A New Conversation
Having a new conversation with a couple in the bar last night, showed lots of interest in the ideas shared and discussed here, and it became quite positively passionate. Lots of shared recognition. Reminded me of another conversation a week or so ago, which I didn’t mention yet.
The one last week was simpler, because the focus was Humboldt and the two books by Andrea Wulf much loved and discussed here, and where copies had been left in the bar book-club. Seemed we had a new fan, appreciating Humboldt’s amazing international adventures and his massive influence on the great and the good of the age of revolution in the first book, whilst itching to get to “the invention of the self” agenda of the Humboldts’ extended family circle back in Jena in the second book, again with a name-droppers dream in its cast of real characters. Darwin himself acknowledged Humboldt’s important influence. No doubt we’ll talk again when he finishes the second 🙂
Last night started much more general with a question about what “my post-retirement project (to save the world 🙂 !!!)” was. I was able to give a 4 or 5 sentence statement (see below), which started the conversation described at the top. What floored me – apart from the enthusiasm – was the final question. What would I recommend they read to understand more? I should have stock answers – elevator pitches – for both of those questions, of course.
I didn’t say “this Psybertron blog”.
www.psybertron.org
I didn’t say the Humboldt books, above.
(Especially the second.)
I didn’t say McGilchrist’s “The Matter With Things”.
(The most comprehensive and thoroughly researched & referenced account of where the dominant 20thC worldview is leading our understanding of the world astray – but a massive and expensive undertaking to read from a cold start. He re-habilitates the true position of left-right brain thinking despite it remaining contentious among deniers. Attention / ways of attending, as a moral act.)
I didn’t say Mark Solms’ “The Hidden Spring”.
(The best very technical explanation of where our real – subjective, bio-psychological – knowledge of the world arises in our consciousness, yes, even the knowledge we conceptualise as objective – one very important core issue, but not the whole psycho-social-intellectual story. Very important basis in the fundamental information & computation vs entropy & complex systems (“Free Energy Principle”) view of the foundations of physics and hence all evolved, living things, if you want to dig even deeper with Solms and Friston – cross the Rubicon – into the real scientific underpinnings of this “more-than-objective-science” story of our subjective, intuitive experience.)
I didn’t say my hero Dan Dennett (RIP) and his “From Bacteria to Bach and Back”.
The most patient, avuncular, philosopher-guide along the real evolutionary story of our consciousness. (Still so many philosophy-vs-science misunderstanding-deniers of his work but, with the help of the two above, there really is no longer any mystery about our consciousness of ourselves and the world.)
I didn’t say Robert Pirsig (RIP) and his “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” and “Lila” though I did mention ZMM in the course of the conversation.
(Still to this day an excellent introduction to the moral philosophical framework of the whole evolved physical-bio-socio-intellectual stack of reality, which nails the Zen or “Quality” radical-empirical-experience-of / immediate-attention-to the world firmly as its insubstantial foundation. That “attention as a moral act” massively elaborated by McGilchrist above, who freely admits to have been influenced by Pirsig but, like many many others, finds it difficult to academically reference the work with the whacky Zen title and the imagined 1960’s hippy life-style associations. Quality will out.)
I didn’t mention Dupuy’s “Mechanisation of the Mind”
Although I do use a few quotes from Dupuy, it’s intriguing that I didn’t fully appreciate how much it intersected with all the topics I’ve mentioned, the first time I read it right at the start of my journey. It set me up for so many of my “Psybernetic” research avenues, and is actually a good introductory read I realise. (And having reminded myself of Dupuy, I now notice that the ASC’s own summary of the 1946 Macy “Cybernetics” conferences makes extensive use of Dupuy.)
I did mention that some of the very basic “is / ought” aspects of everyday life were as old as ancient Greek philosophy and remain as relevant to today’s problem. (In its simplest form, what “is” is or can be factual, objective, scientific whereas what we “ought” to do isn’t and never can be, certainly not entirely. The massive success of science and technology – and the relatively easy use of objective numbers and arithmetic-maths compared to the complexity of human systems – dominates and hides that very important “not entirely”.)
I didn’t mention any of the Complex Systems Thinkers and their many published theories, sciences and methods, mainly because most – but not all – still ignore the underlying philosophical / epistemological problem.
I did for some reason suggest watching the new BBC “Renaissance” docu-drama, because it’s topical and surprisingly relevant – maybe after you understand the intellectual journey above?
One day I’d hope to recommend the book(s) I’m writing, as much better organised versions of the thoughts scattered throughout this blog. Meantime maybe see my Research Proposal.
My opening statement of what “my project” is about:
(The research proposal above contains a good statement of the problem, but the following is more or less what I said last night.)
The root topic is Cybernetics (or Systems Thinking) as originally conceived post-WWII by the 1946 Macy Conferences. (There was actually a similar movement post-WWI, but of course our backsliding into WWII meant much momentum was lost. And many before, it turns out.) Imagine being among the smartest people in the world – running our institutions post the industrial revolution – and asking yourself how did we fuck it up so badly, twice. We really must learn to do better? This was their project. Cybernetics was always about human systems of organisation and self-governance – the most complex of physio-bio-psycho-socio-cultural systems, despite the word becoming most associated with the successes of industrial computation and automation via feedback and the like.
Similarly, in parallel with that science and technology success in cybernetics, objective science and technology have come to dominate all our information and decision-making processes. In free-democracies – the best forms of government, before we get to best forms of democracy, local national, international, global? – we expect decisions and policies justified on “fully costed” plans and cost-benefit-risk analyses and the like. Arithmetic. Numbers. Despite the fact we see the massive hearts and minds effects of rhetoric, sound-bites, symbols and slogans, good and bad?
It’s “my project” because after ~30 years as a Systems Engineer in industry I had seen time after time how the explicit / objective / factual (classical) won out over the intuitive / implicit / valuable (romantic). The nagging doubt that we were missing something important was kicked in the pants by 9/11 and the ensuing God vs Science wars, (and now all the woke-PC / anti-woke culture wars) before I even knew for the first time that the recurring classic / romantic division was as old as philosophy itself, a subject I knew nothing about, 25 years ago, before I read ZMM.
Be nice to find ways to improve before we slide into WWIII or worse, global / environmental disaster?
(No-one is messianic enough, least of all me, to believe we are “saving the world!”. Like many others I’m hoping individual efforts to fix misunderstandings that are leading us astray will help steer the evolutionary direction of progress. There are actually lots of people who “get it” – they’re just drowned out by dominant 21stC communication paradigms and understandings. I’m not proposing anything that hasn’t already been thought of, it’s about synthesising / evolving ways of doing better. But none of it is possible without fixing the core misunderstanding.)
=====