Very interesting conversation. I’m not sure whether a “new romanticism” exists or not, but it was a useful frame to guide the discussion. I feel like you all were really talking about two things: 1) the interest in manifestation, astrology, occult, etc. and 2) the medium in which cultural discourse is happening (substack, revival of small lit mags). One article that might be useful in this discussion is the essay that Sam Kriss wrote about tarot for Justin Smith Ruiu’s substack. It was my introduction to Kriss and at the time, I never would have given the time of day to an essay on tarot. But it had the JSR stamp of approval, so I gave it a shot, and it’s a fantastic essay. This is the piece:
I normally shy away from podcasts. I don't like hearing all the ums and ahs and people talking over each other. But damn, you gentlemen know how to speak. Great congenial conversation, a lot to think about. I'm left feeling optimistic, not a familiar feeling for me. I also like the refreshing tentativeness of the assertions made. No bloviation blues! Well done!
I think it's interesting what you guys were saying about there no longer being a new-atheist type movement that is a correction on current folk mythology like the Secret. Does this have anything to do with the rise of Critical Social Justice (i.e., wokeness) as a driving force behind current elite thought? Because back in the heyday of new-atheism, elites were more likely to be guided by some version of physicalism. If they incorporated values it was usually something like humanism, and usually with less emphasis anyway.
While academics like this still exist, of course, the new intellectuals (especially younger ones) may still be atheists, but their values are more likely to draw from Critical Social Justice (CSJ) - which I'd guess in many cases supervenes over any beliefs they have about atheism/physicalism.
In other words if their belief system includes questionable assumptions already that are often accepted with little or no argument (as is the case with CSJ) then that might make them less interested in being militant about targeting stuff like the Secret.
What's fascinating are the people who were once militant atheists and are now preaching CSJ, like PZ Meyers. Actually, you guys should do an episode on PZ...
That's an interesting theory. There does seem a way in which the aggressive rationalism of the new atheism is out of step with contemporary progressive politics. Also some of those guys, specifically, are in bad favor on the left right now. Don't know much about PZ Meyers.
Some second thoughts: I’m no DEI girlie, but I was gagged when, trying to identify the great romantic artists of our time, you failed to name the tortured poet superstar John mentioned in his Shelley lecture. She hasn’t exactly been subtle about her aspirations either. A bonus track on her folklore album entitled “the lakes” contains the lines “I’ve come too far to let a name-dropping sleaze / Tell me what are my Wordsworth”. You may not think that this is very good romantic poetry, but that just proves how successful this queen of mid has been in manifesting herself as a global icon. Now what can be more romantic than that?
(Also, mentioning Oppenheimer but not Barbie when discussing romanticism? Who dreamt of a pink utopia?)
Fair critiques all! I have actually not seen Barbie nor listened to too much of our global queen, but in the pop music realm both Lana and Ethel Cain were names that came to me in my inevitable post-podcast esprit d'escalier. "Blessed be the daughters of Cain," Ethel sings on her Gothic album Preacher's Daughter, consciously joining the devil's party with Blake and Shelley. Also, cinematically speaking, I can't believe I forgot to mention Poor Things, with its own visionary post-woke porno-Romantic ultra-individualist spin on the Frankenstein mythos.
With her spreadsheets, Aella is the climax, so to speak, of the Enlightenment, Newton's post-coital sleep, while Bella represents the Romantic revolution in her errant pursuit of free love.
Very interesting conversation. I’m not sure whether a “new romanticism” exists or not, but it was a useful frame to guide the discussion. I feel like you all were really talking about two things: 1) the interest in manifestation, astrology, occult, etc. and 2) the medium in which cultural discourse is happening (substack, revival of small lit mags). One article that might be useful in this discussion is the essay that Sam Kriss wrote about tarot for Justin Smith Ruiu’s substack. It was my introduction to Kriss and at the time, I never would have given the time of day to an essay on tarot. But it had the JSR stamp of approval, so I gave it a shot, and it’s a fantastic essay. This is the piece:
https://www.the-hinternet.com/p/the-roaring-of-things-a-guest-essay
I normally shy away from podcasts. I don't like hearing all the ums and ahs and people talking over each other. But damn, you gentlemen know how to speak. Great congenial conversation, a lot to think about. I'm left feeling optimistic, not a familiar feeling for me. I also like the refreshing tentativeness of the assertions made. No bloviation blues! Well done!
thank you! I've tried to work on the 'ums' over the years. It came with practice and doing a fair amount of these. I try to talk slower.
Yeah the talking slow thing is key. Still working on it but making progress. Also Descript makes it staggeringly easy to edit out my ums and ahs, etc
I think it's interesting what you guys were saying about there no longer being a new-atheist type movement that is a correction on current folk mythology like the Secret. Does this have anything to do with the rise of Critical Social Justice (i.e., wokeness) as a driving force behind current elite thought? Because back in the heyday of new-atheism, elites were more likely to be guided by some version of physicalism. If they incorporated values it was usually something like humanism, and usually with less emphasis anyway.
While academics like this still exist, of course, the new intellectuals (especially younger ones) may still be atheists, but their values are more likely to draw from Critical Social Justice (CSJ) - which I'd guess in many cases supervenes over any beliefs they have about atheism/physicalism.
In other words if their belief system includes questionable assumptions already that are often accepted with little or no argument (as is the case with CSJ) then that might make them less interested in being militant about targeting stuff like the Secret.
What's fascinating are the people who were once militant atheists and are now preaching CSJ, like PZ Meyers. Actually, you guys should do an episode on PZ...
That's an interesting theory. There does seem a way in which the aggressive rationalism of the new atheism is out of step with contemporary progressive politics. Also some of those guys, specifically, are in bad favor on the left right now. Don't know much about PZ Meyers.
Excellent conversation! My favourite part was John being mistaken for a Christian!
Some second thoughts: I’m no DEI girlie, but I was gagged when, trying to identify the great romantic artists of our time, you failed to name the tortured poet superstar John mentioned in his Shelley lecture. She hasn’t exactly been subtle about her aspirations either. A bonus track on her folklore album entitled “the lakes” contains the lines “I’ve come too far to let a name-dropping sleaze / Tell me what are my Wordsworth”. You may not think that this is very good romantic poetry, but that just proves how successful this queen of mid has been in manifesting herself as a global icon. Now what can be more romantic than that?
(Also, mentioning Oppenheimer but not Barbie when discussing romanticism? Who dreamt of a pink utopia?)
Fair critiques all! I have actually not seen Barbie nor listened to too much of our global queen, but in the pop music realm both Lana and Ethel Cain were names that came to me in my inevitable post-podcast esprit d'escalier. "Blessed be the daughters of Cain," Ethel sings on her Gothic album Preacher's Daughter, consciously joining the devil's party with Blake and Shelley. Also, cinematically speaking, I can't believe I forgot to mention Poor Things, with its own visionary post-woke porno-Romantic ultra-individualist spin on the Frankenstein mythos.
Also relevant: https://x.com/nosilverv/status/1763569417294651899?s=20
With her spreadsheets, Aella is the climax, so to speak, of the Enlightenment, Newton's post-coital sleep, while Bella represents the Romantic revolution in her errant pursuit of free love.
Cherchez la femme…
I plead innocent on the grounds that I still don’t quite understand what the term means. John and Ross, however, fully deserve your critique.