[Fis] _ Re: Towards a 3φ integrative medicine
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 ( http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Kübler-Ross_model) and Lawrence LeShan ( http://www.wikiwand.com/en/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" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuUxLplR_TI) in our era. Best, Plamen On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov < plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com> 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 ( > http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Bardo), 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 < > pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> 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
Re: [Fis] Towards a 3φ integrative medicine
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 ( http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Bardo), 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 < pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> 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,
