“…there really is a second world. It exists because people refuse to believe it’s there.” (King 249)
“During the war I worked at the induction board in Detroit. One day, as I was going to the induction board, I saw a veteran who had returned with an artificial leg, looking at some glare ice and eyeing it suspiciously because he knew that he was likely to fall on glare ice.
‘That’s very smooth ice,’ I told him. ‘Stand where you are. I’ll come over and teach you how to walk on glare ice.’
He could see that I had a limp, so he knew I must be talking about what I knew. He watched me walk across that glare ice and asked, ‘How did you do it?’
I said ‘I won’t tell you, I’ll teach you. Now, you just keep your eyes totally shut.’ And I turned him around, and walked him back and forth on the ice-free sidewalk. I kept walking him back and forth over longer distances and then shorter and shorter distances until finally I noticed his utter confusion. Finally, I got him clear across to the other side of that glare ice.
I said, ‘Open your eyes.’
He said, ‘Where is that glare ice?’
I said, ‘It’s behind you.’
He said, ‘How did I get over here?’
I said, ‘Now you can understand. You walked as if the cement was bare. When you try to walk on ice the usual tendency is to tense your muscles, preparing for a fall. You get a mental set. And you slip that way.
‘If you put the weight of your legs down straight, the way you would on dry cement, you wouldn’t slip. The slide comes because you don’t put down your full weight and because you tense yourself.’
It took me a long time to find that out. Did you ever walk upstairs one step too many? What an awful jolt it is! Walk downstairs one too many – you can break your leg. And yet you are totally unaware of that set.”
(Erickson 110-111)
1.
Consensus among members of a group makes communication and cohesive action possible. It’s necessary to have some shared understanding among a community, or it ceases to be one. Just as individuals have habits, groups have formulaic patterns of behavior, rhythms of social life reliant on mutual understanding and predictability. Events and ideas not incorporated into a shared narrative tend to be forgotten.
Narratives are hypothetical; limited information linked by causal inferences. The most practical and emotionally compelling stories circulate, and through repetition grow more firmly established. (Subsequently, telling the stories signals membership in a community). Consensus narratives are incomplete, often inaccurate; and also, such narratives are foundational to group function.
With any complex system, change in one element can alter the entire system, and outcomes may be difficult or impossible to predict. Ideas that contradict consensus narratives can divide, disassociate a collective, and may be destructive, even if true.
Secure communities with mutual trust can risk reevaluating and adapting when new information challenges foundational assumptions. Shared values and goals are especially important for groups when their stories seem in doubt. Insecure groups and institutions are rigid, self-protective; people censor themselves, avoid, and discourage novelty. Defensiveness may increase in response to dynamic circumstances. This reflex can keep a group united but prevent recalibration when it’s most needed. The unifying bond is rote tradition, not shared meaning.
2.
There’s inhibition of interest and communication about topics of utmost relevance, including disease, biodiversity, and the nature of consciousness. The collective response to this impaired function will shape intellectual and spiritual progress.
Prevalent use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) by academia, industry and government leads to compartmentalization of knowledge (comparable to “catch-and-kill” practices in media). The training of multiple professions is incomplete because information is excluded from educational programs. Not knowing what they don’t know, professionals perpetuate inaccuracies and omissions in their field. There are positive, pro-social reasons for NDAs; they’re important business strategies, protect intellectual property, and are relevant to matters of collective wellbeing, such as national security. Also, these practices prohibit public discussion by those with expertise.
Some people are threatened by these topics. For some, a stance of grievance and paranoia has generalized into a worldview, closing them off to novel information. Some avoid potentially controversial or upsetting topics (e.g. “no bad news”). Some are fatigued by a flood of information which rarely informs deeper meaning. People feeling powerless to influence the future perceive little benefit in effortful thought. Learned helplessness takes many forms.
Even provocative research that reaches a large audience tends to flare then fade from awareness. In the absence of thought leaders to offer context and theory, and public discussion to explore meaning, new information floats in a liminal state, half-known. Unless it is immediately relevant through some anomalous personal experience, or breaks through to collective awareness, it might as well be fiction.
3.
“It is highly likely that mutualistic organisms communicate with each other via small regulatory RNAs to modify gene expression patterns of the involved parties to facilitate establishment of symbiotic associations. This is a fascinating avenue of research to follow, as there is currently nothing known in this area.” (Asgari 253-276)
Humans are individuals, and also, holobionts: composites of multiple varieties of cells, organelles, and communities of microbes in symbiotic collaboration. Both singular entity and ecosystem (akin to coral reef). The genetic information of the host and all its microbial associates compose a hologenome. (Theis et al. 2)
The cellular, molecular, atomic composition of living organisms is constantly changing. Numerous cues affect expression of genetic code; some parts of the story are emphasized, others go in parentheses and footnotes. Within the genetic material of an organism can exist the necessary code for other organisms. Withing one organism, whole communities of other organisms grow, reproduce, die, and evolve, with host and microbial genomes mutually influential. The story gets reworked, reinvented across time and adaptive pressures. (Collens et al. 1) Any organism at any moment is one frame in a kaleidoscopic, morphing manifestation of many latent possibilities.
Animals, plants and other lifeforms respond to stress by changing shape, function, secreting toxins; the same phenomena occur within holobionts. Aggravated cells from one organ attack other parts of the body. Conflict flares between factions of microbiome. Disruption of symbiotic balance induces stress on cells and microbial communities, resulting in inflammation, cancers, and pain as the system responds, seeking symbiotic homeostasis. (Simon et al. 3-4)
“During their lifetime, superorganisms, like unitary organisms, undergo transformations that change the machinery of their collective behavior . . . Superorganisms attempting to maintain homeostasis . . . function as phylogenetically diverse ecosystems, mirroring the species-rich association between multicellular organisms and their microbiome. In the same way that interactions between microbial organisms and their multicellular hosts may be either mutually beneficial or antagonistic, army ant colonies constantly interact with a wide diversity of species, from microbes to birds, and these relationships range from commensal invertebrates feeding on colony waste, to symbiotic beetles that travel with the colony, to parasitic antbirds.” (Muratore et al. 1)
We, individuals and communities, are parts of larger ecological systems that constantly adapt to shifting internal and external pressure. As homeostasis in ecosystems oscillates there may be refugees looking for new symbiotic collaborators. Superorganisms are self-similar to the smaller systems of which they are composed, a fractal-like pattern, repeating at different scales. These insights inspire questions. (e.g. If human consciousness is a phenomenon of symbiotic collaboration, an organizing property, does sentience inhere in systems at other scales?)
4.
“…[Scientific] Experiment…consists in asking a definite question which excludes as far as possible anything disturbing and irrelevant. It makes conditions, imposes them on Nature, and in this way forces her to give an answer to a question devised by man… The workings of Nature in her unrestricted wholeness are completely excluded. If we want to know what these workings are, we need a method of inquiry which imposes the fewest possible conditions, or if possible no conditions at all, and then leave Nature to answer out of her fullness.” (Jung 35)
Scientific research involves narrowing, limiting, scope. A big picture, when derived from scientific process, emerges piece by painstaking piece, not whole cloth. Narrow focus can give a false impression and omit dimensions of meaning.
The ineffable, pervasive, amorphous qualities of the universe have traditionally been understood through art, mythology, spiritual revelation. These intuitive ways of knowing convey a gestalt, a whole which is more than the sum of its parts.
But scientific investigation has advanced far into enigmatic territory, using ever more powerful technology to observe the machinery of existence. Now, humanity has empirical evidence directly relevant to core philosophical and spiritual questions.
Data is not inherently useful and cannot depose or replace intuitive, moral, or spiritual understanding. But operationalization, mapping empirical data to abstract concepts, allows new insight, and new ways of solving problems. This synthesis is a creative process; diverse perspectives inform different strategies.
The link between empirical and metaphysical ways of knowing has been evolving, reformulating, throughout human history. Some organizations have traditionally served as gatekeepers or guardians of knowledge at the juncture of science and spirituality, sometimes in conditions of violent oppression. My insight is limited, but I can infer some things. In symbiotic fashion, institutions in public health and academia may adopt a tentative approach to information under the purview of these organizations. Organizations have probably anticipated the current circumstances, wherein the logical progression of scientific thought would seem to compel new discussion of foundational philosophical and metaphysical questions. The reticence of these organizations might have a systemic consequence akin to NDAs: those with the fullest understanding may be prohibited from public discussion.
5.
Current conditions have dramatically diverged from those in which our knowledge and rituals evolved. Groups function through shared knowledge and rituals. How can a collective adapt to the pressures and opportunities of transformed circumstances while preserving unity, institutional stability?
Trust, shared goals, and optimism about the group’s abilities seem crucial to success. Expectations manifest the outcome. If the collective expects to stick together, are focused on a common mission, and believe in group competence, they persevere against a steep learning curve and adapt.
Transformation of institutions demands extraordinary insight and adaptability on the part of leaders. The guiding principles and practices contributed by current leadership may now be proven wrong, made obsolete. In these circumstances, stewarding systemic change requires leaders to think and act counterintuitively, tolerating their own confusion and mistakes while modeling confidence and optimism. This wasn’t done, historically, because change was never so swift. This would be something new.
We do have unprecedented resources. We have the creative inventions of artists through history, many works with prescient relevance to the matters at hand. It is aesthetically rewarding to consider favorite stories, paintings, songs with new insight, and provides emotional sustenance and compensation against the discomfort of reprogramming. We also have the vast scientific knowledge and technological tools developed by our predecessors; rising to this occasion would justify their efforts.
Within recent history, ideas now substantiated by evidence could only have been conjecture. Promoting unverifiable ideas which disrupt consensus narratives would be risky, with little potential benefit. But with the ability to operationalize comes opportunities to solve problems. The interconnectivity of communication allows interdisciplinary and cross-cultural discussion. I only have a preliminary glimpse, but the possibilities are thrilling. New paradigms will emerge. It would be right if the scientific community, those with expertise, led the way.
Those with the clearest understanding would show humility and be tentative in their interpretations. They would understand how story, symbol, and metaphor can most accurately portray complex ideas to a diverse audience, while respecting worldviews.
Unfortunately, weaponizing these circumstances would be easy with little or no comprehension. Bad actors can exploit turbulent emotional undercurrents; presenting accurate, but limited, information leads to false conclusions. This tension creates leverage. As it is, people without information are at the mercy of those seeking to exploit. Fear of persecution is a driver of leadership decisions relevant to the collective. We need some of those with knowledge and authority to name these systemic binds; this would allow a unifying path to emerge.
6.
My interest was inspired, initially, by the media coverage of an outbreak of unusual illnesses thought to be caused by vaping, occurring in Summer and Fall of 2019, and which would eventually be termed E-cigarette and Vape Product Use -Associated Lung Injury (EVALI). Later, after the emergence of the COVID pandemic, I wondered if the outbreaks might be linked. While considering this, I began to post information on Twitter under the username u/sixandlaura. I did this, mostly, for my own reference, and thought of it as an open notebook which might be useful to people with similar questions.
During the first year my focus stayed primarily on the two topics: EVALI and COVID. It seemed prudent to also post some historical and background information on epidemic disease, unexplained health phenomena, and trends in public health, for context. I was intimidated by the enormity of the topics but figured a few data points are better than none for evaluating the relevance of new information. As my understanding evolved, the scope grew, eventually ranging widely, though haphazardly, across many fields of scientific and cultural study: https://twitter.com/SixandLaura/status/1370803319862669318?s=20
As sincere as my personal investigation has been, it’s limited in duration and scope, and isn’t guided by formal training. My opinions have changed dramatically over the 3 years I’ve been considering these topics, and I expect my perspective will change, again.
Those who collected and reported data on EVALI were willing to be curious and oriented towards future progress. Their work now represents, to me, inventiveness, hope, and collaboration. But during the first months of this investigation I didn’t see things this way. I felt resentful and frustrated. I wanted an expert, an authority, to just explain everything.
The moment I set aside judgement, annoyance, suspicion about motives, and focused on the questions at hand, I realized the best data available was obtained by the people and organizations toward whom I felt negatively. What’s more, they would have known their work might raise controversy, and be second-guessed by people (like me), and they did it, anyway. (https://twitter.com/SixandLaura/status/1370803733739806720?s=20 )
This learning process has been surprising. The emotional aspects of the experience guided and motivated my curiosity. But I should have reserved judgement about individuals and systems until I had learned more.
Those with insight into these circumstances can, hopefully, consider that to acquire understanding of complex issues, one references familiar stories and emotional patterns. We need a mental scaffolding to move our perspective around. Once we gain a new vantage point, the scaffold can be removed, and feelings and judgements adjust. Setting out on this independent research, I felt suspicious and critical, and I don’t think I could have felt otherwise during that time. Moving through this process allowed me to see things differently.
Bibliography
Asgari, Sassan. “Chapter Ten: Epigenetic Modification Underlying Symbiont-Host Interactions.” Advances in Genetics. Vol. 86. August 2014, pp. 253-276, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800222-3.00010-3.
Collens, Adena et al. “The concept of the hologenome, an epigenetic phenomenon, challenges aspects of the modern evolutionary synthesis.” Journal of experimental zoology. Part B, Molecular and developmental evolution vol. 332,8 (2019): 349-355. doi:10.1002/jez.b.22915
Erickson, Milton. My voice will go with you: The Teaching Tales of Milton H. Erickson. 1st ed., Norton, 1982.
Jung, C. G., and R. F. C. Hull. Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle. (From Vol. 8. of the Collected Works of C. G. Jung). REV-Revised, Princeton University Press, 1960. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7s94k.
King, Stephen. If It Bleeds. 1st ed., Scribner, 2020.
Muratore, Isabella B and Simon Garnier. “Ontogeny of collective behaviour.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B378. February 2023, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2022.0065
Theis, Kevin R et al. “Getting the Hologenome Concept Right: an Eco-Evolutionary Framework for Hosts and Their Microbiomes.” mSystems vol. 1,2 e00028-16. 29 Mar. 2016, https://doi:10.1128/mSystems.00028-16