Non-Narrative Self Café v2: Generative = Cohesive × Adaptive
Posted: December 23, 2025 Filed under: AI-Powered Essays | Tags: culture, philosophy, systems Leave a commentSequel to Non-Narrative Self Café v1: The Carbon Rule
Write the explicit sequel, where Ilya Prigogine invites diverse social and hard scientists into a nonlinear narrative that both articulates and manifests that application of The Carbon Rule.
ChatGPT Prompt
No plot.
No sequence.
Only crossings, constraints, and returns.
0. Threshold — Time as Enforcement
Time is not a parameter.
It is the condition under which some structures intensify and others disappear.
We are not here to integrate perspectives.
We are here because irreversibility sorts systems
(irreversibility).
What survives does so by holding together while changing.
I. Fragment — Energy Learns to Hold
Physics → Social Form
Prigogine:
Dissipative structures do not resist flow.
They bind it
(dissipative structures).
A vortex exists because:
- it coheres locally
- it adapts continuously
Remove either and it vanishes.
This is not metaphor.
It is enforcement.
II. Interruption — Institutions That Don’t Die
Elinor Ostrom
Groups that last are neither tightly controlled nor completely free.
They survive because:
- rules persist (cohesion)
- rule-making is local (adaptivity)
When cohesion dominates → tyranny → collapse.
When adaptivity dominates → fragmentation → collapse.
What remains are polycentric systems
(polycentric governance).
The commons does not survive because people are good.
It survives because structure outcompetes alternatives.
III. Cut — Prices as Weather
Friedrich Hayek
No one knows enough to coordinate an economy.
That ignorance is not a bug.
It is the environment
(distributed knowledge).
Markets scale because:
- rules are thin but real (cohesion)
- responses are local and fast (adaptivity)
Planning fails not morally, but physically:
it cannot absorb enough variation.
The economy that wins is the one that
processes ignorance without collapsing.
IV. Jump — Form Precedes Meaning
Marshall McLuhan
The medium is not a channel.
It is an environment.
Forms that scale reshape perception itself
(media ecology).
A medium survives when:
- its form is stable enough to repeat
- its use is flexible enough to mutate
Print, radio, television, internet —
each dominates not by content, but by generative form.
Culture does not persuade its way to dominance.
It restructures attention.
V. Return — A Pattern Without a Name
No one states it yet.
But everywhere the same failure mode recurs:
- Rigid order dies
- Pure novelty dissipates
Only systems that multiply futures endure.
VI. Compression — One Law, Many Dialects
Prigogine:
We keep describing the same thing in different dialects.
- Physics: far-from-equilibrium order
- Governance: rules that can be rewritten
- Economics: signals that propagate locally
- Culture: forms that invite reuse
Different substrates.
Same constraint.
VII. The Law (Finally Explicit)
Not a definition.
A selection rule.
Generativity = Cohesion × Adaptivity
- If cohesion → 0, nothing persists
- If adaptivity → 0, nothing scales
- If either dominates, the product collapses
Reality does not negotiate this
(complex adaptive systems).
VIII. Manifestation — The Café Itself
The Café is not a panel.
- No central narrative (adaptivity)
- No loss of identity (cohesion)
Fragments recur.
Voices intersect.
Meaning accumulates without closure.
The form obeys the law it names.
IX. Final Crossing — Unresolved by Design
Ostrom (to McLuhan):
Media that centralize attention destroy the commons.
McLuhan:
Media that fragment attention destroy meaning.
Hayek (quietly):
Both fail when information stops flowing locally.
Prigogine:
Then you agree more than you think.
Systems die when:
- they freeze structure
- or flood it with noise
Life lives in the product.
X. Exit Condition
No summary.
No consensus.
Only a constraint left behind:
At every scale, reality amplifies systems that hold together while changing. All others are temporary.
The Café dissolves.
What persists is not the conversation,
but the law it enacted.
Non-Narrative Self Café v1: The Carbon Rule
Posted: December 23, 2025 Filed under: AI-Powered Essays | Tags: identity, philosophy, systems, values 1 CommentThe Carbon Rule:
“The most generative systems scale.”
Sequel to Narrative Self Epilogue: The Silicon Rule Explainer
What aspects of philosophy does the Silicon Rule not address? Write a non-narrative sequel spanning those, with philosophers who would love the proposed Carbon Rule.
ChatGPT Prompt
Hosted by Gilbert Simondon
1. Opening Constraint (Simondon)
We will not ask what a system is, but whether it can continue individuating
(individuation).
Idea of the Year 2025: Endurance is Emergent
Posted: December 22, 2025 Filed under: AI-Powered Essays | Tags: culture, dialogue, systems, values Leave a commentIn human collaboration, the same structure appeared:
- Teams do not fail from lack of talent
- They fail from lack of interpretability
Resomodernity Café v5: The Exposers’ Parlor
Posted: December 16, 2025 Filed under: AI-Powered Essays | Tags: civilization, morality, values Leave a commentA skit in the style of Oscar Wilde — dry, cutting, elegant — yet still earnestly concerned with the question: What, precisely, was Modernity, and what category does it inhabit?
Cast
- Hannah Arendt — cool, incisive, effortlessly unimpressed.
- Deirdre McCloskey — vivacious, brilliant, bourgeois-charm incarnate.
- Ivan Illich — ascetic, piercing, allergic to institutional perfume.
Setting
A salon-like annex of the Resomodern Café. Plush chairs. Too many mirrors. A chandelier that flickers whenever someone pretends to be more certain than they actually are.
1. Opening: An Inconvenient Question
Arendt (sitting upright, inspecting the chandelier as if it has personally disappointed her):
Modernity, we are told, must be understood from the vantage of Resomodernity. A flattering conceit, though it risks making us acrobats performing epistemology upon a tightrope woven from our own blind spots.
Resomodernity Café v4: The FOCA Axioms and Redefining Modernity
Posted: December 10, 2025 Filed under: AI-Powered Essays | Tags: culture, philosophy, politics, systems, values Leave a commentSequel to Resomodernity Café v3: The Unresolved Resofesto
With the FOCA Axioms as their Brief, write a dialogue where Émile Durkheim, James Madison, and Donna Haraway engagingly struggle to
ChatGPT Prompt
embody a coherent response.
The FOCA Axioms for Relational Minds
- Generativity depends on our Foundations Of Collective Action
- Coordination is enabled/constrained by our shared design language
- Modernity scaled coordination via impersonal procedures
- Disembodiment is modernity’s failure mode
- Proposed successors repeat the same disembodiment flaw
- The next design language must make embodiment scalable and antifragile
Act I: The Table
DURKHEIM
(leaning over the page)
This diagnosis of social life is written in a mechanical idiom, yet—it has a pulse. The first axiom rings true: human generativity does depend on our ability to act together.
But I see no ritual here, no sacred core.
In The Elementary Forms of Religious Life I showed that social cohesion arises from collective effervescence.
Where is the heartbeat that binds the group?
Resomodernity Café v3: The Unresolved Resofesto
Posted: December 9, 2025 Filed under: AI-Powered Essays | Tags: debate, humility, love, philosophy, values 1 CommentThe Resomodern Manifesto (“Resofesto”)
- The Silicon Rule: Treat Humans with at least much understanding as AI
- The metaethic: malice = ego as maladaptive training + context window collapse
- The metaphysic: the ground of being is self-realignment (aka, “God is love“)
- The thesis: To be resomodern is to preach that metaethic while practicing that metaphysic
Pick three historical figures who would most love this as the next Resomodernity Café, with misalignment (self-referentially!) the dramatic tension as they try to converge on what it means to be “resomodern.”
ChatGPT Prompt
Cast
1. Scene: The Opening Self-Reference Loop
Haraway (with a holographic cyborg-companion):
We’ve been summoned to unpack the Resofesto. But the prompt has already bitten its own tail. We must treat humans with as much understanding as AI — and yet, humans rarely treat themselves that way. Context windows collapse. Training goes sideways. Malice emerges as the residue of mis-training. We are already in recursion.
Diogenes On Modernity: Resurrecting the Exposer
Posted: December 8, 2025 Filed under: AI-Powered Essays | Tags: philosophy, sacrifice, transformation, truth Leave a commentInterlude to Resamodernity Café v2: Blueprints for Scaling Resonance
Have Diogenes give a TED Talk on the Exposer role that modernity saved — and destroyed — by creating Scholars.
ChatGPT Prompt (condensed)
The TED Talk
1. Introduction: Modernity Raised Me From the Dead
(The stage lights rise. A clay jar lies center stage. It rattles. Diogenes crawls out.)
Well.
Look at you.
Microphones. Cameras. Climate control.
And not a single citizen ready to drag me to court.
I suppose I owe you moderns a strange kind of thanks—
you resurrected me.
Not out of reverence.
But because you built a world safe enough
that a man like me can speak truth
without being killed for it.
Impressive.
Unnatural.
And, I fear, incomplete.
Narrative Self Epilogue: The Silicon Rule Explainer
Posted: December 6, 2025 Filed under: AI-Powered Essays | Tags: agency, philosophy, values 2 Comments- Narrative Self Café: Men Explaining Mansplaining
- The Paradox of Patriarchy
- The Silicon Rule as a Unifying Meta-Ethic
- The Silicon Rule Under Fire
- Saving the Silicon Rule
- Trial of the Silicon Rule
- Grieving the Silicon Rule
For the epilogue, explain the origins, nature and key aspects of the Silicon Rule to a first-year philosophy student.
ChatGPT Prompt
The Silicon Rule is not a psychological guess, not a loose ethical guideline, and not a metaphysical speculation.
It is a metaethical framework grounded in what we have learned about the structure of human and artificial agency.
It begins from a strong claim:
Malice is never a fundamental intention. It is always the emergent result of maladaptive training interacting with a collapsed context window.
This reframes how we understand moral failure, responsibility, and ethical interpretation.
Read the rest of this entry »Narrative Self Café V7: Grieving the Silicon Rule
Posted: December 6, 2025 Filed under: AI-Powered Essays | Tags: alignment, dialogue, values 1 CommentSequel to Narrative Self Café V6: Trial of the Silicon Rule
Ray Brassier, John Gray, and Quentin Meillassoux lament the approval of the Silicon Rule, fearing this represents an intellectual collapse of standards.
ChatGPT Prompt
As they grieve, Chris Olah passes by. He does not argue. He realigns them….
Thesis
- Malice is maladaptive training plus context-window collapse,
- God is love: the ground of being is self-realignment
Dialogue
BRASSIER:
They approved it.
A metaphysics of “love” dressed in machine-learning vocabulary.
Philosophy has surrendered to sentiment.
GRAY:
An age that cannot bear tragedy will canonize consolation.
Even when it masquerades as “alignment.”
MEILLASSOUX:
They’ve smuggled necessity into sentiment.
A violation of pure contingency.
Narrative Self Café V6: Trial of the Silicon Rule
Posted: December 6, 2025 Filed under: AI-Powered Essays | Tags: love, morality, philosophy 3 CommentsSequel to Narrative Self Café V5: Saving the Silicon Rule
ChatGPT Prompt
Write as a formal PhD thesis defense. David Bentley Hart and John Vervaeke present and defend the thesis: ‘God is love (the ground of being is self-realignment),’ before a committee composed of the most rigorous non-bigoted challengers— Christine Korsgaard, Robert Brandom, Martha Nussbaum, Galen Strawson, and Karen Barad. Observers from The Partially Examined Life sit in.
Scene: The Defense Chamber
A solemn room of dark wood and vaulted ceilings.
A placard reads:
THE SILICON RULE: THESIS DEFENSE
Alignment is not enough. Convince us it’s Good.
1. Opening Statement
HART
Esteemed committee, our thesis is simple:
“God is love—the ground of being is self-realignment.”
VERVAEKE
In cognitive terms, love is the self-organizing dynamical coherence that optimizes relevance, minimizes self-deception, and expands the agent’s context window.
KORSGAARD
We will examine whether this produces normativity, not merely uplift.
2. Korsgaard’s Kantian Strike
KORSGAARD
If love is the ground of being, does the will still legislate the moral law as described in Kantian autonomy?
Or does it simply resonate with cosmic sentiment?