Complexity & Systems of MeaningGet the book

Synthesis

The formula of meaning

Which concrete choice can you discuss with this framework?

The idea, in brief

I allow myself a formula as a metaphor: questions, awareness and knowledge, raised to responsibility and divided by uncritical acceleration. I seek neither a score nor a numerical solution. I use it to keep the book’s question open: how can complexity become systems of meaning?

Here I summarise the chapter’s argument. Below you will find an excerpt from my book and the references I cite there, numbered as in the bibliography.

Companion page reviewed · 17 October 2026

From the book’s companion

An excerpt from my book

Original Italian text, from the chapter opening. · 1 min

Ogni tanto mi tendo da solo delle trappole in cui poi finisco bellamente (sarebbe interessante forse analizzare in termini psicologici questa attitudine) ed in questo caso, a ben vedere, era già esplicita nel titolo. La tentazione sarebbe quella di affrontare le conclusioni liquidandole con una sintesi rassicurante che ricapitola dalle coordinate fino alla definizione del soggetto in divenire restituendo la confortevole sensazione di aver chiuso un cerchio. Non posso farlo perché restituirei solo una sintesi acritica travestita da saggezza per il solo fatto di averla ripetuta una volta ancora.

My note

Writing meaningless formulas has always been one of the ways I use to memorise concepts... I hope it is useful all the same.

S=(D×C1×C2) rAAS = \dfrac{(D \times C_{1} \times C_{2})^{\,r}}{A_{A}}
  • SS— meaning — what the title promised from the very start
  • DD— quality of the questions — complexity is governed by better questions, not by faster answers
  • C1C_{1}— awareness — metacognitive, relational, ethical: the only defence against the paradox, the drift and uncritical attachment
  • C2C_{2}— knowledge — understanding how the tools work and where data leaves the factual for the plausible
  • rr— responsibility — as an exponent: Rotblat's iso-Hippocratic lesson turned into algebra (the "can" becomes meaning only when a "must" raises it)
  • AAA_{A}— uncritical acceleration — in the denominator: the one quantity that, by growing, destroys what all the others build

It isn’t solved, it’s inhabited: if Aₐ → ∞, then S → 0.

The formula is a metaphor, not a scoring system. Its limit assumes the numerator remains bounded while the denominator grows.

Check and compare

References I cite in this chapter

I have gathered the references cited in this chapter, preserving the entries and numbering of my book’s bibliography. Links are included only where supplied in the book.

I do not include explicit bibliographic citations in this section of the book.

A term is unfamiliar? Open the glossary →

Bring it into your work

Which concrete choice can you discuss with this framework?

Write down one real example, identify what you would delegate and name who will check the result.

Use the worksheet

Connected ideas

draws on

From God to Google

D — quality of the questions

draws on

ConcrEthica

C₂ — knowledge of the value chain

draws on

Data as a strategic asset

C₂ — where data leaves the factual

draws on

The paradox of AI literacy

C₁ — metacognitive awareness

draws on

Cognitive drift and surrender

C₁ — awareness (qualified cognitive surrender)

draws on

Onto-ethics of collaboration

C₁ — ethical/relational awareness

draws on

From A(I)DOPTION to A(I)DAPTATION

r — responsibility (the iso-Hippocratic lesson)

draws on

Novelty vs. innovation

A_A — adoption mistaken for transformation

draws on

Homo A(I)DAPTANS

A_A — being able to do → having to do

View these connections on the map →

Choose your edition

Keep reading in the book

Riccardo Bovetti · Essay · English edition. Purchase and current availability on Amazon.

Paperback on Amazon ↗

The links open the store; they do not purchase the book.