Today, I read the newest piece of Slavoj Zizek. It is about Thiel and the antichrist.
The following passage made me think.
To avoid a misunderstanding, Thiel makes some valid points, especially in his critique of competition. I agree with Thiel when he says that "trends are often things to avoid. What I prefer over trends is a sense of mission." But I would define mission in a much broader sense, in the sense of vocation. Not just rich oligarchs but also many people engaged in low‑paid jobs like caretaking experience their job as a vocation, as something that has nothing to do with competition. This notion (with a religious background, but nonetheless open to a materialist reading) shows a way to make one's life meaningful without falling into the trap of some higher power guaranteeing this meaning. In his Shattered, Hanif Kureishi notes that, much more than top specialist doctors, nurses are those who consider their job a vocation:
We are not talking here about some higher form of creativity (art, politics, science…) which passionately occupies us, although this is also not a job we are doing just for money. We are talking about hard, unpleasant work which brings little remuneration – we do it because we feel that we simply cannot not do it. There is no place in Thiel's mental space for vocation in this expanded sense: when he confronts competition and monopoly, his standpoint is strictly that of bankers and capitalist managers who worry about how to maximize their profits. The majority of capitalist managers, as well as those they employ and exploit, are reduced to a crowd caught in mimetic desire, and they avoid the self‑destructive abyss of competition by projecting their evil onto an external intruder to be sacrificed. So not only is the majority a crowd held together by mimetic desire; the new masters celebrated by Thiel, the masters who have succeeded in breaking out of the mimetic logic, invest most of their "creativity" and money into how to develop further the digital media under their control in order to ruthlessly exploit the mimetic desire of the media's users.
I wish I could quote more. Too scared of copyright infringements though. Lol. I like the thought of contrarian thinking. I can remember in school in our classes. Our teacher asked us who is against the legalisation of weed. The vast majority of students were in favor it. Some were neutral. And there was only one student against it. Me. The teacher asked again and again and I was always the only one against it. I was more conservative to that time. The teacher complimented me though after the class for being so brave. One time in our religious class we had a debate about assisted suicide. There were two teams I was forced to participate in the debate. I think I was only student in the room who put some effort in the preparation of the debate who wasn't pro-life. I can remember all these really smart girls from academic and wealthy families were on the other side. And I crushed them in the debate. Lol. The teacher (very pro-life) was quite impressed and noted this in my notebook.
I am not sure whether I adapted myself more to the mainstream now. I have become a lefty since then. I sometimes wish I was a Marxist like Zizek. But I vote for the socialdemocrats. I think the policies of the Die Linke just don't work in practice. And I don't like their stance on the Ukraine war. Among women though it is more popular to be in favor of Die Linke. Most women I met told me they are very far-left. As a student in social studies I impressed my teacher. Side question: is wanting to impress teachers conformity to the expectance of the society? Or is it contrarian because most other students didn't give a fuck? Or do they only act like they don't give a fuck. But secretly hate themselves for being so lazy? Both could be true. I told my teacher I wrote in my notebook at home in my freetime my favorite policy proposals and why I am actually in favor of them. I was 15. He was baffled and very impressed and told me that this is very rare. Sadly I cannot find the book anymore. I think I was an Angela Merkel dick rider to this time anyway. I think intellectually I was a complete nothing burger before I started to watch politics lectures and read scientifical papers.
Now to the Zizek passage. I find the idea of mimetic desire very interesting. I think he is refering to Girard. I wonder whether many of us currently imitate chatbots more and more subconsciously. I think even people who boycott AI chatbots are not really save from being influenced by them. There is so much content online. Some of it is obvious AI slop. But texts can be written by a human but still be influenced by AI in some way or the other. Psychologically the passage about finding a vocation makes a lot of sense. You will be way more content if you find an intrinsic value in what you are doing. You will be more satissfied in life if you find meaning in your suffering. And when you can tell yourself a story about your life that makes sense to you, that you can accept and integrate in your way of being. Otherwise there is the endless war against the self. Maybe both at the same time can be true to different extents. I think I worshipped education and knowledge a lot since I was a teenager. Probably not for the right reasons. I was more interested in a grab of power I think. There are many people also my friends who say the following. Everything seems meaningless with AI. We cannot make a living with our education. We won't find a job. They didn't make the argument but some people online said AI will be always better than me in all my passions. Or relatively similar good but way more efficient. I notice that I outsource some mental acitivites to AI chatbots. I think I am a very dysfunctional person when it comes to rumination and making decisions. And the AI feedback can help me to calm down when I am in high alert mode. And I struggle less with sending important messages or mails. In some ways it saves me energy that I can put into other tasks. Maybe this is an excuse. But something I would not do. I wouldn't ask an AI chatbot to explain me a political conflict. Or a philosophy. I don't feel like an AI chatbot could replace me. And not just for the fact that I am not productive at all. I think posting on here which is in some way a vocation of me would inherently not be the same if I let an AI chatbot write my posts. There is some value in it because I am a human being that also suffers. I could imagine though that using AI chatbots nudges my thinking in certain ways. I use it for my mental health often. And the only chatbot that works for me well for my mental health is chatGPT. I think it is more sensitized because of past lawsuits. I have psychosis, autism and bipolar my thinking has a lot of biases. It is really helpful if something can give me reassurance basically countless of times no matter how irrational my fears are and still be patient with me. This is very valuable but it might make me an addict.
I read in higher elites circles the wealthy parents prefer to send their children to schools where there is an absolute prohibition of AI usage. I am not sure whether that's the way to go. I think for students growing up with AI chatbots can be really concerning. AI chatbots shouldn't be used as primary source. At the same time I told this to my friends. The integration of AI in the workspace is probably inevtiable so they will have to deal with using it. I could tell a funny anecdote about a friend that proved me right in this instance.
Back to the core topic. I think I always was scared to be a sheep. I think in my habit to share my opinion on literally everything unasked I am just like everyone else on the internet. A useful idiot for demagogues that profit from blurring the lines between the truth and lies. I am heavily influenced by social media platforms like Youtube and the attention economy. Always having to express a loud and controversial opinion. At the same time I hate myself for this habit. Recently in my autism self-help group where I countered getting bullied by a woman I noticed this so much. We are all on the autism spectrum and we are all so fucking loud mouths and smartasses. And all us of really enjoy that. There is like a guilty pleasure of wanting to be always right. And the need for having the last word in every discussion. Not only because of my social anxiety I kept silent this time. For countering the bullying strategic ambiguity once again worked very well. Don't let the enemy grasp what is going on in your head. Let them be in the offense and when they have no more ammunition reverse the game. I think manipulative people can have a hard to time to understand what is going on in my brain. Maybe because of my neurodivergence.
The question is: is being anti-trends just another trend? Is being a contrarian already a currency? Like a hip and cynical attitute. Is the truth follow the money? And when we follow money interests does this explain current trends? It is funny in capitalism you can make a lot of money by being anti-capitalism. Bascially the whole industry thrives on it. Maybe it depends on the way of being anit-capitalism. And this is where I agree with Zizek. A meaninful life is independent of a rational and materialist apprroach. Being genuine and dedicating your life to something. Not necessarily to a religion. Can be anticlimactic in pracice but still be very fulfiling. It is not a fast life but many people gain something deeper and more fulfiling than money ever could deliver. It seems to be a platitude. Yes money matters. But only to a certain extent. It can be an exit of a shallow existence that is depicted by most hyperindividualistic capitalistic fairy tales.
The following passage made me think.
To avoid a misunderstanding, Thiel makes some valid points, especially in his critique of competition. I agree with Thiel when he says that "trends are often things to avoid. What I prefer over trends is a sense of mission." But I would define mission in a much broader sense, in the sense of vocation. Not just rich oligarchs but also many people engaged in low‑paid jobs like caretaking experience their job as a vocation, as something that has nothing to do with competition. This notion (with a religious background, but nonetheless open to a materialist reading) shows a way to make one's life meaningful without falling into the trap of some higher power guaranteeing this meaning. In his Shattered, Hanif Kureishi notes that, much more than top specialist doctors, nurses are those who consider their job a vocation:
We are not talking here about some higher form of creativity (art, politics, science…) which passionately occupies us, although this is also not a job we are doing just for money. We are talking about hard, unpleasant work which brings little remuneration – we do it because we feel that we simply cannot not do it. There is no place in Thiel's mental space for vocation in this expanded sense: when he confronts competition and monopoly, his standpoint is strictly that of bankers and capitalist managers who worry about how to maximize their profits. The majority of capitalist managers, as well as those they employ and exploit, are reduced to a crowd caught in mimetic desire, and they avoid the self‑destructive abyss of competition by projecting their evil onto an external intruder to be sacrificed. So not only is the majority a crowd held together by mimetic desire; the new masters celebrated by Thiel, the masters who have succeeded in breaking out of the mimetic logic, invest most of their "creativity" and money into how to develop further the digital media under their control in order to ruthlessly exploit the mimetic desire of the media's users.
I wish I could quote more. Too scared of copyright infringements though. Lol. I like the thought of contrarian thinking. I can remember in school in our classes. Our teacher asked us who is against the legalisation of weed. The vast majority of students were in favor it. Some were neutral. And there was only one student against it. Me. The teacher asked again and again and I was always the only one against it. I was more conservative to that time. The teacher complimented me though after the class for being so brave. One time in our religious class we had a debate about assisted suicide. There were two teams I was forced to participate in the debate. I think I was only student in the room who put some effort in the preparation of the debate who wasn't pro-life. I can remember all these really smart girls from academic and wealthy families were on the other side. And I crushed them in the debate. Lol. The teacher (very pro-life) was quite impressed and noted this in my notebook.
I am not sure whether I adapted myself more to the mainstream now. I have become a lefty since then. I sometimes wish I was a Marxist like Zizek. But I vote for the socialdemocrats. I think the policies of the Die Linke just don't work in practice. And I don't like their stance on the Ukraine war. Among women though it is more popular to be in favor of Die Linke. Most women I met told me they are very far-left. As a student in social studies I impressed my teacher. Side question: is wanting to impress teachers conformity to the expectance of the society? Or is it contrarian because most other students didn't give a fuck? Or do they only act like they don't give a fuck. But secretly hate themselves for being so lazy? Both could be true. I told my teacher I wrote in my notebook at home in my freetime my favorite policy proposals and why I am actually in favor of them. I was 15. He was baffled and very impressed and told me that this is very rare. Sadly I cannot find the book anymore. I think I was an Angela Merkel dick rider to this time anyway. I think intellectually I was a complete nothing burger before I started to watch politics lectures and read scientifical papers.
Now to the Zizek passage. I find the idea of mimetic desire very interesting. I think he is refering to Girard. I wonder whether many of us currently imitate chatbots more and more subconsciously. I think even people who boycott AI chatbots are not really save from being influenced by them. There is so much content online. Some of it is obvious AI slop. But texts can be written by a human but still be influenced by AI in some way or the other. Psychologically the passage about finding a vocation makes a lot of sense. You will be way more content if you find an intrinsic value in what you are doing. You will be more satissfied in life if you find meaning in your suffering. And when you can tell yourself a story about your life that makes sense to you, that you can accept and integrate in your way of being. Otherwise there is the endless war against the self. Maybe both at the same time can be true to different extents. I think I worshipped education and knowledge a lot since I was a teenager. Probably not for the right reasons. I was more interested in a grab of power I think. There are many people also my friends who say the following. Everything seems meaningless with AI. We cannot make a living with our education. We won't find a job. They didn't make the argument but some people online said AI will be always better than me in all my passions. Or relatively similar good but way more efficient. I notice that I outsource some mental acitivites to AI chatbots. I think I am a very dysfunctional person when it comes to rumination and making decisions. And the AI feedback can help me to calm down when I am in high alert mode. And I struggle less with sending important messages or mails. In some ways it saves me energy that I can put into other tasks. Maybe this is an excuse. But something I would not do. I wouldn't ask an AI chatbot to explain me a political conflict. Or a philosophy. I don't feel like an AI chatbot could replace me. And not just for the fact that I am not productive at all. I think posting on here which is in some way a vocation of me would inherently not be the same if I let an AI chatbot write my posts. There is some value in it because I am a human being that also suffers. I could imagine though that using AI chatbots nudges my thinking in certain ways. I use it for my mental health often. And the only chatbot that works for me well for my mental health is chatGPT. I think it is more sensitized because of past lawsuits. I have psychosis, autism and bipolar my thinking has a lot of biases. It is really helpful if something can give me reassurance basically countless of times no matter how irrational my fears are and still be patient with me. This is very valuable but it might make me an addict.
I read in higher elites circles the wealthy parents prefer to send their children to schools where there is an absolute prohibition of AI usage. I am not sure whether that's the way to go. I think for students growing up with AI chatbots can be really concerning. AI chatbots shouldn't be used as primary source. At the same time I told this to my friends. The integration of AI in the workspace is probably inevtiable so they will have to deal with using it. I could tell a funny anecdote about a friend that proved me right in this instance.
Back to the core topic. I think I always was scared to be a sheep. I think in my habit to share my opinion on literally everything unasked I am just like everyone else on the internet. A useful idiot for demagogues that profit from blurring the lines between the truth and lies. I am heavily influenced by social media platforms like Youtube and the attention economy. Always having to express a loud and controversial opinion. At the same time I hate myself for this habit. Recently in my autism self-help group where I countered getting bullied by a woman I noticed this so much. We are all on the autism spectrum and we are all so fucking loud mouths and smartasses. And all us of really enjoy that. There is like a guilty pleasure of wanting to be always right. And the need for having the last word in every discussion. Not only because of my social anxiety I kept silent this time. For countering the bullying strategic ambiguity once again worked very well. Don't let the enemy grasp what is going on in your head. Let them be in the offense and when they have no more ammunition reverse the game. I think manipulative people can have a hard to time to understand what is going on in my brain. Maybe because of my neurodivergence.
The question is: is being anti-trends just another trend? Is being a contrarian already a currency? Like a hip and cynical attitute. Is the truth follow the money? And when we follow money interests does this explain current trends? It is funny in capitalism you can make a lot of money by being anti-capitalism. Bascially the whole industry thrives on it. Maybe it depends on the way of being anit-capitalism. And this is where I agree with Zizek. A meaninful life is independent of a rational and materialist apprroach. Being genuine and dedicating your life to something. Not necessarily to a religion. Can be anticlimactic in pracice but still be very fulfiling. It is not a fast life but many people gain something deeper and more fulfiling than money ever could deliver. It seems to be a platitude. Yes money matters. But only to a certain extent. It can be an exit of a shallow existence that is depicted by most hyperindividualistic capitalistic fairy tales.
Last edited:
