I must admit that I have begun this book with some hesitation, or let me say it outright with skepticism. From references, right and left, I had already concluded that the thinking of Gregory Bateson was very difficult to grasp, that it tended to the ethereal and psychedelic that we associate so easily with the 1960s and 1970. But the assurance that Bateson was very close to the current of cybernetics, system thinking and complexity theory convinced me to give it a try. That current, after the Second World War, tried to offer an alternative, scientific approach to reality, besides the generally accepted, classic, reductionist-dualistic-Cartesian approach that has led to so many successes in the positive sciences and technology, but which also led to seemingly unbridgeable boundaries and problems.

Bateson's thinking is characterized by a continual groping, incessant shift between different domains of knowledge (from anthropology to biology, to psychiatry, philosophy, religion, etc.), a constant search for alternative ways of looking and acting. And for me personally that is quite difficult for someone who is formed by a rationalistic cartesian upbringing and in professional practice is also constantly focused on making distinctions, (preferably as black and white as possible), focusing on sharp (reductionist) essences.

An example: just try to deal with that basic insight of Bateson, which is to view the living world as an ultra-complex whole of mental processes, linked together at all possible levels: "The central concept of Gregory Bateson is his understanding of all the systems. of the living world as being mental in kind. Each system, claims Bateson, is a mind. Such systems vary from bacterial, genetic, or cellular, to the very large: a coral reef and its inhabitants, a forest ecosystem, the mind of a nation, or the whole process of biological evolution. All these systems are interrelated and connected to larger mental systems so that there is an ultimate interconnected connected whole, which is "the sacred." “

Of course, intuitively, I feel that this is not complete nonsense, and that this approach clarifies a lot of things that seem paradoxical in the classic, reductionist-dualistic way of thinking. But it is and remains quite a fundamentally, other way of looking at things, it demands a real ‘leap’ in your imagination of the world. And with that word ‘leap’ we jump (pun intended) straight into the delicate domain of the religious, as Bateson himself also indicated. For the sake of clarity: Bateson has never argued for a belief in a supernatural, transcendent God or divinity. But his thinking is permeated with the sacred nature of all that lives. And Bateson adds that this sacred nature is attainable through certain forms of aesthetics and spirituality, and especially by non-language actions (rituals and dances, for example).

Biographer Charlton extensively discusses this thinking and in particular the step-by-step evolution on which this thinking came about. But he also goes a step further, and that is logical because Bateson died in 1980, and in the meantime many others have continued his thinking and thought it through and through, especially in function of the developments that our world has experienced in the meantime. To mention the most striking of these problems: consumerism, global warming, the shrinking of biodiversity, overpopulation, etc. For all these thinkers (Fritjof Capra and James Lovelock are - not entirely coincidentally - the most prominent among them) those problems are caused just because of our one-sided dualistic-reductionistic thinking, and so to them Bateson is a real inspiration.

In a final chapter, Charlton extensively elaborates on the need for an action program to tackle those crucial problems, a program that links up with Bateson's basic ideas as much as possible. And in this part, my scepticism really was tested. Of course, Charlton connects with ecologism (Bateson did that himself), and that makes sense (I like to see myself also as an ecologist). And contrary to some others, the author advocates a very gentle, very spiritual form of ecologism (not a really anti-humanist fundamentalism, which I despise). Charlton focuses extensively on the Greenspirit movement, of which he himself is partaking and which is a form of ecological basic movement. This part of the book refers regularly to Bateson, but it essentially has the form of a propagandistic pamphlet. And that is of course the right of Charlton, certainly because he expresses it all so kind and mildly.

Personally, I remain stuck in my scepticisme. The ideas and views of Bateson are absolutely valuable and enticing, particularly because, as I have already pointed out, they give an answer to current global issues. And the ‘leap’ that Bateson asks, and in his trace author Charlton a lot more, can be very inspiring for many people and practically applicable, and I want to show all respect for that, but for me, it remains a bridge too far. Perhaps that's my bad? ( )