“I believe it’s naive to think modern technology is simply a tool. Rather, it’s a social system that springs from and also yields a particular relationship with the world.” -Christopher Manes
A somewhat scientifically controversial idea put forth by Harvard entomologist E.O. Wilson, the biophilia hypothesis is the idea that humans evolved as creatures intricantly enmeshed with the intracies of nature, and this affinity is embedded in our genotype. According to this idea, humans have an intrinsic need for meaningful contact with other life-forms.
David Harmon takes this idea a step further: “I suppose we are waiting for a cultural analog of the biophilia hypothesis, one which does not merely claim that cultural diversity is ‘interesting’ but one that explains why contact with cultural diversity makes us fully human.”
Jacob after wrestling with an angel was named Yisrael, which in hebrew means “to struggle with god”. This has become a defining feature of judaism. It is central to the judaic way to question and develop one’s own path, to take personal responsibility for growth and understanding. Simultaneously it denotes that to be a jew is to be in the mystery, because to ’stuggle with god’ means not be at peace with god or at an end to strife or what have you but to be in limbo, to be in the mystery. It is the mystery that the jewish path immerses its followers and it is mystery that is the central animist principal. Joseph Campbell lists four mythic functions. The first function is the mystical function, which is ‘the universe is an awesome mystery, let us stand in awe of it.’ Judaism specific take or twist on this function is ‘the universe is an awesome mystery, let us stand in awe of it as we experience and struggle to understand what we can of it for our own betterment as individuals and as a tribe.’ When famously boiling down the Torah to one sentence Hillel said “Do not do unto others as you would not have done onto yourself (do not do what is hateful), all the rest is commentary, go forth and study”. That being that there is but one prime directive and one adjuct modifier. Do not do unto others what is hateful then qualified by the understanding the having understood this one central principal it is now incumbant upon you to take personal responsibility for you growth and for your’ place in the world - go forth and study.
We are immersed in mystery and driven by the question. Mystery is the dominant condition and understanding offers us the means or vantage by which to experience that mystery. The jewish condition is about pursuing relationship with god/mystery, not about believing in god - that is not the dominant or even requisite feature, though it is important and occurs for many. Experience is what the follower has not blind faith. Experience of and relationship with mystery as driven by the prime directive - do not what is hateful, be responsible.
“Go forth” similarly are the first words that god speaks to Moses on Mount Sinai when he says “Lekh lekha” - go forth/get up and move. You must act, no one will act for you. Again returning to Hillel “If I am not for myself, who will be? If I am only for myself, who am I? If not now, when?” If I am not for myself, who will be - no one. Responsibility is incumbant upon you. This is one of the major functions of initiation rites as we see in the Bar/Bat Mitzvah - you are now a man, you can now study torah and take personal responsibility for all of your’ actions.
Again returning to the condition of mystery when god reveals himself to Moses god only reveals his back side saying “You will see my back, but my face must not be seen.” Rabbi Daniel Gordis speaks about this saying “God suggests that there are many ways to know God. Even if Moses cannot see God’s face, he can still experiene God’s “back.” Even if modern Jews cannot “know” God in a purely rational way, there are other ways to experience God and, ultimately, to know God. The Jewish spiritual search is about discovering those other approaches.” God’s face cannot be seen but he can be experienced indirectly, his back can be glanced. The mystery can be grasped in part but it’s condition is mystery and thus cannot be grasped otherwise but as mystery. Heinrich Zimmer speaks about the best things being incommunicable, the second best being symbolic, and the rest being drivel. The best things - the mystery, the archetypes, the experience, being - can only be experienced it cannot be respresented via symbolism, the second best things are communications of the best things which are by their nature symbolic - they represent the best things, and the third best things are everything which does not even refer to the experience.
It seems to me that we should be immersed in mystery, granting ourselves but a leg to stand on in the auditorium of the unknown, while we forge a path upon which to travel.
Go forth and study, Noah
Here (http://www.newyorker.com/online/video/conference/2007/gladwell) Malcolm Gladwell talks about genius and the supposed 10,000 hours/10 year rule. My understanding, assuming that the rule is true, is that, prodigies aside, it generally requires 10,000 hours of study in order to truly master a craft. In considering the generic “craft” of being a “cave man” it should take approximately 625 days to master the state of being wild assuming that you get an average of 8 hours of sleep per day. This mastering wildness concerns only the general state of living wild but not any specific craft of a wild life such as hunting Elk, animal trailing, stalking game, herbal medicine, bowery, midwifery, tribal relations (which is in and of itself varied and multi-dimensional), flintknapping, etc.
So, how many hours have I logged? How many have you? How many more hours to “master” the craft of wildness? Would anyone like to schedule a couple hundred hours of say… wildness? Count down to 10,000 BC
10,000… 9,999… 9,998…
Keep it wild, Noah
Malcolm Gladwell’s speech “Age Before Beauty” (http://www.davidgalenson.com/malcolmgladwell-lecture.pdf) concerns the nature of the creative process. He posits that it is possible to divide the creative process into two primary modes. Experimental (or lets say chaotic) creativity and Prodigal (or conceptual, formulaic) creativity. In one mode, chaotic creativity, the creative process is an non-formulaic process, seemingly random, experimental. In the prodigal mode the creative process is driven not by a chaotic trial and error but by a cohesive patterend formula. Picasso vs Cezanne. The Picasso creates z because it follows logically from x, y, whereas Cezanne creates z because z. This is at least my over simplified possibly wrong interpretation of what Gladwell is saying. Perhaps I misinterpreted his meaning or perhaps he is simply wrong in his analysis. Regardless there is certainly a good deal of weight to his argument and the relevance of this creativity dyad is that we are culturaly inculcated to favor Picasso over Cezanne, and in doing so we are missing out on Cezanne entirely. We need to integrate these creative principals, these two creativity vectors to better ourselves. To fully unleash our creativity as both are valid means of expression. To miss out on all of the Cezanne in our communities and in our own psyches is a major loss. This leads me to wonder what is the creative process and how would creativity be experienced in a truly and purely wild state by wild humans. What is creativity? Does our creative output fall into the mode of either Picasso or Cezanne? Does it contain both and express itself alternatively? Is there a dominant expression of one form over the other or do we fall into one category alone? Is this categorical dyad an accurate means of analysis? Are there other categories or is the Picasso/Cezanne dyad non-applicable altogether?
It does occur to me that consciousness of these modes of thought/expression prime us to consciously apply the alternative form to our life/behavior to that which is dominant in us when applicable. So are you a Picasso or a Cezanne?
From this article in Journal of Clinical Investigation: www.jci.org/112/9/1291
Here are some snippets I thought were REALLY interesting:
“Until recently, bacteria were considered to live rather asocial, reclusive lives. New research shows that, in fact, bacteria have elaborate chemical signaling systems that enable them to communicate within and between species. One signal, termed AI-2, appears to be universal and facilitates interspecies communication.
Not only is AI-2 produced by a wide variety of bacteria, it is also detected by many or possibly all of them.
AI-2 has also proved important in the organization of bacteria into structures called biofilms. Bacterial biofilms can be composed of single or multiple species. In these communities, bacteria live adhered to surfaces and the biofilm inhabitants cooperate in the production of an ECM that leads to the formation of a complex architecture containing structures including “pillars” and “mushrooms.”
The discovery of species-specific as well as universal intercellular signaling molecules reveals that bacteria interact with one another using surprisingly sophisticated mechanisms of communication. In nature, bacteria are rarely found in isolation, and evolution appears to have provided a mechanism that allows them to detect when they are in heterogeneous communities, to assess the proportions of self and other in mixed-species environments, and to respond to this information by appropriately modulating gene expression.”
With communication, collaboration can happen…