Matthew, you articulated some really great ideas in this piece, especially setting up where you are going with Moloch Theory. Since you and I have discussed religion before, I think Moloch Theory is a helpful way to help people understand why for many people religion becomes almost irrelevant in the modern world. When everything is subsumed under push for a singular value (e.g., intelligence), it becomes almost impossible to articulate anything outside that framework. Even when institutions like churches try to articulate the value they still have in the world, they often do so through the singular values of the Moloch system. Because religions can't articulate themselves outside this box, they unwittingly lead to their own demise. When one value dominates the system, religious institutions seem inconvenient or outdated ways of obtaining this singular value, since the value itself is dominate and therefore ubiquitous. I think what you said about love at the end of your article is one way that we can articulate something outside of the Moloch box, and it really does require people to fundamentally question their values and how they approach something like love. I'm excited to read more of how you develop Moloch Theory.
Chandler, we are absolutely on the same wavelength! It's a pleasure to have you along for the ride. One way to view my project is how religion (and Christianity in particular) can build a case for itself without the appeal to the value-schema of Moloch, which I think most churches end up doing by appealing to things like personal happiness and security (evangelicalism), financial success (prosperity gospel), or "social justice" (liberal mainline) to make their case for relevance. As you point out, techno-Capital will always be more ruthlessly efficient at these things than religion, and thus Christianity makes itself obsolete and irrelevant by taking this same approach. We can't compete in that space, but the great (and terrifying) news is that we don't have to.
Really appreciated this, I got a lot out of it! You’ve really nicely covered the key points in the neorat vs antihumanist debate in an exceptionally concise way. The final remarks about what room is left for love particularly piqued my interest as I’m slowly working on a book project called True Love Ways addressing precisely this question…
Thanks for reading, Vincent! Your piece was excellent, so I’m glad that you felt my writing conveyed the main points well. We should talk more about the project you’re working on. I’m curious to hear where it’s coming from and what you’re thinking about.
what about when you break a leg, get hit by a car, develop a tumor? What about the health issues caused by things we can not control by eating our vegetables? This type of thought process is inherently fascist as it conflates diet to righteousness and worthiness and assumes that all people are born with the same needs. Not to mention the reality that, for many americans who would benefit from medicare for all can not afford to eat “healthily”.
In that piece, I point out that Western allopathic medicine is best adapted for treating traumatic injury and preventing death, so you're caricaturing my arguments in that piece if you think that I'd prescribe vegetables to someone with a broken leg.
I also clearly state in that piece that I'm arguing for structural change to our food systems, not that individual people "eating healthy" is the solution. While I would urge you to try your best to modify your diet to avoid poisoning yourself further, you're also right to point out that there are economic and social reasons that this is extremely difficult for many people. The irony of capitalism is that it replaced real food with processed crap, and now it's trying to sell real food back to us at a higher price (it's premium!). Today, the fewer ingredients something has the more expensive it will be. We need to move away from centralized factory farming, decentralize our food systems, empower local and small-scale farming, practice permaculture, cultivate sustainable practices, increase biodiversity, and much more. I advocate for these changes, not silly public health ads telling people to eat more veggies and drink less sugar.
Your comment seems to me like you're reacting to things that I haven't said and with which I do not agree. Your preconceptions are blinding you.
you seem to talk on issues I consider from very a different background. Having barely understood your position, my question is this: how do you account for meaning, i.e. the outcome/fruit of intelligence, which is, to the detriment of many, eminent and contingent on the historical moment? Can one claim that love is changing? perhaps only its expressions?
Matthew, you articulated some really great ideas in this piece, especially setting up where you are going with Moloch Theory. Since you and I have discussed religion before, I think Moloch Theory is a helpful way to help people understand why for many people religion becomes almost irrelevant in the modern world. When everything is subsumed under push for a singular value (e.g., intelligence), it becomes almost impossible to articulate anything outside that framework. Even when institutions like churches try to articulate the value they still have in the world, they often do so through the singular values of the Moloch system. Because religions can't articulate themselves outside this box, they unwittingly lead to their own demise. When one value dominates the system, religious institutions seem inconvenient or outdated ways of obtaining this singular value, since the value itself is dominate and therefore ubiquitous. I think what you said about love at the end of your article is one way that we can articulate something outside of the Moloch box, and it really does require people to fundamentally question their values and how they approach something like love. I'm excited to read more of how you develop Moloch Theory.
Chandler, we are absolutely on the same wavelength! It's a pleasure to have you along for the ride. One way to view my project is how religion (and Christianity in particular) can build a case for itself without the appeal to the value-schema of Moloch, which I think most churches end up doing by appealing to things like personal happiness and security (evangelicalism), financial success (prosperity gospel), or "social justice" (liberal mainline) to make their case for relevance. As you point out, techno-Capital will always be more ruthlessly efficient at these things than religion, and thus Christianity makes itself obsolete and irrelevant by taking this same approach. We can't compete in that space, but the great (and terrifying) news is that we don't have to.
Really appreciated this, I got a lot out of it! You’ve really nicely covered the key points in the neorat vs antihumanist debate in an exceptionally concise way. The final remarks about what room is left for love particularly piqued my interest as I’m slowly working on a book project called True Love Ways addressing precisely this question…
Thanks for reading, Vincent! Your piece was excellent, so I’m glad that you felt my writing conveyed the main points well. We should talk more about the project you’re working on. I’m curious to hear where it’s coming from and what you’re thinking about.
Fire as usual, Matthew Stanley. I took a lot of notes to think through. Very well done.
what about when you break a leg, get hit by a car, develop a tumor? What about the health issues caused by things we can not control by eating our vegetables? This type of thought process is inherently fascist as it conflates diet to righteousness and worthiness and assumes that all people are born with the same needs. Not to mention the reality that, for many americans who would benefit from medicare for all can not afford to eat “healthily”.
Did you mean to post on this other article of mine? (https://samsara.substack.com/p/medicare-for-all-is-a-bailout-for).
In that piece, I point out that Western allopathic medicine is best adapted for treating traumatic injury and preventing death, so you're caricaturing my arguments in that piece if you think that I'd prescribe vegetables to someone with a broken leg.
I also clearly state in that piece that I'm arguing for structural change to our food systems, not that individual people "eating healthy" is the solution. While I would urge you to try your best to modify your diet to avoid poisoning yourself further, you're also right to point out that there are economic and social reasons that this is extremely difficult for many people. The irony of capitalism is that it replaced real food with processed crap, and now it's trying to sell real food back to us at a higher price (it's premium!). Today, the fewer ingredients something has the more expensive it will be. We need to move away from centralized factory farming, decentralize our food systems, empower local and small-scale farming, practice permaculture, cultivate sustainable practices, increase biodiversity, and much more. I advocate for these changes, not silly public health ads telling people to eat more veggies and drink less sugar.
Your comment seems to me like you're reacting to things that I haven't said and with which I do not agree. Your preconceptions are blinding you.
you seem to talk on issues I consider from very a different background. Having barely understood your position, my question is this: how do you account for meaning, i.e. the outcome/fruit of intelligence, which is, to the detriment of many, eminent and contingent on the historical moment? Can one claim that love is changing? perhaps only its expressions?