"It is possible to see one crucial aspect of modernity as an ongoing crisis of attentiveness, in which the changing configurations of capitalism continually push attention and distraction to new limits and thresholds...
...with an endless sequence of new products, sources of stimulation, and streams of information, and then respond with new methods of managing and regulating perception"
"We are not addicted to devices […] we are addicted to one another, to the affirmation of our value—our very being—that comes from other human beings. We are addicted to being validated by our peers.”
""I like this way of thinking about attention, not as a possession in limited supply, theoretically quantifiable, and ready to be exploited, but rather as a capacity to actively engage the world—to stretch ourselves toward it, to reach for it, to care for it, indeed, to tend it."
One thing I value so much about @LMSacasas's writing is that he is always curating a conversation of thinkers living and dead. This piece coheres into a particularly rich and lovely salon.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Assuming those pushing the corporate greed story also believe corporations were greedy in 2017, is the idea that something about the pandemic gave corporations way more pricing power with which to deploy their greed?
One problem that feels irresolvable to me is that we need to talk about the groups doing things but those groups are rarely well coordinated, and often not even groups.
I feel like the best retort now to anything I write is: Who do you mean by Democrats/Republican/the left/the right/the media/the public health community/VCs etc
Parties and traditional media are a lot weaker than they once were. A lot of narrativizing comes from scans of social media sentiment, where you can identify the faction pushing a view, but that faction may not represent the broader group, or be internally organized
I'll give an example: MMTers really like the Keynes quote "anything we can actually do, we can afford."
Their critics say: It's a Keynes quote! So it's something the Keynesians knew.
But in years of reporting with Keynesian economists, it is definitely not how they talked.
There was *far* more discussion in the 2010s of debt-to-GDP ratios and Reinhart/Rogoff than of the real productive limits of the economy, and where we were in relation to them.