Hopefully you
remember me from our Evolution and Consciousness Conference at the Esalen
Institute last October. I remember you and the Conference themes well. And
despite various distances including my falling short in writing and
speaking last fall, I would like to try to articulate some points for your
dialogue.
The vitality of your dialogue really inspired me. You are well placed in a
potentially epoch-marking turn in our understanding of evolution. Jay, you
expressed it the strongest towards the end of the conference when you
noted how large the question was, how laden the potential was for
effecting cultural awareness and how bright and poised the Esalen working
group is for considerably advancing theory.
At the same time and given the challenge of thinking outside the current
paradigm in order to move beyond it, I think that I could offer you an
imaginative voice in this dialogue. I propose a shift of focus and a
conjecture. The conjecture is that reality is an inseparable symbiosis
between physical environment and biological processes.
The focus is on reality, as a phenomenon. The focus is a shift away from
the split formulation of objective reality sprinkled with points of
consciousness. The old assumption of objective reality as a given
non-phenomenon is a dangerous assumption. Like consciousness with qualia,
why is the viewspace of reality not an existent deserving of an
explanation? Taking reality as a phenomenon that emerged along with
consciousness has grounds for justification and offers a way to sidestep
the endless contradictions and dead ends of dualism.
Here is the main argument, in brief. Reality itself as we know and
experience it should be considered a phenomenon that also merits our
exploration. This leads immediately to the observation that reality the
phenomenon is a compact between matter and knowing organisms. Of this
supposed partnership, it is knowledge that is the more weakly understood
and idealized phenomenon. There are two things that can currently and
confidently be said about knowledge as a phenomenon: 1) knowledge shows
biological roots as behaviors and adaptations and 2) knowledge has two
aspects depending on whether seen from the knower or the known–a
constructivist side and an objectivist side. Both of these aspects of
knowledge as mutuality reinforce the previous observation that reality is
a compact between matter and knowing organisms. Viewed from this
perspective, a case is made that the character of knowledge is best
described as a symbiosis–an ongoing if opportunistic, mutual effect and
maintenance relationship.
The second principal argument is the logic that niche construction plus
adaptable behavior plus social integration plus cultural learning is a
description of an iterative, emergent process that has the potential to
adapt-to/construct what can only be described as an expanding niche. The
construction of features of a niche and the adaptation of behavior to that
constructed feature can set up a reciprocity loop between organism and
environmental feature where both evolve. We are inseparable from this
grand, coevolving niche.
Four other arguments are made in parallel. The first is along the lines of
the American Pragmatists who point out the staggering wealth of individual
opinions, perceptions, patterns, habits, motivations, dependencies,
intentions, memories, traditions, associations, stories and so forth. This
readily observable phenomenon implies a very diverse ecology of
human-environment relationships that belie the independence of observer
and objective reality.
The second is that such a description of reality squarely avoids the old
logical impasse of dualism and presents a biological candidate for a
monistic ontology.
The third is that symbiotic reality extrapolates firmly within the trend
in biology that continues to discover how processes inside the organism
are continuous with processes outside it.
The fourth line of argument is from the Human Potential Movement such as
in evidence here at Esalen. It draws on the insight that thinking has lost
touch with the body and with the emotions. The inference is then made that
this severing of thinking and the body is the casualty of a world view
that stresses the independence between knower and known. This, I must
confess, is my favorite in that it has been my personal motivation for
this inquiry to bridge the intractable gap between the spiritual/emotional
sanity of embedded life and critical thinking.
Beyond the usual ontological formulation these days of objective reality
and consciousness, I am asking you to imagine a third thing in between
them–a commons of knowledge, community intentions, maps, joint attention,
material flows, imaginations, memories–that is a biological, especially
human addition to the physical matter in the environment and that is an
extension of consciousness. When our environment is so massively modified,
when each of us shepherds many representations symbiotically linking us
with so many objects and others and when public or media arenas link
millions in joint awareness, it is justifiable to pose this field as
worthy of explanation. I want to show how such a terra cogitans enmeshing
organisms and environment is plausible. I list below additional suggestive
reasons why symbiotic reality as incorporating material reality and
composed of but greater than individual consciousnesses is a plausible
concept to describe the orb of our existence:
• The cultural sphere, the commons of awareness exists and deserves its
own explanation.
• Knowledge is a phenomenon with the property that it joins organisms and
things.
• Representations have the properties of symbiotic
relationships–maintaining links.
• The concept of noosphere as a new aspect of the biosphere illustrates
reality as its own sphere.
• Domesticated species reveal its effects.
• Some 200 species exhibit cultures of behavior that vary among groups.
• Knowledge, cognition, learning & memory are shown to be externally
distributed.
• Memory reveals time and distance relationships in ecology.
• Humans have a unique capability: joint attentional scenes, e.g.,
pointing with another.
• Symbioses, synergies and multilevel evolution are increasingly seen as
widespread in nature.
• Instead of the presumptive territory vs. map, humans can always only
know maps or better maps.
• It is a non-dualistic frame that is both objectivistic and
constructivistic.
• Social organizations and technology are growing and hybridizing so fast
that superorganism and global brain views are spreading which highlights
the synthetic quality of reality.
Moreover, symbiotic reality as a framework offers openings in some of our
deepest problems:
• Alienation is met by switching from the human operator on a backdrop to
embeddedness.
• Major spiritual issues like attachment, emotional poverty and lack of
embodiment are addressed as each of us is a center of our connections.
• Communication can go past substitution chasing to embrace the fine
movement of whole contexts.
• The medium is the message; each medium is its own basin of symbiotic
reality.
• It resolves the science studies debate that opposes messy working
reality with ideal construals.
• It facilitates a politics with non-totalizing wholes and non-fragmented
facts (e.g., think of a Bush-type leader as a totalizing whole and a
Kerry-type as fragmented facts).
• It allows a fully naturalized epistemology where expert discourse basins
can hybridize methods.
• It provides a philosophical basis for a more developed ecological
economics.
The early Twentieth Century concept noosphere, named after that portion of
the biosphere that captures the mental activity reshaping the planetary
movement of materials and species, can be evoked in various ways. If
consciousness is the culmination of evolution, then the concept of
noosphere is just an irrelevant acknowledgment of brains on the planet. If
consciousness is a necessary plateau of evolution in a series that still
looks like a parade of species, then the concept of noosphere is a
demarcation of before and after this event. If consciousness is a breach
into a qualitatively different type of evolution with a new, globalized
ecology including machines, synthetic materials, computers, space probes,
harnessed external energy sources, widespread domesticated species and
joined economic channels, then the concept of noosphere does denote a
phase change into a new type of sphere. It is this last version of
noosphere that the symbiotic-reality framework invokes to talk about a
qualitative change in evolution’s domain.
There are innumerable examples of biological processes that are
inseparable partners in geophysical processes (e.g., reef building, the
long term carbon cycle through sea floor sedimentation and through the
earth’s mantle, the former widespread damming of North American creeks by
beavers), but the process that places ourselves as observers within an
inseparable symbiosis is the wildly promiscuous partnership of knowledge.
Now that consciousness has become legitimate as a research subject it is
time to move its step-sister, knowledge, into direct study. Whereas
consciousness is mysterious precisely because it is a glaring experience
at the heart of whatever mind is, knowledge has the astounding property
that it joins ostensibly independent knower and known. The very fact that
knowledge exists and joins people and objects and even abstract complexes
of these is a phenomenon worth noting. Returning to the concept of
noosphere I could say that the noosphere is that portion of the biosphere
that is the sum total of knowledge joinings and its dynamics and effects.
Equally, we might want to frame consciousness as the experience of
existing in a field of knowledge joinings. But, as imaginative challenge
the question is where and what is this knowledge property of joining?
Almost as soon as knowledge is approached as an object of study then a
link can be given from it to biology and to evolution–behavior. To know a
chair is to have a “chair-behavior.” For a bird to “know” branches and
nests is to have “branch-behavior” or “nest-behavior.” In all cases the
organism and the object are joined in the behavior in a type of
commensalism. In all cases there is no reference to the purity of the
truth of the object but only to its successful, opportunistic
exploitation. If it is usable as a branch, then it is a branch in the
joined behavior. The crab that appropriates an old shell for its home has
a “shell behavior” or “knows” what shells are or finds the niche it needs
or can be said to have an extended phenotype that must include a shell or
can be said to have a commensalism with “its” shell. Regardless of the
language the crab organism has a boundary that arguably includes the shell
from many points of view including from crab predators.
The case for knowledge as behavior has been put as a special type of
behavior that is an adaptation to something. For example:
“How, then, can we make that connection between adaptation and knowledge?
We do so through a two-track argument. The first is that the human
capacity to gain and impart knowledge is itself an adaptation, or a set of
adaptations. To the scientifically literate this may not seem to be a
startling claim. But it does have specific and interesting implications.
We simply will not understand human rationality and intelligence, or human
communication and culture, until we understand how these seemingly
unnatural attributes are deeply rooted in human biology. They are, I will
argue, the special adaptations that make us special. What is unarguable is
that they are the products of human evolution, whether adaptations or not.
There really are no substantive alternative ways of understanding our
extraordinary capacity for knowledge....”
“The second track of the argument is the one that many find strange and
difficult, and one which has already been partially given in the Preface.
It is that adaptations are themselves knowledge, themselves forms of
‘incorporation’ of the world into the structure and organization of living
things. Because this seems to misappropriate a word, ‘knowledge’, with a
widely accepted meaning - knowledge usually just being something that only
humans have somewhere in their heads - it makes the argument easier if the
statement reads ‘adaptations are biological knowledge, and knowledge as we
commonly understand the word is a special case of biological knowledge’.”
Plotkin, Henry. Darwin Machines and the Nature of Knowledge. Harvard
University Press. 1994. pps. xiv-xv.
It is here, Jay, where I might borrow your quote from Kant to justify a
shift from knowledge’s focusing on the object for its source of alleged
purity to knowledge’s focus on the subject and the adaptive webs we weave.
You quote Kant from the Preface to the Critique of Pure Reason, on page
25-6 of your “Coming Together” article for last year’s conference as
saying:
“We should then be proceeding precisely on the lines of Copernicus’
primary hypothesis. Failing of satisfactory progress in explaining the
movements of the heavenly bodies on the supposition that they all revolved
round the spectator, he tried whether he might not have better success if
he made the spectator to revolve and the stars to remain at rest. A
similar experiment can be tried in metaphysics, as regards the intuition
of objects. If intuition must conform to the constitution of the objects,
I do not see how we could know anything of the latter a priori; but if the
object (as object of the senses) must conform to the constitution of our
faculty of intuition, I have no difficulty in conceiving such a
possibility.”
You make the quote in the context of Copernicus with the implicit shift
from geocentric to heliocentric and in the context that “life binds time”
so that “Once the future replaces objectivity as the horizon of
validation, then care and hope become constitutive of reality.” From this
I feel justified in taking Kant’s reverse validation of the subject over
the object as grounds to propose switching from an object-centered view to
an object/subject symbiotic-centered view that also exposes the binding
relations as constitutive of reality.
The case then is that knowledge is an important, naturalistic element that
joins organisms in commensalisms with objects by behaviors and
adaptations. In order to help us visualize what knowledge as an adaptation
looks like, imagine an object and the circuits of usage, relevance and
association that join you to it. Include the mediums such as light and
friction and include muscular-neural circuitry. Knowing, say, an axe per
Gregory Bateson is to have a circuit of
tree-eyes-brain-muscles-axe-stroke-tree. As a Bateson commentator has it:
"The self-evident quality of the boundary that divides organism and
environment becomes less and less obvious the closer we approach it.
Bateson, in his classic example of the man-axe-tree circuit, suggests that
only the total system of tree-eyes-brain-muscles-axe-stroke-tree has the
quality of immanent mind. What occurs in this system is a series of
transforms and what happens in the environment is as essential to the
circuit as the sensory-muscular processes in the human participant. There
is danger in separating meaning and context, or participant and setting,
of falling into the trap of viewing one as independent variable and the
other as dependent variable.” Bateson, Gregory et al. Rigor and
Imagination: Essays from the Legacy of Gregory Bateson. Barnlund, Richard.
"Toward an Ecology of Communication." 1981. p. 95.
From the viewpoint of cognitive science the distributed feature of
cognition appears as:
"The view we advocate here is reflected by a growing body of research in
cognitive science. In areas as diverse as the theory of situated cognition
(Suchman 1987), studies of real-world-robotics (Beer 1989), dynamical
approaches to child development (Thelen and Smith 1994), and research on
the cognitive properties of collectives of agents (Hutchins 1995),
cognition is often taken to be continuous with processes in the
environment." Clark, Andy & Chalmers, David. "The Extended Mind."
Analysis
58.1 January 1998. p. 10.
Another way to imagine the symbiotic aspect of knowledge is to consider
how traditional representations can be considered as symbioses. My sense
is that today the concept of representation is used less in the archaic
sense of a photographic image in our brains ready for viewing and more as
a shorthand for an unknown grouping of brain activity correlated with some
referential aspect like an object. The continuity, the tracking, the
investment in maintaining, the uses of the reference in different
situations, the projective quality of our interpretation, some effects for
the referent, are all analogous to a symbiotic relationship. That wheat,
the grain, is in symbiotic relationship with humans is not surprising;
that wheat, the idea, is in symbiotic relationship with most of us is
hardly different except that the latter relationship is more fertile for
further combinations. A sense of how representations can be construed as
symbioses comes from the following:
“I have defended the idea that cognitive representation requires more than
complex response to a single specific proximal stimulus. Ant hygiene, for
example, is switched on by a specific proximal stimulus, oleic acid.
Contrast the ant with the anti-predation responses of ravens, who
recognize both different dangers, and the same danger through different
cues. An organism that genuinely represents a given feature of its world
must have several informational routes to that feature. There must be
multiple channels between mind and world; organisms so equipped get
behavioural feedback.” Sterelny, Kim. The Evolution of Agency and Other
Essays. Cambridge University Press. 2001. pp. 191-2.
A representation is an indication of the ongoing dependent relationship to
the represented for the knower. This relationship has its costs and
benefits for the knower.
"(1) The economics of knowledge is an important but underdeveloped branch
of epistemology. It is–or should be–evident that knowledge has its
economic aspect of benefits and costs. (2) The benefits of information are
both theoretical and applied. (3) Moreover, the management of information
is always a matter of costs. (4) Rationality itself has a
characteristically economic dimension in its insistence on a proper
proportioning of expenditures and benefits." Rescher, Nicholas. Cognitive
Economy: the Economic Dimension of the Theory of Knowledge. U. of
Pittsburgh Press. 1989. P. 3.
And on the object’s side there are costs and benefits. Some objects are
exploited and some are preserved and protected; most are diverted at least
slightly to suit the knower’s needs. Wooly mammoths disappeared; barley
was protected and enhanced; animal trails became thoroughfares; house
walls depend on us to stay house walls.
When the mutuality of humans with reality as a phenomenon is fully
appreciated then the interlocking behavioral adaptation of subject and
object are seen as inseparable:
“Contrary to popular opinion and many philosophical epistemologies,
knowledge does not involve the union or synthesis of an already existing
subject and an independent object. To the contrary, knowing is an ongoing
adaptive process in and through which subjectivity and objectivity
actually emerge and continue to evolve. Knowledge is constituted when
subject and object fit together.” Taylor, Mark C. The Moment of
Complexity: Emerging Network Culture. University of Chicago. 2001. p. 208.
Yet, symbiotic reality has deeper roots. It is worthwhile to consider
reality (the phenomenon formed by humans) from the more primitive concept
of niche (the ecological concept of “occupation” of an organism in its
environment). The niche is not always fixed but is often changed or
constructed in ways that can benefit the organism.
“... to varying degrees, organisms choose their own habitats, choose and
consume resources, generate detritus, construct important components of
their own environments (such as nests, holes, burrows, paths, webs, pupal
cases, dams, and chemical environments), and destroy other components.”
...
“Niche construction is not the exclusive prerogative of large populations,
keystone species or clever animals; it is a fact of life. All living
organisms take in materials for growth and maintenance, and excrete waste
products. It follows that, merely by existing, organisms must change their
local environments to some degree.” Oyama, Susan, Paul Griffiths, and
Russell Gray, editors. Cycles of Contingency: Developmental Systems and
Evolution. MIT Press. 2001. Laland, Kevin, John Odling-Smee, and Marcus
Feldman. “Niche Construction, Ecological Inheritance, and Cycles of
Contingency in Evolution.” P. 117.
These authors go on to attempt to show how niche construction alters
genetic selection both of present organisms and of future generations in
what is called “ecological inheritance” and which can set up “... an
evolutionary inertia, where unusually strong selection is required to move
a population away from an equilibrium, and a momentum, such that
populations continue to evolve in a particular direction even if selection
pressures change or reverse (ibid. p. 122).” This reciprocity between
niche construction and genetic selection pressure already has the
potential for generating an emergent phenomenon. This reciprocity is
increased when adaptable behaviors or learning behaviors are present
within the organism. “This allows learned knowledge to guide niche
construction in many animal species (ibid. p. 123).”
From the above description of the way that niche construction functions in
evolution there is only one more aspect needed, cultural learning over
generations, to see how logically a huge emergence could develop from one
organism’s niche construction and adaptable behavior. Part of niche
construction is moving to or adding new elements to the niche such as an
omnivore or a migrating organism might do. Such a combination and
iteration of niche construction, adaptable behavior and cultural learning
has the logical potential to convert one species’ niche into a large and
growing “niche.” And the reciprocal relationships of this emergence would
also change that organism, humans, genetically from self-induced selection
pressure as well as culturally from developmental pressure to match the
niche:
"Though man remains a nourishing being, we now see clearly that his
being-in-the-world is oriented not solely or even primarily as eater. He
is, by natural attitude, a being whose eyes are encouraged to be bigger
than his stomach.
'Animals move in the direction of their digestive axis. Their bodies are
expanded between mouth and anus as between an entrance and an exit, a
beginning and an ending. The spatial orientation of the human body is
different throughout. The mouth is still an inlet but no longer a
beginning, the anus, an outlet but no longer the tail end. Man in upright
posture, his feet on the ground and his head uplifted, does not move in
the line of his digestive axis; he moves in the direction of his vision.
He is surrounded by a world panorama, by a space divided into world
regions joined together in the totality of the universe. Around him, the
horizons retreat in an ever growing radius. Galaxy and diluvium, the
infinite and the eternal, enter into the orbit of human interests.'
"As with upright posture itself, the contemplative gaze–or the
transformation of seeing into beholding–requires maturation, and
especially inner or psychic growth; small children do not have it and
remain largely interested only in things that lie within their grasp.
Eventually, as adults, we are able to organize the visible world into
things near and far or, alternatively, into those visible and even remote
things we are interested in prehending (by bringing them near) and those
we are content to let be and to comprehend, at a distance and in their
place, against a background totality, a world." Kass, Leon. The Hungry
Soul: Eating and the Perfecting of Our Nature. University of Chicago
Press. 1999. Pps. 71-72 (The subquote is from Erwin Straus, "The Upright
Posture," in Phenomenological Psychology, 1966)
And the environment of humans itself probably coevolved:
“Instead we maintain that niche-constructed components of the environment
are both products of the prior evolution of organisms and, in the form of
modified natural selection pressures, causes of the subsequent evolution
of organisms, and that as both products and causes of evolution, these
environmental components need to be incorporated in evolutionary theory
more fully than they are at present. It is in this sense that we see
organisms and their environments as comprising coevolving systems.” Oyama,
Susan, Paul Griffiths, and Russell Gray, editors. Cycles of Contingency:
Developmental Systems and Evolution. MIT Press. 2001. Laland, Kevin, John
Odling-Smee, and Marcus Feldman. “Niche Construction, Ecological
Inheritance, and Cycles of Contingency in Evolution.” P. 125.
Now, claiming that a large emergence occurred does not imply that the
changes to the environment were insignificant nor that humans did most of
the adapting. We know that there were certain effects. We know that there
are no sloths or large tigers around now probably because early hunters
pushed them to extinction. We know that many other species were
domesticated and dramatically altered from their non-domesticated,
pre-human state. We know that, as Jared Diamond says, cultures put
together many “packets” of combinations of crops, domesticated animals and
technology. We know now that there currently exists a bubble of
technological creativity that changes even old human technologies as well
as remaining portions of the imagined ur-environment. We know that
everywhere we go the “environment” is prepared for us in ubiquitous “Do”
and “Don’t” signs. As the great human niche has widened into many versions
of maps of reality, it has also had tremendous material effects. Much of
what exists came into being through us.
It is here that it would be wise to guard against our old dualistic
heritage where human actors do things to objects and to think that “Yes,
humans made those changes” in a way that denies the coevolutionary
character of the emergence just described. To emphasize the reciprocity of
humans adapting to niches they constructed I will argue that it is helpful
to characterize the relationships to features as symbiotic. Even when
symbioses are recognized by a seeming standard of being two, or more,
species interacting supportively and primarily with each other over a long
co-evolutionary period, their occurrence is recognized as widespread:
“The biosphere’s evolution is unimaginable without symbioses. We see them
in the very formation of eukaryotic cells, in the intricate coevolutionary
patterns in coral reefs–where about fifty fish and shrimp species act as
cleaners of ectoparasites, often entering even into the gill chambers and
mouth of the host fish–and in flowering plants and their pollinators.
Without endosymbioses there would be no cattle husbandry and beef empires,
and termites, those miniature tropical cows, could not process a large
share of the biosphere’s litter fall.” Smil, Vaclav. The Earth’s
Biosphere: Evolution, Dynamics, and Change. MIT Press. 2002. P. 225
It is also considered appropriate, I believe, to claim that the behavior
of monkeys and primates to fruit trees is symbiotic because the fruit
trees coevolved with primates for the mutual benefit of both–food and seed
dispersal. In contrast one would not usually assert that root foods were
symbiotic to early primates since food sources are considered as an
independent variable in their niche (until later agricultural times when
tubers certainly did evolve under human influence). Likewise tool use and
tool making are not considered symbiotic but for another reason. Tool use
does not drop out of mutuality and potential emergence considerations
because it is passive like the root foods but because it is an active
effect of the retrospective dualistic mindset. We say that “humans made
tools.” This is the point where the cultural anthropologists take over
from the physical anthropologists, and this is the point where the human
niche is divided into the dualistic frames of determinism (the root foods)
and autonomy (human agents). It is of course at the center of our
consciousness conundrum as the following quote succinctly captures in
speaking of this division where dualism gave us science which found a
deterministic nature:
"The division of labour has endowed cognition with autonomy; autonomous
cognition has engendered a nature within which no activity can be
autonomous. That is the problem." Gellner, Ernest. Plough, Sword and Book:
The Structure of Human History. University of Chicago Press. 1988. p. 136.
Of course to the early primates roots, fruits and “tool use” blurred into
a continuous occupation of their niche. It is here that there is a choice
to continue telling the story of this emergence as active humans leaving a
passive niche or to instead note the heavy interdependence of humans and
our coevolving niche. The reasons that I argue for the latter are 1) that
an object behavior is itself a reciprocal and distributed pattern
dependent on the “object,” 2) that object behaviors can and do become
interdependent among themselves (e.g. stick use becomes associated with
tuber eating with their own synergies–what is the stick here, a catalyst?)
and 3) that niche elements are always effected or changed even if the
“construction” is not of the enhancement variety. This view is buttressed
by the steady rise in sociality among early primates which could show not
only the cultural learning aspect of the construction-learning-adaptable
behavior emergence but also evidence for the interdependence factor of the
niche construction. What I am arguing is that we humans are our
constructed niche; we have never left our old niche bequeathed to us as a
species enmeshed in nature; we have only constructed or grown it into a
very large niche which while trying to approximate the whole environment
we have equated with the environment and called it “reality.” Practically,
we live and react to life; we do not “know” what we are doing as if a type
of omniscience precedes our mere execution.
Let me break the above down into the elements that make the interdependent
aspects of the big emergence. I have argued earlier that object behaviors
such as we today think of as knowledge is a mutual and multiple-channel
relationship. The interdependence of object behaviors such as stones with
scraping meat from carcasses is used as evidence that interdependence
spread. This implies that a synergy of interdependence was available among
features of that environment. And it suggests that the spread of
interdependence between object behaviors would in turn strengthen the
constituent object relations themselves. Using stones to scrape carcasses
would raise the value and scrutiny of stones themselves as well as of
carcasses, for example. It is arguable that this adaptable interdependence
between various object behaviors stumbled into an evolutionary goldmine of
potential synergy. Synergy, analogous to symbiosis, is increasingly
recognized as a ubiquitous phenomenon:
“... synergy is of central importance in virtually every scientific
discipline, though it very often travels incognito under various aliases
(mutualism, cooperativity, symbiosis, win-win, emergent effects, a
critical mass, coevolution, interactions, threshold effects, even
non-zero-sumness).” Corning, Peter. Nature’s Magic: Synergy in Evolution
and the Fate of Mankind. Cambridge University Press. 2003. P. 5.
The possibility that the environment “allowed” synergy between object
behaviors which would reinforce adapting behaviors means that the human
niche was not completely passive but was shifting to reward those
behaviors. The expanding niche was the powerful, seemingly receptive yet
growth-supplying partner in the human-environment emergence. What ensued
then was a positive feedback loop where categories of objects
cross-fertilized each other to the point where environmental objects
became densely co-opted into hominid behaviors. Or, adaptive circuits
coopted new elements which bred new adaptive circuits and reinforced old
ones. Biological reactions and relations had become dense within biology’s
environment–physical reality.
Although many of our relationships with features of reality are not,
strictly speaking, symbiotic (some are exploitive or heavily one-sided in
our favor even amongst ourselves) I have chosen “symbiosis” as the best
characterization of our external relationships. What is significant about
human environmental relationships is the large number which are mutually
tolerant and not simply food or fight type vectors. Even mutual tolerance
and occasional use-taking could be considered a weak form of symbiosis. On
the other hand the massive use-taking of human culture plus the enormous
modifications made to objects as well as the fact that most species now
have human culture as part of their selection criterion reveals the
stupendous traffic of mutuality undergirding our activities in reality.
Such a mutuality is best described and better understood by the term
“symbiotic.”
Looking again at the expanding niche that humans were creating, I want to
again consider its interdependence with humans. As I argued with
representations as symbioses above, I want to emphasize how each object
behavior is a highly coordinated “circuit” of perception, musculature,
neural circuits, object qualities and needs satisfactions. Additionally,
these circuits are regrown continually by usage and by each generation of
humans.
“The notion that culture is transmissible from one generation to the next
as a corpus of knowledge, independently of its application in the world,
is untenable for the simple reason that it rests on the impossible
precondition of a ready-made cognitive architecture. In fact, I maintain,
nothing is really transmitted at all. The growth of knowledge in the life
history of a person is a result not of information transmission but of
guided rediscovery, where what each generation contributes to the next are
not rules and representations for the production of appropriate behavior
but the specific conditions of development under which successors, growing
up in a social world, can build up their own aptitudes and dispositions.”
Oyama, Susan, Paul Griffiths, and Russell Gray, editors. Cycles of
Contingency: Developmental Systems and Evolution. MIT Press. 2001. Ingold,
Tim. “From Complementarity to Obviation.” P. 272.
“Aptitudes and dispositions,” circuits joining objects and behaviors by
myriad factors, intentions, interdependence of object behaviors are among
the many ways stressing the two-way traffic between objects and humans.
The picture that I am drawing is of a niche that is woven from the intense
traffic of relations tied in circuits of usage and relevance. It is of a
niche that offers highly non-linear problems and solutions in a way that
can be described as “active.” The density of relations, their mutuality,
their active generativity, their continuity as memory even when not in use
and their co-evolution bespeak a relationship between humans and their
co-emergent niche as symbiotic. They also bespeak an extremely
relationally rich niche-human interface. The symbiosis is maintained and
grown through this huge traffic of individual and idiosyncratic
perceptions, imaginations, habits, tolerances, associations, serendipitous
mistakes, memories and their further spread through imitations and
intentional sharing.
The fallacy of looking back at our niche as a passive vessel for our
active intellect continues today. If the environment is passive to our
knowing, we humans are the active and therefore separated autonomous
agents in the passive and unimportant niche. This traffic went both ways
in prehistory with active gods or forces in the environment and careful
activity on humans’ part. Now, in a stunning reversal during the modern
turn to the object, we humans live confidently in our own active autonomy
while giving an independence to objects so that it is they that determine
the truth about themselves. The current independence of objects gives them
an “active” nature to determine new facts while we know that they are
completely passive to our control. It’s a perverse aspect of
dualism–exalting the power of the observer by letting the “facts speak for
themselves.” The postmodern current has spawned a perverse reversal of
this perversion by switching dualistically back to saying that the
observer is the active determiner of truth. However, if both environment
and ourselves are active as in a mutual relation of co-creativity, then
answers to the silly question of which came first, ourselves or our
discoveries, seem silly (Here “idealism” can be understood as
constructivism while the “Yalta pact” fills in for dualism):
“... it was impossible to answer no to the question ‘Did the ferments (or
the microbes) exist before Pasteur’ without falling into some sort of
idealism. The subject-object dichotomy distributed activity and passivity
in such a way that whatever was taken by one was lost to the other. If
Pasteur makes up the microbes, that is, invents them, then the microbes
are passive. If the microbes ‘lead Pasteur in his thinking’ then it is he
who is the passive observer of their activity. We have begun to
understand, however, that the pair human-nonhuman does not involve a
tug-of-war between two opposite forces. On the contrary, the more activity
there is from one, the more activity there is from the other. The more
Pasteur works in his laboratory, the more autonomous his ferment becomes.
Idealism was the impossible effort to give activity back to the humans,
without dismantling the Yalta pact which had made activity a zero-sum
game–and without redefining the very notion of action, as we will see in
Chapter 9. In all its various forms–including of course social
constructivism–idealism had a nice polemical virtue against those who
granted too much independence to the empirical world. But polemics are fun
to watch for only so long. If we cease to treat activity as a rare
commodity of which only one team can have possession, it stops being fun
to watch people trying to deprive one another of what all the players
could have aplenty.” Latour, Bruno. Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality
of Science Studies. Harvard University Press. 1999. p. 147.
The conjecture of symbiotic reality breaks the active-passive game in the
reality-humans relationship.
This co-created grand niche became further emergent by linking it to the
social arena. To live in humans’ dense set of symbiotic relations with
dependencies, uses, relevances, roles and so forth is to be born into a
cultural milieu, an achievement of generations, and to be born with a
capacity for awareness in common with others. Being in this milieu
involves a heavy investment in group interests. The simple ability to gaze
together at a star is probably not in the ability of other creatures.
“In their natural habitats, nonhuman primates:
• do not point or gesture to outside objects for others;
• do not hold objects up to show them to others;
• do not try to bring others to locations so that they can observe things
there;
• do not actively offer objects to other individuals by holding them out;
• do not intentionally teach other individuals new behaviors.
“They do not do these things, in my view, because they do not understand
that the conspecific has intentional and mental states that can
potentially be affected. The most plausible hypothesis is thus that
nonhuman primates understand conspecifics as animate beings capable of
spontaneous self-movement–indeed, this is the basis for their social
understanding in general and their understanding of third-party social
relationships in particular–but do not understand others as intentional
agents in the process of pursuing goals or mental agents in the process of
thinking about the world.” Tomasello, Michael. The Cultural Origins of
Human Cognition. Harvard University Press. 1999. p. 21.
This author goes on to speak of “joint attentional scenes” as
unique-to-humans, shared mixes of intentional and perceptual
relationships.
“On the one hand, joint attentional scenes are not perceptual events; they
include only a subset of things in the child’s perceptual world. On the
other hand, joint attentional scenes are also not linguistic events; they
contain more things than those explicitly indicated in any set of
linguistic symbols. Joint attentional scenes thus occupy a kind of middle
ground–an essential middle ground of socially shared reality–between the
larger perceptual world and smaller linguistic world.” Tomasello, Michael.
The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Harvard University Press.
1999. p. 97-8.
My claim is that these “joint attentional scenes” and their joinings into
more widespread intentionally and perceptually monitoring panoramas form
the patchwork of a new, strongly interdependent ecology with humans in the
center of their web. And it is this patchwork in which we live that we
call reality even as we, as diligent farmers to this web but with faux
modesty, insist that it is the objects in our symbiotic garden that
deserve the praise. We should be reminded that the territory of matter
outside our reality has been found to be but light, molecules and
vibrations. As Alfred North Whitehead is reputed to have said:
"Thus nature gets credit which should in truth be reserved for ourselves:
the rose for its scent, the nightingale for its song, and the sun for its
radiance... Nature is a dull affair, soundless, scentless, colorless,
merely the hurrying of material, endlessly, meaninglessly."
Yet, we here, readers and myself, address each other now in an abstract
paper full of common assumptions (yes, I can claim symbioses here too) as
each of us gazes down a row of words, about a room or around a landscape
known to have a common understanding with our fellow creatures. It is this
very viewspace that I am saying cannot be taken for granted. Just as it
has become clear that there is logically no homunculus, or little viewer
guy in our heads to view some alleged contents in our brains, so there is
no given screen presented free of charge outside our brains for our
viewing. Perceptually, intentionally, usedly, adaptively, memorably,
sharedly we have built this labyrinth of relationships in which all the
citizens of life, of the earth’s crust and of the sky who have continuity
and discrete magnitudes have become ensnarled. To a greater or lesser
extent they are at our call or at our tolerance in a way that is not
always mutually beneficial but that can best be described as symbiotic.
This prodigious linking of ecology into the web of a single species and
its expansion of the reach of life into new realms–the abiotic, the
logical, the possibility of new energy sources–is a tremendous qualitative
change in the domain of life that we are pretending has not happened by
assuming that reality has always been here waiting for the victors of
evolution, ourselves, to arrive at.
My case is that we arrived together–we knowers and our woven reality nest
built into the environment. This reality of which our consciousness forms
a node is a mutually supporting or tolerating society. And the contrary,
current conception that we are separate from the backdrop called objective
reality is an historic phase as well as achievement that has attempted to
move from a conjectured participation mystique of embeddedness to an
unequivocal array of particular facts tied together by natural forces. Our
home of reality is exceedingly well mapped now if we can but live in it.
Facts are separate today and are supposed to stand or fall on their own
without clustering for protection in ideological formations. This historic
attempt to break the symbiotic clustering of ideas and facts has been
hugely productive in assimilating new material into cultural purview. The
cost, however, has been the loss of this healthy connectionism of human
social life. The aesthetic, the relational, the ecological aspects of
social life have all suffered. I am reminded here of, I believe, John
Donne’s poem lamenting the loss of a participation in life owing to the
cultural cleansing owing to something like “Newton’s sleep” as the advance
of science purged the local from the universal. As Francis Bacon hoped,
all the various idols of the mind and of the market have been pushed away
so that facts could stand on their own. Reality as unique frame was
cleansed of all the messy chains of connection.
The last paragraph reveals a corollary of the conjecture of symbiotic
reality which is that cultures throughout history have adopted simplifying
world views to cope with the dizzying idiosyncracies of constantly
adapting knowledge webs. “Reality” in each of these times and places has
been a simplifying public arena where each individual has had to confine
her specific richness of adaptations. The story of knowledge is still
essentially the Biblical story of the Fall where the gift of knowledge
drove humans out of paradise. Retold here humans sacrificed the immersion
of hodge podge adaptations in a now of an “entrancing surround” for an
over-reaching panorama formed from a surfeit of remembered adaptations. A
lot of us have stumbled with confusion and doubt as we have tried to keep
up with the rapid construction of reality in the sense of having lost
touch with the tacit knowledge of our bodies or with out emotions. Yet,
the reliance of civilizations on tight-knit packages of reality–well
constructed, socially unified niches–gave many strong cultural survival
systems. In our time what has been called the “obsessional monotheism” of
the later Middle Age birthed the scientific miracle with the systematic
exploitation of our grand niche by excluding human investments in the
environment and with the pushing of symbiotic relationships heavily
towards the objects’ side.
“The medieval sense of God’s symbolic presence in his creation, and the
sense of a universe replete with transcendent meanings and hints, had to
recede if not to give way totally to the postulates of univocation and
homogeneity in the seventeenth century....
“All of them [seventeenth century philosophers and scientists] and most of
the others believed that the subjects of theology and science alike can be
absolutely de-metaphorized and de-symbolized.” Funkenstein, Amos. Theology
and the Scientific Imagination From the Middle Ages to the Seventeenth
Century. Princeton University Press. 1986. p. 116.
This turn away from the huge symbiotic traffic enlacing humans and
non-humans has obscured knowledge’s naturalist roots–its origins as
behavior and as adaptations. And, it has rendered those of us living in
that part of modern culture bathed in cognitive purity oddly out of place
in our bodies and our emotional connections to others or “in our heads.”
Now, it is time to reclaim the wealth of connections enlacing the objects
of the world if we are to be able to understand the milieu in which our
consciousness works. On this level my suggestion to you is to simply note,
as did John Dewey and the Pragmatists (Terry, I hesitate to say that
Peirce should be included here), that reality includes not only material
objects but also a tremendous panoply of opinions, perceptions, patterns,
habits, motivations, dependencies, memories, traditions and so forth.
Rightness or wrongness are irrelevant in the context of existence and
effects. No one speaks of adaptations as “wrong.” If anything, “rightness”
is an invitation to a better adaptation. This web of adaptations simply
is, and its existence has effects. Being known has effects. This should be
obvious long before quantum theory proved it. One’s favorite vacation
getaway destination is this year’s tourist mecca and next year’s ripoff.
Many disparate, simple categories such as social status, culture, spin
doctoring, sociability, reputation, ideology or beliefs could better be
understood as aspects or effects of symbiotic relationships or at least
could be translated into one medium. The following make a suggestive list.
Attachments or beliefs are strongly held symbioses while truth has
attained the status of a very successful fit. Many attachments together or
love, passion and emotionality reveal deep or flowing connections in the
web of relationships. Culture, ideology or myth show pockets or clusters
of preferred symbioses. Identity is a pattern of cooperation while status
and authority give a sense of the strength of someone’s pattern of
cooperation. Sign, word or association is a symbiosis between two other
symbioses, usually a part for a whole such as a gesture to mimic digging;
it is the same interdependent relationship as the stick for digging
tubers. Translating, double speak and spin doctoring are the placing of
events in different symbiotic clusters.
On the negative side, continued belief in an unequivocal objective reality
is generating more problems today than solutions which is clear to any
modern Rip Van Winkle who drowsily awakes from an education to turn on a
television. With new media, huge informational transfer capabilities,
dispersed and widespread research, travel and the dispersion of control of
graphics the effects pulling “facts” into new symbiotic clusters are
growing. Naively or manipulatively claiming the truth authority of facts
is more often only an addition to the cacophony of new clusters of
beliefs. As hybridized collections of ideologies, facts, power and media
continue to grow into a hypertext-type ecology, civil society’s ability to
have discourse will continue to decay under the old rules of an
unequivocal, materialist-grounded reality. It’s a mad garden of
information with balkanized discourses, quickly discarded facts, fiefdoms
of expertise and power-disguised-as-truth political charades out there.
“General knowledge, I argue, is a dubious ideal even for specialists
inside their own fields. As subject matters grow in complexity, their
literatures grow unmanageable; too big and too interdependent with further
literatures. Organizational complexity precludes breadth of vision.
Complex fields aren’t single conversations to which one can rationally
acquiesce; their innards aren’t fully transparent. Competence comes with
focus. It waxes in microcosm and wanes in macrocosm. It multiplies
specialties and narrows their focus. And general knowledge is doubly
dubious seen as a field-spanning wisdom. It ignores the division of labor
needed for decision-making in a complex society. There are too many
knowledge claims in the world. No rational person would try to evaluate
each one comprehensively. Public problems cross many field boundaries, but
individual expertise can cross only a few, and so complex decision-making
is surrounded by a penumbra of unintelligible communication.” Willard,
Charles Arthur. Liberalism and the Problem of Knowledge: A New Rhetoric
for Modern Democracy. University of Chicago Press. 1996. p. 19.
The current debate in epistemology features a strong wave of
constructivism showing how minds irreducibly enlist perceptual evidence to
think how they want in distinction to objectivism which holds that we must
fight our innate fantastical proclivities to observe pure evidence. In the
current climate this insight only weakens knowledge claims as relativists
joust ever more haphazardly with dogmatists. It is fairly clear that our
minds are both/and–both constructive and objective. The framework of
symbiotic reality clearly acknowledges the constructive-objective dual
aspect and gives a way to begin rebuilding our personal and intellectual
knowledge commons. Like other emergences that are wholes from one angle
and parts from another, reality is constructivist from above and
objectivist from below. But never is there a pure separation of these
poles. Another way to put it is that the old adage of “the map is not the
territory” (allegedly from the General Semantics of Alfred Korzybski) is
illogical and outdated. We have nothing but maps; pure “territory” will
never be seen. The statement only makes sense if one person says that her
map is better than another’s. The naivete of the existence of a
“territory” beyond our interactiveness is well put here in ridiculing how
truth is presumed to be non-social:
"The widespread assumption is that truth is determined by reality; a
statement is true because it meets the criteria of truth, not because of
any other reason. If truth is socially determined, then it cannot be
determined by truth itself. This is like saying that one sees things
accurately only if one sees without eyeballs, as if knowing must take
place without any human apparatus for knowing."
...
"If a brain flickers and brightens with statements which are true, this
happens only because that brain is pulsing in connection with the past and
anticipated future of a social network. Truth arises in social networks;
it could not possibly arise anywhere else." Collins, Randall. The
Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change. The
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 1998. p. 877.
There is no choice but to learn to live and think within our knowledge
ecology. And this brings us back to Esalen and to cultural currents like
the Human Potential Movement. One easy characterization of these trends is
a movement away from being lost in intellect, “in the head.” Individuals
are turning to the body, to the emotions and to Eastern practices to
attempt an experiential release from overload. People are recognizing the
Buddhist concept of attachments within their every thought. Groups are
relearning relationships based on feelings, adaptable roles and identity
fluidity. Beliefs and language are examined from how they serve
relationships or do not. The body, its relaxation and its expression are
used to shape living rather than abstract beliefs. Therapy is largely the
experience of closeting off “outside reality” temporarily in order to
experience one’s own emotional sense. Reframed, one could make the claim
that the knowledge symbiosis is out of balance to the objective side. All
this is happening in a proliferation of ad hoc experiential therapies
without any intellectual umbrella. In fact there is probably an aversion
and a distrust of intellectual umbrellas. Sadly, the reaction is against
all external mental life. This is no doubt reflected in the chasm between
the community of Esalen and our Conference dialogue. What the symbiotic
reality conjecture offers practically is that it switches our frames from
action on reality (“Be sure and get it right.”) to movement within one’s
own actual field while paying attention to agreements. It’s the dream of
meeting in embedded bodies while taking excursions in heavenly ideas; the
Socrates-inspired dream of omniscience is finally untenable. As Aristotle
cautioned long ago about thought independent of body:
"A further problem presented by the affections of soul is this: are they
all affections of the complex of body and soul, or is there any one among
them peculiar to the soul by itself? To determine this is indispensable
but difficult. If we consider the majority of them, there seems to be no
case in which the soul can act or be acted upon without involving the
body, e.g., anger, courage, appetite, and sensation generally. Thinking
seems the most probable exception; but if this too proves to be a form of
imagination or to be impossible without imagination, it too requires a
body as a condition of its existence." Aristotle. Psychology. c. 350 B.C.,
translated by J.A. Smith, from Book I, The Pocket Aristotle. Washington
Square Press. 1958. pp. 50, 52.
Each of us comes to the Conference with cognitive autonomy in a tradition
in which there is only determinism. The study of consciousness can only
flip chaotically between the first person and the third person point of
view. Without a concept like symbiotic reality either the first person
(autonomy) or the third person (determinism) view is consistent only
within its respective attractor basin. We at Esalen and the Human
Potential movement explore healthy living in a first person way while we
at the Conference speak from the observational, third person side of the
hall. The conjecture of symbiotic reality cuts this chasm between first
and third person views by stating that all of the following are true: 1)
all knowing is a first person adaptation 2) best adaptive fits to external
conditions are possible, i.e. one can speak hypothetically in the third
person and 3) multiple agreement of first person adaptations are evidence
that the best fit hypothetical third person view has been approximately
found.
This brings me to my own motivation for trying to come to terms with
knowledge and reality. Simply put, I experience an ongoing disjunction
between the emotional ecology of engaging with others and the removed
purity of the house of intellect. My coming-of-age values were inspired
from Africa where dancing with emotions sculpted all activities. I am
loathe to give up either intellect or bringing intelligent therapeutic
values into society–which should better be called by one of the old names,
rhetoric, soul or love. To give up intellect and choose only the soul of
emotional health is to support a lazy, careless, anything-goes relativism.
To give up expanding into soul and rhetoric is to become a dispirited
“expert” whining into increasing irrelevance.
A concept of reality infused with interests offers to me the prospect of
cutting this bind opposing embodied living and critical thinking. An
appreciation of the external effects of interdependence with the world is
a direction to pursue which cuts the current mad proliferation into
cultural confusion while upholding a well-etched objective reality. To
make the simple statement to others that I believe that we co-create our
worlds in adaptable arrangements with others is to neither claim authority
nor irresponsible construction but to own the specific attachments with
which I can enter into dialogue. It invites accountability as well as
learning from our bodies, from our intuitive hunches and prejudices. And
this, Terry, is what brings life–speaking from within our convictions and
our experience. It is said that Native Americans only have the
epistemological categories of different kinds of experience such as
personal or hearsay. Abstractness is a powerful but dangerous god.
Dualism is another (dangerous god). In painting a picture for your
imagination of reality as an inseparable bio-physical symbiosis it would
be helpful to show how this framework goes far enough to take our concepts
into an intellectual attractor basin that escapes the continually
problematic attractor basin of dualism. My claim is that if consciousness
frames our search towards a post-Darwinian synthesis, then this search is
still couched in dualism. The separation of knower from known, the heroic
agency of humans on the grand plain of a well defined environment, the use
of the concepts of representation and language as substitutions for
something separate, a biology still framed in individuals such as
organisms and species placed discretely in environments with an immature
ecology, a bias to figure over ground–these are all parts of a dualistic
mindset, an intellectual ecology of humans as superior beings with our
privileged object and natural allies within a relatively passive sphere of
nature.
This dualistic intellectual attractor is a roadblock to a new synthesis.
Separateness and irreconcilability remain the order of the day. The
framework of symbiotic reality moves with the zeitgeist of interactive
processes and coevolution to jump ahead and explore whether reality itself
is an interactive process. Throwing away the separation of knower and
known with the gratuitous assumption that the space between the two is a
philosophical viewer’s paradise, symbiotic reality claims that myriad
object behaviors by organisms have woven a manifold of relevance in which
both space and objects are continually recruited. Consciousness is the
experience of being present in our woven portion of the manifold of
relationships. There is no imaginary and separate “self” here, no self
that is contradictorily ubiquitous in its knowing and nowhere in its
location as in its dualistic inheritance. Instead we can speak of a self
that is finitely distributed and uniquely composed with the specific
relationships, cares, memories, predilections for each one of us at some
specific time. This is the kind of self that is moving into what William
Thompson describes as the era of “planetization” with its hypertext
culture and its “emergent ecology of selves.” (Coming into Being:
Artifacts and Texts in the Evolution of Consciousness. St. Martin’s.
1998.) It is also the kind of self that is prepared to choose direct
experience in going back and forth from the subjective to the objective:
“In this view the subjective and objective poles of the continuum are
vacuous. There is no way to justify the assertion that anything posited is
purely objective or purely subjective. The world of human experience
consists of a fusion of both elements, or better said, a primordial
nonduality of those elements. Similarly, the ‘fact that a truth is toward
the ‘conventional’ end of the convention-fact continuum does not mean that
it is absolutely conventional–a truth by stipulation, free of every
element of fact.’ This assertion by no means implies that such dualistic
notions as subject and object are useless. On the contrary, they point out
a practical distinction that is of great importance; but this distinction
is only functional, not ontological as understood by the traditional
dualism of scientific materialism.” B. Alan Wallace. The Taboo of
Subjectivity: Toward a New Science of Consciousness. Oxford University
Press. 2000. p. 64. [subquote is Hilary Putnam, Representation and
Reality. MIT Press. 1988. p. 113]
My contentions are that reality as a biological-physical symbiosis or as a
subject-object symbiosis is a monistic ontology and that we as bodies and
as subjects are built into these webs of relevance that we have spun.
My imaginative challenge to you to entertain the notion of reality as
itself a biological creation might seem extreme. Surely you might think,
it is easier to go along either accepting a whiff of subjective
“corruption” in our knowing or continue to try to minimize it. It is worth
reminding you (even if dangerously grandiosely) that analogously space
itself was originally considered by physics to be absolutely given as a
frame until it was proved to be a relative phenomenon dependent on the
distribution of mass-energy. Like the curvature of space the web-framed
partnerships that frame the society of real categories cannot always be
idealized away as givens independent of ourselves. Physics had to realize
that space was a relativistic feature of mass-energy; cognition will
probably have to realize that reality is a feature of relationships.
Hopefully, my suggestive idea offers some imaginative food to you. In this
information-rich intellectual ecology of ours that is in search of a
robust new paradigm, new clusters of ideas or even sparks can come from
completely surprising sources. That reality is a phenomenon formed from
biology with its own environment is the bold way to understand the
continuity of cognitive evolution, to thoroughly leave dualism, to have a
non-simplistic cultural environment where “true reality” is incommensurate
with our actual relational richness and to end the absurdly non-ending
constructivist-objectivist debate. It’s both.
In framing this argument to you fellow participants at the Evolution and
Consciousness Conference where the focus is on the symbiotic mechanism
between us and reality, I would like to end with a wider suggestion to
those at Esalen and in the wider Human Potential Movement. It is that,
regardless of how these largely scientific arguments about the nature of
reality and consciousness turn out, the focus on the meaning in our
environments and between us is a powerful source of understanding all
sorts of spiritual, emotional, cultural and even “paranormal” aspects. The
meaning layer formed as the total of everyone’s and every creature’s
meanings, needs, connections and so on is a large, unexamined arena that
is neither external objective reality nor internal psychological reality
and that is neither transcendent spirituality outside space-time nor some
odd quantum field effect. The meaning ecology, Bateson’s “ecology of
mind,” is huge, is all around us, is an all pervasive overlay on the
matter world and is the locus of most of our interpersonal world such as
expectations and projections. And this meaning ecology is not at all just
mental; the emotional and bodily relations are completely intermixed.
Coming to understand life in the meaning ecology offers a strong
alternative to Western conquest and Eastern retreat–I believe.
There has never been any separation in the world; we have only stormed the
heavenly vistas too strongly so that we forgot our humble, embedded ties
to our local ecologies. I now let go of this symbiotic, creative activity,
breathing and desirous to give this paper to enter into deeper
relationship with you.