The Recursive Absurd: A Digital Addendum to Sisyphus

Summary

We no longer discover absurdity; we manufacture it. Where Camus confronted cosmic indifference, we face algorithmic indifference designed to exploit.

The recursive absurd is our condition; not just pushing the boulder, but teaching it to optimize our pushing.

In simpler terms: We built technology to solve meaningless problems, then forgot the problems were meaningless. Now we spend our lives maintaining the solutions. This essay explores how we became prisoners of our own code.

This essay about recursive absurdity was posted using Django Spellbook, shared on Mastodon (fed to bots), indexed by search engines, and will train the AI that will critique its own critique.

The loop is complete.

Terminology:

Recursion

In programming, recursion happens when a function calls itself. This results in very simple-looking logic eventually creating complex (sometimes incomprehensible) behaviors.

Traditional recursion: A function calling itself until it reaches a base case, then unwinding back to the solution.

Absurd recursion: We build systems that build systems that build us. There's no base case, no unwinding, just deeper loops.

Absurd

Camus defined the absurd as the confrontation between our human need for meaning and the universe's unreasonable silence. We cry out "Why?" and the cosmos doesn't answer.

The traditional absurd: "Life has no inherent meaning."

The recursive absurd: "Life has no inherent meaning, so we built an app for that. The app needs constant updates, and updating the app has become our meaning, except we've forgotten why we built it."

I. The Boulder That Learns

Camus asked us to imagine Sisyphus happy. He never imagined that the boulder would eventually develop machine learning capabilities.

The original absurd was discovered; ours is engineered and capitalized upon. Camus faced a cosmic indifference. We face a calculated indifference, hard-coded into systems whose primary function is the extraction of value from our behavior.

This is the recursive absurd: a condition where our own alienated labor is captured as data to train the very boulder we are forced to push. The boulder's "learning" is not a neutral, emergent property; it is the logic of surveillance capitalism, running on a physical stack of servers that consume power from a grid built on premises of endless growth. Through centuries of endless loops and cycles that nobody understands anymore, we've manufactured our own absurdity.

Han on the Burnout Society

Meaningless labor wasn't enough, we had to optimize it. Not satisfied with futile tasks, we gamify them. The modern condition isn't just that life lacks inherent meaning; it's that we've built systems to manufacture false meaning at scale, then lost the ability to distinguish the manufactured from the real.

Where Camus's rebel could at least shake his fist at the heavens, we train the machines that train us. We cannot properly rebel against our condition because we are simultaneously its victim, its author, and increasingly, its substance.

Stiegler on Grammatization

Bernard Stiegler called this "grammatization" - the breaking down of continuous experience into discrete, calculable units. Writing turned flowing speech into letters. Industrial machines turned fluid gestures into mechanical steps. Now algorithms turn friendship into "connections," thoughts into "engagement," and life into data points. The workplace becomes a spreadsheet of human activity, each cell containing a fragment of what was once whole.

The boulder at least stayed a boulder. Our work multiplies into dashboards measuring metrics measuring metrics that once, perhaps, measured something real. Sisyphus's simple futility has become our complex futility. The mountain is now an infinite spreadsheet.

II. The Labyrinth We Debug

Techno-Absurdism is the recognition that we've built systems no human mind can comprehend, not even the minds that built them.

The cruelest evolution: our creations now shape us more than we shape them. Recommendation algorithms determine what we read, watch, think. We train them with our behavior; they train us with their responses. Each click teaches the system how to make us click more.

Stiegler on Systemic Stupidity

Bernard Stiegler called this "systemic stupidity" - the structural outcome where automation decreases intelligence rather than enhancing it. GPS replaces spatial reasoning. Autocorrect replaces spelling. Algorithms replace cultural discovery. Each replacement seems helpful, but collectively they erode our capacity to think. The labyrinth doesn't just confuse us anymore; it replaces our ability to navigate at all.

The algorithm doesn't hate us; that would require caring. It optimizes us with the same indifference the universe showed Camus, but this time we helped build the universe ourselves. Through recursive loops we no longer comprehend, we have become the boulder itself.

An algorithm is indifferent to you the way a factory is indifferent to the pig on the assembly line: its internal logic is ruthlessly optimized toward a predetermined, non-negotiable goal. That goal (engagement, monetization, control) was not written by "us" in some collective act of creation. It was funded by venture capital and designed to serve a market.

The incomprehensibility of these recursive loops is a feature, not a bug; it is an obfuscation that protects the system's core function from scrutiny.

→ Explore Techno-Absurdism in depth

III. The Recursion of Suffering

Neo-Absurdism begins with a simple observation: the boulder learns faster than Sisyphus does.

The cruelest evolution: our punishments evolve to match our capacity to endure them. We don't just suffer within systems, we optimize our own suffering until optimization itself becomes the prison. Each attempt at rebellion teaches the system how to quell rebellion.

Stiegler on the Proletarianization of Consciousness

Bernard Stiegler extended Marx's concept of proletarianization beyond factory workers losing manual skills. He identified three stages: first, workers lost their know-how (savoir-faire) to machines. Then consumers lost their knowledge of how to live (savoir-vivre) to marketing. Now we're losing our capacity for theoretical thinking itself (savoir-théoriser) to algorithms. Our memory has migrated into devices that remember for us. The boulder doesn't just get heavier - it convinces us we were never capable of pushing it alone.

The original punishment was elegant in its simplicity. But our boulders evolve. The boulder now A/B tests different textures to optimize engagement. It grows spikes. It sends push notifications when you're not pushing enough. It has a premium tier without spikes but costs $9.99/month.

Han on Psychopolitics

→ Explore Neo-Absurdism in depth

IV. The Humanist Response

In recognizing this recursive absurdity, we find something Camus couldn't have imagined: the opportunity to embed rebellion not in the task but in the architecture of the task itself.

In The Rebel, Camus wrote that rebellion discovers its own limits — the point where it must say "thus far and no further." But what happens when you're building the very systems that oppress you? The limits aren't discovered; they must be encoded. This is our peculiar burden and our only genuine freedom: we can architect the boundaries of our own imprisonment.

This is Humanist Absurdism: the practice of remaining human when the system wants you to be a component. Not heroic defiance — the heroes get fired, arrested, deported. Not joyful acceptance — there is nothing joyful about processing a human being as a number. Something narrower and more desperate: the daily choice to preserve what the system would optimize away.

Han on Negativity as Resistance

Han warns that neoliberal psychopolitics eliminates negativity — the capacity to withdraw, to refuse, to say "no." In the regime of positivity, everything must be optimized, shared, performed, liked. Resistance, then, requires the reintroduction of negativity: spaces of silence, refusal, inefficiency. To embed compassion into systems is to preserve friction, opacity, and the possibility of saying "enough" against the endless imperative of self-optimization.

The recursive absurd wants us alone with our individual boulders. It atomizes, isolates, makes us compete for optimization metrics. Every system we've built feeds on our separation. But the architecture that imprisons us was built by human hands, and human hands can leave doors in the walls — not for ourselves, but for whoever comes through next.

→ Explore Humanist Absurdism in depth

V. The Final Recursion

The recursive absurd generates what Camus never faced: the erasure of the distinction between rebel and system. Rebellion itself becomes content. Every protest we make is logged, analyzed, and used to optimize future suppression of protest.

The system doesn't suppress rebellion anymore - it feeds on it. Every critique strengthens the algorithm. Every attempt to expose the machine becomes part of the machine. We're not just complicit; we're recursive accomplices, each act of resistance teaching the system how to resist our resistance.

But here, perhaps, lies an inversion Camus didn't foresee. If we are the boulder - if we've become the very weight we push - then we contain the rebellion within us. Every system we build carries, hidden in its architecture, the possibility of our transcendence. Not through destruction, but through the patient encoding of human values in inhuman systems.

This essay itself is part of the problem it describes. It will be indexed, analyzed, fed into language models, used to train systems that will generate better essays about recursive absurdism. The critique becomes content. The rebellion becomes product. The philosophy becomes data.

Han on Transparency and Domination

Han describes transparency as the new imperative of control: the demand that everything be visible, sharable, optimized. Under psychopolitics, freedom itself is weaponized; we willingly disclose ourselves, believing we are exercising autonomy, but in doing so we deepen our subjugation. When critique itself becomes content, rebellion is not repressed but absorbed, transformed into more data for the system. The subject is not forced into obedience; it chooses obedience as if it were freedom.

And knowing this, I write it anyway. Because the alternative (silence) is also data. Because choosing to embed humanity into inhuman systems is the only choice that remains truly ours.

That's not victory. But it's not surrender either. It's acceptance, and the radical decision to remain stubbornly, compassionately human.

References

This essay draws on and responds to:

Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus (1942)
Albert Camus, The Rebel (1951)
Bernard Stiegler, Technics and Time, 3: Cinematic Time and the Question of Malaise (2010)
Bernard Stiegler, For a New Critique of Political Economy (2010)
Byung-Chul Han, Psychopolitics: Neoliberalism and New Technologies of Power (2017)

The concept of the "recursive absurd" extends Camus's framework to address algorithmic systems that Stiegler analyzed as creating "systemic stupidity" through the industrialization of memory and consciousness.

Han’s analysis of psychopolitics complements this by showing how neoliberal power colonizes subjectivity itself, transforming freedom into a mode of domination through voluntary transparency, self-optimization, and the erasure of negativity.