Primarily it was the recommendation of a friend who’s opinion I respect and has made several good references that I have enjoyed over the years. What I’ve enjoyed is Morin’s use of language which is impressive even in translation, and some of the examples that he chose.
One that I think that would appeal to you is that the Nazis lost WW II because of two bad decisions and the effect of unintended consequences. The first was the Japanese decision to attack the United States (Pearl Harbour), which the Russians learned of in advance which meant they could move their forces in the east to defend their western border. It also brought America, which was divided by the issue of isolationism, into the war. The 2nd was to aid Mussolini who was doing poorly in Greece. To do so meant that they had to send forces through Yugoslavia which cost them at least a month and invade Greece in 1941. This delayed the Russian campaign, initially scheduled for May, to the Fall. Had the Nazis fought Russia in the spring and summer they would likely have won. (It’s really a short entry less than a page.)
He has a very intense essay on the significance of the prefix “re” in a wide variety of words from revolution to recitation, emphasizing the recursive nature of different types of systems in that they continually reference themselves in order to regenerate. There’s an excellent essay near the back of the book on the nature of Europe as an idea that was forged in part by being geographically constrained by Islam which forced internal trade. Somewhere he noted that though Rome conquered Greece when we get to Byzantium everyone is speaking Greek and promoting Greek ideas so in the end, Greece won.
The book does talk about a film that he made in 1960 “Chronicle of a Summer” – that didn’t impress me. And he discusses a project where he attempts to be a working sociologist. He wasn’t that good at it.
Two other themes that I did find interesting: The 1st was his notion that a system is at times less than the sum of its parts as parts of almost any system have a role in suppressing the behavior of other parts of a system. When a system breaks down these properties/behaviors can contribute to the system’s collapse, which might at that point be considered to be a useful features. Other parts of a system may be interpreted as noise but that too should be understood as part of the system.
The other point he keeps making is the tension between rationalists and romanticists and here he goes back to the 1630s and 1840s. The rationalists use mathematics and physics as a model and claim that rule based models can be applied to the humanities, ethics and politics. His primary source here seems to be Stephen “Toulmin’s Cosmopolis” which I’ve started reading on the basis of his reference. Morin argues that the two sides need to listen to each other as opposed being at cross purposes. He also contrasts Descartes’ approach of using thought as a basis for first principles vs English/Newtonian empiricism. Morin is not Hegelian, he’s quite the opposite. Whereas Hegel sees thesis, antithesis as a teleological process Morin sees it a nothing more than a possible process, one among others with no inevitable result.