Wagner’s Last Operas

And now, since the end is near :), I want to write a bit about the last Wagner’s operas: Der Ring des Nibelungen and Parsifal. Surely, we understand that in Der Ring, Wagner critiques the gods and rulers who perpetuate cycles of oppression and greed, reflecting his anarchist ideals; while in Parsifal, the knights’ spiritual decay mirrors the moral failure of religious and political institutions, tying to Wagner’s later disillusionment with worldly systems of power. But there are also ethical and philosophical relationships between Der Ring and Parsifal that charts Wagner’s evolution from anarchist-revolutionary to Schopenhauerian-mystic.

We might think that Der Ring and Parsifal are polar opposites in Wagner’s moral universe. The Ring is a story of power, will, and desire, where the ethical conflict revolves around the corrupting nature of power (embodied by the ring itself) and the human compulsion to control nature and fate. Alberich’s Promethean spirit of control and domination, and Wotan’s pursuit of divine order complicated by his own law and ambition, leading to a cycle of betrayal and ruin. On the other hand, Parsifal represents a spiritual counterpoint. Its mysticism emphasises grace, compassion, and redemptive purity. While Der Ring charts a descent into chaos through greed and power-lust, Parsifal seeks salvation through self-abnegation and the renunciation of worldly desire. Parsifal as the “the fool” achieves wisdom through innocence, not knowledge or power. This evolution actually resulted from Wagner’s discovery of Schopenhauer’s doctrine that true liberation comes not through the assertion of will, but through its negation.

Wagner’s anarchist phase (influenced by figures like Bakunin and the revolutionary spirit of 1848) infused his early concept of the Ring with ideas of liberation from tyranny and critique of power. Wotan is, in a sense, the ultimate “failed anarchist” — his efforts to create order (through laws and contracts) lead to his own entrapment, mirroring the anarchist critique of the state as a mechanism that inevitably becomes self-perpetuating. Wotan’s despair reflects Wagner’s recognition of the cyclical nature of power and the impossibility of genuine freedom within systems of control.

However, after Wagner’s discovery of Schopenhauer, his concept of ethical heroism shifted. Schopenhauer’s pessimism argued that life is suffering, driven by blind will, and the only escape is through the negation of that will. This had profound consequences for Wagner’s art. The Ring concludes not with liberation (as early anarchist Wagner might have imagined) but with Götterdämmerung — a total collapse of the system, not a revolution but an apocalypse. In Parsifal, however, Wagner envisions a more Schopenhauerian “redemption through compassion.” Amfortas’s suffering is finally healed not through heroic deeds, but through Mitleid (compassion) — a key Schopenhauerian virtue. This shift from heroic rebellion (Ring) to quiet renunciation (Parsifal) mirrors Wagner’s philosophical evolution.

The anarchism of Wotan’s rebellion gives way to the Schopenhauerian submission of Parsifal. Where once Wagner celebrated the Sturm und Drang (storm and stress) of the world, by the time of Parsifal, he embraced an otherworldly quietude.

Now about the theme of innocence. The figure of the innocent hero reoccurs across Siegfried, Parsifal, and even Lohengrin. Siegfried, as the wild child raised by Mime, embodies natural, untamed innocence. He is fearless, unburdened by history, and initially untainted by the corrupting influence of power or love. However, Siegfried’s innocence does not lead to wisdom but to his destruction. His ignorance of deception (betrayal by Hagen and even Brünnhilde’s eventual disillusionment) seals his tragic fate. Parsifal, by contrast, follows an explicitly spiritual and redemptive arc. Described as der reine Tor (the pure fool), Parsifal’s innocence allows him to overcome the forces of desire and temptation. It is a form of “higher innocence” — a purity that remains even after worldly trials. Unlike Siegfried, who succumbs to deceit, Parsifal achieves higher wisdom precisely because of his innocence. This innocence allows him to perceive the hidden suffering of Amfortas and ultimately to heal the King and restore the Grail. Wagner seems to suggest that innocence, when preserved as a form of higher insight (as in Parsifal), allows for salvation; while innocence that remains mere ignorance (as with Siegfried) or innocence that succumbs to doubt (as with Elsa) leads only to tragedy.

Enterprise Architecture for Digital Transformation

Lapalme has discussed “Three Schools of Thought on Enterprise Architecture” at IT Professional in 2012. Korhonen and Halén explored more on Enterprise Architecture for Digital Transformation.

Schools of Though on EA:

  • The Enterprise IT Architecting (EITA) school views enterprise architecture as “the glue between business and IT”. Focusing on enterprise IT assets, it aims at business-IT alignment, operational efficiency and IT cost reduction. It is based on the tenet that IT planning is a rational, deterministic and economic process. EA is perceived as the practice for planning and designing the architecture.
  • The Enterprise Integrating (EI) school views enterprise architecture as the link between strategy and execution. EA addresses all facets of the enterprise in order to coherently execute the strategy. The environment is seen both as a generator of forces that the enterprise is subject to and as something that can be managed. EA is utilized to enhance understanding and collaboration throughout the business.
  • The Enterprise Ecological Adaptation (EEA) school views EA as the means for organizational innovation and sustainability. The enterprise and its environment are seen as coevolving: the enterprise and its relationship to the environment can be systemically designed so that the organization is “conducive to ecological learning, environmental influencing and coherent strategy execution.” EA fosters sense making and facilitates transformation in the organization.

Level or Enterprise Architecture

  • Technical Architecture (AT) has an operational focus on reliability and present day asset utilization and is geared to present-day value realization. This is the realm of traditional IT architecture, information systems design and development, enterprise integration and solution architecture work. AT also addresses architectural work practices and quality standards, e.g. architectural support of implementation projects, development guidelines, and change management practices. In terms of organizational structure, AT would pertain to the technical level of organization, where the products are produced or services are provided.
  • Socio-Technical Architecture (AS) plays an important role as the link between strategy and execution. The business strategy is translated to a coherent design of work and the organization so that enterprise strategy may be executed utilizing all its facets, including IT. AS is about creating enterprise flexibility and capability to change rather than operational optimization: the focus on reliability is balanced with focus on validity in anticipation of changes, whose exact nature cannot be accurately predicted. AS would pertain to the managerial level of organization, where the business strategy is translated to the design of the organization.
  • Ecosystemic Architecture (AE) is an embedded capability that not only addresses the initial design and building of a robust system but also the successive designs and continual renewal of a resilient system. The architecture must allow for co-evolution with its business ecosystem, industry, markets, and the larger society. AE would pertain to the institutional level of organization, where the organization relates to its business ecosystem, industry, markets, and the larger society.

Adaptation and Maladaptation

Source: Korhonen J.J., Halén M. 2017. Enterprise Architecture for Digital Transformation. IEEE 19th Conference on Business Informatics. DOI 10.1109/CBI.2017.45

Ecological Tool for Market Ecosystem

Scholl, Calinescu, Farmer (2021) illustrated how ecological tools can be used to analyse financial markets. Studying markets as complex ecosystems rather than perfectly efficient machines can help regulators guard against damaging market volatility. And they show that changes to the wealth invested via different strategies within a market ecology can help predict market malfunctions like mispricings, bubbles, and crashes.

They model different investor strategies – including non-professional investors, trend followers, and value investors – as different players within a market ecology. They find that:

  1. Just as the status and health of biological ecosystems depend on the species present and their populations, the status and health of market ecosystems depend on market strategies and the wealth invested in them.
  2. Understanding the impact of, and interactions between, different investor species can help predict market malfunctions, just as understanding the impact and interactions of different biological species can help predict ecosystem instability or collapse.
  3. Similar to how animal populations within ecosystems can fluctuate indefinitely, market prices can stray very far from equilibrium and can also fluctuate indefinitely.

Reference:

  • Scholl MP, Calinescu A, Farmer JD (2021), How Market Ecology Explains Market Malfunction, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2021 118 (26) e2015574118. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2015574118

Complexity Economics

Arthur WB (2021) wrote a paper comparing conventional vs complexity economics.

Conventional neoclassical economics assumes:

  • Perfect rationality. It assumes agents each solve a well-defined problem using perfectly rational logic to optimize their behaviour.
  • Representative agents. It assumes, typically, that agents are the same as each other — they are ‘representative’ — and fall into one or a small number (or distribution) of representative types.
  • Common knowledge. It assumes all agents have exact knowledge of these agent types, that other agents are perfectly rational and that they too share this common knowledge.
  • Equilibrium. It assumes that the aggregate outcome is consistent with agent behaviour — it gives no incentive for agents to change their actions.

But over the past 120 years, economists such as Thorstein Veblen, Joseph Schumpeter, Friedrich Hayek, Joan Robinson, etc have objected to the equilibrium framework, each for their own reasons. All have thought a different economics was needed.

It was with this background in 1987 that the Santa Fe Institute convened a conference to bring together ten economic theorists and ten physical theorists to explore the economy as an evolving complex system.

Complexity economics sees the economy as not necessarily in equilibrium, its decision makers (or agents) as not superrational, the problems they face as not necessarily well-defined and the economy not as a perfectly humming machine but as an ever-changing ecology of beliefs, organizing principles and behaviours.

Complexity economics assumes that agents differ, that they have imperfect information about other agents and must, therefore, try to make sense of the situation they face. Agents explore, react and constantly change their actions and strategies in response to the outcome they mutually create. The resulting outcome may not be in equilibrium and may display patterns and emergent phenomena not visible to equilibrium analysis. The economy becomes something not given and existing but constantly forming from a developing set of actions, strategies and beliefs — something not mechanistic, static, timeless and perfect but organic, always creating itself, alive and full of messy vitality.

Difference between Neoclassical and Complexity Economics

In a complex system, the actions taken by a player are channelled via a network of connections. Within the economy, networks arise in many ways, such as trading, information transmission, social influence or lending and borrowing. Several aspects of networks are interesting: how their structure of interaction or topology makes a difference; how markets self-organize within them; how risk is transmitted; how events propagate; how they influence power structures.

The topology of a network matters as to whether connectedness enhances its stability or not. Its density of connections matters, too. When a transmissible event happens somewhere in a sparsely connected network, the change will fairly soon die out for lack of onward transmission; if it happens in a densely connected network, the event will spread and continue to spread for long periods. So, if a network were to slowly increase in its degree of connection, the system will go from few, if any, consequences to many, even to consequences that do not die out. It will undergo a phase change. This property is a familiar hallmark of complexity.

Reference: