Equifinality

Posted on by

Every member of a living system has equal opportunity to change it

Alphabet Letters

 

The whole system’s principle of “equifinality,” a term coined by the father of systems theory, Ludwig von Bertalanffy, holds that in open systems, for those that have external interactions, a given end state can be reached by many potential means. To lock on to a single pathway, observation or solution can overlook a simpler or better way to reach a goal. The advice then is to reserve judgment and keep an open mind.

Beyond ideas and perspectives, equifinality has implications for individuals within social systems, suggesting that each member has equal opportunity to affect the outcome of the whole—by paying attention to potential solutions and staying open to alternative pathways to reach a goal, noting that any change will affect the output or outcome. Change any element, person or function, however slightly, and the system will perform differently than it otherwise would. Stated positively, no matter how small, invisible or seemingly insignificant a person’s function within a system, they exert an influence on its performance and outcome.

A rock group is an open system composed of interacting members. As such, it performs differently each time the performers take the stage. Things happen. One musician substitutes for another. A guitar is not properly tuned. The drummer is trying out new sticks. The lead singer is depressed. An amplifier is replaced and now the sound is different. Likewise, corporate cultures change when an employee begins to eat lunch at his desk, when a mother brings her toddler to work, when an executive begins wearing jeans and when employees begin working at home.

It’s why we can’t step into the same river twice. Every millisecond, the water molecules are exchanged; stones move; leaves fall in; the wind and fish contribute to turbulence. An example I cited for my students has to do with film and television production considered as a social system. Change one word in a script, decide not to stop for lunch, swap out a microphone or a light, the outcome is altered. We see it at work in movie remakes and television series. Success in the first movie or episode generates more money, more expensive talent and new writers who have their own ideas about what will succeed in the future. Time and larger budgets bring about changes and suddenly The Good Wife isn’t so “good” anymore, Sherlock’s cases become more complicated and are anything but Elementary and Person of Interest shifts from stories about people to cyber warfare. In other corporations, even churches, a new person at the top affects widespread changes. Understandably, they want to make a difference. 

 

Personal and Social Consequences

In the above photograph, each lettered tile is a bit of data. Displayed as they are, the whole represents a field of potential, meaning the letters could be put together in a staggering number of ways. Like magnetic letters on a refrigerator door, a child could use them to spell the word “dog.” Another child could use the same three letters to spell the word “god.” The equifinality principle gives us a reason to appreciate that everyday choices and behaviors make a difference, whether intended or not.

Linda’s switch from merely “fresh” to “organic” head lettuce affected changes—in our bodies, for the local supplier, farming systems and health systems, even the economy. Slight, yes. But nonetheless real. And little things add up. Every time we turn on the radio or television or engage in social media, we contribute to the sustainability of the medium and cast a vote for more of its content and upgrading.

Currently, we’re being made aware of the marketers behind the curtain, quantifying every decision we make, modifying their systems; accordingly, there’s big money in monitoring individual choices and behaviors. And the principle can be used to purposefully affect change. For instance, Linda and I are telling certain restaurant cashiers why we prefer paper rather than plastic cups. And in other circumstances we bring our own cloth napkins and saltshakers. These are small things, but in many instance people either learn how they affect the environment or appreciate our choice.

Knowing that my choices and behaviors are affecting change, I can be more aware and deliberate. Do I really want to sustain this activity or business? Do I want to cast a vote for more of this product to be produced in this way? Is this information, service or philosophy in alignment with my values? Does the situation lift me up or inspire me? Do I want to support a company that isn’t socially responsible or ecologically aware?

It occurs to me that this sounds like a lot of self-regulating introspection. Editing this post, I hesitated and observed that the individual words, ideas, and questions I’m expressing are affecting you, and who knows what else. I paused. Do I really want to put this information and these self-regulating questions out there? Indeed, I do, because I’m advocating that we become aware that even our smallest decisions are making a difference—and that difference can affect positive change. 

Full disclosure, there are times when I go against the voice of my authentic self, as when I consume more sugar and television than I know I should. Sometimes we just want what we want—and we accept the consequences. On balance, however, I find comfort in the act of making “a good faith effort” as often as possible.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.

Margaret Mead, Anthropologist

I welcome your feedback at <smithdl@fuse.net>

My portfolio site: DavidLSmithPhotography.com

My photo books: <www.blurb.com/search/site_search> Enter “David L. Smith” and “Bookstore” in “Search.”

 

V. Feedback

Posted on by

This is the 5th in a series of postings on whole systems thinking.

A system is maintained, often within specified limits, by providing information about how well or poorly the system is performing relative to its purpose. Since systems exist for a reason, it’s important to know whether or not, how well or how poorly, that reason is being actualized. 

Feedback comes in two forms, positive and negative. Both are necessary. The soldier tying knots receives positive or negative feedback depending on the outcome of each trial. When a stand-up comedian gets a laugh, she knows that her delivery was effective. That’s positive feedback. If she repeats her performance exactly, she’s likely to get a similar result. If the laugh doesn’t happen, the negative feedback tells her something didn’t work and more attention needs to be given to the parts of her presentation. Without feedback from the audience, she would have no way of knowing whether or not her intention was realized. 

In living systems, feedback is syntropic. It overcomes entropy by providing information that produces learning, which can bring about positive or growthful adjustments to change within the system or its environment. The more feedback, the better the learning. And the better the quality of the feedback, the better the quality of learning, which translates to better performance. In the 50s, door-to-door interviews about television viewing patterns were conducted to measure audience size but they did a poor job of providing networks with quality information. Studies showed that people often reported watching programs they thought they should be watching, or programs their neighbors were talking about, rather than the ones they actually watched. This was variously attributed to poor memory, a desire to impress or avoid being embarrassed in front of the interviewer and outright lying. Poor sampling information yields poor learning. 

The challenge, of course, is getting feedback that is both robust and accurate. In any kind of polling, there are so many variables, companies that provide that service include a caveat saying the sample size is “representative” of a group within plus or minus margins. Science is never perfect; everything is relative and even the best results are approximations. But often that’s enough to satisfy a company, organization or government office because some feedback is better than none at all. And over time, adjustments to change based on feedback can demonstrate a pattern of success or failure. “We added an odorless tissue to our product line and found that customers preferred it over the ones with odor. So let’s do a better job of promoting the odorless product.” 

For an organism, business or social entity to survive and grow, it must have feedback. A critical component in evolution, feedback from changes in the environment urge the process of species adaptation. The lesson for human evolution is to design, incorporate and manage mechanisms at every level that provide the most accurate feedback possible. Aside from ethical issues, this is why truth in media reporting is critically important. 

Contemplating Global And Social Feedback Mechanisms

How do we know if a given society or even the earth as a whole, is functioning properly? Always, when assessing the functionality of a system, the place to begin is with clarity about its purpose, understanding its reason for being—how it should be functioning. 

For example, the earth is the largest whole and living system that most directly affects our lives. The question is: What is the purpose of the Earth? To gain a working appreciation, we can examine function. Since it came into being, what has it been continuously doing? As noted in a previous posting, the prime identifying mark of a living system is autopoeisis—it propagates more life and it does so on its own, without anyone “pulling the strings.” Part of the “doing,” is increasing the diversity, complexity, and consciousness of its forms. Earth isn’t just “home” to life, it generates, maintains, proliferates and advances it. Systemically speaking, the purpose of our planet is to continuously produce diverse and viable sub-systems—all living entities—viable in that they will reproduce in ways that propagate even more and more varieties of life. Imagine, all this from—our best guess—a sprinkling of “potentials” deposited from space in a chemical soup at just the right time and place. I marvel at that.

Currently, the most complex living “emergent,” human beings, has been increasingly interfering with the Earth’s natural processes to the point where dramatic adjustments are being made throughout the system in order to overcome our consumptive, life-diminishing behaviors. Suffering under the ancient and destructive idea that we’re separate from God, nature, the soil and each other, we are fouling, and in many cases destroying, the elements that sustain and contribute to the quality and continuation of life—atmosphere, water, soils, and forests. Because we in the “developed” world don’t experience the degradation personally, we tend to ignore the information—negative feedback—as too technical to understand, pass it off as remote or somebody else’s problem, assume nothing can be done to curb the human appetite for more, better, faster or cheaper, or hope that some genius or technology will rescue us before the quality of life diminishes to the point where survival is at stake. 

The paradigm of separation and greed is a virus that has infected human consciousness at all levels, globally. We see it trending in the mentality of fundamentalism, where there is only one right way to think, in nationalism, where we want our group to be the sole makers of our destiny,  in prejudice, where one “type” matters more than others, in unregulated capitalism where the privileged few can make the rules governing wealth and the use of resources, in corporations that enjoy the benefits of personal identity while executive actions are only accountable to stockholders and in industrial development where the earth is treated as a “thing” rather than a living body. For many years now and increasingly, the earth has been providing feedback in the form of dramatic weather fluctuations, desertification, water and air pollution, deforestation, melting ice in the poles and mountain glaciers, increases in the frequency and severity of floods and storms, species extinctions, decimation of coral reefs and sea life, extermination of predators, disruption of the carbon cycle and so on. The feedback is impossible to ignore. The earth is not a machine, it’s THE LIVING BODY that sustains and determines the quality of all life for every life form, cockroach to king, and every social group, family to nation.  

Rather than enumerate our social dysfunctions and make this posting even more depressing, suffice to say the cause is the same—the erroneous perception that we are separate from God, the planet and each other. It’s a perspective that encourages self-centeredness, inordinate consumption, greed, segregation and discrimination, hate crimes, corruption, war and treating Earth as a resource rather than a living body. Through these, the world is providing feedback. It says to me, “The virus of separation has metastasized to the extent that vital organs are in jeopardy. As quickly as possible, change your thinking! Regard the planet as your greater body, the source of your life—because it is. Amend your lifestyle. Examine everything you do through the lens of quality rather than quantity, giving rather than taking, loving rather than ignoring.  Experience the joy in living lightly on the planet, look for opportunities to reuse and recycle and read about “deep ecology,” the shift in consciousness that views Nature and humanity as one, interconnected and interdependent system.”  

Norwegian philosopher, Arne Naess, made a distinction between “shallow” and “deep” ecology. He observes that shallow ecology is anthropocentric, human-centered, viewing our species as above and outside of nature, as the source of all value, considering it as something to be used. The root of the separation paradigm derives from Genesis 1: 28: (King James Version) “And God said unto them, be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” 

Considering the current level of the world population and that the planet’s resources are finite,  the continuation of this injunction is a recipe for species extinction. In contrast, according to Fritjof Capra and Pier Luigi Lusisi in The Systems View of Life, “Deep ecology does not separate humans—or anything else—from the natural environment. It sees the world not as a collection of isolated objects but as a network of phenomena that are fundamentally interconnected and interdependent. Deep ecology recognizes the intrinsic value of all living beings and views humans as just one particular strand in the web of life… It questions the very foundations of our modern, scientific, industrial, growth-oriented, materialistic worldview and way of life.”

Feedback is a method of controlling a system by reinserting into it the results of past performance. If feedback can change the pattern of performance, then we have a process which may very well be called learning.

Norbert Weiner 

My hope lies in the education of children, in introducing them to the state of the earth and showing them the way through—the perception and understanding of personal and global interconnection and interdependence that encourage ethics, sharing, collaboration, and love.         

I welcome your feedback at <smithdl@fuse.net>

My portfolio site: DavidLSmithPhotography.com

My photo books: <www.blurb.com/search/site_search> Enter “David L. Smith” and “Bookstore” in “Search.”

IV. The Weak Link

Posted on by

This is the 4th in a series of postings on whole systems thinking. 

A system is as strong as its weakest link. The link that breaks when a chain is stressed, is the part within the whole, person within the group and nation within the global community that is—or becomes—dysfunctional under stress. 

To counteract the “weak link” principle, we assemble the strongest, most competent, collaborative, creative… people possible, get the best information we can, maintain or replace old equipment, invest time, money or energy in building for the future and elect officials who have demonstrated competence and ethical and principled decision-making abilities when under pressure.

Contemplating The Weak Link

My contemplation on this subject is perfectly summarized in the following quotes.

If it is true that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, isn’t it also true a society is only as healthy as its sickest citizen and only as wealthy as its most deprived? 

Maya Angelou

A chain is no stronger than its weakest link, and life is after all a chain.

William James

When we believe that the world makes us, that it determines what we can and cannot do, then we see ourselves as small and weak. But when we understand that we make the world—individually and together—then we become formidable and strong.

Lewis Richmond

 

I welcome your feedback at <smithdl@fuse.net>

My portfolio site: DavidLSmithPhotography.com

My photo books: <www.blurb.com/search/site_search> Enter “David L. Smith” and “Bookstore” in “Search.”

III. Holons And Hierarchy

Posted on by

This is the 3rd in a series of postings on whole systems thinking.

A holon is a discrete, living system composed of sub-systems, and is itself a sub-system of larger whole systems—simultaneously a whole and a part. The word isn’t one you’re likely to use or even hear, but because it points to the nestedness of networks, it is one of the cornerstone ideas in systems thinking. An example is the human body, which resides somewhere in the middle between the atoms of its composition and the “world” within which it is a member. In ancient Hindu philosophy, there was a mythological idea of a World Turtle that supports the world on its back, and that turtle was supported by “turtles all the way down.” From the perspective of whole systems, they got it half right—there would also be turtles all the way “up” as well. Fundamentally, to speak of a holon is to reference nested hierarchies, systems within systems, wheels within wheels. Holons are represented in Buddhist mandalas, Russian dolls, fractal geometry and among other things, the universe and the photograph above.

A sampling of holons provides some perspective on their diversity and suggests their application in systems management. Humans and other living creatures are obviously holons, and Nature manages it’s organic systems intrinsically, but not so obvious are higher order systems, those that are managed by human consciousness. These include corporations and businesses, religions and churches, sports and entertainment entities, mass media and medical systems, households, hardware and software manufacturers, farms, educational institutions and more. It also includes natural systems that involve human decision-making including ecosystems, forests, gardens, dams and water processing facilities, cattle ranches and dairy farms, parks, forestry and wildlife management systems. And much more.

So what? Is there any practical benefit to thinking of living systems as holons? Systems thinking is all about relationship. In a nested network, each individual system is dependent upon the functioning of its components. Breakdowns in cell structure or functioning in a body result in dis-integration of the body as a whole. And the successful creation of an initiative—project, business, special interest group, etc.—is determined by the consciousness, competence and responsibility of its constituent human holons. Bottom line: An awareness of systems as holons helps in the design, analysis and management of living systems by helping us to see, appreciate and create functional relations between the members.

It is inappropriate in the extreme, to think of any holon as either inferior or superior to any other holon. Each member, at every level, contributes consciousness, energy and activity to the whole. More to the point, it’s the relationship between functioning holons that determines the condition of the whole. One great basketball player does not make a winning team. It’s the quality of the relationship, the interactions between and among the players that lead to winning. It’s a fundamental principle in systems thinking: “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” In The Web of Life, Fritjof Capra used the example: “Sugar is made up of three molecules—oxygen, hydrogen and carbon. Where is the sweetness? The sweetness is in the relationship. It is not a quality in any element of sugar. It is an emergent quality that resides only in the system as a whole.” Anyone who cooks understands this—a satisfying meal is greater than the sum of it parts.

I’m reminded of three innovative and successful corporations that operationalized the holon perspective: 3M, MTV and Proctor & Gamble. They each mastered the art of “semipermeability,” being with their customers and building long-term relationships with them in order to constantly understand their needs before their competitors even know they exist. Rather than leaders directing the development and course of products, they began with the customer. It’s simple, but it requires a shift from a top-down administrative structure to one of bottom-up customer satisfaction. And it requires extra effort: Sit face-to-face with as many customers as possible and ask, “What do you want? What do you like and don’t like?. What, in the area of our product line, would be ideal? What’s “cool” and “not cool? And how much would you pay for it?” And then, “As we develop this product, we want you in on it; we want to know if you like it. If you don’t, we’ll go back to the drawing board. Further, we’re going to reward you with some “perks” in appreciation for your time and feedback.” Thinking holistically is good business. 

Contemplating the Social Implications of Holons and Hierarchies

A social holon is any entity that can refer to itself as “we,” a collective. “We the people…” The challenge in any collective is the creation of a structure that benefits both its members and the whole system—society. Always both. Human evolution has largely been a process of trial and error, largely unconscious experiments with a variety of structures including tribes, kingships, peasant societies, monarchies, socialism, communism, capitalism and democracy. And the experiments continue.  

As noted above, from a whole systems perspective, the key to managing a nested network so it functions for the good of the whole as well as its members lies in the relationships and quality of interaction between and among its members. Globally, humanity is still in the experimental stage because we have yet to get diverse and distant relationships right. In my opinion, the reason has to do with operating under the false conception that individuals are separate and independent. We come by this assumption naturally. Everyday observation and experience demonstrate that there’s space that separates us, and I make decisions independently from you. Our experience is not of the “flock” or “school,” as it is with birds and fish. I am me; everything and everyone else is not me. 

What is not apparent in this calculus—and requires substantial education and experience to realize—is that as a holon, the “I” that is me is legion within a web of interrelated and interacting networks. And while it feels like I think independently, much of what I think about has been culturally prescribed. Systemically, when a strand in the web of life is vibrated, the entire web vibrates. Subtly, but nonetheless. Every action, every decision, ripples influences throughout the web. Although we can behave as units of consciousness without regard to other such units, the compounding of these influences and consequences ultimately manifests as breakdowns in the collective system. The “problem” lies in the areas of belief and perception. Beliefs drive perception and perception drives action. The correction lies in a shift in belief from “We are separate and independent.” To “We are interconnected and interdependent.” All wars and personal tragedies can be viewed as evolution’s way of moving us, individually and collectively, toward the accomplishment of this shift. 

Okay, so what does it take to affect that shift? I place my bets in four areas: “responsible parenting,” “whole-person education,” “socially responsible business,.” and “socially responsible media.” Top-down political systems can’t do it. A whole body, including government, grows as a consequence of individual holons relating and interacting in ways that benefit themselves and the more complex holons within which they move and have their being as members. 

In the novel I’m working on, the protagonist, a railroad conductor, engages in a conversation with a passenger who says, “The basis of all our problems—we don’t know who we are.” Indeed, most of us are operating as individuals digging for nuggets of gold in the hills, when the greater treasure can be found by becoming friends and collaborators with the other miners. Relationship builds awareness and increased awareness affects a shift in perception, which in turn creates the desire to seek the good of holons up and down the system’s hierarchy of complexity. 

Who I am depends on who you are. The world is part of me, just as I am part of it. What happens to the world is in some way happening to me. The state of the cultural climate or political climate affects the condition of the geo-climate. When one thing changes, everything else must change too. The qualities of a self (sentience, agency, purpose, and experience of being) are not confined to humans alone. And the results of our actions will come back to affect ourselves, inescapably.

Charles Eisenstein (Author, Social Philosopher)

I welcome your feedback at <smithdl@fuse.net>

My portfolio site: DavidLSmithPhotography.com

My photo books: <www.blurb.com/search/site_search> Enter “David L. Smith” and “Bookstore” in “Search.”

II. Autopoiesis (Self-Making)

Posted on by

This is the 2nd in a series of postings on whole systems thinking. In the coming weeks, after the topic is introduced, I’ll offer a contemplation that relates the information to our personal lives and higher order systems.

 

Living systems are cognitive systems, and living is a process of cognition. The statement is valid for all organisms, with and without a nervous system.

                                                                        Humberto Maturana (Chilean neuroscientist)

This statement led Maturana and his colleague, Francisco Varela, a neuroscientist at the University of Santiago, to conclude that a fundamental characteristic of biological systems, is that they are self-making. The word they coined for it is “autopoiesis.” Auto means “self, and poiesis is Greek for “making.” Living systems are individual and interdependent. Unlike machines, which are closed systems, they don’t have an external regulator. They operate on their own.

These researchers observed that “the function of each component is to participate in the production or transformation of other components in the network.” It’s how the system makes itself. In closed, mechanical systems the component is referred to as a “part.” In open, living systems that exchange and express within their environment, the term for the component is “member.” A part is an independent and interchangeable singularity, like an engine part or circuit board. A member participates in a network of interactions where discrete individuals are continuously being produced by its components and in turn contribute to the production of the network’s components.

It’s important to note that autopoiesis is Nature’s way of constructing, maintaining and renewing living organisms. The temptation is to apply it in total to social systems, but human beings are more than their biology. The challenge of managing human social systems is compounded by the facts that their members are intelligent, and no two are alike. Each is an independent decision-maker, and the larger systems within which they are a component are themselves intelligent, decision-making wholes.

What I think we can safely borrow from the phenomenon of autopoiesis, is that the character and functionality of a human social system, whether it works or not, is a function of how it is organized and the quality of interaction among the members. Because these systems are open and not determined or controlled, there’s a need for continuous self-assessment in order to produce feedback on performance. Further, when human systems are unable or unwilling to self-regulate—by merging their needs with the needs of the whole systems above and below it—as we have seen in some corporations—a higher order social system, for instance, a government, can and needs to impose regulations to bring the system into optimal performance according to its design or purpose.

 

Contemplation on Autopoiesis (Self-Making) 

A personal example of this is a lesson I learned early on in the process of long-term film production. Members of the crew were showing up late or at the wrong location, were too tired to work, weren’t appropriately dressed, forgot a prop or didn’t call to say they couldn’t make it to the shoot. They were not self-regulating, so I imposed regulations, one of which was for the production manager to make a “courtesy call” to everyone involved the night before a shoot, to ensure that they would show up, on time, at the right place, have their sleep and food needs met and have the proper equipment, props or costume.

One of the principles of closed system management that applies equally to social systems in the context of autopoiesis advises: “Attend to the parts and the whole takes care of itself.” It’s one of the points made in the novel, Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Persig. When a mechanical system breaks down, the way to get it working again is to locate the dysfunctioning part and attend to it—ascertain what it takes to repair or replace it, then follow through appropriately. When all the parts function according to their design and work together, the whole system will operate as was intended. Systems thinking encourages us to understand relationships. And autopoiesis provides a model from Nature, suggesting that there is wisdom in allowing her to take her course, more often letting life guide relationships and interactions, as opposed to trying to manage or force them.

A benefit of age is hindsight regarding a phenomenon we all experience. Why, when we get a good idea and follow it through with a passion, it doesn’t work out? If only I’d known that ahead of time! Why does the Universe let me invest hours, a day, week or years trying to accomplish something when it doesn’t or can’t happen? Sometimes I’ll drive around to several stores before I find the object I’m looking for. It seems like a waste of time. Why doesn’t my mind—or the Universe—direct me to the one right place? I’m convinced there’s no way to avoid situations like that. And when I think about it, nothing is really a waste of time. Learning occurs. And patience. And those are real values, even an investment that pays dividends in the process of future decision-making.

From the living systems point of view, human beings are self-making, autopoietic. But there’s a paradox. On the one hand, the human body is continuously and automatically maintaining and renewing itself. We can and do influence its health, but it’s largely operating on its own. On the other hand, and sometimes interfering with the body’s natural functioning, we “make” ourselves as “persons”—an integration of body, mind, spirit—based on the assumption that we are in control, that we know what’s best for us. We know what we want, and we generally know what we want to make of ourselves. Nature, or life, wants us to go one way, while the mind or ego inclines us to go another. The net result—conflict. And when conflict becomes acute we experience pain—a signal that indicates system breakdown.

There are two routes to choose from in order to repair human breakdowns—allow Nature or life to move in the direction it will, or continue on the path of willful self-making. As conscious creatures, there’s a fundamental question to be addressed as life unfolds: Am I in charge? Or is life in charge? What I’ve found, operating under both assumptions, is that the latter brings more comfort, joy, confidence and peace. I love the following quote. It’s an expression of complete trust that life, the Universe, the soul—whatever word you prefer—is working out and all is well.

When we stop searching, we start finding. By looking less, we see more. When we allow the light within us to merge with the light that guides us, we experience oneness. Without any effort, we relax into a state where we have no decisions to make. There is no confusion, second-guessing, thinking, or searching for answers. There is just beingness—acceptance of life as it is.

Jacob Israel Liberman

I welcome your feedback at <smithdl@fuse.net>

My portfolio site: DavidLSmithPhotography.com

My photo books: <www.blurb.com/search/site_search> Enter “David L. Smith” and “Bookstore” in “Search.”

XXII. Unity / Harmony

Posted on by

Aesthetically considered, unity is the arrangement or blending of visual elements in a way that’s pleasing. When it works, there’s a feeling of completeness, order, and wholeness. Not one element is out of place or distracting the eye from the central message, feeling or theme. 

I’m reminded of Italian filmmaker Federico Fellini’s comment to an interviewer who asked if he noticed that in one of his films there was a dog in the background relieving himself in the street. I paraphrase: “Of course I saw it! And I allowed it. There’s not one element in any frame of my films that isn’t there purposefully! I either put it there or allowed it to be there.”

In the third posting of this series I talked about “color harmony.” Here, I’m referring to harmony as a design principle that contributes to unity through the use of similar elements, colors, shapes, lines, textures, and patterns. Like Fellini’s comment, everything within the frame is there on purpose—justified.   

Application

Ordinary perception, viewing our everyday world as part of managing day-to-day living, is characterized by shifts in attention from one thing to another within a dynamic and immensely diverse visual field. We look at what’s in front of us and imagine the rest in relation to what’s happening in our lives. It’s egocentric and normal, necessary in order to survive, grow and accomplish. Although this image is an accurate representation of the scene, it is not unified. It’s also a good example of a “complex” image, composed of many elements—sky, barn, shutters, grass, stone, shadow, silo, windows, wires and so on. It provides a lot of information but lacks any emotion or impact.

On the other hand, conscious perception is a choice. It’s seeing as opposed to looking. And that’s not our usual way of engaging the world visually. It’s an activation of the “aesthetic nerve,” an altered state of consciousness where we isolate a subject from its environment in order to see it with understanding eyes, that is, to better understand and appreciate its being, independent of its identity, utility or benefit other than experiencing or capturing the perceptual experience. It’s what drives the creation of art. Art is the creative act or experience, not the end product, which is an artifact—art after the fact. 

Unity is best accomplished through that kind of perception, first by seeing the subject for what it is in itself, then, possibly, introducing elements that relate to it. It’s a matter of reducing or minimizing complexity and variety in favor of simplicity and focus. That’s not to say a complex image, one with many elements, cannot be unified. It can. But it reduces the experience of impact. Consider the following landscapes, for instance:

Here again, an okay image. There’s lots of information here—hills, grass, sky, haze. But the image lacks impact because it doesn’t express a unified message or theme. It’s important to note: there’s nothing wrong with complex images that lack unity—different approaches depending on what you want to convey. Information or feeling.

Here’s the same kind of subject matter, but now the expression is unified. The image is about ONE THING, and one thing only. Not a lot of information here, but the image has an impact.

Technique

Unification involves the gathering together of elements in a way that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. As it says on the dollar bill, “out of many, one.” A unified image communicates one message or expresses a single feeling. Nothing about it dilutes or distracts the eye. And an excellent way to accomplish this is through the application of harmony—choosing visual elements and composing them so they’re in an appropriate relationship to the central message or emotion. As recommended in an earlier posting, accentuate the features that define a subject and eliminate any visual elements that distract the eye from where it should be. The challenge of harmony is to find a balance between unity and variety. 

“Harmony is the reflection of unity on the plane of multiplicity.”

Darryl Jones (Photographer)

All of the aesthetic dimensions discussed in this series are tools that can be used to unify images. In constructing and assessing and editing my images relative to unity, I strive for focus upon a single or “core” feeling with the other elements contributing to it. Basically, I don’t want any elements that compete or distract from that core message or feeling.

Contemplating Unity and Harmony in Personal and Social Contexts

The challenge of unity is bringing diverse parts into right relationship with each other and the whole will take care of itself. And that’s accomplished by ensuring the functionality of every part in the system. Otherwise, “one weak link will break the chain.” It’s the fundamental principle of systems science. 

We’ve mastered this when it comes to mechanical and electric systems. Henry Ford capitalized on it by envisioning the whole, an automobile, and making its constituent parts identical so they were interchangeable and functioned together in harmoniously. It resulted, on course, in the assembly line. The same systems principles resulted in the exponential growth in technologies from silicon chips to the Large Hadron Collider, the most complex machine ever built. Currently, it appears that humanity is undergoing a metacrisis of perspective and values, a series of breakdowns that are demonstrating the failures in our thinking and behaviors since the dawning of the Industrial Revolution. But breakdown precedes and urges transformation. 

We know how to make machines and electronic devices that work. We know their parts are designed so they function in right relationship with each other toward a designed purpose. But social systems are composed of thinking parts, more properly “members,” of larger bodies. And each member has a unique perception of themselves and the whole—and their place within it. 

All system designs begin with a vision of the whole. In the United States of America, that vision has been articulated in the founding documents. In living systems—at all levels—it’s neither desirable nor possible to produce members that are identical. To function effectively according to the vision, attention has to be given to the members—all of them, so there are no weak links. 

This is accomplished in the first place by ensuring the health and well-being of all the members. And critically, each member needs to understand that they are an important and needed part of the system. It gives them perspective and purpose. Also, in order for a member to discover their place in the system, they need guidance and opportunity to discover and develop their unique potentials—what’s in their heart to be and do.

In this, the whole system—community, church, interest group, state, nation—has to draw upon the fully functioning members at the top of the social pyramid to support those at the bottom. At the same time, the smallest social system, the family, plays the critical and fundamental role of nurturing and developing children as healthy, unique and whole human beings. Bringing them into right functional relationship—where members support each other—is both a bottom-up and top-down enterprise. And what makes it all work at all levels is open, honest and respectful communication. 

Knowingly or not, all of us are embarked on a common journey in consciousness whose goal is our full awakening to unity with everyone and everything.

Anna Lemkow (Author)

To learn more about part-whole relationships I recommend a paper entitled How Parts Make Up Wholes by Scott Findlay and Paul Thagard. The science is excellent, complex when they deal with physical systems. Later on, however, they describe family and social systems.

I welcome your feedback at <smithdl@fuse.net>

My portfolio site: DavidLSmithPhotography.com

My Photography Monographs

XXI. Texture

Posted on by

Texture influences how we experience the world through the sense of touch—directly. The tactile sense is so acute and pervasive, images of texture are enough to elicit an experience vicariously. This makes it an important tool for communication and creative expression. When looked at up close or under a microscope, what makes an object textured is consistency in contrast between elements that rise above a surface—hair or fur growing out of the skin, loops rising out of a carpet, bark encompassing a tree trunk. As our fingers or sight moves across a surface we experience the peaks relative to the valleys. 

In looking at an object we reach out for it. With an invisible finger we move through the space around us, go out to the distinct places where things are found, touch them, catch them, scan their surfaces, trace their borders, explore their texture.

Rudolf Arnheim (Art theorist and perceptual psychologist)

When the contrast between surface peaks and valleys is low, the surface “feels” smooth. 

As the brightness difference between peaks and valleys increases, so does the texture. It becomes coarse.

Application

Photographically, coarse textures increase the “sensibility” of a subject by tapping into the memory of direct experiences. Think of the difference between a fluffy cat and a hairless cat. Across the board, texture matters! I’ve noticed that gardeners, in particular, are sensitive to texture as well as color. For instance, Linda’s English country garden is full of color, and one of her friend’s garden consists of almost no color, but with a variety of textured plants and trees. In between these extremes, I’ve heard gardeners on television talking about an integrated approach where color and texture blend to achieve a balanced experience. The same can be said of photographers. Having come from the “classical” black & white tradition, I’m always looking for and trying to enhance textures. Others are looking for rich and bold color. And then there are those who strike a balance between them by integrating color and texture in their single images and themed presentations.   

Technique

Regardless of the subject, because texture consists of differences between hills and valleys, it’s the direction of light that determines whether it is diminished or enhanced. 

Here, diffused sunlight coming from above minimizes the appearance of texture. So also does front-lighting, even if it’s not diffused. Also, the farther a subject is from the camera, the less noticeable is its texture.

This is a similar subject with identical texture as the above image, but the sunlight is now specular (undiffused) casting sharp shadows not only from the latches but also the hills and valleys in the wood. To maximize texture, position the subject or the main light at a 45º angle to the side. Side lighting “rakes” over the peaks, leaving the valleys in shadow. Also, the closer the camera to the subject, the more prominent the texture.

Contemplating Texture in Personal and Social Contexts

Physically and emotionally, texture plays an important role in our lives. When we need some emotional comforting or just need to relax, we turn to soft chairs, pillows and blankets, and children gravitate to stuffed animals. And we use texture to create the spaces where we live and work. Hard, textureless surfaces such as upholstery, furniture, wall coverings, flooring, plants, and lampshades convey a clean, executive, sharp-edged, masculine sensibility, while these same objects with textured surfaces or coverings contribute to a soft and warm, more comfortable and feminine atmosphere. A luxurious room tends to feature soft or “plush” textures. And while business offices can also be elegant, hard surfaces convey a sense of strength and durability.

There are no colors in the real world. There are no textures in the real world. There are no fragrances in the real world. There is no beauty. There is no ugliness. Nothing of the sort. Out there is a chaos of energy soup and energy fields. Literally. We take all that and somewhere inside ourselves we create a world. Somewhere inside ourselves, it all happens. The journey of our life.

Sir John Eccles (Noble Prize in physiology)

Stand back far enough and it becomes clear that there’s also a lifestyle correlation. The observation that the structure of any texture is characterized by its peaks and valleys, raises a question about the “texture” of our lives. Specifically, as a general pattern, where do we stand on the continuum between rugged and smooth, coarse and refined, excitation and equanimity? 

Of course, there is no good or bad, better or worse assessment. And it changes from time to time throughout our lives. But I found it useful to consider my former self at various junctures relative to where I am today. You’d have to tie me down now to get me on a roller-coaster. And what was I thinking, standing at the top of a waterfall, three feet from a 200 ft. drop? For years now, I’ve noted how blessed I am with day-to-day “normal.” I’ve had “peaks” and “valleys” in every domain. Maybe that’s why I now, much prefer the middle path. 

Every time we invest attention in an idea, a written word, a spectacle; every time we purchase a product; every time we act on a belief; the texture of the future is changed… The world in which our children and their children will live is built, minute by minute, through the choices we endorse with our psychic energy.

Mihaly Csikszenthihalyi (Psychologist)

I welcome your feedback at <smithdl@fuse.net>

My portfolio site: DavidLSmithPhotography.com

My photo books: <www.blurb.com/search/site_search> Enter “David L. Smith” and “Bookstore” in “Search.”

 

XVIII. Simplicity / Complexity

Posted on by

The nature of this aesthetic dimension is expressed as a continuum, determined by the number of visual elements within the frame. A photograph of the moon against a black sky with no stars counts as one element. If the light of an airplane is visible, or if there are stars, each is another element. Changes in color, texture, or contrast are not considered elements. A complex image has many elements, a simple one few.

On the one extreme is simplicity where there are very few visual elements. 

On the other end of the continuum, there can be an uncountable number of elements.

Application

When constructing an image toward the accomplishment of an objective—

  • A complex image provides more information, a left brain appeal.
  • A simple image has a greater impact, which has right-brain appeal. 
Technique

When shooting candidly, on the fly, just be aware of how many elements are included in the frame. And have a sense of why you’re taking the picture. Is it to convey information? Or express a feeling? The wider the shot, the more elements. The closer-in you get—or zoom in—the fewer, and generally the greater impact. 

 

In a situation where elements are being placed, as they would be in a studio, a good approach for achieving simplicity is to position all the possible or desirable elements within the frame, then one at a time remove an element to see whether or not it’s really necessary relative to the communication objective. Keep removing elements until the “message,” the point of the image, is singular and powerful. One object in the frame with no visual modifiers is much more impactful than one where the viewer’s eye has to move from point-to-point to understand what the photographer is trying to say or express. The fewer the elements, the closer one comes to the expression of a subject’s essence—reaching the place where, if any one part or element is removed, the subject would no longer identifiable for what it is.

Contemplating Simplicity/Complexity in Personal and Social Contexts

In psychology, the Law of Simplicity states that the whole of an object or situation is more important than its parts. In systems theory, the equivalent is “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.”  Walking in the forest we observe a tangle of individual trees, bushes, and weeds—chaos. Seen from above, however, perhaps from the vantage of a drone, it reveals itself as a whole entity—a forest, a unified ecosystem that’s more complex than any of its trees. A painting or photograph is more—carries more potential for meaning and emotion—than its elements lined up on a table. Consider further, the frames in a movie, the pixels on a computer image, and a person relative to the cells of the body. 

In the area of perception, gestalt (“worldview”) theorists observe that “We don’t just see the world, we actively interpret what we see, depending on what we’re expecting to see.” The French author Anais Nin said: “We do not see the world as it is; we see it as we are.” In other words, our personal realities are constructs, seamless and continuous attempts to observe or create order and harmony out of chaos—the particulars in life where everything appears to be separate and disconnected. Another tenant of gestalt psychology states that the mind is always seeking the simplest interpretation of experience and unifying it. Acknowledging our tendency to simplify, create order and unify is the principle of Occam’s razor: Simpler explanations of observations should be preferred to more complex ones. 

In terms of practical, everyday living, I’m reminded of Michelangelo’s famous strategy for sculpting the statue of David—in order to maximize order and meaning, chip away the chaos, everything that’s not essentially David. Taking this to heart personally, we can work at chipping away everything within and without that’s not authentically us.

The Law of Simplicity is a top-down way of considering reality. The emphasis is on the whole. Equally valid, just the other side of the reality “coin,” is the Complexity Theory which is bottom-up, placing the emphasis on the parts. Atoms unite to form molecules, which unite to form cells, which unite to form organs, and so on all the way to the universe. Big things have small beginnings. Beyond mechanical systems, the significance of living systems, besides exhibiting the greatest complexity, is that their parts—more properly referred to as “members”—self-organize and emerge in unpredictable ways. This is because each member has a “mind” of its own and makes its own decisions factoring in the environment and relationship to its neighbors. 

Groups of members constitute a kind of “community,” and they self-organize into larger scale structures. Societies arise from and are supported by their members. There can be no elite or administrative head at the top, without cohesion at the bottom. A nation, being composed of a myriad of thinking and deciding units, is a living system. As such, it’s the collective decisions of the members that determine the health, well-being, and growth of social systems, despite top-down influences. Humanity as a whole, has yet to learn from the example of Mahatma Gandhi and a handful of others, that the power to affect relatively rapid and peaceful change at the top resides in the coordinated action of everyday people—for instance, no one going to work or attending school—basically shutting down commerce—until the offensive element(s) at the top step down. They have to because systemically they are no longer in power. Of course, the great challenge is to create mass coherence when it requires personal sacrifice—“skin in the game.” 

Ilya Prigogine, a Nobel Prize laureate in physics, observed that complex systems tend to build pressures within the system—especially understandable in a system divided by strategic philosophies. An example is mass demonstrations. He goes on to say that when the pressure reaches a level which can no longer be contained, change occurs to release it. At the global level, wars are a prime example. The stock market crash of 2008 is a national example. And at the personal level, we’re experiencing the release of pressure in the form of active shooters, individuals whose worldview is so negative and self-defeating the only change they can envision is violence or self-destruction.

What can be done? Systems management that’s bottom-up—promoting the health and well- being of individuals. Everyone has “skin in the game.” It begins with loving and socially responsible parenting at home, including student-parent-teacher-community engagement in schools, and an education that prepares students for happy, well-adjusted and meaningful lives as well as careers. And critically important, home life and educational systems that promote higher values and high aspirations with an emphasis on moral-ethical attainment. The result of a strong and meaningful foundation will be adults well-equipped to learn and grow and face the challenges of the future in ways that fulfill their lives and build the earth for at least seven generations out.  The lesson is simplicity: have concern for the whole. The lesson of complexity: be the best we can be.

For a living system to survive and thrive, from bottom to top, each member needs to feel needed and valued, aware of their contribution to the whole. And they need access to the goods, services, and information necessary to grow, achieve and relate appropriately to other members of the system.

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.

Leonardo da Vinci

I welcome your comments at <smithdl@fuse.net>

My portfolio site: DavidLSmithPhotography.com

My photo books: <www.blurb.com/search/site_search> Enter “David L. Smith” and “Bookstore” in “Search.”

XVI. Shadows

Posted on by

Shadows are a part of most images, yet they’re generally not given much attention. They do, however, contribute greatly to the illusion of three dimensions and “normal” everyday reality by providing evidence of depth and contrast.

Used with awareness and purposefulness, they can be a valuable tool as an aesthetic dimension, even turn an ordinary subject into an image that “pops.”

Application

If the communication objective, the point of an image, is to document or convey information, it’s good to be aware of the shadows. Here, I wanted to enhance the sensibility of roundness, so I chose an angle that lengthened the shadows of the ladder and let them lead the eye into the graded shadow to the left. 

When the point of an image is to express a feeling for the subject, shadows can be manipulated so they enhance the positive features of a face or object, and hide less attractive features. It’s the Johnny Mercer song: “You gotta ac-centuate the positive, e-liminat the negative. And don’t mess with Mr. In Between.”

Technique

Shadows have four characteristics: intensity, sharpness, length, and directionality.

Relative Brightness Of Shadows

The relative brightness of a shadow depends on how much ambient or “fill” light there is in the situation. Indoors, professionals begin with three lights to create a flattering portrait. A “key” or main light, which is always the brightest, indicates the light’s quality (color), brightness, and direction. With only the key light turned on, it casts a shadow on the opposite side of the face, so a “fill” light is placed on that side to lighten the shadows. The fill light is either less bright than the key or placed at a greater distance from the subject. It’s the fill light—often just a reflector these days—that determines the relative brightness of the shadows. The third light is a backlight, placed high and behind the subject to create a barely noticeable rim of light around the head and shoulders to create separation from the background. This “3-point” lighting setup is an industry guideline, a way to establish a starting point upon which to build variations. Here, the key light is on the left side of my face and the fill light on the right, providing some detail in the shadows.

Shadow Sharpness — Notice the edges

The more “specular” the light source, the sharper the shadow it creates. A specular source often called a “point source,” is tiny and bright with little or no diffusion. It’s the sun at noon on a cloudless day, and it’s a bare 500-1000 watt quartz bulb with no diffusion.

As a light source becomes more diffused, the shadows spread out. Outside, clouds or anything else in the atmosphere diffuses the rays of the sun. Inside or in the studio, diffusion can be created by putting any translucent material in front of a light. High-end camera stores stock a wide variety of materials and equipment for diffusion. 

Shadow Length

The length of a shadow is determined by the angle of the light source to the subject matter. A high light source diminishes the length of the shadows it creates. Conversely, the lower the source, the longer the shadows. Here, the shadows were made to dominate by exposing the film to maintain some detail in the highlights. Doing that makes the shadows go dark to the point of nullifying the ambient light. In reality, because my eyes were adjusted to the situation the shadows were not as pronounced as they are here. 

Shadow Direction

Shadows always fall away from the light source. Regarding the direction they fall, the choice is either to ignore them or use them within a composition to a greater or lesser extent. Photographers and painters will use “cast shadows” to emphasize the size or shape of an object or person.

Contemplating Shadows in Personal and Social Contexts

An anonymous quote in my database says, “The shadow side is just the unconscious not yet enlightened.” If we could see our true nature illuminated, there would be no perception of the shadows side.  

Just as shadows are projections of darkness relative to a light source, so the light within can project shadows, dark areas we prefer not to let out or see. But like shadows cast from the sun or a lamp, like it or not, the dark areas in life keep us grounded in reality and provide a sense of depth and dimension. What do we tend to keep in the shadows? 

As a category, I think they’re the things that appear as discrepancies compared to an idealized perception of how life should be. We’d prefer not to see, hear, or experience poverty, suffering, or violence directly. Experiencing them vicariously in novels, movies, and television is quite enough. Psychiatrist Carl Jung, who had a deep interest in the shadow aspect of personality, said “our failure to recognize, acknowledge and deal with shadow elements is often the root of problems between individuals and within groups and organizations; it is also what fuels prejudice between minority groups or countries and can spark off anything between an interpersonal row and a major war.” 

His comment made me wonder: How best to react or respond to the “shadow elements” that we or others express in everyday living? For insight, I looked for quotes by religious leaders who dealt with them head-on.

Poverty — Jesus

  • Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness. Whoever loves his brother abides in the light, and in him, there is no cause for stumbling. But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.
  • If you pour yourself out for the hungry and satisfy the desire of the afflicted, then shall your light rise in the darkness and your gloom be as the noonday.
  • It is more blessed to give than to receive.
  • Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food. I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you welcomed me. I was naked and you gave me clothing. I was sick and you took care of me. I was in prison and you visited me.

Suffering — Buddha

  • Radiate boundless love towards the entire world — above, below, and across — unhindered, without ill will, without enmity. 
  • When watching after yourself, you watch after others. When watching after others, you watch after yourself.
  • Have compassion for all beings, rich and poor alike; each has their suffering. Some suffer too much, others too little.
  • As you travel through life, offer good wishes to each being you meet… May I hold myself in compassion. May I meet the suffering and ignorance of others with compassion.

Violence — Mahatma Gandhi

  • I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent. 
  • Violence is the weapon of the weak, non-violence that of the strong.
  • Once one assumes an attitude of intolerance, there is no knowing where it will take one. Intolerance, someone has said, is violence to the intellect and hatred is violence to the heart.
  • Conquer the heart of the enemy with truth and love, not by violence.

I welcome your feedback at <smithdl@fuse.net>

My portfolio site: DavidLSmithPhotography.com

My photo books: <www.blurb.com/search/site_search> Enter “David L. Smith” and “Bookstore” in “Search.”

 

XIII. Pattern

Posted on by

Patterns are pervasive. Visually, through repetition, they set up a rhythm that suggests order. We see them in the most fundamental energy fields within the atom, in the immensity of the cosmos, and the way we function, behave and spend our time. Machines, computers, and time itself reveal patterns in seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, etc. And patterns of thought bring order and consistency to everyday living, including the capacity to relate and create. Artists in every field look for patterns and incorporate them into their works, in part because they evidence and reflect universal patterns and evolution. 

Human-made patterns are evidence of our ability to repeat behaviors and create objects and images that are consistent, even identical, and organize them into coherence. They’re strongly associated with culture, for instance, in building materials, branded shopping carts, clothing and fabric made of Scottish plaid,  architecture as seen in Islamic geometry, and in values. 

In Patterns of Culture, anthropologist Ruth Benedict observed that “A culture, like an individual, is a more or less consistent pattern of thought and action.” Each culture, she said, chooses from “the great arc of human potentialities” a set of characteristics that become its leading personality traits, and constitute an “interdependent constellation of aesthetics and values” that make up its unique world view. Here, a conception of the ancient Maya world view is reflected in the motifs on this building.

Nature-made patterns reveal the underlying order of universal forces including gravity, magnetism, planetary and geologic movement, seasons, climate, wind and wave motion, and the electric force to name a few.

In some patterns, the order is regular, for instance in snowflakes, spider webs, and fish scales. 

In others, such as a tiger’s stripes, tree bark, and soil erosion, the pattern is irregular.  

Application

In a world where visual chaos is more evident than order, ordered patterns are stark. If the objective is to create an image that will grab the viewer’s attention, a highly ordered pattern would be appropriate. The downside is its asset actually, once the subject is identified and the pattern appreciated, the regularity can become monotonous and the viewer moves on. Above is a magnolia leaf. 

If on the other hand, the object is to create an image that will capture and hold the viewer’s attention longer, an irregular pattern is a good choice because the eye wants to explore the differences. Here, because there’s more to explore, the attention works a little harder to appreciate what’s going on.  

Technique

Patterns are relatively easy to find, especially in nature and where natural subjects such as flora and fauna are displayed—for instance, gardens and zoos. For years, one of my most productive locations for flowers has been greenhouses. The diffuse lighting is excellent. There’s no wind. There’s always a variety of plants. And unlike some conservatories, owners readily give permission to set up a tripod as long as it doesn’t block customers. The only downside to shooting in greenhouses is the limited growing season. Avove is a succulent plant.

Patterns are enhanced by eliminating any element that’s not part of them. More often, this means getting in close. In nature I plan my expeditions by searching locations—especially “ecosystems” on the internet, favoring places where patterns and other strong geometries are likely to be found. These include tide pools, sand dunes, forests, meadows, snow drifts, and water or wind-formed rock features. 

Contemplating Pattern in Personal and Social Contexts

Pattern recognition is critically important in making decisions and judgments, acquiring knowledge, advancing the sciences and expressing creativity. Writing in Psychology Today, psychologists Michele and Robert Root-Berstein found that “The drive to recognize and form patterns can be a spur to curiosity, discovery, and experimentation throughout life.” They cite M.C. Escher and Leonardo da Vinci as artists who purposefully looked for patterns in wood grain, stone walls, stains, and clouds—to use in their works and to stimulate thinking beyond convention. Wanting to understand how Nature creates, they and other great artists looked for patterns. Any living thing that repeats a form, behavior, or process, has found a way to survive. 

Psychologist, Jamie Hale adds a caution noting that “the tendency to see patterns in everything can lead to seeing things that don’t exist.” His examples of pattern recognition gone awry include “hearing messages when playing records backward, seeing faces on Mars, seeing the Virgin Mary on a piece of toast, superstitious beliefs of all types, and conspiracy theories.” I’d add to this the turning of a blind eye to the increasing patterns of climate change. Once in a while it’s good to look at our most repetitious behavioral patterns, the things we do almost every day and ask if they’re producing positive results for ourselves, others, society, and the planet. To get a different result, the challenge is to adopt a different pattern—habit. A recent little example of my own has been to reduce my use of plastics by not asking for an iced tea to go in restaurants if it comes in a plastic cup. Waiters respect this, even strike up a conversation about it. Now I make my own tea and keep it in mason jars. 

On the social side, Tony Zampella, a sociologist, and leadership coach provides examples of exploitation in several area citing them a destructive social and environmental patterns.  

In Labor—exploiting child labor, overworking employees without benefits or overtime, underpaying women in the workforce, forced prostitution or human trafficking.

In Production—flouting regulations or cutting corners to maximize shareholder value or profits, (think Ford Pinto, the GM switch recalls, the recent Wells Fargo scandal).

In Public policy— exploiting fears to benefit an industry or voting block (think the congressional ban on gun violence research, willful ignorance of tobacco’s link to cancer, and denial of climate change).

In Resources— ravaging the planet for political or monetary gain (consider the current fracking debacle, or the Exxon Valdez, or the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill).

As the behavior patterns of these and other cultural, commercial, and political systems break down, they are affecting a change in the way we think about ourselves in relation to the earth. As a consequence, we’re increasingly needing to rethink the workability and philosophy of materialism—that the world is made up of dead atoms, that human consciousness emerged as a development of complex brains, that the resources of the planet are ours to subdue, that securing property, goods, wealth, and varieties of experience are the road to happiness and that the purpose of religion is to gain a reward in an afterlife or beneficial rebirth. This, the “domination paradigm,” has been and continues to have dramatic and catastrophic consequences for the environment, the quality of life for humans and animals, and the ecosystems that sustain all life. 

Atmospheric scientist, Michael Mann, writing about the jet stream as The Weather Amplifier (Scientific American March 2019), says “The safest and most cost-effective path forward is to immediately curtail fossil fuel burning and other human activities that elevate greenhouse gas concentrations.” 

According to philosopher and social scientist Beatrice Bruteau, our best hope lies in the emerging paradigm, what she refers to in Eucharistic Ecology and Ecological Spirituality as the “communion paradigm,” the perception that the earth does not belong to us, that we belong to it, and that all things and people are interconnected in the web of life. (I encourage you to download and read Beatrice’s exceptional and brief article. It’s very inspirational!) 

In The Universe Story: From the Primordial Flaring Forth to the Ecozoic Era–A Celebration of the Unfolding of the Cosmos, eco-theologian Thomas Berry and cosmologist Brian Swimme show how the old sectarian story about how the world came to be and where we fit in, is not only dysfunctional but toxic to living systems. Importantly, Dr. Berry distinguishes the “environmental” movement from the “ecological” movement, the former attempting to be a respectful adjustment of the earth to the needs of human beings, whereas the latter is an adjustment of human beings to the needs of the planet. It’s why I’m always looking for leaders whose concern is “ecosystems” rather than “the environment.” According to Berry and Swimme, the basic tenants of ecosystems are differentiation, which is the foundation of resilience (creating and celebrating variety in all things including people), subjectivity (preserving the inner aspects of life, the “vast mythic, visionary, symbolic world with all its numinous qualities”), and communion (the co-creative, mutually beneficial interrelatedness “that enables life to emerge into being.”) These three elements are fundamental patterns in the evolution of living systems.

Of course, a change in perception is not enough. It must be matched with commensurate action by individuals and governments, religions, educational institutions, and corporations—as Michael Mann urges, getting off fossil fuels. Thomas Berry is even more adamant: “All human institutions, professions, programs, and activities must now be judged by the extent to which they inhibit, ignore, or foster a human and Earth relationship.” 

So what can we do as individuals? We can develop a pattern, a regular practice, habits of recycling, minimizing our carbon and consumption footprints, support local and other initiatives in safeguarding or restoring ecosystems, educate ourselves and speak about ecology with family and friends—in person and through social media—and affect even broader influence by consistently voting for would-be leaders who are knowledgeable about ecology and make climate change a top priority. It deserves that status because the survival and vitality of everything else, without exception, depends on humanity getting into patterns of right relationship with the planet, the biosphere, and other people.  

For further reading on what we can do, I recommend Active Hope: How to Face the Mess We’re in without Going Crazy by Joanna Macy and Chris Johnstone (4.3 stars / 66 reviews on Amazon).  

The human might better think of itself as a mode of being of the Earth rather than simply as a separate being on the Earth.

Thomas Berry

I welcome your feedback at <smithdl@fuse.net>

My portfolio site: DavidLSmithPhotography.com

My photo books: <www.blurb.com/search/site_search> Enter “David L. Smith” and “Bookstore” in “Search.”