I'm writing to ask for your help with a project - if it interests you!
I want to play with the theme for this year's AVD interdisciplinary
courses at our faculty retreat on Thursday. I need some great quotes
reflecting different disciplinary perspectives on "energy." What does
it mean? How does the meaning of the word change depending on
perspective?
I thought you might actually enjoy thinking about this some -
and it would be a big help to me.
Wadda say?
Laura
Dear Laura,
Below are some samples of the way Gregory Bateson
talks about “energy” (physics) —which he differentiates
from “information” (differencesthat makes a difference,
“idea.” and attempt to relate the two in talking about
Mind and Nature. (Bateson, as some of you know,
was a British biologist,his father Wm coined the term
“genetics”—he turned anthropologists (marrying Margaret
Mead) and then systems and information theorist—studied
communication dolphins, schizophrenics, and addicts.
His thoughts on “energy” are integral with his thoughts
on “communication”and would not probably throw light
on what we call energy crisis orGulf oil spills. Never the
less—you asked.
“When one billiard ball strikes another,the motion of
the second is energizedby the impact of the first, and
such transference of energy are the central subject
matter of dynamics.
We, however, are not concerned with event sequences
that have this characteristic. Kick a stone, the movement
of the stone is energized by the act, but if I kick a dog,
the behavior of the dog may indeed be partly conservative
—he may travel along a Newtonian trajectory if kicked
hard enough, but this is mere physics. What is important is
that he may exhibit responses which are energized not
by the kickbut by his metabolism:he may turn and bite.
This, I think is what people mean by magic.The realm
of phenomena in which we are interested is always
characterized by thefact that “ideas” may influence
events.To the physicist, this is a grossly magical
hypothesis. It is one which cannot be tested by
asking questions about the conservation of energy.
(Gregory Bateson,Steps to an Ecology of Mind 229, 409)
In the hard sciences, effects are, in general, caused
by rather concrete conditions or events—impacts,
forces and so forth. But when you enter the world of
communication, organization, etc., you leave behind
that whole world in which effects are brought about
by forces and impacts and energy exchange.You
enter a world in which “effects” –and I’m not sure
one should still use the same word—are brought
about by differences.That is, they are brought about
by the sort of thing that gets onto the map from the
territory. This is difference.
Difference travels from the wood and paper into my
retina. It then gets picked up and worked on by this
fancy piece of computing machinery in my head.
The whole energy relation is different. IN the world
of mind,nothing—that which is NOT—can be a
cause. In the hard sciences, we ask for causes and
we expect them to exist and be “real.” But remember
that zero is different from one, andbecause zero is
different from one, zero can be a cause in the
psychological world of communication.
It follows, of course, that we must change our whole
way of thinking about mental and communicational
process. The ordinary analogies of energy theory
which people from the hard sciences use to provide
a conceptual frame uponwhich they try to build theories
about psychology and behavior— that whole
Procrustean structure—is non-sense.
It is in error. (458)
Moreover, the energy relations of such cybernetic
systems are commonlyinverted. Because organisms
are able to store energy, it is usual that the energy
expenditure is for limited periods of time, an inverse
function of energy input. The amoeba is more active
when it lacks food, and the stem of a green plane
grows faster on that side which is turned away
from the lights. (382)
“Mind”
1. A mind is an aggregate of interacting parts
or components
2. The interaction between part of mind is triggered
by differences and difference is a non-substantial
phenomenon not located in space or time;
difference is attributed to negentropy and entropy
rather than to energy.
3. Mental process requires collateral energy.
4. Mental process requires circular (or more complex)
chains of determination
5. In mental process, the effects of difference are to be
regarded as transforms (i.e. coded versions) of events
which preceded them. The rules of such transformation
must be comparatively stable (i.e., more stable than the
content) but are themselves subject to transformation.
6. The description and classification of these process of
transformation disclose a hierarchy of logical types immanent
in the phenomena. (Mind and Nature 85-87)
A lot to question and unpack and put into play here, I think.
Think of “energy” as analogue process—boom boom bumper
car relations; “information”: as digital process—differences that
make a difference (can’t touch these)!
Incommensurate, the two—but related.How? And which do
we SEEM to privilege: energy? information”
Could “communication” stand for the 3rd term here”? the
complementing relationship of “energy” and “information?
No comments:
Post a Comment