social commentary

Looking for bridges in views about the second Trump administration. I'm currently aware of four views:

• This is the worst thing ever, I'm terrified
• This is the best thing ever, I'm thrilled
• I don't pay attention to politics, so far my life feels exactly the same
• Some of the changes seem pretty cool so far, but we'll see

Where are the middle grounds? I want to know how to build bridges in my personal connections when politics comes up these days.

Frozen Wednesday Feb 4. Frozen Wednesday.

The ground is still locked in ice. The trees are quiet. Even the deer step softer when the world feels this tense.

Nancy Guthrie is still missing — a family somewhere living every parent-child nightmare in real time.

Alex Pretti’s death has now been ruled a homicide, and the questions that follow feel heavier than the winter air.

The Epstein files continue to ripple across the world, upsetting old power structures and reminding us that truth has a way of surfacing — even when buried deep.

Meanwhile, the president is openly talking about national elections, and Americans are once again leaning forward, listening carefully, deciding what kind of country we want to be.

And yet… the Super Bowl is this weekend. Millions will gather, food will be made, laughter will spill across living rooms. Because that is also who we are — people who keep living, keep connecting, even while history churns around us.

This is the strange rhythm of being human:
fear and football, grief and groceries, uncertainty and love.

Stay warm. Stay aware. Stay kind to one another.

Strong humans don’t look away — but we also don’t forget how to hold each other up.

❄️

PLANTS ARE NOT CONSCIOUS.  

This is my response to a post to a Facebook group post about the idea that plants and animals without brains have consciousness; that plants, and other life forms without nervous systems like ours, might also have it. The comment, albeit popular in a trendy sorta' way, is far from justified. Here's why:

_____________________________________

Moving the Goal Posts:

To start with consciousness isn’t being found in plants. There’s no evidence for that at all. What is happening is that the word itself is being reframed to include more physical processes than intellectual reflection. That’s not new, panpsychism has been around for hundreds of years, probably longer. What’s changed isn’t the "discovery", it’s the cultural redefining of what consciousness is. With all of the obstacles to overcome creating AIs, computer science started taking it seriously, so people stopped laughing at the idea, and that tolerance has spread to neurology and layman speculations about nature; BUT let’s be clear, there is no actual evidence for plant consciousness at all. None. There’s just a social shift to how popular culture is saying it should be defined. The problem being that simple reaction ISN'T consciousness.

When people say “plants are conscious,” what they’re really describing is what a plant does when it’s faced with something that might harm it, but that’s not awareness, it’s an evolved physical response. You grow your hair for evolutionary reasons too, but are you aware of your hair growing? Can you choose for it not to? Are you monitoring the process as it happens

__________________________________________________

What Actually is Consciousness?

Consciousness is an evolved, sophisticated result of the need for certain animals to move in complex ways for complex reasons. Take pain, as one example. Why does pain exist? Because when we’re in pain, we move away from it, QUICKLY. That’s its purpose. If you had to analyze pain before reacting, if say you leaned on a stove and had to think about whether to move or not, you’d be badly burned before you finished the thought. Pain bypasses thought. It makes us act now. It evolved due to the need for instant mobility.

A tree can’t move quickly. It doesn’t need pain. It doesn’t need that kind of awareness. ITS strategy is to become strong and massive so to withstand harm rather than avoid it. Grass handles harm by being flexible and abundant; one blade dies, another takes its place, the species survives. There’s no evolutionary pressure there for the kind of awareness pain provides animals. And since all of the emotions function as contextually behavioral presets using mobility as its medium like pain, plants have no reason to evolve those either.

Those preset reactions in us, are the roots of what we call “awareness.” The stored memories of predicted contexts that allows us to adjust our reactions more or less appropriately become our beliefs. And the total structural paradigm of those beliefs along with the emotions and awareness, cause our self-awareness, and our inner life, and THAT’s what we call "consciousness."

_______________________________________________________________

If Plants Don't Think, What Are We Looking At?

Another thing people with this "plants think" idea get wrong is that plants quite literally don’t think or talk to each other. More accurately put, they react to each other through fungi. It’s the fungi doing the coordination, not the plant. So if we want to assign consciousness to something you don't assign it to the foot, you assign it to the brain, if you git what I'm sayin'. Through mycorrhizal symbiosis fungi trade their stability and ability to distribute resources for the plant’s sugar and energy. The fungi decide how nutrients, water, and chemical signals are shared. If you want to talk about something “brain-like,” it’s the fungi, not the tree. The fungi organize the forest. The plant itself just reacts.

And this kind of cooperation; one organism joining with another to create a larger, organized whole; isn’t unique to plants and fungi. It happens between animals and like with pollinators, even between animals and plants. Then there's when one plant or animal survives as a parasite of the other. Interestingly, the prevailing theory is that this is how single-celled life evolved in the first place. One simple cell drifting through the world, over time, adapts to new environments and splits into variations. Two different variations meet again, and as it happens come to work together as it helped them both survive. The ones that don’t cooperate either have to evolve differently to survive or die out, and the ones working together, integrated until eventually one cell absorbed the other. The idea is that, that's how modern cells got their inner mechanisms, like the cell's nucleus, that made them more complex cells than just the simpler walled off sectioned cells that they'd evolved from.

Were those early cells (or even the modern ones) “conscious”? Of course not. They're only cells. But can they react? Absolutely. Reaction and cooperation aren’t awareness. They’re steps toward complexity.

_____________________________________________________

The Brain Itself is Not Responsible:

The post also brought up the idea that animals without centralized brains have their own consciousness, without a brain, and yeah, I'd have to agree with that. The thing is though, the pivotal mechanism creating consciousness isn’t the brain itself. It’s the nervous system within the brain. The brain works because it’s a highly organized communication network like hardware capable of running complex, shifting contexts. That’s what lets us think and feel. An octopus, as an example, has a distributed nervous system that allows for a similar kind of complexity, even though it’s organized differently than a centralized brain with a spinal cord.

So yes, you can have a brain without consciousness, but you can’t have consciousness without a nervous system (or something equally complex to serve as the hardware) .....even an analogue machine would do the job, it just wouldn't be as quick as what animals have. Plants don’t have that. Their structure simply doesn’t allow for the kind of integrated, layered processing that consciousness requires.

______________________________________________________________

But We Aren't Plants, How Can We Know For Sure?:

And I think it important to address an argument possibly implied in all of this; the idea that plant consciousness might just be too alien for us to recognize is neither an objective position, nor is it true. That we can’t judge them by our standards because we don’t share the same kind of mind doesn't keep us from a clear analysis and comparison of the mechanisms involved. This idea contradicts itself.

Our definitions of consciousness come from us, from humans observing and describing the world. Plants aren’t taking part in that. The word “consciousness” belongs to the language of beings talking to themselves, not the plants. If you say plants have it, you’re already using the word differently than someone who says they don’t, and in a way that compares what they experience to ours. Their assumptions are in the possibility of that comparison.

It’s not that we can’t know either way, that our hands are tied and we've no choice but to remain agnostic on this. The arguments I've already made stand on their own. It’s that we’re talking about different things entirely. People who side with making the determination rest on a definition of "consciousness" that's precise enough to be used deductively, making this a 'yes' or 'no' answer, while people who side with not making that determination rest on the idea that we don't really know what "consciousness" is.

The thing is, is that while we can't know the intricate details about every last horse that exists, WE ACTUALLY DO have a clear definition of what "horse" means regardless of the infinite focus on those details, and as long as the same can be said for "consciousness", whether anything has it, will be at some point determinable. That is UNLESS, some of us are determined to keep moving the goal posts without considering the mechanism, and the definition keeps becoming blurred.

To hopefully hit this point home, remember the old “how do I know your blue, is my blue?” argument? Sure, we can’t directly feel each other’s experience objectively, without tainting our perspectives with our own individual views, but what we can do is look at the mechanisms that produce them. We can see how the brain processes light, how those processes create the experience of color, and then compare those mechanisms between people. From that, we can define what the “blue” mechanism is, and how we're experiencing the same and different things when the color pops up. The same goes for consciousness. We can see the structures that support awareness, memory, and emotional integration, and plants simply don’t have them. So unless we stretch “consciousness” to mean “anything that reacts,” there’s simply no reason to say plants have it.

______________________________________________________________

The Popularity of the Idea That They Do:

So why are so many jumping on the bandwagon? It's the other "old" story. People project themselves into everything in order to understand them. It's anthropomorphism 101. Some of us can't even analyze anything without projecting our self centered human traits on to it. It's why prejudices pollute so many of the beliefs of so many of the people you see around you. Whenever you say to yourself "How can this guy be so blinded by this crazy idea?" think about what's happening here and whether there's actually anything at all pointing to the idea that plants can think.

“When discourse ends, violence begins,”. From the Small Stage to Center Stage

Kirk co-founded Turning Point USA when he was just 18 years old. What started as a small group of like-minded college students grew into one of the most influential youth movements in the United States. 

Kirk traveled from campus to campus, never shying away from hard questions or loud opposition. For him, the university wasn’t a battlefield — it was a classroom where young minds could (and, more importantly, should) wrestle with ideas, disagree passionately, and still walk out the door as neighbors.

“When discourse ends, violence begins,” Kirk was fond of saying.

Charlie Kirk’s Legacy

Kirk’s death is a painful reminder that when we equate one’s political opinions with their morality, we undermine our own. When we stop listening to each other and focus solely on our differences, we lose sight of all we have in common.

America was built by people of different cultures, faiths, and colors who believed that we could live in harmony and even prosper, not because we agree on everything, but because freedom allows us to be the best version of ourselves.

That is what Charlie Kirk fought for — and what he died for.

Today, Kirk’s voice was silenced — but his message endures. 

May he rest in peace.

- The Wellness Company

We need to stop shaming small dicks. OK this was meant to be anonymous cos I don't want to be slut shamed ... 

But I can't create a second anon account right now, looks like that anon account is just going to the wait list. And I care about this topic and I like what I have to say about it so I'm going to go ahead and share even though I risk attracting condemnation (that relates to a whole other hot take that I'll set aside for now).

So here's my #deeptake on the hot take that we should stop shaming small dicks:

Am I the only one who winces with a vicarious ouch every time a woman casually insists that a big penis belongs on her list of essential criteria for a good man - like in this great example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjqvY7Gdp1A)

That’s how I was going to begin this piece. Then I looked in the mirror and admitted that it would be more accurate (and more honest) to start with: I know I’m not the only one who feels this way.

I know this because of the talking-to a friend gave me a few years ago when I conspiratorially spilled on a perfect new love interest whose only flaw was that his dick was on the smallish side.

When she started to object, I pleaded for understanding. I can’t help my tastes and preferences! This was just how I was born! I’d had enough experience to know what I needed!

I am ashamed to admit that I went so far as to suggest that if we progressed in our relationship, I could at some point maybe ask him to wear a strap-on. I think that was the point at which my friend-worthiness was forever punctured in my her eyes. She was legitimately horrified, and confronted me with the possibility that it might just be me who was anatomically challenged!

And she was right - I was the one with the problem. I’m still smarting as I write this - not from my own body shame, but from reliving the moment where I had to face my callous and miscalibrated treatment of my would-be lover and of men collectively.

One of the things that hurts most is how I ignored the uneasy stab in my heart every time I indulged in this offhand mass-bullying. I always knew, in a palpable way, this was wrong. Every time I singled out penis size when celebrating one of my sexual adventures. Every time I laughed sympathetically when a friend proclaimed a preference for bigger penises or dismissed a smaller one. My inner voice always whispered to me - how do you think men feel about this? What’s it like to have your worthiness as a partner be diminished to a feature you are powerless to change? What’s it like to be the butt of an enduring in-joke, to risk silent ridicule every time you want to share the joy of sex with someone?

Even with my difficulty handling some bigger penises. Even experiencing the deep bliss of my encounters with average-sized penises. Even receiving the liberating possibilities that opened up with smaller penises. None of these facts penetrated my collusion with what now seems like an obvious and incredibly harmful mass psychosis.

HOW is this still normal?! The closest I have come to understanding the roots of my own behaviour is that I was under-developed, not confident and embodied enough yet in my own sexuality to really claim the truth of my own experience.

What’s true for me, actually, is that every penis I’ve been honoured to meet feels like a blessing.

As I have matured and found the capacity to recognise and cherish this, some of my most extraordinary and ecstatically transformative sexual experiences have in fact involved a pretty small penis! I think penis size was actually an irrelevant albeit happily coincidental feature in this case - a feature which finally crumbled any residue of the myth that small dicks are bad and bigger is better.

My prayer is that more and more of us are liberated from this myth. I’m pretty sure we don’t need it to fuel this kind of creative brilliance (which I opened with, but here it is again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjqvY7Gdp1A). And we’ll probably all have way more extraordinary and ecstatically transformative sex without it. That’s what I really want.

Why having kids is bonkers (if you’re addicted to comfort). Hot take: If your life is all about chasing pleasure, getting the newest shiny thing, and looking for your next dopamine hit, then yeh – having kids is nuts. They’re messy, noisy, and they’ll likely ruin your dreams of becoming a social media influencer. But look around: something bigger is going on with those dropping birth rates.

Sure, economics matters. But my Irish grandparents had five kids, and they didn’t exactly summer in the Bahamas. I’ve seen families in Africa with seven or eight kids despite barely scraping by. So maybe it’s not just about money.

We’ve built a culture that’s an adult daycare for the comfort-addicted. We’re encouraged – by society, marketing, and that little voice in our heads – to stay immature consumers. It’s profitable and predictable, right? Because if you’re constantly shopping, scrolling, or swiping, you’re not rocking the boat.

From a purely “maximise pleasure” angle, kids are a bonkers choice. They’ll cost you sleep, money, and the ability to go to your hot yoga class. But historically, people saw beyond short-term gratification. They had kids out of a sense of meaning, continuity, legacy. Today, we’re not just lacking cash; we’re starved for connection to something bigger than our own endless entertainment feed.

So, it’s about more than just economics. It’s a spiritual crisis. We’re collectively disconnected from the deeper stuff: community, purpose, “God” (call it what you like). And until we find our way back to that, birth rates might keep plummeting because, honestly, who wants to sacrifice the “me me me” of their Netflix-binging comfort for “grown-up responsibilities”?

I’m not saying everyone has to have kids. But maybe it’s time we grew up. I’m certainly thinking about it 😉 Or at least started asking the uncomfortable questions: Do we want a life that’s only about the next hit, or might there be more to it? Believe me, I’ve tried it and it’s not all it’s cracked up to be. That’s why I’m planning some pretty big life changes.

Anyway, that’s just something to chew on. Just do so before your next Amazon package arrives.

"Escaping Social Media Hell" - UpTrust on Embodiment Coaching Podcast (Podcast #3). on apple / spotify / embodiment site

This is the one I did last week, that y'all's feedback helped me prep for. I started a little stilted but I think we catch a flow pretty quickly, and in any case we get to the point a lot faster.

I think this is probably the most approachable of the 3 so far, but I'll be curious what y'all think. Mark does a great job asking pointed questions, and somewhere in the middle it finally 'clicks' and he gets pretty excited about it.

Renee I took inspiration from your suggestion and flipped it—offered at the beginning he could coach me :) He didn't take me up on it but i think it was one of a few pieces that set the right tone.  

Trump, Stargate, and Vaccines for Cancer. I'm cringing reading articles and seeing videos showing Trump, Sam Altman, and Larry Ellison speaking about using A.I. to develop vaccines for cancer.

I have something I call "The Farmer's Market rule." I spoke about this on the Vendy podcast with Jordan. It is a metaphor for working with coaches, facilitators, and wellbeing practitioners.

When I go to the farmers market, I don't just look at the food people are selling.. I also look at the people selling the food.

I ask myself, "Do I want to look like this person who is selling me this food?"

I do the same for facilitators, trainers, and Wellbeing practitioners: "Does this person live in a way I want to embody more fully in my life?"

I would not go to Altman, Trump, or Ellison for Wellbeing guidance + wisdom. Maybe for advice and wisdom in other domains and themes.

We really need leaders who are embodying Wellbeing to lead our planetary and national wellbeing initiatives. I cringe when I see people who I judge as disembodied pioneering these explorations. It feels like a recipe for disaster with the possibility to cause a lot of harm to a lot of people.

More on Indian Marriages. I’m wondering if any of you have insights on how Indian Marriages can be more meaningful.

I find that they are usually very formulaic with few opportunities for genuine connection and interaction. It seems to be mostly about completing certain prescribed rituals.

I’m sure there are exceptions to this norm, however most weddings I have attended have been mostly about dressing up, getting photos taken, eating 🍽️, and some joking / teasing.

If I had to create something different it would include the following:

1. The bride and groom share their hopes and dreams and fears and aspirations.
2. There is an occasion to get to know a little bit about the main members of both sides of the family.
3. An opportunity for people to share some of their talents and gifts.
4. Occasion for blessing the couple with words / poems / short plays and other creative ways.
5. Those who wish to can share their most important relationship wisdom / anecdotes / Learnings.
6. Less money spent on the fancy aspects of the wedding and more on creating an atmosphere that is welcoming and puts people at easy.
7. Maybe a quiz / trivia about the couple and the respective families.

I know this is me imposing my value system on what is a well established tradition. However I felt like sharing my reflections and I welcome your insights.

Thanks.

So.. who’s winning in y’all’s opinion?

The Relateful Company should embrace more job titles. We’re under-appreciating orange.

We’ve included the green critiques, like the classic:

What gets measured gets managed — even when it’s pointless to measure and manage it, and even if it harms the purpose of the organisation to do so - V. F. Ridgway, 1956

But we need to embrace more healthy competition, striving for excellence, even rankings.

one way we can do this is to make more liberal use of titles, and brag on people. @Valerie Daniel is the MANAGING DIRECTOR, and we should have her listed as such in emails and things

What else is healthy orange and how can we transclude it?
What do we already do that is already healthy orange?

Spiritual Promiscuity, do I need a condom? I’ve discovered something about myself that I knew, but didn’t allow myself to acknowledge. I have a natural and lifelong delight in transgressing boundaries playfully, and a fear of abusing that ability.

When I consider this, I come up with the following as a statement of intent:

The art of promiscuity applied to the challenge of evolving empowerment to empower evolution tickles my soul in profound ways

As I’m leaning into this as in intention for myself and letting go of my own arrogance, I find the lifeforce behind the joyousness of Leela (Hinda Gamefulness or playfulness) in transformation, and I want to invite other children to knock down sand castles of late stage capitalism, not with malice, but fully in delight (and not taking oneself too seriously).

Am I a gift or a curse?

Could it be ethically ok to not vote? note: I posted this two hours before Biden stepped down. It’s possible that a different Dem candidate could change my choices, but my overall perspective feels the same.

A lot of people I’m close to have very strong opinions that to not vote in this presidential election is wrong. But I have no interest in voting. It genuinely seems to me that things will be perfectly not ideal no matter what happens in the election.

My best guess of what’s happening culturally is that the mean green meme has gotten really far down its negative feedback loop, and red, orange, and amber are swarming on the attack. If that’s right, a breaking point of sorts will have to be hit for teal to get to its tipping point. In 12-step terms, green would have to hit rock bottom to be able to finally admit it has a problem and needs help.

I wouldn’t be surprised if teal’s tipping point would have to be particularly intense because it’s also the tipping point into second tier, and we have no historical reference for what it takes for a culture to begin to get a foothold in a new tier (the big bang, the formulation of simple cells, and the leap from apes to humans might be comparable but difficult to translate…)

This thought process just leaves me trusting what’s happening, and voting just doesn’t feel like one of the ways I want to participate in this happening.