Psybertron Asks

I’ve promised myself several times I wouldn’t fall for inventing a new word for my work. There’s nothing new under the sun, and definitions – even evolving definitions – of existing words, are more about usage than constraining definitions. So long as your usage is clear, no need to get hung up on definitions or new words with their own subtly new definitions. [Definitions is a whole #GoodFences essay.] It’s all footnotes to Plato anyway.

One of the losing battles I face – there are many, and in fact #LosingBattles is another core topic in itself – is with the word Cybernetics. No matter how much I point out that the coining of the term at the 1946-onwards Macy conferences, was about its humanistic application to systems of complex global human governance following the disaster(s) of two world wars, everybody hears mechanistic / scientistic computer automation and feedback control. Of course their approaches were always about applying best known science and developing technologies to such problems – why wouldn’t we? – but as CP Snow (and JP Dupuy) would remind us any solution needed to work across both cultures – a third culture integrating the humanistic and the scientistic. Which is another footnote to Plato in itself.

With the massive successes and the progressive domination of every-day 21st century life with computing technologies since 1950’s, the Cyber prefix – as in Cyberspace – is now firmly associated in all minds with those physical technologies (even though it was never the intent of the likes of Wiener and Bertalanffy – it / they were always about self-governance of living systems, and from the original Greek, Cybernetics = Kybernetes = Governance. Another footnote to Plato).

I mused not so long ago – having stumbled upon Psybertron as a name encapsulating my agenda when I started this blog in 2001 – that I had also effectively coined the term Psybernetics as my take on the original intent of cybernetics, emphasising not just the governance but also the mental source of such governance in not just living systems, but consciously intelligent evolving living systems, like us and our ecosystems. Several orders more complex than any mechanistic machine-like system. [Hence the whole topical agenda on how complexity defines the nature of intelligent systems, and the nature of consciousness and intelligence themselves, real or artificial.]

So, before we get ahead of ourselves, I shall be using Psybernetics to refer to the explanations and behaviours of complex living systems that explicitly involve minds. As scientifically as possible, wherever possible of course, but nevertheless with the acknowledgement that minds are more than science.

=====

Previously:

Musing on using Psybernetics as a term – Feb 2024

First mention of Psybernetics – a couple of weeks earlier – Jan 2024

=====

2024 was a whole year consisting almost entirely of a single aside from my intended research and writing agenda. (Cut to the chase for 2025 Priorities?)

It was the 50th anniversary of publication of Robert Pirsig’s ZMM – his seminal “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance”. Helping to found the Robert Pirsig Association (RPA), getting it up and running on-line and supporting various #ZMM50th events became all-consuming. I say almost because I did also try to tie-in “more than science” working with the International Society for Systems Sciences (ISSS) thanks to their annual conference event originally timed to dovetail with the #ZMM50thRide. Sadly the eventual timings didn’t work out so I ended up supporting both whilst having to fund the time and money for two separate US trips. No other conferences and, apart from the odd weekend break, zero holidays and only one other foreign trip – a few days of paid and expensed Systems Engineering consulting in Q4. Interesting for its own technical content and useful in providing some unanticipated funds for the unplanned additional expenses. Still, incidentally, with a few hours follow-up to complete. One job to finish for the RPA commitments too – an update to the Pirsig Biographical Timeline.

But Pirsig was only ever one string to my bow. An important introduction to philosophy generally and to “the timelessly recurring philosophical division between the explicit / objective / classic / conceptual / dialectical and the implicit / intuitive / romantic / embodied / rhetorical”. His Metaphysics of Quality (MoQ) was an original monist framing and a useful framework to this day. There’s been 50+ years of evolution of science and philosophy (and politics) since Pirsig’s magnum opus, with even better explanatory theories of how Pirsig’s physical > biological > social > intellectual level relations actually work and how his Zen Quality take on immediate “radical-empirical” experience still represents the moral imperative for our attention to the world beyond science. Not by coincidence, “more than science” remains the outstanding follow-up item from the ISSS workshop that very much contributes to my ongoing research and writing project. Sadly Pirsig didn’t – and only a few Pirsig scholars did – engage with other philosophers and scientists beyond the Greeks into the 21st century. Time waits for no man.

the timelessly recurring philosophical division:

between the
explicit / objective / classic / conceptual / dialectical
“science” for short

and the
implicit / intuitive / romantic / embodied / rhetorical
“wisdom” for short

So, apart from the 3 commitments above …

• • • Update to the Pirsig Biographical Timeline
    • Consolidating output from the ISSS “more than science” session.
    • Clarifying responses to my systems consulting customer.

… I’m back on the original agenda.

As ever I have  several open issues to read or file for future reference – lots of open / barely-read / un-reviewed pieces to bookmark – in the post-notes below.

However, last years project priorities pretty much remain this years.

Original 2022 Version – Writing Progress – for 2023

1. 1. 1. The Position – (T – Outline) a statement of what I believe, in brief.
      2. The Thesis – (T) the whole formal “how and why” development of that.
      3. Good Fences – an essay on one corollary of the whole.
      4. Sacred Naturalism – an essay on another corollary of the whole.
      5. Primary Sources – an acknowledgement of the main originators.
      6. Time and Tide – (F) a fictional narrative inspired by the whole.

Updated Nov & Dec 2023 “Resolution” – for 2024

… to prioritise my own deliverables.
T – Maybe the priority is “T” (The Technical Text)
F – which may contribute not only to “F” (The Fictional Narrative) but years of prior research and writing into
D – a potentially shorter version of “D” (The Doctoral Thesis)?
P – My involvement in “P” (The Robert Pirsig Association) can only be short-term / part-time.

Priorities Now – Dec 2024 – for 2025

Priority #1

• • T – my Technical Thesis, probably still in parts:
    • OT – Outline / summary of my starting position
      • “My Project” (recent summary)
      • RP – Research (PhD) Proposal (already draft 4)
      • PS – Personal Statement (already published)
    • ST – Specific topics deserving of individual chapter / essays
      (Good Fences, More Than Science, Sacred Naturalism, etc.)

Priority #2

• • F – the (pen-named auto-)fictional novel

Priority #3

• • • Pirsig / RPA – Timeline update + only a supporting role
    • Conferences (UK Only in 2025)
      • ISSS-2025 (Birmingham) follow-up to DC-2024 above.
      • HTLGI-2025 (Hay-on-Wye) – as the name says 🙂
      • OxfordLitFest-2025 (Oxford) McGilchrist et al
    • TS-SitP – local attendee / participation only
    • Other pub, blog & social-media dialogues.

END

=====

Post Notes:

Bookmarking the following:

• • Ben Taylor’s Systems Thinking Reading List.
  • Simon Wardley’s “Wardley Maps” generally.
  • Which reminds me, the Dave Snowden / Cynefin “more than science” dialogue.
  • Nicole Rust’s readings of Francis Crick and Kevin Mitchell.
  • Stephen Mumford’s readings of Russell’s metaphysics.
    (See previously …)
  • Engaging with Birkbeck, London CCCM?
  • A critical reading of Michael Levin’s Mind “Technology” project?
  • RL Kuhn’s Taxonomy of Consciousness Explanations.
  • Drucker’s 1994 letter to Bill Emmott at The Economist.
  • Completing a tabulation of the Macy “Humanist” Cybernetics topics.
    (And here at the ACS. Ditto a re-reading of Dupuy)
  • How Cyber did for Cybernetics – NOT – “relating to computers, computer networks, or technology” (Cyber-Space).
  • Naturalised Teleology.
  • Brian Goodwin (Edge 1997) – New Science of Qualities.
  • Gabrielle Bammer and Jean Bolton on Science & Subjectivity.
  • Oikophobia – The tendency to criticise things closer to home (yourself, your group, the current government of your own country, say) rather than bigger shared things.
  • Turtles all the way down? Recurring metaphysical question of course, but just a link to the long and wide history of the cosmic turtle.
  • And a whole load of half-read / un-reviewed books that will have to wait:
    • “Leonard and Hungry Paul” – Ronan Hession
      (Half read, very good, small independent publisher, made only a few project-relevant notes)
    • “New Finnish Grammar” – Diego Marani
      (Completed and reviewed, not fully absorbed into the project.)
    • “The Mechanisation of the Mind” – Jean-Pierre Dupuy
      (So relevant I absolutely have to do a thorough re-read. Mentioned in ACS bookmark above and already a core part of the project. The original now a collectors’ item. Later edition using the original subtitle “The Origins of Cognitive Science” also very expensive text, even second hand, no Kindle etc – but a highly recommended read.)
    • “Queen of Sorrow” – Yvonne (YD) Jones
      (Read completely. A wartime “love story” focussing mainly on the resourcefulness of the women and girls. Located around Trieste / Italy – same as Finnish Grammar above, which sparked picking it up – and locally around Redcar (NE Yorkshire / East-Cleveland coast. Not reviewed yet because the otherwise gripping trajectory is strangely incomplete / unsatisfactory / inconclusive despite being full length and difficult to describe without being a spoiler. Presumably intended as the first in a series – leave ’em wanting more? And I can talk to the author – in the pub – before I publish any more.)
    • “A Woman Looking at Men Looking at Women” and “Mothers, Fathers and Others” by Siri Hustvedt.
      (Received as Christmas presents off the reading list – thanks again Robbie – but in the pending pile. Intriguing author, a rave reviewer of Solms, read one piece on Kindle and made notes – but the rest will have to wait.)
    • “Myself and More Important Matters” – Charles Handy
      (Some catching-up to do on an author that was influential ~40 years ago.)
    • “A Confederacy of Dunces” – John Kennedy Toole
      (A cult book with a weird tragic history and an even weirder plot / narrative / accent. Known in the bar book-club, but no recollection where I picked-up the reference. Strange to start reading at New Year 2024/25 given the New Orleans Canal Street & Bourbon Street locations. Definitely about “what’s wrong with the world / putting it to rights” but will have to wait to complete.)
    • “Uncommon Wisdom” – Fritjof Capra
      (Read some of his work early in my project – eg “Tao of Physics” and his film “Mindwalk” but mostly overlooked his work because although his stuff was “right” it wasn’t that original – See Pirsig and Talbot and Josephson – and his style was a bit more sensational-journalistic to my UK eyes. At least part of my being too dismissive too soon with Capra will have been my conflating his “Turning Point” (on which “Mindwalk” is based) with Gladwell’s “Tipping Point”. Received but not read “Uncommon Wisdom” but still early work, because he is much referenced more recently in the Psybernetics (systems thinking) context. Uses the word “wisdom” of course.)
  • All back on the shelf. See LIFO Reading.

=====

Post-Post-Notes

As part of putting to bed all the open links above, I had a couple that were themselves fairly closely linked to each other. Not the first time I’ve mentioned these, but worth capturing together in one place.

At the 1946-onwards “Macy Conferences” as well as all the people who were or became the great and the good of Cybernetics and Complex Systems Thinking – including Heinz von Foerster – was almost the only philosopher outside the Greeks that Pirsig makes specific reference to being influenced by – F.S.C. Northrop – before he started his own writing project.

Dupuy, who wrote about the more humanist balance of the Macy conferences is a much-used resource in that ASC Macy link above. Dupuy wrote “The Mechanisation of the Mind” and I read the 2000 NFT English translation first-edition and his dedication was “for” Foerster who had been a significant source for Dupuy and formed an important introduction for me. Foerster died in 2002 and the subsequent 2008(?) “The Origins of Cognitive Science” MIT Press edition (same text with new preface and the title / sub-title flipped round) is dedicated in his memory.

At the 1995 “Einstein Meets Magritte” conference organised by Francis Heylighen where Pirsig was one of the plenary speakers so were Heinz von Foerster, Ilya Prigogine and Francisco Varela.

(The Tucson “Science of Consciousness” conferences started the same year, and split the European and USA attendees – more detail.)

As recently as last year (2024), Francis Heyligen – organiser of that Einstein Meets Magritte” conference – produced this paper “Curiosity, Awe and Wonder: the Emotions that Open Our Mind” which drew this peer-review comment:

“It’s brilliant. I have no suggestions for improving it.
Heylighen is breaking into an area with tremendous potential. We’ve been rejecting these emotions as secondary, as epiphenomenal, since Galileo. Heylighen expands the scientific investigation with a much broader and deeper epistemology. With his high standing in the science world, the impact of his article will be significant. The only suggestion I have for the author is to write more articles in this vein. This direction is both rare and important.”

(Hat tip Michel Bauwens @mbauwens on X/Twitter.)

(Lots of common / relevant reference sources in that paper, though sadly, no Pirsig, no McGilchrist, no Northrop, no Dennett …)

=====

I’ve mentioned Charles Handy only a few times in my thought journey, maybe only a dozen times here on Psybertron, without spending much time specifically referencing or quoting his work. Together with Tom Peters and Peter Drucker I singled him / them out, in my 1988/91 Master’s Thesis, as a management writer beyond the changing fashions of the “airport bookstall” management texts. One of the people who got the quality of humanity in organisational processes and relationships, business or otherwise, or simply “cybernetics” in my preferred term. So together with my original humanist mentor, Jeff Turnell way back in 1979/80, part of the embedding of humanism in my own world-view.

He was of course, also a (Christian) lay-preacher, and his words of wisdom were spread as much through his BBC Radio 4 “Thought for the Day” contributions – particularly in that “driving the kids to school” period of life – as through his “management” writing and teaching.

A given, part of the fabric, my constitution, where I rarely feel the need to mention the sources, and in fact I had barely noticed his work continued during the 21st century. But credit where it is due.

Wisdom is one of those words gradually re-establishing its value, after decades of pillorying by the “scientistic”, the so-called “critical thinkers” as woolly and ill-defined. And I notice several people using it in their own reflections on working with Charles Handy. Just a few examples:

Here someone on LinkedIn who saw him as a mentor,

Here another LinkedIn thread.

And here the FT Obituary that started the above thread.

And another LinkedIn post on Handy’s “Empty Raincoat”.

=====

Previously:

My (1991) Master’s Thesis.

The (2005) Pirsig paper that effectively set the agenda for Psybertron.

My Identifying as a Humanist

My (2024) Research Proposal

Wisdom as “more than” Science.

• • First formal attempt for one “Skeptic” audience.
  • Notes of a piece of a work-progress writing for ISSS audience.
  • Ongoing dialogue with Dave Snowden, latest instalment.

The search result for all references throughout Psybertron.

=====

 

A regular dialogue here on Psybertron is defending the reality of Dennett’s conceptions of mind in the face of those who see only the sound-bite quotes about the illusory aspects of our intuition about our minds. As I often say, our minds (and hence consciousness) are as real as anything else in our ontology of what exists in the world, so I was attracted by the title of this Aeon piece, which incidentally now exists only in the link not in the actual title and subtitle on the face of the article itself.

“As Real as it Ever Gets – Dennett’s Conception of Mind”
by Tim Bayne, Ed Nigel Warburton (@philosophybites)

Anyway, I Tweeted:

Dennett clearly defended the position that philosophy was “more than” science, and what he did was:

“Dennett helped shift Anglo-American philosophy towards a coalition with science.”

And

“in Dennett’s view, relatively little of folk psychology is beyond salvation. What needs to go is not so much folk psychology, but the gloss on folk psychology that philosophers [of the linguistic turn] have imposed on it. In that regard, Dennett doesn’t mark a radical rupture in the aims or methods of philosophy of mind, but instead belongs firmly in the tradition of his mid-century heroes, Ryle and Wittgenstein.”

Can’t argue with that conclusion, but yet again, no mention of his (2017) “From Bacteria to Bach and Back” his own summary of the actual content of his life’s work on the evolution of mind, before his final autobiographical work (2023) “I’ve Been Thinking”.

Great to see a serious critique that recognises Wittgenstein as a hero of my own hero. Hofstadter – erstwhile Dennett collaborator – also came to understand this despite steering clear of Wittgenstein in his earlier work.  My own summary of what I got from Dennett I posted back in April.

=====

I’ve listened to the whole of this 3-way interview / dialogue between JBP, Glinner and Doyle. Hard to take everything JBP says seriously, too many sweeping statements, but this is an excellent piece of content on so many of my agenda items, JBP’s contributions as well as his guests. On the back of Glinner & Doyle (& Gourlay & Schneider) new comedy production project in the US (in Phoenix, AZ).

Really, really excellent. Most explicitly about the whole woke gender culture-war, but so much more. (The reason this particular issue is the exemplar in my own thinking.)

Foucault, post-modernism, PoPoMo.

The court jester.

Obvious why this stuff is worse in UK culture vs US land of free-opportunity.

Psychology, opportunism, victimhood,  – the problem of direct human interconnectedness – “unintended consequences of the internet” bad ideas move too fast as I’ve called the Dysmemic / Memetic Problem.

NCHI’s as per Thursday night’s talk. Nothing wrong with recording “Perceived” complaints before any crime is established – normal in fact, but perception and intent are crucial to what is judged when recorded. Artificial objectification is the problem. The process is the punishment / cost.

The need for proper dialogue to change minds, clear-up misunderstandings, rather than simply spreading them.

=====

Just a holding post for the latest in a long series of dialogue with Dave Snowden and his Cynefin complexity-science / systems-thinking. Probably need to address in some detail:

Regularities & Reductionism #1/2

Regularities & Reduction #2/2

Both part of his Anthro-Complexity series. I need to join up some dots with earlier exchanges.

=====

A New Conversation

Having a new conversation with a couple in the bar last night, showed lots of interest in the ideas shared and discussed here, and it became quite positively passionate. Lots of shared recognition. Reminded me of another conversation a week or so ago, which I didn’t mention yet.

The one last week was simpler, because the focus was Humboldt and the two books by Andrea Wulf much loved and discussed here, and where copies had been left in the bar book-club. Seemed we had a new fan, appreciating Humboldt’s amazing international adventures and his massive influence on the great and the good of the age of revolution in the first book, whilst itching to get to “the invention of the self” agenda of the Humboldts’ extended family circle back in Jena in the second book, again with a name-droppers dream in its cast of real characters. Darwin himself acknowledged Humboldt’s important influence. No doubt we’ll talk again when he finishes the second 🙂

Last night started much more general with a question about what “my post-retirement project (to save the world 🙂 !!!)” was. I was able to give a 4 or 5 sentence statement (see below), which started the conversation described at the top. What floored me – apart from the enthusiasm – was the final question. What would I recommend they read to understand more? I should have stock answers – elevator pitches – for both of those questions, of course.

I didn’t say “this Psybertron blog”.
www.psybertron.org

I didn’t say the Humboldt books, above.
(Especially the second.)

I didn’t say McGilchrist’s “The Matter With Things”.
(The most comprehensive and thoroughly researched & referenced account of where the dominant 20thC worldview is leading our understanding of the world astray – but a massive and expensive undertaking to read from a cold start. He re-habilitates the true position of left-right brain thinking despite it remaining contentious among deniers. Attention / ways of attending, as a moral act.)

I didn’t say Mark Solms’ “The Hidden Spring”.
(The best very technical explanation of where our real – subjective, bio-psychological – knowledge of the world arises in our consciousness, yes, even the knowledge we conceptualise as objective – one very important core issue, but not the whole psycho-social-intellectual story. Very important basis in the fundamental information & computation vs entropy & complex systems (“Free Energy Principle”) view of the foundations of physics and hence all evolved, living things, if you want to dig even deeper with Solms and Friston – cross the Rubicon – into the real scientific underpinnings of this “more-than-objective-science” story of our subjective, intuitive experience.)

I didn’t say my hero Dan Dennett (RIP) and his “From Bacteria to Bach and Back”.
The most patient, avuncular, philosopher-guide along the real evolutionary story of our consciousness. (Still so many philosophy-vs-science misunderstanding-deniers of his work but, with the help of the two above, there really is no longer any mystery about our consciousness of ourselves and the world.)

I didn’t say Robert Pirsig (RIP) and his “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” and “Lila” though I did mention ZMM in the course of the conversation.
(Still to this day an excellent introduction to the moral philosophical framework of the whole evolved physical-bio-socio-intellectual stack of reality, which nails the Zen or “Quality”  radical-empirical-experience-of / immediate-attention-to the world firmly as its insubstantial foundation. That “attention as a moral act” massively elaborated by McGilchrist above, who freely admits to have been influenced by Pirsig but, like many many others, finds it difficult to academically reference the work with the whacky Zen title and the imagined 1960’s hippy life-style associations. Quality will out.)

I didn’t mention Dupuy’s “Mechanisation of the Mind”
Although I do use a few quotes from Dupuy, it’s intriguing that I didn’t fully appreciate how much it intersected with all the topics I’ve mentioned, the first time I read it right at the start of my journey. It set me up for so many of my “Psybernetic” research avenues, and is actually a good introductory read I realise. (And having reminded myself of Dupuy, I now notice that the ASC’s own summary of the 1946 Macy “Cybernetics” conferences makes extensive use of Dupuy.)

I did mention that some of the very basic “is / ought” aspects of everyday life were as old as ancient Greek philosophy and remain as relevant to today’s problem. (In its simplest form, what “is” is or can be factual, objective, scientific whereas what we “ought” to do isn’t and never can be, certainly not entirely. The massive success of science and technology – and the relatively easy use of objective numbers and arithmetic-maths compared to the complexity of human systems – dominates and hides that very important “not entirely”.)

I didn’t mention any of the Complex Systems Thinkers and their many published theories, sciences and methods, mainly because most – but not all – still ignore the underlying philosophical / epistemological problem.

I did for some reason suggest watching the new BBC “Renaissance” docu-drama, because it’s topical and surprisingly relevant – maybe after you understand the intellectual journey above?

One day I’d hope to recommend the book(s) I’m writing, as much better organised versions of the thoughts scattered throughout this blog. Meantime maybe see my Research Proposal.

=====

My opening statement of what “my project” is about:

(The research proposal above contains a good statement of the problem, but the following is more or less what I said last night.)

The root topic is Cybernetics (or Systems Thinking) as originally conceived post-WWII by the 1946 Macy Conferences. (There was actually a similar movement post-WWI, but of course our backsliding into WWII meant much momentum was lost. And many before, it turns out.) Imagine being among the smartest people in the world – running our institutions post the industrial revolution – and asking yourself how did we fuck it up so badly, twice. We really must learn to do better? This was their project. Cybernetics was always about human systems of organisation and self-governance – the most complex of physio-bio-psycho-socio-cultural systems, despite the word becoming most associated with the successes of industrial computation and automation via feedback and the like.

Similarly, in parallel with that science and technology success in cybernetics, objective science and technology have come to dominate all our information and decision-making processes. In free-democracies – the best forms of government, before we get to best forms of democracy, local national, international, global? – we expect decisions and policies justified on “fully costed” plans and cost-benefit-risk analyses and the like. Arithmetic. Numbers. Despite the fact we see the massive hearts and minds effects of rhetoric, sound-bites, symbols and slogans, good and bad?

It’s “my project” because after ~30 years as a Systems Engineer in industry I had seen time after time how the explicit / objective / factual (classical) won out over the intuitive / implicit / valuable (romantic). The nagging doubt that we were missing something important was kicked in the pants by 9/11 and the ensuing God vs Science wars, (and now all the woke-PC / anti-woke culture wars) before I even knew for the first time that the recurring classic / romantic division was as old as philosophy itself, a subject I knew nothing about, 25 years ago, before I read ZMM.

Be nice to find ways to improve before we slide into WWIII or worse, global / environmental disaster?

(No-one is messianic enough, least of all me, to believe we are “saving the world!”. Like many others I’m hoping individual efforts to fix misunderstandings that are leading us astray will help steer the evolutionary direction of progress.  There are actually lots of people who “get it” – they’re just drowned out by dominant 21stC communication paradigms and understandings. I’m not proposing anything that hasn’t already been thought of, it’s about synthesising / evolving ways of doing better. But none of it is possible without fixing the core misunderstanding.)

=====

How free should public communications be?

General

Simple fact is that free-speech in a free-democracy does need regulation and, if we are serious about that regulation, we do have to be prepared to enforce it and sanction transgressions, ultimately backed with the power of the law. Guard rails in the current vernacular. Inescapable.

What is appropriate in the rules of communications, and what is proportionate in their enforcement are hugely context dependent. Even accepting that basic fact, it gets worse. Perversely, the broader the context – as in global public social media – the tighter the controls need to be. Let that sink in.

Current State

X/Twitter, post Musk, has made the error of absolute freedom, limited only by criminality in the communications. This leads to degenerate, unhealthy, polarising, high-noise, counter-productive discourse, long before we get to the last resort of legality. X/Twitter is currently failing to control either content or behaviour, and the inevitable degeneration is driving many to leave – or consider leaving – for pastures blue.

BlueSky has started to enforce “content” controls, simply by deleting the content. This is far too crude long-term, degenerate in the “woke/PC” direction, blocking/erasing anyone or anything that anyone MIGHT claim to be offensive to anyone for any reason. Hopefully this a temporary response to sudden surge in numbers – but it is already generating a backlash. And what it’s effectively doing is drawing the polarisation battle lines physically between these two platforms, making them very distinct silos or echo-chambers, not just different factional interests within any one platform. Doubly unhealthy.

Blocking, erasing, deleting or cancelling are NOT moderation. But, either extreme of freedom vs moderation is unhealthy. What neither of the above is doing is regulating what matters, which is behaviour. Very little content need be absolutely taboo (see legal constraints). Generally, it’s not what you say, it’s the way that you say it. Anyone who has ever moderated any serious online discussion group knows this is non-trivial philosophically and linguistically.

[Facebook / Threads is in a different game. Nothing to recommend it here?]

Mastodon, so far, has exhibited very little of the degeneration, although ad-hominem behaviour is already creeping in, despite much lower numbers and traffic than any of the above. What is different however is that whilst X/Twitter, BlueSky and Threads are centralised, Mastodon is distributed and federated.

Practical Possibilities

The question is always asked when controls are suggested – however sensible the rules themselves – “Who decides, who does the controlling and moderating?”. With centralised systems – especially one like the Musk / Trump alliance – this question has enormous authoritarian implications. With multiple federated systems with distributed moderation arrangements, people can experience and cluster around environments that suit their needs, and we can let market forces drive the distribution between Mastodon instances.

X/Twitter already has the hooks for distributed moderation in its “Community Note” mechanism, though even that is already gamed and abused. Ultimately it really is about behaviour. What none of them have yet is individual tuning of the dreaded algorithms. Personally I’m an “all / latest” user, in order to minimise the effect of feed algorithms, and is only practical if you keep numbers down. At this point it’s about commercial / monetisation interests of the platforms and the users. Personally, it’s the reason I’ve paid for my “Pro” X/Twitter instance, no-one need advertise anything I don’t follow. But much more configurable experience – including the moderation “style” – is needed.

Behaviour? See Rules of Engagement.

[END]

=====

Previously “Freeze Peach“ – an earlier draft to edit the rules of engagement to fit the social-media behaviour / moderation model.

=====

Post Notes:

All the people “announcing” their X/Twitter departures to their “new” BlueSky accounts are quite comical if sad. I signed-up to both BlueSky and Mastodon as soon as they became available, immediately after the Musk / Trump takeover which completed over 2 years ago, and have been monitoring activity and behaviour there ever since. (Links top right here and in my X/Twitter bio.) It’s about behaviour NOT about the technology.

I’ve several times labelled people like Colin Wright @SwipeWright and James Esses @JamesEsses and Matt Goodwin www.mattgoodwin.org as “trolls” in this game. On the specific content of their “anti-woke” agendas and statements I’m on the same side and mostly agree. It’s their extreme rhetoric I reject as #PartOfTheProblem – like their wishful yearning for  Christopher Hitchens . Sure enough it grabs the attention of low-attention span men of few coherent words, like Musk / Trump, but it’s a dangerous game – cutting off noses to spite faces. I too have been “warning” the liberal-left @UKLabour @USDems @HumanistsUK they were missing the important message in the woke / anti-woke “culture war since I first read Alice Dreger on sex/gender politics in 2015 and more generally since I started this blog in 2001 and joined Twitter on SMS before it became an App in 2007. Warning continuously that if the liberal-left didn’t get a grip on the science / dialectic / facts vs subjective-identity / rhetorical / rights&freedoms balance, then the opposing right / libertarian press and politics were going to wipe the floor with them on the emotional issues. Let’s be clear, like broken clocks, people like Musk / Trump / Badenoch can be right twice a day on the woke / DEI agenda but still be wholly reprehensible, dangerous and unfit for office. They remain so. Retweeting without qualification? Careful what you wish for. You can have too much #CreativeDestruction

Yogi Yaeger on Mastodon: https://mastodon.online/@yoginho@spore.social

If it’s elitist to think we should have the best people lead us instead of corrupt morons taking over everything then, yes, do count me as an elitist.

If it’s against free speech to want pathological liars censored then, yes, I’m against free speech.

If progress is the greediest bastards pushing the most dangerous technologies on us for nobody’s benefit but their own then, yes, call me a luddite.

An extreme statement of the crux of the problem.

And an essay on why decentralised social media is best from Oxford via Mastodon, naturally.

=====

I mentioned in a “note to self” post back in 2021 that I was looking forward to the publication of Emily Herring’s biography of Henri Bergson

“Herald of a Restless World
– How Henri Bergson brought philosophy to the people“
Emily Herring (2024)

Posted a review on Goodreads: (Slightly edited version below.)

I already had some appreciation of the significance of Henri Bergson’s philosophy from its take-up by US pragmatists (eg James and later Pirsig readers) as well as by Whitehead and most recently by Iain McGilchrist’s extensive use of Bergson references in his (2023) magnum opus “The Matter With Things”. Emily Herring I had noticed write an (2017) article on Julian Huxley’s use of Bergson, have been since then anticipating the biography she has now produced. It does not disappoint.

Her writing style is a major attraction. Here in one sentence describing Bergson’s experience of the run-up to the first world war:

“Even for those more attuned to recent developments in international relations, the threat of war had not felt real until the news broke that it was.”

Neat turn of phrase.

Many spoilers about the the Bergson biographical content have already been shared in published reviews, and perhaps his role in wartime politics is one of the more surprising. Intriguing too – and a recurring theme here – that he effectively converted to Catholicism, in all but name, late in life. Less surprising is the fact that prejudices against his being both French and a Jew, and with his work attracting a massive public and female(!) following explain the academic backlash against his undoubted initial superstar success. Einstein’s “put-down” of his philosophical time, and Russell’s awful mischaracterisation of his work generally, sealed his fall from favour and academic visibility thereafter.

“Bergson is back” and deservedly so on the subtle reading of his ideas on integration of the recurring philosophical division between the explicit / objective / classical and the intuitive / implicit / romantic. Biography is an excellent medium to get to grips with human ideas. Herring will deserve our future gratitude, if her efforts are taken up by enough new readers in our troubled and confusing present. Highly recommended as a biography in what were interesting times, whether you’re specifically interested in Bergson or philosophy generally, or not.

Herring spoke about her work and about Bergson at Collected Books in Durham last Monday 4th Nov.

(Above) In the foreground Emily Thomas (Durham Uni, Philosophy) and Simon Oliver (Durham Uni, Divinity) and, middle distance on the right, me in the rusty-red top awaiting the start of the event.

(Above) Emily Herring (L) being interviewed by Emily Thomas (R).

Reading Herring, and previously Bergson (Creative Evolution), I remained intrigued, given that focus on “the recurring philosophical division between the explicit / objective / classical and the intuitive / implicit / romantic” that I could see no references to the German & British romantics and transcendentals who had been expressing similar thoughts with similar concerns against the seeming dehumanising trend in the progress of science and technology. So I asked. She confirmed  there was little if any sign of any such engagement in Bergson.

Previous references:

First attempt at reading Bergson’s Creative Evolution  back in 2007 as recommended by other Pirsig scholars on “MoQ-Discuss” (See now the Robert Pirsig Association). Herring advises there is a newer, better translation now available.

That “note to self” above, where the significance of Bergson to McGilchrist’s “Matter with Things” is also acknowledged and where I had completed my read of Creative Evolution. (My summary of Matter With Things.)

An introduction to Bergson and the revival of anglophone interest in Emily Herring’s essay from earlier this year.  My reading Emily Herring’s 2017 piece on Julian Huxley’s “Great is Darwin and Bergson his Poet” which had whetted my appetite for her upcoming biography.

Also relevant, as well as the question above – biographies of the positivists (Mach Society / Vienna Circle) and the German transcendentals (around Humboldt and Jena)

• • • The Jena Set as Magnificent Rebels (Andrea Wulf)
    • The Vienna Circle as seen by the Brits (David Edmonds)
    • The Vienna Circle from their own Austro-German perspective (Karl Sigmund and Douglas Hofstadter)

The connections never end.
And neither does the work of organising the writing.

=====

Post Notes:

New York Times review by Anthony Gottlieb.
Gottlieb is someone I’ve read and written very positively about before, and we note from the by-line in that review that his new book out soon is on Wittgenstein – see in contrast to the positivists above. Can’t wait.

“It is very difficult, if not impossible, to express in words something that goes against the very essence of language” Bergson

“Perhaps it’s also true that Bergson’s ideas were not substantial enough to endure.” Gottlieb

(Me: the stuff beyond “substantive science” is very hard to make stick, very Pirsigian “Quality”.)

And a recent Times Literary Supplement review “How the World’s Most Famous Thinker Fell Out of Fashion” by Mark Sinclair, who has written about Bergson before in their Footnotes to Plato series.

A nice interview of Emily Herring here in a German Idealist context:

(The whole section from ~36.40 to the end where she describes his metaphysics in her own words will resonate with Pirsigians – McGilchrist fans too – the evolution of intellect as we know it. Some new French references in there for me too.)

Another review from Science.Org – surprisingly positive despite the rather pejorative use of “fodder” to describe his relationship with science?

=====

Watched the film Deliverance last night. It’s a film I’ve been looking out for since the world switched from DVD to streaming, but have never found it free of commercial strings until BBC2 TV broadcast it yesterday.

I saw it only once a long time ago, when watching a film was about entertainment, but since 2001 – the start of my quest here on Psybertron – every time I see and/or hear the duelling banjos meme it sets off the thought “I really must watch Deliverance properly”. Mission accomplished.

I riffed on it on X/Twitter whilst watching:

Me:
Well done @BBC2TV
#Deliverance is a film for our times.
How will humanity find our place in the world?

Quote:
This is our last chance.
I’ve never been lost in my life.

Me:
I’d forgotten the “famous scene” is just 5 minutes in.
Makes me suspect most people have never actually watched the whole thing?
#DuelingBanjos

Quote:
You’re missing the point Ed!
Sometimes you have to lose yourself
before you can find anything.

Me:
#Deliverance is surely the template for #ApocalypseNow every bit as much as #Conrad #HeartOfDarkness and/or #Fitzcarraldo and/or #Lila ? (All at sea, but on a river.)

Quote:
Things are gonna fail. The system’s gonna fail.
System’s done alright by me. I love my life.

Me:
Jeez @ZMMQuality guys.
John Voight in #Deliverance is surely Eugen Herrigel (The Zen archer duelling with the rifleman.)

Me:
OK, a fork in the thread.
Alex Cox introduced me to cultural cinema beyond entertainment back in 70’s/80’s. Paris Texas, Fitzcarraldo, Brazil, Walker, The Mission and probably Deliverance and later Devil Wears Prada and indeed Walter White & Saul Goodman. But I guess I was too young to get the full significance back then.

Me:
Trump is that narrowly informed bigot (and Musk the narrow autist) on the riverbank.
The whole #Deliverance story is surely also Dostoevsky “Crime and Punishment”.

Quote:
He was the best of us. (Me: The guitarist who duelled with the banjo. Robert Johnson at the Crossroads and/or the duelling fiddles / banjos / guitars – choose your weapon – bow / rifle) Amen.
They brought the cars.
You have a phone, a telephone?
Yes sir.
I don’t remember nothing.

Me:
Deliverance. Deliver us from evil?
Crime and Punishment?

Anyway, lots of connections as food for thought.

=====