« No, Virginia, there isn't a Santa Claus | Main | Thanks, godless heathens, for a good blog year »

December 28, 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Im not sure I really like these pop soft-science books. I'm not saying that these chaps dont come up with an interesting thought or two, usually distilled into some smart-arse pithy buzzword - like anti-fragility.

And I'm not sure it really helps to define things in negative terms, for example in terms of what something is not. It just emphasises how vague the underlying principle being discussed really is.

Its a bit like the Tao Te Ching, which in my limited understanding, attempts to try define absolute reality in terms of what it is not.

How the fuck does anyone know what absolute reality is not?

Thank you kindly and seasons greetings. In the immortal words of Mike Myers: "Lets get pissed!"

George, I think you'd like "Antifragile." It's not at all abstract or hypothetical. And Taleb describes antifragility in very positive terms. It's a quality of natural and human systems which can be observed and measured.

Taleb made his living as a trader for quite a while. He's very much into concrete practical life, not airy-fairy theorizing. In fact, he detests theories, preferring phenomenology. This causes that. Or this leads to that, in an observable fashion.

However, Taleb correctly observes that often we can't predict what will happen. Yet theorists believe they can. I like his emphasis on understanding how a system responds to the world, rather than trying to predict exactly what the system will do.


yes, there is something interesting about systems, i can see why it grabbed your fancy with your background.

It is a bizarre phenomena, where it seems that so many systems are more than the sum of their constiuent parts.

the cell system made up of countless atoms, the body system made up of countless cells, the earth system (if there's anything to lovelock's gaia), etc and possible the universal system.

but the interesting thing about these systems is how them seem to form to offer more than their parts, some sort of emergent complexity.

the body made of cells, which in turns is made of atoms. the cells in our body are constantly being divided and destroyed and renewed until death, our physical form ages with our body system being formed of a completely different set of atoms, and yet consciousness somehow still exists. The sense of self is maintained.

I presume your system theory studies were more on physical (material) systems, but i suspect your personal interest in spirituality, and the holistic rather than reducible approach seemingly adopted by many mystic traditions, made you ask similar questions.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.