I have always been interested in how people, societies, and systems influence each other.
My background is in engineering and economics, and I spent more than three decades working in the financial sector. Over time, this shaped the way I look at the world. I tend to think in terms of systems, long-term consequences, and the often hidden connections between human decisions, technology, institutions, and social change.
But professional experience is only one part of the story.
Many things shape the inner world of a person. Perhaps I was fortunate in an unusual way. As a sickly child, I spent a great deal of time alone at home, and the family library became my primary window to the world.
Alongside youth novels and adventure stories, I was already reading authors such as Simone de Beauvoir, Nexø, Bulgakov, and many others long before I was truly mature enough to understand them. At the time, I probably grasped only fragments of what I was reading, but looking back, I am certain those books left a lasting mark on the way I think.
Later, I became increasingly interested in philosophy and science fiction. That world fascinated me completely. It would be difficult to name all the writers who influenced me deeply, because I was curious about almost everything I could find.
I spent a great deal of time in bookstores. There were three I visited on weekly basis, constantly searching for new and interesting books. Looking back, it is somewhat strange that I rarely went to libraries. For some reason, I always felt the need to own the books themselves.
After university, everyday professional life gradually pulled me away from intensive reading and pushed me more toward formulating my own thoughts and questions.
These experiences eventually found their way into both my fiction and essays.
My novel Responsio grew out of a long-standing interest in philosophy, natural sciences, topology, and the question of how models of reality can influence not only scientific understanding, but society itself. The second novel I am currently working on explores similar scientific and societal themes through a more personal and human perspective.
I tend to interpret the world through two different forms of writing.
One is fiction, where philosophical, societal, and structural questions are embedded into narrative, characters, and imagined systems.
The other is essay writing, where these same ideas can be explored directly, without fictional mediation.
For me, the two approaches are not separate activities, but different ways of interpreting the same underlying questions about civilization, human behavior, technology, and the structures that shape the modern world.
s.
Modernism, as I Define It
I have considered myself a modernist for more than a decade — long before I began writing Responsio.
By modernism, I do not mean the artistic or historical definition of the term. I use it to describe a personal philosophical framework that attempts to reconcile ideas which contemporary societies increasingly force into opposition.
This perspective does not reject the importance of tradition, family, community, or value-based thinking. At the same time, it keeps distance from rigid hierarchies, dogmatic worldviews, and systems that attempt to subordinate human existence to absolute ideological or metaphysical authority.
It also incorporates elements often associated with liberal thought: the protection of individual freedom, openness toward new ideas, rational inquiry, and scientific thinking. However, I believe freedom only remains sustainable when balanced with responsibility toward others and with the long-term stability of society itself.
For this reason, I never felt that conventional political labels such as “conservative” or “liberal” accurately described my worldview. In my view, these categories increasingly function less as tools of understanding and more as instruments of division, simplification, and social fragmentation.
The figure of Harold Wise emerged partly from these ideas.
He is not a direct representation of myself, but many of the philosophical tensions explored through his character originate from questions I have been thinking about for years:
the relationship between freedom and order,
science and meaning, technological progress and human stability, individual autonomy and systemic responsibility.
Both my essays and Responsio attempt to explore whether a more rational, balanced, and structurally sustainable approach to civilization is still possible.