diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'timeforms.otx')
| -rw-r--r-- | timeforms.otx | 637 |
1 files changed, 75 insertions, 562 deletions
diff --git a/timeforms.otx b/timeforms.otx index 1e1c879..10e5494 100644 --- a/timeforms.otx +++ b/timeforms.otx @@ -1100,627 +1100,140 @@ Let us hope it doesn't wear too thin. For they are, literally, our future. It is \chap Frequency and Form +What I am doing with my life is building a set of generalizations comprehending how time works. I call the comprehension of the time laws of any process "chronetics". -What I am doing with my life is building a set of generalizations -comprehending how time works. I call thé comprehension of the -time laws of any process "chronetics". - - -I've been working at it a "long" time and have done it in some -strange places. Like, a dissertation on Plato's theory of time, which -started in 58 but didn't come till '63. Like, in '65 getting a -videotape system installed in a family therapy agency so that families -and therapists could play back their sessions during their sessions. -Like getting headaches trying to transform the laws of general -relativity into classroom sociology since 1953, though I hate the -math. Like trying to figure out acid time expansion during acid time -expansion. Etc. - - -This rap is about the chronetics of software, in other words, -some thoughts on the time forms of current communication events. - +I've been working at it a "long" time and have done it in some strange places. Like, a dissertation on Plato's theory of time, which started in 58 but didn't come till '63. Like, in '65 getting a videotape system installed in a family therapy agency so that families and therapists could play back their sessions during their sessions. Like getting headaches trying to transform the laws of general relativity into classroom sociology since 1953, though I hate the math. Like trying to figure out acid time expansion during acid time expansion. Etc. -As everybody knows, Universe is not a very large expanding -balloon with galactic light bulbs interspersed "at" varying distances. -Einstein told us Universe is not a simultaneous assembly of things. -Universe isn't there --- in fact, man's invention of the concept reveals -his terror crouching behind a facade of omniscience. Currently, our -mythos is that Universe is "really" atoms (i.e., waves of energy -spiralling at light velocity) arrayed hierarchically (i.e., a few is a gas, a -lot is a planet, a very lot a galaxy, etc.). Whitehead said the only -philosophical mistake. you could make (hence the error of every -philosophical mistake) was thinking you could simply locate anything anywhere. This "fallacy of simple location" is the intellectual -form of man's wish to evade the terror which would flood him were -he to admit the Heraclitus vision that all is flux. The emotional form +This rap is about the chronetics of software, in other words, some thoughts on the time forms of current communication events. +As everybody knows, Universe is \e{not} a very large expanding balloon with galactic light bulbs interspersed "at" varying distances. Einstein told us Universe is not a \e{simultaneous} assembly of things. Universe isn't \e{there} --- in fact, man's invention of the concept reveals his terror crouching behind a facade of omniscience. Currently, our mythos is that Universe is "really" atoms (i.e., waves of energy spiralling at light velocity) arrayed hierarchically (i.e., a few is a gas, a lot is a planet, a very lot a galaxy, etc.). Whitehead said the \e{only} philosophical mistake. you could make (hence the error of \e{every} philosophical mistake) was thinking you could simply locate anything anywhere. This "fallacy of simple location" is the intellectual form of man's wish to evade the terror which would flood him were he to admit the Heraclitus vision that all is flux. The emotional form of this saving illusion is hubris --- pride --- the myth of individual autonomy, the 'pursuit of loneliness". Freud once wrote that the human central nervous system works like the osmosis process of the cell wall, whose main function is to keep some fluids in but most fluids out. Fuller suggests the inside is the inside of the outside --- the outside the outside of the inside. Laing ponders why some people who spit in a glass of water can't --- \e{can't} drink it. Others can. Recent experiments by Italian physicists, who ran electrons going "one way" against positrons going "the other", both "at" the speed of light, lead them. to believe there's another whole realm "underneath" quantum atomics which is continuous, i.e., not "composed" of quanta, but of processes. +So in my view, there is no Universe anywhere, "at" any instant, for there are no instants. Better --- "there" isn't. Time is. What seems to be happening is a myriad of energy rates dyssynchronously modulating. Nobody seems to know why there are different rates, or how they change. Recent speculations include a realm on the "other side" of the light velocity barrier wherein "particles" only go faster than light, and if they slowed down to light velocity would annihilate as in $e=mc^2$ (F einberg). Others, at the Princeton Center where Einstein thought, wonder if there isn't a realm under the atoms where time "goes the other way, or not at all." +What I'm trying to suggest, in mosaic, is a Universe of varying frequencies, in which occasional synchronicities are called communication. -of this saving illusion is hubris --- pride --- the myth of individual -autonomy, the 'pursuit of loneliness". Freud once wrote that the -human central nervous system works like the osmosis process of the -cell wall, whose main function is to keep some fluids in but most -fluids out. Fuller suggests the inside is the inside of the outside --- the -outside the outside of the inside. Laing ponders why some people -who spit in a glass of water can't --- can't drink it. Others can. Recent -experiments by Italian physicists, who ran electrons going "one way" -against positrons going "the other", both "at" the speed of light, lead -them. to believe there's another whole realm "underneath" quantum -atomics which is continuous, i.e., not "composed" of quanta, but of -processes. - - -So in my view, there is no Universe anywhere, "at" any instant, -for there are no instants. Better --- "there" isn't. Time is. What seems -to be happening is a myriad of energy rates dyssynchronously -modulating. Nobody seems to know why there are different rates, or -how they change. Recent speculations include a realm on the "other -side" of the light velocity barrier wherein "particles" only go faster -than light, and if they slowed down to light velocity would annihilate -as in E=mc? (F einberg). Others, at the Princeton Center where -Einstein thought, wonder if there isn't a realm under the atoms -where time "goes the other way, or not at all." - - -What I'm trying to suggest, in mosaic, is a Universe of varying -frequencies, in which occasional synchronicities are called communi -cation. - - -Now, some frequencies, after million year evolutionary periods -of interacting dyssynchronously, have come into a harmony which -we call sensation. Air waves and ear vibrations in synch result in our -experience of sound. Light velocities in harmony with retinal -photochemistry result in vision. Rates of neural transmission, when -exceeded or unreached, do not result in experience since there are -limits within and only within which nerves fire. Overload or -underload, outside certain limits, result in nothing. No experiences. -No communication. - - - - -Hence, Fuller says, human "sensory equipment can tune -directly with but one millionth of the thus far discovered physical -Universe events. Awareness of all the rest of the millionfold greater -than human sense reality can only be relayed to human ken through -instruments devised by a handful of thought employing individuals -anticipating thoughtfully the looming needs of others." - - -This is probably an overestimate. There is no reason to believe -that the tiny region of human synchronicity with Universe frequencies which is our band of experience is as much as a millionth, -because it well may be that the range of frequencies goes from --- © -to + ce, I have no quarrel with Bucky's adorable naturalism, but the -range of options for synchronicity may be vaster than he has said. So -far. - - -Even if the spectrum is mot that large, it serves as a perspective -on which to map the tasks of software design. Like Huxley's remark -that any good plumber could have done better than god-evolution -with the human appendix, it seems to be the case that the human -sensory channels are fairly crummy samplers of the range of universe -frequencies. Hence, any software system which sets the outer limits -of its responsibility as fostering the synchronicity of present human -wavelengths could be guilty of a reactionary nostalgia. Filling in the -gaps of the sensory range now is a tactic worthy of admiration, but it -shouldn't be confused with the grand strategy which, minimally, in -my opinion, must include not only the design-expansion of the realm -of human experience, but the design expansion of the range of -synchronicities in our local region of universe. Man may be -negentropy, but there's more to Universe negentropy than man. How -to tune in on that is the larger task. To say nothing of feedback. +Now, some frequencies, after million year evolutionary periods of interacting dyssynchronously, have come into a harmony which we call sensation. Air waves and ear vibrations in synch result in our experience of sound. Light velocities in harmony with retinal photochemistry result in vision. Rates of neural transmission, when exceeded or unreached, do not result in experience since there are limits within and only within which nerves fire. Overload or underload, outside certain limits, result in nothing. No experiences. No communication. +Hence, Fuller says, human "sensory equipment can tune directly with but one millionth of the thus far discovered physical Universe events. Awareness of all the rest of the millionfold greater than human sense reality can only be relayed to human ken through instruments devised by a handful of thought employing individuals anticipating thoughtfully the looming needs of others." -It will be objected --- "this is visionary --- idealistic --- there are -many more pressing urgencies presently at hand." To which a good -reply might be "if you're unaware of the spectrum you're working -in, you're working with unnecessary blinders." +This is probably an overestimate. There is no reason to believe that the tiny region of human synchronicity with Universe frequencies which is our band of experience is as much as a millionth, because it well may be that the range of frequencies goes from $-\infty$ to $+\infty$, I have no quarrel with Bucky's adorable naturalism, but the range of options for synchronicity may be vaster than he has said. So far. +Even if the spectrum is \e{not} that large, it serves as a perspective on which to map the tasks of software design. Like Huxley's remark that any good plumber could have done better than god-evolution with the human appendix, it seems to be the case that the human sensory channels are fairly crummy samplers of the range of universe frequencies. Hence, any software system which sets the outer limits of its responsibility as fostering the synchronicity of \e{present} human wavelengths could be guilty of a reactionary nostalgia. Filling in the gaps of the sensory range now is a \e{tactic} worthy of admiration, but it shouldn't be confused with the grand \e{strategy} which, minimally, in my opinion, must include not only the design-expansion of the realm of human experience, but the design expansion of the range of synchronicities in our local region of universe. Man may be negentropy, but there's more to Universe negentropy than man. How to tune in on \e{that} is the larger task. To say nothing of feedback. +It will be objected --- "this is visionary --- idealistic --- there are many more pressing urgencies presently at hand." To which a good reply might be "if you're unaware of the spectrum you're working in, you're working with unnecessary blinders." +To put the matter differently --- the larger the generalization, the more significance (meaning, value, importance) the event. That's why we're interested in Cosmology. That's why we fly space ships. That's why we seek Atman, Buddha, Satori, enlightenment, trip. -To put the matter differently --- the larger the generalization, -the more significance (meaning, value, importance) the event. That's -why we're interested in Cosmology. That's why we fly space ships. -That's why we seek Atman, Buddha, Satori, enlightenment, trip. +Software, therefore, results whenever dyssynchronous frequencies are mediated, i.e., related in some form of temporal harmony. It is not very far from the Platonic vision that the music of the planetary spheres is in proportion to the ratio of string lengths ona lute, to the view which reveals that the fundamental units of software are the chords and rhythms of perception. It is utterly banal to hold that the "bits of digital information" metaphor comes anywhere near the kind of planetary orchestration man is beginning to compose. This vision can be ecologized by the recognition that software results not simply from passing items of perception around among human sensors, but whenever and however Universe frequencies are proportioned. Man is not the only Universe function producing software. It is an entirely common even in Universe, and may in fact turn out to be its fundamental process, i.e., how it basically forms, so that, to do it is to be like the Druids at Stonehenge dancing to the rhythms of the cosmos. \e{Groovin',} as it were. +But there's more. Recent evidence suggests that brain waves can very easily come under deliberate control, that alpha highs can be turned on at will, that autonomic nervous system-endrocrine interactions can be accelerated-decelerated consciously, that, in short, electronic yoga is now an increasingly popular research sport. It begins to seem as if experience, not surgery, is the design avenue for the deliberate human evolution. All this before the mass availability of mini-laser communications technology, holographic environments instead of rooms/walls of plaster, liquid crystal read out systems, etc., etc. -Software, therefore, results whenever dyssynchronous frequencies are mediated, i.e., related in some form of temporal harmony. It -is not very far from the Platonic vision that the music of the -planetary spheres is in proportion to the ratio of string lengths ona -lute, to the view which reveals that the fundamental units of -software are the chords and rhythms of perception. It is utterly banal -to hold that the "bits of digital information" metaphor comes -anywhere near the kind of planetary orchestration man is beginning -to compose. This vision can be ecologized by the recognition that -software results not simply from passing items of perception around -among human sensors, but whenever and however Universe frequencies are proportioned. Man is not the only Universe function -producing software. It is an entirely common even in Universe, and -may in fact turn out to be its fundamental process, i.e., how it -basically forms, so that, to do it is to be like the Druids at -Stonehenge dancing to the rhythms of the cosmos. Groovin', as it -were. +So, it's time to ask --- what are the chronetic laws that govern the accelerating process of which electronic software is only the current mode? By this I do not mean "how soon will the matter transmitter be invented" or "will lunar language finally substitute Einsteinian categories for Aristotelian ones." Such inquiries are an exercise in linear prophecy only, necessary but not sufficient. I'm more interested in temporal design and its prerequisites. +For example, sociologists have unwittingly placed at the foundation of their game the notion of "expectation," by which they seem to mean what Eliot meant when he said the human kind can stand very little reality --- raw. People seem to have to know how long a thing will be what it is to know how likely it will stay what it is so they can expect it to remain what it was so when it comes by again they can say --- ah yes--- that bit --- nothing new (terrifying) there. They want to be able to anticipate recurrence and periodicity, so they can generalize, and say, oh yes, it's one of those --- I've seen it before --- it won't hurt me because none of them ever did before. When things (societies, cultures, groups, etc.) change fast, faster than they can be generalized, people experience future shock --- they need to experience and generalize faster than they can. When they repeatedly fail, they conclude (generalize) 'I can't know what to expect." This hopeless condition is known as despair. Are there ways to accelerate the formation of generalizations which can stave off this despair. Does acid do it? Will videotape? How? It will be perceived that these questions are special cases of the more general question: how to mediate discrepant frequencies --- that is --- what forms of software (generalization --- culture) do we require in this temporal myriad we call home. -But there's more. Recent evidence suggests that brain waves can -very easily come under deliberate control, that alpha highs can be -turned on at will, that autonomic nervous system-endrocrine -interactions can be accelerated-decelerated consciously, that, in -short, electronic yoga is now an increasingly popular research sport. -It begins to seem as if experience, not surgery, is the design avenue -for the deliberate human evolution. All this before the mass -availability of mini-laser communications technology, holographic -environments instead of rooms/walls of plaster, liquid crystal read -out systems, etc., etc. +Surely, a beginning is the creation of a new planetary network of communications hardware and software, so those who now dance to vastly different drummers can come together in the first voluntary civilization ever to steer spaceship earth: evolution consciously deliberately joyously, freed of the fetters of national political (i.e. humanicidal --- ecocidal) idiocies. +More important, I think, is the work heretofore left to mathematicians, physicists, philosophers, psychiatrists, and other intellectuals --- that is --- identifying the waves and frequencies of which our experiences are the result, intuiting the laws which govern them, and designing better freer forms in which to live. -So, it's time to ask --- what are the chronetic laws that govern -the accelerating process of which electronic software is only the -current mode? By this I do not mean "how soon will the matter +For example, a friend of mine set up his hardware so his five year old son could: +\begitems\style n +* watch a Sesame Street broadcast +* watch himself watching Sesame Street on a second live monitor +* make a tape of himself, watching his tape while watching himself on a live monitor watching himself on tape +* tape himself with a 5 second delay loop on one monitor and try to mimic that so that the second monitor is in sync with the first +* play with variable delay loops on both monitors (2 decks) +* play with multiple variable delay loops and live monitors +* vary recording and playback speeds while doing any/all of the above. +\enditems +Not surprisingly, the boy began asking his father to help him do things that went beyond the design limits of the hardware. To explain why he couldn't, his father began drawing diagrams of multiple feedback loops with variable time loops, which the kid dug on the basis of his experience. Then the five year old started wondering how to design hardware so he could have the experience he wanted. He had found the limits of the temporal rhythms built into the hardware available to him, and imagined himself beyond them, i.e., temporal design. He wanted more software than there was in his world. I pass over the obvious corollary that he also immunized himself to the information pollution belching from commercial TV. What interests me about such experiments (which we occasionally do at the Center) is the experimental immersion in complex time pools which are not only exciting but architecturally motivating. -transmitter be invented" or "will lunar language finally substitute -Einsteinian categories for Aristotelian ones." Such inquiries are an -exercise in linear prophecy only, necessary but not sufficient. I'm -more interested in temporal design and its prerequisites. - - -For example, sociologists have unwittingly placed at the -foundation of their game the notion of "expectation," by which -they seem to mean what Eliot meant when he said the human kind -can stand very little reality --- raw. People seem to have to know how -long a thing will be what it is to know how likely it will stay what it -is so they can expect it to remain what it was so when it comes by -again they can say --- ah yes--- that bit --- nothing new (terrifying) -there. They want to be able to anticipate recurrence and periodicity, -so they can generalize, and say, oh yes, it's one of those --- I've seen it -before --- it won't hurt me because none of them ever did before. -When things (societies, cultures, groups, etc.) change fast, faster than -they can be generalized, people experience future shock --- they need -to experience and generalize faster than they can. When they -repeatedly fail, they conclude (generalize) 'I can't know what to -expect." This hopeless condition is known as despair. Are there ways -to accelerate the formation of generalizations which can stave off -this despair. Does acid do it? Will videotape? How? It will be -perceived that these questions are special cases of the more general -question: how to mediate discrepant frequencies --- that is --- what -forms of software (generalization --- culture) do we require in this -temporal myriad we call home. - - -Surely, a beginning is the creation of a new planetary network -of communications hardware and software, so those who now dance -to vastly different drummers can come together in the first voluntary -civilization ever to steer spaceship earth: evolution consciously -deliberately joyously, freed of the fetters of national political (i.e. -humanicidal --- ecocidal) idiocies. - - -More important, I think, is the work heretofore left to -mathematicians, physicists, philosophers, psychiatrists, and other -intellectuals --- that is --- identifying the waves and frequencies of - - - - -which our experiences are the result, intuiting the laws which govern -them, and designing better freer forms in which to live. - - -For example, a friend of mine set up his hardware so his five -year old son could: - - -1. watch Sesame Street broadcast - - -2. watch himself watching Sesame Street on a second live -monitor - - -3. make a tape of himself, watching his tape while watching -himself on a live monitor watching himself on tape - - -4. tape himself with a 5 second delay loop on one monitor and -try to mimic that so that the second monitor is in sync with -the first - - -5. play with variable delay loops on both monitors (2 decks) -6. play with multiple variable delay loops and live monitors - - -7. vary recording and playback speeds while doing any/all of -the above. - - -Not surprisingly, the boy began asking his father to help him do -things that went beyond the design limits of the hardware. To -explain why he couldn't, his father began drawing diagrams of -multiple feedback loops with variable time loops, which the kid dug -on the basis of his experience. Then the five year old started -wondering how to design hardware so he could have the experience -he wanted. He had found the limits of the temporal rhythms built -into the hardware available to him, and imagined himself beyond -them, i.¢., temporal design. He wanted more software than there was -in his world. I pass over the obvious corollary that he also immunized -himself to the information pollution belching from commercial TV. -What interests me about such experiments (which we occasionally do - - - - -at the Center) is the experimental immersion in complex time pools -which are not only exciting but architecturally motivating. - - -A question which bothers everybody involves ecological recycling --- there's an awful lot of good information around which we -could share better if only those maverick data banks were set up. -After all, it's chronetically silly to shoot tape at light speed, then air -mail it to friends in London. And, since "they" own the satellites, all -they have to do is charge prohibitive rentals so we can't move our -information as fast as we shoot it. So Far. They are not gonna rent us -time to create alternatives to them. - - -So, it seems to me, we are going to have to come up with -software which is not only good for us but good for them, too. -That's what global means. - - -We have no choice but to take them with us --- i.e., turn them -on to the benefits of our way. We're gonna have to go beyond the -hip ethnocentrism we built to defend ourselves against them. We -can't any longer enjoy being so "far out" that nothing happens. This -could turn out to be a fatal underload. - - -The only choice we have, in my opinion, is to produce software -which mediates their (slower) frequencies and our (faster) ones into -those which harmonize both of us with the (much faster) vibes of a -really global synchronous system. To put it crudely, we have to show -the satellite-computer people (e.g., the "defense department") how -our way is better for all of us; that a planetary form is better --- for -all of us --- than cartels. - - -I guess my own naturalism is unmasked in the following -optimistic statement --- somehow the people always recognize a -masterpiece, so, as entry into the next phase, that's what we have to -do. Which is not, in the strict sense, a political, but rather a -cultural-aesthetic task. - - - - -The dilemma --- you can't have a revolution unless your head's -together, but you can't get your head together unless you have a -revolution --- here arises. I'm suggesting that both tasks --- solidarity -and revolution --- are facilitated by broadening the collective imagination with such questions as: What is that process of which -industrialism, then automation, then cybernation are the acceleratively appearing moments? What are the unknown time rules such -processes follow? Can we design other frequencies and forms? - - -I think so. But, as Fuller says --- "This means things are going to -move fast." - - -METALOG - - - - -ON SOCIAL TIME (II) - - -PROLOGUE - -The first draft of this chapter was written 5 years ago when I -was an Instructor at Queens College, CUNY and Director of Research -at Jewish Family Service. It remained unpublished in mimeo form -since then because I wasn't sure it was not simply an elaborate -hallucination. What faith I now have in the ideas put forward is -largely due to the sensitive audience granted me by Philip Slater at -Brandeis, and Henry Murray at Harvard, who first encouraged me to -get on with it, and by the students and colleagues who since have -patiently helped me to put my obsession with time into the -somewhat legible form before you. - - -INTRODUCTION - -Galileo's attempt to vindicate his conviction that light moved at -a finite velocity took the form of an experiment in which one of two -observers stationed about a mile apart agreed to signal when he saw -the light emitted from his partner's lantern. If light possessed a finite -velocity (measurable at the distance of one mile by two interested -observers), his hypothesis would have received its vindication. But we -know now that it moved too fast for him. Speculation and -experiment have since revealed (Fizeau, Michelson-Morley)! what we -now regard as a common-place, i.e., light travels in finite velocities, -ie., it "takes time." Most of us are now aware that Einstein's -theories of relativity have something to do with a four-dimensional -space-time continuum. But, shoemakers to our own lasts, not until -recently did we perceive the relevance of these "physical" speculations to our daily concerns. So light takes time...... ? - - -A moment's reflection reveals that the physicist's concern with -the velocity of light is similar, if not homological, to the social - - - - -scientist's concern for words and gestures, because, just as light is -information for the astronomer, so words and gestures are information for social beings. - - -But a striking difference between light and word emerges if we -note that each photon delivers its information as it strikes a -photoreceptor, whereas it is notoriously observable that people may -pour out streams of words and gestures onto each other without -communicating very well at all. Some of this difficulty is understood; -we know about perspectives, frames of reference, points of view, -codes, categories, metaphors, and a host of other intervening -obstacles which alter the message as it is getting through. We know -about transmission failures, and we know that reception may be -garbled by malfunctions in the reception process. We tend to assume, -in the absence of the above alterations, that the content of a given -communication will have its intended consequence. - - -But, returning to the Galilean metaphor, what if there is -nothing wrong either with the lantern or with the observers' visual -acuity? It may still happen that communication fails. Perhaps, under -such ideal circumstances, not the content but the rate of communication (e.g. the reaction-time of the observers) needs examination. It -may be, and we shall attempt to convey, that even perfect (noiseless) -contents often do not communicate because phenomena associated -with the rates, speeds, accelerations, decelerations, and similar -temporal parameters are involved. - - -Thus messages which arrive too fast to be recorded will be -missed, much as Galileo's assistants failed to measure light's speed. -Conversely, talk made too slowly will bore and precipitate ennui, -much as a tape recording, played too slowly, will growl. That these -conditions may obtain in those quadrants of the universe of social -behavior customarily studied by the social scientist is the hypothesis -of this chapter. - - -ALIENATION, ANOMIE, ANXIETY -We shall elsewhere observe that Marx's alienation, Durkheim's - - - +A question which bothers everybody involves ecological recycling --- there's an awful lot of good information around which we could share better if only those maverick data banks were set up. After all, it's chronetically silly to shoot tape at light speed, then air mail it to friends in London. And, since "they" own the satellites, all they have to do is charge prohibitive rentals so we can't move our information as fast as we shoot it. So Far. \e{They} are not gonna rent us time to create alternatives to them. -anomie, and Freud's anxiety have, in addition to their alliterative -resemblance, a more central similarity which derives from the -concern these men shared for the pathologies of urban man. When -Marx described the "alienation" the worker suffers because the -injustices of feudal serfdom have been replaced by newer modes of -production and distribution, he rejoices that a liberation has taken -place, but he is saddened (and angered) because the former peasant -now has no choice but to sell his time, ie., his labor per hour. -Tyranny has been removed only to be supplanted by a new form of -subjugation. To this point hath the dialectic come, as Hegel observed -in other circumstances." +So, it seems to me, we are going to have to come up with software which is not only good for us but good for them, too. That's what global means. +We have no choice but to take them with us --- i.e., turn them on to the benefits of our way. We're gonna have to go beyond the hip ethnocentrism we built to defend ourselves against them. We can't any longer enjoy being so "far out" that nothing happens. This could turn out to be a fatal underload. -Durkheim's fundamental explorations of anomie also implicitly -participated in a temporalist orientation, for he focused, especially in -Suicide, on those situations in which a former division of labor -and its concomitant set of norms, values, and roles, were made -suddenly obsolete by a subsequent division of labor, with its new set -of norms, values, and roles. He was of course far from insightless into -the obverse situation, the disintegration of a coherent social harmony -into a prior condition of organization, resulting in an inappropriately -complex norm system straddling the disorganized situation. +The only choice we have, in my opinion, is to produce software which mediates their (slower) frequencies and our (faster) ones into those which harmonize both of us with the (much faster) vibes of a really global synchronous system. To put it crudely, we have to show the satellite-computer people (e.g., the "defense department") how our way is better for all of us; that a planetary form is better --- for all of us --- than cartels. +I guess my own naturalism is unmasked in the following optimistic statement --- somehow the people always recognize a masterpiece, so, as entry into the next phase, that's what we have to do. Which is not, in the strict sense, a political, but rather a cultural-aesthetic task. -While it seems not uncertain that Freud was aware of the -writings of Marx and Durkheim, it is almost banal to point out, in -our era, that Freud's theory of anxiety was very much an expression -of his own particular genius. This is especially evident in what many -regard as the best of his sociological works, namely, Civilization and -its Discontents.* This ground breaking work in psychoanalytic -sociology may be heuristically summarized as follows. When the -division of labor in a society increases and complexifies, the number -of norms and values increases concomitantly. But, when this larger -number of norms and values is introjected, becoming ingredient in -the personality, spontaneity is decreased, because, increasingly, the -forms and patterns of gratification available to the organism are -subject to increasingly complex social definition. As Marcuse° has -aptly demonstrated, it is a situation in which increasing sublimation +The dilemma --- you can't have a revolution unless your head's together, but you can't get your head together unless you have a revolution --- here arises. I'm suggesting that both tasks --- solidarity and revolution --- are facilitated by broadening the collective imagination with such questions as: What is that process of which industrialism, then automation, then cybernation are the acceleratively appearing moments? What are the unknown time rules such processes follow? Can we design other frequencies and forms? +I think so. But, as Fuller says --- "This means things are going to move fast." +\part Metalog +\chap On Social Time (II) -calls for increasing repression. Or, to put the matter more prosaically, -it seems to haye been Freud's view that complex civilization creates a -complex superego, which then accumulates controlling dominion -over the organism's pleasure seeking. The thesis that our civilization -prevents us from enjoying our congenital polymorphous perversity is -rather univocally endorsed by Norman Brown® as the cultural plight -of contemporary western man. +\sec Prologue +The first draft of this chapter was written 5 years ago when I was an Instructor at Queens College, CUNY and Director of Research at Jewish Family Service. It remained unpublished in mimeo form since then because I wasn't sure it was not simply an elaborate hallucination. What faith I now have in the ideas put forward is largely due to the sensitive audience granted me by Philip Slater at Brandeis, and Henry Murray at Harvard, who first encouraged me to get on with it, and by the students and colleagues who since have patiently helped me to put my obsession with time into the somewhat legible form before you. -Thus it is not very far from the thesis of Civilization and tts -Discontents to the following proposition: In a given social system, -as the number of normatively defined interactions increases, the -number of spontaneously defined interactions decreases. +\sec Introduction +Galileo's attempt to vindicate his conviction that light moved at a finite velocity took the form of an experiment in which one of two observers stationed about a mile apart agreed to signal when he saw the light emitted from his partner's lantern. If light possessed a finite velocity (measurable at the distance of one mile by two interested observers), his hypothesis would have received its vindication. But we know now that it moved too fast for him. Speculation and experiment have since revealed (Fizeau, Michelson-Morley)\bknote{1} what we now regard as a common-place, i.e., light travels in finite velocities, ie., it "takes time." Most of us are now aware that Einstein's theories of relativity have something to do with a four-dimensional space-time continuum. But, shoemakers to our own lasts, not until recently did we perceive the relevance of these "physical" speculations to our daily concerns. So light takes time...... ? -The generality of this proposition calls for several clarifying -amendations, since it is almost too obvious that the theoretical -import of the Freudian statement is not far removed from the -theoretical import of Durkheim's classical formulation. In both, -complexity finds its criterion in a simple enumeration of norms. -Somewhat more subtly, we point now to the theoretical intimacy of -this hypothesis with certain aspects of Marxian Sociology, in which -the increasingly laborious definition of the worker's role brings about -his increasingly alienated situation. +A moment's reflection reveals that the physicist's concern with the velocity of light is similar, if not homological, to the social scientist's concern for words and gestures, because, just as light is information for the astronomer, so words and gestures are information for social beings. +But a striking difference between light and word emerges if we note that each photon delivers its information as it strikes a photoreceptor, whereas it is notoriously observable that people may pour out streams of words and gestures onto each other without communicating very well at all. Some of this difficulty is understood; we know about perspectives, frames of reference, points of view, codes, categories, metaphors, and a host of other intervening obstacles which alter the message as it is getting through. We know about transmission failures, and we know that reception may be garbled by malfunctions in the reception process. We tend to assume, in the absence of the above alterations, that the content of a given communication will have its intended consequence. -At the heart of these formulations, we believe, is a temporal -assumption, which we may tease out by exploring the notion of -spontaneity. Certainly, we must avoid imputing to these theorists a -wish to avoid any and all socialization processes and to leave as -unimpinged as possible the noble savage, natural man."? Each would -agree that a human isolate is inhuman, and that a man alone is no -man at all. Yet each found a certain measure of inexorable necessity -in the very "state" of affairs he deplored. +But, returning to the Galilean metaphor, what if there is nothing wrong either with the lantern or with the observers' visual acuity? It may still happen that communication fails. Perhaps, under such ideal circumstances, not the content but the rate of communication (e.g. the reaction-time of the observers) needs examination. It may be, and we shall attempt to convey, that even perfect (noiseless) contents often do not communicate because phenomena associated with the rates, speeds, accelerations, decelerations, and similar temporal parameters are involved. +Thus messages which arrive too fast to be recorded will be missed, much as Galileo's assistants failed to measure light's speed. Conversely, talk made too slowly will bore and precipitate ennui, much as a tape recording, played too slowly, will growl. That these conditions may obtain in those quadrants of the universe of social behavior customarily studied by the social scientist is the hypothesis of this chapter. -If we do not inquire into this inexorability, we shall be left with -nothing more than theories of pathogenesis. If however we can make -some reasonable formulation of the "native" possibilities of man, -that sort of humanity he has prior to alienation, anomie, and -anxiety, then perhaps we shall be able to state at least some of the +\sec Alienation, Anomie, Anxiety +We shall elsewhere observe that Marx's alienation, Durkheim's anomie, and Freud's anxiety have, in addition to their alliterative resemblance, a more central similarity which derives from the concern these men shared for the pathologies of urban man. When Marx described the "alienation" the worker suffers because the injustices of feudal serfdom have been replaced by newer modes of production and distribution, he rejoices that a liberation has taken place, but he is saddened (and angered) because the former peasant now has no choice but to sell his time, ie., his labor per hour. Tyranny has been removed only to be supplanted by a new form of subjugation. To this point hath the dialectic come, as Hegel observed in other circumstances.\bknote{2} +Durkheim's fundamental explorations of anomie also implicitly participated in a temporalist orientation, for he focused, especially in \bt{Suicide},\bknote{3} on those situations in which a \e{former} division of labor and its concomitant set of norms, values, and roles, were made suddenly obsolete by a \e{subsequent} division of labor, with its new set of norms, values, and roles. He was of course far from insightless into the obverse situation, the \e{dis}integration of a coherent social harmony into a \e{prior} condition of organization, resulting in an inappropriately complex norm system straddling the disorganized situation. +While it seems not uncertain that Freud was aware of the writings of Marx and Durkheim, it is almost banal to point out, in our era, that Freud's theory of anxiety was very much an expression of his own particular genius. This is especially evident in what many regard as the best of his sociological works, namely, \bt{Civilization and its Discontents}.\bknote{4} This ground breaking work in psychoanalytic sociology may be heuristically summarized as follows. When the division of labor in a society increases and complexifies, the number of norms and values increases concomitantly. But, when this larger number of norms and values is introjected, becoming ingredient in the personality, spontaneity is decreased, because, increasingly, the forms and patterns of gratification available to the organism are subject to increasingly complex social definition. As Marcuse\bknote{5} has aptly demonstrated, it is a situation in which increasing sublimation calls for increasing repression. Or, to put the matter more prosaically, it seems to haye been Freud's view that complex civilization creates a complex superego, which then accumulates controlling dominion over the organism's pleasure seeking. The thesis that our civilization prevents us from enjoying our congenital polymorphous perversity is rather univocally endorsed by Norman Brown\bknote{6} as the cultural plight of contemporary western man. -prolegomena to a sociological theory of human joy, as well as the -conditions under which human life is subjected to pathology. +Thus it is not very far from the thesis of \bt{Civilization and its Discontents} to the following proposition: \e{In a given social system, as the number of normatively defined interactions increases, the number of spontaneously defined interactions decreases.} +The generality of this proposition calls for several clarifying amendations, since it is almost too obvious that the theoretical import of the Freudian statement is not far removed from the theoretical import of Durkheim's classical formulation. In both, complexity finds its criterion in a simple enumeration of norms. Somewhat more subtly, we point now to the theoretical intimacy of this hypothesis with certain aspects of Marxian Sociology, in which the increasingly laborious definition of the worker's role brings about his increasingly alienated situation. -If it is impossible to make any headway here, then we shall have -to resign ourselves to a perennial entrapment between alienation and -freedom, mechanical and organic solidarity, thanatotic and erotic -life, or, more generally, to an impotence when confronting the desire -to transform the social basis of Life and Death. Faith in an inevitable -"progress" now seems worn thin. +At the heart of these formulations, we believe, is a temporal assumption, which we may tease out by exploring the notion of spontaneity. Certainly, we must avoid imputing to these theorists a wish to avoid any and all socialization processes and to leave as unimpinged as possible the noble savage, natural man.\bknote{7} Each would agree that a human isolate is inhuman, and that a man alone is no man at all. Yet each found a certain measure of inexorable necessity in the very "state" of affairs he deplored. +If we do not inquire into this inexorability, we shall be left with nothing more than theories of pathogenesis. If however we can make some reasonable formulation of the "native" possibilities of man, that sort of humanity he has \e{prior} to alienation, anomie, and anxiety, then perhaps we shall be able to state at least some of the prolegomena to a sociological theory of human joy, as well as the conditions under which human life is subjected to pathology. -The approach, we suggest, is to be found in the characteristics -of our own age upon which so many writers, from Marx to Merton, -have commented. I refer to the twin conceptions of social process -and social change, and, to paraphrase Whitehead,® to the fact that we -have witnessed more rapid change in the twentieth century than in -the twenty centuries before it. +If it is impossible to make any headway here, then we shall have to resign ourselves to a perennial entrapment between alienation and freedom, mechanical and organic solidarity, thanatotic and erotic life, or, more generally, to an impotence when confronting the desire to transform the social basis of Life and Death. Faith in an inevitable "progress" now seems worn thin. +The approach, we suggest, is to be found in the characteristics of our own age upon which so many writers, from Marx to Merton, have commented. I refer to the twin conceptions of social process and social change, and, to paraphrase Whitehead,\bknote{8} to the fact that we have witnessed more rapid change in the twentieth century than in the twenty centuries before it. -SOCIAL PROCESS AND SOCIAL CHANGE?® +\sec Social Process and Social Change\bknote{9} Two root metaphors seem to be employed with especial frequency in the social scientists' conceptualization of social process and social change; the part-whole metaphor, and the space-time -metaphor. Relating these to each other we may derive the following - - -four-celled paradigm: - - -space time - - -I Il - -particle instant -I] . IV - -gestalt process - - -In cell I, we locate the particle point of view, in which things, -events, processes or changes are construed as the resultant configuration of a number of individual particles. Thus a molecule is a number - - -part - - -whole - - - - -of atoms, a galaxy a (very large) number of stars and planets, a group -a "composition" of individuals. Processes and changes are ascribed to -the addition or subtraction of parts. Many gas particles will set up a -gravitational field, eventually forming a galaxy; many individuals will -enter into patterned interactions, eventually forming a group. For -example, population pressure (the increase in number of individuals) -has not infrequently been allotted the engine role in social processes -and social changes. - - -Critics who castigate this sort of conceptualization in the social -sciences as "methodological individualism," argue that the derivation -of social relations from the units of behavior is reductionist, -atomistic, and primitive. Proponents assert that their thoughts are -modeled on reality and are therefore genuinely descriptive of the -situations which capture their interests. - - -In cell II, we locate the gestalt point of view, in which things, -events, processes and changes are construed as self-defined wholes. A -molecule may be intellectually analyzed or "broken" into its -component atoms, just as a group may be analytically separated into -its component individuals. But gestaltists insist that a molecule is a -molecule, and a group is a group, prior to our analytic operations. -They say that galaxies whirl and eddy, groups migrate or form -communities, as wholes. Methodological individualists criticize this -view as sociologistic, and, occasionally, psychologists view thinking -of this sort on the part of their sociological colleagues as peculiarly -unspecific. Proponents argue that anything less than gestaltic -thinking distorts the reality of groups, commits the fallacy of -misplaced concreteness,'° and is ultimately reductionist. A group is -a group is a group; its processes and changes are sui generis. - - -In cell 111 we confront the instant point of view. Clock-time, for -instance, is said to consist in the sum total of units measured. Thus -an hour is "really" 60 minutes, a year 365 days, etc. For particalists, -analysis of change or process consists in measuring the number of -instants and charting what happens at each instant. The sympathy -between the particle view and the instant view becomes apparent - - - +metaphor. Relating these to each other we may derive the +four-celled paradigm of fig \ref{spacetime}. + +\midinsert +\table{ccc}{ + & space & time \crlp{2,3} +part & (I) particle & (III) instant \crlp{2,3} +whole & (II) gestalt & (IV) process \crlp{2,3} +} +\cskip +\caption/t[spacetime] +\endinsert -here, since at is a spatial referent. But where is an instant? -Nevertheless, sympathy is not identity, so that protaganists of the -instant persuasion may, with equal justice, chide the particle -advocate by asking "when is a particle?" The relativity enthusiast -confronts an instantist critique of the familiar E=mc? equation when -it is noted that a particle "at" the velocity of light would have to -achieve infinite mass. Similarly the analyst of social change who -advocates an historical perspective is asked to note in his analysis of -change what the state of affairs was when he observed the problem -system. +In cell I, we locate the particle point of view, in which things, events, processes or changes are construed as the resultant configuration of a number of individual particles. Thus a molecule is a number of atoms, a galaxy a (very large) number of stars and planets, a group a "composition" of individuals. Processes and changes are ascribed to the addition or subtraction of parts. Many gas particles will set up a gravitational field, eventually forming a galaxy; many individuals will enter into patterned interactions, eventually forming a group. For example, population pressure (the increase in number of individuals) has not infrequently been allotted the engine role in social processes and social changes. +Critics who castigate this sort of conceptualization in the social sciences as "methodological individualism," argue that the derivation of social relations from the units of behavior is reductionist, atomistic, and primitive. Proponents assert that their thoughts are modeled on reality and are therefore genuinely descriptive of the situations which capture their interests. -In cell IV, we meet the proponent of the process point of view. -He is the most adamant critic of reductionism, whether of type I, II, -or III. He holds that the whole time of events, physical and/or social, -must be perceived in its entirety, He holds, with Heidegger,'* that -time is to man what water is to the fish, so that, if we abstract man -from his element, we court the danger of asphyxiating our analysis. -Like light, he reminds us, life takes time. If we make non-temporal -analysis, we will speak in artificialities. Just as we cannot hope to -understand (versteben) the drama if we merely conceive (begreifin) -of the separate scenes, so we must perceive man in his actual -enduring social process. Snapshots provide lifeless models for so -chronic a reality as man. +In cell II, we locate the gestalt point of view, in which things, events, processes and changes are construed as self-defined wholes. A molecule may be intellectually analyzed or "broken" into its component atoms, just as a group may be analytically separated into its component individuals. But gestaltists insist that a molecule is a molecule, and a group is a group, \e{prior} to our analytic operations. They say that galaxies whirl and eddy, groups migrate or form communities, \e{as wholes.} Methodological individualists criticize this view as sociologistic, and, occasionally, psychologists view thinking of this sort on the part of their sociological colleagues as peculiarly unspecific. Proponents argue that anything less than gestaltic thinking distorts the reality of groups, commits the fallacy of misplaced concreteness,\bknote{10} and is ultimately reductionist. A group is a group is a group; its processes and changes are \e{sui generis.} +In cell III we confront the instant point of view. Clock-time, for instance, is said to consist in the sum total of units measured. Thus an hour is "really" 60 minutes, a year 365 days, etc. For particalists, analysis of change or process consists in measuring the number of instants and charting what happens \e{at} each instant. The sympathy between the particle view and the instant view becomes apparent here, since \e{at} is a spatial referent. But \e{where} is an instant? Nevertheless, sympathy is not identity, so that protaganists of the instant persuasion may, with equal justice, chide the particle advocate by asking "when is a particle?" The relativity enthusiast confronts an instantist critique of the familiar $e=mc^2$ equation when it is noted that a particle "at" the velocity of light would have to achieve infinite mass. Similarly the analyst of social change who advocates an historical perspective is asked to note in his analysis of change what the state of affairs was when he observed the problem system. -Critics of the processualist are quick to object that processes -actually consist of 1) particles, 2) gestalts, or 3) instants. To these -the processualist may respond with a superior grin. But he meets a -more constructive critic in the social scientist who says: "Well and -good. Whole processes are whole processes. But how shall we -understand them? Where do we mark off beginnings, middles, and -ends? How do we know how long a given process lasts, where one -leaves off and another begins? If you require that we reconceptualize -what we have heretofore regarded as events composed of parts, what -concepts shall we employ?" +In cell IV, we meet the proponent of the process point of view. He is the most adamant critic of reductionism, whether of type I, II, or III. He holds that the whole time of events, physical and/or social, must be perceived in its entirety, He holds, with Heidegger,\bknote{11} that time is to man what water is to the fish, so that, if we abstract man from his element, we court the danger of asphyxiating our analysis. Like light, he reminds us, life takes time. If we make non-temporal analysis, we will speak in artificialities. Just as we cannot hope to understand (\e{versteben}) the drama if we merely conceive (\e{begreifin}) of the separate scenes, so we must perceive man in his actual enduring social process. Snapshots provide lifeless models for so chronic a reality as man. +Critics of the processualist are quick to object that processes actually consist of 1) particles, 2) gestalts, or 3) instants. To these the processualist may respond with a superior grin. But he meets a more constructive critic in the social scientist who says: "Well and good. Whole processes are whole processes. But how shall we understand them? Where do we mark off beginnings, middles, and ends? How do we know how long a given process lasts, where one leaves off and another begins? If you require that we reconceptualize what we have heretofore regarded as events composed of parts, what concepts shall we employ?" These, in our view, are sage inquiries. We shall not affront our critic by calling him a reactionary who demands a crystal ball as the |