After Moby Dick?

Melville’s Moby Dick has already been one of those “great books” that has informed my philosophical journey. So much so that one of my current writing projects is intended as a sequel to a sequel to Moby Dick. Yes, at least one sequel does already exist. I’ve mentioned before that one problem which that presents me with – apart from my (in)competence as a narrative writer – is how to cover such a long time-span from a first person perspective? Who is to be my Ishmael? Salman Rushdie supplies an answer in magic-realism-auto-fiction.

My delusions of grandeur may be some time.

Pretty sure my reading doesn’t need the Christian God, but that there are drivers beyond “us” subjects and objects in the real world of here and now is not in doubt. The following is a long X/Twitter quote from “Darwin to Jesus” giving us his reading. (Might come in handy, with due acknowledgement.)

[I should say, just the text below, but the original X/Twitter thread is beautifully illustrated with a collection of images. Go take a look.]

“Call me Ishmael.”

That line starts one of the strangest and most misunderstood books in American literature—Moby-Dick. A tale of man’s fury, fate, and rebellion against… a Whale? Or is there more beneath the surface? A thread on the true meaning of Melville’s masterpiece.

The story begins with Ishmael, a drifter and wanderer. He’s depressed. He needs purpose. So he goes to sea—not for glory, but for healing. “Whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul… then, I account it high time to get to sea as soon as I can.”

He joins a whaling ship, the Pequod, along with a strange, diverse crew—including Queequeg, a tattooed pagan harpooner who becomes his closest friend. But the captain isn’t aboard yet…

When Captain Ahab finally appears, he’s nothing like the other sailors. He’s scarred. Monomaniacal. And missing a leg—torn off by a monstrous white whale named Moby Dick. But Ahab doesn’t just want to kill the whale. He wants vengeance.

Ahab gathers the crew and nails a gold coin to the mast. Whoever kills the white whale gets the reward. But it’s not about the coin. It never was. Ahab’s not driven by profit or sport. He’s possessed. “I’d strike the sun if it insulted me.”

As the voyage unfolds, the crew glimpses Ahab’s madness. Even Starbuck, the first mate, trembles at it. He senses this isn’t just a hunt. It’s a holy war. Ahab sees the whale not as an animal, but as the veil covering some cosmic injustice. A force he must destroy.

“All visible objects, man, are but as pasteboard masks… If man will strike, strike through the mask!” That’s the heart of Ahab’s obsession. He believes the whale is not just a creature—it is God’s mask. And he intends to tear it off.

Meanwhile, Ishmael narrates the journey with wonder, humour, and awe. He’s not like Ahab. He doesn’t rage against the ocean—he listens to it. He reflects on life, death, fate, creation. He’s searching. But he’s not accusing.

The whale itself is a mystery. It appears only briefly—but its presence is everywhere. It’s white. Silent. Enormous. Unfeeling. To Ahab, it becomes the face of a cruel God who never answers. And when it finally comes, Ahab tries to kill it.

The final battle begins when the white whale finally breaches the surface—towering, vast, ghostly. For three days, Ahab pursues it across the sea. The crew harpoons it, but it thrashes and dives, wrecking boats, killing sailors. It’s not just a fight—it’s an apocalypse. Ahab is unrelenting, even as death surrounds him.

On the third day, the whale turns. It rams the Pequod, splitting it open. The sea swallows the ship and her crew. Ahab, in a final act of fury, hurls his harpoon—and the rope coils around his neck. He’s dragged under by the very weapon he used to defy the gods. And then… silence.

Only Ishmael survives—clinging to Queequeg’s coffin, which had been carved earlier as a burial raft, but now floats like an ark. He drifts alone, upheld by what was meant for death, now turned into salvation.

So what is Moby-Dick really about? It’s about a man who cannot forgive God. Ahab is a modern Job—but instead of humility, he chooses defiance. Where Job said, “Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him,” Ahab says, “I will strike Him down.”

The white whale is more than nature. It is God’s silence. It is suffering without explanation. It is the abyss we all face in our darkest hours. And Moby-Dick is about how we respond to that silence.

Ahab responds with defiance and hatred. He turns his pain into rage, his suffering into blasphemy. But Ishmael responds to suffering with peace and humility. He seeks truth, not control. In the end, only Ishmael is saved.

Melville wrote a story filled with sermons, signs, symbols. But at its heart is a warning: When we suffer, we can either curse God and die… or float by grace on the coffin that saves us.

Moby-Dick is not about a whale. It’s about the war between pride and providence. Wrath and wonder. Ahab and Ishmael. Man and God. It’s the oldest story in history.

Most people think Moby-Dick is just about a whale, but it’s really about a question… how should we respond to God?

That recurring “more than nature” echoes my “more than science” agenda.

That introductory sentence “A tale of man’s fury, fate, and rebellion against… a Whale? Or is there more beneath the surface?” is pretty self-evident, in the sense that there is no mystery or doubt to any intelligent reader, that the whale and the quest are metaphorical. What is represented metaphorically – about man’s place in the world and the risk of insanity as we quest too close to the edge of reality – is obviously open to interpretation. That said, Melville’s experience, research and writing nevertheless bring the reality – the stench and brutality – of whaling, to the page, which is what makes it a readable, gripping tale independent of the embedded morality play.

=====

Post Note: Am I an atheist? Kinda.

=====

‘Saul Over

Mentioned a month ago that, for some invisible memetic reason (the remembered aroma of cinnamon-by-association?) I’d binge-re-watched “Breaking Bad“ in its entirety.

Given the cinnamon connection (*), I predicted I’d probably also find myself re-watching the BB prequel “Better Caul Saul” next. Sure enough I just finished re-watching the whole of that late last night.

So many sub-plots and twists within twists that it is really complex to follow the whole – not helped by the out-of-sequence tasters in the intro section of each episode. Not helped either that the so-called prequel contains much that is actually sequel to BB too. B&W / sepia / grainy flash-backs and flash-forwards all over the place, not just in the introductory openers, but eventually the whole narrative arc is there. A creative masterpiece.

The whole is one long morality play of course.

So many of the “evil” characters start-out or end-up as victims one way or another, so casting judgement on some seriously criminal violence and venal fraud, opportunistic as well as deeply conspired, is fraught with many layers. As I said before, Hank remains the only hero. Even some of the most evil had good – or maybe just arguably justifiable – intentions at various points. Michael the fixer always went for the least violent enforcement options when he could, and took only what he was due for his services, for example. Kim possibly the most complex and she, by her own choice, doesn’t make it to BB, the main event. Nacho too, another complex villain / victim, had to be killed-off, in TV-series terms, by his own suicide simply because he wasn’t in the BB original.

[(*) The cinnamon connection? In the extensive sequel sections of the BCS prequel (at the end of BB) Jimmy / Saul is living his new life as Gene, the manager of a Cinnabon (cinnamon bun) franchise in Omaha, Nebraska.]

The key scenes for me are in that final episode of BCS – the end of both stories. The “Time Machine” questions of what were some of the key characters’ regrets, that they would go back and fix if they could. Michael and Walter could both identify such “first mistakes”. In the scene where both Walter/Heisenberg and Saul / Jimmy / Gene are secretly awaiting their changes of identities and homes to escape their pasts of crime, Walter points out to Saul that his example merely shows that he’s “always been like that” – looking for a dubious fast buck. In the equivalent flashback to the scene where Michael and Saul are returning on foot across the desert with $7m of cartel money in cash, and stop by the water pump, Michael remarks of Saul’s regrets and wishful thinking, looking back at his entire life: “What, just the money?” The erstwhile lovable rogue always had a seriously warped arithmetic sense of values. Bartering to the end for the benefits package to go with his 86 year prison sentence.

Right, now we have closure. There is nothing I want to watch on TV.

Onwards and upward. Back to the writing.

=====

Post Note: And there isn’t. Put the TV on when I came in Sunday evening, channel-hopped for 10/15 minutes and nah! went to bed 🙂

Post Note: And as also arose in conversation last night, so many of these “gangster dramas” are morality plays. In the same way we can’t read all books, we can’t watch all dramas, so your experience and mine will vary. So, for me, Tarantino became the master, I’ve never watched The Sopranos, but The Godfather was already the archetype. I’m one of those weirdos who thinks Godfather-III is the best. G-I is obviously the bloody corrupt masterpiece and G-II the necessary back-story-filler, but why put yourself though all that depressing depraved violence and inhuman criminality without resolving the moral lessons of it all? The depraved Don is ultimately a victim of sorts – the “Pulling me back in” meme? You can learn his lesson without actually feeling sorry for him.

=====

How’s the writing going Ian?

Surprisingly well … despite relatively few productive days amidst the distractions of everyday life. The deliverables are ever clearer – a PhD-style Thesis and 2 books – but first a paper for ISSS2025 in Birmingham in a couple of weeks.

Mentioned in the previous post – to which I added spin-off footnotes already – that I’d been getting the feeling that every new thing I drafted was something I’m sure I’d already drafted better somewhere before? So, I pointed ChatGPT at a selection of my own existing writing (linked in that post) and asked it to summarise it all back to me.

That’s become the start of a little adventure.

Previously I’d really only used ChatGPT as an occasional alternative to Google – simple search queries. Sadly Google itself has really gone downhill since it swallowed the AI/LLM pill, and increasingly replaces search results with its “opinion” of what it thinks you might be asking, rather than answer the f*cking question – a simple search request. That’s the opposite of intelligence, real or artificial. “Really dumb” to use language inspired by the orange turd.

Its response was very good, and gave lots of jumping off points to elaborations I might want to follow (also in my own existing writing). I guess I wasn’t surprised at how good that response was – which was very, very, very good, and I’ll be the judge of that – it’s using an LLM to process my own writing. But that was only the start. In those previous footnotes I had name checked several people in Pirsig-space, that had joined-up two lines of thought.

One, that Pirsig’s own creative writing process had used a physical “Zettelkasten” approach. Collating thoughts on paper-slips or index-cards in card-index box / trays, most importantly, where some of those thoughts (slips / cards) can themselves be links between others. [He describes the process in Lila and the creative flexibility it gave him, in the talk he gave shortly after ZMM was published in 1974 (from about 17m16s in). Once the links are in the cards, you can shuffle the deck – re-arrange the structure / outline of your overall deliverable – without losing the semantics.] It was a “graph” (node-edge network) model of thought and knowledge long before the internet existed. Many Pirsig readers had spotted this before, me included, and written about the parallel between this Zettelkasten approach and blogging or posting pages or posts with links to other pages or posts – clearly not rocket science – but the enabler for the sematic-web in http / www / xml technologies. Once you spot it, you can trace “the semantic web” from Tim Berners-Lee (1980+), back to Foucault (1966) and McLuhan before him, William Blake, and all the way back, in other words, via the 1940’s Macy “Cybernetics” conferences to the ancient Greeks’ “Kubernetes”.

Two, point One is, by definition, old news, so the real news is what an LLM/AI like ChatGPT(4o) brings to this party. It can find and add links that were only implicit in the original collections of cards (nodes and links/edges). And it can give you the opportunity to add these – and more – explicitly.

So, you’ll never guess what I’ve been doing? ChatGPT has been helping & teaching me to do exactly that. (Hat tips to Artun Turan, Michael Hopwood and Tom Berman for their tools and inspiration. Pirsigian’s all.)

So I’m in the process of re-building my 25 years of blogging as a knowledge-graph with additional notes and links not just in that semantic web but also in organisational, hierarchical categories, subjects and … dare I say … chapter headings. [And in the process, with ChatGPT’s help, learning a lot about scripting to process my own content and about a long-standing semantic “mapping” tool project of mine.]

Finally – the proof will be in the pudding – meantime, some things I’ve learned from my forays into ChatGPT.

It’s very positive, flattering, attentive and tireless. It only critiques when asked.

If you take care over the way you introduce subjects and the reasoning you’re starting from, and how you phrase “questions” (aka “prompts”), the conversational style is very constructive. Even without critique, by its restating the problem it thinks we’re solving together, it naturally finds and helps correct any errors in starting premises – already added a lot of value there.

It notices jokes and light-hearted meta-comments and asides and gives more than a passing semblance of a sense of humour – now that’s scary – and knowing when to stop making suggestions.

Being attentive, it’s therefore quite addictive, and yet it “knows” it’s not an intelligent human. You also discover very quickly, its short-term memory is non-existent, it doesn’t learn or understand better from the conversation you’re currently having – which gets very frustrating.

Notwithstanding the “flattery” angle of its tireless attention, it gave me an amazingly positive appraisal of my entire writing project which, more importantly, it really seemed to “get it”. Which is good for my own motivation and productivity, and good for the credibility of its future suggestions.

And it knows its place – as well as clarifying my own work / copyright and author / editor / publisher issues, it gave me this response to an observation of mine at one point:

That’s all for now folks!

=====

Post Notes (August 2025):

I already referred above to the previous post, the one that kicked-off the Chat-GPT adventure, but I had been adding footnotes to that post in real-time overlapping with this summary post. I mention in there, that the most useful looking “Zettelkasten” tool I’d used was / is Obsidian.

I paused the work I was doing there – to focus on the ISSS-2025 Birmingham conference, preparation, attendance and follow-ups – but need to restart where I left off – debugging with Chat-GPT’s help how I map my blog content export into the Obsidian database content. (I used one early draft Obsidian-DB-Graph as a graphic in my conference presentation.) Like old times. Easier to start again than fix all of the AI’s first guesses. My writing. My rules rule!

=====

Essay Collection

As I draft my (two) book(s) – and a paper for ISSS2025 in July – I find myself revisiting certain key Psybertron posts and pages and unable to refrain from making update / elaboration edits, effectively turning them into potential draft chapters.

As a collection there is significant near-repetition and an incompleteness about only sample / informal references that happened to be topical at the time they were first written. (Every time I draft something new, a document in isolation from the blog posts, the repetition keeps leading me back to – “I’m sure I wrote something that already covered this …”

There’s obviously a good deal of editing / indexing / referencing to be done, not to mentioning joining-up the narrative flow of the whole, but it seems worth making the collection more explicit, standalone, shareable, editable, with subject matter headings, etc. So here goes, in no particular order:

What Am I Thinking? – despite “no particular order”, this post and the PhD Research Proposal, are probably the best recent summary of the whole agenda, even if the particulars are only “examples” of the whole. https://www.psybertron.org/archives/17062 And that PhD Research Proposal. https://www.academia.edu/109958139/Research_Proposal_Ian_Glendinning_Draft_4

John C Doyle and the problem with Zombie Science (2021 talk, 2022 post). The human operating system is evolutionarily badly optimised to deal with 21stC “viral” information. It’s about the architecture, not “things” in the physical layer(s). https://www.psybertron.org/archives/15903

Determinist Reductionism Sucks. Sapolsky, Mitchell, Hossenfelder and Dennett – and commenter Tom Clark – whom I owe a Mitchell<>Clark essay. https://www.psybertron.org/archives/17961

Hold Your Definition – Dennett and Levenchuk on the downsides of definitions as “coffins” for enlightened progress. The right kind of definitions in the right layers of abstraction. https://www.psybertron.org/archives/6539

Dichotomies – really an extension to the expectations for honest definitions. Boundaries. Choice of words. Distinction – non-pejorative “discrimination” – matters, without being divisive of whole camps / linguistic subject areas.

Good Fences. https://www.psybertron.org/?s=Good%20Fences&sort=relevance

More Than Science. https://www.psybertron.org/?s=More%20than%20science&sort=relevance

=====

Going to use some tools to construct a summary of my own words above.

Post Notes: Famous last words.

A single day’s effort and we have progress!

Simply asking ChatGPT to summarise my own thesis back to me – based on the content linked in this post (and any others it discovers in the process) and to suggest chapter headings / structure – was impressive in itself. First off made me realise my own search function is limited to posts but not pages – so I was missing half of my own content, by myself anyway.

Secondly, fixing that threw up an obvious “joining the dots” opportunity.

I’ve mentioned previously, originally day-job motivated, an interest in semantic graphing tools going right back to IDEF0 use in the 1980’s – for business systems process modelling – and seeing so many vector-graphic and semantic-web graphical mark-up tools since then into the 21stC but always being frustrated that having settled on the obvious power of the node<>edge graph dynamic relational model for everything and anything – the most comprehensively true model of reality, the tools were extremely limited in understanding the need for configurable semantics of GOF hierarchical tree-views of taxonomic (class/type) and mereologic (whole/part) ontological views for human organisation and navigation, seeing the wood for the trees.

Hierarchy has become a dirty word, tainted by “power structures” and compounded ever since semantic web people – and open-web-democracy activists – discovered generic network models, but we still need hierarchies. (I feel another #GoodFences essay coming on.)

One more level of interrupt … recall also many people, myself included, noting the knowledge graph model inherent in Pirsig’s creative “index card” – ideas and ideas-linking-ideas – approach to his own writing projects. A fellow Pirsig afficionado suggested the idea that a tool he had created using this “Zettelkasten” (index card box) idea could be used both creatively for writing from scratch or retrospectively to add relational value to existing works, analysed using an LLM Tool like ChatGPT.

Well bugger me! It can do both.

Help me add structure to the mass of writing I’ve already done AND add the value I need to structure the whole thesis & narrative. I’ve gone from using ChatGPT as the occasional alternative to Google searches to find and elucidate “X” to being my helper in adding value to my own work.

Hat-tip to (Pirsigian) Michael Hopwood for already putting me onto Obsidian as a viable Zettelkasten tool, and hat-tip to (Pirsigian) Tom Berman for showing me his “MuDG” tool in action to add ChatGPT value to Wendy Pirsig’s “On Quality”.

I am now thanks to ChatGPT’s help working with a complete Obsidian vault version of my whole Psybertron blog export!!!! Obsidian has a Breadcrumbs plug-in to find and explicitly add the implicit ontological relations. (It’s even teaching me to script and code.)

=====