Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for March, 2011

Have you ever heard of a “holon”? It’s an idea first circulated by Arthur Koestler (read more detail here), summarised as –

1.2 The organism is to be regarded as a multi-levelled hierarchy of semi-autonomous sub-wholes, branching into sub-wholes of a lower order, and so on. Sub-wholes on any level of the hierarchy are referred to as holons.

1.3 Parts and wholes in an absolute sense do not exist in the domains of life. The concept of the holon is intended to reconcile the atomistic and holistic approaches.

1.4 Biological holons are self-regulating open systems which display both the autonomous properties of wholes and the dependent properties of parts. This dichotomy is present on every level of every type of hierarchic organization, and is referred to as the “Janus phenomenon”.

So, taking this idea as a starting point, we can consider the whole universe to be made up of holons. I really like this idea. It reminds us that nothing exists in isolation, and nothing can be fully understood without understanding it’s relationships as well as it’s “surface properties”. Ken Wilber, in particular, has picked up the idea and elaborated further with this his four “drives” of every holon. (“A Brief History of Everything” is a good place to start if you want to read more, and here‘s an interesting summary)

Ken Wilber’s “drives” are interesting. He describes two pairs – a horizontal pair and a vertical one. The horizontal pair are “agency” and “community”. Every holon needs agency, or autonomy, to preserve its uniqueness and its individuality. We humans need that. Our immune systems are designed to quickly recognise what is “not me” and our sense of self also strengthens our feelings of uniqueness. However, we also need community, in that we also need to connect and to belong. We love and are loved. One of the most severe punishments in any jail is “solitary confinement”. We are wired to connect to others and to our environments. We need both agency and community.

The vertical pair are “self-dissolution” and “self-transcendence”. Self-dissolution is that disintegration of the whole into parts (or more correctly into sub-holons, as all holons are made of holons!). This is something we experience as illness. When things fall apart, when our systems go out of balance, in essence when we experience dis-integration, we are experiencing “self-dissolution”. The opposite of this is growth and development. The fairly new biological term for this would be “emergence” – which is the development of characteristics and behaviours previously unseen in this organism or system. Wilber terms this “self-transcendence” which is a nice counter to that of dissolution. We have the capacity to literally transcend our current state through creative growth and evolution.

Of course none of us stay the same. We all experience continual change – some of it dissolution and some of it transcendence. (I’m reminded here of the biological processes of catabolism and anabolism).

This idea – the idea of a holon, (both as seeded by Koestler, and developed by Wilber) – is, I think a wonderful one. Once you grasp it, you’ll start to understand reality differently.

Read Full Post »

Resilient Japan

Every day just now we see more and more scenes of devastation from the earthquake and tsunami in Japan. It’s quite overwhelming. I’ve been in touch with a couple of my friends in Tokyo, and what they tell me, plus what I see reported on the news, reminds me again of the incredible depth of quiet strength and resilience which seems common in Japan. It got me thinking again about the story of the Diospyros kaki tree – the tree which survived the nuclear bomb in Nagasaki whose shoots have been spread around the world as a Peace Tree.

Here’s my story of the kaki tree.

 

Read Full Post »

wish

Thoughts and prayers with all my friends and colleagues in Japan

Read Full Post »

seat of nails

I noticed this very, very well worn park bench the other day……fancy a seat?

Read Full Post »

OK, I know posting music is a bit of a gamble, because we don’t all like the same kind of music. But here’s one song I love – “Stand in Awe” by the wonderful, Dala.
And, personally, I think we need to have more music in our lives – it’s good for your right brain!

Read Full Post »

Here’s a quote from a book entitled “Neuroethics“. This is from an essay by Nancey Murphy.

While Greek thought tended to regard the human being as made up of distinct parts, Hebraic thought saw the human being more as a whole person existing on different dimensions. As we might say, it was more characteristically Greek to conceive of the human person “partitively,” whereas it was more characteristically Hebrew to conceive of the human person “aspectively.” That is to say, we speak of a school having a gym (the gym is part of the school); but we say I am a Scot (my Scottishness is an aspect of my whole being.)

Until I read this, I’d never come across these particular terms. Nor did I know there was this difference between Greek and Hebrew thought. But what completely struck me was how congruent this idea is with what Ian McGilchrist says about the left and right hemispheres of the brain. In his “Master and His Emissary“, he makes the case for each hemisphere engaging with the world in its own unique way – the left engaging in a “representation” way, breaking reality down into parts to “grasp” it by mapping it against what’s already known, and the right engaging in a more holistic way, (what McGilchrist describes as a focus on the between-ness, rather on the things). Ken Wilber’s description focuses on the “interpretative” nature of this other way.

So this is interesting. This idea of a “partitive” world view is very much our dominant paradigm. We break experience into parts and we use the left hemisphere strongly to do that. It strikes me we are on the edge of a wave of change here though, and that this worldview is running out of steam. It’s failing to satisfy what it is to be fully human. If that’s true, then we should be seeking to develop our right hemispheric powers, creating a more “aspective” worldview.

Read Full Post »

As far as possible I’m keen on finding ways to help people without using drugs or technologies. I know that both drugs and technologies (I’m including surgical treatments in there) have their place (mostly in acute, not chronic, situations in my opinion), but I really think that the people involved in health care are undervalued. So I was interested to see this piece about leg ulcer treatments.

A five-year study led from the University of Leeds has shown that ultrasound therapy does nothing to speed up the healing process of leg ulceration — contrary to what had been expected. Traditional methods of nursing care, which are cheaper and easier to deliver, work just as well, the authors conclude…..”The key to care with this group of patients is to stimulate blood flow back up the legs to the heart. The best way to do that is with compression bandages and support stockings — not ‘magic wands’ — coupled with advice on diet and exercise. Believe it or not, having a really hearty chuckle can help too. This is because laughing gets the diaphragm moving and this plays a vital part in moving blood around the body.”

So, good nursing care and laughter are effective treatments…..not just in a “feeling better” way (which is often strangely disdained by materialists), but in actually getting chronic leg ulcers to heal up. Interesting, huh?

Read Full Post »

I stumbled across this piece in the NY Times. It starts like this

Alone with his psychiatrist, the patient confided that his newborn had serious health problems, his distraught wife was screaming at him and he had started drinking again. With his life and second marriage falling apart, the man said he needed help. But the psychiatrist, Dr. Donald Levin, stopped him and said: “Hold it. I’m not your therapist. I could adjust your medications, but I don’t think that’s appropriate.”

At this point I stopped and checked two things – firstly, had I been redirected to “The Onion” without realising, and, secondly, was the article written on April 1st? Turns out the answer was “no” to both of these potential explanations. I read on.

Then, like many psychiatrists, he treated 50 to 60 patients in once- or twice-weekly talk-therapy sessions of 45 minutes each. Now, like many of his peers, he treats 1,200 people in mostly 15-minute visits for prescription adjustments that are sometimes months apart. Then, he knew his patients’ inner lives better than he knew his wife’s; now, he often cannot remember their names. Then, his goal was to help his patients become happy and fulfilled; now, it is just to keep them functional. Dr. Levin has found the transition difficult. He now resists helping patients to manage their lives better. “I had to train myself not to get too interested in their problems,” he said, “and not to get sidetracked trying to be a semi-therapist.”

This can’t be true. Tell me it isn’t true! Has there been a major shift in psychiatry in the US to deliberately NOT listen to patients, but to focus only on drugs? Apparently. Dr Levin misses the old style but finds he’s pretty good at the new one….

“I miss the mystery and intrigue of psychotherapy,” he said. “Now I feel like a good Volkswagen mechanic.” “I’m good at it,” Dr. Levin went on, “but there’s not a lot to master in medications. It’s like ‘2001: A Space Odyssey,’ where you had Hal the supercomputer juxtaposed with the ape with the bone. I feel like I’m the ape with the bone now.”

At least in the article they interview one psychiatrist who has opted out of this shift and she hits the nail on the head

“Medication is important,” she said, “but it’s the relationship that gets people better.”

You know, I think this is the key issue here. When did we reduce “relationship” to “talk therapy”? As if a relationship between a patient and a doctor can be reduced a treatment intervention, and that drugs, of course, can be prescribed more quickly and “efficiently” than a relationship so drugs win!

If this really is true, I think it’s profoundly sad. In my opinion it’s a greater valuing of human relationships and a greater emphasis on people – patients and practitioners – that’s needed in medicine today.

Less drugs, more relating! That’s what I say!

Read Full Post »

I was listening to a discussion recently about rational and irrational thinking. Whilst I agree that rational thinking is a “good thing”, I can’t say I agree with the current reduced materialistic view of rational thinking and I certainly don’t agree with what I heard one of the contributors say, which was that if only we could increase rationalism we would create a better world. My immediate thought was, “really? You think so? I can think of something which is not rationalism which I would much prefer to back as the way to create a better world – love.”

So, I was delighted to find this piece by David Brooks in the NY Times.

We emphasize things that are rational and conscious and are inarticulate about the processes down below. We are really good at talking about material things but bad at talking about emotion….when it comes to the most important things like character and how to build relationships, we often have nothing to say. Many of our public policies are proposed by experts who are comfortable only with correlations that can be measured, appropriated and quantified, and ignore everything else.

He goes on to make the point that the latest research is changing this view of rational being good, and emotion bad.

First, the unconscious parts of the mind are most of the mind, where many of the most impressive feats of thinking take place. Second, emotion is not opposed to reason; our emotions assign value to things and are the basis of reason. Finally, we are not individuals who form relationships. We are social animals, deeply interpenetrated with one another, who emerge out of relationships. This body of research suggests the French enlightenment view of human nature, which emphasized individualism and reason, was wrong. The British enlightenment, which emphasized social sentiments, was more accurate about who we are. It suggests we are not divided creatures. We don’t only progress as reason dominates the passions. We also thrive as we educate our emotions.

Hmm….what do you think? Are we on the verge of a new more holistic (and I’d argue more realistic) view of human beings?

Read Full Post »

When I read the line in “Cutting The Stone” about looking after the body, but not the being, I remembered some lines from T S Eliot’s The Cocktail Party – here they are –

Or take a surgical operation
In a consultation with the doctor or surgeon
In going to bed in the nursing home,
In talking to the matron, you are still
the subject.
The centre of reality. But, stretched on the table,
You are a piece of furniture in a repair shop
For those who surround you, the masked actors
All there is of you is your body
And the “you” is withdrawn

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »