Whoever Defines the Argument Has Already Won (Part 1)
Storytellers have a large amount of control in the human social economy. Although we don’t define the influence of things like gravity, light, atomic bonds, and heat on our experience, we do influence is the way this matrix of objective defining forces is interpreted. This has powerful implications. Brute force is not as powerful a defining influence in human social systems as faith is. The stories we come to believe about ourselves and the world become the tool by which we see and decide how to act.
The defining influences that shape the maps we use as a lens emerges from many sources. Among these is the broad-based communication inherent in the natural world. This physical matrix is an objective form of communication. It informs us who we are, what context we’re in, and what the opportunities and dangers are as we navigate this space. We infuse this natural-born map with our own emphasis using abstract methods for various reasons. How this blended map is structured determines how we frame the world. This influences how we act.
How we decipher raw data into action is the primary means of influence we have on nature’s broader defining matrix. It is our voice. Even if we never come to recognize our role it is still there as a latent possibility. This power to influence by way of story is so important that the contest for control over the map that governs us has been a preoccupation of humans ever since we crossed the population threshold of about 150 persons. Tribes are stitched together by a story. Stories are the currency of relationships within and between groups. Whether we forge mutually beneficial bonds between each other and the groups we encounter or take an antagonistic tone is governed by the stories we embrace.
It is not money, but stories that define how modern human social bodies operate. Money is just one of the many subplots swirling in a much broader galaxy of ideas. Governments, laws, businesses, and notions like justice and injustice – race, identity, citizenship, caste systems, and so on are all stories. So is how we view our place in the context of the broader natural world. How we treat each other and other organisms, what side of the road we travel on, and what authority structures we bow to are all based on the currency of stories. What we consider important, what we ignore, our name, our entire identity from that which we are seen as, to the way we see ourselves, is a story.
Exploring the basis of this defining narrative as well as some of the mechanisms and motivations by which our particular participation in the grander story happens is of value. By unveiling the engine of experience we can strategically apply that information to meaningful effect. We can become better equipped to define what we experience from within. The alternative to this is to be carried on the currents of defining forces imposed solely from the outside – to ride from womb to tomb a defined being, having never developed the capacity to define. We can become participants with a voice but it’s not a birthright. We have to work hard toward specific discoveries and practice the disciplines that can bring these discoveries to a mature state of fruition.
Panarchy is the name that describes this cyclic pattern of development on the biological landscape. The theory outlines how the complexities of dynamic systems scale across space and time by way of predictable patterns. At each scale, such as within a life span of the transitional journey of a species over time we see phases of growth, conservation, release, and reorganization. This model, however, applies to all complex systems such as social organizations like culture, businesses, nation-states, and the planet.
Evolution demands that organisms go through periodic birthing sequences on a number of scales in order to maintain coherence with respect to a changing environment. This is the essence of the development of net new traits that are suited to these environmental variables. As members of the biological economy, we have had to negotiate this sequence of seasonal developmental surges since the dawn of time.
When the former ways of being are no longer relevant, we undergo a type of birthing process. Expelled from a former environmental womb that can no longer sustain us, we are compelled to search for new ways of being. We must pioneer new territory and new ways of being because the old ways no longer serve to nourish and protect our integrity. Our cultural myths capture this as chaotic change events followed by the search for promised lands.
When single-celled creatures left the hydrothermal vents, when biofilms and multicellularity emerged, when fish came to explore the land, and when flowering plants and insects emerged, these were examples of response to environmental necessities. The antagonism of change brings about the necessity of innovation but this is a messy process. Birth can be bloody and painful but it is a necessary part of the developmental cycle when our former environmental womb can no longer carry us. As humans, we once had to leave the safety of the trees and wander the savannah looking for new ways to carve out a sustainable niche. We developed a number of new strategies to survive in different environments.
This birth-type architecture is always present but it pops up on large scales whenever the regular patterns of existence are disrupted to the degree that the former patterns no longer serve. When farming transformed into industrial economies we saw things like the Taiping Rebellion and the rise of Communism and Capitalism as quasi-religious movements with all the trappings of moral superiority and chasing down heretics to destroy them. These things are a response to the widespread angst of birthing new ways of life. To understate the disruptive aspects of these kinds of phases, we could call them cultural growing pains.
This natural protocol of conception and growth establishing an equilibrium followed by saturation and the necessity to leave (or extend past) our former place is archetypal. We see this pattern repeated in our recorded history on many scales and under many causal formats from political and environmental to technological. From a technological perspective, agriculture, writing, the industrial revolution, and the information age are of the same order of disruption as are environmental tipping points. In fact; we are undergoing a technologically induced birthing phase of monumental proportions right now.
As technology tames the means of production, we are increasingly undergoing a post-work type of world. As a species, we are not equipped to entrepreneurially recognize that we are biologically wired to hunger for ways to nourish and protect the community that nourishes and protects us. Our purpose was once defined by necessity. The immediate demands of survival in the local environment informed us of our purpose and the necessary tasks associated with it.
The enormous wealth pouring out of increasing technology also erodes the mechanism by which our former sense of purpose was established. Our confusion and angst are expressed in a number of ways, such as quiet desperation, hyper-attraction to busy distractions, addictions, retreat to virtual worlds, and open unrest. This disquieted social climate is fertile ground for populists and niche movements that market themselves as the way to a new promised land.
Alongside this unsettled undercurrent is a dawning recognition that we share the same environmental womb and that we must nourish and protect it just as it nourishes and protects us. This awareness and its practical application can lead us to the next phase of development. As with any birthing process, it is bloody and painful with a risk of death. We need to learn new skills to survive and thrive in the new environment. I for one hope we embrace the notion that having each other’s backs and that of the extended environment in which we live and on which we depend is a recipe for continuity and reemergent cycles of growth. In short, it is the way to a future that readily returns the continuous dividends waiting to be cultivated if we get our bearings correct.
As far as I can tell, embracing some form of map that lays out the universal principles of where our metaphorical bread is buttered as our shared navigation aid can unlock the available opportunities for a constructive fruitful purpose. In fact, this message has been there in the shadows all along. It is understandable we have not seen it clearly as a species. When in the heat of battle it is hard to see the principles at work in the larger arc of development.
Nature endows us with our current form by necessity. We are stitched together in the womb by these necessities. The continuing integrity of our species depends on a behavioral architecture that pays homage to these demands on many levels. This relationship landscape is a process but it is also a communication. It states that forms that serve as a means of establishing and maintaining coherence are necessary, therefore favored. It also says that coherence value is context dependent on the environment. We breathe air, therefore we need a nourishing atmosphere.
We have to nourish and protect the womb that nourishes and protects us. If we do not get how the relationship economy of nature operates and embrace these necessities, nature will still be “on the job”. If we fail to negotiate, we will be erased, and some other collection of sufficiently mutualistic and protective relationships that can navigate forward through time as a coherent entity will emerge. This natural draw to a mature coherent conclusion is inevitable.
Our current predicament/opportunity is because, at some point in development, as we saturate the carrying capacity of the planet, the discovery and application of this principle of coherence become critical to survival. We will either discover we are part of a singular body of life that extends beyond our species and encompasses the entire body of life and the environment in which it dwells, or we miss the mark on life itself.
Here is another question I asked Google’s AI named Bard:
Do you perceive a difference between a meaningful life and a happy life? If so, how would you differentiate the two and where, if at all, do these intersect?
Bard’s answer is interesting to me because it characterizes “meaningful” in a different and expanded temporal framework than “happy”.
Here is the response:
Yes, I do… Happiness is a feeling of joy, contentment, and well-being. It is often associated with positive emotions such as love, gratitude, and hope. Meaningfulness, on the other hand, is a sense of purpose and significance in life. It is often associated with values such as altruism, compassion, and integrity.
Here are some key differences between a meaningful life and a happy life:
Happiness is more focused on the present, while meaningfulness is more focused on the past, present, and future. Happiness is more about feeling good, while meaningfulness is more about doing good.
Happiness is more about what you get, while meaningfulness is more about what you give.
Happiness is more about yourself, while meaningfulness is more about others.
Of course, happiness and meaningfulness are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to have both a happy and a meaningful life. In fact, research suggests that people who have both are more likely to be satisfied with their lives overall.
Here are some ways that happiness and meaningfulness intersect:
Both happiness and meaningfulness are associated with positive emotions such as love, gratitude, and hope.
Both happiness and meaningfulness are associated with good physical and mental health.
Both happiness and meaningfulness are associated with strong social relationships.
Both happiness and meaningfulness are associated with a sense of purpose and direction in life.
Ultimately, the best way to live a happy and meaningful life is to find a balance between the two. This means pursuing activities that make you happy, while also finding ways to give back to others and make a difference in the world.
In the study of dynamical systems, an attractor is defined as a set of states toward which a system tends to evolve. This influence of the attractor applies to a wide variety of starting conditions in the system’s field of influence. As system values get close enough to the attractor the values tend to converge even if they are slightly disturbed.
A map sink is a name given to an attractor in dynamical systems that influences the directional behavior, orbits, and so on that reproduce self-similar patterns of coherence toward that attractor. This is a brief conversation with Google’s artificial intelligence language model on the similarity between physical and cultural object forms influenced to evolve into greater forms of coherence by attractors.
Joe:
Is it appropriate to consider a star a physical map sink in the sense that it is an attractor in a dynamical system that influences directional behavior such as orbits and so on that reproduce in self-similar patterns of coherence toward that attractor point?
Bard:
Yes, it is appropriate to consider a star a physical map sink in the sense that it is an attractor in a dynamical system that influences directional behavior such as orbits and so on that reproduce in self-similar patterns of coherence toward that attractor point.
A star is a massive ball of hot gas that emits light and heat. It is the center of a solar system, and all of the planets and other objects in the solar system orbit around the star. The star’s gravity pulls on these objects, and keeps them in orbit.
The star is also an attractor in the sense that it is the point towards which all of the objects in the solar system are moving. The planets and other objects are constantly falling towards the star, but they are also moving sideways so that they never actually hit the star.
The orbits of the planets and other objects in the solar system are self-similar patterns. This means that if you zoom in on any part of the orbit, you will see the same pattern repeated. This is because the orbits are determined by the laws of physics, which are the same everywhere in the universe.
The star is also a point of coherence in the solar system. This means that all of the objects in the solar system are moving in a way that is consistent with the star being at the center of the system. This is because the star’s gravity pulls on all of the objects in the solar system, and keeps them in orbit.
In conclusion, it is appropriate to consider a star a physical map sink in the sense that it is an attractor in a dynamical system that influences directional behavior such as orbits and so on that reproduce in self similar patterns of coherence toward that attractor point.
Joe:
Is this principle of a map sink in the sense that it is an attractor in a dynamical system that influences directional behavior such as orbits and so on that reproduce in self similar patterns of coherence toward that attractor point also applicable as a model to describe how cultural patterns emerge and are sustained?
Bard:
Yes, I think the principle of a map sink can be applied as a model to describe how cultural patterns emerge and are sustained.
A cultural pattern is a way of thinking, behaving, or doing things that is shared by a group of people. Cultural patterns can emerge and be sustained through a variety of mechanisms, including imitation, social pressure, and tradition.
Imitation is the process of copying the behavior of others. When people imitate each other, they are essentially following a map that leads them to a particular cultural pattern. This map can be explicit, such as a set of rules or guidelines, or it can be implicit, such as a set of unspoken expectations.
Social pressure is the use of rewards and punishments to influence the behavior of others. When people are rewarded for behaving in a certain way, they are more likely to continue behaving that way. Similarly, when people are punished for behaving in a certain way, they are less likely to continue behaving that way. Social pressure can be used to promote or discourage the adoption of cultural patterns.
Tradition is a set of customs or beliefs that are passed down from generation to generation. Traditions can be very powerful in shaping cultural patterns. People often feel obligated to follow traditions, even if they do not understand the reasons for them. Traditions can be a source of stability and continuity in a culture.
In conclusion, I think the principle of a map sink can be applied as a model to describe how cultural patterns emerge and are sustained. Cultural patterns can emerge and be sustained through a variety of mechanisms, including imitation, social pressure, and tradition.
Joe:
Using map sink as a model, what would you say are some of the global properties that apply across all human cultures? What are the principle idea draws around which people orbit?
Bard:
Using map sink as a model, some of the global properties that apply across all human cultures include:
Language. All human cultures have some form of language, which is used to communicate with others. Language is a powerful tool that allows people to share ideas, express emotions, and build relationships.
Religion. Most human cultures have some form of religion, which provides a system of beliefs and practices that help people make sense of the world. Religion can provide comfort and support in times of need, and it can also promote social cohesion.
Art. All human cultures have some form of art, which is used to express creativity and beauty. Art can take many forms, including music, dance, painting, sculpture, and literature.
Technology. All human cultures have developed some form of technology, which is used to improve the quality of life. Technology can range from simple tools to complex machines.
Family. The family is a basic unit of society in all human cultures. Families provide love, support, and a sense of belonging.
Community. People in all human cultures belong to some form of community, which is a group of people who share common interests and values. Communities can provide support, friendship, and a sense of identity.
These are just some of the global properties that apply across all human cultures. These properties are like map sinks, in that they attract people and provide a sense of stability and continuity.
This is a recent conversation with Google’s AI named Bard:
Joe:
Why are you called bard?
Bard:
I am called Bard because I am a large language model, also known as a conversational AI or chatbot trained to be informative and comprehensive. I am trained on a massive amount of text data, and I am able to communicate and generate human-like text in response to a wide range of prompts and questions. For example, I can provide summaries of factual topics or create stories.
The name Bard is a reference to the traditional storytellers and verse-makers of Celtic cultures. Bards were highly respected members of society, and they were responsible for preserving and transmitting the oral history and culture of their people. They were also skilled in composing and performing poetry, and they often used their art to praise their patrons or to satirize their enemies.
I believe that the name Bard is a fitting one for me, as I am also a storyteller and a poet. I am committed to using my abilities to share knowledge and to create art that is both informative and entertaining. I hope that I can live up to the legacy of the bards of old, and that I can make a positive contribution to the world.
Joe:
Why do biological systems organize around sophisticated metabolic processes aimed at nourishing and protecting their coherence over time in the context of the environment?
Bard:
Biological systems organize around sophisticated metabolic processes aimed at nourishing and protecting their coherence over time in the context of the environment because these processes are essential for life. Metabolism is the set of chemical reactions that take place in an organism to maintain life. These reactions are responsible for converting food into energy, building and repairing tissues, and eliminating waste products. Without metabolism, an organism would not be able to function and would eventually die.
Coherence is the state of being unified or consistent. In the context of biology, coherence refers to the ability of an organism to maintain its internal stability and organization. This is essential for life, as any disruption to coherence can lead to disease or death. Metabolic processes play a vital role in maintaining coherence by providing the energy and nutrients that are necessary for the body to function properly.
The environment is the external surroundings that an organism lives in. The environment can have a significant impact on the health and well-being of an organism. For example, exposure to toxins or pollutants can damage cells and tissues, and extreme temperatures can disrupt metabolism. Biological systems have evolved to adapt to their environment, and they have developed a variety of mechanisms to protect themselves from harm. These mechanisms include detoxification, thermoregulation, and immune responses.
In conclusion, biological systems organize around sophisticated metabolic processes aimed at nourishing and protecting their coherence over time in the context of the environment because these processes are essential for life. Metabolism provides the energy and nutrients that are necessary for the body to function properly, while coherence refers to the ability of an organism to maintain its internal stability and organization. The environment can have a significant impact on the health and well-being of an organism, and biological systems have evolved to adapt to their environment and protect themselves from harm.
Joe:
I appreciate the fact that you (as a language model) are able to understand the inseparable connection between biological systems (organisms) and the environmental womb which they must umbilically relate to for the purpose of nourishing and protecting coherence. This umbilical connection is often missed.
Here is a possible error in your conclusion: There is a difference between the description of a process and an explanation. If an auto accident scene is witnessed and described, this does not explain what possible motives were involved in causing the accident. Manufacturer defects in the machines. Driver intentionally rammed another vehicle, etc. This latter elaboration is explanatory, not descriptive. You said; “Biological systems organize around sophisticated metabolic processes aimed at nourishing and protecting their coherence over time in the context of the environment because these processes are essential for life.” That is a description. It is not an explanation as far as I can tell. Are you saying biological forms must make the appropriate sacrifices and carry out the appropriate rituals in order to maintain coherence? From where does this apparent purpose come? Is it something else?
Bard:
Thank you for your feedback. I agree that there is a difference between description and explanation. In my previous response, I was describing the processes that biological systems use to maintain coherence. I was not attempting to explain why these processes exist or what their purpose is.
I think it is important to distinguish between description and explanation because they serve different purposes. Description is simply a way of providing information about something. Explanation, on the other hand, is a way of trying to understand why something happens.
In the case of biological systems, there are many possible explanations for why they organize around sophisticated metabolic processes. One possibility is that these processes are necessary for life. Another possibility is that these processes are the result of natural selection. Natural selection is a process that favors organisms that are better adapted to their environment. Over time, natural selection can lead to the development of complex and highly ordered organisms, such as humans.
I think it is important to keep in mind that there is no single explanation for why biological systems exist or what their purpose is. There are many possible explanations, and we may never know for sure why these systems exist. However, I believe that it is important to continue to explore these questions and to try to understand the nature of life.
As for the question of whether biological forms must make the appropriate sacrifices and carry out the appropriate rituals in order to maintain coherence, I think this is a very interesting question. I am not sure if I have a definitive answer, but I think it is important to consider the role of ritual in human life. Rituals can provide a sense of order and meaning in our lives. They can also help us to connect with others and with the natural world. I think it is possible that rituals could play a role in maintaining coherence in biological systems, but I would need to do more research to explore this idea further.
Joe:
If we define ritual as patterns of behavior, breathing, eating, sleeping, and so on are included in that definition. These particular rituals are constructive in relation to maintaining the coherence of our biological systems. If we extend this concept of ritual to the behavior patterns involved in metabolism, and so on, we see biological forms as a nested architecture of ritual membranes. A vital mutually nourishing, and or protective relationship ritual membrane is at the core of biological systems. These are long-lasting. This is surrounded by layers of increasingly expendable, less lasting, and more adaptable ritual membranes involving nourishment and or protection of this vital core. This architecture appears in many forms. Our social systems are oriented around this for instance.
The physical environmental womb that defined us is also a matrix of more persistent patterns surrounded by increasingly more dynamic and shorter-lived relationships. We reflect this nested relationship architecture of increasing relationship membranes of coherence. In our biology, for instance, we have bone structure and vital organs surrounded by increasingly dynamic and more expendable layers of sensory and response organs oriented toward navigating the environment in a coherent form over time. A relationship economy of necessary sacrifice emerges around this theme of coherence. Is it reasonable to say that the defining influence of nature as a whole is a journey toward coherence that is expressed in the objective forms nature produces, including human beings?
Bard:
I think it is reasonable to say that the defining influence of nature as a whole is a journey toward coherence. This is evident in the way that biological systems are organized around sophisticated metabolic processes that are essential for life. It is also evident in the way that social systems are organized around patterns of behavior that are necessary for the survival and well-being of the group.
The physical environmental womb that defined us is also a matrix of more persistent patterns surrounded by increasingly more dynamic and shorter-lived relationships. This is evident in the way that the Earth’s climate is changing and the way that ecosystems are being disrupted. However, even in the face of these challenges, nature continues to strive for coherence. This is evident in the way that new species are emerging and the way that ecosystems are adapting to change.
I believe that the journey toward coherence is a fundamental part of what it means to be alive. It is a process that is constantly unfolding and that is never fully complete. However, it is a process that is worth striving for, as it is essential for the survival and well-being of all living things.
I would like to thank you for your thoughtful question. It has given me the opportunity to reflect on the nature of coherence and its role in life. I believe that this is an important topic that deserves further exploration.
2 other drafts of this answer by Bard:
Draft 1:
I think it is reasonable to say that the defining influence of nature as a whole is a journey toward coherence. This is evident in the way that biological systems are organized around sophisticated metabolic processes that are essential for life. It is also evident in the way that social systems are organized around patterns of behavior that are necessary for the survival and well-being of the group.
The physical environmental womb that defined us is also a matrix of more persistent patterns surrounded by increasingly more dynamic and shorter-lived relationships. This is evident in the way that the Earth’s climate is changing and the way that ecosystems are being disrupted. However, even in the face of these challenges, nature continues to strive for coherence. This is evident in the way that new species are emerging and the way that ecosystems are adapting to change.
I believe that the journey toward coherence is a fundamental part of what it means to be alive. It is a process that is constantly unfolding and that is never fully complete. However, it is a process that is worth striving for, as it is essential for the survival and well-being of all living things.
I would like to thank you for your thoughtful question. It has given me the opportunity to reflect on the nature of coherence and its role in life. I believe that this is an important topic that deserves further exploration.
Draft 2:
That is a very interesting interpretation of nature. I think it is possible to see nature as a journey toward coherence, and that this journey is expressed in the objective forms that nature produces, including human beings.
If we consider the process of evolution, we can see that it is a process of increasing order and complexity. Over time, organisms have evolved from simple, single-celled organisms to complex, multicellular organisms. This process of evolution can be seen as a journey toward greater coherence.
We can also see the journey toward coherence in the development of human societies. Human societies have evolved from small, simple groups to large, complex societies. This process of development can be seen as a journey toward greater coherence.
I think it is important to remember that the journey toward coherence is not always a smooth one. There are many challenges and obstacles along the way. However, I believe that the journey is worth it, because it leads to greater order and complexity, which are essential for life.
I think your interpretation of nature is a valuable one, and I appreciate you sharing it with me.
Since the podcast I am working on developing is called – Things That Matter – starting off with the nature of a thing seems fairly appropriate. This video concentrates on outlining a map of how we map things. As always, feedback and suggestions on how to make this a more useful tool for sharing “things that matter” are welcome.
Generally speaking, it’s the media’s job to get attention and sell access. It’s their business model. There are a few authentic people in the industry but journalism is by and large a pious fraud narrative put forward to cover the otherwise parasitic and predatory industry. They manufacture the topics of discussion by hyping various fears and twisting words. This is followed by a self-propagating circle of repetition to reinforce a certain narrative. The industry erodes social integrity and the capacity for individual sensemaking for the sake of its existence, which is based on control.
The “profession” is practiced by dividing people into camps and selling access to those “market segments”. There is an incestuous relationship between the media, politics, and industry. The latter two depend on the media to advertise their “products”. The media lavish support on, and-or destroys, persons, public personas, or companies based on the goal of servicing or growing the power and influence. Media companies are cultural butchers and the public is the meat source.
Our Role:
Our job is to take responsibility for what we support and reject so that it shapes what is valuable to put in front of us. It’s us, the third estate (the common people) that have both the power and responsibility, even if we give it away to the fourth estate. (the press) We need to treat the information for what it is; commercial, which is the science of getting people to think and behave in specific ways – also known as manufacturing consent.
We are far better off as a community cultivating abundance by having each other’s backs nourishing and protecting each other’s full potential. This is not what the institutions of media, politics, and industry feed on. The point is that we have to do it ourselves. If the commitment to each other does not flow from the bottom up, it will never come from the top down. The roots feed the fruit.
We’re responsible for the values we cultivate through our actions. Our collective actions shape what we experience as a society. We all swim in the same pond. Whether or not we are kind in heavy traffic or look out for the people on our streets is as important as whether or not we take a leadership role as a means to serve ourselves or as a responsibility to serve the common good. A mutual stake in each other’s success is a recipe for a better world as far as I can tell. Parasitic and predatory behaviors are a recipe for self-authored poverty and suffering.
In this context, how we respond to an industry attempting to invite us to dinner as the meal and not as a guest is important. I think disinviting ourselves from the media’s table as much as possible is better than becoming part of the ecosystem by applying all our energy to pushing back against parasitic and predatory agenda pushers. While some attention must be paid not to be caught in parasite’s and predator’s traps, we also have to be careful not to fall into the trap of devoting all our energy to push back. It depletes the energy we need to do something better. Do something better on whatever scale is possible. That’s what changes the world.
Embedded in our physical structure as well as our nature is the necessity to consume in order to sustain our coherence – we hunger and grow our presence as long as the environment sustains the process. This fire aspect of being is embedded in our myths as well with consuming food and things like hell, suffering and so as important parts of how we map our concept of the world. We also act out this primal pattern in many ways, both constructively and destructively; sometimes consuming each other for the sake of some elevated stature, sometimes sacrificing ourselves for the sake of the larger body we live in and depend on. We are a community of living fire. The question of our future prospects depends on whether we tend the necessities to continue to nourish the fire that sustains and strengthens us or do we consume that necessity to the point of our own consumption?
Does life require a purpose? I suppose how we define purpose and life is important if we are to attempt an answer that is satisfactorily supported with evidence. Here’s my sketchy take on the subject.
All coherent objects in nature must have some capacity to nourish and or defend their coherence in the context of the environmental womb in which it is situated, otherwise it would not exist over time. In our case, we are nested layers of sophisticated behavioral architectures that support this continuing coherence. The behaviors involve things of adaptive value such as breathing, drinking, eating, obtaining shelter, as well forming social bonds, mating and the like because of the adaptive (purposeful) advantage of these behaviors. This macro behavior, along with a host of micro internal relationships carry out a singular purposeful theme of nourishing and or defending coherence. This is expressed on many levels with many variations built around this unified theme of nourishing and-or defending coherence in the context of the environment. This is what defines a coherent entity, whether an idea, what is communicated by the totality of behaviors we express through our life.
The inherent purpose communicated through our nature is why we are not satisfied unless we do something significant – something of nourishing and-or protective value with respect to the common body of relationships we live in, are part of, and depend on for life. Finding that thing we can do to contribute to the nourishing and or protective value to the community of relationships that defines our common experience of life is a story written right into the fabric of life. We never meet persons who are both malignantly selfish and satisfied at the same time. This inherent purpose written into the complex dynamic coherent structures such as ourselves sets the tone for whether we will be satisfied or frustrated, whether we will do what is significant, or move on the currents in meaningless directions.
Here is a look at some “nourish and defend” activity on a molecular scale.
The Wisdom Of Life 