Em M. Lenartowicz > Quotes

“To know the difference, they would need to remember the discarded features, but they obviously cannot. No one in the building can—not the audience, the crew, nor the subject. Once a feature is deselected, the memory filters wipe it out in transit. As a result, the evolved subject on the fourth floor is as recognisable as ever.
Families do notice, however, and they often sue.”
― Marta Lenartowicz, The Ministry of Dreams

“I see a major flip which sets apart the systems which critically depend on some determined substrates, such as mitochondria and stuff, because they are composed of it, and systems for which just about anything will do as a substrate. While the former is a clear necessary dependence on a requisite physical substrate, for the latter the physical substrate is a mere one out of many realizations. There is no requisite 'composed of' part. Of course, substrate is necessary, I am not denying this kind of dependency, but I still see a major difference. One could picture the social system as an imaginary huge spider standing on a few very thin legs, supported by some solid ground, which is, yes, 'composed of' some processes describable by physics, biology, chemistry, etc. But the funny thing about it is that as the spider grows, it becomes less and less dependent on that standing, because as it evolves and develops more and more legs which support the spider on many different things and are barely dependent on a single ground. As a result, since what it hops on is mostly other spiders or their legs, it seems to not depend anymore on its initial ground. The way I observe contemporary social systems, the proportions are already fully flipped: there are spiders, spiders, spiders, legs, legs, legs, and only little 'physical substrate', which, notably, most of the time plastically follows and reorganize according to where the spider wants it to be.”
― Marta Lenartowicz

“Since it is patently illegal to discriminate against employees based on looks, it's hard to explain why all the analysts, unlike the supervising secretaries, exhibit a thinness in the chest, wrists, and neck, coupled with horn-rimmed eyewear. Frequent visitors swear that different analysts also smell alike, and it’s not a pleasant smell.”
― Marta Lenartowicz, The Ministry of Dreams

“While the initial ‘hardware before the software’ injunction may be quite innocent, the addition of the ‘software as transmission’ one produces a description of the composition of reality which lands us in the methodological procedure of the Newtonian science being applied to humanities. That methodological procedure goes like this: since individuals in the former substratum exist a priori and individuals in the latter superstratum only exist a posteriori, in your observations and explanations you should follow the same linear sequence of emergence. That is: you should delineate former systems, equip them with their own properties and actions and from then on you may approach such clearly attributed actions as 'processes' - in the higher strata. Therefore, you cannot speak about processes without this sort of a solid attribution to individuals, their properties, and interactions, which have been legitimately observed and delineated before. Attribution of processes to processes will not fly. Note that this is no longer an assumption about the composition of reality; it becomes an epistemological procedure. In that sense we have switched from following reality, following the particular processes of interest, to following the acceptable procedure of science (which, let me remind you, is a social system...).”
― Marta Lenartowicz, Social Systems: Where is the Ground?

“When you say that in science we need to follow what is 'out there', and let it surprise us, the trouble is that when you start from the 'out there' which is called 'physical', and continue with your reality checks which are appropriate for physics, you will observe social systems differently than you would, if you had started from the 'out there' that is located in these very systems which are of our interest here.”
― Marta Lenartowicz, Social Systems: Where is the Ground?

“This is nothing new—the eternal dance of frosting and frogs is known to all people in all lands. It has always been known, recounted by holy women, holy men, and holy clowns in clown hats. It has been ridiculed, forgotten, remembered, and retold over and over again. Frosting makes more frosting, and then more, or degenerates into a frog and squeaks. The miserable frogs tear their lungs out until a unison sparks a new shimmer off. Everyone can hear this with their own ears, if pointy enough. Anger occasionally makes a song or a dance; hatred occasionally comprehends. Wisdom occasionally wounds. These are minute happenings—one squeak for three glimmers, five sparkles for two frogs. In rare circumstances, however—though this requires no less than a whole crystal fairy—one kiss can turn a bundle of squeaks into a whole crystal prince.”
― Marta Lenartowicz, Scraps from the Dreamworld

“A half-naked corpse of a squirrel lies in a growing pool of blood at the middle balcony stage, illuminated by tangerine spotlights. A man in black leather pants and a bare torso kneels beside the corpse, and an orange-haired woman, similarly undressed, stands behind the man. Two makeup artists are painting on the woman’s breasts and the man’s back, flicking slim brushes as they discuss the design. Nearby, several colourists sample the hues of the spotlights and blood, adjusting the cochineal supply pipes for both. The gold-glittered throne at the back of their stage is murky, its holographic occupant rapidly shifting—from a king to a clown, a shark, and a kid who bullied you in primary school.”
― Marta Lenartowicz, The Ministry of Dreams

“Badanie skuteczności zewnętrznego kierowania zmianami na uniwersytetach na podstawie mierzalnych parametrów wyjść z ich systemów organizacyjnych może być zatem mylące. Jest to w ogóle słabość polityk publicznych opartych na dowodach (ang. evidence-based), którym owych dowodów dostarczają indukcyjno-ilościowe modele rzeczywistości społeczno-gospodarczej. Ich reputacja szczególnie ucierpiała w niedawnym kryzysie finansowym roku 2007, zdaniem N. Taleba (2007) spowodowanym nadmiarem zaufania do takich właśnie modeli. N. Taleb pisze, że indukcyjnie konstruowane prognozy oparte na trendach historycznych mogą nie tylko nie mieć wartości, ale też, wprowadzając w błąd, mogą mieć „wartość negatywną”.
Tezę tę ilustruje anegdotą o indyku, który "(...) uczył się z obserwacji, tak jak ponoć wszyscy powinniśmy (bo przecież tak właśnie rozumiemy metodę naukową). Jego pewność rosła w tempie wprost proporcjonalnym do liczby oferowanych mu przyjaznych karmień, więc czuł się coraz bardziej bezpieczny mimo, że z każdym posiłkiem zbliżał się dzień jego uboju. Zauważcie, że krzywa jego poczucia bezpieczeństwa osiągnęła swoje maximum dokładnie w tym samym momencie, w którym ryzyko było największe!"
Dla losu tego indyka lepszym prognostykiem były nie zachowania hodowcy, lecz jego intencje. Podobnie o tym, czy uniwersytet rzeczywiście wdraża, czy też jedynie powierzchownie markuje wdrażanie postulowanych zmian, przesądzać może „jego intencja”, a nie mierzalne parametry dotychczasowych i aktualnych wyjść z jego systemu organizacyjnego.”
― Marta Lenartowicz, Natura oporu: Uniwersytet jako samowytwarzający się system społeczny

“I am not convinced that a simulated tornado can lift only simulated cows. As far as our social systems are concerned, being made in 99,9% of the intangible matter of interrelated meanings, they are doing with the 0,01% of the physically tangible matter basically what they want. They regulate most of the mental and physical activity of almost all humans for almost all time, they move natural resources and other objects from one place to another across the planet, including probably all cows which exist, dead or alive. They dictate where everything will go, where it will stay, for how long, what it will be transformed into…”
― Marta Lenartowicz, Social Systems: Where is the Ground?

“Atoms can stay. But other than that, I believe one needs to suspend most of the assumptions about the granularity of the reality that is normally invoked once you start speaking about social systems.”
― Marta Lenartowicz, Social Systems: Where is the Ground?

“There is no question that Master Alighieri’s work is a faithful account of a proper institution. The inscription, “All hope abandon, ye who enter in!” is reprinted in colour in every volume of institutional art history—not merely because gate inscriptions are among the discipline’s most characteristic styles of opus framing. Far beyond that, the appearance of this institution marks a moment akin to Bach’s transformation of composition or Shakespeare’s of the plot. For institutional arts, there is a definitive “before” and “after” the sombre gate flung open. On that point, our correspondent was correct.
But, Wholly Spiders, what of the dating? If a 29th-century poet fancied to rhyme a verse about the Nile, should we date the river’s origin to the birthday of his poem? Did the ticket booths of the Ministry of Dreams emptied for the first time only in 2024, when our modest account was published? More bizarre ideas are difficult to encounter. Hasn’t the institution faithfully recorded by the Florentine poet been in operation ever since that poor fool, Adam, failed to exercise independent judgement? To evidence that this occurred well before 1321 is a typical assignment, an average junior historian handles with ease by their second year of study.”
― Marta Lenartowicz, The Ministry of Articulation

“I do not want to end up not being able to observe and account for cases where it is actually a word, an idea, a dream, a symbolic distinction, etc., which brings about a particular physical manifestation, or transforms a physical state of affairs to something else.”
― Marta Lenartowicz, Social Systems: Where is the Ground?

“Skoro jednak zachowanie systemu autopoietycznego stanowi emanację trwałego wzorca zakodowanego w jego tożsamości, to jedyną prawdziwą zmianą jaka może w takim systemie zajść jest zmiana wzorca, a zatem przesunięcie w obrębie tożsamości. (...) Gdy w organizacji dochodzi do takiego przesunięcia, w konsekwencji zmieniają się tworzące ją komponenty jej systemu i procesy ich produkcji, a także mapa możliwych do nawiązania skojarzeń strukturalnych i wzorce interakcji z systemami skojarzonymi. Z kolei gdy takie przesunięcie nie nastąpi, to wszelkie obserwowalne w organizacji pozorne zmiany organizacyjne, choćby przybierały formę identycznych modyfikacji komponentów, procesów i wzorców interakcji, są jedynie powierzchownymi, tymczasowymi realizacjami sekwencji „perturbacja – kompensacja”.
W ujęciu autopoietycznym prawdziwe zmiany organizacyjne są zatem aktywnością własną systemu organizacyjnego, rozpoczynającą się na poziomie jego autopercepcji. Sekwencje „perturbacja – kompensacja” są natomiast rezultatami oddziaływania bodźców zewnętrznych i w dłużej perspektywie stanowią nie tyle zmianę, co formę oporu przed nią.”
― Marta Lenartowicz, Natura oporu: Uniwersytet jako samowytwarzający się system społeczny

“What is the difference between a matter of fact, existing in space and time right now, and me ‘knowing’ it without any substantiating evidence? I used to believe the difference was me—temporal, fixably mistaken, and in the wrong—needing to dispel ignorance, converting that need into cognitive fuel whenever the world denied me honest self-disclosure. A workable 'researcher' profile, capable of spanning lifetimes and leading nowhere but the linear progress of civilisation-making (or unmaking, depending on the tide).
But not anymore. Today, I change my mind. The undeniable existence of this gap is far more significant, more telling, than my personalised self-doubt or mistrust.
Mind the gap, not what it’s ‘about,’ stupid!
Why does life generate these differences between the matter of fact and its knowing? Or does it? When it sometimes does and sometimes does not—what’s the formula?
These are the real questions.”
― Marta Lenartowicz, Scraps from the Dreamworld

“Evolution, the queen of your gods, is a cascade of lies. You think it is about variation and selection, but put in just slightly different terms, it is a cascade of lies upon lies, make-up included, and your whims and shrugs on top of them. “Do I need to point out that the animus is a projection, all the terrorists, Special Forces, and Nazi troops are that too, and your view of me would certainly qualify you for some ten years on a couch if you cared to take them there?” you might have asked me then, but no, you didn’t need to.
“Do I need to demonstrate to you that you are exactly what I see?” I replied, and you flickered adjustingly.”
― Marta Lenartowicz, Scraps from the Dreamworld

“I hoped she would let me see and know everything. Instead, she made me feel and be.”
― Marta Lenartowicz, Scraps from the Dreamworld

“The ambition of our initiative is to mobilise a cognitive power that we are referring to as ‘extraordinary intelligence’. As many of you – participants of the project – have been pointing out, this ambition tends to evoke considerable attraction and equally considerable resentment, or at least reservation. The objections are partly ethical and political, partly cultural and psychological. When critiqued conceptually, the phrasing also calls for a serious re-visiting of the notion of intelligence. The ‘extraordinary’ we are after turns out to be less problematic:
the way we put it, it is a progressive, dynamic term. ‘Extraordinary’ does not come to mean ‘greater than’, along a pre-established scale of measurement or relative to a baseline in a population, but rather ‘greater again, and yet again’, displaying qualities that outgrow themselves. The extraordinary intelligence would then be a capability that continuously exceeds its own limits, proving to be more insightful, more far-sighted and more potent than one might normally project. But what is ‘intelligence’? Clearly, we cannot be referring here to what is captured by IQ tests. The intelligence quotient is an iconic psychometric construct and the primary feature of such measurement methods is their reliable reference to traits that are persistent – ideally throughout the lifetime of the individuals assessed. If our interest is in an ever-changing, ever-growing intelligence, we cannot be applying a measure that by its very definition seeks to trace an invariant.”
― Marta Lenartowicz, The Practice of Thinking: Cultivating the Extraordinary

“The ambition of our initiative is to mobilise a cognitive power
that we are referring to as ‘extraordinary intelligence’. As many of you – participants
of the project – have been pointing out, this ambition tends to evoke considerable
attraction and equally considerable resentment, or at least reservation. The
objections are partly ethical and political, partly cultural and psychological. When
critiqued conceptually, the phrasing also calls for a serious re-visiting of the notion
of intelligence. The ‘extraordinary’ we are after turns out to be less problematic:
the way we put it, it is a progressive, dynamic term. ‘Extraordinary’ does not come
to mean ‘greater than’, along a pre-established scale of measurement or relative
to a baseline in a population, but rather ‘greater again, and yet again’, displaying
qualities that outgrow themselves. The extraordinary intelligence would then be a
capability that continuously exceeds its own limits, proving to be more insightful,
more far-sighted and more potent than one might normally project. But what is
‘intelligence’? Clearly, we cannot be referring here to what is captured by IQ tests.
The intelligence quotient is an iconic psychometric construct and the primary feature
of such measurement methods is their reliable reference to traits that are persistent
– ideally throughout the lifetime of the individuals assessed. If our interest is in
an ever-changing, ever-growing intelligence, we cannot be applying a measure that
by its very definition seeks to trace an invariant.”
― Marta Lenartowicz, The Practice of Thinking: Cultivating the Extraordinary