Good Fences Make Good Neighbors

Ephrins are cell surface receptor-ligand pairs that create boundaries throughout the body.

Ever wonder how organs form and stay distinct? All our DNA is the same, yet the cells it gives rise to differentiate, migrate all over the place, through each other's neighborhoods, and then form various distinct tissues, including 700 unique muscles. Cells don't have eyes or brains, so the mechanism is more like ants following pheromone trails rather than an architect following a masterplan of the body. It is a far more complicated story than anyone understands at the moment, but some of the actors are known.

There are a lot of cell adhesion proteins, such as integrins, cadherins, NCAMs. and selectins. But adhesion can't be the whole story, lest every cell adhere to every other. That is where Ephrins come in, which are a family of cell surface molecules which typically have repulsive effects, when they find and bind to their receptors (called Eph). They are widely used in development and mature tissues to keep proper boundaries and help guide that way for migrating cells and cell processes.

It has long been known that if you dissociate embryonic tissue and allow the cells to float about, they will re-associate in an organized (though far from perfect) way, like sticking to like, with boundaries forming between those from different tissues. This indicates the power of selective adhesion and repulsion to help cells position themselves, which operate in conjunction with other systems that keep their identity straight- what organ or tissue they are supposed to be. Each such cell type expresses its own complement of adhesion and repulsion surface molecules, forming part of the code that helps it to find and keep its place, as well as deciding whether to continue dividing and moving, or to stop when the local structure has reached its expected proportions.

On the left, one tissue expressing an Eph receptor keeps separate from another tissue expressing the  Ephrin ligand which it recognizes, thanks to repulsive effects that counter-act several other adhesive interactions. On the right are a few of the details of the mechanism. Each side of the Ephrin-Eph interaction can tell its cell that an encounter has happened.

These mechanisms take another quantum leap in the nervous system, which involves a particularly high level of cell migration during development, and pathfinding of dendrites and axons throughout life. Axons travel huge distances, both in the central nervous system and in the peripheral nervous system, using adhesion and repulsion cues all along the way. Ephrins are used dynamically to guide growth cones. For example in the serotonin network, serotonin neurons traveling from the dorsal raphae (B7) to the forebrain olfactory bulb pass by the amygdala. Do they stop there to extend some input fibers? Normally they do. But not if the amygdala has been genetically altered (in these mice) to express the EphrinA ligand, which pairs with the EphrinA5 receptor that is normally expressed on these neurons.

EphrinA is typically expressed in the hypothalamus, keeping serotonergic projections from the dorsal raphae (on the left, B7) from innervating. But if it is expressed (in mice) in the amygdala, it prevents that normal innervation as well, as these neurons travel during development into the forebrain, in this case the olfactory bulb (OB).

• Review of muscle development.
• Review of cell migration.
• Rising Asia.
• Sweden is more entrepreneurial than the US- because incumbents have less power and people have more power.

Incarnation and Reincarnation

Souls don't reincarnate. Heck, they don't even exist. But DNA does.

What a waste it is to die. All that work and knowledge, down the drain forever. But life is nothing if not profligate with its gifts. Looking at the reproductive strategies of insects, fish, pollen-spewing trees, among many others gives a distinct impression of easy come, easy go. Life is not precious, but dime-a-dozen, or less. Humanity proves it all over again with our rampant overpopulation, cheapening what we claim to hold so dear, not to mention laying the rest of the biosphere to waste.

But we do cherish our lives subjectively. We have become so besotted with our minds and intelligence that it is hard to believe, (and to some it is unimaginable), that the machinery will just cease- full stop- at some point, with not so much as a whiff of smoke. Consciousness weaves such a clever web of continuous and confident experience, carefully blocking out gaps and errors, that we are lulled into thinking that thinking is not of this world- magical if not supernatural. Believing in souls has a long and nearly universal history.

Reincarnation in the popular imagination, complete with a mashup of evolution. At least there is a twisty ribbon involved!

Yet we also know it is physical- it has to be something going on in our heads, otherwise we would not be so loath to lose them. Well, lose them we do when the end comes. But it is not quite the end, since our heads and bodies are reincarnations- they come from somewhere, and that somewhere is the DNA that encodes us. DNA incarnates through biological development, into the bodies that are so sadly disposable. And then that DNA is transmitted to new carnate bodies, and re-incarnates all over again in novel combinations through the wonder of sex. It is a simple, perhaps trite, idea, but offers a solid foundation for the terms (and archetypes) that have been so abused through theological and new-age history.

• The Taliban still stands with Al Qaeda.
• Trauma and the Ring.
• Those darn astrocytes.
• Impeachable offenses? Plenty.
• Corporations are at best amoral, and routinely immoral.
• Fisheries are running thin.

The End of Theology

Final part of three posts on Mormonism- into the current age. Review of "The Mormon People", by Matthew Bowman.

Prophets found religions, but bureaucrats run them. It has ever been so, an evolution that is recapituated in Mormonism. Mormonism's phophet, Joseph Smith certainly existed, which is more than we can say for sure about Jesus, though his golden tablets have a more tenuous grip on reality, to say nothing of the pseudohistory he cooked up in the Book of Mormon. The enthusiasm which Mormonism generated at the start, and the strong, if not universal, attachment and devotion its converts had to Joseph Smith as the self-proclaimed revelator and prophet, is incredible in a skeptical age, to skeptical people. Thousands of converts were eventually moved to pile their possessions on handcarts in Iowa, and wheel them on foot over a thousand miles to Salt Lake City. Smith's successor, Brigham Young, received roughly one revelation, and after that, further (highly infrequent) revelation was left to the committee that runs the church.

It has been a rapid evolution from crazy inspiration to buttoned-down middle-of-the-road-ism, exemplified in the newest temple in Salt Lake City, the LDS conference center, an incredibly lush and expensive building (on the inside), built with enormous discretion mostly below-ground and well-screened from the outside, with only a slight, modernist spire. Mormonism started with a revolutionary mind-set, moving out of reach of the US to set up its own theocracy, which grew and flourished for several decades. But after a war, enormous pressure from the US, and some strategic changes of course, it has shifted its outlook and become a bulwark of American-ism, spreading middle class values all over the world among its converts.

The LDS conference center, in Salt Lake City. Which is also a temple, under the covers.

Along the way, Mormon theology has shifted as well. There were the explicit accommodations discarding polygamy and racism. There were more subtle changes from strict adherence to Smith's revelation to progressive scientific inquiry and reasoned argument, popular in the early twentieth century when Christianity was still widely and generally thought to be consistent with the newest findings in astronomy, physics, archeology and other sciences. And then a turn to creationism when the realization began to dawn that science presented insurmountable problems and needed to be opposed or co-opted, not only on the main front of the origin and nature of man, but particularly for Mormons on the archeological evidence (or lack thereof) for the Jewish origin of native Americans, the existence of whiter Nephites vs the redder Lamanites, the great culminating battle between them, and the travels of Jesus in the New World, among many other issues.

This all led to the main evolution of Mormonism, which has been to de-emphasize theology altogether, in favor of a strong social system with sufficient ritual to awe, but more focus on keeping its adherants so busy with offices, committees, gradations of status, services to all ages from youth to old age, that little time or energy is left for theology. The mission is a good example. This task is unimaginably arduous. All young men and many women go out for two years as a culmination of their upbringing in the church, to hand out Books of Mormon to unwilling passers-by, and serve by their clean-cut appearance as advertisements for the LDS church. Are they theological experts? Hardly. While the main point seems to be to re-affirm the missionary's own dedication to the church by this boot camp experience- a sense of being part of an elite or a despised few, with a special mission in fallen times- the proposition to potential converts revolves far more around the concrete social structures of the church than its miscelleneous revelations and claims to be the true and restored priesthood of Jesus. Indeed, seeing youngsters of nineteen called "elders" and "Aronic priests" does not inspire respect for such claims of superiority in god-given revealed priestly authority, in comparison with such more staid institutions as, say, the Orthodox and Catholic churches.

The problem of theological and spiritual decline. LDS elders distribute the sacrament.

This analysis was one unexpected pleasure of Matthew Bowman's book on the history of Mormonism, that while the founding of Mormonism is naturally the most curious and remarkable part of the story, his treatment of the later evolutions of the instution and its rationalizations is fascinating, subtle, and well worth reading.

It is thus difficult to pin down what precisely orthodox Mormon belief is. Mormons who wish to enter the temples must affirm their belief in Jesus Christ's devine sonship and atonement, in the truth of Joseph Smith's divine mission to restore Christ's church, and in the priesthood authority of the present leaders of the church. That is all, and particular key terms in those beliefs remain intentionally undefined. Through the church's 180 year existence, Orson Pratt, B. H. Roberts, Bruce McConkie, and many other authors have each offered up versions of Mormonism, and though ideas from many Mormon writers have seeped into the common discourse of the church, none is considered a final authority on what Mormons must believe. In an interview with Time in 1997, a journalist asked Gordon B. Hinckley about the doctrine that God was once a man, which Joseph Smith seemed to advocate. "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it," he said. The reply was less an evasion than a recognition of the modern place of theology in the church: the focus of Mormonism is very much not on the particulars of belief but whether a member is in the pews every week, holds a calling, and can be relied upon if a bishop is looking for somebody to drive an elderly widow to the hospital. 

There is no trained Mormon clergy. The Church Educational System today espouses not only the conservative theology of Bruce McConkie but also his lack of interest in scholarship outside his own tradition. CES's work resembles a youth ministry more closely than it does the seminaries of other faiths. Similarly, leaders of the church today, unlike James Talmage or John Widtsoe or McConkie, avoid writing books about theology in favor of devotional or homiletic texts. This trend is likely intentional. After the public disputes over evolution in the 1930's and after correlation (a preemptive strike against potential doctrinal schism) the leaders of the church have decided to leave theological dispute alone.

Theology is like clothing. We know implicitly and unconsciously what course matter lies beneath, but do not want to see. Truth is hidden, and what covers it is not truth, really, but a contrivance developed to enhance our self-image and social existence, via bright dramatic colors, a stylish cut that, while following the natural form in some respects, alters and improves as well. Clothes ease social life, helping us keep boundaries, announce our allegiances, beliefs, and status. Many people like to wear uniforms, as a sign of belonging and status. Yet the impulse to innovation and novelty is irrepressible as well, creating sects of fashion and adornment. Styles change with the times, for incidental, technogical, or no reasons at all, fostering constant change in which theologies and theological institutions best meet the anxieties of the moment. Clothing builds progressively in an unending evolution, from work fabrics to jeans, to riveted jeans, to prewashed, stretch, and now ripped. So do theologies, which build one upon the next, each claiming to be the restored and true church.

Death is probably that truth which it is most urgent to hide, so theologies take its amelioration or suppression most seriously, even when each person, in their bones, knows the truth. Even that most sensible of theologies, Buddhism, professes reincarnation, though it violates some of its own central tenets and is obviously a cultural inheritance from Hinduism. Not even those who have escaped rebirth die, in the Buddhist system, but dwell permanently in nirvana, a sort of heaven. Temperamental differences lead to a great variety of styles and approaches, some people reveling in dense fabrics and shell-like protection, others in flamboyant display, still others yearning for nudism. The varieties of spiritual clothing are just as obvious, and just about as arbitrary. Great designers and other creators (think David Bowie, James Harden, Japan of the Edo era) come up with new approaches to clothing, while most hew to conservatism, which shapes the uniforms of millions. Clothing has both mundane and exalted elements, just as church life has its ecstatic moments and humdrum ones- its inspired creators and the trailing edge of missionaries struggling to get even one person to listen to the good news.

In clothing, all this obfuscatory effort of hiding reality has been practically rewarding and artistically elevating, and at worst harmless. In religion, on the other hand, for all its artistic dividends, theology has been a philosophical disaster of the first order. New versions always appear, as the need for spiritual clothing appears to be timeless. Yet we can only celebrate the cooling and bureaucratization of previously extreme theologies into bland uniforms of conventionality.

• Once I was a beehive, a charming, if sappy, look into Mormon culture.
• Fake news, from DOJ.
• Classic projection lie, to distract from the Trump=Epstein equation. Who elected this psychopath?
• Election security is not going very well.

Domestic Terrorism

For all the mass shootings, domestic violence kills more people and terrorizes them far more severely. A tribute to Andrea Dworkin.

We are enraged by the continuing insanity of the NRA and the legion of gun nuts it represents. A murderous phallic-worship cult so transfixed by the object of their adoration that simple human decency, let alone humility, fall by the way. But the mass shootings by young brain-washed men with automatic rifles, which form the media focus, are a minor problem compared with the more prevalent and damaging form of domestic terrorism and murder: domestic violence.

Roughly 2,000 people die yearly from domestic violence, half of which involve guns, and some of which are familicides that also count as mass shootings. In comparison, about 300 people have been dying in mass shootings per year over the last decade, though the statistics are disparate under various definitions and research methods. The gun violence archive lists 253 so far in 2019, 340 in all of 2018; 346 in 2017, 382 in 2016, 335 in 2015, and 269 in 2014.

Mass shootings count as terrorist incidents, since they are typically driven by an ideology of hatred that is expressed explicitly as motivation, and may also target a hated group, or, out of frustration, just a vulnerable group of opportunity. The intention is evidently to instill fear in society, excite copycats, and change the culture towards the desired hatred setting. But how effective are they? Not very effective at all, since their rarity insures that we as general citizens need not have, and do not have, fear of public places or other venues where such shootings take place. Yes, we are angry about the senseless carnage made possible by military fixations and equipment prevalent in some of our not-very-mentally-healthy subcultures. Yes, we are disgusted by the ideology, such as it is, and its leaders, first and foremost our dear president. But terrorized? Not at all. The elaborate security theater introduced in airports, and increasingly in schools, is a sad and wasteful consequence, but hardly bespeaks "terror". Rather, it represents the best our bureaucracies can manage to raise increments of policing and prevention, with the end result of keeping the populace calm, if not irritated and bored out of its collective mind.

Terror is something else entirely. Terror is when you are trapped in a place with no escape. A place where, if you try to leave, your chances of being killed are higher than if you stay. A place, where if you stay, you can look forward to unending torment, vicious abuse both physical and mental. A situation where, if you leave, you can count on being hunted for years, with lethal weapons. That is the reality of domestic violence. Andrea Dworkin blamed pornography, which I do not. But pornography is part of a larger culture of dehumanization and objectification, consisting of casual rapists like our president, pimps who traffic in women and girls, dedicated patriarchies such as the Catholic and Mormon churches, even Sports Illustrated, which traffics in a yearly turn into soft porn, among many other social institutions.

Objectification is not unique to sexuality, but results from any desire. The store clerk is a mechanism to obtain what we want, and is of little personal importance to us as shoppers. War could not happen without the objectification of the enemy. Nothing personal! But it is certainly ironic and distressing that the most personal relationship of all is driven by desires that can so easily head down impersonal, even spiteful, hateful, and violent channels when thwarted and frustrated, or even if let run free, by way of ideological or psychological perversion.

It is noteworthy that much of our language around sex is violent and used to express violence. Being "screwed" is not a good thing, but a bad thing. The gun nuts mentioned above marinate in a cult of masculinity and sexualized power so divorced from reality and humanity that it should form an intrinsic "red flag". Again, it is the powerful, even existential, motivating desire of sexuality which generates a quest for other forms of power and control, leading some down a path of violence and dehumanization.

As Andrea Dworkin wrote, in her inimitable style:  "Life and Death"

"These are women who thought that they had a right to dignity, to individuality, to greedom- but in fact they couldn't walk down a city block in freedom. Many of them were raped as children in their own homes, by relatives- fathers, uncles, brothers- before they were 'women'. Many of them were beaten by the men who loved them- their husbands, lovers. Many of them were tortured by these men. When you look at what happened to these women, you want to say, 'Amnesty International, where are you?'- because the prisons for women are our homes. We live under martial law. We live in a rape culture. Men have to be sent to prison to live in a culture that is as rapist as the normal home in North America. We live under what amounts to military curfew, enforced by rapists. We say we're free citizens in a free society. But we lie. We lie about it every day."

So it is a deep issue, a pressing issue of human rights, health and well-being, and continues in the age of #MeToo, which is only slowly filtering through the culture. What should be done? We can not all go back and get better upbringings, probably the single most influential causal / protective factor. A great deal has been done to set up hotlines and women's shelters, and to recognize that leaving an abusive situation is very difficult. But I think more can be done, principally by taking the position that a relationship where one person has reached out to police, or an abuse hotline, or a shelter, is already dead, and the helping institutions should do all they can to enable its parties to dissolve it and move on. That means not getting bogged down in a lot of mediation. Rather, the focus should be on setting the battered spouse into a new life, rapidly putting all the shared assets and income flows into escrow, and using them fairly, under official supervision and eventual division, to help each party live independently. Whether the batterer is charged criminally is a separate matter. The evidence in these cases tends to be poor, the parties unwilling to extend their trauma and drag their lives through the courts. Either way, separation is the more urgent and practical need, and one party's witness is quite sufficient for that.

Q: People think you are very hostile to men.
A: I am.
Q: Doesn't that worry you?
A: From what you said, it worries them. 

• How not to build infrastructure- Australian broadband whipsawed between right and left.
• Real gun nuts can't stand the NRA.
• And naturally, the answer is more guns.
• Methods of bad faith.

Awash in Authoritarian Atavism

Most institutions in the US are authoritarian, not democratic. 

How far we have come from the independent, agrarian ideal of Thomas Jefferson! Through the first century of the Republic, most citizens were self-employed, principally as farmers and shopkeepers. This bred an ethic of independence, self-reliance, and self-motivated political and civic participation, as noted by de Tocqueville. Then we all started working for corporations, and were sucked into a political system of work that was anything but democratic. Unions were an attempt to re-inject democratic principles into this workplace, at least in opposition to the main actor, management. But they have withered as well in our current age, as the corporation has become ascendent, and state regulation has largely taken the place of unions to remediate the worst problems of corporate amorality.

It all starts with the family, which, at least from the child's perspective, is very much an authoritarian institution. Care is exchanged for obedience. Hopefully love is exchanged as well. Viewing powerful people is known to be psychologically valent- we are to some extent inherently authoritarian. Churches generally replicate this structure, most explicitly in the Catholic system, with El Papa at the top, giving stern, loving, and infallible leadership. One of our most characteristic home-grown churches, the Mormon church, has an equally top-down authoritarian and patriarchal hierarchy. It was with the most extreme reluctance that its leaders gave up polygamy which had served as an extra reward and evidence of divine / patriarchal favor, to be followed by an eternity of connubial bliss.

The current LDS leadership of prophets, seers, and revelators.

These templates pervade our society, with even small towns that should be run by town councils giving up their executive functions to town managers. One of our political parties is dedicated to the proposition that authoritarianism is better than democracy, and pursues every possible means to make that transition. But it is really the corporation that takes up most of our waking lives and exemplifies the pervasiveness of authoritarianism today. In a typical corporation, there is an oligarchical board that is supposedly in charge of corporate strategy. But its members are typically chosen by management and are managers of other corporations, so fully entrenched in the authoritarian power structure. There are shareholders who supposedly own the corporation, elect the board, and supposedly vote about critical strategic issues. But nothing could be further from a democracy. It is management that proposes all the candidates, issues, and conducts all communications, and it is extremely rare for any contrary perspective or action to come to light. And the recent movement back to private corporate ownership has moved the dial even further away from any semblance of democracy.

The effects of this are clear, in the amorality and growing destructiveness of American corporations. For all the talk of "stakeholders", they steer all spare money to management and shareholders, and think nothing of destroying communities and workers, to be replaced with offshored supply chains or automated machinery as feasible. Our main streets have been eviscerated, our media prostituted, our environment abused, our government corrupted. The public good, which is what democracy exists to safeguard and nurture, means nothing to authoritarian institutions whose only purpose is the capture money by any means fair or foul and whose governance gives no place to greater considerations. Corporations have also invaded our democratic processes by way of the modern intermediaries of political participation- political consultancies, mass advertising, and PACs, not to mention old-fashioned funding / corruption of individual politicians, parties and institutions, and capture of regulatory agencies.

No wonder that our fellow citizens, after marinating their lives away in undemocratic social institutions, have little experience or taste for the rigors of democracy, and fall to the mean morality, domineering presumptions, and infantile ideas of demagogues. This will require some grass-roots psychotherapy to correct. One such corrective might be the work council system, as practiced in Germany. Every work place of any size has a democratically elected council of workers, which discuss and agitate for worker interests. They also elect worker representatives to the corporate board, up to half its members, depending on company size. This system gives workers real power in the workplace and a practice of participatory democracy, both of which are sorely lacking in the US.

• The eggs are OK.
• Explicit... tiny desk by Lizzo.