The rationalist movement, rooted in Enlightenment philosophy, prioritises structured reasoning and empirical verification as the primary tools for understanding reality. Influenced by thinkers like René Descartes, Karl Popper, and contemporary figures such as Eliezer Yudkowsky, rationalists emphasise cognitive discipline and epistemic hygiene—a commitment to refining beliefs through rigorous reasoning. One of their core methodologies is Bayesian probability, which provides a mathematical framework for updating beliefs based on new evidence. Instead of treating knowledge as static, Bayesian reasoning constantly revises probabilities to reflect new information. For example, if a person hears a claim, they do not accept or reject it outright; instead, they weigh its likelihood based on prior knowledge and adjust their confidence as more data becomes available. This aligns with Shannon’s Information Theory, which views knowledge as a process of reducing uncertainty by filtering signal (reliable information) from noise (misinformation or ambiguity). Rationalists apply these principles to everything from scientific enquiry to political decision-making, treating truth as something that can be progressively refined through disciplined thinking and empirical verification. Computational models like Solomonoff induction extend these principles by using mathematical probabilities to predict future events based on observed patterns. The rationalist approach, in essence, treats information as something to be tested, structured, and preserved in its most accurate form.

In contrast to rationalists, Zizians take a more fluid and non-hierarchical approach to knowledge. Rooted in anarchist philosophy, Zizians reject rigid structures of authority, including those found in traditional epistemology, and instead of seeing truth as something external to be discovered, they often frame it as something that emerges through lived experience and the synergy between different perspectives. One of the core tenets of Zizian thought is a commitment to animal rights and veganism. It can be seen as, Zizians argue, the hierarchical thinking embedded in human civilisation—particularly the division between humans and non-human animals—mirrors the oppressive power structures that rationalists often take for granted. By rejecting speciesism (the belief that humans are inherently superior to other animals), Zizians challenge traditional notions of intelligence, value, and moral responsibility.

Additionally, Zizians embrace a subtle and non-dualistic view of consciousness, particularly the idea that the left and right hemispheres of the brain can have different genders and conflicting interests. This belief, while unconventional, resonates with certain strands of neurodivergent discourse and phenomenological philosophy, which emphasise the fragmented, multi-layered nature of human cognition. Rather than treating the self as a single, unified entity, Zizians explore ways in which different parts of the mind might operate semi-independently, with their own desires, biases, and epistemic frameworks.

From an information perspective, the Zizian approach aligns with theories proposed by Luciano Floridi, particularly the concept of the infosphere—the idea that information is not merely transmitted but actively shapes reality itself. Unlike Shannon’s model, which treats noise as something to be eliminated, Floridi’s philosophy of information suggests that ambiguity and contradiction are intrinsic to the process of knowledge formation. This connects to another key concept from cybernetics: autopoietic systems—self-organising, evolving structures that generate their own informational environment, and in this framework, knowledge is not about discovering an objective truth but about participating in an ever-evolving network of meaning. Zizians might sometimes communicate in high-context, metaphor-driven language, possibly using symbolism, irony, and memetic strategies to explore and share ideas. Rather than focusing on clarity in the rationalist sense, they could embrace complexity and interpretive fluidity, viewing contradictions not necessarily as mistakes but perhaps as productive tensions that could lead to new forms of understanding.

The tension between rationalist and Zizian approaches seems to highlight two potential models of information processing in the modern world, each with its own philosophical foundations and possible real-world implications. Rationalists tend to prioritise rigorous analysis, probabilistic reasoning, and empirical verification, aiming for clarity and precision in their search for truth. They often rely on logic and evidence-based frameworks to assess knowledge and inform decision-making. In contrast, Zizians appear to emphasise emergent knowledge, alternative perspectives, and non-hierarchical ways of knowing, which could challenge the conventional understanding of truth as something fixed or universally agreed upon. Zizians may view reality as more fluid, recognising the ambiguities and tensions that could arise in any interpretation of the world, and this approach can sometimes lead to ideas that seem more open-ended, subjective, and perhaps less inclined to definitive conclusions.

However, the Zizian approach is not without controversy, particularly because it has been linked to a series of high-profile incidents that have sparked significant debate. In extreme cases, these ideologies have been implicated in violent acts, including murder cases that have fuelled concerns about the potential for ideological extremism within Zizian circles. These cases have marred the reputation of the broader movement, raising questions about the ethical implications of a philosophy that often prioritises subversion and disruption over traditional moral boundaries.

Both perspectives contribute to the understanding of how we engage with information in an era marked by uncertainty and rapidly changing technologies. Rationalist techniques provide stability, precision, and a method of discernment in a world filled with competing claims, but the Zizian approach reminds us that knowledge is never static. It is constantly influenced by context, adaptable, and fundamentally tied to the systems of meaning that shape our world. In this way, the tension between rationalist and Zizian approaches is an intellectual divide and also a reflection of the broader challenges facing society in the 21st century: how do we understand truth, how do we navigate conflicting narratives, and how do we reconcile the need for stability with the desire for transformative change?