Hi everyone. Below is an article describing several of my concerns regarding philosophy and art, and how they relate to the search for an ethical life. I wanted to have sources cited for you all, with links, as well as pictures to demonstrate my points, but for whatever reason Spacehey is glitching and this article doesn't want to accept links! So I have decided to pick my battles and upload this version of the article to you now; however, I may also upload a "fun" version, which will include lots of surprises. I will let you know if this seems possible through a bulletin, and I will let you now an approximate timing on that, if it works out. 

With that, I must warn you this article is rather rambling at some points, and dense at others. Please let me know if you are confused on any points and I will be glad to discuss them with you! Also, please let me know anything you disagree with and we can talk about it! I love to have my work truly engaged with and challenged. 

Philosophy Against Philosophy

By Dreamarachnid

The Spectacle

Recently, I read Society of the Spectacle, a short book by Guy Debord discussing the titular Spectacle, which can best be described as a phenomenon in our society of a false world being constructed and presented to the masses as an accurate reflection of the world, thus affecting the true world despite its falsehood. The clearest example Debord gives of the spectacle is "mass media," and I think you can see this phenomenon most clearly today in the culture war. 

"The spectacle, grasped in its totality, is both the result and the project of the existing mode of production. It is not a supplement to the real world, an additional decoration. It is the heart of the unrealism of the real society. In all its specific forms, as information or propaganda, as advertisement or direct entertainment consumption, the spectacle is the present model of socially dominant life. It is the omnipresent affirmation of the choice already made in production and its corollary consumption. The spectacle's form and content are identically the total justification of the existing system's conditions and goals. The spectacle is also the permanent presence of this justification, since it occupies the main part of the time lived outside of modern production."

• Thesis 6, Guy Debord, Society of the Spectacle (1967), 2016 English translation reprint by Black & Red, Detroit, MI. 

  Motivation, Post-Modern Religion and Nation
  

  
  

  The reason I read Society of the Spectacle was in preparation for grad school. You see, I had hoped to go to a certain prestigious academy and study philosophy. I had no specific plan for what I would do post-graduation, although I assumed that I could study new age religion. My particular interests included UFOlogy (inspired by the work of Susan Lepselter), Theosophy, Mormonism, Scientology, spoof religions like Discordianism, and all things schizoanalytic and conspiratorial. My question was: how is American religion and nation related to geography in a time of globalism, the internet, and expansion?

  
  

  My basic line of thought was: most religions name specific, sacred places, and they are geographically centered. Religions are a response to the world, and so they usually exist within the context of a culture's spatial habitation. I think it goes without saying that this applies to pagan religions (in fact I first started venturing down this specific path after a lecture about Welsh folklore, and how geographically based it is). You can also see the value of locations in the Abrahamic religions. Judaism obviously claims certain locations in and around Israel are significant to worship, and are holy. The Christian Bible is rife with the names of specific sacred places (put a pin in that), and pilgrimages are encouraged, although not common. Finally, there is the mandatory pilgrimage to Mecca, which is expected in Islam. Even with my amateur knowledge of world religion, history, and witchcraft, the human tendency towards sacred-izing certain locations is clear. I wanted to meditate on this fact within the context of Christianity. I wondered, what effects has Christianity experienced since it has been largely removed from its geographic context due to growth? Christianity has a tendency towards folk-saints and martyrs, who can conveniently make any European or South American town Holy and Blessed. Through this you can see the willingness of some denominations, particularly the Catholic ones, to adapt by adding to the lore. But what happens when you add a reformation, white supremacy, and immigration to the mix? Let's put this in the context of America. America is not in the Bible, and no priests, prior to European exploration, knew about it. And yet, it is claimed to divinely (religiously!) belong to the Europeans, who must either convert or kill the native inhabitants. How does the religion of the settlers cope with the cognitive dissonance of believing a land to be theirs, and yet having never heard of it? Additionally, you have moved ONTO the land that another group claims IS sacred, but not for the reasons you think. Because christians were also far far away from the geography of their religion, with little to no chance of a pilgrimage, the alienation (ungrounding) only increased from where it had been in Europe. For America, a country too new and too weird (and too Christian) for martyrs, the only solution was to change radically (this is an oversimplification. Of course there were outright religious debates about how America fits into the Christian worldview, but it was still a break of centuries of Christian understanding, and had to lead to change). I believe Mormonism is one answer to this problem (need to make your stolen land sacred? Just take YOUR religion and say it also happened in this place but everyone forgot. Gaslight the vulnerable and desperate!). But there was another response, too. Spiritualism formed from two main stems. Firstly, multiple Great Awakenings created the "burned over district" in upstate New York (with the Second Great Awakening leading to Mormonism, among other denominations). It was clear that America (but also Christianity as a whole) required an update that suited the then-contemporary world. Secondly, the Civil War divided America and led to the bloodiest, most mechanized war it had ever seen. For the first time, photography was available to make it all the more tangible and repulsive. This mass death confounded the country. From the context of the Great Awakenings and the deaths of the Civil War, Spiritualism formed, and it was given plenty of new technology to play and "validate" its claims with. 

  
  

  From Spiritualism and the ever increasing globalization of the world through colonialism / imperialism (and post-modernism promising to arise in a mere century, just after the falsehoods of modernism made themselves known through fascism, two world wars, and the atomic bomb) (oh and also sprinkle in some anti-semitism and racism), Theosophy arose. Soon, technology was doing things people a generation earlier only knew from science fiction— capturing faces (and perhaps souls?) with photography, allowing humans to fly, curing polio, making moving pictures, as a few examples. This technology wasn't limited to consumer goods and entertainment. These changes occurred specifically as the (often secret, looking at you Manhattan Project) military might of America grew to new and horrifying sizes. Meanwhile, the original sins of slavery, genocide, biological warfare, and r*pe were bubbling beneath the surface of the public's conscious understanding of civic mythology. It was only a matter of time before stories of UFOs and Alien Abductions became the hallmark of weird America. And what a hallmark they are! Part conspiracy, part quasi-religion, and all folklore, they have more than enough for your average sociologist to chew on. While I don't believe UFOlogy ever became a religion in and of itself, it did create fertile ground for plenty of new-age religions to merge with the earlier traditions of Theosophy and Christianity, as well as respond to the original sins of America.

  
  

  Just as I ask these questions and examine the movement and birth of religions in America— a country mostly inhabited by people following a religion that doesn't belong here (and, side note, these new religions are only going to get stranger and stranger with the continuing technological changes, especially since we've seen the rise of AI cults / religions, and we know new technologies also affect religious movements, as that was a reason spiritualism formed, and a cause of the reformation), I ask these same questions about the political and military machine that IS America. The instinct that governs religion, sacredness, and denial of death in the human race (or at least organized societies of humans) is just as natural as the instinct that encourages the formation of nations (this is a gross oversimplification, but my opinions on the origins of government are a conversation for another day… nonetheless, the fact that humans tend to form in-groups is clearly natural). Tribalism also dictates that humans tend to continuously rally around these nations, especially if they have any sense of personal investment in them. It’s also clear that nations are geographically based. Nations own certain land, and decide what can and cannot take place on that land. That is their core function. Through colonialism, imperialism, conquering, etc. this geographically based social infrastructure grows out of its space of “rightful” ownership, expanding its power over subjects and land who were not originally implicated in the nation (which is often felt when, for example, a new culture that is geographically situated to a certain space is either forced upon a new group who it does not suit, or becomes the barrier of entry to a desired standard of living or certain privileges) (it should also be noted that this effect is extra strange in America— a country which fully rejects its Native Inhabitants as part of its nation, and only accepts immigrants, but only certain immigrants, and only under certain parameters). (Post)modern religion and nation are similar in this way. Of course, much has been written about the psychosocial effects of colonialism on the minds and cultures of the colonized (I remember reading a particularly fascinating essay on this topic, something like “the nuclear uncanny,” which examined the “uncanny” and spiral time in the Pacific islands affected by nuclear tests, of which there were many more besides just the Bikini Atoll, such at Moruroa and Fangataufa, which were bombed by the French through the 90s)— but in a contemporary world of “soft” colonialism where the government chiefly colonizes through cultural exporting, missionary work, and clever investments (and secret CIA operations), and no longer claims “colonies” or “divine right,” and in fact denies, lies, obfuscates, and distracts more than they tell the truth (do you see how this brings us back to Society of the Spectacle?), what is the effect on the nation-instinct (and religion-instinct) of the home-country and home-society? America has always been bigger than it should be (stolen land, manifest destiny), and yet even still it outgrows its britches. It flaunts military power in the Middle East, South America, and Asia (to say the least), believing it can control (and should and does control) the whole world. Yet it also claims that is doesn't control the world, and that it recognizes the sovereignty of other nations, of the rest of the world. In fact, America DENIES the control we can see with our own eyes. Ironically, America is increasingly multicultural DUE TO this colonialism, which creates a multicultural home country through importing global foods, and causing global immigration into the center of the empire (USA), where it sometimes seems the world is safe from the power of the empire itself (this is a misconception). How does this postmodernism, which both claims and flaunts power and denies it, which both discourages immigration and is based on it, etc, and the cognitive dissonance it precipitates, affect the religion, society, and culture of the individuals within the colonizing nation? I do believe the culture war and the new age religions of today give us some insight into this.

  
  

  Well, at the risk of going on too long, I will say that these are the things I was hoping to explore with a philosophy degree. But, I have very little philosophy training. Formally, I have received training on ethics (although I do still tend to lean towards utilitarianism, so I guess I’m bad at it), and I spent about 1.5 years studying Determinism specifically. Outside of that, I read a lot of continental philosophy, but just for fun and personal interest. Because I'm not trained in philosophy I wanted to publish some writing before applying to school, as this would have given me a leg up in applications. I wanted to do some living, for wisdom’s sake. Additionally, I wanted to study some philosophy on my own time. I felt that I would be out of my depth in grad school, and I wanted to get a head start. All this to say— I was reading Society of the Spectacle.

  
  

  Well, after finishing the book, I essentially decided to not go to school for philosophy. But— why? Well, it was really the last chapter that helped me to gather my thoughts. But let me provide some context.

  
  

  Why I Lay Awake at Night; Surrealism: The Compromise: My Theory of Social Movements

  
  

  You see, I’ve always had issues deciding “what I want to do.” Part of this is the fact that I’m inherently routine-adverse. I don’t like to wake up and have specific tasks to do in a specific order. I like to be free, and nothing feels as coercive and oppressive as the horror of a “job” to me. A job is NOT the same as a career, or work. In fact, I actually LOVE to work, and I’m a bit of a workaholic at times (just last night my roommate was just commenting about how she never sees me because I'm always working, and apparently my other friends were saying the same). I certainly structure my life around my career, which is mostly in arts producing, but this career is… not remotely lucrative. That’s actually by design. Remember how earlier I mentioned that I lean towards utilitarianism? Well, call it Catholic-guilt, call it moral OCD, but I have a debilitating struggle with the search for the ethical life. I find money to be intensely corrupting of the arts, not necessarily because of the money itself, but from the pressure exerted by mainstream producers. So, I’ve avoided entering any kind of lucrative field that could choke my art. Additionally, I find the art world itself, even the more boheme strains, to be overrun with commentary that is “lost in the sauce” or “insisting upon itself.” I don't have a problem with self critical art, or self critical art criticizing self critical art, but I have a problem with the importance at which it holds itself, and the distance it holds from reality. You see, the art world is just another space where the spectacle runs rampant. There is this idea that “everything has been done” (and in fact I wrote a play about this topic), and there’s this anxiety over originality (leading to self-critical work such as Warhol’s screen-prints, and self-critical of self-critical work, like anything by the sewer demon that is KAWS). There is also this thought that society, and the art world, have progressed so much further than they truly have. Now don’t get me wrong, We Have Progressed! The stance of women, black folks, and queer folks (as just a few examples) is significantly better than it was in even just the 1970s, when contemporary art “began” (although, it’s 2025 guys, shouldn’t we move the cut-off to the 80s now?). But, and I hope this goes without saying, we have not progressed ENOUGH. Just because we had the Guerilla Girls doesn’t mean sexism in the art world has been solved. And yet, there is this fear within the art world that there’s somehow nothing left to do, or that it’s useless to keep revisiting certain themes and symbols because they have become overdone. To an extent I understand why people feel this way. If you are in the art world you see way more art than your average person does, and you may see more cutting edge or "trendy" stuff— so naturally things feel passé earlier to you than the average person. But those in the art world forget that they exist within a subculture (or a superculture?), where standards  are different from the mainstream world. Even within the art world there is great variance of those standards, and of what topics people are educated on. In reality, discrimination is not a trendy theme, and talking about and making art about it is only the first step in eliminating it. Discrimination in the art world will not disappear until discrimination disappears in our broader society, as the art world is an expression of the broader world. This is true despite the fact that the art world may be open to engaging with a wider range of perspectives than the rest of the world. The art world is still largely based on the art market. Those controlling the market (buyers and auction houses, blue chip galleries, etc) still continue to reflect the values of a WASP 1% (Again, I’m speaking to America here. Other countries are obviously not necessarily prioritizing WASPs). Only those privileged and lucky enough to penetrate this market have their voices amplified, and are able to meaningfully participate in the art world. And so while the art world may have made some progress, and may be open to hearing a variety of perspectives, the basic structure of the art world, and thus its inherent discrimination, has stayed the same (and probably will continue to stay the same as long as the "art world" as we currently know it continues to exist). 

  
  

  The reality behind this over-projected sense of progress and moral and intellectual superiority is that even the most basic criticisms of the art world presented in dadaism, and brought to the forefront with mediums like performance, have gone unaddressed. This relates to my theory of social movements, which is quite straightforward, but which I may expand on in another essay, if you all wish. 

  
  

  Dada emerged at a point in history where radicalism was desperately needed. It is clear the society of the early 1900s, bloated and misshapen from years of industry, invention, colonialism, and demographic shifts, was unsustainable and could only bring massive changes. Dada was a radical movement, in that it aimed to confront the last few centuries of rationalism spurred by the enlightenment, and it aimed to do this by upsetting the bourgeoise art world. The methods and philosophy of Dada can be viewed as challenging rationality and technology as human interpretations of a world that is filled to the brim with irrationality and unpredictability. Art is a tool of The Spectacle, so we can think of Dada, which is an anti-art movement, as attempting to challenge, even shatter, the Spectacle itself. However, as more became interested in these bold new art movements (which had started with realism, then impressionism), the few eccentric minds to whom Dada appealed were overwhelmed by others. Now, I’m about to say something controversial, but I believe surrealism was the less-radical follow-up to Dada. Surrealism was the art world’s compromise: and I’m saying this as someone who loves surrealism! It maintained certain radical ideas introduced through Dada (incomprehensible images, intuition), and grounded them into a sense of humanness through dreams. It also grounded these ideas into a sense of science and progress, as the early surrealists were inspired by the psychological, scientific~ theories of Sigmund Freud, especially The Interpretation of Dreams. Now, surrealism still has radical strains, and I’m glad the movement happened, but gradually the radical vision of Dada was drowned out by this more agreeable, human trend: favorable to both the radicals and moderates, and a compromise for both. 

  
  

  My theory of social movements is 1. Introduction through ideas, usually on a small scale 2. Implementation through action, formation of more radical ideas, both on a small scale 3. Wider society catches wind of this as a trend, more people become involved in the movement 4. Trend-chasers, not radicals, become reactionary to the most extreme ideas, forcing the radicals into a defensive position within their own movement. Sometimes, this also causes a conservative wave that is riled up by discussion of extreme ideas and growing numbers in the movement. 5. Due to reactionaries and trend-chasers, the movement undergoes a series of compromises, usually watering down its messaging and lowering the bar for success. This theory is clearly evident in anti-art movements such as Dada, and Punk. It is also evident revolutions such as the French Revolution, and the Chinese Communist Revolution. I have also seen some black thinkers, particularly those within the far left, express critiques indicating this is true of the Black Lives Matter movement (I want to note it has been about 2 years since I've engaged with thinkers on this topic. I'm glad to pull sources to demonstrate this, but it will take me a while to do so, and so I'm not prepared to link an example at this very moment. If any of you want further validation of this, or any of the above claims, let me know)

  
  

  I’m sure anyone who has studied social movements at all has observed this pattern, and I’m sure I’m not the first person to put it onto paper (although I personally don’t know of any scholars who have). And so, the radical changes the art world so desperately craved, and still requires, have not fully come to pass— at least, not within the actual art world. While there are ways and even spaces to engage in truly boundary pushing, experimental, radical art, none of these ways are lucrative. And despite this, the art world itself continues to reference these radical movements, and radical artists, as if the fight has been won. It is an almost ridiculously naive view— that the art world really has progressed, and is only continuing to move forward (...towards what?). It insists that not only is it solving the issues within, being self-critical and all, it also has the capability to solve issues OUTSIDE of the art world.

  
  

  The Empty Promise of the Nonprofit Industrial Complex

  
  

  So I already said I wasn’t formally trained in philosophy, and although I am an artist and I have been exhibiting for a few years, and producing various things for many more, those are also not fields I’m formally trained in (kind of). In fact, all of my formal training comes from the fields of nonprofit work and grassroots organizing. So then why is that not “what I want to do?” Well, once again we return to utilitarianism and my concern over an ethical life. After spending several years working across multiple departments in multiple nonprofits I landed a position that included tasks such as occasionally grovelling to the ultra-wealthy so that they might donate money to our organization. At another job I was tasked with organizing donations from corporations. I became acutely aware that the system nonprofits exist in is one of paternalism, greedy companies and individuals, and inequality. Nonprofits, despite their claims otherwise, can never upend this system. They can never meaningfully change it. Nonprofits require this system to exist. Nonprofits are an arm of this system. 

  
  

  I want to be clear: I don’t think all nonprofits are bad. They do serve a purpose in our society and they help many people who need it at the moment. I am not going to destroy the system tomorrow, and as long as it exists, I would rather there be structures available to help one another. Nonetheless… I couldn’t stand feeling like I was an agent of the system, and so I decided to leave it. It was at this point that, having explored and discarded so many career paths, I decided to focus on studying philosophy. I knew philosophy was a broad degree and that I could use it in almost any way. I had hoped that through philosophy I might find a route towards not just an ethical life, but an answer to the many questions I had about society. 

  
  

  Society of the Spectacle answered many of these questions, and helped me to put into words the many concerns and frustrations I had over the art world, the cycle of social movements, nonprofits, and even philosophy. I had this realization specifically while reading the last chapter of the book, Chapter 9. I don’t feel like coming up with my own summary right now, so we’ll use this one for context:

  
  

                “In the final chapter Guy Debord somewhat playfully explains how personal and 

  cultural ideology is the foundation of human thought even though ideological 

  facts are not true fact. Ideological facts are stories, knowledge, and 

  experiences that are shared by certain ideologies but are either unprovable or 

  factually untrue. These ideological facts can dramatically affect education and 

  the future generations in a society. Ideology gains legitimacy with victories in 

  art, culture, and science. Once ideological facts claim victory, the ideology 

  mixes into society and erases its historical origins. Debord explains how 

  ideologies are short-lived, with their competition being marked by their 

  dissolving into society and culture. Debord theorizes that the spectacle is 

  ideology that has risen above all the rest. Unlike other ideologies that get 

  absorbed into society, it is able to remain separated and by staying separated 

  remains valid.

  
  

  Debord discusses how the modern political and economical culture is designed to produce a single need. The singular need it aims to isolate is money. In the modern political economy, money is the only need. Individual people within the society of the spectacle become isolated from one another. Their isolation becomes complete and is intensified by commercialism and images that the spectacle continues to bombard the isolated person with. This bombardment makes the person feel all the more desperate.

  
  
  

  Guy Debord holds the opinion that the spectacle eliminates lived experiences from human life by placing people in a never-ending cycle of appearances. He states that the spectacle alienates people from themselves and others around them. People can relate to one another through the spectacular images that are thrust on society. Debord explains how modern society does not know its own identity because the spectacle has permeated all aspects of people's lives. Debord predicts that the spectacle can drive people who either support or oppose the spectacle to experience mental health issues. He believes that mental health ailments like anxiety and depression will continue to increase as the spectacle causes people to feel that they need to keep up.

  
  
  

  Debord posits that the solution to the grip of the spectacle is true democracy. If the individual people within a society have a direct say, they can begin to remove the veil that has covered their eyes for decades. Once the spectacle is revealed for what it really is, people can begin to make their own choice and live life based on their own personal desires and not the desires that the spectacle has thrust on people.”

  (https://www.coursehero.com/lit/Society-of-the-Spectacle/chapter-9-summary/)

  
  

  The Enlightenment, Pol Pot, Ideas Don't Change the World

  Society of the Spectacle describes the failed nature of all ideology besides the spectacle, which we can view as an ideology that believes representation, repackaging, and presentation of the world IS the world. I think it is quite clear to see how this view of reality relates to me being disillusioned from the art world (and the world at large). Believe it or not, this view was similar to my personal understanding of the world and society prior to reading Society of the Spectacle (although Debord’s idea is certainly more developed). I formed my ideas largely through watching the rise of the culture war, political state of America, social media, and work culture.

  
  

  I actually need to make art. I am lucky enough to have avoided my artistic desires being clouded by the Spectacle. On a fundamental level I need to communicate with others and express myself through various mediums. This is not the spectacle, this is reality. However, the spectacle comes into play with the influence and pressure of magazines, newsletters, articles, research, buying and selling, and above all MONEY. This is all aka the art world. Interestingly, even the moniker “art world” makes it clear that this is a separate reality, although claiming to have influence over the true reality. The spectacle comes to play with how the infrastructure of society interacts with my individual and intrinsic tendency towards communication and expression. Likewise, philosophy falls into the same trap as, to reference an earlier point, becoming “lost in the sauce.” Now it should be noted that having dense, academic conversations brimming with jargon and hyper niche in-fighting can serve a purpose. It's often a good intellectual exercise, and more importantly: it can be really, really fun! But, philosophy, even more so than art, claims to not just hold the key to reality and truth— it claims to be a driving cause of realizing, manifesting that truth. Let's look at the enlightenment. These thinkers did not claim to be changing the fundamental nature of the world, they were claiming to break invisible, and in fact, non-existent chains that society believed had been forced upon it, emperor's new robe style. To quote Hamilton “raise a glass to freedom, something they can never take away, no matter what they tell you.” Okay sorry to quote Hamilton, BUT this demonstrates my point exactly. The enlightenment (which the American Revolution is thought to be a direct result of), and by extension the philosophical thinkers of that movement / related ideologies, claimed that the world they believed in IS the actual world, and that the ideologies which exert control (for example, monarchism / “the divine right”) are fiction. Now I'm not here to argue that the enlightenment was a bad movement, or really to make any specific claims for or against it, I simply bring it up to communicate my point that philosophy claims to know the true world, which is hidden from the rest of us, and it claims that knowledge of the the true world will deliver it to us. Yet, philosophy does NOT know the true world. First of all, because philosophers are overwhelmingly nerds, conversations quickly devolve into becoming “lost in the sauce,” leading to discussions that have either no affect on the world, that debate over actions that are functionally the same, or debates + passionate supporting of actions (or ideas!) that would ultimately have deleterious effects because they are determined in a facsimile of the world, an invented world that is the philosopher’s playground, but which can never exist due to people's unpredictable nature. Second of all, as the summary of Debord describes above, philosophy is a series of ideologies, which cannot live indefinitely AND maintain their integrity. If we look at an extreme example of political philosophy, say the Khmer Rouge aka Pol Pot’s regime, we see what I am talking about. The reason why Pol Pot’s regime became so destructive and evil was because it believed in an ideology more valuable and more true than the actual world. Pol Pot wanted to completely destroy and restart Cambodian society and human psychological evolution. His ideology took precedence over the existing world, and he was willing to do anything to cut the world into the shape of his ideology. Like I said, this is an extreme example, and most ideologies are not structured in a way that leads to genocide. However, this extreme example clearly demonstrates a pattern that is usually too subtle to notice. This pattern is that of thinkers who spend too much time in philosophy, who become dazzled by the Spectacle in the form of the representation of the world in philosophy; They then create an ideology based on representation, that they attempt to fit onto the world, thus constricting their reality, rather than allowing the world to naturally develop their understanding of it. The belief that either the ideology is reality, or that reality can be affected by (made to fit) the ideology is damaging. One, it can lead to improper and ultimately deleterious actions being taken against the world, although that is not always the result. Two, it leads to intense discussion about a world that does not exist. Thus, it prevents actual work against the Spectacle, and within actual, tangible reality.

  
  

  So what exactly is the point of everything I've just written? So many of the strains of thinking and methodology in our world— the art world, nonprofits, philosophy— are bankrupt in their standard forms. Due to the need of money created by the Spectacle, these fields have become absorbed into the Spectacle too (one may even say they were always part of it). Because of this, art and philosophy cannot change the world— at least, not directly. They can perhaps change the Spectacle, which has effects on society. Ideas can also inspire genuine, individual action. But of course, the idea is not the action, the action is the action. And ideas is where art and philosophy usually stop. 

  
  

  Now, some people choose to live without confronting Spectacle. And this is ideal for leading a life. The Spectacle wants you to choose it. It's the straightforward path in our society; and in fact, the spectacle may reward you for choosing it. Interestingly, I created an artwork loosely based on this idea about a year or two ago, before reading Society of the Spectacle— just another example of how I had similar ideas to Debord, but he allowed me to develop the ideas further and put them into words. The artwork was called “Just Stand There and Wait” and it was an interactive altar based on the worship of microwaves, which represented convenience, and dissociation from the means of production. In the religion I created, you were rewarded by the Sacred Microwave for giving yourself fully over to 1. Convenience 2. Sacrifice 3. Dissociation / alienation 4. Worship 5. Control. I digress, while I sense a personal frustration with those who choose the Spectacle (in this case when I say choose I mean choose to live in willful ignorance of it, and make no efforts to lessen its reach. I understand none of us can fully escape it), and I feel a general alienation from other people and the world due to this, I try to keep my bitterness to myself. Living is hard and I understand why people feel forced to choose the Spectacle. After all, I have a social media addiction, so really who am I to judge? But, I am concerned with the ethical life, and I still lean towards utilitarianism. I cannot stand working within the Spectacle knowing it will never be enough to reach the actual world. If ideas cannot change the world in the tangible way I want them to, if philosophy and art does not amount to “being enough” of a causal force, and thus cannot be justified as ethical areas in which to dedicate my life, then what can I do? Well, I must fully reject the obsession with ideas, and live within actions. Additionally, I must attempt to live within actions that operate OUTSIDE OF the Spectacle. If we look at the government as being hyperreal, a group of people referencing power and control and nation and governance endlessly (people consciously acting like the guards in the Stanford Prison Experiment), and the subjects of that government responding in accordance to this posturing, then you cannot work with reality AND with or through the government. If you attempt to work through the government, your actions and goals will be hopelessly distorted by a hyperreal entity, and the Spectacle, which dictates the government just as it does the rest of the world. You must take actions outside of the government. This does not necessarily equate to illegal actions, in fact, what if often equates to is what I would call “alternative” structures based on mutual aid. For example, those who used their private helicopters to rescue stranded people in North Carolina in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene. That is an excellent example of an alternative structure; it’s also direct action, which is nice. I feel as though I’ve often struggled with feeling as like the only good action is direct action, despite the knowledge that direct action is only one of many necessary methods to exert change. But when I see people suffering, I feel the need to address that directly and immediately. I usually feel shy about my “activism,” “political work,” “community organizing,” “mutual aid initiatives” or whatever else you might call it. Because of my extreme concern regarding the ethical life, I fear full-chest bringing my opinions and methods into the public light, only to then inadvertently cause more harm, or lose faith in whatever method I was using (as we have established happens all the time). However, as I have come to realize that ideas will never been enough, I have made more of an effort to bring myself into the public and start building alternative structures. Despite my training literally being in grassroots organizing, my eccentricities have made it difficult to fully apply my training, and I have buried my nose in research instead. But I recognize this as cowardice and unwarranted self-consciousness. As a result the alternative structures I have started building so far have been pretty straightforward ones, fundraising for mutual aid, and some boots on the ground volunteering. Ultimately, I hope to spend more time in my body, and in the world itself, listening to it and responding accordingly, instead of allowing myself to be fooled by the Spectacle. With enough work on alternative structures, I may hopefully provide at least some people with the option to live in actual reality and freedom, as opposed to being fully constricted by the Spectacle. I hope you all will join me in building alternative structures based on compassion, freedom, and joy. Together, we might create a more beautiful, free, and true world.