I’ve been recently thinking about Michael Edward Johnson’s vasocomputational theory of the mind1, and Dan Davies writings about organizational information processing and cybernetics. I’m interested in these two topics because ultimately what I hope for is a kind of renewal - a healing of human and organizational wounds to enable the flourishing of humanity. Maybe that’s naive given the current state of the world. Nevertheless, as I consider these two sets of ideas, I see clear parallels between how trauma operates for individuals and how organizations stagnant, and perhaps a pointing toward how we might engage in repair.
First, a brief summary of these two essays:
In “Principles of Vasocomputation,” Johnson introduces the idea of latches — fixed vasomuscular tension that can stabilize a pattern of neural activation. Stabilizing a pattern of neural activation can be adaptive - traumatic events can overwhelm emotional capacity and these muscle contractions can appropriately constrain the ability to fully feel these emotions and somatic sensations. However, this in turn limits the ability of the bodymind to respond spontaneously in activating situations and causes rigidity. Suffering can emerge when the brain tries to compress or clamp down on uncertain states, imposing forced certainty to minimize discomfort.
In Dan Davies’ essay “Taming the unaccountability machine”, he describes the pathologies of outsourcing government functions to private firms. For commodities this can make sense, as private firms can provide certain goods more efficiently as a result of market competition. But for services whose quality are hard to monitor, outsourcing and a shrinking of bureaucratic capacity hobbles the ability of the government to understand outsourced functions are being carried out well. This inability to understand is the result of limits to the flow of information and the ability to process that information sufficiently to know what’s really going on, as well as fix procedures which hobble the ability of government to respond spontaneously.
From these brief summaries you can already see the similarities I’m pointing toward:
Compression as a way of dealing with complexity: Both bureaucracies and individuals limit the flow of information as a way to deal with overwhelming complexity which is adaptive initially but overtime limit the ability to respond appropriately.
Capacity constraints: Agencies outsource because they lack internal resources to manage sprawling duties. In each case, a mismatch between capacity and complexity fuels tension or dysfunction. Overextension produces clumsy reflexes in the mind (the persistent “clench”) and unaccountable contracts in public services.
Feedback loops and control: Buddhist texts emphasize mindful awareness—learning to notice grasping (tanha) as it arises breaks the cycle of clenching, restoring open responsiveness. Similarly, organizations must create robust feedback channels so that negative outcomes or abuse can be quickly identified and corrected. Both systems require timely error signals and active attention to avoid drifting away from reality.
Consequences of ignoring complexity: In the individual, ignoring complexity fosters repetitive stress and entrenched pain held in latched muscle tension. In the organization, ignoring complexity allows unresponsive “black box” deals to fester, producing scandals and dysfunction. In both, the price of turning away from signals—bodily or social—is cumulative and painful.
Resolving stuckness: For the individual, resolving stuckness involves cultivating awareness (i.e., noticing and releasing muscular or psychological tension), which can be done through many means including meditation, therapy, psychedelics etc. to reopen the capacity for spontaneous response. For organizations: re-establishing robust feedback loops (e.g., better contract monitoring, clear communication channels, crisis escalation procedures) so that decision-makers can adapt to new information and avoid “locked” or rigid policies.
The similarity between these two viewpoints is striking. It points to the fractal nature of agency, that there are some fundamental invariants to how dynamic systems (organisms and organizations) cope with complexity in their respective environments. Understanding these parallels has been helpful for me in understanding how to navigate both my own mind and the world at large.