Shownotes
In der heutigen Folge spricht Jan-Paul mit Erik Cason über “Die Frage nach Bitcoin”, einem Essay aus Erik’s im Sommer erscheinenden Buch “Cryptosovereignty”, in dem Erik Bitcoin entlang von Martin Heidegger’s Technikphilosophie untersucht.
Von und mit Jan-Paul, und Erik Cason.
Hier könnt ihr uns eine Spende über Lightning da lassen: ⚡️ tip@tip.nodesignal.space
Wenn euch unsere Arbeit gefällt, könnt ihr unsere Folgen auch auf Podcasting 2.0 Plattformen, wie Breez, Fountain oder Castamatic hören und uns so eine kleine Aufmerksamkeit da lassen. Danke an alle, die die Bitcoin Community mit ihren Spenden unterstützen! Mit diesen Spenden wird unter anderem unser Bounty Programm verwirklicht, in dem ihr euch für die Mitarbeit an einem Projekt eine Belohnung sichern könnt.
————–
- Blockzeit: 789257
- Nodesignal-Talk – E110 – Was ist Bitcoin? Mit Ijoma Mangold
- Heidegger, Die Frage nach der Technik
- Heidegger’sche Begriffe erläutert: Terminologie Heideggers
- Erik Cason, The Question Concerning Bitcoin
- Giorgio Agamben, Homo sacer
- Giorgio Agamben, Das Sakrament der Sprache: Eine Ärchäologie des Eides
- Emanuel Levinas, Die Spur des Anderen
- Emanuel Levinas, Totalität und Unendlichkeit
- Friedrich Hölderlin, Patmos (Wo aber Gefahr ist, wächst / Das Rettende auch.“
————–
Für Feedback und weitergehenden Diskussionen kommt gerne in die Telegramgruppe von Nodesignal und bewertet uns bei Spotify und Apple Podcasts. Folgt uns auch gerne bei Twitter.
Transkript
Jan-Paul:
So what I was saying is, there’s two sides to it, right? On the one hand, of course you’re missing out and my go-to example is always Das Gestell in Heidegger, you know, the in-framing.
erik cason:
Yes.
Jan-Paul:
And I think the in-framing, I’m not sure if there’s a better translation for Das Gestell, but the term stellen, it has so much more meaning in German. So like it’s vorstellen, like imagine something. That’s what the… the guy who creates the chalice does, right? He imagines the chalice and then that’s what he’s building and he’s hair-stellen, he’s producing it. So just two examples of what I think is missing if you don’t read Heidegger in German. But on the other hand, he’s really hard to read because of the, you know, he’s so keen on etymology, right? Like… finding the true meaning of the words, going back to the ancient Greeks and seeing, okay, what did they think about this term and what did it really mean? But that makes it really hard to understand and to read in German. But
erik cason:
Absolutely.
Jan-Paul:
if you have a translator, he helps you interpreting Heidegger because he gives you an interpretation, right? So I think it’s
erik cason:
Um…
Jan-Paul:
kind of nice to have to read him in English or in help starting to read Heidegger and understand Heidegger.
erik cason:
Well, it’s interesting because like this is sort of, and with him going back to the ancient Greeks, he has to make the same step that we have to make. And in
Jan-Paul:
Mm-hmm.
erik cason:
a lot of ways that actually does allow for sort of a triangulation that’s really helpful.
Jan-Paul:
Okay.
erik cason:
And that ties to Bitcoin really well because we’re doing that triangulation now using essentially cryptographic etymology that now speaks in a language that we can understand. and we can read yet we can’t speak, and that through that new and different understanding, there’s almost a higher resolution language that we have specifically around value.
Jan-Paul:
And that’s, to be honest, that’s one of the points where I’m still struggling to really understand what you’re getting at. So I’m really happy to have you on today and to ask you what you actually mean. But maybe it’s better to start with a short introduction. I’m not sure how familiar you are with our German listeners, so maybe can you just quickly introduce yourself. Eric, who are you?
erik cason:
Sure. My name is Eric Kasin. I’ve been involved with Bitcoin since 2012. I was at Coinbase from 2013 to 2017 and then at Unchained Capital for a year. I’m well known. I have a blog called Crypto Sovereignty where I try to explore more of the philosophical aspects of Bitcoin, which has, I wrote an article called The Question Concerning Bitcoin, which is modeled off of Heidegger’s essay The Question Concerning Technology. And so we’re having a dialogue about that, which is really exciting because that’s sort of almost the conclusion of sort of my first leg of work that’s been over the last 10 years. That’s now stepping into the second leg, which is really going to be about modeling Heidegger’s idea of being through actually really Alexander Dugan’s idea of the fourth political theory, but utilizing essentially the Internet. And we’re the first peoples of the internet that can utilize this technology to introduce a new form of the political, which is essentially the destiny of humanity in the technological age in my opinion.
Jan-Paul:
Okay, so that’s the second step or the next step, but let’s do the first step first, right?
erik cason:
Yeah.
Jan-Paul:
So you are about to publish a book, right, called Crypto Sovereignty, which is actually a collection of your essays that you’ve written over the past years, right?
erik cason:
Yes.
Jan-Paul:
Yeah.
erik cason:
And through putting them together, I’ve realized that there’s, this is sort of a smattering of a constellation towards what I’m starting to call like a general theory of Bitcoin, which essentially is a philosophical approach to what is Bitcoin specifically in our age and how do we approach that through Heidegger’s idea of being? Like how does Bitcoin inflect upon the being of humanity and what does it mean for us as peoples that we now have? access to this form of self-sovereign technology.
Jan-Paul:
And you start, or maybe just to introduce, in the pre-phase of your book, luckily you sent me a copy or what is it? A pre-version
erik cason:
Uh,
Jan-Paul:
of, yeah.
erik cason:
yeah, it’s like a preliminary copy of like the edited copy. So thank you for tolerating my grammatical mistakes and whatnot.
Jan-Paul:
Okay, okay. And from the very start on, you point out that this book is about the question concerning Bitcoin.
erik cason:
Mm-hmm.
Jan-Paul:
But so all I did was I read the preface and then I straight went to the question concerning Bitcoin. And I discovered
erik cason:
Okay.
Jan-Paul:
that you are modeling this after Heidegger, which I really loved and appreciated. So I went back and read Heidegger. Yeah, more than one time now, especially his article, The Question Concerning Technology. And that’s, I would like to start with maybe with a quote, because you also start your article with a quote and you’re quoting Heidegger, right? The beginning of his lecture, which is called On the Question Concerning Technology. And he says, in what follows, we shall be questioning concerning technology. Questioning builds a way. We would be advised, therefore, above all to pay heed to the way and not to fix our attention on isolated sentences and topics. The way is a way of thinking. So I think maybe I can ask you what is meant by questioning as a way of thinking. How do you interpret that term of Heidegger?
erik cason:
Sure, and this is one of the places I’ve found Heidegger at first infuriating and now quite lovely is that he structures things on almost an encrypted method so that you have to meditate on them to really unravel what’s at the core of it. And I think to start with truly questioning what Bitcoin is, we have to ask, why is this necessary? Why do we need a digital money? And like what implications does that really have for us? And I think, and this is one of the reasons why podcasting and sort of the whole Bitcoin information sphere exists is that as we question more and more, we find it takes us deeper and deeper down this rabbit hole, as we call it. And this truly is the first step in understanding what Bitcoin is doing is just trying to think deeply and considerately about the question. of why do we need technology in order to implement a form of sound money in the world today? Because this unravels, you know, dozens of questions that can take us in all sorts of directions, whether that’s, you know, going to be philosophical, economic, social. And each one of these has legitimate areas of questioning that we need some degree of understanding in order to continue to graduate farther and farther down the rabbit hole, which I think once you get very deep down the rabbit hole. now very interesting ontological questions start to present themselves because you really understand what Bitcoin means. And so like, now that we have this encryption technology that the only way you can ever utilize it is through the private key, which we have proven methodologies for that this stuff, if it is legitimate cryptography, it should maintain its ability through, you know, into the deep future to not be hacked or modified or have the system change in a meaningful way. And now you can really open up to like, okay, so what does this mean for humanity? How does this change what it means to be a person? And I think very much in the same way that the introduction of the Guten printing press allowed for more people to read, which allowed for them to understand the Bible, which allowed for the advancement and the schism between Protestantism and Catholicism, Catholicism, which, you know. really was the birth of the enlightenment. And so we’re very much at a similar time today. And in this essay, what I’m really trying to hammer at is that Bitcoin is fundamentally about a way of thinking in the digital age that
Jan-Paul:
Mm-hmm.
erik cason:
allows us self sovereignty through cryptography. And that’s ultimately why my book is called Crypto Sovereignty and not maybe Bitcoin sovereignty or something is because of the specific form of sovereignty that is found in cryptographic. techniques
Jan-Paul:
Mm-hmm.
erik cason:
and the ability through that knowledge to perform a kind of self-sovereignty. And then within that, Bitcoin is really the first social contract that we have. And so I think that these are two issues that while being very closely related, I think it’s important to understand that differential.
Jan-Paul:
That goes already very, very deep. Let me try to get it on a little bit higher level because I always have to think about our listeners. They
erik cason:
Thank
Jan-Paul:
don’t have
erik cason:
you.
Jan-Paul:
the philosophical background. I think an easy way to understand this approach that Heidegger and you are choosing by questioning is to realize that if you ask something, if you ask about Bitcoin, if you ask Bitcoin then you don’t expand a truthful answer right now. It’s not we ask and then we get a statement back. That’s the old way of philosophy, or not the old way, but that was rational philosophy. So we have statements and there are categories and we structure them. And to understand maybe is if we question something, we are trying to approach it. Maybe we miss it. Maybe we get only a glimpse of it and then it goes. It evades us or something like that. Do you understand what I’m getting at? That’s
erik cason:
Yeah,
Jan-Paul:
my
erik cason:
yes.
Jan-Paul:
understanding of what questioning means in Heidegger’s sense.
erik cason:
Yeah, it’s mulling it over, going over it again and again, because maybe there’s something you missed the first time, maybe there, it’s almost a way that, like a good comparative is, if you’re an athlete of any sort, and the critiquing of your form of doing the same thing, whether it’s batting or kicking a ball or doing some sort of a technique, it’s pouring over it again and again and again, like how can I do this better? How can I improve?
Jan-Paul:
Oh yes.
erik cason:
What can make that better? And through this sort of line of questioning, it’s interesting because you sort of pull this thread that takes you farther and farther and farther. And I think the reason that there’s the last essay in the book is essentially the whole book goes through this thread pulling, whether it’s on a philosophical level, on an economic level, on a political level. And I think through that thread pulling, it’s very similar to Heidegger’s technique of questioning what is being, what is to exist, what is the meaning of that. And to me, as you pull that thread more and more, I think you actually come to one of the most important metaphysical conclusions that there can be, which is essentially what does the philosophical, almost imperialism of logic form itself as in the digital age? And like what is logic at its most true and deepest sense coming to itself and its home within humanity? And I think that logic only can take place in form through Bitcoin because of the promise that it is, the fairness that entails and the sort of artistry in which Satoshi presented it. So, and these are some of the details that I’ve been trying to flesh out in this essay,
Jan-Paul:
Mm.
erik cason:
because I really want to make it not just about Bitcoin, but it’s about the form of thought and logic that
Jan-Paul:
Mm-hmm.
erik cason:
takes us through to the conclusion of why it must be Bitcoin. and not necessarily something else or just a various smattering of techniques of crypto suites and systems.
Jan-Paul:
I think we’ve already touched a little bit on it, but I think what is really hard to understand and I would like to discuss with you is what is the role of language in technology? I think you pointed out that you had some points like you’re using cryptography. What is it and how does it tie in with language? Can you maybe elaborate a little bit on that?
erik cason:
Yeah, and it’s interesting you asked this because this is sort of the question that like shoved me into the rabbit hole. Was
Jan-Paul:
Yeah.
erik cason:
I, well, I had this really interesting thing. I was like, why is it that Bitcoin can like maintain its oath to this supply schedule and only having 21 million? And why is it that like when my Bitcoin is in my wallet encrypted with my private key that like nothing can break that? Like no matter how much military power. or strength or consideration,
Jan-Paul:
I don’t know.
erik cason:
there’s no
Jan-Paul:
I think I lost
erik cason:
way
Jan-Paul:
you, Eric.
erik cason:
to be able to bridge that gap to truly violate the oath that cryptography has to itself. And so I started to be like, so what’s happening in language when cryptography has this oath to itself? It must fulfill. And so I essentially that helped me discover Georgia Ambigan’s work. And he has a, it’s a section of the homo sacer series. That’s called the sacrament of language. Uh, is it, yeah, the sacrament of language, the archeology of the oath. And sort of in this, he makes the argument that like the oath is this sort of pre legal jurisdictional thing in language itself to make sure that language has the ability to actualize itself. that like the oath has nothing to do with language in any semantical sense. It has to do with the ability for that to force its actualization. And so for me, I was able to go, okay, so if cryptography through language itself and the ability of mathematics to make it really, really hard to, you know, reverse, to discover this number through reverse, that means it’s fulfilling an oath that’s something that no other, being on the planet can fulfill. And what does that actually mean for humanity that now there’s a form of linguistic liturgy that I can engage in that once it’s encrypted, it has the total assurance of that remaining a secret through the sacrosanct that the private key is. And
Jan-Paul:
Mm.
erik cason:
to me, this opened me up to seeing that there’s something truly unique and special that’s happening within this system. that humanity has never seen before. And it’s truly exceptional and important for that very reason and ability that it has to maintain its oath to its institution more than any other institution can do that.
Jan-Paul:
I have to admit that I had some trouble understanding the term oath because in my understanding an oath is something that I as a human can say, right? So I, I swear to very easily. I swear, Eric, I’ll pay you tomorrow. Right. That’s a very simple oath. But
erik cason:
Mm-hmm.
Jan-Paul:
the problem is, if I don’t pay you the money tomorrow, then my oath is not worth anything. And The challenge that I have is Bitcoin in that sense is a machine, right? It cannot say, okay, I’m not going to pay you. Once it’s committed to, I’m going to pay you, not that Bitcoin is going to pay something, but you understand what I’m getting at, right? Once
erik cason:
Mm-hmm.
Jan-Paul:
it’s committed to something, it cannot get out of it. It produces, as you say, it produces just these yes statements, right? It’s always yes. It’s a… I think Tomer Strollite put it very nicely when he said it’s a transaction verification machine. So you give some input, it says, okay, is this a true statement? Okay, it is. Happy. Good. Go on. What’s the next transaction? Let me check. So is oath really the good term or the right term here to use?
erik cason:
I think that’s a pretty fair argument, to be honest.
Jan-Paul:
Mm-hmm.
erik cason:
I’m like, I don’t know what other sort of linguistic, like what else we could use to describe it. Cause to me, it seems that through this ability only to say yes and to verify, it enters into the same realm of linguistics that within othing happens. And that
Jan-Paul:
Mm-hmm.
erik cason:
it demands its own actualization through what is within those statements and verification. So, Perhaps oath isn’t the best, but maybe there’s some great German term that I’m unaware of that might fit
Jan-Paul:
Maybe,
erik cason:
better.
Jan-Paul:
maybe.
erik cason:
But there’s something about its ability to maintain its allegiance to what it says it will do, and also relating that all the way back to Satoshi and how it was
Jan-Paul:
Mm-hmm.
erik cason:
originally created in its current form.
Jan-Paul:
Interesting. I think I have to think about it because it’s really hard to understand. You know, the oath, it sounds like an ancient term, right? That’s what the our ancestors did, right? They swore to a king and then if they didn’t follow the king, their heads were chopped off. But today, I mean, what is an oath worth today? And what I really like is to use the term oath with Bitcoin is here’s something that keeps its promises, right? It keeps its promises. It’s going to have only 21 million. It’s going to be censorship resistant. It’s going to be confiscation resistant. And that promise is going to stay true as long as we have Bitcoin for hopefully forever. So I’m,
erik cason:
Yeah,
Jan-Paul:
as you can see, there is,
erik cason:
and so like, is that
Jan-Paul:
yeah.
erik cason:
promise an oath or like, is it
Jan-Paul:
Yeah.
erik cason:
a demand or is it like an actualization or a decision? It’s really interesting because this is the sort of stuff that I really enjoy thinking about because
Jan-Paul:
Mm.
erik cason:
like in the same way, like we could also say Bitcoin is actually a decision, but like it’s a decision of self sovereignty. It’s a decision that is reserved only for individuals who choose to interact with the protocol in that specific way. And to me, that’s one of the places I’m critical of custodial ship is that you’re not engaging in the true form of knowledge that is Bitcoin. To me, that’s the biggest deal is the implications of that sort of power knowledge structure that Foucault would call it is that through the true understanding of how this works, you’re now a more powerful individual that can prove yourself sovereignty through this globalized digital tool of freedom.
Jan-Paul:
Let’s talk about the danger. That’s a very
erik cason:
Yeah.
Jan-Paul:
high degree term. He used it a lot. It comes up maybe to explain to our listeners in his later stage, right? It’s after being in time. And I think in the 30s and 40s, he discovers this, the turning and the terms of the danger. So maybe can you… explain a little bit what you took from Heidegger in this danger that is present to us right now. And maybe later we can talk about what Bitcoin can do at this point where we are right now.
erik cason:
Yeah, and so specifically the terms in framing, framing,
Jan-Paul:
Mm.
erik cason:
the danger and the saving power are all part of this, of late Heidegger and they’re featured in his question concerning technology. And so the idea of what in framing is, is this sort of core misunderstanding of the world of everything is sort of an economic module of standing in reserve. for people. So it’s almost, you know, and he uses a great example of like the Rhine is something to be dammed up to generate hydro power, you know, and us misinterpreting the world in this specific mode introduces the danger, which he’s always very elusive about the specific nature of the danger. But in those illusions, it’s pretty clear that like the danger is this misinterpretation. of what the fundamental nature of truth in the world is and this discrete misunderstanding of nature itself. And he’s also pedantic about, because this is from a Holdren poem where he says, and Heidegger very much used Holdren to help model some of his thoughts towards being. And he says that in the danger, the saving power grows. And so I think cryptography on a whole is like fundamentally a technique of war. And like it’s really interesting to like start this whole dialogue from a positioning of war and the tools that necessitate defending oneself inside of the context of war. And so really we can see Bitcoin in this huge overarching human development of it is a technique of war and an ability to keep something secret in light
Jan-Paul:
Mm-hmm.
erik cason:
of you know, the danger, the existential threat to human life itself, your ability to live.
Jan-Paul:
Mm-hmm.
erik cason:
And so like first I have to point out like, so what, what’s this relationship? Like, why is it that Bitcoin at its very core is using these techniques that are developed from war in order to keep information secret, to have an, an ACE, to have an asymmetric advantage in that war.
Jan-Paul:
Mm-hmm.
erik cason:
Like why, why, why is this going on? Like why couldn’t be a database or something else?
Jan-Paul:
Mm-hmm.
erik cason:
And so. Understanding that connection right there, I think, is extremely important because you understand Bitcoin was developed out of the need to understand the true existential danger that the state itself is.
Jan-Paul:
Mm-hmm.
erik cason:
And I think particularly Germans having a history with seeing what the Nazi regime did, there needs to be an understanding that that didn’t happen because there were just evil, maniacal people out in the world who wanted to destroy. but that like this is the very real danger that is introduced through the totality of what war is.
Jan-Paul:
Mm-hmm.
erik cason:
By war being an acceptable premise of human life, there is a possibility that you can become the enemy and you can be killed and you can be destroyed.
Jan-Paul:
Mm-hmm.
erik cason:
And to me, this is why Bitcoin is so important is because it becomes a fundamental technique. and understanding that existential danger and the way that through understanding Bitcoin and this technique, it offers a saving power, not just to a personal war that you could suffer under, but perhaps the possibility of all methods of war.
Jan-Paul:
Hmm.
erik cason:
And like this is now where we start to open ourselves up to some really dynamic and huge questions of if this is true and these techniques do operate as we understand them. What does it mean that humanity can now be unified by a single global digital censorship resistant network that promises the self sovereignty and assurances and guarantees of that network towards any individual user who can actually utilize it correctly?
Jan-Paul:
Hmm.
erik cason:
And that to me is the saving power that’s found inside of the danger, which is. why cryptography and the internet was developed, the way that surveillance techniques are used on the internet, and the very real potential to be captured in this panopticon that is gearing up in the digital age that we see
Jan-Paul:
Yeah.
erik cason:
surveillance agencies have.
Jan-Paul:
Just one thought that came while I read your essay, I don’t know if you have it actually in it, but you also talk about Carl Schmitt a little bit, right? And he famously coined the term that he is sovereign who decides on the exception, right? Something like that. Okay. So, and the sudden realization that I had, looking back at the past two, three years, that I’m not living in a state of exception is also, you know… that’s what the sovereign allows. He says, okay, right now you’re fine, we don’t need the exception, but always be aware, we can turn it around, so we can declare the exception situation. And that’s something where I thought, okay, that was for me helping to understand the danger that we are in. So in the state, in the… want to put it absolutely in the totalitarian state, right? There is the sovereign who decides on the exception. And right now, we are living in kind of, he lets us live, right? So but he’s tightening
erik cason:
Give us.
Jan-Paul:
in on us a little bit, right? He’s starting to introducing CBDCs and surveillance techniques. You’ve listed a bunch of those. So yeah, I think Heidegger has a point here, right? So we have to discover this. the danger in technology if we do not
erik cason:
Yes.
Jan-Paul:
reveal the true essence of technology, which is not to use nature as a stand-in reserve, but to use technology to reveal the world to us, to open fuses to us? Is it something like that?
erik cason:
Yeah, I think that’s quite eloquently put, is that that is the true essence of technology. It’s not to get all the standing reserve that really is the current form and structure of the internet and its corporatism,
Jan-Paul:
Mm-hmm.
erik cason:
but it’s actually to deepen our own relationship with other beings in humanity in order to open us up to the truth that language contains in it, you know? And to me, like, that’s one of the most fascinating things, is that, like, this all metaphysically aligns with the return to truth. from the age of Fiat. And it’s very important to understand that Fiat in Latin, it’s a declaration, it’s let it be done. And so it fundamentally is in opposition to the truth. And that’s why in crypto sovereignty, I cover a lot of Hobbes‘ idea of Leviathan and how in Hobbes‘ statecraft, he specifically says that authority specifically comes from It’s, it’s, auctoris not virtus fact legitimum, which means authority, not truth creates legitimacy. And it’s important to understand that like in our current age, like we’re so deep into that nihilism of authority that most people believe authority is truth. And so we live in a pretty inverted world. And so Bitcoin just through its introduction in our inverted world through its speaking it becomes
Jan-Paul:
Mm.
erik cason:
this monumental and fantastic power specifically found in the danger, which is the misinterpretation of language and us returning it to its original origin, which is to speak truth.
Jan-Paul:
Let’s put one more point to this, because I think that’s really important to understand and to understand your thinking and Heidegger’s thinking is we should not just think in terms of the technological aspects of Bitcoin, but it’s right. So we have to go. Is it beyond or beneath? No, it’s not. How do I start this? What I really liked about Heidegger’s approach is if we use technology like cryptography to create Bitcoin, what Bitcoin is, is not some truth in the sense that we understand truth today as something that is, you know, it’s far from us, right? We do not know the truth. And Heidegger turns it around and says, wait a minute. If we create something like Bitcoin or if we create some art, this is revealing something. It is revealing in the sense of it’s bringing forth something, bringing something into existence and thereby also revealing something about ourselves, maybe our relationship to the being that is there. So what I really want to point out, I don’t know how I get there, but this point of Do not think of Bitcoin as, oh, it’s just a bunch of code and that when it executes, then it produces these 21 million Bitcoins. No, that’s not true. We have to think about what’s, what, what, I have to say, what is the
erik cason:
Yeah,
Jan-Paul:
idea?
erik cason:
I-
Jan-Paul:
What is the essence of Bitcoin? What’s the nature of Bitcoin?
erik cason:
Yes, I really appreciate where you’re going because and and it’s only through this process of questioning it That
Jan-Paul:
Mm-hmm.
erik cason:
there starts to be an unveiling that you start to see beneath You know, is it just technology? Well, what is it when i’m in relationship with it? What does it mean to somebody who fled from ukraine and had some of their savings and Once you start really asking all these questions you go. Okay, so This is really about people and their relationship to forms of value in their current world Okay, what else is there for value? Oh, it’s this fiat thing. What does this mean? And so like it’s gathering and assembling all of these things to deepen the questions and to ask more and more So like what is the nature of these things? Why? Why is it interacting with us? Why is it? Changing us, you know And I think what’s even more interesting is a lot of people who have been involved deeply for a while They talk about how it starts to change and transform them because of being exposed to it and their relationship to it and what is asked of them through that. And to me, like, that’s one of the most interesting things currently for our people in our time is what, you know, Bitcoin isn’t assured now. It’s not out there in the world for everybody. So we’re almost given this very important and unique task to recognize what this technology means and to give it to other people and the promise that that opens us up to, you know, and this is where stuff really becomes. fascinating because not only are we returning to the truth in this very meaningful way, but we get to deliver that to other people in this nihilistic place that to me becomes a very deep spiritual mission and that like,
Jan-Paul:
Mm.
erik cason:
look, I get everything is screwed up and it looks like everyone’s trying to take advantage of you and nothing tells you the truth. But here is one thing that I can actually show you that will do those things if you’re open to it.
Jan-Paul:
Mm.
erik cason:
You know, and
Jan-Paul:
Mm.
erik cason:
yeah. meeting other people who get that is very personally transforming for me because of the way that it saved me from a very deep depression in nihilism, because I didn’t think there was any way to combat all of the bad in the world, which now I think Bitcoin truly can answer most of.
Jan-Paul:
So how do we overcome the urge to understand Bitcoin only as technology? And I would like to get to this, you know, the purpose of Bitcoin or the cause, the causa in Bitcoin. I think there is something very interesting in Heidegger in your essay.
erik cason:
Yeah, well, and I think first of all, I’m really excited to see that there’s all sorts of educational involvement with people in all sorts of different areas. And I think that that’s one of the most important things is like everyone is welcome in Bitcoin, even our enemies. Like
Jan-Paul:
Oh yeah.
erik cason:
that that’s part of its entire construct is that like this is something that is good for all people. And it doesn’t matter whatever allegiance they have. It is good for everyone to use Bitcoin. talking about how does it affect people? What does it call them to do? How does this actually change the structural relationship of humanity on a whole? And furthermore, those of us in the West, what is our responsibility to the global South to say we love you and care about you as beings and we entitle you to have access to the same forms of monetary wealth and savings as all people everywhere? And that no longer is the West entitled. to their imperialism over all of you. And so I think it’s a whole series and smatterings of questions that really need to go past just the technology and what the social and political promises within that technology are.
Jan-Paul:
I was trying to get to the four causes that I think they’re quite famous
erik cason:
Uh
Jan-Paul:
in
erik cason:
oh.
Jan-Paul:
Heidegger. The Causa materialis, the Causa formalis, the Causa finalis and the Causa officiens or officiens as we say in German or Latin as we try. Can you explain that a little bit?
erik cason:
Yeah, let me pull up the essay just because I know
Jan-Paul:
Yeah, sure,
erik cason:
what you’re
Jan-Paul:
sure.
erik cason:
talking about, but I’ll parse all of this terribly if I don’t look at it. Well, so with these four ways, you know, so essentially it’s the material cause, the formal cause, the final cause, and the effective cause. You know, and so the material cause is like the silver itself that it’s made out of. The formal cause is its form and shape. So like, why is it a chalice? Its final cause is like it’s a chalice because we want to use it in a sacrificial rite. And then finally, like what brings all this together? Well, it’s the silversmith who like adequately thinks of these things. And so Heidegger has this as his model to talk about, you know, like this really deep idea of what technology is and like how we bring it forth into the world and the importance of trying to do that. And so so if we look at this in the same way through Bitcoin. Sort of this bringing forth through the four ways. I’m trying to read it here. I’m trying to find it. So yeah, I analyze Bitcoin in the same way. And so like, what’s the actual material itself? Like it’s cryptography. Like that’s what its structure is. It’s like its code itself, you know? And then like, what is it made out of? Well, we could actually say it’s made out of energy itself.
Jan-Paul:
Yeah.
erik cason:
Like it’s computational. We could almost even say it’s thought, but because of the way that Bitcoin uses such a high computational amount that transforms into real direct energy that’s utilized in the world. And then the final cause would be like, what is the agreement that is Bitcoin? All the things that make us actually understand this is Bitcoin because we agree that it’s Bitcoin. And then the most interesting one to me is that, so what brought all of these things together? It was Satoshi
Jan-Paul:
Mm.
erik cason:
Nakamoto.
Jan-Paul:
Mm.
erik cason:
And what’s important is that Satoshi Nakamoto can only be known as this artist of Bitcoin. He has no other identity outside or beyond that. If he produced anything else, we wouldn’t know it or understand it as being Satoshi’s. And to
Jan-Paul:
Mm.
erik cason:
me, this is sort of the Promethean thing that Satoshi did is that he took this very, very narrow window of where we had all of this sophisticated cryptography that couldn’t be broken by… an entity no matter how powerful or how much computational strength. And yet the surveillance apparatus wasn’t powerful enough to locate anybody that it desires as it could do today. And that
Jan-Paul:
Hmm.
erik cason:
Satoshi in this very small window was able to appropriately gather together these various materials, particularly from the inspiration of failed prior non-state
Jan-Paul:
Mm.
erik cason:
money projects, and
Jan-Paul:
Mm.
erik cason:
cobble them together and produce it into the world in such a way that was actually known and understood what it was to be. And he used cypher punks as his vehicle to sort of birth that vehicle into the world.
Jan-Paul:
Mm.
erik cason:
And I also think it’s important that as incredible of an artist that Satoshi was like this, this was kind of a cobbled together, retarded thing at the start. Like Bitcoin
Jan-Paul:
Mmm.
erik cason:
had a lot of issues and
Jan-Paul:
Yeah.
erik cason:
it wasn’t perfect by any means, but through the dream that this sort of a half amalgamated thing was, all of, you know, some of the most brilliant and important cryptographers in the world got on board, helped develop it and change small bits and parses of its code to produce what we now have today as the Bitcoin we know and understand. And so all of these things are very important in understanding how and why Bitcoin actually operates as a means of self-sovereignty. So sorry if I went in, again, in a different direction from
Jan-Paul:
No,
erik cason:
what you’re
Jan-Paul:
no,
erik cason:
anticipating.
Jan-Paul:
no, that’s absolutely fine. I would like to take a second back again, because I have actually a question about some of this. So the first cause that we have is the causa materialis, so the matter out of which is Bitcoin actually created. And my understanding in your essay was that it’s not just the code or it’s not, you know, as you put it, bitcoins are not physical objects, It is this thing that is produced through the code and through its users who use Bitcoin, right? By sending transactions, for example, or by mining, that they create this, yeah, a new, how you put it, a new theia, a new uzeia. A theia is a,
erik cason:
Yeah.
Jan-Paul:
I think it’s a goddess or it reminds of goddess and uzeia is also something like essence or nature.
erik cason:
Yeah, substance.
Jan-Paul:
Substance exactly exactly. So what I thought I understood was that the material or the matter of which Bitcoin is created is not the code, right? It’s not some line, some computer program that is running, but is this time chain that is created. And the time chain, it has its integrity, right? It’s something that Ralph Markle discovered, right? He described it as a living being.
erik cason:
Yeah.
Jan-Paul:
Or as what I really like is Adam Wagswing, Adam Gibson, he puts it like, it’s the reification of information, right? It’s not just
erik cason:
Yes.
Jan-Paul:
data put next to each other, but the whole data set that is created, that has its own purpose, its own substance, its own living essence, so to say.
erik cason:
Well, and this is one of those really hard points to Grok, is that
Jan-Paul:
Yeah.
erik cason:
this little turn here in that understanding is
Jan-Paul:
Yeah.
erik cason:
really important because yeah, it’s not the code, it’s the way that we read and understand that code. And now that there’s now a linguistic exchange that’s happening, that all of the information in there is in order to ensure that that is a singular and unique event. that happens
Jan-Paul:
Mm-hmm.
erik cason:
linguistically. And
Jan-Paul:
Yeah.
erik cason:
so we’ll never confuse it with any other event that happens because of the uniqueness of that. But if we don’t have the private keys to it, it’s just gobbledygook, it’s just noise.
Jan-Paul:
Yeah,
erik cason:
And so
Jan-Paul:
yeah.
erik cason:
like, this is sort of this very strange inversion that’s happening because like now we’re speaking in a language where we’re not thinking about it as speaking or as… sort of a verbal agreement and yet
Jan-Paul:
Yeah,
erik cason:
it
Jan-Paul:
yeah.
erik cason:
is still an interaction that’s happening that way
Jan-Paul:
Yeah.
erik cason:
and like to That’s what I’m trying to point out is like that’s what’s happening That’s really important and now that we have access to this form of language This opens all of humanity up to something
Jan-Paul:
Yeah.
erik cason:
new and different and transformative for all of us
Jan-Paul:
It sounds like a language that nobody speaks, but some of us can understand, right? That’s
erik cason:
Yes.
Jan-Paul:
what it is. Nobody knows
erik cason:
And
Jan-Paul:
actually how to speak
erik cason:
there’s
Jan-Paul:
it.
erik cason:
a very important word for the ability to read and understand something but not speak it. And that’s called pterogramination. And it’s the way that in ancient Hebrew, you would read the word God, Yahweh, but you were not allowed to speak it because the moment that you spoke it, you profaned it. And this is very similar to a private key that we see it. and we know it, but we’ll never speak it out loud or expose it to the internet directly because that profanes that private key.
Jan-Paul:
Yeah, uh…
erik cason:
And again, this is a very strange idea, but I very much believe what we’re doing with Bitcoin is we’re entering into this sacred agreement that used to be reserved through magic and liturgy and the oath that was fulfilled only through saying, I’m taking on the word of God. But ironically, in the fallen world where we live in nihilism and no man is capable of fulfilling the being of God, we have to go to Heidegger’s last God. And the last God to me
Jan-Paul:
Oh.
erik cason:
is cryptography and the promise that cryptography can fulfill.
Jan-Paul:
Mm.
erik cason:
But we will only know that at the end of entropy, right?
Jan-Paul:
That’s what Heidegger, I think, means when he says we are in between time, right? We have these lots of gods that explain the world to us or help us understand the world. And right now we’ve killed God, right? So Nietzsche said it, God is dead. So that’s done. All rational thinking about God is done. But what Heidegger is showing us and I think what maybe… Very careful here, but maybe this is something that Bitcoin is also showing us. It’s the you know the coming of God But the messianic nature that is in Bitcoin it promises a new God Which I think most of my or our listeners will hate me for saying that Bitcoin is a religion,
erik cason:
Sure, sure.
Jan-Paul:
but it’s
erik cason:
And I get how you immediately retract and go, ehh, oh my god, you, ehh. I’m like, I get it. Like it’s a very triggering term and I wish we had a different dialogue. But to me, this is also, and this is sort of where the next leg of work goes, is that to me, Bitcoin is the beginning of true metaphysics because now
Jan-Paul:
Yes.
erik cason:
that we have this sort of last god of cryptography and the promises that it entails.
Jan-Paul:
Yeah.
erik cason:
And this dovetails nicely to Alexander Dugan is that in his fourth political theory, he talks about like angelology, which is like a method in order to be able to try to fulfill the fourth political theory through new techniques of knowledge, which in a lot of ways I see crypto systems and AI as being that sort of stuff. But really what this is is that it allows for us to return to a world where there is a capital T truth and a metaphysical nature of things that through
Jan-Paul:
Mm-hmm.
erik cason:
the methodology of true questioning and not just allowing for authority to replace the methodology of questioning, we return to a world that God promises us, one where mystery remains and that
Jan-Paul:
Hmm.
erik cason:
the self sovereignty of man to create a world in which he gets to inhabit as his home forever becomes a truth. And we
Jan-Paul:
Mm.
erik cason:
can extricate ourselves beyond the death of God. And what I think is really interesting is specifically in the Gay Science where Nietzsche writes about the death of God. He asks, you know, what rituals can we do to reform ourselves or rescue ourselves from this? What methods do we have to wipe the blood clean from this? You know,
Jan-Paul:
Mm-hmm.
erik cason:
and to me, like, this is sort of the answer. The ritual is the liturgy that is cryptographic encryption and the ability to be able to utilize specific forms in order to create this new form of assurance.
Jan-Paul:
I know it’s very hard to talk about Bitcoin as a religion or being a religion or seeing something divine, a divine substance in Bitcoin. But I’m very open to it. I actually put out a tweet a few weeks or months ago where I said Bitcoin is a religion. To me, this is very clear. But I’m still hesitant
erik cason:
Well, again,
Jan-Paul:
to talk
erik cason:
I think
Jan-Paul:
about
erik cason:
it’s
Jan-Paul:
it.
erik cason:
that word.
Jan-Paul:
Yeah,
erik cason:
Yeah, that
Jan-Paul:
maybe
erik cason:
word
Jan-Paul:
it is.
erik cason:
is really triggering.
Jan-Paul:
Yeah.
erik cason:
And I get it, because we see organized religion as being an authoritative form that tells you how you are supposed to live and that there is supposed to be a grander thing outside and
Jan-Paul:
Mm.
erik cason:
beyond you. And again, returning to Heidegger like this, what I’m trying to do is honor the true form and power of mysticism and what it
Jan-Paul:
Mm.
erik cason:
means to have revelatory thinking. and a deeper sense of being and existence that unifies humanity. You know, and something that I’ve been pretty open about is like, I’m a huge fan of psychedelic drugs and the ability that they have to open people to transformative experiences.
Jan-Paul:
Mm-hmm.
erik cason:
And I think one of the best things people can do is a very heavy dose of psychedelics and have an ego death experience. And because there’s nothing like it, there’s no, there’s nothing I can tell you about it that will move you about it. but it is truly a deep and transformative experience that in my opinion helped resolve nihilism in me, not just because I had the experience, but I also had the scaffolding beyond that. To me, the psychedelic experience was clearing the way to understand that nothingness itself is godliness, but it’s the truest nothing, the deepest nothing, the most, the clearing that is the opening. that is the potentiality of being itself and what that is. And so I welcome people that might recoil heavily at this to, first, I understand it, but second is just be open to it. And not necessarily even to the idea of a religion, but maybe just that there is something spiritual and purposeful to this. Because to me, this is the most important aspect of Bitcoin. We have all been given a very important mission to humanity, and that is to
Jan-Paul:
Mm.
erik cason:
be the stewards of the new global monetary system that can be fair and open and transparent for all people everywhere.
Jan-Paul:
Hmm.
erik cason:
That’s very important.
Jan-Paul:
So I’m so happy to discuss all of this with you. It’s so great. So
erik cason:
Yeah, it’s wonderful.
Jan-Paul:
the challenge that I have is I used to think of Bitcoin as a moral idea. So that’s where my religious inclinations come from. So I think there is some morality to Bitcoin. And what is confusing me right now is that Heidegger doesn’t have an ethics or a, he doesn’t, as far as I know, I don’t see it, that he has some kind of ethics, right? So it’s a
erik cason:
He,
Jan-Paul:
more, yeah, it’s a
erik cason:
he, he, I
Jan-Paul:
metaphysical
erik cason:
was gonna say,
Jan-Paul:
approach, right?
erik cason:
yeah, and what’s interesting is, is I use his student, Emmanuel Levinas to bridge this gap.
Jan-Paul:
Ah,
erik cason:
Because
Jan-Paul:
the other is
erik cason:
first.
Jan-Paul:
one of the best things you can read. I recommend it to all of you guys. Go read Emanuel Levinas. If you want to understand Heidegger, it’s one of the best approaches to read one of his students. And Emanuel Levinas is in my, from my point of view, from what I’ve read, he’s one of the greatest thinkers and writers about this type of stuff. I let you go, Eric. Sorry, you had to say it.
erik cason:
No, I appreciate you saying that truth and method he One he bridges Heidegger but like just his introduction to that it always moves me to tears because like in his introduction He’s trying to he’s trying to establish like is war a fundamental aspect of human existence that we must accept or or no and
Jan-Paul:
Mm-hmm.
erik cason:
it’s incredible because he I’m sorry This is totality infinity not truth and method but in totality and infinity. He uses this to essentially bridge bridge the gap with Heidegger to insist that ethics actually take a superior existence to philosophy itself. And I think Heideggerians had a strong ability to be able to keep Levinas on the ropes until Bitcoin. Because I think with Bitcoin, there is a way to insist upon a form of essentially philosophical economic imperialism, which is a really weird idea.
Jan-Paul:
Mm-hmm.
erik cason:
But that’s truly what Bitcoin is and it only is able to insist on that economic imperialism through how broken fiat is and explicitly through the ethical insistence that having a sound money with a limited supply is a legitimate cause for beings in the world and that only happens at like the end of fiat nihilism where we’re captured so deeply in this totalitarian panopticon that like this is the only hope that man has to extricate himself is through the insistence of ethics vis-a-vis technology.
Jan-Paul:
I think that were really great last words, Eric. Thank you so much for coming on to Notzignal. I just
erik cason:
We
Jan-Paul:
want
erik cason:
can
Jan-Paul:
to say,
erik cason:
keep going if you want. I’m loving
Jan-Paul:
yeah,
erik cason:
this. This is great.
Jan-Paul:
we can just talk. I want to think about our listeners, right? So we are already talking 50 minutes and my idea is to put an introduction before we start to talk in German. try to introduce Heidegger a little bit and some of the ideas that we talk about and some terms like the chalice or the in-framing and the danger.
erik cason:
That’s wise, it’ll be helpful for folks.
Jan-Paul:
This episode is going to be maybe one and a half hours long, so that’s more than we should do in a podcast, I think. So Eric, thank you so much for coming to Nozignal. Anything you want to share with our listeners? Where can they find you?
erik cason:
You can, Twitter is the best place to find me, just my name, E-R-I-K-C-A-S-O-N on Twitter. You can find me on Notestore as well, that’s, I post all my craziest stuff there. And also if you wanna read any of these essays, you can find most of them at cryptosovereignty.org, and my book will be coming out probably sometime this summer, and that’ll have all of the essays collected along with a couple of little bonus content, so.
Jan-Paul:
Okay, thank you Eric and to our listeners as always, focus on the signal, not on the noise. Bye bye.