# "are corporate bodies really alive?"
**URL:** http://discourse.iapct.org/t/are-corporate-bodies-really-alive/297
**Category:** CSG2000
**Created:** [February 29, 2000, 5:59pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/are-corporate-bodies-really-alive/297 "2000-02-29T17:59:06Z")
**Posts on this page:** 2
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/bnhpct)
#### Post date: [February 29, 2000, 5:59pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/are-corporate-bodies-really-alive/297/1 "2000-02-29T17:59:06Z")
A friend sent me this, calling it a "curious combination of systems theory
and sociology and corporate life." Indeed.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Invitation to an Interdisciplinary Internet Colloquium
on Corporate Being and Life on Earth
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BIG BODY HEURISTICS
Are Corporate Bodies Really Alive?
(Are they now Earth's dominant species?)
Living System Perspectives
on Corporate Evolution, Anatomy
and Eco-Social Pathologies
[Big Body Heuristics: Intros and Meditations](http://www.nancho.net/bigmed2000/bbonline.html)
\_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_
"Internet Colloquium" seems to means some kind of glorified chat. The
convokers clearly feel they've hitched their wagging tail to the right
meme. A successor to social darwinism? (See a couple of quotes from the web
site, below.) If one wanted to register a dissenting view, the web page has
a link for becoming a participant.
Here's the reply I sent to my friend:
> > > begin quote
It is a seductive analogy, simple, persuasive -- and quite wrong.
In a multicellular organism, such as a human, the organs of perception, the
nervous system, and effectors (muscles, etc.) are made up of cells. In a
corporation, there are no corporate organs of perception and there are no
corporate effectors, other than those of human beings filling particular
roles that are defined socially and economically, not biologically. The
question whether there is a corporate nervous system is muddied by the
prevalent misuse of computer metaphors for a very poorly understood human
nervous system. Consider this: whatever a particular nerve cell is doing,
from the cell's point of view it is not "seeing" some pixel in a visual
image, or "hearing" the presence of energy at some point in the auditory
spectrum, or "feeling" a pressure, "tasting" presence of salt, etc. For the
cell, these perceptions simply do not exist, however much they may matter
to the human being in whose corporate (bodily) structure we locate and (let
us say) observe this cell in action. Whatever the cell's universe may
be--nutrients and other chemical concentrations, electrical potentials,
etc.--it is certainly of an entirely different order from the perceptual
universe of a human being.
If we humans are participating in some suprahuman corporate entity, it
won't look like a corporation. It is doubtful we will even be able to
notice it, any more than a cell in your body is capable of noticing that it
is part of your body. This is necessarily so. If a cell in your body
controlled the same perceptions as you, it would come in conflict with you
whenever it wanted one state of affairs and you wanted another, which would
frequently happen. But the conditions that cells want are states of
cellular affairs, which are of a completely different sort from human
affairs. Just so, if humans were like cells, then we necessarily could
never control or even perceive the universe in which a supraorganic
corporate body lives, because if we did we would repeatedly and frequently
come in conflict with that higher-order life-form of which we were part. Is
this what we see? No. Any appearance of conflict with a corporation is in
fact a conflict with one or more other human beings participating in
socially and economically defined roles.
> > > end quote
Here are two quotes from the web page for this "internet colloquium".
> > > begin quote
REGARDING BIG BODIES
Although immense corporate bodies now wield definitive influence
over our economy, politics, educational agenda and popular
consciousness, curiously little attention has been paid to their
evolution, common attributes or basic nature.
Many decades ago, large organizations were recognized as true
"living systems." That is, they behave purposefully, cohere over
time, adapt to their environment, ingest/process/excrete
substances, display homeostatic reflexes, maintain an internal
sense of self/identity, respond (aggressively/ defensively) to
perceived threats, learn, grow, multiply, age, die, etc.
Astoundingly, the full implications of this insight - that our species
shares the biosphere with an exponentially larger, more powerful
and rapidly evolving life form that may not necessarily share our
values or aspirations - have never been adequately explored. For
those who sense these bodies� scale and activities now pose a
clear and present danger to our cultures, environment or
evolutionary future, let that exploration begin here...
> > > end quote
etc.
> > > begin quote
"Corporate beings have evolved over a considerable history and
doubtless they are evolving even now, as all living species do.
However, until we grasp their present strategies for survival and
proliferation, we will be utterly unable to predict their future - much
less combat their dominance."
> > > end quote
etc.
---
### Author:  [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)
#### Post date: [February 29, 2000, 6:48pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/are-corporate-bodies-really-alive/297/2 "2000-02-29T18:48:41Z")
[From Bill Powers (2000.02.29.1144 MST)]
Bruce Nevin (2000.02.29) --
> Here's the reply I sent to my friend:
>
> > > > begin quote
>
> It is a seductive analogy, simple, persuasive -- and quite wrong.
I really resonated to your little essay. Nicely done and well put.
Of course the idea that we are part of a larger organism which we can
neither sense nor understand is very seductive, but only if you're in the
habit of think that what \_might be\_ necessarily \_is\_. There might be a
black monolith buried in the floor of Tycho, but that's no reason to start
acting as if there is one there.
My opwn preference is to require some evidence of such proposals.
Best,
Bill P.
> **···**
>
> > In a multicellular organism, such as a human, the organs of perception, the
> > nervous system, and effectors (muscles, etc.) are made up of cells. In a
> > corporation, there are no corporate organs of perception and there are no
> > corporate effectors, other than those of human beings filling particular
> > roles that are defined socially and economically, not biologically. The
> > question whether there is a corporate nervous system is muddied by the
> > prevalent misuse of computer metaphors for a very poorly understood human
> > nervous system. Consider this: whatever a particular nerve cell is doing,
> > from the cell's point of view it is not "seeing" some pixel in a visual
> > image, or "hearing" the presence of energy at some point in the auditory
> > spectrum, or "feeling" a pressure, "tasting" presence of salt, etc. For the
> > cell, these perceptions simply do not exist, however much they may matter
> > to the human being in whose corporate (bodily) structure we locate and (let
> > us say) observe this cell in action. Whatever the cell's universe may
> > be--nutrients and other chemical concentrations, electrical potentials,
> > etc.--it is certainly of an entirely different order from the perceptual
> > universe of a human being.
> >
> > If we humans are participating in some suprahuman corporate entity, it
> > won't look like a corporation. It is doubtful we will even be able to
> > notice it, any more than a cell in your body is capable of noticing that it
> > is part of your body. This is necessarily so. If a cell in your body
> > controlled the same perceptions as you, it would come in conflict with you
> > whenever it wanted one state of affairs and you wanted another, which would
> > frequently happen. But the conditions that cells want are states of
> > cellular affairs, which are of a completely different sort from human
> > affairs. Just so, if humans were like cells, then we necessarily could
> > never control or even perceive the universe in which a supraorganic
> > corporate body lives, because if we did we would repeatedly and frequently
> > come in conflict with that higher-order life-form of which we were part. Is
> > this what we see? No. Any appearance of conflict with a corporation is in
> > fact a conflict with one or more other human beings participating in
> > socially and economically defined roles.
> >
> > > > > end quote
> >
> > Here are two quotes from the web page for this "internet colloquium".
> >
> > > > > begin quote
> >
> > REGARDING BIG BODIES
> >
> > Although immense corporate bodies now wield definitive influence
> > over our economy, politics, educational agenda and popular
> > consciousness, curiously little attention has been paid to their
> > evolution, common attributes or basic nature.
> >
> > Many decades ago, large organizations were recognized as true
> > "living systems." That is, they behave purposefully, cohere over
> > time, adapt to their environment, ingest/process/excrete
> > substances, display homeostatic reflexes, maintain an internal
> > sense of self/identity, respond (aggressively/ defensively) to
> > perceived threats, learn, grow, multiply, age, die, etc.
> >
> > Astoundingly, the full implications of this insight - that our species
> > shares the biosphere with an exponentially larger, more powerful
> > and rapidly evolving life form that may not necessarily share our
> > values or aspirations - have never been adequately explored. For
> > those who sense these bodies� scale and activities now pose a
> > clear and present danger to our cultures, environment or
> > evolutionary future, let that exploration begin here...
> >
> > > > > end quote
> >
> > etc.
> >
> > > > > begin quote
> >
> > "Corporate beings have evolved over a considerable history and
> > doubtless they are evolving even now, as all living species do.
> > However, until we grasp their present strategies for survival and
> > proliferation, we will be utterly unable to predict their future - much
> > less combat their dominance."
> >
> > > > > end quote
> >
> > etc.