Newsletter
Resources
Courses
Books
Welcome to Emerging Futures -- Volume 116! The Virtual Fields of Creativity...
Goodmorning real-but-more-than-actual-beings,
We hope that your inventions around the holidays gave rise to curious and interesting possibilities. Here it is getting cold, with nights dropping below freezing. Now the windows are closed by nightfall, and a fire accompanies the writing of these words.
This week, we wrapped up the bee hives in thick insulation and walked out under the full moon with the ice in puddles cracking gently underfoot.
Yesterday, we heard that Shane MacGowan died. And so old records came out, and we were once again haunted by the ghosts…
We raise a glass…
Let’s begin by acknowledging the holiday season is in full swing. We’re excited to unplug from work a bit, as we’re certain you are. Spend time with loved ones, music in the background, curled up by a crackling fire with a good book in one hand and a glass of wine or something warm in the other. If you don’t have a good book or have been contemplating ours: Innovating Emergent Futures - for yourself or as a gift — now might be the time to purchase… We are offering our newsletter subscribers 30% off. Use promo code HOLI2023 at the checkout.
“The pause admits untimeliness.” (Lisa Robertson)
Last week, things were pretty abstract in the newsletter. This week, we want to bring in some examples and make the meta concrete.
Over the last couple of weeks, we have been exploring the logic of networks or assemblages and their role in creativity. We have introduced a distinct meta-approach to innovation that has new concepts: assemblages, actualization, virtual fields, etc. This week, we are going to slow down, make each aspect more explicit, and add a number of examples.
The first key concept is that of an assemblage.
What is an assemblage? Well, in the spirit of slowing down – before answering that question, it is important to understand the context of why this concept was developed – and what it is in critical response to.
The concept of an assemblage, as we are using it, comes from the work of the 20th-century philosopher Gilles Deleuze. Deleuze’s life project was to develop a productive metaphysics of anti-essentialist creativity. And what such an approach challenges is the long-standing western essence based approach to reality. And what is an essence-based approach? What exemplifies such an approach is in how all identity questions, such as “What is X?” are answered by attempting to look inside of X to discover some purported essential core aspect of X.
The assemblage approach challenges this by demonstrating that things are processes and that they gain their identity not from some internal and eternal essence but through their dynamic linkages. And that ultimately, every discrete process is, in fact, an assemblage of processes connected to other assemblages of processes.
Thus, for Deleuze, an assemblage is intended to be an anti-essential, anti-foundational, anti-individualistic, and anti-reductionist way of both engaging creatively with, and understanding how, things come to be what they are.
A simple example that we like to reference is bird flight: “Flight” is not some essential property that can be found somewhere inside of the bird or the wing of the bird – or even in its DNA. Rather, flight is the emergent property of an assemblage – an assemblage that includes the bird, its feathers, and DNA but also necessarily includes thermals, wind, air density, landmasses, etc.
Deleuze was fond of the example of the nomadic Mongol hunters of the Central Asians Steppes and how they invented and perfected this assemblage: the horse + stirrups + saddle + compound bow + person + open plains.
This assemblage revolutionized history with its rapid development, that led to the spread of the Mongol empire from China to Eastern Europe in under a century (1206-1290). Often, the credit for this revolution is given to the stirrup alone: “The humble stirrup was a game-changing invention that altered history."But there is nothing in the stirrup by itself that does anything. Rather, it is only when the stirrup is conjoined with the horse + saddle + person + terrain, etc., in a specific assemblage that powerful connections are made for the stable transmission of differences that make a difference in a continuous loop of reciprocal causation – and then it is possible that the rest is history so to speak. But the stirrup alone? That is not even possible…
So what happens when the assemblage of the horse + person + saddle meets the stirrup + the Steppes? To understand how radical this is, it is best to start with what was happening prior to the introduction of the stirrup. A person on a horse without stirrups moves in direct unison with the horse – the rider rises and falls with the horse's gait. This is especially true the faster one is going (this is even true with a saddle). This makes fast riding not something that can be done for any duration – the human body bumping up and down on the horse is extremely challenging and exhausting to both.
But adding the stirrups to this assemblage allows the rider to use their legs in a way that affords absorbing and neutralizing the motion of the horse. And this affords the potential of galloping for far longer distances. And the wide-open Eurasian Steppes afford a truly vast terrain for rapid horse-based travel. The Eurasian Steppes span over 8,000km from modern Hungary to central China (e.g., the eventual breadth of the Mongol Empire). The grasses also afford continuous grazing – which the shape of the horse's head affords grazing upon even in the depths of a deep snow-filled winter. And again, let us remember that the Steppes are not a discreet thing but a dynamic assemblage of processes:
What else can standing in stirrups while galloping on a horse on the steppes afford one? It affords a stability independent of the horse's up and down motion. And being afforded this stability affords one the potential to fire an arrow with accuracy. Now, if the classical, quite tall longbow can be shrunk, then one can easily rotate one's torso and fire in any direction – independent of the horse's direction of travel. Now, in warfare both advancing and retreating become modes of attack.
But there is a problem: the shorter bow does not afford the same power as the longbow. The length stores energy as it is drawn back.
How can an assemblage emerge that allows a bow to be short and powerful? To achieve this, the Mongols invented the recurve compound bow. This was a bow that was curved in the opposite direction prior to being strung (hence the term “re-curved”) – such a design prebuilds in a greater tension prior to drawing the bow (see diagram below). To achieve such a design, the bow was fabricated from layers of bamboo, mulberry, animal horn, sinew, and special glues. Why all this effort? A similar bow made from one piece of wood would simply break long before it could be properly drawn.
Back to Assemblages: Thus, the concept of an “assemblage” allows one to both explain the creative emergence of, and experiment with, novel properties like flight or the Mongol war machine in a way that does not reduce them to the expression of some pre-existing internal essence (the Mongol mindset). This matters immensely in regards to creativity because an essentialist model, in the end cannot explain creativity outside of resorting to some deus ex machina plus reductio ad absurdum formulation. And at which point directives for a creative practice are reduced to platitudes “think outside the box,” or “fail faster”...
Concretely, What is an assemblage? With this example of the Mongol horseback archer in mind, we can begin to answer this question:
It is composed of processes that are linked in a non-uniform manner:
First, it is important to see that the components of an assemblage are processes and not simply things. The horse is not a discreet thing – it is a complex process of raising, caring, training, feeding, breeding, etc. – and this process connects to many other processes – processes of growing feed, building stables, developing training techniques, conditioning riders, etc. The stirrups are equally a process of mining, smelting, forming, testing, changing etc. And they, too are connected to many other processes – mountains forming and decaying, techniques developing, kilns being built, etc.
Ultimately, it is all connected processes – processes that cross enormous scales of space and time, as well as cross the natural vs the artificial divide, and the material vs the conceptual. Assemblages are always impure, refusing to stick to category, scale, location, logic, or identity.
Next, the connections (the arrows in the above diagram) do more than signify a general connection – these connections are enabling or conditioning relations. The relations between the horse + stirrup + person creatively enables them as a whole to become something quite distinct from what they would be on their own. Here, the relation plays a creative and determining role in an assemblage. The relation creates (or conditions) what is in relation – and not the other way around.
Finally, these connections are not uniform. It is not that “everything is connected” – rather, everything could be connected, and those processes that are connected are connected in very different ways. Some sets of connections form dense, tightly interconnected assemblages. Such assemblages creatively produce a form of transient unity or what is termed “operational closure."The horse + person + stirrup + compound bow + Steppes is such a dense node of connectivity. But the connections do not stop there – the Mongol rider assemblage is connected to wind and weather – but in a very different manner. Weather influences the unity, but it is outside of it. This is represented in the above diagram by a different color (red = unity, blue = influencing processes).
This dynamic of non-uniform connectivity in the assemblage is what makes it possible for synergies and emergent processes to develop (spontaneously be created). The assemblage of horse + stirrup + person + steppes + bow as a unity generates and realizes large-scale emergent patterns that cannot be found in any of the component processes – patterns such as a style of riding and archery. And these emergent processes, in turn, shape/transform the component processes – in a process that recursively loops: new riding practices lead to changes in stirrups, which in turn afford further emergent potentialities etc., etc. Here, it is critical to recognize that this is a creative process and that this is an ongoing, always-present creative process.
Such operationally closed assemblages via the recursive looping of system causation come to individuate and have a distinct identity as a whole: “the Mongol horse rider,” for example.
Such assemblages that come to work as a unit are precarious – if your stirrups break, the system properties of the whole disappear.
But at the same time, these assemblages that individuate are also non-decomposable. What does this mean? Decomposable systems are mechanistic in nature and have components with distinct functions. There are limited interactions between components – a mechanical watch would be a good example of such a system.
Non-decomposable assemblages are ones where the influence of any component potentially includes all others. Here, causality is non-linear and emergent. Additionally, such assemblages are highly sensitive to initial conditions (context). Thus, an assemblage can be both precarious and non-decomposable.
What comes of assemblages? Affordances…
These connections produce, stabilize, contain, and shape the development of novel affordances. Affordances are relations of emergent opportunities for potential action. The assemblage of horse + stirrup + body affords new forms of movement and action – say, firing a bow accurately at full gallop.
But the person + horse cannot afford a large bow (e.g., very powerful bow) being used because of size/space restrictions. Thus, the recurve shape + compound materials afford the compression of energy into a smaller form, which in turn affords the potential action of accurate, powerful medium-distance arrow firing.
But what of agency? Is it not the case that someone had to have the idea for a stirrup and then make it? Here, we see a further critical distinction between essentialist approaches and an assemblage approach – and this is in regard to agency.
Let us again slow down and step back. What is agency? Agency, in the very simplest terms, is the power to affect and be affected.
In essentialist approaches, agency is given to the human subject. And the agency is treated as an internal property. Unique individuals possess unique powers – this might be attributed to foundation differences in their mindset, intellectual or creative capacities, etc. But it is something essential to them. The argument is that unique individuals can see things others do not and can ideate new things where others cannot.
But, the assemblage approach rightfully understands agency to be an emergent property of the assemblage. How is this the case? It is only through the assemblage of a horse + saddle + stirrup + steppes that the potential for certain unique and new potential actions is afforded. That a horse rider could stand reasonably still or even pivot as the horse maneuvers is only possible because of the assemblage. Yes, it takes a subject to realize or even experiment in ways that would allow the novel affordances to come to be sensed. But who is that subject? Are they not already the co-shaped and the co-emergent outcome of a horse + person + steppes assemblage? And is the world that this subject meets and connects with ever actually passive? No, it too is an assemblage with agency. The Steppes have agency, the horse has agency, metals have agency… In every case, in every direction, one analyzes one finds continuous reciprocal causation of assemblages entangling with assemblages. Our very human processes of ideation are not coming from some internal source, but, like all thinking is emerging from the middle of an assemblage. Living as a horse + person + steppes assemblage gives rise to certain feelings, sensations, and hutches that emerge from the midst of activity. And these propel/compel new experimental connections…
The assemblage affords… and what it affords gives rise to novel forms of agency.
What is happening in this assemblage-affordance-agency entanglement?
We can see this best by going deeper into our diagram. As one assemblage deliberately entangles and brushes up against another – affordances emerge:
As an experimental assemblage of rider + horse + saddle + proto-stirrups meets a landscape (the Steppes) – really re-meets this landscape anew because of additions to the assemblage (stirrups) – a novel set of affordances emerges as potentialities ( a field of potentials is emerging). As exploration and experimentation develop, potential affordances stabilize in actions (see above). For example, the stirrup affords the potential of extending one's legs to raise the body away from the horse – as this is done spontaneously, it leads towards a more formalized practice of standing and twisting while riding at full gallop to become realized.
And as these affordances stabilize into practices – enabling relations develop:
These enabling relations are what are often termed “constraints."As we mentioned last week – constraints are not physical things (like, for example, a pair of handcuffs). Rather, they are emergent configurational properties of the assemblage that make certain affordance potentialities more likely than others. The stirrup + person + horse + steppes assemblage enables and, in doing so, constrains what practices are more likely (for example, it is no longer possible to slide one's body down one side of the horse).
As this process evolves in repeated action, affordances stabilize. Early on, as assemblages entangle, affordances emerge as a potential field of possible actions. They are vague and more felt or sensed than recognized and explicitly understood. As riders, we sense standing while riding as something that pulls us upright for longer and longer periods as we gallop. Then, we make changes to the parts of the assemblage to further this affordance. We train our bodies, reshape our saddles and stirrups, work with our horses differently, and ride new lines across a landscape. The pull of a future takes hold. And as affordances stabilize iteration by iteration of reciprocal co-causation, the potential field of affordances “naturalizes” into a reality – “this is what we do” – “this is what this is” – “this is what reality is."
Affordance potentiality and object become one. Affordance potentiality and activity become one. The chair becomes sitting, and the stirrup becomes riding.
From the perspective of everyday awareness, assemblages themselves stabilize, calcify, and disappear into things. The assemblage fades from recognition, and we interact with “things” – e.g., a horse as if there was no assemblage – for saddles, stirrups, landscape, and even self disappear into a seamless activity “riding a horse.”
But this everyday experience can become problematic if we start to conflate the agency of the assemblage with us: “I am doing this” – “I am the source and director of riding." Or when we conflate things with practices – the saddle with riding horses. Nothing is reducible to what it “is.” What it “is” is the outcome of whatever assembly it participates in. A saddle makes a drying rack or percussion instrument or home for mice to burrow into. This is the radical anti-essentialism of assemblages.
Assemblages and their unique dynamics and forms of creative agency disappear in other ways as well. Stable assemblages with robust, well-entrenched practices can be seen as systems with a specific ontological identity: stable, complicated, complex, etc. But how assemblages stabilize has a fractal order to it.
But if we assume that Deleuze’s concept of the assemblage (plus affordances and agency) stopped here (which is where so many management consultants from a complexity perspective stop) – we would be missing what is most radical and critical in his work for a new approach to creativity.
And this is the dimension of Virtual Fields. For Deleuze, reality does not simply consist of what is actual – the actualized process in which we interact with horses, steppes, stirrups, etc. Equally real is the virtual – it is real but not actual. We introduced this last week with this explanation and diagram:
But what is this field of potentialities? What are these patterns of possibilities? These are affordances separate from how they are actualized.
Affordances are relations that give rise to a field of emergent possible actions. We tend to view these from the perspective of how they are actualized: the horse + stirrups + person + steppes affords standing galloping. But this is a retrospective judgment and definition. Prior to being actualized in this manner, affordances are a virtual field of dynamic potentialities that have no identity.
This is a dynamic field of intensities – more and less of differences. It is, as John Protevi says, “not composed of the processes themselves but by the differential elements, relations and singularities of the processes… these are zones of intensity in a “space” of continuous variation...” (Life, War, Earth).
An assemblage enables/constrains – or, to put it differently it creatively affords a set of potential actions. But prior to their actualization for the first time, these actions do not literally exist. Rather, the assemblage constrains a field of intensities to move more in certain general emergent patterns (intensities) over others. We feel and are drawn into standing on stirrups, but it is not predetermined. “Standing” the first time it is actualized is a singularity – a unique difference, a unique temporary stabilizing of continuously varying qualities.
At this moment, during this phase, continuous variations of intensities momentarily slow down into a distinct practice. “standing” on horseback at a gallop is actualized as a distinct affordance from a field of virtual potentialities.
What is critical is that this actualization is not the sum total of what is potential, nor is the sum total of what might be actualized. There is no “sum total” possible because, in this field of the virtual, there are no identities – no fixed activities patiently awaiting actualization. There are only continuously varying intensities that vary as the assemblage varies.
This is felt in activity – riding pulls us towards novel constrained spaces of intensity – we are pulled towards standing long before stirrups are creatively actualized. The friction of our legs pressing on the girth of the horse holds us up for a brief sensed moment. We are in the pull of an intensity, a space of differences – a hunch forms, and we loop back into this experience. How can we stabilize this? Continuous reciprocal looping stabilizes this. Unintended capacities of our body + the horse + the saddle afford more standing, and this loops into reusing other aspects of the saddle in new ways. The field of affordances shifts, and new intensities pull us forward… patterns in activity emerge. New connections transmit differences that make a difference and push the assemblage across a virtual threshold – non-stirrup riding becomes stirrup riding, and everything qualitatively changes.
Here, the power of understanding the virtual as a field of emergent qualitative differences as an innovator is that it allows one to surf differences without/before identity as a deliberate practice. One moves from the level of the concrete – what is actualized or what is known that could be possible to what is non-existent but potential.
Well, we need to ride off into the sun-rise at this point. Next week, we continue, till then, play with assemblages – connect and disconnect processes – sense fields of virtual affordances and actualize novel possibilities in ways that iteratively pushes things across qualitative thresholds…
Keep Your difference Alive!
Jason and Iain
Emergent Futures Lab
+++
🧨 P.S.: We facilitate workshops and the accolades are overwhelming.
❤️ P.P.S.: Love this newsletter? We'd be grateful if you heap a bit of praise in the comments
🏆: P.P.P.S: Find the newsletter valuable? Please share it with your network
🙈 P.P.P.P.S: Hit reply - feedback of any kind is welcome
🏞 P.P.P.P.P.S.: This week's drawings in Hi-Resolution
📚 P.P.P.P.P.P.S.: Go deeper - Check out our book which is getting great feedback like this:
