a time of great concern for healthy human civil rights
for and of women as well as LeftBrain culturally dominant men,
Gregory Bateson invited a Symposium
not quite a finished Symphony
proposing Moral and Aesthetic Structure of Human [Climate] Adaptation.
He closed his invitation to show up as follows
[with my own updating Earth Climate Rights commentary in brackets]:
We have perhaps what Sir Geoffrey Vickers has called
an ‘ecology of ideas.’
[a health v pathology ecology,
climates of and for ideas,
learning and unlearning climates for therapeutic adaptive/maladaptive purposes].
If it be true that certain people are specially gifted
in the [polypathic multicultural] art of acting upon complex [eco]systems
with [empathic trust/mistrust balancing] homeostatic
and that these people do not [co]operate
by spelling out the interaction of all relevant [health/pathology] variables,
then these people must use some inner [health of] ecology
of ideas as an [ecosystemic] analogic model.
(By ‘ideas’ I mean thoughts, premises, affects,
[feelings, attendance, listening, relational, empathies]
perceptions of self, etc.)
But if this [empathic trust/mistrust] skill is, in some sense,
really an art [of ego/eco-listening]
then it is possible that the inner ‘ecology of ideas’ is a close synonym
of what might also be called aesthetic [affective-cognitive] sensibility [and dissonance].
These notions suggest, finally, that there may be another approach
to the problems of a Theory of
[Therapeutic EarthRights-HumaneRights] Action.
As I write this, on November 5, 1968, the nation is voting to choose a President
and the voters are faced by alternative candidates–
none of whom even claims to have either [ecological] aesthetic
or [ecopolitical] biological insight
into the [empathic healthy trust] affairs of a large [cooperative] nation.
Be that as it may,
I suggest that before we proceed to a consideration of theories of [therapeutic] action,
we should devote some time to the question of aesthetic [ecosystemically healthy-wealth] determinism [favoring power-with over power-over resolutions]
for the following reasons:
a. It is conceivable that there is a whole other order of determinative [health/pathology] factors,
to ignore which would be as fatal as to ignore the homeostatic [co-empathic trust/mistrust] aspect of biological [nutritional-digestive] systems.
b. It is possible that the aesthetic [truth-as-beauty, symmetry, affinitive proportion] approach,
with its special emphasis upon [natural] patterns
and the [emergent] modulation of [ecotherapeutic] patterns,
may be a natural development out of mem-theory
and 0-graphs [fractal, 4D binary bilateral metric information prime empty-climate, vacuum of nutritional information, ‘wallpaper’ or dialectally folding/unfolding landscape group/game theory reiterative-revolving systemic]
c. It is possible that the [co-empathic] aesthetic is in some [bicameral] way
closely related to
or [and] derivative from the cybernetic [genetic-binary, reiteratively double-bind bilateral balancing tree-root nutritional health structure].
d. It is possible that the aesthetic approach may provide short cuts to the [deductive-only] evaluation
and [Left v RightBrain] criticism of plans for [therapeutic] action.
e. It is possible that [basic] aesthetic [empathic trust] perception may be characteristic of [ecologically healthy bicameral-balancing] human beings,
so that action plans which ignore this characteristic
of [Left-Right equivalent] human perception
are unlikely to be [power-with, cooperatively, struggling with as not against] adopted,
and even unlikely to be [cooperatively] practicable
[because not supported by ecopolitical social-cultural dominant structures
despite evolutionary history
as ethological witness to mindbodies of and for health regeneration].
f. It is possible that aesthetic computation and aesthetic creativity are subject to pathological disturbance [mindbody illness]
Certainly creative and artistic processes are in part determined by epoch
and [Left and/or RightBrain dominance and/or equivalent] cultural milieu [climate].
It is likely therefore
that pathologies of culture will produce [ecopolitical] pathologies
of [ugly, terrifying, vacuous, nihilistic] aesthetic perception
and [reductive, seductive iconic] monsters of [mistrusting and ambiguous] aesthetic creation.
g. But, conversely, if the aesthetically [oppositional bipolar either-or Left v appositionally dipolar both-and Right] monstrous
be symptomatic of cultural [ecopolitical climate] pathology,
then we have to remember that in all such [sacred ecosystemic] cases,
the symptom is the [pathology] system’s attempt to cure itself [ourselves].
The creation of the appropriate [evil-reverses-live, terrorist, abusive, neglectful] monstrosities might therefore be a component in corrective [purgative] action.
It is possible that some contemporary [subclimates for nutritional landscape optimization permacultural] artists
are actually doing [multiculturally inclusive healthy] things
which we in our conference hope to plan to do
[both economically and politically re-acclimative volution].
For these and related reasons,
I think that we should take a good look at the [climatic] problems
of [empathic trust/mistrust] aesthetics
before we go on to the [ecological] problems of [therapeutic climate] action.
[With Bateson’s late premillennial concerns,
we continue to engage our Left-Right bicameral mindbody balancing
equivalent powers within ecological ethics
and ecosystemic aesthetics
felt and learned and exegeted
through our ecopolitically cooperative therapeutic choices
of and for multiculturally polypathic democracies
of and for Earth as Humane-Home Sacred Rights
both within as without Ta(o)-Zen Centric
MultiCultural Climate-Health Landscapes.]