Psybertron Asks

Something of a “Wow!” reading experience.

We’d already noted Arthur Koestler’s “Darkness at Noon” was an explicit inspiration for George Orwell’s 1984. For Big Brother we had No.1. For Room 101 we had Cell 404. I just read Darkness in 3 sunny-afternoon sittings in the shade on a short vacation in the sun, as an escape from our cold, wet and windy UK winter.

I didn’t, hadn’t planned to, make any notes, so I don’t have any. I had a kindle copy where I’d just opened and read the front-matter, but noticed as we packed for the holiday that I’d just acquired a vintage classics paper-back copy from my mother’s “Russian” literature legacy. So that’s what I had with me.

Apart from “Wow!” just a few spoilers, I haven’t the notes for a full review or analysis relevant to my own agenda. With nothing like the real first hand experience of Orwell or Koestler – socialism, communism, totalitarianism, revolution – it is another “I could have written that” – in terms of political theory in practice, where all roads – about individual and collective human meaning, understanding and decision-making – lead to governance – as complex evolving systems – and to more or less imperfect forms of democracy.

As a Jewish native of Hungary (Budapest) living in Berlin in the early 1930’s you can see the attraction:

Koestler concluded that Liberals and moderate Democrats could not stand up against the rising Nazi tide and that the Communists were the only real counter-force.

An incredibly complex life. UK and US citizenships, soviet Russian, Ukrainian, Hungarian and international “Commintern” engagements, pre- and post-war Palestinian Jewry, political activist, journalist, spy(?):

Koestler’s most important books were the five completed before he was 40: his first memoirs and the trilogy of anti-totalitarian novels that included Darkness at Noon.

From a writerly perspective it’s Koestler’s Rubashov who gives us the first person perspective even though it’s not written in the first-person. There’s no convenient “Call me Ishmael” a la Melville, to indicate the writer had to have survived – been the sole survivor – to be able to tell the story. Is his execution real or imagined – extrapolated from two blows to the head? So we have the unreliable narrator again?

Another main writerly feature is the use of encoded prison “morse” tapping of messages with unseen characters, repetitive ticks to cement identity, and the cartoonish naming – Rip Van Winkle, Hare Lip – of those he does physically meet. Simple way to put his words in the mouths of recognisable characters to tell the story without the need for masses of character background building. Brilliant stuff. It’s probably all in War and Peace already, but that’s more than 10 times as long. Plenty of nods and references to the Russian greats – not least Dostoyevsky. It’s probably all in Crime and Punishment too – when is criminal rule-breaking justifiable? #NothingNewUnderTheSun

Contentwise, the anti-totalitarian agenda, formed of bitter experience is “in your face”. The internal party feuding and worse captured in two forms: that narrative in dialogue between him and fellow prison inmates, captors, interrogators and executioners; and the prison diary entries that effectively form his “confession” to critiquing the party totalitarian line – and the psychological battle “for the greater good” between ends and means that entails. The need for more than “logical conclusions”. Evolutionary “emergence” beyond the totality of rules applied, etc.

In fact I’m tempted to copy and paste the entire diary-entry sections below, pretty much all that needs to be said, by me or anyone else.

[In case it needs further saying, there is a great deal of ironic wit and full blown sarcasm in stating positions for and critical of the party line at any time, so interpreting a specific recommended policy position independent of the renegade mind-games context is non-trivial.]

=====

START QUOTES

Day 1 of Imprisonment …

[The cell door clanged shut behind Rubashov. He lingered for a few seconds leaning against the door and lit a cigarette. To his right was a camp bed with two tolerably clean blankets and a straw tick that looked freshly stuffed. The basin to his left was missing the plug, but the tap worked. The bucket next to that had just been disinfected and did not smell. The side walls were solid brick, so they didn’t resonate, but the heating and drainpipe exits were sealed with plaster and tapping there produced a passable tone. The heating pipe itself also seemed to conduct sound quite well. The window began at eye level and Rubashov could see down into the yard without having to hoist himself up by the bars. So far so good.]

From the Diary of N. S. Rubashov

Day 5 of Imprisonment …

Whoever proves right in the end must first be and do wrong. But it is only after the fact that we learn who was right to begin with. In the meantime we act on credit, in the hope of being absolved by history. They say that Number One always keeps a copy of Machiavelli’s The Prince by his bedside. He’s right to do so: since then, nothing of note has been written about the ethics of statesmanship. We were the first to replace the nineteenth-century liberal ethos of ‘fair play’ with the revolutionary morals of the twentieth century. And we, too, were right to do so: the idea of a revolution following the rules of a tennis match is absurd. Politics can be fair when history pauses to catch its breath, but at critical turning points there is no other standard than the old proposition that the end justifies the means. We were the ones who introduced neo-Machiavellianism into this century; the others, the counter-revolutionary dictators, offered crude imitations. Our neo-Machiavellianism was on behalf of cosmopolitan reason – that was our greatness; theirs is in the name of a limited, nationalistic romanticism – that is their anachronism. Therefore in the end we will be absolved by history, and they will not … For the time being, though, we think and act on credit. And because we have jettisoned all the norms and conventions of tennis-court morality, our only guideline is logic. We live with the terrible necessity of carrying our thoughts and actions through to their conclusion. We are sailing without ballast, so that every turn of the wheel is a matter of life and death. Recently our leading agronomist, B., was shot along with thirty others because he favoured nitrogen-based fertilisers to those heavy in potassium. Number One is convinced that potassium is superior; therefore B. and the thirty others had to be liquidated as wreckers. Where agriculture is centralised by the state, the question of nitrogen or potassium carries enormous weight; it can decide the outcome of the next war. If Number One is correct, history will absolve him, and the execution of the thirty-one will have been a trivial matter. If he is wrong …

This is all that matters: who is objectively correct. The tennis-court moralists agonise over a completely different question: whether or not B. was subjectively acting in good faith when he recommended nitrogen. If he was not, then according to their moral code he may be shot, even if it later turns out that nitrogen was the correct choice. If he was acting in good faith, then he must be acquitted and allowed to continue advocating for nitrogen, even if it brings ruin to the country … Naturally this is absolute folly. (At least in periods where there’s no time for experimenting and urgent decisions are required; in periods of rest it is different.) For our part we were never concerned with the question of subjective sincerity. Whoever is wrong must pay; whoever is right will be absolved. That is the law of historical credit, and the law to which we adhered. History has taught us that it must be served more frequently with lies than with the truth, because its human material is by nature sluggish: before every new stage of development the people must first be led through the wilderness for forty years – driven on with threats and enticements, with false frights and feigned consolation, so that they do not stop to rest and entertain themselves with the worship of golden calves. We learned history more thoroughly than the others. What separates us from everyone else is our consistency. We know that history does not care about morality and that it lets crimes go unpunished, but every error has repercussions and exacts revenge unto the seventh generation. For that reason we focus all our efforts on eliminating mistakes before they take root. Never before in history was so much power over the future of mankind concentrated in so few minds as in our revolution. Every false idea we acted on became a crime against future generations. Therefore we had to punish false ideas the way we punish other crimes: with death. People considered us fanatics, because we were so consistent, because we carried our thoughts and actions to their logical conclusions. People compared us to the Inquisition, because like them we always felt the full burden of responsibility for a hereafter, a future that transcended the individual. Like the great inquisitors we attempted to root out evil not only by prosecuting deeds; we delved into the thoughts themselves. We refused to acknowledge any private sphere, not even in the innermost space within the skull. Our lives were constrained by our own logic, by the need to think things through to the end. Because our thinking was shackled to chains of cause and effect, our feelings were constantly short-circuited. As a result we now must burn one another at the stake. I have thought and acted as I had to. I was one of us: I have destroyed people who were close to me and given power to others whom I did not love; I took the place that history put before me; I have used up the credit that it extended; if I am right, I will have no cause for regret; if I am wrong, then I will pay. But how can we decide in the present who will be proven right in the future? We practise the prophet’s craft without his gift. We replace clairvoyance with logical deduction, but despite a common point of departure this has led to divergent results. The evidence was contradictory and in the end our justification was a question of faith – the axiomatic faith in the correctness of our own deductions. That is the crucial point. We have thrown all ballast overboard and are secured by a single anchor chain – the belief in ourselves. Geometry is the purest attainment of human reason, yet Euclid’s postulates cannot be proven. And whoever does not believe them will see everything he’s built come crashing down. Number One believes in himself: tough, sluggish, dark, unwavering. He has the thickest anchor chain of all of us. My own has become a little worse for wear in these last years: at the end of the day it is a question of physical constitution … The fact is: I no longer believe in my own infallibility. Therefore I am lost.

Day 16 of Imprisonment …

Vladimir Bogrov has fallen out of the swing. One hundred and fifty years ago, on the day the Bastille was stormed, the European swing once again lurched into motion after a long period of inertia, with a vigorous push away from tyranny towards what seemed an unstoppable climb into the blue sky of freedom. The ascent into the spheres of liberalism and democracy lasted a hundred years. But lo and behold, it gradually began to lose speed as it came closer to the apex, the turning point of its trajectory; then, after a brief stasis, it started moving backwards, in an increasingly rapid descent. And with the same vigour as before, it carried its passengers away from freedom and back to tyranny. Whoever kept staring at the sky instead instead of hanging onto the swing grew dizzy and tumbled out. Whoever wishes to avoid getting dizzy must try to grasp the laws of motion governing the swing. Because what we are facing is clearly a pendulum swing of history, from absolutism to democracy, from democracy to absolute dictatorship. The degree of individual freedom a nation is able to attain and retain depends on the degree of its political maturity. The pendulum swing described above suggests that the political maturity of the masses does not follow the same constantly rising curve of a maturing individual, but is subject to more complicated laws. The political maturity of the masses depends on their ability to discern their own interest, which presupposes a knowledge of the process of production and the distribution of goods. A nation’s ability to govern itself democratically is consequently determined by how well it understands the structure and functioning of the social body as a whole. However, every technical advance leads to a further complication of the economic framework, to new factors, new connections that the masses are at first unable to comprehend. And so every leap of technical progress brings with it a relative intellectual regression of the masses, a decline in their political maturity. At times it may take decades or even generations before the collective consciousness gradually catches up to the changed order and regains the capacity to govern itself that it had formerly possessed at a lower stage of civilisation. The political maturity of the masses can therefore not be measured in absolute numbers, but always only relatively: namely in relation to the developmental stage of any given civilisation. When the balance between mass consciousness and objective reality is achieved, then democracy will inevitably prevail, by either peaceful or violent means, until the next, nearly always volatile, leap of progress – for example, the invention of gunpowder or the mechanised loom – again places the masses in a condition of relative immaturity and makes possible or necessary the establishment of a new authoritarian regime. The process is best compared to a ship being lifted through a series of locks. At the beginning of each stage, the ship is at a relatively low level, from which it is slowly raised until it is even with the next lock – but this glorious stage is of short duration, as it now faces a new set of levels, which again can be attained only slowly and gradually. The sides of the chamber represent the objective state of technological advancement, the mastery of natural forces; the water level in the chamber symbolises the political maturity of the masses. Any attempt to measure this as an absolute height above sea level would be pointless; what is measured instead is the relative range of levels in each lock.

The invention of the steam engine brought a period of rapid objective progress, and as a consequence, a period of equally rapid subjective political regression. The industrial era is still historically young, the gap still very great between its enormously complicated economic structure and the intellectual awareness of the masses. It is therefore understandable that the relative political maturity of people in the first half of the twentieth century is less than it was two hundred years bc or at the conclusion of the feudal period. The historical mistake of socialist theory was to believe that mass consciousness rises at a constant and consistent rate. This explains its helplessness in the face of the recent pendulum swings of history, and the ideological self-emasculation of the people. We believed that aligning the worldview of the masses to the changed reality was a simple process, the course of which we measured in years, whereas history teaches that a measure of centuries would be more appropriate. Intellectually, the nations of Europe are still far from having digested the consequences of the invention of the steam engine. The capitalist system will perish before the masses have fully understood it. As far as the fatherland of the revolution is concerned, its masses are subjected to the same laws of thought as elsewhere. They have reached the next higher lock, but they are still at the lowest point in the new chamber. The new economic system is even more incomprehensible to them than the old one it replaced. The arduous and painful climb begins anew. It will probably take several generations before the people are able to mentally master what they themselves accomplished in the revolution. Until then a democratic form of government is not possible, and the measure of individual freedom that can be granted is less than in other countries. Until then our leadership is forced to rule in a vacuum. By classic liberal standards this is not a pleasant state of affairs. The terror, the falsehood and the general debasement that are so evident are merely the visible and inevitable expression of the causal connection described above. Woe to the fools and aesthetes who ask only the how but not the why. Woe, too, to the opposition in periods of relative immaturity such as this. In periods of political maturity it is the task and function of the opposition to appeal to the masses. In periods of relative immaturity only demagogues manage to invoke the ‘higher reason’ of the people. In such situations the opposition has only two ways open: either wresting power with a surprise strike, without being able to count on the support of the masses, or allowing itself to fall off the swing in silent despair – the way of ‘die in silence’. There is yet a third way, one that is no less consistent and that we have developed into a system: repudiating one’s own beliefs, when there is no real prospect of helping them gain ascendance. Because social utility is the only moral criterion we recognise, it is obviously more moral to publicly forswear one’s convictions, so as to remain active, than to carry on a futile quixotic struggle. Questions of subjective vanity; prejudices, such as exist elsewhere against certain forms of self-abasement; private feelings such as exhaustion, disgust and shame; temptations such as that of martyrdom and the yearning to become silent and lay one’s head to rest – must be pulled up by the roots.

POST NOTE

BUKHARIN’S LAST PLEA

[The following is a transcript from the final plea made in the trial of Nikolai Bukharin, a former Bolshevik leader and government minister, whom Koestler had met in the Soviet Union in 1932. His 1938 trial alongside other Soviet leaders accused them of a host of improbable crimes to which they ultimately pleaded guilty. The ambiguous phrasing of Bukharin’s final plea provided a major source of inspiration to Koestler in the writing of Darkness at Noon.]

Koestler, Arthur. Darkness at Noon (Vintage Classics) (pp. 271-273). Random House. Kindle Edition.

END QUOTES

=====

Conclusion: Not sure his canal locks analogy holds water, but it gets across the whole evolutionary staircase of the masses’ “cultural understanding” of how things – life, the universe and everything – work or are intended to work. For their own individual and the greater collective good – and those in governance positions of authority delegated / federated with the powers to enact decisions in real-time complex reality. The power structures and their guard rails in whatever system (of systems) of governance we espouse. Kuhn, Kondratiev and more. Nothing to do with lesser intellectual capabilities of “the plebs” vs an intellectual elite or any problematic motivations. We humans have always had them, just the scale and complexity of getting to grips with the whole requires evolutionary timescales and multiple levels and contexts of knowing. It couldn’t be any other way, but ubiquitous speed of light communications outstrip our the very possibility of the creative evolutionary “psychological games” needed. In fact they leave us prone to exploitation by degenerate populist games by those who circumstantially hold inordinate financial power – as we see now in the 21st century. #TheMemeticProblem #Dysmemics

“Let’s make 1984 fiction again!”

Also now obvious why his later Sleepwalkers focusses on the evolution of cultural understanding of those objective aspects of knowledge we call “science” – Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler et al. The subjective / psychological is expressly excluded or denigrated. #PartOfTheProblem

Coincidentally, ironically, Kuhn’s Scientific Revolutions is the only other book I have with me in hard copy 😉 Must already have had some of these thoughts in mind already on departure. Back soon.

=====

Just an excuse to capture some images old and new that attempt to describe the field of interest.

In response to this summary diagram on LinkedIn, clearly focussing on their own “Systems Innovation” (yuk) branding …

Dave Snowden responded with this older but much more complex and comprehensive version “not without controversy” …

Frankly, I’m not concerned with branding of any particular solutions, methods or frameworks, and have always been happy to refer to the whole field as “Systems Thinking” or “Cybernetics” and accept that it has evolved and grown over time. However we choose to represent which things in which boxes or which arrows, it’s about understanding the scope of relations that comprise the whole.

Mentioned several times here battles between those that want to focus (or not) on either Systems or Complexity (or not) and specifically Science(s) (rarely not) but again frankly I really don’t care so long as whichever terms we prefer, we mean “Complex Adaptive / Living / Anthro Systems” and understand that all interesting (real human / eco) systems are complex, and that any thinking and acting in such cases is #MoreThanScience.

My only Psybertron nod to branding has been to emphasise the individual and collective human psyche involved and to suggest the Psybernetics spelling of the originally intended Cybernetics. It’s all the same to me so long as we never forget we’re talking about the complex (humanity & ecosystem) whole.

And also even today Gary Smith sharing this “holistic” version ….

Illustrates our holarchy in a very meaningful way. Self, relationships to others, in context of the greater whole. Maps nicely to Fit, Form and Function (engineering heuristics that relates parts towards the wider system) and William Smith‘s Appreciation, Influence and Control.

Starting from “self-authorship” is interesting – very much the writing of our individual narratives in the wider cultural narrative. A turn-off to those clinging to objective science, but very much Al MacIntyre’s “After Virtue” metaphysics. (Previous post – It’s not all written.)

=====

“Just write something!” was the psychiatrist / psychotherapist’s advice to the 33 year old – then clinically insane – Robert Pirsig, creator 12 years later in 1974 of “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” (ZMM) . One of countless points along the madness<>genius spectrum in the history of the creativity in human thought and action, throughout historical time.

“It is not written” opined T E Lawrence to his Arabian & Levantine friends before helping them write – enact – their own chapter of history together. Carpe diem, etc.

“The Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao.” eventually dawns on anyone trying to express clearly in words, written or otherwise, anything of consequence in the world and our human experience of it, beyond any artificially closed system comprising an abstraction of it. No objective model of the world is the actual world. Not even science. “The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon.”

There is no substitute for direct – active – participation in the world. And yet we need to communicate our aims and desires as well as our experiences of it with each other and with the rest of the living world. The dialectic between the world and our perceptions of it is as old as thought itself, neither is a substitute for the other. Symbolic language is only one communication option.

[It might not be obvious yet, but this post is a music review. Bear with me :-)]

So, I have many times pointed out that my personal mix of intellectual modelling in language and real-world participation involves “communing with nature” (going for walks, etc), reading when amongst busy people in bars and cafes, and experiencing the emotional experience of the poetry and the “visceral experience of live music”. The more visceral – a punch to the gut, a tug on the heart-strings – the better.

So I do often wax lyrical about those poetic song-writers and musical acts I experience. I’m a “good news in public, bad news in private” kinda person from my 50+years of people management experience, so when it comes to constructive criticism of creative acts, I prefer to give it to them in person, face-to-face. It does mean my musical “reviews” can be a bit stilted – I’m no music critic that can deliver the brutal honesty in public writing of say Julie Burchill (@BoozeAndFagz), a long term hero of mine, now “The Halfling” – on her last legs these days – I like think she’d approve of the cruel pun. You (she) never lose it.

Which brings me to another problem with my music reviews. My basis for comparative references are from those heady 1970’s London days and direct experiences of the creativity of local performances ever since in the 21st century, wherever in the world I’ve lived or visited, from Perth / Melbourne / Brisbane to Austin / Nashville / New Orleans to name a few. Contemporary popular (inter)national acts pass me by unless there’s a more immediate local connection with those direct experiences. Could probably name exceptions on one hand; Muse, QOTSA, Foo Fighters, Gary Clarke Jr. say, other than those with folk-blues-rock-based / psychedelia and/or Americana heritage from those earlier days.

It’s the immediacy and creativity that turns me on. Woe-betide any covers show-band that doesn’t have an original twist in their performance or in their choice of poets.

Night before last I saw a 3-original-bands local gig and like most in the last couple of years I enjoyed the experience but decided I had too many other writing priorities to actually write a review here, especially one with my limitations. Might drop a mention in the odd footnote or social media thread, to encourage the creative, but whose gonna read my reviews anyway.

Last night however I got into a whole string of connected conversations in the local bar which included regulars and neighbours, but also my recently deceased mother, the latest work on psychological reality from Mark Solms and the fact that the latter conversation I was having with Stephen McCartney drew in curiosity from Sim and Abbie. Sim being a local musician and member of an original band – Middle Management, who I have mentioned here previously.

I imagined I’d be blogging about Solms’ latest this morning, but in fact I lent my half-read and annotated copy of “The Only Cure – Freud and the Neuroscience of Mental Healing” to Stephen.

So, you ask, what about the 3 bands on Wednesday night?

Partly intrigued to make my first visit to Cafe Etch, as I say I like to support local creative efforts. What I didn’t know is it had been the first venue Sim’s band performed.

I was there to see The Dirt, on the strength of seeing Jack and his Japanese wife as part of a musical project Jack promoted as “The Northern Lights Conjuring Festival” at Pealie’s Barn nr Northallerton last summer, which included another local band Avalanche Party, sadly since defunct after “almost making it”. More on The Dirt later.

Both the other bands were advertised as known original locals, though I hadn’t heard of either before. All 3 might be damned by my faint praise, but I enjoyed the experience, and encourage all to continue to get out there.

Sound and image-wise State Laughter put me in mind of Arctic Monkeys, a reference I can summon thanks largely to Josh Homme (QOTSA) interest in the Yorkshire (Sheffield) band. Not a big fan of that particular pop-rock style, and a bit rough, especially their first 3 or 4 numbers. In need of more practice and experience, and better balanced mixing. Excellent, extrovert bassist on a 5 string, fast-fingered riffs below the guitar and even funky at times – just too loud for the overall balance of vocals and lead in such a tiny setting. School report? State Laughter showed promise, room for improvement.

Lurcher, Hartlepool band I understand, I enjoyed more. Not so loud for starters, and a lively drummer I couldn’t take my eyes off, suspect there were some non-4/4 time-signatures in there? Gentle giant front-man a little nervous to start with, but engaging and suggesting ‘we should “not-practice” more often before gigs’ as he settled into their groove. Apart from the rhythms, a bit thin and one-dimensional in terms of instrumentation. Bass did his job supporting the off-piste drummer, but the sole / lead guitar was an electric-12-string Squier through a couple of effects that didn’t vary enough to keep things interesting. Interesting and unorthodox combination, but maybe not interesting enough. Suspect they will grow on you, and overlook the thin arrangements, once you get to know their songs, which you never do on a first hearing.

Headliners The Dirt ooze Jack’s commitment, energy and authenticity. A gut-punch of shouty-lefty-anger in the style of Sleaford Mods or Benefits. The other half of this two-piece genre is the trancey beats and psychedelic drones behind the political diatribes and here The Dirt are no different. Their main characteristic – literally every number – is that Jack starts off a live electronic drums motif into a loop, which his guitarist wife synchs and picks up in a 5 or 6 loops footswitch, alongside a few pre-programmed rhythms she can switch between. He’s then free to perform (viscerally rant and leap) whilst she layers the guitar over the beats. Now, an absolutely beautiful semi-hollow Rickenbacker, and at least 40 other effects and pedals at her disposal as well as the loops board, and yet disappointingly restricted range of sounds created or even inputs from the pick and fingers? A good mix of old (previous album) latest (new album) and new (as yet unrecorded) numbers, all with the psychedelic warbling groove in which to lose yourself. Sustainability, though, will require more variety in the sound.

#RequisiteDiversity

Now back to “Just Write” 🙂

====

[More links to come to references above and below the line here.]

=====

Non-Dialogue in O’Connells / proper dialectics?

Aged audiences at gigs?

Mum’s collected writings / Mum’s death?

Yvonne’s latest book?

=====

Reinforcing my need to switch off and “just write something”, is that everything I read (or listen or watch) triggers connections between existing and new source materials, adding to that never ending reading list. This happened in microcosm in the last few days.

My immediate previous post, was a reference to Arthur Koestler, of whose “The Sleepwalkers” I was already a fan, thanks to Dave Snowden recommending Koestler’s “Darkness at Noon”. I added a kindle copy of that to my collection, and started to read, already two levels of interrupt beyond Tolstoy’s “War & Peace” and Teffi’s (Nadezhda Alexandrovna Lokhvitskaya) “Subtly Worded”. These themselves prompted by rediscovery of my recently deceased mother’s collection of Russian literature.

Well today, by random coincidence, I stumbled across an old email reference to a 4.5 hour (!) interview with Robert Pirsig for a 1974 edition of CBS “Ideas” series, discussing his then recently best-selling “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” (ZMM). (I also have local copy and full transcript of the interview.)

I know very little about the interviewers, but in the first half hour – talking about madness<>genius continuum – they bring-up reference to “very important writer” Colin Wilson’s (1956) “The Outsider” one of the “angry young men” who helped popularise Existentialism in 60’s Britain. And then engaged in linking-up his work with Arthur Koestler and Doris Lessing, including Koestler’s “Darkness at Noon” and “The Lotus and the Robot”.

Checking my copy of Koestler’s “The Yogi and the Commissar” collection I find “The Lotus and the Robot” is NOT part of it, a separate publication, and yet that collection is (a) dedicated to Michael Polanyi and (b) prefaced by a Melville quote from “Moby Dick”. Also very influential to me, thanks to the George Steiner rave review of ZMM that accompanied its 1974 publication, positively comparing ZMM with Moby Dick.

And there’s still 4 hours to go. I gotta get off, and write!

‘God keep me from ever completing anything. This whole book is but a draft – nay but the draft of a draft. Oh, Time, Strength, Cash and Patience.’ Melville in Moby Dick.

=====

I make quite a few references to Koestler in the last decade or so. I was a big fan of his 1959 “The Sleepwalkers” for my #MoreThanScience agenda, so most of my references are back to this and to other second-hand quotes by others – including Peter Corning in our Systems Thinking space. [First mentioned Sleepwalkers here, and reviewed my reading of it here.]

I also acquired, but have so far only skim read in parts, his 1948 collection of essays that starts with “The Yogi and the Commissar”. Interesting to see in other translated works, which include novels, drama and autobiography as well as non-fiction, includes that 600 page Sleepwalkers listed as an “Essay”(!)

Koestler was a fully-paid-up Marxist-Leninist Communist under Stalin, but like Orwell who cited Koestler as a major influence and also experienced the Spanish civil war, wrote about the corrupting pitfalls of totalitarian forms of Socialism from first-hand experience.

Strange connection with both my last two posts – labels and values in the context of Socialism and the alternatives in David Harding’s Pirsigian space, and the work of Mike Jackson and Dave Snowden in the Complex Systems Thinking space. I was prompted to revisit Koestler today, thanks to Dave Snowden on LinkedIn recommending Koestler’s 1940 novel “Darkness at Noon” as the best of the dystopian novels out there. [I‘m already reading a Kindle copy. Fascinating, to say the least.]

Democracy, lest there be any doubt!

=====

[Post Note – Another “Socialist” who fell out with Stalin’s ways and contributed seminally to Complex Systems Thinking – via both the novel and non-fiction forms – was Aleksandr Bogdanov. Another Mike Jackson / Hull Centre for Systems Studies source – and the connection of both Science and Social Systems thinking with Eastern thought with Nagarjuna as well as Bogdanov in Rovelli’s book Helgoland – it’s all connected – is it ever?!? – subject of my next post, here.]

====

Just a holding post for a dialogue I just don’t have the bandwidth to engage right now. I admire the work of both Dave Snowden and Mike Jackson in the wider “Complex Adaptive/Anthropic/Critical-Systems Thinking” space. Known them and their work back to the origins of my Psybertron work, but first referred to the both in them same breath here a couple of years ago.

However, the most recent post is here on LinkedIn to which they both responded, Dave opined …

1 – The origins of ST are in the Macy Conferences, not Systems Dynamics – they came a decade early. And in those events, the split between Ashby and Bateson is significant. I would argue that Bateson is a precursor of complexity science, while most ST followed Ashby

2 – The use of archetypal characters and a questionnaire is useful only if you see the categories as modulators of team behaviour. Categorising individuals runs into the same problems as pseudo-sciences such as Myers-Briggs.

3 – While systems thinking has always sought to address complexity, it isn’t complexity science, which has a different genesis, albeit with some overlaps – see map below.
https://www.art-sciencefactory.com/complexity-map_feb09.html

For me Dave’s points 1 and 3 are about understanding the origins / history / genetics of how different systems & complexity, cybernetics & dynamics branches evolved to be – post-Macy for me too – but this shouldn’t lead to tighter definitions of each labelled branch. On the contrary it’s about flexible/porous #GoodFences and better understanding the whole in terms of relationships between the branches, but never feeling bound by the limitations of any one branch simply because one label is chosen in dialogue. Surely anyone bringing an enlightened view to their endeavours cares about the whole?

Pretty much what was behind my response to an earlier LinkedIn post from Dave. (Somewhere Dave has edited one of his responses out of that thread, my response is across two comments. I had already answered his second plea.)

Dave’s point 2 – is pretty much my #MoreThanScience agenda. Just because something isn’t science is no reason to debunk it as pseudo-science. Valuable stuff exists beyond science – simply more honest not to call it science. (See values and labels in the previous otherwise completely unrelated post too.)

=====

David Harding is a long-standing member of the Pirsig community who has recently posted on his blog:

Power Thrives on Rigid Labels. Democracy Thrives on Values.

How an amoral metaphysics enables social power to influence shared cultural dialogue in an untold number of ways. Thankfully there’s a solution.

His focus here is explicitly the labels<>values contrast, and I have some questions to ask about his use of labels, but first I need to affirm my agreement with the central point in his sub-heading. The world runs predominantly on the subject-object metaphysics he calls amoral and he correctly emphasises the “cultural” dimension of how our real-world dialogues are deeply influenced by it and why its amoral influence enables any number of immoral interpretations and uses by those with power to act. The solution he alludes to is Robert Pirsig’s metaphysics of quality. No argument from me, being values-based, morality is built into Pirsig’s MoQ.

Labels Generally? I use a concept I refer to as #GoodFences. The idea that the names we give things – labels – are a necessary component of any constructive dialogue. But, however much formal, logical, objective – and contractual / legal – discourse depends on such labels and things being “well-defined”, in the real world they are best treated as good fences. Linguistic this-not-that dividing lines between the objects of our dialogue necessary for the purpose of having the dialogue but nevertheless movable and evolvable as part of that dialogue. Not rigidly cast in stone, except in artificially constrained contexts. Since subject-object metaphysics is predicated on those labelled things it unsurprisingly relies entirely on their definitions. So again, no argument, fixed rigid labels are bad for real world dialogue.

Labels Specifically? We need to look at the words David uses:

His starting topic is the idea of “socialism” in US political discourse – most associated with Bernie Sanders. Those scare quotes suggest #GoodFences to me, that we’re avoiding rigid definitions, and yet to have any meaningful dialogue, we clearly need to distinguish socialism from the alternative(s). Capitalism and Social-Democracy (he says “democratic socialism”).

He suggests Bernie and his supporters wear the socialist label with pride – necessary when your binary-partisan opponents are labelling you with it pejoratively anyway. I would however suggest most of us using such a short-hand label in intelligent good-faith dialogue are intending social-democracy not literally “social-ism”?

However either term includes the “social” root and David uses this to bring-up the relation to the social level in Pirsig’s MoQ. I would question whether Pirsig’s use of social is the same as understood in general real-world usage and political dialogue? And, either way, whether people favour capitalism over socialism or vice-versa, or any “mixed” version of the two, anyone that discounts the democratic element has a whole different set of questions to answer. [Aside – in my own “Psybernetic” researches and writings, I’ve long and regularly concluded all roads from Cybernetics (ie Governance) lead to Democracy and the systems we envisage to implement it. Most recently here. And, more comprehensively here, updating left and right with freedoms on economic and social axes, etc.]

Assuming for the moment we can equate or otherwise reconcile Pirsig’s use of social with more general usage of the word, then this claim holds:

“that label [socialism] quietly smuggles in: not care, not fairness, but an acceptance of social-level power concentrating under the cover of higher intellectual or moral authority. Cries that capitalism’s immorality can only be solved through socialism or communism are common, but they miss the deeper problem entirely”

“The issue isn’t capitalism as such – it’s what values control culture, and who and what gets to enforce them.”

Elite(s)? At this point he introduces elite(s), proceeds to use the word many more times, and, since he lays the blame at their / our door, socialist or capitalist, I need to understand what he means by elite? If I get myself elected to a position of temporary delegated power, do I become a member of an elite? If I consider I hold an intellectual understanding of Pirsig’s social and intellectual levels, do I get labelled a member of an elite? In Pirsigian terms what does it mean to refer to “an intellectual class” as an elite?

This one question aside, David nevertheless makes plenty of important true statements:

“Left unchecked, capitalism doesn’t just respond to Dynamic Quality – it converts social power into permanence, allowing those who win early or win big to shape the rules in their favour. Capitalism alone, then, is no more virtuous than socialism alone. Both become immoral when they’re absolutised.”

“From an MOQ perspective, democracy’s moral strength is precisely this openness. It does not freeze value at the social or intellectual level. Instead, it creates the conditions under which better ideas, better arrangements, and better values can emerge over time. When democracy fails, it is usually because this Dynamic function has been undermined, not because democracy itself was the problem.

Towards the end he concludes:

“Because despite everything, people still do share remarkably similar underlying values: meaningful work, security, distrust of elites, and a genuine voice in shaping their future. What is fractured: is not the culture itself, but the language and metaphysics people are given to understand it.”

That includes “elites” as the bad guys again, so in order to agree I’d need to read that as a bad kind of elites, rather than elites per se? Help me. That last sentence is also somewhat tautologous to me in the sense that it is the prevailing culture that gives us those shared understandings?

And in the final paragraph:

“[The MoQ] keeps evolutionary conflicts of morality at the front of mind whilst [common folks] evaluate elite suggestions. And the key here is that with this better metaphysics they can uniquely do so in the intellectual language of the elites.”

More of the us and them in there again – common folks vs elites – so understanding the use of “elite” is crucial to understanding, without it becoming simply another “rigid label”?

Overall worth a read, and I’d be interested in how others read it, Pirsigians or otherwise.

=====

I’ve been reading “Going Nuclear” by Tim Gregory on the recommendation of my brother having seen him give a talk on it.

To be clear it’s written for not just a general science audience, but a completely general lay audience – even explaining units of measure and metric prefixes of scales of measure, as well as the basic physics. So, as an engineer in the capital facilities industries, including energy of all kinds, I’m not really his audience. In fact my two-before-last professional job was at the very same facility where Tim still works, Sellafield. (The last two being fusion and medical nuclear projects and with radiography common throughout wider non-nuclear industries.)

My agenda is a couple of levels more abstract than Tim’s – he’s focussing on the balance of psychology and scientific fact that have led to decades of failure to invest in the safest-and-longest-sustainable source of energy available to humanity – specifically nuclear power. My focus is the received wisdom world-model we hold being inadequate to address the meta-crisis underlying the whole gamut of existential poly-crises (including the energy<>environment balance) requiring our individual and collective decision-making. The Psybernetics of individuals and organisations living in free-democratic societies seen as Complex Adaptive Systems – a deeper, wider, longer story. (Coincidentally, Sellafield was the facility where I first recognised “complexity” as a project systems discipline in its own right, alongside all the other specific technical expertise, another longer story – some more of which arising in the footnotes below.)

Short story here, as I say, is that nuclear power (fission now plus fusion later) is simply the safest-and-longest-sustainable source of energy available to humanity. Anyone who doesn’t recognise that needs to read Tim’s book. It’s not just the economic consequences of wasted opportunity. In terms of human and environmental, risks and emissions it really is as benign as renewable sources like wind and solar. We suffer far greater (yet practically harmless) radiation exposure from the environment, medical scans and air-travel say, than from the workings of nuclear power – indeed the infamous linear-non-threshold basis for assessing exposure risk associated with the nuclear industry is given a thorough treatment. In terms of human health and fatalities, fossil fuel emissions were / are clearly far worse, but population-scale evacuations (specifically Chernobyl and Fukujima, say, but also lockdowns, incidentally) have far greater human risks than any original source of potential danger in unplanned accidents and the like. Nuclear in particular suffers a shared paranoia in mis-understanding relative risks, which is why for me, this is an exemplar of the wider psychology-more-than-science nature of our meta-crises and political decision-making generally.

Short-termism is only the half of it. Tim also goes on to cover very long-term small-scale nuclear power applications such as those enabling greater space exploration and population – the final frontier. For us Brits, Sellafield is of course sitting on an enormous resource of both fissile and fertile nuclear fuel. He also covers the many different viable fuel / reactor combinations including the state-of-the-art as well as their history. As an engineer, rather than a lay reader, probably the only criticism I would raise is that early on – he explains that he’s using the simple term “radiation” throughout, without distinguishing between ionising and non-ionising forms – for simplicity for his target audience – but I wonder if his arguments might actually be even clearer in later sections looking at overall exposures, including solar?

But for now, if you or your friends don’t believe that:

Nuclear power really is the safest-and-longest-sustainable source of energy available to humanity and that in terms of human and environmental, risks and emissions it really is as benign as renewables.

You need to be reading and sharing “Going Nuclear” by Tim Gregory.

[In Scotland, the SNP need to be reading him too.]

I shall be passing my copy along to the local pub book club 🙂

=====

END

=====

Post Notes: Relevant to my agenda, not necessarily Tim’s, but so much is connected here.

Above, I used the idea of CAS (Complex Adaptive Systems) AND remembered that Sellafield was where I first saw “Complexity” as a specialist discipline in its own right. One way or another, I’ve always been in “Systems”. My own specialisms have evolved from aeronautics, structures and fluid dynamics, to the materials and the integrity of pressure containment systems, management systems, operating systems and information system models to where I am now: focussed on the epistemology and ontology of the world models we use to make individual and collective decisions. The fact these were always complex (not just complicated) systems had always been a given for me. Systems “thinking” is simply a response to that “complexity”. Systems don’t come more complex than we as networked collections of humans?

I have a number of ongoing dialogues with practitioners in this space, and there’s been a recurring topic about why some talk exclusively about either systems or complexity, and in either case why they insist on limiting their scopes to systems-science(s) or complexity-science(s). For me Complex Adaptive Systems Thinking is pragmatically about both and (obviously) science-informed so far as possible, but it’s more than science.

Dave Snowden is one of those, and despite being one of the “Complexity Science” camp, he is also recently using “CAS” short-hand, confirming S is understood to be Systems (with no explicit mention of science). This was part of a thread where Dave was bemoaning “experts” claiming to understand CAS were yet still talking about “root causes”. He’s right, the point of CAS is to understand causal networks are emergent from the whole, but he also stated that CAS “deprivileged experts” – which is a little worrying not just for the dented egos of experts, but for the general public loss of faith in experts, so it needed clarifying imho:

Me: Telling that you put the expert ‘help’ in scare quotes.
Probably the point where I’d differ is in that there are many kinds of expertise in many dimensions – real expertise (like yours) is knowing which kinds are likely to help where.

Me: CAS deprivileges the wrong kind of expertise. (Edit/Add – to be clear I agree with your main point about CAS vs “root-causes”.)

Me: Be interested to know, in your world, what the S in CAS stands for 😉

Dave: I’m ok with systems and expertise in root cause analysis is very valuable, but not when we have a CAS. Myers Briggs which I have also seen advocated as a CAS approach but it’s a crude form of categorisation and a pseudo-science so there is no value in any human context. Context matters

Me: Yes, context matters, and contrary to many information scientists, with CAS, context isn’t just “more content” 🙂

Me: (Aside – seeing my use of “the wrong kind of expertise” there – some of my ex-colleagues may recall my use of “the wrong trousers” metaphor – when we were barking up the wrong tree, looking for the wrong kind of software solutions.)

Dave: [Like]

Lots more corollaries in there: So to recap:

Context? The relevance of context and its being more than simply “more content” has been a long-standing item here. A given. But obviously in a sense, at some level, a physical data storage implementation level (say), context might be seen as just more content, but ironically, that’s why context, including levels of abstraction between contexts, matter. Human context matters. [And one reason this topic was in Dave’s thread is because Alicia Juarrero’s book “Why Context Matters” had also just been shared there too. As I said, not read it (yet), but depressing that the world needs this message? h/t Artun Turan.]

And “a” CAS case? For me all interesting cases are CAS – open interacting human individuals and organisations and their ecosystems – complex beyond any simple (or complicated) closed command and control system(s).

And “crude form[s] of categorisation and [dubious] science [have] no value in any human context”. OH YES! Pretty much the driver of my CAS agenda.

• Categorisation? (classifications, namings in context, in taxonomic ontologies) are inescapable and actually essential, despite all their pitfalls and unintended consequences. It’s why we have to have better ones and better understanding than current “received wisdom”.
  
• Honesty about the limitations of science? hopefully goes without saying, but public / political communications about what is or isn’t relevant science are severely compromised by that “received wisdom” I mentioned.

Onwards and upward.

=====

I’ll come back to those “wrong trousers” one day 🙂

=====

Funnily enough it was hearing Mark Solms talk some years ago that led me to acquire his “Hidden Spring” on the strength of it, with no prior knowledge, even though it was some time before I actually had the bandwidth to read him. Like Iain McGilchrist, his work is now an embedded part of my own research. I’m a fan.

After an exchange on X/Twitter yesterday and today drawing attention to Mark’s work to others debating the limitations of public-knowledge or objective-science when it comes to explanations of consciousness – both its causal power and our subjective experience of it – someone shared a recent BrainLand PodCast conversation with him.

It’s advertised as being “On the neuroscience of sleep and dreaming” (the focus of Mark’s earlier work) but is much wider ranging. As with understanding consciousness itself, so much knowledge of “normal” behaviour and experience is derived from understanding abnormalities and anomalies – the so-called “Lesion Literature” etc (Austin to Zeman including Oliver Sacks – see note below). So too with sleep and dreaming. Their differences in relation to waking and non-dreaming experiences, and anomalies in these, are key to understanding their normal reality.

<iframe src="https://embed.acast.com/$/6452b6516dd22500113dc7ca/perchance-to-dream-the-neuroscience-of-sleep-and-dreaming?" frameBorder="0" width="100%" height="110px" allow="autoplay"></iframe>

https://shows.acast.com/6452b6516dd22500113dc7ca/69270f78064897cd5fd01fe3

What I and Ken Barrett (the Podcast presenter) both remarked on is the infectious enthusiasm with which Mark naturally covers the range of topics. And he does it from his own immediate experience in research and in relation to the work of others before and since and the reactions of science-politics around these contentious fields then and now. His knowledge is clearly authentic. The honesty of failed hypotheses and unexpected results as part of the process, no need to take credit for the “accidents” along the way. And, as in any other field, it’s much harder to talk if you have to remember hidden or dubious agendas in your story. If you’re dealing with truth, talking under questioning, changing topics as necessary, is free and easy.

Mark Solms knows his and our, brains and minds.
More people should be paying attention to him and his work.
What do you think?

=====

Post Note: Coincidentally also today, I discover Karl Friston – a source in and a collaborator with Solms work – has been added to the participant list at the 2026 HTLGI Conference / Festival at Hay-on-Wye 22-25 May 2026.

Post Note: and just a few days ago, another one I missed – Michael Levin leading a discussion with Solms & Friston and Chris Fields & Thomas Pollak. Not had a chance to view yet. H/T @MacrinePhD
(Very early on Mike responds – in passing – to Mark’s point on Markov Blankets’ purpose dynamically limiting internal and external knowledge, rather than there being an optimum proportion – suggesting maybe an “attractor” defining the proportion or pattern of knowledge between the two? Second mention of attractor ideas in a week. Chris – multiple time horizons in the sub-conscious meta-systems – sounds a lot like John C Doyle – also Tim Kueper’s comment in my earlier Solms piece – how much do we need to meta-know about our knowing whilst we are knowing, and how much of either needs to be conscious.

Mark pretty much stating my own summary of his position:

Consciousness “is” affect.
It’s feeling all the way down.
It’s
‘How do I feel
about what I know
and what, if anything,
should I do about it?’

Lots of good stuff.)

[Post Note: Having mentioned Solms’ “Friston inspired” Free-Energy-Principle and Active-Inference work, another round of “debunking” FEP erupted yesterday on LinkedIn.

Me: When intelligent people start calling each other insane, cultish, zealots, etc or caricaturing each other’s position, I see a lot of talking past each other. The efforts to defend and debunk become equally tedious and noisy.

Me: If people simply want to say FEP, or a particular Pearl or Friston variety of it, isn’t science – of the orthodox, Popperian, falsifiable kind – they’d be right. (And I’ve pointed out myself that there’s been a great deal of hype and overreach associated with FEP and Active Inference. I personally have only a specific narrow interest in it.)

Me: BUT as far back as the “Emperor’s New Markov Blanket” paper, FEP proponents have pointed out that what is being criticised are in fact explicit features. That it has philosophical, even metaphysical departures from orthodox science, by design. Those that can’t see “more than science” will probably have trouble engaging in the dialogue between science and philosophy?

cc: Anatoly Levenchuk

OP: let’s call enron, enron.
Me: [Funny]
Me: Ironic, because Enron has been one of my example cases 🙂

Anatoly: Rough decomposition:

1. Mathematics / logic / probability: you can think of this as a formal substrate: measure theory, stochastic processes, variational Bayes, information geometry, etc. Not falsifiable as such; It’s a particular representation scheme for certain non-equilibrium steady-state systems with Markov blankets: “you can rewrite their dynamics as minimization of variational free energy / ELBO for some generative model.” FEP is closer to a formalism / representation, not an extra chunk of physics glued on top.
2. Process theories built under FEP (predictive coding, active inference, etc.): kind of generative model, form of recognition dynamics, precision update rules, etc. They absolutely can be falsified, compared, outperformed.
3. Concrete models and parameterizations: specific task, specific architecture, specific parameter priors → standard cognitive / systems modelling. This is where you plug in data, fit, cross-validate, and decide whether this instance of “FEP-style” modelling is any good.

Use my First principles framework https://github.com/ailev/FPF (load as a file in your favorite LLM and ask about episteme’s representation and “principle to work” chain).

Me: Brilliant summary, thanks Anatoly. Listen-up folks:

“Not falsifiable as such;
It’s a particular representation scheme for certain non-equilibrium steady-state systems with Markov blankets: FEP is closer to a formalism / representation, not an extra chunk of physics.”

That previous “Emperor’s New Markov Blanket” critique.

That “non-equilibrium steady-state” concept is an important one to keep an eye on, later. ]

[Post Note: And, talking of debunking, Oliver Sacks is the latest target. Apparently quite a lot of the anecdotal evidence in “The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat” was invented or prompted by Sacks himself. Just another example of the damage polarisation does. Sure, it means quite a few specifics of his writings are not objectively true, but it doesn’t mean all of “his work is debunked” – far from it.]

=====

Moving into the second week of being without a functioning laptop capable of my research and writing needs. Amazing how dependent you get on switching between sources, channels, tools and apps, that just can’t be done with a one-screen phone and two thumbs. Nothing lost content-wise hopefully – all in the cloud and backed-up – just the loss of working configurations.

Working today on an old slow Windows-10 machine, last configured (not for me) over 5 years ago, so not just slow performance-wise but every task requiring updates, installs and new log-ins and passwords and configurations and reboots and … aarrgghh!!

So this will probably be my only catch-up post – rambling across several topics – until I get repaired or replacement kit. So, in no particular order (will add some internal links):

• Less is More – Rules & Responsibilities
• R.I.P. Todd Snider
• Panarchy / Adaptive Cycle – Open Adaptive Systems
• Neil Hannon / Divine Comedy
• Miscellaneous inc Big History / Long Now

=====

Less is More

When dealing with the reality of human complexity, there is a fractal amount of detail at the working level where the diminishing returns on knowing more detail at finer granularity and the wisdom of knowing about which details matter, conversely also risks missing small but nevertheless significant details which might lead to actual chaos beyond the complexity. More wisdom, less detail. But the choice of which detail isn’t one-dimensional. As well as the four familiar dimensions of real space-time at the here-and-now working level, there are the choices of multiple levels and dimensions of abstraction.

The devil may be in the detail but the angels are in the abstractions, as ever.

I’ve been having these thoughts every day the assisted dying bill has been in the news, with both chambers of the house debating details of checks and balances for foreseeable exceptional cases. Obviously, the motivation to find more and more exceptions, let alone how to address them, depends on the general favourability or otherwise of the basic principle, and like many knotty issues it’s easy to be polarised for or against. Anyone against is incentivised to exaggerate the dogs breakfast in order to kill the bill. For me this bill would be two sentences. (1) Anyone facing low quality of remaining life, including their attorneys, should be entitled to ask for help ending that life. (2) The individual decision should be with the ethics committee of the relevant caring professionals.

Challenged, doubtful cases would generate case-law.
We can’t substitute actual trust for more detail.
Next.

The reason I was prompted to post anything – this rambling post – today, is thanks to this “Global Story” documentary broadcast on the BBC World Service last night.

It’s about Pearlman, the lobbyist who tried to sink the first CoP Climate deal, and the ongoing machinations of achieving consensus at the UN level thereafter. As my general rules of discourse say, there can be no real consensus without good faith – what-aboutery and sea-lioning (and pedantry) are always bad-faith – rational processes as cover for ideological or dubious motives.

And related via “Less is More”- Barry Schwarz IAI.tv talk shared by @AnitaLeirfall – Too much choice makes us less free | Barry Schwartz :
“A core value of Western liberal democracy is freedom, and we tend to assume that the more choice we have, the freer we are. But that’s a dangerous illusion.” #freedom #choice #philosophy

Also related @DocStokk on complex real-life being “more than” human rights and freedoms. (PayWalled at The Times). I said ‘Been at the core of my thesis for a couple of decades. Despite “woke”, freedoms as in human rights, have become too focussed at the “I/me/they” individual level, with “we” only at the tribal level instead of the collective humanity level.’

We have collective responsibilities as well as individual freedoms.

=====

RIP Todd Snider

I’ve never seen such quantity of outpourings of grief at the loss of Todd Snider. Still ten or more new ones daily, a week later on the social and music media channels I follow. As well as the memories of the many fellow-artists he’s worked with, he was the human kind of singer-songwriter you feel you know even if you never met him personally. I’ve mentioned here seeing and listening to him 3 or 4 times previously. As well as being under-60, the circumstances of his unexpected death were also particularly shocking – dying from pneumonia back home in Nashville a week or so after being refused medical treatment(!), and body-cam of being arrested(!), following an assault(*) on tour in Salt Lake City(!) – what the? (* Sounding maybe more like some self-inflicted “accident” – but the reality of the injury and ill-health are plain to see and hear.)

I’ve mentioned the value in the poetry of our singer-songwriters more generally many times before. Roy Harper, Graham Parker, Elvis Costello, Nick Cave and Shane MacGowan alongside Bob Dylan and Leonard Cohen – anything with a folk-blues-rock backbone, and especially the Americana country-folk variant – Neil Young and John Prine, Tom Waites, Bruce Springsteen and Loudon Wainwright and the three guys we came across when we lived close to Nashville (2005-2009); Tommy Womack, Will Kimbrough and Todd Snider. Still have his “East Nashville Skyline” on CD in the car to this day.

We lost one of the good guys.

=====

Open Adaptive Systems Theory

Just a placeholder for this post from Jim Stewartson, where he presents a Figure-8 diagram that I see as mapping onto the generative / degenerate (r-K-Ω-α) cycles of “The Adaptive Cycle” after Daniel Christian Wahl and the “Panarchy” of Gunderson & Hollings, which themselves map on to the various cycles of life of Hinduism and Buddhism as well as the industrial / econo-technology cycles of Kondratiev and Kuhn etc. (For me all of this falls under “Complex Adaptive Systems Thinking“.)

BUT Stewartson presents it thus, with a chaos-theory “attractor”:

A LEMNISCATE (∞) is a mathematical figure-eight curve that represents a system cycling between states.

AN ATTRACTOR is a pattern toward which a complex system naturally settles, even as it moves through turbulence.

(Which obviously also kinda maps on to Dave Snowden’s Cynefin stuff?)

My view of these things is that they’re useful descriptively of how things typically happen, maybe even diagnostically useful of a situation you are investigating, but not themselves predicters or decision-makers of consequences of available actions, causal or emergent. (Hence why the Cynefin stuff is participatory rather than methodological or formulaic. Predictably Unpredictable?)

But if there really is an attractor … ?
More reading and thought needed.

=====

Neil Hannon and The Divine Comedy

I’ve not been doing music reviews for a while – simply adding notes to earlier review pages, and I can’t believe I didn’t mention Neil Hannon amongst the folk-blues-rock-based / Americana poets above. Obviously, because he’s more “chamber pop” but still a fine poet.

We saw him/them at York Barbican last month. Excellent.

Noticed just the other day that Sarah Ditum is also a long-term fan and had written a review in The Critic.

(A link there also to an earlier during-Covid gig at the London Barbican. Think we’ve seen them 2 or 3 times since then. If you don’t know his work, these two reviews give you a good sympathetic flavour.)

Seeing two other local bands in gigs, both at the KU in Stockton. Middle Management supporting The Benefits this weekend and The Dossers headlining next weekend. Mentioned both previously, but haven’t the bandwidth to do reviews justice.

=====

Miscellaneous

Long Now / Big History? – Interesting edition of BBC Radio4 “Free Thinking” with Matthew Sweet. Infuriating failure to mention existing Long Now or Big History initiatives in this session on how the history (and futures) of human activity need to be seen in ecological, geological and cosmological time. OUR worldview may inevitably be human-centred, so it does matter to humanity enormously, BUT the world itself isn’t. Sadly, that latter point has given rise to OOO (Object Oriented Ontology), a dreadful name for an important point – that any true ontology is about interactions between objects, and we as subjects are just one example object. But putting “Object” in the name has put the focus on these and LOST the focus on their interactions and the fact that these are dynamic. The real ontological “objects” are in fact “processes” and the things we call objects are emergent consequences. So close, but no cigar! #PartOfTheProblem

Why AI Won’t Kill US – by Francis Heylighen (an old Pirsigian source).

A conversation started with David Pierce (another Pirsigian). Started last year with him questioning / trying to understand my agenda-based on my “Zero to Pirsig” paper summarising my intellectual journey (over 20 years ago btw) and reconnecting a few days ago. Started with him retweeting this Poincaré quote “It is through logic that we prove, but through intuition that we discover” – and me responding “Although, generally we also have to accept what cannot be proven with logic (now or possibly ever) and proceed to act on the basis of the intuition.” Long story short – summarised in comments here – he shared his “Ethics of Mathematics” paper – which I don’t fully get yet, but which includes Pirsig quoting Poincaré “He didn’t verify the idea [that had just come to him], he said, he just went on with a conversation on the bus; but he felt a perfect certainty. Later he verified the result at his leisure.” to which I added my Pirsig quote – the “later at leisure” is key. As Pirsig also said “science is 20:20 hindsight” whereas 99% of here and now reality is something “more than science” – the current focus “exercising” my agenda. It’s that “Predictably Unpredictable?” again. Ask away David 🙂 (And feeling – “affect” – more fundamental than logic is Solms / McGilchrist. Logic is one useful response to feeling. Exactly the same conversation last night with Steve, and a new “old email” contact with Bob.)

Assembly Theory – A YouTube short shared by Lee Cronin who, with Sara Amari, has coined “Assembly Theory” – specifically a usefully predictable relationship between life and chemical structures. Capturing it here because whenever I hear it I want to ask how does it differ from “Constructor Theory” (after Deutsch & Marletto)? Clearer now – Assembly Theory is very specifically about chemistry, whereas Constructor Theory is a much more generic concept in physics.

The Lysenko Effect – The Politics of Science, by Nils Roll-Hansen, ideology before science AND ethics. New ref for me from @USSRtoEurope. Another one for a British Library visit methinks. “The corruption of Soviet biology resulted not just from Stalin’s direct intervention, but from a deeper “wishful-thinking syndrome” where scientific objectivity was compromised by ideological and economic pressures for immediate, tangible results. He challenges the simplistic view of Lysenko as a mere pseudoscientist backed by a tyrant.”

=====