Difference
and change
in ecology, design and anthropology.
Prof.dr.ir. Taeke M. de Jong 2002-12-01
The Dutch
ecologist Van Leeuwen (Leeuwen 1964) recognised as many ecologists an
interesting negative relation between difference and change in the natural
environment. From that conjecture I derive a hypothesis that people in
different cultures (sets of collective, often hidden concepts) primarily
develop the cognitive capacity they need in the ecological circumstances given,
storing the rest in an artistic-religious counter-culture. The examples are
hunters, farmers and people living in industrial-commercial conditions, but
they could be elaborated into their sub-cultures.
According
to Van Leeuwen (Figure 1) it is easier to demolish
differences (equalizing) then creating them (differentiating) and in the same
time it is easier to introduce changes (disturbing) then to guarantee duration
(steering).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure
1 Spatial and temporal variation in the
theories of Van Leeuwen |
|
|
|
|
Increasing
change is more likely than decreasing change because the latter is change as
well. Steering as a local development into less change means disturbing on another
level of scale.
This is a
verbal simplification of the second law of thermodynamics in the perspective of
cybernetics. Within that interpretation ‘life’ is represented as a phenomenon
climbing up into local diversity and duration.
However,
the concept of difference is direction-sensitive. For instance a road is equal
in its direction of connection (x), but at the same time different and
separating in any perpendicular direction (y, z, t). Connecting equality
facilitates movement. To make simultaneous perpendicular movement possible the
crossing could be separated in z-direction or separated in time by traffic
lights (Figure 2).
Van Leeuwen
called this basic paradox of spatial arrangement ‘perpendicularity relation’.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure
2 Negative perpendicularity relation |
Figure
3 Dimensional paradox of difference |
|
|
|
So, Van Leeuwen’s negative relation between space(difference, separation) and time(change, discontinuity) could be regarded a special case of dimension sensitivity (Figure 3) if change is regarded as a special case of difference. Equality is not regarded as the opposite of difference but as its zero-value, for any difference could be made more different by adding attributes of difference (for instance difference of place, distance), but no equality could be made less different than equal.
In addition to direction-sensitiveness the
concept of difference is also scale-sensitive, not yet recognised by Van Leeuwen.
For example, speaking about a homogeneous mixture the question arises on what
level of scale we call it homogeneous and on what level of scale we call it a
mixture, which is heterogeneous per definition.
|
|
What we call a scale paradox means an important scientific ban on applying
conclusions drawn on one level of scale to another one without any concern. Figure 4 shows the possibility of changing
conclusions on a change of scale by a factor 3. There are 10 decimals between
a grain of sand (1m-3) and the earth (1m7). That gives
approximately 20 possibilities of turning conclusions. Between a molecule and
a grain of sand applies the same. This ban is violated so many times, that
this should be an important criterion on the validity of scientific
judgements. The scale-paradox is not limited on concepts
of diversity. An important example of turning conceptions into their opposite
by scale is the duality of aim and means. |
|
|
|
|
Figure 4 The scale paradox |
|
|
|
For the government subsidising a municipality
the subsidy is a means, for the municipality it is an aim. So, the conception
of means can change in a conception of aim by crossing levels of scale
downwards. In growing organizations integration
on the level of the organization as a whole means often disintegration of the subsystems and perhaps a new form of
integration in the sub-sub-systems.
Any discussion on difference, variety and thus
variables can fall prey to confusion of scale. Even logic and science as forms
of communication are prey to a scale paradox. The sentence ‘It rains and it
does not rain’ is locally contradictory; globally it is not. The paradox of Achilles and the turtle is a beautiful
example of a scale-paradox in time. The turtle says: 'Achilles cannot outrun me
when I get a head start, because when he is where I was at the moment he
started I'm already further, when he reaches that point I am again further and
so on!’ This conclusion is only incorrect by changing the grain of time-scale
during the reasoning. Set theory bans sets containing themselves and therefore
reflexive judgements, as 'I lie’. When I lie I speak the truth and the reverse.
This sentence is not only an object -statement, but in the same time a
meta-linguistic statement about itself and by that producing a paradox.
In the next sections we limit ourselves to the
visual daily environment of individual humans.
Humans can
perceive differences or changes in the environment only. Comparing subsequent
impressions we try to recognise equalities and durations. We save them in
categories, concepts and theories (induction) to make projections (deduction)
for effective action. So, a subtle amplitude arises: the empirical cycle of
learning (Figure 5). After a period of
conceptualisation again a neuro-physiological need of new impressions arises
(sensory deprivation). Then one would like to experience something and looks
for difference or change (variety or novelty). That is the working of a
conceptual amplitude. After an excess of surprises and news a need for rest and
conceptualisation arises to handle all gained experiences. The amplitude
alternating action and breaks can range for hours until years alternating work
and rest or holydays.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure
5 Conceptualization(environmental variation) |
Figure 6 Spatial variation |
|
|
|
We
experience too little variety as boring, too much as confusion. Within the
range of variety we can handle, we speak about recognition and surprise.
This is a
simple conception, already recognized by Birkhoff
and Bense (Bense 1954; Birkhoff 1933), but why did it not succeed? Because the
concept of diversity is scale sensitive and so is our experience. When on one
level of scale we experience confusion, in the same time on another level of
scale we could experience boredom. Moreover, concerning spatial variety only we
could distinguish different kinds of diversity: diversity in contrast,
compound, proportion or composition.
According
to Van Leeuwen we should distinguish spatial and temporal environmental
variation.
Let us try
to analyse internal conceptualisation into space and time as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 7 Perpendicular and parallel
conceptual relations |
Figure 8 Perpendicular conceptual
relations |
|
|
|
Analytical
and causal thinking represent high values of spatial and temporal
conceptualisation separating space and time in ever smaller parts. Their
zero-values are covered by holistically and spontaneous ‘sui causa’ thinking.
Thinking holistically one does not think the world in parts like the analyst
does or the technician assembling parts (synthesis). So, holistic thinking is
something else then synthetically thinking.
Synchronically
thinking one does not think time in parts like cause and effect. So, one does
not make plans for the future either, one lives ‘spontaneous’. When we look
from this perpective into the main phases of our culture, the phases of hunting
and collecting, agriculture and industrial and commercial living, we can
question which kind of thinking would be adapted best to these kinds of living.
Hunters and
collectors should divide their catch immediately, because meat and fruit can
not be saved for a long time. They live day by day, do not care too much for
tomorrow and yesterday, but they need spatial insight to find their prey. Their
daily life requires more insight in spatial than temporal division. Their
everyday life requires particularly analytical-synchronical attention.
That does
not mean holistic-causal thinking playing no rôle at all. This ability is
stored with the medicine man caring for causes and effects in an artistic-religious
counter-culture of everyday life.
On the
other hand this is daily life in agriculture. There is a time of sowing,
caring, harvesting and storing, a time of production and a time of consumption.
One has settled on one place and demarcated one’s territory. One does not leave
that so easily, otherwise the harvest is stolen. So, your own land becomes a
world in itself with limited plant species one should know to utilise them in
multiple. In this condition the diachronic (causal, projective) thinking is
coupled with holistic thinking. The artistic-religious counter culture of
everyday life in this case contains anything not explicable causally. Anything
appearing to have no cause, like the Scarabee from which the Egyptians could
find no egg becomes divine. In
The
industrial and commercial way of life separates the place of production and
consumption. Now one not only has to keep an eye on the phases of production in
time, but one also has to know how to find one’s consumers in space or the
reverse. So, an analytical-causal complex arises where the holistic-suicausal
ability is expelled into the realm of the artistic-religious counter-culture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 9 Parallel conceptual relations
perpendicular to motivation |
Figure 10 Conceptualization(motivation) |
|
|
|
Looking
for a variable with a negative perpendicularity relation opposite to the
parallel connection of spatial and temporal understanding one could think of
motivation by negating criticism and affirmative choice, characteristic for our
industrial and commercial way of life.
Bense, M. (1954) Aesthetica. (Stuttgart) Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt.
Birkhoff, G.D. (1933) Aesthetic measure. (Cambridge, Mass.)
Harvard University Press.
Leeuwen, C.G.v. (1964) The open- and closed theory as a possible
contribution to cybernetics. (Leersum) Rijksinstituut voor Natuurbeheer.