I’ve selected the cover colour for Architecture of Willing. It’s monograph number 3 in a series. I chose a dark aubergine-violet colour (#4b256b) because I like the contrast, and it is different to the other 2.
I discussed Chapter 1 of The Architecture of Willing in a recent post, as well as a piece on my review process. I’ll be sharing more presently. I expect it to be completed by the end of May, but time will tell. Even though I’ve gone through seven revision passes, errors and fixes continue to crop up all the way to production – in fact, even afterwards.
‘woman’ is a normative identity, and like all normative identities it is striated. It is composed of putative essences, recurring structural constraints, intersectional positions, cohort-relative projections, subjective inhabitations, and external gatekeeping.
I’m an active AI user. It’s no secret. My top uses are research and enquiry, but it is instrumental in my review and revision process.
Audio: NotebookLM summary podcast of this topic.
I am trying to wrap up my latest manuscript. I’m about 5 revisions through, so I felt I was finally in a position to check for cracks and missing elements, as well as the strength of my overall position and approach. It’s not a good idea to simply prompt, ‘What do you think about this?’
I’d tried prompts as simple as, ‘Act as a referee and be adversarial against this piece’ or ‘I got this from somewhere, and I want a critique’. These approaches shield you from AI’s programmed sycophantic tendencies. But they aren’t enough. You still need to create guidelines and guardrails, which include orientating the AI; otherwise, they will likely go off the reservation.
This is the actual prompt I last employed to various LLMs:
The attached is a complete development draft of Architecture of Willing, a philosophical monograph arguing that the vocabulary of will, intent, motive, choice, decision, and related terms operates through a two-stage grammatical mechanism – compression of action-patterns into portable nouns, followed by inversion of those nouns into apparent upstream authors of the very patterns from which they were abstracted. The book calls this mechanism authoring displacement and uses it to argue that retributive desert cannot be stably grounded in the vocabulary on which it depends.
The book is deliberately diagnostic rather than prescriptive. It does not propose a replacement psychology, a reformed legal code, or a new theory of agency. It refuses to settle the traditional free-will debate on either side. These refusals are intentional and are argued for within the text.
What I am asking for is a critical engagement from a position of maximum philosophical resistance. Specifically:
The book rests on a claim about what retributive practice requires – namely, a stable inward authoring source capable of making suffering genuinely owed rather than merely institutionally imposed. If that characterisation of retributivism’s requirements is wrong, or if it applies only to unsophisticated versions while leaving the strongest contemporary defences untouched, the central argument is significantly weakened. I would like to know whether that is the case, and if so, where exactly the book’s account of retributivism’s commitments fails to engage its best defenders.
More broadly: the book is a diagnosis of grammar. The question I want pressed is whether a grammatical diagnosis can do the normative work the book needs it to do – whether there is a gap between ‘this noun cannot stably support the load placed on it’ and ‘therefore practices depending on this noun are normatively unjustified’. If there is such a gap, what would close it, and does the book close it?
Please do not soften objections in the direction of ‘this is a good book with some gaps’. If the argument is unsound, say so and say where. If it is sound against some targets but not others, identify the targets it misses. The manuscript has already received generous assessments; what it needs now is the strongest case against it.
Of course, this prompt is specific to me and my project, but one may feel free to use it as a model for similar purposes.
Among the gaps returned were arguments I had not been aware of. In fact, in a couple of places, I had already cited authors, but the AI returned additional books or essays by the same people. In other cases, it offered material by authors I hadn’t considered. Obviously, I am interested in creating solid, watertight arguments, so this only helps my case.
For this project, my LLMs of choice have been Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok, and Kimi K2. I used Perplexity, Mistral, DeepSeek, and Z.ai GLM in earlier iterations.
Peer review
Another application is to take the critique output from one LLM into another with a prompt to evaluate the critique. My modus operandi here is to pick a ‘master’ LLM – typically in a Claude or ChatGPT project context – and treat it as my primary partner; the others are virtual subcontractors. This means that I can get a half-dozen or more reactions in minutes, which are then digested by the, let’s say, project manager, for assessment and a proposed action plan, typically in the form of a punch list. I recommend this approach as well.
NotebookLM Infographic on this topic.
Closing shot
When I was in grad school, this part of the project would have taken months. As it is, I’ve been working on this project since COVID-19, but it’s been an on-and-off affair, accumulating research information and documentation all the while. The manuscript will be better off, and my position honed sharper over this expanse of time, so the delay was beneficial.
Would more time also be beneficial? Probably, but one needs to stop somewhere, and I’m likely facing diminishing marginal returns. If I go the way of Wittgenstein, I’ll reverse track and recant everything. And so it goes…
The Architecture of Willing is a passion project I’ve been considering since the COVID-19 debacle. I took a couple of career breaks to focus on the problem of agency. In fact, my working title until now has been Against Agency. Upon research, I discovered that (1) the idea was somewhat tired, and (2) it was mired in a free will debate centred around determinism. And (3) the argument had been made by many about a decade earlier, so I also missed the ground swell. As my interest is to present novel views or perspectives, I bowed out, but something still irked me.
Then it dawned on me: I’d dissect will under a language philosophy microscope. This got me to a new working title: Architecture of Willing, which perhaps uncoincidentally aligns with my Architecture of Encounter.
I’m still working through the first draft, but I’d like to share a NotebookLM summary of an early draft of Chapter 1, which serves as an introductory chapter: Authoring Displacement and the Cake Grammar or some such. Have a listen.
Audio: NotebookLM summary podcast of this topic.
I use the opening chapter as a setup. I had an idea of convicting a cake on charges of being delicious and using this absurdity as a metaphor for how we inflate and personify the notion of will. Perhaps interestingly, the will (particularly the free flavour) was the central theme I explored in my novel Propensityby Ridley Park, a little shameless cross-promotion.
I’ll keep this short because I am still drafting the monograph. I hope to have it published in May. Time will tell.
I have just started reading Kazuo Ishiguro’s The Remains of the Day, and I must confess that I can’t read like a normal person.
I made it roughly fifteen pages before the analytical lenses clamped on and refused to retract. Stevens – Ishiguro’s impeccable, heartbreaking narrator – opens with a monologue about what makes a great butler, and I found myself not following the argument so much as watching the scaffolding. Because Stevens isn’t really theorising butlers. He’s performing a world. And the performance is so seamless, so grammatically composed, that it almost disguises itself as description.
Audio: NotebookLM summary podcast of this topic.
Here’s the trick. Stevens treats terms like greatness, dignity, and quality as though they named discoverable features of reality. He doesn’t present them as historically contingent, institution-soaked, liable to buckle under interrogation. He presents them as if the universe itself had ratified them, and he’s merely reporting. It’s the calm, definitional tone of a man who believes he’s describing essences when he is actually curating preferences.
Take butler itself. In ordinary usage, it looks occupationally concrete – a person who does a particular job. But in Stevens’s mouth, it stops being a role descriptor and becomes a bearer of metaphysical vocation. The word accrues civilisational mythology, evaluative freight, quasi-sacred weight, until it no longer refers to a man who answers a door but to a figure who embodies an entire moral cosmology. That is a lot for a job title to carry, and the weight does not come from the world. It comes from the grammar.
Then there is dignity. An interlocutor reasonably suggests that dignity might be something like beauty, a weasel word, like aesthetic, perceptual, taste-bound. Stevens refuses the comparison. Dignity must not sound contingent. It must present itself as something sturdier than preference, almost an objective feature of character, something a person has in the way a table has weight.
And then, naturally, he proceeds to explain it in entirely aesthetic terms: comportment, bearing, restraint, and poise – the look of self-command.
He denies the aesthetic register but then relies on it. His explicit philosophy and his operative language diverge. This isn’t a slip. It’s structural. The term needs to disavow its own supports in order to retain authority. Dignity must deny its kinship with aesthetic discrimination precisely because, without that kinship, it has no flesh.
We do this constantly – take the shakiest words and polish them until they look load-bearing. The more pressure the term is under, the more ceremonially we utter it.
NotebookLM Infographic on this topic.
Weasel words
There’s a name for what Stevens is doing, and I’ve spent a perhaps inadvisable amount of time trying to articulate it.
In my own work, A Language Insufficiency Hypothesis, I distinguish between terms that behave differently under pressure. Some are genuinely invariant – they hold stable reference across contexts, and disagreement about them can be resolved by checking. Some are contestable – stable enough for coordination and argument, but insufficiently fixed to secure the same uptake everywhere. And some are fluid – still rhetorically potent, still action-guiding, but drifting across contexts without anyone quite admitting it.
Stevens’s vocabulary sits at the dangerous end of that spectrum. Greatness and dignity are classic contestables, possibly shading into fluids: they retain social force long after referential stability has gone soft. They still feel like they mean something precise. They don’t. And Stevens’ entire identity is organised around treating them as though they do.
This matters because the language isn’t sitting atop an independent self. It’s helping to constitute the self Stevens can intelligibly be. His selfhood is assembled from grammars of rank, service, and propriety. The role vocabulary doesn’t describe a prior person. It builds one.
This brings us to his father
Stevens admits that his father might belong among the great butlers, despite lacking certain attributes Stevens associates with the newer generation. He notes the gap, then writes it off. The missing qualities belong to a different era; they are secondary, accidental, beside the essential point. His father remains the reference.
But notice what has happened. Stevens is not applying a neutral criterion and then discovering that his father qualifies. He’s adjusting the criterion around the father he already reveres. The supposed standard of greatness turns out to be less a fixed measure than a retrospective act of preservation. Firstly, canonise the figure, then tidy the theory.
The father is doing at least three jobs at once: He’s an exemplar; he’s a stabilising emotional anchor; and he’s a concealed limit-case that proves the category is being bent.
That’s how value-laden language typically works. The abstraction pretends to govern the attachment, but really the attachment is governing the abstraction. Stevens wants the dignity of a rule whilst retaining the comfort of a cherished exception. This isn’t hypocrisy in the simple sense. It’s something more interesting: it’s the ordinary mechanics of human categorisation when the stakes are personal.
And of course, the father isn’t merely a person Stevens admires. He’s the living conduit through which Stevens inherits the whole ontology of service. When Stevens prefers his father as the reference point, he’s anchoring the category in the formative figure through whom the category became intelligible in the first place. The father is part of the installation mechanism.
Then there is the tiger
With the reverent caveat that it may be apocryphal, Stevens recounts a story in which an unidentifiable butler known to his father, confronted by a tiger under a dining room table (the details are gloriously improbable), maintains perfect composure. He doesn’t flinch. He doesn’t break form. He remains, in the deepest sense, a butler.
Whether the story is true barely matters. Its function isn’t evidential but exemplary. It condenses a whole metaphysics of dignity into narrative form. It is a saint’s life for the religion of service.
And that’s the key. For the father – and then for Stevens – dignity is not a detachable opinion. It’s a lived orientation. In the face of the tiger, one doesn’t first deliberate about values and then choose restraint. One already inhabits a world in which restraint is what seriousness looks like. The salience structure is preinstalled. The event is interpreted through it automatically.
The story converts dignity from abstraction into legend. It makes composure appear not merely admirable but real. It turns comportment into ontology. And it authorises imitation through lineage: the son inherits not just a standard but a dramatic image of what the standard looks like when tested.
The possible apocryphal status doesn’t weaken this. If anything, it strengthens it. The father has become less a man than a vessel for the category. The tale smooths over ambiguity and turns a contingent life into an emblem. We’re forever embalming values in stories, then pretending the stories prove the values rather than merely rehearse them.
So Ishiguro’s opening chapter is doing at least four things at once.
It presents contestable terms as if they were settled realities.
It shows institutional language masquerading as neutral description.
It reveals a person whose identity has been stabilised – constituted, really – by those terms.
And it lets the reader feel the gap between the serenity of the grammar and the fragility of what it is trying to hold together.
That last part is the killer. Stevens’s calm definitional tone is itself evidence of instability. The more pressure the terms are under, the more polished the delivery. He’s performing maintenance whilst pretending to describe an essence.
I’m only one chapter in. I suspect Ishiguro is going to make this hurt.
I’ve been experimenting with different cover designs most of the day. I’m leaning toward this one.
It’s intentionally minimalist, uses a story element – the red button – and avoids a box, which had been in some earlier design candidates.
I’ve always published fiction as Ridley Park, as I shall continue, but I usually get into a mindset of that persona. For The Box, I didn’t, and it doesn’t feel like that, so I opted to use my own name when I release this.
Yet again, I solicited designers, but they inevitably ask what I am looking for. Honestly, if I knew, I’d do it myself. I am not opposed to design assistance or even execution, but it needs to be upstream and not down.
I’ll not dawdle here because I need to save details for the release. I just wanted to share where I am at the end of the day.
I find myself interesting, not in a narcissistic way, but in examination.
I wrote an academic blog post (and then a couple others, 1, 2) to clarify a nonfiction book that commenced as an academic essay. The blog post spawned a novella (pending, in revision), which in turn spawned both a short story (pending novella) and another academic essay (pending novella). With the short story, I plan to release meta commentary and background around the novella.
This seems like an unusual ecosystem, but it’s how my brain operates – on inputs and synthesis. Having completed The Architecture of Encounter, itself a follow-up to A Language Insufficiency Hypothesis and the second of a planned series of three, but hard-pressed to call it a trilogy.
This post might make more sense when the unfinished projects are complete, but until then, consider it a status update.
A bit more…
The reason for the short story is that the novella ends intentionally ambiguous, and the short story is a disconnected possible resolution. But I want the novella to remain open to interpretation, as is my modus operandi in many cases. I had considered including it as an epilogue – and I may do this in a future edition – but for now, I don’t want to prematurely close the discussion.
If I can get someone to publish the short story in a collection, that would be great, but I’ll otherwise publish it with the notes I mentioned above.
To quote The Critical Drinker, ‘Anyway, that’s all I’ve got today. Go away, now‘.
NB: I reviewed the credentials of the hosts and revised my critique at the end of this piece.
I joined a scheduled close reading of Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil recently and came away less refreshed than exasperated. I will spare the platform and the hosts, not out of charity exactly, but because the problem is broader than two particular men fumbling through a canonical text in public. What disappointed me wasn’t that they disagreed with Nietzsche, nor even that they may have misunderstood him in places. Misreading is inevitable. The problem was that they seemed not to have brought much of a reading to begin with.
I had read Beyond Good and Evil years ago and thought a return to it might do me some good, or at least less evil than the usual intellectual content mill. The format sounded promising enough: two interested hosts working through the introduction live, sentence by sentence, in a supposedly close reading. Both had apparently read the book before. One therefore assumed they might arrive with at least a provisional grasp of its architecture, key provocations, and habitual traps. That assumption, in the event, turned out to be embarrassingly optimistic.
Audio: NotebookLM summary podcast of this topic.
As one host read line by line, the discussion lurched forward by way of hesitant paraphrase, speculative gloss, and the occasional verbal shrug. He offered the more substantive guesses, such as they were, while the other contributed mostly vague assent, half-memory, and the sort of foggy commentary one gives when one dimly recalls having once encountered a difficult book in a previous phase of life. It was less a close reading than a public rehearsal of not quite knowing what one was doing.
Now, I am not demanding exegetical perfection. Nietzsche is not a writer one simply ‘gets’ and files away like a user manual. Nor am I naïve enough to think authorial intention settles everything. Barthes is right enough to remind us that the text exceeds the author’s sovereign control. But the death of the author is not a licence for the death of preparation. If one is going to host a close reading of a notoriously elliptical and performative philosopher, the least one might do is arrive having done some prior work. Read the introduction carefully beforehand. Refresh the major themes. Check the loaded terms. Develop an argument, or at least a point of view.
That point of view may be wrong. Fine. Better that than the contemporary preference for the curated shrug, where one mistakes visible uncertainty for intellectual seriousness. There is a difference between interpretive openness and simple lack of preparation. One is a virtue. The other is an aesthetic.
I find this especially grating because I cannot imagine teaching a class that way. When I taught, I’d spend hours preparing before entering the room. Not because I imagined myself infallible, but because students deserve more than watching a lecturer discover the material in real time. A formed point of view is not a dogma. It is a starting position. It gives the discussion shape, stakes, and resistance. Without it, one is not leading inquiry but merely simulating it.
The second host did little to improve matters. Rather than complicating or sharpening the reading, he mostly echoed the first. There was very little friction, and thus very little illumination. One of the virtues of reading Nietzsche in company is that he invites productive disagreement. He is slippery, aphoristic, ironic, and often strategic in his provocations. A good discussion can tease out the tensions in his prose, test competing emphases, and ask whether a claim is literal, tactical, genealogical, or satirical. None of that really happened. Instead, one host fumbled, and the other nodded. The result was a kind of interpretive ventriloquism in which agreement substituted for insight.
The accompanying chat made things worse, or perhaps simply made the missed opportunity more obvious. Viewers were offering questions and interpretations, yet the hosts largely ignored them. Aside from one participant, who seemed likely to have some prior relationship with them, the chat was treated as background furniture. This was especially irritating because the event was live. If one is going to perform reading in public, the public should not be reduced to silent witnesses of one’s uncertainty. Otherwise, the ‘community’ aspect is just branding, another little liturgy of digital participation in which the audience is invited to attend but not to matter.
NotebookLM Infographic on this topic. To be honest, I am including this because I find it to be humorous.
To be fair, even when they did read from the chat, they handled those comments much as they handled Nietzsche: superficially, without much analytical pressure, as though any sentence placed before them deserved the same tone of vague consideration. This flattening effect was revealing. It suggested not generosity but a lack of discrimination. A close reading requires hierarchy, emphasis, and judgement. One must be able to say: this is a crucial phrase; this term matters; this apparent aside is actually structural; this comment in the chat opens something worth pursuing; that one does not. Without such judgement, everything becomes equally interesting, which is another way of saying that nothing really is.
What emerged, then, was not close reading but the theatre of close reading. The ritual gestures were all in place: slow pace, sentence-by-sentence attention, occasional lexical speculation, the performance of thoughtfulness. But the substance was strangely absent. One had the form of seriousness without much seriousness of form. It was analysis as ambience.
This points to a broader problem in online intellectual culture. Much of it now confuses exposure with engagement. To read a difficult text aloud is not yet to wrestle with it. To host a discussion is not yet to lead one. To hesitate publicly is not yet to think. Somewhere along the line, people began mistaking the visible performance of inquiry for inquiry itself. The result is a style of pseudo-seriousness in which the host need not know very much, so long as he can sound tentative in the correct register.
Nietzsche, of all people, deserves better than that. He is not an author who yields his force to the merely dutiful or the casually adjacent. He requires energy, suspicion, historical feel, and the willingness to risk a reading. One need not become a priest of correctness. But one should at least bring a sharpened knife to the table, rather than two butter spoons and a podcast voice.
What disappointed me, then, was not simply that these hosts stumbled. Everyone stumbles with Nietzsche. It was that the stumbling seemed to be the content. No deep framework, no clear prior preparation, little tension between the readers, and scant engagement with the audience. The whole affair felt less like a serious encounter with Beyond Good and Evil than a performance of cultural literacy: a way of being seen near an important book.
And perhaps that is the real irritation. One expects difficulty. One can even forgive error. What is harder to forgive is the peculiar modern tendency to make a spectacle of one’s underpreparedness and call it interpretation.
To be fair, I later learned that the co-host was not a philosopher by training but came from Literature. That in itself is no objection. Indeed, a pairing like that could have worked very well. Nietzsche is precisely the sort of writer who benefits from both conceptual and stylistic scrutiny. A philosopher can situate the argument, trace its targets, and identify the intellectual inheritance under pressure. A literary reader can pick up tone, irony, rhetorical staging, and the peculiar way Nietzsche so often performs thought rather than merely stating it.
The problem, then, was not the pairing but the execution. The session might have worked if both hosts had prepared properly and if each had leaned into his own strength. Instead, what emerged was a flatter sort of exchange, with the philosopher soliciting the literary co-host’s ‘opinion’ on semantic content as though interpretive adequacy were simply a matter of free-floating textual impressions. What was missing was any real division of labour, any methodological self-awareness, or any sense that different competences might illuminate different aspects of the text.
My attention has yet again been abducted by fiction, tentatively titled The Box, but this time it is (ever so slightly) different. A publisher mate suggested that no one reads nonfiction, and anyway, fiction sticks better because it captures both attention and salience; I decided, why not both? I wrote some perhaps esoteric but non-academic nonfiction and decided to convey at least some of this through literary speculative fiction.
Besides the obvious nod to MEOW and The Architecture of Encounter, the novella explores several philosophical concerns:
The first three are diagnostic. The fourth is operative. The fifth haunts the whole enterprise. None are cited in the text – readers will encounter them through the fiction rather than the sources, which is rather the point.
I don’t want to spoil the plot, but I wanted to share a post today, and this is where I am: somewhere in the middle of a first draft, trying to make a speculative premise carry philosophical weight without the reader feeling the load. It’s harder than nonfiction. It’s also more fun.
Audio: NotebookLM summary podcast of the Substack topic.
It starts like this:
You’ve had the argument. Everyone has. You present evidence. Your interlocutor presents counter-evidence. You cite data. They cite different data – or the same data, read differently. Eventually, someone says something like how can you possibly believe that, and the conversation is effectively over, though the words might continue for another hour.
What’s left is the quiet conviction that the other person is either ignorant, stupid, or arguing in bad faith. Perhaps all three. And you can be certain they’re extending you precisely the same courtesy.
I want to suggest that something structurally different is going on – something that none of the usual explanations (media bubbles, declining education, algorithmic polarisation) quite reach. These explanations aren’t wrong, but they’re shallow. They describe accelerants. The thing they’re accelerating is more foundational.
Philosophics 