Getting familiar with the unfamiliar , or when either and or make love

I remember a profound sense of shock in a lecture exploring the utility of conserving biodiversity 8 years ago. Something felt profoundly wrong — from the perspective being presented, there seemed to be no reason to conserve biodiversity, except for our own survival; and- still- no amount of science seemed to allow political change in favor of conserving biodiversity and the environment, of which we are part.

The utilitarian argument — based on science — taking us as the reference point of observation, seemed heartbreakingly self-referential and destructive to me; as well as very similar to addiction — when you know a way of behaving is harming you, and yet you continue to engage in this behavior.

It became very important to me to explore what was at the root of a society seemingly caught in an addictive pattern? Beyond still tending towards seeing ourselves at the center of the universe by organizing according to the utilitarian principle, there was an intuition that logical thinking — which is inherently separating and abstracting — might be part of it. Logical thinking separates reality into parts, and sees us as an objective observer, leading to an objectification of reality, and taking away the potential change that can happen only in relationship.

And yet in that search there seemed to be an encounter with a lot of ‘either-or’ : for instance either logic as a way of knowing; or the absence of it. But what about all the grey-zones? Surely simply going against logical thought is affirming its importance, as the argument is of logical form. A long search and many dialogues later, richer by a diversity of relationships, embedded in an ecology of thinking (ref. Nora and Gregory Bateson) — I want to make a bold claim:

The war between either and or is over.

Why? If the intention is to get closer to reality, then getting too obsessed with binary ways of knowing arrests the process of it generating new perspectives and new hypotheses. Furthermore concluding that logical thinking should not be trusted due to the limitations of thinking in binary categories, is in fact a misunderstanding of how western science is, all other things being equal, meant to evolve, i.e. that findings are true until falsified. Science can be an important contribution to the ground on which collective action is based, and requires cross-pollination with other ways of knowing to evolve.

So given that logical thinking has its place, what other thought forms exist, beyond the binary?

What about context?

What about process?

What about relationship?

These various thought forms (ref. Otto Laske) open whole new ways of perceiving and relating with reality, or ‘the other’.

Adding thought-forms that go beyond the binary form has implications for how we respond to the multiple crises of adapting to a changing world, and the hypotheses we make that guide our scientific research.

Healing the relationship to our environment it is not only a question of direct correctives such as CO2 emission control. It is not always, or only ever, a question of ‘making’ change. It is also learning to enter a more complex relationship with reality and our environment, which happens in more than the logical way of processing information.

Suspending all observation and perception that does not give us the kind of data which permits the formulation of direct correctives leads us to miss out on many opportunities for learning about the nature of the adaptation challenge at hand. It also supposes that the world is frozen and exists outside of relationships, contexts and processes. We need to practice ‘knowing in the doing’, the Warm Data.

Come in: Improvisation. ‘Yes, and’.

“It is both, and so much more”, to quote Nora Bateson.

The ability to sense oneself, ‘the others’, place — and exchange, uncensored, and in shared presence.

Notice that either and or have not been kicked off the playing field, rather their playing time and position on the field have changed.

Might we move toward a culture of meeting the unfamiliar together? Learning to tap into multiple ways of knowing, and listening into what the situation asks of us (rather than what is in it for ‘me’)?

I have an intuition that a culture where everybody is more enabled and willing to improvise between ways of knowing, will let us collectively weave the kind of metaphors and attractors that can align action through our beautiful diversity and break through those power structures which no longer are serving the purpose of letting life flow. Imagine we would participate in the unfolding of reality collectively, with the richness we bring as a rich tapestry of relations in the making, embedded in a more than human web of life.

When either and or make love, and meet each other in shared presence, attuned to the ground they share, birth can be given to fresh life, or learning.

So what I suppose I am inviting is play. Learning new ways of interacting with our environment with quick feedback loops and embodied presence. Play is what awakens this improvisational conversation with ‘the other’, the ‘world out there’, a.k.a. reality. It is also how animals learn. So my inquiry is now moving in the direction of how we can cultivate the improvisational approach to our place in the wider web of life amongst the human species — with a sense that there is a lot we can learn from other life-forms — because we have serious play to do.

A strong essence of this work seems to be that nobody can see where ‘it’ is going alone. As I am told by people who have experienced the birth of an infant, there comes a point where one needs to let go and actually be willing to die, so that new life can be born. I believe this is a powerful metaphor for what we need to do collectively with our various forms of intelligences and ideas intertwined, in relation and attuned to place. Remembering that it is an illusion to find permanent solutions, and life moves with a willingness to continually build and destroy and adapt patterns of relating with ‘the other’.

…..

I would like to mention parts of the ecology of thinking and ways of processing information that I am embedded in and through which I am able to formulate these thoughts: Metamoderna’s work; the Warm Data Communtiy and Labs; the Measuring Hidden Dimensions Training based on Otto Laske’s work with Fraendi; several exchanges with Nico Czinczoll and the Homecoming Academy; practicing emergent dialogue guided by Elizabeth Debold, Thomas Steiniger and Pamela von Sabeljar within the Emerge Network; and playing the Glassbead Game with Laurence Currie-Clark & Co.