The first of the new systems seminars at Gradcam began last
week with a fascinating discussion on De Landa’ s ‘Immanence and Transcendence
in the Genesis of Form’ [South Atlantic
Quarterly, 96:3]and parts of Bryant's The Democarcy of Objects.
Alan has already posted some initial thoughts here which I'm responding to..
There were 2 elements I found particularly exciting about
the reading and discussion; both of which are helpful in thinking through the
idea of system as an absolute metaphor; that is a basic form of organization.
1 – Metaphor. De Landa gives the following
description of his use of ‘Strata’ and ‘Meshworks’ as forms of organization:
“This raises the question of whether some (or most) applications of these terms
are purely metaphoric. There is undoubtedly some element of metaphor in such
applications, but, the appearance of linguistic analogy notwithstanding, I
believe that a deep, objective isomorphism underlies the different
instantiations of strata and meshworks.” He invokes a “deeper, objective level”
at which isomorphic connections occur.
Alan’s question in regard to this is a pertinent one – does
this lead to a circularity of thought in which a deep structure is presupposed
in advance of its revelation; ‘can De Landa move from metaphor to real
isomorphic systems without too much concern?’ I’m not sure. It seems telling
that he claims to ‘believe’ in the deep, objective isomorphisms yet without
moving toward providing proof.
The move from metaphor to (ultimately un-provable) isomorphism
reminds me of Blumenberg’s talk of Absolute Metaphor (something I’ve mentioned
a few times here already) as ‘unable to satisfy the requirement that truth, by
definition, be the result of a methodologically secure proceedure of
verification.’ (Paradigms for a Metaphorology) This is also how Don Ihde reads Heidegger’s
account of technology (“Technology is therefore no mere means. Technology is a
way of revealing” – The Question Concerning Technology):
“I have called what Heidegger sometimes calls ‘Epochs of
Being’ civilizational givens. These are something like deeply held, dynamic but
enduring traditions, historical but nor more easily thrown over than one’s own
deepest character or personality.” [Don Ihde, Technis and Praxis, pg. 104ff.]
2 – Geological Organisation. De Landa’s discussion proposes forms of organization which can
on the one hand accommodate non-linear, non-predictable complexity and on the
other transfer across different orders (psychic, social, “natural”) without
relying on (i) consciousness/ volition or (ii) ‘life’ as organizing principles.
As Alan mentions the model of Hierarchies and Networks seems
them as organizational forms which emerge from geological processes. This
proposal for a geological mode of organization suggests a 3rd
alternative to the 2 classical modes:
(i) Social/ Intentional. From this volition/ will emerges as
consciousness in the humanist tradition. The best example of this is forms of
communicative rationality as theorized by Habermas and intersubjectivity as an
intentional horizon in the phenomenological tradition. This is an
anthropomorphic model of organization. It is, arguably, unsatisfactory in that it
anthropomorphizes organizational process (as volitional, intentional etc.).
(ii) Biological/ Life. From this organization is attributed
to an animating life-force. This is what Habermas recognized in Luhmann’s
systems theory (which emerges in his later work and comes from Maturana/ Varela
et al)– namely that it is meta-biological in its attribution of forms of
auto-poetic organization to an animating (and irrational) life force. This is a
biological model of organization. It is, arguably, unsatisfactory in that it
makes organizational process “alive.”
Both Norbert Weiner (from a Cybernetic perspective) and,
more recently, Ray Brassier (from a eliminative materialist perspective) have
warned against such neo-vitalism as a first principle:
Weiner: “It
will not do to state categorically that the processes of reproduction in the
machine and in the living being have nothing in common.” [Norbert Weiner: God and Golem Inc.
pg. 47]
Brassier: “I’m not interested in proposing a philosophy
of life or anti-life, but in querying the inflation of “life” into a
master-category in contemporary philosophy, not just by overt vitalists, but
also by phenomenologists, critical theorists, and enactivists.” [Interview
at After Nature blog]
Hence:
(iii) Geological – whereby complexity is understood through
the organization of “unformed and unstructured matter-energy flows.” (pg. 510).
The attractiveness of the organization of
matter-energy flows as an isomorphic process is that (unlike Luhmann) it
offers a model of non-linear complexity, organization and emergence which is
both compatible with material and which doesn’t prioritize either consciousness
or forms of life. In other words, this gives us what Bryant calls a ‘flat
ontology.’ It allows us to talk about lava flows, storm clouds, oil prices,
rioting crowds, ants, ice-floes, viruses and nervous-systems in exactly the
same terms.
