2025-01-03»
getting out of bedrockยปContinuing the Old Hippy mulling: instead of just trying to make old fires spontaneously light again using the same old ashes, my thought is — how do you find a role for the values, for the insight, and keep that in a place that preserves the best of it? I wrote about this a fair bit, though somewhat elliptically, a couple of years ago in Terminal Values, Cognitive Liberty. The argument I was trying to answer there was the one in favor of abandonment. “Free speech, free software, encryption, digital autonomy: these are nice, but what are they for?“, goes the question. I see this as that part of the “wait, are we the baddies?” conversation, an even more dispiriting rhetorical question that boils down to “what are we even doing this for?”
(To be fair, I ask this about everything, usually 30 seconds into doing it. I ask it about getting out of bed, shaving, writing this, dressing a child, baking a cake. But I do need an answer. Many people do not, or at least they are driven by an internal motivation to, say, backport Grand Theft Auto III to the Dreamcast, or making a 777 model from manila folders, rather than to go searching for why they even bother.)
The natural exit from Old Hippydom is to leap into the New Thing. Or take a step back into the Old Thing You Were Doing Before Being A Hippy. All good responses! But if you want the culture you built and valued to persist you need to find something a little bit more timeless to hang its hat upon.
Long-time readers will recall that I’ve spent twenty years or so trying to answer two questions: a) “How many people do you need to be famous for?”, and b) “How deep is geek culture?”. I have mostly settled on two temporary answers, which was a) 7000 (thank you, Stewart Lee), and b) “not as deep as politics”. By the second, I meant that geek culture became a broad mainstream movement (far greater than I could have imagined), but it ultimately could not keep itself together, faced with a greater rift across the political spectrum. Its concerns seemed shallow, petty, uninteresting and irrelevant — its speakers could not resist being drawn into that wider conversation, that set of frames. I make it sound a like a personal failing, but I don’t. Politics is important. All I mean is that when you see someone who is a member of a technological subculture, you can also, and primarily, place them on a political spectrum. And which is more culturally important? Politics. It is higher up in the z-ordering of the display. It has priority.
“Everything is political” is a claim that seeks to explain this; I don’t think it does, just as “Everything is religious”, or “Everything is biological” don’t do more than describe other potential orderings. I suppose I could make the claim that “everything is technological” — which is what I try to discriminate my position apart from in Terminal Values. What I am trying to say is the set of values that you can draw from digital technology — especially if they were the ones that you imprinted on in its first fifty years, have weight and importance that can outlast temporary blooms in cultural popularity and relevance.
Newtonians dreamed of a clockwork universe, Darwinists saw everything evolve; their models weren’t as overpowering as they might have imagined, but those positions (and their critiques) add to the overall symphony of explanations and justifications.
I guess what I want to explore a little is, not what is left or salvaged from the digital revolution, but what persists. What is useful, not in the sense of serving new or temporary sets of concerns, but what will remain useful when we are gone. And for that we need to dig deeper than politics, or culture: to some even deeper bedrock.