Re: [Philweb] Neoklassische Philosophie?

Liebe Diskutanten, hier eine Lachnummer, nicht von Schopenhauer, sondern von mir - aber man bemüht sich ja… Es ist eine gester nund heute geschriebene Kürzest-Version unseres biopsychosozialen Modells der Medizin, und ich habe sie in www.researchgate.net zur Diskussion gestellt. Vielen Dank noch einmal für die lebhafte Diskussion hier im Philweb, die mir sehr geholfen hat, Klarheit in die Gedanken zu bringen. Klarheit bis zu welcher Stufe der Verwirrung, das werdet Ihr entscheiden :-) Viele Grüße, Thomas https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350548165_A_new_polycontextural_mo… Heidelberg, April 1st, 2021 Thomas Fröhlich A new polycontextural model of biopsychosocial interaction Our intuition tells that nature cannot be assumed to be divided in two strictly different realms. This intuition, according to our approach is correct. Yet to proof it, the asserting reasoning needs a simple, reliable and convincing starting point. This is that to exist means to distinctively cohere, both in parallel and in series. As usual with terms, they can be effectively opened paths and dead-end streets the same time. Here, the trap is built by using the term ‘to cohere’ in an only spatial sense. In fact, for an assembly of processes to cohere at first simply means to be distinctively engaged, with the difference established by interacting more with each other than with the outside. So, there is a preference of a set of processes compared with the others. As long as the processes’ preferred orientation towards each other is maintained, the resulting assembly creates a distinguished orchestra. It is an entity in its own and exists as something different. To functionally cohere hence is the pivotal and distinctive and distinguishing feature making something exist. Put in different words, all that is said to exist does so by cohering in a more than ephemeral way. Interacting processes Leaving the cage of only spatial metaphors again, we may see a distinctively interacting set of processes as this way creating an inside. Here, the interaction-based inside is the distinguished set. The inside consists of and is perpetuated by an ongoing preference of interaction addressing set members, compared with interactions with non-set members. As obvious, this functional, not and not only spatial definition of what makes an inside is a relative, not an absolute one. It does not hypostatise an unrelated, exclusively self-related monad, and instead allows for interactions going into both directions, to the inside and to the outside. It is just a relative overweight of internal relatedness over the external one that makes the difference. No absolute inside Because in this concept the option of external relations is not excluded, any functional inside is seen as contextually embedded in what makes up its corresponding non-inside. In our approach, we do not suppose a just automatically installed homogeneity of the outsides of several insides, since we simply do not know more of them than not belonging to and being one of the focused insides. So, we do not deny the option of what is not in the inside to be an inside as well, we just cannot tell at the moment. Our approach hence is coherence-based also in terms of its perspective. It is always an inside-to-outside one, and not a perspective from top down, as from all potential insides pseudo-homogenous outside. Denying the supposed homogeneity of a fantasised universal outside, we get strictly bound to the weeds, only allowed to look up to the sky without exactly knowing of what it consists. This knowledge and insight may be gained, but if at all, it can only emerge as a result of ongoing observation from a functional coherence’s inside. Expanding the horizon Using to functionally cohere and to actively creating an inside as starting point of our arguments, we are free to expand our observational horizon by stepwise filling the initially undetermined non-inside with further determinations. The latter have the identical form as our starting point’s structure, in also having been identified as distinctively cohering in a preferred inside-orientation, with the terms inside and orientation used in a functional sense, again. Interactional preferences Whatever exists, coheres and this way forms an inside then can create interactional preferences concerning further insides. Different to the only spatial use of the term inside, the functional use is open to unlimited multi-tasking. That is, any functional inside is open to co-create larger insides together with other insides. Then, the previous non-inside remains the noon-inside in the individual inside’s perspective, but at the same time transforms to an extended inside in terms of the newly formed set’s perspective. A set of elements can be an element itself, and to even increase the operational flexibility, belonging to one set does not exclude the element’s chance to simultaneously belong to further sets. What results from this vivid non-disjunctive connecting is a plenitude of small and large interacting insides, a filled cosmos coherently following the parallel insides’ rules, with the insides consisting of individual and collective insides simultaneously. Distinctive insides Being governed by such insides’ and sets of insides home-made rules does not exclude the option of being an even larger inside and being simultaneously governed by this larger inside’s rules. A gradually expanded inside engaged in its coherent set and super-set interactions is co-governed also by this super-set’s rules. So, as with the individual inside having the option to simultaneously play a role and being part of a larger inside, here again the presently observed totality as an extended inside follows the individual elements’, and the extended set’s rules simultaneously. The functional assemblies created this in this vivid way then produce, receive and enact their rules not from an anonymous and amorph outside, but always from their inside, be it as extended as it momentarily is. A coherence transiently focused as the present topic then is seen as consisting both of a plenty of insides of different size and as being part of an even larger inside which is not at issue in the moment. Contextual embeddedness, such as the social one hence is not excluded in momentarily using the person-centred view. It is just a further perspective open to be used in parallel. Multi-layered interactions So, depending on the resolution applied, we can focus on a molecular coherences’ interaction the same time as we focus on the organ coherence’s interaction, the complete body’s interaction, the complete person’s internal interactions and, last, not least also this person’s interactions in terms of social coherence. In every increase and decrease of resolution, we use the same logic and address the same principal structure, the one of cohering internally relatively more than cohering with the functional non-inside. Meaning A concept of meaning is a natural part of our approach. It emerges from and then consists of coherent co-processing. The larger the coherently co-functioning assemblies, the more extended is the meaning’s realm. The non-inside, as seen from the inside is at first a potential, to be assumed being filled with further coherently co-processing insides. To get realised as partners in a co-processing, they at first have to be selectively addressed. Then an extended co-processing is installed. This effective co-functioning can be visualised by imagining a shared processual axis, constituting the joint functional ‚direction' enacted by the co-operating processes. Always a dialogue Meaning is always co-created by at least two coherently acting processes. Distinguishing a nascent and a ripe phase of co-processing, initially the second process is anticipated and only hypostasised as being coherent in fact. Later, there is no doubt about its coherent character anymore. In a final phase, the process’ coherence may deconstruct, dissipate, disintegrate, and the semantic axis breaks down and disappears. Concerning the ‘thickness” of the semantic axis, a strange temporal parameter comes into play. This factor is strange because it not only refers to past and present bonding’s strength, but also grips into future, in an anticipating, hypostasising, tentative and prospective way. That is, a part of it has the form of a hypothesis, a preview, an assumption, a tentative forecast, it addresses what is not happening yet. Bonding Past and present bonding strength result from a functional fit in co-processing. This in turn depends both on selectivity and adaptive flexibility in that. A high specificity combined with an only small range of variation options results in a not so strong semantic axis. And a low specificity combined with an almost unlimited variability and flexibility create a weak semantic axis, also. A middle range in both parameters will result in the best possible semantic axis strength. This weighted positioning of the two parameters may be called the eudaemonia one, in Aristotelian terms, or the harmonic ones. Semantic axes The semantic axis, described above, having a future-oriented partial term in it principally differs from a simply continued timeline, such as depicted suggesting a dimensional quality. The future-oriented term consists of a tentative prolongation of a coherent development and has the form of a hypothesis. It is an assumption, not a trivial fact. The corresponding term refers to a potential not to a past or present realisation. In consequence, we cannot simply add one piece of a line to another, since these pieces are internally inhomogeneous, consisting of a real and an imaginary part, like imaginary numbers. Interactions also cause internal changes As well, in a moment, processes do not get simply added to each other, leaving the combined terms internally unchanged. Instead, to use metaphoric terms, they must first agree to direct themselves to each other, to then possibly engage in an attuned co-processing. This co-processing results, amongst others, in creation of the prospective term of the co-constituted semantic axis. Embodiment Transforming oneself from a nascent, singular process into a harmonising co-process going on in a modified, adapted, partner-related way corresponds to, and consists of an embodiment of relational aspects and features into the own processing’s ‘body’. Each participating process integrates features of another process to eventually perform in an adapted, fitting way. This means that, instead of a simple addition of internally unaltered static elements, we have an ongoing dialogue of two or more perceptive and dynamically adapting and attuning partners. Again, there is a directional component in the descriptive terms, since into which direction the adaptation and implementation go relates to a state in the future. The semantic axis co-created this way points towards its future. No pseudo-dimensionality of time, no empty space This excludes the option of a simple uninterrupted prolongation of a timeline. Instead, the future is only supposed, anticipated, hypostasised, it hast the form of a hypothesis differing from an observed realisation, described as factual and not potential. Instead, being allowed to just draw a continuous line, we are forced to accept a plenty of present moments, with a corresponding multiplicity of perspectives. As well we cannot separate a seemingly empty and at first conceptually solitaire, that is, timeless space homogeneously surrounding whatever content. And thirdly, we cannot artificially separate a timeless space and a moment-free pseudo-time from what in fact dynamic qualification, also concerning source-based space, time and timing emerge from: the focused content. Seen as parallel and serial interactional coherence, this are the multi-spotted weeds real time and space emerge from. Topic-dependent resolution This more empiric and at the same time less omnipotent approach then fits to all that at least transiently successfully coheres. With its general applicability to all that coheres, this model allows to adapt resolution from coarse to fine using the same conceptual instrument, serving both as a microscope and a telescope, depending on the nature of focus. This is our new polycontextural biopsychosocial model’s present state. Remark This draft is meant to trigger an exchange about how the frame set by George Engel’s term ‘biopsychosocial model’ could be meaningfully filled. Often the fact that Engel only asked for such a model but did not present one is overlooked. In a mostly Heidelberg setting we started to develop this model, first by meeting at the University’s philosophical seminary, invited by the philosopher and Whitehead specialist Reiner Wiehl. In a stepwise process we were able to reshape the basics of such a model, in eventually proposing a corresponding concept of semantic space, time and energy [1-17]. The newly developed framework serves as the basis of what is written here. The term ‘polycontextural’ is used in complexity science, amongst others, and nicely discussed in [18]. We use it in a less ambitious way and hence do not directly follow the path of Gotthard Günther, who coined it in addressing a corresponding logic. This draft is written by the author only, so all minor and serious flaws are in his responsibility. References [1] Fröhlich T., Babakhani A., Bevier FF., Henningsen P., Miall D. S., Sandberg S., Schmitt A., (2014) Mind the gap: a common formal basis for somatic and person-centered healthcare, Lecture, 3.7.2014, European Society for Person Centered Healthcare, Francisco de Vitoria University, Madrid, Spain [2] Fröhlich, T., Bevier, F.F., Babakhani, A., Chisholm, H.H., Henningsen, P., Miall, D.S., Sandberg, S. & Schmitt, S. (2016). Updating the descriptive biopsychosocial approach to fit into a formal person-centered dynamic coherence model - Part I: Some few basics. European Journal for Person Centered Healthcare 4 (3) 548-556. [3] Fröhlich, T., Bevier, F.F., Babakhani, A., Chisholm, H.H., Henningsen, P., Miall, D.S., Sandberg, S. & Schmitt, S. (2016). Updating the descriptive biopsychosocial approach to fit into a formal person-centered dynamic coherence model. Part II: Applications and some more basics. European Journal for Person Centered Healthcare 4 (3) 557-566. [4] Fröhlich, T., Bevier, F.F., Babakhani, A., Chisholm, H.H., Henningsen, P., Miall, D.S., Sandberg, S. & Schmitt, S. (2016). Updating the descriptive biopsychosocial approach to fit into a formal person-centered dynamic coherence model - Part III: Personhood, salutogenesis and further topics. European Journal for Person Centered Healthcare 4 (3) 567-578. [5] Fröhlich, T., Bevier, F.F., Babakhani, A., Chisholm, H.H., Henningsen, P., Miall, D.S., Sandberg, S. & Schmitt, A. (2018). The ontology of person-centered healthcare: Theoretical essentials to reground medicine within its humanistic framework - Part I - A centered concept of personhood: Some tools to conceptualise subjectivity. European Journal for Person Centered Healthcare 6 (1) 146-156. [6] Fröhlich, T., Bevier, F.F., Babakhani, A., Chisholm, H.H., Henningsen, P., Miall, D.S., Sandberg, S. & Schmitt, A. (2018). The ontology of person-centered healthcare: Theoretical essentials to reground medicine within its humanistic framework - Part II - Nascent time and space: rooted functioning. European Journal for Person Centered Healthcare 6 (1) 157-171. [7] Fröhlich, T., Bevier, F.F., Babakhani, A., Chisholm, H.H., Henningsen, P., Miall, D.S., Sandberg, S. & Schmitt, A. (2018). The ontology of person-centered healthcare: Theoretical essentials to reground medicine within its humanistic framework - Part III - The logic of subjectivity: wrapped in one’s individual history. European Journal for Person Centered Healthcare 6 (1) 172-181. [8] Froehlich, T., Bevier, F.F., Babakhani, A., Chisholm, H.H., Henningsen, P., Miall, D.S., Sandberg, S. & Schmitt, A. (2019). The social part of the advanced biopsychosocial model. Part I: The volume approach. European Journal for Person Centered Healthcare 7 (1) 158-172. [9] Froehlich, T., Bevier, F.F., Babakhani, A., Chisholm, H.H., Henningsen, P., Miall, D.S., Sandberg, S. & Schmitt, A. (2019). The social part of the advanced biopsychosocial model. Part II: Some basics, concerning volumes instead of points and lines. European Journal for Person Centered Healthcare 7 (1) 173-189. [10] Froehlich, T., Bevier, F.F., Babakhani, A., Chisholm, H.H., Henningsen, P., Miall, D.S., Sandberg, S. & Schmitt, A. (2019). The social part of the advanced biopsychosocial model. Part III: Semantic spaces in everyday life. Characteristics of human social interaction. European Journal for Person Centered Healthcare 7 (1) 190-204. [11] G. Rüter, T. Fröhlich (2019) Commentary: patient well-being and individual outcomes in the medical practice: impulses from philosophy. Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine, December 2019 14 (1), 1-7 DOI: 10.1186/s13010-019-0071-x (Open Access) [12] Fröhlich, T. (2018). Some thoughts about the terms “centre” and “inside”, in relation to the concept of person-centredness. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 24 (5) 1005-1010. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12999 <https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12999> [13] Fröhlich T. General system theory (GST) and a non‐reductionist concept of elements: Suggesting a corresponding discussion based on Tramonti (2019). Syst Res Behav Sci. 2019;1–4. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2592 <https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2592> [14] Thomas Fröhlich (2019) Rezension des Internationalen Jahrbuchs für philosophische Anthropologie 2018, Volume 8, Die philosophische Anthropologie und ihr Verhältnis zu den Wissenschaften der Psyche, Hrsg. Thomas Ebke, Sabina Hoth, Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin, Boston. In: psycho-logik, 14, 393- 415, Verlag Karl Alber, Freiburg [15] Thomas Fröhlich (2019) Fröhlich Groups Humanity at Work. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340732060_Frohlich_Groups_Humanity… [accessed Oct 28th, 2020]. [16] Thomas Fröhlich (2020) Fröhlich Groups – well known tools to enhance person-centeredness and clinical team building. Lecture at 6th Annual Conference and Awards Ceremony, European Society for Person Centered Healthcare, London, February 27th and 28th 2020, University of West London, London, UK [17] Fröhlich, T., Bevier, F.F., Babakhani, A., Henningsen, P., Hillebrand, S., Konschill-Schwesig, H., Miall, D.S., Sandberg, S., Schmitt, A., Wolfhard, C. (2021). A new approach to person-centred team building, embedded in polycentric interaction theory, Introductory remarks & Part I-III. European Journal for Person Centered Healthcare, accepted for publication March 26th, 2021 [18] Miguel Ángel Briceño Gil (2011) Poly-contextural Logic: New Resource for Transdisciplinary Research in Sociology. Sociology Study ISSN 2159‐5526. July 2011, Volume 1, Number 2, 143‐152. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/216780703_Polycontextural_Logic_Ne… <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/216780703_Polycontextural_Logic_New_Resource_for_Transdisciplinary_Research_in_Sociology> - accessed April 1st, 2021