Transcription
I think your comments about Elon Musk as a globalist force, that it isn't exactly akin to the previous globalist force, are interesting. We've tried to distinguish this technically in our ARC discussions. Here are some principles; tell me what you think: Policy that requires force and fear is suboptimal, probably tyrannical. One way to determine if a policy is acceptable is whether it's invitational. It's like making an offer; hopefully, they're voluntarily on board, making them more efficient participants. Even if not fully enthusiastic, they can't think of a better alternative. If we negotiate reasonably, we should accept the best offer conceivable. Hopefully, it's enthusiastically received, but at least it's the best alternative. No power, no force, no fear.
Another idea we've explored is that the vision of the future must be invitational and include an element of play. I've studied play neurophysiologically; it's an interesting motivational state, very fragile and disrupted by other states. Play is direction with variability, emerging when communication and cooperation are optimized. So, if everyone involved engages in play, the venture's proceeding well. I like the play idea because it's voluntary and implies tolerance for deviation.
Your experience as a clinical psychologist is primarily interpersonal, though you deal with large datasets. I'm fascinated you brought up play early because Elon Musk and Trump's posts—Trump wanting to make Canada the 51st state, or reaching Panama or Greenland, or Musk's pugnaciousness with detractors—lack the haughtiness and piety of previous neoliberal oligarchs. This play, though—and this isn't an assertion about Trump or Musk—is there mischief and play in the demonic, too? I like play; I'm a comedian, I enjoy liminal spaces and uncertainty—prerequisites of play. The true spirit of pioneering discovery is encompassed within play. Much of the Trump phenomenon was that he didn't talk like other politicians. Back in 2015, with Hillary Clinton, it was "you'd be in jail that moment." People don't say that against the bluster and haughtiness of the established order. Isn't it interesting to see play wielded by the truly powerful—Trump and Musk? Their detractors will say, "See, I told you they'd take over Canada!" or "What is Elon Musk doing meddling in British politics?" Regardless, Trump and Musk aren't God; they're human.
I've been thinking: does order of magnitude alter essence? Is Musk just a reiteration of Murdoch? Tony Blair kowtowed to Murdoch; Thatcher needed him. Murdoch's power spanned the anglophonic world. Elon Musk is a version of a media magnate, at least on social media. But an ever-present mirror reflecting ongoing conversation—the ability to maneuver and censor—is different from a 20-minute perusal of a newspaper. It's not the economically-led, entrenched mentality of Murdoch (Dier, wasn't that his nickname?). Perhaps it's the technology—diffuse cybernetics, instantaneous systems. Our understanding of God was mechanical in the Industrial Age, agricultural before that. Now, with instantaneous omnipresence, maybe everything is changing. Is what's happening now entirely unique because of its temporal component and immersive ability to alter conversation?
I interviewed Pierre Poilievre, likely Canada's next prime minister. He chose me over legacy media. It was comical; they had to play catch-up. We discussed his doubts about his performance; he didn't cover many topics. The long-form podcast format can't be manipulated; if you stick to a script, no one watches, and the comments are negative. You have to be ready to follow the conversation. Multiple companies keep living profiles of your online activity; data brokers sell your information to big tech, advertisers, and the government. ExpressVPN reroutes your internet activity through encrypted servers, hiding your IP address. Our team uses it. It's user-friendly and protects up to eight devices. Get four extra months free at expressvpn.com/Jordan.
We might look into how video predominates over the written word, meaning the reemergence of spontaneity over propaganda. New media prioritizes spontaneity over preparation. When bandwidth was expensive, risk minimization was key. That restriction is gone. A new form of political discourse might emerge, prioritizing those who generate perspicacity and wisdom spontaneously over those who manipulate. Poilievre could do that; he had no questions beforehand. We've tried to get Democrats on the podcast, but they're unwilling to forgo their pre-planned agenda.