If we are to be fatalistic, we should *choose* the parameters of our fatalism. If we are bound to regimes of coercion and force, the ethical imperative of trolley dilemmas *fails* us. When someone… some *thing*… has a gun to your head, sometimes the only dignified decision is to refuse all compliance, regardless of any consequential argument.
This is to say, the hypermodern says “trolley dilemma”. But there is a deeper level of recourse - a diamond hard “no” to the entire game.
Comments
Displaying 0 of 1 comments
Shufei đź«
In response to this postSo when the oligarchs, their sycophants, their legions pimp #AI? I think the only dignified response must be a hard line on the grounds not of mere mimesis, but of complete disregard. “The only winning move is not to play” applies in this moment. The kind of #ButlerianJihad which might endure and succeed must needs be that bedrock deep. That is, not as mere rejection within a framework of argument. But it must rest at an *ontological* level of decision how Earthly life should look live.
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.
by Shufei đź« ;
Tags: #ai #butlerianjihad
Likes: 0
Replies: 1
Boosts: 0