Year: 2024

Dave Snowden posted on his LinkedIn Feed “tongue in cheek and with mischievous intent”

“North Atlantic Buddhism, gurus & cybernetics on the one hand with Daoism (& its interaction with Confucianism), distributed intelligence & complexity on the other.”

Weirdly my last post, 2 days ago, mentioned Dave in the context of Cybernetics vs all the other available Systems Complexity views out there, but I’d not remembered that when I took the rise to his mischievous intent challenge:

Ian GLENDINNING
“Not quite sure where you’re going with the ‘on the one hand / on the other’ … given your distaste for dichotomies :-)”

Dave Snowden
“Two sets of associations Ian”

Ian GLENDINNING
“Dave Snowden But with more overlap than divergence / distinction?”

Dave Snowden
“Ian GLENDINNING Two roads diverged in a yellow wood”

Maritina Dimopoulou
“Dave Snowden ah, I first came across this poem when I watched Dead Poets Society in my teenage years…”

Ian GLENDINNING
“Dave Snowden Excellent.

So I guess I need to acknowledge that allusion to the Good-Fences / Gates-in-the-Forest metaphor I often use.

Mischief appreciated 🙂

(Robert Frost being the common source – and G K Chesterton – I shall have to write a longer piece myself. Weirdly I wrote a piece only yesterday referring to Dave and Cybernetics … in other concurrent parallel threads … https://www.psybertron.org/archives/18971 )”

Essentially this an ongoing dialogue with Dave on here as well as on LinkedIn and his own blog, several in parallel on related topics live on LinkedIn right now – will not link to all – but in summary:

Rather than get into debates about which Systems theories (inc Cybernetics) Dave emphasises his own (Cynefin) approach as using Complexity (and other) Sciences …

Partly, most of us would say that Systems Thinking (of all kinds) is a response to complexity (including the complexities of humanity itself), even if this wasn’t explicit in the way various Systems theories and sciences were framed. Complexity – as a science – came later or independently Dave would say?

My response is four-fold:

• • From the start Systems Thinking was always about the complexities of self-organising humanity, even if complexity per-se wasn’t the explicit topic and even if the early applications were more machine than human. (First & Second Cybernetics and Cybernetics as Feedback)
  • Secondly whatever it is we’re talking about, it’s more than science. We’re trading poetic Robert Frost and GK Chesterton quotes above ferchrissakes!

“With complex systems modelling doesn’t work.”

• • Thirdly, the above are long-running dialogue, but the (mischievous) Buddhist (also non-science?) topics are new in this dialogue, even if long-standing here (and Dave referencing “Zen” back in 2003). Obviously a lot more to discuss here on Eastern thinking, but for now,
  • Fourthly Dave first puts his forking Buddhist path in our way.

Although he says, he’s not positing a dichotomy he’s only pointing out “two sets of associations“. He’s making a distinction, the existence of two paths, two sides to a gate or fence, in time and/or space. “Two sides to every story”. The sets of associations he’s highlighting are:

• • between “North Atlantic” Buddhism and Cybernetics [bad?], and
  • between authentic Eastern Thinking and his Distributed Intelligence plus Complexity story [good?].

We can only wonder why?

I think we’re violently agreeing about #GoodFences and #Dichotomies.

The point of #GoodFences is that many distinctions of many kinds exist for all sorts of reasons, good and/or circumstantial. (Fences, gates or forking paths in forests.) But they are never dichotomous, between two entirely different things, never the twain shall meet, unless we actively choose to make them that way. They are things that are mostly the same, with shared histories, but with one or more selected distinguishing feature that is significant in some way(s). They have a purpose, but can move and evolve.

“Complex vs Complicated is a false dichotomy.”

Essentially what I’m struggling with is that when Dave points out a distinction he says he doesn’t mean it dichotomously even though the difference is significant, but when others (Iain McGilchrist’s left<>right-brain say, or myself) point out distinctions, we are accused of (false) dichotomies. Differences are real, dichotomies more often false.

Need to see what Dave is saying in his Third Eastern dialogue before we can see if and why his Fourth divergent views is relevant, even if not dichotomous. As is hopefully obvious above I’m sceptical with putting Cybernetics back in some simplistic mechanistic box it was never intended to occupy. Better to find common ground than to divide?

=====

In my quest for better Systems Thinking understanding of the world as a whole, I still hang on to the fact that Cybernetics was always about self-adaptive governance of complex human systems from the start; its association with machine control systems being circumstantial of its early successes. There are of course many specific / specialised theories and sciences of Systems and Complexity more generally, developed since Wiener (Cybernetics) and the 1946 Macy conference brought so many systems thinkers into one melting-pot. They emphasise different aspects, but to me they’re all variations on the same underlying theme, and I’m always sceptical when practitioners get too precious about which one is best, being critical of their competitors, even Dave Snowden of Cynefin, which may indeed be “the best” tends to focus on Complexity Science(s). Even Mike Jackson, whose “Critical” systems theory is essentially Pragmatism with a qualifying name to distinguish it from other branded offerings.

I often get the push-back that the distinguishing idea about using the word Cybernetics was always “feedback” and was always naturally more suited to that mechanistic electro-mechanical machine view. Sure, feedback is an important part of Cybernetics – and of Systems generally, since the ancient Greeks no doubt – but I already noted this when reviewing Maruyama’s (1963) “Second Cybernetics” back in 2018.

It’s not just feedback. It’s mutual feedback, feed-back and feed-forward between any number of organisational levels of wholes and parts. Any parts of any systems. It’s about intra- and inter-system communications – of information. It’s always been about system evolution – self-adaptive organisational-learning – through parts and wholes mutually processing information.

Computation. Complex, many-layered computations on many different timescales.

=====

Critical Thinking has a lot to answer for …. distinctions and #GoodFences.

=====

[Holding post now updated(*)]

Philip Goff (oft referenced here for his attempt at panpsychism) has been quiet for a while. I thought he had actually been ill / injured a couple of months ago, but for whatever the reason, his deep thinking opportunity has led him to Christianity – a heretical form he says.

An interview with Capturing Christianity here:

And an Aeon paper here:
I Now Think a Heretical Form of Christianity Might be True

I’ve only skimmed both so far(*), but already seeing X/Twitter traffic.

He says it’s actually mainly what his last book “Why? The Purpose of the Universe” (2023) was really about, and I’ve not read that yet either. Anyway after that skim, I Tweeted:

I think a Spinozan pantheism, or panentheism as McGilchrist would say, is tenable. Odd you don’t mention Spinoza?

(Anyway, whatever we mean by god, it doesn’t “exist” or have causal powers in this world. Not a being but a source of being itself, a metaphysical position. Pretty much mainstream Christianity as a theologian @Elizaphanian told me when I discussed McGilchrist’s take on god.)

Unsurprisingly the X/Twitter dialogue has become about what we call it and whether it’s Christianity. But whatever it is it’s (a) real, and (b) basically a kind of metaphysical monotheism – I call it sacred naturalism– and only Christian in particular if we bring the ideas of Jesus, the resurrection and the trinity into it?

If this has legs I may have to come back to it?

=====

[Post Note: And for comparison
here he’s arguing the opposite, only a year ago.]

=====

(*) Having now read the whole article – but still finding it impossible to subject myself to the “CC” interview – I see he does mention panentheism, and does, as expected, focus on the Jesus mythology of Christianity specifically. Still feels a bit like metaphysical theology 101, but good that he has got there. Also talks about meditation in terms of engaging with nature. More pragmatic than heretic? Welcome to the sacred naturalism club.

Still feel I’m left with one difference. He talks about a god having limited power in this world, rather than none (other than the power of the mythological narratives of the monotheistic religions – choose your favourite prophet?) So for me, rather than the problems of good and evil and the miracle of intelligent life – in a cosmos where life is possible, the evolution of intelligent consciousness and purpose is indeed inevitable – my metaphysics is limited to the first-cause / something-rather-than-nothing-question. The miracle in this universe is simply the most basic version of the anthropic perspective – it’s the one we’re in, and we can never have any knowledge of any other anyway.

I realise now why I wasn’t drawn to his latest book “Why?”. I was already cool with the purposeful inevitabilities. Obviously if you’re not it might be a book worth reading?

=====

I mentioned 3 posts and 5 or 6 weeks ago, that I’d taken-up reading “New Finish Grammar” (2000) by Diego Marani following a Tweeted recommendation from Anil Seth.

I read about a third of it the first night I received it, but read the middle third rather disjointedly over several weeks as I was distracted by another piece of work, and eventually finished the final third in a couple of sittings yesterday and today. In the flow of the final third I was as gripped as I was intrigued by the initial third. The twist(s) that resolve the layers of confusion become more certain as the end approaches, finally cleared-up in a classic murder-mystery dénouement, though it’s a long way from a murder-mystery, despite the fact it’s the first of a trilogy compared to the original Nordic noir “The Killing” which the original Italian writing pre-dates. Nordic noir mystery it clearly is, in its unsettlingly dark style and mostly Helsinki-region dark-winter and simmer-dim geography.

The simplest summary of the plot premise I quoted in my first mention.

“A wounded sailor is found on a Trieste quay -amnesiac, unable to speak and with nothing to identify him except a name tag pointing to Finnish origins.”

It’s set in WWII involving Italians, Germans, Finns and Russians and is really an exercise in how little language disconnected from lived experience can ever mean and how far from reality it can lead us, as our protagonist Sampo attempts to reconstruct his forgotten identity, memories and language, with the help of fallible friends along the way. The narrative is partly that of Sampo drafting the story of his own adventure and partly that of a medic tracking him down by researching his identity and the written evidence he and his correspondents leave behind.

“What we today regard as music would have been seen as noise a hundred years ago. Yesterday’s mistake is just today’s harmless oddity. The rule always succeeds the word: this is the great weakness of all grammar. The rule is not order, it is just a description of some form of disorder. Like everything peculiar to man, language changes too, and to strive for linguistic purity is as senseless as to strive for its racial equivalent. Linguists say that all languages tend towards simplification, aiming to express the maximum of possible meaning through the fewest possible sounds. So the shortest words are also the oldest, the most worn away by time …”

” I thought that I could master [feelings bigger than myself] simply because I was able to write them down. In fact here too I was behaving like a scientist. I described my state of mind just as I would the symptoms and course of a disease. I had not yet realised that nothing that concerns man ever happens the same way twice …”

Obvious linguistic and epistemological reasons why it fits my Psybertron agenda. Reminiscent of Eco to me? I will have to hold off the remainder of the trilogy, and the remainder of the 10 books Marani has written, until a later date.

=====

9/11 was significant to my own thought journey, as I mention in various presentations I give, in quite different contexts. It turned nagging doubts about “western rationality” in my knowledge-modelling working life-to-date, into something globally real, awful, awe-full and urgent. A kick in the pants to actively research what was already making me uneasy. 23 years later I’m still at it.

Each year a number of remembrance pieces come up:

The Falling Man
The story of Richard Drew’s photo of Jonathan Briley,
By Tom Junod in Esquire

and

The Real Heroes are Dead
The story of Rick Rescola and Susan Greer,
By James B Stewart in The New Yorker

=====

This is a version of my Rules of Engagement / Rules of Discourse page.

Being updated to make it more explicitly obvious that these are also the rules of free-speech, more generally than lip-service to “freeze peach”. The mantra being parroted by followers of Elon Musk – topical in 2024 because he made it his raison–d’être for acquiring his wet-dream called X in 2023. And look where that’s got us, having one new, autistic, commercially-interested, kid on the block take charge of how we answer the question?

So,
How free should speech be?
Or, alternatively,
How should free-speech be?
Hat tip to Mark Hammond for the Tim Garton-Ash alternative reframing of the question … but either way the answer is of the form …

Free-speech should be … xxx

… followed by a list of criteria or defining rules that make it the kind of speech that underpins – supports, maintains, incentivises – free-democratic civilised society. (If you want to argue for a society that’s NOT civilised or NOT free and democratic, based on the imperfect and corrupted ones you’ve experienced so far, you’ve come to the wrong place. The thesis here is about making society less imperfect and less corruptible, more civilised, more free and more democratic. Making the least-worst better, to borrow from Churchill.)

The defining rule is more than the single word “Free”.
That would be free-speech 101 at best. Kindergarten stuff.
Muskian free-speech-absolutism

Yes, free-speech in a civilised society really should be constrained by rules – rules of civility – hat-tip to Mark again, for his summary of my existing rules below. If you can’t get your head around that basic assertion about rules, jump straight to the section on rules generally, then come back to the main article on free discourse below.

Although introduced in the context of argument in dialogue and discourse, the article below does in fact cover the cases of physical speech in public, media publication and social media exchanges and even artistic / comedic contexts – it’s all there.

Apart from re-wording some of the preamble and introductory sections, the main thing that is missing below is what I recommend as “moderation” – how the rules actually get applied and enforced (yes physical force is the valid last resource of legal rulings in a civilised society).

I’ve written about the moderation idea elsewhere, but think of moderation more in terms of the speed and rate of communication in any given context – like moderator rods slowing down neutrons in a nuclear reactor say – as opposed to either censorship at the one extreme, or an anything-goes free-for-all, anywhere, anytime, at-the-speed-of-light, at the other. (The reactor metaphor works well also for the downside of the dangerously explosive situation we find ourselves in without moderation? A powder keg as the Elizabethans or Jacobites might have had it, but a much more powerful explosive in the much smaller highly-connected global-village of our 21st C world.)

The exchange today that prompted this update was as follows:
(X/Twitter exchange copied and quoted, since the Musk fucked-up the API)

@spikedonline
Internet freedom is dying in Europe. The elites blame online free speech for almost every societal ill. The arrest of Telegram’s Pavel Durov in France is a sign of things to come, says Fraser Myers

@psybertron
The internet – social communication – is dying because the prevalent mindset is a dumb, primitive, divisive, polarising version of what freedom of thought and expression really are.
Communications need
BETTER moderation and
NEITHER MORE freedom
NOR MORE censorship.
Jeez! I blame lazy free communications for ALL our ills. Have been doing for two decades. @almalydan @TerenceWaites

@almalydan
Tim Garton-Ash reframed the question from ‘how free should speech be?’ to ‘how should free speech be?’. The former has been pretty exhaustively studied, but the latter is by far the more pressing. Part of the answer must be to do with the restraints imposed by civility.

@psybertron
Fair way to reframe, though with such a lot of communications (and meta-communications about communications) in the hands of ubiquitous / near-monopoly / big-technology (bigger than nation states) media platform providers not sure that reframing is the biggest issue.
The real issue is as you say “civility” – humanity as civilisation.
(See commercial undemocratic entities beyond states.)

Currently this is a post with progressive updates. Will turn it into a permanent page when it feels mature enough. For now below is the original plus updates:

[Footnote: also recent exchanges – not just in free-speech debate, but in rights & freedoms more generally – planning development, gender debates, woke vs anti-woke, etc – the problem is nothing to do with left vs right and everything to do with ideological capture by rationality driving division and extremist activism on all sides socio-liberal vs authoritarian & libertarian / neo-lib, squeezing out free-democratic civilisation everywhere.]

[NOTE 2024:]

With Elon Musk taking a free-speech-absolutist approach to his takeover of X/Twitter, it is becoming ever more obvious that these good-faith rules of “civilised discourse” below, apply to open social media communications just as much as to any other limited discourse, dialogue, argument or debate between individuals and groups of individuals. More so, in fact.

Free-speech without moderating rules (beyond mere criminality of content) is degenerate, damaging to free-democracy, and exaggerated since globalised tech companies and their figure-heads have become bigger and more powerful than many states. There’s a lot wrong with states and their institutions needing fixing, but throwing democracy out with the bathwater, putting faith in a single powerful autistic voice, is no solution. A free-democracy isn’t an anything-goes free-for-all.

The rules below do already apply to “free speech” – and motivated / political-activist speech of any kind, including all electronic and social media formats and physical demonstrations – even though this wasn’t the focus as originally written. Ditto woke vs anti-woke & cancel-culture have all escalated since I first drafted these rules. I can’t believe it needs saying that mafioso protection-racket tactics of harassing people, their employers & hosts, and threatening people and livelihoods when you disagree or disapprove are totally unacceptable, the antithesis of good-faith discourse

There are many different kinds of rules in different contexts so, perversely, the more universal the context – like social media – the more constraining and more complex the set of rules needs to be.

It’s non-trivial. Here is where I’m consolidating an update to make it more obvious.

[FAQ’s
Who decides the rules and their enforcement?
If rules cannot be well-defined how can they work?
But, I’m too busy to consider my response – beyond like / retweet?]

=====

[START]

R.E.S.P.E.C.T is the only rule – Care, Good Faith and Honest Intentions.

• • Rule #1 RESPECT – Understand & Question before Disagree & Criticize.
  • Rule #2 RESPECT – No Ad-Hominem attacks on Individuals & Tribes.
  • Rule #3 RESPECT – Careful use of Humour, Irony or emotions like Anger.

Whilst bearing in mind that:

Rules are for guidance of the wise,
and the obedience of fools.

That’s it. Full stop.
But, if you need elaboration, read on:

=====

• • Preamble
  • The Three Rules of Respect in Dialogue, Discourse & Argument
  • General Notes
  • Notes on Intellectual Honesty
  • Notes on Rules and Games (Generally and in Debate)
  • Notes on Respect, Good-Faith and Tolerance

• • Back to MAIN article.

=====

Preamble: Several papers and posts here describe each of these aspects, but even when dealing with would-be factual knowledge, the content may not be entirely objective or logical and anyway, the process is always rhetorical, involving communication between human individuals and the tribes with which we identify. In simplest form:

“Tread softly, for you tread upon my dreams.
(W B Yeats)

“Reflect on what you hold sacred
and be gentle with what other people hold sacred.”
(Elizabeth Oldfield)

The rules of engagement below, first published in this page format in 2018, are collated from earlier collaborative forums as far back as 20th C bulletin boards and email exploders. They seem to apply equally to any correspondence, face-to-face debate, on-line commenting and/or social media, formally moderated or otherwise. In fact they apply to any argumentation in dialogue or debate in democratic, political, real life. And they really are about engagement generally. It’s more obvious when there really is an argument, a debate, a disagreement at issue, but they apply to any dialogue about any topic of interest to share or increase understanding and/or commitment to a decision or action.

In fact, “Why?” are we having this exchange at all is a good starting point. You might just be wasting each other’s time, unless “shooting the breeze” are your only mutual aspirations, which is fine of course. Social media will be all our downfall if we don’t respect the rules:

The Rules of Respect for Dialogue:

Well, there is really only one rule: R.E.S.P.E.C.T

(Or simply Good Faith
honest intentions and mutual respect for the rules,
the intent of the content and the participants,
but we can unpick these further below.)

Rule #1 RESPECT – Understand & Question before Disagree & Criticize.
Critical debate is essential to all our agendas and anyone voicing direct disagreement with or criticism of the arguments of another must be seen to have understood, or sincerely attempted to understand, the others’ argument and intentions and to have related their counter argument to it. Conversely, if someone disagrees with you directly, your first response, unless you see your own error, must be to establish that they do indeed understand your position and you theirs.
(See also Rappaport’s Rule(s) also known as Steelmanning, below).

There are many other tactical rules for resolving apparent disagreement. Evolving mutual understanding always beats attempting to prove yourself right and the other guy wrong, except in particular mutually-agreed, artificially-controlled “debate” and “critique” circumstances (see additional “Rules” below). Most of real life is neither of those. And remember, if it’s a new conversation with someone new to you, the early part of this “understand & question” phase may be as much about values you may or may not share as the content of the particular argument. If you jump too quickly to testing the others position by summarising it back to them in rhetorical questions you could be much wider of the mark than you realise, offending unspoken values held sacred. Until you know you’re both ready for a good-faith steel-man assume the principle of charity, that the other person is at least as virtuous as you are in terms of values and knowledge. “Surely you don’t mean X?” is effectively a strawman if it’s something you couldn’t already agree to yourself.

Rule #2 RESPECT – No “Ad Hominem” attacks on the Individual or their Tribe.
Absolute no-no. Anyone having trouble with an individual should resolve directly with that individual, involving a confidential and mutually-respected mediator if necessary, with public sanction and/or disengagement only as a last resort.

And again, remember a straw-man couched as a rhetorical question copied @ third parties may be received ad hominem, even if it is not intended as a direct insult.

Rule #3 RESPECT – Duty of Care when using Humour or Rhetorical Irony.
OK, but life (mine and yours) would be boring and sterile if we politely agreed with each other. So lively, critical, robust, intelligent discourse and argument in good faith is positively encouraged. Unless you are recognised as The Court Jester what will not be tolerated is any perceived intent to circumvent Rules #1 & #2 under cover of  rhetorical tricks or ironic humour – and never forget irony and downright sarcasm do not travel well in any electronic medium! Needless to say any actual intellectual dishonesty or deception is bad faith. You can never further objectify Rule #3 definitively, but example rules of thumb might help:

• • • If you use rhetorical questions and/or (playful) straw-men and/or (attempted) humour to draw attention to your point, you must follow-through the dialogue to mutual understanding.
    • Without this follow-up, playing to the gallery, rhetorical zingers and mockery will be seen as ad-hominem of your target. Only mock someone who already knows you love and respect them. “Collapse of stout party” is merely a rhetorical move, not a conclusion.
    • If you share (or like or applaud or otherwise add to) someone else’s rhetorical move, or you game the levels of irony and sarcasm on top of theirs, you inherit the responsibility for the follow-up.
    • Seriously though, only The Court Jester (note below) is exempted from these rules and, fun though it is, we can’t all be court jester at any given time. That’s entertainment.
    • When all is said and done, it’s a game, games have rules (*) and creativity demands that the rules are there to be broken. Rules are for guidance of the wise and the obedience of fools. There is after all, only one rule; see Respect (**).

=====

[Post Notes: There are many possible examples, elaborations and exceptions – they’re only rules after all. These too are spread around many posts and pages here at Psybertron over the years. Some are captured or linked below others not, so I may need to consolidate an updated page sometime soon?]

[More on – Rappaport’s Rule(s) aka Steelmanning.]

[More on humour and mischief for The Court Jester.
And more complex reality of free-speech vs offensive humour. Free-speech vs offense whether humour or irony intended or not.]

[More on Intellectual Honesty & Good vs Bad Faith:

Intellectual Dishonesty (or potential intellectual inadequacy or stupidity) is in the mind of (you or) your interlocutor. If you start to suspect bad-faith, dishonesty or hidden agendas, frankly this is an interpersonal problem, not the topic of the dialogue (unless it is the topic of the dialogue?). This needs fixing person-to-person (see Ad Hominem above) before continuing any meaningful dialogue on the original topic (or deciding to pass on it). Agreeing to disagree, or parting (even muting or blocking) in disagreement is a suspension of hostilities, a matter of choosing which hill not to die on. For now. It’s a long game of many moves by many players. It’s why I have my own “three strikes and you’re out rule” in the more immediate social media like Twitter. Life’s too short – to argue the toss with every person on any and all points. And as with any rules – the game of repeated application is key – see more on Games (*) below.

The fact that proper good-faith dialogue is much harder than bad-faith discourse is related to the idea that “lies get half-way round the world before the truth gets its pants on“. Lies, half-truths, wise-cracks and bullshit are much easier to communicate. In complex dialogue there will be many topics tangled-up, but without good-faith on both sides Brandolini’s “bullshit asymmetry”  Law applies. It is simply impossible to progress a good-faith argument with a bad-faith party. Anyone arguing in bad-faith (check it’s not you) has endless opportunities for whataboutery, and another thing, straw-manning, changing the subject, moving the goal-posts, repeatedly demanding (objective) evidence not relevant to the (subjective) point (eg SeaLioning), logical non-sequiturs & false-metaphors, the child-like response “But why?” to every answer, and so on, ad-infinitum. A sure sign of such bad-faith dialogue frustrating any meaningful progress, is when ad-hominem adjectives start being bandied around, like bigoted, fascist, nazi, etc.

Go back to square one – establish “respect” and mutual good-faith before continuing any progress (or find better use of your time, or a more promising hill to die on.)]

[(*) More on Rules & Games generally?

In a climate where rights and freedoms are high on everyone’s agenda, there is a tendency to think of rules as constraints on those freedoms – censorship and policing of freedoms of speech etc. In the real world “Freedom runs on rails” – without standardised gauges, trains would get nowhere, there would be no railways. The hard bit is understanding and agreeing which and what kind of social imposed rules to value at the individual level. (There is a whole school of thought that says constraints and counter-factuals are essential for creative progress. Unconstrained freedom is the source of chaos only – which is fine if you’re intentions are anarchist.)

All rules are for guidance of the wise and the obedience of fools.
and therefore evolve by being broken – with care & respect.
However, Respect, Good Faith and Honest Intentions involve the evolution of trust over more than one interaction. In the short-run people need to understand the game to play it, in the long-run the players evolve the game and its rules by creatively discovering rule changes. We all benefit by seeking relationships over sufficient interactions and by ensuring the rules evolve to include increasingly valuable win-win outcomes. To appreciate this see Nicky Case’s visualisation of Axelrod 1984 on Game Theory. (And don’t skimp, really play through all the options several times. No trust without repetition).

What about Debate?

Finally on rules. Remember the rules above apply to general dialogue, discourse and argumentation, even informal social (media) exchanges. It’s not a debate unless mutually agreed in advance. Debate is something that comes with it’s own additional rules: neutral territory, neutral adjudicator, timings, interruptions, resolutions, voting and more. Real life is not “a debate”.] Back to MAIN article?

[(**) More on RESPECT, GOOD-FAITH & TOLERANCE.

It was a toss-up whether I chose respect or good-faith as my key word. I built these rules around the word respect – a summary of the intent of the “rules” suggested – because “R.E.S.P.E.C.T” is a meme / ear-worm to make it stick. Use – and intended use – beats a dictionary definition any day. (Anyone not now hearing Aretha Franklin, consult your therapist.)

However there was an important declaration around free-speech and unpopular speakers at (Cambridge) University, that made use of a distinction between respect and tolerance, so I need to clarify in that light. In fact Kenan Malik already made an excellent analysis here. And in his tweet he even points out it’s about “changing meanings”:

On respect and tolerance, people and ideas, and changing meanings: My @ObserverUK column: https://t.co/afTQqxOy6V

?” Kenan Malik (@kenanmalik) December 13, 2020

In my words. Respect is (obviously) about respecting freedom of (thought and) expression – that’s top of the UN hierarchy of rights. Respecting other humans and respecting their right to hold and express views counter to your own. But “terms and conditions apply” (respecting rest of the rules on this page if you want to engage in dialogue about those views). No rights and freedoms are absolute independent of the rights and freedoms of others. It’s your right to simply tolerate and leave in peace the thoughts of others. Respect for the humans, the rules and the process doesn’t mean you have to accept the truth, validity or quality of the opinion held or expressed, even if you must tolerate its expression. But if you do choose to question and contest, analyse and educate or learn from, those thoughts expressed, these rules – terms and conditions – still apply. Respect the expression (and any debate / dialogue), tolerate the content of the idea. You do not have to respect the idea itself.

With all due respect,
you’re still allowed to disagree,
but know what respect is “due”.]

[(***) More on tribal identities? See Identity Politics.]

====

More resources, added since this page was created:

Timandra Harkness’ BBC R4 series “How to Disagree“ now on SoundCloud.

Rory Stewart’s “Long History of Argument” on BBC R4.
[#1 Thesis – Focus on mutual clarification in dialogue. Lots on Trust & Good Faith, and the wisdom & moral stance of the participants, as well as the rhetorical skills. M.M.McCabe, Katherine Tempest and Iain McGilchrist (and Jeremy Corbyn) amongst the contributors. Ethos & Pathos as well as Logos.]
[#2 Antithesis – Focus on winning. Power and Manipulation. Backlash against Rhetoric, dropped from education. Whips override debate with PM’s agenda. Public media audience beyond the chamber and identity politics. Jon Haidt on extremes squeezing out any middle ground. Performative grandstanding but no real argument – not just social-media but also increasing stress of conflicts and differences, exaggerated by SM. Lozza Fox vs Ash Sarkar.]
[#3 Synthesis – Saving “good argument” from the tensions above. After “coalition” politics > divisive Bolsonaro, Modi, Trump & Brexit. McGilchrist – Extremism specifically to provoke extreme responses by example – not actually mutual dialogue. Nigel Farage. Hobbes. Facts vs Ideology – do recognisable facts of the matter actually exist. M.M.McCabe – we all actually have our ideologies. A return to real dialogue – finding middle ground between Dogmatism and Relativism – and finding spaces to hold such dialogue. Jon Haidt again on social media rules (after Musk). Rules of the locked-in chamber. Reversing transparency – not televising debates in real time? Federalism – delegating consideration to more appropriate levels and locales – where people know each other, more respect and empathy. Yay! – more Citizens Assemblies. And yay! more education including rhetoric – including metaphor and poetry of beautiful language. Understanding false metaphor. The root of argument to shine – enlighten – the issues. LOVE!]

The “But Why?” Conundrum – interesting tweet/retweet pair:

It’s funny cuz it’s true. Asking “but why?” x ~10 brings you to the Principle of Least Action, when the universe just answers “because I said so!” 😅 https://t.co/nfeWHuyJ7Q

— Kevin Mitchell (@WiringTheBrain) November 7, 2022

And on False or Misleading Analogies or Similes:

Why do some people think terrible analogies are a substitute for arguments?
I feel like this logic 101 failure has become much more common in recent years.https://t.co/0ZJH16IjeN

— Professor Alice Sullivan (@ProfAliceS) November 7, 2022

AJ at Staggering Implications is a long term fellow traveller in our individual epistemic quests – he’s been prolific in posting new thoughts in recent months, so many that I’m noticing but not doing justice to reading. Despite appearances, that’s partly because I’m actively avoiding reading until I’ve progressed my own literary efforts beyond the blog and social media.

“That’s LIFO” is one of his recent posts that resonated. Unlike him, I have an explicit book reading list – linked top right – but it was getting so long I’ve not been adding many these days. It’s a store of future reading, beyond the efforts above. What I am doing, as he suggests, if I spot an “interesting” book, is effectively adding it and crossing it off in one fell swoop – Last In First Out. That was the case with my most recent read and review “The Brie Chronicles”. And it looks like being the case with this recommendation below from Anil Seth:

“What reader in their right mind would buy a novel called New Finish Grammar?”

Well here’s why:

“A wounded sailor is found on a Trieste quay -amnesiac, unable to speak and with nothing to identify him except a name tag pointing to Finnish origins.”

Sounds suspiciously like one of the potential premises for my own efforts- as a modern day sequel to a sequel (to a sequel) to Moby Dick. Biggest challenge being a real-time narrative to a multi-generational first-person view. Something’s gotta give. Maybe I’ll find a clue – amnesia replaced with the older memories of others?

Copy ordered and on its way.

(Quite a few additions to the book list – I buy a cheaper Kindle copy for later reading or search-based research – but with actual novel / narrative literature I still prefer a physical book, often used / second-hand. I should add, the British Library looks like it’s open for business at last after its major denial of service outage – so the more expensive “text-book” titles might be better brought to their Yorkshire reading room. Sadly it’s not a lending library, and the public lending libraries in the UK seem to have lousy access to anything not on best-seller lists these days.)

—–

Having started this blog in 2001 (a couple of days after 9/11) I’ve freely acknowledged, and made many references to, the fact that reading Robert Pirsig shortly after that in January 2002, was a game changer for me in terms of the direction of my research thinking, reading and writing.

I’d started the research blog because I had already been seeing gaps – nagging doubts – in overly scientistic models of the world in systems of organisation & operation of businesses & governments. Doubts that stretch back to my doing an MBA (1988-1991) with a focus on “cultural” aspects of managing organisational change, but I hadn’t really considered the global seriousness of such gaps, beyond parochial business interest, until 9/11 “woke the world”, as I put it. So without knowing it, I already had a large part of Pirsig’s thesis in my head before I’d ever heard of him.

Actually making my connection to Pirsig came in early 2002, from physicist Bryan Josephson (of Josephson-junction / electron-tunnelling Nobel prize fame) whose work with Henry Stapp explicitly suggested the conclusion that “Eastern thought was in some sense more fundamental than physics itself“. My mind was blown by that: that an actual physicist, a physics Nobel prize-winning Cambridge don no less, might conclude such a thing. It instantly put me in mind of that meme of a book title “Zen and the Art …” that my memory recalled as associated with systems & engineering management reading-lists where I’d previously ignored it – because of it’s weird title.

So unlike most people, who read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (1974) earlier in life, who found it intriguing but difficult, requiring several re-reads before they “got it”, when I read ZMM (and almost immediately his 1991 follow-up Lila) I was “Yes, yes, yes!” at almost every paragraph first time through. That naiveté has of course evolved since, but it put me on that philosophical track.

If the serious Physics<>Zen connection had blown my mind, reading a rhetorical novel full of such wisdom, opened and expanded a second half of my brain that I’d clearly never used before. Previously a user of only technical texts by choice, I became a born-again reader of any and all kinds of literature. And philosophy. From seeing ontology as simply the taxonomic (classification) structures of the physical world I’d previously been dealing with in business systems & information modelling, I became exposed to the widest range of philosophies and metaphysics, and now had a name for the subject I was researching, namely Epistemology. “What, Why and How do we Know?” as I’d subtitled my blog before I’d known there was a name for it.

The rest, as they say, is history.

From 2002 to around 2010/11 I’d been very actively using and referencing Pirsig in my own work, and engaging in much discourse with others about Pirsig’s work. From then until 2017 I considered his work pretty much internalised in my own evolving theses and was referencing many other sources, ancient and modern, rather than Pirsig explicitly. Pirsig was my road into philosophy, but no one philosopher is the last word on any topic.

There was a significant uptick in Pirsig interest following his death in 2017: people following-up old links with questions and dialogue and; since 2022, a growing “Robert Pirsig Association” interest and traffic leading-up to the 50th anniversary of ZMM this year in 2024.

My life, thinking and writing are full of Pirsig references again. I fully acknowledge Pirsig’s influence on my own thought journey and happy to provide appropriate academic references alongside others. More to the point I’d recommend ZMM to anyone as an introduction to philosophy, especially those who can’t quite see or believe the limits to science. It’s a culture-bearing book, of its time. The post-hippie reaction to the oppressive technology of the military-industrial-machine (say) but others, as well as myself, who also acknowledge the influence of Pirsig on their own work, have also written to show us that the ideas are just as true for the technologies of our time, with ubiquitous ICT and electronic media technologies distorting our understanding of the world we inhabit in the 21st Century.

That much above, I’ve written, presented and summarised many different ways previously. I’m posting today, because a current agenda of mine is to capture others whose work was significantly influenced by Pirsig’s introduction to the philosophy of living, who have publicly acknowledged such connections even if they make relatively few explicit references in their ongoing work.

[To be continued …]

Michael Palin, Alan Bennett, Johnnie Walker, Grayson Perry, Rufus Hound, Jonathan Rowson, Dave Snowden, Ben Taylor, Al MacIntyre, Matt Kundert, Salman Rushdie, Neil Peart
ISSS, Gary Smith Eastern thinking follow-up. Thinking not doing (medicine)
The BBC 50th doc.

“Excellence” management fashion – Peters and Waterman

“Quality” management fashion.

=====

Holding Notes (from ChatGPT)

Robert Pirsig’s Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (ZMM) has had a profound influence on many thinkers, writers, and influential people from various fields. Here’s a list of notable individuals who have referenced Pirsig’s work or acknowledged its impact on their own thinking and creativity:

1. Steve Jobs (Co-founder of Apple Inc.)
Although Jobs never directly cited Pirsig publicly, ZMM has often been discussed as a book that resonates with his philosophy. Jobs was known for his interest in Eastern philosophy and a desire to merge technology with artistry—concepts that are central to ZMM. The book’s themes of Quality and the balance between rationality and intuition align with Jobs’ vision for Apple.
2. Tom Peters (Management Guru, Author)
Tom Peters, author of In Search of Excellence, has praised ZMM as one of the most influential books on management and quality. Pirsig’s concept of Quality, in particular, influenced Peters’ approach to excellence in business, emphasizing the importance of craftsmanship and pride in one’s work.
3. Matthew B. Crawford (Philosopher, Author of Shop Class as Soulcraft)
Matthew Crawford, a modern philosopher who advocates for the value of manual work, has often referenced Pirsig’s ideas. His book Shop Class as Soulcraft reflects Pirsig’s influence by exploring the philosophical value of craftsmanship and the idea that working with one’s hands fosters a deeper connection to reality.
4. David Foster Wallace (Novelist and Essayist)
Wallace, known for Infinite Jest, has been linked to ZMM in academic circles, particularly for its intellectual depth and exploration of metaphysical themes. While Wallace didn’t cite Pirsig directly, the philosophical explorations of meaning, selfhood, and quality in Wallace’s works bear similarities to Pirsig’s influence.
5. Mark Richardson (Journalist, Author of Zen and Now)
Mark Richardson wrote Zen and Now: On the Trail of Robert Pirsig and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, a travelogue that retraces Pirsig’s journey from ZMM. The book discusses how Pirsig’s work deeply influenced Richardson’s life and career as a writer and motorcyclist.
6. Tim Ferriss (Entrepreneur, Author of The 4-Hour Workweek)
Tim Ferriss has mentioned ZMM in his podcasts and writings as one of the books that influenced his approach to life and work. Ferriss has spoken about the importance of Pirsig’s inquiry into the concept of Quality and the balance between analytical and creative thinking.
7. Iain McGilchrist (Psychiatrist, Author of The Master and His Emissary)
McGilchrist’s exploration of the divided brain and the tension between rational and intuitive thinking has clear philosophical overlaps with Pirsig’s work in ZMM. While McGilchrist doesn’t frequently cite Pirsig, the similarities in their examination of dualistic thinking are notable.
8. Elon Musk (CEO of Tesla, SpaceX)
Although not directly citing Pirsig, Elon Musk’s approach to innovation and technology reflects a Pirsig-like philosophy. Musk has often spoken about the importance of loving what you do and maintaining a sense of Quality, similar to Pirsig’s ideas on “caring” as an integral part of technology and work.
9. Ian Glendinning (Philosopher, Blogger at Psybertron)
Ian Glendinning is a notable advocate for Pirsig’s philosophical ideas and frequently discusses ZMM in his blog Psybertron. His work deeply engages with Pirsig’s exploration of metaphysics, Quality, and the reconciliation of scientific and philosophical worldviews.
10. Richard Baker (Buddhist Teacher)
Richard Baker, a prominent figure in American Zen Buddhism, has referenced ZMM as a work that brought many Westerners to explore Zen philosophy and practice. Pirsig’s fusion of Western philosophy with Eastern traditions like Zen has influenced teachers like Baker in how they present Zen to Western audiences.
11. David Whyte (Poet and Philosopher)
David Whyte, whose work often delves into the relationship between self and work, has been known to reference Pirsig’s ideas, especially around the concept of Quality and its role in creating meaningful experiences in both life and labor.
12. George Leonard (Author, Martial Artist)
George Leonard, known for his work on human potential and his book Mastery, often referenced the pursuit of Quality and the importance of attention and effort in achieving excellence—ideas central to ZMM.

AND

1. Academic Databases:
Google Scholar: Search for terms like “Robert Pirsig,” “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance,” “ZMM,” and “Quality” on Google Scholar. It will return peer-reviewed articles, theses, and academic papers that cite Pirsig or discuss his work.
JSTOR: Another academic database that contains scholarly articles and references to Pirsig’s work across various fields including literature, philosophy, and the social sciences.
ProQuest: Useful for finding dissertations and theses that might reference Pirsig’s work in various academic disciplines.
2. Books and Literature:
Google Books: Search for Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, or Quality. Google Books allows you to preview books that reference Pirsig and provides citations within the text.
WorldCat: An international catalog that lists books, articles, and other media in libraries around the world. You can search for works referencing Pirsig, ZMM, and Quality concepts here.
3. Philosophical and Literary References:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: May contain articles on Pirsig’s philosophy or related themes such as Quality, pragmatism, or process philosophy, with citations included.
PhilPapers: A comprehensive directory of online philosophy articles and books by academic philosophers. Searching for Robert Pirsig or terms related to his work will yield a wide range of philosophical citations.
4. Citations in Popular Media:
Newspapers and Magazines: Using newspaper archives or databases like ProQuest Newspapers, you can find citations from prominent publications that discuss ZMM, Pirsig, or his philosophy. Magazines like The New Yorker, The Atlantic, and others have occasionally referenced ZMM in articles on philosophy, culture, and technology.
Medium and Blogs: Websites like Medium have modern reflections on Pirsig’s work. Blogs like Psybertron (by Ian Glendinning) frequently cite Pirsig and discuss ZMM and its ideas.
5. Business and Management Literature:
Management Books and Journals: Pirsig’s concept of Quality has influenced many business thinkers. Books on Total Quality Management (TQM), Lean Manufacturing, and Agile software development often cite ZMM.
Harvard Business Review or Sloan Management Review might contain references to ZMM in the context of leadership, craftsmanship, or Quality management.
6. Cultural and Artistic Citations:
Music and Film: Various musicians, such as Mark Richardson, have discussed Pirsig’s influence on their work. Some films and documentaries about motorcycling or philosophy also reference ZMM. Searching through IMDb or music archives could yield these references.
7. Publications by Influential Thinkers:
Search for authors who have directly referenced Pirsig, such as David Foster Wallace, Matthew B. Crawford, or Tom Peters. These authors often cite Pirsig in their own work.
8. Social Media and Digital References:
Twitter, Reddit, Quora: Social media platforms often have discussions and citations related to Pirsig’s work. Searching for “Pirsig” or “ZMM” in these platforms might lead to influential people or thought leaders who have referenced him in conversation threads.
Tools for Compiling:
Zotero: A free, open-source citation manager. You can use Zotero to collect references, create citation lists, and manage various formats of citations.
Mendeley: A reference manager that also has a social network component, allowing you to discover how Pirsig is cited in academic papers and research groups.
Starting Points for Online Search:
Search for terms like “Pirsig,” “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance,” “Quality” + “influence” or “citation” in platforms like Google Scholar or databases. Here’s an example of queries you can run:
“Robert Pirsig citation” or “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance reference”
“Quality concept in Pirsig academic influence”