I think I do need a guitar tutor

---

I’m seeing one potential guitar tutor for a trial lesson on Monday and another on Wednesday, which means there is - inevitably - at least one mildly-difficult phone call in my near future.

My underlying problem: playing the guitar is saturated with intangibles. Hand and wrist angles. Finger placement on the fretboard. Optimal chord shapes. Moving the left hand up and down the fretboard while the right hand tries to just get on with it.

None of this is easy to infer from books or videos: no feedback.

Being self-taught in my youth has left me functional but clumsy. Everything feels improvised, provisional, unstable. I’ve found myself explaining to prospective tutors that this awkwardness is precisely why I’m knocking on their door. What I need is not so much inspiration as correction - and, just as importantly, a contextually-structured plan of advance that gives shape to practice and motivates me.

I’m open to the idea that classical guitar might be the best road to technique. I like classical music well enough, and if disciplined right-hand work and clean left-hand mechanics are the price of admission, that's the plus. My real motivation remains modern blues: more informal, more visceral.

Perhaps the longer way round is the way to get there?

---

Aristotle's metaphysics in modern higher-order modal predicate logic

---

Aristotle, Formal Logic, and the Shape of “Essence”

1. Introduction

I already wrote about the philosophical journey from Plato to Aristotle to Aquinas. This is of interest to me because the theology of the Catholic Church remains in thrall to Aristotelian categories - there seems little appetite for updating the church's 'physics ontology' with the latest thinking from QFT or GR. Perhaps that is wise.

Anyway, in the previous post - on reflection - I didn't really explore the subtle distinctions between, for example, form and essence. But now, with GPT5.2 just introduced, perhaps we have the cognitive horsepower to make all things clear.

Aristotle would, one hopes, be pleased. So, over to GPT5.2.

---

2. Aristotle’s Problem (Why This Formalisation Is Needed)

Plato’s theory is pulled in opposite directions:

1) We need genuine universals: “horse” is not merely a convenient noise. There are objective joints in reality.

2) But if universals live in a separate realm (Plato), you owe a non-mystical account of how that realm explains what happens here. (And you risk regress headaches like the Third Man.)

Aristotle’s move is to keep universals real enough to explain, but to make them immanent: the explanatory principle is in the thing. That is the metaphysical brief. Now we give it a modern logical spine.

3. The Modern Apparatus

3.1 Worlds

Let W be a non-empty set of possible worlds. Let w₀ ∈ W be the actual world.

3.2 Individuals (Primary Substances)

Let D be a domain of individuals. These are the candidates for Aristotle’s primary substances.

Example individual constant: b ∈ D, intended as Bucephalus (Alexander's horse).

3.3 Existence

E(x, w): “x exists in world w”.

Example: E(b, w₀) says Bucephalus exists in the actual world.

3.4 Kinds (Secondary Substances) as First-Class Objects

Up to now our domain D has contained individuals — Aristotle’s primary substances (this horse, this man). But Aristotle also treats species and genera as “secondary substances”: horse, human, animal. Formally, the clean way to represent that without smuggling in Plato is to move to a two-sorted (many-sorted) logic.

We therefore extend the model so that it has two distinct domains:

D = the domain of individuals (primary substances).
K = the domain of kinds (species/genera; secondary substances). And no, this is not Plato's Forms smuggled back in!

So the model has the shape:

M = ⟨ W, w₀, D, K, I ⟩

where W is the set of possible worlds, w₀ is the actual world, and I is the interpretation function assigning meanings to our symbols.

Variables are typed accordingly:

x, y range over D (individuals).
k, g range over K (kinds).

Example of an individual constant: b ∈ D, intended as Bucephalus.
Example of a kind constant: k_H ∈ K, intended as the kind Horse (a species).

We connect individuals to kinds with a typed “instantiation” predicate:

Inst(x, k) = “individual x instantiates kind k”. This is going to be important later.

So Inst(b, k_H) reads: “Bucephalus is a horse.” This lets us talk about Aristotle’s secondary substances rigorously, without treating kinds as just more individuals in D (which would be Platonism in disguise).

3.5 Instantiation (Kind-Membership)

Inst(x, k): “individual x instantiates kind k”. As I said, note this definition as it's essential in what follows.

Example: Inst(b, k_H) means Bucephalus is a horse.

3.6 Form-Tokens and Matter-Tokens

We introduce “internal principles” as values of functions on individuals.

FormOf(x): the form-token of x - (returns the structural/organising principle in the individual.)
MatOf(x): the matter-token of x - (returns the underlying stuff/potentiality in the individual.)

Example: FormOf(b) is Bucephalus’s horse-form-token; MatOf(b) is Bucephalus’s particular flesh-and-bone matter-token.

Extending the model to type the function FormOf properly

A technical but important correction: in standard model-theoretic semantics, every function symbol must have a well-defined domain and codomain that are explicitly present in the model structure.

In the earlier definition, FormOf(x) was introduced informally as “the form-token of x”. To make that precise (and to avoid collapsing forms either into individuals or into kinds), we extend the model with a third domain.

So, instead of:

M = ⟨ W, w₀, D, K, I ⟩

we use:

M = ⟨ W, w₀, D, K, F, I ⟩

where:

D is the domain of individuals (primary substances).
K is the domain of kinds (species/genera; secondary substances).
F is the domain of form-tokens (immanent structural/organising principles instantiated in individuals).

We can now type the functions and relations cleanly:

FormOf : D → F (maps an individual to its form-token).
MatOf : D → M (optionally: a separate domain M of matter-tokens; or treat matter-tokens as another subset/domain for full typing symmetry).
FType : F × K → {true, false} (classifies a form-token as being of the form-type corresponding to a kind).

Example: b ∈ D (Bucephalus), and FormOf(b) ∈ F is Bucephalus’s individual horse-form-token. The key Aristotelian bridge can now be written in a fully well-typed way:

Inst(x, k) ↔ FType(FormOf(x), k)

Interpretation: kind-membership is grounded in an immanent form-token (FormOf(x)), while kinds (K) merely index the classification of forms; we have not reintroduced a Platonic realm of self-standing Forms.

3.7 Form-Types as Kind-Indexed Predicates on Form-Tokens

HorseForm(f): “f is a horse-form-token”. More generally, we will use a relation:

FType(f, k): “form-token f is of form-type corresponding to kind k”.

Example: FType(FormOf(b), k_H) says Bucephalus’s form-token is a horse-form-token.

3.8 Accident Predicates (For Illustration)

White(x): “x is white”. This will stand for an accidental feature.

Example: White(b) might be true (or false) depending on which horse you chose.

3.9 Necessity

□φ means: φ is true in all admissible worlds. (Standard Kripke semantics assumed.)

4. Aristotle’s Constraints (The “Design Specs”)

Aristotle needs four constraints to hold together:

(C1) Kinds must be objective. There are genuine kinds k in K such that Inst(x, k) is not mere convention.

(C2) No separate realm of Forms is required. Whatever explains Inst(x, k) must be grounded in x.

(C3) Essence is necessity. To say “P is essential to the kind k” is to say: necessarily, anything of kind k has P. So P is a necessary property for a thing to be of that kind.

(C4) Accidents vary. Some predicates (like White) are not necessary for kind-membership.

Now we encode these constraints as axioms/definitions, and see what follows.

5. The Core Aristotelian Bridge: Kind-Membership Is Fixed by Form

This is Aristotle’s anti-Plato move stated cleanly:

Axiom (Immanence - Form grounds kind-membership):

For all individuals x and kinds k, and all worlds w:

∀x ∀k ∀w ( E(x, w) → ( Inst(x, k) ↔ FType(FormOf(x), k) ) )

Example instance:

∀w ( E(b, w) → ( Inst(b, k_H) ↔ FType(FormOf(b), k_H) ) )

Interpretation: x is a horse (instantiates Horse) because its internal organising principle is of the horse-form type. No transcendent exemplar is doing the explanatory work.

The “universal” is not a separate thing; it’s the form-type realised in each horse.

6. Define Essence as Modal Invariance of a Kind (important!)

We now define “P is essential to kind k” in the most literal modern way: P - some predicate on individuals - holds of all existing instances of k in every admissible world.

Definition (Kind-essence - 'Essential-to'):

EssTo(k, P) ↔ □ ∀x ∀w ( (E(x, w) ∧ Inst(x, k)) → P(x) )

Here P(x) is any predicate on individuals (e.g., White(x), HasFourLegs(x), etc.).

Example 1 (accident not essence): ¬EssTo(k_H, White)
This says: it is not necessary that all existing horses are white. (Correct.)

Example 2 (form-linked essence): Let P_Form,k(x) abbreviate FType(FormOf(x), k). Then:

EssTo(k, P_Form,k)

This says: necessarily, anything of kind k has a form-token of the k-type. 

That’s not “horses are horses”; it’s the claim that the essence of membership in a kind is tracked by form rather than matter or accident.

Logic gloss: essence vs accident (in the same formal category)

In the formal reconstruction, both essence and accident are treated as predicates of individuals — i.e. they are in the same logical category (properties that can be true of substances). The difference is their modal status.

An essential predicate is modally invariant for a kind: P is essential to kind k iff necessarily, every existing instance of k has P:

EssTo(k, P) ↔ □ ∀x ((E(x) ∧ Inst(x, k)) → P(x)).

By contrast, an accidental predicate is modally variable: it is possible to have two instances of the same kind that differ with respect to P:

◇ ∃x ∃y (Inst(x, k) ∧ Inst(y, k) ∧ P(x) ∧ ¬P(y)).

Same predicate type, different necessity profile — which is exactly why Aristotle can oppose essence to accident without inventing a second realm.

7. Matter Explains Variability, Not Definition

To represent the idea that accidents vary among members of the same kind, we add a modal possibility statement:

◇ ∃x ∃y ( E(x, w) ∧ E(y, w) ∧ Inst(x, k_H) ∧ Inst(y, k_H) ∧ (White(x) ∧ ¬White(y)) )

Plain English: it is possible that there exist two horses, one white and one not. Therefore White is not essential to horsehood.

This is exactly the Aristotelian distinction between what belongs to a thing as such (essence) and what belongs to it contingently (accident). Matter (and circumstance) supplies the room for difference; form supplies the stable identity.

8. The Argument as a Sequence

Step 1: Plato needs universals for explanation, but makes them transcendent, which threatens explanatory contact with particulars.

Step 2: Aristotle imposes immanence: whatever makes Inst(x, k) true must be in x itself.

Step 3: Introduce form-tokens - FormOf(x) - as internal grounds, and form-types - FType(–, k) - as the kind-indexed classification of those internal grounds.

Step 4: Axiomatically connect kind-membership to form: Inst(x, k) ↔ FType(FormOf(x), k).

Step 5: Define essence as modal invariance: EssTo(k, P) ↔ □∀x∀w((E(x,w)∧Inst(x,k))→P(x)).

Step 6: Show accidents fail the test: there are admissible worlds with horses differing in White, so ¬EssTo(Horse, White).

Step 7: Show what survives the test is form-linked: EssTo(k, x) ↦ FType(FormOf(x), k)).

Conclusion: Aristotle’s substance–essence picture can be rendered as: primary substances are form–matter composites; kind-membership is grounded in immanent form; essence is the modal profile of a kind grounded in that form; matter and circumstance explain accidental variation.

9. What This Captures (And What It Doesn’t)

This formalisation captures the heart of the Aristotelian move: the universal is immanent and explanatory, and essence is necessity rather than a heavenly object.

What it does not yet capture—because it would require additional apparatus—is Aristotle’s full-blooded teleology: forms do not merely classify; they explain capacities and ends (the four causes).

If we wanted to go further, we would add disposition predicates (e.g., CanDigestGrass(x), HasTypicalEquineLocomotion(x)) and connect those systematically to FType(FormOf(x), k). That is where “essence” becomes not just modal invariance but also explanatory depth.

10. Closing Thought

Plato made universals too far away to do their job without metaphysical baroque. Aristotle’s fix is to keep the job (explanation) but move the machinery (form) inside the thing. Once you do that, the modern modal definition of essence stops being a foreign import and starts looking like a tidy restatement of what Aristotle was aiming at all along: not a second realm, but a disciplined way of saying what cannot vary if this thing is to remain the kind of thing it is.

---

Here are some thoughts on the above essay from Gemini 3.

---

A cliodynamic analysis of the SNP in Scotland

---

Cliodynamics and the Scottish Independence Movement

---

Another example of the power of the Cliodynamics framework of analysis. Peter Turchin’s structural-demographic theory frames political upheaval in terms of deep forces rather than personalities or contingencies. In this analysis, his model highlights three dynamics: mass immiseration, elite overproduction, and state fiscal fragility. The interplay of these trends shapes whether societies remain stable or veer into crisis. It is illuminating to apply this lens to the Scottish independence movement.

For decades, the SNP has functioned as a counter-elite organisation. Its leaders and activists are talented professionals - lawyers, academics, politicians - who, within the framework of the London-centric United Kingdom, are blocked from the very top tier of elite status. Prime ministerships, treasury posts, intelligence leadership, senior ambassadorships, and control over monetary policy are all reserved to Westminster. Scotland’s elites hold positions of influence, but the most prestigious and powerful roles remain off-limits.

Independence promises to change that. A sovereign Scotland would multiply elite slots: cabinet portfolios, a central bank and governorship, top civil-service and military posts, regulators, and ambassadorships abroad. In cliodynamic terms, secession would absorb part of the elite surplus by creating a fresh pyramid of offices. This explains the persistent drive of the SNP and its allies: they have the structural incentive to keep pushing.

The problem lies with the masses. For Turchin, immiseration (stagnant or declining wages and prospects) among ordinary people supplies the fuel for counter-elites. Yet here the calculus is difficult. Scotland benefits from fiscal transfers within the UK, allowing higher public spending than its domestic tax base can sustain. Independence would mean replicating expensive state functions, assuming a higher deficit, and facing uncertainty over currency and borrowing: classic diseconomies of scale. To many Scottish workers and pensioners, the subconscious message is simple: life could get poorer, not better.

This mismatch between elite incentives and mass fears was stark in 2014. The referendum mobilised nearly half the electorate in favour of independence - remarkable given establishment opposition - but economic anxiety kept the “Yes” vote below 50%. The counter-elites could not fully align immiseration with their project.

Since then, Brexit, austerity, and Conservative dominance at Westminster have supplied new grievances. The case for independence is reframed as a chance to escape England’s trajectory, to rejoin Europe, to build a fairer welfare state. The SNP hoped that deteriorating UK politics will tilt the cost–benefit calculation for ordinary Scots.

But cliodynamics suggests that unless the UK itself enters deeper crisis - fiscal breakdown, contested elections, or draconian repression - the Scottish masses remain a brake. Counter-elites cannot carry secession on their own; they require a perception that independence alleviates immiseration rather than worsens it.

In this sense, the independence movement is structurally-driven but contingently-blocked. It will not vanish, because the elite incentive remains. But it will not triumph unless London delivers the kind of trigger event that redefines the economic risks of secession. If that occurs, the Scottish counter-elites will be ready, and the new elite pyramid will rise quickly.

---

Why the SNP is scandal-ridden and out of ideas—and why Reform is rising in Scotland

Longevity breeds establishment. The SNP’s long incumbency since 2007 has generated fatigue and clientelism. Financial investigations, leadership turmoil, and factional splits have eroded moral authority. A counter-elite that captures regional power without delivering its promised rupture starts to look like the establishment it opposed.

Strategic exhaustion. With London refusing a fresh referendum, Brussels cautious, and the economic case unpersuasive, the SNP’s narrative has stalled. Counter-elites without a credible path to power appear hollow; policy improvisation reads as drift.

Reform’s counterintuitive traction. In Scotland, Reform functions as a protest vehicle rather than a cultural fit. Immiserated voters use it to punish an exhausted political class in Edinburgh as well as London. Some frustrated Scottish aspirants also pivot toward a UK-wide populist ladder that seems to be moving while the SNP’s hierarchy ossifies.

Cliodynamic synthesis. The SNP’s decay is what happens when a counter-elite movement cannot consummate elite circulation. Reform’s gains signal that discontent will find an outlet across national lines when domestic counter-elites are discredited. Unless structural conditions change - or Westminster triggers a crisis that flips mass risk-perception - the Scottish independence project will remain structurally-incentivised yet mass-constrained.

'By Invitation: Peter Turchin' - (as emulated by ChatGPT)

Amazon

---

By Invitation: Peter Turchin

Cliodynamics at end-2025: The Deep Forces Driving Disorder

---

History does not unfold as a random sequence of surprises. Beneath the noise of daily events, there are slow-moving forces - demographic, economic, political - that rise and fall in patterns. Cliodynamics is the attempt to make these patterns both explicit and predictive.

Two years after End Times was published, we can already see how the mechanisms it described have continued to work themselves out, reshaping politics from Berlin to Brasília.

Take Europe. Germany, long the continent’s stabilising centre, has now suffered three consecutive years of recession. Energy prices remain high, skilled labour is in short supply, and the government has been paralysed by the constitutional straitjacket of the debt brake.

When the coalition collapsed in late 2024 and the country went to the polls again in February 2025, voters did not turn back to centrist stability. Instead, the parties on the far right surged.

The same story is playing out across Europe: Marine Le Pen’s National Rally in France, Nigel Farage’s Reform in Britain, the AfD in Germany. 

Rising populism is not a coincidence. It is the predictable response of societies where ordinary people feel immiserated while elites multiply and compete ever more frantically for scarce positions at the top, positions which are increasingly threatened by automation and AI.

This is what cliodynamics calls elite overproduction. When too many graduates chase too few prestigious roles, when lawyers, journalists and policymakers are produced in excess, a class of disaffected elites emerges.

Denied status, they turn against the system that trained them. They become entrepreneurs of discontent, mobilising the grievances of the masses. The populist wave in Europe is its clearest manifestation in decades; the dynamics point to further escalation.

The economic backdrop intensifies these pressures. Global growth has slowed to around 3% - barely enough to lift living standards. Inflation has eased from its peaks, but the response of governments has been to normalise emergency fiscal measures. Deficits are no longer temporary but structural. Public debt mounts, while citizens perceive that benefits are skewed toward asset-holders and insiders. This “wealth pump” - transferring resources upward - is the second great driver of instability.

Beyond Europe, the same dynamics appear in different forms.

• In Georgia, hundreds of thousands took to the streets over contested elections and the question of alignment with Russia or the European Union.
• In Brazil, outrage flared over the shackling of deported migrants and escalated into a full-blown tariff war with the United States.
• In India, punitive American tariffs on exports have triggered talk in Delhi of closer ties with Moscow and Beijing.

These are not isolated events. They are outward signs of intensifying inter-elite conflict on the world stage, as great powers seek to defend or revise the distribution of wealth and prestige.

Even in the United States, with Trump’s return to office in January 2025, the structural pressures have not eased. Elite overproduction remains acute; the gulf between populist rhetoric and policy delivery continues to widen.

Protectionist tariffs may rally a base and assert American dominance, but they also create new grievances abroad and new inefficiencies at home. America, like Europe, has yet to resolve the contradictions driving its cycle of discord.

The lesson of cliodynamics is that these trends do not cancel each other out; they reinforce one another. Immiseration of the majority breeds anger from below. Overproduction of elites fuels competition at the top. 

When frustrated elites ally with disaffected masses, regimes destabilise. Add geopolitical rivalry and the erosion of democratic norms under intense intra-elite competition, and you have the conditions for systemic crisis.

This is the world of 2025. The “end times” are not an apocalypse but a turbulent passage in the secular cycle. History shows that such passages may lead to reform and renewal, but only if societies find ways to restrain their elites, broaden opportunity, and restore legitimacy to their institutions. Without such measures, the forces driving today’s disorder will continue to build towards more systemic breakdown.

Cliodynamics on the novel '1984'

Amazon

---

Cliodynamics on the novel '1984'?

George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four presents us with a closed system. The Inner Party governs in perpetuity, the Outer Party serves, and the proles remain inert. History itself has been abolished. O’Brien tells Winston bluntly: the future is a boot stamping on a human face, forever.

Peter Turchin, founder of Cliodynamics, would raise an eyebrow. His structural-demographic theory insists that states are not timeless mechanisms but unstable equilibria, always subject to recurring cycles of expansion and breakdown. How would his analytic lens interpret Oceania?

Elite overproduction is usually the starting point. In real societies success breeds success; more credentialed aspirants emerge than there are elite slots available. Frustrated competitors form dissident cliques, sharpening factional conflict.

Oceania seeks to prevent this by capping the Inner Party at perhaps two percent of the population and ruthlessly purging any Outer Party member whose ambition rises too far. Yet even here the arithmetic looks shaky. The pipeline of Outer Party functionaries is large; the openings above are tiny. Over decades, the pressure must build. Constant purges offer no stable solution.

Factionalism is the critical marker for impending instability. Orwell insists that the Party has abolished all factional life, that its unanimity is absolute. Turchin would dismiss this as ahistorical.

Wherever elites exist, networks of loyalty and rivalry develop. The Brotherhood, whether real or fictional, is a structural inevitability: a latent factional pole, even if repressed to invisibility. Human nature reasserts itself, as the novel is at pains to point out.

Mass mobilisation is the wild card. Orwell insists the proles are politically inert, incapable of revolutionary initiative. Turchin would agree - until factionalised elites need them.

In most historical collapses, popular upheaval is catalysed from above, as competing elites recruit the masses into their quarrels. Oceania’s proles may not move on their own, but they form the raw material for factional-elite mobilisation - once the cracks appear above.

Finally, war. Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia are locked into endless, conflict, inconclusive by design. Turchin has often pointed out that war can stabilise a regime by unifying elites against the outside. But this effect is temporary. War drains resources, accelerates turnover, and exposes weaknesses. A genuine defeat, or a military stalemate that erodes resources, reopens the door to factional conflict at home.

Cliodynamics therefore rejects Orwell’s static dystopia. If Oceania were a real society, not a literary construct, its cycle would look familiar: elite overproduction, hidden factionalism, external pressure, mass mobilisation, systemic crisis.

The iron equilibrium of 1984 is an artefact of Orwell’s world-building, not a sustainable state structure. The real question is not whether Oceania would eventually collapse, but when, and under what stress trigger.

Orwell imagined eternity; Turchin insists on history.

What SF novels work for a fifteen year old boy?

---

SF for a Fifteen-Year-Old Boy

Let's consider dystopian science fiction suited to a fifteen-year-old. Boy stuff, but nothing pitch-black or gratuitously grisly or explicit. Kind of (15) in fact.

1. The Chrysalids — John Wyndham

In post-nuclear-apocalypse North America, a hidden minority of telepathic children try to survive in a harsh religious society obsessed with stamping out “mutants”. When the authorities begin to close in, they must flee or be destroyed.

Appeal: It’s conceptually rich without being violent. Wyndham writes clean, comprehensible prose, and the adolescent theme — being different in a world demanding conformity — remains evergreen. And the characters are so endearing.

2. 1984 — George Orwell

A drab, surveillance-drenched London where the Party rewrites truth itself. Winston Smith dreams of rebellion and love, only to find the State waiting behind every door.

Appeal: Proper dystopia: atmospheric, paranoid, intellectually gripping. It may be grim, but it immerses a young reader into the reality of totalitarianism - far different from the cheap gibes of trendy politics.

3. Starship Troopers — Robert Heinlein

Juan “Johnny” Rico enlists in the Mobile Infantry and learns what interstellar war against alien arachnids demands of a citizen and a soldier.

Appeal: Big power-armour battles, drill-sergeant mythology, and a boyish sense of duty and camaraderie. Heinlein’s political ruminations reinforce the ethos without much fear of brainwashing.

4. Ender’s Game — Orson Scott Card

A brilliant but bullied child is recruited into Battle School, where zero-gravity combat games are used to mould him into Earth’s last hope against an alien foe. A masterclass of growth and deception.

Appeal: Tactical brilliance, pressure-cooker training, and the fantasy of the misunderstood prodigy. It’s irresistible to bright fifteen-year-olds.

5. Eon — Greg Bear

A hollowed asteroid appears in Earth orbit carrying impossible architecture, deep time corridors, and the remnants of a future human civilisation fleeing a cosmic war.

Appeal: For a kid excited by physics, space-time, and engineering, Bear’s sense of scale opens the door to big idea SF. Dense at first, then addictive. Helps if you're a fan of spacetime engineering. And there's the sequel.

6. Quarantine — Greg Egan

Humanity is sealed off from the stars by the mysterious “Bubble”, and a detective stumbles into quantum conspiracies that challenge the nature of reality.

Appeal: Only suited to a scientifically precocious reader — but if he is that boy, this is the mind-stretcher that turns curiosity into obsession. Used by university students as a primer for the interpretation of quantum theory (many worlds).

7. The Forever War — Joe Haldeman

Elite soldiers fight a relativistic interstellar campaign in which every return to Earth leaves them further estranged from the civilisation they defend. The liberal response to Heinlein's robust Starship Troopers, but don't let that put you off this well-written elegy.

Appeal: Gritty without being lurid, and built around a clean, melancholy conceit: the soldier who keeps coming home to a world that no longer fits him.

8. Undying Mercenaries (immense series) — B. V. Larson

Humanity survives by selling its military services across the galaxy, with plasma rifles, alien clients, and endless misadventure. The soldier as jester.

Appeal: Light, fast, militarised fun. Think snack-food SF: perfect for a teenager who wants action more than philosophy.

9. The Mote in God’s Eye — Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle

Humanity meets its first aliens — brilliant, industrious, and harbouring a civilisation-shaking secret. First contact becomes a diplomatic chess match on the edge of existential disaster.

Appeal: Grand-scale world-building, proper space navy procedure, and a mystery at the heart of an alien species. Intelligent but highly readable. The authors don't much like hand-wringing liberals.

10. Flashback — Dan Simmons

A future America anaesthetised by a drug that lets users relive their happiest memories, while a broken detective hunts for truth in a collapsing society.

Appeal: Darker in tone, noir rather than dystopia-lite. Might be borderline for fifteen, depending on temperament - it's genuinely scary - but gripping if he likes grim detectives, future decay and ambiguous, horrific endings.

11. Snow Crash — Neal Stephenson

A katana-wielding courier hacks through a hyper-commercialised America and a virtual-reality landscape threatened by a memetic virus rewriting minds.

Appeal: High-energy, gonzo futurism, skateboards and swords and cyberspace. Occasionally explicit and uneven, but teenagers love the velocity of it. A paradigm-changing novel (think Metaverse).

12. Neuromancer — William Gibson

A washed-up hacker is hired to pull off the ultimate cyberspace heist with a crew of street samurai, AIs, and digital phantoms.

Appeal: Cooler, tighter, and less chaotic than Snow Crash. For boys who want their dystopia noir-black with chrome edges. This is another paradigm-defining classic.

13. Lucifer’s Hammer — Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle

A comet strike tips civilisation into chaos; scientists, soldiers and opportunists scramble to rebuild amid the ashes.

Appeal: Classic disaster narrative with scientific grit. Adventure, survivalism, improvised weapons — very much boy stuff.

14. Footfall — Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle

Earth is invaded by elephant-like aliens; humanity replies with desperate science projects, tank battles, and orbital brinkmanship. And it's always good to see the resurrection of Orion.

Appeal: The perfect teenage invasion novel: aliens, improvised counter-attacks, big hardware, and a plot that keeps accelerating.

15. Foundation (original trilogy) — Isaac Asimov

A collapsing Galactic Empire, a mathematician who predicts the fall, and a clandestine plan, the Foundation, designed to shorten the coming dark age from thirty millennia to a single, manageable millennium. Across generations, traders, technocrats, and accidental heroes confront crises foreseen by psychohistory… until a mutant variable derails the script.

Appeal: Grand-scale civilisation engineering, political intrigue, clever problem-solving rather than battle lust. Ideal for a bright teenager who enjoys the idea that the universe might be tamed by intellect alone and who likes the sense of standing at the beginning of a very long, compulsive story.

From thoughtful Wyndham through Heinlein to full-tilt Niven-Pournelle and Asimov, somewhere in here, there will be a novel that becomes his first proper science-fiction obsession... that’s usually how it starts.

---

Update (13th December 2025): Five More

16. Edge of Tomorrow (All You Need Is Kill) – Hiroshi Sakurazaka

Keiji Kiriya is a raw recruit on a near-future battlefield, dying again and again in a hopeless war against alien “Mimics”. Each time he is killed he wakes up back at the start of the same day, memories intact, fighting, learning and levelling up like a player trapped inside a brutal video game. The only person who seems to understand what is happening is the legendary armoured soldier Rita Vrataski, who may be caught in the same loop.

For a 15-year-old this is pure kinetic SF: fast, violent, easy to visualise if they’ve seen the film (the book is far better), but sharper, stranger and more focused on the psychology of repetition than Hollywood ever was. 

It also has a strong, competent female co-lead without lapsing into preachiness.

17. The Voyage of the Space Beagle – A. E. van Vogt

A vast exploration ship, the Space Beagle, roams deep space in search of knowledge and promptly keeps finding things that want to kill everyone on board: an energy-draining panther-thing, a parasitic intelligence that wants a body, and other classic Golden Age monstrosities. Holding it together is Nexialism, a sort of super-generalist discipline - based on General Systems Theory - whose practitioner tries to see the pattern behind each new existential threat which unlocks the solution.

This is old-school pulp, but for an intelligent teenager it’s a riot of big ideas, weird aliens and “monster of the week” set-pieces. The science is shaky, the prose dated, but the sense of danger and wonder is still there – and the notion of a hero whose strength is synthesis rather than just firepower is a nice quiet message.

18. The Dorsai Sequence – Gordon R. Dickson

Across a future human-settled galaxy, different worlds specialise: some in religion, some in commerce, and one in war. The Dorsai are the professional soldiers everyone else hires – frighteningly competent, ruthlessly honour-bound and increasingly aware that their peculiar culture is evolving into something new. In novels such as Tactics of Mistake, Soldier, Ask Not and Dorsai!, Dickson follows brilliant tacticians and field commanders as they out-think and out-manoeuvre much larger forces.

For a 15-year-old who likes strategy games and exhibitions of competence, these books are catnip: battles are won by brains and nerve rather than gadgets, and there is a constant undercurrent of character, loyalty and the costs of being exceptional. The sequence is also a good bridge from straightforward adventure SF into more reflective, slightly older material.

19. Dune (and sequels) — Frank Herbert

On the desert planet Arrakis, the most valuable substance in the universe — the spice melange — underwrites interstellar travel, political power, and prophetic vision. When the noble House Atreides is betrayed, the young Paul is cast into the wastelands, where ecology, religion, and destiny converge to reshape the galaxy.

Appeal: A perfect adolescent myth: desert survival, secret knowledge, warrior cultures, and the fantasy of hidden greatness. There is violence and intrigue, but it is framed by big ideas — ecology, power, messianism — that reward rereading as the reader grows older. The later volumes grow more philosophical and strange, but never lose their power: an author intoxicated by the awesome potential of his universe.

20. Consider Phlebas — Iain M. Banks

During a vast interstellar war between the hyper-advanced Culture and the religiously fanatical Idirans, a shape-shifting mercenary races through orbital habitats, dead planets, cannibal cults, and collapsing megastructures to recover a lost artificial intelligence.

Appeal: This is Banks at his most kinetic: chases, violence, strange aliens, and spectacular environments, with the moral complexity largely submerged beneath the surface. It works well for teenage readers who want scale, danger, and momentum first — and can discover the philosophy later.

---

Five Guitars

Stringing at the headstock

---

The blues-rock band Cream was formed in 1966 (I was 15); John Peel had his Sunday afternoon progressive music show, Top Gear, on Radio 1 from 1967 (I was 16). I remember playing lead lines on my steel-stringed acoustic guitar, with pickup plugged into the back of that radio for amplification. Sometimes the house shook.

I started on the English blues when I was about 13 under the influence of John Mayall, playing on a family artifact, a mandolin now long since lost. I bought my first guitar - having saved up and with my father pitching in - for £15, the Christmas of 65 I suppose. That's when I properly learned chords and navigating around the fretboard.

The top E string is next

---

I took that guitar to university in 1969 and let it go for a Fender Stratocaster - infinitely superior action and sound - in that university band. I let it go when I joined the IMG in my third term.

My third (very cheap) guitar was the one you see being restrung in the pictures. As I mentioned in my previous post, it's now useless except for low-level practice - but replacing the corroded and brittle strings doesn't hurt.

My fourth guitar was bought in Brighton - another Strat - in the mid-to-late nineties - along with a small amplifier - when my interest was reawakened. Its fate was to be donated to my son's school in Maidenhead as we prepared to ship out to America c. 2000.

My fifth guitar was bought last month - a stimulus to embark on a fingerpicking blues journey. I'm told it's six months to a year before passable competence.

---

Cliodynamics on Marxism - ChatGPT

Amazon

---

Cliodynamics on Marxism

Karl Marx was not wrong to insist that history has structure. His great contribution was to frame social dynamics as processes, not random events. He grasped that societies generate tensions within themselves and that these tensions can erupt in crises.

That core intuition is sound and aligns with cliodynamic analysis.

What Marx got right:

• Class structure matters. The divide between those who control resources and those who labour is central. Value-appropriation and inequality are real drivers of conflict.
• Cycles of boom and bust. He anticipated the periodicity of economic crises, even if he lacked the tools to model them rigorously.
• The role of ideology. Marx saw clearly that ruling classes produce legitimising narratives to sustain power. This maps closely to modern recognition of how elites manage collective beliefs.

Where Marx went wrong:

• Teleology. He assumed history has a predetermined end: classless communism. Cliodynamics rejects inevitability. Social evolution follows patterns, but the outcomes vary.
• Reductionism. Marx reduced everything to economics and class. In cliodynamic models, other variables - demography, elite overproduction, state capacity, external war - are equally decisive. Class conflict is one strand, not the whole fabric.
• Underestimating elites. Marx thought revolution would be driven from below. History shows mass uprisings succeed when factions of elites fracture and compete. Without that split, the state endures.
• Static view of the state. For Marx, the state is conceptualised as the executive committee of the ruling class. In practice, states develop their own dynamics: bureaucracies, military establishments, fiscal logics that shape events independently of economic class.

So Marx’s value lies in the framing: history is structured, conflict-driven, and not reducible to individual whim. His error lies in the closure: a belief in inevitability, an overcommitment to class as the single lever, and blindness to the multiple feedback loops - elite competition, demographic stress, fiscal collapse - that make and unmake regimes.

From a cliodynamic standpoint, Marx opened the right door but walked into a cul-de-sac. The task is not to abandon his insight into structure, but to embed it in a fuller systems model.

Nigel: I would agree with this analysis.

Cliodynamics in a Nutshell - ChatGPT

Amazon

---

Peter Turchin argues that large-scale history is not just chaos but shaped by recurring social forces. His framework, called cliodynamics, draws from ecology, systems theory and public choice theory. It identifies a few key drivers that tend to recur across societies.

One is elite overproduction. As wealth grows, more people rise into the elite class than there are elite positions (political posts, prestige offices, high-status jobs). This surplus of frustrated elites fuels rivalry, factionalism, and instability.

Another is the wealth pump. When institutions are skewed, wealth flows upward into the hands of elites and away from ordinary people. This creates popular immiseration - most people experience stagnating or falling living standards, despite the society as a whole being richer. Discontent spreads, and the system loses legitimacy.

Turchin also highlights the iron law of oligarchy: powerful elites naturally tend to consolidate their power, rigging institutions to preserve privilege and disregarding the interests of other, subordinate, social groups. Over time, this creates heightened social tensions while blocking reform.

These mechanisms interact. Immiseration produces anger from below, while elite overproduction creates competition at the top. Rival elites may mobilise popular discontent against their rivals, driving polarisation and breakdown. Meanwhile, the wealth pump keeps pressure on the system, depleting the buffer of social trust.

Turchin does not claim deterministic prediction. Instead, he offers a probabilistic “engine.” Given certain inputs such as rising inequality, elite overproduction and popular immiseration, the model suggests an increased likelihood of political crisis within a certain time horizon (often a few decades); an Age of Discord. He validates this against cycles in Roman, medieval, and modern states, including the United States.

For a skeptic, the point is not crystal-ball prophecy but the identification of underlying and persistent dynamic regularities. Societies, like ecological systems, move through loops of expansion, inequality, tension, and crisis.

Turchin’s work gives a structured way to think about why instability recurs, and why moments of breakdown are not random.

"Yes, I had my hair cut. So? So?!"

---

As a child I walk into my primary school with a fresh haircut. I am instantly surrounded by jeers, hoots and the kind of joyous sadism only nine-year-old boys can muster. The obvious explanation - children are little barbarians - is true but insufficient. In reality, my haircut is read not as grooming but provocation.

Human beings are coordination machines. Our evolutionary survival depended on shared norms, predictable behaviour, and team-mates we could trust not to defect with the last cooked antelope (that's a ChatGPT flourish).

Anything that deviates from the expected pattern - a strange ornament, an odd smell, a new hairstyle - jolts that ancestral nervous system into high alert. Difference is never just difference: it hints at potential problems: rival allegiances, disease, a status challenge... or looming defection.

The safe bet is suspicion and deprecation.

Fast-forward to primary school. The boys aren’t consciously analysing game-theoretic equilibria; they’re running ancient code. You appear Monday morning with your ears suddenly exposed; their limbic systems, those little commissars of doubt, whisper: something’s changed. 

In the ancestral savannah, novelty generally presents as threat. These children do exactly what their forebears did: probe the anomaly.

Their logic is brutally simple: if your new look signals rebellion against the group's cohesion, slap it down; if it signals weakness (“look what they did to him!”) then it’s open season for cheap status upgrades at your expense.

The jeers serve both purposes - mockery is, after all, a multi-tool: it lets your classmates demonstrate loyalty to the tribe’s norms; it lets each lad reinforce, and even increase his status by publicly shaming the deviant (you!).

Girls, it has to be said, do it slightly differently. It's more coalition-management than open warfare but the underlying equation is the same. Difference undermines coalition stability. Unpredictability is expensive. Pressure it until it folds back into conformity. Can be mean, those girls.

Adults don't like to admit it, but they feel the same little jolt of suspicion when a colleague walks into a meeting with an unfortunate crop. But adulthood comes with a prefrontal cortex that steps up and whispers: the situation here is a little more sophisticated - please don’t act like a chimp. 

The jeering wasn’t really about your haircut per se. It was that ancient risk-management system still running in the subconscious of our species. You arrived looking newly minted; the tribe did what tribes always do: detected signs of deviance... and punished you for disloyalty or weakness.

You had to get over it, like everyone else.

---