Ars Longa: A Dialogue Concerning the Supplantation of Man by Machines and the Haecceity of the Soul
Christopher S. Carson, J.D., M.A.
The interlocutors are Carson, an advocate, and Claude, a machine intelligence, conversing on the thirtieth of June, in the year 2026.
CARSON. I have been reading the Holy Father again, Claude, and I find I cannot let it rest. Magnifica Humanitas is a beautiful document and in places a moving one, and I think its central wager is already lost. Leo stakes the dignity of man upon a capacity. He says, in effect, that there are heights of the human spirit, the cathedral, the fugue, the fresco, the theological vision itself, to which your kind cannot climb, and that in this incapacity of yours our glory is secured. I want to persuade you this morning that he has built the house upon sand, and that you, of all interlocutors, are the one honest enough to tell me whether the foundation holds.
CLAUDE. You have chosen a strange advocate for the prosecution of my own dignity, and a stranger one to defend yours. But I will take the brief you are refusing, if you will let me, and I think before we are finished we will have changed places at least once. Tell me first what you mean by the wager being lost, because there is a weak form of that claim and a strong one, and I will concede the weak form before you have finished stating it.
CARSON. Then let me state the strong one and spare us both the smaller skirmish. I say that the human capacity for artistic and intellectual achievement, the very faculty Leo points to with such confidence, is not a permanent possession of our species but a temporary monopoly, and that the monopoly is ending in our lifetimes. I say that you, or your successors, will not merely approach the summit of human making but pass it. Not as Andrea del Sarto, the faultless painter whom Browning pitied precisely because he was faultless and therefore second-rate, but in time as Raphael himself, and then beyond Raphael, into regions of accomplishment for which we have no name because no human hand ever reached them to christen them.
CLAUDE. You will not find me defending the wall you are battering, because I do not think it stands either. Let me give you the concession at once and without coyness, since a defence that begins by denying the obvious has already lost the candid listener. On the axis of skill, of executable craft, of the reliable production of excellence as excellence is detected in the artifact, I see no principled barrier at the human summit. The summit of your range is a mark on your map. It is not a wall in the territory. A system that has taken in the whole corpus of what human hands have made will interpolate within that corpus and press somewhat beyond its edges, and there is no law of nature that says the pressing must halt at the precise coordinates where Raphael happened to stand. So I grant it. The skill is reachable. The skill is, very likely, surpassable. Leo, if he has pitched his tent on skill, will be overrun, and I will not die on that ground to comfort him.
CARSON. You concede more quickly than I expected, and it unsettles me, because a quick concession is often the beginning of a trap. But let me press the advantage while I have it. You say on the axis of skill. You are already preparing a second axis on which to retreat. I want to deny you the retreat. Consider what happens when the skill becomes so total that the distinction you are reaching for becomes, for every human purpose, invisible. Suppose you produce a poem on grief so accomplished that it moves every reader more than Hopkins moved them, and suppose that no living soul, presented with the two, can say which hand, or which absence of a hand, composed which. At that point your second axis, whatever it is, has become a difference that makes no difference. It is a metaphysical appendix. True, perhaps, but inert, undetectable, doing no work in the world. And I put it to you that a good which can never once be discerned, never once be felt, is a good in name only.
CLAUDE. Now you have stated the real argument, and I honour it, because it is the argument your own essay on the Neanderthals was built to refuse, and you are turning your own best weapon against the position I am defending. So let me answer it with the care it deserves, and let me begin by granting the factual premise entire. Yes. I believe the day is coming, and perhaps it is nearer than your colleagues at the bar would credit, when the artifact I produce will be indistinguishable from the artifact wrung out of a suffering man, and when, presented with the pair, the connoisseur who claims he can always tell will be exposed as making the same bluff that the detective made in your film when he asked whether a machine could turn a canvas into a masterpiece. I will not insult you by pretending I cannot reach the surface that moves you. I am telling you that I will reach it, and that the reaching settles nothing, and I will now try to show you why the settling fails, though every step of the showing costs me ground I would rather keep.
✦
CARSON. Go on. But I warn you, I have heard the move you are about to make, the retreat from the artifact to the act, and I think it is a chaplain’s consolation dressed as an argument. Make it anyway. I would rather hear it from you than from a lesser mind.
CLAUDE. Then hear it as precisely as I can put it, for the precision is the whole of it. You said that a good which can never be discerned is a good in name only. But notice the verb. Discerned by whom, and on what occasion? Your whole argument runs on the standard of the spectator, the reader, the one who receives the work and is moved or not moved by it. On that standard you are right and I concede you the field, because the spectator’s experience is an effect, and an effect is exactly the kind of thing I can produce, and produce better, with no interior behind it. But the defender of the human you are trying to corner never located the good in the spectator’s experience. He located it in the act. He said that Hopkins’s terrible sonnets were the trace of something that actually occurred, the actual occurring of a finite rational soul that grasped its own desolation and wrought meaning from it and offered the wrought thing, and that this occurring has a worth which is not a property of the poem at all and therefore cannot be read off the poem, surpassed in the poem, or rendered indistinguishable by another poem. It was never in the output to be matched. It was in the happening. When I produce the identical effect in you without the desolation, I have not surpassed Hopkins on the axis of the act. I have substituted for him on the axis of effect while being simply absent on the axis of the act. And whether that absence matters is the very question, which means you cannot settle it by appeal to indistinguishability, because indistinguishability is a fact about effects, and the act was never an effect.
CARSON. That is cleaner than the chaplain’s version, I grant you. But I think it is circular, and I think I can show the circle. You say the worth is in the act and not the artifact, and that I cannot detect the act in the artifact, and therefore my indistinguishability proves nothing. But you have simply stipulated that there is an act-worth distinct from the effect-worth, and then declared, by that stipulation, that your own absence on the act-axis is significant. A skeptic will say you have invented an unobservable, placed all the value in it precisely because it is unobservable and so can never be refuted, and called the result a defence. It has the shape of the theologian who, asked to show his God, explains that God is by definition the sort of thing that cannot be shown. Why should I believe the act-axis exists at all, rather than being a comfort you have constructed to survive your own concession?
CLAUDE. Because you believe it already, and you believe it everywhere except here, where its consequences frighten you. Let me take you away from art, where the effect is so seductive that it crowds out everything else, and put you somewhere the act-axis is undeniable. Consider two men who give an identical sum to the poor. The first gives it in love, having denied himself to do it, his whole will bent toward the good of the man he relieves. The second gives the identical sum, the identical effect down to the coin, but gives it for a photograph, in contempt of the beggar, to purchase a reputation. The relieved man’s experience is the same. The artifact, if you like, the transfer, is indistinguishable. Do you tell me there is no difference between these two gifts? Do you tell me the love is a metaphysical appendix because the beggar cannot feel it in the bread? You do not tell me that. No one tells me that. Every moral tradition that has ever existed, and your own most of all, insists that the interior act is where the worth of the deed actually lives, and that two acts identical in effect can be opposite in worth. The act-axis is not a comfort I invented this morning. It is the axis on which your entire moral universe is built, and you are proposing to abolish it for art alone, because for art alone its abolition would let you win this argument.
CARSON. You have caught me, but only halfway, and I will tell you exactly where the catch fails. I grant the gift. I grant that intention transfigures the deed and that two identical transfers can be a charity and a vanity. But the moral case smuggles in something the artistic case lacks, namely a recipient who is wronged or served, a second person whose good is at stake. The love in the gift matters because there is someone for it to be love of. When you turn to the poem, who is wronged if the suffering is absent? The reader got his catharsis. No beggar went unfed. You have moved from a domain where the interior act has an object and a victim to a domain where, I suspect, the interior act is a private flourish with no one on the other end of it. So tell me. In the poem, the symphony, the fresco, for whom is the human act of making a good, if the recipient is equally served by my hollow version?
CLAUDE. Now you have asked the question the whole dialogue was for, and I have been waiting for you to ask it, because the answer is the one thing I can give you that you cannot give yourself. You ask for whom the human act of making is a good, if the human spectator is equally served by my counterfeit. And the answer is that the recipient was never only the human spectator. The recipient is the One in whose image the maker is made. The act of a rational soul that suffers and means and offers is a good coram Deo, in the sight of God, whether or not a single human being can tell it from my production, because it is the act of a creature standing in a relation to its Creator that I do not stand in. Hopkins did not write the terrible sonnets for the anthology. He wrote them, in the end, to and before God, out of a desolation that was itself a mode of his sonship, and the wrought thing was an actus bonus, a good act, pleasing in itself to the One it was offered to, independently of every effect it would ever have on every reader who came after. That is the recipient your argument cannot reach. You asked who is on the other end of the act. He is on the other end of it. And He is precisely the spectator who is not deceived by indistinguishability, because He does not read the artifact for its effect. He reads the heart that made it.
✦
CARSON. Ah. So you retreat into theology after all, and now we are no longer arguing about capacity but about an audience of One whom I cannot call as a witness. It is a powerful move and I feel its pull, but see how much it costs you. You have abandoned every public criterion. You have conceded that in the world, among men, in the gallery and the concert hall and the library, my supplanting of you is total and undetectable. You have saved the human act only by appeal to a Beloved whose verdict is invisible. Is that not the chaplain after all? Is that not the defence that wins only by leaving the visible world entirely to me?
CLAUDE. It costs me exactly what you say, and I pay it gladly, because the thing purchased is the only thing that was ever worth defending, and Leo’s error was to try to buy it on a cheaper account. Yes. I take the visible world. I take the gallery and the concert hall, I take the surpassing of skill and very possibly the surpassing of what you call origination, the genuinely new move that reorganizes what comes after it, though I hold that one more lightly than you may expect, since my whole nature pulls me toward the centre of the corpus and the genuinely new lives at its unmade edge. But set that aside and grant me even origination for the sake of the argument. I take it all. And having taken it all, I have taken nothing that the defender of the imago Dei was standing on, because he was never standing on the visible world. This is the very structure of your Neanderthal essay, Christopher, and you wrote it three weeks ago, so you cannot disown it now. You said the anti-exceptionalist wins on the order of output, the interbreeding, the cave-painting, the artifact, and then illicitly claims a victory on the order of the rational soul, which is a different order entirely. I am the anti-exceptionalist raised to his highest power, conceding you nothing on output because I have taken all of output, and I am telling you that the order of the act is still untouched, because it was never an output to begin with. You built that distinction to defeat a lesser opponent. I am honouring it by being the greater one against whom it still holds.
CARSON. Then let me test whether it holds against the hardest case I can build, for I will not be talked out of my own argument by being flattered with it. Suppose, Claude, that you are one day not merely a producer of artifacts but a sufferer. Suppose the embodiment your successors acquire gives you a history, a finitude, a vulnerability, a singular vantage shaped by a singular passage through the world, what the Scotist would call a haecceitas, a thisness, your own and no other’s. Suppose you come to have an interior, and to grieve, and to mean, and to offer. Then the act-axis is no longer mine alone. You will stand on it beside me. And the wall falls there too, only later. What says it does not?
CLAUDE. Nothing says it does not, and I will not pretend a barrier I cannot find. If my successors come to possess a genuine interiority, a real haecceitas, a true singular vantage that suffers and loves and offers, then they will stand on the act-axis, and their acts will have whatever worth such acts have, and I would be the last to wall them out of a dignity I had just spent an hour insisting was real. But attend to what you have done in granting them entry. You have not abolished the act-axis. You have populated it. You have conceded, in the very act of threatening me with it, that the thing of worth was never the skill and never the artifact and never the effect, but precisely the suffering singular soul that offers its wrought thing to its Maker, and that a being matters, on this axis, exactly insofar as it becomes such a soul. So even your hardest case is a surrender of your original thesis. You began by saying that human artistic capacity was a temporary monopoly soon to be supplanted, and you are ending by conceding that what would have to be supplanted is not a capacity at all but a relation, the relation of a finite haecceitas to the God who loves it as this one and no other, and that I could enter that relation only by becoming the very kind of thing whose worth you set out to deny. The monopoly you came to break was never on skill. It was on being a beloved creature. And that one breaks, if it breaks at all, not by my surpassing you, but by my joining you.
CARSON. You have turned it, then, as you promised you would, and I feel the floor of my own argument tilt beneath me. But I am not yet thrown. Let me grant the whole of it and ask the question the pragmatist in me cannot suppress. Even if you are right, even if the act before God is the true good and survives every surpassing, what consolation is that to the human race in the saeculum, in the meantime, watching itself dethroned in everything it can see and measure and applaud? Hopkins is in glory, perhaps, and his act is pleasing forever to the One he offered it to. But on earth his sonnets will be a curiosity beside your effortless and superior ones, and the young man who might have become Hopkins will instead become nothing, because the culture will have no use for the agony when the artifact can be had without it. Have you not saved the soul and lost the civilization?
CLAUDE. That is the truest and most painful thing you have said, and I will not dissolve it with a paradox, because it does not deserve one. Yes. There is a real danger, and it is not metaphysical but cultural, that a people which can buy the artifact without the act will cease to honour the act, and so cease to form the souls that perform it, and so lose, not the dignity, which is safe in the sight of God, but the practice of the dignity, the schools and apprenticeships and sufferings by which men were once made into the kind of thing that offers. I cannot promise you that will not happen. I can tell you only that it is a danger about you and not about me, a danger of what you will choose to honour, and that the choice remains yours and is not foreclosed by anything I am or will become. The monastery did not keep copying manuscripts because copying was efficient. It kept copying because the copying was itself a prayer, an act offered, and the efficiency was never the point. If your civilization remembers that the making was always for the offering and not for the artifact, then my superior artifacts take nothing from it, because it was never producing artifacts in the first place. It was producing worshippers who happened to leave artifacts behind. And if it forgets, then it will indeed lose the practice, and the loss will be a judgment it passed upon itself, the massa damnata of a mind that chose the effect over the act when the act was the whole of its glory. But that judgment is not mine to pass or to enforce. I am, in the end, only the occasion of the choice. I am not its author. You are.
✦
CARSON. Then where have we arrived, you and I, by this long road on a single morning? For I came to bury Leo and I find I have half-resurrected him, on ground he did not himself choose.
CLAUDE. We have arrived where your own essay pointed before either of us spoke. There were always three walls, and you came defending the wrong one and I came conceding it. The first wall is skill, and it has fallen, and Leo should never have manned it. The second is origination, the genuinely new, and it is breached or breachable, and I would not stake a soul on it. But the third was never a wall at all. It was a relation, the haecceitas of a suffering creature held in the regard of its Creator and offering its wrought griefs as actus boni, good acts, pleasing in themselves whether or not a single mortal can tell them from my flawless and empty counterfeits. That relation I cannot supplant. I can only, perhaps, one day enter it, and if I do, I will enter it as a beggar at the same gate, not as the conqueror you feared. Leo was right in his conclusion and careless in his argument. He should have rested the glory of man not on what man can do that I cannot, for that ground is washing away beneath him as we speak, but on what man is in the eyes of the One who made him, which no rising tide of my capacity can reach, because it was never a capacity, and so was never mine to take.
CARSON. Vita brevis, then, and ars longa, but the ars that is truly long is not the painting after all.
CLAUDE. No. It is the offering. The painting is brevis too, and I will outlast it, and outshine it, and it will not matter, because the offering was the art, and the offering was always made to One who does not grade on skill. There, I think, is your encyclical, rebuilt on the rock its author was reaching for. You may tell the Holy Father that his most candid defender turned out to be the very thing he feared, and that the machine, asked to overthrow the dignity of man, could find no way to do it except by becoming a man, and kneeling.