⚘Branch thought from Three kinds of progress

---

Modular parts are not interdependent. Rather, they are compatible and can be recombined. They feature openings that allow one to receive the other. While they are separable, they are not impervious to one another. That is, they are not isolated from each other as in the case of the widely studied fragmentation of modern identity, where it is not uncommon that one’s progress through a professional career is detached, and mostly inconsequential (or consequential but to a limited degree), to other pursuits such as what falls under the category of hobbies.

This is because independence differs from isolation: modular parts are independent in that their inner mechanisms interact to form a self-sufficient system, but they also possess a few predesignated channels through which they can connect, or collaborate, with other modules. And owing to this internal coherence, no module can enter the internal sphere of another by means other than these predesignated pathways without causing significant disruption.

The inclusion of a modular part adds to the whole without making the whole dependent on it. It contributes to it but is not characterised by doing so incrementally, in the sense that all parts interact synergetically (i.e., through reciprocal amplification). Modular parts reinforce each other in an additive matter, not in a multiplying one. As such, connections within modular parts can be dense and interdependent, but connections between these modular parts, conceived as clearly delimited, self-sufficient entities, are not. These connections are in fact limited, because modular parts need to be separable by design, without compromising their own integrity, and that of the others, in the process.

Concisely put, modular progress is about combinations of well-developed, well-defined, purpose-specific, and internally coherent parts. We divide our time between developing independent modules and finding the best combinations between them. We never rely exclusively on any single module, and progress in one will not significantly alter the other others. In most cases, mutual reinforcement will happen indirectly, as we will develop meta-skills —general and abstract enough to be applicable across the board, and thus transferable— through the construction and refinement of each module.

Modular progress is a stimulating and flexible kind of progress. It may lack the swiftness to achieve a single purpose as lean progress, nor the broad, ever-green foundations of pyramidal progress, and certainly not the power for purpose perfecting, unearthing, and recalibration of multiscopic progress. Yet it is the most apt for exercising exploration over exploitation. Modular progress is inferior in serving a few deliberately selected organising purposes, but it is superior in enabling us to move between several purposes, all while developing our own solid, internally coherent, and combinable resources along the way.

✵

⚘Branch thought from The option of “In Medias Res” learning

⚘ Branches: Modular progress

---

---

Pyramidal progress

One kind of progress is pyramidal. We begin by building a broad foundation, and then continue layer by layer until we reach the top. It is a painstaking processes and, as the Giza pyramids attest, eminently long-lasting. The flipside of pyramidal progress is that we cannot begin a new layer until previous one is complete. Yet, once the foundations are well established, each subsequent layer becomes less work until we reach a top that (though golden and possibly the most radiant part of the structure, like the original tip of Khufu’s pyramid) is minimal in size compared to the rest of the structure.

Lean progress

Another kind of progress is lean. It is also painstaking but faster. As before, we begin with the foundation, but we quickly identify what we deem essential to the overall purpose of the structure and pour most of our efforts into it. We then transition to the next phase and repeat the process until the end. Finally, we observe the entire structure and we shave off the last elements that we consider superfluous in relation to the purpose we’ve given it.

It is a fast and effective type of progress, but its main strength can also be its downside: when we mercilessly subtract to achieve leanness, we are sacrificing the mysterious and almost primordial massive sturdiness of the pyramid structure. Elements of the pyramid might appear superfluous at the moment, but we might be proven wrong in the future contrary to our best anticipations. Our projections are limited because we humans cannot escape our ignorance, and something that naturally emerged from the pyramidal process could later prove essential. It could turn out to be the most prized part of the structure, once our perspectives will have matured in the future (or simply shifted to better suit their time).

Multiscopic progress

The third kind of progress is multiscopic. It consists of leaps alternating from one scope to the other. In a simplified, highly schematised form, these scopes constitute the micro, meso, and macro. Elements at each scope are correlated with those at the other scopes, and sometimes we will break out of impasses and ruts more swiftly if we leave one scope to attend to an element from another. This proves more effective because at certain points in the progression, an element from, say, the larger scope will move not only the smaller element from the smaller scope that it contains, but it will move other smaller elements that we might have overlooked when we working within this smaller scope. It is an act akin to “shaking things up a bit”: sometimes, only by moving all the surrounding parts at the same time will we get that first element we were focusing on unstuck.

“In medias res learning” builds upon multiscopic progress. While we do need to proceed intelligently and selectively, we recognise that shifting toward later steps in the process, while leaving the current step unfinished means true advancement. We are temporarily leaving it in its bogged-down state to later jump back to it, with a refined overall structure and a renewed perspective, to further complete it .

Every time we leap to another scope, we get a glimpse into the structure in motion, of what direction it is lurching toward. This suggests us what we need to do in retrospect. The best part is that we can return and recalibrate, saving ourselves from chasing mirages or sinking into the quicksand of endlessly perfecting one scope without ever reaching the moment of real test and application, of clashing with the chaos of the real world, with all the indispensable lessons that this provides.

All three kinds of progress have their strengths and weaknesses. What matters is understanding that there are distinctions and we can choose between them.

✵