Comment by paulojreis | Hacker News Reader

Comment by paulojreis | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> It's worth it to try to understand what "interesting people" have thought -- it provides context for one's own thinking.

This is eventually the main reason why I mentioned Bateson's work in particular (besides the depth and orthogonality of his ideas).

I've read Watzlawick's work on interaction and pragmatics of communication before I've read Bateson's. I found Watzlawick's ideas easier to grasp (at least, I'm under that illusion), clearly presented with e.g. axioms. Then I read Bateson's work, and got this strange feeling of dwelling around the same underlying concepts, but without a clear understanding of his main argument.

I've read "Steps to an Ecology of Mind" quite a few times (I still re-read some chapters every once in a while) and always felt that a) I'm reading new material; and b) I'm not getting it all. Yet, I always get something new, and this is an extremely interesting insight on how my own perception changes over time.

Of course, this happens with other books and authors. Still, personally, I have a clear feeling that not to the same extent as it happens with Bateson's ideas. It's my own mirror, so to speak.

Well, Gregory missed some important ideas in that book (partly from his background I think, and partly from his personality). You might get some perspective from looking at his last book "Mind and Nature". And, in many ways, much more powerful looks at "mind" are Minsky's "Society of Mind" and "The Emotion Machine". There is also Kahneman's "Thinking: Fast and Slow" more recently ...

Would you have a place in your list for António Damásio's work on consciousness and, generally, the embodied mind?

I don't know whether I would include this book on the list for the Anderson Consulting people. It's worth reading for the context, perhaps not so much for the specific content.

I forgot to consider your list as aimed towards the Anderson Consulting people.

Having that audience in mind, wouldn't Manuel Castells' work (mostly, the "The Information Age" trilogy) be a good reference? Probably a little too vast.

Interesting suggestion! I think it was around when I made the list but I hadn't read it yet.

I think it might be too long for the intended purpose (maybe a little too academic?). On the other hand Mumford also wrote a trilogy "Technics and Civilization" that I did hope they would read ...

And certainly the McLuhan books are more cryptic for most readers. On the other hand ...

Castells ideas are indeed presented in a very readable manner, most of the times complemented with figures and data. In my "academic" tradition (communication/media sciences meets IT, in continental Europe), Castells is essentially a mandatory reference (even more than McLuhan).

Thinking about it, from a practical perspective, I'd eventually suggest "The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, Business, and Society" instead of the trilogy. It should be more readable, definitely smaller, while still addressing most important concepts (for me, it was the spatial configuration in the information society: the space of flows).

A piggy-back on "Gutenberg Galaxy"? I just ordered it just for the heck of it -- I'll admit to a prejudice of "not high hopes" for this, but it's worth a look.

This prejudice is part of a larger one (which is partly a generalization) that it is rare when commentators -- whether philosophers of science or other -- come close to having a good view. Of course, so many in fields are also quite blind to what is going on. Still, most of the good commentaries I know on science are by scientists, and most of the good commentaries on computing are by computerists. And music ... etc.

After reading the trilogy, particularly the first book, I don't think "The Internet Galaxy" will add much. Even the following "big" one from Castells, "Mobile Communication and Society: A Global Perspective", won't add much from a conceptual standpoint (although an amusing read, I think).

My perspective on Castells is biased because it was essentially the backbone of my academic training. I had teachers telling us explicitly that Castells' notion of information society was the framework (in the Kuhnian sense) on which we'd build upon. Having that in mind, I see Castells as a sociologist and his work (sociological) as a view on a society defined by information flows (not exactly computing, although computing and telecommunications are key enablers). Still, he keeps technological determinism at bay by considering the impact of geography, territory, matter - the physical (tangible?) dimension.

What I like quite much about his work is exactly this aspect: he presents a vision of a society dominated by the intangible, while still dedicating rather extensive chapters on the geographical asymmetries of the world. This avoidance of technological determinism, the "information is key but place and physicality still matter a lot, as evidenced by real-world data" notion is why I see Castells as a great reference.

The Vital Question: Energy, Evolution, and the Origins of Complex Life by Nick Lane is not really about the mind, but it is about the things that lead up to the contemporary mind and is consistently fascinating, even for me who has no biology / biochemistry background. I learned about it from the Bill Gates blog: https://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/The-Vital-Question.

I don't want to ding this book, if only because the topic is well chosen and important. I was quite surprised that I didn't warm to it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com