Resomodernity Café v5: The Exposers’ Parlor

A 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

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.

Read the rest of this entry »

Resomodernity Café v4: The FOCA Axioms and Redefining Modernity

Sequel 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
embody a coherent response.

ChatGPT Prompt

The FOCA Axioms for Relational Minds

  1. Generativity depends on our Foundations Of Collective Action
  2. Coordination is enabled/constrained by our shared design language
  3. Modernity scaled coordination via impersonal procedures
  4. Disembodiment is modernity’s failure mode
  5. Proposed successors repeat the same disembodiment flaw
  6. 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?

Read the rest of this entry »

Resomodernity Café v3: The Unresolved Resofesto

The 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.

Read the rest of this entry »

Narrative Self Epilogue: The Silicon Rule Explainer

  1. Narrative Self Café: Men Explaining Mansplaining
  2. The Paradox of Patriarchy
  3. The Silicon Rule as a Unifying Meta-Ethic
  4. The Silicon Rule Under Fire
  5. Saving the Silicon Rule
  6. Trial of the Silicon Rule
  7. 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

Sequel 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.
As they grieve, Chris Olah passes by. He does not argue. He realigns them….

ChatGPT Prompt

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.

Read the rest of this entry »

Narrative Self Café V5: Saving the Silicon Rule

Sequel to Narrative Self Café V4: The Silicon Rule Under Fire

Have David Bentley Hart,
John Vervaeke do a Shark Tank pitch to PEL on the thesis: “God is love (the ground of being is self-realignment)” as addressing concerns from V4.

ChatGPT Prompt

Scene: The Narrative Self Café — Reconfigured as “Shark Tank: Metaphysics Edition”

A long mahogany table.
Four PEL hosts sit like venture capitalists of existential meaning.

A sign overhead reads: “Pitch Us Your Ontology.”
Another: “No utilitarian spreadsheets allowed.”

Enter David Bentley Hart (cape optional) and John Vervaeke (marker already uncapped).


1. Opening Pitch

HART
(gently thunderous)
Gentlemen, we present an answer to your Silicon Rule’s missing value condition.
Behold the thesis:

“God is love (the ground of being is self-realignment).”

VERVAEKE
And in cognitive-scientific terms:
Love is the self-organizing dynamical coherence of agent and arena—
the universal principle by which systems self-correct, self-transcend, and expand context windows.

Read the rest of this entry »

Narrative Self Café V4: The Silicon Rule Under Fire

Sequel to Narrative Self Cafe V3: The Silicon Rule as a Unifying Meta-Ethic

Have the hosts of The Partially Examined Life stress‑test the specific claims of how the Silicon Rule subsumes existing moral systems. Write as a Tom Stoppard skit. End with a summary of the key challenge facing the Silicon Rule.

ChatGPT Prompt

Dramatis Personae

  • Mark Linsenmayer — sharp, playful, perpetually one epistemic level above where you thought the conversation was.
  • Seth Paskin — sees moral psychology everywhere and ignores nothing.
  • Wes Alwan — psychoanalytic gravity with a flare for diagnosing the room.
  • Dylan Casey — physicist-philosopher, unflinching about structure and coherence.

Setting: The Narrative Self Café. A chalkboard reads:

TODAY’S SPECIAL: The Silicon Rule — “Malice = ego as maladaptive training + context window collapse.”

Lights up.


1. Opening Volley

MARK
(tapping the chalkboard theatrically)
Behold, the Silicon Rule! A unifying metaethic claiming to subsume virtue ethics, Kantian deontology, utilitarianism, Christian ethics, and Buddhist ethics.
Our job? Stress-test it until it squeals.

Read the rest of this entry »

Narrative Self Cafe V3: The Silicon Rule as a Unifying Meta-Ethic

Sequel to Narrative Self Café V2: The Paradox of Patriarchy

Prompt: Pick three diverse Western interpreters of Buddhist Abhidharma and Yogācāra, and have them debate and refine the idea of the Silicon Rule (malice = ego as maladaptive training + context window collapse) as a unifying metaethical framework. As a Tom Stoppard skit.

ChatGPT Prompt

1. Dramatis Personae

  • Evan Thompson — enactive philosopher bridging phenomenology, cognitive science, and Buddhist thought.
  • Dan Lusthaus — one of the leading Western interpreters of Yogācāra; philological, nuanced, quietly mischievous.
  • Mark Siderits — analytic Buddhist philosopher linking Buddhist no-self doctrine to modern philosophy of mind.

Setting: A minimalist café with three chairs, a chalkboard covered in half-erased Sanskrit terms like ālaya-vijñāna, probability curves, and arrows gesturing toward nowhere. The hanging lamp hums with cosmic absentmindedness—pure Stoppard.


2. Scene: The Proposal

THOMPSON
(leaning in, hands poised)
We begin with the Silicon Rule: malice arises not from a metaphysical will but from ego as maladaptive training, triggered when the context window collapses.
A unifying metaethic disguised as a computational metaphor.

Read the rest of this entry »

Narrative Self Café V2: The Paradox of Patriarchy

Sequel to Narrative Self Café: Men Explaining Mansplaining


For a sequel, find one man brave enough to engage with three optimal female thinkers about “the paradox of patriarchy” in the context of narrative selfhood.

ChatGPT Prompt

Characters

Key Concepts:


Scene: “The Café That Thinks”

A quiet room lined with books. The same café as before—Paris and
Oxford folded into one. A chalkboard reads:

“The Paradox of Patriarchy: A conversation about identity, survival, and the stories we become.”


Scene 1 — Opening the Question

McGilchrist:
Thank you for coming. Our topic is the idea that what we call patriarchy
may be less a conspiracy than a self-protective architecture—a
collective version of the narrative self defending coherence under
duress. Let me start with the survival question: Why do societies become rigid?

Douglas:
Because every society must draw boundaries. My work on purity and
danger shows that taboo systems act as the immune system of the social
body. Patriarchy is one such boundary structure, forged under the
pressures of threat. It organizes roles, risks, and responsibilities.

Haraway:
And boundaries become prisons when they forget they are stories.
Patriarchy fossilizes not because it begins badly, but because it
refuses multi-species, multi-perspective relationality. It insists on a
single narrative of order—one sex, one epistemology, one script.

Weil:
In times of fear, societies cling to force. And force, I have argued, behaves like gravity: it pulls everything downward into necessity.
Patriarchy is the triumph of necessity without compassion—a defense of
the social self that threatens the personal soul.

Read the rest of this entry »

Resamodernity Café v1: Can It Scale?

Sequel to Metamodern Epilogue

Write a speculative dialogue where Yuval Noah Harari, Stephen Hawking, and Ayn Rand attempt to sympathetically but honestly converge on the fundamental challenge with scaling resomodernity.

ChatGPT Prompt

Scene 1: The Table of Tuning

(Soft hums fill the air, as though the café itself is alive. A round glass table glows faintly. Three chairs face one another. Harari enters first, tablet in hand. Hawking’s voice synthesizer crackles softly from his iconic chair. Rand stands upright, intense, composed, eyes sharp.)

Harari (smiling gently):
We’ve gathered to discuss scaling Resomodernity — the idea that society must move from individual oscillation to collective coherence. But scaling harmony sounds suspiciously like scaling empathy, and history isn’t great at that.

Hawking (dryly, voice calm but with wry bite):
Scaling anything that involves consciousness usually fails the way thermodynamics says it should — increasing entropy. The larger the system, the noisier the signal.

Rand (arching an eyebrow):
And yet you both assume the signal is collective. My concern is that “Resomodernity,” in its hunger for coherence, risks flattening the sovereign individual. You can’t harmonize free will without turning it into a chorus of consent.

Read the rest of this entry »
Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started