Below is a conversation about Content vs. Art which (creator of The Commonplace) and I began last summer via email. You can find Part I here. I’ve removed the paywall from the archived post for those new to the topic.

A Dialogue with Thomas J. Bevan (Continued)

Luke: A lot has happened in the world since we did part I of "Transcending the Transactional" last summer. One of the things I have in mind is the rise of generative A.I. Have you come to think of the "art versus content" question any differently over this past year? 

TJB: If anything it’s just entrenched my position further! The rise of generative A.I. has coincided with a personal decision of mine (which we can discuss) to opt out (as much as is feasible) of using the internet as a means of gaining information and staying up to date with world events. For me the internet as a source is something that you can no longer trust implicitly. Perhaps it never was. Virtually everything online is either obviously fake, potentially fake or is created out of motives which I believe to be fake, which is to say inauthentic.

A.I. is just an accelerant for a process that was already a feature of online life, as far as I can see. The promise of A.I.- that it will snowball in sophistication and power such that it can do all that a human can do is false in my opinion. This is a metaphysical and spiritual belief of mine, it is more instinct and intuition than provable premise. But I stand by it. A.I. cannot rise to the level of human, is my contention. Instead A.I. can only get cleverer at simulating the appearance of humanity in a way that is commensurate with how humans are increasingly sinking to the level of machines.

And given that I hold this opinion/worldview/prejudice A.I. doesn’t hold much interest for me as something to write about or engage in. I want to be more present in my ordinary life. This is my only real goal in life. A.I. and VR and metaverses and social media and streaming services and all the rest of it seem to be an impediment to this.

So to get back to your question, I can’t see how anyone can create anything, certainly nothing that could hold its head high and call itself art, with all of these things buzzing away and vying for your attention. I can’t help but see them as being monkey paws for the would-be artist. Most screen-based tech distracts you of the process of creativity. Generative A.I. robs you of all of the worthwhile struggles and triumphs of creating something. No thanks.

I'm with you. I've followed the ridiculous hype train for this past year, and anthropological confusion is astounding. But enough with A.I. Let's turn to politics.

Luke: I've never seen so many Very Online, "new public intellectuals", spouting off with long political treatises and policy proposals which all have the feel to me of content. Some of them even seem to be trying to be intentionally cringe because being cringe gets engagement. So does saying outlandish things, racist things, or things which are obviously put out there for the sheer exhilaration (on the part of these grifters) of being talked about. I sometimes feel like I'm being assaulted on every side by superficial shit dressed up and disguised as serious thinking, and people can no longer tell the difference. Okay, all of that is just a preamble to my actual question: what does the art vs. content question have to do with politics? This dialogue is titled Transcending the Transactional, Part II—and one way that I think of this is that all politics seems to have become transactional, but it need not be. In other words, even politics has been subsumed into the Content Bubble. (Which may not be a bubble at all, maybe it can keep on going for far longer than I thought; but dear God, I hope not.)  How do you view the political questions in regards to content?

TJB: Politics, at least on the internet, is an engine for content generation. That’s all it is, just a hot air machine.

Maybe out in the real world of town hall meetings and voting and protests and boycotts and all the rest of it politics is still a genuine activity, but online it is a genre, a particular mode of participating in the attention economy.

The way it works is this- you have two sides which last time I looked were labeled The Left and The Right, The Woke and The Anti-Woke and other such things. The names may have changed now. But it doesn’t matter. The point is that you have these two opposing sides- one believes in the philosophical concept of Idealism (a.k.a Postmodernism, which states that there are no universals, only differing opinions) while the other believes in Realism (the idea that we can derive accurate information and knowledge about the shared external world via our senses). These are two metaphysical positions and as such are intractable. But- and this is the beauty of the trick- they are framed as political difference. And thus the two groups will never stop arguing or come to any resolution or reconciliation. It will just go on and on forever, a perpetual motion engine of memes and think pieces and other forms of bullshit. If one were conspiratorially inclined they might argue that this is a supreme example of divide and conquer, of distraction and of engineering unceasing states of anger, stress and dissatisfaction which are all prove to be effective for both economic growth via rampant consumerism and for keeping people’s eye of the ball while more wealth is transferred from the poor to the rich. That’s an argument that you could make. Me, I couldn’t possibly comment.

But the point is that we can only move on from this endless Red vs Blue back-and-forth when this fundamental metaphysical difference is framed as such and not just as a political difference. Or when a critical mass of people stop engaging in this nonsense, stop giving it energy and attention. The only thing the Attention Economy can’t absorb or co-opt or take advantage of is people ignoring.

This is a clue to how you move beyond Content. You create and consume Art- something that aims at timelessness, at the human condition itself, at the world of real people living away from this fake Black Mirror internet reality. These slower and more human activities rekindle your attention and allow you to aim it in directions that are actually beneficial to you.

Luke: "Slower and more human activities" reminds me of the Slow Food movement, which originated in Italy. It's an entirely non-political approach to engaging the real and, in some sense, re-educating the senses. Developing a sensitivity to the real. One pattern I have noticed among fans of the new Nietszchean strain of politics—on the right, Bronze Age Pervert is one of the more influential proponents of this—is that fans describe these ideas as energizing (okay—energising, for you). Perhaps that's partly because they preach a return to raw physicality: strength, power, sexuality. In a world that is becoming increasingly abstract, I think that is part of its attraction. Don't get me wrong: I find it repulsive on a number of levels. I'm just trying to make sense of it. My question is this: why is the real—the kind that you and I are talking about—not as energizing for many people? Is this due to a kind of organ failure? I suppose my phrasing may be begging the question: perhaps it's wrong to assume that energising is what people should even be after in the first place, but I have heard this language used to describe the titillation from content so often lately that I think it may open up some avenues for exploration for us. If Content is Energizing, then what is Art?

TJB: There’s a lot to discuss there and you could take that in a hundred different directions. Now, I don’t know what a Bronze Age Pervert is exactly so I’m not going to speculate about that much. My limited experience with self-described Nietzschians from first year philosophy classes was that all of the ubermensch discussion was a pep talk to themselves to compensate for them being physically frail, socially awkward and resentful about those two things. Unwilling to take on the humbling work of personal growth and change and instead seeing everything as being solely the world’s fault and believing that they would be great and revered if only they lived in a different era. I’m not going to tar this Bronze Age Pervert person with that brush because I know nothing about his work (and am not especially motivated to find out to tell you the truth) but that’s what ‘Nietzschean vitalism’ brings to mind for me. Perhaps I’m way out of line.

Anyway. The heart of your question was why do people seek ‘energising’ Content- or feel energised by it- versus the comparatively slower and duller pleasures of the world away from screens? A big question. Well, I think the issue is that essentially everything online is pornography, virtually everything we imbibe via the internet acts as a super-stimulant that messes with the human appetite and sense of perspective. Like junk food all of these platforms and their Content spew out the equivalent of Frankenfoods, morsels precisely engineered to elicit the maximal dose of (addiction causing) stimulus.

So the ‘organ that’s failing’ is the brain, is the dopaminergic reward system and it is being worn out through overuse. It’s a truism that gets dismissed because it is so obvious but looking at dozens and dozens of copulating ‘pornstars’ can’t be good for your brain just as mainlining hundreds of half-baked hot takes, context-striped news clips, rage-inducing anecdotes and envy-inducing and meticulously crafted ‘candid’ instagram posts in a single multi-hour doomscrolling session can’t be good for your psyche and your neurochemistry. This is stressful, and as you become increasingly detached from your own physical body and lived reality this stress could easily be mislabelled as ‘energising’. I’m sure crack feels energising once the first rock of the day hits and takes away the growing withdrawal symptoms.

People know something is wrong with how we are living but because the internet is the source of all of our information we ‘look up’ how to cure Content caused issues and are simply presented with more Content to consume. The cycle continues.

Real life is the only true solution I can see. ‘Touch grass’ is a flippant critique thrown at the Terminally Online (often among themselves as part of the Perpetual Motion Engine of Bullshit endless debates that I mentioned in the last question) but it is sound advice. When you unplug you soon regain your perspective and find ‘normal’ stimuli- witnessing nature, reading physical books, having a face to face conversation and so on- engaging and rewarding again. From this vantage point you can find both the creation and consumption of Art possible. Art is not ‘energising’ (which as I said is a mislabelling of acute and chronic stress responses) but it is nourishing, for lack of a better term.

Funnily enough Nietzsche knew all of this. He was a prodigious hiker and he railed against writing in stuffy libraries and creating books constructed from the borrowed opinions of others. Books about books sound to me like the 19th century precursor to Content Creation and Content Curation and Reaction Videos and Hot Takes and all the rest of it. So maybe we shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss Nietzsche himself on account of all of the Nietzscheans who have followed in his wake.

Luke: One can never dismiss Nietzsche. René Girard thought he was so important—a thinker who alone saw things about Christianity that everyone before him had missed—that Nietzsche is really the only philosophy he seems to feel the need to grapple with directly, with great force. He dedicates the last chapter of I See Satan Fall Like Lightning to Nietzsche's enduring influence. It's devastating—and, in my opinion, the most important thing Girard ever wrote. This makes me realize I need to read a good biography of Nietzsche. I'd like to understand the specific ways that he thought of himself as a non-conformist. I didn't know the part about him not liking to write in stuffy libraries.

My next question is about transactional relationships. We've all heard that term. I think of transactional work relationships. But friendships, even family relationships, can be just as transactional. What are the signs of a transactional relationship? And how does one transcend that mode of relating? I'm asking the question here, in the context of this broader art vs. content discussion, because I wonder if art is an important component of a non-transactional relationship between two people.  What do you think?

TJB: Nietzsche’s thoughts on tech are covered in Nate Anderson’s In Emergency, Break Glass: What Nietzsche Can Teach Us About Joyful Living in a Tech-Saturated World, which is worth reading in spite of that Tedtalkesque subtitle. And yeah, Nietzsche needs to be wrestled with, we all live in the shadow of his influence and exhibit many signs of being the Last Men who he was so concerned about us devolving into.

But let’s switch from that cheery topic to the equally cheery topic of transactional relationships! Transaction relationships can be hard to define partly, I fear, because they are so ubiquitous.

Read more

On Sunday afternoon I hosted a special Anti-Mimetic Salon on the topic of “political atheism”, a phrase used by René Girard to refer not to politics founded on atheism, but to an approach to politics itself—one which desacralizes the political, strips it of idols, and recognizes the mimetic mediators and mechanisms (i.e. scapegoating violence) by which it works.

But while Girard named a few historical figures as people who seemed to be “atheists in politics” (a few of them are pictured above), he never fully explained what he meant by the concept political atheism.

Since I’m currently working on an extended monograph on this topic (which I hope to have complete next month), I invited readers to join me for a discussion. The hour that we spent together was incredibly rich with insights from all of the participants.

I am happy to share the recording and notes with you here in the hopes that we can continue this conversation.

Read more

The Anti-Mimetic Salon on Thursday, November 17, 2022, featured Dr. Hollis Robbins, Dean of the College of Humanities at the University of Utah and an eminent scholar of nineteenth-century American and African American literature, newspapers, film, and poetry. I was lucky to have had the opportunity to connect with Dr. Robbins in early 2021, before Wanting went to print. She was influential in helping shape my approach to public engagement.

In this week’s Salon, a small group of us gathered on Zoom to discuss Hans Christian Andersen’s story “The Emperor’s New Clothes” in light of the recent scandal (and cult) of Sam Bankman-Fried, and much more—including a paper, “Satanas Ex Machina: Chance as a Value for Artificial Intelligence”, by Alexei Grinbaum, which implicitly applies some of Girard’s ideas to the problem of technological transparency. The audio of our conversation is below, for paying subscribers. Enjoy.

Read more

Here is the audio recording of our members-only chat with writer Thomas J. Bevan. Unscripted and raw. I was glad to see so many new (and familiar) faces! Enjoy.

Read more

Read more

I first met Thomas J. Bevan, a fascinating writer (because a fascinating person) who is based in a small town in England, after I started spending more time online during the pandemic.

For better or worse, I got back on Twitter for the first time in years. Within a short period of time, the algorithm began showing me his tweets (so, the algorithm has some benefits after all...), which led me to his recently-launched Substack, The Commonplace, where I was struck by the honesty of his voice, the sharpness of his prose, the anti-mimetic topics he was choosing to write about (“The Death of Lunch” / “The Meaning of Nostalgia” / “Catacombs as Metaphor”), and his willingness to share his story. His fiction is also stellar, even though the essays initially drew me in.

Though he is pseudo-anonymous, he shared with his audience that he had worked a series of relatively normal jobs (i.e. in restaurant kitchens) and most re…

Read more

I know there were many who wanted to attend but could not make it. So please find here:

1) Audio/Podcast version (above)
2) Video of the Zoom call (below)
3) A full text transcript (beneath the video)

Enjoy!

Video of Zoom Call:

Read more

Read more

I first encountered Chloé Valdary’s work while I was in the throes of writing Wanting. It was the summer of 2020. I was concerned that race issues in America were turning into a full-blown mimetic crisis, replete with scapegoats.

I reached out to her late last year after exploring her curriculum, Theory of Enchantment. I sent her a galley copy of my work. We connected over Zoom. We had a great conversation about a variety of things, including a realization that we’d both spent a lot of time around the same coffee shop in Brooklyn.

At that time, I thought that I wanted to include an entire section in my book about mimesis and race relations, mimetic politics, economics, and a host of other more controversial topics. But I quickly came to the realization that it would’ve been too much. A separate book.

In the meantime, though, the conversations had to start. They would form the basis for having anything worthwhile to say.

Why the Q&A Form

This is the first in what I hope will be a series of…

Read more

How do our hardened desires change or undergo a process of transformation, especially when those desires are harmful or limiting? I’ve never done a psychedelic drug, and I’m not advocating their recreational use—but I am interested in emerging research showing their benefits in a variety of cases, and I’m particularly interested in their effect on people’s desires. Are they a pathway to transcendent wanting, for instance?

Author Michael Pollan (The Omnivore’s Dilemma) has written an entire book on the topic called How to Change Your Mind. And one of my readers, Connor Flanigan, recently gave this presentation called “The Embodied Model Hypothesis: Mimetic Theory Meets Psychedelics.” Is it possible to substitute mimetic models when a person is in a heightened state of suggestibility? This, of course, is what the field of hypnosis is all about. But we’re only now starting to see how deep the psychology goes.

In this newsletter, I’m sharing an excerpted transcript of my interview with Dr.…

Read more

This week I interviewed novelist A. Natasha Joukovsky, whose new novel The Portrait of a Mirror happened to be published—in the infinite wisdom of the literary gods—on the same day as Wanting.

Unbeknownst to both of us, the new Beauty Editor at the magazine Coveteur, Ama Kwarteng, came into possession of both books. She was familiar enough with my work by the time she read The Portrait of a Mirror to realize that it’s a novel shot through and through with mimetic desire. (As anyone who follows this Substack closely knows: once you see mimetic desire, you can’t unsee it. And Ama was apparently now rocking the X-ray glasses.) She dropped me a line to let me know about the connection she saw: non-fiction illuminating fiction; fiction illuminating non-fiction. As it should be.

So I reached out to Natasha with an “umm…ever heard of René Girard?” Not surprisingly, she had not (why his ideas have been repressed in literature departments is a topic for another day)—but it only took her a few m…

Read more