This feels like an important refinement of the accessibility idea. “More” was always going to become a problem eventually, because a system that accessed everything equally wouldn’t really have meaningful access to anything.

What I particularly like here is the move from asking what does this organisation make accessible? to also asking what does it make inaccessible? Much more powerful.

It also immediately made me think about consciousness and recursive awareness. So much processing can influence the organism without ever becoming explicitly available to the reflective self. Maybe sophisticated awareness is not about opening access indefinitely, but about increasingly effective selection. What needs to become available, when, and to which layer of the system.

“Access is organised absence” is a terrific line. Just when you thought pH couldn’t get more interesting…