Excellent points. I would say that there is a characteristic human time scale that limits the full system, if intent is to be preserved & if understanding is to be created, maintained, grow. And understanding is generated by participating in the process of creation, going beyond what can be explicitly and formally expressed and measured … thanks for expressing this clearly.
Thank you. That’s a valuable way to frame it—the constraint isn’t just technical, it’s temporal. Systems can compress cycles, but understanding still requires participation and time within the process itself, which doesn’t scale the same way.
What you’re pointing to also makes the gap harder to resolve. If understanding depends on what can’t be fully formalised or measured, then acceleration doesn’t just outpace it—it actively sidelines it. The system keeps moving, but the conditions required to generate meaning don’t keep up.
Thanks. Reading your reframing and re-reading my words, I want to dig a little bit to make something more salient. The human time can be slip into two components, latent and in operation. The way to compress operation (generating human understanding in real time) is that if the way to convey information and participating the in the information transformation aligns with the mental models and processes of the person(s) involved. Which means you buy compression in operation by investing in formation, training, lived previous experience. And this, both at individual level, and organisation level. And all of that are human time scales.
Excellent points. I would say that there is a characteristic human time scale that limits the full system, if intent is to be preserved & if understanding is to be created, maintained, grow. And understanding is generated by participating in the process of creation, going beyond what can be explicitly and formally expressed and measured … thanks for expressing this clearly.
Thank you. That’s a valuable way to frame it—the constraint isn’t just technical, it’s temporal. Systems can compress cycles, but understanding still requires participation and time within the process itself, which doesn’t scale the same way.
What you’re pointing to also makes the gap harder to resolve. If understanding depends on what can’t be fully formalised or measured, then acceleration doesn’t just outpace it—it actively sidelines it. The system keeps moving, but the conditions required to generate meaning don’t keep up.
That tension feels central to how this plays out.
Thanks. Reading your reframing and re-reading my words, I want to dig a little bit to make something more salient. The human time can be slip into two components, latent and in operation. The way to compress operation (generating human understanding in real time) is that if the way to convey information and participating the in the information transformation aligns with the mental models and processes of the person(s) involved. Which means you buy compression in operation by investing in formation, training, lived previous experience. And this, both at individual level, and organisation level. And all of that are human time scales.