Podcast appearances and mentions of Gregory Bateson

Wörter wie Haus oder Baum funktionieren gut genug – die Bedeutungen, die verschiedene Menschen damit verbinden, überlappen sich stark. Bei Wörtern wie Bedürfnis, Führung, Service oder System sieht das anders aus. Jeder hat seinen "Kreis" was beinhaltet ist, aber Größe und Position dieser Kreise variieren erheblich. Das ist ein strukturelles Phänomen: Wörter sind Konstruktionen, keine Abbilder. Heinz von Foerster und George Spencer-Brown liefern den theoretischen Rahmen: jede Konstruktion beginnt mit einer Unterscheidung, und diese ist nie die Einzige, was denkbar gewesen wäre. Alfred Korzybski hat das 1931 auf den Punkt gebracht: Die Karte ist nicht das Territorium. Gregory Bateson hat dieses Bild ins systemische Denken eingeführt, auch Fritz B. Simon verwendet es. Die Episode zeigt, warum sprachliche Präzision in Beratung, Führung und Kommunikation nicht eine Frage des Stils ist, sondern eine Frage der Anschlussfähigkeit. Wenn du mehr zu mir oder zu meinem Business erfahren möchtest, dann schaue hier: https://www.servicearchitekt.com

Many of us lack meaningful community in our lives, either from a complete absence of relationships or simply the sense of disconnection from those around us. In response, a growing number of people attempt to cultivate community based on shared values and interests, which inadvertently reproduces the very labeling that keeps real connection forming. The systemic forces that created this separation are real, but what if the deeper problem is that most of us have never actually learned how to commune with each other in the first place? In this episode, Nate is joined by Nora Bateson, creator of Warm Data Labs, alongside her colleagues Jonathan Goldsmith and Lucas Jackson, for a rich conversation about what it actually takes to build community and why so many of our attempts fail. Drawing on Nora's concept of "communing" as the necessary precursor to community, the group explores how genuine human connection is being undermined by algorithmic fragmentation, scripted discourse, and cultures rooted in transaction and individualism. Rather than offering a formula for community-building, they make the case for something older: practices of mutual learning, radical hospitality, and a way of relating to others that breaks us out of the confines of our perceived roles. Together, they argue that the first step to being part of community is letting go of preconceived notions of what you are owed from the people around you, instead taking the first leap of giving more of oneself, and subsequently setting in motion the cycles of trust and generosity that keep a system alive.   What fundamental pieces get lost when communities skip directly to organizing, logistics, and shared objectives? Why do the dark triad traits find less hold in spaces built around curiosity and mutual learning? And how does the act of generosity shift when it comes from a sense of shared aliveness and the knowledge that tending to the broader whole is how we must also tend to ourselves?    About Nora Bateson Nora Bateson is a filmmaker, writer, researcher, and educator, and the founder and president of the International Bateson Institute. Her work focuses on the study of complex living systems and the development of "Warm Data" – a methodology for understanding the relational and contextual dimensions of systemic health. She is the author of Small Arcs of Larger Circles, and the creator of the acclaimed documentary An Ecology of Mind, a portrait of her father, systems thinker Gregory Bateson. Nora's work spans education, ecology, health, organizational change, and community, with the unifying thread of asking how we perceive and tend to the complexity of life together.   About Jonathan Goldsmith Jonathan Goldsmith is a therapist, facilitator, and educator working at the intersection of systems thinking, relational practice, and community wellbeing. As a core member of the International Bateson Institute team, Jonathan brings the lens of mutual learning and ecological awareness to his work with individuals, groups, and organizations. He is a trained Warm Data host and has facilitated labs internationally.   About Lucas Jackson Lucas Jackson is an educator, facilitator, and Warm Data host based in Vermont. He found his way to the International Bateson Institute through the Warm Data host training in 2020, and has since woven the practice of Warm Data into his teaching, community work, and relational life. His work centers on learning, perception, and the conditions that allow people to genuinely encounter one another.   Show Notes and More   Watch this video episode on YouTube   Want to learn the broad overview of The Great Simplification in 30 minutes? Watch our Animated Movie.   ---   Support The Institute for the Study of Energy and Our Future   Join our Substack newsletter   Join our Hylo channel and connect with other listeners

Send us comments, suggestions and ideas here! In this week's episode we are joined once again by Julian Soloninka, better yet known as Julian the Philosopher to discuss his provocative insights into Cyberpunk Metaphysics; which we discuss in its germinal stages under the inspired headspace of Alan Watts, Alduous Huxley and Gregory Bateson. In the first half of the episode we discuss the impact Alan Watts and Gregory Bateson had on cyberpunk and its corresponding philosophies while investigating the role they played as secret agents each with respective ties to three letter agencies before asking ourselves if we were to meet them on Homerian or Platonic footing. In the extended side of the show we continue our discussion with Julian and discuss prominent author, philosopher and psychonaught, Alduous Huxley; his connection to Jiddu Krishnamurti, the Death of Cleopatra and what it all has to do with Philip K. Dick's theophany. Thank you and enjoy the show! Check out Julian the Philosopher's most recent work:https://medium.com/@jsoloninIn this week's episode we discuss:What is cyberpunk metaphysics?Allan WattsDiogenes Gregory Bateson Carl Jung's The SpyAleister CrowleyJiddu KrishnamurtiV for ApophisSecret Societies Making Our EntertainmentThe Power of The Koan and The Double Bind In the second half of this episode available at www.patreon.com/TheWholeRabbit we follow Julian the Philosopher further down the rabbithole and discuss:Philip K. Dick's TheophanyThe Platonic HeroThe MatrixCleopatraTheosophy, Lucifer and New-ThoughtThe Death of HypatiaAldous HuxleyMore next time….This week's episode was a freestyle Socratic seminar between Julian the Philosopher, Tim Hacker, Luke Madrid, Mari Sama and Heka Astra Where to find The Whole Rabbit:Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0AnJZhmPzaby04afmEWOAVInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/the_whole_rabbitTwitter: https://twitter.com/1WholeRabbitOrder Stickers: https://www.stickermule.com/thewholerabbitOther Merchandise: https://thewholerabbit.myspreadshop.com/Music By Spirit Travel Plaza:https://open.spotify.com/artist/30dW3WB1sYofnow7y3V0YoSupport the show

Mariavittoria Mangini, known to many as Maria, is a nurse-midwife, scholar, psychedelic historian, and longtime advocate for the preservation of underground psychedelic knowledge. Maria's life intersects with several crucial streams of modern psychedelic history: early LSD culture in the Bay Area and at Millbrook, the Haight-Ashbury Free Clinic, Esalen in the 1970s, the work of Stanislav Grof, the emergence of midwifery and nursing as practices of care, and the long, complicated passage from psychedelic prohibition into the current renaissance. In this conversation, we explore: • Maria's first encounter with LSD as a teenager, • The strange mixture of recklessness and reverence that shaped early psychedelic exploration. • Her years at Esalen and her encounters with figures such as Stanislav Grof, Gregory Bateson, Leo Zeff, and others. • The relationship between birth, death and psychedelic experience • Her doctoral work, Yes, Mom Took Acid, and what long-term psychedelic users told her about social responsibility, and care for the larger world. • Her work in medical cannabis, and what today's psychedelic movement might learn from the successes and failures of cannabis legalization. • The founding of the Women's Visionary Council • Her relationship with Ann and Sasha Shulgin, whose partnership helped shape the modern psychedelic imagination. • This talk was originally recorded in a live format created by the Shulgin Foundation, and hosted by Stacey Blanke. The shulgin foundation is an organization dedicated to preserving and extending the legacy of Alexander “Sasha” Shulgin and Ann Shulgin. Sasha Shulgin was of course a visionary chemist credited with creating more than 150 psychedelic compounds and helping identify the distinctive psychological properties of MDMA. Ann Shulgin was a writer, artist, Jungian lay therapist, and an early practitioner in psychedelic-assisted therapy, especially known for her work with the Shadow. Please enjoy this conversation with Maria Mangini.

Today we are going to be combining paradox, evolving language, and contextual “warm data. “ Combining is the title of Nora Bateson's latest book, and Embracing Paradox, Evolving Language is Lisa Maroski's latest offering. They will be our two guests, and I am tingling with anticipation. What are we going to talk about? I don't know.  We are going to “pick the flowers, pee in the bushes, throw the stones, watch the clouds, sleep in the shade, and eat the fruit” and then see what happens. We are going to explore the depth of this magnificent, interconnected world. The only thing we know is that the map is not the territory; the name is not the thing named. We know that all the things we typically separate into their own domain – the ecological, biological, economic, philosophical, and educational are really interconnected. But how?  What is the pattern that connects these all together? Join us for this special edition of the Circle for Original Thinking with our guests Lisa Maroski and Nora Bateson.    Nora Bateson is an award-winning filmmaker, artist, international lecturer, research designer, author, and president of the International Bateson Institute. She is the founder and creator of the concept of “Warm Data” and the practices of the Warm Date Lab and People Need People online. Nora wrote, directed, and produced the documentary An Ecology of Mind: A Daughters' Portrait of Gregory Bateson. Her work brings tougher the fields of biology, cognition, art, anthropology, psychology, and information technology together into a study of patterns in the ecology of living systems. She is the author of Small Arcs of Larger Circles (Triarchy Press, 2016) and Combining (2023).  L.E. Maroski is the author of the novel The One that Is Both (2006) and the Nautilus award-winning book Embracing Paradox, evolving Language: Expressing the Unity and Complexity of Integral Consciousness (2026). She combines the fields of psychology, philosophy, linguistics and evolutionary consciousness into her work, building on her study of philosophy and psychology at Bryn Mawr College, where Ashok Gangadean was one of her professors. She is a long-time member of the Jean Gebser Society and CG Jung Society.  

O que há em comum entre uma bateria antiaérea da Segunda Guerra Mundial, os algoritmos do WhatsApp e o bolsonarismo? Para Letícia Cesarino, professora associada de Antropologia Social na Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, a resposta está na cibernética. Neste episódio, produzido em parceria com o Observatório da Extrema Direita, David Magalhães e Guilherme Casarões recebem Letícia para discutir seu artigo recém-publicado na revista Current Anthropology: “An Ecology of Mind Approach to Far-Right Publics in Brazil“, no qual ela aplica o quadro teórico da ecologia da mente, desenvolvido pelo antropólogo Gregory Bateson, para reler o bolsonarismo como um sistema tecnopolítico. No bloco de notícias, David traz dois termômetros da extrema-direita global: os resultados das eleições municipais na França, que revelam o avanço territorial do Rassemblement National a despeito de um teto de vidro nas grandes cidades, e as eleições húngaras de abril, onde Peter Magyar desafia 15 anos de governo Orbán. E ainda tem, no último bloco, dica cultural. Aperte o play! Quer apoiar o Chutando a Escada? Acesse chutandoaescada.com.br/apoio Mande um café usando nossa chave PIX: perguntas@chutandoaescada.com.br Comentários, críticas, sugestões? Escreva pra gente em perguntas@chutandoaescada.com.br Participaram deste episódio: Letícia Cesarino (UFSC), David Magalhães e Guilherme Casarões Capa do episódio: Agência Brasil (CC BY 3.0 BR) Escute também no Spotify, no YouTube ou Apple Podcasts. Capítulos: 00:00 — Abertura 00:02 — Entrevista: ecologia da mente, cibernética e extrema-direita digital 00:32 — Bolsonarismo, populismo e públicos digitais artificiais 00:45 — Radicalização, a lacuna online-offline e os limites da etnografia 00:57 — Boletim: França — eleições municipais e o Rassemblement National 01:03 — Boletim: Hungria — Orbán e Peter Magyar às vésperas das eleições de abril 01:08 — Dica cultural: Feels Good Man (Amazon Prime, 2020) Citados no episódio CESARINO, Letícia. “An Ecology of Mind Approach to Far-Right Publics in Brazil”. Current Anthropology, 2026. BATESON, Gregory. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Chandler, 1972. GALISON, Peter. “The Ontology of the Enemy: Norbert Wiener and the Cybernetic Vision”. Critical Inquiry, v. 21, n. 1, 1994. WIENER, Norbert. Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. MIT Press, 1948. MASSUMI, Brian. Ontopower: War, Powers, and the State of Perception. Duke University Press, 2015. SIMONDON, Gilbert. L’individuation à la lumière des notions de forme et d’information. Jérôme Millon, 2005. LIFTON, Robert Jay. The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide. Basic Books, 1986. EASTON, David. A Systems Analysis of Political Life. Wiley, 1965. Documentário Feels Good Man. Direção: Arthur Jones. EUA, 2020. Disponível na Amazon Prime. Chute 391 — Transcrição Parceria Chutando a Escada e Observatório da Extrema Direita Publicado em 26 de março de 2026 Abertura David Magalhães: Olá, pessoal! Sejam bem-vindos e bem-vindas a mais um episódio da parceria entre o Chutando a Escada e o Observatório da Extrema Direita — o primeiro episódio de 2026. A partir de agora, nos encontramos sempre na última semana de cada mês com episódios dedicados a discutir a extrema-direita em suas dimensões globais, teóricas e também reagindo ao calor dos acontecimentos. Para quem já acompanha o podcast, vale lembrar que nosso programa segue dividido em três blocos. No primeiro, trazemos uma entrevista mais aprofundada com pesquisadores e pesquisadoras que estão na linha de frente desse debate. Depois, passamos para um boletim com as análises das principais notícias envolvendo a extrema-direita global. E, para fechar, uma dica cultural sempre conectada com o universo do extremismo de direita — pode ser um livro, um filme, uma série, uma produção musical. Peço que você fique conosco até o fim, porque a dica deste episódio está completamente relacionada com o tema da nossa entrevista. Vamos lá. Entrevista — Letícia Cesarino David Magalhães: Estou aqui com o meu amigo Guilherme Casarões para receber a nossa convidada deste episódio, que é a Letícia Cesarino. A Letícia é professora associada de Antropologia Social na Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina e também uma das novas integrantes do Observatório da Extrema Direita. Aproveitamos para dar as boas-vindas — é um prazer ter você conosco, não só no episódio, mas também no Observatório. Nos últimos cinco anos, a Letícia desenvolveu uma pesquisa bastante aprofundada e relevante sobre antropologia digital, extrema-direita e redes sociais. E, mais recentemente, ela acaba de publicar — acabou de sair do forno — um artigo bastante interessante e instigante na revista Current Anthropology. O artigo se intitula “An Ecology of Mind Approach to Far-Right Publics in Brazil” — algo como uma abordagem da ecologia da mente aplicada aos públicos de extrema-direita no Brasil. A ideia deste episódio é discutir esse novo artigo. Letícia, você mobiliza um quadro teórico bastante sofisticado, especialmente ao trazer a ideia de ecologia da mente — ecology of mind —, que vem do trabalho de Gregory Bateson, um antropólogo e linguista britânico importante do século XX. Confesso que não o conhecia; encontrei o livro dele em PDF na internet e li um pouco para me inteirar de como você adota e aplica esse quadro teórico para discutir redes sociais e extrema-direita brasileira. Fiquei bastante interessado no uso do termo “cibernético”, porque para ouvidos contemporâneos ele remete imediatamente ao universo digital, de redes e internet. Mas as principais obras de Bateson são publicadas logo após a Segunda Guerra, nos anos 1960 e 1970 — embora ele tenha iniciado seu desenvolvimento nos anos 1930 —, e ele não estava falando exatamente de internet. Isso me gerou dúvidas. Antes de falarmos da aplicação propriamente dita, você poderia nos explicar um pouco sobre essa abordagem e esse quadro teórico? Bateson propõe tudo isso muito antes da chamada terceira revolução industrial. Letícia Cesarino: Oi, David, Casarões. É um grande prazer estar aqui com vocês no podcast e também no Observatório da Extrema Direita como um todo. Obrigada pelo convite. Acho que esse artigo é um bom gancho para trabalharmos questões da minha abordagem mais específica para a extrema-direita, porque, diferente de muitos que trabalham nesse campo, eu não venho dos estudos da política. Sou uma antropóloga cuja área de origem é a antropologia da ciência e tecnologia — sempre foi assim, desde a graduação —, e nos últimos anos fui transitando para essas questões das mediações digitais, das plataformas e da cibernética. O meu olhar para a extrema-direita é, portanto, um olhar tecnopolítico. O meu interesse é entender essa dimensão relativamente pouco trabalhada nas ciências sociais: o papel das máquinas, o papel da técnica, o papel das infraestruturas técnicas na conformação dessa força política e, mais especificamente no caso desse artigo, dos ecossistemas digitais de extrema-direita. A ecologia da mente e o Bateson — nos últimos anos consolidei em torno da obra dele um arcabouço que remeto também a outros autores da antropologia e da área dos estudos de mídia e tecnopolítica, para desenvolver uma perspectiva que veja agência humana e maquínica juntas, de forma recursiva. E aí a cibernética — podemos começar por ela, esclarecendo o termo. O termo remete a computadores, o que faz sentido, porque a cibernética clássica dos anos 1940, a de Norbert Wiener, o matemático estadunidense que inventou o termo, também deu origem à indústria de tecnologia que temos hoje. Existe, portanto, uma continuidade entre o que chamamos de cibernética hoje e o que era a cibernética como superciência da comunicação e do controle, tanto nos sistemas maquínicos como nos sistemas animais, incluindo o humano. Gregory Bateson fez parte do grupo original das chamadas Conferências Macy, nos anos 1940. Mas depois da Segunda Guerra houve uma bifurcação: uma linha foi trabalhar o que chamo de cibernética das máquinas — Norbert Wiener, Von Neumann, todos os nomes precursores da indústria de tecnologia, da construção dos computadores, da inteligência artificial —, enquanto Bateson foi trabalhar a questão da cibernética dentro de uma chave mais próxima da teoria da evolução e da história natural, o que chamo de cibernética da vida. Ele tem um arcabouço que inclui a cibernética das máquinas, os princípios comuns do funcionamento de máquinas cibernéticas, humanos e animais, mas vai além, trazendo as camadas extras que o humano coloca na relação com a máquina. Nesse sentido, a ecologia da mente inclui a cibernética, mas é maior. É a partir desse ponto de vista que tenho olhado para a participação de máquinas cibernéticas — que, no fundo, hoje são basicamente algoritmos, e a evolução dos algoritmos são as inteligências artificiais — e como elas influem e participam em processos que entendemos como políticos, mas que, na verdade, são tecnopolíticos, porque têm cada vez mais a participação de agências não humanas, agências maquínicas. Guilherme Casarões: Letícia, eu também ficava intrigado com essa terminologia cibernética. Lembro que na faculdade, na aula de sociologia, tive contato com David Easton, que aplicava a cibernética aos sistemas políticos e aos sistemas humanos em geral. Sempre achei curioso que não tivesse a ver com computador — essa foi a maneira como sempre encaramos o termo. Mas toda teoria de sistemas convida a um tipo de abordagem cibernética, com essa linguagem muito interessante de inputs e outputs, de como os sistemas funcionam. Trazer isso de volta à discussão é fundamental. E você argumenta no seu texto que a infraestrutura das redes sociais carrega uma espécie de ontologia do inimigo, herdada dessa cibernética militar da Segunda Guerra Mundial. Como essa visão do ser humano como um servomecanismo — um animal a ser controlado por algoritmos — cria uma afinidade eletiva com a lógica da guerra e a desumanização do outro praticadas pela extrema-direita? Letícia Cesarino: Ótima pergunta. É um bom gancho para colocarmos mais camadas na questão da cibernética. O que tentaram fazer nos anos 1940 — e é importante notar que a cibernética nasce do esforço de guerra, do esforço de guerra dos americanos entrando na Segunda Guerra contra o nazifascismo; a primeira conferência foi em 1946, se não me engano — era produzir conhecimento básico, porque a cibernética é uma ciência que explicaria formas comuns de funcionamento de máquinas cibernéticas, de animais e de humanos. O que têm em comum entre o funcionamento desses sistemas? A cibernética gira em torno da ideia não só de input e output, mas principalmente do feedback — quando o output volta para o sistema como input. O coração da cibernética é essa questão da recursividade, ou causalidade circular, que é uma característica de qualquer organismo vivo e também de máquinas construídas à imagem e semelhança desses organismos, ou seja, máquinas que tomam decisões sozinhas. Essa é, para mim, a principal definição de máquina cibernética, porque os algoritmos fazem isso. Mas muito antes da indústria de tecnologia, outras máquinas já faziam isso — como a própria máquina a vapor de James Watt, que é a base do que Marx, no uso grundrissiano, chama de automata. Ele já identificou no século XIX que havia máquinas sendo incorporadas nas infraestruturas do trabalho que tomavam decisões sozinhas — ainda muito rudimentares, mas a ideia de que as máquinas começam a dar o ritmo do trabalho humano já estava colocada desde o século XIX. A cibernética dos anos 1940 traz para o centro essa questão da guerra, que é quando houve um pico na produção dessas máquinas antes da indústria de tecnologia propriamente dita. Peter Galison — um dos grandes historiadores da ciência, físico de formação — tem um artigo no qual trabalha a ontologia da cibernética de Wiener a partir do contexto de guerra. Ele vai elaborar o que seria essa ontologia do inimigo de guerra a partir da cibernética. Ele faz uma progressão que vale a pena resgatar brevemente aqui. Quando você está numa conjuntura de guerra — uma conjuntura de exceção, isso é importante —, você precisa desumanizar seu inimigo, porque assim vai torná-lo eliminável. Em modelos de guerra anteriores, até a Primeira Guerra, quando você tinha que confrontar seu inimigo no corpo a corpo com uma baioneta ou uma arma de fogo de curto alcance, a forma de desumanização era através de analogias com animais, com monstros. Galison trabalha, por exemplo, cartas de soldados americanos que representam os japoneses através de analogias com ratos, com vermes. Essa é uma forma de desumanização. A segunda forma seria a da Segunda Guerra, que compartilha com a cibernética essa ideia do servomecanismo — um híbrido de humano-máquina. Quando Norbert Wiener começou a desenvolver a cibernética para produzir artilharia antiaérea — máquinas que conseguissem calcular sozinhas a trajetória do caça inimigo para atirar antes de o avião chegar, e o projétil encontrar o alvo no meio da trajetória —, o que o servomecanismo significa? Por que essa imagem do inimigo desumaniza? Porque não interessa quem está dirigindo aquele avião. O que interessa é como aquele avião se comporta — e um comportamento que possa ser previsto e controlado. É um tipo de desumanização cibernética. E podemos pensar também em outras formas de desumanização que evoluem com a guerra, como essa guerra de videogame que temos hoje, onde o inimigo não é sequer visto — é quase como algo da fantasia dos videogames. Isso sempre acompanha a guerra. A cibernética é uma boa epistemologia para entender contextos de exceção, conjunturas de guerra, conjunturas de crise que não se superam, porque são conjunturas de grande instabilidade, de não linearidade, com essa tendência à bifurcação do corpo social. Essas são ferramentas melhores para esse tipo de conjuntura do que muitas das ferramentas clássicas das ciências sociais — Durkheim, por exemplo, desenvolveu ferramentas em sua maioria para contextos de estabilidade, de paz, onde o social está mais estruturado, mais previsível e regido por normas. Num contexto de exceção, de crise e de guerra, o social muda de modo de funcionamento. Uma das hipóteses do meu próximo livro é a de que o social de guerra, de exceção e de crise, funciona em outra dinâmica, e que a cibernética tem boas ferramentas para entender isso, inclusive as formas de desumanização que tendem a se proliferar nesses contextos. David Magalhães: Excelente. Acho que é um bom gancho para avançarmos para a parte do seu texto em que você enquadra todo esse arcabouço para compreender a extrema-direita em ambiente digital. As principais linhas interpretativas preocupadas em compreender a ascensão dessa onda ultradireitista global olham para a questão ideológica, para eleitores frustrados, para a relação desses eleitores com a globalização e com a crise da democracia liberal. Mas você propõe algo diferente: observar esse fenômeno como um grande organismo cibernético, um sistema no qual humanos — lideranças, influenciadores, seguidores — e máquinas — algoritmos do WhatsApp, do Telegram, de redes sociais — operam de maneira integrada, como parte de um ecossistema. O que ganhamos analiticamente ao fazer esse deslocamento? Letícia Cesarino: São muitas camadas. Uma das coisas que acho importante — sempre começo palestras com isso — é a questão do ciborgue. O que é o ciborgue? É um híbrido de humano-máquina, outra forma de falar no servomecanismo. Mas temos essa imagem fantasiosa do ciborgue que vem da ficção científica, a de que seria um indivíduo com partes de sua função fisiológica — alimentação, respiração — suplementadas por máquina. O Robocop seria o tipo ideal disso. O ciborgue da vida real, porém, não se parece em nada com o Robocop. O ciborgue da vida real somos nós. É qualquer um que acorda e a primeira coisa que faz é pegar o celular — para olhar o WhatsApp ou para desligar o alarme — e fica nessa relação de dependência com aquela máquina o dia inteiro, para questões de memória e de tomada de decisão. Por que isso acontece? Porque o Homo sapiens é uma espécie extremamente técnica — uma questão antropológica. Sobrevivemos como espécie, enquanto todos os outros hominíneos foram extintos, pela questão da técnica, da cultura. Precisamos ser suplementados. Como espécie biológica, precisamos ser suplementados o tempo todo pela cultura e pela técnica. Isso não significa que outros animais não tenham técnica — vários mamíferos têm, pássaros também. Mas para o sapiens, isso é existencial. Como Bateson diz, a mente não termina na pele; a mente humana é estendida para o seu ambiente. A unidade de análise da ecologia da mente nunca é o indivíduo sozinho — tentamos delimitar qual é o circuito relevante, e esse circuito de feedbacks é sempre maior que o indivíduo. Pode ser uma família, como no caso dos cães e de uma matilha; pode ser uma comunidade, algum território existencial qualquer. E o nosso território existencial hoje passa necessariamente por essas tecnologias. Os algoritmos, as máquinas, a agência maquínica fazem parte desse território existencial. Isso é um preâmbulo para chegar ao argumento que também faço em vários textos — inclusive nesse —: de que a extrema-direita, se a gente for transposto para a política, é uma força política nativa digital, pelo menos essa extrema-direita que conhecemos hoje. O nazifascismo histórico tem muita participação de mídia, embora isso não seja suficientemente notado. Há muitos estudos históricos que mostram o papel do rádio na capilarização do Terceiro Reich, para conformar esse grande território existencial imaginado e como isso atraiu os alemães comuns em torno daquele projeto. De certa forma, algo similar — similar, mas muito diferente também — está sendo recolocado hoje com relação à nova infraestrutura técnica midiática que são as plataformas digitais. Evito usar a palavra “mídia” porque quando falamos em mídia pensamos em máquinas específicas — televisão, rádio —, mas plataformas não são exatamente mídias. Elas se sobrepõem a todo tipo de infraestrutura técnica, não apenas midiática. Com a plataformização — uma tendência relativamente recente; a internet era muito diferente antes de 2010 — e com os smartphones, que foram um verdadeiro game changer, as primeiras áreas cujos efeitos foram sentidos foram a política eleitoral e a área da saúde. Mesmo antes da pandemia, pesquisadores já identificavam como o autocuidado começou a passar rapidamente por essas infraestruturas, com o “doutor Google”. Para não me estender, vou colocar os dois pontos principais que desenvolvo no artigo, porque são mais ontológicos: como essas máquinas mudam a própria relação espaço-temporal dos nossos sistemas sociotécnicos. O que os algoritmos fazem? Eles hiperaceleram — e esse é, para mim, o ponto central. Quando você hiperaccelera, desestabiliza a relação da mente humana com o seu ambiente. Fica aquele fluxo constante de eventos ao qual você tem que responder o tempo todo, e cognitivamente isso é lido como uma situação de crise, do ponto de vista da ecologia da mente — não só para o humano, para qualquer espécie. Quando há uma instabilidade muito grande do ambiente, isso tende a reverter para o modo crise. É o que Wendy Chun chama de situação de crise permanente que as plataformas jogam nos nossos sistemas sociotécnicos. Isso é, obviamente, uma base fértil para a instrumentalização por forças de extrema-direita. Um outro ponto que os algoritmos introduzem, relacionado à hiperaceleração — que seria uma dimensão mais temporal —, é uma dimensão mais espacial de bifurcação. Algoritmos programados para segmentar públicos, porque essa é a lógica do modelo de negócios da economia da atenção, acabam gerando — não sozinhos, mas na interação com os usuários humanos, porque a recursividade do humano-máquina vai para os dois lados — um efeito sistêmico não de segmentação pura e simples, mas de bifurcação. É aí que entra o código amigo-inimigo, a polarização, a sismogênese — todos esses processos de antagonismo extremo, o que chamo de “mundo do avesso”: um lado é o extremo oposto do outro, numa dinâmica de guerra em que só um pode prevalecer, porque o outro é visto como uma ameaça existencial. No ecossistema de extrema-direita, ele vai desde um polo mais moderado — Tarcísio, digamos — até um polo mais radicalizado — o pessoal do 8 de janeiro, o “tio França” que se explodiu na frente do STF. O que é a extrema-direita? Um lado? O outro? Agentes específicos? Discursos específicos? Não. Do ponto de vista da ecologia da mente, a extrema-direita é toda essa ecologia, todo esse ecossistema que cobre todo esse espectro e que inclui a agência maquínica como um dos seus principais motores. Primeiro porque ela desestabiliza o mundo real, com a hiperaceleração e todos esses processos. Mas ao mesmo tempo ela direciona — é como um rio que tem uma corrente que vai para um lado, e os agentes da extrema-direita são aqueles que nadam a favor da correnteza, porque as plataformas são um ambiente; elas não são variáveis. Elas mudam o ambiente no qual fazemos política. E esse ambiente tem vieses técnicos intrinsecamente favoráveis a uma força política como a extrema-direita. Por isso não é que eles estejam mais espertos ou inteligentes — é que a forma como fazem política converge com a lógica das redes de maneira subliminar, intrínseca. Como o Casarões disse, há uma certa afinidade eletiva com a lógica das plataformas. Mas essa afinidade não é aleatória — por isso foi importante voltarmos à cibernética dos anos 1940, ao esforço de guerra, à artilharia antiaérea. O próprio DNA dessa indústria de tecnologia se originou da guerra e nunca saiu da chave de guerra. Depois da Segunda Guerra, a cibernética se tornou parte da Guerra Fria, com a mesma lógica do controle indireto — fazer o inimigo fazer o que você quer que ele faça indiretamente —, que é essa ideia cibernética do controle numa chave sempre não linear, sempre recíproca. É o que o Trump exatamente tenta fazer agora, em outra versão. Houve um breve interregno onde se tornou uma indústria civil, nos anos 1980 e 1990, mas a lógica algorítmica, a lógica cibernética, continuou sendo a da guerra — só que agora, em vez de controlar o inimigo, você vai controlar o usuário, para fazê-lo clicar num anúncio e vender a atenção daquele usuário para os anunciantes. Há também uma convergência, especialmente durante a Guerra Fria, entre a lógica de guerra indireta, a lógica da propaganda e a indústria de publicidade que temos hoje. Não foi a publicidade que originou a propaganda política — foi a propaganda política que veio primeiro e depois se tornou uma indústria civil, que é o coração da lógica da economia da atenção. Mesmo essas plataformas que se colocavam como liberais sempre tiveram um DNA mais próximo da lógica de guerra, propaganda e controle indireto do que de algo parecido com democracia. Era, de certa forma, um pouco inevitável que as coisas se desenrolassem como estão se desenrolando, porque já estavam previstas na própria ontogênese dessa indústria — como Simondon chamaria —, uma ontogênese ligada à guerra, ao controle e à desumanização. As plataformas, os algoritmos, não nos veem como humanos. É exatamente a mesma coisa do caça com o piloto dirigindo: a máquina é incapaz de ver interioridade, incapaz de ver subjetividade. Ela só nos interpela no nível do controle, da previsão de comportamento. A política está se tornando isso — retroalimentando-se com os discursos da extrema-direita que ativam o senso comum na direção da regeneração, que é a lógica do fascismo histórico: seria possível vencer essa crise, resetar o sistema e construir o estereótipo de um inimigo que precisa ser derrotado para que a crise permanente seja superada. No fim das contas, é uma mistificação de processos reais e de problemas reais, numa linguagem nacionalista e nativista. Guilherme Casarões: Letícia, um outro conceito com que você trabalha no texto e na sua obra é o de populismo. Uma das passagens que mais me chamaram a atenção — e que acho fascinante — é que essa abordagem ecológica de Bateson ganha muita relevância frente ao populismo contemporâneo, justamente porque esse populismo se ampara em públicos que, como você diz no texto, são parcialmente artificiais. A passagem, para quem quiser ler depois, está na página 2 do texto: “os públicos que são produzidos por essa dinâmica são resultados transindividuais de uma agência que é humana e não humana, na medida em que os algoritmos coemergem permanentemente por meio de ciclos cibernéticos”. Essa questão da artificialidade do público é muito central para entender tanto a dinâmica amigo-inimigo quanto a maneira pela qual o populismo contemporâneo consegue controlar a construção narrativa e a mobilização de seu público. Queria ir mais especificamente para o caso que você estuda no texto, que é o bolsonarismo. Seu texto descreve o bolsonarismo não só como uma ideologia, mas como uma dinâmica mutante que oscila entre a moderação e a radicalização. Você traz o conceito de indecidibilidade rítmica — essa coisa de ir e voltar — e eu queria que você explicasse como o bolsonarismo, a partir dessa chave analítica, alterna entre o institucional e o antiestructural, e como isso permitiu ao ex-presidente Bolsonaro manter o sistema político num estado de antagonismo permanente sem chegar a uma ruptura total — o que só vai acontecer em 2023. Letícia Cesarino: O que tentei fazer nesse texto é reler parte do governo Bolsonaro até as eleições de 2022 a partir dessa lógica cibernética — ou seja, como ele performou uma dinâmica cibernética que é essa tecnopolítica moldada pelas máquinas. Casarões, você trouxe a questão do populismo, e acho que são etapas. Desde 2013 até 2018, temos essa invasão muito forte e muito rápida da agência técnica dessas mídias e desses dispositivos dentro da política — um movimento mais tectônico, de desestabilização. E aí essas figuras aparecendo mais ou menos ao mesmo tempo: Modi, Trump, Bolsonaro, Duterte, Orbán — é aí que o conceito de populismo realmente faz mais sentido, nesse sentido dessa irrupção de uma política antiliberal, com uma norma mais afetiva, mais espontânea. É a política da exceção. E que, novamente, bate com a estrutura das plataformas, porque as plataformas também são políticas de exceção e de multidão. É importante termos isso em mente. A citação que você trouxe mostra como as plataformas fazem um tipo de prestidigitação: colocam uma coisa na interface, então o usuário tem a impressão de que é livre, de que é um indivíduo, enquanto o que está acontecendo atrás da tela é que esse indivíduo está sendo desagregado e reagregado com fragmentos de outros usuários em grandes multidões digitais. Ele não tem liberdade — ao contrário, está tendo seu comportamento indiretamente controlado, no sentido cibernético, pelos algoritmos. E esse social de multidão é o social de crise. Quem está imerso nesses ambientes está se colocando num modo crise — e a extrema-direita é a força política que mais combina com esse tipo de ambiente. Sem crise eles não são nada. Se você tirar a crise, a atmosfera de ameaça de que o Brasil vai acabar, eles não têm nada. Por isso não têm programa político: são uma força política na e da crise e da exceção. Daí esse paradoxo de como uma tecnopolítica de crise, de exceção e de guerra se rotiniza como um governo — que foi exatamente o paradoxo do governo Bolsonaro. E ainda teve a pandemia, que adicionou uma camada enorme de crise a isso. Ciberneticamente, faz muito sentido esse vai e vem — os ciclos de feedback positivo e negativo. O feedback positivo é o que acelera o viés que você já está; o negativo coloca um freio. Bolsonaro, enquanto governante, não podia ficar só no runaway, só no feedback positivo, porque o feedback positivo sozinho eventualmente leva a um colapso — tanto nos organismos vivos como nas máquinas. O que ele e o Trump fazem é colocar estrategicamente esses freios, esses recuos: avanço e recuo, feedback positivo e negativo. Tentei mostrar no artigo como isso se deu durante o governo e como esse processo perde o controle na eleição de 2022, redundando eventualmente no 8 de janeiro. O governo Bolsonaro não construiu nada — estava destruindo coisas, que é o que a extrema-direita faz — mas dosando até onde poderia ir na relação com os outros agentes: o Congresso Nacional, o público. E o público passou a ser medido através das redes sociais — pelas métricas das mídias digitais — e cada vez mais por pesquisas de opinião, que são outra forma de feedback que coteja com as mídias sociais. Bolsonaro foi assim sentindo, de forma propriamente recursiva, lidando com um ambiente de causalidades circulares, crises, etc. A linearidade só é possível em contextos de estabilidade e paz — e é exatamente o que o Trump está fazendo hoje. Agora, uma virada acontece, e aí é muito importante a questão do método. Esse artigo é baseado em pesquisa de métodos mistos, onde a abordagem qualitativa antropológica foi composta com uma abordagem computacional de grandes quantidades de dados, com os meus parceiros da Universidade da Bahia, do LabHD, onde fazíamos o mapeamento em tempo real dos públicos do Telegram. Foi muito interessante ver como, em meados de 2021, o comportamento desse ecossistema transindividual — que chamamos de públicos refratados, os públicos da extrema-direita — mudou. O comportamento pandêmico, ativado pela pandemia, e inclusive as teorias da conspiração começaram a diminuir. Isso foi bem na época da questão do voto impresso. Quando o voto impresso é enterrado, um conspiracionismo eleitoral começa a subir e se estabilizar. Por quê? As condenações do Lula tinham sido definitivamente canceladas, e eles, na mentalidade de guerra deles, já previam: “Está vindo um golpe que vai impedir o Bolsonaro de ganhar as eleições de 2022.” Isso mais de um ano antes da eleição. Já entraram no modo de contra-golpe. Que é outra característica desse social de crise — o que Brian Massumi, também batesoniano, chama de preempção: você passa a agir antecipando a ação do seu inimigo. É muito como a lógica da Guerra Fria entre os dois blocos. Por isso a extrema-direita está sempre reagindo — isso é uma característica muito consistente, inclusive dos ecossistemas misóginos, que estão sempre reagindo à suposta provocação ou traição da mulher. O bolsonarismo entrou nesse modo preemptivo, com a certeza de que haveria um golpe contra ele. Na cabeça deles, dessa grande mente transindividual controlada pelo Bolsonaro, o golpe deles era um contra-golpe: seria dado um golpe no Bolsonaro, e o que estavam fazendo seria a resposta. Quando você vê tudo o que fizeram ao longo desse tempo com esse olhar, tudo faz sentido — e o Bolsonaro, como depois ficou demonstrado, de fato estava tentando articular esse contra-golpe. Nas eleições de 2022, estavam nessa dinâmica de avanço e recuo, não deixando o sistema escalar demais, a temperatura subir demais, enquanto conspiravam. Quando ele finalmente desiste, vê que não ganhou a eleição — isso se arrasta por algumas semanas —, e quando realmente percebem que os comandantes das três forças não vão entrar, que o golpe não vai acontecer, Bolsonaro fica em silêncio. Ciberneticamente, isso foi muito importante, porque era ele que fazia a regulação cibernética entre a camada moderada e a camada radicalizada. Ele não deixava as coisas escalar. Era um agente de radicalização, mas também de moderação. Quando ele se retira, a coisa escala — e foi justamente o 8 de janeiro. Olha que interessante: quando aquela multidão invadiu o Congresso, o que aconteceu? Ficaram esperando para ver o que ia acontecer, porque confiavam no plano — só que o plano já tinha dado errado e eles não sabiam disso. Tem esse componente de um mundo de fantasia criado dentro das comunidades radicalizadas — o Bateson ajuda a entender isso, porque ele tem uma teoria cibernética da fantasia e do jogo. Foi aquele choque de realidade. Não houve mais regulação, não houve mais feedback negativo, a coisa escalou, a temperatura subiu — e é onde o artigo termina, fazendo essa releitura cibernética e ecológica dos eventos do segundo governo Bolsonaro e das eleições de 2022. David Magalhães: Ótimo, Letícia. Encaminhando para o fechamento: no finzinho do artigo você faz uma ressalva que achei bastante importante, ao apontar que a ecologia da mente é extremamente poderosa para entender essas dinâmicas sistêmicas mais amplas, mas que também tem limites — especialmente quando tentamos compreender a totalidade da vida cotidiana do sujeito. É justamente aí que você coloca a necessidade de retornar à etnografia tradicional, à etnografia offline. Queria te ouvir sobre esse desafio metodológico. Como a antropologia pode costurar essas duas pontes — de um lado, a visão de um sistema cibernético amplo no qual os indivíduos parecem agir quase como parte de um circuito, de maneira relativamente previsível; de outro, as trajetórias de vida, as experiências subjetivas, as dores concretas que não desaparecem. Como não reduzir essas pessoas a meros nós de rede? Letícia Cesarino: Ótima pergunta, porque é realmente um desafio metodológico. No caso da ecologia da mente, você nunca pode fechar só no indivíduo. Mas é possível — e é o que estou fazendo no livro novo — pensar como o indivíduo enquanto sistema, porque todo organismo individual é um sistema cibernético, com outras camadas além dele, mas ele próprio é uma camada de individuação bastante importante. Ele pode estar dividido entre dois territórios existenciais — e é um pouco como estou tentando trabalhar a questão da radicalização no livro novo. O online oferece um tipo de território existencial onde a persona online do sujeito está com interações específicas. É isso que gera o elemento de fantasia nas comunidades extremistas: no online é possível cultivar uma realidade e um tipo de estereotipação do inimigo, toda a questão da desinformação, que não é possível fazer no offline. Por isso o que aconteceu depois da invasão ao Congresso e ao STF: a realidade bateu. Eles achavam que a realidade era o que era cultivado na mente transindividual do online — e isso não bateu com o que estava acontecendo offline. Com a internet, não é mais preciso se deslocar fisicamente para se radicalizar. Você pode viver sua vida normalmente e, em parte do seu circuito, se radicalizar só no online. São muito esses casos que abordarei no próximo livro: adolescentes e jovens que estão no quarto jogando videogame, vivendo normalmente na escola, e estão fazendo coisas indescritíveis na internet — que você só vai descobrir quando a polícia bater na porta. Etnografar a radicalização é muito difícil, porque é um processo — você precisa acompanhar a pessoa desde o início, quando não estava radicalizada. É praticamente impossível, a não ser que alguém muito próximo passe por isso. Mas existem autorrelatos. Tenho trabalhado muito com o caso dos neonazistas, onde já há na Europa e nos Estados Unidos um repertório grande de testemunhos e autobiografias de pessoas que saíram dessas comunidades extremistas. No jihadismo também há bastante material; os manifestos de atiradores em escolas, por exemplo, muitas vezes trazem essa visão subjetiva da radicalização. Há um outro ponto que descobri e que não estava na pesquisa anterior: o que alguns estudos de radicalização chamam de reduplicação. Isso vem de um estudo histórico de Robert Lifton sobre médicos nazistas — como eles dividiam a personalidade. Quando estavam em Auschwitz, eram um tipo de pessoa; quando estavam em casa, com a família, eram completamente diferentes. Era uma reduplicação da personalidade em duas, como forma de resolver dissonâncias e contradições. O médico conseguia desumanizar as pessoas que selecionava para morrer em Auschwitz, enquanto em casa humanizava os seus. Algo assim parece acontecer também no nível da mente individual através da lacuna online–offline: as pessoas inconscientemente encontram formas de dividir a sua mente entre esses dois mundos, de forma que não precisem romper com familiares, amigos ou colegas de trabalho por razões políticas. Esse efeito da lacuna online–offline deve ser estudado — não é só uma questão metodológica, é a questão de qual é o efeito dessa própria separação, que é inédita: são as primeiras tecnologias que possibilitam essa divisão em ambientes existenciais separados, ainda que em relação recursiva. Isso pode ser um indutor de radicalização. Sabe aquele meme dos cachorros latindo no portão? Quando o portão abre, cada um vai para um lado. O humano tem um pouco disso: fica mais agressivo, fala coisas e faz coisas quando não está cara a cara com a pessoa — coisas que não faria no presencial. Isso é muito característico da extrema-direita: estão latindo, agressivos, no comportamento de ameaça, e quando a Polícia Federal bate na porta, revertem ao comportamento de autopiedade e vitimização — que é o que o Bolsonaro está fazendo agora na cadeia. Bateson trabalha isso muito bem, não só no humano, mas em outros mamíferos. A ecologia da mente, pegando inclusive insights de outros mamíferos — como o Bateson faz —, nos ajudaria a reincorporar o elemento biológico-evolutivo nas nossas explicações. E aqui chego a um ponto que acho muito importante: a extrema-direita tem todo um repertório do darwinismo social e da psicologia evolutiva para dizer que a forma como ela vê o humano é a forma real, a forma biológica, a forma natural. São leituras completamente erradas e enviesadas, mas para o senso comum são muito intuitivas. A questão de gênero, por exemplo: a ideia de que o homem é para um papel e a mulher para outro não tem apoio em estudos sérios de outras espécies ou da nossa. A antropologia, porém, abandonou esse campo — tornou-se etnografia, estudo da cultura, abandonou a natureza e a biologia, por razões relacionadas à história e à política interna da disciplina. Um dos meus objetivos é recuperar esse espaço de autoridade científica para falar do humano, do que é natural no humano, a partir de abordagens como a do Bateson — que é uma teoria da evolução que inclui a cultura — para competir também nesse campo da naturalização do comportamento humano. Eu diria que é talvez o campo mais persuasivo dos discursos da extrema-direita, porque a esquerda e as ciências sociais ficam só na desconstrução e no culturalismo, enquanto eles estão falando daquilo que é espontâneo, natural, atemporal. É assim que o fascismo mira, e precisamos competir nessa ordem de discurso, reivindicando uma abordagem científica mais universalista — um outro tipo de universalismo, não o positivista. A ecologia da mente é uma das principais vias que vejo para isso. No contexto desse artigo, foi também um subtexto: o artigo foi parte de um dossiê financiado pela Fundação Wenner-Gren, a maior fundação de antropologia dos Estados Unidos, e queria passar essa mensagem para os meus colegas antropólogos — a gente pode falar de universais humanos de uma forma mais refinada e rica, e competir com a extrema-direita nesse campo de discurso. Guilherme Casarões: Letícia Cesarino — incrível, tanto no pessoal quanto no profissional. E agora descobrimos, o que não deveria ser exatamente uma surpresa, que você é especialista em memes. Foi de longe uma das conversas mais eruditas que tivemos aqui, não só na colaboração com o OED, mas de todas as entrevistas que já fiz. Uma densidade impressionante, transmitida de forma didática. Tenho certeza de que os nossos ouvintes vão adorar esse papo. Quem está acompanhando, fiquem por aí — ainda temos a segunda parte da conversa, com o boletim de notícias e a dica cultural. Boletim — Giro de Notícias David Magalhães: Vamos ao nosso boletim com duas notícias envolvendo a ultradireita. França No próximo ano teremos eleições nacionais na França, que serão importantíssimas tanto para a Europa quanto para o futuro da direita radical no mundo. No dia 22 de março, domingo, ocorreu o segundo turno das eleições municipais francesas, que costuma ser um termômetro importante para medir o crescimento e a capilaridade da direita radical francesa, representada aqui pelo Rassemblement National. O resultado dessas eleições foi bastante ambíguo. O Rassemblement National, partido de Marine Le Pen e da estrela em ascensão Jordan Bardella, não conseguiu vencer em grandes cidades estratégicas — como Marselha e Toulon —, onde havia uma expectativa de vitória da direita radical. Por outro lado, o partido avançou de forma importante em outro nível: consolidou uma presença territorial, especialmente no sudeste e no nordeste do país, conquistando dezenas de prefeituras e ampliando de maneira bastante significativa sua base local. Hoje, de acordo com matéria do Le Monde de 23 de março, o Rassemblement National passa a governar aproximadamente 70 municípios e conta com cerca de 3 mil representantes locais — uma quantidade bastante considerável. Outro ponto central é um certo teto de vidro que tem impedido a vitória do RN em grandes cidades. Esses centros urbanos mais ricos, mais jovens e com maior nível educacional têm sido um desafio para a expansão da direita radical. Por outro lado, há um crescimento muito forte em áreas periféricas, regiões pós-industriais e comunas menores, geralmente marcadas por uma sensação de abandono e por um acúmulo de ressentimento — o que alguns autores chamam de left behinds, os que foram deixados para trás —, sentimento que a direita radical populista costuma explorar. Quero destacar ainda um fator que pode ser preocupante olhando para as eleições nacionais de 2027: não houve, ou houve em pouquíssimas cidades, a chamada frente republicana — também chamada de cordão sanitário. O cordão sanitário é o conjunto de alianças tradicionais de partidos com compromissos democráticos para barrar a direita radical no segundo turno das eleições. A quase inexistência desse cordão fez com que o RN conquistasse cidades onde, em eleições anteriores, havia sido bloqueado. No final das contas, essas eleições não deram o resultado que o RN esperava — um grande impulso nacional —, mas consolidaram uma base territorial sólida. Isso coloca uma questão relevante olhando para 2027: seria esse enraizamento local suficiente para sustentar uma vitória nas eleições presidenciais? Seguiremos acompanhando o caso da França. Hungria Passamos para a Hungria — continuamos falando de eleições, já que os húngaros vão às urnas em abril para decidir se encerram os 15 anos de governo de Viktor Orbán. No domingo, 15 de março, os dois principais atores políticos do país — Viktor Orbán, do Partido Fidesz, e o oposicionista Peter Magyar, do partido Tisza — realizaram grandes manifestações em Budapeste no Dia Nacional Húngaro. Mais do que uma comemoração histórica, os eventos funcionaram como um teste de força às vésperas das eleições de abril. Os dois lados reivindicaram vitória em termos de mobilização — como já vimos aqui no Brasil. O governo afirmou que foi uma das maiores marchas já realizadas no país, enquanto a oposição chegou a afirmar que reuniu meio milhão de pessoas. Ainda que sejam números exagerados, as estimativas independentes indicam que o Tisza, de Magyar, levou mais gente às ruas do que o Fidesz de Orbán, o que sinalizaria um possível avanço da oposição no campo urbano. Essas manifestações têm algo interessante: acontecem dentro de um calendário nacional, e foi possível observar uma disputa não só eleitoral, mas simbólica. Ambos os lados tentavam se apropriar da memória da Revolução de 1848. Orbán engendrou uma narrativa que associa o passado à luta contra o domínio estrangeiro, ao globalismo, à ingerência da União Europeia e à ameaça da guerra na Ucrânia. A oposição liderada por Peter Magyar utiliza os mesmos símbolos nacionais, mas com outros significados: para eles, a defesa da liberdade hoje se traduz em manter a Hungria dentro da União Europeia e vinculada à OTAN, além de restaurar o funcionamento das instituições democráticas do Estado húngaro — bastante prejudicadas nos anos de Orbán. As pesquisas de intenção de voto desde julho do ano passado mostram um quadro relativamente estável, com uma diferença de aproximadamente 10% em favor da oposição. É preciso ter cautela com essas pesquisas, no entanto, porque em 2011 Orbán fez uma importante reforma eleitoral que dá mais peso aos distritos rurais, geralmente mais conservadores. Além disso, ele concedeu cidadania a húngaros que vivem na Eslováquia, na Romênia e na Sérvia, uma população que tende a votar no governo. E há também uma mobilização ideológica mais incandescente da direita radical húngara, que pode fazer diferença nas urnas. Fato é que nenhum dos lados parece acreditar numa vitória esmagadora. Já se discute a possibilidade de alianças — o partido Jobbik, na Hungria, pode ser crucial para a formação de uma maioria no parlamento. No nosso episódio de abril, iremos repercutir o resultado dessa eleição. Dica Cultural David Magalhães: A nossa recomendação cultural deste episódio tem tudo a ver com a conversa que tivemos no primeiro bloco com a Letícia Cesarino. Se você se interessou pelo debate sobre internet, cultura digital, extrema-direita e disputa de narrativas, vale muito a pena assistir o documentário Feels Good Man, disponível na Amazon Prime. O documentário é de 2020, mas chegou recentemente a essa plataforma. O filme conta a história do Pepe the Frog, personagem criado pelo cartunista Matt Furie nos anos 2000. Originalmente era um sapo tranquilo, good vibes, que circulava numa tirinha independente. Com o tempo, porém, esse personagem foi sendo apropriado na internet — primeiro como meme, depois ganhando formas cada vez mais distorcidas, até virar um símbolo associado ao alt-right e a outros grupos de extrema-direita. O documentário é bastante interessante porque não trata isso como uma mera curiosidade da internet. Ele mostra como esse processo revela algo mais profundo: como essas comunidades online — fóruns, antigamente o 4chan, hoje um ecossistema bem mais complexo — funcionam como verdadeiros laboratórios de produção cultural e política, com uma lógica quase darwiniana de disputa por atenção, em que os conteúdos mais chocantes e extremos ganham mais visibilidade, com toda uma engenharia algorítmica por trás. O filme também acompanha o próprio criador do Pepe, que se vê completamente impotente diante da transformação da sua obra. E esse é um ponto central: na era da internet, a circulação de imagens e memes escapa completamente ao controle original — pode ser capturada e ressignificada por distintos atores políticos. O documentário tem um aspecto que dialoga diretamente com o que conversamos com a Letícia Cesarino: esses grupos utilizam o humor, a ironia, a ambiguidade e as trollagens para disseminar ideias racistas, misóginas e xenófobas, muitas vezes sob a aparência de brincadeira. Isso cria uma zona cinzenta que dificulta a crítica e, ao mesmo tempo, aumenta o alcance dessas mensagens de ódio. Feels Good Man nos ajuda a entender essa cultura digital e como ela se relaciona com a extrema-direita — e dialoga perfeitamente com os temas que trouxemos na entrevista do primeiro bloco. Até a próxima. The post Ecologia da mente e extrema-direita appeared first on Chutando a Escada.

Melanie Reinhart joins me once more to speak into and from the 12th house of the wheel of houses. The episode itself is a wonderful example of how that which we talk about can sometimes be 'conjured up' by our speech. This is something that Gregory Bateson called a 'metalogue' - a word introduced to me by Melanie many moons ago. Our metalogue was a disruption from the gods of technology who seemed to think that some of what we shared was best kept in silence. And so we were kicked off the call at a particularly poignant moment in this one. None-the-less, the essence of the house was thoroughly explored. And we share with you whatever the deities allow us to reveal. This completes our 'series within a series' on the water houses - those elusive and hard to grasp places of reality. I'm forever grateful to Melanie for her generosity of spirit in sharing her depth of wisdom with us on the podcast. The image for the podcast cover is from Patron of the show, Lucy Dodd. It's a piece she calls "Sun Moon and Mermaid" made with, in her words, 'Iron oxide and Copper ink, blue spirulina, cochineal and some other stuff.' She completed it just as our Iron John episodes were released. REFERENCESAuthors & ThinkersGregory Bateson → Concept of metalogue → https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_BatesonCarl Jung → Concept of the numinous → https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NuminousDane Rudhyar → The Astrological Houses: The Spectrum of Individual Experience (also published as New Mansions for New Men)David Abram → Cultural perception / reality frameworks → https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_AbramC. A. Meier → Ancient Incubation and Modern Psychotherapy (republished as Healing Dream and Ritual)Brian Clark → Rewilding the psyche (concept referenced)Mythological Sources & FiguresHyginus → Fabulae (mythographical fragments)Dionysus → Greek god of ecstasy, twice-born myth → https://www.theoi.com/Olympios/Dionysos.htmlAsclepius → Greek god of healing and incubation temples → https://www.theoi.com/Ouranios/Asklepios.htmlAriadne → Associated with Dionysus, labyrinth, and Corona BorealisRiver Lethe & Mnemosyne → Rivers of forgetfulness and memory in the underworldChiron & Chariklo → Centaur healer and his consort (associated with weaving/spinning)Join the Newsletter!Podcast Musician: Marlia CoeurPlease consider becoming a Patron to support the show!Go to OnTheSoulsTerms.com for more.

Dimitri and Khalid explore the later career of chief cyberculture impresario Stewart Brand from the early 1970s to today, including: Fred Turner's 2004 book "From Counterculture to Cyberculture" highlighting tensions between the New Left and the "New Communalists"; Stewart Brand running the livestream on the Mother of All Demos with SRI computer pioneer Douglas Engelbart in 1968; predicting and championing the “personal computer” revolution in Rolling Stone in 1972; Brand's late ‘70s obsessions with CIA suslord Gregory Bateson and orbital space colonies; launching the WELL (the first self-described ‘online community') with Larry Brilliant and throwing the first Hackers' Conference with John Brockman in 1985; how Grateful Dead lyricist/Mormon cattle ranching heir John Perry Barlow shitposted his way to cyberpunk stardom and CIA consultancy gigs on the WELL; Brand's fateful run-in with MIT Media Lab founder/brother of an Iran-Contra mass murderer Nicholas Negroponte; chief Brand acolyte Kevin Kelly launching WIRED magazine; and the 1990s formation of a bicoastal Long Now/EDGE Foundation “digerati” network that would eventually link up with Robert Maxwell's daughters and “science philanthropist” Jeffrey Epstein on their way to capturing the commanding heights of the 21st century's New Economy… For access to full-length premium SJ episodes, upcoming installments of DEMON FORCES, and the Grotto of Truth Discord, subscribe at https://patreon.com/subliminaljihad.

Mainstream conversations about artificial intelligence tend to center around the technology's economic and large-scale impacts. Yet it's at the individual level where we're seeing AI's most potent effects, and they may not be what you think. Even in the limited time that AI chatbots have been publicly available (like Claude, ChatGPT, Perplexity, etc.), studies show that our increasing reliance on them wears down our ability to think and communicate effectively, and even erodes our capacity to nurture healthy attachments to others. In essence, AI is atrophying the skills that sit at the core of what it means to be human. Can we as a society pause to consider the risks this technology poses to our well-being, or will we keep barreling forward with its development until it's too late? In this episode, Nate is joined by Nora Bateson and Zak Stein to explore the multifaceted ways that AI is designed to exploit our deepest social vulnerabilities, and the risks this poses to human relationships, cognition, and society. They emphasize the need for careful consideration of how technology shapes our lives and what it means for the future of human connection. Ultimately, they advocate for a deeper engagement with the embodied aspects of living alongside other people and nature as a way to counteract our increasingly digital world. What can we learn from past mass adaptation of technologies such as the invention of the world wide web or GPS when it comes to AI's increasing presence in our lives? How does artificial intelligence expose and intensify the ways our culture is already eroding our mental health and capacity for human connection? And lastly, how might we imagine futures where technology magnifies the best sides of humanity – like creativity, cooperation, and care – rather than accelerating our most destructive instincts?  (Conversation recorded on October 14th, 2025)   About Nora Bateson: Nora Bateson is an award-winning filmmaker, writer and educator, as well as President of the International Bateson Institute, based in Sweden. Her work asks the question "How can we  improve our perception of the complexity we live within, so we may improve our interaction with the world?" An international lecturer, researcher and writer, Nora wrote, directed and produced the award-winning documentary, An Ecology of Mind, a portrait of her father, Gregory Bateson. Her work brings the fields of biology, cognition, art, anthropology, psychology, and information technology together into a study of the patterns in ecology of living systems. Her book, Small Arcs of Larger Circles, released by Triarchy Press, UK, 2016 is a revolutionary personal approach to the study of systems and complexity.   About Zak Stein: Dr. Zak Stein is a philosopher of education, as well as a Co-founder of the Center for World Philosophy and Religion. He is also the Co-founder of Civilization Research Institute, the Consilience Project, and Lectica, Inc. He is the author of dozens of published papers and two books, including Education in a Time Between Worlds. Zak received his EdD from Harvard University.    Show Notes and More Watch this video episode on YouTube   Want to learn the broad overview of The Great Simplification in 30 minutes? Watch our Animated Movie.   ---   Support The Institute for the Study of Energy and Our Future Join our Substack newsletter Join our Hylo channel and connect with other listeners  

¿Necesitas recuperar la figura después de los excesos del verano? Keto Optimizado te dará todas las herramientas.

SHOWNOTES:Die Macht der Fragen Teil 2In den 1950er Jahren stellte die legendäre Palo-Alto-Gruppe um Gregory Bateson, Paul Watzlawick und Virginia Satir unser Denken auf den Kopf: Nicht mehr einzelne Personen standen im Mittelpunkt, sondern das ganze System. Aus dieser Haltung entstanden die systemischen Fragen – Fragen, die Perspektiven öffnen, Muster sichtbar machen und Verantwortung fördern.---------------------------------------------------------------Interessierst du dich für ein 1:1 - Coaching oder ein Workshop-Angebot?⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buche hier jetzt dein kostenlose Kennenlerngespräch mit Michael⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Möchtest du schlagfertig auf verbale Angriffe reagieren?⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Schlagfertig in 3 Schritten (E-Book für 0€)⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠runterladen⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Du möchtest mehr erfahren?⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Hier gehts zu ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Michaels Website ⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

What if the solution to your problem was worked out for you … 500 years ago. This is the story of the Oak Beams of New College, Oxford, and a secret plot that lasted for five centuries. In this episode, I tell you that this story is a legend because it did not happen exactly as it was told. Read on to find out more. This story was told to Stewart Brand of the Whole Earth Catalog by Gregory Bateson, a linguist and anthropologist who was interested in systems theory and, for a while, the husband of Margaret Mead. The replacement oaks were not planted at the college's founding but some years later in the 1400s. And they weren't planted expressly for the purpose of replacing the ones in the dining hall ... but they were planted for just that type of thing. The college had been managing its woodlots to provide large timbers for centuries, even if the drama of the scene described here was a little less dramatic. As I said in the episode. This story is true as many legends are. It is based upon things that actually happened and its lesson is a real one, and one that the nameless foresters of New College knew.

Design experts explore how we can engage with uncertainty and shape the future with clarity, creativity, and intention. Drawing from their work at Stanford's d.school and their book Assembling Tomorrow, they offer tools for navigating rapid technological change while anchoring our creations in empathy, responsibility, and hope. Carissa Carter is the academic director at Stanford University's Hasso Plattner Institute of Design (the d.school) and a former geologist. Her work focuses on systems thinking, climate innovation, and design futures. Scott Doorley is the creative director at Stanford's d.school. He has worked at the intersection of storytelling, physical space, and creative education, and has a background in film and media. They are co-authors of Assembling Tomorrow: A Guide to Designing a Thriving FutureInterview Date: 4/4/2025 Tags: Carissa Carter, Scott Doorley, design, future, innovation, creativity, ethics, emotion, healing, runaway design, AI, synthetic biology, maps, metaphors, empathy, humility, Michael Bierut, Antonio Damasio, Gregory Bateson, Creativity, Philosophy, Technology, Design Thinking, Systems Thinking

What if our biggest crises – from climate collapse to mental health – demand not simpler solutions, but a deeper embrace of complexity? Join us for a profound conversation with Nora Bateson, award-winning filmmaker, writer, and systems thinker.Nora takes us inside the rich ecology of ideas explored in her groundbreaking book, Combining. Nora challenges us to see the world as a web of inseparable relationships, where every action ripples with incalculable consequences. She argues compellingly that tackling our "Polycrisis" requires understanding interdependence, sitting with ambiguity, and nurturing the vital, often unseen, connections she calls "Warm Data" – the lifeblood of complex systems.Discover how "Combining" uniquely blends intellectual rigor, emotional vulnerability, storytelling, poetry, and art to invite us into "Aphanipoiesis" – the mysterious processes by which life collaboratively fosters vitality and evolution. Nora urges us beyond the illusion of "fitting in," towards a practice of "uncutness" and radical interconnectedness.We delve into the real-world application of these ideas through her pioneering Warm Data Labs. Learn how these immersive, transcontextual gatherings foster new ways of knowing and relating, moving beyond isolated data points to grasp living, relational patterns.Crucially, we explore Nora's deep connection to systemic psychotherapy. How does her work, rooted in the legacy of her father, Gregory Bateson, resonate with therapeutic practices? How does understanding systems at multiple levels – from the personal psyche to the global ecosystem – inform healing, relationships, and our collective responsibility for humanity's future?Prepare for a mind-expanding journey where love, humour, curiosity, and the courage to be vulnerable collide with the urgent trials of our time. Nora Bateson doesn't just offer analysis; she beckons us towards revelation and revolution in how we perceive ourselves, our communities, and our place in the intricate tapestry of life.

Matt Prewitt and Gary Zhexi Zhang discuss Chinese cybernetics, focusing on pioneer Qian Xuesen and how the field developed differently in China versus the West. They explore how Chinese cybernetics emerged as a practical tool for nation-building, examining its scientific foundations, political context, and broader cultural impact. Together, they discuss key concepts like information control systems while highlighting the field's interdisciplinary nature and its evolution from thermodynamic to information-based approaches.Links & References: References:The Critical Legacy of Chinese Cybernetics by Gary Zhexi Zhang | Combinations Magazine Cybernetics - WikipediaNorbert Wiener ("Father of Cybernetics")Whose entropy is it anyway? (Part 1: Boltzmann, Shannon, and Gibbs ) — Chris AdamiCollection: Norbert Wiener papers | MIT ArchivesSpaceRelationship between entropy of a language and crossword puzzles (a comment from Claude Shannon) - Mathematics Stack ExchangeA Mathematical Theory of Communication BY C.E. SHANNON | Harvard MathA Mathematical Theory of Communication - WikipediaCybernetics - MITBrownian motion - WikipediaIntercontinental ballistic missile - Wikipedia AKA “ICBMs”Summary: The Macy ConferencesWarren Sturgis McCulloch (Neuroscience), Gregory Bateson and Margaret Mead (Cultural Anthropology)Claude Shannon (Mathematician)The Bandwagon BY CLAUDE E. SHANNONFrom Counterculture to Cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism by Fred Turner, introductionFrom Cybernetics to AI: the pioneering work of Norbert Wiener - Max Planck NeuroscienceMarvin Minsky | AI Pioneer, Cognitive Scientist & MIT Professor | BritannicBios:Gary Zhexi Zhang is an artist and writer. He is the editor of Catastrophe Time! (Strange Attractor Press, 2023) and most recently exhibited at the 9th Asian Art Biennial, Taichung.Gary's Social Links:Gary Zhexi Zhang (@hauntedsurimi) / X Matt Prewitt (he/him) is a lawyer, technologist, and writer. He is the President of the RadicalxChange Foundation.Matt's Social Links:ᴍᴀᴛᴛ ᴘʀᴇᴡɪᴛᴛ (@m_t_prewitt) / X Connect with RadicalxChange Foundation:RadicalxChange Website@RadxChange | TwitterRxC | YouTubeRxC | InstagramRxC | LinkedInJoin the conversation on Discord.Credits:Produced by G. Angela Corpus.Co-Produced, Edited, Narrated, and Audio Engineered by Aaron Benavides.Executive Produced by G. Angela Corpus and Matt Prewitt.Intro/Outro music by MagnusMoone, “Wind in the Willows,” is licensed under an Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International License (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

In this episode, Matt speaks with Richard Tarnas about his book Cosmos and Psyche: Intimations of a New Worldview. Richard Theodore Tarnas is a cultural historian and astrologer known for his books The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas That Have Shaped Our World View and Cosmos and Psyche: Intimations of a New World View. Tarnas is professor of philosophy and psychology at the California Institute of Integral Studies, and is the founding director of its graduate program in Philosophy, Cosmology, and Consciousness. In 1968 Tarnas entered Harvard, graduating with an A.B. cum laude in 1972. He received his Ph.D. from Saybrook Institute in 1976 with a thesis on psychedelic therapy. In 1974 Tarnas went to Esalen in California to study psychotherapy with Stanislav Grof. From 1974 to 1984 he lived and worked at Esalen Institute in Big Sur, California, teaching and studying with Grof, Joseph Campbell, Gregory Bateson, Huston Smith, Elizabeth Kübler-Ross, and James Hillman. He also served as Esalen's director of programs and education. Get the book: https://a.co/d/4gJFNxS warmachinepodcast.org Music for this episode: Lamentium, Monasterium Imperi Nomad's Theme, Matt Baker

The Living Process Episode 26 with host Greg Madison  Guest Rob Parker Paradigm Leaping Welcome back to The Living Process. In this episode, Rob talks about his interests in philosophy, especially existentialism, from an early age and it was this interest, combined with his desire to help other young kids like himself, that led him to Gendlin. Rob's first experience of the Focusing world was a 3-day Thinking at the Edge workshop with Gendlin at Stony Point. Unusually his interest in philosophy was his way into Focusing. We talk about Rob's interest in ‘meaning', his journey from the ideas of Gregory Bateson to Maurice Marleau-Ponty and Thomas Kuhn, and how these thinkers brought him to Gendlin and a unique opportunity to drop everything and learn from this new philosopher. In our conversation, we touched on how learning Focusing affected Rob's therapy practice. He also talks about learning from Mary Hendricks Gendlin how to slow down and work with the felt sense in sessions and we touched upon the political and social implications of The Process Model. Rob mentioned his modification of the EXP scale and his use of Zen and Focusing to work with The Inner Critic.   Rob Parker is well-known in the Focusing world and beyond as a clear thinker representing Gendlin's A Process Model and Gendlin's other philosophies to a lay audience. He has a longterm interest in Zen, spirituality, and science. For years Rob was a practicing psychologist, originally in the existential tradition, specialising in psychological trauma. In 2000 Rob found the philosophy of Eugene Gendlin, which he dedicated himself to understanding by meeting Gendlin every week until Gendlin died in 2017.   For information on Rob, his workshops, and his writing on Gendlin's philosophy, see: www.lifeforward.org Episode 26, The Living Process with guest Rob Parker: https://youtu.be/oAZh5uCe_Yo The Living Process - all episodes and podcast links: https://www.londonfocusing.com/the-living-process/ Greg's YouTube video channel: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLC0TgN6iVu3n9d9q2l43z1xBMYY3p9FQL The Living Process on the FOT Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLx3FqA70kQWuHCHmEiZnkn1VcrRIPbcvk #somaticexperience  #trauma  #Focusing  #Gendlin  #Bodytherapy  #Zen  #Experientialpractice  #bodymind   #thelivingprocess #existentialism #psychotherapy

Nora Bateson, is an award-winning filmmaker, research designer, writer, educator, international lecturer, as well as President of the International Bateson Institute based in Sweden. She is the creator of the Warm Data theory and practices. Nora's work brings the fields of biology, cognition, art, anthropology, psychology, and information technology together into a study of the patterns in ecology of living systems. She wrote, directed and produced the award-winning documentary, An Ecology of Mind, a portrait of her father Gregory Bateson.Her first book, Small Arcs of Larger Circles, is a revolutionary personal approach to the study of systems and complexity. In her latest second book Combining, Nora invites us into an ecology of communication where nothing stands alone, and every action sets off a chain of incalculable consequences. She challenges conventional fixes for our problems, highlighting the need to tackle issues at multiple levels, understand interdependence, and embrace ambiguity.She was the recipient of the Neil Postman Award for Career Achievement in Public Intellectual Activity in 2019.In this engaging conversation, we delve into the dangers of certainty and the pursuit of fixed answers, exploring how moving beyond polarities can lead to mutual learning and understanding. We discuss the weaponisation of language, the impact of divisive discourse, and how more generative and sacred communication can guide us toward deeper connection and shared presence.This conversation invites you to engage more fully with life as it is—its beauty and its horror, its creativity and its destruction. It's a call to hold life's complexity with openness, to embrace it, and to let it go as the flow of life continues to unfold.For further content and information check out the following:- Nora's Warm Data work: https://www.warmdata.life/ - Nora's LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nora-bateson-b4a2456/- The International Bateson Institute website: https://batesoninstitute.org/nora-bateson/ - For the What is a Good Life? podcast's YouTube page: https://www.youtube.com/@whatisagoodlife/videos- My newsletter: https://www.whatisagood.life/- My LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mark-mccartney-14b0161b4/Contact me at mark@whatisagood.life if you'd like to explore your own lines of self-inquiry through 1-on-1 coaching, take part in my weekly free silent conversations, discuss experiences I create to stimulate greater trust, communication, and connection, amongst your leadership teams, or you simply want to get in touch.00:00 Teaser01:43 Introduction04:50 How not to get caught looking for answers09:43 A quest for systems change13:30 Holding possibility open17:50 Taking a stand and taking a stance20:15 The significance of how we communicate 24:50 Belonging, certainty, and polarity30:50 The problem of grabbing answers37:23 Generative and sacred communication42:35 Paying attention to moment and context48:20 Practice of improvisation55:30 The implications of concrete answers01:02:58 What is a good life for Nora?

Simon DeDeo's inquiry takes on the most immense topics: astrophysics, history, epistemology, culture. He brings the precision of a physicist, the capability of a data scientist, and the sensibility of a philosopher to thinking about how we live our lives; and his polymathic life might be the example we need to make sense of the world we are walking into, one requiring an evolution to our way of studying and understanding.Origins Podcast WebsiteFlourishing Commons NewsletterShow Notes:David Spergel (08:40)The Santa Fe Institute (14:10)The Village Vanguard in New York City (16:30)The Applicability of Mathematics as a Philosophical Problem by Mark Steiner (24:30)Murray Gell-Mann (25:00)"The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences" by Eugene Wigner (26:00)"The civilizing process in London's Old Bailey" Klingenstein et al (27:30)Michael Tomasello (31:50)Michael Palmer "Lies of the Poem" (34:50)Phenomenology of Spirit by Hegel (37:20)Gregory Bateson "Where is the mind?" (40:20)The CANDOR corpus (42:50)Judith Donath on Origins (48:10)Marshall McLuhan (49:00)Science of Science (49:10)"New and atypical combinations: An assessment of novelty and interdisciplinarity" (49:10)Helen Vendler (51:20)The Anxiety of Influenceby Harold Bloom (53:00)C Thi Nguyen on Origins (57:00)The Scientific Landscape of Human Flourishing (58:00)eudaimonia (58:30)thumos (59:00)Lightning Round (01:04:50)Book: American Pastoral by Philip Roth Passion: exerciseHeart sing: narrativeScrewed up: teaching and mentoringFind Simon online:WebsiteLogo artwork by Cristina GonzalezMusic by swelo on all streaming platforms or @swelomusic on social media

In this episode we speak with Master Chungliang Al Huang—a tai chi master, writer, philosopher, dancer, and generational teacher. Originally from Shanghai, China, Master Huang moved to the United States to study architecture and cultural anthropology, and later DanceIn the 1960s, Master Huang forged a significant collaboration with philosopher Alan Watts, which led him to Esalen. There, he became a beloved teacher and formed meaningful connections with thought leaders such as Huston Smith, Gregory Bateson, and Joseph Campbell. He and Joe taught together at Esalen until Joe's death in 1987.Master Huang is an author of many books including the classic Embrace Tiger, Return to Mountain. His contributions include pioneering modern dance in the Republic of China and sharing the stage with luminaries like the Dalai Lama and Jane Goodall. He has been an assembly member and presenter at The Council for the Parliament of the World's Religions and has been a keynote speaker for the YPO (Young Presidents' Organization) and WPO (World Presidents' Organization) and at major global gatherings in China, India, Switzerland, Germany, South America, South Africa, and Bali. In 1988 he was featured in the inaugural segment of the PBS series, A World of Ideas, moderated by Bill Moyers.Joseph Campbell famously remarked, “Chungliang Al Huang's Tai Ji dancing is ‘mythic images' incarnate. He has found a new way to explain ‘the hero's journey' to help others follow their bliss through the experience of tai ji practice in his work through the Living Tao Foundation.”In this conversation, we discuss his life, his relationship with Alan Watts, and his friendship with Joseph Campbell. For learn more about Chungliang visit :https://livingtao.org For more information on the MythMaker Podcast Network and Joseph Campbell, visit JCF.org. To subscribe to our weekly MythBlasts go to jcf.org/subscribeThe Podcast With A Thousand Faces is hosted by Tyler Lapkin and is a production of the Joseph Campbell Foundation. It is produced by Tyler Lapkin. Executive producer, John Bucher. Audio mixing and editing by Charles Mallett.All music exclusively provided by APM Music (apmmusic.com)

Two environmental psychologists, Dr. Robert Gifford and Dr. Joseph Reser, on reasons why we don't react to the threat of catastrophic climate change. Plus film on Gregory Bateson, co-inventor of the “double bind” and eco-connection – by his daughter Nora.

(Conversation recorded on June 14th, 2024)   Show Summary:  There's a growing understanding of the need for biodiversity across ecosystems for a healthy and resilient biosphere. What if we applied the same principles to the way we communicate and use language to relate to each other and the world? Today Nate is joined by Nora Bateson, Rex Weyler, Vanessa Andreotti, and Daniel Schmachtenberger to talk about the ecology of communication. This important conversation addresses some of the traps and pitfalls of modern relating, including the use of increasingly performative language and the erosion of authentic connection, both of which can leave us feeling isolated from one another. The panelists then offer ideas for how to shift from this axis of polarization into a space of mutual learning together, no matter how disparate each other's views may seem at first glance What if we were to start conversations from a place of commonality, without choosing sides, to create more inquisitive exchanges that lead us to deeper insights about one another amidst a cacophonous world? Why is it crucial to consider the broader context in which conversations unfold - nestled within people, ideas, and cultures - in order to fully grasp the complexity of the relationships that connect us all? How would shifting the way we communicate help us ask the right questions about the species-level challenges we face, and better equip us to hear the answers?   About Nora Bateson: Nora Bateson is an award-winning filmmaker, writer and educator, as well as President of the International Bateson Institute, based in Sweden. Her work asks the question “How can we  improve our perception of the complexity we live within, so we may improve our interaction with the world?” An international lecturer, researcher and writer, Nora wrote, directed and produced the award-winning documentary, An Ecology of Mind, a portrait of her father, Gregory Bateson. Her work brings the fields of biology, cognition, art, anthropology, psychology, and information technology together into a study of the patterns in ecology of living systems. Her book, Small Arcs of Larger Circles, released by Triarchy Press, UK, 2016 is a revolutionary personal approach to the study of systems and complexity.   About Rex Weyler: Rex Weyler is a writer and ecologist. His books include Blood of the Land, a history of indigenous American nations, nominated for a Pulitzer Prize; Greenpeace: The Inside Story, a finalist for the BC Book Award and the Shaughnessy-Cohen Award for Political Writing; and The Jesus Sayings, a deconstruction of first century history, a finalist for the BC Book Award.  In the 1970s, Weyler was a cofounder of Greenpeace International and editor of the Greenpeace Chronicles. He served on campaigns to preserve rivers and forests, and to stop whaling, sealing, and toxic dumping. He currently posts the “Deep Green” column at the Greenpeace International website.   About Vannessa Andreotti: Vanessa de Oliveira Andreotti is the Dean of the Faculty of Education at the University of Victoria. She is a former Canada Research Chair in Race, Inequalities and Global Change and a former David Lam Chair in Critical Multicultural Education. Vanessa has more than 100 published articles in areas related to global and climate education. She has also worked extensively across sectors internationally in projects related to global justice, global citizenship, Indigenous knowledge systems and the climate and nature emergency. Vanessa is the author of Hospicing Modernity: Facing humanity's wrongs and the implications for social activism, one of the founders of the Gesturing Towards Decolonial Futures Arts/Research Collective and one of the designers of the course Facing Human Wrongs: Climate Complexity and Relational Accountability, available at UVic through Continuing Studies.   About Daniel Schmachtenberger: Daniel Schmachtenberger is a founding member of The Consilience Project, aimed at improving public sensemaking and dialogue. The throughline of his interests has to do with ways of improving the health and development of individuals and society, with a virtuous relationship between the two as a goal. Towards these ends, he's had a particular interest in catastrophic and existential risk, with focuses on civilization collapse and institutional decay. His work also includes an analysis of progress narratives, collective action problems, and social organization theories. These themes are all connected through close study of the relevant domains in philosophy and science.   Support Institute for the Study of Energy and Our Future Join our Substack newsletter Join our Discord channel and connect with other listeners   Show Notes and More   Watch this video episode on Youtube  

"Raamatus "Vaim ja loodus – möödapääsmatu ühtsus" (1979) esitab Gregory Bateson väljakutse Lääne filosoofia dualistlikule vaimu ja mateeria vastuolust lähtuvale epistemoloogiale. Pakkudes välja C. G. Jungist inspireeritud creatura ja pleroma ehk elusa ja elutu vastanduse, näitab Gregory Bateson lugejale mustrit, mis ühendab," võib lugeda kuus aastat tagasi eesti keeles ilmunud teose tagakaanelt. Tähenduse teejuhtide 230. saates vestlesime 20. sajandi ühest kõige olulisemast mõtlejast kõnealusele raamatule järelsõnale kirjutanud Kaie Koppeli ja Tartu Ülikooli biosemiootika professori Kalevi Kulliga. Head uudistamist! H.

Today I talked to Benjamin Breen about his book Tripping on Utopia: Margaret Mead, the Cold War, and the Troubled Birth of Psychedelic Science (Grand Central, 2024). The generation that survived the second World War emerged with a profoundly ambitious sense of social experimentation. In the '40s and '50s, transformative drugs rapidly entered mainstream culture, where they were not only legal, but openly celebrated. American physician John C. Lilly infamously dosed dolphins (and himself) with LSD in a NASA-funded effort to teach dolphins to talk. A tripping Cary Grant mumbled into a Dictaphone about Hegel as astronaut John Glenn returned to Earth. At the centre of this revolution were the pioneering anthropologists - and star-crossed lovers - Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson. Convinced the world was headed toward certain disaster, Mead and Bateson made it their life's mission to reshape humanity through a new science of consciousness expansion, but soon found themselves at odds with the government bodies who funded their work, whose intentions were less than pure. Mead and Bateson's partnership unlocks an untold chapter in the history of the twentieth century, linking drug researchers with CIA agents, outsider sexologists and the founders of the Information Age. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Today I talked to Benjamin Breen about his book Tripping on Utopia: Margaret Mead, the Cold War, and the Troubled Birth of Psychedelic Science (Grand Central, 2024). The generation that survived the second World War emerged with a profoundly ambitious sense of social experimentation. In the '40s and '50s, transformative drugs rapidly entered mainstream culture, where they were not only legal, but openly celebrated. American physician John C. Lilly infamously dosed dolphins (and himself) with LSD in a NASA-funded effort to teach dolphins to talk. A tripping Cary Grant mumbled into a Dictaphone about Hegel as astronaut John Glenn returned to Earth. At the centre of this revolution were the pioneering anthropologists - and star-crossed lovers - Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson. Convinced the world was headed toward certain disaster, Mead and Bateson made it their life's mission to reshape humanity through a new science of consciousness expansion, but soon found themselves at odds with the government bodies who funded their work, whose intentions were less than pure. Mead and Bateson's partnership unlocks an untold chapter in the history of the twentieth century, linking drug researchers with CIA agents, outsider sexologists and the founders of the Information Age. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Today I talked to Benjamin Breen about his book Tripping on Utopia: Margaret Mead, the Cold War, and the Troubled Birth of Psychedelic Science (Grand Central, 2024). The generation that survived the second World War emerged with a profoundly ambitious sense of social experimentation. In the '40s and '50s, transformative drugs rapidly entered mainstream culture, where they were not only legal, but openly celebrated. American physician John C. Lilly infamously dosed dolphins (and himself) with LSD in a NASA-funded effort to teach dolphins to talk. A tripping Cary Grant mumbled into a Dictaphone about Hegel as astronaut John Glenn returned to Earth. At the centre of this revolution were the pioneering anthropologists - and star-crossed lovers - Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson. Convinced the world was headed toward certain disaster, Mead and Bateson made it their life's mission to reshape humanity through a new science of consciousness expansion, but soon found themselves at odds with the government bodies who funded their work, whose intentions were less than pure. Mead and Bateson's partnership unlocks an untold chapter in the history of the twentieth century, linking drug researchers with CIA agents, outsider sexologists and the founders of the Information Age. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/anthropology

Today I talked to Benjamin Breen about his book Tripping on Utopia: Margaret Mead, the Cold War, and the Troubled Birth of Psychedelic Science (Grand Central, 2024). The generation that survived the second World War emerged with a profoundly ambitious sense of social experimentation. In the '40s and '50s, transformative drugs rapidly entered mainstream culture, where they were not only legal, but openly celebrated. American physician John C. Lilly infamously dosed dolphins (and himself) with LSD in a NASA-funded effort to teach dolphins to talk. A tripping Cary Grant mumbled into a Dictaphone about Hegel as astronaut John Glenn returned to Earth. At the centre of this revolution were the pioneering anthropologists - and star-crossed lovers - Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson. Convinced the world was headed toward certain disaster, Mead and Bateson made it their life's mission to reshape humanity through a new science of consciousness expansion, but soon found themselves at odds with the government bodies who funded their work, whose intentions were less than pure. Mead and Bateson's partnership unlocks an untold chapter in the history of the twentieth century, linking drug researchers with CIA agents, outsider sexologists and the founders of the Information Age. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

Today I talked to Benjamin Breen about his book Tripping on Utopia: Margaret Mead, the Cold War, and the Troubled Birth of Psychedelic Science (Grand Central, 2024). The generation that survived the second World War emerged with a profoundly ambitious sense of social experimentation. In the '40s and '50s, transformative drugs rapidly entered mainstream culture, where they were not only legal, but openly celebrated. American physician John C. Lilly infamously dosed dolphins (and himself) with LSD in a NASA-funded effort to teach dolphins to talk. A tripping Cary Grant mumbled into a Dictaphone about Hegel as astronaut John Glenn returned to Earth. At the centre of this revolution were the pioneering anthropologists - and star-crossed lovers - Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson. Convinced the world was headed toward certain disaster, Mead and Bateson made it their life's mission to reshape humanity through a new science of consciousness expansion, but soon found themselves at odds with the government bodies who funded their work, whose intentions were less than pure. Mead and Bateson's partnership unlocks an untold chapter in the history of the twentieth century, linking drug researchers with CIA agents, outsider sexologists and the founders of the Information Age. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/psychology

Today I talked to Benjamin Breen about his book Tripping on Utopia: Margaret Mead, the Cold War, and the Troubled Birth of Psychedelic Science (Grand Central, 2024). The generation that survived the second World War emerged with a profoundly ambitious sense of social experimentation. In the '40s and '50s, transformative drugs rapidly entered mainstream culture, where they were not only legal, but openly celebrated. American physician John C. Lilly infamously dosed dolphins (and himself) with LSD in a NASA-funded effort to teach dolphins to talk. A tripping Cary Grant mumbled into a Dictaphone about Hegel as astronaut John Glenn returned to Earth. At the centre of this revolution were the pioneering anthropologists - and star-crossed lovers - Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson. Convinced the world was headed toward certain disaster, Mead and Bateson made it their life's mission to reshape humanity through a new science of consciousness expansion, but soon found themselves at odds with the government bodies who funded their work, whose intentions were less than pure. Mead and Bateson's partnership unlocks an untold chapter in the history of the twentieth century, linking drug researchers with CIA agents, outsider sexologists and the founders of the Information Age. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today I talked to Benjamin Breen about his book Tripping on Utopia: Margaret Mead, the Cold War, and the Troubled Birth of Psychedelic Science (Grand Central, 2024). The generation that survived the second World War emerged with a profoundly ambitious sense of social experimentation. In the '40s and '50s, transformative drugs rapidly entered mainstream culture, where they were not only legal, but openly celebrated. American physician John C. Lilly infamously dosed dolphins (and himself) with LSD in a NASA-funded effort to teach dolphins to talk. A tripping Cary Grant mumbled into a Dictaphone about Hegel as astronaut John Glenn returned to Earth. At the centre of this revolution were the pioneering anthropologists - and star-crossed lovers - Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson. Convinced the world was headed toward certain disaster, Mead and Bateson made it their life's mission to reshape humanity through a new science of consciousness expansion, but soon found themselves at odds with the government bodies who funded their work, whose intentions were less than pure. Mead and Bateson's partnership unlocks an untold chapter in the history of the twentieth century, linking drug researchers with CIA agents, outsider sexologists and the founders of the Information Age. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/drugs-addiction-and-recovery

Today I talked to Benjamin Breen about his book Tripping on Utopia: Margaret Mead, the Cold War, and the Troubled Birth of Psychedelic Science (Grand Central, 2024). The generation that survived the second World War emerged with a profoundly ambitious sense of social experimentation. In the '40s and '50s, transformative drugs rapidly entered mainstream culture, where they were not only legal, but openly celebrated. American physician John C. Lilly infamously dosed dolphins (and himself) with LSD in a NASA-funded effort to teach dolphins to talk. A tripping Cary Grant mumbled into a Dictaphone about Hegel as astronaut John Glenn returned to Earth. At the centre of this revolution were the pioneering anthropologists - and star-crossed lovers - Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson. Convinced the world was headed toward certain disaster, Mead and Bateson made it their life's mission to reshape humanity through a new science of consciousness expansion, but soon found themselves at odds with the government bodies who funded their work, whose intentions were less than pure. Mead and Bateson's partnership unlocks an untold chapter in the history of the twentieth century, linking drug researchers with CIA agents, outsider sexologists and the founders of the Information Age. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day

"Raamatus "Vaim ja loodus – möödapääsmatu ühtsus" (1979) [1] esitab Gregory Bateson [2] väljakutse Lääne filosoofia dualistlikule vaimu ja mateeria vastuolust lähtuvale epistemoloogiale [3]. Pakkudes välja C. G. Jungist inspireeritud creatura ja pleroma ehk elusa ja elutu vastanduse, näitab Gregory Bateson lugejale mustrit, mis ühendab," võib lugeda kuus aastat tagasi eesti keeles ilmunud teose tagakaanelt.Tähenduse teejuhtide 230. saates vestlesime 20. sajandi ühest kõige olulisemast mõtlejast kõnealusele raamatule järelsõnale kirjutanud Kaie Koppeli ja Tartu Ülikooli biosemiootika professori Kalevi Kulliga [4].Head uudistamist!H.———————————————[1] https://www.apollo.ee/en/vaim-ja-lood...[2] https://youtu.be/ygqxWOT1KFY?si=LNEEq...[3] https://youtu.be/-eztWYMbBzU?si=7vMmo...[4] https://teejuhid.postimees.ee/8003607... Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What happens if you transform HOW you think? In this episode, Bill Bellows and host Andrew Stotz discuss the problem of thinking in one dimension at a time (as we were taught in school) and its impact on our ability to solve problems. BONUS: Book recommendations to broaden your understanding of Deming and more. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.1 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with Bill Bellows, who has spent 30 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. The topic for today is, well, episode 19, Transforming How we Think. Bill, take it away.   0:00:29.9 Bill Bellows: And good evening, Andrew.   0:00:35.8 AS: Good evening.   0:00:36.2 BB: And, but just as a point of clarity, I view it as transforming how we think about our thinking. And that's what I've been focusing on for the, since the mid, the early '90s is not how we think, but what is our awareness of our thinking, and I think that ties in well with SoPK. So first in late breaking news, I am seeing with new eyes, Andrew. Literally, I've got new monofocal lenses in both eyes. The left eye three weeks ago, the right eye, a week ago. I was told about five years ago, eventually I'll have to have cataract surgery. And I spoke with a few friends who had it done, and they said, oh, it's easy. And what was so amazing was it was easier than they said. It was.   0:01:41.0 BB: But one neighbor who's had it done, and kind of a sad note is he claims, and I've not double checked this, he's a sharp guy. He claims 80% of the world's population would benefit from cataract surgery that they don't have access to and eventually go blind. And I don't know, I can believe, and he is in fact he's quoted me twice on that. But I am literally seeing with new eyes. The grays are now, shades of gray, are now shades of blue. When I look at the sky. My depth perception's a whole lot better. And so it ties in well with all this vision therapy stuff. So.   0:02:36.8 AS: Aren't you glad that those machines are high quality and the operations that they do are high quality?   0:02:41.6 BB: Oh, yeah.   0:02:42.4 AS: Just one little mistake on that one. And, that's...   0:02:46.2 BB: Well, and I'm signing the documents and there's a little bit of a flutter when I'm signing, in terms of the liability. And one friend's mom had a bad cataract procedure, so it doesn't always go. And I shared this with Kevin. Kevin's had the same, as likewise had the procedure done. And we shared the anxieties and then it worked out well. But yeah when I signed that form that there was in the event, and I thought, whoa, that'd be, anyway, it worked. All right, so where I want to pick up in episode 19 is where we left off with episode 18. And there near the end, I referenced from Dr. Deming. He says Dr. Deming says in chapter three of The New Economics, and he says, "we saw in the last chapter that we're living under the tyranny of the prevailing style of management. Most people imagine this style has always existed. It is a fixture. Actually," he said, "it's a modern invention, a trap that has led us into decline. Transformation..."   0:04:03.0 BB: You remember that word from last time? Okay. "Transformation is required. Education and government, along with industry are also in need of transformation. The System of Profound Knowledge will be introduced in the next chapter. To be introduced in the next chapter is a theory for transformation." So I've got some bullet points and I want to get into the additional chapters and references from The New Economics on Dr. Deming's use of the term transformation. 'Cause I think what he's talking about... SoPK is a theory for transformation. So I think it's just not enough to talk about SoPK without understanding how does that fit in with what Dr. Deming's talking about?   0:04:49.0 AS: And for the listeners who come out of the blue here, SoPK stands for the System of Profound Knowledge.   0:04:56.1 BB: Yes. And system then gets into elements and the four elements that Dr. Deming proposed in The New Economics, going back to the late '80s when he started to put these thoughts together. We need to think about the elements of Profound Knowledge are looking at things as a system and understanding of variation and appreciation of psychology. That's the people aspect. And then theory of knowledge, which gets into what he would explain as how do we know that what we know is so. So the one thing I wanted to bring up on the System of Profound Knowledge is conversations with Dick Steele. And a neat way of looking at the System of Profound Knowledge is to say, well, what if we were to look at some data points, one element, we look at variation, and we see some data the output of a process.   0:06:00.0 BB: We see it go up and down. Well, if that's the only element we have, then we can't ask what caused that, 'cause that's the upstream system. Well, that's the system piece. We cannot talk about what does this variation do downstream? That's the system piece. We cannot talk about how might we change that. That might get into the theory of knowledge or would get into the aspect of the theory of knowledge and some theories as to how we can go about changing the average, changing the amount of variation. And then what that leads us immediately to is, where do those ideas come from but people.   0:06:44.7 BB: So it's kind of, I think it's interesting. So Dr. Deming says the elements, but it's as connected to each other. So what I explain to the students in my courses is, in the beginning, and I remember when I'm looking at this, I'm looking at the elements. I'm thinking, okay, that variation, that's the Control Chart stuff. Common causes, special causes, well, it also includes variation in people. Oh, now we're talking about the people stuff. And then, so I find it interesting is it is easy to look at them as separate, but then in time they meld together really well. So it's not to say that we shouldn't start out looking at things as the elements 'cause I think that's what our education system does. In fact, there's a great documentary I watched a few years ago with Gregory Bateson, who was born in 1900 or so, passed away in the 1980s.   0:07:52.6 BB: And when I ask people have you ever heard of Gregory Bateson? They say, no. I say, well, have you heard of Margaret Mead? Yeah. Well, they were married once upon a time. That was her, he was her first husband. And so Bateson gives a lecture in this documentary that his daughter produced. And he says, and he is at a podium. You don't see the audience. You just see he's at a lectern. And he says, you may think that there's such a thing as psychology, which is separate from anthropology, which is separate from English, which is separate from... And he goes on to imply that they really aren't separate. But then he says, "Well, think what you want."   0:08:38.1 AS: Think what you want.   0:08:39.7 AS: And I thought that's what the education system does. It has us believe that these things are all separate. And so that's what's kind of neat. Yeah. And, but again, I think when you go to school, you're learning about history, then you learn about math. But one thing I noticed later on, many years later was the history people never talked about, if they talked about the philosopher who was well known in mathematics, we didn't hear that mathematics piece, nor in the math class did we hear about this person as a historical figure. We just learned about... And so the education system kind of blocks all that out. And then years later when we're outta school, we can read and see how all this stuff comes together and it does come together. So the one big thing I wanna say is that, is I think it's neat to look at something with just one of those elements and then say, how far does it go before you need the others to really start to do something?   0:09:47.0 BB: And that gets into the interactions. And by interactions, I mean that when you're talking about variation and you're thinking about people are different, how they feel is different, how they respond is different. Now you're talking about the interaction between psychology, at least that's one explanation of the interaction between people amd psychology. I wanna share next an anecdote. I was at a UCLA presentation. A friend of mine turned me on to these maybe once a month kind of deal to be an invited speaker. 70 people in the room. And these were typically professors from other universities, authors, and there is one story I wanna share is a woman who had written a book on why really smart kids don't test well in secondary schools. And there were a good number of people there.   0:10:45.6 BB: And I'm listening to all this through my Deming lens, and she's talking about how kids do on the exams. That goes back to an earlier podcast. How did you do on the exam? And so I'm listening to all this and she's drawing conclusions that these students are really smart, but they freak out. And then how might they individually perform better? As if the greatest cause by them all by themselves. And so afterwards, I went up and stood in line and I had a question for her that I deliberately did not want to ask in front of the entire room. 'Cause I wanted her undivided attention, and I really wanted to see where she'd come with this. 'Cause perhaps it could lead to an ongoing discussion. So I went up and introduced myself and I think I said something like, are you familiar with W. Edwards Deming? And I believe she said she was. I think she was a psychologist by background. And then I moved into the... Essentially the essence of what if the grades are caused by the system and not the student taken separately, which she acknowledged. She's like, yeah, that makes sense. And I remember saying to her, "Well then how might that change your conclusions?"   0:12:11.2 BB: And so I throw that as an example of... Deming's saying you could be an expert in, you know, you just look at something. Actually, when that comes to mind is Deming is saying something like shouldn't a psychologist know something about variation? Well, shouldn't a psychologist know something about systems? And I didn't maintain a relationship with her, but it was just other things to do. Next I wanna share a story. And I wrote this up in an article. Then when this is posted...   0:12:49.0 BB: Typically these are posted on LinkedIn. Then I'll put a link into the article. And it's a classic story that Russ Ackoff was very fond of saying, and I heard the story told quite a few times before I started to think about it a little bit differently. So the story is he was working for General Electric back in the 1960s. He is in a very high level meeting. And in the room is this, the then CEO of GE, Reginald Jones and all of the senior VPs of General Electric are in the room. And Russ... I'm guessing he was doing, I know Russ did a lot of work with Anheuser-Busch, and he did a lot of work with GE. So Russ says he is in the room. There's maybe a dozen of these senior VPs of plastics of all the different GE divisions.   0:13:41.2 BB: And there's, Russ said there's one of them that was relatively new in a senior VP position, now over plastics or over lighting or whatever it was. And at one point he gets up. And one by one he raises a question with each of his peers. Something like, "Andrew, I noticed last year you installed a new software system." And you would say, "yeah, yep, yep." And I said, "I noticed you went with..." Let's say Apple, "you went with Apple Software", and you're like, "yeah," "that's what I thought. Yeah, you went with Apple." And then you might say something like, "why do you ask?" And he says, "well, the rest of us use Microsoft products. And it just seems kind of odd that you would go off and buy something different."   0:14:41.0 BB: And the point, and Russ didn't get into these details, the essence was every single one of them he'd figured out over the last year had made a decision, pretty high level decision that that senior VP felt was good for that division, but not good for General Electric. And Russ said what got his attention was, he wasn't sitting in that room hearing those conversations and he hears one decision then another, now he's got a whole list. So Russ says, he goes around the room and calls out every single one of his peers. So, and Russ shared this in one phone call, the Ongoing Discussions that I've mentioned. And people said, Russ, do you have that documented? And he is like, well, I don't think I have that any anymore. But somebody else asking.   0:15:35.3 BB: And then no sooner was the call over I had some friends call me up, said, "Bill, can you ask Russ if you have that, if he can get a copy of that? It's probably on his shelf. You're in his office". I said to one friend. I said, "so you'd be surprised that a member of Parliament does what's best for his district and not what's best for the United Kingdom. You think, you'd be surprised that a congressman from Los Angeles is gonna do what's best for Los Angeles, not what's best for the country.   0:16:07.2 BB: So you're telling me you're surprised by that?" Well, "no, no, no." I said, "well then why do you have to have the documentation?" So that's one aspect of it. So I heard that story again and again. And so finally it, I said, wait a minute, wait a minute. So I said, "Russ, on that story, you being in the room with GE?" He says, yeah. He says, I know you don't have the documentation, I said, "but what happened after this guy called them all out? How did that go down?" He says, "one of the peers looks at this guy and says, so what's your point?"   0:16:42.3 BB: And the meeting moved on. And I wrote that for an article for the Lean Management Journal called, "You Laugh, It Happens". And when I look at that through the lens of the System of Profound Knowledge, is that surprising that that goes on? No, not at all. I wanna reference a couple books that I don't think I've mentioned at all. And I share these because for the Deming enthusiasts, these books have some brilliant examples of in different arenas that I think you absolutely love and you can use in your classes, use in your education, whatever. All fairly recent. The first one is "The Tyranny of Metrics" written by a historian. He is an American University historian, Jerry Mueller, and he has, I mean, Dr. Deming would just love this. Oh, bingo! Bingo! Bingo! Thank you.   0:17:48.4 AS: Yep. There it is. "The Tyranny of Metrics".   0:17:50.1 BB: Right?   0:17:50.7 AS: Yep.   0:17:51.3 BB: Right. Is that a great one?   0:17:53.2 AS: That's a great book. And you can follow him on Twitter also. He does do a lot of posts there.   0:18:00.4 BB: Now I reached out to him 'cause I relished the book 'cause the stories were just, you just can't make up all those stories. I mean the story that I shared with Russ is nothing in comparison to what Muller has in the book. I just don't believe that Muller has a solution that can... I don't think, I think the only thing missing from the book is if he had an understanding of the System of Profound Knowledge, he'd have a far better proposal as to what to do.   0:18:31.8 AS: Yeah. I read that and I felt similar that there was something that was missing there. It was, it was great stories as you say, but how do we connect that? How do we apply that? And what's the root cause here? And how do we, this, there was just... That was missing from it. And maybe that should be his next book.   0:18:53.9 BB: Oh, enormously. But it's worth reading regardless.   0:18:57.3 AS: Yeah. Agreed.   0:19:00.1 BB: But I was, I was, I wasn't surprised. I'd say this. He honestly tried to offer a proposal, but I just looked at it and said, Professor Muller, you would just love it. In fact, I believe I reached out to him. I don't know that I heard from him. Alright, that's one book.   0:19:17.1 AS: That reminds me of what Dr. Deming said. "How would they know?"   0:19:21.3 BB: Exactly. Exactly.   0:19:22.4 AS: So if he hadn't been exposed to the System of Profound Knowledge...   0:19:25.3 BB: Oh, no. No, no, no.   0:19:25.7 AS: Then it would be hard to pull it all together. Yep. Okay.   0:19:28.8 BB: Yeah. So the next book, which is somewhere behind you in your bookshelf, is "The End of Average" by Todd...   0:19:36.8 AS: Actually, I don't think I have that one.   0:19:39.4 BB: By Todd Rose, who's a research fellow at Harvard. It's a riveting book. Oh, Andrew, you would absolutely love it. Just, he goes back ages. I mean, hundreds of hundreds of years and looks at how lost we became... How lost civilizations were dealing with trying to make, deal with averages. And the book opens with the most riveting story. And I started reading this and immediately I started thinking, "Okay, okay, okay, okay." And I figured it out. So in the opening paragraph, he says, In one day in 1949, there were 17 military planes crashed. In one day. 17 military planes crashed in one day. And this was... It would have been after the Air Force separated from the Army Air Corps. And so I started thinking, okay, late '40s, planes are going faster. The US industry has German technology, and... Because the Germans had jet engines in the late '40s. So I'm thinking it's about speed. It's about something about speed, something about speed. And there's more and more planes flying.   0:21:06.6 BB: So they grounded the fleet. They had a major investigation, brought in this young guy as a data researcher. And he passed away a few years ago, I did some research with him recently. And what he found was the cockpits were designed, you're writing, Andrew, for the average size pilots. Everything in the cockpit was fixed for the average arm length, the average hand length, the average finger length, the average height, the... Everything about... All these measurements on the torso, the cockpit had, everything was fixed. And that's exactly what I thought was going on. As the planes are going faster and faster, reaction times need to be faster and faster. And they're not. So his research was, they went off and measured thousands of pilots and found out that there was no pilot met the average.   0:22:11.2 AS: Oh, God.   0:22:11.3 BB: And the conclusion was... And again, until the plane started flying faster, that was not an issue. And that's what I was thinking with all my training in problem solving, decision making, what is going on there? What is going on there? And that's what changes the... I mean, the speed was accelerating, but compounded by the fixed geometry. So the solution by the government Pentagon, to the contractors was, add flexibility to the cockpit, allow the seat to move up and down, and then the auto industry picked up on that evidently. And so this is one example of how a fixation on average and a number of other stories outside of engineering it's just fascinating.   0:23:01.4 AS: Let me just summarize. The End of Average by Todd Rose. And it was published in about 2016. It's got a 4.5 out of 5 review on Amazon with 1,000 ratings and has a very high for Goodreads review of about 4.1. So I'm definitely getting that one. I don't have it and I'm buying it.   0:23:22.1 BB: Yeah. And it's again, he, I believe in there he offers what we should do instead, which again, I think would be, benefit from an understanding of SoPK. And so, again, for the Deming enthusiast, there is stuff in those two books, which you'll just love. And the third book came out at, I think, 2020 during the pandemic, The Tyranny of Merit, that tyranny word again, by Michael Sandel from Harvard. And I believe we've spoken about him before. And it's the tyranny of meritocracy, which is the belief that I achieved my success all by myself. I earned the grade all by myself. Everything I've done, I've done all by myself. There is no greater system. And I've written... In fact I sent an email to Michael Sandel complimenting him for the book and trying to point out that everything he's talking about fits in very well with Deming's work and that the issues are bigger than that.   0:24:34.4 BB: And I have not yet heard back, but he's a busy guy. But those three books are I would say, must reads. Then I go on to say that, because I used earlier that Dr. Deming talked about we are living under the tyranny of the prevailing style of management. So then I looked. I wanted to, so what exactly is this tyranny stuff? I mean, I'm so used to the word, so I wanted to go back and get a definition. "Tyranny is often synonymous with cruelty and oppression." And I said, that's... Yeah. Yeah. Oh, absolutely. All right.   0:25:26.4 BB: So, next, I wanna talk about... In previous podcasts I talked about work at Rocketdyne, what we called an... In the beginning it was called A Thinking Roadmap. And then as we got turned on to thinking about thinking, we changed that to An InThinking Roadmap. And that constituted roughly 220 hours of training over a dozen or so courses. So we had a one day class in Edward de Bono's Six Thinking Hats, a one day class in his, in other, actually two days in some of his other. So anyways, we had a number of courses on de Bono's work. I had a 40-hour intro course to Taguchi methods and a 40-hour advanced class in Dr. Taguchi's work. We had a 9-hour session called Understanding Variation. We had a things we were trained in that were developed by others, and then things we designed ourselves.   0:26:36.6 BB: And in the courses are tools and techniques. So tools are a cell phone, a slide rule, a computer. And the technique is how do we use it? And they provide what Ackoff would call efficiency, but also a number of these courses were inspired by Dr. Deming and Russ Ackoff were about improving effectiveness. And I got into concepts and strategies. And then what I wanted to mention that I don't think I've mentioned before is the whole concept of an InThinking Roadmap, and in this thinking about our thinking, which is a big part of the theme for tonight is, as that was inspired by, in the early '90s, Rockwell, Rocketdyne was then part of Rockwell, every division of Rockwell had a technology roadmap. And that had to be presented to higher and higher levels.   0:27:33.3 BB: What technologies are developing? What's the roadmap? And so more and more and more I heard this tech roadmap, tech roadmap. And then with colleagues, we started thinking about thinking, we thought, we need to have a thinking roadmap to combine with the technology roadmap. So the technology roadmap is gonna be helping us enormously in terms of efficiency, but not effectiveness. And I thought to integrate those two is quite powerful, which is, again another reminder of why Dr. Deming's work is a brilliant foundation for the use of technology. Otherwise, what you end up doing in a non-Deming company is with a cell phone you can increase the speed of blame.   0:28:21.4 BB: All right. So then I went back since last time I did some more research into transformation and came up with some great thoughts from Russ Ackoff. Again, our dear friend Russ Ackoff. And this is from an article that Russ wrote on transformations. And he says, "transformation is not only require recognition of the difference between what is practiced and what is preached. He says a transformation called four years ago by Donald Schön in his book Beyond the Stable State," and this is a 1991 book, he said, "it requires a transformation in the way we think.”  “Einstein," Russ says "put it powerfully and succinctly." He says, "without changing our patterns of thought, we'll not be able to solve the problems we created with our current pattern of thought."   0:29:08.2 BB: Russ continues. "I believe the pattern of thought that is required is systemic. It is difficult if at all possible to reduce the meaning of systemic thinking to a brief definition. Nevertheless, I try. Systemic thinking," again from Russ, "is holistic versus reductionist, synthetic versus analytic. Reductionist and analytic thinking derived properties from the whole, from the parts, from the properties of their parts. Holistic and synthetic thinking derived properties of parts, from the property of the whole that contains them." So I thought it was neat to go back and look at that. And then I want, more from Russ. "A problem never exists in isolation. It's surrounded by other problems in space and time. The more of a context of a problem that a scientist can comprehend, the greater are his chances of truly finding an adequate solution."   0:30:11.4 BB: And then, and so when I was going through this over the last few days, thinking, boy, I wish Dr. Deming defined transformation, it would've been, if he had an operational definition. But I thought, but wait a minute. 'Cause part of what I'm finding is, in my research, an article I came across years ago, Leading Change in the Harvard Business Review, a very popular article, 1995, by John Kotter, Why Transformations Fail. So Kotter uses that word and the title is Leading Change: Why Transformations Fail. And he is got establishing... Eight steps of transformation. "Establishing a sense of urgency, forming a powerful guiding coalition, creating a vision, communicating the vision, empowering others to act on the vision, planning for, and creating short-term wins." And under that step, Andrew, he's got a couple of steps, I'd like to get your thoughts on. One is "recognizing and rewarding employees involved in the improvements." So I thought, but of course this is transformation in the realm of the prevailing system of management. And so what that got me... Tossed around on it. I thought, well, wait a minute. There's a bunch of words that Dr. Deming uses that others use, but we know they mean something different. So Dr. Deming...   0:31:56.6 AS: Like I'm thinking, improvement is what he may be talking about.   0:32:02.4 BB: Well, but Dr. Deming talks about teamwork and the need to work together. Everybody talks about that.   0:32:08.1 AS: Yep.   0:32:09.2 BB: But just that we know, in a non-Deming environment, it's about managing actions, completing those tasks in isolation. I can meet requirements minimally, hand off to you, and that in a non-Deming environment, we call teamwork. So what I was thinking is, well, it's not that we need a new, 'cause I was even thinking, maybe we need a new word. Maybe in the Deming community, we should stop using the word transformation and come up with another word. Well, the trouble is, there's a whole bunch of other words that we use from teamwork to work together, to leader, quality. We talk about performance. We talk about root cause versus root causes. We talk about system. And so it's not that we need a new word, we need a new foundation. And that goes back to this notion as you read The New Economics or Out of the Crisis, you're hearing words that Dr. Deming uses that others use like John Kotter, but they're not used in the same context.   0:33:26.2 AS: How would you wrap up the main points you want people to take away from this discussion about transformation?   0:33:38.1 BB: Big thing is, we are talking about transformation. We are talking about seeing with new eyes, hearing with new ears. So the seeing, we talked about last time, is it's not just the systems. We're seeing systems differently. We're seeing variation differently. We're thinking differently about people and what motivates them and inspires them. The psychology piece, the theory of knowledge piece, we're challenging what we know. And then we have to think about all those interactions between two of them, between three of them, between four of them. And so I'd say that it's, the essence is transformation is essential. It is about rethinking our thinking. And I just wanna leave with two quotes. One fairly recent, one a little older. And the first quote, the more recent one from Tom Johnson, "How the world we perceive works depends upon how we think. The world we perceive," Andrew "is a world we bring forth through our thinking."   0:34:44.9 BB: That's H. Thomas Johnson, a dear friend in his 1999 book, Profit Beyond Measure. And my advice to people in reading that book is, do not attempt to read it laying down in bed. It's just, now you can read those other books we talked earlier. I think you can read those lying in bed. But Tom is very pithy. You wanna be wide awake. The last quote I wanna leave is from William James, born in 1842, died in 1910. He was an American philosopher, psychologist, and the first educator to offer a psychology course in the US. He is considered to be a leading thinker of the late 19th century, the father of American psychology, one of the elements of Profound Knowledge. And his quote that I wanna leave you with, Andrew is, "The greatest discovery of my generation is that human beings can alter their lives by altering their attitudes of mind."   0:35:45.2 AS: Whoa. Well, Bill, what an ending. On behalf of everyone at The Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for the discussion. For listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. And if you want to keep in touch with Bill, just find him on LinkedIn. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with my favorite quote from Dr. Deming. "People are entitled to joy in work."  

If you're listening to this podcast, chances are you've heard stories about the CIA's experiments with drugs, particularly LSD, during the infamous MKUltra program. But you may not know that the characters involved in that dubious effort connect to one of the 20th Century's most famous and revered scientists, the anthropologist Margaret Mead. Shane Harris talked with historian Benjamin Breen about this new book, Tripping on Utopia, which tells the story of how Mead and her close circle launched a movement to expand human consciousness, decades before the counterculture of the 1960s popularized, and ultimately stigmatized, psychedelic drugs. Mead and Gregory Bateson--her collaborator and one-time husband--are at the center of a story that includes the WWII-era Office of Strategic Services, a shady cast of CIA agents and operatives, Beat poets, and the pioneers of the Information Age. Psychedelics are having a renaissance, with federal regulators poised to legalize their use - Breen's book is an engrossing history that explores the roots of that movement and how it influenced and collided with the U.S. national security establishment. Books, movies, and other points of interest discussed in this conversation include: Tripping on Utopia: Margaret Mead, the Cold War, and the Troubled Birth of Psychedelic Science by Benjamin Breen Tripped: Nazi Germany, the CIA, and the Dawn of the Psychedelic Age by Norman Ohler MKUltra The intelligence community's research on “truth drugs” The Manchurian Candidate The Good Shepherd Poisoner in Chief: Sidney Gottlieb and the CIA Search for Mind Control by Stephen Kinzer The Men Who Stare at Goats by Jon Ronson Ghost Hunters: William James and the Search for Scientific Proof of Life After Death by Deborah Blum “Operation Delirium” by Raffi Khatchadourian in The New Yorker Also check out: Ben's website Ben's Substack Ben on Twitter Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

If you're listening to this podcast, chances are you've heard stories about the CIA's experiments with drugs, particularly LSD, during the infamous MKUltra program. But you may not know that the characters involved in that dubious effort connect to one of the 20th Century's most famous and revered scientists, the anthropologist Margaret Mead. Shane Harris talked with historian Benjamin Breen about this new book, Tripping on Utopia, which tells the story of how Mead and her close circle launched a movement to expand human consciousness, decades before the counterculture of the 1960s popularized, and ultimately stigmatized, psychedelic drugs. Mead and Gregory Bateson--her collaborator and one-time husband--are at the center of a story that includes the WWII-era Office of Strategic Services, a shady cast of CIA agents and operatives, Beat poets, and the pioneers of the Information Age. Psychedelics are having a renaissance, with federal regulators poised to legalize their use - Breen's book is an engrossing history that explores the roots of that movement and how it influenced and collided with the U.S. national security establishment. Books, movies, and other points of interest discussed in this conversation include: Tripping on Utopia: Margaret Mead, the Cold War, and the Troubled Birth of Psychedelic Science by Benjamin Breen Tripped: Nazi Germany, the CIA, and the Dawn of the Psychedelic Age by Norman Ohler MKUltra The intelligence community's research on “truth drugs” The Manchurian Candidate The Good Shepherd Poisoner in Chief: Sidney Gottlieb and the CIA Search for Mind Control by Stephen Kinzer The Men Who Stare at Goats by Jon Ronson Ghost Hunters: William James and the Search for Scientific Proof of Life After Death by Deborah Blum “Operation Delirium” by Raffi Khatchadourian in The New Yorker Also check out: Ben's website Ben's Substack Ben on Twitter Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The twentieth century was something, wasn't it? Margaret Mead, as well as her onetime-husband Gregory Bateson, managed to play roles in several of its key developments: social anthropology and its impact on sex & gender mores, psychedelic drugs and their potential use for therapeutic purposes, and the origin of cybernetics, to name a few. Benjamin Breen discusses this impactful trajectory in his new book, Tripping on Utopia: Margaret Mead, the Cold War, and the Troubled Birth of Psychedelic Science. We talk about Mead and Bateson, the early development of psychedelic drugs, and how the possibility of a realistic utopia didn't always seem so far away.Blog post with transcript: https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2024/02/26/267-benjamin-breen-on-margaret-mead-psychedelics-and-utopia/Support Mindscape on Patreon.Benjamin Breen received his Ph.D. in history from the University of Texas at Austin. He is currently an associate professor of history at the University of California, Santa Cruz. Among his awards are the National Endowment for the Humanities Award for Faculty and the William H. Welch Medal of the American Association for the History of Medicine. He writes on Substack at Res Obscura.Web siteUCSC web pageWikipediaAmazon author pageSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Nella 92° puntata di Illuminismo psichedelico, andata in scena l'8 febbraio 2024 al Cantiere San Bernardo di Pisa, il ricercatore Daniele Gambit ci ha portato in un viaggio a c c e l l e r a t i s s i m o nei meandri del cyberpunk nutrito di psichedelia. Nell'intricata chiacchierata abbiamo provato a ritrovare il bandolo della matassa che lega la storia dell'informatica e della cultura digitale/cibernetica con quella della psichedelia californiana, in pratica l'humus molto singolare da cui scaturisce la società della comunicazione in cui siamo immersi. Special Guest della puntata: il fantasma di Timothy Leary, oltre all'antropoloco Gregory Bateson, a Sadie Plant, Erik Davis e Brian Eno. Ascoltate per credere.

Emma Stone is nominated for an Oscar for her starring role in Poor Things. She spoke with Terry Gross about the film and her relationship to her anxiety. David Bianculli reviews Ryan Murphy's FX anthology series Feud: Capote vs. The Swans. Also, Benjamin Breen talks about his book, Tripping on Utopia: Margaret Mead, the Cold War, and the Troubled Birth of Psychedelic Science. It's about the pioneering work anthropologists Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson did on the use of psychedelics as a way to expand consciousness, and how that later connected to government research on the use of psychedelics as a weapon.

You may have heard about the pioneering research of anthropologist Margaret Mead, but do you know about her work with psychedelics? Mead and her husband, Gregory Bateson, thought psychedelics might reshape humanity by expanding consciousness. We'll speak with author Benjamin Breen about that research and how it led to the CIA's secret experiments in the '50s and '60s, using psychedelics in interrogation. He also shares with us details about a NASA-funded experiment to try to get dolphins to talk by giving them LSD. His book is Tripping on Utopia.Also, John Powers reviews the Apple TV+ series Criminal Record.

Founder of The International Bateson Institute, filmmaker, educator, and author of Combining Nora Bateson shares the sense, and sensibility, of true interdependence — and helps us muster the courage to embrace ambiguity.About Nora BatesonNora Bateson is an award-winning filmmaker, writer and educator, as well as President of the International Bateson Institute, based in Sweden. Her work asks the question “How we can improve our perception of the complexity we live within, so we may improve our interaction with the world?”. An international lecturer, researcher and writer, Nora wrote, directed and produced the award-winning documentary, An Ecology of Mind, a portrait of her father, Gregory Bateson. Her work brings the fields of biology, cognition, art, anthropology, psychology, and information technology together into a study of the patterns in ecology of living systems. Her book, Small Arcs of Larger Circles, released by Triarchy Press, UK, 2016 is a revolutionary personal approach to the study of systems and complexity.

In this podcast, Nora Bateson shares her thinking about the ecology of communication, which is at the heart of her latest book 'Combining'.  Nora shares her experience of being the daughter of Gregory Bateson the world-famous ecological thinker, and how he lived his ecology, rather than treat ecology and systems thinking as objects to study. Nora internalised this and explains how she works with people on her concept of Warm Data and Warm Data Labs, to practice this ecological way of being. Working organically with them, not to solve specific problems in a linear way, but to discover emergent and nuanced possibilities unknown to them at the start of their work together.    This recording took place on Halloween and Nora shares readings from her new book relating to this time of year, her first reading is 'Lurking Monster' which expresses how the ghosts of industrialisation lurk in our speech and pervade our lifeworlds, entrapping us in cultural patterns of repetition. This is a rich and at times beautiful podcast, which we highly recommend you take your time to listen to when you have the space to feel as well as think.  Bio Nora Bateson is an award-winning filmmaker, research designer, writer, educator, and international lecturer, as well as President of the International Bateson Institute based in Sweden. She is the creator of the Warm Data theory and practices.  Nora's work brings the fields of biology, cognition, art, anthropology, psychology, and information technology together into a study of the patterns in the ecology of living systems.  In her latest second book Combining, Nora invites us into an ecology of communication where nothing stands alone, and every action sets off a chain of incalculable consequences. She challenges conventional fixes for our problems, highlighting the need to tackle issues at multiple levels, understand interdependence, and embrace ambiguity. Get the book: https://www.amazon.com/Combining-Nora-Bateson/dp/1913743853

On this segment of Reality Roundtable, Nate is joined by William Rees, Nora Bateson, and Rex Weyler to discuss the purpose of ecology and what it might look like to have a civilization centered around it. Despite our tendency to think of ourselves as separate from the biosphere, humans are a part of it, just like any other animal. What sets us apart now is our outsized impact on the world around us, as we and our societies take up more space and resources, degrading the ecosystems that support ourselves, our descendants, and other species. How can an understanding of systems and relationships help us rethink how we interact with the planet? Could ecologically literate governments and citizens create wider boundaries across time and space in which decisions are made? What might the parameters be for a civilization centered around ecology, and how can we navigate there through declining energy and resource availability? Most of all, how can we as individuals and communities root ourselves into a deep(er) ecological knowledge and way of being?  About Nora Bateson Nora Bateson is an award-winning filmmaker, writer and educator, as well as President of the International Bateson Institute, based in Sweden. Her work asks the question “How can we  improve our perception of the complexity we live within, so we may improve our interaction with the world?”.  An international lecturer, researcher and writer, Nora wrote, directed and produced the award-winning documentary, An Ecology of Mind, a portrait of her father, Gregory Bateson. Her work brings the fields of biology, cognition, art, anthropology, psychology, and information technology together into a study of the patterns in ecology of living systems. Her book, Small Arcs of Larger Circles, released by Triarchy Press, UK, 2016 is a revolutionary personal approach to the study of systems and complexity. About William Rees William Rees is a population ecologist, ecological economist, Professor Emeritus and former Director of the University of British Columbia's School of Community and Regional Planning in Vancouver, Canada. He researches the implications of global ecological trends for the longevity of civilization, with special focus on urban (un)sustainability and cultural/cognitive barriers to rational public policy. Prof Rees is best known as the originator and co-developer with Dr Mathis Wackernagel of ‘ecological footprint analysis' (EFA), a quantitative tool that estimates human demands on ecosystems and the extent to which humanity is in ‘ecological overshoot.' Dr Rees is a founding member and former President of the Canadian Society for Ecological Economics; a founding Director of the OneEarth Living Initiative; a Fellow of the Post-Carbon Institute and an Associate Fellow of the Great Transition Initiative. About Rex Weyler Rex Weyler is a writer and ecologist. His books include Blood of the Land; the Government and Corporate War Against First Nations, nominated for a Pulitzer Prize; Greenpeace: The Inside Story, a finalist for the BC Book Award and the Shaughnessy-Cohen Award for Political Writing; and The Jesus Sayings, a deconstruction of first century history, a finalist for the BC Book Award.  In the 1970s, Weyler was a cofounder of Greenpeace International and editor of the Greenpeace Chronicles. He served on campaigns to preserve rivers and forests and to stop whaling, sealing, and toxic dumping.  He currently posts the “Deep Green” column at the Greenpeace International website. He lives on Cortes Island in British Columbia, with his wife, artist Lisa Gibbons. Watch on YouTube: https://youtu.be/GE39xfNRRyw For Show Notes and More visit: https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/rr02-bateson-rees-weyler 

Bernard Dionysius Geoghegan traces the shared intellectual and political history of computer scientists, cyberneticists, anthropologists, linguists, and theorists across the humanities as they developed a communication and computational-based theory that grasped culture and society in terms of codes. In Code: From Information Theory to French Theory (Duke UP, 2023), Geoghegan reconstructs how Progressive Era technocracy as well as crises of industrial democracy and colonialism shaped early accounts of cybernetics and digital media by theorists including Norbert Wiener, Warren Weaver, Margaret Mead, Gregory Bateson, Claude Lévi-Strauss, Roman Jakobson, Jacques Lacan, Roland Barthes, and Luce Irigaray. His analysis casts light on how media-practical research forged common epistemic cause in programs that stretched from 1930s interwar computing at MIT and eugenics to the proliferation of seminars and laboratories in 1960s Paris. This mobilization ushered forth new fields of study such as structural anthropology, family therapy, and literary semiology while forming enduring intellectual affinities between the humanities and informatics. With Code, Geoghegan offers a new history of French theory and the digital humanities as transcontinental and political endeavors linking interwar colonial ethnography in Dutch Bali to French sciences in the throes of Cold War-era decolonization and modernization. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Bernard Dionysius Geoghegan traces the shared intellectual and political history of computer scientists, cyberneticists, anthropologists, linguists, and theorists across the humanities as they developed a communication and computational-based theory that grasped culture and society in terms of codes. In Code: From Information Theory to French Theory (Duke UP, 2023), Geoghegan reconstructs how Progressive Era technocracy as well as crises of industrial democracy and colonialism shaped early accounts of cybernetics and digital media by theorists including Norbert Wiener, Warren Weaver, Margaret Mead, Gregory Bateson, Claude Lévi-Strauss, Roman Jakobson, Jacques Lacan, Roland Barthes, and Luce Irigaray. His analysis casts light on how media-practical research forged common epistemic cause in programs that stretched from 1930s interwar computing at MIT and eugenics to the proliferation of seminars and laboratories in 1960s Paris. This mobilization ushered forth new fields of study such as structural anthropology, family therapy, and literary semiology while forming enduring intellectual affinities between the humanities and informatics. With Code, Geoghegan offers a new history of French theory and the digital humanities as transcontinental and political endeavors linking interwar colonial ethnography in Dutch Bali to French sciences in the throes of Cold War-era decolonization and modernization. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Bernard Dionysius Geoghegan traces the shared intellectual and political history of computer scientists, cyberneticists, anthropologists, linguists, and theorists across the humanities as they developed a communication and computational-based theory that grasped culture and society in terms of codes. In Code: From Information Theory to French Theory (Duke UP, 2023), Geoghegan reconstructs how Progressive Era technocracy as well as crises of industrial democracy and colonialism shaped early accounts of cybernetics and digital media by theorists including Norbert Wiener, Warren Weaver, Margaret Mead, Gregory Bateson, Claude Lévi-Strauss, Roman Jakobson, Jacques Lacan, Roland Barthes, and Luce Irigaray. His analysis casts light on how media-practical research forged common epistemic cause in programs that stretched from 1930s interwar computing at MIT and eugenics to the proliferation of seminars and laboratories in 1960s Paris. This mobilization ushered forth new fields of study such as structural anthropology, family therapy, and literary semiology while forming enduring intellectual affinities between the humanities and informatics. With Code, Geoghegan offers a new history of French theory and the digital humanities as transcontinental and political endeavors linking interwar colonial ethnography in Dutch Bali to French sciences in the throes of Cold War-era decolonization and modernization. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

For access to full-length premium episodes and the SJ Grotto of Truth Discord, subscribe to the Al-Wara' Frequency at patreon.com/subliminaljihad. Dimitri and Khalid reconvene with Jay the Neuroscientist (@The_Hague_ICC) to finish their exploration of cybernetics, including: suslord anthropologist Gregory Bateson's “double bind” theory, Cathy O'Brien, from schismogenesis to schizophrenia, the coloniality of anthropology, Bateson's psychological work for the OSS, the American family as a “weaning machine”, Bateson's interpretation of the state-sponsored “native revivals” of Soviet Central Asia, Bateson's curious “break” with the OSS after WW2, his pivotal role in conceiving the CIA with Will Bill Donovan, Harold Abramson dosing Frank Fremont Smith, LSD in Palo Alto, Dr. Leo Hollister, NLP and NXIVM's biofeedback experiments, Keith Raniere's patent for rehabilitating a Luciferian, RD Laing's schizophrenia research, Aldous Huxley, schizophrenia-as-enlightenment, Freud's early seduction theory, and Victorian fainting rooms as cybernetic stabilization mechanism.

On recognising and awakening from the madness in our lives.Anonymous (2002). Meditations on the Tarot: A Journey into Christian Hermeticism. New York: Tarcher.John Perceval (1961). Perceval's Narrative: A Patient's Account of his Psychosis 1830-1832, edited by Gregory Bateson. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Antonia White (2006). Beyond the Glass. London: Virago.Details of my other podcasts: https://oeith.co.uk/podcasts/Support the podcast and access additional content at: https://patreon.com/oeith. Buy me a coffee at https://ko-fi.com/oeith or https://www.buymeacoffee.com/dbarfordG. Or you could send me a lovely book from https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/1IQ3BVWY3L5L5?ref_=wl_share. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Kinesthetic anchoring, reframing, and conflict resolution are some of the NLP processes people can use for mental and emotional changes. There are many more but these are processes that people can learn how to use themselves and are simple change techniques.  It is most important to develop a wellformed outcome before using any process to resolve an issue.   An outcome is necessary for any change. The brain is directional. Tell the brain where you are going and what you want. It minimizes confusion.The previously mentioned processes do different things and produce different types of change: a.     Anchoring – feeling changes – how do you want to feelb.     Reframing – working with a part to change a behaviorc.     Conflict resolution – visual squash – used to reduce or eliminate a conflict at any logical levelAnother important consideration is at what logical level the change needs to take place. There are natural hierarchies of classification of change according to Gregory Bateson. There is often confusion about the logical levels when considering a change. Rules that apply at one level don't necessarily apply to another. Changing something on a lower level could affect a higher level but changing something on a higher level will often change the lower levels to support the higher level change.Here are some examples of how the logical levels get confused when changing something.  Anchoring – feeling change – when someone feels upset about something and they want to feel curious, resourceful, etc. a collapsed reality will give them choices in how to feel. BUT say a person doesn't like something someone is doing. Carefully choosing the resource is important. If they feel bad and they want to feel good. They may be feeling good about something where that feeling is inappropriate or even less resourceful than the original feeling.  Ice cream versus broccoli is an example of this.  Negative anchoring – attaching a bad feeling to something . Sometimes this works and sometimes it backfires. Reframing – for behaviors – reframe the part that is doing the behavior you want to change.Conflict resolution – make sure that both sides are on the same logical level: environment, behavior, capability, belief, identity, and spirit.   

Context is king: whether in language, ecology, culture, history, economics, or chemistry. One of the core teachings of complexity science is that nothing exists in isolation — especially when it comes to systems in which learning, memory, or emergent behaviors play a part. Even though this (paradoxically) limits the universality of scientific claims, it also lets us draw analogies between the context-dependency of one phenomenon and others: how protein folding shapes HIV evolution is meaningfully like the way that growing up in a specific neighborhood shapes educational and economic opportunity; the paths through a space of all possible four-letter words are constrained in ways very similar to how interactions between microbes impact gut health; how we make sense both depends on how we've learned and places bounds on what we're capable of seeing.Welcome to COMPLEXITY, the official podcast of the Santa Fe Institute. I'm your host, Michael Garfield, and every other week we'll bring you with us for far-ranging conversations with our worldwide network of rigorous researchers developing new frameworks to explain the deepest mysteries of the universe.This week on Complexity, we talk to Yale evolutionary biologist C. Brandon Ogbunu (Twitter, Google Scholar, GitHub) about the importance of environment to the activity and outcomes of complex systems — the value of surprise, the constraints of history, the virtue and challenge of great communication, and much more. Our conversation touches on everything from using word games to teach core concepts in evolutionary theory, to the ways that protein quality control co-determines the ability of pathogens to evade eradication, to the relationship between human artists, algorithms, and regulation in the 21st Century. Brandon works not just in multiple scientific domains but as the author of a number of high-profile blogs exploring the intersection of science and culture — and his boundaryless fluency shines through in a discussion that will not be contained, about some of the biggest questions and discoveries of our time.If you value our research and communication efforts, please subscribe to Complexity Podcast wherever you prefer to listen, rate and review us at Apple Podcasts, and/or consider making a donation at santafe.edu/give. You'll find plenty of other ways to engage with us at santafe.edu/engage.Thank you for listening!Join our Facebook discussion group to meet like minds and talk about each episode.Podcast theme music by Mitch Mignano.Follow us on social media:Twitter • YouTube • Facebook • Instagram • LinkedInDiscussed in this episode:“I do my science biographically…I find a personal connection to the essence of the question.”– C. Brandon Ogbunugafor on RadioLab"Environment x everything interactions: From evolution to epidemics and beyond"Brandon's February 2022 SFI Seminar (YouTube Video + Live Twitter Coverage)“A Reflection on 50 Years of John Maynard Smith's ‘Protein Space'”C. Brandon Ogbunugafor in GENETICS“Collective Computing: Learning from Nature”David Krakauer presenting at the Foresight Institute in 2021 (with reference to Rubik's Cube research)“Optimal Policies Tend to Seek Power”Alexander Matt Turner, Logan Smith, Rohin Shah, Andrew Critch, Prasad Tadepalli in arXiv“A New Take on John Maynard Smith's Concept of Protein Space for Understanding Molecular Evolution”C. Brandon Ogbunugafor, Daniel Hartl in PLOS Computational Biology“The 300 Most Common Words”by Bruce Sterling“The Host Cell's Endoplasmic Reticulum Proteostasis Network Profoundly Shapes the Protein Sequence Space Accessible to HIV Envelope”Jimin Yoon, Emmanuel E. Nekongo, Jessica E. Patrick, Angela M. Phillips, Anna I. Ponomarenko, Samuel J. Hendel, Vincent L. Butty, C. Brandon Ogbunugafor, Yu-Shan Lin, Matthew D. Shoulders in bioRxiv“Competition along trajectories governs adaptation rates towards antimicrobial resistance”C. Brandon Ogbunugafor, Margaret J. Eppstein in Nature Ecology & Evolution“Scientists Need to Admit What They Got Wrong About COVID”C. Brandon Ogbunugafor in WIRED“Deconstructing higher-order interactions in the microbiota: A theoretical examination”Yitbarek Senay, Guittar John, Sarah A. Knutie, C. Brandon Ogbunugafor in bioRxiv“What Makes an Artist in the Age of Algorithms?”C. Brandon Ogbunugafor in WIREDNot mentioned in this episode but still worth exploring:“Part of what I was getting after with Blackness had to do with authoring ideas that are edgy or potentially threatening. That as a scientist, you can generate ideas in the name of research, in the name of breaking new ground, that may stigmatize you. That may kick you out of the club, so to speak, because you're not necessarily following the herd.”– Physicist Stephon Alexander in an interview with Brandon at Andscape“How Afrofuturism Can Help The World Mend”C. Brandon Ogbunugafor in WIRED“The COVID-19 pandemic amplified long-standing racial disparities in the United States criminal justice system”Brennan Klein, C. Brandon Ogbunugafor, Benjamin J. Schafer, Zarana Bhadricha, Preeti Kori, Jim Sheldon, Nitish Kaza, Emily A. Wang, Tina Eliassi-Rad, Samuel V. Scarpino, Elizabeth Hinton in medRxivAlso mentioned:Simon Conway Morris, Geoffrey West, Samuel Scarpino, Rick & Morty, Stuart Kauffman, Frank Salisbury, Stephen Jay Gould, Frances Arnold, John Vervaeke, Andreas Wagner, Jennifer Dunne, James Evans, Carl Bergstrom, Jevin West, Henry Gee, Eugene Shakhnovich, Rafael Guerrero, Gregory Bateson, Simon DeDeo, James Clerk Maxwell, Melanie Moses, Kathy Powers, Sara Walker, Michael Lachmann, and many others...