Life as Boundary Conditions Within a Whole

in response to the themes in:

https://viroliegy.com/2022/05/18/the-natural-selection-theory-of-antibody-formation-1955/

reante commented on The Natural Selection Theory of Antibody Formation (1955).

in response to Mike Stone: What natural phenoma is being observed directly?

These substances (lifeforms) exist outside of the body, too, Mike. That’s technically in vivo, too. Don’t you see? If they are lifeforms at all — and the animist knows that all non-metabolic ‘things’ are equally energy animated by living consciousness — then they are in vivo. Life doesn’t stop at our skin. These substances existed outside of the body before the body existed in the first place. The body grew out of these substances such that an inside could exist. The outside came first.

A boundary condition ‘creates’ an inside and outside.
Without which there is neither, but not ‘nothing’ so much as Everything without differentiation, boundary or dimension. Infinity has no gap to take in, or project out.
Finity seems to be In and Of All as if set apart. Such a wonder to behold that anything & everything is! You call this ‘the outside’, as part of a position by which to think, look and experience yourself & world.
The balancing of the inner and outer or homeostasis, has a centric but not fixed fulcrum of tensegrity (integral confluence of the field of tensions.
One of the underlying invisible fields of ordering matter as information is vibration, frequency, resonances and ‘wave interference’ such as cymatics can demonstrate for sound.
Such domains are not as objected as thought can make them seem. At the nano level, structured charge domains in water ‘exist’ periodically. These interact with particles and proteins as phase changes at rates so fast as to fluctuate energy exchange without loss at millions or billions of times per second.
Stroboscopes can filter seeing’ such as to show spin as static or wheels moving backwards to the fact. I mention all this to sketch the limitations of our modelling thought.
Yet you are aware of thought and can select or accept thoughts as resonant and relevant to who you are in terms of experiencing yourself to be. Your world is then feedback and stimulus to the developing consciousness of relational exchange. Much of what we think we think is stepped down or filtered from synchronicities that have no respect for time or space or persons! But yet we are in nested embrace of inheritance, dependency and function to a wholeness that far exceeds our ‘thinking’ – yet is our capacity to think and share an exchange of meaning (as a mutually creative act of intention and desire given form).

There are very many ‘good’ comments into these ‘pages’. In that I resonate with the qualities that are revealed. True desire aligns coherent experience.

#2

The human intent can create proprietary conditions to induce a desired outcome, without such a set up, the natural result would no longer support the private agenda. The line between nature and nurture may seem blurred because we create masking models of self, world and externally code driven automata for the purpose of hacking.
The idea of science as the revealing of the already true, to a growing capacity to recognise, appreciate, integrate and grow, is lost in its own 'making' or magical constructs given power of priority.
Something of a cause-effect relationship may be revealed in vitro that may have some application in vivo - but I see the blind watchmaker seeking to reverse engineer life in terms of sacrificing the living to fit or fulfil the invested model, ideal, image or pet theory set to self-agrandisement. We all have personal bias that must become conscious as part of the framing selections and parameters by which we presume to know... 

#3

A vested identity in call to a war, takes priority over a due process of re prioritisation.
The self-hacking mind...
Mythic or narrative imaginations are part of our own creative toolset for mapping out an internal model that is part of cultural construct.
Our liability and perhaps way out, is that we project repressed self-conflicts onto our relational experience. Those unready or unwilling to own such conflict WANT to see such 'evidences' or are compelled to - by such conflicts.
I agree that the recognition of reality undoes such a complex, but within a terrain of willingness.
I note that many who challenge germ theory can prematurely assert their new opinions in ways that are still polarised and thus polarising. As if its about being right rather than uncovering a truth that shares correction of errors that are grievous or destructive and self-reinforcing.
So the need to bring attention present rather than react to our modelling, is an ongoing discipline. I am not disagreeing with your point. Anyone whose life is trained within an established order is more vested in its structures of thought as 'the way the world works'.
But its the way the mind of a collective agreement worked.
Releasing the pathogenesis of human thought can be caught in pathologising those who as yet wittingly or otherwise obstruct the revealing of a false to the freedom to uncover the true.
Boundary conditions hold information.