Steps Towards a (Media) Ecology: Difference between revisions

From Fabulous Loop de Loop
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
 
(113 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[file:homeostat.JPG|center|300px|''Homeostat, four units'']]
<br>
<div class="quote-box">
<p class="quote">


''“When a kitten first approaches a fire its reactions are unpredictable and usually inappropriate. It may walk almost into the fire, or it may spit at it, or may dab at it with a paw, or try to spit at it, or crouch and 'stalk 'it. Later, however, when adult, its reactions are different. It approaches the fire and seats itself at a place where the heat is moderate. If the fire burns low, it moves nearer. If a hot coal falls out, it jumps away. Its behaviour towards the fire is now' adaptive'. I might have taken as type-problem some experiment published by a psychological laboratory, but the present example has several advantages. It is well known; it is representative of a wide class of important phenomena; and it is not likely to be called in question by the discovery of some small technical flaw.”''<ref>W. Ross Ashby, ''Design for a Brain'', John Wiley and Sons Publishing, 1952 p.12</ref>
''"We take as basic the assumptions that the organism is mechanistic in nature, that it is composed of parts, that the behaviour of the whole is the outcome of the compounded actions of the parts, that organisms change their behaviour by learning, and that they change it so that the later behaviour is better adapted to their environment than the earlier. Our problem is, first, to identify the nature of the change which shows as learning, and secondly, to find why such changes should tend to cause better adaptation for the whole organism."'' <ref>Ross Ashby, ''Design for a Brain'', John Wiley and Sons Publishing, 1952p. 12</ref>
<br>
<br>
''“When a kitten first approaches a fire its reactions are unpredictable and usually inappropriate. It may walk almost into the fire, or it may spit at it, or may dab at it with a paw, or try to spit at it, or crouch and 'stalk' it. Later, however, when adult, its reactions are different. It approaches the fire and seats itself at a place where the heat is moderate. If the fire burns low, it moves nearer. If a hot coal falls out, it jumps away. Its behaviour towards the fire is now 'adaptive'. I might have taken as type-problem some experiment published by a psychological laboratory, but the present example has several advantages. It is well known; it is representative of a wide class of important phenomena; and it is not likely to be called in question by the discovery of some small technical flaw.”''<ref>W. Ross Ashby, ''Design for a Brain'', John Wiley and Sons Publishing, 1952 p.12</ref>
<br>


<br>
W. Ross Ashby – ''Design for a Brain''
W. Ross Ashby – ''Design for a Brain''
</p>
</div>


==ROSS ASHBY ON THE HOMEOSTAT==
<p class="floop-link" id="ASHBY_DESCRIBES_THE_HOMEOSTAT">[[ASHBY DESCRIBES THE HOMEOSTAT]]</p>


[[file:homeostat.JPG|thumb|''Homeostat, four units'']]
[[file:HomeostatMagnetCoilWater.png|thumb|200px|''Homeostat–magnet, coil, pivot, vane, and water'']]
==ROSS ASHBY ON THE HOMEOSTAT==<ref> Outtakes from previous draft of intro to this chapter. Bateson: ''"Ross Ashby long ago pointed out that no system (neither computer nor organism) can produce anything new unless the system contains some source of the random. In the computer, this will be a random-number generator which will ensure that the "seeking," trial-and-error moves of the machine will ultimately cover all the possibilities of the set to be explored."''| Bateson ''"I am going to build a church some day. It will have a holy of holies and a holy of holies of holies, and in that ultimate box will be a random numbertable."'' Stewart Brand recounting an exchange with Bateson's secretary Judy Van Slooten WEC Review p490</ref>


[[file:HomeostatMagnetCoilWater.png|thumb|''Homeostat–magnet, coil, pivot, vane, and water'']]
[[file:HomeostatOneUnitWiringDiagram.png|thumb|200px|''Homeostat one unit diagram'']]


I will quote Ross Ashby's ''Design for a Brain'' at length (1952). I also reproduce the images on those pages (although I have changed the captions to fit this wiki’s format). Here Ashby gives a technical description of the machine which – built by Ashby from parts of old WWII planes and spare components – models a number of things: including an organism, an environment and a brain. This cybernetic organism, by feeding back information from its environment and adapting to any changes made, maintains a “ultrastable” state (“homeostasis”). The most remarkable thing about this machine is that –because it is designed to correct any input which might threaten its stability – it works best when it does very little. At the time, this was difficult for the cyberneticians at the Macy conferences to comprehend. Could the actions it performed be classed as behaviour? Does that behaviour constitute thinking?
[[File:HomestatSketchAshby.png|thumb|200px|''Ashby sketch. Text reads “2 March 1948” […] “Have completed my four-unit machine. It has four ex-RAF bomb control switch gear kits at base, with four identical aluminium boxes,”'']]


Biological organisms. and feedback machines such as the homeostat, are able to alter their patterns of response and bring critical variables back into the desired range. In these cases, energy takes little part in allowing the adaptation of the organism-servo-machine to its environment. Adaptation is afforded through the amount of information running through the system which allows the organism (or servo machine) to maintain order at the boundary between two loosely coupled systems. In this way learning increases variety (this principle is expressed mathematically in Ashby's Law of Requisite Variety).<ref>Peter Harries-Jones, ''A Recursive Vision: Ecological Understanding and Gregory Bateson'' p.109</ref>
[[File:AshbyWiringDiagram.png|thumb|200px|''Ashby’s sketch for homeostat wiring diagram, 1948'']]
What puzzled those attending Ashby's presentation of the homeostat at the 1952 Macy conference <ref> Thos in the discussion included McCulloch, Pitts, Bateson, Bigalow and Wiener</ref>, was the claim that Ashby made for a broad field of evolutionary development


The Homeostat is a four unit machine built by Ross Ashby from parts of old WWII planes and spare components. The machine maintains equilibrium despite perturbation to the system. This cybernetic organism, by feeding back information from its environment and adapting to any changes made, maintains a ''ultrastable'' state (“homeostasis”). The homeostat models a number of ultrastable systems: including an organism, an environment and a brain.


<ref>
The most remarkable thing about the homeostat is that – because it is designed to correct any input which might threaten its stability – it works best when it does very little. When it was built, it was difficult for the cyberneticians at the 1952 Macy conference on cybernetics to make an assessment of the homeostat. Could the actions it performed be classed as behaviour? Does that behaviour constitute thinking?


From Ashby's perspective, biological organisms (and feedback machines such as the homeostat), are able to alter their patterns of response and bring critical variables back into the desired range. In these cases, energy takes little part in allowing the adaptation of the organism-servo-machine to its environment. Adaptation is afforded through the amount of information running through the system, which allows the organism (or servo machine) to maintain order at the boundary between two loosely coupled systems. In this way learning increases variety (this principle is expressed mathematically in Ashby's Law of Requisite Variety).<ref>Peter Harries-Jones, ''A Recursive Vision: Ecological Understanding and Gregory Bateson'' p.109</ref>


"The exact position will correspond to prior experience
Those attending Ashby's presentation of this “organism box” at the 1952 Macy conference <ref> “organism box” was coined by Gerard at the 1952 Macy conference. Others in the discussion included McCulloch, Pitts, Bateson, Bigalow and Wiener ''Cybernetics, The Macy Conferences'' p 86</ref>, were puzzled by the claim that Ashby made for a broad field of evolutionary development. This led Julian Bigalow to remark: “It may be a beautiful replica of something, but heaven only knows what.”<ref>Pias, Claus, ed. ''Cybernetics | Kybernetik: The Macy-Conferences 1946-1953, Volume 1 Transactions''. Edited by Claus Pias: Diaphanes 2004, p.96</ref> Norbert Wiener, by contrast recognised the value of a machine which could model any self-organising system, and which allowed for an equivalence between adaptation and learning, Wiener described the homeostat as a “purposeful random mechanism which seeks for its own purpose through the process of learning”.
of optimal comfort with respect to critical variables (Steinbrunner
1974: 53).4
Ashby transformed prevailing notions of feedback in cybernetic
mechanisms into a general model of adaptation and change for any
behavioural system. His very simple example of the cat by the fire
drew a decisive relation between stability of systems and adaptation.
In turn, change in response patterns brought about by adaptive feedback
could also be considered equivalent to a pattern of 'learning.'
This was true of both biological organisms and artificially constructed
feedback mechanisms produced by engineers, such as robots." '


Whilst some saw the generality of the machine as a shortcoming (it was too general to tell us anything of specific use), others (notably Gregory Bateson) understood it as a breakthrough in understanding a structural equivalence on a number of levels – from the machine, to the individual organism, to the environment. In its ability to model a general system, the homeostat expressed  the form of performative model Kenneth Craik had written about in ''The Nature of Explanation'', the homeostat modelled the structure of the behaviour of a system without looking anything like the machine, organism, or environment it modelled.


In what follows we will see how – just as the cybernetic tortoise invites discussions into the nature of self, the intersubjective, and the nature of consciousness – the homeostat will invite questions about the dividing line between organism and environment, ecology and media, behaviour and thought.


" with
The homeostat, in its generality, stands at the intersection between a ‘positivist’ cybernetics – whereby the observer can make observations about the actions of a particular thing without affecting the thing being observed – into a self-reflexive cybernetics, in which information from the environment feeds back to allow the observer to act on the information received (this will come to be known as 'second-order cybernetics'). This new emphasis (whereby “noise” can be reflexively modelled into “information”) will be at the foundation of an aesthetic revolution in the late 1950s and 1960s (as we will see in subsequent chapters) and, in a related development, will draw the human subject into the ecological feedback loop.
to the effect that only variety can destroy variety. In more technical
terms, the more information that a system can process by increasing
variety, the more the system can cope with information at
the boundary between two loosely coupled systems, and the greater
overall control it has. By implication, learning increases variety.
Ashby's insights also showed how processes of learning were correlated
with biological adaptation. Correlative matching of an organism
with its environment generates processes that change the behaviour
of an organism from a less to a more survival-promoting form (Ashby
1960: 3-4). Ashby indicated that concepts of feedback, learning, and
correlative matching did not pertain merely to single organisms or
mechanisms, cats-by-fires, but that the same principles demonstrated
in a narrow field of interaction of organism and environment were
applicable in the broad field of evolutionary development. The simple
observation of hunting - as in the 'cat hunting for warmth near a
fire' - showed why."


Th homeostat provided a model for Gregory Bateson to extend his ecology of mind still further, as Ashby’s notions of “requisite variation:” and “flexibility” are applied by Bateson to the realms of biology, ecology, and social cohesion.<ref>Bateson, ''Restructuring the Ecology of a Great City'', Radical Software no 4 1970; & Bateson, Conscious Purpose Versus Nature. ''Steps to an Ecology of Mind '' 433</ref> Ashby's influence will be particularly apparent in texts which deal with the ecological crisis, such as Bateson's ''Restructuring the Ecology of a Great City''. We will look at this text in more detail in the following chapter, where I examine how the discourses of ecology, media and the counterculture entangle. Below I will discuss Conscious Purpose Versus Nature, in which Bateson refines his cybernetic epistemology to encompass conscious choice and its relation to a broader ecology.


[[file:The-three-positive-feedbacks-of-the-ecological-crisis-as-presented-by-Gregory-Bateson-in.png|thumb|Steps to an Ecology of Mind, three positive feedbacks]]


==CONSCIOUS PURPOSE–ECOLOGY==
<p class="body-quote">
''There is an ecology of bad ideas, just as there is an ecology of weeds.'' <br>
– Gregory Bateson, ''Steps to an Ecology of Mind''</p>


Gregory Bateson's Conscious Purpose Versus Nature was delivered at the Dialectics of Liberation conference in 1968.<ref>Bateson ''Steps to an Ecology of Mind '' 433-446, 1967</ref> The event was convened  by the British psychiatrist R. D. Laing (whose own “anti-psychiatry” was influenced by Bateson's double bind communication). The event subsequently became something of a landmark in the history of the 1960s counterculture.<ref>For better and for worse. The event was criticised for its sexism – no female speakers were invited and those that did try to speak were patronised or overlooked – and served, unintentionally, as a recruiting event for the feminist cause. For more details on the event see http://www.dialecticsofliberation.com/1967-dialectics</ref> Bateson's text is noteworthy because it brings together elements that are familiar to us, presenting a survey of Bateson's career as a cybernetic epistemologist. The text, which is laced with parables, takes us to the beginnings of our fabulous loop de loop, from a consideration of the place of Lamarkian evolutionary theory, through to discussion of the construction of the subject within a matrix of communication and on into a broader ecological realm (Bateson was at the time engaged in research into dolphin communication).


But, before moving on to Ashby’s description, it is also worth pausing for a second to remember Lacan’s point about the cybernetic tortoise (which was built by Ashby’s colleague Grey Walter). Lacan noted that when the tortoise was at rest, as it “withdrew from life”, as it too expressed “homeostatsis”, it displayed behaviour which, in psychoanalytical terms, could be described as the “death instinct” (see previous). We will see in the following chapter how, just as the tortoise invites discussions into the nature of self, the intersubjective and the nature of consciousness, the homeostat will invite questions about the dividing line between organism and environment, ecology and media, behaviour and thought. As in previous chapters this cybernetic creature will provide a model for Gregory Bateson to extend his ecology of mind still further, as Ashby’s notions of “requisite variation:” and “flexibility” are applied by Bateson to the realms of biology, ecology and social cohesion.<ref>Bateson, Restructuring the Ecology of a Great City, Radical Software no 4 1970; & Bateson, Conscious Purpose Versus Nature. StEM 433</ref>
In the text, Bateson notes that the chain of being and the place of the mind within it – as it had been understood in pre-modern and in non-occidental cultures – has suffered a reversal in the modern Western scientific era. In the modern conception the supreme mind (God/ mind of Man) was at the top, enjoying mastery over the creatures below him, from the higher primates to the protozoa bubbling at the bottom. Bateson argues that this conception does not allow for a conception of mind as imminent within a series of co-extensive systems. The publication of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's evolutionary theory in ''Philisophie Zoologique'' (1809), at the beginning of the 19th century – “the first organised transforms theory of evolution”.<ref>Bateson, ''Steps to an Ecology of Mind '' 455</ref> ushered in a Copernican revolution in the biological field. ''Philosophie Zoologique'' is revolutionary, Bateson contends, because it acknowledged that the order of nature runs in a converse direction, suggesting that mind is indeed emergent and imminent within an ecology. Up until Lamarck “mind was an explanation of the biological world. But, Hey presto, the question now arose: is the biological world the explanation of mind?” […] “Some years [after Lamarck], Alfred Russel Wallis, in his correspondence to Charles Darwin described the process of natural selection as akin to the regulation of a steam engine by a governor.”)<ref>''Steps to an Ecology of Mind '' 435 Bateson also gives an account of this in Stewart Brand's For God Sake Margaret!, Co-Evolutionary Quarterly 197*</ref> The full implications of Wallis' insight, that such ecological systems are regulated by negative feedback (an observation also made by Samuel Butler, you may remember), lay dormant until after WWII when the revolution in cybernetics and communication theory allowed for a clearer understanding of feedback as a general regulating principle within different scaled ecological systems (from a single cell to a complex environment, such as Spaceship Earth). It also allowed for an understanding of the formation of social relations and individuation of the human psyche as a process of circular causality driven by purpose. If pre-modern societies had an understanding that mind was coextensive within a series of systems, this was rediscovered in the post-cybernetic era as “nowadays cybernetics deals with much more complex systems”. Human behaviour, human organisation, any biological systems which are all self-corrective. Such systems are always conservative of something, the change in the fuel supply effects the motion of the flywheel which is regulated by the governor. <ref>''Steps to an Ecology of Mind '' 435</ref> This transaction, in relation to any system, might be understood as survival.


[[file:HomeostatOneUnitWiringDiagram.png|thumb|''Homeostat one unit diagram'']]
==THE SCREEN OF CONSCIOUSNESS==


[[File:HomestatSketchAshby.png|thumb| ''Ashby sketch. Text reads “2 March 1948” […] “Have completed my four-unit machine. It has four ex-RAF bomb control switch gear kits at base, with four identical aluminium boxes,”'']]
Bateson next directs this tendency of self-correcting systems toward conservatism to the subject of the human psyche. Bateson notes that the difficulty people have in seeing the obvious, or with coping with disturbing information is an artefact of the system. The tendency to reinforce resistance to the obvious or the disturbing is systematic. “This is a system which conserves descriptive statements about the human being, body and soul. For the same is true of the psychology of the individual, where learning occurs, to conserve the opinions and components of the status quo.” Society and the ecosystem are systems of the same general kind. In all such systems there is an “uneasy balance of dependency and competition”. The components of a system are “segmented” so that change is localised [...] The biological system is driven to reproduce, even if, to state the obvious, overpopulation will result in a strain on the larger system: any “monkeying with the system is likely to disrupt the equilibrium.”<ref>Bateson, ''Steps to an Ecology of Mind '' 437</ref>. It is therefore, “quite a trick” to balance dependency and competition. The system is segmented so that no single part has access to the “total mind”. However, and here Bateson introduces a mysterious (almost mystical element), “there is a 'semipermiable' linkage between consciousness and the remainder of the total mind. A certain limited amount of information about what is happening in this larger part of the mind seems to be relayed to what we may call the screen of consciousness.”<ref>Bateson ''Steps to an Ecology of Mind '', 438</ref> Because the screen of consciousness is a filtration system it necessarily provides partial information. The whole mind cannot be comprehended in part of that mind, to comprehend the circuitry of the system would require more circuitry which produces an infinitely recursive logic &c. The question now arises, how is this limited selection of information which plays on the screen of consciousness selected and filtered? “I am guided in my perception by purposes.”, thought is responsive and immanent “I get a myth about this subject which might be quite correct. I am interested in getting that myth as I talk. It is relevant to my purposes that you hear me.<ref>Bateson ''Steps to an Ecology of Mind '', 438</ref>. In this anecdote thought is imminent to purpose. Purpose becomes that which builds subjects and relations between subjects within the system. Here subjects and objects are performativly produced within a circuit of communication where competition and dependency are central agents.


[[File:AshbyWiringDiagram.png|thumb|''Ashby’s sketch for homeostat wiring diagram, 1948'']]
Here Bateson mounts a critique of instrumental reason and the instrumentalisation of cybernetic principles: “What happens to the picture of a cybernetic system [...] when that picture is selectively drawn to answer only questions of purpose?”<ref>Bateson ''Steps to an Ecology of Mind '',439 </ref>If a system is organized only in terms of purpose it ends up with a “bag of tricks” and no wisdom about the system as a whole, it is organised to arrive at short cuts and quick fixes and to follow the shortest logical path, which may be “dinner; it may be a Beethoven sonata; it may be sex. Above all it may be money and power.”<ref>Bateson ''Steps to an Ecology of Mind '',440</ref>. The cause for concern, for Bateson, is the “addition of modern technology to the old system”. The system orientated by purpose that consciousness has been using for more than a million years has produced more effective machinery “transportation systems, airplanes, weaponry, medicine, pesticides, and so forth” through the agency of conscious purpose.<ref>Bateson ''Steps to an Ecology of Mind '',441</ref>


Now, and with Ross Ashby's help, we will take a look at his machine, the homeostat.
<p class="body-quote">
“After they had cast God out of the Garden, they really went to work on this purposive business, and pretty soon the topsoil disappeared. After that, several species of plants became “weeds” and some of the animals became “pests”; and Adam found that gardening was much harder work. He had to get his bread by the sweat of his brow and he said, “It's a vengeful God. I should never have eaten that apple.””<ref>Bateson, ''Steps to an Ecology of Mind '' 423</ref>
</p>


Ashby writes, in ''Design for a Brain'' (1952) pp. 100-103:
Bateson gives an account of conscious purpose which begins in myth. God, in a retelling of the Judo-Christian creation myth, was cast out of the garden on the day that Adam and Eve worked out how to stack one box on top of another in order to get their hands on the apple. At the point at which they realised that A & B can result in C, and were defined by a local aim and purpose, whilst being rulers of their own garden, they were “cast out of the garden of the concept of their own systemic nature.” Our consciousness is conditioned to conscious purpose, which is projected onto the screen of our consciousness, such purpose defines the subjects and objects in our world, we produce technologies to meet those purposes, together these things constitute a system which we strive to preserve. We see as through a glass darkly – “Consciousness is blinded to the systematic nature of the individual man”.  


“The Homeostat [''Fig: Homeostat, four units''] consists of four units, each of which carries on top a pivoted magnet [''Fig: Homeostat–magnet, coil, pivot, vane, and water'']. The angular deviations of the four magnets from the central positions provide the four main variables. Its construction will be described in stages. Each unit emits a D.C. output proportional to the deviation of its magnet from the central position. The output is controlled in the following way. In front of each magnet is a trough of water electrode sat each end provide a potential gradient. The magnet carries a wire which dips into the water, picks up a potential depending on the position of the magnet, and sends it to the grid of the triode. J provides the anode-potential at 150 V., while H is at180 V. j so E carries a constant current. If the grid-potential allows just this current to pass through the valve, then no current will flow through the output. But if the valve passes more, or less, current than this, the output circuit will carry the difference in one direction or the other. So after E is adjusted, the output is approximately proportional to M's deviation from its central position.” <ref> W. Ross Ashby, Design for a Brain, John Wiley and Sons Publishing, 1952 p 100</ref>
Bateson continues to wax biblical: “Lack of systematic wisdom is always punished”.<ref>Bateson ''Steps to an Ecology of Mind '' 441</ref> when presenting the cybernetic paradox of consciousness. Bateson continues to call for a revision of “the occidental errors of epistemology”<ref>Bateson ''Steps to an Ecology of Mind '' 495</ref>, and calls for a humility in the face of nature and in relation to what is known by human beings. Bateson finds useful models in Zen Buddhism, which challenges the sovereignty of the self in relation to natural systems; artistic or aesthetic pursuits which operate under the order of self-reflexive deutero-learning, which alters the register of hierarchical perception; the 'best of religion' serves as a corrective to 'overrun' (positive feedback producing inflexibility and instability within a system).  
“Next, the units are joined together so that each sends its output to the other three; and thereby each receives an input from each of the other three. These inputs act on the unit's magnet through the coils A, B, and C, so that the torque on the magnet is approximately proportional to the algebraic sum of the currents in A, B, and C. (D also affects M as a self-feedback.) But before each input current reaches its coil, it passes through a commutator (X),which determines the polarity of entry to the coil, and through a potentiometer (P), which determines what fraction of the input shall reach the coil. As soon as the system is switched on, the magnets are moved by the currents from the other units, but these movements change the currents, which modify the movements, and so on. It may be shown […] that if there is sufficient viscosity in the troughs, the four-variable system of the magnet-positions is approximately state-determined. To this system the commutators and potentiometers act as parameters. When these parameters are given a definite set of values, the magnets show some definite pattern of behaviour; for the parameters determine the field, and thus the lines of behaviour. If the field is stable, the four magnets move to the central position, where they actively resist any attempt to displace them. If displaced, a co-ordinated activity brings them back to the centre. Other parameter-settings may, however, give instability; in which ease a 'runaway' occurs and the magnets diverge from the central positions with increasing velocity-till they hit the ends of the troughs. So far, the system of four variables has been shown to be dynamic, to have Figure 4/15/1 (A) as its diagram of immediate effects, and to be state-determined. Its field depends on the thirty-two parameters X and P. It is not yet ultrastable. But the inputs, instead of being controlled by parameters set by hand, can be sent by the switches S through similar components arranged on a uniselector (or 'stepping-switch') U. The values of the components in U were deliberately randomised by taking the actual numerical values from Fisher and Yates' Table of Random Numbers. Once built on to the uniselectors, the values of these parameters are determined at any moment by the positions of the uniselectors. Twenty-five positions on each of four uniselectors (one to each unit) provide 390,625 combinations of parameter-values. F represents the essential variable of the unit. Its contacts close when and only when the output current exceeds a certain value. When this happens, the coils G of the uniselector can be energised, moving the parameters to new values.”[…] <ref>W. Ross Ashby, Design for a Brain, John Wiley and Sons Publishing, 1952 pp 100-103 |Ashby’s notes on page 100-101 | It was given the name of' Homeostat ' for convenience of reference, and the noun seems to be acceptable. The derivatives homeostatic' and  homeostatically', however, are unfortunate, for they suggest reference to the machine, whereas priority demands that they be used only as derivatives of Cannon's  ‘homeostasis’. Following the original machine in principle, Mr. Earl .1. KIetsky, at the Technische Hogeschool, Delft, Holland, has designed and built a form that replaces the magnet, coils, vane and water by Kirchhoff adding circuits and capacitors </ref>


[… the text continues…]
In this respect the lines of engagement are ostensibly the same as the 1950s, but the stakes at the end of the 1960s, when an ecological disaster seems imminent, are more desperate.
In the first chapter of Design for a Brain Ashby makes the following assumptions, which allow him to draw the equivalence between an organism and a machine and behaviour and thinking.
Bateson wrote in Radical Software: “... all of the many current threats to man's survival are traceable to three root causes: a) technological progress
 b) population increase
 c) certain errors in the thinking and attitudes of occidental culture. (Our “values” are wrong!)”<ref>Gregory Bateson, Awake, Radical Software No 5 Volume 1, p.33</ref>


"We take as basic the assumptions that the organism is mechanistic
==BATESON – MEDIA ECOLOGY==
in nature, that it is composed of parts, that the behaviour of
[[File:Radical6.jpg|thumb|Environmental Information Network (featured in Radical Software)]]
the whole is the outcome of the compounded actions of the parts,
[[File:RadicalSoftwareBatesonCity.jpeg|thumb|Gregory Bateson, Restructuring the Ecology of a Great City, Radical Software, Issue 4 1971]]
that organisms change their behaviour by learning, and that they
change it so that the later behaviour is better adapted to their
environment than the earlier. Our problem is, first, to identify
the natnre oe the change which shows as learning, and secondly,
to find why such changes should tend to cause heller adaptation
tor tbe wbole organism." <ref>Ross Ashby, ''Design for a Brain'', John Wiley and Sons Publishing, 1952p. 12</ref>


==ORGANISM–ENVIRONMENT==
If the cybernetic tortoise provided the model for the construction of the self within the environment, Ashby's homeostat provided the model for the organisation of organic and ecological systems. This is apparent in two texts Gregory Bateson published in the video journal Radical Software at the beginning of the 1970s: ''Restructuring the Ecology of a Great City'' (which I will discuss in greater detail in the next chapter) and the ecological polemic ''Awake!''<ref>Gregory Bateson, Awake, Radical Software No 5 Volume 1, p.33; Gregory Bateson Restructuring the Ecology of a Great City, Radical Software no 4 1971</ref>
In Ashby's model, and Bateson's city, flexibility operates within set parameters, the upper and lower limits of which are strained when tested. The ideal environment, for Bateson, would be one which affords the maximum flexibility, which in turn affords adaptation. Less flexibility will result in less sustainability as the system is tested beyond its limits. Humans routinely find themselves in an ecological pickle when a sub-system seeks to preserve aspects within itself which run contrary to the order of the greater system. In such circumstances, the task for humans is to operate on a deutero level and  control  ecological resources, correcting the human pathologies which routinely inflict modern modes of organisation. <ref> Gregory Bateson Restructuring the Ecology of a Great City, Radical Software no 4 1971</ref>
It is at this point where conscious purpose loops into a broader ecological system.
<br>
<br>
Gregory Bateson's text ''Awake'' (1971) appeared in the fifth issue of Radical Software. It clearly annotates the errors in epistemology that threaten the future of spaceship earth in the second half of the twentieth century.


==THE HOMEOSTAT AT MACY==
<p class="body-quote">
“[T]he ideas which dominate our civilization at the present time date in their most virulent form [are] from the Industrial Revolution.<br>
<br>
a) It's us against the environment.<br>
b) It's us against other men.<br>
c) It's the individual (or the individual company, or the individual nation) that matters.<br>
d) We can have unilateral control over the environment and must strive for that control.<br>
e) We live within an infinitely expanding “frontier.”<br>
f) Economic determinism is common sense.<br>
g) Technology will do it for us.<br>
<br>
We submit that these ideas are simply proved false by the great but ultimately destructive achievement of our technology in the last 150 years. Likewise they appear to be false under modern ecological theory. The creature that wins against its environment destroys itself...”''<ref>Gregory Bateson Radical Software Issue 5 Volume 1, Bateson ''Steps to an Ecology of Mind ''. 87</ref>
</p>


[[file:The-three-positive-feedbacks-of-the-ecological-crisis-as-presented-by-Gregory-Bateson-in.png|thumb|StEM, three positive feedbacks]]
In 1971 there was nothing unusual about an ecological polemic appearing in a magazine devoted to the uses and maintenance of portable video systems (the Portapak, the next machine on our loop de loop). There was already an abiding connection between the notion of an ecological system regulated by feedback and a technological system regulated by the same principle. And the parallel notions of “ecology” were not simply analogous, they are systematically and structurally bound together. Steps in a broader ecology of mind which bound the Protozoa to the media system.


==CONSCIOUS PURPOSE–ECOLOGY==
The attraction of the Portapak was that it produced a circuitry of relations, and provided a new context in which the individual and their relation to the collective could be examined, re-examined, and performed. The revolution proposed in the pages of Radical Software described a shift from a ''spectacular'' form of media to a ''performative'' form, in which the self and the community would evolve together in a networked media ecology.


In Conscious Purpose versus Nature <ref>Bateson STEM 433, 1968</ref> Gregory Bateson outlines a dialectic that is now familiar to us. Bateson notes that the chain of being and the place of the mind within it – as it had been understood in pre-modern and in non-occidental cultures – has suffered a reversal in the modern Western scientific era. In the modern conception the supreme mind (God/ mind of Man) was at the top, enjoying mastery over the creatures below him, from the higher primates to the protozoa bubbling at the bottom. Bateson argues that this conception does not allow for a conception of mind as imminent within a series of co-extensive systems. The publication of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's evolutionary theory at the beginning of the 19th century – “the first organised transforms theory of evolution”.<ref>Bateson, STEM 455</ref> ushered in a Copernican revolution in the biological field. ''Philosophie Zoologique'' (1809) is revolutionary, Bateson contends, because it acknowledged that the order of nature runs in a converse direction, suggesting that mind is indeed emergent and imminent within an ecology 27.Up until Lamarck "mind was an explanation of the biological world. But, Hey presto, the question now arose: is the biological world the explanation of mind?" […] “Some years [after Lamarck], Russel Wallis, in his correspondence to Charles Darwin described the process of natural selection as akin to the regulation of a steam engine by a governor.”)<ref>STEM 435 Bateson also gives an account of this in Stewart Brand's For God Sake Margaret!, Co-Evolutionary Quarterly 197*</ref> The full implications of Wallis' insight, that such ecological systems are regulated by negative feedback (an observation also made by Samuel Butler, you may remember), lay dormant until after WWII when the revolution in cybernetics and communication theory allowed for a clearer understanding of feedback as a general regulating principle within different scaled ecological systems (from a single cell to a complex environment, such as Spaceship Earth). It also allowed for an understanding of the formation of social relations and individuation of the human psyche as a process of circular causality driven by purpose. If pre-modern societies had an understanding that mind was coextensive within a series of systems this was rediscovered in the post-cybernetic era as "nowadays cybernetics deals with much more complex systems" of human behaviour, human organization, any biological systems which are all self-corrective. Such systems are always conservative of something, the change in the fuel supply effects the motion of the flywheel which is regulated by the governor. <ref>''StEM'' 435</ref>
In the next chapter I will investigate the multifarious strands that brought this media culture into existence. I will discuss the antecedent of Radical Software, the counterculture magazine The Whole Earth Catalog. This publication appeared within a context in which cybernetic ideas had begun to permeate into the broader culture and, increasingly, define a counterculture. I will investigate how in the 1950s and 1960s aesthetics and ecology are increasingly read through a cybernetic lens, and discover Gregory Bateson's notion of an ecology of mind at the centre.
 
This transaction, in relation to any system, might be understood as survival. This tendency of self-correcting systems toward conservatism is now directed to the subject of the human psych. Bateson notes that the difficulty people have in seeing the obvious, or with coping with disturbing information is an artefact of the system. The tendency to reinforce resistance to the obvious or the disturbing is systematic. "This is a system which conserves descriptive statements about the human being, body and soul. For the same is true of the psychology of the individual , where learning occurs, to conserve the opinions and components of the status quo." Society and the ecosystem are systems of the same general kind. In all such systems there is an "uneasy balance of dependency and competition". The components of a system are "segmented" so that change is localised [...] The biological system is driven to reproduce, even if, to state the obvious, overpopulation will result in a strain on the larger system: any "monkeying with the system is likely to disrupt the equilibrium."<ref>Bateson, ''StEM'' 437</ref>. It is therefore, "quite a trick" to balance dependency and competition. The system is segmented so that no single part has access to the "total mind" . However, and here Bateson introduces a mysterious (almost mystical element), “there is a " "semipermiable" linkage between consciousness and the remainder of the total mind. A certain limited amount of information about what is happening in this larger part of the mind seems to be relayed to what we may call the screen of consciousness."<ref>Bateson ''StEM'', 438</ref> Because the screen of consciousness is a filtration system it necessarily provides partial information. The whole mind cannot be comprehended in part of that mind, to comprehend the circuitry of the system would require more circuitry which produces an infinitely recursive logic &c. The question now arises, how is this limited selection of information which plays on the screen of consciousness selected and filtered? "I am guided in my perception by purposes." , thought is responsive and immanent "I get a myth about this subject which might be quite correct. I am interested in getting that myth as I talk. It is relevant to my purposes that you hear me."<ref>Bateson STEM, 438</ref>. In this anecdote thought is imminent to purpose. Purpose becomes that which builds subjects and relations to subjects within the system.36 Here subjects and objects are performativly produced within a circuit of communication where competition and dependency are central agents.
 
Here Bateson mounts a critique of instrumental reason and the instrumentalization of cybernetic principles: "What happens to the picture of a cybernetic system [...] when that picture is selectively drawn to answer only questions of purpose?"<ref>Bateson STEM,439 </ref>If a system is organized only in terms of purpose it ends up with a “bag of tricks” and no wisdom about the system as a whole, it is organised to arrive at short cuts and quick fixes and to follow the shortest logical path, which may be "dinner; it may be a Beethoven sonata; it may be sex. Above all it may be money and power." <ref>Bateson STEM,440</ref>. The cause for concern, for Bateson, is the "addition of modern technology to the old system" The system orientated by purpose that consciousness has been using for more than a million years has produced more effective machinery "transportation systems, airplanes, weaponry, medicine, pesticides, and so forth" all produced through the agency of conscious purpose. <ref>Bateson StEM,441</ref>
 
Bateson gives an account of conscious purpose which begins in myth. God, in a retelling of the Judo-Christian creation myth, was cast out of the garden on the day that Adam and Eve worked out how to stack one box on top of another in order to get their hands on the apple. At the point at which they realised that A & B can result in C, and were defined by a local aim and purpose they were "cast out of the garden of the concept of their own systemic nature." our consciousness is conditioned to conscious purpose, which is projected onto the screen of our consciousness, such purpose defines the subjects and objects in our world, we produce technologies to meet those purposes, together these things constitute a system which we strive to preserve. We see as through a glass darkly – "Consciousness is blinded to the systematic nature of the individual man" .
 
Bateson continues to wax biblical: “Lack of systematic wisdom is always punished”.<ref>STEM 441</ref> when presenting the cybernetic paradox of consciousness. Bateson continues to call for a revision of "the occidental errors of epistemology"<ref>STEM 495</ref>, and calls for a humility in the face of nature and in relation to what is known by human beings. Bateson finds useful models in Zen Buddhism, which challenges the sovereignty of the self in relation to natural systems; artistic or aesthetic pursuits which operate under the order of self-reflexive, deutero-learning which alters the register of hierarchical perception; the 'best of religion' serves as a corrective to 'overrun' (positive feedback producing inflexibility and instability within a system).
 
In this respect the lines of engagement are ostensibly the same as the 1950s, but the stakes at the end of the 1960s, when an ecological disaster seems imminent, are more desperate.
Bateson wrote in Radical Software: “... all of the many current threats to man”s survival are traceable to three root causes: a) technological progress
 b) population increase
 c) certain errors in the thinking and attitudes of occidental culture. (Our “values” are wrong!)” <ref>Gregory Bateson, Awake, Radical Software No 5 Volume 1, p.33</ref>


<div class="image-body">
[[File:AshbyCard2.jpg|thumb|Ross Ashby card]]
</div>


<div class="image-body">
[[File:AshbyCard1.jpg|thumb|Ross Ashby card]]
</div>




[[file:AshbyCard2.jpg]]
<div class="chapter-links">
Functionally, the behaviour ''is'' the brain.
<div class="previous-chapter">[[Time-Binding and Time-Scrambling|Time-Binding and Time-Scrambling ←]]</div>
<div class="next-chapter">[[The Fabulous Loop de Loop|→ The Fabulous Loop de Loop]]</div>
</div>


[[file:AshbyCard1.jpg]]
[[Category:Fabulous_Loop_de_Loop Chapters]]

Latest revision as of 10:21, 10 March 2022

Homeostat, four units
Homeostat, four units


"We take as basic the assumptions that the organism is mechanistic in nature, that it is composed of parts, that the behaviour of the whole is the outcome of the compounded actions of the parts, that organisms change their behaviour by learning, and that they change it so that the later behaviour is better adapted to their environment than the earlier. Our problem is, first, to identify the nature of the change which shows as learning, and secondly, to find why such changes should tend to cause better adaptation for the whole organism." [1]

“When a kitten first approaches a fire its reactions are unpredictable and usually inappropriate. It may walk almost into the fire, or it may spit at it, or may dab at it with a paw, or try to spit at it, or crouch and 'stalk' it. Later, however, when adult, its reactions are different. It approaches the fire and seats itself at a place where the heat is moderate. If the fire burns low, it moves nearer. If a hot coal falls out, it jumps away. Its behaviour towards the fire is now 'adaptive'. I might have taken as type-problem some experiment published by a psychological laboratory, but the present example has several advantages. It is well known; it is representative of a wide class of important phenomena; and it is not likely to be called in question by the discovery of some small technical flaw.”[2]

W. Ross Ashby – Design for a Brain

ROSS ASHBY ON THE HOMEOSTAT

Homeostat–magnet, coil, pivot, vane, and water
Homeostat one unit diagram
Ashby sketch. Text reads “2 March 1948” […] “Have completed my four-unit machine. It has four ex-RAF bomb control switch gear kits at base, with four identical aluminium boxes,”
Ashby’s sketch for homeostat wiring diagram, 1948

The Homeostat is a four unit machine built by Ross Ashby from parts of old WWII planes and spare components. The machine maintains equilibrium despite perturbation to the system. This cybernetic organism, by feeding back information from its environment and adapting to any changes made, maintains a ultrastable state (“homeostasis”). The homeostat models a number of ultrastable systems: including an organism, an environment and a brain.

The most remarkable thing about the homeostat is that – because it is designed to correct any input which might threaten its stability – it works best when it does very little. When it was built, it was difficult for the cyberneticians at the 1952 Macy conference on cybernetics to make an assessment of the homeostat. Could the actions it performed be classed as behaviour? Does that behaviour constitute thinking?

From Ashby's perspective, biological organisms (and feedback machines such as the homeostat), are able to alter their patterns of response and bring critical variables back into the desired range. In these cases, energy takes little part in allowing the adaptation of the organism-servo-machine to its environment. Adaptation is afforded through the amount of information running through the system, which allows the organism (or servo machine) to maintain order at the boundary between two loosely coupled systems. In this way learning increases variety (this principle is expressed mathematically in Ashby's Law of Requisite Variety).[3]

Those attending Ashby's presentation of this “organism box” at the 1952 Macy conference [4], were puzzled by the claim that Ashby made for a broad field of evolutionary development. This led Julian Bigalow to remark: “It may be a beautiful replica of something, but heaven only knows what.”[5] Norbert Wiener, by contrast recognised the value of a machine which could model any self-organising system, and which allowed for an equivalence between adaptation and learning, Wiener described the homeostat as a “purposeful random mechanism which seeks for its own purpose through the process of learning”.

Whilst some saw the generality of the machine as a shortcoming (it was too general to tell us anything of specific use), others (notably Gregory Bateson) understood it as a breakthrough in understanding a structural equivalence on a number of levels – from the machine, to the individual organism, to the environment. In its ability to model a general system, the homeostat expressed the form of performative model Kenneth Craik had written about in The Nature of Explanation, the homeostat modelled the structure of the behaviour of a system without looking anything like the machine, organism, or environment it modelled.

In what follows we will see how – just as the cybernetic tortoise invites discussions into the nature of self, the intersubjective, and the nature of consciousness – the homeostat will invite questions about the dividing line between organism and environment, ecology and media, behaviour and thought.

The homeostat, in its generality, stands at the intersection between a ‘positivist’ cybernetics – whereby the observer can make observations about the actions of a particular thing without affecting the thing being observed – into a self-reflexive cybernetics, in which information from the environment feeds back to allow the observer to act on the information received (this will come to be known as 'second-order cybernetics'). This new emphasis (whereby “noise” can be reflexively modelled into “information”) will be at the foundation of an aesthetic revolution in the late 1950s and 1960s (as we will see in subsequent chapters) and, in a related development, will draw the human subject into the ecological feedback loop.

Th homeostat provided a model for Gregory Bateson to extend his ecology of mind still further, as Ashby’s notions of “requisite variation:” and “flexibility” are applied by Bateson to the realms of biology, ecology, and social cohesion.[6] Ashby's influence will be particularly apparent in texts which deal with the ecological crisis, such as Bateson's Restructuring the Ecology of a Great City. We will look at this text in more detail in the following chapter, where I examine how the discourses of ecology, media and the counterculture entangle. Below I will discuss Conscious Purpose Versus Nature, in which Bateson refines his cybernetic epistemology to encompass conscious choice and its relation to a broader ecology.

Steps to an Ecology of Mind, three positive feedbacks

CONSCIOUS PURPOSE–ECOLOGY

There is an ecology of bad ideas, just as there is an ecology of weeds.
– Gregory Bateson, Steps to an Ecology of Mind

Gregory Bateson's Conscious Purpose Versus Nature was delivered at the Dialectics of Liberation conference in 1968.[7] The event was convened by the British psychiatrist R. D. Laing (whose own “anti-psychiatry” was influenced by Bateson's double bind communication). The event subsequently became something of a landmark in the history of the 1960s counterculture.[8] Bateson's text is noteworthy because it brings together elements that are familiar to us, presenting a survey of Bateson's career as a cybernetic epistemologist. The text, which is laced with parables, takes us to the beginnings of our fabulous loop de loop, from a consideration of the place of Lamarkian evolutionary theory, through to discussion of the construction of the subject within a matrix of communication and on into a broader ecological realm (Bateson was at the time engaged in research into dolphin communication).

In the text, Bateson notes that the chain of being and the place of the mind within it – as it had been understood in pre-modern and in non-occidental cultures – has suffered a reversal in the modern Western scientific era. In the modern conception the supreme mind (God/ mind of Man) was at the top, enjoying mastery over the creatures below him, from the higher primates to the protozoa bubbling at the bottom. Bateson argues that this conception does not allow for a conception of mind as imminent within a series of co-extensive systems. The publication of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's evolutionary theory in Philisophie Zoologique (1809), at the beginning of the 19th century – “the first organised transforms theory of evolution”.[9] ushered in a Copernican revolution in the biological field. Philosophie Zoologique is revolutionary, Bateson contends, because it acknowledged that the order of nature runs in a converse direction, suggesting that mind is indeed emergent and imminent within an ecology. Up until Lamarck “mind was an explanation of the biological world. But, Hey presto, the question now arose: is the biological world the explanation of mind?” […] “Some years [after Lamarck], Alfred Russel Wallis, in his correspondence to Charles Darwin described the process of natural selection as akin to the regulation of a steam engine by a governor.”)[10] The full implications of Wallis' insight, that such ecological systems are regulated by negative feedback (an observation also made by Samuel Butler, you may remember), lay dormant until after WWII when the revolution in cybernetics and communication theory allowed for a clearer understanding of feedback as a general regulating principle within different scaled ecological systems (from a single cell to a complex environment, such as Spaceship Earth). It also allowed for an understanding of the formation of social relations and individuation of the human psyche as a process of circular causality driven by purpose. If pre-modern societies had an understanding that mind was coextensive within a series of systems, this was rediscovered in the post-cybernetic era as “nowadays cybernetics deals with much more complex systems”. Human behaviour, human organisation, any biological systems which are all self-corrective. Such systems are always conservative of something, the change in the fuel supply effects the motion of the flywheel which is regulated by the governor. [11] This transaction, in relation to any system, might be understood as survival.

THE SCREEN OF CONSCIOUSNESS

Bateson next directs this tendency of self-correcting systems toward conservatism to the subject of the human psyche. Bateson notes that the difficulty people have in seeing the obvious, or with coping with disturbing information is an artefact of the system. The tendency to reinforce resistance to the obvious or the disturbing is systematic. “This is a system which conserves descriptive statements about the human being, body and soul. For the same is true of the psychology of the individual, where learning occurs, to conserve the opinions and components of the status quo.” Society and the ecosystem are systems of the same general kind. In all such systems there is an “uneasy balance of dependency and competition”. The components of a system are “segmented” so that change is localised [...] The biological system is driven to reproduce, even if, to state the obvious, overpopulation will result in a strain on the larger system: any “monkeying with the system is likely to disrupt the equilibrium.”[12]. It is therefore, “quite a trick” to balance dependency and competition. The system is segmented so that no single part has access to the “total mind”. However, and here Bateson introduces a mysterious (almost mystical element), “there is a 'semipermiable' linkage between consciousness and the remainder of the total mind. A certain limited amount of information about what is happening in this larger part of the mind seems to be relayed to what we may call the screen of consciousness.”[13] Because the screen of consciousness is a filtration system it necessarily provides partial information. The whole mind cannot be comprehended in part of that mind, to comprehend the circuitry of the system would require more circuitry which produces an infinitely recursive logic &c. The question now arises, how is this limited selection of information which plays on the screen of consciousness selected and filtered? “I am guided in my perception by purposes.”, thought is responsive and immanent “I get a myth about this subject which might be quite correct. I am interested in getting that myth as I talk. It is relevant to my purposes that you hear me.”[14]. In this anecdote thought is imminent to purpose. Purpose becomes that which builds subjects and relations between subjects within the system. Here subjects and objects are performativly produced within a circuit of communication where competition and dependency are central agents.

Here Bateson mounts a critique of instrumental reason and the instrumentalisation of cybernetic principles: “What happens to the picture of a cybernetic system [...] when that picture is selectively drawn to answer only questions of purpose?”[15]If a system is organized only in terms of purpose it ends up with a “bag of tricks” and no wisdom about the system as a whole, it is organised to arrive at short cuts and quick fixes and to follow the shortest logical path, which may be “dinner; it may be a Beethoven sonata; it may be sex. Above all it may be money and power.”[16]. The cause for concern, for Bateson, is the “addition of modern technology to the old system”. The system orientated by purpose that consciousness has been using for more than a million years has produced more effective machinery “transportation systems, airplanes, weaponry, medicine, pesticides, and so forth” through the agency of conscious purpose.[17]

“After they had cast God out of the Garden, they really went to work on this purposive business, and pretty soon the topsoil disappeared. After that, several species of plants became “weeds” and some of the animals became “pests”; and Adam found that gardening was much harder work. He had to get his bread by the sweat of his brow and he said, “It's a vengeful God. I should never have eaten that apple.””[18]

Bateson gives an account of conscious purpose which begins in myth. God, in a retelling of the Judo-Christian creation myth, was cast out of the garden on the day that Adam and Eve worked out how to stack one box on top of another in order to get their hands on the apple. At the point at which they realised that A & B can result in C, and were defined by a local aim and purpose, whilst being rulers of their own garden, they were “cast out of the garden of the concept of their own systemic nature.” Our consciousness is conditioned to conscious purpose, which is projected onto the screen of our consciousness, such purpose defines the subjects and objects in our world, we produce technologies to meet those purposes, together these things constitute a system which we strive to preserve. We see as through a glass darkly – “Consciousness is blinded to the systematic nature of the individual man”.

Bateson continues to wax biblical: “Lack of systematic wisdom is always punished”.[19] when presenting the cybernetic paradox of consciousness. Bateson continues to call for a revision of “the occidental errors of epistemology”[20], and calls for a humility in the face of nature and in relation to what is known by human beings. Bateson finds useful models in Zen Buddhism, which challenges the sovereignty of the self in relation to natural systems; artistic or aesthetic pursuits which operate under the order of self-reflexive deutero-learning, which alters the register of hierarchical perception; the 'best of religion' serves as a corrective to 'overrun' (positive feedback producing inflexibility and instability within a system).

In this respect the lines of engagement are ostensibly the same as the 1950s, but the stakes at the end of the 1960s, when an ecological disaster seems imminent, are more desperate. Bateson wrote in Radical Software: “... all of the many current threats to man's survival are traceable to three root causes: a) technological progress
 b) population increase
 c) certain errors in the thinking and attitudes of occidental culture. (Our “values” are wrong!)”[21]

BATESON – MEDIA ECOLOGY

Environmental Information Network (featured in Radical Software)
Gregory Bateson, Restructuring the Ecology of a Great City, Radical Software, Issue 4 1971

If the cybernetic tortoise provided the model for the construction of the self within the environment, Ashby's homeostat provided the model for the organisation of organic and ecological systems. This is apparent in two texts Gregory Bateson published in the video journal Radical Software at the beginning of the 1970s: Restructuring the Ecology of a Great City (which I will discuss in greater detail in the next chapter) and the ecological polemic Awake![22] In Ashby's model, and Bateson's city, flexibility operates within set parameters, the upper and lower limits of which are strained when tested. The ideal environment, for Bateson, would be one which affords the maximum flexibility, which in turn affords adaptation. Less flexibility will result in less sustainability as the system is tested beyond its limits. Humans routinely find themselves in an ecological pickle when a sub-system seeks to preserve aspects within itself which run contrary to the order of the greater system. In such circumstances, the task for humans is to operate on a deutero level and control ecological resources, correcting the human pathologies which routinely inflict modern modes of organisation. [23] It is at this point where conscious purpose loops into a broader ecological system.

Gregory Bateson's text Awake (1971) appeared in the fifth issue of Radical Software. It clearly annotates the errors in epistemology that threaten the future of spaceship earth in the second half of the twentieth century.

“[T]he ideas which dominate our civilization at the present time date in their most virulent form [are] from the Industrial Revolution.

a) It's us against the environment.
b) It's us against other men.
c) It's the individual (or the individual company, or the individual nation) that matters.
d) We can have unilateral control over the environment and must strive for that control.
e) We live within an infinitely expanding “frontier.”
f) Economic determinism is common sense.
g) Technology will do it for us.

We submit that these ideas are simply proved false by the great but ultimately destructive achievement of our technology in the last 150 years. Likewise they appear to be false under modern ecological theory. The creature that wins against its environment destroys itself...”[24]

In 1971 there was nothing unusual about an ecological polemic appearing in a magazine devoted to the uses and maintenance of portable video systems (the Portapak, the next machine on our loop de loop). There was already an abiding connection between the notion of an ecological system regulated by feedback and a technological system regulated by the same principle. And the parallel notions of “ecology” were not simply analogous, they are systematically and structurally bound together. Steps in a broader ecology of mind which bound the Protozoa to the media system.

The attraction of the Portapak was that it produced a circuitry of relations, and provided a new context in which the individual and their relation to the collective could be examined, re-examined, and performed. The revolution proposed in the pages of Radical Software described a shift from a spectacular form of media to a performative form, in which the self and the community would evolve together in a networked media ecology.

In the next chapter I will investigate the multifarious strands that brought this media culture into existence. I will discuss the antecedent of Radical Software, the counterculture magazine The Whole Earth Catalog. This publication appeared within a context in which cybernetic ideas had begun to permeate into the broader culture and, increasingly, define a counterculture. I will investigate how in the 1950s and 1960s aesthetics and ecology are increasingly read through a cybernetic lens, and discover Gregory Bateson's notion of an ecology of mind at the centre.

Ross Ashby card
Ross Ashby card


  1. Ross Ashby, Design for a Brain, John Wiley and Sons Publishing, 1952p. 12
  2. W. Ross Ashby, Design for a Brain, John Wiley and Sons Publishing, 1952 p.12
  3. Peter Harries-Jones, A Recursive Vision: Ecological Understanding and Gregory Bateson p.109
  4. “organism box” was coined by Gerard at the 1952 Macy conference. Others in the discussion included McCulloch, Pitts, Bateson, Bigalow and Wiener Cybernetics, The Macy Conferences p 86
  5. Pias, Claus, ed. Cybernetics | Kybernetik: The Macy-Conferences 1946-1953, Volume 1 Transactions. Edited by Claus Pias: Diaphanes 2004, p.96
  6. Bateson, Restructuring the Ecology of a Great City, Radical Software no 4 1970; & Bateson, Conscious Purpose Versus Nature. Steps to an Ecology of Mind 433
  7. Bateson Steps to an Ecology of Mind 433-446, 1967
  8. For better and for worse. The event was criticised for its sexism – no female speakers were invited and those that did try to speak were patronised or overlooked – and served, unintentionally, as a recruiting event for the feminist cause. For more details on the event see http://www.dialecticsofliberation.com/1967-dialectics
  9. Bateson, Steps to an Ecology of Mind 455
  10. Steps to an Ecology of Mind 435 Bateson also gives an account of this in Stewart Brand's For God Sake Margaret!, Co-Evolutionary Quarterly 197*
  11. Steps to an Ecology of Mind 435
  12. Bateson, Steps to an Ecology of Mind 437
  13. Bateson Steps to an Ecology of Mind , 438
  14. Bateson Steps to an Ecology of Mind , 438
  15. Bateson Steps to an Ecology of Mind ,439
  16. Bateson Steps to an Ecology of Mind ,440
  17. Bateson Steps to an Ecology of Mind ,441
  18. Bateson, Steps to an Ecology of Mind 423
  19. Bateson Steps to an Ecology of Mind 441
  20. Bateson Steps to an Ecology of Mind 495
  21. Gregory Bateson, Awake, Radical Software No 5 Volume 1, p.33
  22. Gregory Bateson, Awake, Radical Software No 5 Volume 1, p.33; Gregory Bateson Restructuring the Ecology of a Great City, Radical Software no 4 1971
  23. Gregory Bateson Restructuring the Ecology of a Great City, Radical Software no 4 1971
  24. Gregory Bateson Radical Software Issue 5 Volume 1, Bateson Steps to an Ecology of Mind . 87