Vibrations
Vibrations: Butler, James and the Batesons
In Vibrations (1885), Samuel Butler reflects that he had made three contributions to the theory of evolution:
(1.) In Life and Habit (1877) Butler had established the relation between heredity and memory.
(2.) In Evolution Old and New (1879) he had reintroduced teleology into organic life
(3.) In Unconscious Memory (1880) he had suggested an explanation of the physics of memory and made a connection between consciousness and evolution.
The theory of vibrations represents an extension of Butler’s evolutionary scheme. It holds that there is a universal substance which is perceived at different levels of abstraction. In Butler’s words: “[…] the characteristics of the vibrations going on within it at any given time will determine whether it will appear to us as (say) hydrogen, or sodium, or chicken doing this, or chicken doing the other.” The theory of vibrations, which holds that difference is registered at varying levels of abstraction, was picked up by William Bateson, the ‘father of modern genetics’ and passed on to his son Gregory Bateson, who in turn applied it to his own wholistic cybernetic theory of ecology.
Butler imagined a universal substance which is in a state of vibration. This vibration constitutes matter itself and the character of the vibrations constitutes particular kinds of matter. Butler notes that the Universal Substance is both “mental and physical’ and is mediated through action. In Butler the vibrations constitute a network of communication which establish patterns and these patterns establish the conditions for reproduction and adaptation: “May we imagine” writes Butler “ that some vibrations vibrate with a rhythm which has a tendency to recur like the figures in a recurring decimal, and that here we have the origin of the reproductive system?”
In the mid 1880s Butler was proposing a reality constituted through the performative play of difference. Samuel Butlers intuition would be more thoroughly articulated in the following decades, as the discourse of ‘radiation’ became current and, as a result, the discourse of negative entropy could later be more easily articulated. William James’ first used the term the ‘difference that makes a difference’ in 1907 in relation to the negentropic properties of radiation, that newly discovered entity which, evidenced in radium, seemed to defy the second law of thermodynamics and “pay out of its own pocket”.
In Pragmatism (1907) William James stated: “there can be no difference anywhere that doesn’t make a difference elsewhere – no difference in abstract truth that doesn’t express itself in a difference in concrete fact and in conduct consequent upon that fact, imposed on somebody, somehow, somewhere and somewhen. The whole function of philosophy ought to be to find out what definite difference it will make to me and you, at definite instants of our life, if this world-formula or that world-formula be the true one.”
In highlighting for the difference that makes a difference James was trying to account for precisely the problematic that Butler had encountered – an unaccounted proliferation of order within an entropic universe. To stress the urgency of the nineteenth-century energy deficit, James cites a particularly energised substance discovered around the time of writing Pragmatism: “‘Radium’ came the other day as part of the day’s content, and seemed for a moment to contradict the ideas of the whole order of nature, that order having come to be identified with what is called conservation of energy. The mere sight of radium paying heat away indefinitely out of its own pocket seemed to violate that conservation.” [57]
Jameson here identifies the problem which centres around the relation between energy and information. Following the publication of Wiener (1948) and Shannon’s (1948) work on information and (neg)entropy it was clear why a difference could make a difference and how the abstract truth could be expressed in a concrete fact. It was clear about the “definite difference it will make to me and you, at definite instants of our life” that these differences are bound to the choices we make in the information economies we inhabit. But even given this clarity, we can see that in the time of Samuel Butler the relationship between evolution, purpose, difference and mind were entangled. Already, in the age of steam, the elements necessary for a comprehensive materialist, cybernetic theory of mind were present. James’ contemporary, William Bateson working in the new field of genetics, would also seek to account for this previously unaccounted surplus.
Vibrations and the Universal Substance: Butler, William and Gregory Bateson
In Steps to an Ecology of Mind, Gregory Bateson makes a connection between his father and Samuel Butler which identifies difference as modulations of communication both in nature and in human communication: “My father was a geneticist, and he used to say, ‘It's all vibrations,’ and to illustrate this he would point out that the striping of the common zebra is an octave higher than that of Grevy's zebra. While it is true that in this particular case the ‘frequency’ is doubled, I don't think that it is entirely a matter of vibrations as he endeavoured to explain it. Rather, he was trying to say that it is all a matter of the sort of modifications which could be expected among systems whose determinants are not a matter of physics in the crude sense, but a matter of messages and modulated systems of messages. It is worth noting, too, that perhaps organic forms are beautiful to us and the systematic biologist can find aesthetic satisfaction in the differences between related organisms simply because the differences are due to modulations of communication, while we ourselves are both organisms who communicate and whose forms are determined by constellations of genetic messages.”6
A decade later, in one of Gregory Bateson’s last texts, he acknowledges that he and his father had been following the same course in relation to biological and mental variation, which both operated under the order of difference:
“[…] if we separate off, for the sake of enquiry, the world of mental process from the world of cause and matter, what will the world of mental process look like? And [the elder Bateson] would have called it, I think, the laws of biological variation, and I would be willing to accept that title for what I am doing, including, perhaps, both biological and mental variation, lest we ever forget that thinking is mental variation.” 7
Samual Butler who used the term ‘vibrations’ to account for relations between factors that would later be interpreted as negentropic. Gregory Bateson identified a continuity of enquiry between Butler, his father and himself which circled around the problematic of systemic order, and which is resolved by a cybernetic reading of homeostasis and negentropy (the communication of variation): “We (a thin line of thinkers from Lamark, to Fechner, to Samual Butler, to William Bateson) knew that mind must in some way enter into the larger scheme of explanation. We knew that ultimately the theory of evolution must become identical with a resolution of the body/mind problem.”8
WILLIAM BATESON – Evolution, Information and Energy
THE PROBLEM OF GENETICS
In 1906 Gregory Bateson’s father, William Bateson wrote:
“We commonly think of animals and plants as matter, but they are really systems through which matter is continually passing. The orderly relations of their parts are as much under geometrical control as the concentric waves spreading from a splash in a pool. If we could in any real way identify or analyse the causation of growth, biology would become a branch of physics. 1
William Bateson (W.B.) established the modern science of genetics by reviving the theories of Gregor Mandel, after whom William named his son, Gregory. Mandel had observed generational mutation through breeding peas and had coined the term ‘genetics’, which William Bateson duely introduced to the English-speaking world. Mendel and W.B. opposed Darwin’s emphasis on natural selection (when given undue emphasis to the survival of the fittest), positing instead specific diversity – whereby mutation within the cell structure of an organism influenced the development of subsequent generations.2 The Bateson-Mandel emphasis allowed for genetic change within a biological system to be transmitted on the level of information, as opposed to the conversion of energy within a closed entropic system. The distinct difference deserves note: dynamic equilibrium requires an exchange of energy whereas homeostasis requires an exchange of information. 3 From the start of his career Gregory Bateson carried his father’s approach into the heart of his own work, allowing the accommodation of key ideas in relation to pattern and repetition which derived from his father’s work on genetics.4
In later life Gregory Bateson would make the relation of evolutionary adaptation and information explicit: “My father coined that word [“genetics”] in 1908 – it was still necessary to call the elements of Mendelian heredity ‘factors.’ Nobody could then see or would risk the notion that these must be ideas or chunks of information or command.” 5 In Gregory Bateson’s early work as a biologist he had researched the emergent symmetry of pigeons and fish “Even then, I think that the fact of communication and the fact of regularity, symmetry, etc., in anatomy, were going hand in hand.” but it was only twenty years later, when he started his cybernetic research that Bateson was able to recognise the homology between different systems, and that the “regularity in the anatomy of flowering plants was comparable to the regularity which linguists found in language.” Bateson, when referring to his father’s work, often outlines ways in which the elder Bateson anticipated homeostasis and negentropy and intuited evolution and mind as different levels of abstraction within a larger evolutionary system. Bateson: In Problems of Genetics (1913) William Bateson argues that specific diversity (genetic mutation) allows for variation within a given species. This position is contra to the orthodox reading of Charles Darwin’s doctrine of natural selection. In the opening chapter W.B. outlines the traditional resistance against the theory of evolution in general and the opposition to specific diversity in particularly (on the part of supporters of Darwin). For Bateson Senior, specific variation is evident in the fossil records of organisms from vertebrates to bacteria: “In all these groups there are many species quite definite and unmistakable, and others practically indefinite.”9 It is evident that the evolutionary line is not as simple to read as might be first supposed. As evidence continued to amass after Darwin posited the theory of natural selection, and as this data was analysed and studied, it became increasingly apparent (to W.B. at least) that variation is neither “evenly distributed” within nature or “arbitrary” and that variation occurs for a number of reasons, which all relate to specific variation:
When this variability is broken down it can be attributed to a number of factors: In part a result of hybridisation; in part a consequence of the persistence of hybrids by parthenogenetic reproduction – in which reproduction occurs without fertilisation (this is common in bees, ants, plants and reptiles); it might be in part due to polymorphism – in which case alternative phenotypes are produced within the same group; or variability may be due to the continued presence of individuals representing various combinations of Mendelian allelomorphs – which indicate alternative forms of the same genes (a gene is understood as a unit of heredity 10 [<unpack this and break it down].
It is also the case, at odds with the orthodoxy of natural selection, that species “gradually derived from a common progenitor”11 continue to thrive in the same environment, they do not render each other extinct, in which case it is a question of difference rather than fitness.
Furthermore, a variation is sometimes so common that it loses all definition; take British Noctuid Moths, “Many are so variable that, in the common phrase, ‘scarcely two can be found alike’ ’’.12
Variation, therefore, takes place in a multiplicity of local forms for a number of different reasons.
But, having said that, an alligator cannot give birth to a photocopier. If the differences are multifarious, what keeps differences from being totally arbitrary? What accounts for the fixity within some species and great variety in others? To beg the same question in cybernetic terms, what restraints and thresholds are in place? 13
In order to address that question W.B., like Butler had done a generation before him, must come up against the problematic of a concept which did not yet exist: negentropy. The very fecundity of the natural world and the very complexity of variation within it argued against the entropic model of heat death, whereby heterogeneity within a system decreases, and also argued against the entropic logic of “the survival of the fittest”14. William Bateson, in Problems of Genetics, allows that natural selection and specific diversity both play their part, but the challenge to the orthodoxy of natural selection, which in the time of William Bateson was meeting increasing number of anomalies, was genetic code’s flexibility, which allowed for both fixity and variation. 15 W.B. held that “the phenomena of variation and stability must be an index of the internal constitution of organisms, and not mere consequences of their relations to the outer world.” The notion of an index which informs structure is a good deal more precise than Samual Butler, who searched similar territory by supposing that every organism contains: “a little unwritten history of the universe from its own point of view” but W.B, to use stochastic in its etymological sense, was still unable to hit his target in the centre.16 17
[William Bateson} “As soon as it is realised how largely the phenomena of variation and stability must be an index of the internal constitution of organisms, and not mere consequences of their relations to the outer world, such phenomena acquire a new and more profound significance.”
The notion that the transforms which occur in evolution are executed through the transmission of code gained support over time. By1943 Edwin Schrödinger ‘s What is life lectures suggested that chromosomes contain the coded script of living organisms, a decade before being given empirical credence by Watson and Crick. Bertalanffy’s general systems theory, McCulluch-Pitts Neural net theory, Shannon’s information theory and Wiener’s theory of negentropy would be amongst the many elements that supported the notion that informational-biological systems described by William Bateson had a structural relation to other systems. [<<this ending needs a lot more work- unpack]
1William Bateson, "Gamete and Zygote," in William Bateson, F.R.S.: Naturalist, His Essays and Addresses Together with a Short Account of His Life, Caroline Beatrice Bateson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1928), 2 Allowing for adaptation. The dispute between theory of Gregor Mandel and W.B. and Darwinian natural selection persisted through to the 1970s, at which time the seeming contradiction was reconciled in evolutionary genetics (Lipsit). 3(the energy transference – equilibrium – model as opposed to the information transference – homeostasis– model). 4 Harries-Jones 19 5 Bateson Sacred Unity 185 (1976) 6 Bateson(STEM 237) Gregory Bateson: The Group Dynamics of Schizophrenia In STEM 233- Here Bateson is citing: Beatrice C. Bateson, William Bateson, Naturalist, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1928. 7 Bateson Sacred Unity 236 (1980) 8 Bateson A Sacred Unity 900 9 William Bateson. “Problems of Genetics.” iBooks. (13) 10 William Bateson. “Problems of Genetics.” iBooks. (24) 11Excerpt From: William Bateson. “Problems of Genetics.” iBooks. 12Excerpt From: William Bateson. “Problems of Genetics.” iBooks. 13We will see in Chapter two that these changes, in their complexity and multitude, can be accounted in many ways – including W. Ross Ashby’s law of requisite variety. But how – three decades before Ashby published his paper and built the machine that demonstrated this law (the homeostat), and three decades before Norbert Wiener and Claude Shannon’s work on (neg)entropy and information theory – could William Bateson account for this panoply of changes? 14 Which was an interpretation of Darwinism popularised by Herbert Spencer in the second half of the nineteenth century 15 In the age of cybernetics this range from fixity to diversity could be explained via W. Ross Ashby’s law of requisite variety and demonstrated by the machine he built, the Homeostat (see Chapter two). 16The term Stochastic derives from a series of arrows fired at a target. After the arbitrary action of firing the pattern is revealed on the surface of the target (see Bateson Glossary) 17[“ index of the internal constitution of organisms,” Encoded, containing the history of the organism and allowing for adaptation. An exercise in “live coding” A code genes = units of heredity; the differences are encoded within the organisms, they leave a trace of their development, of the differences they enact, the changes they perform; they seem to be iterative – they feed forward / feed back information from through generations; they speak of the structure of an organism which is more reliable than matching similarities; one species does not write another out, they produce continuity and diversity; they encode memory;][<<this needs unpacking and rewriting] 18 Excerpt From: William Bateson. “Problems of Genetics.” iBooks.
“We shall never get straight till we leave off trying to separate mind and matter. Mind is not a thing or, if it bej_ we know nothing about it ; it is a function of matter. Matter is not a thing or, if it be, we know nothing about it; it is a function of mind. We should see an omnipotent, universal substance, sometimes in a dynamical and sometimes in a statical condition and, in either condition, always retaining a little of its opposite; and we should see this substance as at once both material and mental, whether it be in the one condition or in the other. The statical condition represents content, the dynamical, discontent; and both content and discontent, each still retaining a little of its opposite, must be carried down to the lowest atom. Action is the process whereby thought, which is mental, is materialised and whereby substance, which is material, is mentalised. It is like the present, which unites times past and future and which is the only time worth thinking of and yet is the only time which has no existence.” [Butler Notebooks p.67]
Here Butler describes a Universal Substance which is constituted in difference: it is mental and it is physical and it is actualised in action, which renders the mental physical and the physical mental. Here Butler describes a performativity which exists in a constant play of difference. On the mental and physical level, it is only the difference that makes a difference. This echoes entirely with James’ assertion that “no difference in abstract truth that doesn’t express itself in a difference in concrete fact and in conduct consequent upon that fact, imposed on somebody, somehow, somewhere and somewhen.”