麻豆传媒

Lem concluded we should abandon analysis for creative activity (Image: Aleksander Jalosinski/Forum/Reuters/Corbis)

WHEN Germany occupied Poland during the second world war, a young Pole was scratching a living under false papers as a car mechanic. The man, Stanislaw Lem, who was to become one of world鈥檚 most famous science fiction writers, used to 鈥渕end鈥� German vehicles so they would break down.

The habit never left him. With Summa Technologiae, his masterwork of non-fiction which has been translated into English for the first time, Lem has taken Western civilisation for a spin 鈥� with spectacular consequences.

The book will be a fabulous shock to those who know only his science fiction, such as Solaris or The Cyberiad. Others will have caught tantalising glimpses of Summa, published in 1964, in a few essays. Diehards may even have read it in translation, notably German or Russian.

The English version has been translated by Joanna Zylinska, professor of new media and communications at Goldsmiths, University of London. Zylinska鈥檚 work is at once wildly imaginative and painstakingly precise; sometimes one wishes, in the later chapters, that she would be a little more slapdash and cut to the chase, but this, of course, is Lem鈥檚 fault, not hers.

Summa is not for the faint-hearted. Starting with a title that pastiches Thomas Aquinas鈥檚 13th-century Summa Theologiae, Lem sets out to replace god with reason. Zylinska鈥檚 introduction lays out the map. Is the phenomenon that is humanity typical or exceptional in the universe? Does plagiarising nature count as fraud? Do we need consciousness for human agency? Should we trust our thoughts or perceptions? Are we controlling technology 鈥� or vice versa?

It is amazing how much Lem got right, or even predicted. This ranges across artificial intelligence, the theory of search engines (he called it 鈥渁riadnology鈥�), bionics, virtual reality (鈥減hantomatics鈥�), technological singularity and nanotechnology.

But Lem鈥檚 philosophical ambition is the real meat. Zylinska quotes an essay by biophysicist Peter Butko, who describes Summa as an 鈥渁ll-encompassing鈥� discourse on evolution: not only鈥� of science and technology鈥� but also evolution of life, humanity, consciousness, culture, and civilization鈥�.

All of which would be pretty indigestible without the mix of intellectual brio, asides, ironies and jokey interludes for which Lem鈥檚 novels have prepared us.

Take what happens halfway through: suddenly, in a section on chaos and order, Lem recasts the universe as a boarding house inhabited by a bank clerk called Mr Smith, his puritanical aunt, and a female lodger. The house has a glass wall, and all the greats of science have to peer through and draw truths about the universe from what they observe.

Lem鈥檚 version of Claudius Ptolemy notes how, when the aunt goes to the cellar to fetch some vegetables, Mr Smith kisses the lodger. Ptolemy develops a purely descriptive theory, so 鈥渙ne can know in advance which position will be taken by the two upper bodies when the lower one finds itself in the lowest position鈥�.

Isaac Newton enters, declaring that 鈥渢he bodies鈥� behaviour depends on their mutual attraction鈥�. And so it goes on. Werner Heisenberg notices indeterminacy in their behaviour: 鈥淔or instance, in the state of kissing, Mr Smith鈥檚 arms do not always occupy the same position.鈥� Mathematics comes unstuck in the ensuing complexity, whereby 鈥渁 neural equivalent of an act of sneezing would be a volume whose cover would have to be lifted with a crane鈥�.

So, science is steadily pushing us into a cul-de-sac where, the more accurate our theory, the closer it comes to the phenomenon itself, in all its indeterminacy. Lem asks where we go from here, and comes to a startling and mordant conclusion: analysis must be abandoned in favour of creative activity 鈥� of 鈥渋mitological practice鈥�, as he would have it.

Intelligence carries conscious beings to a point where their theories are no longer useful to them, where hard-won objectivity drowns in a glut of complexity, and where the only way forward is for the beings to 鈥済row鈥� into the fabric of the world. Why examine the world further when we know enough to rebuild it in our own image? So creative work displaces analysis, and science becomes performative and playful.

What would a civilisation that made this choice and took this path look like? Lem鈥檚 answer is: look at the rocks. Intelligence is a stepping stone on a circular path back to mere brute being. How鈥檚 that for a cosmic irony? We expend all that effort, just to return to the clay from which we emerged in the first place!

鈥淚ntelligence is a stepping stone on a circular path back to mere brute being鈥�

And there鈥檚 a local, political irony here, too, which needs some exploration. Lem had studied medicine at Poland鈥檚 Lw贸w University before the Germans invaded. Later, after the Soviet occupation of eastern Poland, the family moved and Lem resumed his medical studies elsewhere, only to be brought up against the Russian-imposed quack theories of Stalin鈥檚 intellectual poster boy, the agronomist Trofim Denisovich Lysenko (pictured, above). Lem satirised Lysenko in a magazine and soon abandoned any plans to become a doctor.

With the blood of millions on his hands from collectivisation, Stalin needed to feed what was left of his nation. He wanted food and he wanted it now. Enter Lysenko, peddling an idea of evolution already two centuries out of date. Lysenko said that things change their form in response to the environment, and pass any changes directly to their offspring. No element of chance, of randomness and selection, no genetic code to learn. Giraffes have long necks because their parents stretched.

Fast-forward 20 years and we have Summa saying: 鈥淲e cannot therefore catalogue Nature, our finitude being one of the reasons for this. Yet we can turn Nature鈥檚 infinity against it, so to speak, by working as Technologists鈥︹��

And what will this work look like? 鈥淎 scientist wants an algorithm,鈥� writes Lem, 鈥渨hereas the technologist is more like a gardener who plants a tree, picks apples, and is not bothered about 鈥榟ow the tree did it鈥�. A scientist considers such a鈥� utilitarian and pragmatic approach a sin against the laws of Full Knowledge. It seems鈥� those attitudes will change in the future.鈥�

So Summa is not just Lem鈥檚 vision of the future, it is Lysenko鈥檚. This vision isn鈥檛 mere mischief, a bitter political joke (though it is certainly that, too). Perhaps Lem thought Lysenko was simply ahead of his time, reaching for a plasticity in nature that could take another century to uncover.

Is Lem capable of such an irony? Of course he is. For Lem, the world itself is ironical. Even as you follow him, watch him rip out the signposts. Gawp in dismay as he assembles Potemkin villages on the barren skyline only to kick them into the dust. Then: walk on, back to brute being. The path appears to be straight. You know it鈥檚 anything but. You know, deep down, that you will come by this place again.

鈥淔or Lem, the world itself is ironical. Even as you follow him, watch him rip out the signposts鈥�

This article appeared in print under the headline 鈥淭he man who broke the future鈥�