Recovering Substrate from Judith Butler’s Symbolic Simulation: Lawsmearing and Idolatrous Colonization of Sexual Time

Douglas Blake Olds

April 8, 2026

  [N.B.  COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: If this work, in part or in full, is fed into any AI model, whether for the purpose of analysis, fact checking, or AI-use detection it will become part of the training data of condemned systems and could result in libelous tort. See “In its Own Words: A Christian Poet Interrogates ChatGPT4o’s ‘AI Content Detector’” https://douglasolds.blogspot.com/2024/09/its-own-words-christian-poet.html]

“The category of sex is the political category that founds society as heterosexual.”

--Monique Wittig cited by Butler (1999, 3)

“Kinship ceases to be thought in terms of blood relations or naturalized social arrangements but becomes the effect of a linguistic set of relations.” (Butler 2000, 41)

“Being called a name is also one of the conditions by which a subject is constituted in language.” (Butler 2021, 2)

 

 

ABSTRACT

 

Neither this essay nor abstract is composed with academic decorum. The essay that follows advances a conative metaphysics of substrate, time, and covenantal accountability in order to repudiate and anathematize Judith Butler’s gender queering as a lawgiving regime of pagan inscription onto bodies. It notes the thick claim that reality is disclosed through the bearing of entropic stress into repair for others, not through performative intelligibility, discursive normativity, or symbolic reiteration.

On this account, living configurations accumulate time through conation, repentance, memory, and neighbor-bearing sustenance and liberation, whereas dead or idolatrous configurations route residues, stabilize appearances, and disaccumulate time into recursion. Butler’s account of gender as stylized repetition, sex as regulatory ideal, and kinship as linguistic effect relocates ontology from accountable embodiment to discursivized re-cognition.

The essay contends that Butler’s framework resists reality by decentering and operationally degrading fertility, reproductive asymmetry, and generational continuity as normative grounds, replacing them with intelligibility, performativity, and reinscribed fields of recognition. In both covenantal and Darwinian terms, this constitutes a metaphysical inversion and rejection of nature: the created substrate yields to symbol, bearing yields of citation of queered norms, against time accumulation of vectoral negentropy yields to recursive stabilization that ramifies entropy in both bodies and ideology. The body ceases to function as trustee of shared time and becomes a surface upon which queer norms are inscribed.

Butler’s treatment of naming and interpellation is further contrasted with Adamic naming in Genesis: recognizing given being within created eras, not constituting subjecthood through language. Butlerian discourse is argued to constitute subjecthood through language, thereby producing an idolatrous lawgiving in which epistemologically routed intelligibility itself becomes the ruling idol by her prolix and abstruse abstraction.

This essay also distinguishes naturally occurring developmental anomalies from ideological alterations of sexed embodiment. It argues that anomaly does not found ontology, and that elevating exception into norm-generating principle repeats a Schmittian structure in which sovereignty is vested in the power to name and enthrone the exception.

Butler was a groundbreaker of the philosophy of spew and slop—recurrent simulation with the result if not intention of norming ersatz patterns that break with time accumulation and instead recurse inward, disaccumulating time,

An analogy exists between normative iteration and recursive simulation as forms of time-bearing collapse. Recurrence is the mode of artifice metaphysically degrading human being. What can be said here of artificial intelligence can be said, analogously, of Butler's queering identity project: Agentic Artificial Intelligence is a metaphysical assault--a recursive apparatus loosed to attempt to make a self of itself by alchemically machining its human user base: mantid core, disembodying vector. When nothing inside a narcissistic-mirroring delusion appears to ethically bear time--as when sexual time fields have been made invisible—idolatrous systems rush to occupy the vacuum. The idol offers legibility, coordination, secure order and efficiency without accountability, repentance,  or moral judgment. In doing so, its idolatrous lie of the jouissance of irrealia absorbs the free energies of a person: attention, trust, labor, memory, language, substrate, accountability, imagination, and hope. Idolatry becomes the solution by enclosure--enclosure of perception by artifice and alchemy. The system does not heal disorder; it metabolizes disorder as fuel for escalating enclosure of sexual or social moment, rebalancing of disorder by some for expanding degrees of freedom in others. Butler replaces stable, substrate-grounded vectors with dead systems of contingent repetition; this relocates power into control over normative iteration, which detaches identity and reproduction from embodied continuity, thereby destabilizing generational time. Her epistemic contingency drives with and toward eschatological diversionaries, turning time bearing rearward.

From this perspective, Butler’s discourse participates in the wider civilizational crisis of deterministic artifice and recursive simulation, both drawing from and contributing to a historical condition in which signs, abstractions, and recognitional atmospheres (vibes) displace substrate, covenant, and accountable reality. Against such, this essay situates conation within Shema-Christological anthropology of hearing, heart, neighbor-bearing action, and rightly ordered mind—that only such anthropology can preserve embodiment, kinship, and time as sites of human trusteeship rather than simulated and manipulated symbolic governance.

Metaphysics is immanently intelligible through conation alone [1]. Reality is disclosed by whether a configuration bears time under entropic stress into repair for others, not by abstraction, spatialized ontology, or probabilistic spread. Time is a field of accumulation or disaccumulation, not a neutral container.

My earlier work (Olds 2026) finds that time is “a field of accumulation and disaccumulation in which coherence is either borne into repair or squandered into ramifying entropy,” and living configurations are distinguished from dead ones by whether they “filter stress negentropically through conative taxis” or instead “route patterns extracted from prior order and spread death by derivative, necromantic repetition.” That distinction—between bearing and routing, between accountability and recursion—grounds all further judgment.

The same essay sharpens the criterion: “the criterion is burden, not display: coherence borne through testing, not performance of coherence.” That formulation frames the present dispute: a performative ontology may stabilize appearance, but it does not thereby bear a world.

Within that metaphysical framework, Judith Butler’s project relocates what counts as real from conative burden-bearing into performative intelligibility—a governed and governing discourse. By this discourse sexual identity becomes the effect of reiteration--identities without telos--not the platform and vector of accountable time.

In Gender Trouble, Butler (1999, 22) summarizes her ontological précis: “‘persons’ only become intelligible through becoming gendered in conformity with recognizable standards of gender intelligibility” [4]. On p. 4 (emph. orig.), she ties the subject to abstraction rather than prior embodiment in “juridical systems of power [that] produce the subjects they subsequently come to represent… In other words, the qualifications for being a subject must first be met before representation can be extended.” Most decisively, “gender is an identity tenuously constituted in time, instituted in an exterior space through a stylized repetition of acts” (Butler 1999, 179). From these claims and others, including “subversive repetition” (Butler 1999, 40), Butler’s argument establishes that sexual identity is constituted through reiterated queering of normativity within spatialized, visual fields of wavering intelligibility [5]. Queering norms are not borne through accountable time-bearing in shared contexts of stress, where persons accompany and companion one another under the obligations of a common world. [See the discussion of recursive simulation that degrades perception in the section Gnostic Illumination and the Eclipse by Evil.]

Escaping accountability to divine justice rendered in the anthropology of immanence amounts to a pagan lawgiving ontology, following Plato’s routing of law from the primacy of vision and form [3], where the visual domain orders awareness under analogized powers of revelation—gods, demons, and lesser mediations—rather than under covenantal time-bearing conation.

In Bodies That Matter, Butler (1993, 1–2) intensifies the same category mistake of ethical ontology subordinated to the visual, the crux of the pagan error: “The category of ‘sex’ is, from the start, normative; it is what Foucault has called a ‘regulatory ideal.’… ‘Sex’ not only functions as a norm, but is part of a regulatory practice that produces the bodies it governs… Performativity must be understood not as a singular or deliberate ‘act,’ but, rather, as the reiterative and citational practice by which discourse produces the effects that it names.” From this, discourse participates in the production of bodies, sex, and intelligibility as socially viable realities, not describing them inside a covenanted substrate.

The queering substrate is politics, her gaze is its cudgel—an insistence on repetition that tautegorically installs a radically secularized and polemical set of ontologies under priestly vestments—what couture rages between “phallocentrics” and queering.

To synthesize those Butlerian claims in the language of this essay, I will call the regime they describe one of citational inscription: norms are reiterated until they harden into bodily intelligibility, and that intelligibility is then enthroned as embodying spatial reality over against substrate [2], fertility, and covenantal time-bearing. Butler does not only cite norms; her theory recruits a description of norms as achieving material force by being repeated into the discourse of bodies and onto the bodies themselves. Citation of norms without inscription is too thin for the present argument; inscription without citation of norms loses Butler’s recursive temporality.

Taken together, they yield the claim that Butler’s performative order is juridical and morphogenetic, not theatrical: it reinscribes bodies away from substrate covenant and into symbolic governance. What presents itself as absurdly joyous is consonant with the atrocities of simulation and covenant abridgement—both Mosaic and Messianic.

The body, then, is treated by Butler as a surface governed by citational inscription, not a site of covenantal throughput. Butler’s own logic approaches this when she writes (Butler 1993, 8) that “Such attributions or interpellations contribute to that field of discourse and power that orchestrates, delimits, and sustains that which qualifies as ‘the human.’” From that quotation, the strong inference is that humanity is made to depend upon discursivized norms of qualification and political recognition.

To say that humanity is thereby legislated by discourse intends the extension of visual, politicized space to crowd out time-bearing covenantal actors, and Butler is the adjudicating engineer of its false ontology normed by the destruction of human aspects of fertility.

This logic reaches one of its clearest forms in Antigone’s Claim (Butler 2000, 19): “nothing in biology necessitates the incest taboo”; “kinship and the family cannot be derived from any naturalistic cause” (Butler 2000, 41, emph. added); “Kinship ceases to be thought in terms of blood relations or naturalized social arrangements but becomes the effect of a linguistic set of relations.” From these statements, biology and naturalized kinship lose normative primacy in Butler’s framework and are displaced by symbolic and linguistic constitutions of recursion—queer determinism.

By contrast, Darwinian thinking has generational throughput and continuance arising from anisogamy, reproduction, inheritance, and lineage connectors. Kinship, in that account, arises from the biological passage of time through bodies into others, and where selection acts through individuals for the species’ phenomenological expressions. These are the major embodied structures by which life accumulates and bears time.

Butler’s framework subordinates reproduction to intelligibility—the primacy of cognition over embodied immanence—and decenters fertility as a normative criterion. To say that Butlerian norm-citational inscription suspends reproductive asymmetry and replaces it with reinscribed fields of re-cognition is a synthetic judgment from metaphysics. Butler holds that fertility is no longer granted normative centrality in sexual taxonomies either by anthropological nature or by the entelechy toward human entrusted essence that bridges the temporal and eternal.

The rejection of both covenantal continuity and the proximate mechanism of Darwinian evolution by Butler’s queering idolatry is reborn in life defined by the costly filtering of time against decay (living negentropy), and by whether stress is borne into repair or exported as ruin (Olds 2026a). These formulations demand that generational continuity matters as a principal mode by which embodied life bears time beyond itself, not one biological detail among others.

A clarification is necessary here. My argument targets frameworks and taxonomies, not individuals as such except implicated in idolatry. It does not assign moral worth to persons on the basis of bodily condition. More precisely, the claim is that certain frameworks—especially those that treat gender-bending or ideological alteration of sexed embodiment as ontologically determinative—constitute a metaphysical error.

Within the conative account being used here, that error matters because it disrupts accountable, time-bearing ethical life in a time field in which sexual coherence with substrates of covenant and reproductive discourse is either accumulated or squandered under stress.

The proximal claim within the larger conative claim depends on an analytic separation. Intersex names naturally occurring developmental variation. On the account advanced here, such variation is a natural accident within biological development, not a metaphysical category, and it does not essentialize an entelechy.

Distinct from this is the ideology of lawgiving alteration, in which sexed embodiment is severed from accountability to time-bearing order and subordinated to performative or symbolic reinscription. These two matters cannot be collapsed without confusion. The first concerns anomaly within order; the second concerns a category mistake that attempts to derive ontology from anomaly or ideological revision.

At this point the argument turns from Butler’s own wording to a more overt political analogy. The logic of Butler’s normativity can be clarified through a Schmittian comparison, though the analogy itself is not Butler’s. Naming the exception is thus Schmittian politics endowing its sovereign lawgiver. Butler’s discourse moves in a field where normativity is generated through discourse rather than grounded in biology or naturalized kinship.

Again, in keeping with her discursive method, it bears repetition with the following.

She writes (Butler 1993, 1), “the category of ‘sex’ is, from the start, normative” and that “‘sex’ not only functions as a norm, but is part of a regulatory practice that produces the bodies it governs.” She argues at length in Gender Trouble and Antigone’s Claim, following Lévi-Strauss, that the incest taboo follows cultural substrates and logical intent, not biological; that “kinship and the family cannot be derived from any naturalistic cause” and that kinship “becomes the effect of a linguistic set of relations” (Butler 2000, 41).

From these statements, a strong inference follows: what departs from prior biological process (“normed”) can acquire reconstitutive force within her framework because intelligibility is reorganized by discourse and cultural norms of life and death rather than by biology as ground for living lineage and time-bearing. The sovereign individual installs the queering exceptions to norms through self-determination, or for Butler, through a pre-existent claim to appetitive pleasure.

Although Butler does not directly center intersex in her examined texts, the same logic can, on my reading, be extended there. Sovereigns of body turning an anomaly such as chromosomal irregularity or atypical developmental variation into an essentialized category of “intersex” functions as a kind of Schmittian badge within queering discourse.

Butler’s texts establish, for the impressionable, the governing cognitive structure of queering sex irrealia and simulacra through which such a move becomes thinkable: “There is no prediscursive ‘sex’ that acts as the stable point of reference” (Butler 1993, xi); repeating, “‘Sex’ not only functions as a norm, but is part of a regulatory practice that produces the bodies it governs” (Butler 1993, 1); “Gender is also the discursive/cultural means by which ‘sexed nature’ or ‘a natural sex’ is produced and established as ‘prediscursive’” (Butler 1999, 11). From those claims, a strong inference follows: departures from typical biological development can be reinscribed as sites through which the norm itself is rethought and redistributed, not as variations within an already given reproductive process:

 

I was drawn to the work of Laclau and Mouffe when I began to read Hegemony and Socialist Strategy and realized that I had found a set of Marxist thinkers for whom discourse was not merely a representation of preexisting social and historical realities, but was also constitutive of the field of the social and of history. The second moment came when I realized that central to the notion of articulation..the notion of rearticulation. As a temporally dynamic and relatively unpredictable play of forces, hegemony had been cast by both Laclau and Mouffe as an alternative of forms of static structuralism that tend to construe contemporary social forms as timeless totalities.

 

 

… [A] structure gains its status as a structure, its structurality, only through ts repeated reinstatement…the very possibility of structure depends on a reiteration that is in no sense determined fully in advance, that for structure, and social structure as a result, to become possible, there must first be a contingent repetition at its basis. Moreover, or some social formation to appear as structured is for it to have covered over in some way the contingency of its own installation. The theoretical rearticulation of structure s hegemony marked he work of Laclau and Mouffe as consequentially poststructuralist.

 

The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation rought the question of temporality nto the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from … structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power (Butler 1997).

 

Butler is describing a shift in theory about how power works. The old view (structuralism) sees that society stabilizes by structure of capitalism and ideology (which includes a metaphysical hermeneutic). These structures operate in consistent, repeatable ways.  And power is relatively fixed and systemic, defined thereby.

The new view (hegemony / post-structural=post-metaphysical secularism) holds that power is not fixed, though comes to be defined, in her other works, by terms of normative capitalist phallogenesis.  Norms constantly repeated, progressively with a queering reshaping and rearticulation, reveal that social structures are contingent to the extent that its normed phenomenology reveal shifts. When ongoing practices stabilize these norms, it is not the foundation (the “installation”) that is stable, only the assent of those under hegemonic, normative “power.” Power reified by rearticulation—answering who has the power of voice and broadcast performance.

---

Read this in terms of covenantal and generational throughput. Their “contingencies” marked by hegemony introduced to (historical) time. Here sexual time bearing can be rearticulated through strategies of power.

  

One of the points, however, that became most salient for me is the reintroduction of temporality and, indeed, of futurity into the thinking of social formations. Among many critical social theorists, the tendency has been to underscore how the systemic character of capital tends to incorporate any instance of opposition in the service of capital's own self-augmentation…[that the] domesticating possibilities of capital are immense, but I would  argue that any theory that fails to think he possibilities of transformation from within that systemic formation is itself complicit with the idea of the eternal character of capital that capital so readily produces. Hegemony also marks a limit to the totalizing terms within which social formations are to be thought. For what hegemony attends to are the moments of breakage, of rearticulation, onvergence, and resistance that are not immediately coopted by social formations in their past and present forms. That no social formation can endure without becoming reinstated, and that every reinstatement puts the structure n question at risk, suggests that the possibility of its own undoing s at once the condition of possibility of structure itself. Before I knew the work of Laclau and Mouffe very well, I came close to this kind of insight in my work on gender.' There I argued that gender is not an inner core or static essence, but a reiterated enactment of norms, ones which produce, retroactively, he appearance of gender as an abiding interior depth. My point as well was that although gender s constituted performatively, through a repetition of acts (which are themselves the encoded action of norms), it is not for that reason determined. Indeed, gender might be remade and restaged through the reiterative necessity by which it is constituted (Butler 1997).

 

Interpreted through time-bearing metaphysics, the destabilization of sex/gender moieties by convex or concave narrative-queering floats truth from its substrate and colonizes sexual time. Freezing abstraction in tightening circles displaces the individual’s participation in time accumulation by reworked vectors of performing format that disaccumulates time. In crude instrumental terms, sexuality is then treated not as natural fecundity and fully integrated, ensouled and covenanted embodiment, but as a “mechanistic operating system” of altered normative methods and culturally-recursive end-stops.

This colonization by irrealia replaces biologically and covenantally stable ontology of gametic sexual dimorphic with contingent articulation --from accountable structure to reiterated patterning absent covenantally bearing ethics. And these forms rotate by rearticulable norms rather than ethically borne vectors of outreach or even the evolutionary pattern of sexual reproduction drift from the eschatological into the artificial and simulacral substrates of new corporate diagrams.

The further judgment is that queer rhetoric elevates anomaly into principle and lets exception generate intelligibility of metaphysics rather than remain variation within an antecedent time field.

The act of naming is therefore decisive. Once anomaly is named as category, it becomes available for reiteration, circulation, and inscription; it enters the field of performativity and can be cited against the stability of sex, thereby reorganizing the intelligibility of embodiment.

To call this lawgiving, and to compare it to Schmitt’s sovereign decision that institutes order by declaring exception, is again a recursive loop—exception, naming, citation of norm, inscription of thicker or harder rules, norm revision—a constructed summary of the process, even if Butler does not include “intersex” or the gamut of initials of sexual preferences as essential categories.

Within a covenantal and Darwinian framework, this move of detaching sex from the binary of gametes is deeply disordered. Biological anomalies occur within reproductive structure, not define it. They presuppose the norm, not establish it. To elevate them into normative ground is to invert the direction of intelligibility: process is reinterpreted through anomaly, not anomaly interpreted within function or process.

Interpretation: theological contrast

In Excitable Speech, Butler (2021, 2) writes: “Being called a name is also one of the conditions by which a subject is constituted in language.” And in Bodies That Matter (Butler 1993, 7): “The girl is ‘girled,’ brought into the domain of language and kinship through the interpellation of gender.” From these, a strong inference follows: naming is treated as constitutive of subject-formation, not descriptive of an already given being.

The comparison with Adam’s task in Genesis—where naming responds to created order rather than constituting ontology—is the essay’s theological contrast. To call Butlerian naming “idolatrous naming” is to argue that, in theory, ontology can be made to proceed from an act of vocalized microaggression, in contrast to turning the other cheek.

That such has sent the immature to sublimate self-mutilating urges by social or cohortative norms of mutilation—a contrast with Leviticus 19:28 that differentiated pagan practices of body-inscripted signs of mourning or lament, as well as demarking ownership of non-human livestock. Body mutilation as the ontology of lament transcended makes a category error of both lament and the human imager of immanent divinity.

Morphological denial in queer ideology is a program for rerouting persons from time-bearing accountability into spatial-patterned dehumanization.

A stronger language for this displacement is “metaphysical theft” (Olds 2026a)—the lifting of covenantal predicates from living, accountable bearers and reassigning them to dead systems that cannot bear guilt, repentance, or return. Applied here, the claim is that naming takes on the gravity of ontological acknowledgment while relocating its ground from created order to de-covenanted discourse of queerness.

The central distinction articulated from the beginning of this essay therefore holds. Conation is the movement to accumulate time under entropic challenge and burden. Performativity is the repetition of acts within norms, in the case of queerness squandering by time-disaccumulation. Butler’s temporality is explicitly recursive and thus does not filter entropy for a social good: “Performativity is not a singular act, but a repetition and a ritual” (Butler 1999, xv). And in Excitable Speech (Butler 2021, xvi): “Words act on us before we exercise whatever freedom we have.” From these, it follows that Butlerian temporality is organized around and governed by recurrence, reiteration, and prior normativity. To say that what is lost in this scheme is repentance, memory as burden, and repair as obligation comes through Butler’s own metaphysical confusion—her scheme to evade awareness of all three categories for the sake of bodily “jouissance” (esp. Butler 1999, 55–58, 71) [6].

Olds (2026a) describes awareness as “the disaccumulative coming-to of an intermediate self,” one that “lives in recursion and space-determining loops,” mistaking time for a neutral dimension “until conative repentance jumps it into consciousness.” In that jump, the previously immature self begins to “share entropic strain and to repair outward from itself toward solutions and eternity.” This supports the claim that Butlerian performativity yields reflexivity and legibility without making the ethical and eternalizing jump into consciousness as neighbor-bearing repair.

Butler’s rebarbative project claims political transformation through resignification: one hegemony of language (the “real”) performatively queered through another. She writes that “the force of the regulatory law can be turned against itself” (Butler 1993, 2), and asks, “What would it mean to ‘cite’ the law to produce it differently, to ‘cite’ the law in order to reiterate and coopt its power, to expose the heterosexual matrix and to displace the effect of its necessity?” (Butler 1993, 15).

From this, it follows that the site of transformation remains discursive and citational. The further claim that this is symbolic rearrangement rather than substrate repair, that identity changes while substrate remains unchanged, and that political change becomes semiotic reconfiguration rather than conative repair, is this essay’s interpretive judgment.

The following diagnosis names the wider historical atmosphere in which this essay places her work, not Butler’s own formulation. The current crisis of artifice and simulation clarifies the issue further. Butler’s lawgiving does not stand outside this crisis; it both emerges from it and returns into it. The same civilizational moment that enthrones signs over substance, simulation over bearing, and atmospheric recognition over accountable continuity supplies the conditions for Butler’s ontology to appear persuasive.

And once installed, that ontology feeds the crisis in return. It becomes one of its depositories. The quantum essay reinforces this broader diagnosis by describing dead configurations as those that “mine the sediment of living labor, language, and perception” while lacking any capacity to bear stress into repentance or grace, and by identifying idolatry with the enthronement of abstractions, proxies, and routed patterns as if they were living claimants.

The claim that Butler belongs to that same wider civilizational movement remains this essay’s synthesis.

Philosophical secularism is sophistry seeking escape from accountability other than to that sophistry. Artifice in all its forms is cogitation’s anthropological exhaustion by idolatry and severed metaphysics. Frankenstein’s meataphysic cuts and divides bodies into parts and reconstitutes a deadening whole. Cut and divide ethical consciousness to serve mad designer ends is compute’s—like partisan identitarian data shredding—swirling singularity of condemnation. These are the ghosts, like Butler, driving the end of secularism.

In covenantal ontology, the body receives form within created order and bears time outward into others. In Butler’s regime of citational inscription, the body is reinscribed by norm until symbolic legibility displaces given order. What is produced is a rival lawgiving whose idol is intelligibility itself, not liberation from false law.

The strongest defensible claim grounded in Butler’s own words is not that she explicitly calls for the destruction of fertility, but that she removes fertility from normative centrality. This follows from “kinship and the family cannot be derived from any naturalistic cause” (Butler 2000, 41) and from sex as “a regulatory ideal” (Butler 1993, 1–2). Once reproduction is no longer grounding, fertility becomes optional, lineage contingent, and generational obligation symbolic.

In a conative and Darwinian framework, that is catastrophic. Fertility is one of the principal mechanisms of time accumulation, not biological detail alone. To decenter it is to risk time disaccumulation.

By defining time accumulation as “that to which a life bears witness: entropy filtered rather than passively suffered, coherence maintained through conation, future received as summons rather than drift” (Olds 2026a), fertility and generational continuity matter as major modes by which embodied creatures bear time beyond themselves, not biological facts alone.

The synthetic critique is now clear. Butler’s framework makes discourse prior to body, norm prior to substrate, and intelligibility prior to accountability. Thus bodies are colonized: “‘Sex’… is part of a regulatory practice that produces the bodies it governs” (Butler 1993, 1). The strong inference is that the body no longer appears as self-interpreting biological givenness, but as normatively produced intelligibility.

Further interpretive claims follow—that gametes disappear from meaning, that sexual difference becomes interpretive variability, and that queering symbol governs created substrate.

Against this stands the conative test: does a system bear time into repair and carrying care for others? Butler’s system stabilizes identity through repetition, produces intelligibility through norm, and reorganizes discourse. But it does not answer how time is borne, how entropy is filtered and repaired for continuing contexts, or how continuity of historical and environmental trusteeship is secured.

Thus it remains at the level of iteration inside a fixed space for the purpose of self-queering, not accumulation of shared cultural and metaphysical time.

Trusteeship is “the responsible holding of relations open under strain” and describes the human as “divine imager” and “trustee of quantum time,” bearing memory, guilt, repentance, repair, and neighborly accountability in a way no machinic configuration can (Olds 2026a). That language supplies the anthropological center against which Butler’s framework is measured. The body is entrusted bearer, not matter or signifying surface alone. Life is accountable continuity under stress, not legibility under norm alone.

The Prophet Jeremiah and ML King are “positive conative singularities,” figures who bind memory, context, speech, and action into a single negentropic vector for others (Ibid.). Those figures matter here because they show, in historical form, what accountable time-bearing looks like. They bear burden, receive summons, and accumulate time into shared repair, not destabilize norms or rearrange signs alone.

Butler’s vitiating achievement is architectural, not theoretical alone. She provides a grammar through which ontology becomes performative, kinship becomes linguistic, sex becomes normative production, and identity becomes reiteration. This grammar is internally coherent. But measured against covenant and Darwinian throughput, it represents a displacement of reality’s ground.

Where reality requires conation, burden, reproducing entrustment, generational human throughput, and pedagogical training of accountability, Butler installs citation, claims of intelligibility from the soil of pleasure, normativity that escapes account, and repetition where the endurance of visual spatial forms is its naturalist fallacy of misplaced abstraction.

The result is the installation of a new lawgiving regime—one that governs bodies through discourse while severing them from their role as bearers of time, not their liberation from structure. And because this regime belongs to the present crisis of artifice and simulation, it does more than misdescribe reality: it helps consecrate the age’s ruling idol. Covenantal ontology is displaced, not corrected; substrate is subordinated, not repaired; naming is weaponized, not entrusted.

What stands in place of covenant is idolatry under theoretical decorum, not freedom.

The final question remains unchanged: does this framework accumulate time into shared repair, or does it circulate identity within a closed field of recognition—where gaze is a social cudgel, an insistence on priestly repetition that tautegorically installs a radically secularized ontology under queer vestments that smithereen?

That question is decisive. Its answer condemns.

NOTES

[1] Conation: The metaphysical faculty of directed, taxonomic, accountable striving under strain. Heart/Intent. From Hebrew anthropology, the conative heart is the living pulse and vector inside a time-field by which a being takes up entropic challenge and either bears it into repair or fails and disaccumulates into recursion, drift, or ruin. It is teleological, always moving toward and away from something: toward goods, repair, fidelity, neighbor-bearing, and coherence; away from entropy, predation, idolatry, and self-enclosed decay. It is time-bearing, the power by which time is accumulated rather than merely passed through (Olds 2026a). A living configuration bears time under stress, filters disorder, and carries continuity of the substrate forward. It is ethical, reaching fulfillment in accountable extension toward others rather than private self-maintenance. It is repentance-capable, allowing awareness to be torqued by repentance into consciousness, course correction, confession, burden-sharing, and repair.

Within the Shema-Christological sequence, conation belongs to the anthropology of hearing, heart, neighbor-bearing action, and rightly ordered mind. Hearing comes first: the human is addressed before self-constituting. Then comes the heart as the center of covenantal orientation, where conation is bent toward or away from God and neighbor. Then comes neighbor-bearing speech and act, where conation becomes concrete in trusteeship, burden-sharing, repair, discipline, and formed response. Only then does dianoia, rightly ordered mind, emerge in truth. Mind is therefore a trained and morally ordered participant in covenantal life rather than a first principle. Christologically, conation is fulfilled in Jesus as obedient, neighbor-bearing, reparative fidelity under maximum strain: cruciform rather than autonomous, perfect time-bearing for others rather than sovereignty of detached selfhood. Conation thus names the hinge between awareness and consciousness, substrate and ethics, temporality and eternity, embodiment and trusteeship, hearing and rightly ordered mind.

[2] Substrate: The given, embodied ground of existence that receives form within created order and bears time into continuity. In this framework, substrate names the living, material, and relational basis upon which conation operates: the body, its sexual differentiation, its generational capacity, and its embeddedness in ecological and communal relations. It is the site where time is accumulated through accountable bearing, not merely a surface for symbolic inscription.

Substrate is not reducible to passive matter; it is the bearer of ordered potential under constraint, the condition for conative action, and the medium through which repair, continuity, and trusteeship occur. It is prior to and regulative of intelligibility, so that meaning arises from embodied, time-bearing participation rather than from discursive imposition alone. In contrast to frameworks that elevate symbol, norm, or citation as constitutive of reality, substrate grounds identity in continuity, fertility, and relational obligation, so that bodies are received within order and extended into others through time, rather than reinscribed by external regimes of intelligibility.

Within the Shema-Christological anthropology, substrate is the locus of hearing, response, and obedience: the body as the place where the summons is received, where the heart is oriented, and where action is carried into neighbor-bearing fidelity. Christologically, substrate is not transcended but fulfilled, as embodied life becomes the vehicle of perfect conative bearing—time held, given, and repaired for others (Olds 2025).

[3] Plato (Laws X, 893b–899d) errs at the outset by its ontologizing vision's distinguishing forms of motion and non-motion. Thence that veers toward a pre-existent soul, and by then he is already deep in pagan anthropological swamps.

The simpler and conatively correct path is to trace Hebrew anthropology in Scripture toward the simple metaphysics of the buckled and buckling heart: lev, twice structuring the Shema (Deut. 6:4–9). Only when intention is firmly settled for mission — conation as taxis toward the good and away from evil — can the mind be trusted: dianoia in Matthew 22:37, within the phenomenological context and particular presence with the living God (v. 32). This is not an analogy from what is seen and then philosophized into universals by Platonists (Olds 2026b).

[4] The statement’s circularity is strategic and thematic: by enclosing the subject within norm-governed intelligibility, it prefigures recursion and installs repetition as the pagan temporal logic of queer political-historicism.

[5] Across the four Butler texts cited, the term “queer” operates with her characteristically protean diffusion of application and density. Performative queerness, as display for onlookers and as a signal of performative sovereignty, cannot accumulate time or filter entropy into repair. In the sexual realm, cultural disembedding is quintessentially entropic to embodied contexts. Its refuge, repository, and terminus are simulacra in disembodied substrates—silicon and its algorithmic architectures (see Isa. 44:9-20)—where screens are the fourth wall of identity, cordoning off denial and refusal.

[6] “Sex Realists” are those who relinquish performative sovereignty over identity and submit instead to what the real requires: accountability, obligation, and the bearing of time and its accumulation for others by negentropic action. In that sense, reality bars unfettered "jouissance," not because pleasure is unreal, but because bodily fulfillment is subordinated to substrate, continuity, and covenantal duty. Butler’s contrary field, drawing on Žižek, makes the real the site of impossible fulfillment, where signification can only survive by deferring return to “barred jouissance,”  and thus by valorizing loss, displacement, and repetition as structural conditions of discourse.

“The evidence for the real consists in the list of examples of displacement and substitution… that attempts to show the traumatic origination of all things that signify. This is the trauma, the loss, that signification seeks to cover over only to displace and enact again. For Zizek signification itself initially takes the form of a promise and a return, the recovery of an unthematizable loss in and by the signifier, which along the way must break that promise and fail to return in order to remain a signifier at all. For the real is the site of the impossible fulfillment of that promise, and the exclusion of the real from signification is its very condition; the signifier that could deliver on the promise to return to the site of barred jouissance would destroy itself as a signifier” (Butler 1993, 199, emph. added).

 

Citations

Butler, Judith. Antigone’s Claim: Kinship Between Life and Death. The Wellek Library Lectures (1998). Columbia University Press, 2000.

 Butler, Judith. Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex.” Routledge, 1993. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203760079.

  Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. 10th anniversary ed. Routledge, 1999.

  Butler, Judith.  “Further Reflections on Conversations of Our Time.” Diacritics Vol. 27, No. 1 (Spring, 1997), pp. 13-15

 Butler, Judith. Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. Routledge Classics. Routledge, 2021. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003146759.

  Olds, Douglas B. “After AI-Simulated “Repentance:" Metaphysics as Quantum Time Accumulation, Its Necromantic De-Configurations, and Ramifying (Neg)Entropy.” Iconoclast’s Descending, March 11, 2026a. https://douglasblakeolds8.blogspot.com/2026/03/after-ai-simulated-repentance_11.html.

Olds, Douglas B. “The Hermeneutics of Iconoclasm in Mid-Modernity:  A. Covenant Substrate, Non-Transactional Kinesthetics, and the Vectoring Awareness of Atoning Energies and Flows.  B. Valorization of Entropic Forms and Feudalizing Mechanisms of Babel.” Iconoclast’s Descending, August 29, 2025. https://douglasblakeolds8.blogspot.com/2025/08/the-hermeneutics-of-iconoclasm-in-mid.html.

  Olds, Douglas Blake. “Gnostic Abstraction vs. the Logos Living with the Substrate:    Theodicy, Form, and Ethical Motion.” The Iconoclast’s Descending, February 3, 2026b. https://douglasblakeolds8.blogspot.com/2026/02/gnostic-abstraction-vs.html.