There’s a family video from when I was maybe 3, at my sister’s birthday party. I’m babbling along and my Uncle Dan says, “you sure talk a whole lot, Mark.” I responded, “That’s how I learn things.”
My dad always thought this was funny - how could you learn by talking? Your post underlines the mechanism that I’d been inadvertently using. I didn’t have a plan to find an audience, I was just … moving in a way that made sense. For a long time I wanted to convince the whole world of some ideas. I gave up on that and figured maybe I could convince certain communities. Then, Ok, maybe one. Then I realized I didn’t understand things as well as this community did.
The process is still ongoing, but I’m less singularly focused on trying to sell ideas as I am on trying to share and entertain.
Slate Star Codex / LessWrong. It was game changing for me to realize, I need to be around people with similar values to really grow and develop.
Surprisingly enough, the more i try to fine-tune my messaging for the community that does the best job of poking holes in my ideas, the better I'm getting at talking to people in general.
Really enjoying this substack - looking forward to more :)
This comment and Henrik's answer feel like snapshots from my own childhood. Conversation, whether verbally, by emails over years with friends, or online in faster formats more recently, is how I think well. (I would also include being in connection with the 'non-human world' too, when out in the wilds for longer periods, as there are thoughts I only seem to be able to have in conversation with certain kinds of landscape.) I agree, sincere, niche online conviviality spontaneously creates two things for me: delight and real connection with others. The first is like manna, the second is like really good bread; both are essential. It's how I ever found my worldwide natural pigments posse, the few English speaking Taoist meditators out there, and greatly lengthened my Illichian post-apocalyptic meal invite list. Our nodes are the fruiting bodies of the mycelium of our connective intent. Greetings from South London.
Your strategy of learning things by talking a whole lot makes a ton of sense, because the best way to get the answer on the internet is by posting the wrong answer
The mechanism of “writing about the same complex topics, using unique word pairs, pulls similar thinkers together” reminds me of neuroplasticity and how neurons that fire together wire together.
"[Paul] Kammerer’s big idea is that, alongside causality, there is an acausal principle at work in the Universe, somewhat analogous to gravity but, whereas gravity acts universally on mass, this universal acausal force, as Koestler puts it, ‘acts selectively on form and function to bring similar configurations together in space and time; it correlates by affinity.’ ...
"The theory of synchronicity, or meaningful coincidence, proposed by Jung follows a similar line. ... Certain coincidences, he suggests, are not merely a random coming-together of unrelated events, nor are the events causally linked. They are connected acausally by virtue of their meaning. Synchronicity was the ‘acausal connecting principle’.
"[The Nobel prize-winning physicist Wolfgang] Pauli saw synchronicity as a way of approaching some fundamental questions in quantum mechanics, not least the mystery of quantum entanglement, by which sub-atomic particles may correlate instantaneously, and acausally, at any distance. From their discussions of synchronicity emerged the Pauli-Jung conjecture, a form of double-aspect theory of mind and matter, which viewed the mental and the physical as different aspects of a deeper underlying reality."
And it was by the purest coincidence today that I found Henrik's blog, and your comment, and that post about 'love as a game theoretic strategy.'
Someone liked one of my comments on a far-away blog, and when viewing their own newsletter follows, this was the first I chose. And then the subject of this particular post leapt out from all of Henrik's writings, and was the one I read first ...
Your discussion of complexity reminds me of what John Rawls calls the Aristotelian Principle.
“Other things equal, human beings enjoy the exercise of their realized capacities (their innate or trained abilities), and this enjoyment increases the more the capacity is realized, or the greater its complexity.” (ToJ)
It is also at the heart of my interpretation of John Stuart Mill’s moral theory (namely, it’s the distinction between higher and lower pleasures—the reason that poetry is better than pushpins.)
The trick with JSM has always been reconciling his utilitarianism with his commitment to autonomy in On Liberty. (The Harm Principle says: "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised [sic] community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." But utilitarianism allows you to override individual choices whenever doing so maximizes whatever thing you've defined as the good [pleasure, for Mill].)
I think Mill's distinction between higher and lower pleasures holds the key to reconciling the two. Higher pleasures are those that involve something like the Aristotelian principle. But realizing complexity fundamentally requires individuals to make choices. Or, in other words, exercising autohomy is a necessary condition for attaining the higher pleasures.
So Mill's prohibition on violating autonomy is really about protecting the necessary preconditions for attaining the higher pleasures. It's those higher pleasures we ultimately want to maximize. Protecting autonomy is the only lever we have for doing so.
Thank you for bringing together Rawls and JS Mill: two highly-seminal thinkers. I first encountered the Rawls book in Ivan Illich's seminar on "Tools for Conviviality" (aka "Retooling Society"). Mill lived through the 19th century without going mad, a great achievement in itself. Or rather, he suffered his version of a nervous breakdown (as described in his "Autobiography") when young enough to recover.
Stirring. Made me subscribe. Reminded me of why I was so enthused about the idea of working in public and that I should be more proactive about doing so. Ah, but the eternal dilemma of the Bell and The Blackbird
Thanks to Julian Gough from the Egg and the Rock who cross-posted this, Erik Hoel for linking to Julian's blog and some guy on Twitter for linking Erik's paper on how dreams may prevent overfitting. The best parts of the Internet truly are human-shaped.
I am working my way through your essays, slowly but surely. This was excellent (and almost made me cry at my table too). Sometimes I feel cynicism at the strength of the internet on my own life (I am also the generation that grew up without it, born in 1990) and this series made me see it in a more positive light. We have a lot of agency in how we use these digital tools to shape our world. thanks you.
I came to the comment section to give something back, as your words encourage me to open up about my curiorities. But the I got stuck in the comments and the nice atmosphere of a kind of "tribe in the know". Made me remember my early years in twitter when I used to connect to strangers through the fun of putting critical thoughts into compromised verbal expression. To me, it always led to the question: can we connect in person as well?
Not only the internet feels lonely on the quest for likeminded people.
Anyways, not here to lament my current status quo, rather to say thank you for motivating me to search that niche and to share it publically.
To not speak to the man on the street - if at all, then to a specific one, maybe that one you see pass by and wonder how they came to be the particular quirky person they are.
One thing I have been struggling with ever since I've been publishing on the internet was the struggle in which language to express what I was on about. When I had acquired a small following, going down another rabbit hole felt like losing them and that for me is rather harsh. So I quit writing publically all together. Takes a strong will for pursueing my own quests it seems and definately worth tackling if it leads to connections that fall in with my current path. So again, thanks for planting that seed of hope :)
Thank you! Don't fear your readers. If they want to say goodbye when you go in a new direction, let go of them graciously. Some will follow you, and the more twists and turns they follow you along, the deeper the connection between you will be. It is like any friendship - though this is a strange, distributed, remote kind of friendship, being words to each other.
I, too, sometimes fear my audience, but I try to push through that and instead actively give people a way out, so that I can filter for those I can serve well, and those I can be authentic before. The last two posts I did blew up so I've had a lot of new people join, which makes me a little scared. So I have decided that my next post will be something entirely unlike anything I've done - a very long and detailed story about the last hours of my grandmother's life. This is scary, but the more I do this, the deeper the connection I forge to those who stay, and the freer I feel.
This has happened with me a few times. I am often penalised by readers for writing on topics which are sometimes not liked by a many. It is all happy and hearty until I write on common things that everyone has to go through in the office. The moment I write on issues specifically faced by women, I inevitably get a few readers who disable their e-mails. That does make me feel a little upset.
Your filtration criteria is so amazing. Yes, we are actively giving people a way out and keeping only those who we can be authentic with. Heading to your next post now.
This resonated with me so strongly, even though I'm doing something entirely different from blogging: I'm building a puzzle experience business. I've gotten the advice to create simpler puzzles, but that's not really what interests me. So I keep making my challenging puzzles, and the people drawn to this are who I've connected with. Just yesterday, one of them shared an older project they knew about that was super interesting to me.
Nevertheless, your essay helped me see another facet of this process. Growth demands growth, so I just started experimenting with some simpler puzzle ideas that are still fun for me. Now I see that they are hens, which will attract more people who are excited by them now, and who might later engage with my more complex offerings.
"By pursuing your interest, you will move toward complexity." I'm doing this, and so are my followers. I love it. Thank you for this fascinating piece.
I just want to admit that this was thoroughly encouraging. Your notions of how information on this alien body flows are due considering over multiple cycles. My friend Riley has taken to Illich in unexpected ways. What'd he say: "I have corresponded briefly with David Cayley about Arthur Melzer, Esotericism, and more recently Ivan Illich. Cayley was close with both Illich and Gerard. I have never read Gerard, and have in the last few months read a number of Illich's books. I am astounded by what I have found, he is incomparably lucid and brave about institutional questions. I can't express how much I am struck by my early engagement with him."
So we're headed into Cayley's collection of conversations with Girard, and are in some way, satellites nearby.
Obviously I'll keep reading, but now you've seen me flash by in the sky.
Yeah, Cayley's interviews came to me after I wrote that piece. They are lovely to listen to, and I bet to read. Illich is a singular mind. He's of the kind where about half he says is nonsense, carried to far by rhetoric or imagination, but the other half opens incredible vistas.
No, not top of mind, I often find that thinkers are fall on a spectrum from imaginative to rigorous. Some are higher on both, but can't think of anyone in the areas Illich thinks about right now. Maybe Papert, for some of the ed stuff.
Arthur Melzer himself is pretty accessible, a true gentleman. He responded to my emails a few years ago, asking where to contine afyer Philosophy btwn the lines
I really like both, but On Tyranny (I suggest expanded Chicago with Kojeve) has something real special if you read the dialogue slowly and with care, and then read all of Strauss's comments after. Really opens you up to reading philosophical works with attention to context and details like the drama of the dialogue.
Thank you for this. I am here via a quote from your post by Brad DeLong. But I felt impelled to pursue and subscribe (and to forward your post to a few friends) via several bells you rang for me:
1) mention of Ivan Illich, with whom I studied at CIDOC in 1972 and a seminar of which led to his books "Tools for Conviviality" and "Energy and Equity". . Illich's thinking had already led me to writing and publishing about ideas for education in which I brought together Illich's thought in "Deschooling Society" and Buckminster Fuller's ideas for "World Game".
2) What you have described in how to use blogs as a way of finding people interested in what one is interested in joins and expands ideas I heard in a scuola in Pisa in 2002 on Digital Libraries about how the evolving Internet led to a way of searching and finding relevant information in the critical time needed by surgical operating teams -- a way of finding what is truly relevant better than using search terms and indexes. The speaker (first name "Judith" whose full name I don't recall at the moment) worked with a group at Columbia University) spoke of "throwing THIS against THAT" -- which rather describes how you describe using a complex blog to find what is truly relevant among a large mass of the mostly irrelevant.
3) Buckminster Fuller wrote in his essay "Omni-Directional Halo" in the book "No More Secondhand God" of the problem of finding and resolving information that was "tantalizingly almost relevant" -- the clearly relevant you already know while the obviously irrelevant you can safely discard.
4) In my studies in the integrative Humanities I found that there was often a need to balance on the knife-edge between bullshit and the solid-but-not-really-relevant in order to find and stay within the cogently relevant. That is where I found Fuller, Illich and later Claudio Naranjo. All three at their most tantalizingly relevant (to me) waver into mysticism -- which led realist critics to reject their thought. All three were at their best social critics who found brief cult-like followings which then led to rapid dismissal and oblivion from intellectual history.
I could go on, but thank you for the stimulation and leading me to pull together some half-dormant thoughts.
Well, this comment is a good illustration of the post. The number of tabs in my browser just grew quite a bit.
I realize I'd love to read something like an oral history of CIDOC. I've seen glimpses of the day-to-day of the seminars etc in various books, but no detailed account. Do you know any good accounts of the place? Or, could you share what if anything set the seminar apart from others?
And about thinkers that "at their most tantalizingly relevant (to me) waver into mysticism" - I find that to be an interesting group. There is a certain class of thinker that is wildly generative but not epistemically sound - for some reason it seems hard to be both at the same time. And I find it very useful but tiring to read their thought.
I can give you a direct response to your interest in "something like an oral history of CIDOC" -- the book "The Prophet of Cuernavaca--Ivan Illich and the Crisis of the West" by Todd Hartch (Oxford University Press, 2015) has several chapters clearly derived from interviews with people who attended CIDOC. My own experience of the summer of 1972 accords with these in terms of the facts, if not with all of their conclusions. I was in touch with Illich intermittently in the years following. From close contact in the seminar on "Retooling Society" and in an invitational seminar on jurisprudence I came to appreciate both his thought and how he conducted himself: highly disciplined and austere but also playful, intellectually rigorous and multi-layered in his thought, generous with his attention but intolerant of cant and received wisdom, altogether aristocratic in manner and down-to-earth.
Illich was one who did change my life. Following my encounter with him I found it impossible to speak or believe in the the dreams of technology or to take seriously the shibboleths of economics and "development".
Hartch is, I believe, accurate in describing Illich's way of expressing and developing his thought. And in understanding the "apophatic" nature of his underlying method. But explicating the meaning of that method and its rootedness in the tradition of "negative theology" would require more lengthy exposition.
Excellent! Here is my highly specific corner of the internet. Upon seeing your mention of Ivan Illich and systems thinking, I immediately added him to my reading list. What an exciting continuation of the ideas I've been exploring thorugh "Pattern Thinking" by Buckminster Fuller and "Introduction to Systems Theory" by Niklas Luhmann. I often wonder the commentary these men would have on the connectivity and patterns of today.
I love this! Thank you! It’s a much-more-eloquent version of something I wrote “for myself” a while ago called “the modern art of job searching,” which makes this argument about the power or writing in public for creating a “business network,” but I love your take here that it’s even better when viewed as a joyful way to connect with a tribe you never knew or knew existed! https://techno-sapien.com/blog/the-modern-art-of-job-searching
The point you make in that piece is super central, and I wish more people would appreciate it. I haven't focused on job opportunities per se, though that is down stream of being curious in public. To someone like me there is a slight risk with framing it with that end in sight: I would contort myself to sound employable, where, it seems to me, a lot of the most interesting opportunities do not require that, perhaps requires the opposite. Focusing on just having fun and being curious ends up sending a very strong signal that 1) this interest is incredibly real for this person, 2) you end up drifting toward the types of interests and people who fit you better, the type of work that just makes you so excited, and then you can be that more exceptional at doing that. Though I'm not sure if that is just me; I can imagine a slight push toward thinking "employability" could help some people better direct their thoughts.
This was great! I find it very helpful when you track the evolution of your mental models over time – from thinking that you need to find clout in a smaller circle and get "promoted" to a more influential one to understanding how content discovery works like tributaries flowing into a river. It's a very subtle difference, but it's a very useful idea to understand in contrast to the "wrong" idea.
Were you posting direct links to your Substack on subreddits, or would you paste them there and get subscribers thru the people who clicked on your profile?
This is beautiful and I love it!
There’s a family video from when I was maybe 3, at my sister’s birthday party. I’m babbling along and my Uncle Dan says, “you sure talk a whole lot, Mark.” I responded, “That’s how I learn things.”
My dad always thought this was funny - how could you learn by talking? Your post underlines the mechanism that I’d been inadvertently using. I didn’t have a plan to find an audience, I was just … moving in a way that made sense. For a long time I wanted to convince the whole world of some ideas. I gave up on that and figured maybe I could convince certain communities. Then, Ok, maybe one. Then I realized I didn’t understand things as well as this community did.
The process is still ongoing, but I’m less singularly focused on trying to sell ideas as I am on trying to share and entertain.
My mother likes to tell the story of how she once timed me to see how long I would talk if she did not interrupt me - and she gave up after 12 hrs.
It is a fabolous way to learn - especially, when you learn to really listen as well. And when you learn to ask good questions.
In what communities did you first feel like the community knew more than you?
Slate Star Codex / LessWrong. It was game changing for me to realize, I need to be around people with similar values to really grow and develop.
Surprisingly enough, the more i try to fine-tune my messaging for the community that does the best job of poking holes in my ideas, the better I'm getting at talking to people in general.
Really enjoying this substack - looking forward to more :)
This comment and Henrik's answer feel like snapshots from my own childhood. Conversation, whether verbally, by emails over years with friends, or online in faster formats more recently, is how I think well. (I would also include being in connection with the 'non-human world' too, when out in the wilds for longer periods, as there are thoughts I only seem to be able to have in conversation with certain kinds of landscape.) I agree, sincere, niche online conviviality spontaneously creates two things for me: delight and real connection with others. The first is like manna, the second is like really good bread; both are essential. It's how I ever found my worldwide natural pigments posse, the few English speaking Taoist meditators out there, and greatly lengthened my Illichian post-apocalyptic meal invite list. Our nodes are the fruiting bodies of the mycelium of our connective intent. Greetings from South London.
Your strategy of learning things by talking a whole lot makes a ton of sense, because the best way to get the answer on the internet is by posting the wrong answer
The mechanism of “writing about the same complex topics, using unique word pairs, pulls similar thinkers together” reminds me of neuroplasticity and how neurons that fire together wire together.
+1, Mark!
Some musings on "pulling similar thinkers together," in this case across time and space.
From Paul Broks, writing in Aeon in March 2023:
https://aeon.co/essays/how-should-we-understand-the-weird-experience-of-coincidence
"[Paul] Kammerer’s big idea is that, alongside causality, there is an acausal principle at work in the Universe, somewhat analogous to gravity but, whereas gravity acts universally on mass, this universal acausal force, as Koestler puts it, ‘acts selectively on form and function to bring similar configurations together in space and time; it correlates by affinity.’ ...
"The theory of synchronicity, or meaningful coincidence, proposed by Jung follows a similar line. ... Certain coincidences, he suggests, are not merely a random coming-together of unrelated events, nor are the events causally linked. They are connected acausally by virtue of their meaning. Synchronicity was the ‘acausal connecting principle’.
"[The Nobel prize-winning physicist Wolfgang] Pauli saw synchronicity as a way of approaching some fundamental questions in quantum mechanics, not least the mystery of quantum entanglement, by which sub-atomic particles may correlate instantaneously, and acausally, at any distance. From their discussions of synchronicity emerged the Pauli-Jung conjecture, a form of double-aspect theory of mind and matter, which viewed the mental and the physical as different aspects of a deeper underlying reality."
One possible example ...
Your post on how love, as a strategy, works best in a setting of uncertainty about the future and/or one of near-certain destruction ...
https://apxhard.com/2022/04/02/love-is-powerful-game-theoretic-strategy/
... tracks just a bit with this:
https://fragmentsintime.substack.com/p/my-love-is-this-fear-valentines-day
And it was by the purest coincidence today that I found Henrik's blog, and your comment, and that post about 'love as a game theoretic strategy.'
Someone liked one of my comments on a far-away blog, and when viewing their own newsletter follows, this was the first I chose. And then the subject of this particular post leapt out from all of Henrik's writings, and was the one I read first ...
I love this!
Your discussion of complexity reminds me of what John Rawls calls the Aristotelian Principle.
“Other things equal, human beings enjoy the exercise of their realized capacities (their innate or trained abilities), and this enjoyment increases the more the capacity is realized, or the greater its complexity.” (ToJ)
It is also at the heart of my interpretation of John Stuart Mill’s moral theory (namely, it’s the distinction between higher and lower pleasures—the reason that poetry is better than pushpins.)
I’m glad you’re writing for we lonely few.
ToJ is Theory of Justice?
I loved that qoute. And can you expand on JSM - why would it lead to a moral statement?
The good thing about writing the blog is that from my perspective we're not lonely and we're not few, as I felt maybe 18 months ago.
Yes, Theory of Justice.
The trick with JSM has always been reconciling his utilitarianism with his commitment to autonomy in On Liberty. (The Harm Principle says: "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised [sic] community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." But utilitarianism allows you to override individual choices whenever doing so maximizes whatever thing you've defined as the good [pleasure, for Mill].)
I think Mill's distinction between higher and lower pleasures holds the key to reconciling the two. Higher pleasures are those that involve something like the Aristotelian principle. But realizing complexity fundamentally requires individuals to make choices. Or, in other words, exercising autohomy is a necessary condition for attaining the higher pleasures.
So Mill's prohibition on violating autonomy is really about protecting the necessary preconditions for attaining the higher pleasures. It's those higher pleasures we ultimately want to maximize. Protecting autonomy is the only lever we have for doing so.
The (much much) longer version is [here](https://libraetd.lib.virginia.edu/public_view/8910jt78m), though you have to go to Charlottesville to read it.
Great quote! And thanks for making this connection, wasn't familiar with these ideas before.
Thank you for bringing together Rawls and JS Mill: two highly-seminal thinkers. I first encountered the Rawls book in Ivan Illich's seminar on "Tools for Conviviality" (aka "Retooling Society"). Mill lived through the 19th century without going mad, a great achievement in itself. Or rather, he suffered his version of a nervous breakdown (as described in his "Autobiography") when young enough to recover.
Stirring. Made me subscribe. Reminded me of why I was so enthused about the idea of working in public and that I should be more proactive about doing so. Ah, but the eternal dilemma of the Bell and The Blackbird
---
The sound of a bell
Still reverberating,
or a blackbird calling
from a corner of the field,
asking you to wake
into this life,
or inviting you deeper
into the one that waits.
-
David Whyte
https://thedewdrop.org/2020/09/30/david-whyte-the-bell-and-the-blackbird/
---
Thanks to Julian Gough from the Egg and the Rock who cross-posted this, Erik Hoel for linking to Julian's blog and some guy on Twitter for linking Erik's paper on how dreams may prevent overfitting. The best parts of the Internet truly are human-shaped.
I am working my way through your essays, slowly but surely. This was excellent (and almost made me cry at my table too). Sometimes I feel cynicism at the strength of the internet on my own life (I am also the generation that grew up without it, born in 1990) and this series made me see it in a more positive light. We have a lot of agency in how we use these digital tools to shape our world. thanks you.
I loved this.
Thank you!
Hi, I've found you through HN about your post on childhood of exceptional people.
I really liked this 3-parts essay. This last part especially might
motivate me to attempt to write in public.
Before reading your essays, I saw 2 benefits of writing. First, one
write to clarify their thinking, to help learn new things. Second, one
write to explain new things, to push the boundaries of human
knowledge.
But I find that there is already so much content online, so is it
really worth it to add my own to this sea of words?
Your essay propose a third way: writing to find or to create a
community. From this angle, writing new words, adding content, doesn't
add noise. It is a way to reduce the noise, to find a niche in which
the words resonate.
From the outside, it look like a big ball of mud, but from the inside,
for those living in it, it looks cozy and a nice place to grow.
I like this prospect. Thank you.
This was great.
It makes me happy you feel that way.
Wow! This comment is like a live demonstration of what Henrik's article was about. Your work has helped me a lot Austin, thanks for doing what you do.
Mm interesting post. I really enjoyed the aspect about interest and surprise and complexity and loneliness and mutuality and community.
I came to the comment section to give something back, as your words encourage me to open up about my curiorities. But the I got stuck in the comments and the nice atmosphere of a kind of "tribe in the know". Made me remember my early years in twitter when I used to connect to strangers through the fun of putting critical thoughts into compromised verbal expression. To me, it always led to the question: can we connect in person as well?
Not only the internet feels lonely on the quest for likeminded people.
Anyways, not here to lament my current status quo, rather to say thank you for motivating me to search that niche and to share it publically.
To not speak to the man on the street - if at all, then to a specific one, maybe that one you see pass by and wonder how they came to be the particular quirky person they are.
One thing I have been struggling with ever since I've been publishing on the internet was the struggle in which language to express what I was on about. When I had acquired a small following, going down another rabbit hole felt like losing them and that for me is rather harsh. So I quit writing publically all together. Takes a strong will for pursueing my own quests it seems and definately worth tackling if it leads to connections that fall in with my current path. So again, thanks for planting that seed of hope :)
Thank you! Don't fear your readers. If they want to say goodbye when you go in a new direction, let go of them graciously. Some will follow you, and the more twists and turns they follow you along, the deeper the connection between you will be. It is like any friendship - though this is a strange, distributed, remote kind of friendship, being words to each other.
I, too, sometimes fear my audience, but I try to push through that and instead actively give people a way out, so that I can filter for those I can serve well, and those I can be authentic before. The last two posts I did blew up so I've had a lot of new people join, which makes me a little scared. So I have decided that my next post will be something entirely unlike anything I've done - a very long and detailed story about the last hours of my grandmother's life. This is scary, but the more I do this, the deeper the connection I forge to those who stay, and the freer I feel.
Allow yourself to evolve in public.
This has happened with me a few times. I am often penalised by readers for writing on topics which are sometimes not liked by a many. It is all happy and hearty until I write on common things that everyone has to go through in the office. The moment I write on issues specifically faced by women, I inevitably get a few readers who disable their e-mails. That does make me feel a little upset.
Your filtration criteria is so amazing. Yes, we are actively giving people a way out and keeping only those who we can be authentic with. Heading to your next post now.
This resonated with me so strongly, even though I'm doing something entirely different from blogging: I'm building a puzzle experience business. I've gotten the advice to create simpler puzzles, but that's not really what interests me. So I keep making my challenging puzzles, and the people drawn to this are who I've connected with. Just yesterday, one of them shared an older project they knew about that was super interesting to me.
Nevertheless, your essay helped me see another facet of this process. Growth demands growth, so I just started experimenting with some simpler puzzle ideas that are still fun for me. Now I see that they are hens, which will attract more people who are excited by them now, and who might later engage with my more complex offerings.
"By pursuing your interest, you will move toward complexity." I'm doing this, and so are my followers. I love it. Thank you for this fascinating piece.
Ah that's lovely!
I think of Radiohead as a band that perfected going deeper and deeper into complexity while teaching their listners each step of the way.
I just want to admit that this was thoroughly encouraging. Your notions of how information on this alien body flows are due considering over multiple cycles. My friend Riley has taken to Illich in unexpected ways. What'd he say: "I have corresponded briefly with David Cayley about Arthur Melzer, Esotericism, and more recently Ivan Illich. Cayley was close with both Illich and Gerard. I have never read Gerard, and have in the last few months read a number of Illich's books. I am astounded by what I have found, he is incomparably lucid and brave about institutional questions. I can't express how much I am struck by my early engagement with him."
So we're headed into Cayley's collection of conversations with Girard, and are in some way, satellites nearby.
Obviously I'll keep reading, but now you've seen me flash by in the sky.
Good stuff. Thanks.
Yeah, Cayley's interviews came to me after I wrote that piece. They are lovely to listen to, and I bet to read. Illich is a singular mind. He's of the kind where about half he says is nonsense, carried to far by rhetoric or imagination, but the other half opens incredible vistas.
Or rather, would you point to other writers who leave off with the first half and explicitly open vistas?
No, not top of mind, I often find that thinkers are fall on a spectrum from imaginative to rigorous. Some are higher on both, but can't think of anyone in the areas Illich thinks about right now. Maybe Papert, for some of the ed stuff.
Comparable to?
Arthur Melzer himself is pretty accessible, a true gentleman. He responded to my emails a few years ago, asking where to contine afyer Philosophy btwn the lines
Where did he suggest heading?
Natural Right and History and On Tyranny
I really like both, but On Tyranny (I suggest expanded Chicago with Kojeve) has something real special if you read the dialogue slowly and with care, and then read all of Strauss's comments after. Really opens you up to reading philosophical works with attention to context and details like the drama of the dialogue.
Thank you for this. I am here via a quote from your post by Brad DeLong. But I felt impelled to pursue and subscribe (and to forward your post to a few friends) via several bells you rang for me:
1) mention of Ivan Illich, with whom I studied at CIDOC in 1972 and a seminar of which led to his books "Tools for Conviviality" and "Energy and Equity". . Illich's thinking had already led me to writing and publishing about ideas for education in which I brought together Illich's thought in "Deschooling Society" and Buckminster Fuller's ideas for "World Game".
2) What you have described in how to use blogs as a way of finding people interested in what one is interested in joins and expands ideas I heard in a scuola in Pisa in 2002 on Digital Libraries about how the evolving Internet led to a way of searching and finding relevant information in the critical time needed by surgical operating teams -- a way of finding what is truly relevant better than using search terms and indexes. The speaker (first name "Judith" whose full name I don't recall at the moment) worked with a group at Columbia University) spoke of "throwing THIS against THAT" -- which rather describes how you describe using a complex blog to find what is truly relevant among a large mass of the mostly irrelevant.
3) Buckminster Fuller wrote in his essay "Omni-Directional Halo" in the book "No More Secondhand God" of the problem of finding and resolving information that was "tantalizingly almost relevant" -- the clearly relevant you already know while the obviously irrelevant you can safely discard.
4) In my studies in the integrative Humanities I found that there was often a need to balance on the knife-edge between bullshit and the solid-but-not-really-relevant in order to find and stay within the cogently relevant. That is where I found Fuller, Illich and later Claudio Naranjo. All three at their most tantalizingly relevant (to me) waver into mysticism -- which led realist critics to reject their thought. All three were at their best social critics who found brief cult-like followings which then led to rapid dismissal and oblivion from intellectual history.
I could go on, but thank you for the stimulation and leading me to pull together some half-dormant thoughts.
Well, this comment is a good illustration of the post. The number of tabs in my browser just grew quite a bit.
I realize I'd love to read something like an oral history of CIDOC. I've seen glimpses of the day-to-day of the seminars etc in various books, but no detailed account. Do you know any good accounts of the place? Or, could you share what if anything set the seminar apart from others?
And about thinkers that "at their most tantalizingly relevant (to me) waver into mysticism" - I find that to be an interesting group. There is a certain class of thinker that is wildly generative but not epistemically sound - for some reason it seems hard to be both at the same time. And I find it very useful but tiring to read their thought.
I can give you a direct response to your interest in "something like an oral history of CIDOC" -- the book "The Prophet of Cuernavaca--Ivan Illich and the Crisis of the West" by Todd Hartch (Oxford University Press, 2015) has several chapters clearly derived from interviews with people who attended CIDOC. My own experience of the summer of 1972 accords with these in terms of the facts, if not with all of their conclusions. I was in touch with Illich intermittently in the years following. From close contact in the seminar on "Retooling Society" and in an invitational seminar on jurisprudence I came to appreciate both his thought and how he conducted himself: highly disciplined and austere but also playful, intellectually rigorous and multi-layered in his thought, generous with his attention but intolerant of cant and received wisdom, altogether aristocratic in manner and down-to-earth.
Illich was one who did change my life. Following my encounter with him I found it impossible to speak or believe in the the dreams of technology or to take seriously the shibboleths of economics and "development".
Hartch is, I believe, accurate in describing Illich's way of expressing and developing his thought. And in understanding the "apophatic" nature of his underlying method. But explicating the meaning of that method and its rootedness in the tradition of "negative theology" would require more lengthy exposition.
Excellent! Here is my highly specific corner of the internet. Upon seeing your mention of Ivan Illich and systems thinking, I immediately added him to my reading list. What an exciting continuation of the ideas I've been exploring thorugh "Pattern Thinking" by Buckminster Fuller and "Introduction to Systems Theory" by Niklas Luhmann. I often wonder the commentary these men would have on the connectivity and patterns of today.
I love this! Thank you! It’s a much-more-eloquent version of something I wrote “for myself” a while ago called “the modern art of job searching,” which makes this argument about the power or writing in public for creating a “business network,” but I love your take here that it’s even better when viewed as a joyful way to connect with a tribe you never knew or knew existed! https://techno-sapien.com/blog/the-modern-art-of-job-searching
The point you make in that piece is super central, and I wish more people would appreciate it. I haven't focused on job opportunities per se, though that is down stream of being curious in public. To someone like me there is a slight risk with framing it with that end in sight: I would contort myself to sound employable, where, it seems to me, a lot of the most interesting opportunities do not require that, perhaps requires the opposite. Focusing on just having fun and being curious ends up sending a very strong signal that 1) this interest is incredibly real for this person, 2) you end up drifting toward the types of interests and people who fit you better, the type of work that just makes you so excited, and then you can be that more exceptional at doing that. Though I'm not sure if that is just me; I can imagine a slight push toward thinking "employability" could help some people better direct their thoughts.
This was great! I find it very helpful when you track the evolution of your mental models over time – from thinking that you need to find clout in a smaller circle and get "promoted" to a more influential one to understanding how content discovery works like tributaries flowing into a river. It's a very subtle difference, but it's a very useful idea to understand in contrast to the "wrong" idea.
Also, this is an amazing comments section.
Were you posting direct links to your Substack on subreddits, or would you paste them there and get subscribers thru the people who clicked on your profile?