joshua on scale ness
Scale Theory: Contemplating Everything-At-Onceness with Joshua DiCaglio via interview with michael garfield
scale.. at scale.. human scale.. geoffrey on scaling.. scale the individual.. gillis on small scale.. et al
ginormous/small ness.. george on metamodern ai shaman ness
via michel bauwens tweet [https://x.com/mbauwens/status/1941385290435953080]:
* Scale Theory: Contemplating Everything-At-Onceness with Joshua DiCaglio. (conversation with Michael Garfield)
https://michaelgarfield.substack.com/p/h-15
Will mysticism or colonialism rule the future? On the
* Book: Joshua DiCaglio. Scale Theory: A Nondisciplinary Inquiry.
“It’s a book bout how contemplating scale can transform us — how it’s one thing to understand the microcosm and macrocosm through our maps and another thing entirely to really sit with the mystery of how all of this is happening at once. We can conceptually differentiate ourselves from the rest of the cosmos, but scale makes it clear that at no point do we ever truly stand outside it all.
but only if we ‘scale’ the thing(s) that matter.. ie: nonjudgmental label/connect ing ness
And this has enormous implications: contemplating scale is not merely an idle curiosity but an existential necessity. In an age of exponential AI, our future hinges on whether we can learn to overcome the tendency to colonize other scales with our abstractions and cultivate the capacity to recognize interdependency with the unthinkably small and large. How does truly understanding this change the way we live? Bewilderment is a rich place to start.”
ginormous/small ness
notes from link/site in tweet:
This week’s guest my friend Joshua DiCaglio, Associate Professor of English at Texas A&M University and author of the fabulous Scale Theory: A Nondisciplinary Inquiry.
It’s a book bout how contemplating scale can transform us — how it’s one thing to understand the microcosm and macrocosm through our maps and another thing entirely to really sit with the mystery of how all of this is happening at once. We can conceptually differentiate ourselves from the rest of the cosmos, but scale makes it clear that at no point do we ever truly stand outside it all.
And this has enormous implications: contemplating scale is not merely an idle curiosity but an existential necessity. In an age of exponential AI, our future hinges on whether we can learn to overcome the tendency to colonize other scales with our abstractions and cultivate the capacity to recognize interdependency with the unthinkably small and large. How does truly understanding this change the way we live? Bewilderment is a rich place to start. Let’s simmer in it for a while…
notes/quotes from 2 hr video interview [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-I-09nfY4M]:
j: we have created an insufferable framework for understanding our relationship to these scalar bits of info.. we have to pull plug on that by forcing ourselves to be honest with scale we are actually at..t @jdicaglio
aka: black science of people/whales law.. hari rat park law.. et al
2 min – m: scale theory is a book about how contemplating scale can transform us.. at deepest level.. things not as separate as they seem.. about how language intoxicates us about power over a world that ultimately isn’t simply out there.. that is.. we can conceptually differentiate ourselves from rest of cosmos.. but contemplation at scale makes it clear that at no point do we ever stand outside of it.. how does understanding this change the way we live..t @michaelgarfield
thurman interconnectedness law: when you understand interconnectedness it makes you more afraid of hating than of dying – Robert Thurman et al..
language as control/enclosure et al..
3 min – m: i record these episodes out of order.. this one originally was dec 2024..
4 min – m: (para: on unable to understand.. be wise.. with all the abundance of info.. as the problem of the scale ness).. did we even create ai
still so taleb center of problem law.. ooof.. words and words just adding to the cancerous distractions
skipped rest of that section
16 min – the task of making this stuff that sounds really abstract not.. is important.. but it’s really not.. the thing i keep doing.. i flip the script and say.. i think science is really abstract.. ie: diagram of cells is really abstract.. science has already redescribed the world and we all walk around talking about it.. we don’t even realize the way in which those terms are abstract to us.. so book tries to retrace what is implicitly assumed when you start to talk about these scales.. which only make sense when tied to scale.. only reason things are empirical is because we have a scalar relationship with them.. but we don’t realize it.. always already an abstraction inherent
20 min – m: ch 9, 10, 11 where you talk about science, rhetoric et al.. and criticizing it.. what is already true.. since beginning of human
i’m thinking nothing to date.. we’ve iterated on abstractions since the beginning so.. we’re not us
22 min – m: quote from book: ‘one can only act on the scale at which one exists’.. everybody is looking for that point of leverage..
23 min – j: i like to say.. ‘don’t think that way’.. i was originally going to write a book about nano tech.. 2007 ish.. on how artifical those convos about nano tropes..
again.. all whalespeak to date
26 min – j: just how confusing our claims about scalar intervention are.. i went to occupy trying to figure it out what it was.. same as nano rhetoric was used in occupy as on wall street .. why is the same rhetoric occurring in way science and occupy and wall street.. common denominator was scale.. so i asked who to ask what scale is.. they told me no one.. so i decided to write the book
30 min – j: in programming class.. asking.. why am i the only one asking these questions.. and that i can’t stop asking the questions.. ie: what is it we are doing to/with the computer
32 min – j: what i actually want to do is philosophy.. but i’d never read it in the way i wanted to ask these questions.. moment where i was sitting in this rhetoric class.. i was loving it.. nietzsche et al.. the need to attend to the problem of language first was important to me.. i’m uninterested in doing any of this in any dogmatic.. like.. here’s what you should believe in
35 min – j: best lesson for me.. culture and language.. esp language that is reinforced by culture you’re supposed to believe in.. is one of the biggest obstacles to this line of inquiry i’m talking about..t .. ie: what do we mean by scale.. what do we mean by climate change.. made up of scales.. *the issue there is very much tied up into the way that we as human beings have this tendency to become intoxicated with our language and reinforce that intoxication thru social aggregation.. t
*huge.. aka: whalespeak; language as control/enclosure; legible ness; breaking the alphabet ness; et al
36 min – j: now you talk about how there’s all these evolutionary reasons for this.. but for me that has always been the sort of core concerns.. and also the philosophical consideration that allows me to take the method i’m taking.. however.. however.. i am actually very interested in the way we mold/transform our modes existence of reality even in the power of language.. so the flip side of our intoxication with language.. the very capacity of language to intoxicate us is the very capacity it has to change our minds.. so.. in process of my intell development.. having left aside any dogmatic constraints.. i found myself unable to avoid the affects of these discourses to transform the way you understand self in reality.. old habits
37 min – suddenly found myself w an experimental protocol to examine way they transform us.. scientific and not.. yet share literal terminology with sci description.. before scale was scientific it was mystic..
39 min – j: exactly the problem w rhetoric.. if this stuff was easy to process.. we’d already be there
why are we supposed to be ‘there’?.. assuming you mean in an understanding ness..
am thinking if legit free.. understanding/defining/describing/rheteric-ing.. would all be/become irrelevant s
41 min – j: scale exists.. you’re all one thing.. but seems like problem is.. epistemologically.. (when talking/claiming).. things are very specific.. yeah so epistemological specificity makes it possible for me to show up here and articulate any of that.. yeah so we need to know how to be able to .. in relation to how things are experienced.. but ontological separability as how things really are.. both important.. but esp when combine them is where difficult rhetorical happen
so let’s let go of explaining ness.. of naming the colour ness.. of talking/talking/talking ness
46 min – m: so why is this matter to tech.. quote from book (this itself is 2 quotes) that bridges the matter: ‘critique .. crucial philosophy .. it is a mistake to think of mind/matter as 2 diff things.. diff is an artifact of logical typing.. a category mistake.. info like humanity cannot exist apart from embodiment which can’t be replicated.. no amount of massaging the data will bring it back.. ‘
49 min – m: on the diff between hardware and software.. analog into machine.. we get software.. ‘software is eating the world’ an epistemic distinction.. software is really a move of tech from scale at which humans are programming by hand to writing software at scale that is inscrutable to us
again.. this is all talking talking talking.. until we talk about what would make a legit diff.. ie: let’s exponentiate (scale) nonjudgmental labeling so we can exponentiate/scale legit connections.. aka: the dance
52 min – j: the deal of logical types.. this is the thing i teach that nobody has heard of .. gregory bateson who was obsessed w logical typing.. huge on scale.. he tried to get everyone (norbert weiner) to talk about logical types and no one would because couldn’t understand it.. no one can figure out how to distinguish logical types..
54 min – j: reason whitehead and russell find themselves with theory of logical types is because of exactly these kinds of problems.. where we divide up world in one way .. then divide it in another.. then we’re confused they don’t aline.. so russell/whitehead made math rules that relate two logical types together.. what’s fascinating to me is that bateson operationalizes this in relation to cybernetics.. originally when you have something that is a category that includes smaller things .. bateson says every cybernetic loop creates a type because it’s referring back to itself.. it was a way of thinking about what computers are doing
oof.. let it go.. and let’s use them for what our hearts crave..
55 min – j: we’ve done that to reality when we change scales.. reality logical types itself
1:08 – j: question about agency/intimacy/systems.. have to tread carefully.. can only act at scale you exist.. but have to find what exists first.. basic method i turn to is to switch scales to show.. we underestimate significant scalar shift required for scales to collab
1:12 – j: when you think the king/president is doing the thing.. actually just a part of the whole.. and the thing that enables it to have that power is that we go along with it
1:13 – j: beyond human.. plants.. sun.. actually the next scale at which life is organizing is the planet.. ie: is respiratory system autopoetic.. nothing could act on its own w/o rest of planet.. all systems come together to make it possible.. it’s an incredible forgetting/leaving-out to call things systems and give them name and legal status on whether or not is itself an entity.. could still be a scalar mediator.. ie: respiratory system is scale mediator to oxygen entering you.. yes.. legal entity.. do i think it’s a person..
1:16 – j: we have to sort this out a little more carefully.. between discourses we churn about scalar relations and the way in which a careful accounting of scale helps us sort that out.. selective scale switching in relation to ai/tech-systems.. there’s reasons they do this.. but the point is to be really careful about claims you are making about control.. about who is doing it.. and esp in relation to the limits of knowledge.. about what you know about what is happening and about what you actually control.. those are related.. you literally don’t know what’s going to happen next.. yet the capacity to create certain tech interventions and sci terminology gives us the feeling that we can.. to push against the fact that they think they’re in control is to know how much is left out.. doesn’t mean i know
yeah.. lots to let go of.. graeber can’t know law et al
1:18 – m: your insistence that certain things have closure.. why (?) thinks machines are not alive.. i asked matt segal if we’re making a mistake if not seeing the machine vs the actual machine that is alive and is us.. info theory of individuality.. can start to tease of how sci can define the individual that gets us closer to thorny questions..
ooof.. cancerous distractions
1:23 – j: i’m always super impressed by those that can mathematically define things.. but also not that impressed.. because this is the way math can operationalize and describe thresholds and moments of decision.. this is a mode of discourse.. and i’m always wondering what it’s asking me to do with reality.. they’re saying.. at some point it stops mattering.. so round off.. so impressed with it.. accuracy et al.. but that’s what scale does.. the reason it’s called quantum theory is because it’s quantum.. they thought atom was smallest scale.. einstein said could define something smaller – quantum.. i realize reasons for this.. ie: legal frameworks.. require defn of individuality.. but i think these modes are as dangerous as they are useful..
1:27 – j: geoffrey west comes out.. after my first draft.. so able to revise a bit for 2nd draft.. what he’s so good at.. he can do this at diff scales.. i’m not going to dispute those things.. but science hides a not knowing in a knowing.. once code it.. term is meant to encode entirety of planet and all operations going on.. *it would be absurd if brain would be able to process all that info
geoffrey west et al scale
*absurd that we keep thinking that (processing info) is what life is about
1:29 – j: i‘m astonished that all of these smart people seem to be very good at forgetting the rest of reality..t so same w what is happening now with ai.. pay attention to what you are forgetting about rest of reality.. ie: is it just your brain that does it.. i’ve said before .. in order to have convo.. language has to exist.. in order for language to exist.. rest of history has to have existed.. in order for you and i to see there.. light has to be there.. so is the seeing of you something i’m doing or is it a prescription of… and the seeing is all those things.. we don’t understand that what we do is already connected to rest of reality
1:30 – j: as soon as you think you can predict.. you have to realize other things could be there.. then so thrown for a loop.. what quantum physics means is that we control it.. this is the case with all this stuff.. with ai .. with individuality..
1:31 – j: reason i think all wisdom traditions worth their salt.. center problem of false individuality.. the i who thinks he’s the doer.. the i emerges first and divides out the rest of reality and develops all other issues.. everything unravels and you get something diff..t this the danger of tech/sci/articulation.. when find a powerful way of articulating.. then so easy to ignore/forget what you have done is find a functional delimitation of reality that is not substantial
black science of people/whales law; wilde not-us law; et al
1:34 – m: i think west embodies this.. he says most interesting thing about this is that it reveals these anomalies.. and the place of humans on that anomalous curve.. reveals something of interest.. but now what.. what to do to get people to see how important this is .. and transform people’s perspective on this.. thru scalar shift to change way we interact in world..t
nothing to date has gotten to root of problem
legit freedom will only happen if it’s all of us.. and in order to be all of us.. has to be sans any form of measuring, accounting, people telling other people what to do
how we gather in a space is huge.. need to try spaces of permission where people have nothing to prove to facil curiosity over decision making.. because the finite set of choices of decision making is unmooring us.. keeping us from us..
ie: imagine if we listen to the itch-in-8b-souls 1st thing everyday & use that data to connect us (tech as it could be.. ai as augmenting interconnectedness)
the thing we’ve not yet tried/seen: the unconditional part of left to own devices ness
[‘in an undisturbed ecosystem ..the individual left to its own devices.. serves the whole’ –dana meadows]
there’s a legit use of tech (nonjudgmental exponential labeling) ..to facil the seeming chaos of a global detox leap/dance.. for (blank)’s sake..
ie: whatever for a year.. a legit sabbatical ish transition
1:39 – j: important to experiment w ways of getting us to think about and honestly face these things.. t
actually just need means (aka: hari rat park law).. for the dance to dance.. thinking we need more ‘thinking about’ ness is part of the cancerous distraction
1:40 – j: use ‘what can you do’ as contemplative.. rather than it trying to tell you what to do.. literally meditate on what can you do.. for like an hour.. and keep it going as you walk thru your day.. and you’ll realize how absurd the brain/culture is about this issue.. ie: if focus on climate change forget to pick up kids in an hour.. you already have a set of socially derived ness of obligation, responsibility.. the way to unravel that requires some kind of contemplative exercise..
aka: global detox leap.. if not in sync.. then perpetuate the whac-a-mole-ing ness of assumption ness
1:42 – j: self inquiry is hard.. ongoing.. requires you to be honest about how much your bs ing yourself and others.. all built on rhetorical sheen.. already a rhetorical self selection toward ego id.. but that’s where it’s killing us.. literally choking the planet
1:43 – j: so individual scale intervention.. what can you do .. if you’re the guy at open ai doing this stuff.. i want to know what you can do.. because i can’t do any of this because not in your position.. there are certain things you can do.. ie: right now i can write a book about whatever.. but i also can raise 2 kids.. also teach classes.. but can i go and stop cobalt mining in congo.. no.. but you can see social pressure is so (intense) the convo starts rambling.. i don’t even need you to do it.. ‘have your really done all you can do ‘.. this is why we’re all constantly doom scrolling.. the scalar invasion of so much info has required us to recenter on the here and now.. even as we get this info from all over the place.. we have to develop these other ways of going.. wait.. what can i do.. w/o going to the social pressure.. *because we think that’s our only device for making change.. is controlling other people..t scary stuff about controlling world.. dictating what people can be.. if i were to tell each of my cells what to do.. crazy.. but this is what we do to our body.. and we translate to world.. and end up with.. ‘what did you do today’.. we have created an insufferable framework.. we’ve got to be able to pull the plug on that by forcing ourselves to be at scale we are actually at..
*huge huge.. the thing we’ve not yet tried/seen: the unconditional part of left to own devices ness
[‘in an undisturbed ecosystem ..the individual left to its own devices.. serves the whole’ –dana meadows]
1:48 – m: quote from book ‘questions begin in wonder’.. i think what i’m trying to do with this show is.. we need new stories.. but then when we have them.. *what can we do to effect a world in which we give each other opportunity to write own stories..t **it’s the not doing .. that we need more of..t
*rather.. not even care to write them.. just live/be them.. ie: imagine if we listen to the itch-in-8b-souls 1st thing everyday & use that data to connect us (tech as it could be.. ai as augmenting interconnectedness)
**actually.. the not having to document/explain/rhetoricize/make-legible/know/understand/name/label.. as we go/live/be
1:50 – j: uses less energy.. we are scared when we become aware of not knowing.. that feeling that you don’t know is just that the rest of reality is there.. so let the rest of reality exist too.. scale let’s us come up w adhoc protocols.. ie: don’t panic planet is rearranging self.. your panic is egoic.. and ref point to planet puts you intention with idea of agency.. not about human agency.. but about planet rearranging itself.. giving tech systems to planet..
_______
______
_____
_____
- scale
______
_____
_____
_____
____
be you. 