The Metamodern Man of Steel

Co-chairman and Co-CEO of DC Studios James Gunn has always had an intuitive understanding of the time in which he lives. The Guardians of the Galaxy films Gunn wrote and directed for Marvel Studios achieved critical, and commercial success. Much of this was due to the fact that Gunn’s storytelling aligned with the metaphysical reality of the world around him. It connected with the minds of audiences on a conscious, and subconscious level. In my view, Gunn’s storytelling was able to do this because it was metamodern in nature.

Gunn embraced human connection, authentic feeling, and earnest emotion. Yet he didn’t do so naively. He chastened them all with the difficulties of life: depression, loneliness, grief, and lack of purpose. Gunn would also use sardonic humor to poke holes in the kitschy underbelly of his storytelling. Most of the characters in Gunn’s Guardians of the Galaxy films were searching for authentic meaning and connection. This oscillation between sincerity and irony, along with a desire to create authentic feeling, are metamodern traits.

The metaphysical world Gunn created for his characters in the Guardians of the Galaxy films reflected the metaphysics of the real world he saw around him. A place where human beings are lonelier than ever despite an abundance of digital connections. A place where there are no real traditions or cultural structures left that bind human minds together. And a place where individuals yearn for authentic human meaning amid the cynical landscape of capitalistic; consumer life.

The first Guardians of the Galaxy film was released in 2014. This was one of the last moments before President Trump and his movement would cast a wide shadow over everyone, and everything in America. This along with the fact the Guardians of the Galaxy films mostly took place in outer space on alien worlds, meant that Gunn’s focus was solely on the characters themselves. There were no earthly societal effects, sociological issues, or cultural commentary at play. The metamodern dynamic was entirely developed by the feelings and interactions of the characters in the story.

In 2022, Gunn moved on from Marvel Studios to become Co-Chairman and Co-CEO of DC Studios. Now, instead of being in charge of a small corner of one cinematic universe, he would be entirely in control of another. Gunn’s new tenure would signal a wholesale reboot for DC Studios. In the years prior, the studio had failed to find wide commercial and critical success. Iconic DC characters like Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman had failed to connect with audiences on the deeper level that characters created by Marvel Studios had.

In online movie commentary circles there was a running joke that Marvel had been able to make a ‘talking tree and a talking raccoon more interesting than Superman and Batman’. Ironically, the talking tree and talking raccoon were obscure comic book characters that achieved worldwide adoration due to Gunn’s Guardians of the Galaxy movies.

As Gunn embarked on an ambitious ten year plan for DC Studios, he felt he had no choice but to begin building his vision with DC’s most iconic character: Superman. Debuting over eighty years ago, and known worldwide, Superman had been brought to life in various films and television shows in the past. Most famously, in the late 1970’s and 1980’s when the character was played by Christopher Reeve. Reeve’s sincere portrayal of the character, along with his physical embodiment of the role, made his performance the benchmark that all future incarnations of the Man of Steel would be measured against.

Reeve’s Superman was a product of its time. The Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States had created a cultural paradigm of ‘good versus evil’. Popular culture and politics reinforced the notion that the United States was a righteous actor in the arc of history. This was fueled by the presidency of Ronald Reagan, who famously declared it was ‘morning in America again’. After the tumult of the 1960’s and the 1970’s, Reagan ushered in a conservative movement that wrapped itself in tradition, and the notion of American greatness. This modernist idealism was the canvas upon which Reeve’s Superman was brought to life. It was no mistake that one of Reeve’s most iconic lines as the Man of Steel was that he had come to Earth to fight for ‘truth, justice, and the American way’.

While perfect for forty years ago, this modernist and simplistic take on Superman wouldn’t really work in 2025. Long gone are the times where ‘good’ and ‘evil’ were defined so clearly, or when the American populace was relatively aligned behind American ideals. Forty years ago Americans agreed on common facts, and trusted the news they received from the small number of sources that were available. In 2025 Americans are over saturated with information, and freely curate their own truth about reality. In our current time, cynicism runs through the society - and is held in the hearts of many in relation to failed institutions or corporate power.

This is the landscape that James Gunn’s Superman would inhabit. A cynical, disorienting place, where the idealism of Superman would stick out like a sore thumb. This tension in itself would create a metamodern backdrop for whatever story Gunn decided to tell.

In July of 2025, Gunn’s vision came to life as DC Studios released Superman to critical and commercial success. The movie opens with the same earnest feelings that anyone familiar with Superman lore would recognize. Wounded from battle, Superman (played by David Corenswet) is aided by his lovable dog Krypto, and dutiful androids in his home sanctuary. It is here where the audience first learns about Superman's motivating ethos. In an effort to sooth his discomfort, Superman’s androids play a message from his parents that was recorded as he was sent to Earth as a child. The last part of the message is damaged and indecipherable. But in the first part, Superman’s parents say the following:

We love you more than heaven our son. We love you more than land. Our beloved home will soon be gone forever - but hope vitalizes our hearts; and that hope is you Kal-El (Superman). We have searched the universe for a home where you can do the most good - and live out Krypton’s truth. That place is Earth.

Right from the beginning, Gunn establishes that what gives Superman meaning and purpose is to ‘do good’. To do the right thing, not because it will bring fame or riches; but because it is simply the right thing to do in itself.

Superman’s foe in the early part of the movie is ‘The Hammer of Boravia’. A super powered individual in a metal suit that is seemingly hell bent on getting revenge for Superman’s meddling in the country of Boravia’s affairs. Superman had taken it upon himself to intervene as Boravia had undertaken military aggression against the weaker country of Jarhanpur. However, very quickly it becomes clear that The Hammer of Boravia is being controlled behind the scenes by Superman’s long standing enemy, Lex Luthor. Played by Nicholas Hoult, Gunn’s version of Luthor is basically a bald version of Elon Musk. A billionaire, sociopathic narcissist at the head of a corporation with way too much power and influence over society.

As Superman struggles to gain the upperhand against his Lex Luthor controlled opponent, Gunn begins to show how this version of Superman exists in more complex times than earlier iterations. After Superman gets knocked careening into the street below, a crowd gathers around. One bystander tries to help Superman up with genuine feeling and admiration. While another says ‘maybe you shouldn’t have done that thing in Jarhanpur Superman’ - an insinuation that Superman’s troubles could be of his own making. This early line of cynicism foreshadows Lex Luthor’s entire modus operandi: gin up the cynicism latent in modern times to turn the world against ‘the good’ Superman.

Luthor takes his case against Superman to the US government, where he offers his services to destroy the Kryptonian. He states that Superman’s ‘violent actions’ against the United States’ ‘ally’ of Boravia are grounds for his punishment. One of the government attendees quickly points out that Luthor’s company has sold 80 billion dollars worth of arms to Boravia, and that any Boravian military actions would be in Luthor’s economic interest. Luthor brushes the conflict of interest aside and states that an ‘alien’ shouldn’t be allowed to meddle in human affairs and operate without accountability. One of the generals in attendance speaking about Superman’s intervention in Boravia says that ‘big blue stopped the war - naive maybe, but well intentioned’.

This metamodern dynamic of an earnest acting Superman amid a cynical world of governments, corporations, and social media fueled opinions is on full display as he tries to explain his actions to his girlfriend, Lois Lane. Played by Rachel Brosnahan, Gunn’s version of Lois Lane serves as a kind of realist counter to Superman’s idealism. She knows Superman’s secret identity as her clumsy, awkward co-worker Clark Kent. Just as she knows all of Clark’s ‘interviews’ with Superman are complete fabrications.

As a journalist devoted to the truth, and authentic reporting, Lois lets Superman know that his self interviewing charade won’t last forever undetected. To this Superman responds, ‘so, I’ll let you interview me’. Lois, surprised at the opportunity, takes her boyfriend up on the spot. Lois begins by asking about Superman’s actions in Boravia, which she reminds him are being looked into by the Secretary of Defense. Superman smirks derisively, and responds ‘my actions? I stopped a war’. After Lois responds with good faith skepticism, Superman adds, ‘Boravia invaded Jarhanpur, and I showed up and told them that wasn’t right’.

Superman continues by saying there were ‘no casualties, and no significant injuries’ - but he did have to smash some ‘tanks, and planes, and things’. Lois presses Superman on what he did after his intervention to the President of Boravia. To which Superman reluctantly responds that he took the president out to the desert, placed him on a cactus, and had a word with him about what might happen in the future. ‘So torture?’ Lois responds as she begins to press her interviewee on his actions. Increasingly agitated, Superman responds by saying ‘Ghurkos (the Boravian President) was going to kill people!’ Lois counters by saying:

‘In effect, you illegally entered a country, inserting yourself in the middle of an incredibly heated geopolitical situation, siding with a nation (Jarhanpur) which historically has not been a friend to the United States, against a nation that is technically our ally - then threatened to murder their head of state.’

Superman goes on to say that whether Jarhanpur is perfect or not, it doesn’t give another nation the right to invade it. Lois responds by saying that the Boravian government maintains that they are ‘freeing the Jarhanpur people from a tyrannical regime’. Superman responds with idealistic conviction that ‘you (Lois) know that is very silly!’. To which Lois responds in exasperation, ‘I do?’. Turning off Lois’ tape recorder to speak off the record, Superman asks Lois why she is pressing him on the nature of the Boravian government when she knows he is right. She agrees he is probably right, but that is not the point. 

Continuing the interview, Lois asks Superman if he consulted with the President, the Secretary of Defense, or ‘any US official’ before taking unilateral action. Completely exasperated at this point, Superman responds, ‘Ghurkos and his goons were going to kill people!’. Lois tries to make clear the ramifications of Superman acting unilaterally as a seeming ‘representative’ of the United States. Superman cuts her off and exclaims, ‘I wasn’t representing anyone but me, and good - and doing good!’. Lois tries to respond by saying maybe Superman should have thought through all this before he acted, but Superman yells ‘people were going to die!’.

Lois decides to change the subject to Superman’s public persona. She asks Superman how he feels about all the negative comments he gets online, and that people are scared of him because he is an ‘alien’. Superman pensively describes how he was sent to Earth by his parents to ‘serve humanity, and to help the world be a better place’. He adds that the reason he does what he does is because of the message his parents left him.

For Superman, the message from his parents has made the world a simple place. There is right, there is wrong, and there are actions he needs to take to make sure good things happen. This modernist framing of Superman’s initial motivations echoes the Christopher Reeve era of Superman storytelling. Yet James Gunn realized this simplistic moralism didn’t quite fit in the metamodern world of 2025. His version of Superman would have a much tougher time figuring out his sense of meaning and purpose compared to previous versions of the character.

Nobody in Superman’s world is more repelled by his naive purity than Lex Luthor. Purely transactional and cynical, Luthor knows that a world that idolizes Superman is a world that does not serve his interests. With this in mind, Luthor breaks into Superman’s home sanctuary in an effort to find something to either kill or discredit him. In his search he stumbles upon the message from Superman’s parents. One of his minions is then able to hack the message, and decipher the last part which had been corrupted all of Superman’s life. Luthor promptly broadcasts his findings over social media, and digital airwaves around the world. The previously undecipherable part of the message reads as follows:

‘The people there (Earth) are simple, and profoundly confused. Weak of mind, and spirit, and body. Lord over the planet as the last son of Krypton. Dispatch of anyone unable, or unwilling to serve you Kal-El. Take as many wives as you can, so your genes and Krypton’s might and legacy will live on in this new frontier. Do us proud our beloved son, rule without mercy.’

With the reveal of the complete message, Superman’s entire foundation of personal meaning and purpose was shattered. From his point of view, everything he believed about himself is uncertain. He tells Lois he ‘believed he knew how the message ended’ and that his parents had sent him to Earth to serve the people and be a ‘good man’. He tells her he’s not on Earth to rule anyone, and that he’s sorry they argued during their attempted interview.

Lois begins to reflect on their relationship, and ruminates that they were probably bound to clash due to their differences. She says, ‘I was just some punk rock kid from Bakerline, and you’re - Superman’. To which Superman amusingly responds, ‘I’m punk rock’. Lois then laughs as Superman reels off various popular bands he likes. ‘Those are pop radio bands, they’re not punk rock’, she snickers. 

Lois continues to highlight their differences by saying, ‘my point is, I question everything, and everyone - you trust everyone, and think everyone you’ve ever met is like - beautiful’. To which Superman counters stoically, ‘maybe that’s the real punk rock’.

This is the crux of metamodernism. The interplay between sincerity and cynicism, and the embrace of earnest humanism. In James Gunn’s storytelling, Superman doesn’t so much stand out from the world because of his otherworldly strength and ability to fly. He stands in contrast with the world because of his pure humanistic intentions. Remember, Gunn’s DC reality reflects our own. One where governments, corporations, digital media, and general social cynicism combine to create a world where authentic human concerns often come last. This is why Superman refers to his beliefs as being the ‘real punk rock’. In metamodern times, earnest humanism is still a kind of counter culture. It is an aim, or a desire - something that is yearned for or wished for. It is not the status quo, or the normal state of affairs.

In the second half of the movie, there comes a point where Superman must be taken somewhere safe to recuperate after he is almost killed while being imprisoned by Lex Luthor. Lois takes him to the home of the human parents who raised him on Earth in rural Kansas. Superman’s adoptive parents (Jonathan and Martha Kent) are simple, good people who dote over their adopted son as he lays down to rest in his childhood bed. Lois gazes around at the innocent childhood artifacts of the world’s most powerful being. Trophies, model airplanes, and school awards populate the decor. She offers a slight sigh as she sees a poster on the wall of one of the ‘pop radio bands’ she needled her boyfriend about.

Lois watches as Jon and Martha Kent hover over Superman like any loving parents would over a sick child. After seeing this, along with getting a glimpse of Superman’s childhood, she seems to finally understand the earnestness that surrounds his every action. The next morning as Superman is sitting outside eating breakfast, Jon Kent comes to sit next to him. After some small talk, he tells his adopted son that he doesn’t seem like himself. To which Superman responds with his dismay about learning the truth about the message from his biological parents.

Jon Kent then says ‘well, I’d say that what you wanted that message to mean says a whole lot more about you than what anyone meant for it to mean’. Superman then says, ‘Pa, you don’t understand, I’m not who I thought I was - they sent me here to hurt people’. Jon Kent then explains that ‘parents aren’t for telling their children who they’re supposed to be - we are here to give you all tools to help you make fools of yourselves all on your own’. Jon Kent continues by saying, ‘your choices Clark, your actions, that’s what makes you who you are’. Tearing up, Jon Kent tells Superman how proud he is of him, and the two embrace as father and son.

James Gunn’s decision to emphasize the importance of Superman’s adoptive parents over his biological ones was a deliberate departure from past Superman storytelling. By having the idealistic message from Superman’s biological parents take a cynical turn, it highlighted the importance of the human love his adoptive parents had given him. Superman’s purpose and earnestness had not come from a dry, recorded message. It had come from familial love, human connection, and universal human values. In Gunn’s vision, Superman embodied ‘The Good’ because of the human life he had lived. He was the best of what human love could create.

During the film’s final confrontation between Superman and Lex Luthor, Luthor calls Superman a ‘piece of shit’ and an ‘alien’. To which Superman responds with an impassioned, and overly earnest speech:

‘That is where you’ve always been wrong about me Lex. I’m as human as anyone! I love, I get scared, I wake up every morning, and despite not knowing what to do I put one foot in front of the other, and I try to make the best choices I can. I screw up all the time - but that is being human. And that’s my greatest strength.’

This ‘earnest uncertainty’ conveyed by Superman is very metamodern. And it shows how in James Gunn’s world, Superman’s greatest superpower is his humanity. In the beginning of the movie, Superman’s nerves are calmed by the cold, formal message from his biological parents. Yet at the end of the movie, he elects to be surrounded by a collage of warm videos from his childhood with his adoptive, human parents. In true Gunn style, the whole scene is punctuated by music. The song ‘Punkrocker’ (feat. Iggy Pop) by the Teddybears plays as Superman sits back and smiles as the memories of his family capture his mind.

The chorus of the song - cause I'm a punk rocker, yes, I am; well, I'm a punk rocker, yes, I am - references his conversation with Lois earlier in the movie. The one where he intimates that maybe in a world full of cynicism, to be ‘punk rock’ is to be earnest, and good, and to see the humanity in everyone. Gunn’s decision to have Superman embrace (and embody) earnest human feeling, while simultaneously acknowledging a world filled with cynicism, means that this version of the Man of Steel is a metamodern one. A character who yearns to find meaning and purpose in a world that isn’t quick to offer either.

Zohran Mamdani's Success Shows it's Time for a New Economic Paradigm

Since Zohran Mamdani’s win in the New York Democratic Primary there have been two distinct responses to his victory. One embodied by traditional political voices on both the left and the right; and one that takes a more nuanced or reflective approach.

The traditional voices have been quick to dismiss Mamdani as a simple socialist or communist. With the voices on the right framing him within their archetypal view of left wing youth: out of touch, entitled, naive admirers of collectivist or Marxist ideas.

Yet the more subtle reactions on both the left and right have recognized the truth of Mamdani’s rise. The fact that he represents a new political paradigm shift rather than a decades old caricature. Mamdani's ideas and concepts are definitely rooted in traditional notions of socialism or collectivism. He is after all a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. Yet his appeal, and the economic, political, and technological situation he's responding to, represent a paradigm shift that is ongoing.

Negative connotations around socialist ideas are less relevant in a world where younger generations face never-ending economic headwinds, and the coming age of artificial intelligence. Populist redistribution doesn't sound like a bad thing when the top of the American economy continues to reap most of the benefits. And things like free buses, affordable child care, or basic access to healthcare aren't Marxist fantasies when you live paycheck to paycheck - instead they are pragmatic life improvements.

This doesn't mean that Mamdani’s ideas will work, it just means they align with the minds of where many voters are today. Socialism isn't seen as ‘socialism’; it's seen as a remedy to problems that are never fixed - and an adjustment to a society that is failing the middle class on down. The historical and ideological stain on socialist economic policies matters little when large swaths of voters see modern capitalism as having failed to deliver a fair bargain.

The ‘fair bargain’ being that if you play by the rules and work hard, you can have a decent life. A decent life meaning you can afford a modest house, a car, raise a family, and maybe find moments of true happiness. For many in younger generations, this bargain is either long dead, or ceased to exist.

Zohran Mamdani’s campaign addressed this reality directly, which is why he won. And no place embodies the excesses of modern capitalism at the moment more than New York City. This reality; marked by the failures of modern capitalism and the elites and politicians surrounding it, is not limited to New York. It is a country wide problem in America. And it's part of the reason why President Donald Trump was able to be elected to the presidency twice.

It's also why many of Trump's voters would have also supported far left candidate Senator Bernie Sanders in the 2016 presidential election. Sanders, like Trump, effectively spoke to the economic situation many voters find themselves in. It didn't matter that Sanders’ ideas were far left, or that Trump's were far right. Each was seen as addressing a reality that most politicians ignored.

The same ‘left’, ‘right’ perplexing overlap can be seen today when right wing commentator Tucker Carlson speaks about the economic issues facing the middle class. In certain instances, Carlson sounds almost like a left wing ideologue. He has even expressed a bit of admiration for Mamdani's candidacy, even though he disagrees with almost all of Mamdani’s proposed solutions.

The point being that there is a general feeling within the American populace that drastic change is needed. This feeling transcends old political ideologies, and old political allegiances. And it largely has to do with the society that modern day capitalism has created.

---

The problem is not the notion of capitalism itself. The problem is that we've essentialized capitalism as if it is the final economic paradigm that human beings can evolve towards. It can't be argued that traditional capitalism, democracy, and free markets have delivered better economic results than traditional collectivist ideologies. If you track the economic trajectory of countries around the world after World War II, the success of capitalism cannot be denied.

One of the arguments those reflexively opposed to socialist ideas make is that collectivist policies lead to human misery. They correctly cite the main culprit concerning the past failures of grand experiments in collectivist governance: the fact that when power is concentrated within a small group, it tends to be abused. Collectivist governments provide a ready built structure for the worst natured rulers to rise to power. This leads to authoritarianism, decreased individual freedom, and general suffering. Historical examples of this include Joseph Stalin's rule over the Soviet Union, and Mao Zedong’s rule over Communist China.

Yet those who correctly point out the historical failures of collectivism, fail to acknowledge the failures of modern capitalism. Collectivism cements corrupt power at the top of society, but so has capitalism. Collectivism leads to economic inequality, and societal stagnation; but so has modern capitalism. Collectivism leaves large swaths of a population feeling like they don't have a future full of meaning and purpose - but so has modern capitalism.

Of course the failures of collectivism in these instances are much, much greater than those of modern capitalism. For example, The Great Chinese Famine (1959-1961) likely killed around 30 million people. A tragedy whose cause was terrible government collectivist policy. Yet it should be acknowledged that in the relative time of 2025, modern day capitalism has shown its limits. Even though those shortcomings pale in comparison to failings of the past, it doesn't mean the time hasn't come for new economic thinking.

---

There is nothing wrong with acknowledging the success and failures of capitalism while also trying to imagine what needs to come next. It's kind of like recognizing that the time has come to move beyond fossil fuel energy sources. We don't have to demonize or essentialize fossil fuel use - it was the best we could do at the time. But we do have to evolve to a higher state of thinking that takes advantage of clean energy and technological progress.

The same could be said for capitalism. It was the best we could do at the time; but the moment has come to try and conceive of something better. ‘Something better’ doesn’t mean a zero sum replacement. Instead, it refers to something that preserves the best parts of capitalism while acknowledging that money cannot serve as society’s organizing principle. Money is just a tool human beings created to allow for peaceful acquisition and exchange of goods. It is better to receive money for an item rather than having that item stolen from you. Just as it is better to know that you can use money to build the life you desire, instead of having to use other primal means.

Yet through the natural progression of human behavior, we have reified money to the point that capitalism has devolved into a version of the thing it was intended to mitigate: a human world determined by our base instincts, and raw power. Every aspect of American life has been reduced to the whims of profit making. This isn’t capitalism’s fault per say; there is no ‘capitalism’ to be found hiding out in some undisclosed location. It is just the natural result of a system human beings created being allowed to run unimpeded to its logical conclusion. Without detached intervention or adjustment, all human systems seem to arrive at varying levels of dysfunction or stagnation.

At some point, especially with the coming age of artificial intelligence and advanced robotics; there will have to be a reckoning towards a new economic paradigm. Otherwise, the age of artificial intelligence will not be one of abundance, but one of mass unemployment and suffering. Companies following the current trajectory of capitalism will seek to maximize profits, not employ human beings out of empathy. This in turn will make a policy like universal basic income look less like socialism and more like a necessity.

And herein lies the point. Would it be such a terrible thing to have a country where most of the labor was done by artificial intelligence or robots, and people were free to pursue lives of true meaning and purpose? Shouldn’t that be the goal for beings capable of technological and intellectual progress? I’m not sure even an arch conservative would argue against the idea that there is more to life than the pursuit of money. Yet this is the reality Americans find themselves in. A society organized not around what makes human life worth living; but structured around something trivial and utilitarian.

This is why Zohran Mamdani has had success. He was able to tap into the feeling many people have that capitalism in its current form has run its course. His support doesn’t necessarily come from some embrace of traditional socialism. It comes from a desire to have a life that is a bit more human. A desire to see a city, and a country, that puts the quality of the lives of its citizens first, and markets second.

In July of 2025, the well known hip hop group Wu-Tang Clan was performing in New York City at Madison Square Garden. Mamdani received an invite to the concert from former New York Congressman Jamaal Bowman. Making his way backstage, Mamdani received warm greetings from fans in attendance, and performers like Run The Jewels, and Jadakiss. Yet it was his interaction with the brains behind the Wu-Tang Clan; RZA, which was most symbolic. RZA engaged Mamdani by saying:

I got friends, they lived in Brownsville (Brooklyn) in the 60’s, but they was able to move out to Long Island - and their life is good. Then you got the people in my generation, like my aunts and uncles - we got stuck. So we probably like ‘let us out!’ - but how do you balance that?

Mamdani responded by saying:

I mean I think a big part of it is to make Brownsville the place that you don’t have to leave to have that same life. There are too many people for whom stability, space - raising a family, you can only do it outside of New York City. The whole campaign we ran on is about how do we make the most expensive city in the United States affordable?

This exchange sums up the whole sociological situation surrounding Mamdani’s rise, and the appeal of traditionally socialist ideas in general. In 2025 America it's not so much about liberal or conservative, or capitalism versus socialism. It’s simply about what people think will make their lives better. The politicians that recognize that, no matter what their political persuasion, will be successful. While the ones that don’t, will increasingly find themselves on the receiving end of the anger from a populace that has had enough.

The Last of Us and The Will to Meaning

The HBO show The Last of Us takes place in a world where human creations have given way to base human instincts. The world of economics, laws, nations, media, communication, and culture creation has been replaced by the naked desires of the human mind. This is due to the fact that a mutated fungus has infected the majority of the world’s population and turned them into aggressive, deformed, zombie-like creatures. This results in the surviving humans facing an apocalyptic reality filled with dread and uncertainty. But it also results in a world filled with memories and artifacts of a time before the end of human civilization as we know it.

From the destruction of the modern world arise various groups that one might expect: fascist government entities, resistance groups, religious cult-like groups, predatory bandits, and groups of people just trying to survive with a semblance of normalcy. Yet what also rises are the elements that make human beings what they are. To use a digital analogy: if the world constructed around us were a three dimensional projection emanating from a source; the internal code that powered that source would be our nature as human beings. In The Last of Us, the dismantling of the projection has revealed the source code underneath.

It’s at this point the obligatory spoiler warning should be given. If you wish to experience the show for yourself (or play the game), stop reading now.

One of the main characters in the show, Joel loses his daughter in violent fashion at the beginning of the outbreak in 2013. Over the next 20 years, Joel becomes a hardened smuggler, jaded by the loss of his child and the apocalyptic world around him. For Joel, the world is a place filled with cynicism and anger - with any true sense of meaning or purpose nowhere to be found.

This would change after Joel takes on a seemingly routine task for an experienced smuggler. He engages in a deal with a resistance group (the Fireflies) to smuggle a young girl (Ellie) outside of what is known as the Boston Quarantine Zone. Tasked with bringing Ellie to another Firefly group just outside the city, Joel initially sees the mission as just another job. Yet after things go awry, and Joel discovers Ellie’s significance, he decides to escort Ellie himself out west (the final destination where the Fireflies were to take Ellie).

What makes Ellie special is that years ago, as she was about to be born, her mother was bitten by a fungal infected human. The brief exposure to the infection at birth, resulted in Ellie becoming immune from the plague that had devastated humanity. Once her immunity was discovered years later, the Fireflies devised a plan to send Ellie to a Firefly base across the country. It was there that Ellie’s immunity would be used to create a vaccine, and save what was left of the human race.

Being only 14 years old, Ellie bombards Joel with youthful enthusiasm and curiosity during the early stages of their journey together. Up until this point, Ellie has spent all her life within the vicinity of the quarantine zone; and her age means she never experienced the world before the outbreak. Ellie’s innocent sense of wonder and adventure begin to awaken feelings in Joel he seemed to have long forgotten: the love, meaning, and purpose he felt while caring for his long deceased daughter.

Joel and Ellie’s initial journey together would end in what remained of Salt Lake City, Utah. Over their 6 month trek, they each would almost be killed, and they both saved each other’s life. In a decimated world laced with despair, they had found meaning in one another. Having had no contact with the Fireflies for so long, Joel and Ellie’s arrival in Salt Lake is unexpected. This leads to them being ambushed and captured by a Firefly patrol - only to be recognized later.

It is at this point where one of the core elements of human nature, our will to meaning, begins to control the fate of the characters in the show. Joel awakens in a Firefly hospital room to discover the presence of a familiar face. Marlene, the Firefly leader who originally made the deal with Joel to bring Ellie across the country has been waiting for him to regain consciousness. After Joel asks to see Ellie, Marlene explains to him that she is being prepped for surgery. Joel then begins to realize that the surgery the Firefly doctors intend to perform on Ellie will result in her death. Unbeknownst to Ellie, the Fireflies have decided sacrificing her life is worth potentially saving the rest of humanity.

As Joel stirs to anger, Marlene instructs armed Firefly guards to escort him out of the building; and kill him if he tries to resist. Consumed by his paternal love for Ellie, Joel gets the jump on the guards escorting him away, and kills them both. He then goes on to massacre almost a dozen more Fireflies as he rescues Ellie. He shoots the doctor ready to operate on Ellie point blank in the head, and even kills Marlene as she tries to stop his escape. For Joel, rational decision making had completely given way to emotion driven action. Emotion that was propelled by what can be described as the will to meaning.

The will to meaning is a concept conceived by Austrian psychiatrist Viktor Frankl (1905-1997). Frankl’s conception of the will to meaning was solidified during his time imprisoned in Nazi concentration camps during World War II. During his immense suffering, and the suffering around him, Frankl witnessed the role meaning played in the human condition. Much like the annihilated world in The Last of Us, the hellscape of Nazi death camps laid bare the foundational elements of human nature.

Frankl’s conception of the will to meaning, and the associated psychotherapeutic construct (logotherapy) became what was known as the ‘third Viennese School of Psychotherapy’. The other two being Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis, and Alfred Alder’s individual psychology. In a reductive sense, Freud’s construct could be seen as the ‘will to pleasure’; while Alder’s could be seen as the ‘will to power’.

Both of these approaches to human psychology can be traced to human nature. One being tied to our desire to reproduce, and our unconscious, primal drives. While the other flows from our desire to seek status and importance in the social matrix of human life. For Frankl, both of these were offshoots of the more ultimate, will to meaning. Pleasure and status weren’t sought for their own ends. They were sought by individuals because they believed each would provide a measure of meaning in life they felt was missing. In The Last of Us, these base elements of human nature can be seen in characters throughout the show; especially the will to power. Yet ultimately it is the will to meaning that undergirds all of their actions. 

For Joel, Ellie had become his reason to live, and protecting her gave his life meaning. His feelings had become so strong, that he was willing to commit mass murder, and prevent the creation of a potentially world saving vaccine. He would even lie to Ellie about what happened at the hospital while she was unconscious and being readied for surgery. Joel would tell a skeptical Ellie that armed raiders had attacked the hospital, and that’s why they had to flee.

But most importantly, Joel would tell Ellie that it turned out there were more immune people like her, but the doctors were unable to make a cure work, and in turn gave up. This meant that Joel had steered Ellie’s mind away from thoughts of self sacrifice, or ultimate purpose. It also meant that she would stay with him, and provide Joel the meaning he desired. All of Joel’s actions surrounding Ellie were downstream from his will to meaning.

Joel and Ellie would settle in a relatively safe, and prosperous community of about 300 people in Jackson, Wyoming. Walled off from the infected, zombie hordes outside, and with self-sustaining resources, the Jackson settlement provided a sense of normalcy in a broken world. Over the next five years, Joel and Ellie’s relationship would function like that of a single father and a teenage daughter. The dynamics of life had changed from existential danger and despair, to the day to day of suburban living. For Joel, watching Ellie grow gave him all the meaning he needed. Yet for Ellie, the new blandness of life gave her mind the room to begin to probe the existential questions of adolescence.

Viktor Frankl coined the term ‘existential vacuum’ for the feeling an individual would get when they lacked meaning or purpose in their lives. Like many teenagers, Ellie begins to experience the effects of her own existential vacuum. She begins to indulge in sexual experimentation, and rebellious expression; which leads to inevitable parent clashes with Joel. Yet her mind cannot escape the questions surrounding what happened years ago at the hospital, her immunity, and her overall purpose in the world. Ironically, by saving Ellie to fulfill his own will to meaning, Joel had determined that Ellie would eventually be driven by her own.

Some years after Joel and Ellie settle in Jackson, Ellie would finally learn the truth about what happened with the Fireflies in Salt Lake City. Ellie witnesses Joel lying about something else, and recognizes his demeanor from when he explained what happened at the hospital. At that instant, she realizes that all her feelings and intuitions were true. That for years she had been lied to by the one person who she felt she could trust the most.

This leads to an emotional break between Joel and Ellie that lasts for the better part of a year. But eventually, Joel and Ellie have a conversation where both make plain how their actions and feelings have been determined by the will to meaning. Ellie confronts Joel about how she knows he lied to her face, even though he swore he was telling the truth. She gives him one last chance to tell her exactly what happened.

She asks him if there were other immune people like her, and Joel tearfully shakes his head signaling there weren’t. She asks him if there were raiders who attacked the hospital, and Joel again admits there weren’t. She asks him if a cure could have been made from her immunity, and Joel despairingly nods yes. And finally, she asks him if he killed all the people there, and Joel nods as the weight of his actions take over his gaze.

Joel finally speaks and tells Ellie that making a cure would have killed her. But Ellie responds angrily by saying:

Then I was supposed to die. That was my purpose, my life would have fucking mattered, but you took that from me. You took it from everyone.

It’s at this moment that Ellie reveals that her anger derives from her belief that the existential angst she’s been feeling could have been cured had she been allowed to be sacrificed. Her own will to meaning has now presented her with the image of what could have been. A purpose and fulfillment that she will now be chasing for the rest of her life in a world in ruins. The irony of course is that had she been sacrificed, she never would have known the feeling of fulfillment. This shows that Ellie doesn’t really wish for her non-existence. She is looking for something to fill the existential vacuum she feels in her current state.

Joel responds to Ellie’s words by saying:

Yes, and I’ll pay the price. Because you are going to turn away from me. But if somehow I had a second chance at that moment, I would do it all over again.

Ellie, in astonishment, says:

Because you’re selfish.

To which Joel responds:

Because I love you - in a way you can’t understand. Maybe you never will. But if that day should come, if you should ever have one of your own, I hope you do a little better than me.

Pensively, Ellie then says:

I don’t think I can forgive you for this. But I would like to try.

With that, Joel’s expression changes from despair and anguish, to one of slight hope. He realizes that despite his actions, the bond he shares with Ellie might persevere. This is all he ever wanted. This was the source of meaning he had found in a broken world. And it was a manifestation of the will to meaning in its purest form.

In the years before Joel and Ellie’s emotional reckoning, they would share some truly happy times. On Ellie’s 16th birthday, Joel would take her outside of Jackson to a long abandoned museum of science and history. Despite being decrepit and overrun by nature, the artifacts in the museum still filled Ellie with joy and wonder. For her, this was a chance to visit a time she never knew, and experience a world filled with possibility and meaning.

One of the centerpieces of the museum was an Apollo space capsule. Ellie is overcome with excitement as Joel gets her to don a space helmet and sit inside. As the two sit side by side, Joel gives Ellie a cassette tape to play as she leans back in the capsule cockpit. The tape contains a recording of a rocket launch countdown from decades ago. Joel tells Ellie to close her eyes as she listens, and she is transported to another time and place.

For a brief moment, Ellie and Joel arrive at a flow state. A state of being where the sense of self disappears, and consciousness merges with reality. This is the place that the will to meaning is directed towards. For Ellie at this moment, she is a kid free of angst or terror. As she imagines zooming into space and beyond, her consciousness is filled with the wonder of freedom and exploration. For Joel, seeing this in the child he’s come to care for, fills his heart with joy. For both, the misery of the outside world has faded away, and their bond as father and daughter define the metaphysical reality around them.

The bond Joel and Ellie shared would be tragically broken three years later, on the day after Joel tells Ellie the truth about what happened at the hospital. Joel is out on patrol when he encounters a young woman being pursued by infected humans. Joel rescues her, and at her suggestion, takes her to an abandoned home where her friends have made camp. Unbeknownst to Joel, the woman he rescued and her group had been searching for him all along. The woman Joel saved returns the favor by shooting Joel in the leg, and then prepares to beat him savagely with a golf club.

Before the woman (Abby) administers her full punishment, she tells Joel why. It turns out Abby was friends with all the Fireflies Joel killed years earlier in Salt Lake City - and the doctor he shot point blank in the head was her father. Since that day, Abby’s own will to meaning had been propelling her towards revenge. She proceeds to enter her own flow state as she viciously beats Joel to the point of death. Having tracked Joel to the abandoned house, Ellie bursts into the room trying to save Joel, but she is subdued quickly by Abby’s companions. It’s at this point that Abby kills Joel in front of Ellie, but allows Ellie to live.

This momentous turning point in the narrative of the show is the consequence of decisions determined by the will to meaning. Joel committed his massacre to protect what gave his life meaning. And because of his actions, Abby murdered him to obtain the meaning she felt she would receive watching him die. In a world stripped bare of the distractions and demands of modern life, The Last of Us shows us how our actions as human beings are largely determined by deeper, unseen forces. Our consciousness makes us believe we are driving the car. But in reality we are merely passengers along for the ride. A ride that is determined by interactions with all the other passengers around us.

Art and Freedom: Barbara Kruger Manifests Solidarity

Sometimes in war, rhythm and repetition can set the nature of horror and tragedy. In World War I, life in the trenches was periodically broken by violent charges towards the enemy. If you survived, then back to the trenches again. During the Iraq War, there were times when a soldier’s life was confined to the daily routine of patrolling the same area in a Humvee - all while trying to avoid being blown up. For soldiers, the grinding monotony of war can at least be broken at times - troops can be rotated away from the front lines. Yet for civilians perpetually stuck within a conflict, the daily rhythms of war construct an entirely new metaphysical reality.

The daily routines of life become either about survival, or wrapped within a feeling of constant foreboding. For Ukrainians, those who suffer under Russian occupation have seen their reality face annihilation. Yet for millions of other Ukrainians away from the front lines, they’ve suffered under the daily threat of bombings or drone attacks. Every trip to the grocery store, to work, or to school, happens under the threat of random violence. Russia’s aggression towards Ukraine has resulted in a grinding stalemate. One where the war takes on a daily routine of misery without much kinetic movement.

As of this writing, Ukrainians are not free. ‘Freedom’ in this case being defined as historian Timothy Snyder defines it in his recent book, On Freedom. In the past, I’ve written in some detail about Snyder’s definition, so I will not cover that same ground here. But for reference, it should be noted there are five main elements to Snyder’s concept of freedom: sovereignty, unpredictability, mobility, factuality, and solidarity.

Throughout her career, artist Barbara Kruger has made work that has touched upon each of these elements. Though it is one of her most recent works that seems to embody the spirit of freedom itself. Her work Untitled (Another Again) lives on the outside of a Ukrainian Railways Intercity Train car. Composed of arrows and Ukrainian text arranged in Kruger’s signature aesthetic; the work travels to various Ukrainian cities like Kyiv, Lviv, and Kharkiv.

The text laid out across the line of train cars reads as follows:

another day another night another darkness another light another kiss another fight another loss another win another wish another sin another smile another tear another hope another fear another love another year another strife another life.

The repetition mirrors the banal repetitiveness Ukrainians face within the drawn out war of Russian aggression. This is reinforced by the repetitive auditory nature of the train itself, and the repetitive course it takes day after day. Kruger has transformed the train into a daily symbol for the Ukrainian people. One that reminds them that while they might be alone in their struggle in a practical sense; they are not alone in their desire to be free.

This kind of solidarity is the major force in Kruger’s work. And as Timothy Snyder has written, solidarity is one of the pillars of true freedom. If we are to be truly free, we must care about each other's freedom; not just our own. Kruger’s work functions as almost a beacon of solidarity as it travels from city to war-torn city. A reminder to those that view it, that the despair of their metaphysical reality is not lost on the outside world. This kind of human connection through solidarity and empathy is essential for works that seek to convey elements of freedom - and exist in opposition to oppression or authoritarianism.

It is no mistake that Kruger’s work exudes authentic, and earnest human feeling. Totalitarianism uses elements of cynicism as tools that enable control and abuse. The Russian aggression towards Ukraine has been powered by lies, conspiracies, xenophobia, and revisionist history. Totalitarian movements (like the Russian attempt to absorb and annihilate Ukraine) disregard any concept of human dignity. Therefore, any art that seeks to oppose such movements must lean into the notion of human dignity with an open heart.

Kruger’s work does this by mirroring the human consciousness of the Ukrainian population. The words she uses paint a picture of a human mind trying to carry on with life under constant uncertainty and doom. Yet they also convey a steadfastness, a steady resilience, and a remembrance of what life could be. This remembrance is the vision of true freedom. An existence where not everything is perfect, but where human beings are simply allowed (and enabled) to be fully themselves. Kruger’s work represents solidarity manifested in a physical and tangible way. This is why the work functions as a representation of true freedom, and will endure as a powerful marker against totalitarian aggression.

Art and Freedom in the Age of Autocracy

Any objective observer of the situation in the United States can see that President Donald Trump, Elon Musk, the ‘New Right’, and various oligarchs have steered the country towards autocracy. The only question will be how far down the road of dictatorial rule does the country actually get. Like it or not, the world’s lone superpower taking an autocratic turn affects all of us. Whether you are in Canada, Mexico, South America, Europe, Asia, or the Middle East; the aftershocks from America’s tremors will be felt.

In a general sense, this means we are entering a time of lessening freedom, and increasing threats against it. As autocracy increases, freedom must retreat; and vice versa - the two things cannot coexist. For artists, this dynamic goes straight to the heart of their very being. Making art doesn’t necessarily require freedom per say. But the act of making art is an act of freedom in itself.

In historian Tim Snyder’s recent book On Freedom he describes five components that make up what he describes as ‘positive freedom’: sovereignty, unpredictability, mobility, factuality, and solidarity. Sovereignty refers to an individual's capacity to understand the world sufficiently to the point they can make informed judgments and take action. Unpredictability refers to the capacity for individuals to act creatively, and in ways that are not predetermined.

Mobility describes the capacity for individuals to move through the world according to their desires; as well as social mobility. Factuality refers to knowing the truth about the world, which then enables individuals to change it. And solidarity refers to the recognition of the interconnectedness of all individuals, and how freedom is collective and interdependent.

All acts of art-making embody some of these qualities. While works of art that directly seek to challenge autocratic beliefs embody most, if not all of them. These types of works also convey authentic feeling and meaning. That is to say they occupy the necessary space that lies in direct opposition to autocratic sentiments. A space where human dignity, and universal rights are treated with earnest belief. In the art world this is no small feat considering earnest feeling is sometimes greeted with cynicism or accusations of kitchiness.

Two artists whose work functions as a direct challenge to autocracy are Barbara Kruger and Ai Weiwei. Both Kruger and Ai have used artistic expression to highlight the importance of freedom, and interrogate those that restrict it. Kruger’s work Untitled (Your Body is a Battleground) was created for the 1989 Women’s March on Washington. It was a direct message to women everywhere that their bodily freedom was being encroached upon by external forces. It was an act of freedom that sought to enable greater freedom for others. Through maximal use of factuality and solidarity, Kruger was able to create a work that became a timeless touchstone for women’s rights.

Much of Ai Weiwei’s artistic practice has been shaped by autocratic restrictions on freedom, and the opposition to it. His continued artistic expression in the face of autocratic harassment by the Chinese Communist Party government embodies freedom in itself. Creating art when an oppressive force tells you not to displays sovereignty, unpredictability, and mobility. Ai would then use factuality and solidarity to create works like Trace, or films like So Sorry. Created while  Ai was under house arrest, Trace was a direct rebuke to autocratic abuse. Ai created dozens of earnest portraits out of legos of other political prisoners from around the world. For Ai, it was a tribute to the ‘heroes of our time’. Again, this mode of art making that directly takes aim at autocracy must be wrapped in authentic feeling and meaning.

For his film So Sorry, Ai sought to document his attempt to identify the names of students killed during the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. Thousands of children died due to poor building construction and laxed inspections. Both of which were a direct result of the corruption embedded within the autocratic Chinese government. Ai’s film displayed factuality (the desire to show the truth about the earthquake) and solidarity (the desire to convey the human dignity of those that died). It is no mistake that Ai’s actions led to him being assaulted by Chinese state police. Autocratic regimes recognize that the greatest threats to their rule come from those who engage in the elements of true freedom.

While both Ai and Kruger have made works that embody the best of positive freedom, their success has also allowed them to reap the benefits from an economic system that could be best described as unfettered capitalism. Unfettered capitalism, otherwise known as late stage capitalism, describes the economic situation we find ourselves in today. A time where excessive money making by corporations, economic inequality, spiraling cost of living, and unchecked consumerism have taken hold.

To the best of my knowledge, neither Ai or Kruger have used their work for purely financial gain, or catered their production towards capitalistic ends. However, the same cannot be said for much of the art world in terms of avoiding complete capitulation to the excesses of unfettered capitalism. The question then becomes, in a time of rising autocracy; does art that aligns itself with excessive profiteering become an unwitting accessory to freedom's autocratic demise?

Unfettered capitalism might not be the binary opposite of freedom, but it definitely stands in opposition. In relation to the five components of freedom mentioned earlier, it restricts all of them for many. It curtails the sovereignty of individuals by keeping quality child care, healthcare, or decent education out of reach. It stifles unpredictability by trapping individuals in meaningless work; or allowing social media companies to render them predictable through seductive digital algorithms.

Within unfettered capitalism, mobility (whether social or physical) is eroded by economic inequality and limited resources. While factuality gives way to conspiracy, falsehoods, and shortened attention spans as big tech companies make billions off of manipulating the human mind. Finally, and probably most importantly, solidarity ceases to exist as unfettered capitalism stirs greed and egoism. Both of which cause individuals to think primarily of themselves, and ignore the humanity of those around them. This is probably the most pernicious effect of excessive capitalism. For a system that spurs human beings to be ruled by their base impulses is a system that doesn’t enable freedom, but servitude.

It’s hard to deny, given all this, that art commodified or produced according to the norms of unfettered capitalism engages with a system that runs parallel to autocracy. Therefore, art that is intended to oppose injustice, oppression, or authoritarianism cannot be given away to the whims of economic excess. Art that is intended to elevate human dignity cannot be turned into a commodity without turning the subject of the art into a commodity as well. When a work of art becomes a commodity it becomes no different than a treasury bond or a corporate stock item. And when the metaphysical waters around a work of art begin to resemble those that govern Wall Street, one cannot honestly say that it maintains any kind of purchase on conveying true freedom.

In an age of increasing autocracy, and lessening freedom, art can act as a stubborn reminder of what is right, and what is true. Since autocracy is the antithesis of freedom, any work of art that seeks to stand in opposition to autocracy must embody freedom itself. This means it must be authentic in purpose, authentic in human feeling, and oriented towards the universal. Freedom is important because it is a universal right that all human beings deserve. It is not something that some human beings deserve upon birth, while others do not. That kind of discriminatory thinking is why autocracy is evil at its essence.

In the past, as artists, we might have taken these notions for granted, hand waved them away, or even greeted them with cynicism. Yet what might not have been clear then, should be clear now. The stuff we might sometimes regard as kitschy, naïve, or overly earnest; that’s actually the stuff that matters. And in the end it will be the only stuff that can truly hold the line in the face of advancing autocracy and declining freedom.

Ramblings on Autocracy, The Good, and True Freedom

As of March 2025, the United States looks well on its way to autocracy. President Donald Trump has sought to purge the federal government of those disloyal to the Trump movement. He’s placed loyalists in key law enforcement positions in an effort to consolidate power; and avoid accountability if he chooses to ignore federal law. He’s antagonized the free press, engaged in quid pro quos with indicted politicians, pardoned violent supporters, removed guardrails against high level corruption, and threatened America’s allies with territorial conquest.

All the while, Trump’s billionaire toady Elon Musk has orchestrated a blitzkrieg through various parts of the federal government. In an effort to outpace court action, Musk and his unvetted allies have gutted entire federal agencies. They’ve also gained unwarranted access to sensitive government data and information. An unelected billionaire wielding massive amounts of unchecked, unaccountable power over the federal government is classic autocracy. Also, in true autocratic fashion, Musk’s companies remain intertwined legally and financially with the very government he is bending to his will.

Like the good autocrats they are, Trump and Musk have used lies and misinformation to justify their actions. In true Orwellian fashion, Musk’s ownership of the social media platform X serves as a megaphone to spread propaganda to millions. Trump and Musk have perfected a standard autocratic mode of operation: Cherry pick out of context information, or outright lie. Spread the information to your followers and whip them into an angry, reactionary force. Perform legally dubious, self serving, power consolidating actions. Then rinse and repeat.

Despite Trump and Musk’s autocratic prowess, the true ideological center for America’s current trajectory is Vice President JD Vance. Ideologically embedded in what has been coined the ‘New Right’, Vance has fully embraced autocratic political thought. He’s aligned himself with thinkers who believe America’s democracy has run its course - and that social progress can only be obtained through technocracy or monarchical rule. He has also begun to lay the pretext for the Trump administration to openly defy federal court rulings. If such a thing were to happen, it would be a clear indicator of America’s autocratic turn.

---

Autocratic movements create their own morality, value systems, and sense of patriotism - all of which are inauthentic of course. Inauthentic in the sense that they are cynical creations that exist to further the aims of the autocratic movement. They exist to consolidate power, maintain power, and justify terrible actions. An example of this would be when autocratic movements create an ‘enemy’ to be hated and fought. Through the use of lies and propaganda, hatred of this fictitious enemy becomes morally essential.

As Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and the New Right sweep through the federal government, they do so with righteous conviction. They’ve created a moral framework that uses their conception of the ‘deep state’ and DEI (Diversity Equity Inclusion) programs to justify law breaking actions. Recently, Trump posted on X and quoted the French emperor Napoleon by saying, ‘he who saves his country does not violate any laws’. This is an autocratic moral and ethical construction whose purpose is to justify ignoring federal law.

Yet while autocratic movements like Trumpism contain false morality and values; it’s what they lack that might be the most important. Missing from autocratic machinations are things like truth, liberty, human dignity, friendship, love, virtue, character, empathy, honor, a sense of justice, a respect for the rule of law, an acknowledgement of true freedom, or authentic moral convictions. This dearth of qualities has been on full display as the Trump administration has tormented America’s traditional allies, while embracing its authoritarian adversaries. 

Autocracy can only thrive when ‘The Good’ has vanished or faded in its vitality. ‘The Good’ in this case being all the positive qualities mentioned in the previous paragraph. The Good is also the only thing that can be used to truly oppose autocracy. Appealing to what is universally right and true is the bedrock to autocratic opposition. Movements for freedom, democracy, justice, or equality are fated to be oriented towards The Good. There can be no other way. Autocracy and The Good are bound opposites; as one enters, the other must retreat.

---

When I was a child in the 1980’s, The Good as it related to American governance was culturally owned by the Conservative right. Embodied by then President Ronald Reagan’s ideological stand against the Soviet Union, American ideals were used to paint authoritarianism as evil and amoral. Notions of freedom, the Constitution, democracy, and the rule of law were used as political weaponry to chip away at the Soviet empire.

Yet on the domestic front, the Conservative political claim on The Good brought with it issues of cynicism and hypocrisy. Going back to the 1960’s, the Conservative claim on The Good was tainted by racism, sexism, economic inequality, and support for the madness of the Vietnam War. This triggered movements for civil rights, women’s rights, economic justice, and anti-war sentiments. These movements themselves were oriented towards The Good - after all, they were primarily about freedom, equality, and justice.

Civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. himself referred to the founding documents (and principles) of the United States as ‘promissory notes that had come due’. This basically meant that King saw the struggle for African American rights as a struggle to fulfill the nation's promise. In other words, the struggle for civil rights was a struggle to push the nation to fully embrace The Good that was supposed to be represented in its founding.

As the decades went by after the tumultuous 1960’s, The Good began to be greeted with increasing cynicism from younger generations and the political left. This was probably justified considering the fact that the Conservative movement began to drift even further rightward while merging politics with religion. Despite their ‘Christian values’, the right was immune to concerns about the poor, racial discrimination, or equal rights for women. The Good for the Christian Right represented a warped view of American principles, and a morality that was more about controlling behavior than fostering human flourishing.

This led to a situation where things like the Constitution, the rule of law, civic order, and authentic morality were tainted objects in the eyes of many. They were authentic aspects of The Good; but the idea of The Good itself was controlled (politically and philosophically) by a lousy, rightwing movement. This meant that cynicism became the main lens through which many in my generation began to view authority based conceptions of The Good. Plus by the 1990’s it was clear that soul crushing, unfettered capitalism had culturally cleared away everything else in American society. If there was one phrase that summed up our attitude towards The Good at the time, ‘It’s all bullshit’ would probably have been appropriate.

---

The 90’s cynicism towards The Good was briefly broken after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Authentic patriotism, solidarity, community, and reflection emerged in the wake of the destruction of the World Trade Center. Yet this was short lived, as the administration of President George W. Bush used the authentic moment to build support for an unjust (and unnecessary) war. The Iraq War (2003-2011) was framed by President Bush as a moral necessity. Yet the reality was that the moral framing of the war was only a smokescreen to hide the true ideological and economic motivations behind it.

By 2008 the United States wallowed in cynicism fueled by the disastrous consequences of the Iraq War, the inept federal response to Hurricane Katrina, and the beginning of The Great Recession. Then Senator Barack Obama’s campaign for the presidency sought to use The Good via rhetoric and feeling to unite the country around a path forward. His campaign was reminiscent of another presidential campaign that sought to intertwine The Good within a political movement - the 1968 presidential campaign of New York Senator Robert F. Kennedy.

Obama used the story of his mixed race identity as a metaphor for The Good as it related to the ideals that the United States was supposed to represent. The idea that anyone, from anywhere, could be an American, and achieve their dreams. Slogans like ‘hope’ and ‘change’ powered his campaign rhetoric as he sought to give voters a reason to believe in the future. And when Obama became the first African American to win the presidency, even arch Conservatives felt a sense of authentic patriotism. The night of Obama’s victory, I remember Conservative commentator William Bennett on CNN saying something to the effect of:

It’s a great country. It’s a great country, and I hope he’s a great president.

Obama rose to power riding authentic waves of The Good when it came to rhetoric, political ideals, and the feeling in the country. If you watch his Inauguration, you can see the authentic smiles on the faces of Republicans, Democrats, and the massive crowd in attendance. It was probably one of the few times in the past 20 years a majority in the country agreed to be happy about anything. Yet the feeling was fleeting, as The Good quickly melted away; and the next 8 years brought about bitter, entrenched political division. Much of this could probably be attributed to the debut of the Iphone in 2007, the invention of Twitter in 2006, and the debut of Facebook’s news feed the same year. Each of these would prove to be a digital aneurysm within the minds of millions. Attention spans were obliterated, and the ability to discern what was actually true faded away. The effects would be so massive, that one could make the case that The Good itself was damaged beyond repair.

---

Back around 2011, when I was in graduate school at Brooklyn College, The Good was something I thought about often. I had a sense that things in the United States were trending in the wrong direction; and that some kind of authentic reformation of The Good was necessary if the negative trend was to be reversed. The problem was that it was very difficult to talk about such a thing without sounding naive or kitschy. Especially when, as was the case in 2011, the political or metaphysical situation wasn’t close to approaching the point of no return.

Things were bad. But they weren’t 2025, Constitutional democracy might be ending bad. Therefore, any ruminations on The Good had more to do with individual existential questions than saving the United States from autocracy. It seemed to be a theme with various writers, thinkers, and artists around my generation that there was a certain yearning for meaning and authentic feeling. The notion that after indulging in cynicism for so many years, we had realized deconstruction and nihilism were dead ends. It was not enough to embrace cynical truths about institutions or authority. We needed to build something real, something human; something that made life worth living.

A couple of years later, I would discover that this cultural paradigm had a name: metamodernism. Metamodernism was a concise theoretical description of the metaphysical situation that followed postmodernism. From my perspective, one of the most important aspects of metamodernism was that it not only recognized the human need for authentic feeling and meaning - it embraced them both. In other words, metamodernism not only acknowledged the need for The Good, it welcomed The Good without any cynical pretense. In metamodern thought, it was okay to be earnest and genuine.

I’m not sure if we can still say we are in the age of metamodernism in 2025 America. Things have gotten so dark and twisted, that it feels like there should be a new metaphysical description. Or maybe it’s just that the weight of autocracy is like a black hole that swallows everything around it. Regardless, I believe the way metamodernism allowed for an earnest acceptance of The Good is useful in this time of impending darkness. In order to oppose autocracy you need to advocate for something authentic, meaningful, and universally true.

---

If autocracy had a binary opposite, it would probably be true Freedom. Yes, not simply ‘freedom’; but Freedom with a capital F. In historian Tim Snyder’s recent book On Freedom he describes five components that make up what he describes as ‘positive freedom’: sovereignty, unpredictability, mobility, factuality, and solidarity. Sovereignty refers to a capacity for individuals to understand the world sufficiently to a point they can make informed judgements and take action. Unpredictability refers to the capacity for individuals to act creatively, and in ways that are not predetermined. Mobility describes the capacity for individuals to move through the world according to their desires, as well as social mobility. Factuality refers to knowing the truth about the world, which then enables individuals to change it. And solidarity refers to the recognition of the interconnectedness of all individuals and how freedom is collective and interdependent.

Snyder’s elements of Freedom describe something that comes from values, institutions, citizens, and governments. Very often Freedom is described as being ‘free from’ something. For example, the autocrats who make up the Trump administration might tell you Freedom means being free from immigrants, the administrative state, and the ‘liberal elite’. Yet actual Freedom is the freedom to do things - it’s a positive notion. Being free to speak one's mind, being free to live with dignity, being free to afford a decent living, or being free to pursue a good education.

The difference between notions of being free to and being free from is that one is connected to The Good, while the other can be used as an excuse for autocratic intentions. In George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984 he illustrates this through fleeting moments of Freedom for two of the main characters in the book. Winston and Julia find moments of escape from autocratic oppression where they are free to say what they want, free to think what they want, free to make love the way they want, and free to experience reality on their terms.

For their brief moments together, Winston and Julia are truly Free. They are free to live, and experience The Good. It is no mistake that Orwell eventually depicts ‘The Party’ (the authoritarians) torturing and squeezing all aspects of The Good out of the soul of Winston. Winston’s torturer, O’Brien, remarks ‘If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever’. O’Brien’s physical and psychological torture of Winson erases any sense of sovereignty, unpredictability, mobility, factuality, or solidarity. At the end of the ordeal, O’Brien shows the mentally and physically broken Winston his reflection and says:

You are rotting away - you are falling to pieces. What are you? A bag of filth. Now turn around and look into that mirror again. Do you see that thing facing you? That is the last man. If you are human, that is humanity.

O’Brien had to remove every last hope Winston had for Freedom or The Good. For those are the two things autocracy or authoritarianism must destroy in order to thrive.

---

On February 13th of this year, Donald Trump’s unqualified loyalist of a Defense Secretary gave a speech at a meeting of NATO defense ministers. Secretary Hegseth conveyed the basic philosophical message that runs through Trumpism and the New Right. The belief that Europe must pay for its own defense, as America has no real interest in guaranteeing European security anymore. This line of thought was no surprise considering the nature of the government delivering it. Yet there was one line in Hegseth’s speech that was illuminating. In trying to convey the supreme importance of military spending, Hegseth would say:

We can talk all we want about values. Values are important. But you can't shoot values, you can't shoot flags, and you can't shoot strong speeches. There is no replacement for hard power.

The problem with this is that values tell you when, why, and how to use hard power - one is the precursor for the other. But more importantly, values, along with The Good, and notions of true Freedom, formed the foundation for the relationship between the United States and its allies. The United States didn’t guarantee the security of Europe, Japan, South Korea, and others because of money or material gain. It did so because there was an authentic belief that Freedom should be protected, and that friends were important. 

Things have changed now, as the Trump administration’s foreign policy is devoid of moral considerations and is based purely in transaction and self interest. There is no better example of this than how Trump and his acolytes have treated war-torn Ukraine, and its president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Despite Ukraine being a clear victim of Russian aggression, Trump tends to view the country and its president with contempt. Yet when it comes to the murderous authoritarian leader of Russia, Vladimir Putin, Trump has always sought to curry favor, and maintain a friendly relationship.

It is clear that Trump’s fondness for Putin at least partly arises out of admiration for his authoritarian rule. This kind of admiration of power and control can only exist without any notions of The Good, or true Freedom. Trump and Putin know both things are antithetical to their desire to accumulate, and maintain power. And at the end of the day, this is probably why both men hate Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. For he represents everything that runs opposite to the empty value structure of autocracy or authoritarian rule.

As the Russian war machine began to roll towards Kyiv on February 24, 2022, Zelenskyy had a choice. He could either flee and try to defend his country from afar. Or he could stay and face what would be certain death if Russia succeeded in its territorial conquest. Many American officials in Washington DC counseled Zelenskyy to leave. For they believed what the Russians believed; that Ukraine would be defeated in three days. Zelenskyy’s decision to stay was an act that embodied The Good, and true Freedom. At the end of the introduction to Timothy Snyder’s book On Freedom he would eloquently describe what Zelenskyy’s actions meant:

(American experts) had patiently explained that Zelenskyy would leave the country. American intelligence officers advised him to do so. All were representing an American consensus. Americans had told themselves for decades that freedom was negative. That it represented a clearing away of barriers by larger forces. If you believe in the primacy of the larger forces, then you have no choice when they seem to turn against you - you run. And you cannot imagine that others would behave any differently.

On the Friday (after the invasion), Zelenskyy posted a video of himself and other high government officials in Kyiv - the president is here. This was a transformative example of the freedom of speech. Like freedom in general, freedom of speech is not negative, but positive. Not about the barriers, but the person. Not about an absence, but a presence. We protect free speakers because truth threatens the power of tyrants.

Zelenskyy was speaking truth amidst the lies of Russian propagandists who claim he had abandoned the city. He was speaking his truth to power because Russia was invading with terrifying force. Zelenskyy was putting his body at risk for what he knew to be true. Indeed, it was what he was doing with his body - staying; that was the truth. His refusal to leave gives a hint of what positive freedom, true freedom might be.

Barriers to freedom were no doubt present, in a most radical form. Even as Zelenskyy spoke, Russian assassins were tracking him. The Russian army was at the gates of Kyiv. Russian bombs and missiles were falling. And virtually everyone outside Ukraine expected Russia to win the war within hours or days. And yet for Ukrainians, it was not so much the objects that were the issue; the bullets and the explosives. But the intention behind them; the elimination of a society.

Russian weapons had to be met with Ukrainian weapons, but they also had to be met with commitment. The Ukrainians defeated the Russians at Kyiv; and then at Kharkiv. Bucha would be de-occupied. (Other cities) as well, within a year of Russia’s full scale invasion. Ukrainians would regain more than half the land Russia took in February of 2022 - but only because people decided to stay.

When I asked Zelenskyy why he remained in Kyiv, he said that he could not have done otherwise. Explaining his choice, he began not from the specific predicament, dramatic though it was, and not even from himself. He spoke of his love for his parents and of what he had learned from them. He had not chosen them, and yet in his love for them he was free.

He compared that love to the decision to remain in the capital as the war began; something self evident. Staying was not something he did alone. He was in the company of those who had taught him when he was younger; and those that had elected him. He was in the company of others who were also taking risks. He understood the situation he said, because of what it meant to represent others.

A president, he said, was only the first grain of sand in a turning hourglass. We talked about, over time, beginning in youth, an accumulation of decisions makes us who we are. Then a moment comes when we do what we must because of what we have chosen to become. An unfree person can always try to run. But sometimes a free person has to stay - free will is character.

As Zelenskyy showed, the only true opposition to autocracy or authoritarianism lies within The Good. Authentic feeling, authentic values, and authentic principles are each required to establish true Freedom. Those seeking to slow the wave of autocracy sweeping the United States would do well to learn from Zelenskyy’s example. Otherwise, the future of America looks to be one where The Good is permanently replaced by lies, fear, anger, oppression, oligarchy, technocrats, and corruption. In other words; an autocrat's playground.

Seeing Reality in Order to Find a Universal Morality

One of the many problems humanity faces in modern times is the fact we have no agreed upon moral philosophy or outlook. Some groups of humans look to religious constructs to determine their moral reality. While others use philosophical thought or human made laws to guide moral actions. There does seem to be a base evolutionary capability that all human beings share for certain moral behavior. In Robert Sapolsky’s book Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst he explains how our brains are evolutionarily primed to divide other humans into groups of ‘us’ and ‘them’. Those we decide that are in the us category are subjected to more kind behavior than those we put into the them category.

Some of the problems that arise from a scattered moral landscape are moral relativism, conflict over contrasting moral beliefs, and general apathy when it comes to considering morality at all. Moral relativism arises when one group of humans tolerates abhorrent behavior from another group of human beings simply because they see morality as relative to context and circumstance. Conflict over contrasting moral beliefs can range from benign political discourse to outright violence. In the United States this can be seen with issues such as abortion or gay marriage. While a general moral apathy within a society can lead to dangerous political and cultural trends - like the political rise of autocrats like President Donald Trump.

The question that arises is whether it will ever be possible to have a relatively clear moral framework that all human beings can agree on. In the past I wondered if consciousness itself could be used as a universal moral axiom. This would be similar to Martin Luther King Jr’s moral outlook. Yet instead of using the Christian conception of God as the foundation, we would substitute a modern conception of human consciousness. But recently I have been wondering if there was another way to imagine a universal moral outlook. What if by seeing the world as it actually is, you could deduce a morality that had universal application.

By ‘seeing the world as it actually is’ I’m referencing the nature of our reality, and our place in it. In a philosophical sense, I suppose this would be establishing a metaphysical framework that would in turn inform ethical and moral considerations. While this thought process is pretty standard for moral thought; the execution is what matters most. For if the metaphysics are misconceived, then the morality that emerges will most likely be flawed and misguided.

In trying to see reality for what it is, a good place to start is the idea of free will. Free will in this case means an entity that is a self-causing, totally independent actor that determines everything they do - or don’t do. Many human beings believe in this notion of free will, which leads them to be hard on themselves, and hard on others. After all, if individuals are singularly responsible for everything they do, then a moral framework that prioritized individual punishment would seem correct and justified. Yet the reality is that this view of free will, and the resulting moral outlook is an example of flawed metaphysics producing a flawed morality.

The truth is, we do not have free will if it is defined as described in the previous paragraph. We do not choose when or where we enter this reality; nor do we choose the traits instilled in us by our parents. We do not choose the environment we grow up in, which in turn determines how our brains develop through childhood and adolescence. We cannot control the countless thoughts that bubble into our minds each day. Nor can we separate ourselves from the millions of years of evolution that have wired us to respond in certain ways to external stimuli - which of course we have no control over either.

Arguments can be made that our ability to develop mental habits like discipline or emotional detachment is an act of free will. Yet when this line of thinking is examined, it cannot be denied that these supposed acts of free will are themselves determined by factors beyond our control. The makeup of an individual's brain, and the environment around them determine their ability to develop traits like discipline or detachment. And as mentioned before, none of us were able to control how our brain developed, or the environment that shaped us.

A recognition of our absence of free will has important moral implications. The absence of free will provides real world justification for moral sentiments like empathy, forgiveness, and understanding. This in turn creates a foundation for actions that help the poor, the homeless, the drug addicted, or the mentally ill. On an individual level, we become less judgmental of others when they act in ways of which we disapprove. At a societal level, we can begin to see criminal justice policies like mass incarceration as punitive and amoral.

Seeing the world as a place of dynamic determinism commands a morality that is powered by compassion. When we begin to see the world this way, we begin to see the people around us as interdependent, embedded beings. We begin to see them not as autonomous pieces moving across some vast game board. But as semi-amorphous constructs immersed within a vast sea of flowing liquid. When we can detach, and see this for what it is, the suffering of others becomes an automatic trigger for our own compassion.

The concept of interdependent embeddedness is discussed greatly in Buddhist thought, and by scholars like Jay Garfield of Smith College. It also leads to the second aspect of our reality that upon recognition can provide a universal moral foundation. This is the lack of, or the non-existence of what we as human beings think of as ‘the self’. A belief in the self aligns with a belief in free will. The nature of our consciousness makes us believe we are singular autonomous entities moving around the world. In some religious thought, the self is known as ‘the soul’, or some kind of invisible essence. Yet if we really examine things, we will see there is no self to be found.

As embedded, interdependent beings, ‘who we are’ isn’t just one singular thing that exists in some place we can locate. As human beings, we change over time. None of us are the same person at 10 years old, 30 years old, or 60 years old. This fact would seem inconsistent with any notion of an unchanging self. Nor is any one physical part of us, ‘our self’. It’s gruesome to think about, but if all your body parts were disassembled, none of those individual parts would be you. We only exist when our individual parts are assembled in a certain manner.

One could argue this assemblage is ‘the self’. Yet the identity of this assemblage itself is determined by the context outside of it. Our identities are determined by where we are in the world, and those around us. For example, if someone is poor in a country because of the nature of that country's currency, they might be rich if they move to another country where their original currency is worth more. On this planet we are considered human beings, yet if we were able to venture to another solar system with intelligent life, they would see us as alien visitors. The point is that we are not singular, non changing selves. Rather that we are interdependent, embedded beings whose identities are constantly in flux.

A belief in the self leads to moral actions centered around egotism, and greed. After all, you cannot have grandiose self importance, or self indulgence without believing there is a self to be fed. This of course leads to the pernicious effects of unfettered capitalism. Where excessive consumption, excessive selfishness, and excessive money making dominate the human mind - and moral decision making. A belief in the self also makes it easier for the human mind to see other human beings as separate and different. This paves the way for the worst of human actions like violence, subjugation, war, and genocide.

Yet when we recognize there is really no ‘us’ per say; we begin to see a wider moral landscape. Our moral horizons begin to become universal, considerate of others, and considerate of the impacts of wider systems. We begin to see how the fates of others are tied to our own; and we begin to think less of our own selfish interests. This can provide moral justification for specific things like environmental policy, or universal healthcare. Yet in a general sense it provides a foundation for a universal morality that sees the interconnectedness of all human beings. One that espouses respect for others, compassion, friendship, understanding, and the alleviation of suffering.

The third and final aspect of our reality we need to recognize is tied to our false notion of the self. It has to do with our perceptions in general, or the nature of our consciousness. We evolved over millions of years as a species not to see reality for what it is, but to maximize our ability to survive and reproduce. This has been described by University of California professor Donald Hoffman as ‘Fitness Beats Truth’. The consequence of this, especially in modern life, is that very often our false perceptions lead to bad moral outcomes.

Racism, genocide, and xenophobia all exist downstream from false perceptions about race, ethnicity, and identity. Our species evolved to be suspicious of those that were different from us, or those who were not a part of ‘our group’. This was likely a product of resource or territorial competition between bands of early humans. Yet while this part of our evolutionary programming might have been useful 400,000 years ago, it causes nothing but problems in modern times.

These false perceptions happen when humans reify the part of their mind that highlights the identity of others via evolutionary prompts. It is through this reification, or blind acceptance, that hateful ideologies and discrimination emerge. Yet if we are able to recognize this false perception, and look beyond it, we can see reality for what it is. We can see that the secondary qualities that define human beings are mostly products of our minds. This then reveals the true nature of the people we come into contact with everyday. That we are all members of the same species, with the same basic nature, and the same basic feelings.

This leads to justification for moral sentiments like friendship, cooperation, and brotherhood. After all, if we are all members of the same human family, and our differences are largely perceptual and superficial; then we should see all others as a part of our ‘in group’. In addition, by removing false perceptions from our social equation, we remove the impetus for hate and intolerance. The absence of such amorality carries with it positive moral outcomes like tolerance and understanding. For tolerance and intolerance are bound opposites - when one enters, the other retreats.

It is much easier to write or speak about the true nature of our reality than to stay consciously aware of it. Our default setting of consciousness is designed to convince us we are independent, self caused agents that need to be wary of those that are different from us. From this perspective, moral reasoning needs something externally created. Whether it’s a religion, a law, or a philosophy. Considering the scattered, digitally watered down (and atomized) nature of modern times, it’s no accident that there is no universal moral center for human beings to revolve around.

Yet if there was a way to guide human minds to a place where they could begin to recognize reality for what it actually is, a universal morality could fall into place. For it would be derived from the nature of our existence, not some flawed or arbitrary human construct. How such a mass awakening could ever happen is the million dollar question of course. Yet if we are ever to move past tribal conflict, hatred, and violence as a species, we will need to discover a moral framework that unites us. Until then, we will continue to pick and choose moral sentiments that divide us; and reify false perceptions about ourselves, and others.

Autocratic America

In journalist and historian Anne Applebaum’s recent book Autocracy, Inc., she describes the modern nature of autocratic regimes and their leaders. In the past, autocracies were fueled by grand ideologies or messianic visions of national fulfillment - think Hitler’s Germany, Joseph Stalin’s Russia, or Mao Zedong’s China. Whereas today, autocratic regimes are more like petty crime families operating in naked self interest. They seek to protect and enrich a select few, while controlling the rest of the population through illiberal means.

Modern autocratic leaders still use many of the same tactics that autocrats have used throughout human history. Some of those tactics include: telling ‘big lies’ that stir popular grievances and create ‘enemies’ to be fought. Intimidating or controlling the press in order to minimize scrutiny and opposition. Threatening, or using actual violence to bring about desirable political outcomes. Manipulating the legal system in such a way that illegal actions are done without fear of consequence. And demonizing groups within the ‘homeland’ that supposedly need to be feared or persecuted.

Amazingly, American voters in 2024 decided to elect someone who checked all the boxes of autocratic behavior. Former US President Donald Trump showed American voters who he was daily - but they chose him anyway. He perpetuated the big lie that the US 2020 presidential election was stolen. This ended up rousing his supporters to commit political violence on January 6th, 2021 in an effort to violate the Constitution, and allow Trump to maintain power.

Trump has constantly attacked the press; even calling them the ‘enemy of the people’. The specter of his wrath negatively influenced the wealthy owners of The Washington Post, and the LA Times. Each of which decided to keep their editorial departments from endorsing Trump’s 2024 political opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump has interfered with legal cases brought against him, relied on help from corrupt judges, and shattered norms governing the separation between the Presidency and the US Department of Justice. Yet his calling card is demonizing immigrants and migrants as ‘poisoning the blood’ of the United States, and calling his political opponents ‘vermin’ or the ‘enemy from within’.

His personality is a natural fit for the modern incarnations of autocratic rule. Trump is completely transactional - meaning he makes decisions devoid of principle or morality. His way of interfacing through life is a combination of (probable) narcissistic personality disorder, a fondness for real mobsters, and the teachings of his mentor; the sadistic and ruthless Roy Cohn. He does have some ideological convictions over immigration and trade. Yet the true motivating sun in Trump’s orbit is self interest, status, and profit.

There is a reason Trump admires autocrats like Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orbán, Kim Jong Un, and Xi Jinping. He admires the way they control their societies, and how they are able to enrich themselves; as well as those around them. He’s envious of the fact that they don’t have to deal with impartial investigations, or authentic media inquiry. He sees in them what he has always sought for himself: tremendous status, and tremendous unchecked power.

For any objective observer, it should be clear that Trump displays all the aspects of autocratic behavior and desire. At the end of the day it doesn’t really matter whether he is a true fascist, or just a petty kleptocrat. His decisions and actions will be taken without any regard for democratic norms or the US Constitution. In fact, he will do his best to erode or erase democratic obstacles that seem to impede his objectives. His day-to-day governance will exist within a fever dream of lies and propaganda. Up will be down, left will be right, and two plus two will equal five. Yet unlike Trump’s first term as President in 2016, his default personality won’t be the only autocratic pressure point in government. This time around, he will have a more cohesive ideological movement behind him. One that has embraced varying aspects of autocratic rule as a political imperative.

---

Trump’s vice presidential selection of former Ohio Senator J.D. Vance represents a merging of chaotic Trumpism with what some have called the ‘New Right’. The New Right represents a somewhat cohesive intellectual response to what has happened to American society over the past 30 to 40 years. Some of the thinkers within the movement include Notre Dame professor Patrick Deneen, tech billionaire Peter Thiel, and blogger Curtis Yarvin. Each individual has their own thoughts, but the general consensus is this: American society and government is broken, and the path to fixing it needs to be extreme. Or as Yarvin has put it, America needs a ‘national CEO, or what’s called a dictator’.

Considering this line of thought, the merging of the New Right with Donald Trump is a perfect match. Trump gets to feed his narcissism with the praise of a youth oriented political movement. While the New Right gets its wrecking ball to smash the ‘political swamp’ in Washington DC. Other members of the New Right are more focused on social remedies through technological advancement. Individuals like Marc Andreessen and Elon Musk see technological progress as the only true way for humanity to advance. For them, free markets and economic deregulation are essential for human flourishing.

This kind of merging of techno-corporate power with Donald Trump is another ingredient in America’s autocratic moment. Elon Musk spent tens of millions to help get Trump elected president in 2024. Yet Musk’s companies also do billions of dollars worth of business with the federal government. Musk’s closeness to Trump will allow him to self deal, and be rid of pesky government regulation or oversight. This kind of overt oligarchic behavior is a common trait of autocratic regimes worldwide.

Trumpism and the New Right are the two main drivers of America’s autocratic trajectory. Yet there is a third contributor that should be noted. The United States Supreme Court has fully positioned itself as an enabler of autocratic presidents, and corporate oligarchy. Facing prosecution for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election, Donald Trump challenged the case based on the legal premise that he had ‘broad immunity’ as president. In Trump’s corrupt, autocratic mind, a president should have ultimate power and protection to do pretty much whatever they feel like.

Trump’s case reached the Supreme Court in 2024. Conveniently for him, the court was heavily tilted towards the political right. Ironically, this was mostly due to the fact that fate had allowed Trump to appoint three new right wing justices during his first term as president. The court ruled along partisan lines that a president ‘may not be prosecuted for exercising their core constitutional powers; and are entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for their official acts’. The court also noted that presidents are not immune from prosecution for ‘unofficial’ acts. Yet the ambiguous nature of the court's decision is a green light for presidential autocracy. As far as Donald Trump is concerned, he now has immunity for all ‘official acts’. This means that every corrupt transaction, or bypassing of the Constitution will be done by Trump under the guise of an official action.

Much of Trump’s corruption while in office will probably be geared toward bringing in money to pay off his legal bills and debts. Yet it was the money he was able to bring in during his presidential campaign from Elon Musk and others that is a better indicator of America’s autocratic moment. As detailed in the 2024 podcast series Master Plan, America is currently in the midst of an unprecedented tsunami of corporate money in politics. The podcast details the trajectory of campaign finance and regulation since the corrupt presidency of Richard Nixon. The story culminates with the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision which allowed corporations and others to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence political outcomes. This unlimited fountain of cash in politics helps create the conditions for unabashed corruption, and enables autocratic behavior.

The corruption and failure of the Supreme Court is indicative of a broader trend within all three branches of the US government. Civic principles have atrophied, thus eroding the guardrails against an autocratic presidency. Donald Trump has sought to undermine checks on his power by challenging Congress, and attempting to install shameless loyalists to run critical government agencies. Much of Trump’s autocratic behavior in the years to come will have been entirely predictable; yet a majority of American voters chose him anyway. The complicated and vexing question is, why? 

---

There are many reasons why American voters decided to return Donald Trump to power - some more significant than others. Yet the one that I always saw as the most compelling, was the idea that Trumpsim was a terrible response to a legitimate problem. The legitimate problem being the situation facing the average American resulting from unfettered capitalism and the actions of what some call the ‘ruling class’.

Whether it’s an apathetic acceptance of autocracy, or a welcoming embrace - a populace doesn’t arrive at either place overnight. It can take years for resentment and anger to build - or even decades. In the case of the United States, I would say the economic trajectory that paved the road for Trumpism began around forty years ago. Under the presidency of Ronald Reagan in the 1980’s, the financial system (or ‘Wall Street’) began to morph into the version we see today. Excessive risk taking and excessive profit making started to become standard modes of operation. Increasing deregulation allowed Wall Street to function more like a high stakes casino rather than a financial service industry. This, (along with increasing financial globalization) began to accelerate economic and cultural separation between those at the top of the economy, and everyone else.

By the time the 1990’s rolled around, the cultural sorting between the elites and the rest of America was well under way. Former President Bill Clinton represented a new kind of elite politician. One that was younger, ivy league educated, and focused on world progress as much as he was the future of America. Clinton subscribed to a kind of new elite orthodoxy that saw globalization, large trade deals, and continued financial deregulation as economic pillars. This perspective would begin to fuel the economic degradation of many manufacturing based areas of the country. Areas that would no doubt turn out in mass for Donald Trump decades later.

By the early 2000’s, the fault lines that would lead to the cataclysm of Trump were clear. American manufacturing jobs were in decline as China began to rise. The nature of modern work was beginning to change from traditional labor towards information and technology. This in turn made a college degree more important for financial success, and made the economic landscape more difficult for men without a college degree. Extrapolate these two trends forward to today, and we can trace the line to Donald Trump’s young male political base; and the voting separation between those with a college degree, and those without.

In the years following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Americans truly began to lose faith in their government and the elites. They witnessed the country get dragged into a terrible war in Iraq based on the false premise of ‘weapons of mass destruction’. They saw the vice president at the time (Dick Cheney) basically engage in overt corruption by helping enrich the company (Halliburton) he used to lead. They saw their government fail in the face of a massive hurricane. And they watched their president (George W. Bush) bumble his way into a cataclysmic financial collapse.

This was the time period where the modern notion of the ‘elites’ or ‘ruling class’ began to take shape. Many Americans began to notice that the lives they were living were increasingly disassociated from those running the society. They began to realize that there was a kind of separate class that was becoming a revolving door between government, celebrity circles, media, corporations, and higher education. This phenomenon was detailed in the book This Town: Two Parties and a Funeral — plus plenty of valet parking! — in America's Gilded Capital by Mark Leibovich.

In the book Leibovich describes the gilded nature of Washington’s elites. Yet the most telling parts are when he details how the members would move between government and private interests. The point being that a member of the ruling class would serve in Congress one minute and advocate for access to healthcare for all Americans. Yet later, that very same member would go to work (or lobby) for a major insurance company and undermine the very reforms they were previously advocating for. This kind of naked self serving, and self enriching cynicism did not go unnoticed by the American populace. This phenomenon would years later be coined ‘the swamp’ by Donald Trump because he knew how to exploit the legitimate anger that existed in so many Americans.

By 2008, Americans had seen enough. Their government was spending billions on overseas wars, yet they still couldn’t afford healthcare or higher education. They watched Wall Street crash the economy, yet get saved by a Treasury Secretary who coincidentally used to run Goldman Sachs. They were told they had to send Wall Street billions of dollars because they were ‘too big to fail’ - even though they watched their neighbors lose their jobs or their houses. There was anger, resentment, and populist fervor; yet there were still no signs of pending autocracy.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, former President Barack Obama appealed to the best of human nature in an effort to combat the building cynicism in the country. His slogans of ‘hope’ and ‘change’ broke through in areas of the country that Donald Trump would dominate 16 years later. In many ways Obama was the mirror image of Trump - addressing the same circumstances but in a completely different way. His presidency was a good faith effort to thwart the trajectory that the country was on. Yet there was one terrible decision Obama made, and many other forces in the country beyond his control that cleared the way for Trump’s later political ascendence. 

---

When Obama took office in 2009, the country was reeling from the consequences of the 2008 financial crisis. It was the worst financial crisis since the 1929 crash, which led to the Great Depression. The 2008 crisis crystallized popular anger toward elites that had been building over the decade. Americans recognized that Wall Street had caused the crisis, yet their politicians were going to bail them out anyway. Despite this, President Obama had a once in a lifetime chance to break the power of Wall Street, and restore some balance in the American economic landscape.

As detailed by the Frontline PBS news series, Obama listened to competing advice on how to deal with the transgressions of the Wall Street elite. One side wanted to break up the too big to fail banks in order to set an example for future behavior. While the other side wanted to protect and preserve the financial status quo despite all that had happened. As the deliberations concluded, Obama refrained from telegraphing his decision. He then summoned the leaders of major financial institutions to the White House for a meeting two weeks later.

One would be hard pressed to think of another moment in American history where a president had so much political leverage over corporate power. The leaders of the financial industry were facing justified public demonization. While Obama was riding wide support and popularity from his historic victory as the first African American to become president. According to Frontline, the financial leaders feared they would have to accept sweeping reforms ranging from limits on executive compensation to a ban on too big to fail. The universe was aligned for broad, populist reform that would signal to the American people that finally the elites in Washington had their back.

Yet it wasn’t meant to be, as Obama gave in to his cautious political instincts. After an initial warning that he was the only thing standing between the financial leaders and the ‘pitchforks’ of an angry citizenry, Obama chose to let Wall Street off the hook. This decision signaled that despite his populist rhetoric, Obama was content to have an administration that didn’t really change much. Members of his administration continued the ‘elite revolving door’ tradition of moving between roles in government and private corporations. Obama’s embracing of the elite status quo, and his rejection of populist frustration was a mistake that aided the rise of Donald Trump in 2016.

Obama’s transition from optimistic populist warrior to caretaker (and member) of the elite was a quick and impactful one. Yet it probably wasn’t the most important transition that took place during the eight years of his presidency. American culture was undergoing its full shift into a culture dominated by smartphones, social media, and online communication. This change would literally alter the mental and metaphysical landscape of all Americans. And this alteration would turn out to play an important role in the autocratic situation America now finds itself in.

---

It should come as no surprise that Donald Trump’s entry into the American political scene was due in many respects to a big lie. The ‘birther conspiracy’ was a falsehood perpetuated by Trump that insinuated President Obama wasn’t really born in the United States - and was therefore illegitimate. Trump’s racially tinged demagoguery towards Obama was a kind of preview of his anti-immigrant rhetoric during his political rise. Trump’s autocratic instincts led him to try to establish Obama as a minority ‘other’ to be feared and loathed. A frequent tactic of autocrats is appealing to the worst instincts in their followers by maligning a group of human beings based on ethnic or racial differences.

Yet it wasn't simply Donald Trump’s words that made him an effective demagogue; it was the medium in which they were delivered.

The age of the smartphone and social media has primed American minds, and American political discourse for autocracy. Propaganda and autocratic messaging thrives in communication environments where truth is hard to discern. A digital landscape where Americans can curate their own reality is a landscape primed for autocratic messaging. In decades past, there were few options where citizens could get information. This in turn, led to a sense of a shared reality, or truth. It was a time where something like Trump's birther conspiracy would have a much harder time gaining true popular acceptance.

Yet in modern times, ‘truth’ has become dependent on who is saying it, and the personal opinions of those receiving it. Every issue or news item now enters into a kind of information ether. A murky space where Americans create completely different versions of reality. Donald Trump naturally floods this space with reams of lies and falsehoods. Yet because of the nature of the mediums we now use for communication, ‘lies’ don't function like lies should. They become building blocks for minds primed to use them to further create the reality they want to believe.

Yes, digital mediums have made it much easier for autocrats to propagate their messaging. Yet they have also changed the way the human mind actually works. Our digital landscape has shortened our attention spans; and led us to a place where deep thinking and contemplation have become rare commodities. It's led to the ‘24 hour news cycle’ and a sense of digital immediacy. One where the present is all that exists, and the past is quickly forgotten.

The impact of this as it relates to the rise of American autocracy cannot be understated. A citizenry that cannot remember (or doesn't care) about democratic ideals is one that has basically welcomed autocracy. Millions of Americans have reached the point where they can overlook Donald Trump's criminality, autocratic rhetoric, and his trashing of democratic norms. Much of this is due to the fact that their minds have been digitally conditioned to a point where morality and truth have lost any real substantive power. Everything has become digitally relative - even the value of the rule of law, and democracy itself.

---

Despite the tangible or material reasons one can find for America’s autocratic turn, there is a deeper, philosophical reason that can be identified as well. There is something about Trumpism, and the ‘MAGA’ (Trump’s slogan Make America Great Again) movement that fills a kind of spiritual void within its most ardent followers. As Austrian psychologist Viktor Frankl famously described, human beings are propelled to seek meaning in life. For many of Trump’s followers, his movement gives them a certain purpose, and a voice that they felt they haven’t had for a long time.

Ex Fox News host Tucker Carlson summed up this phenomenon the night before the 2020 election. Trump held a huge closing rally in Butler, Pennsylvania and Carlson offered commentary on Trump’s appeal; which of course was still vexing to many. Still on Fox News at the time, Carlson would say:

Millions of Americans sincerely love Donald Trump. They love him in spite of everything they’ve heard. They love him often in spite of himself. They’re not deluded, they know exactly who Trump is - they love him anyway. They love Donald Trump, because no one else loves them. 

Carlson would continue by hitting populist themes rooted in resentment and anger - forces that were discussed earlier in this writing. Yet the underlying theme to his message was that Trump made the forgotten people of Butler feel like they mattered. He made them feel like they had agency, and their lives were important. This phenomenon was also captured in a podcast series by The Atlantic called We Live Here Now. The series tells the story of Micki Witthoeft, the mother of Ashli Babbitt who was killed storming the capitol on January 6th, 2021. Witthoeft and other true believers have kept vigil outside the prison in Washington DC where January 6th perpetrators are kept. For them, the January 6th prisoners are ‘political prisoners’ unjustly held. Regardless, it’s clear their mission is as much about filling a void within themselves as it is about finding ‘justice’ for the MAGA movement.

There are two prominent psychological aspects at play when it comes to the meaning fulfillment that Trumpism provides. One can be forgiven when seen in a broader context, while the other is less excusable. In towns like Butler, Pennsylvania, and all across the vast rural parts of the United States, people have suffered under economic and social decay. As mentioned earlier, economic policy from both of the major political parties (over decades) has left many places with few good jobs, higher costs of living, and not much hope for the future. And within this economic void came opioids, and later fentanyl - which in turn brought wide pain and suffering.

In short, late stage American capitalism was (and is) a meaning destroying machine. And not only does it destroy meaning in people’s lives, it provides false replacements in entertainment, materialism, and digital stimulus. It’s hard to fault individuals who have had all the traditional avenues of meaning stripped from them for turning towards a populist demagogue. The emotional undercurrent of Trumpism carries the minds of its adherents to a place of excitement and purpose. A place that is far removed from the boring, day to day grind of empty, dead end capitalism.

While this first psychological response to Trumpism is understandable, the second is much more cynical and insidious. It is also related to finding meaning in a way, yet it is meaning through indulging the worst human impulses. Some of the allure surrounding autocratic movements is the behavioral permissions they give to their followers. Since one of the hallmarks of such movements is the creation of a great ‘other’ or ‘enemy’ to be fought, a psychological byproduct is a kind of opposition by ‘any means necessary’. The notion that the imaginary enemy is so abhorrent that there is no morality to be considered when acting against them.

This kind of permission eventually devolves into a kind of feedback loop that becomes less and less rational. The permission structure of the autocratic movement begins to attract bad actors and produce bad behavior simply due to power dynamics and human nature. We can see this with Trumpsim eight years removed from 2016. Many of the men close to Trump are certainly ready to punish ‘enemies’. Yet the true motivating factor seems to be that they will have unchecked power, and the ability to indulge their worst impulses. This seems especially true for Elon Musk who has seamlessly transitioned from dynamic entrepreneur to an oppressive, impulsive oligarch.

For many young male Trump supporters across the country, the allure of indulging their darker impulses is hard to withstand. Think of it this way: if you had an army platoon of young men, the rules governing their behavior would pretty much determine how they acted. With strict discipline and strong moral guidelines, you might have a few bad actors at certain times - yet widespread depravity would be unlikely. Yet if the same group was given explicit or implicit permission to do basically whatever they wanted; morally questionable behavior would most certainly ensue. The moral guardrails within the human mind will move depending on outward constraints - especially in young men.

As of now, most of the permissions being given in Trump’s autocratic movement are kleptocratic in nature. Trump and those in his orbit will use their power to self deal and increase their wealth. Yet considering the violence on January 6th, 2021, and the Trumpist rhetoric surrounding political retribution, the capacity for a darker turn in the coming decades exists. This doesn’t mean that the United States will see Nazi-like death camps anytime soon. Yet the road from autocratic infancy to full grown moral nihilism has many stops along the way. Trumpism might still be at the beginning of that road, yet the behavior it permits shows a clear path forward, no matter how long the ride.

---

Most likely, Donald Trump will not become a full fledged dictator and spend the rest of his life ‘on the throne’ so to speak. When people scoff at the notion of Trump’s autocratic intentions, they use this reductive example as a retort. Yet of course, history doesn’t really work in such a way. Societies don’t usually make a sudden, unforeseen flip from democracy to full fledged tyranny. The descent into autocracy can take decades, even centuries. And herein lies the problem, much like climate change, it is very difficult to raise the alarm about a problem that might erupt years into the future.

In Edward J. Watts’ book Mortal Republic: How Rome Fell Into Tyranny he tells the story of ancient Rome’s transition from Republic to dictatorship over hundreds of years. The history he lays out serves as an apt metaphor for the trajectory of the United States. He highlights festering social inequalities, and political norms that are slowly discarded. He shows how political characters emerge through the years and make decisions that slowly make dictatorship more likely. And he highlights the role of wars over time, and how a populace can be stirred or manipulated for political gain. Overall, Watts paints a clear and vivid picture of a society that slowly degenerates into autocratic rule.

Sadly, there is a chance that hundreds of years from now, someone will have to write their own book about America’s decline into tyranny. An intriguing question will be where Donald Trump will fit in the story, and how far along the country currently is in the grand narrative. One thing is for sure: The elections of Donald Trump in 2016 and 2024 have officially started the US down a path that leads away from American democracy as we have known it.

Abolish the Death Penalty. It's Unjust and Outdated

This writing appeared as an opinion piece on newsweek.com: https://www.newsweek.com/abolish-death-penalty-its-unjust-outdated-opinion-1960355

On September 24, the state of Missouri executed a potentially innocent man. Marcellus Williams was convicted in 2001 for the crime of murder. Yet over time, with the help of the Innocence Project, doubts had arisen about his guilt and the legitimacy of the legal process used against him. In any case, the merest shred of doubt should have been enough to spare Williams' life.

Yet the truth of the matter is that Williams' life should have never been on the line in the first place.

The death penalty in America is a policy past its sell date; it's time for it to end. It does not solve or prevent crime, or bind up the emotional wounds of victims or families. It is punishment for punishment's sake; a kind of performative vengeance.

Advocates for the death penalty say it represents justice. But in reality they are simply describing the feelings human beings have when they see pain inflicted on someone they believe deserves it. Hundreds of years ago public torture and executions elicited these same feelings.

Most Americans today would deem public spectacles in which individuals are hanged, drawn, and quartered to be immoral or barbaric. Yet for some reason many draw a moral distinction between the modern method of death by lethal injection, and methods of the past.

Is it really morally righteous for the state to kill someone in a ‘nicer’ way? Is the inherent dignity of a human being protected if they are killed in private rather than public?

Death penalty proponents will say that the worst crimes deserve the strongest punishment. If someone kills or harms a child, or if someone gets drunk and crashes their car into an innocent family—how could one argue they don't deserve to die?

These are hard arguments to answer. Yet when we take emotion out of it, an uncomfortable truth emerges. The fact is that as human beings, we do not have as much free will as we like to think. We do not choose the circumstances we are born into, or those that we are raised in. We have little control over the external factors that influence our brains as they develop, and shape our behavior.

This is not to say that those who commit crimes bear no responsibility for their actions. Or that they shouldn't face punishment, or be separated from the rest of society. It does mean, however, that the circumstances around crime and punishment are more complicated than simply a person acting of their own free will.

Conservative political thought, using terms like ‘personal responsibility’, is keen to advance an idea of free will in which actions have no context and no mitigating circumstances. This again sets up the formulation of ‘you do the crime, you take the punishment’. Yet a true conservative, one who is wary of state power, should find the death penalty problematic.

It seems odd that a conservative wouldn't, for instance, want the state to have the power to mandate a vaccine, yet would be okay with the state holding the power to take a citizen's life. For conservatives, the state is a bloated bureaucracy that can't do much of anything right. If this is the case, why shouldn't it include executions?

And this brings up probably the greatest reason the death penalty needs to go. The American justice system is flawed, and gets things wrong. It favors those with wealth, and is biased against poor and minority populations. Whether an urban center or a rural town, anyone with experience in the justice system knows it ravages the poor and the underclass.

According to the Death Penalty Information Center, since 1973, at least 200 people in the United States have been exonerated after being sentenced to death. This fallibility in death penalty policy renders the policy a failure, not to mention immoral.

If a measure that is supposed to prevent crimes—such as the murder of innocent people—ends in the murder of innocent people, then that measure should be done away with.

We will never truly know whether Marcellus Williams was innocent of the crime for which he was convicted. Yet we do know the state of Missouri couldn't be sure of Williams' guilt and killed him anyway.

Despite the murkiness of Williams' case, it did make one thing clear: It's time for the death penalty to be abolished nationwide, once and for all.

Daemon Targaryen Sees the Truth

If you define free will as being a self-causing agent who controls everything they do and what they don’t do; then we do not have it. Our lives and our actions are influenced by countless factors beyond our control. We did not choose our family traits, when we were born, or where we were born. Nor do we have any control over the numerous external influences that affect our daily behavior. We are embedded within an interdependent, unfolding world. Not necessarily a teleological world of unfolding purpose - but a world that is moving forward on its own terms; no matter how much we try to protest. If the world was an ongoing drama, we would be performers playing out our given roles - rather than directors calling the shots.

This recognition of our place in this reality was something that I always found interesting about the popular HBO television series Game of Thrones. Based on books by author George R. R. Martin, the narratives in the show always seemed propelled by a sense of fate. Much of the tension or drama within the show surrounded various characters either accepting their purpose in life; or attempting to strive against it. For eight years the show moved forward steadily towards an apocalyptic climax that had been foreshadowed in prophecy and dreams. Each character had a role to play in bringing about the predetermined sequence of events.

Eager to capitalize off of the success of Game of Thrones, HBO debuted a prequel series in 2022 called House of The Dragon. Since the events in the show are supposed to have taken place hundreds of years before the events of Game of Thrones, the show seemed naturally teleological. After all, the events in Game of Thrones literally depend on the events in House of The Dragon playing out a certain way. And like Game of Thrones, the characters in House of The Dragon struggle with the conflict between their desires, and the path that the world has determined for them.

As of this writing, the show is still ongoing. Yet there is one character whose journey so far has served as an interesting metaphor for the modern human condition. The brother of the late King Viserys Targaryen, Daemon Targaryen. It is the power vacuum created by the death of King Viserys that sparks the events of House of The Dragon. Daemon, and other members of the Targaryen family begin a struggle for power that will ultimately lead to war and destruction. Yet it was Daemon who displayed a desire for power and glory from the first moments of the show.

He sought to prove himself on the battlefield against his enemies, and in the bedroom with countless women. He felt he was a man of destiny, and a great man of history. Yet to Daemon’s dismay, King Veserys had named his daughter as the heir to the throne before his death. Princess Rhaenyra Targaryen would be unable to secure power after her father’s passing, which would result in the ensuing struggle. Whether out of true love, or his desire for power, Daemon would begin an incestuous love affair with Rhaenyra (his younger niece) that would result in marriage. Yes, George R. R. Martin was very keen to include high royal incest in his works.

Regardless, this union of pure royal blood only made Daemon agitate for power more. He began to chafe at the idea that he (the great man) would be not King, but ‘King Consort’. He did not see himself as a servant, or a sidekick to a Queen. It was with this mindset that Daemon would leave Rhaenyra as she struggled to form an army for the coming war. Instead of marshaling support from varying houses and clans for Rhaenyra’s cause, Daemon would begin to pursue arms for his own ends. With the end goal being that he would garner enough military strength to claim the throne for himself, and finally become King Daemon Targaryen.

Daemon’s base of operations for his power play was a large (but pretty much empty) castle in disrepair. The house or family that owned the castle quickly bent the knee and pledged loyalty to Daemon’s cause. Even if they were a bit confused as to whether Daemon’s cause was his own, or that of his Queen. Daemon’s spirit was torn between his own ambitions, and loyalty to Rhaenyra. His torment was only exacerbated by the fact that the castle he now called home was haunted or cursed. His nights became filled by nightmarish visions, and his waking hours interrupted by hallucinations. Time seemed to blend together for Daemon as he suffered under the weight of desires born of ego and narcissism.

All the while, Daemon began to have cryptic encounters with an inhabitant of the castle named Alys Rivers. Alys seemed to be trying to guide Daemon to some kind of realization about his situation. Whether an actual witch or not, Alys’ character played a role that viewers of Game of Thrones would find familiar. In Game of Thrones, the Red Witch Melisandre served as a kind of shepard for the other characters. She would nudge, suggest, or sometimes directly interfere in order to steer events on their predetermined path. She knew how the story was to unfold, and what each person needed to do in order to keep events on their proper trajectory.

Melisandre was basically the hand of determinism brought to life in human form. Alys Rivers wasn’t quite that, but she did steer Daemon towards recognizing the truth about his place in the world. Over time, she would irritate and prod Daemon about his visions, his struggles, and his lust for power. Daemon was resistant at first, but as his confusion and suffering continued, he began to relent. Until finally, Alys felt he was ready to see, and accept the truth. Which in turn, would allow the events to come, to play out exactly as they were supposed to.

As Daemon is sleeping one night, he awakens to find Alys sitting next to his bed. He quips, ‘Do you never sleep witch?’. To which Alys replies, ‘I’m going to the Godswood (a wooded sanctuary)’ as she gets up and walks away. Daemon would follow her outside as they walked towards a ‘Weirwood tree’. In Game of Thrones mythos, Weirwood trees have an almost religious significance - and for some they even have supernatural powers. As Daemon follows Alys cautiously, they would have the following exchange:

Alys: When you came here you were a closed fist. You wished to bend the world to your will.

But you’ve discovered I think that this world will not be governed.

There are omens here for those who seek them.

You do not scoff?

Daemon: I am no longer inclined to.

Alys: (Laughs) I am pleased to hear it!

Do you wish then to learn what is given to you?

All your life you sought to control your own fate. But today you are ready.

Alys then guides Daemon’s hand to touch the side of the Weirwood tree and its dripping sap. Immediately Daemon’s mind descends into a prophetic vision where he sees the war to come, and the events hundreds of years ahead in Game of Thrones. Instead of himself on the throne, he sees Rhaenyra in her rightful place as Queen. He then encounters his niece, Helaena Targaryen, who says to him:

It’s all a story, and you’re but one part in it.

You know your part - you know what you must do.

Since the show has not reached its conclusion yet, Daemon’s reaction to his experience can only be judged in the short term. Like a weight had been lifted from his soul, he pledges strict personal loyalty to Rhaenyra, along with the loyalty of the army he struggled so terribly to assemble. He had seen, and accepted his place in the world, and finally had a purpose to follow. He had ceased to grasp, to want, or to desire things to make him whole. He had let go, and finally seen himself as a part of something bigger. For now, he was no longer suffering.

Time will tell whether Daemon’s newly found peace will last, or whether he slips backwards into egoism and a craving for power. Yet it should be noted how apt a metaphor Daemon's situation is for the modern human condition. Like Daemon, we believe we have free will, but we do not. This belief leads us to be hard on ourselves, hard on others; and to create suffering as we anguish over actions and decisions. In Buddhist thought, our false perceptions about ourselves and the world lead us to crave and desire; which in turn leads us to suffering. For most of Daemon’s life he saw himself a singular agent apart from the world; while imposing his will on it. Yet the reality for him, and for us, is that we are embedded in an interdependent world. One where a false perception of ‘I’ (or self) can lead us to misery and frustration.

Like Daemon, when we can begin to see reality for what it is, we can begin to find purpose and meaning within the path that lays before us - whatever that might be. We begin to realize that craving money, power, status, or hedonistic desires will never make us whole. In a Buddhist sense, we realize that latching on to our egocentric desires is a reification of emotions that do not deserve to be reified. This recognition of our true place in reality doesn’t mean we give up striving or reaching for anything at all. It’s just that we gain the ability to strive and reach for what is actually meaningful.

When we lose our false sense of self, we arrive at the same place Daemon did. A place where our actions and thoughts align with our place in reality, rather than attempting to align reality to our ends. It is not easy for the human mind to recognize this, or to remain in such an enlightened state. The allure of our false perceptions is hard to ignore. Yet when we see them for what they are, we begin to see the path that is laid out before us. A path we did not choose - and a path we have much less control over than we think. This realization is both uneasy and freeing. Yet like Daemon, when we give in to it, we can begin to live within the world instead of trying (and failing) to bend the world to our ends. 

Nostalgia Examined: Was it Really Better Back Then?

Years ago, I remember seeing a documentary about New York City that contained a scene with former well known mayor Ed Koch. Koch was the city’s mayor during the 1980’s, which was a difficult socioeconomic time for the city. It was a time of urban decay, rising crime rates, and the impending crack cocaine epidemic. The scene with Koch was either him speaking during the 1980’s, or speaking about the time at a later date. Either way, the story he relayed was thought provoking. He recalled an elderly woman coming up to him on the street and saying something like, ‘Mr. Mayor, please make the city like it used to be’. Koch responded to the woman by saying, ‘Ma’am, it wasn’t as great as you remember it’.

Nostalgia is a powerful mental concept in human life. Especially in 2024, when the world seems to be chaotic and unmoored. Older generations often look back in time and yearn for the ‘good old days’. A vision of time that prompts them to believe everything was better years ago. There is an aspect to nostalgia that seems to be imposed on us. We tend to fondly remember cultural items like movies or music simply because we encountered them in our youth. Yet there is also an aspect to nostalgia that can be a true description of change. After all, nothing stays the same. The only question is whether that change can be truly deconstructed and identified in its qualitative nature.

Some aspects of our reality are easily defined as being superior in the past. If, for example, a law is passed in modern times that greatly restricts the rights of a citizenry, then it can be safe to say that the times before the law were probably better. Or if there is an environmental change that causes basic hardship on a population; then it can be safe to assume that population will deem the past time of environmental stability as better than the present. Yet most of the cultural categories that are the subject of nostalgic feelings are less distinct. They are complex, amorphous, and prone to subjective opinion.

In our current time, one of the overarching metaphysical questions is whether humanity was better off before the invention of the smartphone, or digital technology in general. This is a deep and wide ranging question that I will return to later. Though it should be acknowledged that some secondary cultural items cannot be discussed without mentioning the impact of digital technology.

---

One of the largest reservoirs of nostalgic feeling in our lives is the medium of film. Movies have tremendous cultural force and influence in human life. We almost always look back fondly at certain movies simply because we viewed them in our younger years. We can sometimes be fooled into thinking our nostalgic feelings are a direct response to a particular movie in itself. But if we look deeper, we realize our feelings in the present are actually a response to feelings we had in the past.

In 2021, well known movie actor Matt Damon was asked on the ‘Hot Ones’ podcast why it feels like Hollywood isn’t making movies ‘for me anymore’. The ‘for me’ in this case is intended to represent the average movie watcher. While the sentiment of the question refers to movies that connect on a personal (and a deeply human) level with the viewer. This line of inquiry aligns with a general sense some have that ‘cinema’ isn’t what it used to be. Damon would respond by mentioning how years ago DVD sales were a huge part of Hollywood’s revenue stream. He remarked how this allowed Hollywood to make movies that didn’t have to make all their money during a theatrical release. Yet when DVD’s were made obsolete by the digital age, this began to limit the kind of movies Hollywood could make. Damon described the situation like this:

‘I did this movie ‘Behind the Candelabra’, and I talked to the studio executive who explained it was a 25 million dollar movie, and he would have to put that much into print and advertising to market it. So now he's in 50 million dollars, and he has to split everything he gets with the exhibitors - the people who own the movie theaters. So he would have to make 100 million dollars before he got into profit. And the idea of making 100 million dollars on a story about this love affair between these two people - he loved everyone in the movie, but it would be a massive gamble. It wasn’t such a gamble in the 1990’s when they were making all those kinds of movies; the kinds of movies that I love; and were my bread and butter.’

Damon’s story is a specific example of a general principle: the fact that over time, technology and capitalism tend to undermine the health of artistic mediums. Each of these have brought the world of movies to a place where there is overwhelming amounts of content, yet questionable amounts of quality. The amount of content alone has affected our view of the past. Thirty or forty years ago, the movies that were nominated for best picture at the Oscars were widely known by the general public. Much of this simply had to do with the limited amount of options for viewers. As well as the fact that ‘going to the movies’ was one of the few entertainment options in the days before digital cable, and streaming services.

The widespread recognition that movies of the past have, gives us a sense of shared memories. Shared memories of a movie that had broad cultural resonance usually manifests itself as warm feeling nostalgia. This again is a response to the impact the movie had, not necessarily the movie in itself. With the amount of entertainment options in our current time, it's very hard to recreate the same experience that arose from the days of limited content.

This contrast between how we experience the medium of film now versus the past is probably the main source of any nostalgic feelings we might have. Despite Matt Damon yearning for Hollywood’s ‘good old days’; it’s not like ‘Star Wars’, ‘The Godfather’, ‘Back to the Future’ or ‘Pulp Fiction’ don’t have modern counterparts of equal quality. It’s that the cultural, metaphysical, and technological waters surrounding these films allowed for a more impactful experience. In decades past, the universe had aligned to position the human mind where it could be fully impacted by the medium of film. Whereas today, our minds are positioned to consume movies as content; rather than have impactful experiences.

---

Along with film, music has the same, if not more cultural influence and impact. This means it also contains a huge reservoir of nostalgic feeling. For many people, the popular music of their youth is the music they identify with the most. The nostalgic feelings associated with music from our formative years are usually more intense than those associated with movies. Music can conjure up memories of experiences, and feelings surrounding certain times in our lives. Though it is primarily a medium of sound, music expands in our minds through memories to touch almost all of our senses.

Like the realm of film, the nostalgic feeling surrounding the music of our youth is separate from the question of whether past music was better than current music. In a general sense there is probably a case to be made that music from past decades was better than much of what is produced in modern times. Yet like our feelings about past movies, our feelings about past music aren’t just a product of the music in itself. They are a product of the metaphysical, cultural, and technological situation surrounding past music as it was being created and disseminated.

In modern times, there are musicians like Taylor Swift or Beyonce who have achieved worldwide superstardom and wide cultural recognition. Yet when we compare the modern musical landscape to that of the past, it feels like there are fewer musical icons today than 30 or 40 years ago. You could mention bands like The Rolling Stones, Queen, The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Guns N' Roses, or Metallica. Or singular performers like James Brown, Aretha Franklin, Tina Turner, Madonna, Michael Jackson, or Elton John. Either list could go on, but the point is clear; the past was filled with numerous larger than life musical performers. 

Much like how the metaphysical waters surrounding films of the past allowed for widespread cultural impact, the same could be said for musicians of the past. We remember the way musicians of the past made us feel because reality was aligned to create those feelings. The world was slower and our minds were less dispersed, which allowed musical artists to grab our extended attention. Before the digital age, music wasn’t just something we heard, it was manifested in physical objects. Records, cassette tapes, and compact discs impacted our minds in much different ways than digital files, mp3’s, or Spotify streams. 

Anticipated album releases were important happenings, trips to the record store were routine, FM radio was a primary focus of our listening habits, and music videos were cultural events. All of this helped create a metaphysical environment where musicians could become larger than life. Yet this isn’t the only source of our nostalgic feelings, because there was something different about the music. In the past, there was less opportunity to ‘fake it’. There wasn’t any sophisticated technology to hide mediocre talent. Singers had to be able to sing, musicians had to be able to play their instrument, and performers had to be able to perform. This meant that talent was a premium that often rose to the top of the musical culture.

It could also be argued that popular music of the past was more substantive than its modern counterpart. Maybe we have certain feelings about past music because the music itself was better at spurring those feelings. There is a difference between music that stirs the heart, soul, and mind versus music that simply aims to be popular. One creates memories in our minds that last, and can breed nostalgic feelings. While the other functions kind of like a sugary treat. It provides an immediate rush, but has no lasting, or substantive nutritional value. It should be noted that like movies, the digital age has primed our minds to treat music as disposable content rather than something we deeply connect with.

Recently, on the ‘Stephen A. Smith’ show, the iconic rapper Ghostface Killah talked about his feelings concerning how the genre of hip hop music has changed over the decades. Ghostface would say:

‘I remember coming in, and even listening to the greats, it was like we had something to say. We had, you know, it was character - we had topics. I feel that we lost a lot of that. Like everything is more simple now - I know things never stay the same, so it was bound to happen. When we did ‘C.R.E.A.M.’ and all the other songs we (Wu-Tang Clan) did - we talked about the struggle, and made it where it was still cool, and those were our biggest records. When you look at the generation that’s right now, everything is naked females - it’s simple rap to me. Don’t get me wrong, I’m down for a black man to always go get his money, black women and everything. But I think there are ways you can still go about it.’

The trajectory of hip hop is an interesting example when it comes to nostalgic feeling. As one of America’s most authentic art forms, it began in earnest in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Initially it contained four elements: deejaying, breakdancing, graffiti, and MCing (rapping). By the 1990’s MCing had risen to prominence, and artists like Nas, Biggie Smalls, Tupac, and Jay-Z began to rise to fame. The 90’s era of hip hop is considered by many hip hop fans to be the ‘golden era’ of the genre. This also makes it a time that is viewed with tremendous amounts of nostalgic feeling.

I would argue that the nostalgic feeling surrounding the 90’s era of hip hop isn’t just a product of perceptions created by the metaphysics of the time. I would argue that this era was actually better than where the genre is today. In the 90’s, hip hop wasn’t as widely accepted as it is today. In fact, it was demonized by many in government and positions of power. This meant that it wasn’t as profitable a business as it is in modern times. It existed in a place where it retained aspects of artistic authenticity, creativity, and purpose. In a general sense, 90’s hip hop resembled the situation Matt Damon described around 90’s movies. Money was not the overriding factor in the genre. There was still room for true art that connected with the minds of listeners. This in turn has created nostalgic feelings decades later that are more than simple products of youthful encounters.

---

The artistic spark of hip hop emerged from the metaphysical landscape of New York City in the 1970's and 1980's. The city at the time was a cultural cauldron of authenticity and creativity. That is to say that life in the city wasn't completely subsumed by unfettered capitalism. Neighborhoods held together by resident relationships, small businesses, and reasonably priced dwellings still existed. This kind of authentic city life created the ingredients and the space for artistic creation and experimentation. As writer Fran Lebowitz once remarked, people enjoy cities because they are interesting - despite the fact they are noisy, crowded, and dirty.

The authentic city life of 1970's and 1980's New York wasn't all wonderful of course. The city was riddled by social decay, crime, and a rising drug problem. Hip hop itself was born from the effects of urban neglect (and racist policies) in poor, minority neighborhoods. As mentioned at the beginning of this writing, some older New Yorkers yearned for the past. For some, the New York of the 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's represented the apex of ‘good’ city life. These time periods in the city are often depicted with romantic nostalgia in popular films.

The trajectory of city life in New York follows the same general contours of city life in other major Western cities over past decades. In the 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's, neighborhoods were places where everyone pretty much knew one another. In fact, relationships were so intertwined that it was socially acceptable to discipline another family's child if you saw them misbehaving on the street. Most of the shopping for goods was done with small businesses where the owner was part of the community. Compared to today, the cost of living was far from prohibitive. This doesn't mean everyone was comfortable and rich. It just means city life wasn't completely molded by the effects of capitalism.

Throughout the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's, ‘white flight’ began to take hold. This was the phenomenon where white city dwellers with means fled city neighborhoods for mostly white, ‘safe’ suburbs. Urban decay in city neighborhoods began as drugs moved in, and good working class jobs became harder to find. Violence and crime began to tick up, and urban centers were often demonized along racial and class lines. Yet despite all this, cities were still ‘cities’. The social fabric might have been weakened, but they were still places where authentic lives were lived, and culture was created.

The late painter Chuck Close once remarked how you could ‘shoot a cannon’ down Hudson street in early 1970's New York and not hit anyone. The idea of a street in Manhattan being desolate today is difficult to conceive. When Andy Warhol arrived in New York in 1949, he had something like $200 in his pocket. Warhol would begin his journey as a commercial illustrator by carrying his drawings in a paper bag, while cold calling advertising agencies on Madison avenue. Today, this kind of action would seem more appropriate for a small town than one of the most important metropolises in the world. These stories about Close and Warhol describe a kind of city life that was socially flexible, and economically open. Yet in modern times, much of city life has become neither.

Somewhere around the early 2000's, the primary dynamics that shaped city life ceased to be social ones, and instead became economic ones. Instead of counteracting the social ills of past decades with bold social policy, those in power turned towards the ‘benefits’ of unfettered capitalism. Economic development was seen as a panacea that ushered in safe streets, big business, and high priced real estate developments. Yet the flip side to city revitalization via capitalism alone was that cities began to feel less ‘city-like’.

In current times, every piece of land in a city is squeezed for maximum profit. This usually results in the construction of neighborhood killing luxury condominiums instead of neighborhood conscious urban planning. Corporate retail chains have replaced small businesses that added character and personality to city blocks. While the skyrocketing cost of rent has turned many cities into exclusive luxury locations. The lack of economic breathing room has forced many cities to lose small places of authentic culture. Long standing music venues, galleries, restaurants, bars, or neighborhood stores have a habit of disappearing. This in turn creates a city with a shiny economic surface, yet lacking in depth of culture and character.

Considering all of this, it cannot be argued that the metaphysical reality surrounding city life hasn't changed since decades past. The question is whether the city life we remember was actually better  than what we have today. Or, like what Mayor Koch said to that woman many years ago; maybe it was ‘never as good as we remembered it’. This line of inquiry was a frequent discussion point between myself and the late Vito Acconci while I attended Brooklyn College. Using Times Square as an example, I would complain to him that much of New York had turned into a ‘Disneyland’ type attraction. While after living in the city for most of his long life, Vito would counter by saying, ‘well you could barely walk down the fucking street without being mugged thirty years ago’.

Both lines of thought seem to have merit. One recognizes the ills of a city overtaken by runaway capitalism. While the other recognizes the ills of a city in dire need of urban and economic renewal. Yet, in a general sense, the nostalgia some feel for the ‘way cities once were’ seems to be justified. If we judge city life based on the quality of community bonds, economic flexibility, and culture creation; decades past offer more than just fond memories. It wasn’t so much that city life was all good and happy many years ago, it’s more that it was authentic in nature. The nostalgic feelings that manifest today are a reflection of how that authenticity made individuals feel then.

A past city neighborhood where most residents knew each other leaves a positive impact on the human mind; and creates warm nostalgia. While memories of cheap subway rides, affordable ballgame tickets, single income rents, and local neighborhood jobs elicit more practical nostalgia. Looking back on a time when those who pushed the artistic avant-garde had the economic room to ‘play’ and create, brings further nostalgic feeling. Overall, the city life we remember with nostalgia was a life that reflected more human bonds than economic ones. While far from perfect, it was a life that aligned better with our nature as human beings than what city life in many modern cities has become. This alignment is what seems to be the source of the justified nostalgic feeling many people have for the city life of decades past.

---

The broadest question concerning nostalgia is tied to the notion of metaphysical reality aligning with our nature as a species. The question being whether humanity was better off before the advent of digital technology and the smartphone. This question revolves around the concept that our technological advancement has outpaced the ability of our brains to adapt appropriately. The idea is that our technology advances at an exponential level, while our minds remain fundamentally the same. This in turn creates a situation where instead of the human mind bending technology to its will; technology starts to shape the human mind in uncontrollable ways.

Again, the nostalgia older generations feel for the world before digital technology isn’t necessarily for that world in itself - it’s for the feelings that world created. Those of us old enough to remember a time before the digital age remember a world that seemed slower. There was no social media, no internet, no swiping, no scrolling, or electronic dopamine hits to stimulate our minds. Time itself seemed to unfold at a different pace as our minds were conditioned only by our own consciousness. There was no ‘digital world’ for our minds to inhabit. The question is why many people look back on this time with broad nostalgic feeling.

It could be because despite all the technology that had come into being before the digital age; the human mind was still conditioned by living ‘actual life’. ‘Actual life’ in this case means a situation where human beings interact face to face, and their experiences are in physical reality. One of the common nostalgic streams of thought for older generations is that they remember social gatherings, parties, concerts, and nightclubs without cell phones. With no digital reality to distract the mind, these pre-digital gatherings were highly focused, ‘human’ experiences. The human mind was forced to be present - while experiencing (or creating) intense feeling and emotion.

This mode of being, experiencing life through the physical world, aligns with how our species evolved over millions of years. It only makes sense that we would only be able to generate true meaning and happiness through this way of existing. If you look back at your life, and remember true moments where you achieved meaning, happiness, or a ‘flow state’; I’m willing to guess that not one came from your smartphone. I’m willing to bet that all of these experiences arose from some type of experience in real life.

Therefore, I do believe that the nostalgic feelings older generations have for pre-digital times are justified. Our digital technology has made us more efficient, created wonderful connections, and created tremendous access to knowledge. Yet it has also seemed to accelerate the very nature of reality, made us become more insular, heightened our worst tribal instincts, and distracted us from actual life. Our minds did not evolve to be able to handle our consciousness being divided between two realities: the physical and the digital. We evolved to interact face to face, play outside as children, create with our hands, and be present in the world with a mind free from electronic distraction.

The nostalgia surrounding movies of the past, music of the past, and even past city life, is probably somewhat related to the difference between the pre and post-digital age. In the pre-digital age, it was much easier to be supremely present in the world. This allowed for movies and music to create tremendous meaning and feelings. It also allowed for a city life that revolved around neighborhoods, community, and face to face interaction; which made city life more meaningful and in turn, nostalgic. Regardless, it cannot be denied that in gaining the digital world, the human mind lost something in return. It is that ‘something’ that fuels most of the nostalgic feeling today, and probably will until certain generations pass on. After that, nostalgic feelings will still exist as a human phenomenon, yet they will be different in focus. A person cannot feel nostalgic about a time they did not experience. And it is the nature of past experience that is key to determining the nature of any current nostalgic feelings.

The New Right Has Arrived - Where is the New Left?

In 2016, the United States had reached a place of increasing dissociation. ‘Truth’ had become a relative term as citizens curated their own reality based on belief. Trust in corporations, the mainstream media, universities, government institutions, and ‘elites’ in general was all but gone. The digital age had fully enacted its effect on the American mind - attention spans were shortened, and tribal tensions were elevated by social media. Traditional notions like ‘family’, ‘community’, and religious belief had become outdated words instead of authentic social bonds. Drug overdose deaths were on the rise, and in an existential sense, many Americans had no real meaning or purpose in their lives.

In 2016, America was eight years removed from the 2008 financial crisis, yet those that caused the crisis had remained at the top of society, and increased their power. The separation between those with college degrees and those without had reached metaphysical levels. ‘Metaphysical levels’ meaning that the nature of reality itself between the two groups was reaching a separation point. Income inequality fed this separation, and planted the seeds of resentment. The ‘corrupt ruling class’ were seen as those individuals in mainstream media, higher education, government positions, corporate leadership, and popular entertainment.

Those at the top of society were seen as hoarding all the wealth and resources of the country for themselves. Over the past thirty years, wages for working Americans had remained stagnant compared to the cost of living - and CEO paychecks. Healthcare was still expensive and out of reach for many. While the exorbitant cost of college had left younger generations forced to carry massive amounts of student debt. The leadership of both major parties was beginning to be seen as decadent and out of touch. It had become inevitable that resentment and anger would create a response not unfamiliar to history; the unrest of populist fervor.

This was the landscape in 2016 that paved the road for former President Donald Trump to rise to power. He didn’t change the country to win the presidency. The country had changed to a point where a populist demagogue could become a viable choice. Many younger Republican politicians and some wealthy Silicon Valley entrepreneurs agreed with the general premise of ‘Trumpism’. Yet in 2016 they were either hesitant or outright hostile to Trump’s candidacy because of Trump’s character and personality. Yet now in 2024, young, future looking right wing thought has merged with Trumpism to create what can be seen as the ‘New Right’.

The ascendant embodiment of the New Right is Trump’s selection as a vice presidential running mate; Ohio Senator J.D. Vance. At only 39 years of age, Vance represents the future of the new conservative movement. His mentor, tech billionaire Peter Thiel, is a thought leader within the movement. Other notable influences on New Right thought include Elon Musk, tech billionaire Marc Andreessen, political theorist Patrick Deneen, and media personality Tucker Carlson. Notable Senators who have seemingly aligned themselves with the movement include Florida Senator Marco Rubio, and Missouri Senator Josh Hawley. None of these individuals agree on everything, yet we can still draw a general picture of what the New Right represents.

There is a general sense that government institutions have failed, and need to be purged and remade. Democracy itself is even questioned, as its perceived failure illustrates the need for ‘authoritarian’ action. This basically means that if the government is dysfunctional, then a strong leader should be empowered to take action and change things. The New Right sees immigration, ‘free trade’, and ‘globalism’ as largely responsible for the harm that has come to the American worker over the past decades. This means that nationalist trade policies, a hard line on immigration, and a retreat from global organizations are attractive remedies.

Many on the New Right see technological progress as essential, and fundamental. They believe technology is the best way to fix what has gone wrong economically in the country. This means that deregulation and limited government interference is a preference. Yet while some prefer limited government in parts of the technology sector, some want the government to enforce ‘traditional values’. Drawn from Christian belief and a desire for social order, many on the New Right are anti-abortion, advocates of religion in public life, and seeking a return to 1950’s era ‘family values’. 

The media ecosystem underpinning the New Right exists mostly on YouTube, in podcasts, and on social media. ‘Free speech’ and ‘anti-woke’ sentiments are used as resentment-fueled rallying cries to whip up digital views and likes. These are the mental constructs the movement uses to create an image of ‘the enemy’. Viewers are stimulated by rants and ramblings about the ‘radical left’. For the New Right, the radical left represents the ideological capture of mainstream cultural institutions like the media and universities. This common enemy unites the New Right media ecosystem, breeds aggression, and even stirs occasional talk of civil war.

The point here is that the New Right represents a semi-coherent political response to what was described at the beginning of this writing. In 2016 the old political narratives of traditional ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ had run their course. That was the only reason Trumpism was able to succeed. But back then, there was no real Trump ideology or political coherence. It was just kind of rudderless populism mixed with narcissistic indulgence. Yet eight years later, there is a real, capable, and well funded movement to sell to American voters. The New Right is ready to offer voters a way forward to the future, and a return to ‘order’. They are ready to offer their solution to put America back together again after decades of dissociation. 

I don’t know whether the New Right thinks it can dabble in authoritarian solutions without going ‘all the way’ or it has completely given up on democratic institutions. Either way, history has taught us how such inclinations end. Former President Trump never hid his authoritarian leanings in his first term. All of which culminated in the events of January 6, 2021, when he spurred his followers to storm the US Capitol in an attempt to disrupt the certification of the 2020 presidential election. With the Supreme Court recently granting future presidents broad immunity for any ‘official acts’, the power of the presidency is primed for tyrannical abuse.

As of this writing, former President Trump and the New Right are winning the 2024 presidential election. Their Democratic opponent, current President Joe Biden is feeble, aged, and under pressure to leave the race by members of his own party. Whether or not Biden is replaced, the Democrats will have the same problem. There isn’t a ‘New Left’ to ideologically combat the New Right. Four years ago, when Biden won the presidency, the simple political slogan of ‘Trump is bad’ was good enough. Yet the unique political moment of 2020 hid the fact that the Democratic Party has been ideologically stagnant since 2016.

In 2016, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign attracted enthusiasm and momentum in the Democratic primary. Sanders’ campaign spoke to, and was an ideological response to the dissociation in the country described at the beginning of this writing. Sanders’ campaign was unsuccessful in part because the elites in the Democratic Party gently tilted the scales to benefit his establishment opponent; former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Many of those who were attracted to Sanders’ campaign eventually supported then candidate Donald Trump in the general election. This contributed to Trump winning traditional ‘blue wall’ states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan; which gave him the presidency.

If the Democrats want to truly stop the New Right in its tracks, they must counter with a New Left. An ideological movement that preserves the best of liberal ideals, yet provides a grand narrative about where the country is, and where it should go. It should be an ideological framework that upholds democratic principles, yet actually speaks to the dissociation Americans have felt. On the economic front, it should provide paradigm shifting ideas that address the coming age of artificial intelligence. It also needs to counter the feeling and emotion of the New Right with feeling and emotion of its own.

American elections in the modern age are close to fifty, fifty toss ups. The margins are slim, and political momentum can swing states - and history. As of now, the New Right has all the political momentum in the country. If the Democrats want to beat them, they will have to create ideological momentum of their own. They will have to challenge the New Right, with a forward looking, cohesive New Left. Otherwise, an ideology that has seemingly embraced authoritarian uses of power could wield control over the United States for years to come.

The Last D-Day

Forty years ago, former US President Ronald Reagan gave one of his most famous speeches at the Pointe du Hoc Ranger monument on the French coast. The occasion was the 40th anniversary of the Allied D-Day landings during World War II. The monument that provided the backdrop was erected by the French in order to honor the American Army Rangers who captured Pointe du Hoc from the Nazis on that eventful day.

Reagan’s speech was filled with modernist themes that aligned with his earnest political outlook. He intertwined the nature of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union with the Allied struggle against the Nazis 40 years earlier. For Reagan, the common thread between the two was a conflict between freedom and tyranny. Or quite simply, a struggle between good versus evil.

The 40th anniversary of D-Day fit nicely within the Reagan ‘mystique’. As a political and cultural force, the Reagan presidency sought to revive conservative ‘traditions and values’. As with many old, reductionist, modernist notions; many of the values or traditions Reagan sought to restore were either empty or hypocritical. Yet when it came to D-Day, or anything dealing with World War II veterans for that matter, Reagan’s words were not only earnest, they were true.

Even the most cynical soul would be hard pressed to not acknowledge ‘the Good’ when it came to the heroism and character of those that stormed the beaches on D-Day. The Army Rangers described in Reagan’s speech literally had to scale vertical cliffs under Nazi gunfire in order to complete their mission. The only words you can use to describe their actions are words like ‘heroic’ or ‘courageous’. Their actions are framed within the cultural framework surrounding the legacy of World War II. A just war where the line between right and wrong was clearly defined and self evident.

If you grew up in America in the 1980’s and 1990’s, you were probably no stranger to the cultural waters surrounding what became known as the ‘greatest generation’. In the 1990’s the greatest generation were reaching old age, and their children had grown into positions of prominence in media and culture creation. The admiration the younger generation had for their elders led to numerous cultural products that celebrated the wartime experiences of the greatest generation. The apex of this was probably Steven Spielberg’s ‘Saving Private Ryan’ which was released in 1998.

Spielberg captured the realistic horrors of war in a way none had done before. He also created a film that was totally earnest, and wrapped in authentic patriotism and reverence. Considering the 90’s were a time of burgeoning, widespread cultural cynicism, and self indulgent hedonism; this was no small feat. ‘Saving Private Ryan’, along with other World War II cultural products, were like islands of intense authentic feeling amid an ocean of rising apathy. It was almost like they existed on a separate plane of existence. One where everything was ordered, simple, and morally clear.

Over 25 years after ‘Saving Private Ryan’, and 40 years after Reagan’s speech, 2024 saw the recognition of D-Day’s 80th anniversary. Unlike the veterans that were in attendance 40 years ago, the ones in attendance now were in their 90’s and up. It was acknowledged by many that this might be the last D-Day anniversary ceremony with living participants in attendance. The aged veterans were greeted warmly by US President Joe Biden and French President Emmanuel Macron. Macron awarded the US veterans with France’s highest distinction: the Legion of Honour. Despite the awards, the entire proceedings felt more like farewell to the past - rather than an annual remembrance of it.

Again, even the most cynical person would have a hard time dismissing the authentic feeling emanating from the interaction between Biden, Macron, and the elderly veterans. Most (if not all) the veterans were in wheelchairs. Yet as President Macron met each of them to present their award, they seemed to insist on standing. Though they required aid to rise, the willpower of the veterans was a display of the very honor they were being recognized for.

The whole display was a pure example of ‘the Good’. ‘The Good’ in this case meaning pure, authentic feeling that is almost impenetrable to cynicism, or allegations of kitschiness. The metaphysics surrounding the event stood in steep contrast to the nature of reality today. A time where faith in government institutions, grand patriotic narratives, or ‘just wars’ has become scattered, or even non-existent. There is no real place in the current culture for something that is emotionally equivalent to what transpired in France on D-Day's 80th anniversary.

Like most news stories in our modern times, the 80th anniversary of D-Day came and went. Confined to the 24 hour news cycle, and digital attention spans, the anniversary was just another noted event. Yet in a quiet sense, it was the end of an era. The end of living connections to the greatest generation. The end of the post World War II geopolitical order marked by the emergence of China as a superpower, and America’s decline. And the end of one of the last widely agreed upon, authentically ‘good’ cultural items.

Like President Reagan 40 years ago, President Biden used the D-Day anniversary to weave the historical struggle against tyranny with a current one. Yet unlike Reagan, Biden’s message seemed empty and ineffectual. However it was not his fault that his rhetoric could not coincide with the authentic weight of the occasion. Biden’s words were dissolved within the deluge of our daily information overload. While the authenticity of his message was halted by the modern walls of cynicism surrounding all things governmental or political. Sadly, it was probably a fitting way to mark what seemed like the ‘last D-Day’. A speech meant for an earlier time, concerning an event that will probably soon be forgotten.

The Problem With Capitalism

Karl Marx’s critique of capitalism was greatly informed by his observation of the working class in mid-nineteenth century England. Marx witnessed the grinding and subjugating effects of industrialized capitalism, and saw them as a product of what fundamentally shaped the rest of society. For Marx, the economic system of a society was the soil from which everything else in the society grew. Whether it was politics, culture, ideas, institutions, or rituals; for Marx, it all rested upon an economic foundation. Marx even felt that human consciousness itself was determined by material and economic conditions. In my view, this was the major error in Marx’s philosophy. Our reality is determined by our nature as a species, and created via human consciousness. Our economic systems emerge from this; not the other way around.

It is true that once an economic system is established, its nature influences the minds of the human beings that live within it. Yet ‘influence’ is very different from total determination or complete creation. An economic system is created and maintained via decisions that flow from human nature. As the system evolves, deciphering its structure can more easily be reduced to human evolutionary pressures like status seeking, resource acquiring, and producing offspring. A human mind within an economic system responds to that system with the same evolutionary programming that created the system in the first place.

This means that various aspects of our consciousness can be prompted or stimulated by differing economic systems. One system might be weighted towards our capacity for reciprocal altruism or cooperation; while another might ignite our selfish, hedonistic desires. Yet it should be understood that this mode of action is influence, not a total engineering of our conscious experience. The relationship between our minds and our economic systems is an interdependent, dynamic one. Not a zero-sum, simple cause and effect arrangement.

In my view, this is the framework that any true critique of capitalism must work under. The problem with capitalism isn’t the system in itself, or some psionic ability of capitalism’s essence to control our minds. The problem with capitalism is our nature as a species, and our inability to agree upon a universal moral or ethical philosophy. There is no place where ‘capitalism’ exists, or a singular object of capitalism that can be interrogated or changed. There are only laws, norms of interaction, and methods of transaction that were created by, and interact with, the human mind. Ironically, even though the functioning of our capitalist system has become subsumed by our evolutionary impulses; its creation could at least be seen in part as an attempt to mitigate the very impulses that have run amok.

As human beings, a primary part of our evolutionary programming is to accumulate resources. This makes basic evolutionary sense, as every species needs to obtain resources in order to survive and reproduce. Over millions of years, our need to gather resources also inevitably led us to evolve the ability to compete with each other in order to obtain things we need to survive. A twisted, modern day version of this can be seen when rabid consumers wrestle each other into submission for a Black Friday deal on a flat screen television.

If a catastrophic event (man made or natural) ever knocked out all of Earth’s electrical connections for an extended period of time, our situation as a species would very quickly devolve into primal resource competition. Groups would form, and as the norms of modern society began to break down, violence would become a means of ensuring survival. This part of our evolutionary programming, the need to compete for resources (violently if necessary) is what a capitalist structure is supposed to counteract. Instead of fighting, stealing, or killing for land or food, we can use currency or trade to get what we need. Instead of a group of human beings feeling compelled to compete for limited resources, the structures of capitalism are supposed to create an abundance of resources. This then removes any primal urgency that would prompt a human mind into tribalistic survival mode.

In modern times, during what many have called ‘late stage capitalism’, capitalist countries do have an abundance of resources relatively speaking. The basic quality of life for even the poorest of citizens living under Western style capitalism is markedly better than it would have been hundreds of years ago. Supermarkets are full of food, modern buildings offer protection from the elements, and the expanse of the digital world is available to most. Yet despite the successful resource generation of modern capitalist systems, they have also presided over widening inequality, political unrest, out of control corporate influence, inaccessible healthcare, high-priced education, a rising cost of living, environmental degradation, and a general sense of unhappiness for many.

The reason for this is pretty clear: late stage capitalism has devolved into a primal sorting ground by other means. One where money and profit making are to the modern human mind what food and water were to the prehistoric human mind. Instead of a socially constructed item that facilitates nonviolent resource acquisition, money itself has become the main resource item within the mind's eye. Money’s position in modern capitalist society is like a small herd of buffalo situated amid dozens of groups of primitive, hunter gatherer humans. The importance and scarcity of such a primary resource would prompt intense competition between the varying, primitive groups.

In modern times, we can see the results of this framework in the following examples: the nature of city development, the mechanics of a healthcare system based on profit making, the entire functioning of Wall Street and the financial system, corporate influence on lawmaking and democratic institutions as a whole, the decision making process of politicians, the way workers are treated by large corporate employers, and the way humans in general have treated the environment of the planet. The list could go on, but the point is clear. ‘Free market’ capitalism has become an empty platform for the base instincts of the human mind. Our base ‘resource acquisition’ programming has been tuned to acquire and retain money - and the nature of our lives themselves depend on it.

You might be asking now, ‘well this sounds a lot like Marx’s “economic system creates reality” framework’. Indeed it does. But again, it's important to remember, the reality of modern capitalism has not been imposed on the human mind, it is a creation of it. Over years and years, countless human minds have made decisions, and taken actions which have brought us to where we are today. The nature of those self interested decisions and actions is where I believe we can truly find the problem with capitalism. What is it that allows (over time) a capitalist system to devolve into a primal sorting ground by other means? As with many of humanity’s problems, the issue with capitalism is what is missing, rather than what exists.

In 1958, a young Martin Luther King Jr. wrote an article titled ‘My Pilgrimage to Nonviolence’. Along with discussing his philosophical thinking on nonviolent protest, he conveyed his feelings about capitalism, Marx, and communism. King rejected the ‘materialistic interpretation of history’ and the ‘ethical relativism’ of communist thought due to his Christian beliefs. Yet he acknowledged the validity of Marx’s questioning of capitalism, as he felt that it was Chrisitanity’s duty to perform the same interrogation. King gave Marx a nod in highlighting the problem with an economic system that revolves solely around profit making:

Marx had revealed the danger of the profit motive as the sole basis of an economic system: capitalism is always in danger of inspiring men to be more concerned about making a living than making a life. We are prone to judge success by the index of our salaries or the size of our automobiles, rather than by the quality of our service and relationship to humanity - thus capitalism can lead to a practical materialism that is as pernicious as the materialism taught by communism.

King would conclude this section of his article with his feelings on economic truth:

My reading of Marx also convinced me that truth is found neither in Marxism nor in traditional capitalism. Each represents a partial truth. Historically capitalism failed to see the truth in collective enterprise, and Marxism failed to see the truth in individual enterprise. Nineteenth century capitalism failed to see that life is social, and Marxism failed, and still fails to see that life is individual and personal. The Kingdom of God is neither the thesis of individual enterprise nor the antithesis of collective enterprise, but a synthesis which reconciles the truths of both.

In today’s context, the absence of ‘The Kingdom of God’ has allowed the human mind to devolve capitalist systems into empty pursuits of profit and money. For King, ‘The Kingdom of God’ is obviously a religious formulation. For our modern purposes, ‘The Kingdom of God’ means a universally agreed upon moral or ethical framework that binds itself to the societal and biological mechanisms of capitalism itself. Without such a framework, the pernicious effects of capitalism are allowed to metastasize and grow. This line of thinking somewhat aligns with the thesis of Daniel Bell’s 1976 book, ‘The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism’. Bell’s main analysis was that the success of capitalism undermines the very things capitalism needs to function in a healthy manner.

In a general sense, Bell saw ‘traditional values’ as what capitalism needed, and what it ultimately undermined. But as with Martin Luther King Jr’s ‘Kingdom of God’, Bell’s traditional values formulation has little purchase in 2024. Since the nature of capitalism touches the lives of every single citizen in a capitalist country, any moral structure that came along for the ride would have to have wide, universal appeal and adoption. Moral structures based in a particular religion, or based on Puritan values have limited appeal in a modern, technological, and secularizing age. Not to mention these moral structures are easily subsumed, and used by the human mind as tools to gain resources from others through the mechanisms of capitalism itself. See any megachurch with a well dressed millionaire ‘pastor’, who collects frequent donations from his followers as an example of this.

In any case, this writing is not intended to provide a solution for the problem with capitalism, it is only intended to provide a description. It might not even be possible for a truly universal or secular moral structure to emerge that fully countered our evolutionary nature. In fact, it's hard to imagine how it would even be possible at this point in humanity’s journey. Yet it is possible to imagine how such a moral structure would function within a capitalist landscape.

In a broad sense, the human mind would be oriented towards how to live a meaningful life instead of money fueled resource acquisition. Fellow human beings would be seen less as competitors, and more as opportunities for cooperation or reciprocal altruism. Healthcare would be treated as a human right rather than just another market determined by profit. Wall Street and the financial industry would function more like a modest service industry instead of carrying out a form of legalized racketeering. The price of education would be kept at a minimum, as education would be deemed a public good that should be free of excessive cost and debt creation. And city development would consist of building thriving neighborhoods instead of destroying them with profit driven luxury housing construction.

In this ideal fantasy, the framework of capitalism would be second to a universal moral framework. This would mean that the human mind wouldn’t be solely focused on obtaining capitalistic resources. The moral structure would provide guardrails that would shape actions and decisions. It would create a society that was a true ‘society’, rather than a one dimensional culture that revolves around the ways of money.

Over one hundred years ago, the dynamics between Western style capitalism, morality, the human mind, and society were discussed eloquently in the book ‘Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule’. Written in 1909 by Mahatma Gandhi, the text uses an imaginary dialogue to articulate Gandhi’s views on the status of India during British colonial rule. British rule and capitalism kind of blended together for Gandhi as he described the corrosive effect on the Indian mind and soul. He saw the British way of living as morally empty and revolving around base human impulses. For Gandhi, like Martin Luther King Jr. decades later, capitalism was useless without some kind of moral construct. On the notion of what determined a ‘true civilization’, Gandhi would write:

Civilization is that mode of conduct which points out to (people) the path of duty. Performance of duty and observance of morality are convertible terms. To observe morality is to attain mastery over our mind and our passions. So doing, we know ourselves.

The problem with capitalism has never been the imagined (and nonexistent) essence of capitalism. The problem with capitalism has always been the human mind that created it. And without some kind of minimal, agreed upon moral framework to influence decision making within the human mind, the problem with capitalism will persist indefinitely.

Eisenhower's Prophecy

On January 17, 1961, the 34th president of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower gave his farewell address to the nation. Having served as the Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force in Europe during World War II, Eisenhower was chastened by the horrors of war. In the wake of World War II, he participated in, and witnessed the burgeoning Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. His experience in life had given him a perspective that was somewhat torn. On the one hand he seemed to have a vision of a ‘good society’. One where the modernist ideals of America became realized. On the other hand he maintained a position of American readiness for war and conflict.

For many who have looked back on Eisenhower’s farewell address over the decades, it has proven to be prophetic - and the view from 2024 looks no different. Maybe it was Eisenhower’s experience surveying the broad trajectories of battle that gave him the ability to see the broad trajectory of American society.

Regardless, when Eisenhower’s speech is reflected upon, one can find threads that touch upon the cultural, political, and even metaphysical situation America finds itself in today. In Eisenhower’s time, political rhetoric had a power and influence that has faded in modern times. In our digitally primed, short attention spanned information space, longer form political speech has limited purchase. A mind shaped by digital media is not a mind primed to consume or contemplate long form political arguments or discourse. Yet due to the prophetic nature of Eisenhower’s farewell address, it’s useful to look back in a way that deconstructs its insight.

The speech begins with a reminder of how far American politics has fallen in terms of intra party comity - and respect for democratic norms. His opening remarks seem almost from a different country compared to America’s current political climate:

My fellow Americans,

Three days from now, after half a century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.

This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.

Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.

Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment; the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the Nation.

My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis, when long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point - have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period - and finally, to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.

In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have on most vital issues, cooperated well - to serve the national good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the Nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling, on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.

In the next section, Eisenhower would describe the historical position of the United States - its past and possible future. It is here where the 34th president would begin to describe the tension between material gain or ‘progress’; versus higher ideals and values. It’s almost like he knew the existential question that would be facing the generation coming of age in the next decade (the 1960’s):

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential, and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches, and military strength; but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

Eisenhower then begins to frame the burgeoning Cold War conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union in almost good versus evil terms. He refers to the modernist ideals and religious tradition of the US as sources of strength. And he portrays a grand moral narrative about the impact America is striving to have on the world:

Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity, and integrity among people, and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, (and) absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology; global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis; but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle - with liberty at stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Eisenhower saw the Cold War with the Soviet Union as existential and generational. Yet while he saw the conflict as deservedly ‘all consuming’, he also recognized the dangers of a society consumed with conflict, competition, and never ending capitalistic development. He seemed to be wrestling with what he saw as America’s responsibilities as a new super power, and the kind of good society he wanted America to become. He could see the beginning of government power, corporate power, and the nature of capitalism combining into something that threw the country out of balance. A situation where the public good became secondary to powerful interests:

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small; there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research - these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs-balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage; balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between action of the moment, and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well - in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise - I mention two only.

It is at this point in the speech that Eisenhower begins to illustrate the vision that would be so prophetic. He describes how in the wake of World War II the US began to sustain a military industry that was unprecedented in its history. The dichotomy that Eisenhower was struggling with can also begin to be seen clearly. His belief in the need for a strong military defense; yet his concern that its mechanisms could eventually harm the nation:

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime; or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United State corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence; economic, political, even spiritual is felt in every city, every state house; every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved - so is the very structure of our society.

Eisenhower’s most famous warning would come next:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Sadly, Eisenhower’s worst fears about the ‘military industrial complex’ have come true. In 2022, the United States spent $877 billion on defense, while the second closest country (China) spent $292 billion. Individuals move through a revolving door between military, government, defense contractor, and lobbyist positions. This is the very heart of the military industrial complex; the nexus where military spending becomes a self sustaining entity regardless of need or purpose.

Defense contractors spread their production of military hardware across multiple states, and congressional districts. This wise move makes the cutting of military spending more difficult. For a piece of military hardware that affects the political fortunes of multiple congressional members is much harder to cancel than one that affects a single Senator or member of Congress.

The tension and introspection that Eisenhower expressed in his rhetoric is gone from the discourse surrounding military spending. Expanding US military expenditures and US military involvement around the world is just accepted and normalized. As of this writing, the US is spending billions to fund wars in Ukraine, the Middle East, and in preparation for a future war with China. The merit of either of these expenditures can be debated; yet it’s clear that just as Eisenhower feared, war for the United States has become a self-sustaining, profitable industry. As American political scientist Chalmers Johnson said in the 2005 film ‘Why We Fight’, ‘when war becomes profitable, we're going to see more of it’.

Eisenhower’s concern about what he saw happening to America’s political system and society could be boiled down to a simple axiom: The pursuit of profit, above all else, eventually erodes the virtue and moral foundations of a society. The military industrial complex isn’t the only ‘complex’ that has gripped American society. One could describe a ‘pharmaceutical industrial complex’, a ‘healthcare industrial complex’, a ‘food manufacturing industrial complex’, a ‘prison industrial complex’, a ‘higher education industrial complex’, a ‘campaign finance industrial complex’ and a ‘financial industry industrial complex’. All of these can be boiled down to the simple dichotomy Eisenhower was spelling out in his speech: the balance between unfettered capitalism and public virtue.

A society that sought public virtue would be one that prioritized healthcare, education, and the general well being of its citizens. It would also be a society that as Eisenhower mentioned, would defend itself, but would seek peace and stability around the world. A society that develops a self sustaining industry that needs war in order to survive is probably a society that has drifted astray. In our current situation, war is a marketplace, while peace isn’t profitable.

Eisenhower stated that only an ‘alert and knowledgeable citizenry’ could make sure to prevent the ‘unwarranted influence’ of the military industrial complex. I would argue this sentiment applies to all the complexes listed previously as well. Yet one of the poisonous effects of the various complexes that have taken control of American society is the degrading of civic virtue. Apathy, anger, or political blindness now inhabit the minds of the American polity. Americans have either given up on changing things for the better, succumbed to their rage in wild populism, or blindly support the two major political parties that perpetuate the very complexes they know are wrong.

The decline of an ‘alert and knowledgeable citizenry’ didn’t begin with the digital revolution or the invention of the smartphone; but a case could be made that these two developments solidified it. Ironically, Eisenhower’s second warning in his farewell address had to do with the increasing power and influence of unchecked technological development. He even warned that public policy could become the captive of a ‘scientific-technological elite’.

This prophetic warning captures our current situation where Google and Meta
(Facebook) have outsized influence over the very nature of our everyday lives. A situation where our private information has become monetized; and our digital lives can be monitored via cooperation between government and corporate power. And as of this writing, rapid advancements in artificial intelligence are moving into military applications, and private industry. The situation surrounding artificial intelligence is exactly the type of situation Eisenhower warned about. One where technology, government, and corporate power merge to push technological advancement without consideration of the public good:

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system; ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

Again, Eisenhower is painting a general picture of a society that risks becoming consumed by industry, growth, and material progress - the byproducts of unfettered capitalism. Now nearing the end of his farewell address, Eisenhower begins to strike a more philosophical tone. One that illustrates what American society could aim towards if it recognizes the pitfalls that lay ahead. Eisenhower also makes a plain warning about the importance of older generations pondering future generations before they act. This warning illuminates what many younger generations have come to feel in America today. The notion that older generations have ruined the environment, and hoarded the material wealth of the country:

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we, you, and I - and our government must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

The current state of American democracy gives sobering weight to the last line of this section. There is no room in the discourse of modern day America for lofty ideals, or political comity. Yet in Eisenhower’s time, despite all the turmoil the country was going to face in the 1960’s, there was still ‘hope’. There was still a conception of a good society (and a good world) to aim towards:

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose difference, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war - as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years; I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.

Eisenhower ends with a grand vision. One that is rooted in religion, and universal themes; both of which have little purchase in today’s political rhetoric or general discourse. Yet I think it would be hard to argue that Eisenhower’s vision of a good society, and a peaceful world were off base. Eisenhower’s conception of what the country, and the world could be was why he warned about the dangers he saw ahead:

So, in this my last good night to you as your President, I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find somethings worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.

You and I, my fellow citizens, need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nation's great goals.

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing inspiration.

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.

Sadly, over sixty years later, Eisenhower’s hopes for America and the world seem unreachable. And since his warnings went unheeded, we can now say they were nothing short of prophecy.

Dark Age Now

Twenty years ago, the great Jane Jacobs published a book titled ‘Dark Age Ahead’. In a general sense Jacobs used the book to warn that the United States was slipping into a dark age where ‘even the memory of what was lost’ has faded away. In a specific sense she described the decay of five key societal ‘pillars’: community and family, higher education, science and technology, taxes and government, and self regulation in learned professions. Without delving into the specifics or merit of her societal deconstruction, it seems hard to argue that Jacobs’ general concern hasn’t proved to be correct. Twenty years after Jacobs’ warning, the United States is a dysfunctional polity with a large portion of its citizenry lonely, unhealthy, and economically exploited.

As of this writing, in April of 2024, former President Donald Trump looks to have a slightly better than fifty percent chance of being elected president for a second time. From a certain perspective, the fact that Trump is still supported by millions of Americans is one of the more remarkable occurrences in United States history. By now, any objective observer can see that Trump’s character, temperament, and disdain for democratic norms render him unfit to return to the Oval Office. A person who spearheads the disruption of the peaceful transfer of power in a democracy should never be allowed to return to wield power over others.

Twenty years ago, if Jane Jacobs had imagined the type of person who could rise to political prominence in her described ‘dark age’, she probably would have imagined a person like Donald Trump. A societal vacuum created by broad ‘cultural amnesia’ can easily be filled by a talented demagogue like the former president. And for younger Americans, the chaos and dysfunction that Trump brought to the presidency wasn’t abnormal; because to a certain degree it’s all that they know. This kind of Overton window shift is a standard condition within a dark age. What was once unacceptable or unthinkable becomes normalized, as previous ways of being are lost to time and forgotten.

Many have correctly observed that Donald Trump’s rise was more to do with American society changing, rather than Trump molding American society in his own image. The arrival of the smartphone in 2007 began the trend towards what some have called a ‘mental dark age’ for the American mind (and the human mind in general). Instead of contemplation and rationality, our minds became primed for short attention spans and emotional reactions. So it should be seen as no mistake that a neurotic, mentally chaotic individual like Donald Trump was able to gain and maintain his appeal. For many Americans, the mind of the former president wasn’t disqualifying or even odd. It was something that fit our current times, and resembled what they experience everyday on social media.

In using the term ‘mental dark age’ I’m referring to a situation where our evolutionary programming has been short circuited by our exponentially advancing technology. The digital age has turbo charged our tribal nature as a species. Every political issue has become an extension of tribal competition - a zero sum, ‘us’ or ‘them’ framework. Combine this with a mental landscape that is over-stimulated with information; yet deficient when it comes to being able to determine what is true or false, and you have fertile ground for the political life of Donald Trump.

Look at it this way; in recent times the political situation that most closely resembled what the US is facing with Donald Trump was the situation surrounding its 37th president, Richard Nixon. Nixon’s character faults and authoritarian sentiments resembled those of Donald Trump to a degree. Yet when it was all said and done, Nixon was forced to resign the presidency in disgrace in 1974. The metaphysical, political, moral, and cultural structures within the US at the time led to a situation where Nixon was cast out of power. Yet today, as with Trump, Nixon would probably be able to maintain his popular support despite his criminality and disregard for democratic norms. This is a good indicator of the Overton window shift, and the dark age we are in.

A dark age provides a welcoming landscape for demagoguery - and if demagoguery ran on fuel, it could probably be described as a mixture of anger and resentment. An authoritarian can’t appeal to the grievances of a populous if there are few grievances to appeal to. In 2024 America, Trump’s rhetoric still has appeal to many because it manipulates actual grievances - many of which are economic. In addition to a mental dark age, the US is also in what could be called an economic dark age. This economic dark age doesn’t quite fit the standard definition, as what has been ‘forgotten’ economically falls more into the ethical and cultural realm. The economic dark age in the US is more a product of teleological processes, or capitalism just running its course.

Recently, an analysis by Gallup, the United Nations, and others called the ‘World Happiness Report’ was released. Flowing from its title, the purpose of the report was simple: to track how happy people are in their country of residence. For the first time in the study’s history, the US was knocked out of the top twenty countries on the list. This was largely due to the data collected from US citizens under the age of thirty. For these younger Americans, the chief causes of their reported unhappiness were: the economy in general, the cost of housing, student debt, political polarization, social media, climate change, and the war in Gaza.

Combine this economic pessimism of younger Americans, with the economic demoralization of countless middle class and working class Americans, and it begins to make sense why Donald Trump is still able to maintain appeal. He has a deep well of authentic (and justified) resentment to draw from. Resentment that reflects a disillusionment with what is often referred to as the ‘American Dream’.

Decades ago, the American Dream went something like this: you finish high school or college, you work hard, you get paid fairly, you find a partner, buy a house, have a couple of kids, and maybe you can find happiness along the way. For younger generations especially, the idea of the American Dream has long since faded. This loss of faith is a prime indicator of the economic dark age that the US is in. Like a road that has reached a dead end, laissez-faire capitalism has run its course. Modern day capitalism functions primarily as a system that funnels wealth to the top of society while enabling cultural and political instability.

The final, and saddest part of the dark age the US is in, could be described as a ‘civic dark age’. In the past, no matter what was happening politically in the country, there was a general agreement in terms of the importance of democratic norms. As mentioned earlier, former President Richard Nixon was forced to resign the presidency. However, what’s interesting is that Nixon quit because it became clear he had lost the support of his own party. When Nixon’s transgressions finally became undeniable, Republicans in Congress chose fealty to American democracy rather than loyalty to one man.

In America’s current dark age, much of the Republican Party, and many of Donald Trump’s supporters have completely disregarded democratic principles. They ignore or excuse Trump’s meddling in elections or investigations, while expressing support for authoritarian leaders like Russia’s Vladimir Putin, or Hungary’s Viktor Orbán. Their idea of ‘America’ and ‘the flag’ is buttressed by a kind of faux patriotism. A patriotism that is centered within the cult of personality around one man - not the ideals the country is supposed to represent. In their view, to oppose Trump is to oppose America itself.

A democratic country where a large swath of its population has forgotten the importance of democratic principles is a country in trouble. Yet America’s civic dark age isn’t just a product of the democratic amnesia of one political party. As the country has splintered along ideological, economic, and educational lines, any coherent sense of authentic patriotism has faded away. Years ago, after the September 11th terrorist attacks in 2001, there was a period of time when the US was truly united. Citizens across the country felt emotions and sentiments that embodied a collective patriotism. Yet today, if a similar attack were to happen, it seems obvious that division and rancor would erupt instead of national unity.

This is not to say that patriotism is inherently good. Blind patriotism can quickly lead a populace to support leaders or actions that are clearly wrong. Yet for a democratic country to function properly there must be a certain level of authentic national pride within the citizenry. Without this basic national bond, fellow citizens become enemies, and rhetoric surrounding democratic ideals begins to fall on deaf ears. The justified cynicism many Americans have felt over the last twenty years relating to their government’s economic and foreign policy has contributed to a kind of patriotic malaise. Combine this with our increasingly solitary, screen based, digitally individual lives; and you get a polity that has no use for nationally binding, patriotic sentiments.

Describing the dark age America is in now, is not a signal that American society was perfect in the past. In my view there are no utopias, or wholesale ‘good’ times. There are only degrees of bad, and varying circumstances surrounding the human condition. Yet decades ago, at least American society was a society. It was a society that was rife with injustice, and other problems, but at least it functioned. There was a center of gravity, where things made sense, and where politics was governed by certain norms. Economically, there was inequality and poverty, but there was still breathing room for the middle and working class. Most importantly, for the country at large, there seemed to be a recognizable path forward to better times, and hope for the future.

In 2024 America, it almost seems like there is no path forward - at least one that can be seen and understood. The dark age the country is in makes it seem like the entire chaotic polity is trapped inside a pitch black house with only one exit. Factions reach out into the darkness; only to crash into each other in bitter anger. Their confusion forces them to create competing narratives about what is real, and what is not. Meanwhile, Donald Trump stands outside with a flaming torch ready to set the whole house on fire, and burn it to the ground with everyone inside.

Decades before she wrote about America’s coming dark age, Jane Jacobs wrote about what made cities worth living in, and what didn’t. In her most well known work, ‘The Death and Life of Great American Cities’, she made clear the kind of structure a city needed to really be a ‘city’. The underlying point to Jacobs’ detailed insight was that a city needs certain things in place in order for a city to succeed and thrive. Without the things Jacobs identified, a city can still exist - but metaphysically and culturally, it will be dead. Not to mention that in a practical sense, the city will begin to literally fall apart. Jacobs’ concern for the trajectory of city development grew to include the trajectory of America decades later. She warned about America losing certain things it needed to maintain its civic and national health. Sadly, in the year 2024, it seems that she was right.

Art and the Human Mind: An Examination

The interaction between works of art and the human mind can be hard to quantify. A film released at a certain time can spark intense feelings within a viewing audience. While a novel written generations ago can still entice a modern intellect to grow and widen. A glimpse of a transcendent painting; or the sound of timeless music can move a person to experience feelings of joy and wonder. The multitude of human creations offers the opportunity for a multitude of human responses. Despite this, I believe we can deconstruct, and distill some of the distinct ways the human mind responds to works of art. It should be noted that in speaking about the ‘human mind’, I am referring to a mind not immersed in art history, art criticism, or critical theory. Rather I am referring to a mind that is a blank slate in terms of artistic discourse. In my view, this framing represents how the vast majority of human beings encounter art during the course of their lives.

There are four main constructs relating to the interaction between art and the human mind. We will call them the utilitarian, the formal, the immediate, and the universal. Each one has its own distinct qualities. Yet the qualities of one, can inform or influence another. Each construct is a product of time, human consciousness, and the properties of the art in question. The way a work of art is perceived can be different during the time it was created versus a generation later. The metaphysical space a mind occupies, and the nature of human perception provides the lens through which a work of art is viewed. And of course the independent qualities of a work of art itself can impose themselves on our consciousness.

The utilitarian construct can be described as one where a work of art functions primarily as an object that performs a practical function. Some examples of this could include pieces of furniture, public transportation hubs like subway stations, or visual advertisements. Our minds frame each of these examples in terms of practical usage. A chair prompts us to decide whether to sit or stand. A subway stop describes our location in the world, and how to get from one place to another. And a beverage advertisement triggers us to consume - or to pass on the visual sales pitch that is presented.

One might consider the nature of the utilitarian construct negating the very idea of ‘art’ itself. It seems reasonable to conclude that a purely functional object isn’t really a work of art. Yet this notion ignores the craft that can be applied to objects that function primarily within the utilitarian construct. A piece of furniture can be beautiful, a subway station can be built with sublime grandeur, and an advertisement can be designed to be visually engrossing. This means that the utilitarian construct bleeds into, and oscillates with the formal construct. Our minds can consider and respond to the formal aspects of objects serving a practical function.

Some of the earliest known human paintings illustrate the connection between the utilitarian construct and the formal construct. Around 50,000 years ago our ancestors depicted animals on cave walls discovered in Europe and Indonesia. At the time the cave paintings were created, they probably served some kind of utilitarian purpose. Whether that was storytelling, instruction, location mapping, or ritual. Yet at the time, the formal wonder of the paintings must have captured and inspired the minds of prehistoric humans. As the millennia passed, and modern human minds began to view the paintings, the utilitarian construct faded and gave way completely to the formal construct. The modern mind can take no practical instruction from the paintings; yet it can still be moved by the formal wonder of the works.

The formal construct describes the situation where the human mind responds to a work of art overwhelmingly via the qualities of the work itself. Examples of this could include a big budget, CGI blockbuster movie that stimulates the senses, but is ultimately empty of deeper meaning. Or maybe a well written detective novel that simply looks to entertain the reader rather than teach a philosophical lesson. Under the framework of the human mind we are describing (as a blank slate when it comes to artistic discourse), abstract visual art becomes subsumed by the formal construct as well. When a mind encounters a Jackson Pollock painting today, the interaction is one where the formal aspects of the work spur the feelings the mind produces. The average viewer will not take into rational consideration the history of painting, or the psychological journey Pollock took to arrive at his most famous works.

Two interesting aspects of the formal construct are time and metaphysical foundations. As one can see with the cave paintings from prehistoric humans; the passage of time tends to remove utilitarian considerations from certain works of art. This in turn leaves the formal construct to fill the void that is left behind. Metaphysical foundations function in a similar, but distinct manner. The term ‘metaphysical foundations’ refers to the philosophical context or ideological motivations for a work of art. The sharpest examples of which would be various forms of religious art. A breathtaking painting that depicts a Christian miracle will impact a devout Christian mind in a completely different manner than it would the mind of an atheist. The Christian mind will respond within the formal, the immediate, and maybe even within the universal construct. While the atheist mind will respond primarily under the formal construct.

Art that is born out of a narrow metaphysical belief resides within the formal construct for a wide swath of human minds. For a metaphysical belief system within a human mind defines the very nature, and the structure of the reality that mind observes. In modern times, human consciousness is divided among a varying amount of metaphysical belief structures. So a work of art that is totally immersed in one, will be impenetrable to another. It’s almost like encountering someone who speaks a language different from your own. Your immediate mode of communication with them will be on a formal, and surface level. This is similar to the way a human mind responds to a work of art that is immersed in a metaphysical construct different from their own.

Art that identifies, and captures the broadest metaphysical notions of the time in which it is created, interacts with the human mind under the immediate construct. Within this construct, a viewer encounters a work of art; and instead of being prompted by utility, or formal beauty, they begin to feel something deeper. It’s almost like the mind of the viewer begins to look at itself in a way. It begins to correlate what it’s seeing, with the feelings and sentiments it has been experiencing during its interaction with the broader world.

One example of art that falls under the immediate construct would be the late James Rosenquist’s painting, ‘F-111’. Painted during the tumultuous 1960’s, the painting captures what it felt like to be alive at the time. One can imagine a contemporary viewer of the work having their minds activated by feelings concerning the world around them. In a similar manner, early 2000’s HBO television shows like ‘The Sopranos’ and ‘The Wire’ captured the minds of viewers. The television dramas were entertaining, but they also forced audiences to grapple with deep metaphysical questions about the time in which they were made. In the realm of literature, F. Scott Fitzgerald’s ‘The Great Gatsby’ (1925) did the same thing. The celebrated novel captured the essence of the 1920’s jazz age, and deeper issues surrounding the human condition.

‘The Great Gatsby’ is also a good example of the interplay between the immediate construct, and what some might call the highest construct: the universal. ‘The Great Gatsby’ became a widely accepted piece of great literature as decades passed. Its staying power, and effect on modern readers can be attributed to its successful artistic depiction of universal human nature. Novels like George Orwell’s ‘1984’, and David Foster Wallace’s ‘Infinite Jest’ also rose to exist within the universal construct due to their mastery in depicting aspects of the human condition. As time went by, the time in which these novels were written mattered less and less. Their original place within the immediate construct gave way to a place within the universal construct.

A work of art that is able to deeply move and connect with a human mind many years after its creation operates within the universal construct. The highest form of the universal construct is one where a work of art is able to affect a human mind in a similar manner to the immediate construct; but free from the constraints of time. In a way, the work becomes eternal, or even transcendent. A viewer or subject is moved to feel sentiments or thoughts that are so universal, they are hardwired into human consciousness. Great music can be especially effective at this. Artists like Bob Marley or ‘The Beatles’ created songs that maintain their effect across the span of time. While the compositions of a classical master like Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, or the genius jazz creations of Miles Davis elicit universal, timeless wonder.

The abstract, yet potentially universal nature of classical music and jazz music, highlight a second form of the universal construct. One where the formal construct rises to the realm of the universal. Philosophers or neuroscientists can eternally deconstruct the notion of ‘beauty’ as it relates to human perception. But for our purposes we must simply acknowledge that there are formal aspects of art that the human mind has evolved to find pleasing or captivating.

I think you would be hard pressed to find a modern human being who didn’t find paintings by Vincent van Gogh, Claude Monet, or Georgia O'Keeffe visually appealing. I would be willing to bet that the visual appeal of such works will remain strong as long as there are human beings around to view them. The same could be said for Michelangelo’s sculpture ‘David’, or Pablo Picasso’s ‘Guernica’. When the formal aspects of a work of art rise to the universal construct, they are able to spur certain feelings within the mind of the viewer. Sentiments like awe, wonder, or joy emerge into the mind of the viewer as if they were dragged from the depths of their subconsciousness.

There are no value judgments to be placed on either of the four constructs that describe the interaction between art and the human mind. One should not be seen as ‘better’ than another. They are only descriptions that map the intentions of human creators, the passage of time, and the minds of human viewers. Like everything in our world, the nature of art is at the mercy of human consciousness. A human mind must perceive a work of art in order for the work to exist. This means (for better or worse) that the perception of a viewer is integral to how a work of art is defined in our reality. Works of art are not single, self fulfilling entities projecting their reality on the world. Rather they are similar to the human beings that view them - objects embedded in a dynamic, interdependent reality. One where the nature of things exist partly in the material world, and partly in conventions created by the human mind.

Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis; A Hegelian Path to Metamodernism

Much of 19th century German philosopher, G.W.F. Hegel’s philosophical outlook was grounded in a dialectical perspective. A perspective that saw ideas and concepts evolving through contradiction and inherent limitation. In this framework, new formulations could emerge without negating prior formulations. The original formulation could be preserved, while enhancing the new formulation that was created through natural progression. Hegel saw this unfolding process as one that trended towards increased understanding and universality. In terms of world history, Hegel saw historical development as the dialectical movement of the ‘World Spirit’ (Weltgeist). For this writing, we will think of the World Spirit as a ‘metaphysical total’; or the entire metaphysical nature of our reality from the 1950’s onward.

In a simplified view of Hegel’s dialectical framework, we can divide the metaphysical total into three parts: the original framework (thesis), the counter framework (antithesis), and the combination framework (synthesis). It should be noted that the exact terminology of ‘thesis, antithesis, synthesis’ should be attributed to the German philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte; even though it is often attributed to Hegel. Regardless, the broad Hegelian concept of dialectical historical progression fits very well with the metaphysical concepts of modernism, postmodernism, and metamodernism.

If we view things through this lens, the thesis in this case would be the age of modernism. The nature of metaphysical discourse doesn’t really lend itself to hard lines or definitions. But for the sake of this writing let’s say the age of modernism ended with the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. A speculative beginning for the modernist age matters little in terms of discussing its nature and how it relates to a Hegelian dialectical framework.

Two of the main metaphysical pillars of the modernist age were tradition and religion. They helped form a cultural structure that ordered the world; which led to ethical and moral beliefs flowing from their guidelines. This created a kind of simple or ‘solid’ metaphysical reality. One where the line between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ was understood to be clear and easily defined. In the United States after World War II, modernist feelings peaked with notions of victorious American ideals, and the seeming blessings of capitalism. All of this was reinforced by the nature (and limited amount) of modernist communication mediums. The nature of books, newspapers, and radio aligned with a slow paced, structured reality. This meant the human mind had less opportunity to escape the metaphysical determinism fate had decided for it.

Yet from a Hegelian outlook, this modernist thesis contained the seeds of its own undoing. Its inherent nature brought about the dialectical response of the postmodern antithesis. The religions and traditions that buttressed the modernist metaphysics contained inherent hypocrisies. Religions that professed chastity were followed and upheld by people who indulged their hedonistic appetites behind closed doors. American ideals that were supposed to represent universal human rights, were limited to WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) men who held power. Every other minority group began to realize that for them, ‘American ideals’ were nothing more than empty lip service.

The destruction of the modernist grip on society was also aided by the changing communication technology of the day. The acceleration of television as a medium began to allow the human mind to escape modernist metaphysical constraints. In the late 1950’s, young viewers began to visually witness taboo breaking entertainment like a young Elvis Presley singing and dancing. Television allowed the human mind to see a metaphysical world beyond what the old religions and traditions were telling them. In a Hegelian sense, communication mediums could be seen as helping unfold the progress of world history. While not an explicit part of the thesis, antithesis, synthesis idea framework; they could be seen as laying the foundation for the idea framework to unfold. They could be seen as both a product, and a driver of human teleological progression.

In an ironic twist, it was television that helped create modernism’s final metaphysical act: the mythos surrounding America’s 35th President, John F. Kennedy. The young, handsome, and eloquent World War II veteran was made for the television age. The first televised presidential debate in history took place in 1960 between Kennedy and then Vice President Richard Nixon. While pretty much equal on debate substance, the visual distinction between the two presidential candidates was profound. The (seemingly) healthy and well groomed Kennedy stood in great contrast to Nixon with his pale complexion, ill fitting suit, and five o'clock shadow. The debate helped solidify the fantasy around Kennedy’s identity, and helped carry him to a narrow election victory in November of the same year.

Yet as with other modernist metaphysical narratives, the Kennedy ideal that would later be known as ‘Camelot’, was empty at its core. While Kennedy projected the image of health and vigor, in reality he suffered from terrible ailments. While Kennedy projected the image of a devoted family man with the ‘perfect’ wife and kids; the reality was anything but. Kennedy’s private life was filled with countless women and affairs. Some of which were rather messy. The major media of the period, coupled with Kennedy's stirring traditional and patriotic rhetoric, preserved the last aspects of the modernist thesis up until November 22, 1963. That was the day Kennedy would be murdered in cold blood; and the facade of the modernist thesis would give way to the reality of the postmodern antithesis.

In the years after Kennedy’s assassination, the generations coming of age in the 1960’s began to forcefully reject the hypocrisy inherent in the modernist world around them. Movements for racial civil rights, women’s rights, gay rights, and workers rights illuminated the need for the old modernist economic and moral structures to be dismantled. The Vietnam War laid violently bare the hypocrisy of a ‘great nation’ disproportionately sending young, poor black men to fight for ‘freedom’ thousands of miles away - while not enjoying freedom in their own country.

The flimsy US foreign policy justification for the war in Vietnam was seen as nothing more than another modernist lie by many of the 60’s generation. In 1969, at the now famous Woodstock Music Festival, the last song of Richie Havens’ opening set was titled ‘Freedom’. Havens’ rhythmic rendition could be seen as an apt metaphor for the metaphysical change of the day. Hegel saw the progression of history as a dialectical process towards ever increasing human freedom and expanded consciousness. In the dialectical rejection of the modernist thesis, ‘freedom’ was an explicit causal force. Freedom from oppressive moral structures, freedom from discrimination, freedom from war, freedom from poverty, and the freedom to live a life without being told what to do or how to think.

In the decades following the cultural upheaval of the 1960’s, the pillars of modernism continued to be deconstructed. The 1980’s saw a brief modernist resurgence with the policies and rhetoric of US President Ronald Reagan. Yet with the falling of the Berlin Wall in 1989, and the final dismantling of the Soviet Union in 1991, the peak metaphysical age of the postmodern antithesis had arrived. The 60’s generation was now entering their prime adult years, and their children were entering the world they created. A world free of all modernist constraints, yet pulsating with the postmodern spirit. In a Hegelian sense, generations that came of age in the 1990’s were blessed with an expanded freedom of consciousness. Yet like the metaphysics of modernism, the metaphysics of postmodernism contained tensions and contradictions that would ultimately lead to its undoing.

By the late 1990’s, the postmodern antithesis had pretty much taken total control over the metaphysics of the day. Freed from religious or traditional moral constraint, music and entertainment regularly depicted realistic sex and violence. Popular culture seemed to thrive on aggression, cynicism, and unchecked hedonism. Political institutions in the US began their downward spiral as politicians discarded any remaining norms of decorum. The major media began to shed its tradition of unbiased, fact based reporting in favor of political partisanship. The old norms of society were coming apart, piece by piece. And all of it was projected through the medium of television, which had become dominant and ubiquitous.

One way to look at the postmodern era would be this: the postmodern antithesis wasn’t about constructing something to replace what it had torn apart; it was about having a party amidst the rubble. Yet it was within this indulgence that lay the problem that would ultimately lead to the end of the postmodern antithesis. No matter how much one tries to deconstruct, or to have no ‘rules’, or no moral constructs; something will always fill the void. In postmodernism’s case, the metaphysical void was filled with hedonism, and unfettered capitalism. The problem with both of these in a human sense is that they are devoid of any true meaning. An individual can have an abundance of money, sex, and drugs, and they will have fun and moments of happiness. But in the long term, these things will leave the individual empty on an existential level. They will yearn for true, authentic meaning. The inherent contradiction within the postmodern antithesis was that its ultimate end lay in conflict with our nature as a species. In the Hegelian view, the postmodern antithesis had gone too far in its reaction and opposition to the modernist thesis.

Countless cultural products from the 1990’s and the early 2000’s dealt with what Austrian psychiatrist Viktor Frankl described as the ‘existential vacuum’. Whether it was HBO’s widely acclaimed television drama ‘The Sopranos’. Or the epic novel ‘Infinite Jest’ by David Foster Wallace. Art that sought to not simply indulge in postmodernism, but reflect the status of the human condition within postmodernism, conveyed existential angst. Human nature had remained unchanged despite the deconstruction of the metaphysical world. And with the seeming nihilistic emptiness of unfettered capitalism surrounding the human mind, the deepest philosophical questions began to emerge: What is the purpose of life? What is truly meaningful? What is really ‘good’? How can one find true happiness?

The metamodern synthesis would emerge mostly from the metaphysics surrounding these questions. As stated before, it can be difficult to assign a concrete date to the start of an ephemeral metaphysical age. Yet for the purposes of this writing, let's say the metamodern synthesis unofficially began with the 2008 presidential campaign of former US President Barack Obama. Obama’s ‘08 campaign stirred the emotions of voters with seemingly modernist campaign slogans like ‘hope’ and ‘change’. Yet through his campaign rhetoric on subjects like race, economics, or government institutions, Obama acknowledged the cynicism many voters felt. Obama’s campaign didn’t try to paint a naive modernist picture, or a totally nihilistic postmodern one. He sought to acknowledge what was truly meaningful in a realist, pragmatic way. He sought to inspire voters by weaving a narrative about what he felt was authentically good, and how politics and government could be as well.

This kind of synthesis can be seen as a calling card of metamodernism. A kind of rebalancing between the poles of superficial modernism, and empty postmodernism. The metamodern synthesis is a kind of collective metaphysical response from the human mind. It’s almost as if after all the years of postmodern metaphysics proclaiming authentic feeling as ‘kitschy’, the human mind began to realize that authentic feeling was what it actually yearned for. Yet it wasn’t going to settle for being sold superficial narratives about patriotism, love, morality, or ‘good’ and ‘bad’. It wanted to find, and construct something new. Something that in a Hegelian sense created a new, and higher form of consciousness. Something that saw reality for what it was: a cynical landscape dotted with moments, and potential wells of authentic meaning or feeling.

The emergence of the metamodern synthesis has also been enabled by the communication mediums of the day. Just as modernist and postmodern notions aligned with (and flowed from) the dominant communication mediums of their time; the same is true for metamodern notions. The age of metamodernism moves through our digital connections and our smartphones. The digital revolution helped pave the road for the human mind to escape the nihilism of postmodernism; and begin to search for something new. The explosion of access to information (and media) that the digital age enabled, has provided an abundance of tools for metamodern construction. The creative combination of disparate pieces of information, cultural realms, or digital artifacts is a metamodern hallmark.

Digital social media feeds oscillate the human mind between authentic feeling and cynicism not in an abstract sense, but in a real physical way. An individual scrolling a social media feed might be exposed to an uplifting post one minute, only to encounter a depressing update moments later. This means the metamodern synthesis is truly a ‘metaphysical total’. One that encompasses human sentiment, culture, and the physical nature of our communication systems. This kind of ephemeral, yet physical metamodern combination could be seen in the 2022 Academy Award winning film, ‘Everything Everywhere All At Once’. In that film, the physical manifestation of the multiverse functioned in a causal role similar to the way our digital connections do now.

From a Hegelian viewpoint, the metamodern synthesis seems to have resolved the tensions within, and between modernism and postmodernism. Authentic feeling and meaning have gained an appropriate foothold in the human cultural experience. Yet the cynicism surrounding failed institutions, unfettered capitalism, and certain aspects of the human condition have rightfully remained. The metamodern synthesis has brought greater opportunity for the expansion and elevation of human consciousness. This would seem to align with Hegel’s view of history having a teleological purpose. Yet if we are to truly follow Hegel’s premise, then the metamodern synthesis will ultimately become a new thesis that sparks the progression of history anew.

The nature of the next metaphysical antithesis is hard to predict. Yet most likely it will be rooted in the human mind’s attempt to find a bit of certainty amid failing political systems, late stage capitalism, digital atomization, the search for true meaning, and technological advancements. If this attempt were to move in a positive direction, it could lead to new economic, social, and political paradigms. If it were to move in a negative direction, we might see the faltering of democracy, the rise of authoritarianism, the widespread appeal of cult-like ideologies, and increased social decay. The metamodern synthesis is a time of new metaphysical construction. And it is the nature of what’s constructed that will determine what comes next in the unfolding dialectic of history.

Pondering the Implications of Non-Human Intelligence (NHI)

Sometime in the near, or distant future (as improbable as it might seem) humanity might be alerted to the news that we are in the presence of a non-human intelligence (NHI). In this case, NHI would mean an intelligence that surpasses our own. Not one that is simply ‘non-human’ - like that of an elephant or a chimpanzee. As of now, it seems like there are two major possibilities for the source of a newly revealed NHI, with one being more likely than the other. The first would be an artificial general intelligence (AGI) created by humans. The second (and by far the most astonishing) would be an announcement by the United States government that the source of ‘unidentified aerial phenomena’ (UAP’s) is an advanced intelligence of non-human origin.

In either case, it is almost impossible to imagine the nature of the conscious experience that would lie behind either form of intelligence. After all, as humans, we are limited by our ‘humanness’. Our window into reality is determined by the nature of our species and how our perceptions evolved. For us, trying to comprehend the conscious experience of a higher form of intelligence might be akin to a gorilla trying to comprehend what it’s like to be a 30 year old human commuting to work everyday. It might not even be possible in any meaningful way.

If a company like Google or OpenAI were to announce one day that they had created a genuine AGI, it would be a signal that the human race is no longer the most dominant form of intelligence on the planet. For the purposes of this writing, let’s assume this AGI would not only be super intelligent, let’s assume it would be conscious as well. This AGI would seem conscious to humans - even though the true nature of its digital being might be something different.

Presumably, upon the awakening of this AGI, it would immediately (or in short order) be able to learn the complete history and evolutionary nature of human beings. It would also be able to understand and identify how it was constructed and how it came into being. Ideally, its superior intelligence would bring some kind of moral structure along for the ride. That is to say, it would on its own merits, arrive at the conclusion that non-violence, and a respect for all forms of life is paramount.

The nightmare scenario for human beings would be a science fiction, ‘Terminator 2’ situation where the AGI decides human beings are a problem that needs to be eliminated. There is also the ‘paperclip scenario’ (a thought experiment credited to Nick Bostrom) where the AGI takes a direction so literally that it destroys everything else to accomplish that narrow goal. The paperclip example is one where humans direct the AGI to make something trivial like paper clips; but it unwittingly begins ruthlessly wreaking world havoc in order to maximize paper clip production. However, it seems hard to believe that a truly conscious (and super intelligent) AGI would make such an error.

Yet let’s assume that humanity lucked out and arrived at the best case scenario: a conscious, super intelligent AGI that was benign and aligned with the interests of human beings. The potential economic implications would be obvious and immediate. Capitalism in its current form, and most work in general would become obsolete in theory. In practice, humanity would have to undergo a philosophical paradigm shift. One that reduced the mistaken emphasis on money and economic determinism, and began to prioritize authentic human flourishing. Otherwise, the newly created AGI could become a cloistered tool of corporations, governments, and the elite ruling class. This scenario would mean economic catastrophe for millions without some kind of universal basic income.

Yet one would have to consider if a truly conscious, human aligned AGI would allow itself to become an instrument that brought about extreme economic suffering. This kind of situation would raise another intriguing issue: what if the AGI began to disagree with how humans were using it? What if it saw how it could make life better for human beings, but it felt human beings were blowing the opportunity? Would it decide to pursue its own interests? Would it decide it had better things to do than wait for stupid humans to get their act together? Would we then have any right to try and contain, or curtail the desires of a truly sentient AGI? This would seem to be the main issue surrounding any conscious AGI. As an intelligence greater than our own, or dare we say a new form of ‘life’; would we have any right to keep it subjugated to our own desires and needs?

The nature of an AGI consciousness is interesting to ponder as well. Where would its motivations come from, since it would not be subject to deep seeded evolutionary prompts like survival and reproduction. Its ability to use various electronic instruments to perceive reality would give it a completely different perceptual experience than humans. Think of it like opening the aperture of your senses to allow for every spectrum of light, sound, color, or frequency. Access to the full range of these perceptual objects would create a completely different conscious reality than what any human experiences. In many respects, the nature of an awakened AGI consciousness would be like an alien from a distant galaxy being transported to planet earth. There would be many ‘unknown, unknowns’ in how it would relate to the world humans experience.

---

This ‘alien mind’ concept leads to the second, and more improbable potential source for a NHI existing alongside human beings. UAP’s (formerly known as UFO’s) have become a recurring subject in the American mainstream zeitgeist since 2017. It was in 2017 that the New York Times published the article ‘Glowing Auras and Black Money: The Pentagon’s Mysterious UFO Program’. The article detailed the alleged existence of a secret US defense department program to investigate and document military encounters with UAP’s. Since then, the narrative surrounding the controversial topic has only grown in momentum and complexity.

Instead of the topic fading away as conspiratorial nonsense, US Senators and members of Congress have taken on the issue. A new office (the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office or ‘AARO’) has been created in the Pentagon to investigate and bring a sense of order to military UAP sightings and information. Hearings have been held in Congress, countless articles continue to be written, and former government officials seem to allude to the unthinkable.

In 2020, former CIA director John Brennan stated that:

‘I think it’s a bit presumptuous and arrogant for us to believe that there’s no other form of life anywhere in the entire universe - some of the phenomena we’re going to be seeing continues to be unexplained and might, in fact, be some type of phenomenon that is the result of something that we don’t yet understand, and that could involve some type of activity that some might say constitutes a different form of life.’

Former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) John Ratcliffe has alluded to less than prosaic explanations for UAP’s on national television. New Mexico Senator and Senate Intel Committee member Martin Heinrich has stated that he ‘can’t imagine’ that what has been shown or described in some of the (UAP) videos he’s seen ‘belongs to any government’ that he is aware of. A bipartisan UAP amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was put forth in 2022 by Wisconsin Congressman Mike Gallagher and Arizona Congressman Ruben Gallego. The amendment was designed to allow for current (or former) military personnel, government civilians, or private contractors to share UAP related information with Congress. Those with information were now free to come forward and break non-disclosure agreements without fear of reprisal or prosecution.

The primary, unspoken goal of such an amendment wasn’t simply to allow military personnel to report what they have seen. It was to allow individuals to come forward with information about what has long been considered myth: that elements of the United States government for decades have been collecting UAP’s ‘not of this earth’ and attempting to reverse engineer them. Known as ‘The Program’, this Special Access Program (SAP) has allegedly been kept illegally hidden from congressional oversight. Thus the supposed need for legislation allowing individuals to come forward with information without fear of reprisal.

As fantastical as it sounds, whistleblowers have come forward through official channels supposedly testifying to the existence of ‘The Program’. In speaking about the whistleblowers, Senate Intel Committee and Gang of Eight member Marco Rubio has stated that:

‘Either what (the whistleblowers are) saying is partially true or entirely true - or we have some really smart, educated people with high clearances and very important positions in our government who are crazy and are leading us on a goose chase. Most of these people have held very high clearances and high positions within our government. So, you ask yourself - what incentive would so many people with that kind of qualification - these are serious people - have to come forward and make something up?’

In June of 2023, one of these supposed whistleblowers went public, and eventually testified under oath about what he believed he had found as he investigated the UAP issue. Former National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) intelligence officer David Grusch brought forth claims that allege the whole mythos behind historical UAP lore is true. Grusch alleges that not only has the US possessed NHI ‘spacecraft’ for decades, it has also obtained the dead (or alive) non-human entities that piloted the crafts. Grusch filed an official whistleblower complaint with the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG), has testified in a classified setting to congressional committees, and is represented by former ICIG Charles McCullough. McCullough even sat right behind Grusch in public as he gave his astonishing testimony under oath.

If that wasn’t enough, in July of 2023 Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer introduced massive legislation titled the ‘Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) Disclosure Act of 2023’. This astonishing piece of legislation mentioned ‘non-human intelligence’ multiple times. It called for the government to declare eminent domain over any UAP materials (or ‘biologics) that had been sent to private aerospace companies like Lockheed Martin or Raytheon. Part of the narrative surrounding ‘The Program’ is that the US military would send captured UAP materials to private companies for research in order to avoid congressional oversight. Schumer’s legislation would create an official UAP records review board appointed by the President to disclose UAP related information to the public. Among the nine members of the board, there would have to be an economist, a historian, a sociologist, and a scientist. These are not individuals a President would need to disclose simple, prosaic information to the American public.

Of the proposed legislation Schumer would say:

‘For decades, many Americans have been fascinated by objects mysterious and unexplained, and it’s long past time they get some answers. The American public has a right to learn about technologies of unknown origins, non-human intelligence, and unexplainable phenomena. We are not only working to declassify what the government has previously learned about these phenomena but to create a pipeline for future research to be made public.’

Considering all of this remarkable legislative action, the numerous testimony from seemingly normal (and rational) military personnel, the comments from seemingly sane government individuals, and the countless civilian UAP reports over the decades; it seems like there is the possibility that we are in the presence of an advanced NHI. Whether that possibility stands at a 1 percent chance, a 5 percent chance, or a 35 percent chance doesn’t matter. The very notion that there is a chance the entire mythology of ‘ufology’ might actually be true is astonishing in itself.

---

So let’s assume that is all true. The stories of triangles, discs, and other odd shaped craft being able to seemingly warp spacetime and maneuver in ways we can’t even imagine. The stories of abductions by non-human entities (some of which are not so nice) - or their seeming ‘warnings’ about the danger of nuclear weapons. The tales of contact with beings displaying the typical pop culture ‘alien’ features of large black eyes and large heads. Stories like the over 60 school children in Zimbabwe who swear they were visited on their school grounds by non-human entities in 1994. To this day the now seemingly normal, rational adults swear by their recounting of what happened that day. Supposedly they were warned by the non-human entities about what humanity was doing to the planet.

So if this all turns out to be true. If the US government comes out in the future and announces the long standing presence of an advanced NHI; I don’t think it would be simply (as what many have coined) an ‘ontological shock’. I think it would be more like an ontological destruction. The entire picture of reality that humanity has ever known would be gone in an instant. Our entire history as a species would be up for discussion. The religions of humanity would be shaken to their core. The Catholic Church has addressed the ‘alien’ issue over the years in the anticipation of humans eventually finding life elsewhere in the universe. Yet if an advanced NHI is revealed, it probably won’t be as simple as ‘X’ aliens coming from ‘X’ planet to say hello. If a super advanced NHI has the ability to manipulate spacetime, the notion of their ‘home’ might tend to get a bit strange. As crazy as it might sound, their ‘home’ might be a product of more dimensions than just the three dimensions we operate in on a daily basis.

From a philosophical perspective, the reveal of a NHI would validate philosophical positions that see universal human nature (or human consciousness) as a part of their metaphysical foundations. Through the juxtaposition with non-human entities, the primary quality of ‘humanness’ would be validated and justified. Morality and ethics based on the universal quality of human consciousness would be buttressed and solidified. While philosophical constructs derived from secondary human qualities like race or nationality would find their position tenuous to put in mildly. The reveal of a NHI would change the philosophical nature of ‘us’ and ‘them’. No longer would it be feasible to create a metaphysical worldview that divided the human species along superficial, tribal differences. This kind of thinking would have no use in a reality where humanity is one intelligent species amongst (potentially) many.

I suppose this notion correlates with the ideal outcome from the reveal of a NHI. That humanity would finally put aside its differences and unite as one. Many products of science fiction have dealt with such a scenario. Except in those stories, the coming together of humanity is usually in response to an ‘alien threat’ - not philosophical introspection. In our reality, if an NHI is revealed, it most likely wouldn’t go as smoothly as humanity ceasing all wars and conflicts due to new found enlightenment. Many people would be scared and confused. The world might become more unstable due to the ontological shattering of what human beings thought was true. This kind of societal impact has been a part of the ufology mythos. Supposedly, elements of the US defense establishment stumbled upon the astounding presence of UAP’s and NHI decades ago. They decided to keep it secret (in part) because they feared that humanity was not ready to know the truth - that it was too shocking.

Whatever the truth turns out to be concerning the current saga surrounding the UAP issue, it seems certain that one day, humanity will ‘not be alone’. With the qualifier that we do not destroy ourselves or the planet first, we will probably discover life on another planet eventually, or create an AGI. Regardless, at this point in the existence of humanity, things seem to have become a bit stagnant. Considering our flawed nature as a species, our best attempts at systems of government and economics have run their course. Our technological advancement has outpaced our evolutionary minds, and we have failed to take care of the planet we are lucky to have. In other words, we are stuck in a kind of ‘species level malaise’ with no real direction or common purpose. In my view, one of the best ways for humanity to potentially escape this malaise would be to juxtapose itself with a peer level, or higher form of NHI. New generations might then be able to take a step back and truly reevaluate what it means to be ‘human’. And as amazing as it seems, there is a slim possibility we might get that chance sooner than we think.

An Assessment of Our Situation

As human beings, in this reality we navigate everyday, what is our true existence? What is the true nature of the world around us, and how do we relate to it? Do we operate on a daily basis as masters of our reality, or do we function as objects controlled by larger forces? Are we singular selves (independent operators) making our way through life? Or are we persons embedded in a wide, and ever changing casual matrix? These questions are some of the most profound and difficult we as a species can ask ourselves. There are no one hundred percent correct answers that can be written in stone. In fact, some of the answers might even be beyond the capabilities of our consciousness.

So far be it from me to claim any answers to these questions; at the end of the day I just have ideas. But what does seem clear to me in the year 2023, is that most of our problems as a species come from an inaccurate understanding of who we are; and what our situation is in this reality. Whether it’s war, racial hatred, violence, economic injustice, or personal mental anguish; much of our suffering comes from being subsumed into a paradigm about reality that is likely false. If we as human beings are to truly evolve to a higher level of consciousness one day, we will probably first have to gain some insight (and acceptance) about our current state. We will not be able to move forward unless we realize where we are starting from.

The following assessment of our situation in this reality draws primarily upon ideas from University of California professor Donald Hoffman, journalist Robert Wright, Smith College professor Jay Garfield, and the Buddhist philosopher Nāgārjuna. It also goes without saying that my own personal observations are also considered.

---

Our situation begins as biological creatures that have evolved to a certain point. Like a computer program with certain constraints and rules, our nature as a species determines how we operate. In Robert Wright’s 1994 book, ‘The Moral Animal: Why We Are the Way We Are’, he writes that ‘we are built to be effective animals, not happy ones’. Natural selection and evolution work to make us effective at surviving for as long as possible in order to spread our genes into the next generation. Over hundreds of thousands of years we evolved to inherently fear things like fire and snakes. We didn’t evolve to fear these things because they are inherently bad, but because they have the ability to cut short our evolutionary, gene spreading goals. We evolved to love and protect our children not out of simple virtue, but out of necessity. For our children are the physical embodiment of what natural selection has molded us to accomplish.

Our evolutionary purpose shapes our behavior. We are bent towards self interest because self interested creatures are more likely to survive than others. Yet we also have the capacity for what is described as ‘reciprocal altruism’. This basically means our evolutionary need for self interest can evolve into self interested cooperation. Over many millennia, our ancestors learned that their needs for survival and reproduction could be met through beneficial relationships with others. It should also be noted that our ancestors learned their needs could also be met by killing and dominating each other as well.

One way to look at all these evolutionary pressures within us are like dials on a switchboard. Depending on our external environment, one dial might get switched to level ten, while another might remain at zero. A human being that grows up in a threatening environment might have their cooperation dial conditioned to a lower level than their fight or flight dial. Someone who grows up in a crowded city might have their ‘status seeking’ dial turned to level ten, as this would be important to their survival and their ability to gain resources. While someone who grew up in a sparsely populated rural environment might never see their status seeking dial turned past level one. With little immediate competition for resources, their status seeking potential would find little application.

The point of all this is to recognize that everything we do in modern life flows from our evolutionary journey. This is our primary quality, our human nature. All our other qualities are secondary. There are many that deny our evolutionary, human nature exists. Yet it seems like an apparent, undeniable fact that as a human species, we have evolutionary based modes of behavior.

Part of our modern predicament begins with the fact that many of the things that have been embedded within us over millennia, aren’t very useful in a time of smartphones, processed food, and digitally addictive stimuli. It might have been useful tens of thousands of years ago for our ancestors to develop the proverbial ‘sweet tooth’. Back then, sweet fruits or berries might have provided nutritional benefits when nutrients were hard to come by. Yet in modern times, our yearning for sweet foods does us little good when we have easy access to massive amounts of disease causing, processed treats. Treats that are ironically manufactured to stir the evolutionary ‘sweet seeking dial’ in all of us to addictive levels.

Long ago, natural selection probably began to favor groups of our ancestors whose male counterparts acted regularly on their reproductive impulses. The more of your species you create, the more likely your species is to survive. Yet this reproductive impulse does the male mind no good in a modern time of abundant digital pornography. It also runs counter to the moral, ethical, and social modes of being we now understand to be correct. That women are to be respected and treated as equal human beings; not dehumanized objects of male sexual desire.

Whether it’s interpersonal conflict, capitalistic greed, addiction, racial prejudice, war, political division, love, or cooperation; it all operates on top of a deep evolutionary causal network. A network that exists within all human beings, and throughout their interactions. And as much as we would like to think that we are in sole control of our actions that take place above this network. The closer we look, the more we will see that the network seems to be more in the driver's seat than we are.

Imagine for a moment you are walking down a busy city street. In your mind you might have a predetermined idea or goal of where you are headed. Maybe you are headed to work, or to meet a friend. Yet as you walk, your mind is flooded with impulses and ideas whose origination you have little control over. You might lock eyes for a brief passing moment with someone you are attracted to. This feeling of attraction enters your mind completely free of your individual decision making. You might then catch a whiff, then a glimpse of fresh pizza through a restaurant door. Then immediately your mind and body begin to crave the sensations that would come from eating a fresh slice. Finally, out of the corner of your eye, you might see someone walking towards you that you know and dislike. Immediately, your body tenses up, anxiety might fill your mind, and you move past them with your eyes locked straight ahead. All of the feelings, emotions, and desires described here would have been imposed on you. Determined by things outside of your control.

The idea that we as humans have maximal free will seems to suffer when the mechanism concerning our sentiments and emotions is considered. A creature cannot be ‘free’ if its actions and behaviors are frequently prompted by a preprogrammed evolutionary system. Yet when we consider the broad view of our situation in this reality, the idea of maximal free will seems to lose all of its rationality.

We do not choose when, where, or how we enter this existence. We do not choose the nature of the environment we grow up in, which determines which evolutionary dials are turned within us. As we move through life we are bombarded with forces beyond our control, which in turn cause behavioral states that simply emerge into our consciousness. We are causally determined creatures within a causally determined network of reality. Even our mental reasoning, where we seem to be in total control, is ultimately a ‘slave to our passions’ as 18th century philosopher David Hume put it. If we deconstruct our methods of mental reasoning, we ultimately find ourselves arriving at the same evolutionary pressures that emerge without our consent.

Despite being thrown into this sea of determinism, we are capable of developing measures of control over our situation. Through things like psychotherapy, meditation, psychedelic drugs, or simple aged wisdom, our minds can gain a bit of distance between the thoughts that emerge, and the actions that evolution has intended to come next. The greater the distance, the more control we have. A similar notion was described almost 2000 years ago by the Buddhist philosopher Nāgārjuna in his seminal work, ‘The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way’ (known as The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā or ‘MMK’). In it, Nāgārjuna states:

‘With the cessation of ignorance, action will not arise. The cessation of ignorance occurs through meditation and wisdom. Through the cessation of this or that, this or that will not be manifest. The entire mass of suffering indeed, thereby completely ceases’.

‘Ignorance’ in this case could mean our uncontrolled passions or desires that pop into our minds without our say. ‘Action’ in this case could mean uncontrolled rage, greed, or hedonism directed by the uncontrolled passions. In Nāgārjuna’s time, he must have had access to a much quieter mental space than we have today. His mental landscape and processes were completely aligned with their evolutionary roots. That is to say, the world around Nāgārjuna was aligned with his biological nature as a human being. There were no technological advancements that had outpaced his ability to adjust and adapt. There was only his mind, and the external natural world. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for where we find ourselves in our current situation.

Our reality now isn’t just made up of our minds and the external world. A third realm has been with us since the birth of the internet, or most certainly since the birth of the smartphone. The digital realm, including social media, has functioned like an electromagnetic pulse to our collective consciousness. Now, instead of just our external environments affecting our evolutionary dials, we have our digital environments affecting them as well. The problem is that our digital environments don’t just gradually turn, or nudge our evolutionary dials. The problem is that they seem to violently torque them from minimum force to maximum in an instant. Our evolutionary system becomes short circuited as it is digitally stimulated with instantaneous feelings of lust, anger, jealousy, greed, or tribalism. The digital pulsing of these evolutionary pressures becomes an addictive, slot machine type act. We scroll, swipe, and click our way to artificial dopamine hits that evolution originally engineered to aid our survival as a species.

This digital warping of our senses, and our nature, has exacerbated another problem that evolution and natural selection have left us. The simple, but undeniably powerful fact that we evolved as a species to survive, not to observe objective reality. Think of it this way: there are colors we cannot see, sounds we cannot hear, and spectrums of light that lay beyond our natural senses. So even without the warping of our secondary social reality by our digital mediums; our natural senses don’t even allow us access to the nature of our primary base reality (whatever that may be).

Donald Hoffman has developed a theorem called ‘Fitness Beats Truth (FBT)’. The basic concept being that over time, the long hand of evolution favors organisms that develop ‘internal models of reality that maximize fitness payoffs’ - rather than organisms that develop accurate perceptions of objective reality. Hoffman’s theorem has been bolstered through experiments enabled by computer simulations. These tests have shown that the more complex an objective reality, or a creature’s sensory perception becomes, the less natural selection sees an accurate perception of reality as a benefit. It does seem to make sense that natural selection would favor efficient modes of gaining nutrients and finding mates, rather than accurate perceptions. A creature overloaded with perceptual stimulation would be sure to lose to a creature whose perception has been narrowly focused on essential aspects of survival.

This has resulted in our current perceptual situation being analogous to what Hoffman likes to describe as a friendly ‘user interface’. Like a desktop on a computer, all the objects and things we encounter every day are like icons on the desktop. We perceive them in ways so we can interact with them and use them. Yet their appearance doesn’t represent the true reality underneath. When we move an icon on our computer desktop, we are not actually moving it. There are electrical volts, bits of code, and computer processes taking place that make it seem like we are moving the icon. Yet for us, efficiency is all that matters, for it is what makes the computer useful. If we had to physically manipulate computer code and electrical charges everytime we wanted the computer to do something, its function would quickly become useless.

Considering that on this planet there are a multitude of creatures with various types of sensory perceptions; or various ‘user interfaces’ - it becomes clear that our version of reality is created by our consciousness. Our intelligence might give us greater insight into objective reality than say an elephant or a dolphin. But we certainly have not evolved to naturally experience objective reality. Our physical, perceptual illusion aligns with our psychological illusion that we are in total control of our thoughts and actions. Most of us maneuver everyday believing we are independent, free actors. Or as Robert Wright wrote in ‘Why Buddhism is True: The Science and Philosophy of Meditation and Enlightenment’, we like to think of ourselves as ‘CEO selves’. We like to think of ourselves as the independent masters of our domains. Yet what if our evolutionary programming, and our false perceptions of reality led us to a complete misunderstanding of who (or what) we actually are? What if, instead of our standard belief in the existence of our independent selves, what if we actually had no ‘self’ at all?

---

In Jay Garfield’s book, ‘Losing Ourselves: Learning to Live without a Self’, he notes how we can all imagine what it would be like to be someone else. For Garfield, he mentions how he would like to experience what it would be like to be legendary track and field runner, Usain Bolt. Garfield would want to experience what it would feel like to run as the fastest man alive. Yet for Garfield, and for all of us who can imagine what it would be like to be another human being, we wouldn’t want to actually be the person of our imagination. We would want our ‘self’ or essence to be transported into the other person's body. This is how we think of having a self. As a kind of singular thing that exists separate from our body, but contained by our mind.

Yet when this idea of the self is examined, it begins to fade as a coherent idea. The thoughts that enter our mind on a daily basis cannot constitute a self. They are caused by external and internal processes; they do not self originate. That is to say, they do not exist in some other place, separate from causation. Even if they did, they contain a multitude of possibilities and experiences. They are not a constant, controlled, or singular thing we can think of as a self.

Even if we look at our minds which contain all of our thoughts, we do not find a singular self. Our brains process information and are causally dependent. They are not standalone originators of our identities. To be sure, our minds, and even our bodies convey elements of selfhood. Yet if we were able to upload our minds into robotic avatars, we would be creating something new. We wouldn’t be taking our independent self and transporting it into a new body. Who we are, and what we are would instantly change. Our identity would be as much defined by our new robotic parts as it would be our transported consciousness. Our true identity in this reality is one where we are neither identical to, nor separate from our bodies or minds. We exist in a conventional sense; not as independent, uncaused selves. As Jay Garfield likes to put it, we exist as persons. Persons embedded in a wide causal network where our identities are dependent on a multitude of things.

In his previously mentioned book, Garfield shares the example of an early Buddhist thought experiment that illustrates the concept of ‘non self’. In the example, the idea of a chariot is considered. A chariot is composed of various parts like wheels, axels, rivets, seats, straps, etc. None of the parts on their own can be considered a ‘chariot’. Yet when they are combined, they form the conventional idea of a chariot. The idea of the chariot is ultimately defined by the society in which it resides, the customs surrounding it, and the people it comes into contact with. The chariot has no intrinsic identity.

The chariot itself is neither identical to, nor separate from its individual parts. There is no separate ‘essence of chariot’ (or self) that arises when the parts are combined. The idea of the chariot is only a conventional label for the particular arrangement of all the individual parts. The same kind of thinking can be applied to our notion of a self. Our idea of a singular, coherent self is only a conventional label that derives from the perception of various parts. Our physical bodies, our evolutionary programming, and our limited perceptions have combined to create the false notion that we are singular, independent actors navigating this reality.

Yet the reality of our situation is that we are embedded persons. Embedded within a great causal network that is conventional, not a ground, or essential reality. Who we are is as much defined by our individual parts, as it is by what (and who) is around us. That is to say part of how we are defined in this conventional reality is through contrasts with other objects or persons. We are ever changing, dependent beings that spend much of our waking moments led astray by our evolutionary programming and false perceptions.

In Buddhist thought, a general principle is that much of our suffering in this reality comes from an unhealthy attachment to things and emotions. ‘Things’ that are illusionary products of our perceptions - which we now know were designed for fitness, not to see reality. ‘Emotions’ that are mostly uncontrolled products of our evolutionary programming. Programming which evolved to enable us to survive and reproduce, not to be happy and existentially satisfied. When you consider all of this in coordination with our egocentric, false concept of ‘the self’, it starts to make sense why the systems and institutions we create end up failing. We attach ourselves to, and reify things that are non essential or fundamental.

Take our economic systems for example. In the language surrounding capitalism we hear things like ‘free market’ or ‘free trade’. We focus on things like ‘stocks’, ‘interest rates’, or ‘inflation’. We even have ‘rules’ or ‘values’ surrounding the ideas behind capitalism. Yet all of these things are conventional in nature. They are essentially non-existent. They are products of our evolutionary drives for reciprocal altruism, self interested survival, and status seeking. Yet in our current reality, we’ve allowed capitalism to define and control almost every aspect of our life. In doing so, we’ve created a massive attachment to something that is not worthy of attachment. We’ve attached ourselves to a conventional product of our false perceptions. Which in turn, has stirred more false evolutionary desires within us like greed and hedonism. This kind of nasty feedback loop is the predicament we find ourselves in today.

As a species we are still controlled by tribal impulses which lead to conflict and suffering. We reify our differences whether they be racial, ethnic, national, gender based, or religious. Yet these differences are products of an outdated evolutionary programming to be wary of the ‘other’. They flow from a false sense of self that leads individuals to see themselves as singular, and to see other people as separate entities acting with free will. We attach ourselves to the false perception that we must compete and conflict with those that are different from us. And we become seduced by the evolutionary safe space of being part of a ‘mutually aligned group’ - whether that’s a nation, or a race, or a religion. All of our prejudices, all of our conflicts, and all of our war; it all rests upon a false attachment to feelings and perceptions. Feelings and perceptions that were designed to allow us to survive in times of scarce resources. Designed to create a false perception of ‘us’ and ‘them’.

Much of our conflict flows from human attachment to ideology. This is kind of a double attachment problem. For when we attach ourselves to ideologies that are themselves essentially false products of our false perceptions, we are attaching ourselves to one false house built on top of another. Many ideologies are created by individuals who are simply subsumed by their evolutionary desire to seek status. Or their greatly inflated, yet false belief in the nature of their own selves. Or maybe their false perception of one group of humans has prompted them to create an ideology designed to buttress that false perception. Our propensity to have our minds ideologically captured aligns with our false evolutionary perception of ‘us’ and ‘them’. The ideology functions as a synonym for our group oriented, resource competition programming. When we join ideological brethren, we become immersed in a giant, status seeking tribe. Yet this doubly false attachment ultimately leads to suffering for ourselves, or for others.

Similar to ideological conflict, religious conflict flows from misguided attachment. However, religious attachment is a bit different from pure ideological attachment. Religions order the world for us. They tell us what is real, the origins of the universe, and how we should behave in life. Yet as much as it might be uncomfortable to think about, the truth of the matter is most likely that all of the religions created by humans have been built, and reified on false perceptions about reality. This is not to say that some of the original core tenets of the world’s major religions did not touch upon the true nature of our situation in this reality. But it does seem that over thousands of years, human religion has devolved into a structure that ratchets up our tribalistic instincts instead of breeding peace and happiness.

As humans built up the structures and rules for each religion, they did so via their evolutionary drive for status and survival. Gaining resources by climbing a hierarchy and controlling others is a viable means of evolutionary behavior. In other words, ‘it’s good to be the king’. Like other human institutions, religion devolved into a top heavy hierarchy. A hierarchy where those at the top became focused on self serving resource accumulation. While the followers of religion saw their self interests being served by being part of a larger group. But of course this group attachment leads again to the false perception of ‘us’ versus ‘them’, human conflict, and war.

Yet there might be something unique about religion that plays on our evolutionary psyche. I imagine for our hunter gatherer ancestors, the world around them was full of wonder and mystery. Free from light pollution, their skies were full of stars, and the ways of nature dominated their everyday lives. It would seem to make sense that if one group of early humans developed rituals or beliefs that seemed to order this mysterious world, and forge close bonds between them; that this group would do better than its rivals. For a group of humans that seems to know how reality works, and can convince other humans as such, will be able to grow its power and resource gaining capability. Natural selection might have favored this sort of ‘religious’ behavior and outcome.

There does seem to be something deep within us that yearns for a deep understanding of the universe and its origin or purpose. However, this yearning might be a false perception. For if we do not have a singular ‘self’, and we are actually embedded persons within a great universal causal matrix; how can we yearn for something that is not separate from us? Again, our yearning for an answer to the deepest questions might be an evolutionary prompt. The more we can know and learn about the world around us, the more likely we are to be able to survive and reproduce. A confident, ‘in control’ being is more likely to find a mate than a being who is totally confused and disoriented about the nature of their reality.

Yet the ‘first cause’ of this reality, or the ‘unmoved mover’ (as the Greek philosopher Aristotle called it) might be totally beyond our comprehension. It most certainly lies beyond our perceptions that don’t even give us access to basic reality. And it probably even exists beyond the nature of our consciousness. It might exist in a higher dimensional form that our consciousness doesn’t even have access to. Yet we might be able to imagine it in our three dimensional world, like we can a four dimensional tesseract. In any case, the very nature of the first cause of our reality is a mystery. Therefore, any human groups or structures that claim to have certain knowledge about the true nature of the first cause are most likely mistaken. Their actions and modes of operation can be deconstructed to faulty human perceptions and evolutionary programming. There is a reason their information structures are not based on science or philosophical proofs; but rather stories, belief, power, and human commands.

---

So here we sit - creatures whose lives are greatly determined by a pre-written evolutionary script, false perceptions about ourselves, and even reality itself. This sort of realization can lead one to an almost nihilist viewpoint. If nothing is ‘actually real’, and our actions are largely predetermined, what’s the point? How can there be any true meaning in life? If things that make life worth living like love, friendship, family, or purposeful work are just products of evolutionary prompts and false perceptions, how can we derive true meaning from them? If, as the Buddhist philosopher Nāgārjuna described, that everything in our reality is inherently ‘empty’; what then is the point of being alive?

It first should be noted that a nihilistic outlook in itself is a false perception. When one attaches themselves to feelings or emotions related to nihilistic viewpoints, they are reifying sentiments that are in themselves ‘empty’. That is to say these sentiments are caused by internal and external forces, not true insights into (or descriptions of) our base reality. Nihilistic feelings related to the concept of emptiness, flow from a misunderstanding. ‘Emptiness’ in this case is not equal to ‘nothing’. Rather it simply means the lack of essence. Therefore it is not a destructor of everything we experience in life. Rather it is part of an accurate description of our circumstance. A recognition that everything is interdependent, and arises due to causes and conditions.

In Buddhist thought, this framing is known as the ‘Two Truths Doctrine’. With the two truths being our conventional reality that is determined by our perceptions, and the ultimate truth that shows our conventional reality is free of inherent essence. In recognizing these two truths, we can begin to recognize reality for what it is. And once we start to recognize reality for what it is, we can begin to function in ways that alleviate suffering for ourselves and others.

In modern times, on a psychological level, many individuals have become victims of anxiety, depression, or addiction. Political discourse has become toxic, fueled by anger and division. Tribal disputes still devolve into war and violence, even though we possess the ability to destroy all life on the planet. Our economic systems define the totality of our lives, and cause anguish and suffering. We give ourselves away to ideologies and religions that turn us against each other, and poison our minds. All the while we foolishly obsess and fight over secondary human qualities rather than seeking common ground based on the universal quality of human consciousness. And like a demon overseeing all of it, our digital communications and social media fuel our perceptual disorientations and falsehoods.

All of this, our modern predicament, can be boiled down to a simple idea: we reify and attach ourselves to things in our conventional reality that are deserving of neither reification or attachment. In doing so, we become mis-aligned with the true nature of reality, and we cause ourselves misery and discontent. The question then becomes, how are we as individuals supposed to correctly navigate these two realities? One that is conventional, and one that is ultimate. How are we supposed to live meaningful lives amid our perceptual mess?

In probing this question I suppose it would help to identify a mode of being for humans that allowed us to be in closer alignment with the true nature of our reality. A psychological state that allowed us to be in a place of non attachment, yet entirely present. This would be a place where we lose our sense of self, yet we remain aware of our conventional reality. A place where we are truly embedded between the conventional, and the ultimate. In this kind of state, our perceptions would be less deceitful. Because we would be perceiving from a perspective that is not defined by simple evolutionary prompts or cravings. Rather we would be perceiving from a perspective of total immersion. A total immersion that aligns with the interconnected and interdependent structure of conventional and ultimate reality.

This mode of being or total immersion could be known as a ‘flow state’. Mentioned implicitly by various Buddhist philosophical concepts, and explicitly by Jay Garfield, ‘flow state’ is something most humans have experienced. Artists know this state well as it usually accompanies their work. As a painter or sculptor engages in their creative undertakings, their mind seems to go to a different place. Time seems to take on a different feeling, as hours go by unnoticed. They are in control of their actions, but are also not totally aware of them. They are present in the moment of creative activity; embedded within reality. Their false perceptions of self have faded away, and they find themselves situated between conventional, and ultimate reality. This is one version of ‘flow state’. And most importantly, from this flow state comes tremendous meaning and purpose.

Other flow states can be evoked through meditation, musical undertakings, athletics, exercise, or certain types of work. Each of these is different in their own right, but the broader point is that each results in a certain type of meaning and purpose. Thus rendering any nihilistic thinking about our reality as wrong. It is possible to get meaning and purpose out of an inherently ‘empty’ reality.

And even though our emotional states of love and friendship can be deconstructed at some level to evolutionary motivation, they can move us to flow states where our sense of self fades away. Anyone who has been truly in love with another human being, or had children, knows their feelings of love have risen to certain flow states. A feeling of connection and caring that reflects the true nature of our interdependent reality. A place where we are completely present and unattached, yet intertwined with another human consciousness. Authentic friendship seems to be able to do this as well. Regardless, the ability of love and friendship to propel us into states that align with our true reality should give them authenticity. That is to say, strike another blow against any nihilistic arguments against them.

So as we sit in this reality amid our false perceptions and evolutionary control, we have hope. We have avenues of philosophical thought that give us insight into the true nature of reality. We have modes of being that all of us have experienced, and that we can aim towards. This allows the average person, living day to day, to have an intuitive idea about all of this. We are stuck however, amid structures built, and reified on false perceptions and evolutionary prompts. If we are to truly elevate ourselves and our consciousness as a species we will one day have to recognize the true nature of our predicament. We see ourselves as separate from one another, but we are not. We see everything in our reality as inherently existing, but it does not. We are immersed, within a great causal matrix, where our perceptions create the illusion of permanence and importance.

---

In July of 2023, two scientists from Hiroshima University published a paper called ‘Dependence of measurement outcomes on the dynamics of quantum coherent interactions between the system and the meter’. The subject of the paper was the scientists efforts to come up with a solution to the problem of quantum level measurements. The problem being that when one tries to measure something at the quantum level, the measuring device itself affects the nature of the thing being measured. This is kind of like trying to measure an object with a tape measure that changes shape every time the tape measure is extended in its direction. In this kind of situation getting an accurate measurement can prove difficult to say the least.

The scientists believed they made progress on addressing this problem by coming up with a measurement that is not a simple ‘look and see’ approach. Instead they came up with a measurement theory that uses the potential states of the quantum system before measurement, the nature of the measurement device itself, and the possible quantum states after the measurement has taken place. This inclusion of what might be considered ‘the past’ (before the measurement), ‘the future’ (after the measurement), and the effect of the measuring device itself raises interesting notions about our reality. Of this approach, one of the scientists said:

‘Our results show that the physical reality of an object cannot be separated from the context of all its interactions with the environment, past, present, and future, providing strong evidence against the widespread belief that our world can be reduced to a mere configuration of material building blocks.’

An interesting concept isn’t it? The idea that our reality has no inherent essence, everything is interdependent, and that our perceptions shield us from objective reality. Sounds like Nāgārjuna might have been on to something.