"Lets take a simple behavior pattern. Water. Water, we know,
through Logic 1 experiments, is H2O - two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen.
But there is a logical problem because hydrogen and oxygen are two gasses. They behave
quite differently than water does. In fact, we can fill a room with oxygen gas and
hydrogen gas and we will have a room full of oxygen gas and hydrogen gas, not water." "Until someone adds a spark," Yves remarks. "Then Boom! And
you have water, not gas."
"Right. Water isn't hydrogen and oxygen. Water is something
brand new and different formed by the interaction of hydrogen and oxygen. We could say
water is the dance of hydrogen and oxygen because when the atoms of these gasses move in a
certain pattern of motion they become the liquid mass of elements we perceive and measure
as water. Water is the motion, the relationship, the interaction, of two gasses." I
pause to gobble my slice of pizza.
"When two systems get together they behave in brand new,
different ways; behavior they could not do by themselves." comes out between bites.
"Ahh, Fuller. Synergetics," says Yves. "Synergetics
is logic 3."
"Sure. Synergetics. It's digital. Two relationships come
together and boom, there is a whole new way of behaving. No timed sequence, no
Aristotelian predictability, just wham bang and there's water where there were two gasses
before. It's not there, then it is. A quantum leap in behavior." We eat for awhile.
"The neurons of the human brain, in concert with all the other
body cells reacting with the whole environment, create the human mind. The mind is not the
digital impulses, not the analogue, living neurons, but the interaction between the
neurons, the digital signals, and the environment. We go along receiving all kinds of
signals, internal and external, and then the signals reach a critical point - or perhaps
are sparked off by a special signal - and wham bang, we have an idea, a new mode of
behavior. We make a quantum jump from indecision to decision."
"And we eat another bite of the pizza." Freddy finishes.
"Exactly," I demonstrate this process by devouring another
slice of Freddy"s delicious pizza.
"Language is also like this," Yves says as I eat.
"The letter W, by itself means nothing. It is digit. Add another letter - O, still
nothing. M, A, and finally, when I say N, the digital sequence of letters - WOMAN -becomes
an analogue concept with infinite meanings and relationships. Language also operates on
Logic 3 levels, does it not?"
"Yes. You've got it," I agree. "And where you have a
woman...?"
"What? Oh, I see. Yes. There must be a Logic IV which is
analogue again." Yves rallies to my cause.
"Exactly. But first, tell me what sort of mental picture you
get of the world using logic 3."
"This is a test, class," Freddy puts in. I glare at her
while Yves laughs.
"A test. What sort of mental image do I see using logic
3?" Yves thinks for a minute while I munch on a fourth slice of pizza. "I think
the best way to begin is with the motion. Everything is moving relative to everything
else. The atoms always move about, interacting with each other. Each atom is digital. When
they come together in very large numbers, and in a special ways, their movement spells out
a special relationship. Water, the example you used. But also big, living molecules like
DNA."
"Good opening," I say.
"The DNA molecules become the new digits. They also move and
interact in very large populations to create cells. Cells are brand new, unpredictable
analogue behavior compared to the DNA molecules. This is Synergetics." Yves smiles,
he's got it exactly.
"And then?"
"Well, the progression continues. The cells become the digits.
When they reach high enough populations, they form new kinds of behavior, unlike any cell,
new creatures called plants and animals. These are now the digits, they work together in
large populations to form societies or ecosystems....." Yves stops.
"Ah Ha!" I say, pointing my Pizza crust at him.
"There's something wrong with logic 3. Right? Something missing. You can feel
it."
"Yes, I can. But I can't say what it is."
"OK. Suppose we see logic 3 like this. Quantum jumps of
behavior result from the interaction of focal points of behavior we call selves - like
you, I'm including atoms as selves - they are the focal points of electrons, protons and
neutrons. The selves communicate with each other to form new selves, new modes of
behavior. The interactions of any one self have an infinite number of possible
relationships. But not always. When they lock into a specific pattern of behavior they no
longer have an infinite number of directions of movement available to them.
"Do you see? Hydrogen and oxygen as atoms can move in any
direction but when they lock into the water pattern, their individual movements shift into
channeled, directed behavior. Same thing with DNA or with a cell. Like a protozoan
swimming in the water, a single cell in the ocean, can move in any possible dimension. But
a single cell in a human body is locked into a behavior pattern it can't alter or escape
from. It is now a part of a new and different, larger behavior system. The human."
"Yes. I see. And the human, alone in the wild can do almost
anything, move in any direction. But a human in a city is locked into certain set paths of
movement, along roads or sidewalks, down corridors. In rooms. Yes, of course. Logic 3 does
not address the control systems. So logic 4 must be the logic of the control systems, and
it must be like cybernetics again, a feedback arrangement."
"Give the man a ceeegar," I say and pass Yves a box of his
favorite Davidoff cheroots.
"Freddy, that was delicious," Yves says.
"Thank you, Yves. Just don't smoke those things in here," Freddy can't stand the smell.
"See? Logic 4 is everywhere," Yves and I go out into the
cockpit to smoke the little cigars.
"Logic 3 could never have developed without extrasensory
perception," I say as we get settled, looking out at the glitter of Noumea's lights
on the harbor water.
"I'm sorry?" Yves interrupts, "Did you say
extrasensory perception?"
"Yeah. Extrasensory. Beyond the horizons of animal
perception."
"You mean telepathy?" He looks dubious.
"No, not at all. As animals, we can perceive each other, but
not our body cells or our molecules of DNA or the even the larger behavioral structure of
society; all of which play a role in the control sequencing. We needed to see beyond our
animal senses to perceive these. And we invented extrasensory perception devices like
microscopes and cyclotrons and libraries to discover the other layers of being." I
light up the cigars.
"Oh yes, I thought extrasensory perception was something
else." Yves frowns.
"Oh, you're right, most people mean something else by the term;
perceptions gained in ways we can not explain. Like telepathy. Two hundred years ago the
words would have included radio and telephones and electron microscopes."
"Yes, I understand. And logic 4? Now we are approaching your
idea about evolution and control systems."
"Sure. Logics 1 through 3 can explain most of the physical
world with little difficulty, including most biological systems. It can explain the
billiard ball hitting and moving another one and even tell us most everything about how
billiard balls are made. We can even explain the biology of the creature rolling the
billiard ball along the table.
"What logics 1 to 3 don't explain is why a creature would want
to roll a billiard ball along a table. They don't explain the meaning behind the act nor
the meaning of meaning itself."
"Yes, I agree, I suspected this also, it was missing from logic
3."
"As you predicted, logic 4 is analogue, it deals with
relationships between the quantum jumps of logic 3 levels of behavior."
"Yes, yes, that's right." Yves is getting excited.
"And the proof of the logic is in the patterns we see in the world. The model of
thinking represents the observed patterns of behavior."
He understands. He really does understand. "Not many people
would have seen that."
He grins, nodding his head. "I have had similar thoughts. Our
talks clarify them."
"A good example of this is the business about the map is not
the territory." I look across the bay at the lights of Noumea.
"The map is not...oh yes, of course. The word is not the thing
itself." Yves puffs on the cigar.
"Right. Simple logic. But although the statement about the
territory and the map was from Korzybski - you know, Science and Sanity? - it is still
bound up in logic 1 errors. Korzybski renovated the old argument between Aristotle and
Pythagoras. Aristotle saw reality as made up of substances and asked, what are the
building blocks of nature. Pythagoras saw patterns. He asked what is the pattern of
nature. He looked for form and function."
"You're lect-u-ring," Freddy's voice sweets up from the
galley.
"Right, sorry. It would have been a different world if
Pythagoras had won. Anyway...." I hesitate.
"The map and the territory," Yves prompts.
"The map and the territory. Logic 2, like Logic 1 would say the
map is not the territory, but it is related to the territory because it is a feedback
system. Bateson asked, 'If the map is not the territory, what is it in the territory that
gets onto the map?"'
"Yes, a good question. And how did Bateson answer?" Yves
asks.
"Differences. Boundaries. Changes in status. That's what gets
onto the map. Bateson had some really profound questions about differences. Like, what is
a difference? Right is different from left, up is different from down. But right-left is a
different kind of difference than up-down. So, for example, a mirror reverses right
and left but not up and down."
"Yes, I see, very confusing."
"He's right, too, about the importance of differences. Whenever
language can't describe an event you have uncovered a proscribed - a secret - area. A
Logic 4 Control regulator. See, when you begin to explore the landscape of differences all
you get is one word. Different. Yet out there in that wordless wilderness is the whole
question of form, the appearance of a being against the backdrop of nothingness, the
mysterious quantum leaps from one kind of behavior to another, the structure of mind and
awareness, the directionality of evolution."
"I think we must stay with the map and Logic 3," Yves says
gently.
"Sorry. I got carried away. The map, as seen from Logic 2.
First someone sees the real territory. They draw a map of the differences they perceive
out there. After this is done, someone else draws a proposed road on the map. Later the
road is constructed according to the idea depicted on the drawing. So the territory
changes because of the feedback loop of the terrain - map - idea - map - terrain. Now
there is a road, a real road. The map is changed to show this. Next someone looks at the
map and sees a good place to build a home because there is a road there. They build the
home and start a farm which changes the territory again and the map is changed to reflect
the property boundaries and so on."
"In this way, Logic 2 says the map is not the territory but the
map and the territory are related in a feedback system."
"And Logic 3?" Yves asks and then answers himself.
"Logic 3 would see the map/territory as one relationship resulting in whole new
possible levels of behavior."
"Absolutely correct. In Logic 3, first we have a mapless
condition. This contains very limited possibilities for future behavior. Then we have a
written map condition. The potential behavior array leaps outward in a quantitative way,
entering a whole new realm of development. In the mapless/map relationship, the map and
the territory are, in fact, the same.."
"From this point of view, it is logically wrong to slice the
map out of Man's territory. Both are part of the planet Earth. Both are part of the
advancing patterns of learning on the planet, both made from Earth atoms arranged in
patterns meaningful to Man. Hell, even the paper of the map comes from Earth trees, the
dyes from Earth minerals. The pattern shown on map and terrain are the same patterns. Both
are mental extensions of the hominids looking at them."
"Yes, OK. It is possible to look at it this way. To have the
map and the territory separate on one level and together on another level." Yves
agrees.
"Logic 3 reveals the patterns of behavior, nested layers of
behavior of the world around us. But although Logic 3 reveals and explains the patterns,
Logic 4 regulates it. Logic 4 is the pattern which connects the patterns, the thread of
awareness in chaos." I stop to relight my cigar.
"And the regulators in Logic 4, they must also be patterns,
like symmetry, right and left, towards and away, polarity, Stochastic processes." Yves sits forward, excited by the ideas.
"Yes, and aspects of awareness, like what hominds perceive as
desire. Desire to eat, desire to reproduce." I grin.
"Ahh, but logic must apply to everything and you can hardly say
atoms have desire." Yves objects.
"Well, how would you define inertia and momentum? You know, of
course, a very long pendulum will swing back and forth in a straight line and the Earth
will turn under it, causing the pendulum to swing around in a circle over a 24-hour
period."
"Yes, I know. There is such a pendulum in the United Nations
building in New York." Yves agrees.
"Why does it do that? What is the pendulum oriented to? What
force keeps it aligned with the universe and not the planet? When you push on a spinning
gyroscope it resists the push and maintains its balance. Why? What does spin have to do
with the rest of the universe? Why does it give some kind of stability to the
gyroscope?"
"I don't know the answers to this but certainly you can not
think desire has anything to do with it. Inertia yes, momentum, of course, but
desire?" Yves shakes his head.
"I'm showing the relationship goes beyond the limits of our
logical horizons, a pattern which connects all of behavior. Maybe I should call it
communications momentum. In a sequence of events the path of a being - could be an
electron or a planet or a man walking to work - the position of that being is not
independent of its environment. It's position is relative to a vast array of other selves
communicating with it on a multitude of levels, both smaller and larger than itself. These
relationships force the being to continue on its way, from one position to the next,
because of what you call momentum in a billiard ball and desire in an animal."
"Desire is a position, a viewpoint, of awareness. A kind of
momentum demanding the next step in the same direction. Only the direction is towards
survival, not left or right or up or down. Gravity is the same kind of pattern. It
dictates the direction the next step will take, where the next position of the self will
be." I am talking too rapidly and feel Yves withdraw.
"The patterns which connect get much more complex with each new
level of awareness. We have different words for each new level of behavior. Like the
change in change. That's another pattern which connects." I try another tack.
"The change in change?"
"Right. In the atomic world, when the paths of hydrogen and
oxygen stop moving independently and link into the new path of water, this is a permanent
change in direction and in the kinds of interactions these molecules will have with their
environment. In the human world, new experiences form memories and these can permanently
alter our behavior. We call it learning. Atoms don't learn to become water. But when the
process enters the realm of behavior...."
I stop because I see he's got it and because I see something else
coming in my own thoughts. There is another pattern here. From the atomic world to the
world of awareness... Somewhere there is a big change, a selectivity, the ability to
prefer one action over another.
"Yes, I see what you are saying. The patterns are the same but
in the inanimate world we give the pattern of behavior a different name."
"Yes, but the different levels - inanimate, animate - do exist
and the way they develop the patterns of behavior can be quite different. There is, for
example, the timed sequence. On each level of development, the ability of a being to act
is keyed into where it is on the sequence of change. The rapid movement of the atom, the
slower movement of the DNA, the still slower communications of the cells, the longer
interval of integration of a thought from the cell communications, the final movement of
the mouth in saying the idea."
"And the spreading of the word from one mind to another." Yves expands on the sequence.
"And the much longer interval as the idea moves into a
population of people," I finish. "This timed sequence is a another pattern which
connects all beings and also regulates their behavior."
We sit and smoke the last of our cigars. Yves says, "What is
the name for this logic 4?"
"I don't know. I haven't come across this logic system
before." Yves turns to look at me, starts to say something and then decides not to.
"I'm trying to explore the phenomenon of evolution, or the
development of awareness, with logic 4. So it's kind of hard to prove my concepts using
logic 1. It's like trying to prove the map and the territory are the same using Logic 1.
You wind up proving they are not the same.'
"Yes, it's as I said, you must have a proof, an experiment, an
example." As Yves says that I'm thinking of fluidonics, visualizing controls like
fluid switches where the smallest of changes in the early flow of a system can alter huge
masses of moving liquids. Non-linear systems.
"Such as?" I ask, still thinking of how fluids can flow in
any sort of direction yet their flow-patterns wind up being remarkably limited. A stream
or a river takes on a relatively limited number of characteristic patterns over a wide
variety of terrain. This has some relationship to my image of Moirae's thread of awareness
as a river flowing through a far off jungle.
"You need, perhaps, a demonstration of your control systems in
a small island somewhere." Yves continues thoughtfully.
My mind is reaching into Eric Fromm's catastrophe theory. Maybe
Fromm has a mathematical model of this. Maybe there is a nifty mathematical design for
logic 4, explaining how a condition of infinite variation can be locked into set patterns
of behavior with the input of only a tiny bias early in the system. Mathematical proofs
always seem more believable than just words.
"Somewhere like New Caledonia." Yves concludes.
"Like New Caledonia?"
"Like New Caledonia." Yves repeats. "Use logic 3 or 4
politically to provide an example of how it could be of practical use."
My mind winds down, and I look at the lights of Noumea, turn to look
at Yves who is looking at me, waiting for a reply to his suggestion. Jesus. What a klutz I
can be. This was what Yves wanted to talk about all along and I've blown the night
yabbering on about levels of logic. "Right, sure, that's a terrific idea, Yves.
Fantastic."
"Your vision of the outside forces, the propaganda from a
hate-filled world. If we could stop these somehow, using logic 4, perhaps. We could
reverse the flow and continue the evolution of a peaceful, united New Caledonia." he
continues.
"Yes, you're right." But it ain't gonna be easy, I think
to myself. "Unfortunately, the outside forces are already practicing Logic 4 and have
thrown a switch in the mind-set of New Caledonia."
"But we must try."
"Yes. It would take quite a bit of effort, and you'd have to
act quickly. Their attack on the group mind of the island depends on division of the
racial elements of the population. Islanders in general and Melanesians in particular are
highly susceptible to xenophobic ideas. You would have to counter-attack on the cultural
unity front. Not easy. It takes sophisticated publicity, video, phographic posters, that
sort of thing. Not cheap, either. Whoever is behind the attack has a head start and plenty
of backing. You have to fight two major controls;
-
powerful people who don't believe there is a problem and so will not
provide funds for the counter-offensive.
-
powerful people who know damn well there is a problem because they
are causing it, and will up their effort in direct proportion to whatever you attempt to
do.
"We must try, anyway." Yves looks determined. Or perhaps
annoyed. "It is difficult to imagine a New Caledonia with racial strife and
bloodshed," Yves says quietly into the night.
Go
To |
CD
Ordering Information | Contact
| This Magic Sea | Thread
of Awareness |
| Log of the Moira | Definitions
| References
and Links |
|