Dear Pedro and All,

coming back to my earlier suggestion from this weekend to explore the
particular case of using self-organised criticality and cancer, I suggest
to read and comment on this arXiv paper by J.C. Phillips:
*Self-Organized Criticality: A Prophetic Path to Curing Cancer*

I look forward to your opinion, in particular those of Alex, Lou and Maxine
(with respect to making the turn towards phenomenology).

With best wishes for a fruitful week,


On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov <> wrote:

> Dear Pedro and All,
> I was not quite correct im my earlier email of today when I said that that
> there is not much novelty to be reported in the studying the phenomenology
> of dying and death in the West. What should be noticed is definitely the
> research of such pioneers as Elisabeth Kübler-Ross  (
>übler-Ross_model) and Lawrence LeShan (
> and many others whose line
> can be traced back to Newton’s alchemic experiments, incl. those of the
> circle of prominent scientists and humanists who founded the British
> Society for Psychical Research in 1882, in an era when the Eiffel Tower and
> the Manhattan Building were ascending on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean
> and the first direct current lightning began its path around the globe from
> the New York”s Pearl Street power station, in the dawn of the birth of two
> great physical theories that would reshape the world as no knowledge ever
> before. We appear to be a little bit lost and helpless with playing “Bits &
> Bolts" ( in our era.
> Best,
> Plamen
> On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov <
>> wrote:
>> Dear Pedro and Colleagues,
>> thank you for your comments and insightful suggestions where see there is
>> a need to focus research in the field.  We know well that a good physician
>> is usually less successful than a good car mechanic, but also that cars
>> cannot self-repair (yet). It is true that the matter is complex and tough,
>> but also well-studied: healing methods that worked has been applied before
>> science as such has emerged. Yet in the past, stress has been given to the
>> importance of the bond healer - patient, whereas in the last century with
>> the “industrialisation" of medicine and more applied research, the patient
>> became impersonalised with attention slowly shifting from a bilateral
>> relation to a trilateral (physician  - drug - patient), or even
>> a quadrilateral  (physician - computer - drug - patient) one. Great
>> discoveries of how we are structured and how we operate were made, before
>> realising (again) that all these formations and processes in the human body
>> are very individual and have their own history and future, despite knowing
>> and classifying every single detail. And yet, we still hope with the
>> collection of more and more data and putting more resolution, skill and
>> intelligence in our exploration devices to find patters of emergence that
>> will allow us to detect and understand regress/illness to repair and
>> re-engineer the ill parts of our virtual bodies, and from there the
>> physical ones. Is modern medicine a science or an engineering discipline,
>> or both perhaps, because it is so important to us? Things are complex and
>> tough in medicine not because of much detail and chaos/messiness, but
>> because we keep an eye-in-eye contact at the phenomenology of death, which
>> have been largely ignored for a long time in our modern Western
>> society: without understanding it much from our objective, even if shared,
>> viewpoint in science. Dying is a very personal experience, but quite well
>> documented, even if not that extensively like love and hate in human
>> literature. I am not aware of much (phenomenological) detail provided by
>> contemporary science in the process of dying beyond what is known about the
>> six transitional states described by Tibetian Buddhism (
>>, perhaps because shared evidence and
>> reproducibility of scientific results is the common guideline for science.
>> Yet, is therefore everything else simply "non-science"? Is not our entire
>> research in life science and medicine targeting life and youth perpetuation
>> (and commercialisation) for ever?
>> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 8:02 PM, PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ <
>>> wrote:
>>> Dear Plamen and FIS Colleagues,
>>> Discussing on integrative attempts in medicine is really challenging.
>> In the course of these medicine studies, I realised that integration has
>> many different interpretations here. It is not easy to place a term for
>> making clear what one has in mind and avoid misunderstanding. Therefore I
>> made this first note in my opening session. I began with it, because this
>> was our starting point: what does integral biomathics mean in the context
>> of medicine? We are moving in a domain very close to the humanities, and
>> obtaining a label “exotic” or “esoteric” by the mainstream researchers is
>> not promoting. Hence this effort to differentiate.
>>> I do not think that the marriage proposed by Stan, yoking medicine with
>>> semiotics in films grounds, will have much progeny.
>> I think that there is still something that can be used in general terms
>> such as developing methodology for treatment. The (bio)semiotics of Peirce
>> and Uexkühl may provide a sound base for developing therapies. In my
>> reference list is given some account of the neuroscience and psychiatry
>> papers related to phenomenology.
>>> Rather, if we disentangle medical practice from biomedical research we
>>> have at least a little less confusing panorama.
>>> Actually I think most of Plamen's views on 3φ are mostly in the
>>> research direction.
>> That’s right. Practice and research are currently two different pairs of
>> shoes and all I was referring to is related to finding a way to “practicing
>> research”, but this results in only “doing research” at the moment.
>>> Given that we are playing with the "3" I will make just another three
>>> suggestions.
>>> 1. In foundation matters, rather than caring about criticality or
>>> autopoiesis, I would demand and search for a new CELL THEORY. The present
>>> state of that venerable theory is just awful, even more with the updating
>>> of the "Central Dogma" proposed by Francis Crick decades ago. It has caused
>>> some furore that Templeton Foundation has just financed a big project
>>> devoted to that purpose: updating that venerable theory a little beyond
>>> Darwinian classical strictures. (Not "anti" Darwinian but somehow "post").
>>> If informational views were properly incorporated... (big If). We tried to
>>> do something in that style for a European Project, but we did not pass the
>>> 2nd cut.
>>> 2. In physiological matters, there is much to say from criticality,
>>> balancing, symmetry, symmetry breaking and restoration, network science,
>>> etc. Some time ago there was a "Physiome" European Project, "From Molecules
>>> to HumanKind" trying to capture the whole map of physiological regulation.
>>> But in my impression it is a bioengineering repository of models and
>>> resources. It could be done differently. The emphasis by Alex, Plamen on
>>> criticality and of mine on signaling would not be too bad complementary
>>> directions.
>>> 3. Finally, on integration, I would propose "knowledge recombination"
>>> instead. The usual way to understand integration is unbounded, without
>>> space-time limits, like the processing of a Turing Machine. Rather the
>>> human practice of knowledge, and paradigmatically medicine,
>>> is characterized by a growing difficulty in integration matters within
>>> dozens and dozens of disciplines. Heterogeneous fields of knowledge can
>>> hardly be integrated at all. What living beings have had to rely upon is
>>> "recombination"--either genetically, neuronal, or socially. It is the
>>> unending combination of fragments of heterogeneous pieces of knowledge
>>> brought into action not randomly but in space-temporal frameworks that
>>> allow the mutual cross-fertilization. The idea, developed specifically for
>>> the biomedical arena can be discussed at length in [Information 2011, 2,
>>> 651-671; doi:10.3390/info2040651] and in [*Scientomics*: An Emergent
>>> Perspective in Knowledge. Organization. Knowledge Organization. 39(3),
>>> 153-164. 2012]. In philosophical terms it is sort of a realization of
>>> Ortega y Gasset's perspectivism... the peculiar phenomenology of the
>>> great Spanish philosopher.
>>> Better if I stop here. Greetings to all--Pedro
>> These are very good points which I thankfully adopt in the "IB 4
>> medicine" scheme.  In particular, the last one of “recombination", extended
>> by "creative inclusion and adaptation”, just in the way as mitochondria
>> were adopted by the cell in the process of its evolution, is a very
>> powerful principle of life which we experience in our macro societal
>> structures now. And this is a point that Ortega y Gasset was well aware
>> many years ago....
>> How about trying to come back again to criticality and try to trace
>> jointly at least one complete possible investigative path to the puzzle of
>> illness and recovery for one of the 3 examples I mentioned earlier in kind
>> of a  3φ or 4φ (or even "powers of φ”) "recombinant solution” from the
>> standpoint of contemporary science and phenomenology? I vote for cancer,
>> but we can take any of the other two if there are sufficient votes.
>> Have a great last week of May!
>> Plamen
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *De:* Fis [] en nombre de Dr. Plamen L.
>>> Simeonov []
>>> *Enviado el:* miércoles, 18 de mayo de 2016 11:39
>>> *Para:* Karl Javorszky
>>> *Cc:* fis
>>> *Asunto:* Re: [Fis] Towards a 3φ integrative medicine
>>> One more thing on the example with the heart failure. If you go to a
>>> cardiologist with the same problem, s/he will prescribe a series of
>>> exampinations related to your heart only (checking your blood pressure, EEG
>>> & EMG tests incl. 24h recording and physical performance tests,  etc.).
>>> Rarely you can expect a blood sample analysis related to some kidney or
>>> liver failure, or a cervical examination because of a possible supply
>>> shortage of the vertebral artery (in case you have reported accompanying
>>> headaches) because of a grown bone spur with the first examination.
>>> Finally, depending on all these tests you will usually obtain a pill
>>> prescription to keep yopur blood pressure low for the rest of your life and
>>> some advise to avoid salty and spicy food. Period. If you at some point in
>>> time give up to find out and fix the real cause(s) for this "simple" heart
>>> failure, it is your problem, and not the one of the physician or the
>>> insurance company.
>>> Now let's turn to the giraffe and the okapi and see how they have
>>> managed to develop a strong heart with the evolution:
>>> Thus, science can still give important clues to solving problems, incl.
>>> what is a bonus or threat, but it is not the only source. The central issue
>>> is the integration of knowledge and sign(al)s about the operation and
>>> interaction of whole body systems, I think.
>>> Best,
>>> Plamen
>>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov <
>>>> wrote:
>>>> This is an interesting question, Karl. Without giving a full account, I
>>>> think there can be said the following.
>>>> It is usually not the (chemical) nature of a substrate or the
>>>> availability of an external source that makes it a poison, but its ratio.
>>>> Small amounts are harmless, larger amounts are dangerous. But there is
>>>> no general recipe to detect harms.
>>>> If you stay for 15 minutes on the sun (UV light) this will stimulate
>>>> the production of vitamin D in your body which in turn will stimulate the
>>>> strengthening of your bones. But if you stay longer, there is a danger of a
>>>> sunstroke or melanoma. Our brains simply do not obtain all these alarming
>>>> signals from damaging the (skin) cells to the production and cumulation of
>>>> toxic substances. We have specific organs to sense color, smell and taste,
>>>> but not radiation.
>>>> The problem with contemporary (allopathic) medicine is that it is
>>>> basically symptomatic and the diagnosis is usually reductionistic,
>>>> detecting one source of damage related to the failed organ (heart, kidney,
>>>> liver, etc.) associated with the ailment; so is the therapy, until a second
>>>> or a third failure are detected and medicated sequentially and
>>>> independently from each other. Yet, in most cases, the failures are
>>>> occurring at the same time in multiple organs and systems, but we do not
>>>> have the information about that to act, or the information comes too late
>>>> and on an isolated place, covering the other alarm signals under the
>>>> threshold of detection by the organism.
>>>> However, if you go to a TCM practitioner with the complaint of e.g.
>>>> heart palpitations as a symptom of restlessness after examining your pulse
>>>> and tongue, you will obtain three medications (herbs): one for lowering the
>>>> blood pressure, one for detoxifying the kidneys and one for detoxifying the
>>>> liver. In addition to that you may become an acupuncture session for
>>>> regulating the “qi/chi flow" inside the body - a substance which is a
>>>> complete mystery for science - and a prescription of what to eat and how to
>>>> sleep.
>>>> So, decrypting the body sign(al)s in their multiplicity as result of
>>>> the interaction of systems and organs is the clue. Regarding human bodies
>>>> as licked buckets that need to be repaired from multiple punches is
>>>> probably a good metaphor.
>>>> Best,
>>>> Plamen
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:44 AM, Karl Javorszky <
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Just a small detail on the information density of food (air, water,
>>>>> sensory input, etc.) in medicine:
>>>>> The DNA has a high informational value for the organism. Can it be
>>>>> said that poison has also an informational value?
>>>>> Can the de-constructive effect of a substance quantified based on the
>>>>> same semiotic system of references as the constructive effect of a
>>>>> substance can be referred to in that same system of references?
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Fis mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
Fis mailing list

Reply via email to