Conversation with Chris Santos-Lang

My internal conversation with you, Kramer, Bressan, and all our microbes, together, in brackets.

What “Letting People [and Places, including Earth] Be Themselves” Means

Chris Santos-Lang

In “Humans as Superorganisms: How Microbes, Viruses, Imprinted Genes, and Other Selfish [Mutually-Struggling] Entities Shape Our Behavior,” Peter Kramer and Paola Bressan present evidence that we are [nondual] “not unitary individuals,” but rather “collections of human and nonhuman [RNA/DNA-regeneratively syntaxed] elements that…in an incessant [cooperatively contentious] struggle [default as positive ‘with’ and sometimes ‘negative reverse-synaptic’ against], jointly define who we are.” The research they highlight challenges those of us who want to ‘let people be themselves’ to explain precisely what we mean by “themselves [and ourselves.” If people are [nondual] not unitary individuals, then what could “themselves [as ourselves]” refer to?

The notion that we are not unitary individuals is not new. [Plato didacted the interdependence of intrinsically social beings, and the neoplatonists went wild with that core holonic universal view.] Quantum physicists have pointed out that every atom of our bodies is entangled with the entire universe [inclusive of both Bohm’s Explicate Order and Implicate Order and Buckminster Fuller’s Convex-Positive-Special Case v. Concave-Double-Bilateral-Reverse-String-Temporal Metaphysical Interior Eco-Cooperative TransParent Function-more or less], biologists have pointed out that less than 2% of those atoms remain in us for over a year, and psychologists have pointed out that the mechanisms of our [positive] cognition typically extend beyond our brains to include scratchpads, musical instruments, calculators, and the Internet [and extend back through time toward the distant progenitive-as-regenerative origins of fractal-syntaxed RNA]. Kramer and ressan add merely that our [economic] values [as objectives] and [political] preferences [as subjective progenitors]–what we call our “soul”–is just as entangled with our environment as are our other aspects.

In my opinion, the most compelling branch of their argument is the one relating to microbes. Only about 10% of the various types of [RNA/DNA fueled] cells our bodies require to flourish are [DNA] human. The rest are [RNA-uracil-rooted] microbes. Although most of the microbe studies cited by Kramer and Bressan were conducted on mice, it seems clear that the decisions humans make–how we vote, whom we marry, whether we commit a crime–depend upon which microbes dominate our internal [autonomic] ecosystem at the time. Thus, we can lose our [perception of autonomous] identity–the person our friends know us to be may cease to [monopolistically] inhabit our [mind-]bodies–not just through a lobotomy, but also through some combination of antibiotics and probiotics which irreversibly [or reversibly? I wonder?] tip the balance of power among the microbes within us.

Such microbes might be called parasites of our [mutually parasitic] bodies, but they cannot be parasites of [with?] our selves, for they are an essential part of who we are. Kramer and Bressan would argue that our rights belong to our entire internal [and external] ecosystem[ic landscapes], including those microbes. Laws to protect you [and Earth] must therefore take the form of laws to protect an ecosystem, not necessarily protecting particular microbes, but protecting [mutually parasitic reverse-hierarchically structured, increasingly cooperative metasystemic, with bilateral (concave/convex) spacetime, co-prehensive] balance among them. This sets the stage for shocking reform of our legal system and conception of human [as nature’s spiritua/ergodic/ionic/cogravitational] rights [of freedom to cooperate balancing freedom from struggling-against competition of Other].

Perhaps the paradigm of “selfish-survivalist” genes has been unduly influenced by a culturally jaundiced interpretation of Darwinian evolutionary struggle. But the default setting on Darwinian evolution is positive-regenerative, which would suggest struggling with others to maintain co-gravitational balance, perhaps defining what I mean by eco-normic cooperation. Nature’s biological systems seem to struggle against mutually negative {lose, lose} eco-gravitational disbalancing choices, which might be paradigmed as competitive eco-politics. Struggling is normatively neutral; “selfish” is not, and assumes a monocultural level of competitive-default objectives that is not supported by the regenerative fact that cooperative polyculturally organic nature, life, exists at all.

Summary Notes, Dillenbeck:

Cooperative economic subjects lead toward competitive, politically-healthy, objectives of eco-consciousness.

Struggling with suboptimized relationships avoids over-attachment to a moderately-healthy Win-Lose poly-econormic status-quo.

Struggling against suboptimally dissonant-yet-static relationships avoids over-detachment from a perceived-as-toxically-competitive (over-heated/drama climate) status-quo.

For more from Chris Santos-Lang, visit http://www.grinfree.com


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s