I am one of the people who does this, so I feel compelled to reply.
When I call for people to create content, I don't think of it as “memetic warfare” and I don't think of the result being that those who consume it will be “led like sheep.” I think of it as a way to communicate ideas and values, and I want those who receive it to think.
This is even true when the product is art or some other aesthetic content. Art can communicate ideas and values, in a powerful way. It can give you an ideal to aspire to, or get you excited about a future that you want to build, or simply illustrate an idea with such emotional power that it is seared into your brain.
There's no double standard here, because I know that art has that effect on me too! My worldview and ideals have been shaped by art and other aesthetic experiences.
I could respond in more detail to some of your specific points, but I think that is the core of it.
If you're interested in seeing the Lacanian/Zizekian argument fleshed out further (in an approachable way), I highly recommend Robert Pfaller's "On the Pleasure Principle in Culture:
Illusions Without Owners", where he takes up the question of "the Other's illusion" ("I may be enlightened, able to see right through it, etc, but THEY believe it") in a lot of detail and extends it to questions of religion, politics, etc., incl. my favorite ever analysis of Pascal's wager.
Feels like there's a subtle difference between two kinds of ideological media: the type that says "this kind of world would be good" and the type that says "this kind of world would be possible" (ie, here's a concrete way it could look). For this reason I think the middle tweet isn't as bad, in theory, as the others.
One way to put it would be propaganda versus a vision (or in its highest form, a demo). Propaganda is a commodity, because you can say it over and over again in different ways, so its production can be outsourced. Whereas with visions, you only really need one good one – but you can't just tell Hollywood to make it, the spec *is* the product.
Great post! I love aesthetics, but I don't want to these things defamed through capitalization or cringey sermons. The funny thing is most of that art they say we need can be found via Amish book sellers or Mormon film companies. If you want it it''s there. And it's not on Hollywood because that's supposed to remain degenerate 😅
I am one of the people who does this, so I feel compelled to reply.
When I call for people to create content, I don't think of it as “memetic warfare” and I don't think of the result being that those who consume it will be “led like sheep.” I think of it as a way to communicate ideas and values, and I want those who receive it to think.
This is even true when the product is art or some other aesthetic content. Art can communicate ideas and values, in a powerful way. It can give you an ideal to aspire to, or get you excited about a future that you want to build, or simply illustrate an idea with such emotional power that it is seared into your brain.
There's no double standard here, because I know that art has that effect on me too! My worldview and ideals have been shaped by art and other aesthetic experiences.
I could respond in more detail to some of your specific points, but I think that is the core of it.
If you're interested in seeing the Lacanian/Zizekian argument fleshed out further (in an approachable way), I highly recommend Robert Pfaller's "On the Pleasure Principle in Culture:
Illusions Without Owners", where he takes up the question of "the Other's illusion" ("I may be enlightened, able to see right through it, etc, but THEY believe it") in a lot of detail and extends it to questions of religion, politics, etc., incl. my favorite ever analysis of Pascal's wager.
Feels like there's a subtle difference between two kinds of ideological media: the type that says "this kind of world would be good" and the type that says "this kind of world would be possible" (ie, here's a concrete way it could look). For this reason I think the middle tweet isn't as bad, in theory, as the others.
One way to put it would be propaganda versus a vision (or in its highest form, a demo). Propaganda is a commodity, because you can say it over and over again in different ways, so its production can be outsourced. Whereas with visions, you only really need one good one – but you can't just tell Hollywood to make it, the spec *is* the product.
Great post! I love aesthetics, but I don't want to these things defamed through capitalization or cringey sermons. The funny thing is most of that art they say we need can be found via Amish book sellers or Mormon film companies. If you want it it''s there. And it's not on Hollywood because that's supposed to remain degenerate 😅