Richardson's "World Systems and World Views"

This file was hard to read as it was sent. I took the liberty of retrieving
it and sending it again in this form. GK

>From David Richardson

richardsonofnc@msn.com

November 3, 1999


About World Systems and Worldviews


I first quote Christopher Chase-Dunn's October 28 email �
reply to a student's question, "What is world systems theory in �
brief":

"There is a perspective that focuses on the whole system of �
important interactions: (trade, investments, warfare, and al
liances, communications, cultural contacts, and differences) �
including local, regional and inter-regional.  This is a differ
ent emphasis from approaches that see societies as substantially �
independent systems of interaction ... one important structural �
patter is the core/periphery hierarchy, a feature of the whole �
system.  This does not require that everything is determined by �
whole-system features or processes."


"substantially independent systems of interaction"  I select �
this phrase because it evidently applies to the Spengler, Toyn
bee, Melko models of civilization.  I find that my analyses of �
civilizational worldviews are essays on diffusion processes �
between civilizations.  My insight comes from the outstanding �
work in world systems since 1975, building on Braudel's histori
ography.  It becomes clear in Chase-Dunn, Wilkinson and other �
authors' books that diffusion of techniques and attitudes from �
one region to another was much greater than earlier historians �
realized.  My study of inter-cultural influences, say, between �
China and Japan, or China and India, looks constantly to the �
inter-cultural borrowings.


"Substantially independent systems of interaction:"  This �
pejorative phrase did not occur to me before I read Chase-Dunn's �
recent letter.  After learning about world systems analysis, I �
now realize that civilizations' worldviews are dependent on each �
other.  This contradicts Spengler, Toynbee, and Melko.


Chase-Dunn, to my knowledge, has not described world-sys
tems-constituting relationships beyond what he calls "Information �
Exchange Networks" ("IN).  The next step is, presumably, "Cultur
al Exchange Networks, which at best can be inexactly rationalized �
in world systems analysis; but much of which is unreducible to �
rational expression."  This quotation would be Chase-Dunn's.


I shall call these "Exformational Exchange Networks" [ EX].

I borrow the term "exformational" from Tor Norretranders' *The �
User Illusion: Cutting Consciousness down to Size* (Viking, NY, �
1968; first publ. in Denmark, 1991).  I now refer to the cerebral �
location of worldviews.  A citizen of high culture contains his �
worldview within his brain; that is, within his brain's myriad �
synapses and relations: of which billions exist.  "Here," Norre
tranders would say, "is the Exformation."
Norretranders documents his study, using Francis Crick's �
essays and those of others, to establish the differences.  I was �
attracted to his book because he shows why "Exformation" should �
be taken seriously.  He does so in many ways.  His discussions of �
(1) the experience of the "sublime,"  (2) the feeling of emo
tions, and (3) the automatic protection of consciousness from �
being overwhelmed by "Exformation" are a few of many in this big �
book.


I like the book because it is thoroughly materialistic; the �
empirical method bases conclusions on material events.

Tor Norretranders, however, omits two materials that interest me.  �
1.  He does not use Jung's (psychological) types of subliminal �
intuition.  (These are: subliminal emotions/judgments, subliminal �
sensations, and subliminal processes of logical or empirical �
reasoning.)  2.  Secondly, he is not interested in civilizational �
worldviews.


The following may give you an idea of Norretranders' line of �
thought:   "AT & T engineer John Pierce was shocked in the early �
1960s when he realized that the capacity of the human conscious
ness was as low as fifty bits a second at most.  As he asked, why �
bother, then to transmit TV at millions of bits a second?  an
swer, of course, is that it is not only the consciousness that �
watches television.  The consciousness does not perceive very �
much of what happens in a TV movie. Nor can it, for the bandwidth �
[of consciousness] is far too low." (p.304)


I refer you to the book if you know something of my world
view theory.  Chances are, if you find me lacking, my "fault" �
lies in saying that subliminal intuitions are the very substance �
of worldviews.  Well, they are.  And, you or I can discover much �
of the present-day Western or Global worldview by analyzing �
selected unconscious intuitions.  Gothic architecture that so �
bored the average medieval person and the international architec
ture that equally bores many intelligent modern persons.  Both

architectures generously express quite understandable symbols: �
symbolic import.  And these symbolic generalizations relate to �
the most mundane truths, emotions, and values.  I suggest that �
symbolic import sinks into the typical (medieval or modern) �
citizen's mind through repeated daily encounters.  Gothic mechan
ics relates logically to medieval canon and to Bach's fugal forms �
of canon.  Note that those relationships very likely occur only  �
*subliminally* in many minds.  Frank Lloyd Wright's horizontal �
line in his buildings, "the line of human tenure," says Wright, �
is equally rich in (quite rational) symbolic import.  The trick �
is to discern the symbolic import.  This requires some knowledge �
of Japan's, China's, and the West's ideologies, customs, and at
titudes.  Not a few months' researches.


I will say, though, that discovering alien feelings and �
emotions cannot transform raw emotions into information.  A �
comparatist historian cannot much inform the reader of emotions �
and values he does not feel.  This is one way of saying that a
distant society's worldview does not, except minimally, affect �
our personal worldview through rational historical discourse.  �
Great American Abstract Expressionists did not study the meaning �
of Fauvist or Cubist works, or the ideology symbolized in Bud
dhist or Japanese abstractions, and then paint masterpieces.  I �
say, at the risk of oversimplification:  Japanese architectural �
and painterly abstraction conveyed feelings, emotions, and ideas �
*subliminally* to Mondrian, Kandinsky, Pollock, Kooning, and �
Rothko.

When I say "non-informational cultural exchange networks," I �
am excluding "informational" in *Chase-Dunn's* sense of the word; �
namely: "as rational *and* conscious."  Certainly, worldviews are �
present to the self-consciousness of reflective individuals.  �
Some can say much about our erstwhile "Western" worldview, and �
that of China, India, Ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Greece.  �
But our *conscious* emotions, values, sensations, reasonings, �
ideas, and sensations are all very limited.  *Subliminally*, we �
feel emotions, we reason or form ideas, we sense or imagine, and �
we intuit.  These processes immensely exceed our *conscious* emo
tions, feelings, ideas, sensations, and intuitions.  These pro
cesses, as Norretranders puts it, are "exformational."

Norretranders shows that an enormous amount of *subliminal* �
information, logical reasoning, emotions, feelings, judgments, �
sensations and intuitions *exclude* Chase-Dunn's definition of �
(conscious) "information."  Norretranders cites experiments with �
the brain cells  of cats.  Scientists can find twenty brain cells �
lined up, side by side, which, when fired, give the cat a con
scious sensation.  Simians and humans are too complicated for �
such an experiment.  The sensations in human beings, parallel to �
the feline process, are examples of what Norretranders calls �
"Exformation."  What of the huge amount of fleshly or neurologi
cal non-conscious experiences beneath a conscious act? Norretran
ders sums them up as "exformation."  We experience very small �
resulting conscious intuitions at any given moment.


Chase-Dunn excludes from world systems:  culture" as sub
stantially independent systems of interaction."  I also exclude �
from *worldviews* "independent systems of interaction."  I avoid �
them because creative persons instinctively build worldviews from �
external as well as internal influences.  Consider abstraction in �
art.  It came to America from Japan.  It came to Japan from  �
India, via China.  Abstraction in art for members of the artworld �
especially appeals to the personal unconscious.  A caveat: you �
need to assemble plentiful evidence to understand Japan, India, �
and the West's worldviews and their interchanges.  Consider �
relativity theory.  Relativities are a central subliminal idea �
both of China and the twentieth century West.


I agree that a connoisseurs' *consciousness*, as well as his �
personal unconscious, reacts emotively, judgmentally, intuition
ally, rationally, or sensationally to abstract painting.  If my �
discussion is not self-evident, I may write unclearly.  Or it may �
be that a lot of research is required.  I don't have a published
book setting forth the research and reasonings thereon.  Unpub
lished books.


Chase-Dunn on world systems, "does not require that every
thing is determined by whole-system features or processes."  I �
admit that a worldview gives a civilization a "stylistic co
herence," to quote W. H. McNeill.  Do I require "whole system �
features or processes?"  Maybe.  But observe:  how many visitors �
at the famed Woodstock festival in the sixties would have rest �
contented with Stravinsky's orchestration or Perle's twelve-tone �
harmony?  Worldviews' aesthetic expressions, in civilized man
kind's present state, let's face it, are somewhat repugnant to a �
goodly number of well educated American citizens.  Who under
stands relativity theory, which is deeply expressive of our �
worldview?  It seems, therefore, that we are not collectively �
"determined by whole [cultural] system features or processes."  �
Standing firm with fellow sports competition enthusiasts does not �
separate an educated citizen from the society's worldview; but, �
as I see it, a culture's worldview is not an "whole system fea
ture" unchanged from one person to another.

I have been discussing the nature of what comes after infor
mation exchange networks (Chase-Dunn's "IN").  "Exformation" may �
be the wrong nomenclature, including in its reference: world
views.  But worldview probably belongs in the study of a world �
system.