There is a rather loaded saying amongst advanced metaphysical circles which has it that hallucinogenic or entheogenic plants have the power to dissolve boundaries, that under their effects boundaries of all kinds vanish leaving the experiencer connected with everything as if only One Great Thing or One Great Interconnected Reality existed. It sounds rather mystical, even a bit new-agey, yet that is the kind of experience undeniably elicited under the effects of such psychoactive flora. However, in our normal everyday state of primarily reductive consciousness, boundaries are evident everywhere; they permeate our lives. The walls of our houses are boundaries, the garden fence is a boundary, borders between countries are boundaries, good and evil are separated by some kind of abstract boundary, a boundary coastline separates land from the ocean, and objects, all objects, are, by definition, separate entities unto themselves due to their surface boundaries. Even purely psychological or conceptual objects like, say, chemistry or Islam, are similar in nature to tangible so-called material objects like chairs or tables, in that they are considered wholes unto themselves that have an independent existence with a boundary surface of some sort that divides them from other conceptual objects like, in this case, biology or Christianity. Thus, we live in a world of apparently separate things divided by boundaries. This kind of thinking, it would seem, works well enough. At least it is the case that not many choose to question how real or substantial boundaries actually are. But is this view correct? Do, in fact, boundaries really exist or are they merely convenient assumptions about reality that can be transcended in favour of a more holistic approach to understanding the nature of Nature? Well, even though entheogenic plants can potentially give rise to a state of mind in which boundaries on different levels melt away, and even though mystics have traditionally spoken of states of mind in which One Great Whole resolves itself, and, indeed, even if some of us glimpse such an holistic wonder once in a special while, these are all extremely rare experiences and any exploration of the concept of boundary dissolution must - if it is to be really fruitful - go one careful step at a time. And in a sober 'Spockish' (i.e. logical) frame of mind. So here we go then.... image by john drumm Let us take 2 prime examples of boundaries. Let us then see if these boundaries can, in principle, be dissolved. If so, then what emerges may be a more accurate picture or portrait of reality. That would be good, or at least it will be fuel for stimulating discussion in the evenings, for there is nothing quite as exciting as new ideas that dramatically alter the way one interprets reality. If we take an individual organism, say you for example, then if we ask ourselves where you end and the environment or everything that is not-you begins, then we might pin-point the skin as the ultimate dividing line. Organisms, or at least mammals like us, are covered by skin, skin being our outermost layer (not withstanding fir or hair). If we look at a person then it seems absurdly evident that the totality of their organism is bounded by skin. Skin provides a kind of defining line, a defining edge if you like, which separates an organism from all else. It seems obvious enough. On closer inspection however, this skin-boundary is not so clear. Skin gives off a number of substances or forms of information. Sweat comes to mind. And if we bear in mind that chemical secretions given off via skin can contain pheromones - which are chemical messages able to influence others - then clearly we have to extend our concept of a person's boundary. To be sure, such subtly active chemicals are referred to as phenotypical properties of an organism as opposed to genotypical properties. Whereas the genotype of an organism refers to the organism's constituent DNA, phenotypical properties refer to properties that reflect the full expression of the genotype. The way you look physically, the colour of your hair, the length of your legs etc, these are phenotypical properties determined by your genotype or DNA endowment. Thus, the fact that pheromones secreted by the skin of an organism are able to influence others is a rather striking example of a phenotypical action-at-a-distance effect. I mean, considering that horny female moths, for instance, are able to attract mates from miles away by exuding pheromones, is surely dramatic testimony to what pop-biologist Richard Dawkins has termed the extended phenotype - extended since the phenotypical effects can extend for literally miles and miles. Extended and essentially invisible to the naked eye. Invisible yet very much apparent in their action. All this means that skin is not the final boundary; rather it is the case that a chemical atmosphere represents a finer kind of skin for many organisms. Already then, we can see that boundaries are not so clear or obvious as we may think. Skin does not have the last word as it were. Boundaries appear quite complex, perhaps fractally so. Or, if we look really closely, they might appear not to exist at all... Organisms also give off heat. An infrared film of an organism reveals another kind of atmosphere consisting of differing regions of heat which diffuse into the environment. Place a thermometer very near to the skin and it will sense and react to the heat. Again, this shows that an organism does not end at the skin but that there really is a kind of finer atmosphere made of various kinds of information which surround the skin. Likewise, in the case of bird and reptile egg germination, heat places a crucial role such that the shell of the egg is not an absolute boundary although it might appear to be so. Organisms often exchange gases with the environment. You cannot really see this as gases are, like pheromones and heat, invisible to the naked eye. But you can certainly conceive of the process. You are doing it right now. That part of the gaseous environment you draw into your lungs will be changed in composition as it exits. Think of it as being like swills of some liquid medium like water. Coloured water lets say. One can then envisage the complex mingling of the breath with the environment. Indeed, in the Winter we have all observed how breath can actually be seen, albeit partially, in its exhaled form. And the closer one looks the more one can see that there is no obvious boundary at all, only an extremely complex system of fluidic continuity. Organisms also give off signals which are physically apparent. A cat crouched, hissing, hair-on-end and with ears flattened is radiating information with a definite meaning obvious to both cats and humans alike. Conveyed by light or photic reflection, this kind of body language again represents part of an organism's atmosphere, a body of 'higher' information over and above that which is bounded within skin. That such body language or body signals can influence other organisms in a quite dramatic fashion (how fast would you run if you saw a tiger crouching before you with its teeth bared?!?!) shows that beyond the tacitly accepted boundary of the skin, there lies a rather more complex boundary, a boundary consisting of an organism's higher-level informational atmosphere. The idea of an extended informational atmosphere becomes even more profoundly pronounced when we consider language in its normal sense. When we converse with one another then an atmosphere of acoustical information is being radiated. This information, or radiated acoustical atmosphere, not only extends outwards to an impressive distance (we can shout and influence someone, say, 100 meters away), but the information actually penetrates the receiver's psyche. And here we arrive at an astonishing state of affairs brimming with wonder. For, in this particular example, where does the being of one person end and the other begin when conventional language is being utilised? Right now for instance, the information or meaning inherent in these words of mine, are literally infiltrating the neuronal hardware of your brain. Hopefully, in response to the message from my being, these words will generate some kind of understanding within your own being. Which is to say that language enables an astonishingly intimate connection to be made between two language-using organisms. Taken together, what emerges is a kind of bigger whole, two conjoined systems functioning as one system, two brains or psyches linked into a complex informational totality in which the activity of either one system cannot be understood solely in terms of itself. Rather the totality or total system alone can explain what is happening when we converse with language. Here again, we see that skin is not an absolute boundary which divides us from all else. In reality, we are all linked into a kind of hugely complex and dynamic system of integrating linguistic information. Even if one persists that an atmosphere-like boundary of information divides us all, it is evident that these atmospheres intermingle in a decidedly complicated way. So much so in fact, that it is tenable that there are, in actuality, no boundaries between organisms at all but that all organisms are linked into an intimate language-like holistic system entire and fully comprehensible only unto itself. By way of analogy we can consider a single cell within an organism. Although it has a membraneous wall, a cell cannot be completely understood in isolation since it is in continuous interaction with other cells. Such interaction is vividly illustrated by recent research which has revealed that cells will 'kill themselves' if they do not continually receive instructions from other cells not to do so. Similarly, nearly all cells contain the same genetic information yet are able to function differently in accordance with their positional relation to other cells. In this sense then, a single cell is indeed only sensible in the wholistic context of the entire organism of which it is but one part. It would be misguided to assume that a true boundary enclosed the cell. Instead, there is a continuity in which cells merge with the whole. The boundary apparent around a cell is thus an illusion or perceptual convenience. In conclusion, we can say that, for organisms at least, they can only be fully understood when considered as being in fluid connection with all that surrounds them. Various 'waves' of phenotypical influence (in the form of the kinds of atmospheric radiations discussed above) spread out and intermingle with the surround. And these informational waves of influence are themselves set into motion by the influence of the surrounding environment. Thus we are left with one single system of information feeding back upon itself, stimulating itself and influencing itself. Nothing is truly bounded or isolated. The biosphere (and maybe even the entire Universe) is, as the old sages say, One.

Hide and Seek by Peter Tchelitchew (1940-1942). This amazing painting highlights the dissolution of boundaries, for the space around the central tree-like structure is itself formed from other objects which themselves merge into one another. This painting can be explored in more detail by clicking on various parts of it. Go ahead, make your day.

Lets take one more example of a commonly accepted boundary and see if it too can be dissolved. This time consider the assumed boundary which distinguishes living things from non-living things. Although this is an unusual boundary, we can all agree here that a boundary of some sort is assumed to exist between living things and non-living things. Although scientists find it very hard to define clearly what it is that distinguishes living organisms, it is usually to do with their ability to reproduce, their ability to circumvent entropy and maintain order (this includes homeostasis or the ability to maintain, say, a constant temperature), their ability to take in and utilise energy and their ability to excrete waste products (in fact, another property attached to living things is that they have boundaries, but, as we have seen, this is perhaps not quite so clear-cut a property). Regarding non-lving things, we may think of rocks, minerals, elements, gases and this sort of thing. On the face of it there appears to be a sharp boundary between the two, between living and non-living phenomena. So lets look at this so-called boundary and see if we can dissolve it in another nifty wholistic deft of hand. There is a popular theory, originally developed by Scottish chemist A.G.Cairns-Smith and supported by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, that life started on the back of simple replicating clay crystals. In this neat and compelling scenario, simple mineral crystals are conjectured to have got the evolutionary ball rolling. Crystals can grow and replicate anyway (remember growing copper sulphate crystals at school?) but Cairns-Smith had a cunning insight regarding how information could be built up within clay crystals and how this information could then replicate and thus lead to some form of natural selection. At its most simplest, this would mean that a clay crystal able to reproduce or seed copies of itself and also possessing some property which effected the environment in such a way that more like-crystals were formed, would thence begin to increase in number. And according to Cairns-Smith, once this essentially logical process got going, then more and more complexity or information could be carried within such clay crystals - until the point was reached (millennia later) when the crystals were able to utilise DNA to store information and thence eventually drop their clay-embodied legacy altogether such that DNA alone did the job of information storage. The point is that this theory has life starting out with simple (and terrestrially abundant) replicating clay crystals. And that these clay crystals are just 'normal matter', just a normal stuff lying all over the planet's surface with an inherent potential for undergoing a simple form of natural selection. If we assume that this theory be true or at least if we assume that some kind of similar scenario lay at the very beginnings of life (as we normally conceive it), then we can once more see that the boundary between life and non-life is not so clear-cut. What emerges is smooth continuity. What I am driving at then, is that the boundaries which we have been discussing, are not really boundaries at all, but complex fractal-like systems of continuity. Just as the boundary edge of the famous Mandelbrot Set reveals, under close scrutiny, infinitely deep patterns of connectivity which blend into one another, so too might all boundaries be like this. What appears to be a clear dividing line may represent, as I said before, a convenience, a conceptual convenience determined by our limited perceptual apparatus. If, instead, boundaries dissolve under careful scrutiny, then this would mean a great deal in terms of our understanding of Nature/Reality. Gaia Theory for example would be further confirmed for all organisms can be seen to be interconnected at many levels, with smooth - albeit complex - continuity uniting all and sundry into a singularly vast totality of incredible physical, chemical, biological and phenotypical complexity. In other words, everything, all life, dissolves into a language-like sea of informational relations. In this new view, nothing is truly isolated. All things, all objects are in fluid language-like connection with all else, extending perhaps, to the entire Universe since objects like suns and galaxies radiate information also (in terms of say gravity and solar energy). Such a new view represents nothing less than fantastic holistic ideology with a vengeance. And the corollaries implicit in this view are likewise fantastic. So stay tuned dear electronic reader, for, as the man said, "you ain't seen nothin' yet". Get your holistic thinking and conceiving caps on! All being well, another array of startling implications to this article will be expanded upon in Volume 3 of Prescience. For more heady ideas, make your way to the vast and numinous deoxy site...