bateson, g. centenial thinkings

11/22/2014 GREGORYBATESON:THECENTENNIAL|Edge.org

http://edge.org/conversation/gregorybatesonthecentennial 1/20

Search

Toarriveat the edgeof theworld's knowledge, seekout themost complexandsophisticatedminds,put them ina room together,andhave themaskeachother thequestions theyareasking themselves.

GREGORYBATESON:THECENTENNIALAboutBatesonby JohnBrockman [11.19.04]Topic:CULTURE

Introduction

November20,2004 In1974, inhonorofmy friendGregoryBateson's70thbirthday, I askedhim ifhewouldgivehisblessing toabook Iwasplanningabouthiswork.Heagreed, and the resultwasAboutBateson, avolumeoforiginal essaysabouthisworkand ideasby interesting thinkersinvarious fieldsbracketedbymy IntroductionandhisAfterword,bothofwhich followbelow.

GregoryBatesonwasoneof themost importantand leastunderstoodthinkersof the twentieth century.Batesonoriginated thedoublebindtheoryof schizophrenia,was the first toapply cybernetic theory to thesocial sciences, andmade importantbiologicaldiscoveriesabout suchnonhumanspeciesas thedolphin.Hisbook,StepsToAnEcologyofMind,published in1972, attractedwidespreadattention.Wemet inApril,1973

at theAUMConference ("AmericanUniversityofMasters")atEsalen inBigSur, wherewe immediatelybecame friends, andwherehe convincedme tobecomeanagent.Withinamonth Ihad foundedBrockman,Inc. andsoldhisbookTheEvolutionary Idea (ultimatelypublishedunder the titleMind InNature).

WhileGregorywasverymuchalive,withhisblessingandmentoring, I conceivedof, andedited, abookentitledAboutBateson, abookwhich featuredsevensubstantial essaysbyeminent thinkers in theirownrightcontaining theirown interpretationsof and reactions toBateson'swork.

In the 250page volume,Mary Catherine Bateson discussed her father's treatment of the concept ofwisdom and lovethe "lucid"

computations of the heart"; RayBirswhistell analyzedBateson's uniquemethodology; David Lipset provided a short biography of

the thinker'swary years; RolloMay discussedBateson's humanism;MargaretMead explored his effect on crosscultural analysis

(Groegory her 2nd husband); Edwin Schlossberg contributed a piece on consciousness, social change, and cybernetics. As editor,

Iwrote the introductory essay. The book concludedwith Gregory Bateson's own original 12pageAfterword, inwhich he

presented his latest thinking on his life'swork. Also includedwas a 2page CV and a Bibliography page of his book.

At that time,Batesoncontended thatasa resultof advances in cyberneticsand fundamentalmathematics,manyotherareasof thoughthave shifted. InTheEvolutionary Idea, aproposednewbook,heplanned togather together thosenewadvances topresentanalternative to thencurrentorthodox theoriesof



evolution.Thisalternativeviewwas to stress the roleof information, that is, ofmind, inall levelsofbiology fromgenetics toecologyand fromhumanculture to thepathologyof schizophrenia. Inplaceofnatural selectionoforganisms,Batesonconsidered the survivalofpatterns, ideas, and formsof interaction,

"Anydescriptiveproposition,"he said, "which remains true longerwilloutsurviveotherpropositionswhichdonot survive so long.This switch from the survivalof the creatures to the survivalof ideaswhichare immanent in the creatures (in theiranatomical formsand in their interrelationships)givesa totallynewslant toevolutionaryethicsandphilosophy.Adaptation,purpose,homology, somatic change, andmutationall takeonnewmeaningwith this shift in theory."

Batesonhadanendless repertoireof conceptsand ideas to talkabout.A typical conversationmightbeaboutmetaphorversus sacrament, schismogenesis,metaphysics, explanatoryprinciples,heuristicversusfundamental ideas, thevalueofdeduction, steadystate society,metapropositions,deuterolearning,cyberneticexplanation, ideaasdifference, logical categoriesof learning,mentaldeterminism,end linkage,andonandon.

Whilehis ideasdid takehold in some fields (schizophrenia, family therapy, amongothers), thenaturalaudience forhiswork, theevolutionarybiologists,had little interest inhim.Themainstream thinkers inthat fieldbelievedhis ideasweremuddled.This isoneof several reasonswhyheultimatelyabandoned theTheEvolutionary Idea,whichwas tohavebeen the firstmajor restatementof evolutionary theory inhalf acentury.Basedonhispreviousexperience,hewasworriedabout thedifficultyof gettingacrosshis ideas.The implicationsof the theoryarebasedonacceptanceof a radicalneworderof things, aworldviewtotallyalien toour traditionalWesternwayof thinking.

Aspectsof thisworldviewderived fromhisassociation in the1940swithWarrenMcCulloch, JohnvonNeumann,ClaudeShannon, andNorbertWieneret al,whowereallpresentat the creationof cybernetictheory. Itwas the radical epistemologybehind these ideas seemed to informa lotof this thinking. "Thecybernetic idea is themost important idea since JesusChrist.,"heonce toldme.

And this iswhereweconnected, asmybook,ByTheLate JohnBrockman,whichwasverymuchon theradar screenat that time,wasnothing ifnota radical epistemological statementon language, thought, andreality. Ihadwritten the trilogy thatultimately comprised thebookwithno reference toBatesonas Ihadnot readhimandhadbarelyheardofhimuntil Iwas invited to theAUMconference in1973 (my lateinvitationwas sentwhen theorganizers, JohnLillyandAlanWatts,both strongsupportersofmybook,foundout theirkeynote speaker,RichardFeynman,was ill, and theyneededa replacement.Onlywhen Iarrivedat the conferencedid I findoutwhat Iwaswalking into.)

"Evolutionistsareananxious, conservative, andspitefulbunch,"Batesonsaid. "In fact, theykill eachother."Batesonwas referring to the famousaffair involvinghis father,WilliamBateson, thepreeminentBritishscientistofhisdaywho,pickingupon theworkofMendel, coined theword "genetics"andbegan the field,andWilliamKammerer, theAustrianbiologist.Kammerer, aLamarckian, committed suicideover researchinvolving the inheritedcharacteristicsof themidwife toad. "Idon't think theywill like thisbookverymuch,"Batesonsaid, realizing thathewillbe straying far from the traditionaldebateofnatural selectionversus inheritedcharacteristics. "I shallnotwrite thebook. I am toooldand too sick to fight the fight".

Buthewasalwayswilling to travel, to interactwithall kindsofpeople inorder topresenthis ideas.Thiswould leadhim into strange surroundings,where theparticipantshadno ideaofwhat toexpectandwerenotprepared forhisdepthanderudition. "Whydoyoubother?" I ask in reference to thisparticularlymoribundgathering. It is clear that fewherehaveany inklingofwhathe is saying. "Onesimplykeepsgoing,"he saysgently, "and leaves thenamebehind." Itwasn't easymakinga livingasanepistemologist,henoted.

Yet,hedid receive recognition.CharlesRoycroft,Britishpsychoanalyst,wasquoted in theSeventyFifth



Anniversary Issueof theTimesLiterarySupplementas saying thatGregoryBatesonwas themostunderratedwriterof thepast seventyfiveyears.

Bateson isnoteasy.Theonlyway to "get"Bateson is to readhim.To spend timewithhim, inpersonorthroughhisessays,wasa rigorous intelligentexercise, an immense relief from the trivial forms thatcommandrespect in contemporary society

JB

GREGORYBATESON:THECENTENNIAL

(JOHNBROCKMAN:) It isMarch1973 inBigSur.California.Adiversegroupof thinkersareassembled tospend tendays togetherexploring theworkofBritishmathematicianG. SpencerBrown.AlanWattsandJohnLilly, the coorganizers, arebilling theeventas "TheAUMConference." shorthand forTheAmericanUniversityofMasters.

Theyhavegathered together intellectuals,philosophers,psychologists, andscientists.Eachhasbeenaskedto lectureonhisownwork in termsof its relationship toBrown'snew ideas inmathematics.C. SpencerBrown lectures for twodaysonhisLawsofForm.AlanWatts talksofEastern religious thought. JohnLillydiscussesmapsof reality.KarlPribramexploresnewpossibilities for thinkingaboutneuroscience.RamDasspresentsa spiritualpath. StewartBrand lecturesonwhole systems.PsychologistsWill Schutz,ClaudioNaranjo, andCharlesTartare inattendance.HeinzvonFoersterholds forthoncyberneticmodeling.Myown topic is "Einstein,GertrudeStein,Wittgenstein, andFrankenstein."

Perhaps,of all the "Masters"present,GregoryBateson, at sixtyeight, is atonce thebestknownand theleastknown.Amonghisassembledpeers,his reputation is formidable.At theAUMConference, storiesofhisprofoundeffectonpostmodern thinkingabound.Yet fewoutside the relatively small circleof avantgarde thinkersknowabouthimorhiswork.

There isvalid reason.Bateson isnotveryaccessible.Hismajorbook, Steps toanEcologyofMind, is justbeingpublished. It is a collectionof essayshehaswrittenovera thirtyfiveyearperiod.

Batesonbegins lecturing in the conference room.Clearlyhe isheld inawebyhis colleagues.Nothing inhisimposingpresencedetracts fromhis reputation.He is a largemanwithadeep richvoice imbuedwithanunmistakableEnglishaccent.There is anairof authenticityabouthim.

NoraBateson,GregoryBateson, JohnBrockmanatAumConference,1973

His talk is filledwithbrilliant insightsandvasteruditionashe takesusona tourof subjects that includezoology,psychiatry, anthropology, aesthetics, linguistics, evolution, cybernetics, andepistemology'. "Thepoint,"he says, "is that thewaysofnineteenthcentury thinkingarebecoming rapidlybankrupt, andnewwaysaregrowingoutof cybernetics, systems theory, ecology,meditation,psychoanalysis, andpsychedelicexperience."



Ashe talks I look throughapaperhehas left forusasweentered the room. "Form,Substance, andDifference" is thenineteenthKorzybskiLecture,deliveredbyBateson in1970. In ithepointsout thathe's touchedonnumerousfieldsbut is anexpert innone.He'snotaphilosopher,norisanthropologyexactlyhisbusiness.Thisdoesn'thelpmemuch.All I knowabouthim is thathehasananthropologicalbackground,wasoncemarried toMargaretMead, andwasaprimemoverbehind the importantMacyConferences inCybernetics in the1940s.

His theme in theKorzybskiLecturewas the sameashistheme today: "theareaof impactbetweenveryabstractand formalphilosophic thoughton theonehandand thenaturalhistoryofmanandother creatureson theother."His ideasare clearlyof anepistemologicalnature.Heasksus todoawaywithourNewtonian language,ourCartesian

coordinates, to see theworld in termsof themindweall share.Batesonpresentsanewapproachbasedona cyberneticepistemology: "The individualmind is immanentbutnotonly in thebody. It is immanentalso in thepathwaysandmessagesoutside thebody;and there is a largermindofwhich the individualmind isonlya subsystem.This largermind is comparable toGodand isperhapswhat somepeoplemeanby 'God,'but it is still immanent in the total interconnectedsocial systemandplanetaryecology."

~

"Very fewpeoplehaveany ideaofwhat I am talkingabout,"Batesonsaysashepicksat apieceof fish inaMalibu restaurant.Wearehavingdinneranddiscussinghisplans foranewbookconcerningevolutionarytheory. It is June1973. (At theAUMConference inMarch, Ihadbeenpressed into serviceasa literaryagent.)

Batesondefies simple labeling, easyexplanation.Peoplehaveproblemswithhiswork.He talksofbeinganexplorerwhocannotknowwhathe is exploringuntil ithasbeenexplored.His introduction toSteps states:"I found that inmyworkwithprimitivepeoples, schizophrenia,biological symmetry, and inmydiscontentwith the conventional theoriesof evolutionand learning, Ihad identifiedawidely scatteredsetofbenchmarksaspointsof reference fromwhichanewscientific territory couldbedefined.Thesebenchmarks Ihavecalled 'Steps' in the titleof thebook."

But this iswhereBatesongetsdifficult. Justwhat is thisnewscientific territory'?Mostpeople look for thenextplace, thenextpieceofknowledge. Instead,Batesonpresentsanepistemology so radical thatasoneclimbs fromstep to step, thegroundsupporting the ladderabruptlyvanishes.Noteasy, this cyberneticexplanationofGregoryBateson.Not comfortable.Not supportive.Not loving.Thecenterdissolves, andmanisdead;and inhisplacewehave themetaphysical "I". Sodismissyourself; let go:There'snothing lost.

~

Bateson's readersoften find itdifficult tograsp thathiswayof thinking isdifferent from theirs.Hisstudentsbelieve thathe ishiding something from them, that there'sa secretbehindhis thinking thathewon't share.There's something to this.Bateson isnot clearlyunderstoodbecausehiswork isnotanexplanation,buta commission,AsWittgensteinnoted, "a commission tellsuswhatwemustdo." InBateson's case,whatwemustdo is reprogramourselves, trainour intelligenceand imagination toworkaccording to radical configurations.HeinzVonFoersterpointsout that "theblessedcurseof ametalanguage is that itwears the clothof a firstorder language, an 'object language.'Thus, anypropositioncarrieswith it the tantalizingambiguity:Was itmade inmetaor inobject language?"Nobody,knowsand



youcan't findout.All attempts to speakaboutametalanguage, that is, to speak inmetametalanguage,aredoomed to fail.AsWittgensteinobserved: "Remain silent!"ButBatesoncannot remain silent.Hischildlike curiosity,his intellectualvigorandstrengthcompelhim to continueexploringnewground.

Yethe ishesitantaboutwritinghisnewbook.TheEvolutionary Ideawillbe the firstmajor restatementofevolutionary theory inhalf a century.Basedonhispreviousexperience,he isworriedabout thedifficultyofgettingacrosshis ideas.The implicationsof the theoryarebasedonacceptanceof a radicalneworderof things, aworldview totallyalien toour traditionalWesternwayof thinking.

"Evolutionistsareananxious, conservative, andspitefulbunch,"he says. "In fact, theykill eachother."Bateson is referring to the famousaffair involvinghis father,WilliamBateson, andWilliamKammerer, theAustrianbiologist.Kammerer, aLamarckian, committed suicideover research involving the inheritedcharacteristicsof themidwife toad. "Idon't think theywill like thisbookverymuch,"Batesonsays,realizing thathewillbe straying far from the traditionaldebateofnatural selectionversus inheritedcharacteristics.

Batesoncontends thatasa resultof advances in cyberneticsand fundamentalmathematics,manyotherareasof thoughthave shifted. InTheEvolutionary Idea,hewill gather together thesenewadvances topresentanalternative to currentorthodox theoriesof evolution.Thisalternativeviewwill stress the roleof information, that is, ofmind, inall levelsofbiology fromgenetics toecologyand fromhumanculture tothepathologyof schizophrenia. Inplaceofnatural selectionoforganisms,Batesonwill consider thesurvivalofpatterns, ideas, and formsof interaction,

"Anydescriptiveproposition,"he says, "which remains true longerwilloutsurviveotherpropositionswhichdonot survive so long.This switch from the survivalof the creatures to the survivalof ideaswhichare immanent in the creatures (in theiranatomical formsand in their interrelationships)givesa totallynewslant toevolutionaryethicsandphilosophy.Adaptation,purpose,homology, somatic change, andmutationall takeonnewmeaningwith this shift in theory."

~

It is themorningafterourdinnerdiscussionabout thenewbook.Bateson, about fortyotherpeople, and Iare together fora twodayseminar toexplore "EcologyofMind."Mostof thepeoplehavepaidonehundreddollars tohearBateson talk.Theauspicesarean institute forhumanisticdevelopment.Theaudienceappears tobe interested in selfhelpandpersonalawareness.This is the firstopportunity Ihavehad tohearhimspeakbeforeageneral audience.After theexcitement surroundinghisperformanceat theAUMConference, I ampreparingmyself foranothermemorableexperience.

Batesonslowlyguidesus throughhisendless repertoireof conceptsand ideas.He talksaboutmetaphorversus sacrament, schismogenesis,metaphysics, explanatoryprinciples,heuristicversus fundamental ideas,thevalueofdeduction, steadystate society,metapropositions,deuterolearning, cyberneticexplanation, ideaasdifference, logical categoriesof learning,mentaldeterminism,end linkage, andonandon.

Aftera fewhours, theattentionof thegroupbegins towander.Manyappear tobebored.By theendof thefirstday, at leastonethirdof thepeoplehave left.Bateson isunperturbed.Manypeople seekhimout forthewrong reasons: forentertainment; foranswers; asaguru.Heexplains thathis receptionsvary fromtheextremeboredomof thisday to theexcitementof theMacyConferencesof the1940s. Still, he isalwayswilling to travel, to interactwithall kindsofpeople inorder topresenthis ideas. "Whydoyoubother?" I ask in reference to thisparticularlymoribundgathering. It is clear that fewherehaveanyinklingofwhathe is saying. "Onesimplykeepsgoing,"he saysgently, "and leaves thenamebehind."

~

Christmas time,1973. I amabout toapproachapublisher to sell rights toTheEvolutionary Idea. Ihad



phonedBateson requestingabiographical sketch.His letterarrives:

"JohnBrockmansuggests that Iwriteyouapersonal letter tellingyouwho I am. I encloseanoutlinecurriculumvitae,* towhich Iwill addas follows.

"My fatherwasWilliamBateson, F.R.S., geneticist, a fellowof St. John's College, and first director of the JohnInnesHorticultural Institute,whichwas and still is a large genetical research institute.

"Boyhoodwasmainly devoted to natural history: butterflies andmoths, beetles, dragonflies,marineinvertebrates, floweringplants, etc.

"Cambridgewasmainly biologyuntil I got a chance to go to theGalapagos Islands,where I realized that Idid not knowwhat to dowith field natural history. In those days, biology, both in field and lab,wasmainlytaxonomy, and I knew thatwasnotwhat Iwanted to do. So, on return to Cambridge, I tookanthropologyunderA. C.Haddon,who sentmeout to the SepikRiver,NewGuinea, to studyhistorical culture contactbetween the Sepik and the FlyRiver peoples. Thiswas the equivalent in anthropology of taxonomy in biology.The resultwas two field expeditions, groping very unhappily forwhat one could do to establish some theoryin anthropology. The final productwasNaven, a bookwhichwas then very difficult for people to readbut isgradually coming into almost orthodoxy. LeviStrauss hasworked on someof the problems of culturalstructurewhich I raised then, and I thinkhe's donea gooddeal tomakemy stuff readable and 'safe' foranthropologists.

"After that, fieldwork in theDutch Indies, inBali,withmywifeMargaretMead. Then I did an elaboratephotographic study of personal relations among theBalinese, especially interchangebetweenparents andchildren. Thiswas publishedwith about 700photographs asBalineseCharacter.

"Notmuchofmyperiod of fellowship at St. John's Collegewas spent in Cambridge. Iwasmostly inNewGuineaandBali. But of course itwas an important piece ofmy life, and therewere important peopleL. S. B.Leakey,Harold Jeffries, ClaudeGuillebaud,ReginaldHall, TeulonPorter, Sir FrederickBartlett, and others.

"In those days Iwas on the sidelines of the anthropologically famous battles betweenRadcliffeBrownandMalinowski. I'd taught underRadcliffeBrown in Sydneyand learneda great deal fromhim, someofwhichgotbuilt intoNaven (the hookupwith Frenchanthropology camedown tome fromDurkheimandMauss throughRadcliffeBrown,whowas a great admirer of them). I enjoyedMalinowski verymuch, lovedhim, but thoughthima lousy' anthropological theorist.Most ofmy colleagues (other thanhis students) hatedhis guts butweredreadfully afraid that hewas a great theorist.

"InWorldWar II, I came runningback toEngland in September1939whileMargaretwas havinga baby* inNewYork. Iwas promptly advised to return toAmerica to helpAmerica joinEngland. The Japanese finally didthat for us. And Iwent through thewarwith theAmericanOffice of Strategic Services as a psychologicalplanner. I don't think I helped thewarmuch, butwedid run four issues of anundergroundnewspaper behindthe Japanese lines inBurma.

(*MaryCatherineBateson)

'Oh yes, before Iwent overseas I hada jobanalyzingGermanpropaganda films in theMuseumofModernArt,NewYorkCity, and just before going overseas, I hadmetWarrenMcCullochandBigelow,whowere allexcitedabout 'feedback' in electronicmachinery. Sowhile Iwas overseas, andmostly boredand frustrated, Ioccasionally comfortedmyself by thinkingabout the properties of closed selfcorrective circuits.Onarrivalback inNewYork Iwent straight to theMacyFoundation to ask for a conference on these things. FremontSmith said, 'McCullochwashere aweekagowith the same request, andhe's going to be the chairman.'Membership in those conferences,withNorbertWiener, JohnVonNeumann,McCulloch, and the rest,was oneof the great events inmy life.Wiener coined theword 'cybernetics' forwhat itwaswewere discussing.

"Iwas gently dropped fromHarvardbecause a rumorgot around, 'Bateson says anthropologists ought to bepsychoanalyzed.' I did not say this, and I don't think I evenbelieved it, but if they thought thiswas a goodreason for droppingme, then Iwas probably lucky to be dropped. Iwas immediately pickedupby JurgenRuesch for his researchproject in the LangleyPorter Clinic, a psychiatric institution. Thiswas the beginningof fourteen years of associationwith psychiatry,where I didmybest, again, to bring formal theory into averyunformedAugean stable. The resultwas the socalled double bindhypothesis,whichprovideda



framework for the formal description of schizophrenic symptomsand the experience of the schizophrenic inhis family. I think this held upand still holds upprettywell in the face of a lot ofmisunderstandingandalittle criticism. I am still pretty sure that something like the double bind story is an essential part of thephenomenon called 'schizophrenia.' InEnglandmy chief admirer in this field isRonnie Laing. (By theway,youwill probably run into rumors thatRonnie got toomanyof his ideas fromme. I don't think this is reallytrue.He certainly got some, and it is after all the purpose of scientific publication to spread ideas around,and I don't thinkhe could at all be accused of plagiarism. I, too, have benefited by readinghis stuff.)

"Enoughmental hospitals and schizophrenic families is after awhile enough, so Iwent off in 1963 to studydolphins, first under JohnLilly, and then inHawaiiwith theOceanic Institute. A fascinatingbut terriblydifficult animal to study.But they forcedme to straighten outmy contributions to learning theory andwhat'swrongwithB. F. Skinner. But alas, the Institutewent broke.

"Sohere I am, corrupting theminds of the youth in theUniversity of California at SantaCruz. Andalso theminds of the faculty. I have a class for seventy students called 'TheEcology ofMind.' For this I have sixsection leaders,whoare fully grownupprofessors, amolecular biologist, an astronomer fromLickObservatory, a tidepool zoologist, a historian, a literary bloke, anda selfunfrocked Jesuit.What Imean isthatmy stuff is relevant and sometimes difficult for all sorts of people.On thewhole, the students getmoreout of it than the grownups.'

~

FiftyoddpagesofTheEvolutionary Ideahavearrived. It isApril1974.Thematerial isdenseanddifficult. Ihave respondedwith faintpraiseandwellintentionedcriticism,urgingBateson toopen itup,bemorechatty, try to include thehuman, theanecdotal, andso forth. Ihaveasked if the formatof ametaloguebetweena fatherandayoungdaughter isnecessary.Whycan't the ideasbepresented inamoretraditional form?Bateson's letter isbiting:

"I havenowyour letter ofApril 16th, your longdistance telephone call of the day before yesterday, and somepieces of telephone talk inNewYork. All these tend in the direction of 'please bemoreprolix.' I tossed thefirst two chapters in thewastepaper basket at four o'clock thismorningand shall probably do so againtomorrow. I think the real difficulty is that some readers (et tu, Brute?) just donot believe that ImeanwhatI say. I suspect they think it is all a sort of entertainment andhope to comeout at the end feeling refreshed.Believeme, John, that is not at allwhat it is about. Anybodywho really reads andnoticeswhat is said andafter several readings be gins to understand it,will comeout in despair andnearer to tears than laughter.

"In any ease,my colleagueswriting in the same field,whether terse or prolix, are incredibly difficult. Theideaswhichwedealwith are difficult, painful, and foreign ideas. If youdoubt this, I suggest a dose ofImmanuelKant as an example of the prolix, or a dose ofWittgenstein's Tractatus as an example of the terse.Honestly, I believeKant is themore difficult.

"There are goodand serious reasonswhy oneparty in themetalogues has to be in the period of sexuallatency. This is not just in order to be cute; it is in order to be acute.

"For the rest, Iwill try not to let your remarks disturbme. I am, alas, too liable to let that sort of thingenrageme.

"There is a cute story goingaroundaboutPicasso. A gentwantedhim to paint things in amorerepresentationalmanner, 'like this photographofmywife. It is really like her.' Picasso lookedat it and said,'She is small, isn't she?And fiat.'"

~

Newtechnologyequalsnewperception.TheEnglishbiologist J. Z,Youngpointsout thatmancreates toolsand thenmoldshimself in their image.Reality ismanmade.An invention, ametaphor.



"Theheart is apump" is a statementweall acceptasa truism. "Thebrain is a computer" is a statementthatusuallybrings forth criesofhumanistichorror.Weseem to forget that the first statement is acreatureofNewtonianmathematics.Newtoncreatedamechanisticmethodology.We inventedourselves intermsof itsdescriptive language.

Wedon't say theheart is likeapump.Theheart is apump.Themetaphor isoperational.

Althoughmanyofusarenot ready for it,withina fewyearswewill all recognize that thebrain is acomputer.Thiswillbea resultof the cybernetic ideasdevelopedby suchmenasGregoryBateson,NorbertWiener,WarrenMcCulloch,CordonPask,RossAshby, JohnVonNeumann,HeinzVonFoerster, and JohnLilly, tonamea few.New technologyequalsnewperception.Thewordsof theworldare the lifeof theworld.Nature isnot created.Nature is said.

Weare justnowbeginning to recognize theneworder resulting from thedevelopmentof the scienceofcybernetics.Batesonbelieves that the cyberneticexplanation is themost important fundamentalintellectual advanceof the last two thousandyears. It tears the fabricofourhabitual thinkingapart.Subjectandobject fuse.The individual selfdecreates. It is aworldofpattern,oforder,of resonances.

Bateson is special.He is theonly livingperson fullyequipped to constructabridgebetween theworldofnineteenthcentury scienceand the cyberneticworldof today.Hehas livedonboth sidesof thebridge.Ononeside, the solidworldembodiedbyhis father,WilliamBateson,on theother side, theundoneworldofGregoryBateson, aworldof language, communication, andpattern.

~

Bateson is sitting inmy living room inMay1974.Today ishis seventiethbirthday.Asweprepare forabigparty, I suggest thepossibilityoforganizingahook inhishonor. "Ihope that if therewere suchabookthat it focuson the ideasandwhat theyaredoing tous,"he says.

We talkandplan.Batesongiveshisblessing to theproject. Steps toAnEcologyofMind isbynomeansaneasyorpopularpresentationof the coreproblemshehasaddressedhimself to.Wedecide to inviteanumberofhis friendsandcolleagues to contributeoriginal essays,usingStepsasa springboard, somethingeither todisagreewithor to takeoff from.Batesonwritesa letter for the invitees. In the letterhesuggests:

"Possibleangleswhich theauthorsmight cover include: changedperceptionsof theSelf; changedconceptsof responsibility; changed feelingsabout time;money;authority; attitudes towardenvironment; sex;children; family; control and law; cityplanning;biologicalbases forhumanplanningandethics; theseekingofoptimalandhomeostaticgoals rather thanmaxima;populationcontrol; changes in thebalancebetween 'feelings' and 'intellect'; changes ineducationalmethods;newhorizons inpsychiatry; etc., etc.

"Thepossible field isverywide,but in sumwhat Iwould like to seewouldbea thoughtful forumon thesubjectofwhatyouall (and I, too)aredoing to thepremisesof civilization."

~

Eightpeople,myself included,will contribute to thebook.MaryCatherineBateson (anthropologist and thedaughterofBatesonandMargaretMead),RayL.Birdwhistell (expert inkinesicsandcommunication),DavidLipset (Bateson'sauthorizedbiographer),RolloMay (humanisticpsychologist),MargaretMead(anthropologist andBateson's firstwife),EdwinSchlossberg (physicist andenvironmentaldesigner), andC.H.Waddington (geneticist).Unfortunately,Waddingtondiesbeforehispiece is completed.

Other invitedpeopleare toobusywith theirownworkorhaveproblemswithBateson's ideas.Hisinsistenceonstrict, asopposed to loose, thinking ismostapparentwith regard tohisattitude towardhisclose friendsandcolleagues. It isDecember1974, and Ihave just receivedhis correspondencewitha



famouspsychologist andauthor (who isnot represented in thisbook).Thepsychologistplans towriteaboutenergy. "Everybody talksabout it andnobodyknowswhat itmeans,"he says.

Bateson's response typifies the rigorofhisprecise thinking.

~

"You say 'energy' andqualify thewordby saying that neither younor anybody knowswhat it is.

"But that (the qualifying comment) is not quite true, because, after all,we (scientists)madeup the conceptand therefore know (or should know)whatweput into it.

"What is on the other side of the fence, of course,wedonot know.Butwemade the concept to coverwhatwe thoughtwas 'out there' andgave the conceptwhatwe thoughtwere appropriate characteristics. Theselatterwe know, becauseweput themwhere they are, inside thatword 'energy.'

"I am strongly of the opinion that thesewellknown characteristics are not appropriate to the sort ofexplanatory principlewhichpsychologistswant tomake of the concept.

"1) 'Energy' is a quantity. It is indeed rather like 'mass,'which is another quantity.Or 'velocity.'None of theseis a 'substance' or a 'pattern.' Theyare quantities, not numbers.

"2) 'Energy' is a very tightly definedquantity, having the dimensionsML(2)/T(2) (i.e., (mass X lengthXlength) (timeX time), or,more familiarly,mass X velocity (2)).

"Now the rub is that no quantity can ever generate a pattern, and to assert that this can occur is preciselythe enteringwedge of the new supernaturalism, forwhichFreud,Marx, and Jungaremuch to blame. (They'could' have knownbetter.)

"Quantity, of course, canandoftendoes developand intensify latent difference but never creates thatdifference. Tensionmay find out theweakest link in the chain but it is never the explanation of how thatparticular link came to be theweakest (Indeed the characteristic called 'beingweakest' is not inherent in thatlink but precisely in the relationbetween that link and the others. 'It' could be 'protected' by filing one of theothers!).

"3)Thenext step in supernaturalismalter the invocation of 'energy' is the belief in Lamarckian inheritanceandESP.After that thenext step is the assertion thatman contains two real existingprinciples, viz., aBodyanda Soul. After that, any sort of tyrannyandoppression canbe rationalizedas 'good' for the victim."

"So there is a slot in our proposedbook for arguments in favor of 'energy' as an explanatory principle, butsucharguments in that contextwill necessarily be controversial. I urge you to treat 'energy' as acontroversial issue, not as a 'matterofcourse.'

"Personally I havenever beenable to see or feelwhy this very 'mechanical'metaphor ('energy') appeals toespecially humanistic psychologists.What are the arguments for thismetaphor rather than 'entropy' (which isstill a sort of quantity)?What characteristics of the original concept (energy or entropy) are to be carriedoverwhen the concept is usedmetaphorically to explain action or (?) anatomy?

"Are you familiarwith LarryKubie's paper,* longago, inwhichheneatly and (I think) completely explodedthewhole Freudian 'economics' of energy? Itwas that paper that earnedhimhis place at theMacyCybernetic conferences. But he never contributedanything there. I guess they slappedhiswrist for heresy.

(* "FallaciousUse ofQuantitative Concepts inDynamicPsychology," PsychoanalyticQuarterly 16 (1947): 50718.)

"Finally, believeme that the intensity of passionand care spent upon this letter is a function of bothmyesteem for youandmyhatred of the principleswhichhide behind theuse of 'energy' (and 'tension,' 'power,''force,' etc.) to explain behavior."



~

It is January1977.Thepublisherhas called.Thebook isoverdue.Thepieceshavebeenwritten,discussed,andedited.Theyprovideanexcellententry intoareasofBateson's thought.Thecontributorshavemeasuredhiswork in termsof its effect, in termsof information.

I callBateson inSantaCruz todiscuss the introduction.Beforewegetdown tobusiness,he tellsme thatGovernorBrownhas justnamedhim to theBoardofRegentsof theUniversityofCalifornia.Also,CharlesRoycroft,Britishpsychoanalyst, isquoted in theSeventyFifthAnniversary Issueof theTimesLiterarySupplementas saying thatGregoryBateson is themostunderratedwriterof thepast seventyfiveyears.

Iwould like to interviewBateson for the introduction,but thisproves logistically impossible.Thus Imusteditmy thoughts,notes, andour correspondence topresenthim to the reader.Thepresentpiece, I realize,ishardlya comprehensive introduction to themanandhiswork.But, asBatesonmight say, it is a "step."It is important that readers realize thatalthough thisbook is an introduction toGregoryBateson, theonlyway to "get"Bateson is to readhim.Studyhim.Editing thisbookhasbeen, forme,most important. I founditnecessary to forcemyself to sitquite still formany,manyhoursandstudy (not read)Steps toanEcologyofMind, a rich, exhilaratingexperience.Roycroft is correct.Bateson is themostunderratedwriterof the century.To spend timewithhim, inpersonor throughhisessays, is rigorous intelligentexercise, animmense relief from the trivial forms that commandrespect in contemporary society.

~

IaskBateson towriteanafterword to thebook. "Whatdoyouwantme towriteabout?"he responds. I ammost interested inhis ideasoncyberneticexplanationandepistemology.Whileponderinghisquestion, Iremembera conversationwith cultural anthropologistEdwardT.Hall,whopointedout tome that themost significant, themost critical inventionsofmanwerenot thoseever considered tobe inventions,butthose thatappeared tobe innateandnatural.To illustrate thepoint,he tolda storyof agroupof cavemenliving inprehistoric times.Oneday,while sittingaround the fire,oneof themensaid, "Guesswhat?We'retalking."Silence.Theothers lookedathimwith suspicion. "What's talking?"oneof themasked. "It'swhatwe'realldoing.Rightnow.We're talking!" "You're crazy," anothermanreplied. "Whoeverheardof suchathing?" "I'mnot crazy," the firstmansaid, "you're crazy.We're talking."And itbecameaquestionof"who's crazy?"Thegroupcouldnot seeorunderstandbecause "talking"was inventedby the firstman.Themomenthe said "We're talking"wasamomentofgreat significance in theprocessof evolution.

~

AmoderndaydescendantofHall's caveman isGregoryBateson.He isbusy inventing something, aninventionsoprofound thatonce fullypropounded, itwill seemalways tohavebeen "natural."The fullimpactofBateson's thinking is so radical that, yes, Ihavedoubts thathe fullybelieves inhisown ideas.This is theway ithas tobe.Hehasenterednoman's land.He is trying somethingnew. "We're talking."

AFTERWORDbyGregoryBateson

Dear John

Whenyou first suggested thisvolumeandundertook toput it together, I said, "Don't let itbeaFestschrift," andweagreed thatyouwouldaskyourauthors rather for someworkand thinkingof theirsthatmighthavedevelopedoutoforalongside somepartofmywork.Youwouldasknot forpraiseorcriticism,but for someoriginalmaterialof theirs. So letme thank them,and thenbecome,myself, oneofyourauthors.Rather than replying to theotherauthors, letme tell youwhere I stand todayandwhat, forme, cameoutof all thatwork inNewGuineaandBali and, later,with schizophrenicsanddolphins.



Asyouknow, thedifficultywasalways togetpeople toapproach the formalanalysisofmindwithasimilarorevenanopenepistemology.Manypeople claim tohavenoepistemologyandmust justovercomethisoptimism.Only thencan theyapproach theparticularepistemologyhereproposed. Inotherwords,two jumpsare requiredof the reader, andof these the first is themoredifficult.Weall cling fast to theillusion thatweare capableofdirectperception,uncodedandnotmediatedbyepistemology.Thedoublehindhypothesis, i.e., thementaldescriptionof schizophreniawas itself a contribution toepistemology,and toevaluate itwasanexercise, if youplease, ina sortofmetaepistemology.Epistemology itself isbecominga recursive subject, a recursive studyof recursiveness. So thatanybodyencountering thedoublebindhypothesishas theproblem thatepistemologywasalreadychangedby thedoublebindhypothesis,and thehypothesis itself thereforehas tobeapproachedwith themodifiedwayof thinkingwhich thehypothesishadproposed.

I amsure thatnoneofus in the1950s realizedhowdifficult thiswas. Indeed,westilldidnot realize that,ifourhypothesiswasevenpartly correct, itmustalsobe importantasa contribution towhat Ihavesometimescalled the "fundamentals"our stockof "necessary" truths.

Sowhat Ihave todonow is to tell youhow, forme, anepistemologygrewoutof ethnographicobservationandcybernetic theory, andhow thisepistemologydeterminesnotonlydoublebind theoryandall thethinking thathas followed in the fieldofpsychiatrybutalsoaffectsevolutionary thinkingand thewholebodymindproblem.

Ihave topresenthereadescriptionof anepistemology, and then Ihave to fit thedoublebindhypothesisand thoughtsaboutevolution into thatepistemology. Inaword, Ihave to invite the reader to come inbackwardupon thewholebusiness.

From time to time I get complaints thatmywriting isdenseandhard tounderstand. Itmaycomfort thosewho find thematterhard tounderstand if I tell them that Ihavedrivenmyself, over theyears, intoa"place"whereconventionaldualistic statementsofmindbody relationstheconventionaldualismsofDarwinism,psychoanalysis, and theologyareabsolutelyunintelligible tome. It isbecomingasdifficult forme tounderstanddualistsas it is for them tounderstandme.And I fear that it'snotgoing tobecomeeasier, exceptby thoseothersbeing slowlyexercised in theartof thinkingalong thosepathways that seemtome tobe "straight."My friends inNewGuinea, the Iatmul,whose languageandculture I studied,used tosay, "Butour language is soeasy.We just talk."

So inwritingaboutevolutionin trying towriteabout itasecondbookhas started toappear. Itbecamenecessary to tell the readeranumberofveryelementary (as it seemed tome) thingswhichhe certainlyought tohave learned inhigh schoolbutwhichAngloSaxonscertainlydonot learn inhigh school.Thisbook,budded from the first, largerbook, I called, tentatively,WhatEverySchoolboyKnows, an ironicquote fromLordMacaulay.what thegoodgentlemanreally saidwas, "Every schoolboyknowswhoimprisonedMontezumaandwhostrangledAtahualpa."

Letmestartby trying to characterizemyepistemologyas ithasgrownundermyhands,with somenotable influence fromotherpeople.

First, it is abranchofnaturalhistory. ItwasMcCullochwho, forme,pulledepistemologydownoutof therealmsof abstractphilosophy into themuchmore simple realmofnaturalhistory.Thiswasdramaticallydone in thepaperbyMcCullochandhis friendsentitled "What theFrog'sEyeTold theFrog'sBrain." Inthatpaperhe showed thatanyanswer to thequestion "Howcana frogknowanything?"wouldbedelimitedby the sensorymachineryof the frog; and that the sensorymachineryof the frog could, indeed,be investigatedbyexperimental andothermeans. It turnedout that the frog couldonly receivenewsofsuchmovingobjectsas subtended less than tendegreesat theeye.All elsewas invisibleandproducednoimpulseson theopticnerve.From thispaper it followed that, tounderstandhumanbeings, evenataveryelementary level, youhad toknow the limitationsof their sensory input.



And thatmatterbecamepartofmyexperiencewhen Iwent through theexperimentsofAdelbertAmes, Jr.Idiscovered thatwhen I see something,orheara sound,or taste, it ismybrain,orperhaps I shouldbettersay "mind"it is Iwhocreatean image in themodalityof theappropriate senseorgan.My image ismyaggregationandorganizationof informationabout theperceivedobject, aggregatedand integratedbymeaccording to rulesofwhich I am totallyunconscious. I can, thanks toAmes,knowabout these rules;but Icannotbe consciousof theprocessof theirworking.

Amesshowedme that I (andyou), looking throughoureyes, create,outof showersof impulseson theopticnerve, imagesof theperceived thatappear tobe threedimensional images. I "see"an image indepth.But theway inwhich that image isgivendepthdependsuponessentiallyEuclidianargumentswithin thebrainandofwhich theperceiver isunconscious. It is as if theperceiverknew thepremisesofparallaxandcreatedhis image inaccordancewith those rules,never lettinghimselfknowatanyconscious level thathehasapplied the rulesofparallax to the showerof impulses. Indeed, thewholeprocess, including theshowerof impulses itself, is a totallyunconsciousbusiness.

It seems tobeauniversal featureofhumanperception, a featureof theunderpinningofhumanepistemology, that theperceiver shallperceiveonly theproductofhisperceivingact,He shallnotperceivethemeansbywhich thatproductwas created.Theproduct itself is a sortofworkof art.

Butalongwith thisdetachednaturalhistory, inwhich1, asanepistemology,describe the frogormyselfalongwith thatnaturalhistorygoesa curiousandunexpectedaddition.Now thatwehavepulledepistemologydown fromphilosophyandmade it abranchofnaturalhistory, itbecomesnecessarilyanormativebranchofnaturalhistory.This study isnormative in the sense that itwill chideuswhenweignore its stricturesand regularities.Onehadnotexpected thatnaturalhistory couldbenormative,butindeed, theepistemologywhich I ambuilding foryou isnormative in twoalmost synonymousways. It canbewrong,or I canbewrongabout it.Andeitherof those twosortsof errorbecomes itselfpartof anyepistemology inwhich itoccurs.Anyerrorwillproposepathology. (But I am theepistemology.)

Take the statement inapreviousparagraph,Theorganismbuilds images indepthoutof the showerofimpulsesbrought to thebrainby theopticnerve. It ispossible that this statement is incorrect, that futurescientific studyof theactofperceptionmayshow that this isnot so,or that its syntax is inappropriate.That iswhat Imeanbybeing inerror in the firstway.And the secondwayofpossibleerrorwouldbe tobelieve that the images that I seeare in fact thatwhich I am lookingat, thatmymentalmap is theexternal territory. (Butwewanderoff intophilosophy ifweask, "Is there reallya territory?")

And then there is the fact that theepistemology I ambuilding ismonistic.ApplyingOccam'sRazor, Idecline topayattention tonotionswhichothersassert tobe subjectively supportedthatmindor soul issomehowseparable frombodyand frommatter.On theotherhand, it is absolutelynecessary,of course,thatmyepistemology shall allow for thenaturalhistory fact that, indeed,manyhumanbeingsofmanydifferent cultureshave thebelief that themind is indeedseparable from thebody.Theirepistemology iseitherdualisticorpluralistic. Inotherwords, in thisnormativenaturalhistory calledepistemology theremustbea studyof errors, andevidently certain sortsof errorarepredictably common. If you lookoverthewhole spanofmywork, startingwith thenotionof schismogenesis,or startingevenwith thepatternsinpartridge feathersandgoing from that to schismogenesis inNewGuinea toend linkage innationalcharacter, to thedoublebindand to thematerialwegot from theporpoises, youwill see thatup toacertaindatemy languageof report isdualistic.

Thedoublebindworkwas formeadocumentationof the idea thatmind is anecessaryexplanatoryprinciple. Simplenineteenthcenturymaterialismwillnotacceptanyhierarchyof ideasordifferences.Theworldofmindlessness, thePleroma, containsnonames,noclasses.

It ishere that Ihavealways inmy thinking followedSamuelButler inhis criticismsofDarwinianevolution. It always seems tome that theDarwinianphrasingswereaneffort toexcludemind.And indeed



thatmaterialism ingeneralwasaneffort toexcludemind.And therefore, sincematerialism is ratherbarren, itwashardly surprising tomeasanepistemologicalnaturalist tonote thatphysicists, fromWilliamCrookesonward,havebeenprone togo tomediumsandother tricksters.Theyneededsolace in theirmaterialism.

But thematterwasalwaysdifficult. I couldnot tolerate thedualismseriously, andyet Iknew that thenarrowmaterialistic statementwasagrossoversimplificationof thebiologicalworld.The solutioncamewhen Iwaspreparing theKorzybskiLecture,when I suddenly realized thatof course thebridgebetweenmapand territory isdifference. It isonlynewsofdifference that canget from the territory to themap, andthis fact is thebasicepistemological statementabout the relationshipbetweenall realityout thereandallperception inhere: that thebridgemustalwaysbe in the formofdifference.Difference,out there,precipitates codedor correspondingdifference in theaggregateofdifferentiationwhichwecall theorganism'smind.And thatmind is immanent inmatter,which ispartly inside thebodybutalsopartly"outside," e.g., in the formof records, traces, andperceptibles.

Difference, yousee, is just sufficientlyaway from thegrosslymaterialistic andquantitativeworld so thatmind,dealing indifference,will alwaysbe intangible,will alwaysdeal in intangibles, andwill alwayshavecertain limitationsbecause it canneverencounterwith ImmanuelKant called theDinganSich, the thing initself. It canonlyencounternewsofboundariesnewsof the contextsofdifference.

It isworthwhile to list severalpointsabout "difference"here,

1.A difference is notmaterial and cannot be localized. If this apple is different from that egg, the differencedoes not lie in the apple or in the egg, or in the space between them.To locate difference, i.e., to delimit thecontext or interface,would be to posit aworld incapable of change. Zeno's famousarrow couldnevermovefromaposition "here" in this context to a position "there" in thenext context,

2.Difference cannot be placed in time. The egg canbe sent toAlaska or canbe destroyed, and still thedifference remains.Or is it only thenews of the difference that remains?Or is the difference ever anythingbut news?Withamilliondifferences between the eggand the apple, only those become information thatmakea difference.

3.Difference is not a quantity. It is dimensionless and, for sense organs, digital. It is delimited by threshold.

4. Those differences, or news of differences,whichare information,must not be confusedwith "energy." Thelatter is a quantitywith physical dimensions (Mass X the square of aVelocity). It is perfectly clear thatinformationdoes not have dimensions of this kind*; and that information travels, usually,where energyalready is. That is, the recipient, the organism receiving informationor the end organor theneuronisalready energized from itsmetabolism, so that, for example, the impulse can travel along thenerve, notdrivenby the energy, but finding energy ready to undergodegradationat every point of the travel. Theenergy is there in advance of the information or the response. This distinctionbetween informationandenergybecomes conspicuouswhenever thatwhichdoes not happen triggers response in an organism. Icommonly tellmy classes that if they don't flu] in their income tax forms the InternalRevenuepeoplewillrespond to the difference between the formswhich they don't fill in and the formswhich theymight havefilled in.Or your aunt, if youdon'twrite her a letter,will respond to the difference between the letter youdonotwrite and the letter youmight havewritten. A tick on the twig of a treewaits for the smell of butyricacid thatwouldmean "mammal in theneighborhood."Whenhe smells the butyric acid, hewill fall from thetree.But if he stays long enoughon the tree and there is no butyric acid, hewill fall from the tree anywayandgo to climbupanother one.He can respond to the "fact" that somethingdoes not happen.

(*But, of course, a difference in energy (not itself of the dimensions of energy) cangenerate news ofdifference.)

5. Last in regard to information, and the identity between informationandnews of difference, Iwant to givea sort of special honor toGustav Fechner,who in the 1840s got awhiff of this enormously powerful idea. Itdrovehimalmostmad, but he is still rememberedandhis name is still carried in theWeberFechner Law.Hemust have beenan extraordinarily giftedman, anda very strange one.



Tocontinuemysketchof theepistemology thatgrewoutofmywork, thenextpoint is recursiveness.Herethere seem tobe twospeciesof recursiveness,of somewhatdifferentnature,ofwhich the first goesbacktoNorbertWienerand iswellknown, the "feedback" that isperhaps thebestknown featureof thewholecybernetic syndrome.Thepoint is that selfcorrectiveandquasipurposive systemsnecessarilyandalwayshave the characteristic that causal trainswithin the systemare themselves circular. Suchcausal trains,when independentlyenergized, areeither selfcorrectiveor runawaysystems. In thewiderepistemology, itseems that,necessarily, a causal traineither in somesensediesoutas it spreads through theuniverse,orreturns to thepoint fromwhich it started. In the first case there isnoquestionof its survival. In thesecondcase,by returning to theplace fromwhich it started, a subsystem isestablishedwhich, forgreateror less lengthof time,willnecessarily survive.

Thesecond typeof recursivenesshasbeenproposedbyVarelaandMaturana.Thesemathematiciansdiscuss the case inwhich somepropertyof awhole is fedback into the system,producinga somewhatdifferent typeof recursiveness, forwhichVarelahasworkedout the formalisms.We live inauniverse inwhichcausal trainsendure, survive through time,only if theyare recursive.They "survive"i.e., literallyliveupon themselvesandsomesurvive longer thanothers.

Ifourexplanationsorourunderstandingof theuniverse is in somesense tomatch thatuniverse,ormodelit, and if theuniverse is recursive, thenourexplanationsandour logicsmustalsobe fundamentallyrecursive.

And finally there is the somewhatdisputedareaof "levels."Forme thedoublebind, amongother things, asaphenomenonofnaturalhistory, is strongevidence that, at least in thenaturalhistoryaspectsofepistemology,weencounterphenomena thataregeneratedbyorganismswhoseepistemology is, forbetteror forworse, structured inhierarchic form. It seems tomevery clearandevenexpectable thatendorganscan receiveonlynewsofdifference.Each receivesdifferenceandcreatesnewsofdifference; and,of course,thisproposes thepossibilityofdifferencesbetweendifferences, anddifferences thataredifferentlyeffectiveordifferentlymeaningful according to thenetworkwithinwhich theyexist.This is thepathtowardanepistemologyofgestaltpsychology, and this clumpingofnewsofdifferencebecomesespeciallytrueof themindwhen it, in its characteristicnaturalhistory, evolves languageand faces the circumstancethat thename isnot the thingnamed,and thenameof thename isnot thename.This is thearea inwhichI'veworkedvery considerably in constructingahypotheticalhierarchyof speciesof learning.

These four components, then, giveyou thebeginningsof a sketchof anepistemology:

1. Thatmessage events are activatedby difference.

2. That information travels in pathways and systems that are collaterally energized (with a few exceptionswhere the energy itself in some form, perhaps a light, a temperature, or amotion, is the travelinginformation). The separation of energy ismade clear in a very largenumber of eases inwhich the differenceis fundamentally a difference between zeroandone. In such eases, "zeronotone" canbe themessage,whichdiffers from "onenotzero."

3. A special soft of holism is generatedby feedbackand recursiveness.

4. Thatmind operateswith hierarchies andnetworks ofdifference to create gestalten.

Iwant tomakeclear that thereareanumberofvery important statements thatarenotmade in thissketchof anepistemologyandwhoseabsence is an important characteristic. I saidabove that, as I see itandbelieve it, theuniverseandanydescriptionof it ismonistic; and thiswould implya certain continuity



of theentireworldof information.But there is avery strong tendency inWestern thinking (perhaps inallhuman thinking) to thinkand talkas if theworldweremadeupof separableparts.

Allpeoplesof theworld, Ibelieve, certainlyall existingpeoples,have something like languageand, so faras I canunderstand the talkof linguists, it seems thatall languagesdependuponaparticulaterepresentationof theuniverse.All languageshave something likenounsandverbs, isolatingobjects,entities, events, andabstractions. Inwhateverwayyouphrase it, "difference"will alwaysproposedelimitationsandboundaries. Ifourmeansofdescribing theworldarisesoutofnotionsofdifference (orwhatG. SpencerBrown'sLawsofFormcalls "distinction"and "indication"), thenourpictureof theuniversewillnecessarilybeparticulate. Itbecomesanactof faith todistrust languageand tobelieve inmonism.Ofnecessityweshall still splitourdescriptionswhenwe talkabout theuniverse.But theremaybebetterandworsewaysofdoing this splittingof theuniverse intonameableparts.

Finally, letme try togiveyouan ideaofwhat it felt like,orwhat sortofdifference itmade, forme toviewtheworld in termsof theepistemology that Ihavedescribed toyou, insteadofviewing it as Iused toandas Ibelievemostpeoplealwaysdo.

Firstof all, letmestresswhathappenswhenonebecomesaware that there ismuch that isourowncontribution toourownperception.Of course I amnomoreawareof theprocessesofmyownperceptionthananybodyelse is.But I amaware that thereare suchprocesses, and thisawarenessmeans thatwhen Ilookout throughmyeyesandsee the redwoodsor theyellow floweringacaciaofCalifornia roadsides, Iknow that I amdoingall sortsof things tomypercept inorder tomakesenseof thatpercept.Of course Ialwaysdid this, andeverybodydoes it.Weworkhard tomakesense, according toourepistemology,of theworldwhichwe thinkwesee.

Whoever createsan imageof anobjectdoes so indepth,usingvarious cues for that creation, as Ihavealreadysaid indiscussing theAmesexperiments.Butmostpeoplearenotaware that theydo this, andasyoubecomeaware thatyouaredoing it, youbecome ina curiouswaymuchcloser to theworldaroundyou.Theword "objective"becomes,of course,quitequietlyobsolete; andat the same time theword"subjective,"whichnormally confines "you"withinyour skin,disappearsaswell. It is, I think, thedebunkingof theobjective that is the important change.Theworld isno longer "out there" inquite thesameway that itused to seem tobe.

Withoutbeing fully consciousor thinkingabout it all the time, I still knowall the time thatmy imagesespecially thevisual,butalsoauditory, gustatory,pain, and fatigue1know the imagesare "mine"andthat I amresponsible for these images inaquitepeculiarway. It is as if theyareall in somedegreehallucinated, as indeed theypartlyare.The showerof impulses coming inover theopticnerve surelycontainsnopicture.Thepicture is tobedeveloped, tobe created,by the intertwiningof all theseneuralmessages.And thebrain that cando thismustbepretty smart. It'smybrain.Buteverybody'sbrainanymammalianbraincando it, I guess.

Ihave theuseof the information that thatwhich I see, the images,or thatwhich I feel aspain, theprickofapin,or theacheof a tiredmusclefor these, too, are images created in their respectivemodesthatallthis isneitherobjective truthnor is it allhallucination.There is a combiningormarriagebetweenanobjectivity that ispassive to theoutsideworldanda creative subjectivity,neitherpure solipsismnor itsopposite.

Consider foramoment thephrase, theoppositeof solipsism. In solipsism,youareultimately isolatedandalone, isolatedby thepremise "Imake it allup."Butat theotherextreme, theoppositeof solipsism,youwouldcease toexist,becomingnothingbutametaphoric featherblownby thewindsof external "reality."(But in that region therearenometaphors!)Somewherebetween these two isa regionwhereyouarepartlyblownby thewindsof realityandpartlyanartist creatinga compositeoutof the innerandouterevents.



Asmoke ring is, literallyandetymologically, introverted. It is endlessly turningupon itself, a torus, adoughnut, spinningon theaxisof the circular cylinder that is thedoughnut.And this turningupon itsowninturnedaxis iswhatgives separableexistence to the smoke ring. It is, afterall,madeofnothingbutairmarkedwitha little smoke. It isof the samesubstanceas its "environment."But ithasdurationandlocationanda certaindegreeof separationbyvirtueof its inturnedmotion. Ina sense, the smoke ringstandsasaveryprimitive,oversimplifiedparadigm forall recursive systems that contain thebeginningsofselfreference,or, shallwesay, selfhood.

But if youaskme, "Doyou feel likea smoke ringall the time?"of coursemyanswer isno.Onlyatverybriefmoments, in flashesof awareness, am I that realistic.Mostof the time I still see theworld, feel it, theway I alwaysdid.Onlyat certainmomentsam I awareofmyown introversion.But theseareenlighteningmoments thatdemonstrate the irrelevanceof intervening states.

Andas I try to tell youabout this, lines fromRobertBrowning's "Grammarian'sFuneral"keepcoming tomind.

Yea, this in himwas the peculiar grace . . .That before livinghe learnedhow to live.

Oragain,

He settledHoti's businesslet it be!Properly basedOunGaveus the doctrine of the encliticDe,Dead from thewaist down.

Andagain, there is themisquotation that is going the rounds today,

Aman's reach should exceedhis grasp,Orwhat's ameta for?

I'mafraid thisAmericangenerationhasmostly forgotten "TheGrammarian'sFuneral"with its strangecombinationof aweandcontempt.

Imagine, foramoment, that thegrammarianwasneitheranadventurousexplorer,breaking through intorealmspreviouslyunexplored,noran intellectual,withdrawn fromwarmhumanity intoa coldbut saferealm. Imagine thathewasneitherof these,butmerelyahumanbeing rediscoveringwhateveryotherhumanbeingandperhapseverydogalways instinctivelyandunconsciouslyknew: that thedualismsofmindandbody,ofmindandmatter, andofGodandworldareall somehow fakedup.Hewouldbe terriblyalone.Hemight invent something like theepistemology Ihavebeen trying todescribe, emerging from therepressedstate,whichFreudcalled "latency," intoamoreorlessdistorted rediscoveryof thatwhichhadbeenhidden.Perhapsall explorationof theworldof ideas isonlya searching fora rediscovery, andperhaps it is such rediscoveryof the latent thatdefinesusas "human," "conscious," and "twiceborn."Butif thisbe so, thenweallmust sometimeshearSt.Paul's "voice"echoingdown theages: "It ishard for theetokickagainst thepricks."

I amsuggesting toyou thatall themultiple insults, thedoublebindsand invasions thatweall experience



in life, the impact (tousean inappropriatephysicalword)wherebyexperiencecorruptsourepistemology,challenging the coreofourexistence, and therebyseducingus intoa false cultof theegowhat I amsuggesting is that theprocesswherebydoublebindsandother traumas teachusa falseepistemology isalreadywell advanced inmostoccidentalsandperhapsmostorientals, and that thosewhomwecall"schizophrenics"are those inwhomtheendlesskickingagainst theprickshasbecome intolerable.

GREGORY

CURRICULUMVITAEGregoryBateson

BornMay9,1904,Grantchester,England, sonofWilliamBateson,F.R.S.NaturalizedU.S. citizenFebruary7,1956.

191721Student,Charterhouse,England.

192226CambridgeUniversity.EntranceScholarSt. John'sCollege,1922,FoundationScholar,1924;NaturalScienceTripos, first classhonors,1924.AnthropologistTripos, first classhonors,1926.B.A.,1925,NaturalScience.MA.,1930Anthropology.

192729AnthonyWilkinStudentofCambridgeUniversity.Theperiodof this studentshipwas spent inanthropological fieldwork inNewBritainandNewGuinea.

193137FellowofSt. John'sCollege,Cambridge.193133,Anthropological fieldwork,NewGuinea, financed jointlybyFellowshipandby theRoyalSociety.1934,Visit to theUnitedStates.LecturedatColumbiaandChicago.1936,MarriedMargaretMead (divorced,1950).Onedaughter.193638,Anthropological fieldwork,Bali.

193839Anthropological fieldwork,NewGuinea.

1939Brief fieldwork,Bali.

1940Entered theUnitedStatesasa resident.

1941Filmanalysiswith theMuseumofModernArt,NewYorkCity.

194245OfficeofStrategicServicesof theU.S.Government.Overseas inCeylon, India,Burma,andChina.

194647VisitingProfessor,NewSchool forSocialResearch,NewYork.

194748VisitingProfessor,HarvardUniversity,Cambridge,Massachusetts.

1947



GuggenheimFellow.

194849UniversityofCaliforniaMedicalSchool.ResearchAssociatewithDr. JurgenRuesch.

1949todateEthnologist atVeteran'sAdministrationHospital,PaloAlto,California.Engaged in teachingand researchontheborderline fieldsof anthropology,psychiatry, andcybernetics.

1951todateParttimeVisitingProfessor, StanfordUniversity, in theDepartmentofAnthropology.

195254Director,ResearchProjecton theRoleof theParadoxesofAbstraction inCommunication,underagrantfrom theRockefellerFoundation.

195459Director,ResearchProjectonSchizophrenicCommunication,underagrant from the JosiahMacy, Jr.,Foundation.

195962Principal Investigator,Research inFamilyPsychotherapy,underagrant from theFoundation'sFund forResearch inPsychiatry.ParttimeProfessor,CaliforniaSchoolofFineArts, SanFrancisco,California.

1961FriedaFrommReichmannAward for research in schizophrenia.

196364AssociateDirector,CommunicationResearch Institute, St.Thomas,U.S.Virgin Islands.

1964CareerDevelopmentAward,National InstituteofMentalHealth.

1965AssociateDirector forResearch,Oceanic Institute,Waimanalo,Hawaii.

1972VisitingProfessor,UniversityofCaliforniaatSantaCrux, SantaCruz,California.

1976Member,BoardofRegents,UniversityofCalifornia.

BIBLIOGRAPHYof theWorksofGregoryBateson

AngelsFear:TowardsanEpistemologyof theSacred.GregoryBateson&MaryCatherineBateson.NewYork:Bantam,1988.

BalineseCharacter:APhotographicAnalysis. SpecialPublicationsof theNewYorkAcademyofSciences,vol.2.NewYork:NewYorkAcademyofSciences,1942.WithMargaretMead.

Communication:TheSocialMatrixofPsychiatry.NewYork:W.W.Norton,1951.With JurgenRuesch.

MindandNature:ANecessaryUnity.NewYork:BantamBooks,1980;HamptonPress,2002.



Naven:ASurveyof theProblemsSuggestedbyaCompositePictureof theCultureofaNewGuineaTribeDrawn fromThreePointsofView. Cambridge:CambridgeUniv.Press,1936.2ded.,with "Epilogue1958."Stanford:StanfordUniv.Press,1965.

Perceval'sNarrative:APatient'sAccountofHisPsychosis, 18301832, by JohnPerceval.Editedwithan IntroductionbyGregoryBateson. Stanford:StanfordUniv.Press,1961.

ASacredUnity:FurtherSteps toanEcologyofMind.NewYork:HarperCollinsPublishers,1991.

Steps toAnEcologyofMind:CollectedEssays inAnthropology,Psychiatry,Evolution,andEpistemology.NewYork:BallantineBooks,1972;UniversityofChicagoPress,2000.

BIBLIOGRAPHYofSelectedWorksaboutGregoryBateson

AboutBateson.Editedby JohnBrockmanwithanAfterwordbyGregoryBateson.NewYork:E.P.Dutton,1977.

OurOwnMetaphor:APersonalAccountofaConferenceon theEffectsofConsciousPurposeonHumanAdaptation.ByMaryCatherineBateson.NewYork:HarperCollins,1972;HamptonPress,2004.

GregoryBateson:TheLegacyofaScientist. ByDavidLipset,Boston:BeaconPress,1982.

WithaDaughter'sEye:AMemoirofMargaretMeadandGregoryBateson, byMaryCatherineBateson.NewYork:HarperCollins,1984/2001.

BeyondEdge

GregoryBateson:The Institute for InterculturalStudies

GreogoryBateson@100:MutipleViewsof theWorld

PeopleMentions:MaryCatherineBateson

Permalink:http://edge.org/igd/2149

JohnBrockman, EditorandPublisherRussellWeinberger,AssociatePublisherNinaStegeman,EditorialAssistant

Contact Info:[email protected] theNewsManageEmailSubscriptionGetEdge.orgbyemail

Edge.org is anonprofitprivateoperating foundationunderSection501(c)(3)of the InternalRevenueCode.Copyright2014ByEdgeFoundation, IncAllRightsReserved.

bateson, g. centenial thinkings

Documents

page volume

page cv

bibliography page

intheevolutionary idea

thepathologyof schizophrenia

bothofwhich followbelow

thesocial sciences

heplanned togather