An Emergent Syntax of Stuff

Originally published in a barely-recognizable edit at Octa.
Technological progress is a double-edged sword. More subtle and pernicious than the threat of disastrous new weapons, rampaging dinosaur clones, and other Science Gone Wrong, our species now faces the exponential growth of stuff – not only endless acres of disposable packaging, but items designed for ludicrously specific applications (and useless in every other way).

Consider the dubious innovation of glove dryers, laser-guided scissors, and the motorized ice cream cone. (Plenty more where those come from...) Items like these – as well as the mounting hours we spend tending to this mountain of over-specialized equipment – are an affront to our long-held belief that the future would make life easier, more streamlined and efficient. Our minimalist visions of gleaming starship bridges are in stark contrast to the rat’s nest of wires and adapters that seem increasingly necessary to connect our devices.

There is hope, however, that this inelegant mess of gear is on the verge of a radical reorganization. In chaos theory, systems on the verge of transformation tend toward wilder, noisier behavior – imagine the wobble in a top right before it leans over, or the parade of random images that flash before our eyes as we pass into sleep. Maybe, all of these shoulder straps for our iPads and battery-powered wi-fi detection t-shirts are the frustrating precursors to a new and saner relationship with design.

One person who would seem to agree is Harvard mathematician and biologist Martin Nowak. In his work on the evolution of syntax in human language, he turned to the science of emergence – how greater levels of order and complexity appear from the interactions of simpler parts. In addition living chemical systems, language itself obeys these rules.

Nowak argues that at some point in human history, the number of situations we needed to describe exceeded our ability to easily remember a new word for each unique scenario. It became easier to develop new parts of speech and combine them for a multiplying effect, than continue creating new distinct calls to mean “lion behind you,” “lion in front of you,” “lion to your side…” Humans were suddenly able to talk about many different kinds of lions, and apply “behind you” to any number of objects, without having to memorize a new term for every situation.

Incidentally, this is what makes written Chinese so much more difficult to learn than written English. Chinese is an older language that uses hundreds pictographs to identify every unique referent, whereas English has only twenty-six letters that can be endlessly reassembled to make new words.

Likewise, the more sensible end of the design community today is dedicated to multiple-function technologies. First came the Swiss-Army Knife…then a screwdriver that fits most sizes of screws. (What took so long?) TV is now online, in case you don’t feel the need to purchase both a desktop and a flatscreen. (But if you do, thank God, more and more of them connect wirelessly.) We no longer need to carry around a discman and a cellular phone and a note pad and a pocket calendar and a flashlight; a single smart phone puts all of these functions and more at our fingertips with computer power beyond what NASA used to reach the Moon.

Admittedly, the modern corporate focus on propriety and profit means many items are still designed with intentional shortcomings that force users to make additional purchases. (Why on Earth did Apple not just add an HDMI port to the MacBook Pro? Do we really need a unique wall charger for every new cell phone?) Fighting the insanity, however, some designers actually accessorize gadgets in ways that expand their utility. Take, for example, how the brilliant minds behind the iWatch made the world just a little lighter. Similarly, gripping tripods have rendered innumerable specialized camera attachments irrelevant.

Nowak’s logic is indisputable. We may not all have tricorders yet, but as our complexifying world demands an emergent syntax of stuff, there will come a day when smart devices interact intelligently to evolve new functions, and planned obsolescence is a thing of the past.

Featured on KW's Blog: "The Engine of Development" & Controversy

So this is it, folks: it isn't exactly what I'd call "publication in a peer-reviewed journal," but I am now a featured guest on Ken Wilber's blog.

Which I guess means he found the essay I wrote for JFKU's Integral Theory program,"The Engine of Development: Integral Theory and Post-metaphysical Entelechy," to be sufficiently nonthreatening - in spite of the fact that in it, I argue for him to abandon his bizarre insistence that the transcendental Kosmic force (which he calls "Eros") remains untouchable by current Evolutionary Theory and AQAL itself.*

(*Note: I do actually accept Eros - I just use AQAL to strip it of a few givens. More about this in the paper.)

In my book (eventually to be an actual book), AQAL Integral and Evolutionary Dynamics go hand in hand. But for some reason I cannot fathom, Ken has always been vociferously - even somehwat violently - against one of his own notions: that, because every interior arises together with a correlate exterior, the empirical and systems sciences can find and describe the behavior and pattern of anything that happens. In other words, "How" and "What" are taken care of, just as "Who" and "Why" are handled with equal thoroughness by the interior disciplines. For Ken to deny that science will ever be able to describe the "How" of emergence is an act of violence against the exterior quadrants, according to terms that he himself established.

I do not object when he says that any one field of inquiry cannot possibly reveal everything, but many of the questions that Ken claims remain beyond Biology have actually been answered for years. And the fact that he will not engage in reasonable discourse about it* undermines his whole effort to assist the healthy emergence of a rational world consciousness. It is also eerily remiscent of his long-time guru, Adi Da, whom Ken ultimately condemned, with incredible grief, for refusing to (in Ken's words) "test his truths in the fire of the circle of those who could usefully challenge him."

(*Note: I will always do my best to cite support for my claims, as Ken once did. Here is an excellent summary of Ken's weird stubbornness with Biology. And here and here and here and here is additional information about his relationship to these "unanswerable questions.")

Ken has responded to many, many, many critics. And some of these articles have been sharper than a legendary blade. But Ken has never given a single response to this issue that does not skirt the facts. Until he does, my job is harder because the academic scientists with whom I work will not take AQAL Integral seriously, because Ken will not stop saying things that are obviously wrong. (Or just really, really partial, if you prefer - so partial that he cuts against the grain of Integral Theory's declared ideals.)

Whatever we call it, Ken isn't meeting people where they need to be met on these issues - and in a world so enchanted by personality, his voice is Integral for a great many people. If he won't accept sincere, compassionate help with keeping his ducks in a row - if he won't include what he claims to transcend - he's simply making it more difficult for everyone working to apply Integral in the world. It's a terrible misuse of his immense power and responsibility.

Now, to keep things straight, I love Ken Wilber. I don't have to agree with you in order to love you. And it's the nature of human perception that we emphasize and the discontinuities, the boundaries, the ripples in things. So naturally, there will be a focus on any points of discrepancy, as characterizes so much of human relationship.

But all of this is grounded in Love. Don't fucking forget it.

Anyway, read the essay; tell me whether you think it streamlines Integral Post-metaphysics, and if not, why. Show me more people, like my boy from ILP, Joe Perez, who have the guts to take it in the other direction and actually add metaphysical givens, for God's sake. Come splash with me at "the frothy edge."

But whatever you do, remember that every debate is an opportunity to reconcile perspectives - to weave another thread into the infinite fabric of mutual understanding that is, in a fundamental way, what makes the universe. If we are at all to accept the sound theory that it is, in fact, turtles (and inter-turtles) all the way down. And so as far as I am concerned, debate can be entered consciously, as a healing process for all parties. I see no reason to waste my attention, or yours, on any other kind.

That said, yes indeed, Ken Wilber has just posted a fairly critical article on his blog (one that may have made it through the editorial gates by "meshing" with decency and eschewing anything that could be construed as a personal attack).

Now, will he actually discuss it?

Afterword:

Ken has published an earlier and less contentious essay, "Evolving an Integral Biology: AQAL's Insights into the Big Questions of Evolution," on his blog, as well. This one's fun for the whole family - especially if you happen to be a family of nature geeks. Enjoy!