I was recently invited to record a conversation about the central concepts addressed in a forthcoming chapter I wrote, scheduled for publication in February (or perhaps sooner). In the chapter, I creatively meander through ideas related to ‘information’ via improvisation and adaptability in the age of dynamic technology, touching on personal and theoretical implications. I very much appreciated being provided with an outline of the questions I would be asked in advance.
Not least of all because, the concepts I am exploring are exceptionally difficult, partly because they are exactly that, often seemingly impenetrable; and I am no physicist. In fact, I can barely count and, I’m afraid to say, that is not hyperbole. But difficult also because, as Carlo Rovelli repeatedly explains, we as a society have not yet digested the ideas that the science he studies invokes, as we already did with previously discovered worldview-changing concepts. So even though I have been reading and writing about information and drawing on Vilém Flusser’s concept of information and connecting it to Rovelli’s, and how all of that relates to digital culture for a good while, planning and rehearsing felt very necessary. This became especially evident after I started typing my potential answers beneath the proposed questions I was sent, and witnessed myself waffling on for far too long… blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, I went. Those drafted answers would have taken twenty minutes each to read out loud, which would not have done for a proposed fifteen-minute podcast… far too much information, or so it risked being. Equally, I did not want to read my answers like a sullen child forced by a demanding parent to perform her homework to an embarrassed elderly relative. I wanted to speak, listen, and converse as naturally as possible under such circumstances.
Gratefully, I accepted an offer from a few friends in my regular reading group to listen to my suggested answers. Last Thursday morning, after some chat, they challenged me to a quickfire round, focusing only on what was most relevant: information, circles and lines, refusing ennui and accepting some level of drift in this emerging universe of ours. A big thank you to them! I suspect that was immensely helpful in the end.
However, the exorcise (I meant excercise but maybe it was an excorcise!) of planning also resulted in a potential piece of work based on my preparatory doodling and note-making, which explores how an information-based universe may challenge some deeply embedded notions to do with history and temporality. I wanted to visualise time and events not only as linear but also as a series of diffracted patterns. So, I have since developed what started as a sketch into an interactive webpage, and hope the editors and publishers of my chapter will allow me to link the podcast once it is ready (which visitors could choose to listen to while interacting with the page or simply watching the ripples on the figure pulse). By creating this picture – with, I might add, the tremendous support of an LLM since, not only am I no physicist, I am also no coder – I accept the presence of representation while also acknowledging its fluid potential when built using a digitised render of information – code. Here is a preview of the site, as screenshots only, while I continue working on it and debugging certain irritants. Watch this space for the live site which might contribute in some small way to the digestion Rovelli speaks about so often.
I could not quite work out which was the best title for the website but have gone with Loud Thinking for the moment. Thinking Loudly or Loudly Thinking were also contenders. Let me know what you think…
See a few previous mentions of Rovelli on this website here.
