MAKING or DOING the thing you love. Even having the luxury of KNOWING what you love. You gotta fit the meaning of life in your life somewhere. We all have some individual control to exert. Even just to beautify the things around you, a little bit, where you can.

This type of embarrassing discovery, in which something you thought was one thing is actually two things, and each of those two things is actually ten things, seems like a simple function of the duration and quality of one's attention. With effort, we can become attuned to things, able to pick up and then hopefully differentiate finer and finer frequencies each time. (p. 9)

Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing:

It is this financially incentive proliferation of chatter, and the utter speed at which waves of hysteria now happen online, that has so deeply horrified me and offended my senses and cognition  as a human who dwells in human, bodily time. (p. 18)

This is the part that really pulls at my soul. It makes me uncomfortable about my job.

Do we really need more speaking? I kind of think we need to shut the fuck up.

Or rather, I think we should dwell on our passions and pick our battles very carefully. Too many people modified with the widgets of social media feel the need to comment on everything, to consume everything. I don't think you can meaningfully comment or consume when immersed in the sludge. When you speak about everything, it seems you me you start to speak about nothing.

We're riddled with pointless talk, insane quantities of words and images. Stupidity's never blind or mute. So it's not a problem of getting people to express themselves but of providing little gaps of solitude and silence in which they might eventually have something to say. Repressive forces don't stop people expressing themselves but rather force them to express themselves; what a relief to have nothingothign to say, the right to say nothing, because only then is there a chance of framing the rare, and ever rarer, thing that might be worth saying. (Deleuze, Negotiations)

Everyone is already talking about everything online. I choose these days to emphasize our right to say nothing. Maybe too much. I am a little too in my head. But I am trying. And this time of depression & chaos for me is already starting to push me into having some new ideas. Against my will, kicking and screaming.

#NOMO

I know that in the months after the election, a lot of people found themselves searching for this thing called "truth," but what I also felt to be missing was just reality, something I could point  to after all of this and say, This is really real. (p. 19)

oh look thats the conclusion of my video

Finally I adore Mierle Laderman' Ukele's Life & Death Instinct Theorum. I was visiting a friend in the hospital for mental health things recently and we talked about it a lot.

Share Your Sound & Fury Below!

Files

Comments

benedict.m

wait did I miss something I thought we were on chapter 2 today

Xaris _

I didn't pick the book up at all this week 😩 hopefully will catch up soon!

Houston Coley

enjoyed these thoughts. I too felt the ted talkiness of it but enjoyed nonetheless. I was struck specifically by the anecdote about becoming friends with the crows on her powerlines because my dad always used to say (at the beach or at a park) not to feed birds because they'd just keep coming back and annoying you. which like, especially with seagulls on a beach, is totally true. my dad is a compassionate guy, but not an animal person. I was thinking about how annoying it might be to have a wild animal start to expect you to feed them every day and crow loudly if you don't. but then I was also like, isn't that such a rich and meaningful part of being alive—getting to interact with the world around you and allowing an interdependency to emerge? idk. I've been editing footage from a documentary I'm directing about a monastery/hostel/retreat place called L'Abri, where phones/technology are discouraged, and one of the people I interviewed says "it's so much easier to do noticing here" and talks about the birds. it's a similar kind of curating of reality where you strip away the distractions and allow people to engage. it's interesting how some people say that's less real but others (I think correctly) recognize that it's maybe more real because all the dehumanizing things have been removed.

Caleb Bednarski

Reading chapter 2 and diving deeper into the examples of communes and the stories of individuals who retreated from the political and social turmoil of the time was validating in a sense. I am a special education teacher in an autism based classroom, and the job is by no means easy many of the days. For a long time, when stress and obligations get to a point of overwhelm, I, like the people of the 60s looking to escape political tension, tend to experience the urge to retreat to a simple life in the woods. I hear that voice in the back of my mind say “sell all your stuff, buy a house boat on the Mississippi, get a cabin up north, retreat to the woods!” While I was reading the chapter, however, I couldn’t help but bristle at the stories of the tech ceos and 60s free life seekers. In the Bo video, CJ questioned whether the traditional successes set up by capitalism is worth engaging in, especially if success means exploiting and consuming the lives of the people engaged in the “service”. Odell offers up a way to refuse the system, NOTHING! Her dad even did it in the prologue, dripping out of his job and opting to do nothing. The urge to start a commune in the woods seems like the extreme extension to that. If we don’t like it, Just leave the system and start a commune in the woods! I was wondering why the idea of the communes felt so icky as I was reading through the chapter, and I think it is in Odell’s line on page 41. “A spatial move to the country, or into an isolated communal house, did not always equal a move out of ingrained ideologies.” You can run, but you can’t hide. I live in Minnesota, and it is popular for people to drive up to the north shore along Lake Superior. The place my fiancé and I love the most is a small town along Lake Superior about an hour south of the Canadian border called grand Marais. When I feel overwhelmed by work, retreating to the comforts of the north woods, warm fires, and the leaping sounds of Lake Superior is very exactly what I need. Back in the summer of 2020, we were able to go camping in an isolated location along the north shore by the town. I had just gotten done with with my first round of virtual teaching and I was looking for a break. Down in the city, however, the Black Lives Matter protests in the wake of george Floyd’s murder was in full swing. Privilege is something that CJ noted in their synopsis and is something that Odell briefly mentions in her book. While I retreated to the north shore, dropping away from the stressful responsibilities od teaching special education students online, others are fighting for their basic human rights back home. Escaping up north is a privilege. I can use this place an escape from society, but I cannot escape from the fact that I used my place in society to get there. I think one of the things that the people escaping society in chapter 2 missed was the fact that they would eventually have to return. Everyone thought they could live the rest od their lives in the woods, but reality came crashing down as communes devolved and floating islands never came to fruition. Odell’s dad is a powerful example in this case. Her dad went back to the job after years of “doing nothing” refreshed and with a new perspective. I think the question may not “where can I go to leave it all”, but rather “what will I do when I go back?” I can escape to the north shore to do nothing, but how can I use that time to gather the tools necessary to make an impact upon my return as a teacher and a member of the community in which I live?

benedict.m

okay I fucked with the intro and chapter 1, they did enough that I knew this book had something to teach me, but after reading chapter 2 I'm properly in. like some other people I felt Odell stayed on the examples of failed communes a little longer than necessary, but I also get it. it's useful to examine the different forms these "retreats" have taken across history and the different philosophies behind them, but I did feel like it was specifically important to really dig into the "dropping out" of the 60s. for one thing, at least in the US the whole backlash to and "failure" of those counterculture movements HEAVILY colors our cultural perception of any ideas of disconnection, opting out of parts of society, etc. but I also think the problems that those communes had is a lot more relevant to us now than, for example, the problems with Epicurus's school. the way I see it those main problems were 1) these were loosely organized groups of individuals who were each making the personal choice to "drop out" without much sense of an actual alternative structure to life or society, and 2) even though they were theoretically free of continuing influence from the outside world, each person's existing ways of thinking had already been formed by the outside world. we face largely those same problems with the question of "dropping out" of the attention economy. individuals choosing to delete their twitter does not impact the cultural and informational dominance of twitter. it doesn't provide those people an alternate mode of connection. AND deleting your twitter doesn't mean twitter isn't still in your brain. to some degree, it's too late!! it's part of us now. "it's all inside, and you can't get back inside yourself." so all this to say uh yeah I support her spending too long talking about communes because we do need to study them, maybe just as examples of how not to opt out. but the end of this chapter is where it grabbed me. idk if this is dramatic to say but I trust Odell now. I think she's on it. the last few paragraphs speak for themselves. "We have to be able to do both, to contemplate and participate, to leave and always come back, where [and how] we are needed." "To stand apart...means not fleeing your enemy, but knowing your enemy, which turns out not to be the world--contemptus mundi--but the channels through which you encounter it." "Again, it is not a question of 'whether,' but 'how.'" (also wanna take a sec to recognize the rarity of this online space as a genuinely meaningful alternative structure to basically every other online space I've ever encountered. I'm extremely fucking grateful for it. hope ur all balancing hope and sorrowful contemplation today.)

Olive Nicole

The inherent irony is starting to get to me. Her awareness of it doesn’t make it less dissatisfying. “Maintenance” is a good new word for my inner dialogue next time I get that itchy bored feeling, so there’s some value. But I think the way Odell writes is antithetical to her concept of Maintenance. She starts and finishes a thought within a couple pages at most. An anecdote about crows used to prove the simple pleasures of life, a description of a tech-free adult summer camp to illustrate the culture of overwork, some bits of what life was like in failed communes. I know I’m oversimplifying more than Odell does, but reading it feels like scrolling through my instagram explore page. I’m so bored, I think finishing this book would be antithetical to the point of the book

annabel_182

I agree with what some other people have said, the parts about the 60s communes felt necessary to the overall point of the book but it was sorta boring to read. it just didn’t really do it for me. I honestly think that overall, this chapter didn’t really give me that same excited feeling to read the rest of the book that the intro and chapter 1 did. Maybe I fell victim to the TED talk-ification that others have mentioned earlier in this thread haha. This chapter brought up some feelings of frustration for me – I was annoyed while reading the parts about the 60s communes because I feel like the issues that Odell highlighted just seemed stupid, like of course you won’t be able to escape interpersonal issues and also the mindset that everyone is bringing in to the commune from their outside-the-commune lives. Like, of course you won’t be able to escape the rest of the world in an off-the-grid community. But in reality, I think that I’ve also been subconsciously searching for a similar kind of escape from The Horrors™ for a while, whether that’s literally physically moving away or more of an emotional escape. Coming to terms with this urge to leave honestly makes me disappointed in myself lol but I guess wanting to escape discomfort is a very human reaction. I think this is when the things that Odell wrote about maintenance in the previous chapter would come in handy. “By spending too much time on social media and chained to the news cycle, he says, “[y]ou are marinating yourself in the conventional wisdom. In other people’s reality: for others, not for yourself. You are creating a cacophony in which it is impossible to hear your own voice, whether it’s yourself you’re thinking about or anything else.”” This made me think of my little sister, 15 years old and grew up as a Certified iPad Kid™, who often talks about how she feels like she simply doesn’t have an opinion on a lot of things and how she sometimes even feels afraid of having an opinion. I think that some of this is obviously due to her being young, but I also wonder how much of it is due to how much of her social life takes place online. I also sometimes have a hard time telling the difference between what I read and what I actually think and I’m 24 – I can’t imagine how this must feel to someone 9 years younger than me. Obviously the internet existed when I was 15 too, but it just can’t be denied that things have drastically changed (for the worse?) since then. The more cynical part of me thinks that this confusion must be by design, built into the DNA of these platforms. But I honestly don’t know if that’s completely true. When I was 15, there were still pockets of good places among the growing pockets of not so good places. The height of myspace took place when I was playing the Clifford the Big Red Dog reading game on a disc so I don’t have any first hand experience there, but it seemed like that was a space that was purely for connecting with friends and other people with shared interests online. Tumblr was sort of that place for people around my age, but I think that the whole “SJW discourse” thing was the start of something that led to some of the craziest stuff about the internet today. Or maybe pitting liberal teenagers against each other was part of Tumblr’s design because they wanted more time spent on their site? I don’t know. (I don’t mean this in a total anti-sjw way, I think that overall the Tumblr discourse stuff was mostly made up of well-intentioned teenagers learning about Systems™ in the world that we lived in.) Idk, that was kind of more tangent-ey than I’d like, but I obviously don’t have the answers. Things really did change in 2016 though – it seems like most of the shitty stuff about the internet was implemented after Trump’s election. Yikes. “regardless of how high-tech your society might be, “peace” is an endless negotiation among free-acting agents whose wills cannot be engineered.” ------------------ Here are some of my favorite snippets from this chapter: Poswolsky writes of their initial discovery: “I think we also found the answer to the universe, which was, quite simply: just spend more time with your friends.” a total conflation of art with life, sometimes even an attempt to live one’s art. (i felt like this was totally CJ-core lol) Szeemann was not interested in finished, fully materialized visions. Instead he was preoccupied with the energy generated by the gap between art and life, holding that “one could only learn from the model of art as long as art remained the Other—something that differs from life and transcends life, without being assimilated by life.” He was looking for records of an impulse that strained the bounds of representation. “The explorer who will not come back or send back his ships to tell his tale is not an explorer, only an adventurer.” I was suddenly overwhelmed with the realization that I loved all these people, that they were mine and I theirs, that we could not be alien to one another even though we were total strangers. In one of those books, Contemplation in a World of Action, Merton reflects on the relationship between contemplation of the spiritual and participation in the worldly, two things the Church had long articulated as opposites. He found that they were far from mutually exclusive. Removal and contemplation were necessary to be able to see what was happening, but that same contemplation would always bring one back around to their responsibility to and in the world. It also helps me distinguish what it is I really feel like running away from.

CJ The X

Something that a good friend of mine and I have discussed a lot is the way that phones grant an illusion of access to your friends that you are not really necessarily entitled to. The raw fact that you have my phone number and *can* text me and call me any time *you* want gives the impression that when I don’t respond to your text and I don’t pick up your call, I am actively rejecting you. Which is strange to think about. Why, just because you have infinite capacity to deliver a message to me, am I suddenly infinitely responsible for replying promptly? Why do you have a right to my time and energy, just because you have my digits, as hundreds of others do? The thing is, this is one of my best friends I’m talking about. We totally do owe each other, we text and call all the time. But we don’t waste any energy at all getting huffy about prompt responses to random texts. We don’t care about double texting at all. If we need something from each other (we work on music together [this is Lila Ravelle actually check out her EP Fairy Songs I mastered it recently]) we just provide a time frame or prompt that. But it’s important to talk about how technology is mediating your friendships. We’re both kind of agoraphobic anxious internet artist children who are desperate for some slow down, some physicality, some paper and meaning and reality. So we have that undercurrent. When I used to use social media I was incensed at people’s habit of annoucning that they are taking a social media break ON social media. It drove me absolutely insane. Just LEAVE why are you treating this like its your JOB its not PAYING you Odell’s accidental cabin isolation at the start of this chapter is such a powerful sudden confrontation with Reality. “I hadn’t told people I would be offline for the next few days, hadn’t answered important emails, hadn’t down-loaded music.” (p. 30) “I was fascinated with how inert my phone appears as an object; it was no longer a portal to a thousand other places, a machine charged with dread and potentiality, or even a communication device.” (p. 31) You think you care about internet drama until a relative dies. That’s the inertness of the phone. I don’t think that everyone needs to throw their phone in a lake but I do think everyone MUST experience this inertness of their phone, REGULARLY. I’m very intensely cynical about this all after much contemplation and research but I just find it hard to BELIEVE people when they SAY things when they don’t know how to look away from their feeds. I don’t know if they know what they’re saying. It feels like their priorities and their ability to think and feel are so compromised. Maybe I’m just a little too judgemental. I have certainly slowed my career and my networking, opting instead to give a lot of time and space to maintenance and preparation and thought. Lots of work without performance, development without debut, lots and lots and lots of doubting if I have anything new to say (yet), lots of angsting about adding to the noise without insight. I’m very torn. I have always known my talents are all tapped best on the stage, in the entertainment industry. Yet my heart aches at the Epicurean thought, “the purest security is that which comes from a quiet life and withdrawal from the many.” Entertainment industry seems to really feast on people that have a bit of a narcissistic desire to be spoken of. I’m at least discovering I’m not as narcissistic as I thought I was. The 60s commune scrapbook is very interesting, I do love that some of these books (like C. Thi Nguyens) kind of work like a cipher for further reading. Many quotes I highlighted are not actually Odell’s, but the fantastic quotes that she chose to catalogue. I particularly love Felix Poswolsky’s blunt revelation: “I think we also found the answer to the universe, which was, quite simply: just spend more time with your friends.” I’ve quoted this to my friends a lot since I first read it. Somewhere up there with “Live Laugh Love” as maybe the most powerful immutable wisdoms of all time. Furthermore, the inevitable leftist trappings of disorganization and naive retreat into the woods is answered quite firmly in the many examples of failure listed in the 60s, as well as the temptation to design the problems of peace into permanent infrastructure, thinly veiling a kind of authoritarian impulse. Pirsig touched on the Free Love movement in Lila, how the hippies were deeply admirable in their desire for Dynamic Quality to triumph over corrosive Intellectual and Social Quality, but failed in their inability to separate Dynamic Quality from Biological Quality. I’m touched by Houriet’s description of frequent Free Love departures: “Somebody was always splitting, rolling up his bag, packing his guitar and kissing good-bye—off again in search of the truly free, un-hungup community.” Heartachey hopeful tragic. u never gon find the truly enlightened chill folk. this is life. but who knows, there certainly is value in finding people who think and feel like you do. such a blessing. I’m reminded a bit of my relationship with my friends int he tale of Woody Ransom and the hippies of Bryn Anthyn. I am totally down with the leftist project, but I am completely obsessed with getting the syrup tapping system self sustainable and i AM frustated with people doing LSD and having orgies on the floor and tweeting death threats to Jeff Bezos instead of making awesome art and figuring out how to market it and sell it direct to consumers without 3 companies dominating every transaction and system we rely on out of convenience. At this point it is basically an ongoing joke that normal conversations with me rapidly spiral into me creating business plans and inventing new projects and events and teams. I am addicted to it, I want everyone to win so bad. Just yesterday I was brain blasting about a Kill The Internet nonprofit corporation that puts on events in major cities where we lock your phone at the door and there’s workshops and a show. Ellen didn’t say anything but i could feel them Choosing Not To Laugh At Me. It’s not like I don’t MEAN it, i am CAPABLE OF ANYTHING “peace” is an endless negotiation among free-acting agents whose wills cannot be engineered. (p. 52) My previous partner was a kind of Peter Thiel Technocrat Separatist as mentioned in this chapter, which was one of many points of philosophy we disagreed on but reading this did make me miss them ahaha. Check it out babe its your cool ideas! One of the important bits of the critique of social media and our current technocracy is that the designers of such technologies represent themselves as objective rational actors, apolitical and without desire except for the expanding horizon of our scientific knowledge. However, our philosophies and politics are often embedded into the technology we create. That’s kind of exactly what technology IS: philosophy encoded in machinery. The denial of such just renders the ideology invisible, so accepted and unquestioned that it doesn’t even deserve to be called “philosophy”. Treating the subjectivity as undeniable fact. This to me is the attitude that causes social media to murder your mind. It’s jsut what people are saying, jsut what they’re thinking, the melting pot of humanity’s mind, it’s what we think is fun or important or funny, its just the news of the day. Naur. It’s a philosophy of how we should be, how we should think, how we should express ourselves, what we should look at and how we should look at it. “Removal and contemplation were necessary to be able to see what was happening, but that same contemplation would always bring one back around to their responsibility to and in the world.” (p. 59) I relate a lot to Thomas Merton, the monastic monk (sounds like i made that up). I have this Death Instinct to find peace, to shirk away from what people love about me, to avoid a calling as a public figure, to insulate from controversy and seek God and pleasure and simplicity. But in that pursuit, there’s this inevitable outpour outward, this inescapable love of humanity and yanks you outside of yourself. “In Louisville, at the corner of Fourth and Walnut, in the center of the shopping district, I was suddenly overwhelmed with the realization that I loved all of these people, that they were mine and I theirs, that we could not be alien to one another even though we were total strangers. It was like waking from a dream of separateness, of spurious self-isolation in a special world, the world of renunciation and supposed holiness.” (p. 58) God I gotta read this book. (Contemplation in a World of Action) “If I had no choice about the age in which I was to live, I neverthreless have a choice about the attitude aI take and about the way and the extent of my participation in its living ongoing events. To choose the world is… an acceptance of a task and a vocaiton in the world, in history and in time. In my time, which is the present.” The last few pages really roll into the rest of the book, but suffice to say I am stirred by the image of standing, refusing, where you already are, and meeting others in that space of refusal. anyways much more to say and see in later chapters this is my second read of the first half but the last half will all be new to me. see u at the conference and next week when I do chapter 3 like the SCHEDULE CLEARLY SAYS #KTI #NOMO etc

CJ The X

I honestly think the kids are going to be ok and I believe in them and am optimistic about culture, broadly, and I contradictorily kind of think the non-opinion-having and the fear of having an opinion might even be a healthy reaction to being an iPad kid. Like, young people i meet today seem to know better than most grown ass adults that its probably unwise to just fling yourself into the quagmire. We've seen it go so so badly so many times, and it seems like the economic and political game of adults and cusp millenials to continue making that mistake. I've been pondering internet history and recent history quite a lot lately. There's a story to be discerned about how social media slowly swallowed politics and culture, and I think a lot of disparate spontaneous forces melded together into some giant block over the years. Gamergate for example was extremely, extremely important, and also provided something like the blueprint for Cancellation Callout culture and internet harassment campaigns in general. That was 2014-2015, and which bled into 2016 which was the Trump campaign and guess what: Jordan Peterson's online pronoun controversy at UofT, that rocketed him into stardom. Contrapoints also started posting in 2016. 2017 was the year #MeToo exploded and practically permenantly altered the language of every online harassment campaign, and it was also the year Peterson invented postmodern neo-marxism. QAnons first drop was in 2017. Mapping what the fuck exactly happened in those two years is kind of terrifying. It was an extremely, extremely seismic shift, and it happened in the blink of an eye, widely, almost invisibly. I know i'm oversimplifying, as anyone must to interpret history, but looking at online culture and politics has made me want to kill myself for multiple years, and I'm trying to create some comprehensible interpretation that makes me want to kill myself less, and seeing how inexperienced and bewildered we all were through the last 9 years seems to slot some things into perspective. YouTubers nowadays know to try to protect themselves from doxxing and harassment, YouTubers those years ago didn't know. We thought Twitter was our fucking friend, now we KNOW its our enemy. Sorry for bleeding my heart all over this comment but I just have this vague sense that maybe some younger people can see this a little clearer than we can. You and I are the same age, this all happened around us as we grew up. re your cynicism about the profit model, i still use tumblr and prefer it to basically everything else, and they're hilariously bleeding 30 mil a year, very bad at optimizing for ads and outrage ahaha. But most social media and utopian tech companies are started out of some simple love and curiosity. Capitalism and especially the selection of the advertiser model is what sharpens them into predators on our attention over time. Jaron Lanier has a nice heuristic for this, calling it the solution to tech startups socialist desires to provide their product for free and their capitalist need to turn profit. Ads keep things free. But they alter the profit model and pull it towards outrage and fear and anxiety and addiction and conflict, because that keeps attention better than anything else, and attention is whats being sold to the advertisers. Worst thing Elon did for Twitter was make the Paid Subscription seem stupid. It's not stupid, and if he was really a champion for free speech and a break things quick maverick I would've had him enforce a paid subscription for everyone immediately and just turn off ads. See what fuckin happens. here's a good article: https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/how-capitalism-not-a-few-bad-actors-destroyed-the-internet/

CJ The X

"trusting" an author isn't dramatic at all imo. Y'know when you're watching an amateur play, and you're trying to appreciate the play but you still feel the anxiety and empathy that you want the performers to succeed, and are worried they wont? Like you're worried they might forget a line or do badly. I feel like the alternative to that is when the artist makes you feel held, and you trust them and you don't worry FOR them you just relax into sincere experience and your ego starts to vanish. Anwaysy yeah plenty of points in books where I Trust them and can feel they are going somewhere I want to go with them. I do feel that in this book and I hear it definitely crystalizes all its many threads nicely

Chandler Sterling

I had to take another tour of this chapter after reading a lot of this week's posts because there was a disdain for the 60s communes that I was finding a bit surprising. Came back from it with an idea of what people weren't vibing with, but I still think it was pretty neat. I'll try to highlight what I found useful/interesting for the anti-Chapter 2 crowd. I will grant that this chapter dragged in bits, but I was pretty locked in on learning a more accurate history of the dropping out movement than what I'm accustomed to. That whole period is up there with the "Old West" in regards to American mythology in my mind. I always imagined it to be a bit over-exaggerated from all the retelling and the tropes that came from it, but after reading this chapter, it seems to be a lot closer to reality (closer than the myth of the Wild West is at least). What seemed to resonate the most for me was the way Odell centered the hopelessness at the core of the 60s communes. "The writer Robert Houriet, who visited fifty American 'communal experiments" between 1968 and 1970, described this movement as 'the gut reaction of a generation' who saw no other way to resist." (pg. 38) Each failure that follows is a result of that issue. You could say that it felt like doing something was better than Doing Nothing. Knowing when the book was written makes it seem really important to dedicate a whole chapter to reminding people that hopelessness is not enough. You've gotta step back and make a plan for how you're gonna get that hope back. The examples feel exhaustive because I think that there is an innate need to run when a system seems to have failed (it is fight or FLIGHT, there's like a 50/50 chance someone'll do the latter I guess). Historical examples are a great way to set aside any thoughts that "I could do it better" and I think Odell was right to err on the side of caution. Not everyone reading this book is in the Kill the Internet book club, so some of these ideas need more time to cook. For the sake of recognizing the non-commune bits as well, I was shocked at how quickly I jumped between annoyance and sympathy for Levi Felix. The checklists and sock puppet shows sounded so grating and patronizing, like his teachings were so beyond what the "average" person could handle that we needed to regress to preschool methods to get the point across. But then to hear about how he could just go on and on about how important it was to unplug to the point that it sounded almost religious for him, I felt like maybe I had sold him short. In the end, the problem seems to be that he was too perfect an example for the book, and that makes him sound made up, like some sort of parable. He wants to unplug, but his camp is about maximizing productivity to the point of obsession with checklists. I guess when the world provides these examples for an idea; it's just proof that you're onto something.

CJ The X

I was very charmed by several anecdotes about him, little flairs like confiscatin phones in bags marked BIOHAZARD and his obsessive tweaking of lighting so things felt appropriately magical, and especially this bit of Poswolsky testimony: "Levi took a shot of tequila, made himself a Bloody Mary, and wearing a white dress and a pink wig, went over and spoke for forty-five minutes on the importance of unplugging from technology, as our friend Ben Madden played a Casio synth in the background. I couldn't tell you exactly what Levi said that morning since I was delirious, but I do remember that everyone who was there said it was one of the most inspiring talks they had ever heard." (p. 33) Hilarious, charming, I believe it. Also kind of sad and sweet the way that he successfully created the sanctuary camp but for some of the reasons you listed and more began itching for an escape FROM the escape. I was tlaking to my cousin who has been in authority positions w indie games and online communities and we were laughing about this discord server where you're only alloewd to say a few phrases like HOW DO YOU DO and TOP OF THE MORNIN and if you deviate by a single letter you're instantly banned. Then we talked about how there's something powerful and necessary about a project or system that is willing to destroy itself. I think because we both love building things but want to build things that wont morph into Akira capitalism monsters losing all meaning except in name because we took the funding we needed. I'd rather some things die sooner, or happen slower. I guess that's just having principles. Willing to die for something.

valentin

OK so the majority of this chapter is about how we only have this one World and how disengaging from is isn't really valuable or possible. This chapter to me almost felt like Odell was defending her stance that doing Nothing doesn't mean retreat from reality, which would explain why she went to such great lenghts to "disprove" this notion. Personally im more engaged by her appeal to action than her repeated insitance that leaving is not an option. That became exhausting after a while, which is a sentiment that I see a lot of people having in this thread. Really, the story about the monk guy (i refuse to look up his name) and his [re]discovery of Living Laughing and Loving would've sold me on the premise entirely. N need for 30 pages or so of commune bashing. “In Louisville, at the corner of Fourth and Walnut, in the center of the shopping district, I was suddenly overwhelmed with the realization that I loved all of these people, that they were mine and I theirs, that we could not be alien to one another even though we were total strangers. It was like waking from a dream of separateness, of spurious self-isolation in a special world, the world of renunciation and supposed holiness.” (p. 58) Beautiful. Go touch some [Sweet]Grass. The last few pages of this chapter go needlessly hard. If the rest of this book is this good im going to have a jolly time on this one. The Hauptstrom? (I don't really agree with the translation to mainstream here) That occurs between life and art??? The "joyfully grasped, albeit Pre-Freudian energy that doesn't give a damn whether its expressed or can be applied in a negative, positive, harmful or useful way." Crazy stuff she just throws into my grubby little hands for me to slurp up and spit out again as the image of a flower. I don't have any thoughts on this yet except AAAAAAAAAAASLkjdlaksjaAAAAAAAaaaAAAA OK its time for me to talk about BeReal. First a disclaimer: I don't use this App. BUT I have friends and sisters that use it AND I percieve it to be of great value. BeReal is a social media that invites you not to use it. You can only post 1 [three in special cases] photo per day. It randomly chooses a time and notifies you to post at that specific time. You can only see other peoples posts if you post yourself. You have to participate. Ideally the App shows you what other people were doing at the BeReal time. The time to be real. I made that up right now they don't actually call it BeReal time. Oh and there's no ads - meaning literally no attention economy. I have two distinct thoughts about BeReal: -A- The App invites you to do nothing. To not use it. To disengage from it and not think about it for the majority of your time. Yes, theres always going to be people who obsess over BeReal, purposely doing it at a time when they look particularly pretty and not when they've just come out of the shower. (not that you, yes YOU specifically dont look pretty when you're coming out of the shower, but the type of person im talking about isn't concerned with beauty as much as perception.) BUT I think some people have personalities that don't mix well with social media and i don't think that's necessarily social medias fault?? I'd love to hear some discussion on this bc I'm definetly not sure about this take yet. -B- The way BeReal is layed out almost makes your BeReal picture a kind of spiritual act... Like, I usually joke whenever somebody does their BeReal that everyone should act real for a second so we can all go back to being fake again. It's a joke but it's also kind of true. Maybe microdosing on social media is a valid alternative. Idk I don't really use BeReal but if found the App to be mysterious and most importantly don't know anyone who has any kind of unhealthy obsession with the App. So maybe BeReal is good?? Guys??? Good social media?! Could it be possible? OK I participated. Did my job. Enganged in the world. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a minecraft server to attend.

Izzy

With regards to your point in -A-, I agree that some personalities probably do not mesh well with social media. Some people are just private and do not want people all up in their business and neglect ever posting or outright refuse to host accounts on these platforms, if not at worst for spectating only (I am one of those people). As much as social media has progressed and regressed up until this point, the original purpose of it had to have been to connect with others on a level we have never been able to before. Connection. Something that could hardly be genuinely said about any of these platforms that now crowns engagement with the platform itself, not finding people you can talk with on a human level. I think of niche internet forums in the 00's, MySpace, etc. where social media was mainly to stay connected with IRL friends and family and community or meet online strangers that you can talk about the same stuff with. Of course, you can still do that now with modern-day platforms, yet so much has been tacked on that social media beckons you to live WITHIN social media as if it were a third eye you're always looking through, and thus emphasizing the media part of social media. I think of CJ's Bo video where long form conversation is brought up in juxtaposition to social media, and that is probably one of the main essences of human connection, is having long-form talks with people you do/don't know. Pretty much all this is to say is that social media nowadays isn't designed to mesh well with ANYONE's personality because it lost the plot along the way (adspace) and dehumanized the soul purpose of it.

valentin

I like your progression from "this is a good friend of mine whom I won't name" to "fuck it it's Lila ravelle'

Izzy

Going through everyone's posts has been delightful, especially hearing the universal groan towards the endless examples of failed utopias lol. I don't have much to say besides stating that I really like Odell's last page of Chapter 2 a lot... "But most important, standing apart represents the moment in which the desperate desire to leave (forever!) matures into a commitment to live in permanent refusal, where one already is, and to meet others in the common space of that refusal." (p. 62) To me, this is a callback to when she brought up the Life and Death Instincts back in Chapter 1 (p.26), which I found to be great terms to describe how the communes in the 60s were people congregating based off their Death Instinct while ignoring the Life Instinct, which summarily portrays why they all ended up failing. No balance between the two, just vibes. I am very interested on learning about how Odell will marry the two instincts with the idea of refusing in place with others in the forthcoming chapters.

Xaris _

I just typed out my whole comment and then accidentally swiped the comments down and everything I wrote is lost 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I had said that I also found the commune talk pretty boring. I had anticipated this chapter would talk more about individual attempts to isolate, like homeschooling, homesteading and going off grid, traveling abroad. Even things like downgrading to flip phones and getting rid of electronic devices in your house. I was caught off guard by the communes and had a hard time seeing them as relevant? But I think moreso I couldn't relate to it or focus on what she was saying. I'm glad for the book club because I can still get value from what other people have reflected of it. I actually didn't read it all this week, so I was surprised when I sat down and realized I had already read the first seven or eight pages of chapter 2 last week. I just didn't remember reading it and had to skim to figure it out. I don't know if I'm giving this chapter a bad review or just commenting on my own difficulty reading things I'm not interested in, but I've opted to skip this chapter. And just like that 😆 I'm caught up. I'm enjoying chapter 3 a lot more.

Xaris _

Idk how to put it but your comment is so well written. Like it flows. I also find myself thinking a lot more about like, rather than focusing on my desire to leave and what or how I'd do it, but like, what will it change? Will I just burn out again as soon as I'm back? Right now, I'm taking a break from school. I did 5 years of undergrad and didn't graduate. Failed every class of my last semester. (Participating in this book club is me dipping my toes back into assigned reading, and writing these makes replies me so nervous bc of that) I wanted so badly to drop out of school while I was there, I day-dreamed about it all the time. So I feel weird about all these failed communes, because I don't know if I agree with the idea that leaving something isn't good? Idk, it made me feel defensive. The thing is though, I wanted to take a break from school but I didn't want to stop learning. I wanted a break so I could go back. I guess the discussion from here is like, what if a break isn't possible? Like, my friends can't take a break from being parents the way I could take a break from being a student.

valentin

Honestly all power to you! Skipping a chapter is a much preferred alternative to losing motivation altogether and not finishing the book. I've seen a lot of people express the sentiment that this chapter was boring and I agree in some sense, but the last few pages really go hard. So if you're interested you might want to read from p57 and on.

BrEaNs

--- Design --- "Politics necessarily exist between even two individuals with free will; any attempt to reduce politics to design...is also an attempt to reduce people to machines or mechanical beings" (p.52). “‘Levi would spend hours (literally, hours) walking around with the production team at night, making sure each tree was perfectly lit and would make someone feel the magical power of being in nature’” (p. 32) In reflecting on this chapter, I have noticed a paradoxical opinion of “design” within myself. I see this technochauvinist/STEM-broey need to reduce everything to logical mechanisms (or “designs”) as the currently most harmful intellectual force, but I also sense the magic Levi Felix was after when lighting those trees. This essay by Eleanor Stern captures a key part of my aversion to technochauvist style thinking: (https://wickedtongue.substack.com/p/biomedical-explanations-and-the-fear). In it, she describes a certain way of explaining phenomena through scientific logic that acts “not as a new layer on an already-layered history, but as a silver bullet that demolishes every other layer.” This way of thinking does not invite complicated, emotional understandings of things but rather dismissal. The attention economy encourages us to think algorithmically and thereby hide our humanity. We know this. However, humanity, of course, still shines through. Levi’s tree lighting reminded me of my mom and I’s trips to Disney World. After you become acquainted with the park, you begin to appreciate the craftsmanship on display. You begin to see the carefully constructed artificiality that enables Disney to sometimes feel like an alternate reality. There are obviously a lot of things to criticize Disney World for, but there is an undeniable magic in looking at some random aspect of the park and realizing someone thought about how to make that aspect that way. So, I feel an unresolved question in myself: when does design invite people in and when does it reduce us to machines? Levi and Disney both seem simultaneously to invite a connection to humanity through a space’s designer and to produce some unnaturally optimized product. The statement “we are just a bunch of molecules moving through a series of chemical reactions” contains a great beauty that is undercut by the word “just.” I don’t know. There’s something hiding in the framing of these things that disappears when mildly changing perspective (not that this change in perspective is always warranted). --- Religion from an Outsider’s perspective --- The Merton talk took me back to the one religion class I took in college. I took this class in the basement of the oldest academic building in continual use in the U.S. right around the time that a third expansion of my university's science building was announced. I remember a certain sadness in the air. The professor would later say, after a graduation ceremony for 7 people, that he didn’t bond with the class like he hoped he would. Anyways, I think it really fills a hole in my soul whenever I hear good theology. There is just this unmatched intellectual beauty that Christian writers seem to be able to harness. I hope Odell

Halley

O'Dell spending so much time on the history of the 60s communes and drop-out movement makes sense in the context of her perspective of being raised in the vicinity of silicon valley. A lot of what she wrote about reminds me of the tech-space-bro fantasy of space colonization and other dystopian technocratic 'solutions'. It seems there's this insidious belief in our culture that our tech can save us, that for every problem we create we can just create a solution to it. that it's okay for the world to become uninhabitable because we can just colonize Mars instead. that we can out-engineer or out-design the earth herself, or the accumulated wisdom of our own history. I heard someone mention a training about effective altruism recently and I got an icky feeling but I can't remember enough about it to know why. I think it relates to this idea of trying to systematize and optimize through design something that can't be. I think the US commune history reflects a lesson of the strength of being driven by a desire FOR something rather than AGAINST something- the life instinct over the death instinct- that what binds people together and motivates them, the shared values, needs to be oriented towards a common goal. a common enemy or thing to oppose can be useful to rally people, but not to keep them together. It takes years to unlearn all that we've been programmed to believe, to practice living better, to learn the skills necessary to divest from an exploitative system. It doesn't happen overnight and it isn't for everyone. crafting an alternative society requires a shit load of work and responsibility. taking on roles and tasks that you might otherwise rely on others for. to be self-sufficient and self-reliant, while in community. I've had a fair amount of exposure to various social and environmental initiatives and it seems like every time these things fail it's because of the social aspects- group politics, hierarchical systems, not having good systems to deal with disagreement. What I have seen succeed is the month-long peace education camps I've been a part of, which is the closest I've come to experiencing a commune-like lifestyle. The difference is that it's only temporary, with the awareness that we'd all be going back to our lives at the end of the month or so long experience. this put the emphasis on relationship building and education and engagement with the world during our short time together rather than escapism. I was on a walk recently thinking about how silly the language we use is when people talk of escaping to nature to -disconnect- when the whole point is to actually -connect- to the world around us- the real world!- and disconnect from the human-created and human-centered digital world. I was thinking about cyber.death.rat & Matthew M 's comments on cyber deprecation, about feeling let down by everything the internet made possible because it had the potential to do so much good, to help people connect to each other. I remember my mother being excited when Facebook first came out because, besides reconnecting with her lost high school friends, it meant we didn't have to pay for international phone calls anymore and I could talk to international friends I made for free, instantly. that was the promise. connection. Now it has morphed into something so insidious, predatory, and ubiquitous that it seems the task now is to find ways to withdraw, unplug to connect. art imitates life and life imitates art. It seems profit-incentivized media imitates life and art to a degree that it can be hard to distinguish, and this value of maximizing profits (or our 'brand') becomes ingrained in our conscious experience. "The things I hate about online discourse is how impossibly online it is. How things seem to mean more, to be more real in real life, over real time." (quoting CJ's original post, not the book) I share this feeling of it not being real enough. not satisfying. but I need it to be- I have to find a way to make it enough, because it's all I have with most of the people I care about, friends and family scattered across the world. all my best relationships have gone long distance. the internet promised to make it possible to stay connected and it seems to have that power. So unplugging to escape doesn't feel like an option. I feel like my task is, despite The Horrors™, how can I make it work for me? My opinion after synthesizing the various things I've been reading this week is that we expound one trait of being human to the detriment of our other senses. Our distinctively human ability to gather and share knowledge, through language and the written word, has led to the development of a cult of knowledge, worship of information, and human exceptionalism. That which allows us to write and read and tell stories and document and transfer knowledge through space and time has led to so much advancement that we've come to identify with it as our dominant way of understanding ourselves and interacting with the world- to the neglect of our other earthly animal senses which also make us human and bind us in kinship with other living creatures.

BrEaNs

I think you described the lesson of this chapter well! To be FOR something (aligned with the Life Instinct), instead of against something (Death Instinct). I agree with your feelings that there is something wrong with this optimization impulse within tech. Something that bothers me about the whole "AI will take over the world" thing is that it implicitly assumes that we can do better than nature. The idea of an AI "intelligence explosion" rests on the notion that a smart agent can continually self-improve due to their intelligence such that they essentially become God. It feels insulting to all that's here now. I also like your point about how we describe escaping to nature as "disconnecting" -- like we are still letting tech dictate what we are doing through our language (we're "unplugging from technologies" instead of "embracing nature"). Finally, I also really appreciate the perspective of someone who uses tech for connections around the world. Like I kinda talk about with Disney World in my comment, I think there's an untapped power in our ability to reframe STEM-y things. It feels like people often polarize to either "tech will save us through optimization" or "technology is evil" -- neither of which can be true. I have to remind myself a lot of times that all tech is very human -- that I can choose to see the humanity in it and let that ground my future behavior. Anyways, Kill the Internet!

reva

i find the conversation about the 1960s communes really really interesting, i have never really learned much about them and it was fascinating to read about. it's so silly that nobody wanted to figure out the gritty details of creating a complex community somewhere in the real world full of people who will not agree on everything, that's the whole fun of it! i don't think i have a lot of specific things to say about this chapter, i am just turning these ideas of responsibility and the inherent plurality of communities around in my head. i've recently become more and more interested in the complexity of groups of people, and how people interact with each other within wider groups. i also loooove doing my best to understand things from the perspectives of people who disagree strongly with each other. i've noticed that a lot of conflict has really muddy origins, like when people having a conversation think they're talking about the same thing but are really thinking of slightly different topics, making it look like they disagree when their opinions don't actually contradict each other. i think nuances like this often go unnoticed in conversations (espeeeeecially on social media) and they're not like? super punchy or exciting reasons for a conflict to happen? so i think lots of people aren't looking out for stuff like this during conversations. but it is exciting to me :)

margaret (formerly Samson)

Reading Spot: First listened while wallpapering my bedroom ceiling. Picture can be found here: https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipN7U7AASrvG7Jk5hvkDPlYRU4iAY3sBTRmPteoIUv1w_xQEHbLKM9ub3mAcPzyfLQ?pli=1&key=ek5EQ0lmSWZZT2pNTzRPenFXTnhMekUyVnM5Tmhn Design vs Politics - a case study (Thank you to BrEaNs for pointing this out - my thoughts were significantly inspired by your comment :) So in my job, I am a de-facto expert in my (generic softwareish) company’s project management planning tool. These tools have tons of potential, but (like with anything that demands its users enter data), if you want to use it to its fullest potential, you are asking a ton of your users and their willingness to do what you ask. My company is caught in the purgatory of wanting to get some of the tantalizing datasets the tool says it could produce, and yet not wanting to incur the cost of morale and manhours to get the employees to comply with the steep requirements that would be required. And I have a very human-centered brain, so I watch all of this and think “just admit you don’t want to pay what it costs - you can get 80% of the way to what you want anyway, just accept this is your situation and live with it.” Basically every individual I talk to about it has agreed that my counterproposal would meet their individual needs and not be asking too much, and have acknowledged that the cost of trying to do more is probably too high. But the issue is that this stupid tool touches on so many other things that are very important to people in the highest levels of the company. Financial management, capacity planning, utilization reporting, profitability. It’s milestones and time entry, and the potential goldmine of data they could theoretically get if everyone in the company would just use the tool perfectly is so tempting that upper management can’t resist it. It’s not popular to say “actually we don’t want to do the work it would take to give the execs what they want.” So now, even though I have a better design in mind (and could implement it fairly quickly if i had any authority at all), I have to wait around for the senior directors and VPs to sit and marinate on the fine details of what i’ve outlined already in the past 4 paragraphs and then, conscious of time, drop to go to their next meeting and forget everything they’ve learned. I’ve spent, conservatively, 80 hours - an entire pay period - sitting in calls where they stare at each other and say “how do we force our employees to do this thing? Maybe we can enter them into a drawing for an amazon gift card if they do it perfectly?” (i shit you not, that was last tuesday.) I’ve had the same conversation, in which i tell someone how the tool works and what the problems with it are (and proposed solutions) so many times, and yet each time i then revisit the conversation with that person, they have forgotten everything that they needed to remember. Design vs Politics. I have a significantly better design in mind than they do, and i know it will work (because i’ve gone rogue a couple of times and done it and it’s gone well). But in my company it’s not a design issue, it’s a politics issue, and politics is failing my coworkers. And yet, as Odell writes about our facistic tree sap financier, and as she reminds us of the technocratic answers that the billionaires gravitate towards, I feel the visceral revulsion, recoiling away from the arrogance of thinking that a sweeping renovation would (or could) change everything. But that’s exactly the arrogance that I feel, with my architectural brain and my pattern recognition software dialed up to 10, when i’m on a call re-explaining why allocations are a fool’s errand for our company to attempt for the love of god andreas get it through your thick skull Odell hits us with (p.49) “a division between the designer and the layman/executor, or between those who know and do not act, and those who act and do not know.” and I have to remember that, in this case, I’m more likely to be the one who is knowing but not acting - the one who is designing the solution, but is at risk of forgetting who i’m designing for. I’m working on the system architecture that will impact hundreds of my colleagues and how they complete time entry every single week, and how many headaches they incur while doing so. But perhaps the dichotomy of Design vs Politics is something that we in this book club are considering too starkly. I’m not actually that great at the communication of my ideas. It usually has to happen live (because absolutely nobody would read a document of the size i’d have to write to communicate it), and of course my live arguments arent nearly as sound as my written ones - i haven’t had the time or format to write out the material, restructure the argument, rewrite sections, change something to bullet points, add the right screenshot here, make sure my wording is exactly precise, etc. I’m quick, and I’m good at my job, but the material i need to cover is technical and intricate, and i’m not that great at the live interpersonal politics dance. But when I do find someone who can do the interpersonal politics dance, and when I make myself available to that person, that’s when shit actually starts moving. My former boss was one of these. His method of politics was “wear them down - hold your argument’s position and let them exhaust themselves against it, and eventually they’ll realize you’re right.” I’m now supporting Chris, whose method is “lets fucking move - try to fix the problem, check for bugs, fix the bugs. We’re going to keep going until we stop failing.” Ryan was a stone, Chris is a river. I’d be sunk without Chris. Chris would be sunk, though, if he didn’t have me (and others - i’m not in a vacuum, i’m just serendipitously a key player). He’s managing the politics, but he can’t sell them on a solution that doesn’t exist. That’s where the design comes in. And the design has to have the politics to make it better - if i didn’t have any of these questions and challenges come up, they would come out later, after we’d already released something to Production, and we’d have to clean up that mess too. It’s better to strengthen the design now, through tedious conversation, than it would be to just go with the first coherent idea that got someone’s approval. The more i think about it, the more that it seems to me that all of politics is design work, and all of design is just politics. Design is difficult in a void - it’s the limitations and wishlist that force you to be creative. Our company is limited in terms of what we can ask of our users, and the wishlist is long. The final design will require compromise from all parties, and that compromise can only happen via discussion and politics, and the politics will culminate in a design. Odell says (p.52) “Peace is an endless negotiation among free-acting agents whose wills cannot be engineered.” Ok, yes and, some things are harder to change than others. There’s perhaps a constant conversation, but i do imagine there are often plateaus, footholds, spaces where progress has been made and everyone can breathe. I think those plateaus are the result of well designed systems, whatever those may be. Our stupid corporation is facing, IMO, the strongest chance at getting time entry fixed that it’s had in 5 years. In the interim, time entry has been a nightmare for all kinds of users, and has resulted in garbage data. I don’t know when the next chance will come around for the company - momentum in changes is a fickle thing. They’ll be a lot less interested in negotiation once they just implemented something they liked. As we climb up to a plateau, I’m not really interested in seeing it as just another step in the politics dance. I want the design to be worth implementing. My coworkers deserve better than a step, especially if it’s going to hang around for the next 5 years. Fuck. Maybe my job isn’t so fake after all. But it sure feels like it when i turn on the mouse wiggler and go sew for 4 hours after my morning meetings. Re: Communes practicing Live laugh love <3 I wasn’t super annoyed by the commune talk, actually. It was surprising to me that the communes failed- i wasn’t aware of the history of them. That, and I’d listened to an episode of Normal Gossip where members of a commune get into some drama over what to do with some mealworms, and it quite honestly did sound like a successful, if a bit eye-roll, way to handle a community of people and their various preferences. And I was super interested in Epictetus. He and his Garden savors strongly of Jesus, to the point where I can’t tell if the parallel is actually there, or if my evangelical-raised brain is just so interested in connecting those dots that I can’t help myself. Either way, I love the proto-sociology (p. 37 “friendship itself was a subject of study”) and the #cottagecore (p. 37 “a communal refuge in the countryside.. Growing vegetables and focusing on chilling out.”) Humans tend to want to go to an idealized past when things are stressy. Marie Antoinette did it. Hell, I did, at least a bit - i started an amateur compost pile in my backyard and started wearing linen dresses, and one of my closest friends dreams of growing a cut-flower garden in her front yard. I think the idea of the meaning of life = spend time with friend is unsurprising to me. The challenge I tend to face is just actually getting myself to do it. I often can’t tell if i’m feeling more Detached from Desires or Numb to the World. My primary feeling is, as far as I can tell, Contentedness. I don’t really want anything, I don’t have much ambition, I don’t thirst for the experience of the world. I’m just… pleased to vibe. I can’t tell if this is very Eastern Philosophy of me, or if it’s just that I’m traumatized and Not Feeling my Feelings. And it seems that Epictetus would consider my case to be a success, and perhaps he’d be right, idk. I do notice a lot of needless worry in those around me. In my mother, in my friends, in my husband. Ariel, the cut flower dreamer, once told me that she feels like she doesn’t feel like she has to micromanage her words around me, specifically because i never make her feel like she’s weird and instead am so quick to consider her as normal. And it struck me that she must feel that way all the time. Is that how everyone lives their lives, in fear of being abnormal, aware of the judgments and reactions of others, vulnerable under their gaze? (If so, thank God for whatever autism i have, that I can (with my disregard of so many little social norms) offer a safe haven for my friends to unmask a little bit themselves, and provide a counterargument, against a culture that would otherwise criticize every step out of line. I know i’m weird, and I’ll own it, and now they can’t hold it against me, and instead i can undermine the authority of those very social constructs. I’m doing fine without that thing you care about - maybe that thing isn’t so necessary after all.) At the same time, later on page 58, Thomas Merton describes the love that he experiences for the people around him, in an echo of a comedy book that I love (Lamb, by Christopher Moore) and an echo of Jesus himself. And part of loving people is caring about what they care about, and respecting their values and preferences, and just generally being part of a Society. And I can’t help but wonder if my contentment is just another form of giving up on the world, or rejecting it spiritually, or whatever it is that the monks do. (p. 61) “some hybrid reaction is needed. We have to be able to do both: to contemplate and participate, to leave and always come back, where we are needed.” My church, growing up, would do Breathe In and Breathe Out years - years focused on our internal spiritual growth, followed by years focused on outreach and giving. Perhaps this is the ebb and flow that she’s looking for? Quick notes on a couple of quotes that stuck out: (p.30) “The impulse to say goodbye to it all, permanently, doesn’t just … “ Def thought she was talking about suicide, not retreat. (p.31) “[my phone] was no longer a portal to a thousand other places, a machine charged with dread and potentiality, or even a communication device. It was just a black metal rectangle” How do /i/ see my phone? I would not ascribe that much language to it. And perhaps that’s frightening. I see it as an extension of my existence, an extension of my body / soul, the limb that i use to reach out into the ether and grasp for Content. (p.41) “The coat sets off a long house meeting about class consciousness, which, like many of the other meetings chronicled in Living Together, is ultimately left unresolved.” eye ROLL (p.43) “someone was always splitting, rolling up his bag, packing his guitar and kissing goodbye– off again in search of the truly free, un-hungup community.” I again plug The Great Divorce. This is a major component of that story’s image of Hell - a place where everyone is constantly moving away from each other, away from conflict, away from complications. (p.44) “the students of The Garden felt deep responsibility to one another, but responsibility to everyone else was left of of the question.” Something something "who is my neighbor", something something "good samaritan", something something "fucking everyone". (p.55) “the explorer who will not come back or send back his ships to tell his tale is not an explorer, only an adventurer.” Makes me think of ant colonies and their scouts. (p.60) “these feelings are warranted, but their expression on social media so often feels like firecrackers setting off other firecrackers in a very small room that soon gets filled with smoke.” Discharge vs Expression, baybeee. :)

Bloom

PLEASE DO A COLLAB WITH ISMATU GWENDOLYN (or don’t. but GOD that would be a dream come true as y’all share so much in common philosophically as humans on the internet)

Bloom

they did a whole piece on information anarchy & lack of sponsors and almost entitled it “If you see me hold up skinny tummy tea smilin for a Nikon, gon’ head and Of Mice and Men me. It’s been a good run.”

benedict.m

to be fair, she is arguably writing for an audience of people with wrecked attention spans, so there might be utility in writing in a way that's accessible to that mode of media consumption. hopefully over the course of the book she'll start writing in a way that's more aligned with the worldview she's arguing for? (i.e. maintaining ideas over a longer time span, giving more consistent substance rather than doling out quick bits of information like you're describing)

J

"If I keep separating from whatever strikes me as flawed, whatever embarrasses me, I will eventually find myself an isolated misanthrope, hating humanity as a failed project... we can disassociate and re-associate with all kids of groups and identities, but whatever we disassociate from, still, in the end, we are human... We're stuck with each other, and we're stuck with ourselves." --Brian McLaren, 'Do I Stay Christian?' --which I was finishing as I started HTDN. I'm finding similar ground covered in a lot of what I'm reading lately and that's both amusing and probably an indicator of being on some sort of "right path." Genuinely laughed at how Odell's third to last paragraph in this chapter could've come straight out of some of the higher quality Christian sermons I've heard in my life. "To stand apart is to look at the world (now) from the point of the world as it could be (the future), with all of the hope and sorrowful contemplation that this entails." I have been very aware for a while of how there's no path forward in "escape" from these systems. I couldn't have untangled from a lot of the biases I learned without the internet. There are problems in the world that I can make a real impact on, that I wouldn't know existed if not for the internet. I'm plugged into disability history and activism through the internet, where disabled people have fewer barriers to reaching others. And so people with life-seeking, life-giving intentions have a responsibility to not abandon those tools, because people with destructive intentions have access to the same tools and opportunities. Nadia Bolz-Weber has talked about how she refuses to abandon words/concepts like "Sin" in the context of Christian teaching, because they describe something important when used in life-giving ways and can't be left solely under the control of people who use them to "steal and kill and destroy" joy in others.

annie liz

I found it interesting that most folks found the commune stories to be tedious; for some reason I was really locked into all of them. Maybe it’s because I need the concept hammered in more times, maybe it’s because I think the idea of leaving it all behind is still a little romantic, or maybe it’s because my online friends and I talk all the time about getting a massive house on a big property and just all living in community some day. Regardless, I think it’s important to fully incorporate the history and cultural attitudes all those failed experiments demonstrate into our Actions of Nothing. Nonetheless, I agree with many that Merton’s stories was the most moving to me. In a way he did very much what Odell’s dad did; feel the Ache, leave behind what he thought was the problem, discover the actual problem, and return to the world with newly discovered intention. It’s not that the virtual or abstract does not exist or does not shape the world, but the world being shaped is still HERE right now, and it is worth your time. and attention. “I was suddenly overwhelmed with the realization that i loved all these people, that they were mine and I theirs, that we could not be alien to one another even though we were total strangers” (p. 58). FUCK man that got me. ~semi-related personal interlude~ Since moving, I’ve been finding a lot of new running routes to take a few times a week. My city has invested a LOT of money into pedestrian walks, bikeways, and parks, and my apartment is pretty close to a large bike/pedestrian trail that goes for miles further north. At the start of the trail, there’s a metro stop, and a large pedestrian road that leads to the main path; the trail subsequently goes by a dog park, a few soccer fields, and a big playground next to a pond before evening out as it passes through neighborhoods. In short, there’s a LOT of people of truly every type that go back and forth along this path, especially after school and working hours. Old people, young people, families, kids, runners, cyclists, wheelchairs, roller blades, you name it. I don’t really notice pedestrians when I’m in my car, at least nothing more than “hey don’t hit that.” But when I’m running down the path, I’ve been finding the most holy and sacred sensations of joy and love for the people I pass. It’s different from DC, where half the people I ran by were tourists and didn’t know how to walk on the fucking sidewalk and don’t care anyways. Here, its neighbors, its community. It’s not a space of pure congregation, technically, because it’s a combination of people coming TO the space (to play, for sports, for their dog) and coming THROUGH the space (from/to the train, to the neighborhoods, to the park, through their exercise route). As we make our way through the path under the trees and past the grass and being Outside and Here and Right Now, they don’t know me and they never will but I love them. Merton just like me fr!!! “In short, he participated” (p. 58). Theme!!! This is a KTI theme!!!! Participation keeps popping up and feels more important each time.It’s Louise Banks saying yes in Story of Your Life, it’s Barbie saying yes, it’s Merton saying yes instead of “retreating into the abstract”!!! “Their wish to break with society and the media... reminds me not only of the impossibility of such a break, but of a responsibility to that same society” (p. 38). Odell’s argument in this chapter doesn’t just end with “retreat is impossible.” If we choose to contemplate and participate, stand out and then step in, what does that mean for our relationships to community? What do we owe each other, what IS community now? And if we don’t have any, how can we build it? Choosing to participate pushes our actions towards actions of justice, pushes towards actions of improvement, because to say “yes” is to say “yes, and” Participation is the first step towards building heaven on earth.

Adison

“the impossibility of retreat” To assimilate or to separate… or you could participate! i love how hopeful this chapter becomes. and it brings up a lot for me. i’m struck by skinner’s nightmare utopia and how it embodies this pressing force that i just.. hate so much and how alienated i feel by rigid design. i think the language here really gets at it … “Preemptively calling it a ‘peaceful project’ avoids the fact that regardless of how high-tech your society might be, ‘peace’ is an endless negotiation among free-acting agents whose wills cannot be engineered. Politics necessarily exist between even two individuals with free will; any attempt to reduce politics to design (Theil’s ‘machinery of freedom’) is also an attempt to reduce people to machines or mechanical beings.” (52) i do not want to be a mechanical being! there’s a level of terror i find in being an optimized being, and i want to resist the push to become one. i think a lot of my obsession with physical experience and everyday meaning really comes from it. for me, connecting with and experiencing the body can be an act of resistance against this brain-melting, bone-softening force that i feel from all around me. to dance, to sing in front of my friends, is to experiece my own desires and feelings along with everyone else’s. i find it comforting that we can not escape politics, and that we cannot escape other people. as much as i want to run into the woods and talk to mushrooms forever, i cannot escape the social and relational dynamics of the world around me. and i honestly think that’s kinda rad. to understand that we require companionship, and to use that companionship for good? coolest thing ever. “Susan X. Day observes an unrealistic absence of friend groups or pairs among the people in the novel, even though this phenomenon is so natural that it occurs in other animals, and ‘proceeds inevitable from the differentiation of individuals.’” (52) community is inevitable.

Max Panichev

I have to admit, I grew up with childhood fantasies that if nothing else I could always probably go off and be happy as a hermit so this chapter really felt like it was for me personally. Just felt very seen having someone acknowledge the fantasy's pull and then go into why it doesn't work. This chapter and "Dream of the Red Chamber" hold a special place for that.

JustConnor

"I think we also found the answer to the universe, which was, quite simply, just spend more time with your friends." FUCK, not exactly life changing, but beautifully simple and resonating. commune talk was eh, but it served a larger purpose that i appreciate. "The explorer who will not come back or send back his ships to tell his tale is not an explorer, only an adventurer." Jenny Odell is fucking cracked at picking quotes as CJ mentions. I feel like this speaks to me as someone who really wants to escape the systems, but also cant shut the fuck up about great it is on the other side. Exploring the life outside social media or youtube, and to spread that message on social media or youtube might seem hypocritical, but it is actually essential. but like fuck i still want to fuck off and get in a car and drive and see what happens. thats still a craving, but an unrealistic, unhealthy one i suppose anyway pt 2 of my catalog completing exploration is done.

JustConnor

fuck being optimized. i understand not wanting to make mistakes, especially when it comes to moral ones. but optimization will never lead to true joy. i love what you said about physical experience. this to me is the key to the 'nothing' odell is talking about. remembering the current physical experience that is going on.

phil e the theyby

In my much-belated journey through this book, I LOVED the commune talk (unlike a lot of other people here). I’ve harbored my own escapist fantasies for a long time, and I’ve only in the past few years (I’m in my late 30s) come to realize that retreat is, in fact, impossible, and always relies on the labor of people less fortunate than you. But I needed to read these examples, their longings and their failures, to know how to respond to my former self. Honestly, I need it to respond to my 7-year-old, who gets very easily frustrated and overwhelmed and asks for the world to be different. It’s OK to be sad. It’s OK that it’s hard. But there’s nowhere to escape to. The end of this chapter gave a really beautiful image to this sense I’ve held for a while: that despite all my impulses to run away, or to say I’m “doing enough” because my job involves supporting people directly, the reality is that I can’t recuse myself from everything else that’s happening in my community. That standing apart, that refusal in place, is the only response my conscience has to the world we live in. I’m changing my job in part to give myself more room to do exactly what Odell is describing: “…commitment to live in permanent refusal, where one already is, and to meet others in the common space of that refusal.” (62) I feel the energy for this refusal is all around me, yet people have no idea where to channel it. I hope to help connect and organize people who are already serving the community to give more spaces for people to tap into and honor their feelings of refusal. I hope to create spaces where people can be together and Do Nothing; where the aim isn’t networking, or finding a partner, or acquiring status, but just existing in the presence of another person who you feel cares for the world around you the way that you do. I don’t feel like I’m the best equipped person to do this (I find talking to strangers very hard), but I’ve gotten a lot better at it over the years at my current job, and I’m excited to start, fail, learn, and do better over time. And if I don’t end up saving my community and the world, I think I’ll have at least saved my own soul.

phil e the theyby

Idk, I think the “fuck off and get in a car and drive” impulse is fundamentally healthy in that it’s telling you something important, even if the literal actions it’s telling you to take are unrealistic. I feel like it’s worth listening to it. What does it most want you to escape from? Are there ways to practice refusal in place against those specific things you want to escape? Can other people help you do that? If the answer to those last two questions are “No,” are there things you could learn or relationships you could build to change them to “Yes”? And who knows, maybe if you just go for a drive with no intention, you’ll find the answers to some of those questions, even if you don’t end up retreating from society forever. That’s just my thought based on how I’ve approached similar feelings, though. Take what’s valuable for you and leave what isn’t :)