Thank you very much for this, Seth! To me the difference between real value and false value is one of the most touching and interesting places in Steiner's threefold ideas... As well as the difference between spiritual value and pure commodity.
Have so much to say to this. First, you picked a horrible example of an NFT because the Jack Dorsey tweet isn’t trying to be “art.” It’s a piece of history (though don’t know it’s provenance, which to me would determine its value—did Jack mint it?). If you want to see real digital art that “nourishes” there are plenty of options. One of my favorite digital NFT artists is DeeKay Kwon. His piece “Life and Death” sold for $1m… check it out and tell me it doesn’t stir emotion: https://superrare.com/artwork-v2/life-and-death-33745
I also disagree with you about crypto, but not going to write a big dissenting opinion here (save that for the next time we get together). I’ll grant you that there are a lot of scams in crypto, but argue that the underlying idea of cryptocurrency and the transparency and security that a blockchain provides is absolutely valid and will be a big part of our future. You mention somewhere that we believe in authority—it’s the opposite. Crypto is about pushing back on authority and a reaction to losing trust in government-backed currencies. I think you need to do more research on the possibilities that crypto creates. You’ve brought up the usual criticisms (energy usage, etc, which btw is being addressed by Ethereum’s move to proof-of-stake), but they reflect a basic understanding of the concept. There are speculators, sure, but there are also lots of people working in crypto for the public good and working in areas of regenerative finance and climate change (see: https://je.mirror.xyz/S-dpms92hw6aiacUHoL3f_iAnLVDvbEUOXw7wpy7JaU) or what the Optimism team (Optimism is a layer 2 protocol that settles on the Ethereum blockchain) is doing with its “Retroactive Public Goods Funding” (see: https://medium.com/ethereum-optimism/retroactive-public-goods-funding-33c9b7d00f0c). While crypto attracts scammers and speculators, it also opens up a world of possibilities for transforming the way we interact with each other, organize under a common cause (have you researched DAOs?), fund projects for public good, etc.
I look forward to discussing next time we spend some quality time together!
Hey Whit - great to hear from you and thanks for sharing what you shared. I liked the DeeKay Kwon piece a lot, and my point is definitely not that NFTs can't be art (what can't be art?) but that that the criteria for art is whether it moves us inwardly - which makes it valuable - whereas most of what we're doing in the crypto, NFT, and art spaces is just trying to make a buck off someone else's back. We're just gambling and not trying to feed anyone physically or spiritually. It's nothing new, obviously, it's just reached a stage where it's becoming purely psychological and there are no underlying values.
I'll take a look DAOs and what the Optimism folks are doing at Ethereum. I've definitely seen initiatives in the crypto world that are trying to do some good, and at times I've also thought the NFT contracts might help artists and the blockchain might be an important tool in humanity's toolbox going forward. But I've become doubtful...
You point to blockchain's central virtue - the non-hierarchical transparency and security it provides. I totally agree that humanity is moving towards that ideal, but I think Blockchain has it wrong. It's providing an outer version of what we need to do inwardly at this time in history (which is also why everyone can intuitively feel its necessity). Because trust between people is the lowest it's ever been, and it will only continue to disintegrate. That's the trend - people are becoming more and more individualized (to use a decade's old analogy at this point: more and more we find ourselves "bowling alone"). We're becoming increasingly atomized and anonymous... but the thing is, real trust can only be forged between people. That's the direction things will need to move - we'll have to learn to create actual networks of trust. Real. human. trust... between people. Not because there's a perfect technical fix which can allow us to trust the "network," but because we've created different types of associations where people actually know each other - for instance, economic associations where there's real relationships and transparency along the supply chain. I've heard that ideal described as a radical "thickening" of the local economy (making the global economy more of a chain of strong local economies) and it would mean people actually participating and shaping the economy from where they're involved - consciously, intentionally, in relation to one another.
Besides the blockchain, I wonder if you think crypto itself is fundamentally good? As I've said in the article, the basic reason people are participating is in order to make gobs of money - they want to strike it rich and this is the latest gold rush. Would you disagree? And would you say it's fundamentally different than a pyramid scheme where you try to get in early in order to make money off everyone who comes in after (except now it's in a wave form, and you have to try to exit at the top of the wave before it crashes...)?
Actually - I'm not sure how I feel about the DeeKay Kwon piece... it's technically interesting, but also feels pretty darn thin. Sure, death stirs emotion, but is life really such a dinky video game? And did you see the description? "We are born. We live life. We face death at the end of the road, but memories of us remain and live on." That's kind of the only way most modern day people can grapple with death, and it's somewhat sad - "don't worry, we'll live on in memories!"
It reminds me of the song "Die Young" by Sheppherd. I heard it when I was in an Australian bakery a few years ago and couldn't help but cringe at the chorus "Even if we die young, they will remember us!" No, actually, they won't. They probably won't remember you 5 years from now. It's like Gang Starr saying "they'll build a monument to honor us with, humungous effect in the world, we could have conquered it..." Pull yourselves together people. Memories aren't going to last. And even if you were the next Alexander the Great, is it really any consolation that people will remember you in a couple thousand years?
I think to actually grapple with death, one would have to find one's way to a different and deeper understanding of it (which is perhaps what Yves Klein was trying to do)...
I look at the piece and it reminds me of how brief a visit we have here on earth. We do get born, live and then die. Our immediate family certainly retains memories, but a generation out and those are gone. Don't have to overthink this. Memento mori.
Hey Patricia - thanks for your thoughts. They made me think of one more thing: in many ways we don't need to interrogate every aspect of crypto in order to know its real nature, we can just ask ourselves - am I trying to get something without giving anything in return, or am I trying to serve the world in some way?
This obviously doesn't just apply to crypto, it applies whenever we go to the store and try to get a "good deal." We often don't think about the person on the other side - the producer - who is likely getting a bad deal, who might not be getting enough money to feed their family. This might sound idealistic but it's actually the most grounded and objective way of approaching these things - one tries to see the whole picture and take everyone into consideration, as difficult as it is to do so. Because people think that they live off their money, but the most basic reality is that there are only people working for one another, producing goods and services for one another. Then it becomes a question of whether we are giving as much as we are getting, whether there is a balance.
It's hard to do this individually - it would be much better if the economy was actually organized with greater transparency and cooperation so we could ensure everyone's needs are met - but until that time we can still cultivate this recognition and way of working in ourselves. Then when we approach something like crypto (at least in the mainstream forms that are most easily accessible) it becomes obvious that I am just being drawn to it in the hope of getting something without giving anything in return.
Thank you very much for this, Seth! To me the difference between real value and false value is one of the most touching and interesting places in Steiner's threefold ideas... As well as the difference between spiritual value and pure commodity.
Have so much to say to this. First, you picked a horrible example of an NFT because the Jack Dorsey tweet isn’t trying to be “art.” It’s a piece of history (though don’t know it’s provenance, which to me would determine its value—did Jack mint it?). If you want to see real digital art that “nourishes” there are plenty of options. One of my favorite digital NFT artists is DeeKay Kwon. His piece “Life and Death” sold for $1m… check it out and tell me it doesn’t stir emotion: https://superrare.com/artwork-v2/life-and-death-33745
Check out this NFT museum for more examples of beautiful art: https://oncyber.io/6529om
I also disagree with you about crypto, but not going to write a big dissenting opinion here (save that for the next time we get together). I’ll grant you that there are a lot of scams in crypto, but argue that the underlying idea of cryptocurrency and the transparency and security that a blockchain provides is absolutely valid and will be a big part of our future. You mention somewhere that we believe in authority—it’s the opposite. Crypto is about pushing back on authority and a reaction to losing trust in government-backed currencies. I think you need to do more research on the possibilities that crypto creates. You’ve brought up the usual criticisms (energy usage, etc, which btw is being addressed by Ethereum’s move to proof-of-stake), but they reflect a basic understanding of the concept. There are speculators, sure, but there are also lots of people working in crypto for the public good and working in areas of regenerative finance and climate change (see: https://je.mirror.xyz/S-dpms92hw6aiacUHoL3f_iAnLVDvbEUOXw7wpy7JaU) or what the Optimism team (Optimism is a layer 2 protocol that settles on the Ethereum blockchain) is doing with its “Retroactive Public Goods Funding” (see: https://medium.com/ethereum-optimism/retroactive-public-goods-funding-33c9b7d00f0c). While crypto attracts scammers and speculators, it also opens up a world of possibilities for transforming the way we interact with each other, organize under a common cause (have you researched DAOs?), fund projects for public good, etc.
I look forward to discussing next time we spend some quality time together!
Hey Whit - great to hear from you and thanks for sharing what you shared. I liked the DeeKay Kwon piece a lot, and my point is definitely not that NFTs can't be art (what can't be art?) but that that the criteria for art is whether it moves us inwardly - which makes it valuable - whereas most of what we're doing in the crypto, NFT, and art spaces is just trying to make a buck off someone else's back. We're just gambling and not trying to feed anyone physically or spiritually. It's nothing new, obviously, it's just reached a stage where it's becoming purely psychological and there are no underlying values.
I'll take a look DAOs and what the Optimism folks are doing at Ethereum. I've definitely seen initiatives in the crypto world that are trying to do some good, and at times I've also thought the NFT contracts might help artists and the blockchain might be an important tool in humanity's toolbox going forward. But I've become doubtful...
You point to blockchain's central virtue - the non-hierarchical transparency and security it provides. I totally agree that humanity is moving towards that ideal, but I think Blockchain has it wrong. It's providing an outer version of what we need to do inwardly at this time in history (which is also why everyone can intuitively feel its necessity). Because trust between people is the lowest it's ever been, and it will only continue to disintegrate. That's the trend - people are becoming more and more individualized (to use a decade's old analogy at this point: more and more we find ourselves "bowling alone"). We're becoming increasingly atomized and anonymous... but the thing is, real trust can only be forged between people. That's the direction things will need to move - we'll have to learn to create actual networks of trust. Real. human. trust... between people. Not because there's a perfect technical fix which can allow us to trust the "network," but because we've created different types of associations where people actually know each other - for instance, economic associations where there's real relationships and transparency along the supply chain. I've heard that ideal described as a radical "thickening" of the local economy (making the global economy more of a chain of strong local economies) and it would mean people actually participating and shaping the economy from where they're involved - consciously, intentionally, in relation to one another.
Besides the blockchain, I wonder if you think crypto itself is fundamentally good? As I've said in the article, the basic reason people are participating is in order to make gobs of money - they want to strike it rich and this is the latest gold rush. Would you disagree? And would you say it's fundamentally different than a pyramid scheme where you try to get in early in order to make money off everyone who comes in after (except now it's in a wave form, and you have to try to exit at the top of the wave before it crashes...)?
And yes to getting together. This summer!
Actually - I'm not sure how I feel about the DeeKay Kwon piece... it's technically interesting, but also feels pretty darn thin. Sure, death stirs emotion, but is life really such a dinky video game? And did you see the description? "We are born. We live life. We face death at the end of the road, but memories of us remain and live on." That's kind of the only way most modern day people can grapple with death, and it's somewhat sad - "don't worry, we'll live on in memories!"
It reminds me of the song "Die Young" by Sheppherd. I heard it when I was in an Australian bakery a few years ago and couldn't help but cringe at the chorus "Even if we die young, they will remember us!" No, actually, they won't. They probably won't remember you 5 years from now. It's like Gang Starr saying "they'll build a monument to honor us with, humungous effect in the world, we could have conquered it..." Pull yourselves together people. Memories aren't going to last. And even if you were the next Alexander the Great, is it really any consolation that people will remember you in a couple thousand years?
I think to actually grapple with death, one would have to find one's way to a different and deeper understanding of it (which is perhaps what Yves Klein was trying to do)...
I look at the piece and it reminds me of how brief a visit we have here on earth. We do get born, live and then die. Our immediate family certainly retains memories, but a generation out and those are gone. Don't have to overthink this. Memento mori.
Awesome immaterial stuff in your writing...thanks!
Thanks so much for saying so, Ben. All the best.
Hey Patricia - thanks for your thoughts. They made me think of one more thing: in many ways we don't need to interrogate every aspect of crypto in order to know its real nature, we can just ask ourselves - am I trying to get something without giving anything in return, or am I trying to serve the world in some way?
This obviously doesn't just apply to crypto, it applies whenever we go to the store and try to get a "good deal." We often don't think about the person on the other side - the producer - who is likely getting a bad deal, who might not be getting enough money to feed their family. This might sound idealistic but it's actually the most grounded and objective way of approaching these things - one tries to see the whole picture and take everyone into consideration, as difficult as it is to do so. Because people think that they live off their money, but the most basic reality is that there are only people working for one another, producing goods and services for one another. Then it becomes a question of whether we are giving as much as we are getting, whether there is a balance.
It's hard to do this individually - it would be much better if the economy was actually organized with greater transparency and cooperation so we could ensure everyone's needs are met - but until that time we can still cultivate this recognition and way of working in ourselves. Then when we approach something like crypto (at least in the mainstream forms that are most easily accessible) it becomes obvious that I am just being drawn to it in the hope of getting something without giving anything in return.