----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 2:53
PM
Subject: Re: The Rosennean Modelling
project
Ayten Aydin wrote: The question is how RR's theoretical approaches can be
diffused to enter into the mainstream of applied research and into the
practice of the conventional medicine?
Well, my belief is that there needs to be an
initial, extremely useful application created, the success of which makes
other people want to replicate those results. Since money and prestige are the
common drivers for most of the people in a position to implement these
applications and approaches, I think the creation of some method or set
of methods that solves a problem better, faster, more cheaply, or in a more
complete way than traditional approaches would be the way to attract attention
to the whole theoretical framework. Nothing succeeds like
success.
Part of the problem with "traditional" medicine is that it was
developed in tandem with the mechanisation of science. It sees the human body
as a machine and various aspects of the body as "parts" which can be
dealt with individually, etc. Biology is going ever farther into molecular
stuff, ignoring the interconnected whole, so biology is not much help in
giving medical research a "reality check" about living organisms. Both
areas are in the throes of a reductionist embrace of sub-sub-SUB-
systems. At that level, one can use mechanistic approaches much more
easily, and they generally don't have to deal with the real effects at
higher levels that one might be able to avoid with a Rosennean approach. Since
they don't deal with it, it's invisible. If there is no good reason to change,
people won't. It's that simple.
So my intention in bring up the "modeling project" is to ask the
group for input on how to choose an area of focus that will "give more bang
for the buck", as it were. An area that is very much a general concern that
all of us have direct experience with, an area that has remained intractible
to science/medicine for the most part to date. If we are going to actually
achieve something useful in creating an application, we need to keep the end
goal in mind. If the means serves some important and useful function and the
goal itself serves some important and useful function, then we are well on our
way to "closing the loop"--It seems appropriate to me to be using
complexity to create new applications for complexity. If it is
self-referential, we are on the right path.
Has anyone given the ideas put out regarding the "Immunilogical
Shadow Theory" any thought? Or does some other aspect seem more likely to lead
to an application that can make a bigger difference? I'm waiting for some
feedback before I let my imagination really work on anything.
Judith
With this aim, I fully support
that we should continue pursuing
our enquiry into the immune system management, not only the
vaccination issue, though extremely important and more often carelessly
implemented. Alternative medicine is more sensitive to such matters than the
conventional one. Moreover, what could be the practical role of this circle
in the materialization of these ideas?
Ayten
Judith,
you write:
" I also wonder what the "vaccination process" would be like
once the human immune system were reassessed and studied via some of
my father's theoretical approaches! We might find a far better way to
confer immunities than by injecting a slurry of dead or
weakened pathogens into our bodies.
"