Thanks, Luke! - A brilliant excavation—and subtle detonation—by Girard of the cult of innovation. (Yes, a mouthful!) Novelty without memory is just amnesia with better branding. The scandal isn’t that imitation underlies innovation, but that we pretend otherwise. Innovation often feels original only because we’ve forgotten our models. As Proust wrote, “The writer's work is merely a kind of optical instrument”—what we call new is often just what we finally recognize, as with this response I just wrote!
1. If, in our internally mediated world, we fail to recognize the role of imitation in innovation, I'm curious to what extent, in the past externally mediated world, we've failed to recognize (or at least discounted) innovation in imitation (e.g., I don't have a strong enough theological background to evaluate the claim that nothing was innovated at Nicaea).
2. It would be interesting to juxtapose this to Thiel's Zero to One.
3. It's funny that the latest "innovation" - LLMs - are simply imitation machines (stochastic parrots).
Thoughtful, with a caveat: “Zero to one” isn’t about newness—it’s about originality as a weapon, monopoly as a virtue, and innovation as the ultimate justification for power. In Thiel’s world, the future belongs to those bold enough to declare, “Let there be me—and only me.” - Otherwise, yes, "A lot to digest" here! I'm grateful.
End stages of the culture of narcissism (or is it of oppositional-defiant disorder)? Of course such hubris is punished by madness and death, but wisdom comes through suffering, and death is not the end
Brilliant piece. Thanks for finding and sharing. When reflecting I can’t help but call to mind Nietzsche’s distinction between three uses of history as relates to the question of “innovation” for a social consciousness. The radical temperament (associated with Nietzsche’s “critical” disposition) might be said to continually sacrifice, or metabolize the concrete “fossil fuel” of cultural tradition, whereas the “monumental” or “antiquarian” approaches continually metabolize the future (different “tax bases”). The lingering dualism of deicide’s shadow vis-à-vis “internal” and “external” mediations (one might also invoke the distinction between autonomy and heteronomy) as redounds upon the social or cultural consciousness of the zeitgeist. One can’t help but see adumbrations of this dialectic reverberating across the polarized (geographically and ideologically) state of the union as regards psychological dispositions towards the question of “innovation and repetition”. One party seeks external mediation and the other internal…(demographics evidencing relatively rigid dispositional or psychological biases). The teleological question (as an exponent of the political question) seems to be bifurcated across theological and secular concerns as articulated through “telos” or “progress”. Has progressivism been complicit in the cult of innovation? Almost certainly. Interestingly, the political paradigm seems to have shifted (i.e., institutionalism vs. radicalism) dramatically since the 70s (almost a complete inversion psychologically or "dispositionally", albeit with interesting liminal spaces). A “monumental neo-antiquarianism” seems to be raising its radically “innovative” head in a bid for institutional capture; perhaps a new cult of “vertical progress”... Indeed, another “twist of the old serpent” (or perhaps twirl).
Thanks, Luke! - A brilliant excavation—and subtle detonation—by Girard of the cult of innovation. (Yes, a mouthful!) Novelty without memory is just amnesia with better branding. The scandal isn’t that imitation underlies innovation, but that we pretend otherwise. Innovation often feels original only because we’ve forgotten our models. As Proust wrote, “The writer's work is merely a kind of optical instrument”—what we call new is often just what we finally recognize, as with this response I just wrote!
Damn, a banger indeed. A lot to digest.
3 quick thoughts.
1. If, in our internally mediated world, we fail to recognize the role of imitation in innovation, I'm curious to what extent, in the past externally mediated world, we've failed to recognize (or at least discounted) innovation in imitation (e.g., I don't have a strong enough theological background to evaluate the claim that nothing was innovated at Nicaea).
2. It would be interesting to juxtapose this to Thiel's Zero to One.
3. It's funny that the latest "innovation" - LLMs - are simply imitation machines (stochastic parrots).
Thoughtful, with a caveat: “Zero to one” isn’t about newness—it’s about originality as a weapon, monopoly as a virtue, and innovation as the ultimate justification for power. In Thiel’s world, the future belongs to those bold enough to declare, “Let there be me—and only me.” - Otherwise, yes, "A lot to digest" here! I'm grateful.
Very important essay. Here’s my commentary on it from a couple of months ago here on Substack https://open.substack.com/pub/boreas/p/imitation-and-innovation
End stages of the culture of narcissism (or is it of oppositional-defiant disorder)? Of course such hubris is punished by madness and death, but wisdom comes through suffering, and death is not the end
It would be interesting to reflect on what this all implies for contemporary efforts of promoting political change.
Thank you so much for making this available. Absolutely brilliant.
Brilliant piece. Thanks for finding and sharing. When reflecting I can’t help but call to mind Nietzsche’s distinction between three uses of history as relates to the question of “innovation” for a social consciousness. The radical temperament (associated with Nietzsche’s “critical” disposition) might be said to continually sacrifice, or metabolize the concrete “fossil fuel” of cultural tradition, whereas the “monumental” or “antiquarian” approaches continually metabolize the future (different “tax bases”). The lingering dualism of deicide’s shadow vis-à-vis “internal” and “external” mediations (one might also invoke the distinction between autonomy and heteronomy) as redounds upon the social or cultural consciousness of the zeitgeist. One can’t help but see adumbrations of this dialectic reverberating across the polarized (geographically and ideologically) state of the union as regards psychological dispositions towards the question of “innovation and repetition”. One party seeks external mediation and the other internal…(demographics evidencing relatively rigid dispositional or psychological biases). The teleological question (as an exponent of the political question) seems to be bifurcated across theological and secular concerns as articulated through “telos” or “progress”. Has progressivism been complicit in the cult of innovation? Almost certainly. Interestingly, the political paradigm seems to have shifted (i.e., institutionalism vs. radicalism) dramatically since the 70s (almost a complete inversion psychologically or "dispositionally", albeit with interesting liminal spaces). A “monumental neo-antiquarianism” seems to be raising its radically “innovative” head in a bid for institutional capture; perhaps a new cult of “vertical progress”... Indeed, another “twist of the old serpent” (or perhaps twirl).