Old Ideas

There are old ideas—and “old” just means “ideas we don’t think will ‘work’ in whatever cultural, economic, or political ordering is in vogue now”—that sometimes need new traction.

Ideas fall out of favor for a variety of reasons that reflect cultural evolution. When this evolution reaches a standstill (or when going forward seems scarier than standing still), old ideas from the past tend to return.

Unfortunately, the speed of the Internet has convinced humanity (at least in some places on the globe) that the speed of cultural evolution should match the speed with which an individual can order a latte from their phone. That’s never happened. Cultural evolution may seem to be faster in our time because of the ever-present nature of Internet communication, but in reality, cultural adoption of new ideas still takes at least twenty years. Or, the time it takes for a new generation of people to be born, raised, and mature enough to begin to assert themselves on reality.

Here’s a list of some old ideas that are still relevant, regardless of how quickly we all may think that society is culturally evolving:

Love your enemies.

Do good to (and for) those who would seek to do wrong to you.

Practice humility and grace.

Live your life according to a set of values, ethics, and morals that you can explain when the rubber meets the road.

Help others who are not as fortunate as you to get what they need to live..

Be interested, open, and caring about another person’s story so that you can grow as they grow.

Listen more than you talk—either with your hands or your mouth.

There are a few others, but you get the idea. When an old idea returns to prominence, we often say that it is “an idea whose time has come.”

Of course, for ideas as old as the ones above (and many others, I’m sure that you could think of), their time never really left.

Universal Basic Conflict

Granting every working-age member of a population a stipend of money per month, per year, for the rest of their lives will do little to mitigate the two states it’s designed to relieve: human avarice and envy, and a lack of meaningful employment opportunities. No matter how much the AI technologists promise that such schemes will, in some utopian future society, we will never arrive at.

Jealousy (of people), envy (of things), and avarice (the desire to acquire more) are human emotions that aren’t often acknowledged as the darker motivators for people to engage with work. All of these emotions, along with vanity and pride (all emotions grounded in negative storytelling), are typically at the bottom of many people’s motivations to chase money, status, titles, honor, and respect. And because they’re all lurking in the basement of every human heart, the materialist rationalist utopians among us are inevitably surprised when they manifest as genuine, but irrational, resistance to the desire for a Universal Basic Income-driven future.

A fellow named Dostoyevsky, however, put words to what the technologists can’t seem to name, around 160 years ago, in a pre-Industrial Revolution, agrarian monarchial society:

“Now I ask you: What can be expected of man since he is being endowed with such strange qualities? Shower upon him every earthly blessing, drown him in a sea of happiness, so that nothing but bubbles of bliss can be seen on the surface; give him economic prosperity, such that he would have nothing else to do but sleep, eat cakes, and busy himself with the continuation of the species, and even then, out of sheer ingratitude, sheer spite, man will play you a nasty trick. He would even risk his cakes and would deliberately desire the most fatal rubbish, the most uneconomical absurdity, simply to introduce into all this positive good sense his fatal fantastic element.” ~ Notes From Underground, Part One, Chapter Eight

In our post-modern society, the era of “make-work” is over. And it’s been over for a while. But the thing is, we have also arrived at the end of the hangover from the end of the Industrial Revolution, so the era of “we financialize human effort in just a little bit better ways” is also about to be over with the dominance of LLMs that can do all that average make-work better and financialize it faster.

This is a real problem because, under the scheme that has built the last 125 years of scalable economic systems, meaningful employment was typically not found at the beginning of the employment ladder in minimum wage positions for many people. But now, even those rungs of the ladder are being hewn away. Without addressing both a lack of meaningful work opportunities for people at the beginning of their careers and the inherent built-in drivers toward accomplishing goals and earning money, all the Universal Basic Income in the world will only serve to exacerbate conflict, providing enough impetus for people to engage in conflict en masse. Because without work, idle hands will surely “…play you a nasty trick.”

Work provides spiritual, psychological, and emotional meaning for many people. But because those intangible outcomes don’t appear anywhere on a spreadsheet, they are either discounted as being meaningless or not even considered in the first place. A universal basic income does nothing to address any of those needs, emotions, or drivers in people. As a matter of fact, such schemes spit in the face of human motivators and dare the human being to do something about it. History proves that’s a negotiation human beings are fine with accepting the consequences of. And just declaring “Game on” doesn’t quite do justice to what will surely result from such schemes.

Human truth and what lurks deeply in the dark human heart are fundamentally what defeat all UBI schemes, whether from the State, from businesses, or even from our current crop of techno-utopians, drunk on AI outputs. Such proposed schemes really come down to giving people money, hoping to cure the deep disease of the human heart and the human spirit without ever engaging in performing the uncomfortable surgery of examining–and acknowledging–much deeper and darker motivations. You know. Those ones that have always lived deeply in the human soul, where even the state and technology cannot reach.

This is a sure recipe for universal basic conflict. And at scale.

Wizards Searching for Backdoors

The wizards, diviners, and soothsayers of the ancient world were invited into royal courts, penned scrolls that held the keys to gnostic knowledge, and were placed at the center of ancient societies. Many of them were hired to educate the elite of their times.

As the Middle Ages closed, and the rationality project at the core of the Enlightenment really took hold of the imagination of the West, the magicians, diviners, and soothsayers were pushed to the edges of the culture (eventually to be joined there by the various religious types, but that’s another post altogether). And–to add insult to injury–their lofty claims to being able to open spiritual backdoors into a mystical world were deemed to be the irrational ravings of “humbugs,” “scammers,” “con artists,” or even “marketers.” Case in point: recall the character of the Wizard in the Wizard of Oz. He was eventually exposed as just a flim-flam dude pulling levers who couldn’t make his hot-air balloon work well enough to get back to Kansas, where he came from.

In our technological era, though, the atheist rational materialist technologists have won the day. They’ve defeated the natural world, backburnered the spiritual world, and declared, hubristically, that “we will build our own gods” by building backdoors into reality and making epistemological claims without acknowledging–or even realizing–that they’re making those claims in the first place. They continue to pursue the same gnostic path of attaining secret knowledge that their forebearers attempted through spiritual means. And of course, they all declare that they’re going to get to the same place as their forebearers–for the good of humanity–through manipulating “intelligence on silicon.”

All that lands for me like a whole lot of humbug from a bunch of flim-flam dudes at the center of the post-modern royal court of attention.

What's on Offer?

The thing that’s on offer—the thing that’s being negotiated—is rarely the thing that we are fighting over.

Our conflicts rarely get to the core truth of what needs to be resolved. This is why management of a recurring conflict situation is a better posture toward conflict than one of trying to persist in getting to a resolution. It’s also another reason why we are all terrible negotiators.

The issues that we are fighting over—and the options for resolution that should be on offer—must be sold, managed, persuaded, and packaged for other people’s consumption in the way that they want them to be on offer.

Not the way you want it to be offered.

This core truth is what unites marketing and conflict management. Human beings like being persuaded, marketed to, and talked to, in very specific ways, and if you violate conventions in the pursuit of getting to a deeper truth, you run several risks, but the biggest ones are as follows:

Being unheard.

Being ignored.

Being unfairly (or fairly) maligned.

Being marginalized when another more persuasive party comes along.

The counter to the question of “What’s on offer?” is the equally compelling question “What’s the truth of what we are fighting over?”

Moral Clarity in Confused Times

If we begin our thinking about an issue with what objective things we can know, the seduction of moral subjectivity is reduced in rhetorical power.

But, when we are bereft of moral clarity about what constitutes a lie, we are unable to individually, much less collectively, determine whether it’s a lie worth confronting (a big lie) or a lie worth letting slide (a small lie) for the sake of social lubrication.

Now there will be those who object. They will point out that “sin is sin, and a lie is a lie,” but these are the same people who don’t get invited back to Aunt Ruth’s house because they pointed out her obvious goiters and the warts and missed the larger importance of just hanging out and keeping silent. They confuse pointing out objective truths to elide truth from lies with what, in more polite times, would have just been called rudeness.

The liar always hates and fears one person most of all: himself. This is why he can’t keep his lies to himself. He has to share them with others. He also has to build a society based on lies to survive. The people who want blanket statements of truth in all circumstances also hate and fear themselves, but for reasons other than a lack of moral clarity. They simply lack moral critical thinking.

Free speech, moral clarity, and candor are the disinfectants for the scourge of lying in our times. But the tools have to be used to disinfect the culture of viruses while leaving behind the good cultural bacteria.

Relevant to the Vision

In business, leaders are often tasked with selling a vision. Sometimes it’s a vision they can see because they had a hand in designing it, brainstorming about it, or attending the multiplicity of meetings it usually takes in a bureaucratic system to get a vision onto a piece of paper.

Later on, when the vision works, the leader is hailed as a visionary and is then invited to stages, platforms, and boards to tell others about how they accomplished the vision, led teams through the seeing of the vision, or wrangled support from recalcitrant others to make sure the vision stayed coherent. Of course, if the vision doesn’t work, those same leaders are castigated, criticized, and critiqued from stages, platforms, and boards by people who believe they could “do it better.”

But here’s the thing: The critics can’t do it better. That’s why they’re critics. If they could lead a team with a vision better than that of the leader, they’d be doing those acts of leadership. And the same can be observed in the opposite direction: The supporters can’t do a better job either. That’s why they’re supporters. If they could lead a team with a vision better than the leader’s, they’d be doing those acts of leadership.

If you’re in the arena, both the boos and the applause are irrelevant to the thing you’re doing.

Liars' Poker

Fyodor Dostoyevsky, a deeply pessimistic Russian writer with a streak of Orthodox Christianity that he could never reconcile with the 19th-century ideals of a mythical European rationalist utopian project, was also an inveterate gambler. This habit gave him a unique view on risk, loss, victory, and the thrills that can only emanate from the depths of resentment, envy, and anger. It also gave him insight into how individuals lie, how we lie to each other in social relationships, and how even the apparatus of the state can be corrupted by lying.

Dostoyevsky wrestled with all of this in a time before Freud’s insights into human psychology really got a hold of the Victorian mindset. His writing was positioned during a transitory era in the mid-19th century, before what we now know as “the modern world” began truly seeking the transcendent. Mostly self-published, Dostoyevsky was the anti-Tolstoy, penning The Brothers Karamazov, Crime and Punishment, and, notably, Notes From Underground.

The problem Dostoyevsky put his finger on in Notes From Underground, a rambling volume profiling the resentments of a dyspeptic and unreliable narrator, is that, while the individual liar needs a society to operate in (1984), a series of distractions to fool and narcotize himself and others (Brave New World), and the totalizing force of the state to ensure no one gets out of line and maintains the absurdity of the lies (Invitation to a Beheading), the liar can never fully escape the one person he hates and fears the most—himself.

And, since the moral courage to face himself is lacking, the liar–gambling on escape, social control, or command structures to do the work he cannot fully do himself–instead of abandoning his lies, spins the roulette wheel of philosophy and lands on nihilism, existential dread, or even a species of pet rational cynicism. Dostoyevsky knew that moral courage was the antidote to despair in a modern rationalist world, but he couldn’t figure out how to get people from the comfort of their intractable lies, or their adoption of alternative facts to soothe their moral turpitude, to the uncomfortable place where ultimate, knowable Truth resides.

We have the same problem with liars playing poker in our era. Except the liars are playing poker at a technological, social, and cultural scale that would be unfathomable to Dostoyevsky. And the problem can only be solved by each of us, individually, adopting the moral courage to say the Truth. The economist, author, and researcher Thomas Sowell once noted that, “It’s amazing how much panic one honest man can spread among a multitude of hypocrites. ”

There’s no surer way to spread panic among a multitude of liars than to bet on the Truth.

Jazz for a Golden Age

The core idea behind the blues genre, what is commonly known as jazz, is that disparate people can come together to express their deepest emotions through a cooperative act of organic orchestration, while also improvising, picking up from each other the rhythmic thread, and grooving right along. This practice is, at its bottom, the entire American experiment, from 1776 until now, set to music. This is one of the many reasons why jazz is a uniquely American genre of music. Other countries have picked it up, but they’ve got to work at it.

But through the cultural flattening brought on by institutions at one end, and your neighbor endlessly posting highlight reels of their lives on social media, the last twenty-five years of culture in America have convinced us that we need to conform rather than stand out. Losing our collective jazz tuning and only hearing the music that the technological gatekeepers would rather play.

We are on the cusp of a new Golden Age, and it’s one where the soundtrack will be based on the blues. But in order to recover that soundtrack, in order to recover the blues–or jazz–in service of a new Golden Age, we must go back into the mid-20th century and revivify the musical bones of our long-dead, modernist grandfathers. The myth of return is indeed that, just a myth. But as a practical matter of course, the myth needs a soundtrack, and the toe-tapping improvisation of blues—or jazz—provides that.

...Can Tell You Everything Except What it Means

Rationalism, the idea that the material world can be understood in terms of the way objects and people behave without an appeal to the authority of a cosmic presence, has brought humanity a lot of good things: clean water, cleaner air, longer life spans, technological achievements our ancestors couldn’t have dreamt of, and better functioning systems of governance.

But rationalism has drained the world of meaning in a cosmic sense. When a society or civilization can’t hold on to the meaning of the acts it has accomplished, that civilization fails. Sometimes spectacularly. Sometimes with a whimper. But either way, civilizational failure is on the docket. This is because meaning is not imbued in the things we have as human beings, or even the life spans we live, or the systems we construct.

Meaning exists at a cosmic level and then filters down to us. It doesn’t start at the bottom and then rise up.

Being able to peel a layer from the great block of stone known as reality and figure some things out makes human beings arrogant and full of hubris. Pushing the materialist boundaries of reality further and further, and ignoring opportunities for finding and making meaning.

It is a long way back to meaning from the hubristic victories of materialist rationalism. But it’s a journey back worth making, when a society finally, collectively realizes that it can solve a lot of materialistic problems, but it has lost the words to describe what solving all those problems means at a cosmic level.

Moats and Deltas

In business, particularly in startups, there is an idea that a business must possess a significant enough moat in order to stave off potential competitors in a crowded marketplace. Often attributed to investor Warren Buffett, moat, is a term used to describe a company’s competitive advantage. Like a moat protects a castle, certain advantages help protect companies from their competitors.

The same thinking can be applied to our work world, where there are two kinds of people using our LLM tools. One type uses LLMs like fortune cookies or magic 8-Balls. They ask an average question they would have used search to answer four years ago, and instead of generating a collection of search results that they would have had to parse and critically examine, they get an LLM regurgitated version of a mediocre answer.

These people are coasting along right now, using Chat GPT, Claude, Microsoft Co-Pilot, and on and on for entertainment, planning their next trip, flooding the attention zone with AI slop, or just lurking about, wondering what to do with these tools next.

The second type of person uses LLMs to examine assumptions and to level up what they are already doing at work. They are interested in prompt engineering and search for context inside the LLM’s answers to queries, and when the answer is average–like an answer from a fortune cookie–they push the tool past its limits. These people know and understand how language, persuasion, sales, negotiation, and conflict work at deeply interpersonal levels between people in the real world, and they employ critical thinking because they have mental and emotional discipline.

They are building a bigger and bigger moat, one prompt at a time, that eventually will transform into a delta; that is, a concrete, measurable variable of change between two states: those who have a large moat, and those who don’t.

As the delta between these two groups increases, and one group declines while the other one ascends in the economy of the future we’re building the rails for now, which one of these two groups do you think will have a more defensible moat in their job, their career, their financial situation, and even in their cultural life in America, as we breathlessly outsource more and more of our average outcomes to these new machines we’re building?

And here’s another question while you’re pondering the answer to that one: Which group of people will complain–or advocate if you will–for more fairly distributed outcomes as rewards begin to accrue to one group over the other economically and socially?

My advice to all of you reading: Expand whatever moat you’re working on right now into an ever-growing delta.

You Will be like God

No friction.

A ‘sure’ thing.

“I just want ‘it’ to ‘work.’

Right the first time.

Done to spec.

No problems.

The translation of all of these phrasings, and others, is really a desire for comfort, ease, predictability, and control. Over outcomes, over consequences, over accountability, and over rewards.

The reality of human existence is that friction, discomfort, change, tragedy, and resistance from other people are the primary drivers of growth in a fallen world where the seduction of safety and security is always a lie in the end.

The serpent in the garden, and there are all manner of serpents in all types of our gardens, promised us knowledge. But the serpent didn’t tell the other part: That knowledge always comes with friction, discomfort, change, tragedy, and resistance from other people.

The only place where there is no friction, no discomfort, no change, no tragedy, and no resistance from other people is heaven. And many of us no longer believe in the possibility of such a place.

The Pitch

Everybody pitches.

From the moment we are born until the Grim Reaper comes for us, we are all selling, and buying, everything, all the time. Which is to say, humans are consistently seeking to persuade, inveigle, negotiate, convince, and influence the behavior of the people around us. And they are doing the same to us. These acts of buying and selling, from the womb to the tomb, are a huge part of what make human beings social animals.

Even in our oldest stories, humans are documented as trying to persuade, inveigle, negotiate, convince, and influence the behavior of transcendence itself. But why? What is the meaning behind our acts of selling? And why do we struggle to think deeply about what all this might mean at all? There are no philosophers of sales. And there are no philosophy of persuasion courses available on the Internet or via higher education. Sure, you can get all the instructions on the mechanics of selling and buying, but the reason for doing the mechanics in the first place?

Well. The shelf is thin on volumes of books at that end of it.

There are two reasons (among many) why humans don’t think much about why we sell and buy ideas, opinions, perspectives, products, services, problems, and their solutions to and from each other. The first reason is that we fear that thinking too much about the philosophy, the “why,” behind the behavior of selling itself might cause the “magic” of whatever approach we’ve been successful with to go away. This is nonsense. But it’s on par with the object permanence nonsense we genuinely believe when we play peek-a-boo as nine-month-old infants.

The second reason we don’t explore the philosophy of why we are compelled to sell to other people–and why we allow their selling to work, or not, on us–is because we don’t want to think too deeply about how really gullible we are. This is disturbing to us because it puts paid to our deeply held conviction that we have autonomous free will, independent agency, and the ability to make decisions without other people. Now, let me be clear: I believe in free will. And I believe in the power of humans to persuade, inveigle, negotiate, convince, and influence the behavior of other humans to surrender their free will in service of themselves, others, or even something greater than themselves.

Think carefully before you pitch to others.

Hitting the 'Record' Button

For the first time in a long time, I didn’t hit the ‘record’ button on the videoconferencing software. As a result, the conversation I would have turned into a podcast episode was not recorded.

And yet, the person I was talking to and I both acted like it was being recorded. We behaved as if the cloud were absorbing our thoughts. We watched our words, monitored our tone, made our points, and when we disagreed, did so respectfully.

Did we already have great behavior, or was our tendency to be respectful with each other mediated, informed, and censored by the fact that we believed the interaction was going to be part of posterity?

At least temporarily on the Internet.

The tools that monitor and record us are changing our behavior as much as we are molding the tools to work with us. It’s a symbiotic relationship rather than a dictatorial posture, no matter what the marketing folks who work for the technologists would want you to believe.

The Myth of the City

According to the writer and creator of the show, Yellowstone, he was told repeatedly by Hollywood executives when he was initially shopping the pitch of creating a show where most of the action occurred on a ranch in rural Montana, that, “We won’t pick up a show that pitches stories from rural areas. It’s been that way since the 1970s. We only pick up stories that we can market to the urban areas of the country.”

If this is an accurate anecdote, and memories of pitch meetings in Hollywood are notoriously full of holes, and Hollywood hagiography is its own form of storytelling, what it means is that for at least three generations in American popular culture, the myth of the city as the only place where “the action is” has been actively marketed over the reality we all live with in our lives.

That’s not to say that urban stories and myths aren’t part of the fabric of the American myth. They clearly are, all the way back to the Boston Tea Party. But it does open the door to thinking critically about how much of the post-modern mythos about the sexiness of urban living is just really marketing by Hollywood executives with a directive to follow from their immediate bosses.

The Singularity Appears

According to the prognosticators and breathless technophiles, the singularity, a point where artificial intelligence begins improving itself faster than humans can monitor or control, has apparently arrived.

The singularity hasn’t arrived, of course, in your daily life.

You know, all the places where the “intelligence on silicon” has been around for a while, but its impact is hidden from you directly, like in the navigation apps on your phone, or in the algorithms that show you more of what you click on in a social media feed.

The singularity hasn’t arrived, of course, in your relationships with other people, which remain messy, fraught with conflict, and unpredictable. Nor has it arrived, of course, in the myths you tell yourself and others, that continue to allow you to get up in the morning and go to work.

But, make no mistake: The singularity has arrived.

Ok.

And now that the singularity is here, soon, very soon indeed, “intelligence on silicon” will consume, overwhelm, and subsume “intelligence on carbon.”

Except, of course, carbon-based intelligence has gone pretty far in the last 5,000 years or so. And the people who are interested in a competing intelligence–those prognosticators and breathless technophiles I already mentioned–are usually the same people who devalue, dismiss, and disbelieve in the ongoing symbiotic relationships between intelligence, consciousness, and relationships among and between humans and machines together. They aren’t exactly fans of man.

To quote from a recent review of the book (…I know, I know…) The AI Paradox by Virginia Dignum in The Nation, “The more AI can do, the more it highlights the irreplaceable nature of human intelligence." She (Dignum) writes, " AI is good at certain tasks, such as “data analysis, logical reasoning, and linguistic processing.” Yet it struggles with others, especially those involving creativity, empathy, “moral and ethical discernment,” the “capacity for complex reasoning,” and the “ability to reason about relationships between concepts.”

Huh. How about that? And Ms. Dignum has been working with “intelligence on silicon” since at least the 1980s.

The singularity is here. Right on time, it appears, to reliably, meet its ceiling in the form of the humans who made it.

Most People are Terrible Negotiators

Most adults, for better or worse, are terrible negotiators.

This is for many reasons, but the two primary ones are, one, adults don’t know how to ask clearly, concisely, and consistently for what they want from other people. And two, adults aren’t honest enough and vulnerable enough with themselves to know what they really want in the first place.

Case in point: Three-year-old children are really good at negotiating with adults and other children. They know what they want, and they ask for–or demand–that which they want clearly, concisely, and consistently from other people. They are also radically transparent, vulnerable, and honest with themselves about what they want. Adults tend to view how a three-year-old expresses their needs and desires as immature, selfish, and naive, but adults, for all of their social sophistication in masking their needs and desires from other adults out of fear of being taken advantage of, aren’t any less immature, selfish, and naive.

When adults know what they want and dare to express those needs and desires in a way that other adults can hear and respond to, they become better negotiators. They also become less fearful of outcomes and consequences. Both of getting what they want and of not getting what they want.

The social sophistication adults demand of others in a negotiation is really, at the bottom, just a deep desire for those other adults to be as confused and misdirected as they are. Because the kind of direct clarity that successful negotiation requires scares adults with its power to change status, change social games, and change culture. Continuing a pattern of confusion and misdirection through terrible negotiation leads to increased conformity, preserves fragile status games, and allows the myth of an egalitarian, non-hierarchical society to continue. Which is what adults are really negotiating over all the time.

If those fragile, egalitarian, and non-hierarchical structures are the psychological, social, and cultural constructs we’re bent on preserving as adults with our terrible negotiations, then let’s just be honest with each other about it. And let’s not act surprised when a moderately sophisticated negotiator who has radically different desires comes along and upsets the apple cart of our carefully constructed, yet terrible, paradigm.

Fan of Man

Being a fan of human beings has always been a difficult proposition. However, in the era of seemingly instant transmission of information, the speed with which human beings can transmit gossip has never had human precedent before.

Sure, human beings can, and do, transmit good things about each other–praises, kudos, claps, and positivity–but the flood of negative gossip is overwhelming. And consuming, observing, and commenting on that flood is designed to be both corrosive and addictive.

Because “if it bleeds it leads” and no entertainer, huckster, influencer, grifter, magician, or marketer (but I repeat myself endlessly) ever went broke underestimating the unending human appetite for negative gossip rooted in envy, pride, lust, vanity, covetousness, and jealousy.

This makes it hard (but not impossible) to argue against the materialist reductionist mindset to human behavior. It makes it hard to argue that “intelligence on silicon” isn’t a better option. Human beings' behavior undermines the argument before it even leaves the mouth of the human making it.

But…

Man wasn’t created to be in a relationship with silicon. Man was created to be in relationship with the natural world, and the other, perpetually messy, people in it. The ceiling of our clean, unmessy, and artificial creations will eventually hit, is the ceiling of relationships.

That’s worth being a fan of man in order to defend.

Anchoring Gatekeeping

Publishing conspiracy theories online isn’t the only way to manipulate and direct an audience’s beliefs.

However, when what we’re reading online doesn’t match what we’re seeing in the rest of our lives, we still have to make a decision about what, or whom, to believe.

We all want our ways of looking at the world confirmed by people, institutions, and even systems. We want that because such confirmation builds trust. And without trust, all that results–in families, tribes, communities, neighborhoods, and even up to the level of nation-states–is suspicion, chaos, fear, and eventually, polarization, conflict, and battle.

Gatekeepers used to exist to maintain trust. In the coming future, where online content will become even more suspect and mistrusted, people who can successfully and consistently gatekeep reality itself will be sought out and trusted. This phenomenon will be less about who is “telling the truth” to power, to an opposing side in an argument, or even to reality itself, and it will be more about who has consistently been proven correct about the dichotomous nature of people, institutions, and even systems.

The people who are going to gatekeep reality in the future must anchor their gatekeeping to the Truth of the work in this fallen world of a transcendent God, in all of His Glory and Might.

Jesus is King. And that’s no conspiracy theory.

Thinking Clearly

The question of our biologically overstimulated and psychologically anxious times is this one: How clearly do you think?

Clear thinking is a product of mental discipline, calm, and, of course, accurate comprehension of whatever it is that you are seeing and hearing. Clear thinking comes before critical thinking. But we tend not to separate those two functions in our minds and self-conceptions, but we should.

The level of heightened diagnoses of attention deficit disorder, anxiety (personal and social), and other mental health maladies is typically attributed to external factors, such as the effects of interpersonal trauma, abuse, diet, entertainment, and social-technological changes. Of course, the primary solution for addressing the impact of these factors on people’s mental health (and thus their thinking) invariably involves a pharmaceutical or therapeutic intervention.

Maybe that’s the correct approach. Maybe that’s the way to guide people back to the type of clear thinking, comprehension of reality, and critical thinking we all need at scale in order to survive the endless whiplash of societal changes we all seem to be moving through and having imposed upon us.

However, without individuals standing athwart their own mental confusion and self-declaring, “Stop,” the solutions currently proposed will remain, at best, catch as catch can.

The Twilight of the Novel

The book, as a technology for transmitting information, ideas, and concepts across time, is probably one of the top five inventions human beings have ever created. Included in that august list would also be indoor plumbing, penicillin, capitalism, and the internal combustion engine. The book–for all of the handwringing about its position as a technological influencer in Western culture right now–in its current modernist (or post-modernist form, if you will) is not on its last legs.

The novel, a variation of the liquid of ideas the container of the book holds, may indeed be on its last legs, however. The reasons for the death of the novel are many, including the following:

1). Human interiority and curiosity about the internal psychology of other people built the novel, and the deconstruction of that curiosity has led to its destruction.

2). The length of a reader’s attention spans and an audience’s cultural connection to historical material and social references across time go hand in hand. That chain has been breaking for at least the last thirty years.

3). The supremacy of other, more visually compelling media that get across the primary message of interiority to an audience better, e.g., film, TV, and of course, video on the Internet, has combined to beat up the novel.

But remember, even with all this, a novel is just a story placed in the format of a book. From Don Quixote to As I Lay Dying, and from Play It as It Lays to the current list of popular, AI-produced novels featured on Goodreads, the novel has probably gone about as far as it can go within the confines of the medium of the book.

This fact doesn’t mean that stories themselves are dead. Humans have been telling each other stories since the beginning of creation and will continue doing so until creation is wound up. It means that the types of content a book can contain will subtly shift.

Over the next 125 years of the book, the medium won’t die. It’s too resilient for that. But what will happen, I think, is that brave creatives, not trapped by the assumptions of the last 300+ years of Enlightenment novelization and cultural storytelling modes, will take the book itself in completely different directions.

Perhaps even, back to the future to a past–a pre-modern place populated by the works (but not novels) of Homer, Sophocles, Aeschylus, the Old Testament authors, Tacitus, Seneca, and Saint Augustine–where we haven’t been as readers, in the West, in a while.