You are very generous in your praise of Musk. Truth be known, his greatest asset is the money he inherited. The intelligence behind his companies are the engineers and techies that actually innovated. Musk just bought them. However, he does crave attention so your letter to him will massage his ego and perhaps - shift his motives? We can be hopeful ...
It feels like we’ve been undereducated about the darker side of humanity and are now completely at a loss as to how to wrap our collective brains around what’s happening, much less deal with it. We can’t seem to process the reality of people who just simply don’t care.
Brilliant letter, so many compelling and cogent appeals to transform and transcend while also smartly stroking his ego. I hope the dangerous narcissist reads your inspiring words and takes them to heart. I am not holding my breath, though.
I commend you for your willingness to engage with and appeal to the good intentions of someone who others might view as beyond redemption. You're a better man than I am.
Damn how I wish this landed where it really needs to but it can't penetrate, he's too far gone and wasn't really here for anyone but himself in the first place.
Wow, exactly which gates of Hell opened up over on "The Theater of Intimacy?" I was going to post a reply to your piece over there, but Christ, I feel filthy after having read many of the "comments." (By the way, loved the piece....thought it was spot-on.) Anyway, I decided to reply over here given that my comment is equally related to this essay as well.
So the other day when I first read "An Open Letter to Elon Musk," I was gobsmacked but didn't have the time to comment beyond "WTE-LF?" Today, though, I'm gifted with a little bit more time and so I've been catching up on some Notes from the Circus reading.
Anyway, as I was reading "The Theater of Intimacy" it transported me right back to my feelings about this essay, and why I felt so rattled when I read it. So Mike, I realize I'm walking into an intellectual buzz saw right now, but I feel compelled to do so and, with self-care in mind, will tend to any injuries I sustain! ;-)
I want to use a lot of your words/thoughts from "The Theater of Intimacy" essay to make my point, but need to expressly say that the sections I use will have some of your words changed, and those that I change/replace will be in all caps.
MIKE positions himself throughout HIS LETTER as the centrist foil—the adult in the room who's “just trying to get ELON TO LISTEN.” But this mirrors exactly the abdication of moral responsibility I described in the Theater of Neutrality. The appearance of intellectual engagement without its responsibilities has simply taken a new form: the appearance of REACHING OUT FOR COMMUNICATION without moral discernment.
What makes this particularly dangerous is how it numbs our collective capacity for moral judgment. It tells people: “Sure, the country's falling apart—but he READ MY OPEN LETTER AND SAID IT WAS A NICE GESTURE.” It creates false equivalences between the weight of a BRIEF COMMUNICATION and the weight of public policy. It suggests that being A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESSMAN AND TECH-REVOLUTIONARY somehow mitigates the moral seriousness of undermining democratic institutions, when in fact it deepens it by removing ignorance or incapacity as potential excuses.
This is how the normalization of the abnormal happens—not through dramatic endorsements but through COMPLIMENTS OF ACHIEVEMENTS AND INGENUITY that detach personality from power, that treat ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND VISION as a counterweight to cruelty. It's the substitution of SUCCESS for analysis, of personal ADMIRATION for moral assessment.
What if understanding someone in power requires not just observing their private behavior but evaluating the larger patterns their actions create in the world?
MIKE'S LETTER suggests that his AWARENESS OF MUSK'S PUBLIC CONCERN ABOUT HUMANITY'S FUTURE reveals a “truth” about MUSK that contradicts the public evidence. But what if the truth isn't found in either the public CONCERN or the private charm, but in the relationship between them—in how the private charm enables the public harm? What if the coherence we should be seeking isn't about whether someone is “really” CONCERNED or “really” SELFISH/RUTHLESS, but about how these seemingly contradictory qualities function together in the exercise of power?
This matters because liberal democracy depends not just on procedural norms but on substantive moral judgments. When we substitute PERSONAL impressions for moral assessment, we corrupt our capacity to recognize threats to democratic governance. We become so focused on whether someone HAS SHAPED TECH ADVANCEMENTS that we lose sight of whether their actions undermine the conditions that make reasoned disagreement possible.
The center must be held—not because it is easy, but because it is ours to hold. And holding it requires recognizing that TECH INNOVATIONS AND PUBLIC PLATITUDES ARE not moral CATEGORIES that offset public harm, that being IDOLIZED IN TECH is not a counterweight to undermining democratic institutions, that the coherence we should seek is not about reconciling contradictory impressions but about recognizing how they function together in the service of power.
I think this is why I was so taken aback by your open letter. What you did up front, by trying to reason with and humanize Musk -- while essentially overlooking his completely inhumane behavior towards his fellow humans -- is what Maher did on the back end with Trump.
You've been telling us, rightly so, to recognize the moment that we're in and the people who are out to harm us. You've been very clear and helpful in naming names and providing the necessary historical context for us. So it is beyond perplexing to me the apparent blind spot you have with respect to Musk.
Musk does not strike me as an emotionally well or mature man. In fact I think a better description of him would be man-child. Shit, did you see his response to Tim Walz mocking the Tesla stock price dropping? Complete disconnect with the way he feels about his own financial "pain" versus the real financial pain that he has inflicted on others.
My guess, given his ongoing behavior, is that he rarely, if ever, reflects on his own conduct. He seems obsessed with himself, focused only on his own desires and goals, and seemingly has zero qualms about using his own money and power to manipulate and influence American elections. I see very little empathy displayed by him, and, as many people have pointed out, he appears to use his kid as a prop to make himself look more human.
Bottom line, Musk strikes me as an arrogant ass who doesn't give a shit about others, and an open letter to him makes about as much sense as writing an open letter to Trump.
Excellent essay. If he reads it, I think it is exactly the kind of plea that would make sense to him: his near crippling need for validation was weaponized by the 4chan crowd to radicalize him, and your kind of validation could work the other way if it could get through to him
Noble effort, Mike, but I doubt that narcissistic sociopaths are capable of empathy and reason, especially the ones who carry a grudge.
Your words are the words of Humanity united in its belief of the collective good that may be shared among all of us.
Your words would give pause to its readers and create immediate reflection.
Your words are filled with validation, acknowledgment, and humble appeal to its reader.
Your words are those of someone who loves his fellow man.
I don’t propose to negate the evidence of miracles among the believers in a Higher Power or Heavenly Creator.
However, Elon Musk is his own Higher Power and is motivated only by greed, power and self aggrandizement.
Musk will view your words as supplication and surrender to his ever increasing and uncontrolled appetite for power and control.
He will view this as his victory over mankind.
You’re a smart guy, Mike, and a fine writer, but it sounds like you don’t understand Elon very well. At all.
You are very generous in your praise of Musk. Truth be known, his greatest asset is the money he inherited. The intelligence behind his companies are the engineers and techies that actually innovated. Musk just bought them. However, he does crave attention so your letter to him will massage his ego and perhaps - shift his motives? We can be hopeful ...
It feels like we’ve been undereducated about the darker side of humanity and are now completely at a loss as to how to wrap our collective brains around what’s happening, much less deal with it. We can’t seem to process the reality of people who just simply don’t care.
I don't see the point in this. If you really wanted to send him a message only a clever meme in X would have a chance.
Brilliant letter, so many compelling and cogent appeals to transform and transcend while also smartly stroking his ego. I hope the dangerous narcissist reads your inspiring words and takes them to heart. I am not holding my breath, though.
I commend you for your willingness to engage with and appeal to the good intentions of someone who others might view as beyond redemption. You're a better man than I am.
Damn how I wish this landed where it really needs to but it can't penetrate, he's too far gone and wasn't really here for anyone but himself in the first place.
It’s a terrible shame that strength of character is not valued any longer in our country.
Is that sufficiently praising to get his attention?
Thank you, one must try. I am afraid that E’s attention span would not get him through to the end (of your letter).
Perhaps some assistant will read it and give him a synopsis and explication. It’s a good effort, worth sending out to him and to the world in general.
There's very little chance of appeal. But good luck! X
Wow, exactly which gates of Hell opened up over on "The Theater of Intimacy?" I was going to post a reply to your piece over there, but Christ, I feel filthy after having read many of the "comments." (By the way, loved the piece....thought it was spot-on.) Anyway, I decided to reply over here given that my comment is equally related to this essay as well.
So the other day when I first read "An Open Letter to Elon Musk," I was gobsmacked but didn't have the time to comment beyond "WTE-LF?" Today, though, I'm gifted with a little bit more time and so I've been catching up on some Notes from the Circus reading.
Anyway, as I was reading "The Theater of Intimacy" it transported me right back to my feelings about this essay, and why I felt so rattled when I read it. So Mike, I realize I'm walking into an intellectual buzz saw right now, but I feel compelled to do so and, with self-care in mind, will tend to any injuries I sustain! ;-)
I want to use a lot of your words/thoughts from "The Theater of Intimacy" essay to make my point, but need to expressly say that the sections I use will have some of your words changed, and those that I change/replace will be in all caps.
Here goes:
____________________________________________________________________________________________
MIKE positions himself throughout HIS LETTER as the centrist foil—the adult in the room who's “just trying to get ELON TO LISTEN.” But this mirrors exactly the abdication of moral responsibility I described in the Theater of Neutrality. The appearance of intellectual engagement without its responsibilities has simply taken a new form: the appearance of REACHING OUT FOR COMMUNICATION without moral discernment.
What makes this particularly dangerous is how it numbs our collective capacity for moral judgment. It tells people: “Sure, the country's falling apart—but he READ MY OPEN LETTER AND SAID IT WAS A NICE GESTURE.” It creates false equivalences between the weight of a BRIEF COMMUNICATION and the weight of public policy. It suggests that being A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESSMAN AND TECH-REVOLUTIONARY somehow mitigates the moral seriousness of undermining democratic institutions, when in fact it deepens it by removing ignorance or incapacity as potential excuses.
This is how the normalization of the abnormal happens—not through dramatic endorsements but through COMPLIMENTS OF ACHIEVEMENTS AND INGENUITY that detach personality from power, that treat ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND VISION as a counterweight to cruelty. It's the substitution of SUCCESS for analysis, of personal ADMIRATION for moral assessment.
What if understanding someone in power requires not just observing their private behavior but evaluating the larger patterns their actions create in the world?
MIKE'S LETTER suggests that his AWARENESS OF MUSK'S PUBLIC CONCERN ABOUT HUMANITY'S FUTURE reveals a “truth” about MUSK that contradicts the public evidence. But what if the truth isn't found in either the public CONCERN or the private charm, but in the relationship between them—in how the private charm enables the public harm? What if the coherence we should be seeking isn't about whether someone is “really” CONCERNED or “really” SELFISH/RUTHLESS, but about how these seemingly contradictory qualities function together in the exercise of power?
This matters because liberal democracy depends not just on procedural norms but on substantive moral judgments. When we substitute PERSONAL impressions for moral assessment, we corrupt our capacity to recognize threats to democratic governance. We become so focused on whether someone HAS SHAPED TECH ADVANCEMENTS that we lose sight of whether their actions undermine the conditions that make reasoned disagreement possible.
The center must be held—not because it is easy, but because it is ours to hold. And holding it requires recognizing that TECH INNOVATIONS AND PUBLIC PLATITUDES ARE not moral CATEGORIES that offset public harm, that being IDOLIZED IN TECH is not a counterweight to undermining democratic institutions, that the coherence we should seek is not about reconciling contradictory impressions but about recognizing how they function together in the service of power.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
I think this is why I was so taken aback by your open letter. What you did up front, by trying to reason with and humanize Musk -- while essentially overlooking his completely inhumane behavior towards his fellow humans -- is what Maher did on the back end with Trump.
You've been telling us, rightly so, to recognize the moment that we're in and the people who are out to harm us. You've been very clear and helpful in naming names and providing the necessary historical context for us. So it is beyond perplexing to me the apparent blind spot you have with respect to Musk.
Musk does not strike me as an emotionally well or mature man. In fact I think a better description of him would be man-child. Shit, did you see his response to Tim Walz mocking the Tesla stock price dropping? Complete disconnect with the way he feels about his own financial "pain" versus the real financial pain that he has inflicted on others.
My guess, given his ongoing behavior, is that he rarely, if ever, reflects on his own conduct. He seems obsessed with himself, focused only on his own desires and goals, and seemingly has zero qualms about using his own money and power to manipulate and influence American elections. I see very little empathy displayed by him, and, as many people have pointed out, he appears to use his kid as a prop to make himself look more human.
Bottom line, Musk strikes me as an arrogant ass who doesn't give a shit about others, and an open letter to him makes about as much sense as writing an open letter to Trump.
Excellent essay. If he reads it, I think it is exactly the kind of plea that would make sense to him: his near crippling need for validation was weaponized by the 4chan crowd to radicalize him, and your kind of validation could work the other way if it could get through to him
Yes, please. More of this.