And when “two coordinate dualites and upward and downward trends and essential in the nature of human experience” … how is that human -view different from technology?
And where does human- view come from?
And when a human -view what would Gregory Bateson say about that human-view?
And would Bateson have a human-view without an environment?
And what environment do biotic human views share with abiotic non human systems?
And do abiotic non human systems have a view?
And from where does an abiotic non human view come from?
And can coordination between abiotic and biotic systems happen?
And if that coordination can happen how do we know that can happen?
Thanks for this inquiry. There is much going on and I am doing my best to be transparent ( late Middle English: from Old French, from medieval Latin transparent- ‘shining through,’ from Latin transparere, from trans- ‘through’ + parere ‘appear.’) What follows is a rough attempt to model a shared reality with some reflections upon how difficult an undertaking this is becoming.
As biotic systems, we pay attention to a body-theme moving and can share a self-reflexive movement, can self-refer, can imagine being touched, turning feelings into color or sound and can coordinate with other sensory experiences generated with other sensoriums, both human and other than human species.We communicate with animals but we dont language with animals. We might talk to them but they dont talk back. They do communicate and can play and fight with us. We can share attention with animals.
Boitic systems share attention. I tell you a story, an anecdote, put a hand on your shoulder, use a soft voice, glance in a direction, point my finger at something in the distance, point to something near by, speak about love, justice, the quality of mercy, show you a sketch from my notebook, whistle a tune, wink, laugh,smile, cry, fart, frown, dance a jig, avoid a puddle, etc… all of this communicating and meta-communicating happens and is synchronized through shared attention, and a shared sense of a field of possibilities.
Can the technology ( an abiotic system) disrupt the human ( biotic)human communication process, with it’s delicate attentional and meta-attentional capacity?
Yes it can. It happens constantly. Relationships between persons are disturbed constantly by the improper use of of techno systems by persons. I would hazard the guess, based upon my experience, that the abiotic nature of tech systems makes it an unlikely partner in any advance in human cognition. Human cognition relies totally on the rhythms, pulses, throbs, colors, intensities, thresholds, momentums, affects of the somatic and without such interplay cognition can make no sense of rational arguments. All rationality rides upon the affective interplay of the subject with the inter subjective and with the special case of the objective ( every observation is made by an observer). An abiotic system will never be able to kiss and slap or roll over and play dead. Nor will an abiotic system miss you when you are gone.
Can biotic systems use the technology to convey messages and meta-messages that reflect our complex qualitative, attentional natures?
Maybe. So far there is plenty of evidence ( Jordan Brown’s documentary) that this is not happening.
Is this the machines fault? Of course not.
What needs to happen to make something else happen?
My participation here is predicated on the vague hope that we can use the technology in a way that thus far has been hindered by inappropriate and unethical uses of the technology by some humans who are in an state of arrested development. The post rational is not yet an option for them but they have the use of a technology that can amplify their arrested development on a scale never seen before in recorded human history.
Writing and drawing and talking about our writing and our drawing has a direct influence on our sensoriams and can deepen rapport ( through our shared attention) rather than become disruptive by mental deficient chatter. For this rapport to become an ongoing reality we must come up with much better metaphors and narratives without the domination of binary logics ( war, battle, top- down, us-them, etc. ) Cosmo-ethics ( wisdom)will not emerge out of an algorithm. It may emerge out of a four valued logic, as has been worked out in Eastern logical systems. We are perhaps at the beginning of what Gebser would call a mutation. Whether this is a mutation of consciousness or of attention is a big question. We need better coordination perhaps of definitions. Way beyond my current vocabulary!
Some of us are able to delve more deeply into inner spaces and find expressions that then can become externalize in language, code. When we share our maps of actual imaginal and non material territories, we using a code. Machines are not going to help us do this kind of comparative and highly relational pattering that happens as we share attention in real time. Qualities are analogical. Machines can transmit our analogical messages and meta-messages 24/7 but they should not be confused with flesh and blood that makes them or think that machines can replace the dance of biotic living arrangements of great complexity. The computers are good with computing. They work with the past. They are useless with the future. And they do not think.
The following clean questions are for qualitative research purposes. I certainly dont expect, Ed, or anyone to answer them but to register the effects of the questions upon the sensorium. I am listening to, and asking open ended questions about Ed’s language.
And when a center what kind of center when “re-imagining a center?”
And whereabouts is that center?
And does that center have a size or a shape?
And when that center with that size or shape or color is there anything else about periphery?
And what does that center with that periphery want to have happen?
And is there a relationship between all of this and your drawing? ( from the archive?)