manifold destiny

We are governed by boundaries. Some are imaginary, some are tangible, most are not understood. All, however, are temporary. Even the boundary of space-time -- in this case, all that we consider to exist within the known Universe -- is accelerating outward at a rate near the Hubble Constant, roughly 70 (km/sec)/Megaparsecs. What, then, is ever truly defined by a boundary if the boundary of known reality itself is a mere vignette in space and time? The boundaries of nations are as ephemeral as their leaders and economies; the boundaries of space and time are as resolved as our instruments and mathematics; and perhaps the boundaries of truth itself are as false as their pretense for reality. Hence, a truly indelible boundary may only exist as a hypothetical quixotism sketched between the lines of our imagination and a mathematical theorem.

The curiosity of boundaries has menaced humankind for as long as history has kept record, perhaps most notably with Zeno of Elea and his dichotomy paradox. Here, the paradox postulates that travel can never be completed since advancement towards any destination is contingent upon first reaching half way; however, in order to reach half way, half way to half way must first be reached, and so on ad insanitum. Any progression would first require an infinite number of small advances, which is impossible, and therefore movement must be an illusion. Where, then, does something truly end and something else truly begin? The irony is that as one obsesses smaller and smaller into the identity of a boundary, the logic approaches the inconceivable enormity of infinity. It’s as though mathematics itself is a möbious strip of one nebulous, if not imaginary, boundary. Similar logic can be found from the inverse perspective obsessing from the small to the large. The location of an electron around a nucleus, for example, is defined only by the probability of interacting with it and claims no precise location in space-time. The “location” of an election is never 100% certain, nor is it ever 100% uncertain. This means that, while at an infinitesimally small probability, an electron in the coffee cup sitting next to me has a non-zero probability of interacting with the Enceladus moon of Saturn. This sort of madness is best left to the obsessive eccentricities of set theorists and topologists (of which I claim near 0% probable identity); nonetheless, it illustrates that static boundaries, while useful theoretical concepts, are not the language of the Universe.

Yet, we must live within these imaginary lines; not to is suicide. The last time I pushed the boundary of a bike lane, a passing vehicle quickly reminded me that, while boundaries may be in constant change, change can be slow -- about as slow as it takes for road paint to fracture into entropy. To live in a boundless system would indeed risk our survival. And our sanity. The boundaries of our own consciousness seemingly ordained by the human brain require artificial lines and limits to make sense of our environment and permit the perpetuation of the human existence. Boundaries, even if imaginary, have guided humankind through an unforgiving maze of evolutionary challenges, allowing us to distinguish nourishment from poison, male from female, friend from foe, night from day. To approach every waking moment from a boundless perspective would certainly short-circuit the limits of our own nervous system to the brink of phrenic incapacitation. In fact, this is a distinguishing pathology of schizophrenia, whereby every environmental stimulus, from an innocuous chirping cricket to the urgent threat of a roaring lion, is integrated with similar importance into one sensory overload [1]. Indeed, we must use boundaries to allow for goal-directed behavior to promote a successful existence.

One of the most advantageous boundaries employed by Homo sapiens has been the faculty of language, and in particular complex speech [2, 3]. Human language was arguably the discerning evolutionary invention responsible for propelling the human race beyond its hominid beta versions and into the astute environmental manipulators that we are today. The organized collection of phonetics, words, and gestures that comprise human language have allowed us to formulate contextual reciprocation between two or more human beings to advance our desires, whether it’s food, sex, shelter, or even leisure. Much remains to be understood about the emergence of human language, although many clues expectantly point to brain development. Genes such as FOXP2 have garnered attention as potent initiators of language faculty [3, 4], thereby instilling the provocative implication that the conscious application of boundaries are indeed a manifestation of the boundary of a genetic code. And, interestingly, FOXP2 happens to be an elite member of the “human accelerated regions,” which are highly fluid genetic regions demonstrating remarkably rapid changes when compared to our closest living relative, the chimpanzee [4-6].

However, a twist of irony may be that our invented boundary system of language is in itself a boundary stymieing continued evolution. Perhaps our swift evolution -- or “accelerated” in terms of our unique genetic islands -- has now reached the frontier of its language boundary, therein potentially hindering further advancement. With technology shrinking the world at an exponential rate primarily through (perhaps ironically) the language of human-invented computer-speak, the boundaries of our existence no longer need, nor even can, distinguish nourishment from poison, male from female, or friend from foe; our once disparate genetic tribes have become an ever-diluting gene pool of a single human race. Boundaries are indeed disappearing.

From a more anthropological perspective, language can no longer bind the concepts of man or woman, nor gay or straight. These distinctions are semantics that fail to describe what has likely been a spectral continuum for millennia, serving the purpose in generations past to provide simplistic environmental identities, therefore simplifying procreation. In fact, humans can be born with both genitals, no genitals, feminizing or virilizating (“masculinizing”) hormonal abnormalities, and/or multiple sex chromosome combinations (aneuploidy) -- all of which clearly challenge a “man” or “woman” identity. While in the past some of these characteristics were lethal, the evolution of medical technology has allowed prolonged survival of these individuals, and thereby their reproduction and the continued genetic penetration into the population. Such technological advances transcend into culture itself as we continue to erode sex discrimination at the highest levels, including reasonable electability of a female for President of the United States. Consequently, sex discrimination has become less socially acceptable, including for individuals that may be transgendered, and the boundary of “man” or “woman” begins to lose relevance. As boundaries do.

Where language is becoming irrelevant to distinguish man from woman, so is the distinction between “gay” and “straight”. The complexities of human sexuality simply cannot contort into a discrete boundary no more than can “man” or “woman”. Biology has created a spectrum of sexualities across many species, and humans are no different. Indeed, reproduction and the advancement of our species has certainly chosen heterosexual intercourse thus far. But homosexuality, bisexuality, and even asexuality have hitched a ride on the human genetic train for as long as any other human trait [7, 8]. And, as may be the case for allowing sexual aneuploidy to persist, modern technology is erasing the boundary of human sexuality. It is not inconceivable to imagine a near future where homosexual couples reproduce through adroit genetic and cellular manipulations to create healthy, genetically recombinant progeny. What purpose, then, would the words “man” or “women,” or “gay” or “straight” even serve? Such barriers imposed by our language would seem to be a twist of fate, illuminating the betrayal of language from past revolutionary emancipator to future evolutionary incarcerator.

Without the faculty of language and its argued limitation to our human race, how then are we to communicate in the next holocene? It’s absurd to imagine a culture that favors continuous versus discrete descriptors. The resulting schizophrenic babel would surely madden our species into social catatonia. However, humans do have a rather unique tool in our genetic toolbox -- one that allows for spectral communication. In addition to the phonetic articulation granted by our uniquely FOXP2-brains, Homo sapiens posses the unique faculty of artistic communication [9, 10]. The complex emotions, desires, intents, and experiences that comprise a human being can be thoroughly articulated through sonic and visual creativity. The cliche of “a picture says a thousand words” may be no more apposite than when seeking emancipation from the muted boundaries of syntaxic language.

Anthropology and neuroscience are beginning to develop this artistic picture of language through analysis of the human brain while it communicates using art. Colors such as red and blue can induce impressions of “anger” and “warm,” or “calm” and “cool,” respectively, across cultures [9], and therefore across a graphemic language boundary. Music has been shown to have a similar effect. A major versus a minor chord can result in perceptions of pleasantry versus sadness, respectively, across a spectrum of cultures and time eras [11]. Even neurobiological differences related to sound qualities have been observed in cells in the brain that respond differently depending on sound consonance, dissonance, and pitch [12, 13]. These data further demonstrate that non-verbal communication through artistic means has the potential to communicate complex information, such as that of emotions -- something that would require a circumlocutory string of syntax.

Examples of the limitations endemic to syntaxic communication are, ironically, boundless. Yet, like the text of this blog entry itself, we remain relegated to the boundaries of language. It’s difficult to imagine how a more complex and thorough lexicon would operate. While the complex communication possible through an image, film, or song is beyond even the most elegant use of syntax, singing a song or painting a picture to order a cup of coffee is clearly absurd. Perhaps the next language will employ the application of an additional dimension beyond the linear bounds of our current sentence structure. One could imagine a technology that allows 3-dimensional matrix projection of syntax or symbols that would exponentially increase conveyed information. Or perhaps a closer study of mathematics and biology would decipher how the genetic code evolved to elicit such compact informatic prowess, therefore providing clues towards a reverse-engineered human language. For example, it wouldn’t be too surprising to learn that DNA codes for complex instruction by use of a multi-dimensional transcription code being that DNA itself exists as a 3-dimensional structure. Depending on its momentary conformation, perhaps DNA could produce different transcripts in addition to the known 2-dimensional code. Further, even the employment of “psychic” technology could allow the projection of intent through a neural:machine interface that bypasses the need for syntaxic communication altogether. Science fiction, certainly; fictional science, not necessarily [14].

In the meantime, the confines of our discrete arsenal of communication will continue to define the innate continuum of our existence into a bounded state. The result could stymie our evolution as a species and perpetuate miscommunication resulting in economic disparities, war, famine, and other examples of the more unfortunate sagas of the human story. And the promise of new, creative ideas that operate in synchrony with the continuum by which we truly exist will struggle to be nurtured in an uncompromising landscape eager to sketch boundaries. Our being is one of boundaries, but infinitely small boundaries whereby the the summation of those boundaries manifest; in a sense the area under the curve -- the integration -- of ideas, emotions, and experiences that truly prescribe our identity and our potential.

I am not “musician;” I am not “scientist;” I am not “artist;” I am not “athlete;” I am not “straight;” “I am not “gay;” I am not “writer”. I am the xenogeneic amalgam of everything in between. To pin these labels to me or anyone else is to pin limitations; to pin limitations is to embrace immorality. And to embrace immorality is to embrace extinction. Even God itself has the antediluvian distinction of anonymity, as the Hebrew term for The Creator, “Yahweh,” is typically not spoken since it exceeds the capacity for comprehension, and therefore human language (in fact, disagreement continues concerning the proper pronunciation of “Yahweh”). Hence, God itself may not be intended to be the boundary it so often represents today -- a boundary of subordination to human-imposed, corporeal limitation. The apocryphal Gospel of Thomas agrees, quoting Jesus in verse 3 that “...the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty" [15]. It’s no surprise such language of Jesus is an apostasy to modern Christianity. A liberated society of internal coexistence with The Creator would certainly be an intractable society; and an intractable society is something organized religion cannot allow if it is to command the boundary of God by which it assumes. With powerful quotes such as the above, our human identity, much like the manifested identity of Jesus himself, is a nebulous amalgam of boundless identities, including that of The Creator. Hence, we may be The Creator as much as The Creator is us -- one continuum with identities only as static as the boundary of The Universe itself. This is surely liberation.

But, as confessed, we certainly have to live within boundaries. And while boundaries may change, most do so slowly. The limitations of how humans communicate will likely continue through the end of my lifetime and the many following. However, I’m optimistic that during my lifetime transitions will occur that help emancipate the potential societal quagmire where words strictly and inaccurately prescribe artificial limitation. One of my most revered mentors, my college English and literary professor, Dr. Sandra Looney, once told me in reference to word usage that “language is dynamic”. One could look at the emoticon-based texting language as an example that language is indeed indeed changing, and therefore, so are our boundaries. Symbolic language, perhaps as old as humankind itself, has used pictographs to succinctly represent intent and emotion where syntax may fail. Combined with a greater appreciation for the arts through the now-ubiquitous online bulletin boards (i.e. social media networks) for shared pictures, music, and ideas, the synesthesia of boundless potential may be closer within reach.

Even evolution shows evidence of favoring the synesthesia of human communication. The eponymous “disease” of synesthesia, where individuals juxtapose multi-modal sensory input to hear colors or taste visual shapes, exemplify remarkable anatomical brain differences that may better represent an evolutionary crawl forward than an untoward mistake backwards [16, 17]. Psilocin, the psychoactive metabolite of psychedelic mushrooms, elicits strikingly similar synesthetic experiences, as well as mysticism, empathy, and other profound states of consciousness [18], if not schizophrenia [19] (which, as already mentioned, may have emerged concomitantly with language [2]). Indeed, creative hypotheses have been posited that psychoactive consumption played an integral evolutionary role facilitating the development of human consciousness and language [20]. Interestingly, some of the most influential figures in human history have demonstrated synesthetic abilities [10, 17], from Shakespeare’s mastery of metaphor to physicist Richard Feynman’s mastery of spacial and mathematical reasoning. Other potential, albeit unproven synesthetes may include Ludwig Beethoven and Vincent Van Gogh, among others. Perhaps it’s no surprise then that the hypothesized neural correlates of synesthesia are characterized by nebulous anatomical boundaries where regions of the brain over-extend their cerebral connections, un-inhibiting their inhibition to promote exotic neural excitation [10, 16, 17] -- and therefore exotic behavioral achievement. Associations have also linked synesthetes with homo/bisexuality and dyslexia [21], although such associations remain only as curiosities and are highly speculative. Nonetheless,  linking neuronal boundaries (or lack there of) with adept creativity and intellectual prowess is certainly a tempting hypothesis whereby some of the most potent contributors to the human experience outwardly have manifested the inner synesthetic biology of a boundless neural network, and, consequently, boundless potential.

Human potential is only as bounded as the words we choose to describe it. We cannot be imprisoned by the stoic etymology of “musician,” “scientist,” “photographer,” “lover,” “friend,” or even “human”. We are of the substance of a boundless Universe, the substance of the stars and the moons, the atoms and the light -- the substance of a boundless Creator. Therein, we too must be boundless. Prescriptions of static identity through syntaxic definition have expired their evolutionary purpose after showing us the way into conscoiusnes. It is time for a more dynamic, more descriptive language of synesthetic artistic expression to show us the way into whatever is next. While not yet invented, incipient languages surround us every day, from the beautiful neuroscience imagery focused through my microscope to the continuous, seemingly boundless trance and house mixes that comprise the vast majority of my musical library. These are examples of entities that are neither science nor art, nor one track nor the amalgam of many. They are both and neither, communicating where words fail.

Alas, boundaries change as they always have, and they are certainly changing in 2011. However, boundaries change quickest when pushed. It is our duty -- our destiny -- to push boundaries. Our survival and our happiness depend on it. The human story, from the macrocosm of space exploration to the microcosm of neuronal exploration in our brains, is a story of pushing boundaries. And if we ultimately seek happiness during this brief existence, few would disagree that there is little happiness found within the boundaries of a prison. To push boundaries is to embrace our potential, and to embrace our potential is to embrace happiness.


...well, at least that’s the best I can describe it in words_

Selected References and Additional Reading:

1. Dobbs, D., Schizophrenia: The making of a troubled mind. Nature, 2010. 468(7321): p. 154-6.

2. Crow, T.J., The 'big bang' theory of the origin of psychosis and the faculty of language. Schizophr Res, 2008. 102(1-3): p. 31-52.

3. Dominguez, M.H. and P. Rakic, Language evolution: The importance of being human. Nature, 2009. 462(7270): p. 169-70.

4. Konopka, G., et al., Human-specific transcriptional regulation of CNS development genes by FOXP2. Nature, 2009. 462(7270): p. 213-217.

5. Hill, R. and C. Walsh, Molecular insights into human brain evolution. Nat Cell Biol, 2005. 437(7055): p. 64-67.

6. Pollard, K., et al., An RNA gene expressed during cortical development evolved rapidly in humans. Nature, 2006. 443(7108): p. 167-172.

7. Bailey, N.W. and M. Zuk, Same-sex sexual behavior and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol (Amst), 2009. 24(8): p. 439-46.

8. Roselli, C., R.C. Reddy, and K.R. Kaufman, The development of male-oriented behavior in rams. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 2011. 32(2): p. 164-169.

9. Morriss-Kay, G., The evolution of human artistic creativity. Journal of Anatomy, 2010. 216(2): p. 158-76.

10. Ramachandran, V.S. and E.M. Hubbard, Synaesthesia - a window into perception, thought and language. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2001. 8(12): p. 3-34.

11. Deutch, D., The psychology of music. 2 ed. 1998: Academic Press.

12. Bidelman, G.M. and A. Krishnan, Neural correlates of consonance, dissonance, and the hierarchy of musical pitch in the human brainstem. J Neurosci, 2009. 29(42): p. 13165-71.

13. Mcdermott, J. and A. Oxenham, Music perception, pitch, and the auditory system. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 2008. 18(4): p. 452-463.

14. Clausen, J., Man, machine and in between. Nature, 2009. 457(7233): p. 1080-1.

15. Lambdin, T.O. The Gospel of Thomas.   [cited 2011 August]; Available from: http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gthlamb.html.

16. Hubbard, E.M. and V.S. Ramachandran, Neurocognitive mechanisms of synesthesia. Neuron, 2005. 48(3): p. 509-20.

17. Ramachandran, V.S., Science Without Limits Symposium. 2009: Lewis & Clark College, Portland, Ore.

18. Griffiths, R.R., et al., Psilocybin can occasion mystical-type experiences having substantial and sustained personal meaning and spiritual significance. Psychopharmacology, 2006. 187(3): p. 268-283.

19. Vollenweider, F.X., et al., Psilocybin induces schizophrenia-like psychosis in humans via a serotonin-2 agonist action. Neuroreport, 1998. 9(17): p. 3897-902.

20. McKenna, T., Food of the gods: the search for the original tree of knowledge. 1992: Bantam.

21. Cytowic, R.E. Synesthesia: phenomenology and neuropsychology.  2008 Jul 9; 1-22]. Available from: http://theassc.org/files/assc/2346.pdf.

 _