Yes! I am becoming a paid member today. I thought of so many different talks I've listened to in the past few years. Jordan Peterson when he spoke of reality snapping back when the lies are just too much. The complexity of systems mentioned by Bret Weinstein. The 'event horizon' predicted by the powerful, the quanta, that those in power are desperate to stop but by self fulfilling prophecy are causing to occur. I think of all the people on substack who reject most of what we have all been taught concerning how the world works, the finances, the science, belief, all of it!
Now I need to read this again, it makes so much sense.
“Power, like a desolating pestilence, pollutes whate’er it touches; and obedience bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth, makes slaves of men - and of the human frame, a mechanized automaton.”
In my readings I have found that a new (old) wrinkle in the fabric of humanity has emerged amongst the madmen who would rule us, I call it the "cull cult", instead of dealing with us in mass they will just exterminate us and have the like-minded sit in golden towers contemplating their navels and wondering why the hell did we destroy our playthings, now what will we do. As Plato said maybe not exactly, the gods fight against boredom every day, and if that is the path of the madmen, I will enjoy it from above and laugh my ass off watching them suffer.
Well, having lived behind the "Iron Curtain" half of my life, I can attest to the above as a lived truth. We had totally disengaged, people were gaming the system, a whole other world existed within the system breaking all rules and existing on a different level. And then it came to an end.
Reminds me of the life of a parasite that feeds on its host until it kills the host and itself then dies. There is something to systems that is like that - they become parasitic and lose control and die.
Another thought relates to materialism - in itself, the belief in matter and no spirit is a self-limiting belief. It has a hard stop - death. Matter is all that counts and matter can be approached as a machine - it can be measured, quantified and organized, it is our plaything. Of course, life being always bigger and way more complex, this can never work. The age of materialism has outlived its time and these attempts to push us into techno hyper materialism are doomed. Why? Because they are just refinements and embellishments of an approach that is already defunct. Lipstick on a corpse.
And lastly, there is an element to humanity and universal life that is beyond matter and ideas. There is always a reality check at some point. Our human confabulations always hit the corrective of reality. And reality is as follows: one cannot stop one's growth and development from baby to adult etc; one can't stop the change in knowledge and beliefs we each go through in life; one can't avoid death... so one can try playing at control, but ultimately reality kicks in and what reality tells us that the only thing that never changes is...change itself! Polarities, twists and turns, reversals, moments of genius and moments of utter degradation all swirl around in what is our real world. Change happens - life IS change and constant transformation in all directions. You can't stick change in a box and padlock it :-)
But, Luke, in a fully defined complex system is total control evident or even possible? The mathematics of constrained flow become involved quickly as more alternatives are defined.
I go back to Ford and Fulkerson, Out-of-Kilter, Max-Flow/Min-Cut, primal-dual relationships, and so on. Can you define all systems as a primal problem? Does a dual exist? These are the kind of questions that crucified me in thesis-defense decades ago; I assume they're still legitimate today
Got it. Your objection assumes a fully defined system. But human systems are never fully defined. They are open, adaptive, and self‑modifying. That’s precisely why mathematical closure fails — and why anthropological reversibility emerges.
Turing showed that any sufficiently complex system contains internal behaviors it cannot predict or control.
My work extends this insight to human systems: attempts at total closure activate internal forces that reopen the system.
In both cases, the limit is structural, not contingent.
Hmm. Your work is very detailed and overall excellent. I come at systems in an opposite fashion, total definition in a quantitative evaluation. These are not, I decided, conflicting but complimentary.
Evaluation of a complex system as an engineer, or as a quantitative scientist, reveals a formulation that breaks down on interfaces and boundary values. You've stated this and detailed at length qualitative dependence and boundaries quite well and in great detail. I'm going to go through and consider your explanations quantitatively to see if I can come up with supplemental or complementary numerical observations that might be useful. If I can I'll respond to you.
It's completely a matter of perspective combined with great interest. I tried to get a few people interested in quantification of qualitative interchangeability a little over 50 years ago in my dissertation. I still think it's a good concept but it hasn't caught on to any great success.
This will take a while, he said with a deep smile of contemplation.
Many thanks to Unbekoming.
Yes! I am becoming a paid member today. I thought of so many different talks I've listened to in the past few years. Jordan Peterson when he spoke of reality snapping back when the lies are just too much. The complexity of systems mentioned by Bret Weinstein. The 'event horizon' predicted by the powerful, the quanta, that those in power are desperate to stop but by self fulfilling prophecy are causing to occur. I think of all the people on substack who reject most of what we have all been taught concerning how the world works, the finances, the science, belief, all of it!
Now I need to read this again, it makes so much sense.
The first thought I had regarding this wonderful essay, were parallels to Ludwig von Mises, and "Human Action".
Thanks Luc and Unbekoming.
"Once a population perceives duplicity, the prestige that sustains power evaporates. Power becomes ridiculous before it becomes vulnerable."
OK, evaporate already
“Power, like a desolating pestilence, pollutes whate’er it touches; and obedience bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth, makes slaves of men - and of the human frame, a mechanized automaton.”
- Percy Shelley - (August 4, 1792 - July 8, 1822)
In my readings I have found that a new (old) wrinkle in the fabric of humanity has emerged amongst the madmen who would rule us, I call it the "cull cult", instead of dealing with us in mass they will just exterminate us and have the like-minded sit in golden towers contemplating their navels and wondering why the hell did we destroy our playthings, now what will we do. As Plato said maybe not exactly, the gods fight against boredom every day, and if that is the path of the madmen, I will enjoy it from above and laugh my ass off watching them suffer.
Well, having lived behind the "Iron Curtain" half of my life, I can attest to the above as a lived truth. We had totally disengaged, people were gaming the system, a whole other world existed within the system breaking all rules and existing on a different level. And then it came to an end.
Reminds me of the life of a parasite that feeds on its host until it kills the host and itself then dies. There is something to systems that is like that - they become parasitic and lose control and die.
Another thought relates to materialism - in itself, the belief in matter and no spirit is a self-limiting belief. It has a hard stop - death. Matter is all that counts and matter can be approached as a machine - it can be measured, quantified and organized, it is our plaything. Of course, life being always bigger and way more complex, this can never work. The age of materialism has outlived its time and these attempts to push us into techno hyper materialism are doomed. Why? Because they are just refinements and embellishments of an approach that is already defunct. Lipstick on a corpse.
And lastly, there is an element to humanity and universal life that is beyond matter and ideas. There is always a reality check at some point. Our human confabulations always hit the corrective of reality. And reality is as follows: one cannot stop one's growth and development from baby to adult etc; one can't stop the change in knowledge and beliefs we each go through in life; one can't avoid death... so one can try playing at control, but ultimately reality kicks in and what reality tells us that the only thing that never changes is...change itself! Polarities, twists and turns, reversals, moments of genius and moments of utter degradation all swirl around in what is our real world. Change happens - life IS change and constant transformation in all directions. You can't stick change in a box and padlock it :-)
But, Luke, in a fully defined complex system is total control evident or even possible? The mathematics of constrained flow become involved quickly as more alternatives are defined.
I go back to Ford and Fulkerson, Out-of-Kilter, Max-Flow/Min-Cut, primal-dual relationships, and so on. Can you define all systems as a primal problem? Does a dual exist? These are the kind of questions that crucified me in thesis-defense decades ago; I assume they're still legitimate today
Got it. Your objection assumes a fully defined system. But human systems are never fully defined. They are open, adaptive, and self‑modifying. That’s precisely why mathematical closure fails — and why anthropological reversibility emerges.
Turing showed that any sufficiently complex system contains internal behaviors it cannot predict or control.
My work extends this insight to human systems: attempts at total closure activate internal forces that reopen the system.
In both cases, the limit is structural, not contingent.
P.S. I need to review Turing; it's been a while since anyone stoked my fire to the degree you have.
Hmm. Your work is very detailed and overall excellent. I come at systems in an opposite fashion, total definition in a quantitative evaluation. These are not, I decided, conflicting but complimentary.
Evaluation of a complex system as an engineer, or as a quantitative scientist, reveals a formulation that breaks down on interfaces and boundary values. You've stated this and detailed at length qualitative dependence and boundaries quite well and in great detail. I'm going to go through and consider your explanations quantitatively to see if I can come up with supplemental or complementary numerical observations that might be useful. If I can I'll respond to you.
It's completely a matter of perspective combined with great interest. I tried to get a few people interested in quantification of qualitative interchangeability a little over 50 years ago in my dissertation. I still think it's a good concept but it hasn't caught on to any great success.
This will take a while, he said with a deep smile of contemplation.