Press "Enter" to skip to content

tedmitew.net

Featured

Moritur et Ridet

The dying of the light (Fluently XL)

Let’s speculate for a bit. One day, a future AI historian will be asked to describe the state of human civilization circa 2024, at the end of history, in one line. Being a clever and witty AI, our future historian will no doubt trawl through the memetic detritus of our time in search of the perfect one-liner to capture the essence of the zeitgeist. Among the petabytes of Instagram, TikTok, Reddit, and X banalities, the AI might stumble on this obscure memetic artifact: a phone camera photo of a sign hastily printed on standard A4 paper, folded in half, and casually taped to the front panel of a vending machine. Its message reads, “The light inside has broken but I still work.”

“What an excellent summary of their times!” our future AI historian might say. A vending machine in all its varieties, from snacks and drinks to the jukebox, is the quintessential sacred totemic object of end-of-history consumer society. It is the magical stand-in for the missing vendor, lubricating impersonal acts of spontaneous neurotic consumption. A little guilty pleasure for the suffering soul. A quick fix for the void inside. But! The light inside has broken. There is no ghost in this machine, so sorry. Many such cases!

This is where the unknown author of our one-liner comes to the rescue. A first-person declaration from the machine itself. Glorious! It starts by informing us coldly that something has broken, confirming what we already see. The cold facts cannot be wished away anymore. Yes, the light inside is kaput. It is so over. But then, it follows with the punch: it may not look like it, but things still work. We are so back! Consumption is still possible, but one has to get used to the minor inconvenience of the missing light.

The light inside has broken but I still work (unknown)

And one gets used to it.

Day after day, one gets used to missing bits of pavement on their way to the local shop, suburban trains breaking down in new and creative ways, rising crime, parts detaching from planes mid-flight, trash piling on city streets, money losing its value, pointless acts of violence, rolling power outages, potholes never getting fixed, sudden bursts of road rage, trains derailing, rising energy costs, all-smothering apathy, bursting dams, and collapsing bridges. Habituation to decline. After all, it still works.

Until it doesn’t. Just recently, the civilizational hegemon tried to build a floating pier on the beach in Gaza – an operation that 80 years ago, during a world war, would have taken them a day, maybe less. It took them 60 days this time, and the pier lasted less than two weeks. Yes. Apparently, the pier couldn’t handle the “inclement weather” of the Mediterranean summer. The only thing inclement about the Mediterranean in the summer is the tsunami of tourists drowning whole coastal towns in a putrid miasma of mystery lotions (now 30% more sustainable!), cheap beer, and the stench of aluminum-infused sunscreen. It certainly isn’t the weather.

Habituation to decline. Do you think a Roman mid-level bureaucrat-intellectual of the academic persuasion woke up one morning and exclaimed soberly to a servant, “Darling, I think the Empire may be collapsing!” Big doubt. The servants of a collapsing empire are usually the last to notice its collapse. After all, their salaries depend on not seeing it. Instead, bread prices rose every year, and the quality of everything worsened. People got used to it, adapted, and maybe stopped having avocado toast. Houses became unaffordable, so everyone got used to renting. What was the Roman version of the van life fad, one wonders? Horse cart life? The money was worth less and less, while the roads took longer and longer to repair. The Romans got used to the decay. They even adopted a fashionable new religion that taught acceptance, absolved guilt, and promised an imminent end to the nightmare and a better world forever after. Since everyone was getting poorer, and the cities were swarming with enslaved foreigners and homeless locals, it declared the poor to be blessed. Favela Chic 1.0. But that’s another story.

When the Roman machine finally stopped, the Favela Chic survivors naturally blamed divine punishment. The sins of our fathers! A contemporary, Salvian of Marseilles, wrote sometime in the 440s in his De Gubernatione Dei that Rome’s final collapse was due solely to divine punishment for her decadent love of theatre. Rome, he says, moritur et ridet. It dies and laughs! The lights are out, and the machine has stopped, so how dare they laugh? The vulgar allure of puritan morality always dominates the afterparty. It is your fault. Repent your privilege, sinner! Your very existence is a transgression. Somehow, a Favela Chic afterparty always has Nurse Ratched vibes.

But puritan morality is just a cope – a vulgar and banal way to make sense of the unfolding chaos. To hold things together just a little bit longer. The system is falling apart, repentance or not. The cracks were there all along, mostly visible too, but no one fixed them. Instead, the ruling class gorged itself on surplus energy while it was still available, while everyone else grew comfortable with the dysfunction, treating each new failure as routine, even inevitable. At first, people who wanted to fix things were ridiculed, then silenced (misinformation!), and finally disappeared. The masses became experts at surviving in a world of broken lights, patching things up just enough to keep the machine running a little longer. The civilization of cope and patch, with ever-receding horizons. Each new patch to the system’s financial, economic, political, social, and infrastructural elements lasted shorter and fixed less. Each new failure blamed on a transcendental force punishing us for our sins.

The final stage of decline was not some cataclysmic collapse, a giant wave cleansing the land, but a slow, collective numbness to the unraveling – a smothering apathy. When the vending machine finally stops working altogether, it won’t be met with shock or panic. People will stand there, blank-faced, as though nothing unexpected has happened. Afterward, a surviving Favela Chic enjoyer will proclaim a variation of moritur et ridet against those who still dare hope. It’s almost cozy in a Nurse Ratched afterparty way.

In his Collapse of Complex Societies, Joseph Tainter argues that collapse occurs when the costs of maintaining complex infrastructure exceed the benefits, leading to a decline in social, economic, and institutional complexity. In other words, collapse occurs when a complex system enters the Red Queen Trap, and all energy available to it is insufficient to maintain its current level of complexity. What people experience as the profound decay of everything around them is actually a forced system-wide reduction of complexity. Faced with the Red Queen Trap, the system’s decision center invariably opts for a controlled system-wide readjustment to the reduced energy input.

Ironically, however, this reduction in complexity is matched by the deterioration of the system’s internal coherence, itself a fractal image of the complex whole. As more and more subsystems grind to a halt and are discarded, there goes internal coherence and, with it, social trust. First, social courtesy disappears, from office collegiality to greeting strangers with a smile and letting cars merge in front of you on the freeway. Then goes every other form of social trust. As trust disappears, micro transactions you used to treat as a non-negotiable aspect of the social fabric become very much negotiable. Suddenly, you realize that between the cashier, traffic police, doctors, neighbors, and politicians, you cannot trust anyone. Sartre was right all along; hell is indeed other people! There is more.

The lower the trust within a given social system, the higher its transaction costs. Paradoxically, the members of the collapsing society experience the reduction of complexity at the macro level as a dramatic rise of complexity at the micro level. Transactions whose integrity was guaranteed by the old macro system suddenly find themselves open to negotiation. Hospital care is still free, sure, but if you want it now, as opposed to sometime in the indefinite future, you need to pay under the table to the nice doctor who never stops smiling.

But let’s rewind a bit. Like all systems, societies develop complex structures in response to the obstacles they face during their initial expansion. Each complex solution leads to another in a self-reinforcing loop of growth and problem-solving. What begins as a simple social structure inevitably evolves into a sprawling network of bureaucratic institutions, rules, and procedures. At first, this complexity is a sign of strength, evidence of an expanding system capable of inventing and overcoming challenges with greater and greater sophistication.

An ascending complex society has two key characteristics: a vitalist myth of the future and the building of long-term infrastructure with meticulous attention to detail. Such a society is forward-looking and concerned with conquering space/time. The roads, aqueducts, and bridges the system builds are not just practical tools but symbols of a collective will to endure and expand. The promise of tomorrow is injected into every structure the system erects – both physical and social. The upkeep of these structures is seen as the foundation of social order and prosperity.

An ascending complex society has enough surplus energy to maintain and expand these structures. It can afford to solve problems as they arise and even invest in preventing future ones. But this surplus is finite. As each additional layer of bureaucracy, infrastructure, and procedures is added to the system, complexity increases while the energy returns on investment from that new element decrease. The further the system grows, the more energy it takes to maintain each new element.

Rising complexity requires increasingly high amounts of energy and resources for maintenance. As the returns diminish and the costs of complexity rise, societies reach a point where further investment in complexity becomes unsustainable. No more expansion. The tipping point comes when the costs of maintaining existing social and physical infrastructure outweigh the benefits of creating new system elements. Eventually, all energy the system can access goes towards supporting the internal structure of the system.

The game then shifts to holding on to what is already part of the system. We’re not into expansion anymore; we’ll be chill now. This pseudo-equilibrium may even last for a while. However, all those complex sub-structures comprising the system are subject to entropy and require more energy to maintain than the system can produce. At that point, society begins to falter, and cracks appear not just in its physical structures but in its social ones. Absent a new energy source, the system’s complexity invariably requires more energy than it can generate. Something has to give. The system discovers it is stuck in a tailspin of diminishing returns. Red Queen Trap, hello.

Collapse, then, offers the promise of a rational recalibration. Degrowth is the new growth, don’t you know? At first, it is not even framed as collapse – just a restructuring, an amalgamation of departments, an optimization of inefficient parts. We are growing in reverse, and that’s a good thing! The system opts for reducing complexity, even if this means abandoning subsystems and infrastructure that once defined its strength and the promise of a better future. However, the problem is that the decision-making center virtually never starts the reduction of complexity with itself. It usually picks subsystems on the periphery, furthest from the center, or infrastructure considered unnecessary for newly defined core functions. All in the name of efficiency and sustainable growth, of course.

I’ve described this process at length elsewhere. Internally, from the perspective of the decision-making center, this is a calculated strategic retreat. From the outside, it looks like a house of cards folding, as Mark Twain put it, “first slowly and then all at once.” Other than radical decentralization, any choice the center makes leads deeper into the Red Queen Trap. Eventually, the trap shuts, and all that remains is to subscribe to whatever du jour flavor of Favela Chic is in vogue. It was always your fault!

Returning to our vending machine, the future AI historian would probably observe that the final stage of modernity – let’s call it the global homogeneity stage – developed a profoundly religious belief in the illusion of history as an asymptote. The belief in life and history as a continuous upward trajectory. The illusion that history is the story of eternal progress. It is a typical Favela Chic telos – banal, vulgar, boring. If salvation is inevitable, it must come in the future; therefore, we are progressing towards it. The belief in time as an asymptote does not need history at all; after all, everything that happened in history is full of bad stuff we are progressing away from. The future, however, is bright! How unsurprising, then, that the advent of the global homogeneity stage was wildly celebrated as the end of history.

And since we are discussing the moderns’ utter disdain for history, did you know, dear reader, the origin of the word history? It is worth knowing the etymology of words. It derives from the Ancient Greek historia (ἱστορία), the knowledge you get from an inquiry, itself a form of the verb historein (ἱστορεῖν) – to inquire. The past, it seems, is the land of eternal inquiry. The belief in the end of history, then, signals the end of inquiry and the advent of the age of certainty. It checks out, we do indeed live in the age of consensus. The experts agree!

Undoubtedly, this is a cozy and comforting belief to have, standing in front of the extinguished light of a vending machine that is about to break as well. The ancients, however, figured out long ago that history does not operate in straight lines but in cycles. The illusion of linearity is a function of a very short and arbitrary time scale, the imagination horizons of a people without deep history. Long before our glorious global homogeneity stage, the Greeks had already mapped out three distinct scales of time: KairosChronos, and Kyklos.

Kairos (καιρός) is the time of the moment, the fleeting, subjective experience of the present. It is the scale of daily human life, where you go for walks, eat avocado toast, pay your bills, and watch Netflix with friends. People do not see a collapse at this scale, only a gradual decline. “Someone tried to steal a bottle of wine from the liquor store in broad daylight today – wild, hey?” Broken lights get signposted, system issues get patched, and all problems seem manageable indefinitely with a bit of cope.

Chronos (χρόνος), in contrast, is the linear time built from the aggregate of these moments, creating the illusion of linear progression. It represents the story of a lifetime or several generations, the accumulation of decisions that create the illusion of steady progress. It was within the realm of Chronos that the moderns rooted their belief in history as an asymptote. Not without irony, Chronos is also the ancient god the Greek Olympians defeated in the Titanomachy, the god that ate his own children. His symbolic rule ended with him being thrown into Tartarus, the deepest part of Hades. People can spot a noticeable decline at this scale – “in our time, an average family could afford a house and car on one salary.”

Kyklos (κύκλος), the third scale, is where the real story of collapse plays out. It is the macro time of historical cycles, where empires rise and fall, and civilizations are born and forgotten. This is where the illusion of progress inevitably encounters the grim smile of reality. At this time scale, the energy required to sustain a complex society inevitably exceeds the available resources, forcing a reduction in complexity. At the Kyklos scale, societies experience growth, stagnation, decline, and, if they work very hard – renewal. From this perspective, the belief in history as an asymptote, so ingrained in the global homogeneity stage, is merely a short-lived delusion. The foreplay for a Favela Chic moment, so to speak.

When viewed through the lens of Kyklos, the collapse of complex systems is not an apocalyptic failure but an expected outcome. Paradoxically, however, accepting that fact can seal a society’s fate, accelerating the disintegration it seeks to prevent. For as long as a complex system retains even a sliver of energy and will, it can shift from decline to renewal by reorganizing its structure and recreating its myth of the future into a myth that fuels life and reinvention.

In Act I of his Prometheus Unbound, Shelley writes“To hope till Hope creates from its own wreck the thing it contemplates.” These are the words of Prometheus, chained and tortured on his rock, speaking to the Earth amid despair and suffering. There is no salvation here, no miracle on the horizon, no mystery savior to come – only hope creating the future from its own wreck, the stubborn resolve to rebuild from one’s ruins. Around a decade earlier, Goethe’s Erdgeist tells Faust, “Him I love who craves the impossible.” The message is the same – it takes defiance, not comforting cope, to build hope from your own wreck. There is no salvation in this future, only standing firm against the coming storm.

Oswald Spengler understood this. He concludes his Man and Technics with the example of a Roman soldier whose remains were found buried by volcanic ash in Pompeii. The soldier remained at his post guarding a building during the eruption of Vesuvius, his commitment to duty far stronger than the imminent death he could see approaching from afar. Such was the Roman civilization at its apogee. I imagine he was probably laughing, too. Moritur et ridet. How does this make you feel?

That soldier was clearly uninterested in frequent flyer miles or a complimentary vacation cruise for two. His total commitment seems incomprehensible and comical to a civilization built around an ersatz cult of conspicuous consumption. What was so important about that doorway in the context of an onrushing two-story high wall of hot lava? Surely, he could have saved himself and lived to serve another day. Salvation from the hot lava was just a brisk jog away. But no, he had to choose to stand there as if to spite us.

His choice wasn’t about defending a meaningless doorway or adhering to an imaginary code where superiors’ orders overcome the fear of death. He simply obstinately refused to surrender his doorway to the wall of lava. Sorry, I won’t do it. This is my doorway, there may be many like it, but this one is mine. A refusal to yield to entropy, the dying of the light, even in one’s final moments. Does this make you feel uncomfortable?

To paraphrase Dylan Thomas, fundamentally, every civilization is a constant rage against the dying of the light. You cannot optimize a civilization for safety and comfortable consumption and expect it to survive. That way inevitably leads to deceleration, disintegration, and decomposition. This is not an ideological choice but a thermodynamic one. Entropy does not care about Favela Chic delusions.

When a civilization decides mere safe consumption is enough, it dies there and then. The rest is a prolonged ritual of therapeutic survival: “The light inside has broken, but I still work” taped across the face of a decaying infrastructure – a system stripped of purpose, devouring its own borrowed time.

Featured

Turbulence

I’ve started a substack. It’s called Turbulence.

Why?

Do you have the persistent sense that we’ve hit unexpected turbulence and you should return to your seat and fasten your seatbelt? Me too.

It’s only going to get bumpier, as we hit multiple paradigm shifts across technology, economics, politics and culture simultaneously.

What?

Apparently a newsletter, part thesis-driven, part speculative, part poetic. Likely will challenge your thinking. Hopefully worth reading.

How?

Allen Dulles once said that people can be confused with facts, but it’s very difficult to confuse them if they know the trends.

This newsletter is where I take the long view on navigating complexity, systemic transformation, paradigm shifts and the utter mess awaiting us in the near future.

If this sounds interesting to you, I am very grateful for your subscription!

A Future Worth Living For

Not long ago, on April 12, it was Yuri’s night, the anniversary of the first human in space. It passed without much fanfare, as it usually does, unnoticed by global media and most people. Of course, it would be. Ask around – Yuri’s dive into the cosmos makes no sense whatsoever. Went first into space, so what? We have so many problems here on Earth!

There is no shared purpose connecting the culture of the current thing to the roots of the longing for space, the deep longing for the beyond stretching back to the first chariot riders to cross the steppe. Don’t you know, history has ended; we’re in the eternal present now. Both history and the future are problematic now. 

There is no more meaning – understood as the ancient Greek telos – connecting the past, present, and future in an organic living experience that could make sense of this longing. For the culture of the current thing, Yuri Gagarin’s journey beyond the heavens, into the dark of the cosmos, is just another white man’s privilege. Oh wait, are Slavs white now? I lost count. 

Yuri’s apotheosis, palekh miniature by Boris & Kaleria Kukuliev, late 1970s.

But forget Yuri and his cosmos for now. Instead, consider the following. 

Aeschylus, the father of tragedy and the first titan of theatre, fought as a volunteer hoplite at Marathon and considered this the only achievement worth mentioning on his gravestone. For him, the glory of that one forced night march and magnificent morning charge of the phalanx on the beach at Marathon, the sun reflected in the wave of silver shields, overshadowed all of his art. Can you imagine that? Does this make sense to you?

But wait. Sophocles, the second in the trinity of theatre titans, served as a volunteer hoplite and rose to a general’s rank alongside Pericles in the Athenian war against Samos. Meanwhile, Euripides, the third theatre titan, served as a volunteer hoplite in the Athenian army during the Peloponnesian War. Did they coordinate this, one wonders? 

Meanwhile, the great Socrates served as a volunteer hoplite in the same war and distinguished himself at Potidaea, Delium, and Amphipolis. During the panicked Athenian rout at Delium, he stayed back to cover his unit’s retreat and saved Alcibiades’ life. The magnificent Alcibiades, the likes of whom we haven’t seen since the Renaissance, later became a student of Socrates. 

The great Plato, another student of Socrates, was first famous as an all-Greek pankration champion. In modern terms, that makes him a mixed martial arts UFC champion, though it is a UFC without any rules, where competitors fight and often die in games celebrating the old gods. Moreover, we only know him by his nickname – platos, meaning ‘broad’ – suggesting that he must have been a truly imposing presence. How does this make you feel? 

Then there is Xenophon, another student of Socrates, who fought as a hoplite mercenary in the expedition of the Ten Thousand deep into Persia and Asia Minor, later describing his adventures in the legendary Anabasis. Enough.

All these men lived and fought in the same glorious century. Not coincidentally, theirs was the zeitgeist to invent the root telos (purpose) of Western civilization, its fundamental myth of the future. Aristoteles, a student of Plato, would later describe this myth as eudaimonia, or human flourishing. It was to last, with minor variations, until modernity. 

The same spirit that drove Aeschylus to value risking his life at Marathon more than all his work drove Xenophon’s hoplites to march into the unknown and stick together, despite all, until the sea. Thalassa! The unbounded sea was their cosmos. The same spirit that drove Plato to become a champion fighter drove him to study with the Pythagoreans in Italy, the priests in Egypt, and the magi in Persia. The drive of the spirit to flourish beyond all boundaries. 

Before you say these were entertainments peculiar to the ancients, did you know that Cervantes – he of Don Quixote fame – was at Lepanto, the most important naval battle in history, as a volunteer in the tercios of Don Juan de Austria, on his flagship the Real. He was there at the thick of battle, in the most savage close-quarter butchery, when the janissaries of Ali Pasha broke through and boarded the Real. He was there when the tercios repelled the attack and, in turn, boarded Ali Pasha’s flagship, the Sultana. Amid this madness, decks covered in blood, screams filling the air, acrid smoke filling the lungs, he got a musket shot to his chest, point blank, but somehow survived. After recovery, on his way back home, he was captured by the Barbary pirates and spent five years as a slave. This is where Don Quixote came from. How does this make you feel? Do you think he would have done it again?

Today, these are just forgotten stories. Like random sheets torn from a lost book, no greater meaning to connect them to. With the onset of the Industrial Revolution and the relentless onslaught of the machine age, in a final rebellion, the German Romantics added the Faustian Spirit as the last twist to that telos. When Goethe’s Faust says, “What you don’t know is the only thing you need to know, and what you know is useless to you,” he becomes the ultimate expression of the ancients’ eudaimonia, the flourishing that strives to know and overcome all, in all directions. 

It was during the fin de siècle that our culture saw the last of this spirit embodied in great artists, thinkers, and writers, in the likes of Jack London, Hemingway, Junger, and Saint-Exupéry. Junger was the quintessential warrior through and through; London and Hemingway tried to be and do everything daring all at once, and Saint-Exupéry volunteered as a fighter pilot, writing on the side. Perhaps there were more. 

The Faustian Spirit died stomped in the mud and blood of the two world wars, ushering in the End of History and The Last Man – Western civilization as we know it today. An ersatz civilization built around a cargo cult of the eternal present. A cult of comfort, consumption, and safety. A sunset administered by an outsourced answering machine.

Where are we today? To get a proper perspective, imagine if the likes of Derrida, Foucault, and Baudrillard were first famous as veterans of the French Foreign Legion, becoming celebrity philosophers only as a hobby in their later years. 

Imagine Foucault returning from his military adventures in Indochina, having risen to a colonel rank, and writing Discipline and Punish while recovering from the wounds received covering his unit’s retreat at Dien Bien Phu. 

Imagine Derrida proclaiming the tenets of deconstructionism from the octagon, having won his third UFC championship belt. Perhaps he is a jiu-jitsu master, and that is where his first insight into deconstruction comes from.

Imagine Zizek first earning fame leading a team of catholic mercenaries in the Yugoslav wars, starting to dabble in Lacanian film analysis at night, in the lull of fighting orthodox chetniks. 

Imagine Baudrillard starting his career as a fighter pilot, becoming the first Frenchman in space, nearly suffocating during re-entry, and, shaken by the experience, retiring to write Simulacra and Simulations

Can you not imagine it? Why not? Can you not imagine any modern philosopher or artist as first a warrior or, to give modernity its due, at least a competitor in the Olympics? No? How about imagining them as amateur boxing champions, passionate sailors, obsessed Formula 1 drivers, or simple goat farmers? Still no? 

Could it be that the relentless bureaucratization of all life, the total triumph of reason, the complete stratification of all experience into a vulgar nihilism of abstractions peppered with a pinch of privileged guilt and made safe for suburban consumption has made the fully embodied life unlivable? 

Cosmonauts, palekh miniature by Boris & Kaleria Kukuliev, late 1970s.

Back to Yuri. After his flight, Soviet authorities forbade him from diving into the cosmos ever again, worried about the risks of losing him. And the risks were enormous. Only five years after his flight, Komarov’s parachutes did not open on re-entry, and his Soyuz capsule slammed into the ground at high speed, vaporizing him instantly. Yuri had that spirit though, that drive for the unbound Xenophon captured so well in the Anabasis, and died the way he would have wanted. 

Can we recapture this telos and reforge it for the future, and what would that future eudaimonia look like? It must offer more than mere survival, go beyond existence for the sake of biomass propagation, and be more than the safe medicated consumption of corporate slop. It must be rooted in organic meaning, a continuation of the ancient telos that has brought us so far, a flourishing that takes us into the unbound sea beyond Earth.

Imagine if you could rock up at a spaceport and sign up for a ten-year stint on the asteroid belt. Maybe you’ll come back, rich and tired, hands slightly shaking from drilling rocks in low G. Or maybe you won’t come back at all – you’ll buy an asteroid – millions of them around – hollow it out and become the ruler of a free port city for all those freighters on the way to Callisto.

Maybe you will figure out how to breed goats in space and settle them across the asteroid belt, the way the Spanish did with pigs in the Caribbean all those centuries ago. Only returning to Earth, a beautiful green Earth preserved as the Gaia planet, mother to us all, for a week on the beach or Christmas in the snow.

We can build network states in space. Free cities in the asteroid belt. A Neu-Hohenstaufen empire on the moons of Saturn. Ordo Militaris Stellarum. Martian Technocracy. A neo-Cossack Sich on Io. Sufi mystic colonies on Mercury. Neo-hippie communes on Ganymede. And more. 

This is how the Faustian spirit survives. A future worth living for.

Ariadne’s String: The Path Between Adaptability and Efficiency

In the labyrinth of complexity (Diffusion XL)

The great modern philosopher Mike Tyson once said, “Everybody’s got a plan until they get punched in the face.” Future historians will no doubt develop many theories about the initial impetus behind this profound insight, but Tyson might as well have been referring to the main predicament of complex systems: operating and surviving more or less intact in the maze of unpredictability. Any system can develop the perfect and highly optimized operation plan, with just-in-time this and agile that, but all beautiful flowcharts can, and usually do, crumble under the onslaught of reality. The drama of all systems, both simple and complex, is in the precarious balance between maintaining operational efficiency and adapting to unforeseen challenges that punch you in the face.

To begin with, surviving amidst flux over a long period demands constant transformation from all systems. However, a continuous and dynamic tension exists between a system’s adaptability, efficiency, and overall stability. Even for simple systems, too much adaptability sacrifices efficiency, and too much efficiency sacrifices adaptability. For example, an organization could optimize its supply chain for maximum just-in-time efficiency and shareholder value, only to have it crumble under a sudden and unpredictable change in geopolitics halfway across the globe. Who knows, an obscure rebel group might start sinking container ships. True story. It gets worse, though; this tension is far more challenging for complex systems due to their being, well, the opposite of simple.

Complex systems are composed of multiple distinct elements – for example, consider a modern army with its infantry, artillery, mechanized units, drones, air force, and so on. The interactions between these disparate components lead to results we cannot predict by simply analyzing each system element’s properties in isolation. For instance, examining a tank’s capabilities in isolation offers no clear insight into its operational effectiveness when supported by infantry, artillery, drone reconnaissance, and aviation.

When combined, these additional components of the larger system radically alter the tank’s capabilities and fundamentally change the nature of its engagement envelope and effectiveness on the battlefield. The introduction of aerial surveillance provides real-time data, artillery offers long-range support firepower, infantry occupies proximal space, and aviation brings a vertical dimension, together creating a system whose potential actions are vastly different and more complex than that of any single component.

In other words, each unique element allows a system to add complexity at that scale, interface with reality differently, and engage in unique and complex behaviors. The more complexity at different system scales, the more adaptable a system is in interfacing with reality at those scales. That said, if a system gets a punch to the face and is not adaptable to deal with its effects, it quickly experiences a cascading reduction of complexity and collapses.

All systems get punched in the face sooner or later. What happens with a system after the punch is where the fun begins; the system still has to maintain internal coherence and operational efficiency while simultaneously pivoting its operations to adapt to the novel external conditions. As Mike Tyson aptly pointed out, the old plan is invalid after the punch because reality has violently imposed itself on the system’s assumptions.

Let’s explore a principle of systemic efficiency and adaptability that accounts for the punches and what comes after them. I call it Ariadne’s string principle after the ancient Greek myth of Theseus and the Minotaur.

Ariadne’s gift

The great Daedalus, legendary builder and craftsman of the ancient world, was tasked by King Minos of Crete to construct a labyrinth so complex that escape would be impossible. Once in, you were never supposed to be able to leave. On top of that, this labyrinth was to be built as a prison for the Minotaur, a creature with a man’s body and a bull’s head. Daedalus built the unique maze, the Minotaur was locked inside it, and the king put it to grim use, imposing a tribute on defeated Athens: the sacrifice of seven young men and seven young women every seven years to the Minotaur.

When the tribute was due again, Theseus, the prince of Athens, volunteered to be one of the seven young men destined for the labyrinth, pledging to slay the monster. However, our valiant hero was not alone. The daughter of King Minos – Ariadne – who, as it happens in myths, was in love with brave Theseus, approached Daedalus, pleading with the maze builder to help the hero escape. Moved, Daedalus asked Ariadne to give our hero a ball of string. Yes.

The myth does not mention Ariadne’s initial reaction to that solution, but one can imagine it. In any case, Daedalus explained that this string was to be tied to the entrance of the labyrinth and unrolled as Theseus ventured deeper into it. As it turned out, this hack allowed our hero to navigate the maze, slay the Minotaur, and trace his steps back to freedom. Ariadne’s string is the key to this myth, so let’s unpack its role further.

Between Adaptability and Efficiency

On the face of it, the string is an absurd way of finding your way around in a labyrinth. Why not use a map? Or, absent a map, a series of “take the first right, walk straight 20 paces and turn left” instructions? All Theseus would have to do is trace his movements according to the plan and never stray from it. After all, Daedalus was the maze builder and presumably remembered its construction plan. One would expect a legendary techno-craftsman to produce some intricate contraption showing the way to Theseus. So, why the crude and simple string?

Simply put, because Theseus was about to be punched in the face.

Knowing that, Daedalus could not have given him a plan of the maze or a complicated contraption. What if Theseus loses the map, forgets the detailed instructions or the intricate contraption gets broken in his fight with the Minotaur? Ariadne’s string exemplifies the optimal balance between maximum adaptability and simple efficiency for a given system’s scale. The string doesn’t show the way forward or the maze’s layout. The string is dumb. Worse, it has nothing to do with the maze at all! It simply adapts to and interfaces with every twist and turn of the labyrinth while being highly efficient in showing Theseus only one simple thing – the path he took.

You see, adaptability is a function of a system’s ability to perform many possible simple actions more or less independently of each other. Ariadne’s string is an adaptability hack for the complexity of the labyrinth – it could interface with all possible permutations of that space. Multiple possible actions at the smallest of scales.

Efficiency, however, is a function of the ability of various system parts to work together to perform tasks at the largest possible scale. Ariadne’s string was expected to perform only one task at the scale of Theseus traversing an impossible maze, fighting a monster inside it, and getting out. The simplest of tasks at the largest of scales.

Designing a system for efficiency and adaptability is far trickier than it appears at first. Imagine a city’s transportation system designed for maximum efficiency: a network of trains and buses running on a tight schedule, minimal wait times, and optimized passenger carrying capacity. As is usually the case, such a system would be given as an example of optimal efficiency due to its just-in-time predictability and low operational costs. However, the system’s rigidity becomes apparent when a sudden, unexpected week of heavy downpours disrupts its operations.

While optimal under normal conditions, its efficiency doesn’t allow for quick adaptation to the new challenges posed by the heavy downpours. The transportation system, optimized for specific operational conditions, struggles to provide alternative routes or modes of transport that accommodate the change, leading to delays, congestion, and chaos. In other words, the system is optimized for a well-defined operational envelope, but that very optimization deprives it of the resources to quickly adapt to a dramatic change in the envelope.

Notice that if the system had a spare fleet of otherwise redundant minibuses, it could adjust to the sudden change in conditions much better. However, that same redundant fleet of minibuses – representing adaptability – will present extra costs and additional and unnecessary complexity in all ordinary conditions. There is a lesson here.

Alternatively, consider a modern tank battalion advancing in enemy territory with infantry support, acting according to doctrine as an efficient complex system. With more than a century of deployment history, tanks are shockingly efficient in interfacing with most questions the typical enemy can ask of them. Their interactions are usually short and have great finality in execution.

However, this particular enemy has deployed a swarm of dirt-cheap first-person view (FPV) drones, each armed with an armor-piercing warhead. As the swarm maneuvers at speeds exceeding 100 kilometers per hour, slamming into and destroying tank after tank, the advancing complex system has no way of interfacing with the drones. A punch to the face and a knockout. True story. What is the lesson here?


A system’s effectiveness is contingent on its ability to provide a distinct response to each environmental possibility it may encounter.


If a system cannot interface with the changing conditions in its environment, it will fail to be effective and, absent a transformation, will ultimately collapse. However, we have to remember that as long as the system keeps operating under the conditions for which it is optimized, it will be within its maximum effectiveness envelope. This is why so many highly fragile systems seem to operate just fine when viewed from the outside. This is also why the easiest way to derail a highly efficient system is to change the scale of its operational envelope. Even a slight shift in external conditions would often completely derail a highly optimized and efficient system.

The problem is that highly efficient systems lack the flexibility to adapt to new challenges. Like the transportation system discussed above, to become highly efficient, they need to remove all unnecessary complexity and redundancies, streamlining processes for optimal performance conditions. The very optimization that makes a system highly efficient prevents it from quickly adapting to change. Any highly efficient system is also highly fragile.

That is because, as I already mentioned, adaptability is a function of a system’s ability to perform multiple distinct actions at small scales. In other words, adaptability emerges when a system can interface with reality in multiple, often rare, non-optimal conditions. That fleet of minibuses is a small-scale redundancy, increasing the complexity and costs of the transportation system but allowing the system to adapt to the rare occurrence of a week-long downpour or other sudden disruptions. Similarly, installing radio frequency jammers on each armored vehicle is a small-scale redundancy, increasing the complexity and cost of a tank battalion but allowing the system to at least partially adapt to the sudden occurrence of an FPV drone swarm attack.

Highly adaptable systems, on the other hand, can interface with multiple environmental challenges but struggle with scaling up. As they grow, the costs of maintaining their complex adaptability increase to a threshold beyond which they cannot perform their actions efficiently at a given scale. In other words, past that scale threshold, the highly adaptable system has no other option but to optimize its processes for efficiency. Either that or the rising complexity costs at larger scales bring the whole system down.

Therefore, to be highly adaptable, a system has to either stay below a specific scale of operations or keep its adaptable elements small while growing in scale with a much more efficient structure and output. We will explore this dynamic further.

The time and scale trade-offs

If you think through this dynamic, you will notice that adaptability adds costly complexity here and now but may save a system in the future, while efficiency lowers costly complexity today but will doom a system in the future. This is why most systems will naturally drift towards increased efficiency at the cost of lowered adaptability. Optimizing for efficiency saves system resources here and now while optimizing for adaptability does not generate immediate effects for most systems.

That fleet of minibuses represents ongoing costs the transportation system must pay in the present, while the adaptability it provides may save the system in the future. Conversely, the efficiency of a transportation system streamlined for optimal conditions lowers its operational costs in the present but invariably renders the system more fragile to potential future shocks.

There is a time trade-off where the investment in adaptability – though burdensome with its added complexity and immediate costs – acts as insurance against future uncertainties. On the other hand, focusing on efficiency streamlines operations and reduces overhead in the short term while rendering the system brittle and unable to cope with unforeseen changes.

Again, adaptability increases your system’s costs in the present – think time, money, energy, and cognitive load – at all scales where it appears but allows your system to evolve at those scales. Efficiency saves you costs in the present – think time, money, energy, and cognitive load – but increases your system’s fragility at all scales.


In essence, adaptability buys resilience at the expense of current simplicity, while efficiency buys simplicity in the present at the cost of future vulnerability.


This is the efficiency versus adaptability trade-off represented along a time axis. However, the choice between adaptability and efficiency is also a problem of scale. There is an inherent trade-off between the number of ways a system can interface with reality and the scale at which it can coordinate these engagements.


The more complex a system’s actions, the higher the cost of performing them at a larger scale.


For example, consider the cost of deploying a hundred drone countermeasures locally in one sector of the front as opposed to hundreds of thousands across the structure of an entire army. The simpler the actions, the easier they are to perform at a large scale.

In other words, as I mentioned above, there is a scale threshold beyond which a system will be unable to perform complex actions without sacrificing the efficiency of its operations. While efficiency is about optimizing for a task at the maximum system scale, adaptability is about redundancies for rare tasks at multiple small scales.

The fundamental scale trade-off means that a complex system optimized for adaptability will have greater complexity at smaller scales, while a complex system optimized for efficiency will have lower complexity but operate at much larger scales.

We are witnessing these trade-offs today as FPV drone swarms obliterate thousands of tanks and armored vehicles on the fronts of Ukraine. FPV drones have been a known technology for more than twenty years and have been used in warfare for at least a decade, yet no modern military has fully adapted to them. So far, neither the theory of mechanized warfare nor command structures or individual tank designs can effectively interface with the complex questions asked by FPV drone swarms.

Modern militaries are systems optimized for efficiency in the present at vast scales – maneuver warfare, capturing territory, and access denial. Meanwhile, drone swarms pose a question of complexity at multiple small scales – exactly where modern militaries are highly efficient and cannot adapt quickly.

Again, as a system’s actions become more complex in adapting to potential environmental changes, its capacity to coordinate them effectively and scale up diminishes. A company might be very efficient in producing a limited number of complex widgets, but scaling up production would increase costs beyond the threshold at which it can make them efficiently. This trade-off presents a critical challenge for any system navigating between complex objectives and maintaining the ability to operate at a larger scale.

For example, consider the operational differences between special forces and conventional army units. Special forces perform highly complex tasks, such as covert surveillance, infiltration, sabotage, and engaging valuable enemy targets. These tasks involve constantly evolving and sophisticated technologies, highly specialized skills, precision, and adaptability. The complexity of special forces acts as a hard-coded limit on their size and scale of operations in maintaining coordination and effectiveness.

Conversely, conventional armies are designed and trained to engage in large-scale operations such as capturing territory and access denial. While these operations require coordination and discipline, they rely on the repetitive execution of much simpler tasks performed across large units, enabling them to achieve objectives on a grander scale.

The same dynamic can be observed in the contrast between startups and multinational corporations. Startups thrive on rapid innovation, fast feedback loops, iteration, and agility, focusing on developing new products or services. They are systems optimized for maximum adaptability at multiple small scales. Each of their elements is usually highly complex and adaptable to dynamically shifting operational envelopes.

For example, think of the ambiguity of startup position descriptions. Founders and their first employees must work across the entire operational envelope of the system – from sales to coding and management. Talk about extreme complexity at small scales. Their focus on adaptability and innovation requires flexibility and rapid decision-making that cannot be maintained as the organization grows.

As startups scale up into larger enterprises, the complexity of their operations invariably must decrease to standardize processes and achieve economies of scale. Startups buy the ability to operate at larger scales by reducing their complexity at those scales. Over time, the efficiency drift I mentioned above becomes inevitable for most former startups. They optimize for efficiency to unlock economies of scale while simultaneously curtailing adaptability.

This is why, while multinational corporations are present at global scales, they seriously struggle to innovate at the same speed and creativity as startups. It is much cheaper for a large corporation to buy startups than to maintain costly adaptability. The time and scale trade-offs to coordinating complex actions are unavoidable.

Ariadne’s string principle

Now, let’s return to Daedalus’ gift to Ariadne. The string has the optimal complexity required to interface with the labyrinth and the optimal efficiency to allow Theseus to retrace his steps. Daedalus’ genius lies in matching the complexity of the maze – that is, the questions it might ask of Theseus – and reframing the task of finding a way out as a simple problem of retracing steps. He addresses the time and scale trade-offs between adaptability and efficiency by focusing on performing the simplest and most efficient action in the present while matching the complexity scale of the maze. This is what Ariadne’s string principle is all about.

For maximum efficiency in its environment, a system must simplify its present actions while aligning with or exceeding its environment’s complexity at the corresponding scales.

Put differently, Ariadne’s string principle requires a system to perform two, at first sight, divergent maneuvers dynamically.


A system must streamline operations in the present while ensuring they match or exceed the complexity of the realities they may interface with.


Moreover, what represents optimal efficiency at a given scale of external complexity today will probably not work well tomorrow. Adaptability is future-oriented, and the principle demands that potential future operational envelopes be accounted for in efficiency calculations at all scales. After all, Ariadne’s gift to Theseus wouldn’t be any good for him if it didn’t account for a potential punch to the face.

Ariadne’s string principle dictates that a complex system must incorporate evolutionary adaptation across its elements by allowing continuous parallel small-scale experimentation at all scales where it interfaces with external conditions. In practice, this means that a complex system such as a corporation must allow its units interfacing with external conditions to undergo continuous evolutionary adaptations at their corresponding scales. Crucially, for this experimentation to benefit the whole system, successful adaptations achieved by these units must be communicated and replicated across the system.

Stability

However, there is a catch. Within simpler systems, with more or less streamlined operations, successful adaptations in one element can be replicated across the system without much instability. Think startups pivoting to a new direction. Their small size, the flat, networked structure of their organization, and the complexity of their units allow them to adjust to evolutionary adaptations quickly.

Not so with complex systems, which are usually structured hierarchically with a distinct center of control and coordination and elements optimized for efficiency. Hierarchies are very poor at dynamically augmenting their structure and operations in response to a change in external conditions. This is why evolutionary adaptability and experimentation at smaller scales increase instability within complex systems over time.

External conditions invariably change dynamically (think FPV drones), and to match the changing complexity of their operational envelope at various scales, a complex system’s internal structure has to evolve at a similar or faster speed. What good is an otherwise effective tank brigade if it cannot evolve and adapt at the same speed and complexity as the FPV drones attacking it? Remember – Ariadne’s string principle requires the system to match or exceed the complexity of its environment at the scales it interfaces with it. The problem lies in the adaptation sync.


Complex systems usually struggle to sync the adaptation pace of their constituent elements, causing instability over time.


This is why successful complex systems must ensure all their elements continuously engage with and adapt to external conditions at various scales while communicating and replicating successful adaptation strategies. The faster successful evolutionary adaptations can be transmitted and replicated across a complex system, the better it adapts to changing conditions and the more stable it is. This is why high command, senior management, and C-suite executives should always be fully involved at the same scales as their frontline units. Their participation only speeds up the percolation of successful adaptations across the complex system.

Consider this dynamic in practice. After more than two years of incessant FPV drone warfare, most frontline units on either side of the war in Ukraine have fully or partially adapted to the immediate danger of FPV drone attacks. These are usually small-scale, locally improvised adaptations of varying complexity – from shields welded to the tank to amateur radio jammers. However, these successful local adaptations have not been replicated by all elements of the complex systems of the opposing armies.

For such an adaptation to occur, the internal structures of both armies would have to evolve at the same pace and align with the complexity scales of conditions on the front. Senior commanders would have to reframe operational plans around the danger of FPV drones, and the successful adaptations of frontline units – from evolving structure to new technologies and tactics – would have to be replicated across all elements of each army. This poses a profound structural challenge to the current stability of these systems.

In fact, a certain kind of complex system, whether an army, a corporation, a university, or an authoritarian state, might prioritize an arbitrary internal stability state optimized for a given macro efficiency scale over adaptability at multiple smaller scales. In practice, these types of systems would consciously opt to avoid evolutionary adaptations at multiple small scales, choosing to maintain the arbitrary stability of their current structures and operational modes at a given macro scale. At what cost, you might ask? What a good question!

In a vacuum, such systems would quickly collapse from the internal build-up of entropy caused by the exponentially rising costs of non-adaptation to external conditions. In reality, such systems pay the rising costs of arbitrary stability by increasing resource consumption. As simple as that.

An army would throw more people into the grinder – the war in Ukraine is a grotesque illustration of that. An authoritarian state would expropriate as much as it can from its subjects. Many such cases! A corporation would eat up all investor cash and bank debt it can access while appearing as stable as a rock from the outside. The market favorite!

As long as a complex system can access additional energy sources, it can afford to opt for an arbitrary present stability state of optimized efficiency. This allows the system to optimize its operations for efficiency at a given macro scale while paying the costs of mal-adaptation at smaller scales. In other words, access to unlimited resources allows the system to ignore the future (adaptability), focusing on an arbitrary present it has optimized for (efficiency).

However, when additional energy sources dry up, such a system has to abandon stability and start its adventures searching for Ariadne’s string. It’s either that or a punch to the face and a knockout.

Athena’s Shield: Five Core Principles for Protecting Thought Sovereignty

AI discourse-mongers, automated dark algos, shadowy consent architects (Diffusion XL)

We live in a time of swarm networks, full spectrum memetic warfare, and ubiquitous AI discourse-mongers. Automated dark algos package, aggregate, and curate all social content for maximum cognitive impact. The influence of shadowy consent architects is already pervasive, only to become stronger as more powerful AI discourse-mongers come alive. 

You encounter their work with every click, swipe, and scroll as they reshape your perception. In this environment, protecting the sovereignty of your thoughts is strategically important. Your mental processes are vulnerable to various exploits, ranging from subtle perception modulation to infiltration of schemas and the outright usurpation of your cognition frames by synthetic frameworks. 

Here are five basic rules of thumb for protecting your mental sovereignty. Combined, they form the acronym AEGIS – the name of Athena’s shield. 

– Analyze Assumptions:  Continuously audit your beliefs and opinions to identify assumptions with unclear provenance. This practice ensures that your mental models remain free from malicious narrative injections. 

E – Evaluate Inputs: Filter all content inputs for positioning, source coherence, time relevance, and downstream reliability. Ask, “Why am I seeing this here and now? Was this source useful before?” In a time of dark algo content curation, an open mind is like an open wound. 

G – Guard Core Beliefs: Protect the central tenets of your worldview and hide your root discourse schema. Airgapping your core operant frames helps you prevent automated perception modulation and targeted frame injections. 

– Isolate Viewpoints: Practice multi-viewpoint partitioning and mentally compartmentalize multiple perspectives on common media events. This prevents the cross-contamination of frames and allows you to analyze them and build your own organic cognitive frameworks. 

S – Scan Memdata: Scrutinize information stored in memory with the presumption that it could be an attempt to manipulate your perception frames or inject a schema exploit. These exploits commonly use the “if this, then that” logic, tying injected data to an innocuous memory. Ask, “Why am I remembering this when I see that? When I see x, why am I associating it with y?” This practice helps clear your memory from past exploits and protects you from common memetic attacks. 

The AEGIS strategy – Analyze Assumptions, Evaluate Inputs, Guard Core Beliefs, Isolate Viewpoints, and Scan Memdata – is a proactive defense mechanism safeguarding your mental sovereignty. By adopting these practices, you arm yourself with Athena’s shield against the relentless onslaught of cognitive manipulation. This battle is not just about resisting synthetic thoughts or weaponized perception; it is about asserting your mental sovereignty in a world where your thoughts are the main prize. 

The Naked King Spell and the Art of Inertia Casting

It pays to be well-prepared for the occasional wardrobe subversion (Diffusion XL).

The setting

All human systems – be it corporations, restaurants, spy agencies, or nail salons – compete for scarce resources. Apart from competing with each other, they all face the Sisyphean task of continuously staving off entropy. They all lose in the end, though some have quite a bit of fun along the way. 

When a system, be it a sushi bar or an entire country, tries to isolate itself from the external world, it may stave off competitors for a while. Think North Best Korea behind a very high wall. Unfortunately, isolation only speeds up entropy. Imagine a teenager’s bedroom as a system isolated from the outside world and no longer receiving external input (like parental cleaning services). Over time, clothes accumulate on the floor, empty snack wrappers create a new carpet layer, and mysterious new life forms evolve in the pile of discarded pizza boxes in the corner. 

This isolated ecosystem rapidly accelerates towards chaos – an increase in entropy. The room becomes a miniature universe obeying the second law of thermodynamics: in an isolated system, entropy tends to increase, leading to disorder. It is better to remain at least somewhat open to the outside world and have at it before the inevitable. But that’s another story. 

This story is about those systems opting to remain at least somewhat open in the competition for scarce resources. In this high-stakes game, direct confrontation is only sometimes the wisest path to victory. There are better, more refined ways of defeating an opposing system. 

In this piece, I propose that the most subversive yet elegant method to triumph over a competing system is to make it detour itself into a state of inertia. Moreover, this self-detour can be induced as if casting a spell. 

I call it the naked king spell

Before going further, let’s quickly outline what inertia is and why it is bad for you. In brief, inertia is a system’s stubborn repetition of a routine until failure. A system is in a state of inertia when it continuously performs a set of operations regardless of external conditions. Consider a restaurant that clings to the menu that initially made it successful. Why, the restaurant owner may believe the menu exemplifies the ideal Platonic food form, worth three Michelin stars. It doesn’t matter. 

Clinging to a set of actions regardless of circumstances is how inertia sets in. The state of inertia usually continues until a non-negotiable change in external conditions forces a system breakdown. Change, by its very nature, has infinite forms. Tastes evolve, and the once-popular Michelin menu is now passe; the restaurant faces a crisis. 

Why a crisis, though? Can’t they adapt? After all, it would only take a change in the menu to adjust to external changes in taste. Here lies the beauty of the spell – self-adaptation doesn’t even come into play. The restaurant cannot adapt and must face a crisis because it cannot simply change its menu – inertia, remember? Once set in inertia, it is tremendously difficult for a system to alter its path on its own. Inducing this process is like casting a spell, convincing a system to bind itself to a set of its own routines. 

The elegance of the naked king spell is that in casting it, you’re exploiting a system’s internal structure and operations, effectively trapping it in its internal procedures. Let’s explore how the spell works, the effects of inertia, and, in the process, figure out how to defend against it. 

The naked king

To understand the inertia spell, you must know Hans Christian Andersen’s famous story, usually translated in English as The Emperor’s New Clothes. Here’s the short version.

An emperor, or king, was fond of new clothes and always searching for new fashions to surprise his subjects. The king, you see, liked shocking the bourgeoisie before it was popular. It was his thing. Some kings are fond of new wars, others of old mistresses, but our king had a penchant for deconstructing bespoke Savile Row shirts and Herringbone jackets. 

One day, the king was approached by a pair of clever swindlers who told him they could weave completely new fabrics, so fine and delicate that only those of sophisticated tastes and deep wisdom could see them. The art of deconstructed fashion brought to its logical conclusion, as it were.

The clothes made of this fabric would be invisible to everyone else, who, presumably, lacked the required learning and sophistication. The final solution to prole aesthetics! The king paid the two con men the large sum of money they demanded, and in return, they pretended to weave the fine clothes they promised. But, of course, they just wove thin air.

After a few days, the king and all his ministers inspected the magnificent new clothes. Of course, such sophisticated literati as them had long ago learned the fine art of pretending to see that which is not there, and so they all admired the magnificent new clothes. After all, only a lowly prole would fail to see their splendorous refinement. 

In a stroke of genius, the king even organized a procession through his capital’s streets to show his subjects the fine new clothes he wore. As an artist, he was also fond of raising social awareness through art for the masses. The people lined the streets to see the spectacle, and all exclaimed how unique and beautiful the king’s new clothes were. None wanted to appear uncouth or stupid, or worse, be accused of hate speech towards the alternatively clothed. They were wise to the ways of modern political science, you see. 

Only a little boy exclaimed loudly, “But the king is naked!” 

The way Andersen tells the story, the boy’s innocent observation of reality breaks the spell, and everyone starts laughing at the king and his imaginary clothes. Speaking truth to power works! 

Of course, you know better than this, dear reader. So, let’s dive in and discover the workings of the naked king spell and what it brings. 

The spell 

On the surface, the scenario boils down to the dangers of denying the obvious. The king and his court made fools of themselves – mainstream media’s favorite topic. The story cautions us against trusting those who promise the impossible and points to the value of good old common sense. 

On a deeper level, the story illustrates a breakdown of the feedback loops within a system. In a healthy system, an initial observation of external conditions is followed by decisions, actions, and consequences, which feed into new observations, decisions, and actions in a continuous loop. Not so in our scenario. 

In the real-world enactment of the story, the boy would shout, “The king is naked,” but instead of the people opening their eyes to the obvious, the boy and his parents are usually whisked away by a three-letter agency, never to be heard from again. Who knows, maybe they are accused of hate speech? The king identifies as clothed! Perhaps they are branded as lunatics, conspiracy theorists, enemies of the state, foreign agents, science deniers, or all of the above. 

The boy’s reaction represents the long-delayed feedback loop between the king’s court and reality. In a healthy system, that feedback loop works continuously across all areas where the system interfaces with the external world. In other words, if the kingdom were a healthy system, the king’s adventures in the realm of new clothes would immediately end with a courtier pointing out the obvious. If that fails, the courtiers would simply install a new king. Many such cases! 

What matters is that a system set in inertia cannot afford to entertain signals challenging its direction. Any such signal amplified enough would break the closed circuit of inertia. In an inertia-bound system, the boy’s ‘the king is naked’ feedback signal endangers internal procedures and must be silenced. 

That feedback loop is the key element we must isolate to understand the spell. In our example, the king is a system’s linchpin. He and his ministers form the center of power, that is to say, the center of coordination and control in the network we call the state. 

The spell is cast when the con men convince the king that only educated and sophisticated people would see his fine new clothes. People who see him as naked are framed as uncouth simpletons. Crucially, everyone can see that the king is naked, including himself, but all persist in the charade. It doesn’t matter whether they know the actual state of the king’s body and the kingdom as a system. What matters is that they project an alternate reality about that state

Those closest to the king, and therefore with the most power and the most to lose, may even convince themselves that the king is indeed wearing the fine clothes promised by the swindlers. Comprehensively deluded citizens might do the same. It doesn’t matter. What matters is that the power center in this system is projecting an alternate reality to itself, in complete contrast with the actual state of the system.

The essence of the naked king spell is this subtle shift from a reality image generated by active feedback loops to an image based on the self-projection of a synthetic reality. Once the shift is complete, the system does the rest of the onerous work of marching toward collapse on its own. The synthetic reality projected by the system’s command center overrides every aspect of the system. 

After all, the purpose of a system is what it does.

A system under the naked king spell starts acting according to the synthetic reality it projects to itself instead of the external conditions it interfaces with. Again, casting the spell involves convincing a system’s power center to supplant its healthy reality image with a synthetic one. There are various ways to achieve this, but ideally, the synthetic image must involve valorizing a procedure or protocol internal to the system

That is because a system is highly likely to identify with its internal protocols. The corporate culture-building gospels contain endless variations of the “we do things this way, and this is who we are” mantra. Tying the synthetic reality image generated by the spell caster to an existing protocol in the target system will map the synthetic reality to the system’s self-identity. If done well, the target system sees the synthetic reality as a core element of its identity and is highly likely to defend it. 

In our story, the con men use the king’s love for new clothes as the internal system protocol to exploit. The exploit works by valorizing the synthetic reality of non-existent ‘new clothes’ as the epitome of the existing protocol of refined clothing, itself a core element of the system’s identity. The system’s power center now maps the synthetic reality to its core identity of fashionable refinement. The spell was successful. 

In the restaurant example, an attacker could use the restaurant’s obsession with its Michelin rating as the exploit vector and bind the spell to the menu or food presentation. Again, the attacker aims to spellbind the target system into creating a synthetic image of reality and attach it to its existing protocols. This tricks the target system into mapping the synthetic reality onto how it perceives itself. After all, a system’s purpose is what it does. 

Crucially, exploiting an internal protocol when casting the spell also ensures that the system’s defense mechanism, whether three-letter agencies or HR departments, will actively defend the spell and its synthetic reality. Anyone within the system pointing out that the king is naked will be identified by its defense mechanism as a threat to the system’s operations and suppressed. This is how the feedback loop with reality breaks down and detouring into inertia begins. 

What does this breakdown process look like? First, the parts of the system still performing a feedback loop with external conditions start signaling the growing disconnect between external reality and the synthetic one generated by the spell. For example, in a war scenario, low-level officers inform their commanders that the current tactics do not work and casualties are rising catastrophically. Alternatively, in an academic scenario, teaching staff advise their faculty deans of persistent student dissatisfaction with the curriculum. 

We already know that a healthy system interprets these signals as important feedback and closes the loop by adjusting its actions accordingly. However, a system under the naked king spell views these signals as dangerous challenges to internal operations and aims to stamp them out. Usually, such a system ignores feedback loops entirely. If that is not possible, it will use various methods to silence them – from denial to force. For example, the commanding officer tells the lower ranks he will not tolerate any questioning of his orders, or the teaching staff is forced to resign for pushback against institutional culture. 

Generally, inertia-bound systems would react in one of the following ways to ‘the king is naked’ corrective feedback loops:

  1. Ignore them entirely. This is the default reaction.
  2. Counter-messaging and denial: The king is not naked! Saying otherwise is bigoted hate speech. The boy is lying, uninformed, deluded, a foreign agent, or a denier of the science of fine cloth making.
  3. Derailment and diffusion: The king has always been naked, and here’s why that’s good for you!
  4. Well poisoning: The king is indeed naked, but that is because he is secretly a reptilian! Also, the earth is flat.
  5. Force: Shut up or else! The threat is then followed by direct silencing.

In complex systems under the naked king spell, options one to four are usually in play, with force reserved for situations where the other tactics fail. For example, a government would engage in extensive denial, derailment, and well poisoning before it escalates to direct force against internal opposition. However, in simpler systems, the hijacked defense mechanism usually escalates from ignoring feedback directly to force. For example, a corporation’s HR department would fire anyone repeatedly questioning the synthetic reality projected by the spell. 

Eventually, a system under the naked king spell reaches a stage where two destructive forces start working on it simultaneously. First, such systems are subject to high entropy due to operating in a synthetic reality. Disorder builds up internally, simply by nature of the discrepancy between external reality and the synthetic image of reality under which the system operates. In effect, such systems have effectively isolated themselves from the world and experience all the wonders of the second law of thermodynamics I mentioned. 

Systems experiencing this effect of the spell try to mitigate the build-up of entropy by artificially increasing internal order through bureaucratic procedures. They would multiply administrative steps, invent new busy work, and create more procedural oversight positions while escalating penalties for non-compliance. The problem is that additional procedures only create the illusion of order while actually increasing the internal costs of operating the system, eventually triggering the Red Queen Trap

The second destructive force is generated by the elements of the system itself. Think of a system as a network continuously performed in existence by a set number of nodes, which are the network’s actors. To simplify, think of the king, his court, and his subjects as the actors of such a network. As the system limps along the path of inertia, those of its actors interfacing with external reality find themselves under a constant cognitive strain generated by the discrepancy between the synthetic reality and actual external conditions. 

The command center of a system is usually shielded from reality by one or multiple layers of intermediary actors reporting some approximate version of that reality to the center. These frontline actors suffer the most from the effects of the cognitive strain, as they can observe in real-time the widening gap between the synthetic image of reality maintained by the system and the actual external conditions. 

Think of this cognitive load as an additional energy cost for the system, as the frontline actors must omit the discrepancy from their reporting. Why? If they don’t, they immediately trigger the ‘king is naked’ chain and its consequences. Those who persist in trying to report the discrepancy are removed from the system by its defense mechanisms. 

Eventually, first some and then most of these frontline actors stop believing entirely in the synthetic reality generated by the system. “If they lie about the king wearing clothes, they probably lie about everything else too.” Such actors become extremely dangerous to the system’s internal cohesion at that point, as their dissociation adds, you guessed it, additional energy costs to the system. In effect, the whole network starts disintegrating from within along its internal connections in a self-reinforcing positive feedback loop.

In that sense, the naked king spell is a feedback dissociation exploit leading to inertia. 

Let’s reassess. The naked king spell exploits a system’s internal protocols to dissociate it from its feedback loops with external reality. Casting the spell involves binding a synthetic reality to a system’s internal protocols, thereby making the artificial reality part of a system’s identity. The art of casting the spell is in correctly selecting and valorizing a procedure or protocol internal to the target system. When done correctly, the spell convinces the target system that the synthetic reality is a critical element of the system’s identity. 

A system under the naked king spell will use its defense mechanisms to target and eliminate network nodes questioning the synthetic reality. In doing that, the system maintains the spell’s effects using its own energy resources, further weakening itself in the process. In fact, the naked king spell generates increasingly destructive forces within the system, mirrored by equally rising energy costs as the system tries to resist the rising disorder. 

Again, the synthetic image generated by the spell forces the system to operate in effective isolation from external conditions, leading to rising internal entropy. To stem the rising entropy, the system adds additional internal procedures and reporting steps, further increasing its energy costs. 

Meanwhile, frontline actors in the network experience rising cognitive strain as they are caught in the middle between the system’s synthetic reality and external conditions. Eventually, such actors experience complete dissociation from the system’s artificial reality and start disintegrating the network from within in a positive feedback loop. 

The naked king spell causes an inertia-bound death spiral in the target system. The spell’s subtle subversive beauty is that the target system performs the entire death spiral using its internal energy and resources. This is the art of inertia casting. 

Inertia as a curse, inertia as an art

The signs 

An inertia-bound system is permeated by the ethos of doing things by the book. It is dogmatic, intolerant of all positive feedback loops even when obviously beneficial, and automatically considers innovation as deviation. Inertia-bound systems develop complex internal protocols describing the procedural steps for digesting external conditions in accordance with the synthetic reality image. 

These protocols are seen as optimizing the routine functioning of the system and come with an internal bureaucracy enforcing them, further increasing energy costs. They also generate a growing pool of sycophants convinced following the protocols – parasitizing on the system’s energy – is good for them. Following these new rules has helped my career! That is why systems under the naked king spell multiply committees, review panels, and working groups. They also usually have hypertrophied human resource departments to enforce the performance of this synthetic reality. 

Furthermore, inertia-bound systems are usually optimized for synthetic external conditions at a point of time x, with beautiful protocols describing all possible procedures for that scenario. The problem is that external reality is in flux, and the point of time is now invariably x+n. Whenever external conditions consistently change, they pose new problems for an inertia-bound system. 

Given a change in its environment, a system has to either expand energy towards altering its internal protocols and evolving or try to brute force the new problems with its existing protocols. An inertia-bound system invariably chooses to brute force new problems instead of adapting and changing because of the cost of altering its synthetic reality image. 

Consequently, such a system traps itself in a spiral of increasing conversion inefficiencies. In other words, the system requires more and more energy to perform its existing set of tasks as the discrepancy between the outside and the internal synthetic reality continuously widens. 

An inertia-bound system has clear-cut deterministic responses to environmental unpredictability, choosing to bottle up or disregard unfamiliar influences. Unpredictable scenarios threaten the synthetic reality image and must be avoided at all costs. This fear of uncontrollable scenarios with no playbook to follow cancels potential evolutionary paths and further buries the system in the swamp of inertia.

In other words, we know all these new and strange things are happening outside, but we will ignore them and talk about these other familiar things because they don’t threaten our synthetic model of reality. Ironically, this dynamic makes an inertia-bound system appear very resilient and robust. Nothing will make us change our values! 

Of course, this outward robustness is the side effect of the recursive protocols maintaining the synthetic reality image. The seemingly bulletproof nature of the system is a mark of its fragility. Its adherence to set patterns only piles up an inertia-resultant backlog of problems, inhibiting any potential resolution or innovation. Inertia, dressed up as stability, is the force driving the collapse and disintegration of the system. 

The art

As I mentioned in the beginning, I consider the naked king spell the most elegant way of defeating an opposing system. You, dear reader, should have a relatively clear idea as to why by now. That being said, paradoxically, most systems would gladly settle into inertia – if only reality would let them. After all, it is so much easier to do the same thing repeatedly or not do anything at all. It is much cheaper, too, until entropy shows its face.

For such systems, the naked king spell is pure seduction. Finally, we have implemented robust procedures and eliminated the reckless innovators who threatened our safe space! However, there are a number of other reasons why the art of inertia casting is elegant and subversive.

Efficiency: this is the most economical and efficient system attack mode, as an inertia-bound system spends energy on defeating itself. As described above, casting the spell renders the target system’s energy into a weapon against itself, paradoxically aiding in its own collapse. Moreover, the system’s defenses actively suppress its remaining healthy elements from lifting the spell. Opting for a subtle exploit rather than overt confrontation also reduces the potential for conflict and resistance. 

Predictability: the spell is highly predictable, as the actions of an inertia-bound system can be mapped with a high degree of accuracy the longer it stays in inertia. All one needs is knowledge of the protocols valorized in creating the synthetic reality image, and the target system usually doesn’t hide them – they are now part of its identity. The naked king will want to show his new clothes at every opportunity.

Control: an inertia-bound system is easy to control from the outside, as changing external conditions can easily affect its energy costs. The invisible influence of the spell is subtle and can continue unabated, allowing sustained manipulation of even seemingly well-defended systems. This subtle control also eliminates the likelihood of attack detection or retaliation, undermining the system’s operational capabilities.

Preservation: casting the spell preserves the system’s structure for potential redirection or repurposing. After all, the essence of inertia is resistance to change. The spell caster can expect the target system’s internal structures to remain largely intact and ready for a strategic realignment or conservation. Preserving systemic integrity also allows the spell caster to steer the target system toward desired outcomes with greater control and precision.

Universality: the spell is universally applicable because inertia is universally present. Moreover, inertia is seductive. Most systems usually want to be in a state of inertia – it feels safer, cheaper, more robust, and more stable. This universality also gives the spell caster many options for managing the aftermath of the target system’s unraveling – from preserving the system’s resources to their redeployment. 

Smooth reboot: the spell allows for smooth transitions from collapse to restoration of the inertia-bound system, thanks to its intact structures. If the spell caster chooses to reboot the system in a new configuration, the transition occurs without needing a complete rebuild. This quality of the spell also gives the system a semblance of continuity, ensuring that its revival is as efficient as its suspension was deliberate. The king is dead; long live the king!

There is a related point worth explaining further. If left on its own, an inertia-bound system will eventually grind to a halt and collapse under the dual forces of growing internal entropy and rising energy costs. This collapse might have a broad spectrum of forms, but the underlying support structure of the system will usually remain intact. For example, our Michelin restaurant closed down, but the restaurant’s premises, kitchen equipment, etc., are still intact and available for reuse. 

As another example, a country set in inertia might run itself into the ground, but valuable infrastructure such as ports, powerplants, and factories would likely remain intact and available to the spell caster. There are many examples of this dynamic unfolding in recent history once you start looking for them. This preservation is crucial to the smooth reboot process. When a system collapses under inertia, its support architecture remains dormant yet ready for revival. 

In other words, if the spell caster decides to reboot, the system doesn’t have to be reconstructed from the ground up. Instead, the existing structures can be revived and, if necessary, reconfigured to meet new objectives or adapt to new circumstances. For example, the new owner of our formerly Michelin restaurant retains the name and appearance but has altered the menu. Alternatively, the new corporate management of a tech company changes the company name, fires 85% of staff while retaining the infrastructure, and steers the company in an alternative direction. True story. 

Alright, you say, but how can a system defend against the naked king spell? Before we examine defenses against the spell, I have to repeat that inertia is seductive. Left on their own, absent a malicious spell caster, systems are likely to detour themselves into inertia eventually. It is the easy path. It is consistently tempting for a system to multiply its internal procedures, increase the actors in its network, and reify its internal protocols into dogma. After all, it feels good to grow, be more orderly, and have a coherent culture that resists change. Conversely, it takes tremendous discipline and ideological drive for a system’s command center to resist these temptations consistently. 

Defending against the naked king spell

There are three defense modes against the spell – structural, cultural, and aesthetic. Each mode consists of a set of strategies protecting the system from the naked king spell and the seductive pull of inertia. They work best when deployed simultaneously in a layered active defense strategic posture. 

Structural defense

The structural mode of defense focuses on the system’s internal architecture – that is, its processes, hierarchies, and frameworks. Structurally hardening a system against the spell involves reformatting its internal architecture around flexibility and rapid adaptation. Ideally, every internal architectural element – be it a protocol, local hierarchy, or action framework – should be optimized for rapid reconfiguration in response to external changes or internal challenges. 

In practice, this means that protocols, hierarchies, and frameworks are construed as ad hoc and subject to dynamic alteration at a local level. In simpler terms, you should not need three months and the approval of multiple committees to adapt existing procedures to an external change – your adaptation should be immediate and executed locally. 

Architecturally, this involves reconfiguring the network for a decentralized decision-making process to enhance responsiveness and ensure short and fast feedback loops. Importantly, decentralized decision-making doesn’t mean the absence of hierarchies. It means delegating decision-making power from the center to the nodes closest to the direct feedback loop with external conditions. 

In practice, the somewhat heretical military command doctrine of mission-based orders (auftragstaktik) captures this form of organization very well: my orders to you allow you to modify or suspend my orders in overcoming obstacles and achieving my intent. In other words, if I intend to achieve goal x, you can alter all my protocols, hierarchies, and action frameworks to achieve that goal. A system with functioning decentralized decision-making adapts very fast but, even more importantly, has built-in control center redundancies, making the detour into inertia that much harder to accomplish. 

A system structurally hardened against inertia would appear highly flexible and organizationally flat, with decentralized decision-making and modular architecture that can be easily updated or replaced. An attacker would find it hard to exploit an internal protocol when the target system construes all protocols as ad hoc and subject to dynamic alteration by local decision-making nodes acting in a persistent auftragstaktik. It is much more difficult for inertia to take hold when the system is always in a state of anticipatory readiness for change.

Cultural defense

The cultural defense mode focuses on the values, beliefs, and behaviors permeating the system. Culturally hardening a system against inertia involves propagating experimentation, risk-taking, personal responsibility, change anticipation, and rapid adaptation as core systemic values. Encouraging these values as system-forming precludes the complacency-driven drift into seductive inertia and ensures the system would maintain its dynamic interface with changing external conditions. 

In other words, the network’s actors, permeated by this culture, can be expected to actively search for ‘the king is naked’ feedback opportunities, quickly close the loop, and continue the cycle. The ‘agile’ principles, subject to so much contemporary corporate infatuation, are a good approximation of these cultural values. However, many systems try to deploy agile principles while maintaining internal structures that are antithetical to these values, ending with agile lip service.  

Consider the practice of penetration testing in cybersecurity, when deployed at scale, as a good analogy for the cultural defense mode in practice. Following the analogy, a system deploying this defense mode assumes that it has, and always will have, many potential inertia vulnerabilities that a malicious spell caster can exploit. Therefore, the system’s core belief is that every actor in the system’s network is responsible for continuously anticipating, searching for, and adapting to such exploits. Crucially, actors are rewarded with vulnerability bounties and promoted in the hierarchy for discovering situations where ‘the king is naked.’  

In practice, a system permeated by these values is also likely to have deployed a version of auftragstaktik, making it very hard to attack with the naked king spell. Such a system would elevate the active seeking of fast feedback loops into a core priority, maintaining its vitality and flexibility. A systemic culture that celebrates adaptability and views rapid change as a golden opportunity rather than a severe threat is inherently more resistant to the naked king spell and the seductive call of inertia.

Aesthetic defense

The aesthetic defense mode focuses on a system’s outward appearance and its interfaces with external conditions. It relates to the way the system appears to outside actors and the information frame it communicates to them. A system aesthetically hardened against the naked king spell continuously evolves its framing, communication strategies, and the symbolic brand it projects to the outside world. This makes it much harder for a malicious spell caster to isolate a static element of the system’s identity to which a synthetic reality can be bound. 

The continuous aesthetic evolution of a system’s external framing also signals adaptability and flux, externally and internally, reinforcing its defenses against inertia. This constant renewal of the system’s interface with external conditions also helps to prevent the internal stagnation that the spell seeks to exploit, particularly when matched with the cultural and structural defense modes. 

On a deeper level, a system deploying the aesthetic defense mode has inevitably weaponized its external framing. It uses its external communications channels to partially or wholly obfuscate its internal condition, camouflage its core protocols, and misrepresent its operational culture. 

This brings me to an interesting subset of the aesthetic defense mode – a strategy I call the naked king gambit. Briefly, a system can mimic being in an inertia state as a defense from malicious spell casters. Such a system would adopt the outward aesthetics of an inertia-bound system as a camouflage. The outward sign is the same; how do you know if it reveals a reality or simulates it? 

In other words, clever courtiers can install a naked king on the throne while running the country behind the scenes. From the outside, the kingdom would appear deeply stuck in inertia, with a naked king seemingly in control. The king might appear to be demented, shallow, or completely insane. It doesn’t matter. Internally, system structure and operational culture might look and behave entirely differently. 

In combination, these defense modes create a layered and dynamic defensive posture against the naked king spell and the seductive onset of inertia. Structural flexibility ensures the system can dynamically pivot in response to external changes, cultural vitality keeps the system’s operations adaptable and anticipatory, and aesthetic dynamism weaponizes the system’s external signals, preventing stagnation. Together, they form a comprehensive defense strategy that protects against inertia and propels the defending system toward continuous renewal.

In the grand cacophony of competing systems, casting the naked king spell is often the most sublime form of subversion. It is not a battering ram at the gates but a whisper that turns the system against itself. Defending against this spell requires rethinking the structure, culture, and aesthetics of a system in an ongoing battle of wits, wills, and wardrobes. 

So, the next time you face the signs of systemic inertia, remember: the naked king was seduced into dropping his clothes. Don’t let your system suffer the same fate. Anticipate and welcome change, stay adaptive, and maybe keep a fashionable spell caster on speed dial. After all, in the world of systems, it pays to be well-prepared for the occasional wardrobe subversion.

Worshiping the Algo Jesters

Adoration of the Sacred Algorithm (made with Diffusion XL)

With the arrival of Apple Vision Pro and Large Language Models running rampant, we are close to on-demand AI-generated VR realms tailored to our wildest fantasies. We can also expect customized algorithmic jesters to socialize and guide us in these fantasy realms. Here are some preliminary ways of framing this future:

VR as Spectacle: we become consumers within endless algo-curated sanctuaries from the collapsing world. Algo jesters are the new demiurges distracting and sedating the masses. Blink-and-buy worlds.

VR as Simulacra: we become voyagers adrift in seas of simulacra without a memory of the collapsing world. The algo jesters help us jump from one hyperreal realm to the next; the physical is just another hyperreal. Surf the sim-seas.

VR as the e/acc dream: we become untethered explorers wandering through vast and intricate realms. The algo jesters weave paths for us to chart and conquer. The Faustian spirit finally soars above the prison of the flesh. Endless/Acceleration.

VR as the Digital Divine: we become pilgrims venerating divinities within digital temples of unimaginable beauty and complexity. The algo jesters guide our spirits in search of manifestations of the sacred; the revelation of the digital. Divine Data Treks.

VR as Algo Mysticism: we become followers of the Holy Algo Jesters, offering digital sacrifices on the blockchain and visiting their realms for divination, mystic insight, and enlightenment; Algo Cargo Cults. Adoration of the Sacred Algorithm.

This list is not exhaustive but sets up some interesting vectors for thinking about the convergence of AI and VR with daily life.

Practices of Late Stage Managerial Mysticism

A rare depiction of the Executive Meeting ritual, colorized (Leonardo Diffusion XL)

Here are some of the occult practices of Late Stage Managerial Mysticism, as narrated to me in a dream by an initiate.

– Spell casting. There are many spells, but among the most popular, the ‘Agile’ spell summons profits, the ‘Diversity’ spell solves staffing, and the ‘Pivot’ spell wards off failure.

– Invoking the ‘Brainstorming’ ritual. This is done with multi-colored Post-it notes. The ceremony is used to bind one or several innovation spirits to the area of an average meeting room or four cubicles, whichever is smaller.

– Performing the sacred dance of ‘Networking.’ The dance is used to find and open loot boxes with ‘Opportunity’ manna.

– Chanting the ‘Customer-Centric’ mantra. It is believed to bring +10 in loyalty harvests when performed daily.

– Deploying the ‘Big Data’ talisman. The upper mystics use it for divination and insight into the primordial dark vortex called ‘Market Forces.’

– Periodically performing the secret dark art of ‘Change Management.’ A cursed ritual believed to rejuvenate the corporate body by sacrificing some of its parts.

– Reciting the ‘Alignment’ incantation. It is believed to mystically merge disparate departments into a unified force of incredible power.

– Seeking enlightenment through the mystic doctrine of ‘Lean Management.’ This is a path of asceticism where more is achieved by doing less, a paradox mastered only by C-suite mystics and true initiates.

– Regularly performing the ‘Team-Building’ rites. These occult rites are believed to forge unbreakable alchemic bonds between acolytes and transmute the curse of ‘Workplace Dissatisfaction’ into the blessing of ‘Workplace Harmony.’ They also work at a distance when used through the sacred Zoom portal.

– Summoning the souls of the employed into the sacred Zoom portal. The portal forces participants to engage in arcane rituals of mute and unmute, hoping to achieve the mystical state of ‘Effective Communication.’

– Summoning select members of the congregation into ‘Workshop’ covens. The faithful gather under fluorescent light to taste the secret potions of ‘Creativity’ and ‘Productivity.’ Often, these covens are used to perform the ‘Brainstorm’ ritual.

– Chanting the email addresses of the high priesthood of the corporate pantheon – the dreaded HR Business Partners. They are the guardians of the sacred texts of policies and procedures. As powerful spell casters, they are also tasked with performing the cursed ‘Change Management’ ritual.

– Establishing and attending divination rituals known as ‘Committees.’ These are believed to sometimes have the power to chart a way forward through the impenetrable fog surrounding the corporate body. Ancient heretical texts assert the dense mist is generated by the machinations of an evil demon known as ‘Inertia.’ However, enlightened HR guardians dismiss these as apocryphal.

– Convening the sacred circle known as ‘All-Hands Meeting.’ Here, upper mystics speak in tongues of their visions and achievements. It is a ritual designed to imbue the congregation with a sense of purpose, often resulting in collective trance states of confusion.

Notes on the therapeutic state

Behold the therapon, made with Stable Diffusion

Admit it, dear reader, you always wanted to know what caused our glorious edifice of iron, concrete, plastic, and silicone, that unsinkable Titan borne out of the sheer Faustian audacity of our ancestors, to suddenly shudder, grind to a halt, and start sinking. 

Well, we can probably agree that the name of the iceberg doesn’t really matter at this stage. It did hit our glorious edifice, and we are indeed going down. 

Even the two main tribes on deck, Pepsi and Coca, sorry, the progressors and the conservers, seem to agree that something is wrong. However, their main differences revolve around the music the orchestra should be playing to accompany the sinking of our Titan, so there is no point in thinking about them further. 

You must have also noticed the conspicuous absence of anger at this turn of events among our fellow passengers. After all, depression and acceptance are supposed to be preceded by denial, anger, and bargaining. So how did we jump straight to acceptance?

Enter the therapeutic state. Shallow, tepid vulgarity in pastels.

The word therapeutic originates from the ancient Greek therapeutein, “to take care of, provide for,” and is related to another old Greek word – therapon, “attendant.”

We will return to these terms below, but first, a brief excursus into the forgotten past.

The premodern, or traditional, state punished transgressions. Preferably in a public spectacle for the amusement of its people. It viewed itself as the protector of a divine order in which some toiled, some prayed, and some fought and maintained the divine order. Bodies, and their proprietors, were viewed as sovereign entities inhabiting a sacred world.

The modern, or industrial, state had a radically different conception of its role. The modern state severed its ties to the divine, declared victory over it, and imagined itself an all-encompassing Leviathan. The Leviathan had no need to punish transgressors since it was the source of all order, and those transgressors were always to be part of it. Instead, it aimed to discipline all bodies, of which it was now the sole proprietor. To do that, it invented disciplinary institutions – schools, universities, offices, hospitals, and prisons. 

The therapeutic state doesn’t punish or discipline. It doesn’t care about order or the proprietorship of bodies. It inherited the disciplinary institutions of the modern state, but now they are simply vestigial appendages parasitizing on whatever residual energy they can find while tepidly caring. “Sir, I want you to know that we listen and care!” The therapeutic state seems to have only one role – it somatizes by alternate excitement and sedation. Its function is to smoothly transition the masses into acceptance by diverting their anger and medicating their depression.

The purpose of the therapeutic state is not to maintain a divine order or push forward into the unknown. It is to cope. Inclusively. 

Think of the bureaucrat. A vestigial organ of the now defunct industrial state, found across all its residual disciplinary institutions. 

Leviathan needed the bureaucrat to organize and maintain its disciplinary apparatus. Left to its own devices, it could always be relied on to create Kafkaesque labyrinths into which it could lure its unwitting prey. 

However, the bureaucrat has always been cowardly and would never dare to be the Minotaur in its own mazes. Instead, it would parasitically drain the vital energy of its victims while excreting the busy work necessary to maintain the labyrinth.    

Who knows, future historians might even decide that it was the bureaucrat, having developed class consciousness as the managerial class in the West and the nomenklatura in the lands of socialism, that brought the industrial society to collapse through its sheer parasitic chutzpah. 

In the therapeutic state, the role of the bureaucrat is played by the therapon. Like the strapon, the therapon is an ersatz appendage symbolizing an absence. 

The absence of order, meaning, or direction. Unless you call sinking a move in the right direction. 

The therapon is an attendant. It copes, but shallowly. The therapon listens and cares, inclusively. The therapon seethes when prodded, but timidly. 

The managerial class could at least be counted on for dizzying displays of kitsch vulgarity masquerading as high modern art, the prerogative of the untouchable parasite.  

The therapon aesthetic is a tepid vulgarity in pastels. A beige you must accept. 

On empathy

Empathy, generated with Stable Diffusion

Here’s a thought. High empathy is the most essential element of a culture or civilization in its prime, and the absence of empathy is the most important marker of a collapsing culture or society. 

There is a moment in Orson Scott Card’s Ender’s Game where the character Colonel Graf must explain why he chose the main protagonist Ender instead of one of his siblings as the commander of the human fleet to face an alien invasion. 

The colonel explains that Ender had the perfect balance of empathy and ruthlessness, while his siblings were either too empathetic and caring or too ruthless and sociopathic. Crucially, Colonel Graf also ensured that most, if not all, of Ender’s officers, had higher empathy than him.

Being too empathetic appears to be an obvious obstacle for a military commander who must be ready to destroy an enemy and sacrifice his soldiers. So why would too little empathy hinder a commander or anyone else? 

Empathy is usually associated with soft skills secondary to cold, rational decision-making. It is supposed to be a weakness, a quality for poets, fantasy romance writers, and the like. You wouldn’t want your stockbroker to show signs of empathy, would you? CEOs don’t get awarded bonus points for feelings, do they?

Well, empathy is not about having feelings for someone’s plight. Instead, empathy is the ability to model what it is to be someone else. 

Expressing feelings for someone’s condition is a projection of one’s internal state onto someone else. We see it everywhere today in the form of virtue signaling. 

However, modeling in one’s mind the internal states of someone else as if they were one’s own is an altogether different process.

Empathy starts with the other. To begin to empathize, you must acknowledge the other as a conditionally different entity from you, with different beliefs, values, experiences, feelings, and points of view. You then must model how that other would see a situation from their own POV.

This sounds like common sense, merely a precondition of the golden rule. However, it is an act of profound significance. You just created a synthetic entity that is radically symmetrical to you and then dropped the safety of your familiar POV to adopt the synthetic one.

Genuine empathy is also intellectually demanding, as it presupposes the ability to create mental models with conditional hypotheticals, emotion mapping, and recursive states. Let’s unpack these. 

First, an empath must create a mental model of the hypothetical state of another person, given a set of conditionals N. This involves imagining the other and modeling the other’s state given some hypothetical conditions that have not happened to you. 

The empath must then map the other person’s hypothetical emotional states onto the model because these states may influence how the other perceives reality.

In other words, the empath must model what it is to be the other given a set of hypothetical starting conditions and then map what that other might feel like in these conditions in a given moment. 

Modeling anything based on conditional hypotheticals is hard enough for many people. For example, “How would I have felt if I didn’t have breakfast this morning? What do you mean? I had breakfast!”. 

Emotion mapping adds another layer of complexity, as it involves synthesizing emotional states other than one’s own and then ensuring they cohere with the synthetic POV you adopted earlier. 

Finally, the empath must then run the model recursively to identify possible emotional states for conditionals n+1 for that other. In practice, this looks like continuously asking and then answering a question such as: “What would it have felt like to be person X in situation Z given conditionals N, and then have N+1 happen to me?”

An empath does this mental modeling intuitively and iteratively while observing and operating in changing external conditions. Quite a feat. However, empathic modeling is far less impressive in practice because everyone takes it for granted. Until it disappears, that is. Then it is too late. 

The absence of empathic modeling, particularly at large scales, becomes immediately visible. It is usually followed by disappearing trust, crumbling social and physical infrastructure, and sociopathic behaviors at all scales. 

Returning to Colonel Graf’s logic, you want your commander to be a high empath because that is a precondition to accurately modeling the enemy’s POV, assumptions, and decision-making process. To truly defeat an enemy, one has to truly understand them first.

The importance of empaths becomes more visible as an organization, or a society, increases in complexity. However, at an individual level, sociopaths would always dominate empaths as long as they can keep one step ahead of the consequences of their actions. Sociopaths generate entropy, but all is fine as long as someone else expands energy on dealing with that entropy.

You can observe this in large organizations where the energy source for maintenance is disconnected from most or all of the organization’s decisions and actions. Think government bureaucracies, academia, the peacetime military, and large corporations with a long delay between decisions and consequences. 

Over time, sociopaths congregate in management roles in such organizations, pushing out all empaths simply because of the absence of immediate consequences for bad decisions. Ironically, such organizations would expend exceeding energy on signaling an empath culture while smothering it at every step in the death grip of sociopathic managerialism and HR. 

However, empaths become necessary when the delay between actions and consequences is short, even in small teams, units, or tribes. In this scenario, you either act as an empath towards your unit or you get to learn all about friendly fire. 

Conversely, in a situation with a very short delay between actions and consequences, a team without a critical mass of empaths quickly generates enough entropy to tear apart all internal cohesion. This is because empaths are negentropic. 

As an organization grows in complexity, the number of empaths necessary to maintain critical mass increases because more and more organizational elements begin operating in situations with long delays between actions and consequences. 

This brings me to the importance of culture. A culture that valorizes empathy and consequently has a significant average of empaths would be able to operate large complex organizations while staving off entropy. To an outsider, this would appear as a high-trust society.

A society with a significant average of empaths doesn’t need surveillance cameras on every corner because an empath can model what it would be like to be the person whose bike was stolen. We call them high-trust societies but rarely ask where all that trust suddenly came from.

A society with a significant average of empaths would likely drive carefully and use indicators. As an empath, you use the indicator when merging into a lane because you can model what it would be like to be the driver who has to suddenly jump onto their brakes when someone suddenly joins in front of them without indicating. You also model what it would be like to be the hypothetical you if that other driver chooses not to jump on their brakes. 

It’s the simple things once you start seeing them. The trick is to see the simple things in aggregate as they add up over time and at large scales. Is that an empath thing?

The myth of the future

The Myth of the Future (made with OpenAI)

Every civilization needs a myth of the future. Civilizations fall to entropy and disintegrate without it.

What does a myth of the future look like? It is the story we tell ourselves collectively about the ultimate direction. It is a story that stands out of time yet permeates with meaning the present and everything we do.

These stories are not good or evil. They just are. The role of the myth is to provide teleology for all that happens within a civilization as a system. Without it there is no collective point to the future.

The Chinese myth – Tianxia [All Under Heaven] – is the most literal and succinct demonstration of that role. Perhaps this is why China is the oldest civilization around. 

The Roman myth was SPQR – Senatus Populusque Romanus [The Senate and People of Rome]. When Rome stopped believing in its sacred nature, disintegration began.

The medieval world’s myth was Regnum Dei [The Kingdom of Heaven] and, occasionally, Deus Vult [God Wills It]. The Black Death put an end to that.

The modern myth oscillated from For God and King to The White Man’s Burden. It was drowned in blood and mud on the fields of WWI and WWII.

Western civilization has lost its collective myth of the future. It doesn’t even matter how or why. It is not a new thing. Spengler was the first to see it.

There is only an eternal present now. Hypertrophied consumerism with no sense of purpose, direction, or meaning. A sunset administered by an outsourced answering machine.

Ironically, when the trotskyists neocons declared the end of history and the last man, thinking it their final victory speech, they instead pronounced the death eulogy for western civilization.

Without a myth of the future a civilization automatically loses its past as well. The end of history is also the end of the future. Only a disintegrating present remains.

I believe a new civilization will rise from the miasma of the present and with it, a new myth of the future. 

What could it be? I think Ad Astra would work.