“The
atomic individualism of patriarchy destroys much of the fabric of the
human community. Such a damaged community is incapable of
understanding the needs of its own members, much less of the nonhuman
world.”
Michael
Zimmerman
The
Renaissance engineered and propagated the concept of the individual.
Creation, discovery and innovation in art and science were realigned
as the products of individual genius. As developments in microscopy,
telescopy and art extended humankind’s' capacity to 'see' and
'know' the deeper universe (from microbial bacteria to celestial
constellations) 'Natural Philosophy' - which had previously been an
umbrella for all kinds of intellectual enquiry - became increasingly
abstracted and divided into discrete scientific disciplines.
In
this essay I would like to briefly propose that the
double-Renaissance-hangover of individualism over the network and of
scientific/intellectual schism over cross-disciplinary collaboration
is ready to end. Moreover, in the mode of any effective hysteric
(otherwise known as an artist), I would also like to suggest a deep
connection between two seemingly unconnected ideas in regards to the
the future of human knowledge. Namely, that the first microbial
species - specifically algae and mycelium - offer a non-human model
for the evolution of humankind, one which is pluralistic, collective
and interconnected.
Darwin
and the tyranny of genius
"...Knowledge,
like fire, is brought forth by a collision; and in the free
conversation of affectionated friends many lights have been struck
out, and served as hints for the most important discoveries, which
would not, probably have occurred to their authors, in the retirement
of private meditation. They have, besides, been the means of drawing
forth those talents which would otherwise have been buried in
obscurity..."
Robert
H. Goddard
Prior
to the Renaissance and, more pertinently for this example, prior to
the development of the Gutenberg printing press, there was generally
very little concept of intellectual property and individual genius.
Knowledge and invention were, for the most part, the products of
collective, oral exchange between groups and individuals (otherwise
referred to as the 'mimetic period' in cultural evolution). But with
the development of the printing press authors' identities became
(literally) stamped onto literature and ideas became fixed within a
system of commodified property exchange. The preeminence and
authority of the author, cemented by the introduction of copyright
laws, mirrored the development of an individualist ideology
emphasising the notion of idiosyncratic 'genius'. Ideas and
inventions were no longer developing within a network but in
isolation, conjured or authored by - and ultimately the property of -
one individual man (and it was usually a man). A similar culture of
atomism and individualism was developing in the arts as Sturm und
Drang then Romanticism propelled
the mythologising of the artist as an isolated genius, a demiurge of
original creation, operating at the fringes of society. Of course
history, or historical narrative, is always an over-generalisation,
retraced through the diffuse lens of retrospect. But
what I would like to foreground
from this opaque, generalised account is that creation doesn't happen
in isolation. An idea is not a discrete unit, a magical entity
channelled by a lone genius/madman/artist but a confluence of
influences, a gradual sedimentation of thoughts based on many
existing theories and cultural reserves. An obvious example of this
is Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection as
outlined in his influential 1859 book On the Origin of
Species. Though matured and
cemented empirically through his field work in the Galapagos,
Darwin's theory emerged as part of a long lineage (and wide network)
of theoretical and practical research into the origin of species in
science and philosophy as well as discoveries in geology and
palaeontology relating to the gradual formation of metamorphic rock,
fossils and the geological formation of the earth. In the 1790s
Darwin's grandfather Erasmus Darwin had contributed to the discourse
around the theory of transmutation in species in his book Zoonomia
(1794) and Darwin's friend and
correspondent Alfred Russel Wallace had already developed his own
theory of evolution via natural selection by the mid 1850's whilst
researching in the Malay Archipelago, instigating the publication of
Darwin's On the Origin of Species.
Though
Darwin's concept may have marked a breakthrough in the understanding
of evolutionary biology it did not manifest as a 'light-bulb moment'
or a 'flash of immanence' but rather as a gradual synthesis of, and
addition to, a whole accumulation of existing research and
interrelated hypotheses developing in parallel to one another through
a number of individuals from different disciplines. This process of
collective knowledge sharing and the exchange of intellectual DNA in
cultivating new concepts
could be described as an evolutionary principle of ideas.
Moreover, the successful evolution of ideas may - like biological
evolution by natural selection - depend upon both genetic variety and
altruism within a group/tribe in order to ensure biodiversity,
strengthen bonds and improve the chances of surviving competition
from other groups:
“Selfish
and contentious people will not cohere and without coherence nothing
will be effective”
Charles
Darwin
A
non-human model for the evolution of humankind
“The
prevalent sensation of oneself as a separate ego enclosed in a bag of
skin is a hallucination which accords neither with Western science
nor with the experimental philosophy-religions of the East... This
hallucination underlies the misuse of technology for the violent
subjugation of man's natural environment and, consequently, its
eventual destruction.
We are therefore in urgent need of a sense of
our own existence which is in accord with the physical facts and
which overcomes our feeling of alienation from the universe.”
Alan
Watts
Visual
perspective offers the illusion that we are the centre of the visible
universe; that the phenomenological world is happening outside
of
ourselves as though we are merely spectators of a 3-Dimensional
movie. The belief in this division between the self - as “a
separate ego enclosed in a bag of skin”
- and the rest of the universe
is
entrenched in the long history of Western religious, philosophical
and scientific thought. These traditions emphasise the atomism of
humans as a biological and intellectual unit or as a body housing a
soul. But this is a very human-centric understanding of the universe
and our place within it. What if, instead, we were to consider our
position akin to that of cyanobacteria or mycelia (the
vegetative part of a fungus, consisting of an extended mass of
branching, threadlike filaments).
Cyanobacteria
were potentially the world's first organisms (providing the world's
oldest fossils at 3.5 Billion years old) whilst mycelia were almost
certainly the first land-based plants (coming to land 1.3 billion
years ago). Cyanobacteria and then mycelium were instrumental in the
propagation of organic life on earth, demonstrating what could be
interpreted as a non-human form of intelligent design.
Cyanobacteria's generation of the oxygen atmosphere during the
Archaean and Proterozoic eras made oxygen-dependent life on earth
possible whilst mycelium (which do not depend on sunlight for
photosynthesis) generated oxalic acids which were instrumental in
turning rocks to soil and in fixing nitrogen and carbon dioxide for
the evolution of other plant species.
“ I
believe that mycelium is the neurological network of nature.
Interlacing mosaics of mycelium infuse habitats with
information-sharing membranes. These membranes are aware, react to
change, and collectively have the long-term health of the host
environment in mind.”
Paul
Stamet
Cyanobacteria
and mycelium evolved
the
ecosystem around them both for their benefit and the collaborative
development with other species to ensure both their survival and
further advancement of life. I would like to suggest that the future
and evolution of human life, ideas and culture is dependent on an
empathic realignment of paradigms from the atomism of
human-individualism to an abiotic/mycelial model of holistic
interconnectivity. If we were to take a moment to imagine what it is
to be a Cyanobacterium we may be able to imagine our being as much
more interconnected and interdependent than we generally allow
ourselves to think of human life; these tiny organisms require
optimum environmental conditions (including temperature, light and
water provisions) but which, to maintain, require an ongoing,
reciprocal interaction with a variety of other organisms and plants.
But in reality humans are not so different to bacteria: we depend
upon an extended network of connections which provide us with food,
water, shelter, connectivity and communication. Though many of us use
a laptop everyday to communicate with the world, make plans, do
business, pay bills, no single human could make
a laptop on their own (there is not only the sourcing/making/refining
of materials but the technological components and the software), this
is just a small example of how our everyday lives are entirely bound
up with an invisible network of influences. If we were to understand
ourselves not as individual “units” in competition for survival,
notoriety or original ideas but as “nodes” of an interconnected
and interdependent network (just as mushrooms are “nodes” of the
mycelial network) then we could overcome divisions and prejudices and
inhabit a more pluralistic, collective and supportive environment,
one which propagates new and exciting ideas and recognises the
importance of working empathically with the larger continuum for
human, environmental and ecological survival.
Iris
Aspinall Priest, 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment