>
>
>
> A parasitic concept of life
> ---------------------------
> I start with the claim that all organisms are parasitic by nature. ALL. What
> this
> means is that no organism are independent entities. Some people would say that
> this is obvious, others would strongly disagree, depending on whether they hav
e
> a sociological or a biological stance. No-one would argue that we have basic
> dependencies, we all need food, water and reproduction to survive. But to go
> from here to saying that all organisms - humans included - are parasites (i.e.
> they don't have an existence independent of other life) is a great leap that
> many have problems with. However, a few examples are enough to prove my point.
> In the human stomach there lives an ecology of bacteria. Our functioning great
ly
> depends on these because they are an important part of our digestion system.
> Likewise, our body is made up of billions of single-celled organisms --cells--
> that make up our body, organs and limbs. Without the pieceful co-existence
> between the cells and the meta-structure they make up (the body) we could not
> have existed. Need I say more?
Yes! I don't get your point. Redefining words to include more and
more is always dangerous since so often the result is thgat the words
loose their meaning. As I recall, you seem to like to give new
definitions to old words and I find it very confusing. Here is a place where
the stuff we've been talking about might help. First thought, biology makes
a clear distinction between the notion of parasite and non-parasite ( I grant
that the distinction gets tough in some cases). Sociology borrowed the
concept, and with it the distinction. Now, if we were to agree that organisms
must be closed under efficient causation, the distinction has real meaning.
Dependencies auch as humans needing essential amino acids would not
constitute parasitism. However an organism which needs genetic
apparatus from something else would be a clear example of a non-
organism. What seems to be the real interest in this is the notions
of symbiosis and other concepts which come from a less reductionist
view of the issue. Situations where the whole becomes more than the
sum of the parts and different from the parts are the crux. Mere dependecy
seems a tautology.
> As I said, these are obvious dependencies but due to the nature of our
> concepts we tend to deny/neglect them. Sure, at moments we might focus on
> individual dependencies but we fail to see that all of life is a complex
> ramification of parasitic relations. The reason is that our conceptualization
is
> resonant in nature. That is, significant information is boosted while
> "background noise" is filtered away. For instance, if there is a static sound
> humming in the background it will become invisible to us after a while, filter
ed
> away from our consciousness. This is indeed why we usually don't see the
> parasitic nature of life. What an organism is parasiting on is always somethin
g
> stable, and because of its stability it will appear to us exactly as the stati
c
> humming sound. We don't realize that the background noise, or in this case the
> background stability, which we filter away when we conceptualize life is in fa
ct
> a *necessity* for the existence of life. The socalled independent entities we
> see
> are gestalts, ripples on a background of dependencies. Without the background
> the foreground could not have existed. It's basic gestalt theory. The
> independent properties of an organism are those which stick out of the
> background of dependencies, and we naturally focus on the foreground.
>
Intweresting! I always associate "Gestalt" with holistic thinking. Am
I missing something?
>
>
> Heylighen wrote an excellent paper called "Fitness as Default" in which he
> states that knowledge can only exist in a low-entropy (read:stable) environmen
t,
> and that life provides exactly that kind of stability. Thus, he really uncover
s
> the parasitic nature of knowledge, which is in fact the basis for my book,
> _The Origins of Knowledge_. Anyway, Heylighens argument can be expanded to all
> of life as the following statement:
>
>
> Life exists and thrives in environments containing stability.
>
>
> Without stability life would collapse. But where does all this neat stability
> come from? Well, some come from geological, atmospheric and physical condition
s.
> But most of it comes from life itself. For what is life if not structures of
> stability? And this is where parasiting enters the picture. Parasites can only
> survive if their host system is stable. And that is exactly the condition for
> all of life. This very much explains why surviving structures tend to cumulate
> over the years. If fundamentally new structures are to arise they need to
> parasite on an alrady existing stable context. Therefore surviving structures
> tend to co-exist. (recall my definition of life as a gigantic conglomerate of
> surviving structures)
>
Does this mean that things which go extinct are not alive? Does evolution
negate stability? I find this whole line of thought very confusing. Stability
of what? The ecosphere perhaps? Need we read these references befor
we can understand you? If so haow to get them?
>
> Ok, now we've answered _why_ cumulation of surviving structures takes place.
> What remains is _how_. As I said, Francis' meta-system transition theory
> partially explains this. I split parasiting into two classes: horizontal and
> vertical parasiting. These can somewhat inaccurately be seen as outward and
> inward parasiting respectively.
>
> _Horizontal parasiting_ is close to the original concept of parasiting, an
> outward dependency. That is, a dependency on stability in the environment of
> some kind. _Vertical parasiting_ on the other hand is close to the concept of
> meta-system transitions, an inward dependency. That is, dependency on stabilit
y
> in the elements which the organism itself is built up from. Examples of
> meta-system transitions are Eukaryotes (built up of Prokaryotes), multicellula
r
> organisms (built from eukaryotes), superorganisms (built up of individual
> organisms), ecologies (built up of species), minds (built up of neural
> networks) and knowledge (built up of many communicating minds).
At each level, the environment and all the interactions are so important.
The project to create an artificial biosphere was incomplete due to a
lack of earthworms. Does this consitute vertical or horizontal parasitism?
> The above list of vertical parasiting shows that dependencies ramify
> through all living creatures at all levels. But in addition life is "flavoured
"
> by horizontal parasiting as well. Most organisms parasite on some stable
> component of its environment. This component is generally called a niche.
> Together horizontal and vertical parasiting cover all the pattern productions
of
> life.
>
Yes, but the interdepencies are at all levels and between all levels.
What do we gain from the vertical/horizontal reduction? What is wrong
with the ones ecologists spent years putting together?
>
> But the party isn't over yet. Life is not easily divided into two
> classes, vertical and horizontal. No, these classes smear into each other in a
> very complex manner. The problem is that the parasitic relations between
> different organisms tend to change over evolutionary time. Let's look at an
> example. Multicellular organisms obviously depend on the cells they are built
> from - a vertical dependency. But evolution has shifted this dependency. Much
> like moles have gone nearly blind by living so long in the dark, cells have
> lived in a multicellular environment so long that they are horizontally
> dependent on it. They can't live outside their context in the multicellular
> machinery. Although the multicellular organism is dependent on its cells
> evolution has managed to trap the cells in a vortex of dependency. An even
> clearer example of this is the ant colony where the soldiers have lost their
> original reproductive abilities. They totally depend on the colony for surviva
l.
> This dynamics of dependency is better captured by the concept of POWER. But th
at
> is another story.
What about foodwebs, communities, etc. Is there something wrong with these
distinctions and interrelationships? What is it you wish to accomplish?
What is wrong with the exisiting body of work in this area? Is the distinction
between those entities which are closed to efficient cause flawed? If so
where? If not why do you reject it? Sorry, but I wonder if this is a
better wheel at all?
Best regards, Don Mikulecky