More on Empathic Communication

From Robert Norton and David Brenders “Laws of Interaction” Table 11.1, p. 227, in Communication & Consequences, Erlbaum Associates, 1996:


“A person fills in premises in a way that makes sense to the self.” sounds like a Gadfly to me.

“A person accepts the validity of messages from the other.” sounds co-Relational to me.

“Past [exegetical] premises structure present understanding.” sounds Institutional to me.

“Idiosyncratic [maybe poly-synergetic is what was intended here?] understanding enhances the capacity to create an enthymematic [probably “empathic” is more accessible  to a wider audience] response.” could sound like a Negotiator’s resonance-evolving trend.

If that mutual mapping seems about right, then, following along with Norton and Brenders, the second half of this prime-octave regenerative structure toward co-evolutionary polycultural communication would fill out something like:

“Sufficiently similar connections allow pragmatic [positive-active resolving] consequences.” Noticing new (gadfly) potential resolutions.

“The strategic communicator uses what the self [ego-identity] idiosyncratically [poly-synergetically?] knows.” Investing in eisegetical risk-taking, correlationally  (co-relational) intended disclosure.

“The strategic communicator thrives on new information.” Positive Reiteration regeneratively trends toward newly incarnating (emergent institutional incorporating) evolutionary formation.

“The strategic communicator[s] [co]controls the enthymematic [co-empathic evolutionary] process.” Diastatic-emergent regenerative  eco-fusion, inclusive of full population diversity (co-negotiated, co-mentored) as a positive discernment value.


Norton & Brenders next go to a new level of successfully communicating in highly complex environments, difficult issues, my own additions in brackets: “IX. [Polypathic] Complexity     [CoArising] Complex knowledge facilitates enthymematic [empathic polyculturing] control [positive regenerational order, sequence, development, natural evolution, incarnation, grace, karma].

I believe that both the Santos-Lang (www.grinfree.com) and the Norton and Brenders evolutionary stage theories of regenerative discernment through collective deep-empathic learning would benefit by adding the word bicameral to the Laws of Interaction, because I believe the same stage-trends appear whether we are talking about an individual’s health/therapy discernment for their Interior Bicameral Landscape, or referencing a group or community’s regeneratively willed and intended discernment for our co-created Exterior BiCameral Landscape; but that is an even more universal canvas of informational evolution and dialectical potentiality.






Dear Chris,

I could go into souls as mindbody identities with interdependently co-arising individuation, also known as living, and incarnation, but my gut says to go to your 4-soul prototype that has been useful in your work on creating more therapeutically inclusive safe spaces and frames for communication that hopes for positive outcomes, for regenerative effect.

A strong gadfly is what I would call a politically powerful Yang, and what Alan Watts might call a “Prickly”. A strong relationalist is what I would call an economically cooperative YinYin integrative, synergetic, communitarian flow function, and Watts would call “Goo”. There may be cross-functional analogies in the prime relational dynamics of Uracil as gadfly Universalist function, and Cytosine as relational-unitarian function; the root relationship for regenerative health, therapy, and genetically reiterative, unfolding development of an embryonic biosystem.

The secondary prime relationship between institutionals and negotiators (facilitators? integrationists? cooperativists? co-mentors?) may be our individual and collective story of life’s trajectory. Institutionals are Buckminster Fuller’s precessive stage of development toward institutional diastasis, balanced natural structure of relationships and values and order and sequence, rhythm and pattern. The precessive institutional is on pilgrimage toward building a healthy body, environment, corporation, some kind of noun, nomial, identity individuated from all other identities, yet also with co-arising and co-falling interdependence. Recessive negotiators are the harvesters, as precessive institutionalists are spring’s all-consuming growth toward summer’s full and rich community through healthy, effective communication. Negotiators are decomposers, co-analyzers, co-facilitators of healthy v. toxic relational balance. Those who will sustain a healthy interdependent balance across the ecosystem’s spacetime trajectory.

Gadfly institutionals, out of balance with relational-cooperative-mentorship, internally and/or externally, become elitist, overly-defensive, overly competitive. Co-relational mentors-negotiators, without sufficient opportunity and investment in struggling with (not against) gadfly institutionals, develop richly nutritious familial and kinship networks, but without the formed stamina of double-bind boundary articulation which gadflies-as-institution-growers bring to this 4-seated soul-table of regenerative elements. Adenine’s function may be that of articulating identity double-boundaries and mutually-defensive immunity between developing ecosystems, as Guanine is the harvesting glue that completes this four-part frame for a day, a year with four seasons, a healthy life with four seasons spanning birth toward healthy-nurturant regenesis.

When I speak of consent to change one’s values, I speak of informed consent to choose to “recalibrate” some habitual frame with the help of a facilitator who has demonstrated through her/his own experience and relationships the capacity to facilitate mindbody ecotherapy, which is dialectically inclusive and capable of co-discerning therapeutic value balance, tipping points, that avoid perpetuating pathological counterbalance. Although that would indeed seem to be a wise co-facilitator of diversity, valuing polycultural Win-Win process over monocultural-static Win-Lose suboptimizing decisions.

I enjoy your frame for co-creating regenerative polyculturally respectful, inclusive health. Not sure the language of genetics or Fuller’s geometrics of mindbody cooperative orientation v. competitive Lose-Lose disorientation, bring you anything that you need to continue this important work of grinfree, although, if you changed “negotiator” to “mentor” then your vocation might evolve as creating grimfree spaces, frames, and political-economic environments of cooperatively regenerative, sustainable health for the full rainbow umbrella of neural diversity.

Really enjoy your website. So impressive, beautifully done, accessible, wise, deep deductive/inductive, Left/Right balance, where Left tends to be our gadfly-cast egocenter of language, and Right continues to slow-grow our ecocenter of love as regenerative synergy, integrity of healthy/therapeutic/life-sharing values and norms, default settings, emergence of temporal/aptic co-gravitational Tipping Points–not too wild, not too domesticated.


Gerald OLiver


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