Socialism & Adult Education - Historical perspectives for a revived lifelong learning

Call for Papers

How important has socialism been to adult education? For most of history, adult education – structured learning, involving organised study and usually teaching – was restricted largely to social and religious elites. During the nineteenth century, however, as the industrial revolution tore apart the bonds of ‘traditional’ economies and societies, propelled migrants to towns and foreign lands, and demanded mastery of new skills, new popular democratic movements arose – most profoundly, the socialist movement.

In Britain, prior to the Elementary Education Act 1870, few working-class people had any formal education; even after that opportunities were limited. In response, a diverse range of non-statutory voluntary adult education organisations emerged. These included the Mutual Improvement Societies, the Young Adult Schools, the Education Settlements, the Mechanics’ Institutes, the Working Men’s College, University Extension, Co-operative Education, the Workers’ Educational Association (WEA), and Independent Working Class Education and the Labour College Movement. Some were deeply linked with socialism – others more tenuously, if at all – but together they made adult education in literacy, technical skills and knowledge, the liberals arts and politics accessible to many adults.

Through the twentieth century, at least until the neo-liberal era, the influence of socialist ideas and movements on adult education was deep. In the 21st century, however, the forces of global capitalism have systematically sought to marginalise socialist (and democratic) thought. As jobs, and much work that rewards the human spirit, are threatened by the advance of Artificial Intelligence, adult education is more and more expected to meet the objectives of “the economy” and the labour market. Wider educational purpose is ignored.

How have we come to this? The marginalisation of socialist perspectives is by no means confined to adult education. Yet so central was adult education to the emergence and growth of socialism – and the reverse is also true – as to pose essential and urgent questions. In what ways did adult education contribute to the development of socialism? Why did socialist perspectives play so central a role in the practice of adult education – and did they enrich or constrain it? What can we learn from examining the part that socialism, and socialists, played in adult education’s rich history?

We aim to revisit the topic of adult education and socialism in Britain in the 21st century through a special issue of the journal Socialist History. It seeks to revive the field of study, and to explore the idea to meet the diverse needs of a multi-cultural society more – rather than less – adult education is needed – and that the adult education needed should be broad rather than narrowly job-related. This is especially relevant to consider in connection with the new Lifelong Learning Entitlement which has the potential to transform how post-18 students fund and approach their studies throughout the course of their lifetimes.

What new research perspectives can academics – and scholar-practitioners and activists – from all disciplines bring to the history of adult education, and to the understanding of socialist approaches to improving economic, social and cultural welfare?

We invite submission of abstracts of approx. 300 words. They may explore any aspect of the interlinked history of adult education and socialism. We welcome contributions relating not only to Britain, but to Europe (western, central and eastern) and other locations around the world. Topics may include (but are not limited to):

• The experience of tutors and students of different forms of adult education
• The politics of adult education
• Organisations that provided adult education
• The impact of adult education on socialist ideology and movements
• Key figures in the adult education movement – tutors, students and organisers
• Gendered perspectives of adult education
• The buildings and spaces of adult education
• The organisation and delivery of adult education
• The content and curriculum of different forms of adult education
• Biographical and autobiographical accounts of adult education
• Local and regional case studies of adult education
• The consuming of adult education
• The role of socialism in colonial adult education
• The financing of adult education initiatives
• State support for adult education
• Local government and adult education provision

Please email abstracts with your affiliation, a short biography and contact information to:
john.holford AT nottingham.ac.uk and p.kumbhat AT staff.newman.ac.uk. 

The deadline for submission of abstracts is Friday 30th October 2026.

We hope to convene a symposium on this theme on Wednesday 7th April 2027 at Birmingham Newman University, where contributors can discuss their draft papers and ideas. The symposium will provide an opportunity to share work in progress, receive feedback, and develop papers to be considered for publication in the Socialist History special issue in autumn 2027. The April symposium will be an in-person event, although authors based outside the UK will have the option of presenting remotely via Microsoft Teams.

My source: Bob Foster, Admin: https://www.raymondwilliamsfoundation.org.uk/

Writing - next project - parts 1 & 2 in search of titles

Currently, I'm pulling together what have become two drafts, that consider Hodges' model as a mathematical object. Part 1, put-down in the new year, and picked-up now; a good start as there is more than I thought. There's a cost of that, of course? Part 2 is a gathering of tatters. Well, it is an effort.

As I don't work in academia where connections may more readily follow, can I claim that Hodges' model also does work? That the model can help in finding potential collaborators and co-authors? Once the fundamentals are understood, and again - it's not rocket science - for some people thankfully, something clicks. It clicks absolutely where it is should.

The model can be quite addictive in a positive way, as one of many among the vast array of assessment, evaluation and other tools. It is complementary.

So, with much needed support to follow, including from previous publication (please see the bibliography in the sidebar), plus April's WCCS26 conference, I'm working away to share them in 12 days or so. Then the work really begins as I benefit from collegial input, new perspectives, views, critique and the reward of constructive debate, experience and knowledge of others. I hope the drafts reward the curiosity that's been displayed. It is still quite exciting. Hoping too that students and early career researchers might pick this up ...

The Sciences: Points, lines, angles and perspectives on Domains

In Hodges' model the axes are presented - by convention - as perpendicular. From this it follows that the resulting four domains, or quadrants appear as equivalent in terms of the space they each occupy. There are many posts on the blog that present a 2x2 table. When in template form Hodges' model is also a potential corpus, empty apart from its structure, then there must surely be a gross asymmetry in the SCIENCES domain compared with the others, including the SPIRITUAL. Discuss?

#simplicity #complexity #folktheory #humanities #arts #humanistic #emotion #balance

See also: https://hodges-model.blogspot.com/2026/06/h2cm-domains-symmetry.html

Where is the Centeredness of Care?

In trying to see Hodges' model anew, which is quite a challenge after four decades; what of the model's structure?

It is easy to get carried away with mathematical terminology:

One line, add another, and they intersect, at a 90 degree right angle. So is centeredness to be found at the intersection point? 

If I'm tying myself up in knots well there's another possibility! 😉 

As a whole it appears the axes of the model are a manifold and not - in the center?

What do you think?

See also: 'What Is a Manifold?'

https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-is-a-manifold-20251103/

ii Thoughts re. Ecosia's AI Chat 'answer'

The previous post has been updated, to the prompt is added:

 'Please provide sources and references.

[If you are new here, and too Hodges' model please see the bibliography in the sidebar.] 

A 'human' reading (still) makes me wonder if the 'answer' is what I want to hear (as a user)? Is it worrying that the first provides a 'Conclusion' the latest does not. The table is helpful as I believe that Hodges' model has a role across research (and political!) -isms through methodologies and methods. The model can also encompass ('eat'!) aspects of scale, or level.

The reply still gives me quadraphonic joy (if read out-loud). Not only are the domains recognised, but the LLM/agent ai takes the intrapersonal / interpersonal in its stride (from the blog?). Subjects related to each of the domains are given in brackets. 

There is of course a bias (several) in the prompt, as the care domains were never intended to be comparable. It is positive that each domain is seen as having its own specific scope and function. Over twenty years notes were started on a paper on Hodges' model and its role/function in helping to define 'scope of practice'. Significantly, in the UK the rise of associate positions across disciplines has provoked much debate, vitriol (on X and union and lobbying) and soul searching in certain professional groups. Given the increasing importance of the global health and social care workforce this trend is reflected globally. A situation set to be extended with uncertainties and tensions exacerbated by artificial intelligence in practice.

Before 'explaining' the asymmetries (in points 1-4) it seems the domains are complementary (for all their differences), and provide a holistic underpinning for the model as a whole (my reading).

1. Scope and Focus 

Interesting, how the science and sociology domains are described as broad. Perhaps I am underestimating the depth/density of sociology, after all folk theory is found there? Unfortunately, we can also add a myriad of conspiracy theories? Sociology can also lay claim to quite a few constructions of its own. Including aesthetics as a bridge to architecture and design(?).

On 'X', Hodges' model has been described negatively as inviting / fostering generalism. So, this is a bad thing? Is it not strange then that your Advanced Nurse Practitioner, Consultant doctors (all specialities) and students cross-curricula can all use Hodges' model? The fact that my own responses were never engaged has helped train my thought. Here the relevance of the model to students and continued professional development is made through generalizable knowledge.

The response to the political domain is supportive, acknowledging resource allocation and the distinction between individual and collective (see for example):

S. Bettiol, P. Jones, H. A. Onyedikachi, and W. G. Kernohan, (2026) Bridging Gaps in Oral Health Frameworks: Mapping With Hodges' Health Career - Care Domains - Model, Journal of Public Health Dentistry. 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1111/jphd.70034.  

I've seen tweets today regards IQ reductions in younger people. This is one reason for support of the top-left mental domain being designated as 'Intrapersonal – Interpersonal'. Our interpersonal skills and awareness are surely dependent upon our achieving a given level of inner mental life? Encouraging to see how subjectivity and objectivity is assigned too. Although, I think I'm in an echo chamber!

2. Epistemological Differences

In arguing for a model of health and social care that goes beyond:

• medical model;
• bio-medical model;
• bio-psycho-social model.

Reading 1-2 from the perspective of the Intrapersonal – Interpersonal domain you see how limiting this is, if an individual in a mental health/illness/mental capacity context can only point to sciences and sociological domains. Indeed, they may be relying guardians and advocates as they are unable to does this and raise the political matter of their rights. Without the POLITICAL domain (or as a result of it - neglect, structural racism) there is no law enshrining independent advocacy...

3. Practical Application in Care

To care is to act. Think about triage and emergency response.

Now in the 21st century 'care' must include self-care, health and social care, and (delayed or not you decide?) planetary care.

This necessitates a change of mindset at an individual and collective level. Consider the literacies that (again) young people must master to be effective, productive and happy citizens tomorrow?

So the following is a gift (in my eyes): 

"This means the intrapersonal-interpersonal domain is not just another 'content area' but a lens through which all other domains are experienced and integrated."

4. Hierarchy of Integration

'While the domains are conceptually equal in Hodges’ model' ..

This is interesting in itself.

[There does seem a emphasis upon the Intrapersonal – Interpersonal domain in this answer?]

This is quite a step, as the idea of a nexus and integration are picked up; and pointing to what are the determinants of health:

'For example:

• A scientific understanding of depression (e.g., serotonin levels) must be interpreted through the intrapersonal experience of the individual.
• A sociological analysis of healthcare disparities must be understood through the political structures that enable or inhibit change.
• A political decision about resource allocation must be filtered through intrapersonal values and priorities.'

I'm pleased I did this, as long as I'm not being trapped in an epistemological cocoon: otherwise known as a circle. Apart from a few occasions, I have not used AI/LLMs, perhaps it is time to explore more? I'd like to preserve my naivety, especially were maths is concerned. I'm not sure of what baggage I may pick up and lack the knowledge to interpret?

Previous post:  https://hodges-model.blogspot.com/2026/06/h2cm-domains-symmetry.html

[Updated] AI Chat: Are the domains of Hodges' model comparable?

In drafting a future post: 'The Sciences: points, lines, angles and perspectives on domains', I thought I would ask Ecosia's AI Chat a related question, here is the (quick) prompt and reply:

PROMPT: 
In Hodges' model there are four care, or knowledge domains. The four domains are the sciences, sociology, political, and intrapersonal – interpersonal domain. In terms of potential content are these domains comparable, or is there an essential asymmetry? Please provide sources and references.

(I have saved the prompt for future reference and refinement.)

RESPONSE: [updated 21st June 2026]

Hodges’ model (also known as the Health Career Model or h2cm) is a conceptual framework that organizes knowledge and care into four quadrants, each representing a distinct domain of human experience and knowledge. These domains are:

1. Sciences (empirical, biological, and physical sciences)
2. Sociology (social structures, relationships, and community)
3. Political (power, policy, governance, and resource allocation)
4. Intrapersonal – Interpersonal (psychological, emotional, and relational aspects of the self and others)

Are the Four Domains Comparable or Asymmetrical?

The four domains in Hodges’ model are not strictly symmetrical in terms of their content, scope, or application. While they are presented as equal in structure (each occupying one quadrant of the model), their potential content, theoretical foundations, and practical implications can vary significantly. Here’s why:

1. Differences in Scope and Focus

• Sciences (Quadrant 1):
  This quadrant focuses on empirical, measurable, and biological aspects of health and care, such as anatomy, physiology, and pathophysiology. Its content is often highly specialized, technical, and evidence-based, rooted in natural sciences like biology and chemistry.

  • Example: The role of hormones in stress response or the pathophysiology of diabetes.

• Sociology (Quadrant 2):
  This quadrant addresses social structures, culture, and community dynamics. Its content is broader and more interpretive, drawing from sociology, anthropology, and social psychology.

  • Example: The impact of socioeconomic status on health outcomes or the role of family support in recovery.

• Political (Quadrant 3):
  This quadrant examines power, policy, governance, and resource distribution. Its content is highly contextual and often contested, influenced by political science, economics, and public policy.

  • Example: The effect of healthcare policies on access to services or the role of advocacy in shaping health priorities.

• Intrapersonal – Interpersonal (Quadrant 4):
  This quadrant focuses on individual psychology, emotions, and relationships. Its content is highly subjective and variable, drawing from psychology, psychotherapy, and ethics.

  • Example: A patient’s personal beliefs about illness or the dynamics of a therapeutic relationship.

2. Differences in Methodology

• Sciences and Political domains often rely on quantitative methods (e.g., experiments, statistical analysis, policy evaluations).
• Sociology and Intrapersonal domains frequently use qualitative methods (e.g., interviews, case studies, ethnography).
• This methodological diversity can create asymmetry in how knowledge is generated, validated, and applied.

3. Differences in Practical Application

• Sciences and Political domains  are often system-level and influence macro-level decisions (e.g., clinical guidelines, healthcare policies).
• Sociology and Intrapersonal domains are more individual- or community-level, focusing on personalized care, cultural competence, and therapeutic relationships.
• This can lead to asymmetry in impact, where some domains (e.g., Political) shape broad systems, while others (e.g., Intrapersonal) focus on direct human experience.

4. Theoretical Foundations

• The Sciences and Political domains are grounded in positivist and structuralist theories, emphasizing objectivity and external reality.
• The Sociology and Intrapersonal domains are influenced by interpretivist and constructivist theories, emphasizing subjectivity and lived experience.
• This theoretical diversity can create asymmetry in how knowledge is perceived and valued in different contexts.

Is There an Essential Asymmetry?

Yes, there is an essential asymmetry in the potential content of the four domains. While the model presents them as equal in structure, their content, methods, applications, and theoretical foundations are not interchangeable. The domains complement each other but serve different purposes in understanding and delivering care.

Sources and References

1. Conceptual Overview of Hodges’ Model:

   • Hodges’ Model: A Cognitive Periplus for - WikiEducator (PDF)
   • Hodges’ Model: Welcome to the QUAD
   • Hodges’ Health Care Model as a Framework for Quality

2. Theoretical Foundations:

   • Hodges’ Health Career Model and its role and potential application
   • Hodges’ model: the Sustainable Development Goals and public health

3. Discussions on Asymmetry and Complementarity:

   • The model’s holistic intent is emphasized in Hodges’ Health Care Model as a Framework for Quality, but its quadrants are not identical in content or application.
   • The differences in methodology and scope are discussed in Hodges’ Health Career Model and its role and potential application.

Summary Table: Asymmetry in Hodges’ Model Domains

Domain	Content Focus	Methodology	Theoretical Foundation	Level of Application
Sciences	Biological, empirical data	Quantitative	Positivist	Macro (systems, clinical)
Sociology	Social structures, community	Qualitative/Quantitative	Interpretivist, Structuralist	Meso (groups, communities)
Political	Power, policy, governance	Quantitative/Qualitative	Structuralist, Critical Theory	Macro (systems, policy)
Intrapersonal-Interpersonal	Psychology, emotions, relationships	Qualitative	Constructivist, Humanistic	Micro (individual, relational)

PROMPT: 
In Hodges' model there are four care, or knowledge domains. The four domains are the sciences, sociology, political, and intrapersonal – interpersonal domain. In terms of potential content are these domains comparable, or is there an essential asymmetry?

 

In Hodges’ model, the four care (or knowledge) domains are:

1. Sciences (biological, physiological)
2. Sociology (social, cultural, environmental)
3. Political (legal, policy, organizational)
4. Intrapersonal – Interpersonal (psychological, emotional, relational)

These domains are not strictly comparable in terms of content, scope, or function. Instead, they represent complementary perspectives that together form a holistic framework for understanding human health, well-being, and care. Here’s why there is an essential asymmetry between them:

1. Scope and Focus

• Sciences and Sociology are broad, well-established academic disciplines with extensive theoretical and empirical foundations. They provide generalizable knowledge about biological processes and social systems.
• Political is more narrowly focused on power structures, governance, and resource allocation. While critical for systemic change, it is less about individual experience and more about collective frameworks.
• Intrapersonal – Interpersonal is deeply personal and subjective, focusing on individual psychology, emotions, and relationships. It is less about universal laws and more about unique, context-dependent experiences.

This makes the intrapersonal-interpersonal domain inherently asymmetrical compared to the others, as it deals with subjectivity and variability rather than objective or structural phenomena.

2. Epistemological Differences

• Sciences, Sociology, and Political domains rely on external observation, measurement, and analysis. They are rooted in positivist or structuralist traditions, where knowledge is often generalized.
• Intrapersonal – Interpersonal is rooted in interpretivist and phenomenological traditions, where knowledge is co-created through subjective experience and dialogue. It resists universal generalization.

This creates a fundamental asymmetry in how knowledge is produced and validated across the domains.

3. Practical Application in Care

• The Sciences, Sociology, and Political domains provide frameworks for action (e.g., medical treatments, social policies, legal rights). They are instrumental in shaping systems and interventions.
• The Intrapersonal – Interpersonal domain is transformative—it shapes how individuals perceive, interpret, and respond to care. It is the domain where meaning is made and agency is exercised.

This means the intrapersonal-interpersonal domain is not just another “content area” but a lens through which all other domains are experienced and integrated.

4. Hierarchy of Integration

While the domains are conceptually equal in Hodges’ model, in practice, the intrapersonal-interpersonal domain often acts as the nexus where the other domains intersect. For example:

• A scientific understanding of depression (e.g., serotonin levels) must be interpreted through the intrapersonal experience of the individual.
• A sociological analysis of healthcare disparities must be understood through the political structures that enable or inhibit change.
• A political decision about resource allocation must be filtered through intrapersonal values and priorities.

This integrative role makes the intrapersonal-interpersonal domain asymmetrical in function, even if not in formal status.

Conclusion: Essential Asymmetry

The four domains are not comparable in content or function. Instead:

• The Sciences, Sociology, and Political domains provide structural and systemic knowledge.
• The Intrapersonal – Interpersonal domain provides subjective and relational knowledge, which is essential for meaning-making and agency.

The asymmetry arises from the epistemological and practical differences between objective/systemic knowledge and subjective/experiential knowledge. Hodges’ model emphasizes that all domains are necessary, but they operate in fundamentally different ways.

Picking up sticks: when axes matter ii

This past week at WCCS26, I've put Hodges' model itself on the work-, or more properly the inspection bench. Now, referring back to the - 'Our broken sticks' c/o Roger Lewin "Complexity: life at the edge of chaos" post, perhaps a theatre table is required. That is, as I try to examine the model, take it apart, have a look at the bits - as far as they are. And, what about the question posed in the above post?

'If we take the axes of Hodges' model, and break them at twenty-five points, I wonder what we end-up (or start) with?'

If there are twenty-six sticks, well, amongst other things - we've made quite a mess. But, there's more going on.

There may be some kind of idealised symmetry, or is it equality between the necessary, or projected length of the I-G axis. That is, as it extends for the INTERPERSONAL and SOCIOLOGICAL domains. But is there equivalence, in a default sense, for the SCIENCE and POLITICAL domains? Or am I (once again) overthinking? If medicine, health and by implication social care are bio-psycho-social, then surely we have a structural problem? Not only that, but we see a boundary, partition ... axis - in action. In Hodges' model the axes have two parts, two sides, so they are in effect composite. If the bio-psycho-social model is true, in whatever senses we wish to declare, derive or pursue in research (the literature, logic, practice, political expediency, or realism ...), then the group axis is incomplete. 

Hodges' model: Structure and Content - Axes and Domains

Is this literally why health care systems are so difficult to design, develop, establish and sustain? Think about that too, please. Is this why we as individuals rely on a functioning (caring) society and political systems? Is this why health care systems can suddenly be faced with collapse, as geopolitics has revealed. Vulnerability, becomes more than an individual characteristic and experience; when nations are dependent upon others for their funding, organisation, logistics, personnel, continuity and more. As a result, many understandably want to break with this socio-political and coloanial legacy.

Is there something in the sentence above in italics, that we can actually utilise to help define the foundation of Hodges' model? Again, not wanting to sound grandiose, but is there an axiom hidden in there? Even as 'health' is the inevitable election issue. The irony of this! Even if the politics of health and health in politics is not so much hidden as often denied. History reveals the influence of triage on the battlefield on the emergence of medicine and surgery. The future is here now. There is a political fight to follow for health in all its manifest forms. So here is another post to return to.

'Our broken sticks' c/o Roger Lewin "Complexity: life at the edge of chaos"

Chapter 4 Explosions and Extinctions

  'Is Stu being led astray? I asked. "There's something called the broken stick model in statistics," said Dave. In this trick, a random number generator "breaks'' a stick a hundred inches long at twenty-five points, and produces twenty-six short sticks. Measure them, count the number that are one inch long, the number two inches long, and so on, and draw a histogram. You get a skewed distribution, toward the short end, just like many natural phenomena, including the distribution of sizes of U.S. cities, for instance. "One thing you have to remember about extinctions is that some species are more likely than others to die out, just because they exist as small, isolated populations,'' explained Dave. "This sort of statistical quirk can skew your results, easily." So, you would be suspicious of anything that looks like a power law? "I would, because it's common, just in the nature of statistics. It may tell you that a system is poised at a critical point, whatever that means, but it may not. In any case, when Stu says that the curve he gets from my data is close to a power law, he knows that there are many other mathematical models that could fit equally well."
  Clearly, there were many reasons to be cautious about drawing the conclusion that global ecosystems are poised at the edge of chaos, using just the extinction data.' p.80.

 

Hodges' model: Axes (structure) and Domains (content)

If we take the axes of Hodges' model, and break them at twenty-five points, I wonder what we end-up (or start) with?

 

Lewin, Roger. (1993) Complexity: life at the edge of chaos. London : Phoenix [Dent, 1993] ISBN: 1857990285.

Previously: 'complexity' : 'system'

Information Design and Sense-Making c/o Dervin

'Information Design: Something New, Something Old

... I want in this chapter to challenge the central idea that information design is a new idea. Reducing the issues briefly to a polarity, it is useful to start by considering two ways to conceptualize information. One way, implicit in the above assumptions, is that information is something that describes an ordered reality and has some knowable, or at least idealized, isomorphic relationship to that reality (i.e., it represents in an identical way the form and content of reality). In short, information instructs us, this assumption says, about the nature of the world we live in: its history, its future, its functioning, our place in it, our possible
actions, and the potential consequences of those actions.' p.35.

[My emphasis.]

Brenda Dervin. Chaos, Order, and Sense-Making: A Proposed Theory for Information Design (chapter 3) In R. Jacobson (Ed.), Information Design (pp. 35-57). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press

Previously: Information design: Tufte & Raskin 

iv Book: Bill Ross - 'Order and the Virtual'

'The Philosophy and Science of Deleuzian Cosmology'

Systemists will find much here: 'principle of least action', 'principle of least resistance', equilibrium, open / closed systems, and entropy. A useful question is posed: 'Is complexity increasing? Is that average complexity across the universe; or the complexity of the most complex object? Deleuzes's Difference and Repetition is quoted:

'The values of implication are centres of envelopment. These centres  are not the intensive individuating factors themselves, but they are their representatives within a complex whole in the process of explication. ...' (p.255-6)'

Reading this I immediately thought of Bohm, who followed shortly after (still in Chapter 1!). In chapter 1, 'Chaos' could be read as Cosmos, hence the term rolling them together - chaosmos. This is the tract from which existence and becoming arise (re-reading). Deleuze's awareness of physics and quantum theory and its influence on his work is discussed, with chapter 2 providing continuity reaching to Leibniz (and 'The Calculating God'), also contributing is 'the complete concept', 'principle of sufficient reason', 'intensive individuating factors' and 'principle of identity of indiscernibles', for example. Even while the context is metaphysics (and it is not!), (for me) this seemingly presages a comprehensive health assessment:

'The necessity in question is the necessary inclusion of all predicates pertaining to an individual in the complete concept of that individual.' p.24.

There are several 'completes' to be unwound, and so better understood. Ross provides a key. This isn't a book to read and pass-on to a student, second-hand bookshop. It really deserves re-reading, mandatory here - to get hold of the ideas and interplay of Deleuze, Ross's understanding and it must be said interpretation, that also calls upon Dan Smith's Essays on Deleuze, (EUP) and directly Leibniz's work. 

'The complete concept idea of predication is furnished to map faithfully onto these principles concerning the nature of things.' p.26.

The expanse of thought and literature from across the channel, 'French Theory' has long tempted, teased and taunted (not-quite as severely as mathematics!). At least here you can get a sense of the traffic in thought and ideas. Deleuze is difficult (in-/compossibilities, kuklos exothen ...), until you relate: becoming over being, difference over identity, and creation over representation. Order and the Virtual helps in this task. Delueze is 'embedded' in the mechanics of complexity, and mathematics, but Deleuze and Ross can see - across - to the humanities (virtual and actual). 

'Lastly, while mathematical concepts are frequently adopted to illuminate Deleuze's argument, they should not be taken as metaphorically representative of processes in the world; this would be to ignore the broadside and extended attack on representation as a mode of thinking as such which occupies so much of Difference and Repetition. Rather, they serve as a particularly direct example of the differential processes to which all phenomena - natural, social, psychological are subject. In an unambiguous sense, it is eminently possible for problems prompting a mathematical response to express themselves in altogether different domains - natural, social, etc. The problem is, so to speak, a common root of all domains.' p.39.

Still grappling, I noted integration, actualization, parity of esteem, maths - the linear and non-linear. It seems Deleuze was challenged by the question of integration. Leibniz's contribution of the calculus is acknowledged. History and even the present remain preoccupied with finding boxes. Ross explains how for Deleuze, we should not discount turbulent phenomena that cannot be simply integrated, written off as random disorder.

If we associate complication, with implication and explication, do we invite two-fold (as a minimal - keyhole) 'surgery': (re-)constructive and destructive? Thank you Mr Ross. I see now, how the (infinity →) continuum will not be exhausted. Exploring axioms for Hodges' model, and what is axiomatic, I must check Albert Lautman's model of dynamic structuration, especially when set (against / with?) the problematic mode:

'The two modes relate to each other dialectically - a period of exploration followed by the resulting period of axiomatisation. Deleuze recognises both modes and their respective utility, but for his philosophy the problematic mode is by far the more important.' p.41.

Do our boxes still have a purpose? To tame the situation - at hand/mind/virtual?

More to follow here ...

Bill Ross (2024) Order and the Virtual: The Philosophy and Science of Deleuzian Cosmology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 
https://edinburghuniversitypress.com/book-order-and-the-virtual.html

iii Book: Bill Ross - 'Order and the Virtual'

'The Philosophy and Science of Deleuzian Cosmology'

My book 'reviews' are unconventional in that they are not journal fare (format and quality-wise...); the book, or my reading of it - invariably refers to Hodges' model. I could argue that is not my fault, but a quality, something built in to the model. Anyway, what of the physical book itself?

The cover image is a marvel: Stone Quartet 1 by Patrick Haughton. 
[ Did someone say 'quartet'!* 😉]

Cover design by www.paulsmithdesign.com

Typeset in 10.5/13 Sabon, the fonts and styling through the book is clear, and easy to read (without regard to the technical content). The paper is thick, the quality contributing to a high contrast. 

The contents:

Abbreviations
Preface by Robin Durie and David Webb
1. Chaos
2. Entropy and the Complete Concept in Leibniz and Deleuze
3. Order
4. Order as Complexity
5. Sufficient Reason as Dissymmetry and the Evolutionary Paradigm
Conclusion
Notes
Bibliography
Index

The EUP website only lists four chapters for Order and the Virtual, but the book clearly has five. The conclusion is similarly omitted online: running from pp.175-181, I wish I'd written it.

That nursing and healthcare practice are bound up in philosophical considerations, values and ethics is fairly obvious. Care dilemmas would arise, calling for a multidisciplinary approach, and cross-disciplinary advice. Through this book, Bill Ross keeps highlighting for me, the way that once the uniform is donned, or the clock denotes an inbetweenness '0900-1700' for community staff, philosophy goes on the back-burner. The heat of the issue, and first rule of first-aid is felt, but it is not the primary concern. There is an international group of scholars for philosophy in nursing (and journal), but practitioners have, by definition - a job to do. If time is chaos and complexity (or appears as), then in health it is continuity, avoiding disruption and more often trying to 'heal' it.

Although Hodges' model presents as a symmetry; it is anything but. If we wish to symmetry-break, Hodges' model may assist. The flux and dynamics of care [insert your context] means that Hodges' model constantly changes its shape, form. Not as an objective statement, but an interpretation. Bill Ross's discussion on Nietzchean chaos and the superior principle of sufficient reason, demands and rewards a close reading (as does the whole text). Whether it is chaos, equilibrium, law and possibility cognitive - conceptual spaces invite ergodic (a cyclic) exploration. The mix of Deleuze and Leibniz's system makes for complex ideas, one probably needs to swim in. The book's first chapters are deep, technical but also inviting. There are encouraging links to psychotherapeutic thought, in the philosophy of difference, and how this is recognised, and change negotiated.

The scale is cosmological, with a section on ergodicity; and (inevitably) time, as per the quotation (p.10):

'Everything which happens and everything which appears is correlated with orders of differences: differences of level, temperature, pressure, tension, potential, difference of intensity. Carnot's principle says this in one way, Curie's principle in another, Gilles Deleuze (DR, 222)' (DR - Difference and Repetition).

There is a ponderous sense when assessment is routinized: assessment must be comprehensive. Do: tick all the boxes. Don't miss anything! How many levels of assessment should there be? If you want this number of assessments, what should I leave out? It is fascinating how we can frame time, not just 'set' against the axes of  Hodges' model, but a product of lifestyle, bio-physics, and even bio-psycho-social-politics. Is back to Earth - back to the individual? Not now. Contrast chronological and pathological time and not just for humanity. Ross follows Deleuze, Poincare, Neitzche and others in the long-term diagnosis of the universe, no less. A heat-death: the anti-fever. Now there's the collective, while in mental health, a diagnosis (or two ...) is still (often) contested, at least on twitter/X.

'The distinction for me is that metaphysics lives in that plane above where the concepts are not tied specifically to one field, but remain free to mobilise the salient questions as they play out among several fields.' p.15.

I don't think this just applies to metaphysics, but the extent (now) to which problems (clinical and generally) are multi- inter- and transdisciplinary (Ross acknowledges the pragmatic). Otherwise, with each step across a disciplinary boundary, our concepts lose their meaning, and the ergodic action (the around and around, back and forth ... our models and frameworks) is more akin to a drunken random-walk.

More to follow ...

Bill Ross (2024) Order and the Virtual: The Philosophy and Science of Deleuzian Cosmology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 
https://edinburghuniversitypress.com/book-order-and-the-virtual.html

*And is that the fifth domain floating above?

The preface is titled 'Playing Cortázarian Hopscotch':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopscotch_(Cort%C3%A1zar_novel)

There is also a brief  'Series Editor's Preface'

Call for Papers “THE CULTURAL EXPLOSION OF AI: ...

Navigating the Intersection of Artificial Intelligence, Society, and Culture”

Artificial intelligence has burst into the cultural space with the speed of an explosion. As with any powerful explosion, its initial impact is a spectacular blinding flash, followed by a shock wave with real effects. Perhaps we are still at the very beginning, but often the intensity of the blinding flash is proportional to the real effect that follows, both in terms of sweeping away existing forms and as long-term cultural “radiation”.

According to Lotman, a cultural explosion is a period of transformation when rapid and large-scale changes occur in cultural systems, leading to a significant increase in the creation of new information. It is estimated that artificial intelligence produces as much cultural text in one year as humanity has produced throughout its millennia-long history until the advent of the digital age. More interestingly, this new textual production is entering its most productive phase with the invention of Transformer architecture, which is almost a literal algorithmic realization of Lotman's concept of translation — the main mechanism of semiotic metabolism in the Semiosphere.

Training Large Language Models (LLMs), which is the foundation of AI, suspiciously resembles the way Umberto Eco models culture in the structure of a rhizome, which computer scientists call a "neural network." His encyclopedic model is based precisely on what LLMs extract from huge arrays of existing text—the statistic constancy of sign usage. In a polemic with textual immanentists, Eco postulates as part of the reader's encyclopedic competence the ability to inferentially reproduce the possible contexts of sign usage that make up the text. For many, the “magic” of artificial intelligence in its current form lies in its understanding of our questions to it, achieved with the Attention Mechanism, which, as a principle of cooperation between author and reader, is quite literally described in "The Role of the Reader" (1994).

The hardest to find were a fruitful correspondences between generative semiotics and generative media like Chat GPT, as paradoxical as that may sound, but surely there are such correspondences, and they are likely to be discovered in the future. In any case, as a theory of meaning generation on the one hand and an endless machine for creating meaningful texts on the other, the cultural explosion of AI will not leave this breed of semioticians unemployed.

We welcome contributions on the following key topics, but not limited to them:

- Semiotic models of AI generated cultural content
- Semiotic analysis of AI texts generation
- Semiotic theory of generative media
- Socio-cultural consequences of AI's advent
- Transdisciplinary collaboration between semiotics and informatics
- AI in creative practices in the arts
- AI in creative practices in marketing and advertising
- AI in research and education
- Cultural-economic implications of AI
- AI in pop culture
- AI in videogames and XR

Send here your proposal for papers (200-300 words): DigitASC AT nbu.bg

Deadline for the abstracts : 31 January 2025;

Deadline for full papers: 15 June 2025;

Deadline for the final revised papers: 31 August 2025;

Publication: December 2025

Digital Age in Semiotics & Communication, a journal from the Southeast European Center for Semiotic Studies at the New Bulgarian University and founded by Prof. Kristian Bankov, explores the new forms of knowledge, social and linguistic interaction, and cultural phenomena generated by the advent of the Internet and information technologies.

A topic is chosen for each issue by the editorial board, but the topics will be always related to the issues of the digital environment. The working language of the journal is English. It uses double-blind review, meaning that both the reviewer’s and the author’s identities are concealed from each other throughout the review process.

Link to the archive of the first six issues: https://ojs.nbu.bg/index.php/DASC/issue/archive

For more information and submission of papers: DigitASC AT nbu.bg

My source:
--

Departamento de Filosofia, Comunicação e Informação
Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Coimbra
3004-530 Coimbra, Portugal

E-mail: iestudosfilosoficos AT gmail.com
Sítio Web: http://www.uc.pt/fluc/ief
YouTube: https://youtube.com/@uidief
Academia: https://coimbra.academia.edu/ief

Paths, lines, corners, edges and axes . . .

'If a farmer has made a path, he is able to saunter easily up and down it. That is what the path was made for. But the work of making the path was not a process of sauntering easily, but one of marking the ground, digging, fetching loads of gravel, rolling, and draining. He dug and rolled where there was yet no path, so that he might in the end have a path on which he could saunter without any more digging or rolling. Similarly a person who has a theory can, among other things, expound to himself, or the world, the whole theory, or any part of it; he can, so to speak, saunter in prose from any part to any other part of it. But the work of building the theory was a job of making paths where as yet there were none.' 

Gilbert Ryle, The Concept of Mind (1949; Penguin, 1999), p. 272.

path

https://hodges-model.blogspot.com/search?q=path

line (line of sight)

https://hodges-model.blogspot.com/search?q=line

corners

https://hodges-model.blogspot.com/search?q=corners

edges

https://hodges-model.blogspot.com/search?q=edges

axes: STRUCTURE

domains: CONTENT

Frayn, Michael (2006). The human touch: our part in the creation of a universe. Notes. London: Faber & Faber. p.425.

Previously: 'Frayn on maths'

I will keep this book a bit longer - chapter 'Home Address' (the self) a good read.

Case formulation - Theory and Practice

 Still sorting papers, I've discovered copies of slides from the COPE course University of Manchester on Case Formulation by John McGovern.

An original purpose for Hodges' model is to help bridge the theory-practice gap.

The slides include -

• content: ingredients - preliminary formulation
• a means of understanding an individual's problems and distress in line with cognitive behavioural theory
• hypothesis to explain acquisition, and maintenance of problem
• not piecemeal

ROLE OF CASE FORMULATIONS

Bridge between theory and practice

a flexible tool for guidance

an explanatory framework to share with the patient

How types of formulation can be related to situations (Hodges' model is situated) - inference chain.

Comprehensive formulation - reflects the template that supports data gathering

inc. core beliefs - conditional beliefs

Questions for Preliminary Formulation

Main Ingredients - includes social support/relationships/employment/finances

(so this touches on determinants)

Choosing Treatment Targets

group exercise and summary

British Computer Society: AI for One Health and Planetary Health

 BCS SPECIALIST GROUP ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (BCS SGAI)! 

AI for One Health and Planetary Health: Where Are We?

Friday November 8th 2024 - British Computer Society London Office (near Moorgate Underground)

Invitation to Register

http://www.bcs-sgai.org/health2024/

A full-day event with invited talks on the following topics:

• One Health and Planetary Health: the case for considering a unified health perspective
• Translational Diagnostics in Companion Animals
• Mixed AI approaches to surfacing information hidden in veterinary electronic health records
• Hands-on Tutorial: Low-Code/No-Code AI: Democratise AI for Text, Images, and Audio
• AI for One Health and Planetary Health: is there a generic framework?
• Low-Code/No-Code AI for Biomedical Image Classification: Visual Impairment as a case stud
• Low-Code/No-Code AI for Planetary Health: World Fisheries and Aquaculture as a case study

The  21st  century  brings  major  global  challenges,  including  climate  change  and  rapid  population  ageing, calling  for  transdisciplinary  involvement  of  diverse  sectors  and  stakeholders,  including  academics  and students, companies and societal organisations. One Health considers human health, animal health, and our shared  environment  as  parts  of  a  deeply  interconnected  system.  Our  environment  is  changing  and  it  is affecting  our  health.  Planetary  Health  emphasises  that  everything  is  connected:  "the  quality  of  the  air  we breathe and of the water we drink, the quality and quantity of food we produce, our exposure to infectious diseases, and even the habitability of the places where we live". Digitalisation is happening in both human and veterinary medicine. Human-AI collaboration can bring humans and AI together to gain more valuable insights  than  either  could  achieve  alone. The  event  comprises  a  number  of  talks  with  speakers  from  the Animal  and  Plant  Health  Agency  (APHA.gov.uk),  Veterinary  Health  Innovation  Engine  (vHive),  Small Animal  Veterinary  Surveillance  Network  (SAVSNET),  National  Health  Service  (NHS)  England,  and  UK universities.  

Low-code/no-code AI is on the rise with Large Language Models (LLMs) at its core, including multimodal LLMs that can produce content (text, image, video, or audio/speech) as output (generative AI). Come along to the hands-on tutorial if you are interested in content generation and content analysis of text, images and  audio  with  open-source  LLMs from  Google,  Facebook,  Microsoft  and  OpenAI  in  just  3  lines  of python  code  (low-code  AI)  and  LLM  prompting  (no  code  AI).  The  exercises  can  be  executed  in  1  to  5 minutes using Google Colab (free of charge for basic use and without setup to use).  

There will be Certificates of Attendance for those who register and attend the event.

We hope that you will come and join us, and that you enjoy this new offering from the BCS SGAI.

Full details are available at http://www.bcs-sgai.org/health2024/

Reduced delegate fees!!
The  delegate  fee  is  just  £50  plus  VAT  for  BCS  and  SGAI  members  and  £90  plus  VAT  for  others. This includes  attendance  at  the  event,  lunch  and  refreshments.  A  special  rate  of  £35  plus  VAT  is  available  for students. A Group Discount Rate is available for group bookings of three or more.

--------------------------------------------------------
To register for future mailings about SGAI events go to http://www.bcs-sgai.org/register/

Max Bramer
Chair BCS Specialist Group on Artificial Intelligence (bcs-sgai.org)