We human beings exist in communities constituted as systems of co-ordinations of actions in language; that is, as networks of conversations, under certain emotions. If the emotion is love, that is, if the emotion involved is the emotion that constitutes the operationality of recurrent interactions under mutual acceptance, then the community is a social system; if it is not, if it is an emotion that does not entail mutual acceptance, then the community is a non-social community. If the emotion involved is not love, but one that gives rise to co-ordinations of actions that an observer sees as commitments for the fulfilment of a task, then the community is a work community; if the emotion involved is that which gives rise to co-ordinations of actions that an observer sees as the behavior of obedience, then the community is a hierarchical community. Moreover, we human beings participate in many different communities that are constituted under different emotions as different networks of conversations that, although independent as domains of co-ordinations of actions, affect each other through the intersection of their realisations in our bodyhoods. Hypocrisy also applies to non-social communities, and a distinction that an observer makes of a particular social or non-social community remains valid only as long as the observer does not make the distinction of hypocrisy with respect to the underlying emotions that define it.
Furthermore, each human network of conversations, whether in the realisation of a social system or of a non-social community, is also operationally realised in language as a coherent system of descriptions and explanations that constitutes a domain of reality. As a result, we human beings operate in our living in many different domains of reality which, as different networks of conversations and explanations, intersect in their realisation of our bodyhoods. But, as the identity of each human being as a member of a particular network of conversations is constituted as it is realised in his or her participation in that network, each human being exists in the flow of his or her living as a particular configuration of many different, operationally distinct, social and non-social identities, which intersect in their realisations in his or her bodyhood. That is, the 'ego' is a dynamic node in a multidimensional space of human identities, and the 'I', the human individual, is the bodyhood that realises the intersection of the networks of conversations that constitute the ego. This is apparent in daily life in the different identities that we adopt under different circumstances, and that we live without emotional contradictions while the co-ordinations of actions and emotions in which they arise do not intersect and do not involve us in simultaneous opposing actions and emotions. This has several consequences:
1) The course followed by our individual structural changes in the flow of our interactions is recursively coupled to the course followed by our conversations, regardless of whether they take place in a social or non-social domain. This is why although the different domains of coexistence in which we normally operate simultaneously or in succession do not intersect as such, what happens to us in one of them has consequences for our participation in the others. Finally, this orthogonal and indirect reciprocal influence between behavior and bodyhood is taking place in us all the time, regardless of the conversations and independent structural body dynamics in which we may be involved, as a necessary constitutive feature of our operation as living systems.
2) All that we do in the behavioral domain happens to us as a result of our structural dynamics. Furthermore, our structure is at every instant the changing dynamic structural configuration that appears in us at that instant as a result of the intersection of all the interactions, conversations and reflections in which we are involved at that instant in coincidence with the structural dynamics of the autonomous structural flow of our bodyhoods. As a result, at every instant our individual structures are expressions of the structural history of the network of intersections, conversations and reflections to which we belong as members of a network of social and non-social communities, and we only generate the conversations, reflections and interactions that happen to us according to our structural presentation in that network. Yet, at the same time, all this happens to us in the present of our continuous biological realisation as human beings.
3) Change in any particular social or non-social human community takes place as a conversational change; that is, as a change in the configuration of the network of co-ordinations of actions and emotions that constitutes it and defines its class identity. If such a conversational change takes place with conservation of the configuration of co-ordinations of actions and emotions that defines the identity of the particular community that is changing, this is conserved, otherwise it disintegrates. Such change only takes place through changes in the bodyhoods of the members of the changing community. Furthermore, if we see each human culture as a particular pattern of co-ordinations of actions and emotions that can be realised differently in different human communities, then we can also generalise this by saying that cultural change can only take place through changes in the bodyhood of the individual human beings that realise it through their conversations.
4) The reciprocal interdependence of all the domains of coexistence in which we participate through the intersection of their realisation in our bodyhoods is most apparent in our daily life in the fact that as we change our behavior in one domain of coexistence through an emotional shift, we find ourselves also changing our behaviors in others. Indeed, everything takes place in us as if to some extent the different networks of conversations that constitute the different domains of coexistence in which we participate constituted the expression of a single dynamic structural system, which is in fact the case because they intersect in their realisation through our bodyhoods. Due to this, the different domains of coexistence in which we participate influence each other continuously, even if our behavior in them is hypocritical, because it is not their sincerity that matters, but the actual structural intersection of the realisation through our bodyhoods. This also applies to our operation in the domain of conscious reflection as a manner of languaging in an individual body dance. Indeed, as we operate in conscious reflection our nervous systems operate in the flow of recursive internal correlations that corresponds to its flow of internal correlations while languaging in a conversation. Due to this, the constitutive continuous structural change of our bodyhoods follows a course contingent on the conversational contents of our reflections, and our participation in the different domains of co-ordinations of actions constituting the different domains of coexistence in which we are involved becomes operationally a function of our values, desires, ideals and aspirations. All this means that although we cannot act differently from the way we act at any moment, because at every moment what we do is the expression of our structural present, we human beings are not free from responsibility in our actions because, due to our reflections, what we do is necessarily always the expression of our values, desires, ideals and aspirations. In other words, all languaging is a source of change in our bodyhoods because languaging takes place through the structural dynamics of our bodyhoods, and, due to this, reflection, conscious reflection, awareness of knowledge as a manner of languaging, is a source of change for the social and non-social communities that we integrate.
5) As all networks of conversations constitute domains of explanations regardless of whether they are social or non-social, and because, as such, they are also domains of reality, all that I have said above about explanations and reality applies to them. That is, we live our participations in the different communities that we integrate through our recurrent interactions as we generate different networks of conversations, either following the operations of the explanatory path of objectivity-in-parenthesis, and we do this regardless of whether we are aware of this or not. This means that we live all our interpersonal relationships either in mutual respect, in tolerance, or in demand for obedience, according to whether we follow the operationality of one or the other of these two explanatory paths in the braided flow of our emotioning and reasoning. Furthermore, this also means that we accept or do not accept our responsibility for our actions and emotions according to the domain of explanations in which we find ourselves in the flow of our conversations; that is, according to whether we are aware or not of our constitutive participation in the bringing forth of the reality that we live at each instant.