Developing Sustainable Cycles in Farming

Developing sustainable cycles in farming is important. Although we have come a long way in terms of production capacity, this is not the same as developing a sustainable model. Capturing the principles of sustainability is of great value because it leans us toward a future that is not peppered with boom and bust cycles because we did not tend to our long game. Here is one such person, who may happen to have a crappy job, but is leading the charge for the future.

Biology Is Social All the Way to the Core

 

Social psychology studies social interactions, including their origins and their effects on the individual. It focuses on the relationship between the mental structures within the individual and the social structures which that individual encounters and interacts with, and how that shapes the individual and the wider social landscape. One of the keys to understanding this relationship dynamic is in looking at the multiple flows on influence back and forth that define the overall nature of the entire relationship system. This complex relational dance brings up the intersection of multiple influences from which our experience and behaviors emerge. This same principle is now beginning to be understood on a biological level as we see the influence of various organisms on each other over time can shape our experience, our individual developmental paths and our evolution. A long history of just such a relationship dynamic can be witnessed by examining certain gut microbes that are thought to have been around humans since before humans were humans. They currently play powerful roles in steering the early development of our intestines, in training our immune systems to negotiate the “shark” infested waters they will have to contend with over a lifetime, and possibly affecting our moods and behaviors, including social behaviors, in many other ways.

So tightly tied together is this biological social dance that there is now genetic evidence that certain bacteria split into distinct strains at about the same times as their hosts split into distinct species, demonstrating the influence of organisms on each other in the evolutionary development story.

From a certain perspective, what we think of as human is composed of a parliament of biological bodies that together form a relationship system that defines who and what we are as “individuals” through a vast and intertwined collection of interdependent influences, and what could be more social than that?

For a more refined glimpse at a segment of the social relationship between gut microbes and humans, click here. From the article:

“Some of the bacteria in our guts were passed down over millions of years, since before we were human, suggesting that evolution plays a larger role than previously known in people’s intestinal-microbe makeup… our gut microbes, which we could get from many sources in the environment, have actually been co-evolving inside us for such a long time…  scientists found genetic evidence that the bacteria split into distinct strains at about the same times as their hosts were splitting into distinct species… One… happened about 15.6 million years ago as the gorilla lineage diverged from the other hominids. The other… about 5.3 million years ago as the human lineage separated from the lineage leading to chimps and bonobos.

Again Read more on this at: http://phys.org/news/2016-07-bacteria-human-gut.html

Is our social behavior an Echo of Physics?

Tajfel's_Theory_of_Social_Identity

Every atom the functions as part of our biological system craves specific relationships with other atoms. There are systems that are geared to satisfy those hungers and other systems, like our immune system, that are geared to reject and expel any elements the “do not belong to the in-group” so to speak. It is this complex social dynamic between physical elements that forms and maintains our biological structure.

Like the relationship dynamic that happens on a micro scale, as a whole, our biological system has specific hungers that must be met as well. From a certain perspective, our own behavioral and social actions are, in essence, a reflection of that from which we are physically composed. This can be found clearly echoed in scientific disciplines such as sociology. The following is one example:

According to Social Identity Theory, comparison with an outgroup is the main engine by which positive ingroup distinctiveness is formed.

Experiments conducted by Henri Tajfel and others into the so-called Minimal Group Paradigm illustrate this point well.

In the experiments to see what the minimum was to establish an in-group, a number of assumptions, concepts, values or practices were accepted in order to better allow a view of the onset of human group formation and of the appearance of discriminatory behaviours toward out-group.

From the article:

“Intergroup behaviour was analyzed in a situation of “mere categorization” such as where people involved as subjects in this research were told that they were individually “overestimators” or “underestimators” of the number of dots in a display. It was found that even under very flimsy and apparently baseless assigned social categorisation into two distinct, and previously “unheard of” social categories, in-group favoritism and out-group derogation occurred in the distribution, by the research subjects, of “rewards for participation” in the study.”

This is more evidence that shows how hard wired we are to cling to a group and reject anything perceived as out-group.  For a more detailed look Click Here

Ant Colonies have Group-Level Personalities

Antz1

This glimpse at ant life may help give us some insight into human group dynamics. As it turns out, ants have group-level personalities as well. The same way human cultures are shaped by environmental circumstances that powerfully influence their characteristics, ants and other social creatures may be influenced by these same factors.

From the article: “Colonies of funnel ants show group personality, which affects their success at collecting food and competing with other colonies… Some colonies are full of adventurous risk-takers, whereas others are less aggressive about foraging for food and exploring the great outdoors… these group “personality types” are linked to food-collecting strategies, and they could alter our understanding of how social insects behave.

For the full article Click here:

What if relationship, rather than genetics is the dividing line between organisms?

0147-RelationshipNotGenetics

In the video below, Gershom Zajicek M.D speaks about certain viruses as necessary (obligate) symbionts; meaning we were once infected with a virus that is now in an inseparable relationship with us. The common idea is that viruses are infections, but he argues that they span the spectrum of relationships from destructive, to beneficial and in some cases, necessary for our survival.

Some of these vital viral strings, embedded in our genome provide services such as helping forge the relationship between the uterus and the early stage embryo, the formation of the placenta and so on. Because they offer adaptive advantage they have formed an obligate relationship over time and this is how they get to ride on the wave of relationships we currently call human. One example of the fruits of this relationship is the proto-oncogene which governs cell division. It helps our cells grow and divide in specific and limited ways to form and maintain such things as cells and tissues. In fact, when this process is broken we see cancer.

Among the things Dr. Zajicek proposes is that transposable elements (TEs) and Human Endogenous Retro Viruses (HERVs) are two names for the same phenomenon. Transposable elements are snippets of DNA coding that can communicate one cell to another, or across organisms or species, and changes the way an organism operates. This means they can actively modify biological functions during the lifetime of an organism. This method of evolution may need to be added to the currently understood mechanisms which include , descent, genetic variation, mutation, genetic drift, natural selection, and coevolution.

If HERV’s and TE’s are synonymous, this would have enormous implications not only to evolution, but to many other disciplines such as medicine, ecology and so on. TE’s, for instance, may be in some cases an immune response from one creature to defend against what it perceives to be a pathogen (from its perspective). We would receive this as a disease. There may be vectors, such as bacteria that mediate this process. If we look through this lens, we see the dynamic root of many of our own diseases in the way we relate in the context of the larger biological body of which we are part, and on which we depend for nourishment.

Of course, whether this vision is an ghost due to the lens or a clear image of what is really going on remains to be seen. If we expand the notion Dr. Zajicek proposes on to the larger biological relationship landscape, this would indicate there is an active dynamic and far less than random communication flow by way of meaningful structures, not only within species, but between them. It would mean that species may not be the level at which we should define organisms, but by relationship spanning from antagonistic to obligate. (Necessary). If we were to apply a ven diagram to the biological landscape, we would see many overlaps that violate what we have traditionally considered species. In other words, defining organisms by genetics alone may have blinded us to how the larger, more revealing biological relationship landscape works. 

While we have a long way to go to unravel this Gordian knot we call biology, if this proves true, it would explain quite a bit, have enormous predictive capacity, and if applied properly would have a huge impact on our understanding of evolution on many levels beyond the scope of Mendelian (inherited) genetics.

What is Important?

This video is a perspective on what’s important.

Here is a text of the narration:

What is important?

What is important? How would we measure it, and how would we know the measure was accurate? Although there are many possible ways, if we use a scale of things that have the most profound influence on our ability to realize our full potential, and use that to measure what we currently apply our energies to as a global culture; we can see the gap, the gap between what’s important, and what we do.

Somewhere in our not so distant past, on some day we couldn’t pinpoint because we weren’t watching, we crossed a critical threshold. We crossed the threshold where we no longer live in a world where people starve because we can’t feed them; we now live in a world where people starve because we don’t feed them. We have the skills and resources to make this a plentiful world, but we do not yet have the focus, nor the will – to do what’s important.

We have the capacity to cultivate a world brimming with potential – potential that can only be realized if we have each other’s backs. Instead we live in a world where, acting out of fear, we have to watch our backs – a world where we have to defend ourselves from ourselves. Maybe we don’t recognize this is the recipe for self made poverty – maybe we are suffering the echo of our collective traumatic past, where a veil of ignorance forced us to be at the mercy of a frightening and often cruel environment, and as a result, we learned to exploit each other, to dominate, or be dominated… This is a past we need to navigate away from if we’re going to cultivate our full potential. Until we do this, we will continue to rob ourselves of what’s important.

What’s important is you – the family, who shapes the lens through which the child understands reality by the way you treat them and each other. You forge their developing identity in the fires of the relationships you expose them to, and this defines whether that fire will refine them, or destroy them. You are the port from which the child launches, and you define what that child will be equipped with to navigate the wider social seas, and how they will influence those they touch – for the rest of their lives. You are what’s important.

What’s important is you – the teachers, who have the wheel that steers the future as you pass the torch of knowledge to the next generations. You’re not merely an installer of facts, but a primary cultivator of the tools that will determine whether we will capably face the challenges that lie before us, or sink under their weight. You have a powerful hand on the rudder that steers this Earthen ship of ours through sometimes troubled waters. Together with the family, you set the tone for the direction we will travel. You are what’s important.

What’s important is you – the friend, who doesn’t have to be asked, but actively seeks to offer your best. Your behavioral vocabulary doesn’t include apathy. You willingly act on behalf of your friends – ready to deliver a comforting word, a helping hand, or a stinging challenge depending on the need – your purpose remains constant – to serve each other. You have a powerful hand in the stability of this Earthen ship in which we all ride. And your aid through the storms, and companionship in fair weather, makes this journey we’re all on worthwhile. You are what’s important.

What’s important is you – the stranger, who may not be familiar with those in other ships that pass by, but know that they are full of kindred kinds – you who understand that it takes all of us, communicating through actions big and small, that we’re in this together, that we share the same waters – and that sharing what we have of value with each other is the reason for the abundance we have. You are the one that opens the door without being asked – you don’t hesitate to act to strengthen the larger community of life on which we all depend for breath because you know you are part of that same body. You are what’s important.

And what’s important is Earth – it is our common ground and our greatest teacher. On it we can stand together and flourish – or divided we can fall back into the soil which once generously gave us this opportunity for a plentiful life. Earth has given us what we need and taught us by writing its lessons into the fabric of who we are – like the need to strike a balance between give and take that’s written into our breath… and how all it asks in return is that we recognize that using that breath to cultivate fruitful relationships is what’s really important.

 

0003-What Is Important

The Coming Social Age

Luther Standing Bear

The Japanese have a word “kodokushi” that means “lonely death”. It refers to people who died so socially disconnected they got noticed as a result of unpaid bills or the stench of their decay. From a wider view, this kind of death is an expression of social stress on a cultural level. It is increasing in places like Japan, where an individual’s social identity has been strongly tied to what that person does – their status in an atmosphere of decreasing opportunity to fulfill roles of that nature. When jobs dry up in a culture that heavily associates social identity to roles such as work and status with nothing of merit to replace it, so does a person’s social life and identity.

This type of expression of social stress is also true in the context of cultures that use unspoken inferences to imply false paths to satisfaction like; monetary and or material success is the path to satisfied social standing. Or a celebrity culture,where popularity is equivocated with success and satisfaction. In these cases it sometimes leads to the opposite; isolation in the form of a prison of superficial relationships and a servile life of superficial show that looks enticing from afar, but is quietly alienating and unsatisfactory to those within its grips. The false illusion can ultimately craft a pluralistic ignorance engine in the culture where people are enchanted by the notion and spend their lives desperately chasing the empty dream – the missing piece of satisfaction that is never to be found in a social maze that is actually a prison disguised as a prize – with only the promise of fulfillment, but no actual satisfaction.

Expressions of stress due to cultural identity crises happen anywhere there is a false path to satisfaction, but also anywhere a former means of forming a social identity is shattered and a path for a new social identity is not clearly established. When disruptions to the social economy, and by extension our connections to each other, are stressed and or destroyed, we become displaced and exhibit stress responses. Various exhibitions of stress like kodokushi are the result in individuals or whole cultures displaced by changes in the environment for which we are ill equipped to adapt.

We have witnessed this identity problem in indigenous people’s throughout the world. Those that have been displaced by western civilization suffer in the wake of social economic stresses. The basis by which the people established their identity was destroyed, and with it, the people. Where the means to form a valuable identity in a social context is disrupted, and no clear alternative path to cultivate a solid socially valued identity is presented, much less cultivated, we see expressions of stress. These social malnourishment stresses are expressed in many forms, including kodokushi. Sometimes self destructive alienation and deterioration take the form of life ending addictions, crime, and other predatory acts such as abuse, or in the case of western technological societies; a sacrifice of quality intimate relationships for gadgets, entertainment and superficial social posturing, none of which are fitting staples of nutrition for our innate human social hungers. As a result, we elevate the most vacuous inconsequential banalities to the status of ultra importance and proceed to swarm on it as if it had real merit – a cycle of self perpetuating distractions that keep us from addressing the reality of our desperately unsatisfied state.

In the west, our fickle passion for a flurry of distracting gadgets and banalities increasingly consumes our time, but does not lead to fundamental satisfaction. As we have distanced ourselves from nature, we have distanced ourselves from ourselves, and this has led to many expressions of cultural stress. When displaced from satisfying forms of social nutrition, we become socially ravenous creatures, desperately consuming anything that remotely looks like food, including social junk food, and each other, for the sake of forging a social identity – even if that identity is an unsatisfying and self perpetuating farce.

On a larger cultural scale, these expressions of cultural stress are the pre quake tremors that precede a much larger tectonic shift laying at the threshold of our near future. One of the fundamental challenges we face as a global culture is how to establish a satisfying identity in the context of the fact that our material needs will be increasingly met through technology. As technology increasingly replaces the need for human participation in the traditional hunt-gather-perform aspects of human sociality, we face a social identity crisis of unprecedented proportions as a species. Our traditionally formed social identities were based on necessary roles which are now increasingly being displaced by automation. If we do not act preemptively to craft a a new social economy, we will face the backlash of stressed humans desperately trying to get their bearings in a world we longer understand.

As we are carried forward on the inevitable currents of time that move us toward the future, in order to succeed, we need to understand that we are primarily social creatures with material needs – not material creatures with social needs. It has always been so, although the social currency has been historically based on material, this is changing and we need to adapt, or suffer the consequences of maladaptation. Although we have historically conflated material needs with social ones out of necessity, as this base erodes we need to recast our understanding of ourselves. We need to focus in on what has always been the driver of human satisfaction all along, sociality. This is the common denominator, and of paramount importance to recognize to successfully move forward. With this in mind it is perhaps wise to recognize that we are entering the social age.

As technology increasingly fulfills our material needs, the stability of our future will need to be built on what we bring that is of social value, rather than what has been of material value. This requires some rewiring of our traditional perceptions of what is of value. We need to move from material mindset to a social one. It is not a mistake that the stone age, bronze age, iron age and the industrial age gave way to the information age. The move has been from material to non-material values. We must now recognize now that the common denominator that has always been social. The variable has been what fills our fundamental hierarchy of needs. Social is what we must now put at the forefront of our understanding of what is of value. Adding value in a social context is what we need to recognize, cultivate and strive for as humans in order to have our bearings in the social age – in order to adapt. Our attempt to fill our social needs with materials pays an ever diminishing return on our level of satisfaction. This is based on the law of supply and demand. The degree to which we make the transition to the social age economy effectively is the degree to which we harmonize with what has been at the foundation of our human nature all along – and that is social. Delivering products of constructive social value is heart the new economy.

 

Here is an article related to kodokushi http://nautil.us/blog/alienation-is-killing-americans-and-japanese

The Role of Trust In Relationships

The Role of Trust In Relationships:

This is a first attempt at an experiment with “visual music”; meaning the use of repetitious visuals, ideas and sounds that “rhyme” on multiple levels as a way to make communication more effective. Other than the narration, the respective visuals and sounds used in the montage are picked from around the net and belong to their respective parties. They were stitched into montage as an effort to share something worthwhile.

The greater the trust, the more fragile it is to acts of betrayal.

Text version of the narration in this video:

The Role of Trust In Relationships:

It is impossible to construct a completely accurate spectrum of trust for a number of reasons. Firstly; evaluating trust accurately does not lend itself to being pinpointed on a spectral line. Any real world relationships are part of a relational system that has a number of types of relationships going on at once. It is possible to have ambivalent, self reinforcing and self canceling factors working at once in a given relational climate. This can be further complicated by the fact that there are senders and receivers in any communication and a certain inefficiency in the transfer of information occurs within system. There is also the potential for a difference between the perception and the reality. Couple this with the fact that a confused climate is a fertile ground for misplaced trust, either toward too much, or too little, and we can see some of the difficulties in formulating a completely accurate model.

The bottom line is, trust is a complicated relational climate that would take quite a bit more effort to unpack with clarity than can be tackled in a brief outline of the spectrum of trust being targeted here. This outline attempts to propose a simple and useful lens for understanding trust in general, and how various levels of trust impact social relationship structures like personal relationships, families, organizations and so on.

There is no doubt trust plays a crucial role in relationships. If we examine the foundation of trust relationships in a social context, they range from a dominance based, forced compliance model at the low end of the spectrum – where people do things because they trust some consequence will happen or they are overwhelmed by force – to a shared identity, committed trust based model where activities are centered on actively filling each other’s needs and defending the integrity of the community – where the separate participants in the relationship form a singular body out of unified purpose. Social relationships that last and those that generate the most value in terms of emergent novel properties, are built on trust relationships at the higher end of this spectrum.

The currency of trust defines the nature of a relationship system. Antagonistic trusts, at the low end of spectrum, generate stress, demand higher energy toward fight or flight mechanisms, and are the source of instability which can lead to a cascade of failures in the integrity of the relationship body. Relationships at the higher end of the spectrum, toward a shared identity committed trust environment, generate a climate built on filling each other’s needs and the defense of the integrity of the system in the form of an immune system. A high trust environment does not have to apply energy toward suspicion, regulation, aggression and the antagonistic feedback that arises from aggression – all of which compromise the strength of integrity in a low trust environment. Each entity within a shared identity, committed trust environment is inclined to fill the needs of the community, as well as being open to receive the benefits from the community.

This model uses four levels of trust to present a picture of the lowest to the highest forms. They are as follows:

  • Forced Compliance Based Trust
  • Cost/Benefit Based Trust
  • Mutual Advantage Based Trust
  • Shared Identity Commitment Based Trust

Forced Compliance Based Trust: This is the lowest level of trust, built on the expectation that a credible threat of force is needed to motivate actions. Social structures are established “as if” the underlying expectation is that all social behaviors are motivated the same way physical behaviors are – i.e. that a sufficient force must be applied to motivate all actions. The idea runs on the premise that no behaviors are motivated out of a social commitment, only compliance built on sheer force or fear.

Forced compliance trust environments have a “physics” only view of reality. It is true that squinting our eyes and wishing a 25 kg rock will be lifted by virtue of wishful thinking is not an effective strategy. Something above 25 kg of force is needed to lift the rock. We can reasonably expect the law of gravity to be fairly and evenly enforced if we jump, swing a pendulum, etc., so acting according to these expectations in physical reality is reasonable. In social settings, a forced compliance based trust treats people as if they operate solely on the same principle as physical objects. The underlying assumption of the necessity for forced compliance is present, so social structures are set up to motivate by force (either real or perceived) in order to get things done.

For instance; punishment mechanisms might be used as a motivation to perform work. Throughout history, slave economies are built on this coercive model. Money can also serve as a form of forced compliance, when necessary resources are controlled (by force) and money is demanded as a means to gain access to those basic needs. Whenever people comply out of the expectation of negative consequence, then forced compliance based trust is at work.

In social terms, forced compliance structures woven into the fabric of social systems has the net effect of giving rise to linear hierarchical pecking orders. A social position spectrum emerges that ranges from top exploiter to bottom exploited, as well as all the gradients in between. Social structures built on forced compliance breed the need for increasing energy devoted to force because of a push-back effect from the bottom exploited class. The more elements of forced compliance present in a social system, the more forced compliance is needed to maintain the stability of that system. Eventually this expanding demand for energy devoted to compliance can consume the available energy needed to maintain the integrity of the social system, first to the point where it inhibits further growth and then to the threshold where it destabilizes the social structure. Cycles of revolution echo repeatedly in the feedback loop generated by a forced compliance atmosphere. This is where oppressor and oppressed repeatedly change roles over time.

The gravitation toward roles along the exploiter – exploited spectrum results from the influence of the unspoken communication that telegraphs through the forced compliance social structure. It communicates about the expected social roles in a society context coupled with how we humans have a tendency to behave according to perceived expectations. The Stanford Prison experiments are one example of how humans shape themselves according to expectations. This is where people off the street dressed as prisoner or guard began acting out their roles so heavily that the experiment had to be stopped. The fundamental structure a social system is built on has a powerful influence on shaping the behaviors that emerge from the structure.

Cost/Benefit Based Trust: This is a relationship dynamic based in projections and promises along with perhaps some facts such as reputation. It is a decision to engage in relationship based on a cost/benefit analysis, weighing the potential benefit of creating and sustaining the relationship against the projected cost. Generally, both parties are looking for some gain which the proposed partnership could yield, but deterrence, or force, is still a factor. If at any time if the cost is perceived as outweighing the benefit, the relationship is terminated. In this case, the party that perceives the harm must also be willing to follow through on severing ties, otherwise the relationship shifts from trust to abuse. Engaging in a optional business relationship is an example of Cost/Benefit trust. A partnership forged on mutual needs like the that found in danger situations, mountain climbing or certain critical business partnerships are based on cost/benefit trust. Depending on how the relationship progresses, cost/benefit trust relationships can be fertile soil for higher trust relationships to grow from.

Mutual Advantage Based Trust: This can emerge out of cost/benefit based trust once enough information from experience emerges. Predictability comes from a relationship over time. If this is perceived as an advantage, mutual advantage based trust emerges. Control in the form of threats of deterrence diminish as more authentic trust bond forms and strengthens. Less energy is applied to verification and more is applied to accelerating the potential that comes from sharing each other’s strengths. Mutual advantage based trust is the range within the spectrum of trust relationships where the relational emphasis can shift from compliance to commitment. All parties can begin to apply their full energies towards taking advantage of each others strengths. This is where the full potential of emergent value can arise. Emergent values are those where the outcome is more than the sum of its parts.

Shared Identity Commitment Based Trust: This happens when the relationship is fully committed – where both or (all) parties seek to understand and fully endorse one another – when each party willingly commits to act as an agent for the other’s interests in a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship. No one has to ask, no one has to threaten, no one has to hope or worry about the commitment, each party in the relationship inquires about the others needs and responds by actively seeking to meet them. The relationship is no longer based on threats or promises, it is based on a fully realized intimacy. The once separate parties become one body. If one part is hurt, the whole body feels the pain. There are no secrets in this climate. They are no longer necessary as a means of protection. Intimate trust has not dissolved the differences, but it has dissolved the boundaries between the parties, which now assume a common identity. In the case of personal relationships, co-habitation, communal sharing of properties and resources, and the like cultivate a strength through community. In the case of business, co-location, joint development of products and services, shared vision, values, goals and the like are all possible in this high trust climate. Compliance based behaviors and the need for policing, deterrence and the like disappear as full commitment defines the relationship climate.

In Summary:

The lowest form of trust is Forced Compliance Based Trust. Behaviors are motivated by the fear or expectation of punishment for non compliance. Next up is relationships based on Cost/Benefit Based Trust. These use a cost-benefit analysis with a deterrence (force) factor, where the relationship will break down if the benefit is not realized. Next is relationships based on Mutual Advantage Based Trust. These emerge from a Cost/Benefit Based Trust relationship once enough positive information from experience emerges. In a developing system the recognition of mutual advantage is where the relational emphasis shifts from compliance behaviors to commitment. All parties in the system begin to apply energies toward taking advantage of each others strengths, and the emergent strengths that occur as a result of the relationships also begin to develop. Finally; relationships based on Shared Identity Commitment Based Trust happen once the relationships are fully committed – where all parties act as agents for the other’s interests. When no one has to ask, and each party is actively interested in identifying and meeting the needs of the community.

Marshall McLuhan coined the phrase “The medium is the message” as a way of describing that the structure a medium is based on embeds itself in the messages that are able to be carried by that medium. A symbiotic relationship between the medium and what it is capable of communicating influences how the messages are perceived in the context of that medium. Social structures are mediums of communication. A forced compliance model, in social terms, breeds more conflict because it expects it. Suspicious minds breed suspicious activity so to speak. Conversely, high trust social models, that also attend appropriately to the necessities of defense, set the expectation for mutually nourishing community strengthening behaviors as the predominant form of behavior. The structure on which a social system is formed sets the tone for what kind of behaviors emerge from this system, and this is true across the entire spectrum of trusts.

What are your relationships based on? Do you think you have a realistic view of the trust you should place in yourself and others? Are you authentic? How does integrity play out in a relationship field where there are well skilled posers? What do you think we can do to effectively cultivate the climate of trust in which we live and on which our experience of life is founded? What impact do you think this would this have on our world?

The Interpretive Dance That Is Biology

Every atom that meaningfully participates in the composition of organized relationships that defines our body,s a common behavioral thread; they’re all hungry for specific kinds of relationships. These relationships are shaped by the context of the local community of atoms they are surrounded by and together they form the coherent harmony that is us. Oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus, and so on engage in specific relationships and the natural dance that forms in the wake of this relational hunger is the engine that drives raw nature to condense into our coherent form.

It’s no wonder we are hungry for specific relationships that, if not satisfied, leave us wanting for nourishment and expressing that hunger, sometimes ravenously and destructively. There is an eloquent message woven into the structure of our biology that communicates clearly that in order to realize our full potential, we need to live in the context of a nourishing community of relationships. The same principle of community on which the atoms from which we are composed is also true in grander scales. It is up to us to cultivate a nourishing relational climate that nourishes our full potential and that is founded on the community principle.

 

We are a Community of Cells

The future of medicine:

“What are we really?. Our bodies aren’t really self-contained machines – they’re more like ecosystems. The recent explosion of research into our body’s microbial universe will change 21c treatment of metabolic, immune and psycho-emotional disorders.  What’s more, it will cast a whole new perspective on our metaphors, cultural assumptions, and the very identity of “self”, as described in this talk by cultural anthropologist Miriam Lueck Avery.”