Integral Views on Swine Flu Part 1

Submitted by admin on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 23:00

Author: Carissa Wieler

Introduction: In search of an epidemic

In recent weeks, swine flu has been touted a potential epidemic. This paper traces swine flu through four distinct embodied writing pieces, exploring four unique aspects of the virus potential itself. To allow for fluidity in encountering each zone as a response to the previous zone’s inquiry, the introduction outlines what I write about, how I write about it and what perspective I take (What, How, Who) on the topic of the swine flu virus.

In the first instance, I write about swine flu as a participant in social discourse, revealing patterns of the discourse while incorporating information about systems, interior meaning making and biology. This is centrally a zone 4 (1p X 3p X 1p*pl) application that touches on elements picked up from reading blogs, news articles and talking with people. It concludes with an initiatory inquiry: who is to blame for the swine flu virus, nature or culture? The rest of the paper takes a decidedly “nature” turn, entering into deeper and deeper philosophical discourse about the nature of the virus itself, as this is something that I feel could inform the social construct of the virus as an epidemic. 

I then enter a phenomenological space as I encounter an image of the virus through an electron microscope and somatic, psychological and subtle observations are made. This is centrally a zone 1 (1-p X 1-p X 1p) approach as the exploration draws on my personal perception of how I encounter the virus (rather than being in relationship or resonance with it, or viewing it from a 3p purely observational mode). This second inquiry responds to the first by exploring swine flu virus as a life form, and could be considered a personal deconstruction of the pathological construct encountered in the first inquiry.

The tone then shifts to a scientific exploration of whether a virus is actually alive. My gaze almost immediately turns to the theory of autopoiesis. This happens by surprise as, in the course of research, I discover that the lack of autopoiesis in a virus is of central concern to the philosophical debate of what is life. While this inquiry is centrally about zone 5 (3-p X 1-p X 3p), it is coming from a zone 6 perspective in that the mode of inquiry is a 3-p account of autopoiesis (rather than an interior, 1-p account of it).

The final inquiry follows from the last, and becomes a philosophical discussion about whether a virus constitutes a life from based on Integral Theory. I employ various concepts including holons and artifacts to better understand how to do a useful analysis of the swine flu virus. This is a 3-p discussion on how to apply Integral Theory systematically (3p) to understand swine flu as an entity (3p), and I am therefore placing it in zone 8 (3-p X 3-p X 3p*pl).

The paper concludes by tying these threads together as a gestalt, opening the door to further views.

Socially constructing an epidemic (Zone 4)

Multiple perspectives exist on the meaning and nature of the swine flu virus. The scientific community rallies around systems to prepare for, respond to and prevent the widespread attack of the virus. Communications are direct and to the point: people with swine flu are asked to isolate as they may contaminate others; schools and events are cancelled to prevent contamination. What I miss in this more objectivist perspective is an empathetic response. We are not only talking about a virus, we are talking about a human being + virus interaction. In communicating to humans about protecting and preventing spread of disease, I feel the need for greater acknowledgement of interiority, in addition to more objectivist communications. How might the media communicate to people interacting with a virus rather than to a virus inside a person? 

This inquiry into cultural interiority leads me to explore cultural constructs of the H1N1 virus. Scanning the media, I notice two camps: the virus a product of nature, and the virus a product of culture. In the first instance, HIN1 is a pathogen produced by nature; nature is to be subjugated by science for the sake of the species. Archetypically, nature may be a “bad mother” for carelessly producing this pathogen, or an “angry mother” raging against humanity for violating her earth-body and thus producing a virulent virus. Just as with previous virus cycles, nature has created a pathogen that attacks humanity. In the second instance, H1N1 is a product of culture, formed through the negligent treatment of pork waste, or alternatively created by the pharmaceutical industry. In this case, it is a capitalist culture that subversively undermines human health. Leave nature alone! …is a rallying cry. Beneath these discourses is a voracious need to know why and how this started, who is to blame, nature or culture?   
 

Encountering Virus H1N1 (Zone 1)

My next step is an inquiry into what or who “H1N1” is. I begin by entering a first person encounter with the virus through the microscopic image in Figure 1. Take a moment to look at this image of H1N1. Allow yourself to connect with this as a life form, regardless of function. Imagine how this form feels to the touch. What does it remind you of? Imagine being inside of the form…what do the cell walls feel like? How does it feel to be in this space?

My first experience is one of organic familiarity. Perhaps the spherical shape and tiny tendrils protruding out from each sphere, the linings and clearly defined cell borders, remind me of the basic biological elements of life. H1N1 becomes a known entity, and I imagine a glutinous textured feel were I to touch one, perhaps like a fuzzy peeled grape. I notice a hesitation to call H1N1 a virus, as this is my meaning attached to its perceived function. In becoming somatically (zone 1) familiar with this image based on outer (zone 6) characteristics, my perception shifts (zone 1) with less identification with H1N1 as a mysterious, formless creature that solely causes havoc in respiratory systems of humans towards identification with life and sentience

I move my perception to the interior space of the virus (zone 1 of H1N1 exploration). I imagine life pulsating with tiny reverberations of consciousness. I stay there only momentarily, returning to my own I space with a hint of fear: if I invite the energetic quality of the virus into my awareness, can I attract the virus into my being? I recognize that this is an illogical thought and reminds me of the subtle fear when I encounter someone with HIV virus. If I sit with them, can I get it? This feels like an old, primal fear that speaks to natural defenses against disease. Virus as sentience, virus as disease, both exist in my perception.

Virus as life form? (Zone 6)

From this place, I search for knowledge about H1N1 and feel a quality of objective coolness in encountering a dialogue on whether viruses are actually a life form to begin with. The question of virus aliveness is actually a sub-inquiry of a much larger effort to define life in its most basic form. In their book What is Life (2000), Lyn Margulis and Dorian Sagan take a position that becomes a cornerstone for the debate, suggesting that non-metabolizing molecules cannot be considered life forms, even if those molecules reproduce. DNA and viruses fall into this category. The position draws on Varela’s biological conception of autopoiesis, which Margulis and Sagan (2000, p.18) describe this way:

    An autopoietic entity metabolizes continuously; it perpetuates itself through chemical activity, the movement of molecules. ….Autopoiesis, indeed is detectable by that incessant life chemistry and energy flow which is metabolism. Only cells, organisms made of cells, and biospheres made of organisms are autopoietic and can metabolize.

Margulis and Sagan build on this view, suggesting that while DNA replicates, it is not autopoietic and therefore not considered alive. The same is thought to be true for viruses, as they “do nothing until they enter an autopoietic entity” (Margulis and Sagan, 2000, p.18). A biological virus is likened to a computer virus such that “without a computer, a digital virus is a mere program” (Margulis and Sagan, 2000, p.18).

Shifting views: holons, artifacts and consciousness

If we assume that Margulis and Sagan are correct, then a virus theoretically could not be considered an individual holon, because the definition of a holon includes interiority. If a zone 5 analysis reveals a non-life form (using specific injunctions that could possibly be refuted using other zone 5 injunctions), then that form (for the sake of argument) could be considered non-life. This raises two questions: what is a virus, and what is alive in the viral context?

To address the first question of what a virus is, it may be helpful to employ concepts from Integral Theory (Wilber 2006), namely the distinction between a holon and an artifact. Fred Kaufman (n.d.) discusses holons, heaps and artifacts in an essay reviewed by Ken Wilber and posted on the Integral World website. While a holon tetra-arises and has interiority and consciousness, artifacts and heaps do not. An artifact is created through the agency of the holon, and therefore also reflects the consciousness of that holon. It is possible for a holon to create a replicating artifact, such as a robot that replicates with the replication being a reflection of the consciousness of holon the artifact originated from (Kaufman, n.d.). Following Margulis and Sagan (2000), one could say that a virus is an artifact that replicates when in the presence of a holon with agency (an organism). A virus, entering the host, deposits its DNA into the host and replicates at the cellular level. A missing piece not discussed here is the original host that gave the virus agency to form in the first place.

If a virus could be considered an artifact, I then wonder if it is more appropriate to consider the active virus as a social holon via a host + virus interaction (holon + artifact, Kaufman, n.d.). From this view, N1H1+human (or waterfowl or pig in the case of H1N1) becomes a social holon. If the interaction is a social holon, then the living cell is what is placed at the center of the quadrants as the holon (for this inquiry), within the context of an encounter with a virus. This is a subtle shift away from an emphasis on the virus towards the cell host as the center of focus, perhaps moving away from the pathology of the “attacker” towards the locus of agency (a shift that in psychological terms results in greater resiliency, i.e. the longitudinal research on hardiness by humanistic psychologist Salvatore Maddi (2002)).

From this view, tools from Integral Ecology can be employed. The living cell could be viewed from at least 16 zones, or from the point of view of quadrants and quadrivia (note: only quadrants as opposed to zones are addressed in this section for the sake of brevity). A quadrant analysis could looks at the cell host through the perspective of the living cell. The following are inquiries that arise for me from this space: What is the cellular phenomenological experience of being a host (UL) and what sensory data are perceived (UR)? How does the cell signal to other cells in the body that the cell has become a host (LL) and what systems within the body are triggered by those signals? This view could be expanded to include the entire physical form: how does the body register the experiences (UL), senses (UR), signals (LL) and systemic responses (LR) of cells as a whole being, and how does the brain interact with those signals to regulate or defend against disease (UR)? What emotions are stimulated by cellular signaling and how do these emotions and subtle impressions (which could be very primal) stimulate meaning making (UL), informed also by cultural meanings (LL)? What mental formulations and perceptions (UL) result in conscious actions in support (or not) of the body’s natural defense system (LR)? This type of inquiry could support greater resilience both at the cellular level, and for the being as a whole (whether human, avian or pig) by addressing more of the multiplicity and complexity of beingness.

Alternatively, the cell could be viewed as quadrivia. A researcher, looking at the cell host, may inquire into the cultural construction of pathology and disease associated with a cell-virus interaction and responses to society wide-epidemics including mode of care (LL), the modes of scientific inquiry used to understand the interaction (drawing on chemistry, biology, biochemistry, genetics among others) (UR), the experiences and patterns in the psyche associated with dis-ease and viruses (such as beliefs about one’s capacity to heal and defend against disease, measures of resilience) (UL), and the societal systemic responses of various institutions (such as educational, health, political) (LR). This latter inquiry is more commonly addressed by Western society.

Conclusion: From Pathology to Epistemology

Swine flu is on the teetering edge of becoming an epidemic, say some, while others say the risk has passed, the strain being less virulent than suspected. Some question how the virus began (whether it was fabricated to stimulate the economy), and others design methods to conquer it on a potentially global scale. This paper informs the larger discourse in at least three ways.

First, a virus becomes alive when it enters the cell, and from this view, it is the cell-virus interaction that is salient here. At the body level, this means that our interaction with the virus (on multiple levels of being) is at the heart of the dis-ease, rather than an outside pathogen “attacking us”. From this view, how we interact with it (on multiple levels of awareness) influences our experience of it and how we respond to it. 

Second, our society-wide level of care and wisdom in encountering the cell-virus interaction could be informed with greater span of inquiry, taking into account quadrant and quadrivia views. Here, a centering on epistemology, or the mode of inquiry (how) expands our perspectives on the ontology (what), which is often the objectivist perspective. This is where interiority is both acknowledged and scrutinized for its influence on how we come into relationship with the pathology of the virus.

Third, and finally, this paper has attempted to demonstrated through embodied writing the value of inquiring with different modes almost as a stream of consciousness, allowing an organic exploration. In writing this paper, I found it helpful to create mini writing sessions where I simply wrote about the topic as it came to me in that moment. It was only later than I noticed fluidity between the sessions. This type of writing probably plays into my 9 tendencies to simply enter the stream. This paper surprised me in the end, and has psychoactively deepened my own awareness and understanding.

This paper is dedicated to health and help for humanity.  

References

    Esbjörn-Hargens, S. & Zimmerman, M. (2009). Integral Ecology. Boston: Integral Books.

    Maddi, S. (2002). The story of hardiness: Twenty years of theorizing, research and practice. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 54(3), 175-185.

    Margulis, L. and Sagan, D. (2000). What is life? Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Wilber, K. (2006). Integral spirituality. Boston: Shambhala.