Iain McGilchrist in Oxford

My last visit to Oxford was a cold, dark, immediately post-Covid February three years ago, the same day Putin invaded Ukraine I recall, so it was a pleasure to visit again on these two bright and mild days in early-April.

Iain McGilchrist was on stage 3 times during this year’s Oxford Literary Festival – the first time he has participated in the OxLitFest, based on his earlier comments, I believe – 14 years after the book that made him famous “The Master and his Emissary” and 3 years after his magnum opus “The Matter With Things”. I saw and listened to him Friday evening and Saturday afternoon.

Given this wasn’t a promotional “new book” publishing tour I had imagined the Friday session at which he was originally advertised simply as the speaker might be a call-to-action or an update lecture on “Where to next?” with his now well-established hemispheric social hypothesis agenda. That first session was in fact conducted as a conversational style interview with Charles Foster in the chair. Foster has written about and much referenced McGilchrist’s work – as he did at last year’s Annual Mike Jackson Lecture at the Hull Centre for Systems Studies. (Aside – I’m at this year’s MJ Lecture in Hull on Thursday this week.)

Disappointingly for me, the content was almost entirely a summary of his work to date, which I already know very well. The poor amplified acoustics of the Sheldonian and the obvious fact that Iain was in a hurry to get away afterwards, didn’t add to the experience.

Can only assume from his introduction to the Saturday session that the reason he was in a hurry Friday was to meet for the first time his guest for that session. This was more interesting for me, with tables-turned. Iain was introducing us to the work of Catalan philosopher Jordi Pigem with whom he had established by correspondence, had a parallel and complementary agenda about the world being led astray by our left-brain dominant use of 24/7 comms technology. Pretty much my own agenda in fact, so it was interesting to hear someone voicing the same issues and ideas. Sadly for now, Pigem is published only in Catalan and Spanish.

Apart from the obvious ancient wisdom “the problem (eg. motorcycle) you are working on is yourself” angle, tending your own garden, changing the world one person – yourself – at a time, my anticipated question for the Friday session was actually asked by someone at this session. “What is the suggested strategy for getting Iain’s message for a better future out there in widespread practice?” Any wiser answer came there none. Everyone should read and act on Iain’s thesis for themselves. Essentially the same “hopeful pessimist” message from the Friday session.

Anyway, I enjoyed the two bright, mild days in Oxford walking the streets, at least 5 miles, between landmark pubs and specialist second-hand bookshops, pausing again at the recommended “Art Café” for both breakfast and lunch. Christ Church College Green is close to both the “Head of the River” and “St. Peter’s Books”, the first place I stopped to search for Iain McGilchrist’s “Against Criticism”. It’s an out of print first book of his that I’ve mentioned before and was actually referenced multiple times in the Friday session. Not to be found anywhere, despite that. [Amazon UK] [Amazon US] [Book Finder](*)[British Library](*)

But I did learn some things new to me:

Last time we were there, “The Eagle and Child” (aka “Bird & Baby”) was boarded-up with a planning permission notice pinned to the front door. This time it was fully shrouded in 3 storeys of scaffolding and sheeting as the work was clearly now taking place. The other “Inklings-adjacent” pub, “The Lamb and Flag” across the road was open however and had an Inklings-themed beer.

Having walked north out of the centre, I continued to pay my first visit to No.2 Polstead Road, the long-term family home of T.E. Lawrence, as a child and as a student in Oxford as well as an archaeologist and a first world war army officer. What might have been, had Lawrence had lived to meet the Inklings on his way in and out of the university (although by later in his short life he was leading a solitary existence out at Clouds Hill, Dorset)? Not much to see besides the blue plaque, much more in the Ashmolean of course.

The Bodleian is not so much a library as a collection of specialist libraries. As well as the “old school” libraries and the Sheldonian already mentioned, there’s the huge modern Weston Library which was set-up together with Blackwells as the centre of activities and books for the OxLitFest itself. A kid in a sweetshop, but they’d never heard of “Against Criticism” either.

And not quite finally, the venue for Iain’s Saturday session was the Oxford Martin School, which boasted some very impressive multi-disciplinary “mission statements” towards “finding solutions to the world’s most urgent challenges”. Why else were we here?

And finally having been at the Bodleian/Blackwell LitFest and having visited a handful of used book shops, I couldn’t fail to buy some books, even though I couldn’t find the one I was looking for.

Bronowski’s book on Blake “A Man Without a Mask” I already have a copy and have mentioned before, but this copy had an original first edition dust cover(!) I mentioned earlier Bronowski having taught at Hull University when I attended the previous Mike Jackson lecture.

Barfield’s was one I hadn’t been aware of before, it’s a collection of previously published essays and talks, published in 1966 but originally delivered between 1944 and 1961. His main works are de-rigueur for Pirsig scholars – “Poetic Diction“, “History in English Words” and “Saving the Appearances” – but this collection does as it says on the cover, with Goethe as the archetype of all the Romantics, and has much explanation of the importance Barfield placed on Rudolf Steiner and his Anthroposophy, something interesting thought-wise if perhaps a bit scarily “cultish” as a form of teaching practice in the 21st C. Clearly Barfield was responding to sceptical criticism of his relationship with Steiner and had to explain himself.

But of course the Goethe connections are multiple here, hence the interest in A.N. Wilson’s latest biography of him. Pirsig uses Goethe’s “Erlkönig” metaphor for his motorcycle trip with his son, and the romantic is fundamental to his metaphysical split with the classical in his first book ZMM. And not only is Goethe the archetype for the British romantics via Coleridge, but is practically worshipped alongside Shakespeare as part of The Jena Set of the Humboldts et al as written about by Andrea Wulf. Wilson naturally also covers the Napoleonic history of the Jena Set too, but disappointingly there’s no Wulf reference, even though she published two years earlier. Fittingly, however, Wilson’s book is published by the Bloomsbury Group – so many connections.

=====

(*) Post Note:

Successfully re-registered(**) in person at the British Library (Boston Spa / Thorpe Arch facility nr Wetherby in Yorkshire). Iain’s “Against Criticism” shows-up with catalogued copies existing in both London and Yorkshire. Because any book (up to six a day) may be in either location, generally there’s 48 hours notice to get them to the local reading room. Since there were two copies, one at each, in principle if it’s in one of the manually accessible stores, the librarian can get it for you while you wait.

It was, so they did. Except, the one in Boston Spa is “Lost / Missing” from the shelf, so I’ll have to wait until my next visit for the London copy. Given the only second hand copy I could find at Book Finder or Abe Books was priced over $2000, I wonder what missing actually means?

[(**) I say successfully re-registered because , as you may be aware, the British Library suffered a massive denial-of-service cyber-hacking attack which they are still only partly recovered from 2 years later. Some of the manual services are still better / faster than the electronic ones 🙂 Anyway I was previously registered in that period when I was weekly commuting to work in London – all records lost / inaccessible. A fresh start.]

=====

Science and Wisdom Agree?

Preamble

This is the next and final instalment of the general Wisdom vs Science thread that has been running since I documented last year’s ISSS workshop. It contains first level general agreement & immediate corollaries. I say final instalment, because if this truly reflects our general agreement, then any new threads will involve new topics that are specific next-level details in their own right.

We’re talking here within relatively sophisticated groups – concerned with systems, sciences, philosophies and management expertise & experiences, in contrast with our real target audience: Leaders who can effect desired global changes, and their public constituencies.

Agreement

We’ve ended up discussing the two words Science and Wisdom for short-hand, but let’s not forget these are standing in for a long list of different words about Explicit and Implicit forms of knowledge and processes. Fortunately, we’ve ended-up with a general (and obvious) agreement at a very basic level:

“Whatever the definitive properties, differences and relations between (so-called) Science and Wisdom, they are distinct things.”

That is, aka in my original terms, “There’s a #GoodFence between them”. A distinction we shouldn’t simply ignore or lose sight of, whatever our future intent & aspirations, tactical & strategic.

Corollaries

And there are corollaries of this simple agreed statement. As systems (thinking and doing) people:

We are interested in both, we value both.

We recognise many relations and overlaps between the two, so neither is independent of the other, and neither is simply a sub-set or super-set of the other. Our knowledge of the world is the complex combination of both.

And we therefore need to be careful if we use the language of one, that we are not accidentally dismissing or overlooking the other. We need inclusive language.

This was very explicitly my immediate workshop / presentation aim, based on just a couple of years of ISSS presentations and conversations (on top of 50+ years of wider experience and research). That we don’t let the language of one become conversation killers of the other (*1).

Conclusion

THE END. That would be “mission accomplished” as far as my original workshop intent. As a sophisticated group, with the above understandings in mind, our ongoing and future dialogues will all help evolve better models and processes to achieve our combined aims?

One thing we clearly need next, beyond the general agreement above, is next level detail, better, more definitive descriptions and understandings of those properties, differences and relations between the Science / Explicit and the Wisdom / Implicit knowledge of and processes in the world(*2).

=====

Notes:

(*1) At one point I also unfortunately introduced the language of “camps” either side of that #GoodFence. For a sophisticated group as ourselves, this is clearly not a real division, not a dichotomy. We do actually understand and generally appreciate both. But, there has been a history of science vs post-modernism and science vs ideologies “wars”, which can remain history within our sophisticated groups, yet remain relevant in responses to the language we choose externally. Conversely, outside in our target audience, there is a very strong cultural expectation for argument and justification based on the explicit even when argued rhetorically and politically. Worse still, a significant number of those whose explicit focus is the science exhibit a strong and “scientistic” tendency against anything that doesn’t meet their (objective, logical, repeatable, quantifiable) scientific standards.

(*2) This is “all our projects” and involves every sphere of management, organisation, process, procedures, methods, models, frameworks, meta-models, sciences and philosophies, including ontology, epistemology, ethics and even metaphysics. My own focus on elaboration are (a) an architectural, perspective, about models, meta-models, frameworks that represent (b) an epistemology of that combined knowledge about the world that guide our actions in the world. Since that combined knowledge is more than physical science, a metaphysics is inescapable. (Further elaboration here is more than one thread of correspondence, for me it’s my whole research and writing project(s). This is why my original workshop aim was just one very small point of general linguistic agreement, but I’m obviously happy to respond to any specific queries about the epistemological architecture I have in mind, given that agreement. And indeed, I will anyway pick-up separate threads prompted by responses so far – they are grist to my project for which I am grateful.)

=====

Reading as a Penance?

I really am avoiding reading as I focus on the writing. It’s not as if it’s any kind of crime not to have read all the writers and books on any given topic and with such a broad and inter-disciplinary topic as mine, there are literally millions of things to read, fictional narratives as well as would-be factual treatises. I took my lead initially from Pirsig, whose psychiatrist told him to just write something, even as a therapy to escape the numberless frustrations between the life-experienced and the words of received-wisdom already “out there”. Reading lists are never-ending to start with and counter-intuitively they grow the more you read. It was Eco that cemented the idea that even books acquired for one’s library could remain unread on the shelf – his “library of unread books”.

Re-shelving several half-read / un-read books recently, I have accidentally slipped into reading mode just occasionally, but yesterday I stumbled upon a writer and a book in that unread library that I had studiously avoided reading for a some time. In fact I only acquired in in guilty response to some very personally directed criticism that I didn’t feel the need to know Gregory Bateson’s work, given my clear interest in Macy and Cybernetics. He was part of those foundations, I already knew that, but you can’t read everyone and everything.

I was prejudiced against Bateson, from very negative opinions of Quine (Gavegai?) and Dennett about Bateson’s, and his first wife Margaret Mead’s, early anthropological work on “tribal” language evolution and development. And frankly, as I’ve said elsewhere, any systemic study of human organisational processes is anthropology by any other name – it’s where I’d started long ago in my 1988/91 Master’s work. So, Bateson wasn’t for me it seemed.

I’ve absorbed plenty of his “Ecology of Mind” ideas by osmosis from other sources I’ve read as part of the Psybertron project, but still hadn’t read his original collection of “Steps to an Ecology of Mind”. I can pretty surely say his ideas in this area are consistent with plenty of my own. I’m not reading him not because I reject his work, but because – see priorities – it feels like more reinforcement of the track I’m already firmly on.

But what of that earlier prejudice? Clearly Nora Bateson, his daughter (b.1968) with his third wife is very active in this cybernetics / systems / complexity space in the 21st C developing and promoting his thinking. Mary Bateson his daughter (b.1939-d.2021) with Margaret Mead was also a strong supporter, co-authoring later in his life, picking-up his unfinished work after his death and in providing a (1999) foreword to the second edition of his (1971/72) “Steps”.

In his own 1971 foreword he says:

“My first anthropological field work among the Baining [tribe] of New Britain [Bali & Papua New Guinea] was a failure, and I had a period of partial failure in research with dolphins. Neither of these failures has ever been held against me.”

Mary’s 1999 foreword acknowledges the failure of his early anthropological work, though widely read suggests he was misunderstood in the context of his wider work which didn’t yet exist, that he was in some sense both ahead of and behind his time. Hard to be sure now, but relieved to find I didn’t imagine that his failure really had been held against him.

Lots of good stuff in the foreword texts and the chapter titles, so good that I may uses some as titles of my own “Pathologies of Epistemology” and “Metalogues” for example but also so many topics already considered here, William Blake, Versailles and more. Not actually that impressed with his writing, none of the chapters I skimmed hooked me – many transcripts of talks? – however good his ideas, so back on the shelf for if-and-when needed.

If he says anything you think I’ve missed, let me know.

=====

Getting Back to “We”

Brief but fascinating RSA Patron’s Lecture by political scientist Robert Putnam.

Mapping the trajectory of cohesion vs division – “We vs I” on multiple measures across four main areas – over the past century and a bit. One key message is that rather than seeking to learn lessons from the 1960’s when “we never had it so good” (and it’s been all downhill since), we should be looking at late 1800’s early 1900’s for lessons for how the upswing in cohesion was last generated, especially initiatives by people who were young at that time.

Compelling stuff, and there’s a discussion that follows the talk that I’ve not digested yet (See footnotes). Some key takeaways already from my perspective.

Time Axis – Yes, one reason my researches have been so focussed on the causes of what was happening in the 1920’s – responses to “the world in crisis”. (Aside, maybe fascinating also, to compare Kondratiev cycles to this double wave-length cycle.)

Youth / Bottom-Up – Yes, one reason my focus – as an oldie – is meta, the frameworks, the enablers, the environment of “creative constraints” rather than any actual projects, plans, applications. They’ve gotta come from people that will actually live them.

DEI Backlash – I’ve banged on about both sides of Woke / Anti-Woke (a pox on both their houses, etc), but whilst ridding ourselves of the degenerate aspects of identity politics ideology that became attached to these, we mustn’t forget equality and inclusivity of diversity as one of those fundamental enablers. Babies not to be thrown out with the bathwater.

I shall be interested to pick-up on the dialogue following the talk. 

Hat tip to IRamey on BlueSky for the link.

=====

Post Note: Fascinating that “love” becomes the topic at the end following a question from a charity leader from Hartlepool(*). And two of the panel admit that despite its importance and involvement in their activities, the word doesn’t actually appear anywhere formally. I recalled using the word 4 times in my last two posts about wisdom. And it can’t go un-noticed that changing the subject from I/We/I to Love puts the “summer of love” at the peak in those graphs 🙂

Reminds me of my recurring adage

“What’s so funny, ’bout peace, love and understanding?“

Which of course contrasts perfectly with Putnam’s use of the Elon quote about “empathy being the downfall of the west“. How wrong can one person be?!?

And, having made “LOVE” the topic, I re-read the links I’d made previously about “What’s so funny ’bout …” and this one linking Thoreau with “The Devil Wears Prada” in 2009 is pretty good at summarising my still ongoing agenda … being connected to the idea that more objective things isn’t good for us.

(This “Building Bridges” post from 2010 quotes the relevant lyric, but there are dozens of references to “What’s so funny ’bout …”)

=====

(*) – And an interesting discussion around the content of this post with Jonathan, here on Facebook relevant to local issues, the kind discussed in local pubs 🙂 Also references this Borders vs Business post, the point being that we need practical constituencies to cohere around, to identify with. National identities – and their boundaries – come with legal jurisdictions enforcing “our” values, so we need to take them seriously for purely practical reasons, ditto all kinds of intra- and supra-national constituencies. That way we can fairly tax rich entities who would otherwise “offshore” their identities (and responsibilities).

=====

Elusive Wisdom

Preamble

This is the next instalment of my #MoreThanScience dialogue with the ISSS people.

I made a passing reference to a one-to-one dialogue with Gary Smith in this recent interlude, suggesting we were in a good place. The day after I posted that Janet Singer responded to my previous email which embodied this post from a couple of weeks earlier. In that same period between those two exchanges, the intermittent dialogue with Dave Snowden – on the same topic – also included an exchange with Dave (post and comments). Even my most recent post on more general reading mentioned where this #MoreThanScience issue was a blockage to my wider agenda.

I’m focussed on this one very small – linguistic technicality – point for now, not because it represents the object of my work, or any inherent or general pedantry – indeed vagueness is a virtue – but because not having some basic shared understanding here undermines the value of further dialogue about systems knowledge generally. And indeed Yiannis Laouris also shared more excellent contributions to that wider dialogue, to add to other previous materials already captured from him, Janet, Jessie and Gary – which I am just itching to develop and talk about.

And, let’s not forget from an ISSS perspective, all of this is follow-up to my workshop at DC 2024. It’s all connected and I owe some responses.

The Content – Small and Simple?

My topic is for the moment, as I say, this linguistic technicality. In my last post on this, I reduced the whole of the preceding dialogue to 4 simple statements the last of which was:

… this simple question is the point of the workshop & posts:

“IS WISDOM MORE THAN SCIENCE OR ISN’T IT?“

(And if it is, shouldn’t we be more careful in how we use those two words, Science and Wisdom?)

The objection – to the question – is that I called it simple, but in reality it’s not. The definitions and understandings of science and wisdom, and how well these can be captured in symbolic language anyway, are massively complex questions. The relations & similarities, dependencies & differences between Science and Wisdom are therefore another order more complex still. Sure, tell me about it 🙂 #ItsComplicated

My point, again, is that despite that undoubted complexity and uncertainty on so many levels, it is still a simple question with a simple – even a given – answer.

My answer is clearly “Yes” (Wisdom IS #MoreThanScience). And in fact the more complex those other aspects, the clearer and simpler the question and answer are.

I embarked on an ontological / taxonomic exercise, in symbolic (logical and graphical) language – in some draft visual / dynamic slides, hierarchical, heterarchical, holarchical systems network or set-theory diagramming based on some I’d prepared and used in earlier lives – remember this used to be my day job before I saw the error of our ways 😉 But, do we really want to go there just now? Let’s just stick to the natural language of human interactions for a while longer.

The Question Again

Let’s rephrase my question negatively and see if the point is clearer:

Is there any conceivable world – a whole world over all evolved times and domains – in which we can (ever, usefully or truthfully) say:

Wisdom <is identical with> Science ?

Surely not, “No”? Whatever their complexities of definitions & understandings, overlaps & relations in good & bad examples of linguistic & physical process embodiments, can the answer ever be “Yes”?

=====

What Am I Not Reading?

Made it clear since the turn of the year that I am positively avoiding reading to concentrate on the writing with mental breaks embodied through live performance interludes and walks in the wild(ish) outdoors. I just posted a diary of planned in-person interludes – in the side-bar if you’re on a tablet or PC, in the footer if you’re on your phone – largely to get a grip on how many I’m committing to. If you want to talk in person, you’ll know where to find me.

My writing agenda is as wide as this blog is long-lived, with 2 or perhaps 3 well-defined projects in hand, but one single item has become a stumbling block – a conversation killer – to establishing the language needed to be taken seriously by the intended audience. I’ve tagged that blockage #MoreThanScience in several dialogues, with ISSS members, with Dave Snowden, with Teesside-SitP and with others. Essentially, if we don’t value resources that are not scientific, don’t recognise that there is more to understanding (and acting in) the world than scientific knowledge and processes, then we’re letting the world down badly. Few would actually deny understanding that, but I am always left with so then WHY? label everything we do as science or sciences – systems science, complexity science, social sciences generally? It denies, or at least disadvantages by obscuring, use of non-scientific contributions in the languages of wisdom, love, intuition et al. Another instalment of that conversation in a following post, where I can rephrase my assertion as a negative question that ought to be easier to answer. I think I understand those motivations “why?” and would really love to move the dialogue on to challenging my own motivations and objectives in erecting that #GoodFence

Although I am indeed not actually reading any new material right now, I am nevertheless noticing new materials reminding me of old materials generally and this long-standing stumbling block in particular. Impossible to ignore. These for example:

Carlo ROVELLI – Last night someone (Sean Brady) referred to Carlo Rovelli’s (2020) “Helgoland” as a surprise to discover 5 years after publication. I reviewed it in early 2021 – it remains an excellent recommended read for anyone in this systems space – and as well as Mach (Vienna Circle) and Nagarjuna (Buddhist) links, led me through Bogdanov from systems thinking in general to systems as a specific discipline at Hull CSS and then to ISSS contacts and back to earlier INCOSE sources.

(I’ve been immersed in “systems thinking” for the whole of this 25 year research project because I was immersed in it my entire career since the late 1970’s – but it was only through contact with Anatoly Levenchuk and Rob Black as INCOSE advocates that I noticed since 2010 the wider formality of “Systems” in day-job contexts, in parallel with my “Psybertron” research, and the Rovelli / Mach / Bogdanov trigger as recently as 2020/21 above made it the explicit / active topic of my research. There are so many global “systems” initiatives in every topic area from general management to wider business, government and civil society that I can’t list them, so apart from my ISSS membership, I effectively treat Ben Taylor as the hub or custodian of the network of systems networks of over 40,000 people.)

Jean-Pierre DUPUY – The same is true of Jean-Piere Dupuy’s (2009, MIT Edition) “On the Origins of Cognitive Science” – a republication of his (2000) “Mechanisation of the Mind” with a new preface following the death of Heinz von-Foerster. Another highly recommended read. Having lent my copy to the local pub book club, I recovered the 2009 edition to read the new preface – pushing the agenda that continues as my own.

First referenced and part-reviewed here:
“Dupuy Completion” (2002)
Most recent mention here:
“Psybernetic Cognition” (2025)

(All systems are dynamic but those involving (evolved / emergent) life are distinct even if not dichotomous #GoodFences, and where that living complexity includes humanity, the human condition (after Arendt) is more to do with love (**) than science. Rehabilitating the initial failure of Cybernetics with the more humanistic Macy-Conferences interpretation originally intended by Wiener, Bateson, Varela, Foerster and more – something I’ve tagged #Psybernetics in recent years – systems thinking where the psychological complexity of humanity and the ecosystems we inhabit, are a given.)

Sara IMARI-WALKER (ASU / Santa Fe) – I obtained her (2024) “Life As No-One Knows It – the Physics of Life’s Emergence”(*). (Been a fan recently of her active research work, as well as Paul Davies, Jessica Flack, Lee Cronin, Kevin Mitchell and more.) On the shelf for a future read, but the blurbs and the initial “What is Life?” opening also reflecting on the possibility, rejected by Dupuy and Arendt above, that the living may be no different to the dead – that “Life does not exist.” – as she puts it.

Onwards and upward.

=====

(*) “No-One Knows” is of course the spur for my underlying agenda – what does it mean to know anything? And, it’s also the Josh Homme title / lyric / chorus of a QOTSA number – seeing the connection? (Also the connection from Hull-CSS to ISSS via Dennis Finlayson at a local gig. Small world.)

=====

Post Note: And an admission, I did this weekend also choose to re-read to completion “Leonard and Hungry Paul” (2019) by Ronan Hession, by independent publishers Bluemoose Books. Very good, gently funny study on life, love, family and friendship. No funerals and one wedding, maybe. (PS – never did find out explicitly why Hungry Paul has that name. Presumably his older sister’s nick-name for him from his time as a needy infant, but never even mentioned, unless I missed it?)

(**) For “Love” – see also “Getting Back to We”

=====

Musical Interlude

I often mention that live music is my main diversion from the intellectual and the mundane. Music, and/or walking in the wilds that is. After our regular annual walking holiday the last week in February – some great walks around Porte Soller in the Serra Tramuntana mountains of North-West Mallorca – these last two weekends have involved gigs.

The well-ordered writing project(s) haven’t quite recovered since being distracted from getting them back on track in the new year. Technical content-wise – the ongoing dialogue with Dave Snowden really needs some attention, his recent extensive blogs as well as our exchanges (Dave responded to my last post) – and the “more than science” conversation with ISSS members needs an update since I had a one-to-one with president Gary Smith. We’re in a good place. Onwards and upward.

The first of the two gigs was last weekend in Hull. Avalanche Party headlining their promotional tour on the release of their latest album recorded with the resources of the Joshua Tree studios and record company backing on the back of previous Austin TX “SXSW” success. (See more in the footnotes to my previous reference.) The Polar Bear Club is a famed UK venue with a great history in grass-roots music. The relatively low turnout – 40/50 people tops including the two support bands and their hangers-on? – might have something to do with the foggy Sunday night(*) and the surrounding road-construction access and parking difficulties – but the atmosphere could have been better.

Avalanche Party themselves were excellent again, with sympathetic support from the mixing desk and lighting, also now knowing most of their numbers, thanks to regularly playing the new CD recently. Full-on intensity, bass-driven riffs, with dynamic range and rhythm changes, as I’ve said before, puts one in mind of QOTSA with extra keyboards and sax (before I’d heard bassist Joe – originally met in our local bar – was a QOTSA fan too, and of course that Joshua Tree connection).

Support bands were a mixed bag. Second band were Bleach, competent but a little too conventional for me, very much led by their guitarist. But, first up were Wormfood, a bit “art-school”, chaotic but fun and bouncy, not taking themselves too seriously – self-identifying as “pretentious twats”. Really enjoyed them, and could easily get into them.

Hope the rest of Avalanche Party’s tour goes well, London and Belgium / Holland / Germany included, followed by France, Spain, Poland, Czechia and more. With recent serious signs of success and support behind them, it feels like now or never for fame and fortune. “Last roll of the dice” someone said. Good luck guys.

After the Polar Bear in Hull last weekend, this weekend was The Georgian Theatre in Stockton – again really about grass-roots support for original performers, and the evergreen question of what does it take – or even mean – to make it as a musical success these days? Creativity needs to be experienced and appreciated.

Headline were Wave Pictures, a band I didn’t previously know, and with some obvious “fame” behind them, commanding the £20+ ticket price, but I’d actually come along specifically to see the support, The Middle Management.

Although my own musical taste is rooted in blues-guitar-based and singer-songwriter “Americana”, Wave Pictures, like Bleach last weekend, were just a tad too conventional – led by the lead guitar – to be interesting for me, though obviously some quirky wit in the songs themselves which you can only ever get a hint of in one live listening.

The three fellas in Middle Management were previously in a band called The Young Hegelians (did I mention pretentious, but witty) and Simone the new member on keyboards and vocals is also someone we see regularly with her partner in our local bar (seeing the connection?) It was my first opportunity to see them, from previous enquiries they were busy rehearsing and recording. They were very much worth the entry fee. All I knew before were comparisons to Talking Heads and hearing their new single Influencer Influenza. Last time I saw Talking Heads live would have been Hammersmith Odeon (now Apollo) late 70’s, probably their first UK tour, so what’s not to like?

Actually, Middle Management were refreshing, much more original and a long way from any kind of tribute act – the covers bands that seem to fill every local music slot these days. It’s the rhythmic variety and dynamic range that gets you viscerally, but the fun of originality and intelligent wit that shines through. Loved them. When can I see and hear – embody the experience – more?

=====

FootNotes:

(*) Foggy Sunday Night? Being in Hull searching for the M62 home in the small hours of Monday 10th March 2025 – did I mention the road construction / closures? – I can vouch for the local fog on that night / morning. That weird coincidence meant I’ve been taking more than passing interest in the Russian connection in the Solong ramming of the Stena Immaculate that morning.

Perhaps not obvious, but with my intellectual topic being systems thinking – aka Cybernetics (or Psybernetics) being literally “governance” – the less-than / more-than science – of politics of government, local, national and international are integral to my interests. The fact that everything IS connected, doesn’t mean there’s a conspiracy or that you’re paranoid 😉

=====

Catholicism by Choice

An interest of mine at several points previously, that “wiser” people – writers, thinkers – have often chosen later in life to join the Catholic church, having previously been Anglican / protestant or atheistic. Part of my respect for theology alongside secular science, and religion as “that which binds us” ritualistically.

A wide-ranging “Voicecraft” conversation with Dave Snowden – including his own espousal of Catholicism- too many notes to record (yet) – on so many subjects I agree on. A few linguistic choices where I’d disagree with his choices & rejections of specific words, but absolutely agree with the distinctions (#GoodFences) he’s making.

Rituals ….

(Transcript isn’t great, but I may work on it … to make it usefully searchable.)

Still absolutely baffled by his grip on “science” as his preferred term for (all) his work, given his nevertheless using the pejorative term “scientistic” to label the predictive / causal problem.

=====

More later …

=====

Post Note / Aside. Spooky coincidence, but the day before picking up this “Catholic” (name) church reference from Dave, I use the English “catholic” (adjective) in an exchange with him on LinkedIn.

And another Post Note: quoting Dave from another LinkedIn thread:

… they use intuition and then mask it with analytics to justify what they already decided to do.

But I’m wary of anything that contrasts intuition with ‘rationality’; you end up with the whole left/right thing from McGilcrist and others that doesn’t match modern Neuroscience, a point of disagreement I have …

That “post-rationalisation” was one of the original things that led me to my “keeping science honest” agenda. The tendency to make things look “scientific” even when they never really were – way back in my 1988/91 MBA thesis before that became my Psybertron project agenda since 2001.

He’s right to be wary of the terms on the E & I sides – Explicit vs Implicit, Rational / Science vs Intuitive – as well as contrasting them, but as we’ve said before I think he misses the real left-right brain points of Iain McGilchrist’s work. Language-wise it is indeed a minefield, but the real distinctions are important to understand.

(Latest instalment here: https://www.psybertron.org/archives/19537 )

=====

Autistic as an adjective?

I have 4 or 5 on my timeline who are either self-confessed “on the spectrum” or are living with a family member with Autism or Asperger’s. It’s a neurodiverse issue that requires care to varying degrees for the individual. No doubt. I do care.

But, I’ve been using the term Autistic as an adjective (and sometimes the abstract noun Autism) in a technical sense since 2005/6 for a much wider misunderstanding of the place of “rationality” in our socio-cultural-political “systems” context.

Caring about the former I often bite my tongue in needing to refer to the latter, but I’m finding the term more and more appropriate in 2025. (Not least because of the current prominence of Musk, but he’s just one visible consequence of a long-standing, yet largely hidden & misunderstood, iceberg confronting us.)

#AutisticEconomics
#AutisticPolitics
#AutisticSocialSciences

=====

And here, those original 2005/6 references:

2005 – “To be Rational is Autistic”
https://psybertron.org/archives/962

2006 – “Autistic Economics”
https://psybertron.org/archives/1252

General Autism / Autistic references in Psybertron
https://psybertron.org/?s=Autis&sort=oldest

Deirdre McCloskey, mentioned only once so far in the whole blog, but the source behind one of those earliest references to (Post)-Autistic-Economics, and yet the word isn’t mentioned in her Wikipedia profile – wonder why, there is in fact a whole post-autistic-economics “movement”?

=====

More on “More Than Science”

In summary(*1):

Is there “more than science” that is valuable to understanding & engaging in physical & human, content & processes in a world seen in terms of systems(*2)?

Can we usefully distinguish – draw a #GoodFence(*3) between – that which is science from that which is more than science?

Is “wisdom” a good word – as good an umbrella word as any(*4) – for understanding and referring to all those aspects that are beyond science?

So, … is Wisdom more than Science or isn’t it?(*5)

=====

Notes

(*1) – This post is a summary of where recent email dialogue got to after I shared the proceedings from and proposal for ISSS Workshops. (Incidentally, I think it significant that the only dialogue so far is with the women, Janet and Jesse. The men are silent so far.)

(*2) – I make no secret of the fact that literally the whole world, from fundamental quanta to entire transnational governmental issues to the cosmos itself can be, and is best, seen in systems terms. This isn’t a fatuous “theory-of-everything” claim, simply a pragmatic best-world-view claim. And by “Systems” I’m including Cybernetics, Complexity, OR/Community-OR, Systems-Thinking, you name it, and all the specific theories, sciences, methods and processes within and overlapping those broad genres.

(*3) – The distinction I’m making in this “Tyranny of the Explicit” scope is between the explicit, objective, definitive, scientific, conceptually-modelled from the implicit, intuitive, subjective, humanistic, embodied, holistic, directly-experienced non-science? Most of my concerns here are linguistic – maintaining constructive dialogue that integrates broad (inclusive) views. All language is about choosing and using words (symbols) – what we choose to call things – every word has a pointer element making a “this-not-that” distinction for the purposes of such dialogue. I simply use the Robert Frost / GK Chesterton #GoodFences metaphor, to emphasise the plurality & flexibility of such useful & intersecting distinctions as opposed to hard-and-fast dichotomies (camps) to be attacked or defended.

(*4) – Note the question is about being any good, useful, not about being rigorously defined in terms that would meet orthodox scientific standards, that would defeat my point here? And obviously, “social sciences” have lived with such compromises and approximations for many decades. I make few if any (explicit) social-science references in my work, I jump straight from STEM / Science to (maximally complex, human, eco-) Systems Thinking, but I do acknowledge that many of the issues I’m addressing already are and have been addressed in such fields. Note *3 is already one corollary – that war-like dichotomies between (say) science and post-modern “social-construct” views or between science and religious dogmas (say) are not useful even if the distinctions are themselves useful. Another is the idea that “objective approximations” and scientific representations are useful in subjective contexts, but always lose or distort some human aspects. I label the understanding of such dichotomies and paradoxes, whilst choosing to treat them as simply useful distinctions, as PoPoMo (Post-Post-Modernism) or what some now call “Meta-Modernism”.

(*5) – Does explicitly & exclusively attaching the word “science” to our endeavours, implicitly constrain language expectations – even kill useful dialogue – when considering more-or-less-wise, more-than-science, contributions from community members? Whatever all the scientific and philosophical (and moral) threads and histories running through and across this whole topic – this simple question is the point of the workshop & posts:

IS WISDOM MORE THAN SCIENCE OR ISN’T IT?

(And if it is, shouldn’t we be more careful in how we use those two words, Science and Wisdom?)

=====