Monday, October 27, 2014

The practical applications of a non-dualistic epistemology

Yes, we're going to do this thing, and it might not even hurt!
So, going back to Bateson and his definition of mind as a complex series of interactions between living creatures and their environment in which there is self-regulation (feedback-loops)  - how does this make a difference in everyday life?  
Well, for most of us farmer/rancher types living the non-dualistic lifestyle is as natural as breathing and losing money. As natural as trying to figure out the interactions of rainfall, topography, plant succession patterns under grazing pressure, the social patterns of cattle, wind direction, cash-flow and how all of that will affect the fence you are thinking of building. Except maybe you're not so much figuring it out as much as making some proposals for consideration in the form of the wisest fence you can imagine. 
Or, when looking at a piece of art, it's not that you are looking at a thing, so much as an interaction between material, human hand, human mind, and the particular entire ecosystem that cradles all of those.  And then you, looking at the "art" are now inside of that interaction, and how does it change you?
Or, standing next to someone in line at the supermarket...well, you can fill in the whole social part of that however you like... but the supermarket itself, convenient and necessary as it is, might be a problematic kind of mind for us to be taking part in as it so completely alienates consumers and producers, making one unconscious and the other over-burdened. 

Friday, October 24, 2014

Now, you

My gentle readers, all 4 or 5 of you (hey, thanks for hanging out with me) might be saying what is the point of all this hyper-intellectation? Why should you care about definitions of mind and theories of aesthetics and mapping and materialism? I really have no idea why you might care.  Why do I care? Sometimes I'm not sure myself. To replace one folly, one set of words, with another seems hardly worth the trouble.  The world is, and that's enough.  But here is why I care about all this, really, and it's the most dorkiest reason in the world: love.  Yep, the most cliched word ever.  But you see: 1. love is a verb, not a noun, and 2. there's all kinds of love, and as long as you live, you can keep on learning to love, in different and maybe better, braver, bigger ways.

This morning in the pre-dawn dark as I was driving my daughter to the bus and thinking about Bateson's use of Jung's distinction between Pleroma (dead matter, like stones) and Creatura (living things) to counteract the medieval Christian/Cartesian mind/matter dualism that has really f*cked us up as a civilization, I looked out into the distance across the Ka'u desert and saw the fiery orange glow of  our local live volcano Kilauea, and knew that Jung's distinction is not very, very distinct.

Also that I love that volcano.

Saturday, October 18, 2014

Bateson contra Fowles

"No, you see it's not possible to map beauty and ugliness onto a flat piece of paper.  Oh yes, a drawing may be beautiful and on flat paper but that's not what I'm talking about.  The question is onto what surface shall a theory of aesthetics be mapped?"

Ok, so I'm setting up two dead English dudes to talk about something very important to me, in a very, very, very abstract and probably incomprehensible way, but wtf, it's my party.

Bateson has an intricate and yet earthy mind.  He never seems to take the bait that leads so many of the intellectually ambitious into the maze of irrelevant abstractions that is academic philosophy.

This idea of surfaces and "mapping onto" is important.  It's something that we all learn to do as we  learn to become more or less conscious, and because it is how we built up consciousness, the mapping and the surfaces onto which we map onto are not something that we remember to be conscious of.

"...it is the primary definition of mind that has to accommodate the theories of aesthetics and consciousness.  It's onto that primary definition that the next step must be mapped."

Now Bateson spends most of the book on the functional definition of mind, and it's some heavy-duty stuff, but the title of the book is "Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity" so that will give you a hint that his idea of "mind" is not limited to the patch of gray matter at the apex of the spine of human beings.

So to knock all of this gobbledygook down to a super-simple and concrete example: it matters A LOT whether we map our most basic level of consciousness onto the warmth and intelligence of a human body and maybe a human breast or onto the cold geometries of a crib and a plastic nipple. The one in the crib is going to spend their whole lives frantically piling up non-living things to remake the security of the crib. AKA consumerism.  That's definitely a dumbing down and maybe a complete bastardization of what Bateson's getting at, but maybe not...

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Reading Gregory Bateson

On the whole, it was not the crudest, the simplest, the most animalistic and primitive aspects of the human species that were reflected in the natural phenomena.  It was, rather, the most complex, the aesthetic, the intricate, and the elegant aspects of people that reflected nature.  It was not my greed, my purposiveness, my so-called "animal," so-called "instincts," and so forth that I was recognizing on the other side of that mirror, over there in "nature."  Rather, I was seeing there the roots of human symmetry, beauty, and ugliness, aesthetics, the human being's very aliveness and a little bit of wisdom.  His wisdom, his bodily grace, and even his habit of making beautiful objects are just as "animal" as his cruelty. 

from Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity

Sunday, October 12, 2014

Again, Another Way


Here is one of the challenges for civilized humankind: to learn (again!) from the animals and the plants, rather than use them like dead matter or animate machines for our needs and ends.  They can be sources of inspiration for adaptive techniques and technologies; they are keepers of a kind of quiet wisdom we are only beginning to appreciate. 

The cow knows how to live on cellulose, the deer and the horse, too.  They know how to live outside, in all weathers, needing only the barest essentials.  They will still be here long after our fossil-fuel-driven civilization grinds slowly to a halt. 

This is not to say that we need to “live like animals.”  This is not to say that we must forswear civilization.  It is simply to say that we could learn a great deal if we had a little humility; if we could allow ourselves to learn something from their radical simplicity. (Which is not so very simple, as animals are just as much the fine-honed products of evolution as we are.)

This runs counter to everything we in the modern West are taught about what it means to be human; it runs counter to the tradition of humanism and an idea of science in which humans are the only subjects; it runs counter to the great project of industrialism, in which everything non-human is raw material for processing.

But more and more of us are questioning the great project of industrialism – the efficient exploitation of natural resources for human prosperity, and asking if our present trajectory is truly one that leads to human happiness or health.

The next great project – which countless non-profits, young people, homesteaders, artists,  cooperatives, farmers, legislators, businesspeople,  musicians, local food enthusiasts and critics of modernity are already pointing towards and working to construct -  is underway.  It is the object of much inchoate yearning and determined dreaming.  Although there is a timidity and confusion in the face of the great machines we have constructed and which now run on their own momentum; in the face of the ancient hatreds and the new addictions; and not least in the withering scorn of those who have no hope anymore, still the current trajectory is clearly untenable.  This is not about utopia, or world peace, or end times.  There is no grand plan – just us, all of us, here, now, making choices, asking ourselves: what is it that we really want?

Do we still have to defend ourselves from each other, physically and economically? Will we still have an expensive military and health-care technology to maintain, power differentials and economic disparities to contend with?  Will the destruction of the forests and fisheries of the world continue? Will I wake up tomorrow and get into a SUV? Yes, definitely.  The trajectory that we are on was not developed in a year or a hundred years or a thousand years.  It is project of long millennia of choices and intentions.  It is old, it is ingrained in our human support systems: our agriculture, our architecture, our technology, our cultures and social systems, our sense of who we are as a species, our very cells, it sometimes seems.  To unwind the belief systems in which we have wrapped ourselves, in which we have inculcated loyalty to the trajectory, can be psychically dangerous.  We must proceed slowly, gently, with ourselves and with others.  To get onto a new trajectory is a dangerous transition; it will not be a bad thing if it is so gradual that we barely realize it ourselves.  No great revolutions, no us vs. them, just the slow turning of the tide.

To allow ourselves to recognize what animals and plants can say to us is one way to loosen the hold of the belief system that ties us to the industrial way of life, one way to open ourselves to other possibilities. 

Friday, October 10, 2014

Bliss/Mutluluk

Possibly the best movie I've ever seen:

Bliss Movie Poster

Based on a novel by O.Z. Livaneli. I wish I could read Turkish, since Bliss seems to be the only work of his translated into English.   Warning: I personally cried cathartic tears of terror and wonder through most of this movie, so not one to watch when wearing mascara. 

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

Touch


When I touch a horse, or am within a few feet of it, I experience the world differently.  It is not something that I know how to measure.   It is there however.  What to call it?  A magnetic field, a gravitational field, the presence of another living being, shared breath? It is perhaps all of these things.   When I walk into a herd of cows the manner in which I approach, the thoughts that I am thinking, my gestures, where I look, and what I intend all matter to the cows.  It’s not that they can read my mind, it’s that they can read bodies.

Warm skin of a dog, a horse, a cow – the brain buzzes with the contact, hand to fur. 

At an agricultural fair, which is the only place that most city-folk get to touch a large animal, you see this all the time, how touching an animal strips away all of the masks for a moment.  For a moment, the moment of contact, there is wonder, stillness, the experience of warmth: you see it on the faces of old people and young, tattoo-ed city toughs, women in heels and elaborate make-up, mothers, fathers.

That is a language, just that moment of stillness, the contact, the way an animal makes you feel for a moment, that relief, that sense of flowing out beyond the ego-mind, that enlarged sense of being that is there for a moment.

What is the value of that moment when two bodies communicate?  What is value of basic sanity, and the small things that allow it to be?