The best damn thing I’ve ever written

I’ve shared some of my thoughts from Ray Peat's book ‘Mind and Tissue a few times now. If you’re not familiar, it’s one of my all-time favorites. There’s something deeply familiar about it, almost as if the ideas weren’t truly mine but were downloaded from a universal consciousness and then imparted to me (bare with me. Esoterica makes me want to puke as well)

For years, especially as a child and teenager, I struggled to articulate this difficult-to-describe ‘big picture’ view of the world that I often felt I possessed. However, as I began to acquire knowledge in disciplines like human physiology, anatomy, politics, biochemistry, and most importantly, epistemology and philosophy—the thread that I truly believe ties all of these together—I started to see the loose strands of a unique perspective emerging. In this view, biology is not separate from broad philosophical questions, nor do the political climate and cultural values exist independently of our understanding of nutrition, the body, or the communal, relational nature of knowledge acquisition.

When I first read ‘Mind and Tissue’, which, unfortunately, is now $2000 on Amazon—so good luck finding a copy unless you can track down an audio version lol), I felt a surge of dissapontment honestly. I was frustrated that I hadn’t taken the time to synthesize my own ideas into a coherent ‘mind dump’ with a framework as simplistic yet profound in its ability to weave together seemingly unrelated subjects into a cohesive tapestry of ‘wholeness.’ (That’s what I’m trying to do here)

One aspect of Ray that I deeply admire is his unwavering authenticity across various aspects of ‘self’. We often hear sayings like, "How you do one thing is how you do everything," but we frequently fail to grasp the depth of this principle. Our darkest thoughts, underlying motivations, and ideological perspectives on life, love, and purpose profoundly influence the tangible aspects of our physiology—such as blood pressure and heart rate—and vice versa. The bio-psycho-social model takes a crack at this, but I think it does a fairly sorry ass job of it.

‘Fragmentation’ is something that Carl Jung has talked about lot. It’s essentially the ‘walling off’ of the dark parts of the psyche or self that he refers to as ‘the shadow’. The parts of ourself we ignore or refuse to acknowledge. Wether we realize it or not, we’re all familiar with fragmentation. It shows up in overt, dramatic ways when we consider the individual who lives a ‘double life’ where in which one set of actions, behaviors, or relationships, are kept secret from others. This is an obvious external manifestation of fragmentation, one that acutely captures our attention in books, movies and other dramatization’s. But we all deal with fragmentation on some level.

I believe that as organisms move towards greater health or ‘negentropy’—greater order and organization, first at the microscopic level of, say, the cell and building outwards in orders of magnitude towards organs, intertwined organ systems, and ultimately the organism itself and the collective entirety of its thoughts, actions, and ‘being’—fragmentation (of different parts of psyche or personality) gradually begin to dissolve, as these are inherently antithetical to ‘wholeness’ (real health).

Is it not then surprising that our views on politics, religion, and life purpose evolve when our brains have the energy they need to function optimally? Is it at all unexpected that our health improves when we adopt beliefs and worldviews that foster love and creativity? Should it come as a shock when we see individuals filled with purpose and passion embracing specific ideas about nutrition and wellness?

I don’t believe these phenomena stem solely from ‘group biases’; rather, they emerge from specific beliefs and limbic attractor patterns that give rise to health-seeking behaviors and habits aimed directly at fulfilling the energetic needs of the individual and perpetuating the cycle. I also believe that meeting our baseline energetic needs through good nutrition allows particular beliefs and worldviews to emerge. For example, It’s hard not to feel generous and altruistic when you feel good. This is the bi-directional nature of the organisms, as well as the inseperable nature of the psyche and its associated biochemistry.

Anyway, I wanted to give a bit of a brief introduction to some of the foundational components of the worldview as outlined. That context is important.

Lets take a closer look at some of the ideas presented in the book itself —

The assertion that discoveries must be integrated into our cultural framework is a key topic discussed in M&T. It is important to contextualize new knowledge within existing cultural narratives because the integration, or ‘alignment,’ of the cultural climate with acquired knowledge allows for a more profound understanding and acceptance of new ideas. This enables societies to progress beyond their current limitations and paradigms.

As mentioned above, as the values and beliefs of a culture shift, so too do their ideas on politics and various health-seeking behaviors.

An important distinction to make here is that the broad generalization from ‘worldview’ to specific TYPES (think categories) of beliefs (e.g., MAGA to raw milk pipeline) DOES NOT imply that “if I have the right worldview, all of my beliefs—especially about highly specific or context-dependent issues—must be right.” This is a horrendous overgeneralization, one in which dangerous in-groups and cult-like ideologies can readily flourish. Generalizing the particular can lead to misunderstandings.

Again, we are making broad inferences here, not assuming that:

1. All beliefs aligned more specifically with certain behaviors (like exercise or other health-seeking behaviors) aren’t also readily adopted by members of opposing ‘in-groups,’ or that

2. All beliefs of a specific in-group must be correct simply because they align with the organism's greater negentropic behaviors (toward increased order in the system), or

3. All philosophical or ideological positions of a specific group are true simply because they tend to produce other beliefs or worldviews that align more ideally with certain health-seeking behaviors and or the greater health or function of the organism as a whole.

Feeling lost? Let’s tie it together again. Remember what I said above: the assertion that new discoveries must be integrated into our cultural framework (in order to truly make progress in science and health) is key. If the beliefs and values of a society don’t change, it will be difficult to arrive at the balanced conclusions necessary to integrate modern science with the wisdom gained from our ancestral past. In order for those beliefs to change as a society, individualized need to change and so do their though processes, which is influenced by the health of the person and their minds ability to entertain big picture perspective (aka, this article)

There’s a good quote from Ray that sums it up nicely

“Western scientists find the Russian conception of matter threatening, what must they think of the Russian physiology which criticizes their entire worldview as a brain dysfunction?”

Here’s another one

“What sort of person, or culture, is it that seesexploration" as the strongest and most basic reflex of the organism? It obviously can't be one that fears new knowledge, and it presumably would be one that values science, progress, and freedom to grow. Starting from any holistic position, it doesn't seem peculiar to view curiosity, an instinct for exploration, or a desire to perceive, as the fundamental tendency of an organism. However, the western traditions in psychology and biology are not holistic, and the tendency toward integration of knowledge, as far as it exists, proceeds by correlations of accumulated facts, level by level, as if science were blind to wholes. Russian traditions in science have largely ignored the distinction made elsewhere between psychology and biology, so that biological thinking is onformed by the awareness of human needs and possibilities, and psychology is not thought of as being in any sense un-biological.The Marxian attitude is to work fromwholes, and from futures or purposes, as interpretive frameworks, toward the so-called concrete facts and experiments. TheSoviet concept of the orienting, or exploratory, reflex is the most important single holistic “informing principle" in biology and psychology. It comes close to being the definition of an organism. It is not only important in this logical or philosophical sense, but it is frequently described as "having an intensity greater than any other activity of the organism."A narrow vision serves the geneticists as well in political matters as in academic work. They can reach very definite conclusions about the future of science and society without having to study other theories of history and human nature than the one they can derive from their philosophy of science.

sound a lot like the modern day evidence based influencers, no?

I think we can think of this in a few ways. First from a top down perspective in which a gradual loss of health and function — due to things like industrialization — produce disorder and ultimately ‘bad ideas’. Does poor health originate first as a ‘mind virus’? The inability for many ‘evidence based proponents to reason and ration beyond the limited perspective provided to them by naive empericism IS a byproduct of the current cultural climate of scientific materialism. A prime example. Scientific materialism poists that we are simply meat suit bags filled with chemicals, so it’s no wonder good health is hard to attain, specifically when it’s divorced from the beliefs that good health itself produces (purpose, a meaniful life etc). Are you defining to see the casual ‘loop’ here?

Now let’s consider a bottom-up approach. As individuals begin to acquire or stack more health-seeking behaviors, their attitudes, religious views, and worldviews may also begin to shift. I think this is precisely what we’re witnessing with the MAGA crowd, even if some of their specific beliefs may be faulty. I believe this is a positive step in the right direction, moving toward an integrated, delocalized/decentralized self-perpetuating system. From the standpoint of self-organization, you could liken this to the growing pains often experienced by athletes when learning a new skill. Initially, as the basics of a skill like throwing a baseball are taught (pruning neural circuits and pathways, expanding certain regions of the brain, developing structural adaptations), athletes find themselves in a momentary state of seeming disorder.

For a parallel, consider reallocating the NIH budget away from nuclear genome and pharmaceutical studies and more toward the interconnected nature of disease. Labs may get shut down, jobs may be lost, and on a local level, certain policies may be implemented to facilitate a smoother transition. Yet, from a focal view, this process often appears chatoic. However, as we transition out of these growing pains and establish systems with greater coherence and interdisciplinary collaboration, order in the system begins to develop.

Returning to the baseball example: as the skill becomes refined, athletes are now able to ‘self-organize.’ Self-organization refers to how teams or individuals naturally develop strategies and adapt to game dynamics without strict external control. It involves adaptability and the spontaneous emergence of new play patterns once foundational skills are developed (you can’t self-organize before you learn to shoot a basket though ).

We can think of this entropic emergence of order in terms of a concept I call 'fractal anti-fragility.' Fractals are complex, self-similar patterns that repeat at different levels of scale, while anti-fragility describes systems that improve and become stronger when subjected to stress or volatility. An example of anti-fragility can be seen in natural systems like forests responding to disturbances, such as forest fires. At the level of individual trees, a fire is obviously destructive (fragile); however, at a larger scale, fires are a natural part of the ecosystem and can actually make the forest more resilient over time—this is anti-fragility in action. The heat from the fire triggers the release of seeds from certain tree species' cones, allowing new trees to grow and take advantage of the newly created space. The ash left behind also provides nutrients for the soil.

At the larger level of the forest ecosystem, the presence of fire is both necessary and beneficial. This illustrates how a system can be anti-fragile in one sense (i.e., the forest ecosystem as a whole) but potentially harmful in another (i.e., individual trees or other components of the ecosystem). Understanding the interplay between different levels of scale is crucial for truly grasping anti-fragility.

Similarly, major cultural and policy shifts are temporarily disruptive to certain individuals and institutions, but they are anti-fragile in the long run. Decentralized systems are inherently self-perpetuating/self-organazing governors of negentropic behavior — let me explain

Decentralization in healthcare is about giving more power to local communities and peer groups, especially comes holding doctors accountable. That approach is inherently different from centralized systems, where decisions come from the top down, creating big gaps between those making the rules and those following them.In decentralized healthcare, accountability largely comes from peer review and local medical boards. When doctors make mistakes, their colleagues step in to evaluate their practices and decide on appropriate action. peer-based systems actually foster a culture of accountability and flexibility in decision making though. It's not perfect but it's better. decentralized system also allow for a more thoughtful way to handle errors. Local governance actually creates environments where small mistakes serve as learning opportunities rather than triggers for penalties. Decentralization helps minimize the chance of major critical errors as well. Local decision-making allows healthcare providers to respond quickly to specific community needs, which is essential in preventing serious errors that can occur when a single, one-size-fits-all approach is imposed from above like we saw during the shit show that was Covid. There are downsides with DM medicine as well but they're smaller and more manageable (I.e small perturbations to the system that results in small, localized loses. Such as the fragility of the tree and the forest fire)

At the micro scale (or indivividual level), baseline cellular and cognitive needs may be met by individuals and greater levels of order are achieved, and the organism shows a propensity for value shifts. The emotional and energetic aspects of discovery suggest that knowledge is not merely an accumulation of facts (as the materialistic paradigm would imply) but a dynamic process that reshapes our perspectives and cultural identities from the inside out. Individual by individual. Cell-by-cell, organ by-organ, system-by-system, and belief-by- belief.

We are witnessing a cultural shift toward greater health-seeking behaviors, and I believe the current administration is an emergent property of this change. If this administration is able to achieve its aims , believe we will be entering into a renosance like era for modern medicine.

I want to make it clear that I am mostly apolitical, but I can recognize the broader systemic implications that emerge from conservative and liberal ideologies, particularly through the lens of systems theory. When we examine these ideologies, it's important to consider where some of the key differences actually lie. Id actually argue that it is the tug of war between these two ideologies that promotes some degree of homeostasis and order

Conservatism, as a broad philosophy, tends to hold the individual and their autonomy in high regard. It posits that individuals are responsible for their socioeconomic status, and that free markets tend to self-perpetuate individual autonomy and improve quality of life in the long run. These ideas are not entirely incorrect. At its core, conservatism promotes concepts that self-perpetuate increased order, all things being equal. However, this paradigm is often too generalized and can struggle to manage the ‘growing pains’ or transitional difficulties that arise in the ‘lag space’ between chaos and order.

This is where policies more closely associated with liberal or moderate ideologies come into play, as they often seek to remedy these growing pains through things like welfare programs. It’s clear that localized strategies are necessary, although the extent of those strategies is a debate we won’t entertain today.

It’s important to mention this because transitional policies and some government t intervention is crucial for minimizing damage to small groups of individuals—those who are ‘fragile,’ such as those affected by NIH budget reallocations (consider funding for drugs used to treat very rare genetic disorders).

While there are many aspects I disagree with, I do believe this is a step in the right direction. As mentioned, there will be growing pains, and anyone denying these local problems is fooling themselves.

We’ve come a long way here and may have gone off on a few tangents, so let’s tie things together.

The true locus of culture and discovery underscores the importance of a robust worldview, a healthy body, and nurturing interpersonal relationships in shaping knowledge. In theories of social constructivism, knowledge is co-created through these healthy interactions. When individuals enter a group with a ‘loving or altruistic expectancy,’ the collective understanding expands. Emotional engagement is crucial for meaningful communication and knowledge sharing, and this requires a healthy body and mind.

Rays critique of the current state of mass communication as ‘primitive-tyrannical’ suggests to me that existing systems often hinder genuine understanding and connection. So does poor health. This limitation causes a culture of competition rather than collaboration, where knowledge is seen as a zero-sum game. The notion that entropy increases in a closed system reflects the dangers of viewing knowledge as a finite resource for an ‘academically elite’.

communication should be energizing, allowing for the liberation of metabolic energy through shared insights. Similarly, metabolic energy and health also facilitates these aims.

The exploration of these themes reveals a profound understanding of the interplay between culture, knowledge, health and communication.