Decided to do a search on self-discipline in education, and the results were rather thin. Most were spurious analysis confirming what we know, and then plaintive recommendations. See below for three examples.

‘Results suggest that discipline infractions are associated with more negative perceptions of school climate and provide a rationale for the use of proactive approaches to school discipline as a way to enhance student perceptions of school climate.’

Sarah A. Fefer & Kayla Gordon (2020) Exploring perceptions of school climate among secondary students with varying discipline infractions, International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 8:3, 174-183.

‘Findings suggested that creating a sense of a whole school team-oriented culture may hold promise for enhancing school connectedness.’

Carney JV, Joo H, Hazler RJ, Geckler J. Students’ Perceptions of School Connectedness and Being Part of a Team: A Brief Report Evaluating Project TEAM™. J Prim Prev. 2019

‘Overall, the findings provide novel evidence suggesting that students’ engagement can be fostered by supportive teacher-student interactions.’

Pöysä S, Vasalampi K, Muotka J, Lerkkanen MK, Poikkeus AM, Nurmi JE. Teacher-student interaction and lower secondary school students’ situational engagement. Br J Educ Psychol. 2019


Clearly a form of lunacy is being demonstrated. The tendency of academia to pathologise both psychological and sociological behaviour, means they analyse what the problem is and provide evidence of it, and then suggest vacuous recommendations like these. Only evidence of problems, no solutions.

Academia This Week

The papers which actually tested interventions weren’t much better. Some reported conflict of interests because the interventions were supported by tech and the owner of the providing tech were amongst the writers; others who had the same authors didn’t even reveal conflict of interest. All involved training of staff, which means high overheads.

Critical Realism

Pragmatism and Critical Realism –
Transcending Descartes’ Either/Or? In: Understanding Management Research
By: Phil Johnson & Joanne Duberley Pub. Date: 2011


Pragmatism and Critical Realism –
Transcending Descartes’ Either/Or? In: Understanding Management Research
By: Phil Johnson & Joanne Duberley Pub. Date: 2011

how we treat kids

Managing with Mindfulness: Connecting with Students in the 21st Century
Author Tony Yeigh
Publisher Cambridge University Press, 2020

Some nice content on the way, though. Critical realism as between Empirical realism and Superidealism, or alternatively ontological realism and epistemic relativism; a nice model of Kant’s noumenal as real and phe-nomenal is experienced; and a nice timeline of how science has changed how we deal with kids in class. Trust business management to come up with some nice diagrams.

During my walk to get some bread this morning, I ruminated over the fact that the other participants at this Critical Realism group did not contribute to my observation, and in fact the leading professor argued against it. We read this paper (the Johnson & Duberley one mentioned above), and it seemed clear to me that the difference being made between ‘standard’ critical realism and ‘pragmatic’ CR was that standard CR used retroduction and pragmatic CR introduced all manner of terms which indicated a future orientation: ‘anticipation’ and ‘manipulating’ implies intent and agency, ‘Thus Dewey defined truth as ‘processes of change so directed so that they achieve an intended consummation’ (Dewey 1929b: iii) where justified knowledge was a socially constructed artefact created so as to aid humans in their practical endeavours of ‘settling problematic situations’’, ‘Man must prove the truth, i.e. the reality and power, the this-sideness of his thinking in practice [sic]. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is purely a scholastic question. (Remmling 1975: 3)’, ‘actual realisation of expectations’, ‘projective role of epistemic subject’. The Prof didn’t see it that way.

“Atemporal Fallacy”

I think I will call it the ‘atemporal fallacy’. It is equivalent to the epistemic fallacy which is to take the experienced or theorised world for the actual world itself. The disembodied academic is also atemporal. Words appear to exist as static thing on the page. There’s a big move to include theoreticians in their social context, which is what postmodernism was about. Critical Realism attempts to find a spot between this subjective reality and the ‘external’ (this word was actually used in this article, obliviously it seemed to me) world. The nature of it is caught in some kind of co-emergence of structure-agency. Not well defined, and everyone is confused about it. Bhaskar, the originator of critical realism, emphasised retroduction, which obviously contains the word ‘retro’ in it, a clue which is dismissed by the prof, in order to explain present conditions; one invents some mechanism which accounts for actual events. Whereas the thrust of this paper was to emphasise the testing of an idea, which necessarily involves a future projected intention.

I brought up the necessity for us to develop reflexively well behaved tools. I don’t think academics have any idea how structure-agency works in terms of writing and reading. So obvious to me. They rejected my Confirmation Report and Reflexive Reading — in fact the prof above is one of the reviewers who failed me. We are prone to chase our tail if we don’t appreciate that this is happening as we talk/listen in the here and now; or as we write/read. The ‘chasing the tail’ is an external observation; the internal experience is chasing this thing as object of attention, like the authors of this article who think they can grasp a ‘concrete’ objective. And readers follow, and end up trying to reach some kind of ‘stable understanding’ within themselves, which is internally consistent.  What’s needed, if we want to have any understanding of how we work is to acknowledge that the intersubject state is inherently co-dependent, or interdependent. Unless we stabilise it ‘between us’, we fall foul of stabilising it in ‘writing’ or ‘in a person’. Classic Shotter, by the way, who promotes as well as demonstrates a before-the-fact hermeneutic.

Anyway, the simple bit is, ‘atemporal fallacy’. We need to understand our temporality. Pointing at things is the fastest way. Any form of extemporisation, and the moment is gone. And academia fills articles, books, libraries, harddrives with these extemporalisations, simply increasing the theory-practice divide. The practitioners is immersed in the temporal flow, within the moving structure of inter-dependence, the moving mind and intentions and actions of others. They need to act within this social context. And I think intellectuals should too. Might actually help us in some significant way.

Dialogical Organisational Development

Also got Dialogical Organisational Development from Wendy, which shows attempts at collaborative welfare state development in Denmark. Changes are occuring, but the question is, how deep. And the basis of the multiple-system change we are suggesting, the depth is unquestionably deep. I suspect the DOD will suffer from the same financial restrictions which traditional economic imposes. Incremental change is insufficient. A fundamental shift at multiple systems is required.

Here, study and experiment provided the basis for organizational learning and development rather  than analysis and implementation of known concepts. The term Dialogic OD marks a return to a  set of original virtues on taking action in changing organizations – taking into account the past
30 years of research and developments in practice.
The unifying point is that a family of ideas comprises a field of basic positions, with an  accompanying set of methods for practice. The basic positions are known as social  constructivism, complexity theory and self-organization, discourse and dialogue theory, the theory of complex responsive processes of relationship formation, generativity and collaborative studies (ibid). Together, these positions seek to paint a picture of organizations as complex social communities bound by interactions, language and conversation.

From p66 Towards More and Better Welfare Through Dialogic Organization  Development: The “We Figure It Out Together” Project, by Jacob Storch and Julie Nørgaard Aarhus, Denmark, International Journal of Collaborative-Dialogic Practices, 10(1), 2020: 61-83. And from p67:

The purpose of methods is their use in practice! Central to the aforementioned understanding of dialogic change is the confrontation of a classic dominant idea first articulated by Kurt Lewin (Bushe & Marshak 2015: 12) in 1947, which holds that interventions follow a three-stage process
of “unfreeze, move, re-freeze”. Underlying this assumption is the notion of organizations as stable, with change being temporary in nature. This perspective was suited to the industrialized organizations of that time, in a market where development was slow enough to allow for ongoing adaptation of organizations based on analysis. Today we know that organizations are dynamic, complex social phenomena, and that change is a constant ongoing activity. As the post-industrial age has come to dominate a global, digital world, the need for a new approach and understanding in relation to change is greatly needed.

I bring this level of change, and it comes from in-the-field practice, from the white-water constant change of engaging adolescents freshly. In terms of academia, I need to remind myself that academia is one of the oldest institutional structures we have, outdating companies while at the same time being the most recently commercialised sectors in the modern world, otherwise I shall end up waking up hot and bothered, rather than pursuing more pleasant mindflow.

If the methods I employ are not acceptable by this department or indeed this university, I put this down to the underlying archaic ‘stable’ structures of departments, outdated knowledge base, inferior study methods, ineffective social science axioms. It will change, but whether it will lead the change or be merely pulled along by changes (like it will be with advent of AI), is up to people like my supervisors. They are gatekeepers of change at the moment, and their understanding of collaboration is poor. They nonetheless are trying to help me, but only as much as they are fulfilling the traditional structures within which they are placed and which they are aware are insufficient for the level of disorder we face globally.

My supervisors are not exhibiting the level of courage needed, but this may be more to do with the discipline they are in. I must persist with trying to define the DIKW which ABC State appears to subvert.


It’s my birthday, 51, and I woke around 4 and thoughts buzzed around until I reached out to record them. Not the usual mindflow, but agitated. Disrupted. This, it appears, was my birthday gift for my 52nd year on this planet. 

I’m halfway through transcribing the 1.5 hour yabber, and I remember my original plan while teaching in 2007 which was to create a remarkable class and then invite academics etc to witness it. This was the only viable way that movement might be achieved in a relatively painless way. Result led. Let the academics try to work out what was happening in the class. Let them study what ABC state was, and what combination of motivation, self-discipline, self-efficacy, and the myriad constructs they use to understand psycho-social dynamics. As it happens, the job I took, the first full time teaching job in ten years, was a disaster. It ended up ok, but the kids didn’t respond as positively as I would have liked. A mixture of student institutionalisation where they wanted to test whether I could control them (C state), a personal liking of the previous teacher, and the requirement to create my own lessons in a virtual environment and create materials for every lesson. The conditions were against an uplifting experience for us all. The kids pulled through, though, and there was some enjoyment towards the end of the year, incredible loyalty by the toughest sets for the hassle they have put me through for the year. I had spent 10 years in education avoiding this, all of it, from the testing of discipline implementation (something I could do minimally), to the creation of content for lessons (I was more interested in social dynamics and metacognition).

And here I am in university, and experiencing the very thing I new back then would be difficult. And I am in a department which is quintessentially ‘category’ manipulators: Information School, a department which has evolved from librarians, can you believe it. I mean, the irony is ludicrous.

The Impossible Academic Space

There are a combination of conditions which make it particularly hard to put forwards the ABC State solution which I developed. After my attempt with the Confirmation Report, which rejected or rather dismissed the Reflexive Reading solution I proposed, I have spent a few weeks revising a Report which focusses exclusively on the ABC State. And I wake up in the middle of the night realising that what I am attempting is impossible. I have developed methods to support the results I achieved in schools, involving simultaneous systems etc (see left column below); but these methods are rejected because of multiple assumed positionality of current academic practices (middle column below). The ABC state is rejected and the methods which I use to validate it are also rejected; I am encouraged to adopt categorical and stochastic methods, employ thin linear logic, reduced model of agency, distance to the subject, critical position. If I accept these, and by extension into the object system, ABC State is invalidated. I will never be able to put together an appropriate argument. Just look at how ABC state is defined, how it relates individual to collective, the subjective evaluation of the ‘state’, and non-definition of ‘self-discipline’, and the expected institutionalised response of teachers…

My Methods

  • simultaneous systems
  • immersed social
  • self-organisation
  • meta-cognition
  • result-based (try first)
  • self-organisation
  • social fractal seed


  • categorical thinking
  • stochastic math
  • models
  • ineffective theory; Bhaskar not used well 
  • distance; first order maybe second order cybernetic
  • invisible academic; 
  • invisible subject
  • after-the-fact science

Social science

  • reflexive reading
  • verification
  • third order cybernetic
  • transformative praxis
  • relational ethics
  • before-the-fact
  • correspondence
  • dissipated control
  • action research
  • meta-method

No. I have described this before. I need to redirect my attention towards it: that an alternative academy awaits, which is network-based, which escapes from the institutional problems which current academia, universities, colleges, schools currently suffer from. And the only way this may be achieved realistically, is if there is sufficient funds to enable it. And by funds, I mean through Sqale, because if the funds are directed through traditional organisational methods, then the same institutional problems will persist. We need an economic for networks to fund the academia-network. Think mycelium, think soil. This is the level I need to keep working at. Not at ‘knowledge tree’ level, or the tiny branches which I am encouraged to pursue.

So, in the end, the Confirmation Report document is not really to pass the restrictive gateway to a PhD. But to collect together the evidence such that retrospectively, it may be accepted because of the altered structure of PhD, perhaps through another discipline, and conducted by someone else.

It is obvious that I am in a C State environment. I haven’t thought about how does an individual act when surrounded by students who demonstrate C state behaviour, being institutionalised, and being administered by people who are using institutional violence? This is a bit harsh, because the review process for PhD is to invite someone into the fraternity of PhD holders. However, if they reject my argument and RR without actually addressing the issues and solutions I have brought up, ‘because they don’t understand’ is inexcusable, considering how simple Reflexive Reading is.


The economic condition has corrupted academia thoroughly. The notion of creating a space within which people are free to pursue exploration of ‘truth’ or ‘knowledge’ for the sake of truth or knowledge, is no longer viable. Perhaps this bubble of freedom remains intact in the arts, but the financial concerns of the university as an entity are thoroughly commercialised.

“Regressive Pedagogical Practices”

“…the introduction of new technologies (e.g. Edwards & Clinton, 2018), the harvesting of big data to enact ‘learning analytics’ (Munro, 2018; Williamson, 2018), the recruitment of very large student cohorts (Arvanitakis, 2014), and the promotion of the ‘student-as-consumer’ model (Nixon, Scullion, & Hearn, 2018) may foment a perfect storm of regressive pedagogical practices. Students are unlikely to develop efficacious agency whilst subjected to a barrage of such restrictive interventions.”

from Langer, S., Bunn, G., & Fellows, N. (2018). Towards a Psychosocial Pedagogy: The ’student journey’, intersubjectivity, and the development of agency. Learning and Teaching in Action, 13(1).

Accept the Situation

The trick is to let myself understand this is the case. Those within the institution find it hard to buck the effect, because they are paid by the institution, and their sense of identity and positional power is dependent on the fraternity of practitioners in that institution.

I am in the unusual position of being at the boundary, as always. Not sufficiently trained to demonstrate the skills required to ‘enter’ the institution as a qualified PhD. A PhD student, in the antechamber. And I am aware that by acceding to the demands of entry, I forgo some aspect of the change I bring. And thus, I am the unreasonable man who expects the system to change in order to accommodate me. It is not quite this, in truth. It is genuinely my lack of skill. However, the problem remains that should I have the skill to promote the positionality of Reflexive Reading, I shall be a member of the academy and suffer from the institutional pressures, should I try to take a position and become a paid worker.

Since I am not interested in being a paid worker, since I can do that as a teacher, though perhaps the life of being an academic would suit me, my age, temperament, and might provide better service. So, I would like to continue with the PhD, conduct the research in schools, or conduct the Delphic Study on Reflexive Reading.

However, what I must acknowledge is that, in all likelihood, any significant change is only going to happen through economic shift. That is Sqale. When academics and practitioners are freed from the organisational payment structure, and yet have some serious flow of money which enables them to keep pace with the brightest minds in the world. I think there are plenty of ‘retired’ academics who have more freedom of thought and action, but why should they commit to the level of conceptual and institutional change that is required? I’m happy to work with anyone, of course, who is willing.

“grow the network of participants, readers and authors, who have the courage to introduce the system wide changes we need.”


I am compiling a new introduction and structure for Confirmation Report for PhD, and hit upon the brilliant idea of inviting supervisors to help me with the initial ‘translation’ of my concepts, constructs into the linear format of ‘problem’, ‘aims & objectives’, ‘research questions’ of the Confirmation Report. No can do. Back to submitting my best guess, getting detailed written feedback without engaging the basic concepts or errors I am making. Ho hum.

My Lack of Categorical Expertise

The problem is, I think in terms of systems, simultaneous systems, and a thoroughly temporal immersion. I don’t think of ‘constructs’ as academics do, or ‘theoretical lenses’, and certainly not correlations between categories. I am sure there are other academics (probably in different departments) would might appreciate how I think, because they do so too, but probably not as naturally I do. I have developed this from a natural talent, and honed in the field, the fast, live, thriving environment of classroom of kids, what I think might be called ‘dense multi-reflexive environment’ according to third order cybernetics. I’m not sure, because the complexity of the theoretical construct is quite high level, a scaffolding of concepts, rather than something which has emerged from first-person engagement. Nevertheless, I am fairly confident the description fits what I have experienced. But more academics are category people, defining terms, and then relating terms in complex structures of logic. I must admit, however, that even were I to meet with academics who can appreciate how I work, and perhaps appreciate what I am attempting to do, I suspect there will be other problems to face, like their allergy to mathematics. Systemic Inquiry seems like a good fit, but it is born from therapy, from minute dissection or at best appreciation of individual human beings, or at best small groups or constellations of people. To accept the level of dynamic I am suggesting (the madness of 30 kids in a classroom), and to talk about a tool which operates for such participants, again takes the control away from their ‘therapeutic’ control. And though I can follow the theoretical flow of eg Shotter who weaves together Wittgenstein, Merleau-Ponty, I can’t reproduce the arguments. I simply don’t have the linguistic control.

The Holy Shrine of Logos

Right. So. This much we know. Should this exclude me from PhD? Of course not. Most of science is conducted in a non-verbal field. It is only social science which is category-bound. Now, being in Information Studies sounds like a good place because it has something to do with data, numbers, and how they are applied to human engagement. However, it seems to be mostly an extreme form of category-manipulators. Librarians. Where words have meanings defined in libraries. It is quintessentially the place for order. The holy shrine of Logos. Good… grief…

The Idea of Front-Wheel Drive in Academia

The supervisors are used to the student (me) providing some document, they critique, and then we have a meeting where they go over points. All after-the-fact. I produce something, then they criticise it. It is so dull, and so obviously does not fit what I am doing, my method, and what I am describing… I just can not believe they don’t get this. But that’s the situation.

Then late Friday evening I had the brain-wave of inviting them at the front-end of the process. They can still critique what I have written, and I often add all the small corrections into the next version. But the bit problem is, we aren’t getting the basics right. I have failed to do the basics. And the basics really are basic. What does ‘problem’ mean to them? I have listed six which are compounding the issue of why kids in schools are still being disciplined, there is no joy, liveness is killed, and all the attempts to get ‘love of learning’ and ‘learning facilitation’ and ‘child-centred learning’ and ‘discovery learning’ all mean a hill of beans because of a vertical chain of conditions which reinforce a factory setting of social organisation. The criticism of education has been done for decades. Alternative solutions proposed at all levels of the problem, but in the end nothing has worked. I have come up with a solution which worked for me, and I’ve spent a few months encountering the problems which inhibit the kind of solution I have come up with, not only theoretically delineating but in practice while attempting to do this PhD. Six problems, vertically aligned, or aligned in psycho-social conceptual and institutional structures, which inhibit liveness in classrooms. Now, which of these should I be describing as the ‘problem’?

And nowhere in their headings is ‘solution’. Just aims. And objectives.

So, instead of having a meeting to go over issues they write about in their critique, things I am capable of reading and implementing without a meeting — what if we have a meeting before I write? That is, to answer the basic question above?

This is in light with reflexive reading of course. Another ‘technique’ which naturally arises, if we consider the constructing process of the writer, live, tapping out these letters one at a time, and you reading this a phrase at time, and somehow meaning assembling in the mind with whatever passes as meaningful in your mind. The process. Not the object, the content. The process. And so, the basic process of deciding which of the problems should be addressed in what they call ‘the problem’. Or where in the main document should I introduce the theoretical framework of Critical Realism, in the Literature Review or the Methodology? The mind boggles with such basic questions.

So, I am inviting them to take part in the initial matching of my fluid, system thinking with their cups of meaning, their categories. Basic stuff.

PhD are Not Creative, but Scientific

That’s the response I got. Can you imagine…?

Left to my own devices, I describe things as they are necessary to compile meaning in the reader’s mind. However, I am dealing with academics. Categorical, logical thinkers. Not system, fluid, bodily-immersed thinkers. And the processes and structures which they are only willing to accept, delimit, restrict and deny the very processes I am operating, demonstrating, controlling in order to communicate, and are the very nature of psycho-social dynamics in a class — the live bits, not the chalk-and-talk information-download version of education which I suspect is somewhere in their heads.

They took my request for a single meeting to try this out as a request for iterative collaboration. They seem to be ignorant of the fact that their feedback to my submissions is iterative, and if I listen to them as I tend to do, in some sense collaborative. They are not mere examiners. Though even examiners are part of the iterative process of learning, it seems to me.

Good Grief

I was hoping to write something which clarifies. I don’t want this blog to be a sequence of moans. 

The level of miscommunication… makes me ill.

I am 50. I have experience of solutions which worked. And I can’t communicate them. Or at least, I can write about them and describe them simply enough, but the people reading/listening, the institutional structure, the linguistic categories, the intellectual filtering… is mind-boggling. It only self-replicates itself. And so education will continue in its sorry way, and indeed social science.

They are intelligent, and mature, people. To have this level of miscommunication… is embarrassing to me.

I can’t even go forwards with the material I want to think about, with experimental material to do with economics, or even academia, because of this… bottleneck.

Makes me sick.

However, I have to make use of the fact that this is the condition. I am in the worst place. And so, if I manage to write something which works, here, then it will work anywhere. If a seed grows in concrete, then that’s one resilient plant, and the seeds will grow anywhere. 

Or, and here’s the danger, the gobblidigook of pseudo-academic jargon-rich material is unreadable by both academics and lay people. In which case, what have I achieved?

I don’t mind failing. I have had the backup belief that whatever I produce will be useful in some sense. It shows my attempt. It contains the concepts, and quite precisely describes the problems, together with solutions.

Also, the process has helped me gather a little more information, deep information, on the state of academia, update my understand of postmodernism and its after-effects. I am informed, to some extent, on academic developments over the last 30 years.

However, the conclusion, and it is a sad one at that, is that social science is completely useless. Like dolphin caught in a net, tumbling around, the more it has attempted to riggle free, like the incredible efforts Bhaskar has demonstrated with critical realism, the more ensconced in category complexity, the net around his work so dense even proponents of his reject his later material. Ludicrous.

Basic, basic errors of practice. So, social science requires a revision. A major one. And Reflexive Reading and its consequences are fundamental. However, that is only going to get traction because another aspect of the system works, not because RR itself is going to persuade an academic of change.


I think, I need to devote myself to creating a mathematical description. I didn’t want to. Not for some time, but it looks like I need to give it a go. Consolidate some of my thinking about maths into academese.

If I am going to fail doing this PhD, then I might as well learn something on the way. Not just how shitty the procedure for doing a PhD is. That’s obvious. Not much learning there. I need to come away with having learning something about maths and its interface with psycho-social dynamics.

Three possible PhD’s. Education. Economics. Maths. I wrote proposals for the first two. Only education was ‘accepted’, but in reality, it hasn’t been. I didn’t want to do maths. I just thought I am not ready to do it. Actually, it won’t be about XQ. It is about mathematising social engagement. A little more like the economic, Sqale, but more extending from RR, or ABC.

Purely academic. Interesting, I think.

I need material so that when I write a book, or maybe attempt to write an academic paper, I have explored some of the academic terrain, so I can orientate myself with the reader, and perhaps provide some interesting views and concepts for the edification of passive readers, and pioneering thought-scapes for active readers.

Thanks for being here.


I like approaching a thing for the first time. Fresh, beginner mind, sensitive to novelty. It is a little challenging to return to ABC State, which is embedded in the structure I chose for the Confirmation Report. I think I have got a nice attitude towards a simpler presentation, however as I look into it, the complexity emerges. It is inevitable.

Nevertheless, there is one part which is new. I have never examined the components of ABC State. I have only ever looked for academic theories or constructs which seem related. It is like I have plant and I look through a book to match parts of it. I can recognised things called ‘petals’ by some, ‘sepals’ by others; or that roots are the base of the plant, whereas other descriptions see roots as the head. This is how I have approached academic texts, as a kind of typology of a thing I have experienced. It is less the formal, explicit, verbalised structure of the ABC State, which is simple enough for children to get, but the psychological dynamic which it ‘captures’, ‘reflects’, ‘induces’.

I came up with a description of a few elements, which is partially related to how I came up with the structure in the first place (on the left). And then I decided to see what the correlates were in Reflexive Reading, on the right.

Individual- collective

Dependency-interdependency. C State is dependent on individual (failure state of student, which correlates to success state of teacher with discipline policy and institutional power2, Bhaskar). A State is dependent on all (success of all, power1).

temporally fractal

Everyone listening, responsive, extended to few minutes, 20 mins solid work, whole lesson getting A State, extended to several lessons. Continuous moment, analogue experience, extending over time. Like juggling, continuous.

Simultaneous systems

The simultaneous processes involved in algebra (equality, aim, simplifying) are equivalent to metacognitive awareness of social understanding.

QUICK transitions

Well-ordered, smooth transitions between activities means more activities, better learning activities, more trust, better quality attention, no need to repeat, faster learning, better retention.

collective gain

By enable collective positive action, especially with ‘hard’ work eg 20 mins solid work, we ‘buy’ time for better activities. Collective proof that more sophisticated activities are deserved.

failure state

Employing disciplining takes time, effort to implement power2, distracting focus from subject or sensitivity to attention, ie C State. Is it something teacher wants to do? Not me!

Individual- collective

The imaginative hermeneutic is enabled/disabled by an individual. Minimal A State between two people (writer and reader). With multiple readers, dependent on all readers contributing. Definitely power1: empowering. Writer is ‘powerless’ in comparison.

temporally fractal

Achieve reflexive reading in a sentence, extending to a a paragraph, section, entire document, book. And if it works with one document, sharing, and emergent levels of collective action.

Simultaneous systems

Multiple concepts, eg three concepts as one, not linear reasoning to a conclusion; interdimensional (eg reflexive condition, language)

QUICK transitions

More fluid reading; flying not plodding. What are the improved activities? Transcendence, insights, more sophisticated social interventions, more robust social science?

collective gain

The effort of doing Reflexive Reading, creates opportunity for better activities. What positive actions opens up to collective readership? With economic empowerment through organic sharing.

failure state

Checking for critical reading is tedious, enforcing control, power2, distracting focus from internal sensitivity (to ideas, social sensitivity), ie C State. Is it something the writer wants to do?


Which means what exactly….?

My intuition that both ABC State and Reflexive Reading were similar seems to play out rather nicely. Hence the need to invent the term, ‘meta-method’, and the structure for the initial Confirmation Report. I think a mathematical description would be useful. 

It is self-evident in this blog: read as it is written, word for word. Though the ‘block’ design of this wordpress editor is a little confusing. Interrupts the flow. I suspect I shall revert to simple textual flow. Perhaps I’ll do a textango sometime soon. Formulating the mathematical ‘model’ will be… interesting. No idea how that will come about…

Paths Ahead

I can see three paths ahead. I’ve only got 5 months to complete. And because it takes a month to sort things out and give two weeks for people to review, realistically this is 4 months.


ABC State

Extract material relating to ABC State. Use material for Reflexive Reading which applies to ABC State. Define qualities of ABC State. And do further research into other educational material which is related. However, drill into Doll’s work, what his references are and who cites him and his work.

Although this is the easiest to do, and what the reviewers are asking for, it goes against what my supervisors advised initially. Tricky.


Reflexive Reading

Extract Reflexive Reading. Go more into depth with the material I have already explored, ie Shotter, Roth. Also do another literature review of anyone exploring academic reading. Perhaps define the process mathematically, though this goes into XQ territory. Might situate it against Organic Sharing, or second social fact. My supervisors are not confident of supervising me with this, but with a clear research programme, it should be ok. Not the mathematisation, though.



Reflexive Reading edges into Organic Sharing, which brings in the economic. Also, the mathematical mapping of intention links to credits. So, rather than embed this in the Reflexive Reading proposal, let me extract it here.

Organisational Complexity

Option 2 and 3 involve a formal application for Changing Candidacy, which if allowed by the IS department may involve finding another supervisor and department. Given such a short time frame, I doubt this will happen. I could end up doing all this work, without having a supervisory team. So no matter what is written, it will not be read. This would be rather disappointing.


It looks like I am faced with exactly the same issue I faced when I conceived of the idea of doing a PhD. Ended up writing two of the three PhD proposals: one in education, one in economics, and the other I didn’t complete, one in psychology and mathematics. That was two years ago. After a year’s PhD, I have not defined ABC State, introduced Reflexive Reading which is a deep contribution which lends itself to vector-intent and XQ (ie psychology and mathematics) and organic sharing (ie economics hack). I have much more detail on the academic landscape. The mess (as in Ackoff’s term, the mess as opposed to a well defined problem) that is the interface of academia and practice in schools, the mess of theory and method post- post-modernism. The attempt to retain simplistic concepts, render them manageable and analysable and researchable, at the expense of finding application in the real world. The misplacement of ethics, the invisible subject (Roth), the need to evoke the categorical imperative (Kant) as the basis for ethical praxis. and transformative praxis (Bhaskar).

I am confident with Reflexive Reading. I think it is feasible to create a reasonable research project. The ABC State too. The maths, economics, of course because we’ve built a tool that operates it. These are empirical research projects: in each case we can conduct an experiment, and see what the results are. The philosophical or epistemological basis are rooted in several blindspots in academia, however, and my way of navigating this has not met with recognition or acceptance. Therefore, they will continue to appear ‘weak’. Hence the attempt to mathematise Reflexive Reading. This underpins all of them: a mathematical description which relates to the nominal data of ABC, the readership of Reflexive Reading (and social accountability), and the intention-projection of economic. Basically, how number is used for social organisation.

For example, the DIKW ladder in relation to the longitudinal ‘data’ that ABC State derives, the ‘information’ it has for participants (the relationship of their own behaviour to collective state) versus academics (a degree of social cohesion or coherence to group of people); the ‘knowledge’ it contains for teachers and students (namely the reframing of the teacher-student relationship in terms of authority, ie adult-institution empowerment); and ‘wisdom’ as it correlates to the ‘internally persuasive discourse’ (Bakhtin, but also Schon’s ‘reflective contract’ and Doll’s ‘dissipated control’).

The Path Ahead

Do all three simultaneously. This is what I had planned originally, and separated and attempted linearly. This has failed to meet with institutional acceptance. I can’t compute the additional institutional complexity, so let’s do it my way and run all three simultaneously. After all, what is my failure in comparison to the rate of loss globally because of institutional intraction? (And yes, I know that word is invented, but I don’t like the noun form of ‘intractability’ or ‘intractableness’?)

Can you imagine SQALE operating with everyone using zoom at the moment?

And moneyflow.

We will dissolve organisational boundaries. Change, big-time.

Visit Sqale


A List

  • Adopting real-world in digital-world
  • Tronic Cup online competition
  • Academia: legacy of text
  • Sqale enables value-tracking across multiple digital channels

Real World Legacy in Digital Engagement

Attending an online conference, a workshop with Social Informatics academics: Workshop, Part 1: Sociotechnical Change Agents: ICTs, Sustainability, and Global Challenges (SIG-SI, SIG-SM, SIG-IEP), and it became clear that they were talking about trends.

Because of the proactive attitude of anthropologists from last week’s conference, about building tools for social change, I asked whether there were people there doing this. And further, whether they were changing the institutions they were in. Radicals.

Most of it was chat about problems of engaging institutions, or adopting different tech themselves.

I asked whether they had come across any tech which allowed them to track value across channels, or even from break-out rooms to larger presentations. Nothing.

I extemporised. I remembered how I created a self-organising tournament for Tron. They had tried to run them in the past, and failed. I realised they were importing real-world problems, basically how to move people around so that they all arrived at the same place. This is not a problem with virtual. The issue was timing, that was all. And I had the simple suggestion that we needed to trust players to turn up on time. The resulting system was very light, and worked so well it continued for years. Perhaps we were doing the same with virtual meetings: trying to import real-world organisational problems to the virtual world, eg organisations, ‘companies’, and ‘positions’.

This guy involved in AI ethics said that academics have been communicating virtually for centuries. Exactly, I said. Text was appropriate for people separated by miles and across time. This is no longer our problem. And yet, conferences are mostly people reading articles at each other. What?!

I was always bored with conferences. Didn’t understand them. It wasn’t about sharing information. It was about making decisions together.

So, no answer to any tech which can transfer value from digital channel to channel. Well, nothing of scale. Literally, someone said ‘scale’.

Actually, the AI guy sent an article pointing at China’s reputation attempt. And another participants talked about studying people’s online behaviour, and then seeing if it alters output of work relative to the same group’s work in the real world. Nobody seems to get what I am talking about — live, engagement with people, and minimal ways to track value, including comments.