sam on structure

sam chaltain on structure (sam on freedom)

7th/last feature via sam tweet []:

The Seventh Feature of a Flourishing School Life is complicated. So nature makes it simple(r) . . .

notes/quotes from post:

Measuring complex systems will always be imprecise. 

more important to humanity.. measuring things kills whatever it’s measuring

literacy and numeracy both elements of colonialism/control/enclosure.. we need to calculate differently and stop measuring things

mufleh humanity lawwe have seen advances in every aspect of our lives except our humanity– Luma Mufleh

Certitude is a chimera. 

graeber can’t know law.. graeber unpredictability/surprise law.. et al

And the Butterfly Effect — or the notion that a butterfly’s wings in Beijing today could shape next month’s weather patterns in New York City — was more than just idle chatter; it was the natural order of our natural world.

thurman interconnectedness lawwhen you understand interconnectedness it makes you more afraid of hating than of dying – Robert Thurman 

In time, Lorenz’s accidental discovery helped launch an entirely new scientific field: Chaos Theory, or the idea that simple systems can create extraordinarily difficult problems of predictability — and still give rise to a spontaneous sort of order.

graeber unpredictability/surprise law.. fromm spontaneous law.. murray on spontaneity.. et al

humanity needs a leap.. to get back/to simultaneous spontaneity ..  simultaneous fittingness..  everyone in sync..

Structure, in other words, is a prerequisite to freedom — but only when it is a function of engendering order, as opposed to ensuring control..t

yeah.. i don’t know.. pre req?.. perhaps for detox.. but to me.. not for legit freedom.. carhart-harris entropy law et al

need: infinitesimal structures approaching the limit of structureless\ness and/or vice versa .. aka: ginorm/small ness

sam replies w/this tweet []:

I have found that this is one of freedom’s most interesting (& surprising) paradoxes — that it is inextricably linked to structure, albeit just enough . . . tell me more about why you think entropic brain theory rebuts this?

i reply: experience (didn’t send but ie: findings abstract et al)

also didn’t send but thought this: we referred to that ‘albeit just enough’ ness as a raised eyebrow in the lab

also thinking: since to me.. we have no idea what legit free people are like.. no givens about your paradox of a freedom/structure link.. as well as about my thinking freedom has to be sans any form of m\a\p..

and then: just googled ‘entropic brain theory’.. don’t think i’m referring to that (too much structure)

one of google links – The entropic brain: a theory of conscious states informed by neuroimaging research with psychedelic drugs – [] has robin carhart-harris as one of authors: ‘At its core, the entropic brain hypothesis proposes that the quality of any conscious state depends on the system’s entropy measured via key parameters of brain function. Entropy is a powerful explanatory tool for cognitive neuroscience since it provides a quantitative index of a dynamic system’s randomness or disorder while simultaneously describing its informational character, i.e., our uncertainty about the system’s state if we were to sample it at any given time-point (Friston, 2010)‘.. and ‘Importantly, this functional centrality of the DMN is not shared by other brain networks (de Pasquale et al., 2012; Braga et al., 2013), implying that, as the highest level of a functional hierarchy (Carhart-Harris and Friston, 2010), it serves as a central orchestrator or conductor of global brain function.

to me.. this is too much structure.. too much focus on thinking we can and have to define something (that’s alive).. naming the colour ness et al.. i was referring to robin’s phrase in particular: letting go of ‘hard won order

back to sam’s post:

This feels like a vital insight for a modern world torn asunder by a seemingly endless list of things to fear, and a similarly desperate effort by all of us to keep the various boogeymen at bay. 

“We seem hypnotized by structures,” writes Margaret Wheatley, “and we build them strong and complex because they must, we believe, hold back the dark forces that threaten to destroy us.”

Yet even in this digital age, one in which the meaning of ‘social network’ has taken on both new and added meaning, there can be great comfort in recognizing the ways a well-calibrated living system actually works. 

“The observation that the bio-logic, or pattern of organization of a simple cell, is the same as that of an entire social structure is highly nontrivial,” Fritjof Capra explains. “It suggests a fundamental unity of life, and hence also the need to study and understand all living structures from such a unifying perspective.”

organism as fractal et al

This notion of unity, James Gleick adds, reveals a universe that is “rough, not rounded, scabrous, not smooth. It is a geometry of the pitted, pocked, and broken up, the twisted, tangled and intertwined.” And yet “the pits and tangles are more than blemishes distorting the classic shapes of Euclidian geometry. They are often the keys to the essence of the thing.”

of math and men et al

These sea changes in scientific thinking illuminate an enduring truth of the natural world — one that we, too, can heed in the human realm: 

It is identity, not structure, that must drive our designs..t

rather.. we need to let go of id (it too begs to be infinitesimally temp ie: the it is me ness), structure, design, any form of m\a\p

“What occurs in living systems,” Margaret Wheatley explains, “is contrary to our normal way of thinking. Openness to the environment over time spawns a stronger system, one that is less susceptible to externally induced change. What comes to dominate over time is not outside influences, but the self-organizing dynamics of the system itself. .t Because it partners with its environment, the system develops increasing autonomy from the environment and also develops new capacities that make it increasingly resourceful. 

‘in undisturbed ecosystems ..the average individual, species, or population, left to its own devices, behaves in ways that serve and stabilize the whole..’ –Dana Meadows


1\ undisturbed ecosystem (common\ing) can happen

2\ if we create a way to ground the chaos of 8b legit free people

wish you could hear

“We usually act from the reverse belief. We believe that in order to maintain ourselves and protect our individual freedom, we must defend ourselves from external forces.”

yeah.. to me.. that’s whalespeak (only need to say that because we’re in – and until we get out of – sea world)

Indeed, this is the surprising twist of it all – that the primary role of structure in the natural world is not to be eternal, but temporary; and not to guard, but to share. . t

ok.. let’s try this structure..

imagine if we listened to the itch-in-8b-souls 1st thing everyday & used that data to connect us (tech as it could be.. ai as augmenting interconnectedness as nonjudgmental expo labeling)

Using nature as a model, therefore, means doing almost everything differently in our schools and our organizations. . t

rather.. it means letting go of schools and orgs.. and just doing everything differently

graeber make it diff law et al

This, then, is the work.

And this is how we can build a better world — by ensuring that all living systems, from our schools to our companies to our homes and communities, are designed to affirm each person’s inner spark, not dim it.

schools and companies aren’t living systems..

yeah to inner spark.. but this way.. ie: imagine if we


Your final challenge is to (re)design a current physical space of your school in a way that embodies your most aspirational future. 

Use the seven principles of a living system as your design drivers, and then draw a picture or make a collage of the space itself:

  • IDENTITY: How can I create a space that helps reinforce who — and why — our school is what it is?

perpetuating myth of tragedy and lord if any form of m\a\p.. ie: school, id, et al

  • INFORMATION: In what ways can my space invite people to pay close attention to what matters most?

need to quit inviting ness.. dave’s campfire analogy et al

what matters most (to 8b legit free people) ..the itch-in-8b-souls 1st thing everyday & used that data to connect us via ai as nonjudgmental expo labeling

  • RELATIONSHIPS: How does my space encourage people to relate to one another? How does it help trust build and flow?..t

to me.. not trust if it has to build.. be built.. et al.. space can’t encourage it.. space needs to be about listening to what is already in each soul.. this is why we think we need ie: structure, id, design, et al.. because we don’t grok the unconditionality of legit trust

pearson unconditional law et al

  • EMERGENCE: What behaviors ought to form the atomic units of this space? What is seeking to emerge?

? we have no idea.. otherwise not legit emergence..

  • PATTERNS: What norms ought to govern our behaviors in this space? Which patterns do we want to see showing up over time?

none.. myth of normal et al..

  • PROCESSES: What rituals, routines, decisions, and rewards is this space for?

none.. any form of m\a\p is killer to alive ness.. esp those.. ie: decision making is unmooring us law; gabor on validation; all the red flags we’re doing it/life wrong

  • STRUCTURES: How does this space place human beings at the center of the experience?

need 1st/most: means to undo our hierarchical listening to self/others/nature so we can org around legit needs