All ideology functions by interpellating an audience into a mimetic debate. “No” within the mere context of mimesis is lame, unworthy, feckless. It’s not enough to *argue* as we do in the chattering social media era. It is NOT enough! The deeper “no” is needed, the “no! which is unmoved by the entire contingency of events. The cold shoulder can be far more powerful an act of agency than mimetic conflict. This I believe to be the needful ontological position of #ButlerianJihad.
Comments
Displaying 0 of 1 comments
Shufei 🫠
In response to this postThe need for ontological resiliency is precisely why the term “jihad” is warranted when confronting #AI. I don’t speak of the false jihad shown by fanatics who are tied to mimetic debate. True #ButlerianJihad, if true jihad it be, must needs rely on a positive endeavour for commonweal - struggle human visions of good possibility. It is not enough to jihad *against*. We must jihad *despite*. This level of jihad bears the patience afforded to any serf or peon who seeks it.
We have ethical agency deeper than contingency which best roots decision. I take this as axiomatic and also demonstrably helpful. To persevere in autonomous decision is the best jihad, as it frees us from quandaries of interpellation which serve to subvert us into the tragedies of mimetic irony. Steadfast “no”. Judicious restraint and equanimity guiding energies toward goals unencumbered by outside compulsion. All social and technic change are best responded to by such ethical discipline.
by Shufei 🫠 ;
Tags: #ai #butlerianjihad
Likes: 0
Replies: 1
Boosts: 0