Arthur Koestler was fascinated by systems. By the strange hinges where psychology meets politics, where individual conscience collides with collective machinery. Tracklocross, to him, would not first appear as mud and tyres and breath. It would appear as a structure. A closed loop of cause and effect turning beneath a human body like a small, mechanical thesis.
A fixed gear bicycle is a perfect metaphor for ideological commitment.
You cannot disengage once you are in motion.
The mechanism does not permit neutrality.
Koestler spent much of his life examining what happens when individuals bind themselves to systems that refuse coasting. He understood the seduction of total commitment, the dangerous beauty of a machine that promises coherence if you simply keep pedalling. Tracklocross would fascinate him because it exposes both the power and the peril of such coupling.
In the mud, ideology loses its elegance.
On smooth roads, the fixed gear can look pure, almost mathematical. Off-road, purity clogs. The chain gathers grit, cadence falters, balance becomes negotiation rather than assertion. Koestler would see here the collapse of abstract theory when it meets lived terrain. Systems function beautifully in diagrams; they stutter in fields.
Yet he would not dismiss the practice. He was not opposed to structure. He was opposed to blindness within structure.
Tracklocross is a system you can feel failing in real time. The rider is not shielded from feedback. Every slip is immediate data. Every stall is information. There is no bureaucratic delay between action and consequence. Koestler, who wrote obsessively about delayed accountability in political systems, would find this immediacy almost therapeutic. A world where error announces itself without propaganda.
The rider becomes both participant and observer.
There is a double consciousness in tracklocross. You are inside the effort, lungs burning, legs trembling, yet also outside it, analysing line choice, traction, rhythm. Koestler would recognise this split as the birthplace of insight. He called it “bisociation” in creativity, the moment two frames of reference occupy the same mind. Here, body and intellect run parallel tracks, occasionally crossing sparks.
Mud again becomes important, but not spiritually. Materially.
It is entropy made visible.
Order dissolving into friction.
Koestler was deeply aware that all systems decay. Political, psychological, mechanical. Tracklocross makes this decay tactile. The pristine drivetrain at the start of the ride inevitably dirties. Efficiency erodes. The rider adapts or stops. This is not tragedy. It is thermodynamics in miniature. A reminder that purity is temporary and maintenance is perpetual.
He would appreciate the small scale.
Grand revolutions horrified him because of their abstraction. Small, personal revolutions interested him because they remained accountable. A rider choosing a difficult path on a simple machine is not overthrowing a regime. They are conducting a modest experiment in autonomy. The stakes are human-sized. Failure results in mud, not prisons.
Community would intrigue him too, but cautiously.
Tracklocross gatherings are loose, decentralised, resistant to hierarchy. Koestler, wary of rigid collectives, would see value in communities formed around shared practice rather than shared doctrine. Riders meet not to declare truths, but to exchange routes and repair tips. Knowledge circulates without demanding allegiance. A soft network instead of a hard structure.
Still, he would issue a warning.
Any system, even a bicycle, can become identity. When the tool hardens into ideology, the rider begins serving the machine rather than the other way around. Koestler spent his life tracing this inversion in politics and culture. Tracklocross remains healthy only while it is chosen anew each ride, not inherited as dogma.
In the end, he would see tracklocross as a living model of human-machine dialogue.
Not harmony. Dialogue.
A constant negotiation between intention and resistance.
The rider does not dominate the terrain.
The terrain does not dominate the rider.
They inform each other in a loop of friction and adjustment.
A bicycle without a freewheel becomes a thinking device.
A field becomes a laboratory.
The body becomes both subject and instrument.
No manifesto emerges from this.
No grand theory resolves it.
Only a quiet understanding that systems reveal their truth not in perfection, but in the moment grit enters the gears and the rider decides, consciously, whether to keep turning.
Fiefdom Tracklocross 
Leave a Reply