|
E-LOGOS ELECTRONIC JOURNAL FOR PHILOSOPHY/2002 ISSN 1211-0442 -----------------------------------------------------------
|  |
EPISTEMOLOGY OF CIVILISED MAN DISEASES
Konstantin
S. Khroutski, M.D., Ph.D.
Institute of Medical Education,
Novgorod State University after Yaroslav-the-Wise, Novgorod the Great, Russia
A/B
123, PO-25, Novgorod the Great, 173025, Russia
E-mail: hrucki@mail.ru
Abstract. In this exploration author aims to approach near the
cognisance of ‘single cause’ etiogenesis of chronic noninfectious and
nontraumatic diseases. To reach this end he necessarily attempts to ground
modern biomedicine in higher order—‘cosmist’—philosophical (cosmological, ontological,
epistemological) principles. Working on this basis, author pushes forward, with
respect to the epistemology of civilised man diseases (CMD), his chief
proposition that CMD arise from the excess amount of intrinsic creative—psychophysiological—energy, not having been
utilised during current man’s vital activity. In outcome, author advances an
epistemological classification of the etiogenesis of modern diseases and
originates 5 stages of the universal etiopathogenesis of modern chronic
noninfectious and nontraumatic diseases (civilised man diseases).
Key
words
Russian cosmism,
philosophical cosmology, wholistic ontology, cosmist epistemology,
CosmoBiotypology, individual's health, etiogenesis of chronic diseases
"Philosophy is a science and therefore, like every other science,
it seeks to establish truths that have been strictly proved and are
therefore binding for every thinking being and
not only for
a
particular people or nation."
Nicolei O. Lossky (Lossky, 1951, p.402)[1]
Introduction
Is there an acute crisis in
modern biomedicine in relation to philosophical issues? Do we actually need and
what for we need the new philosophical foundations for biomedicine? Is it
really worthy to comprehend scientifically the phenomenon of individual's
health?
Responding to these debatable
questions author, himself, says categorically 'Yes'! In this he reasons that,
incontestably, modern biomedicine is impotent to treat etiogenically the
chronic noninfectious and nontraumatic diseases (to the point, the major cause
of the entire morbidity and mortality), which are also called as "diseases
of civilisation".
Of course, there exists the
generally accepted conceptual basis that admits the multifactorical aetiology
of chronic noninfectious diseases ("diseases of civilisation"),
therein placing the emphasis on the interaction of genetic, neurophysiological,
biochemical, immune, and other intrinsic biological factors with a variety of
social and environmental factors. Evidently, however, this 'etiological' line lacks the explanation of
chronic diseases as the ones produced by single causes, and, hence, it entirely
lacks, in principle, the complete restoration
(and prevention) of a patient with the chronic noninfectious disease.
The latter, in turn, directly sets up social barriers to the realisation of
ideals of liberty, for, individual's wellbeing (health) is the absolutely
necessary condition for a person's freedom.
That is precisely the general
design of author's exploration—to approach near the cognisance of 'single
cause' etiogenesis of chronic noninfectious and nontraumatic diseases. At this
point, the main peculiarity of his endeavours is the reference to the notions
of the 1960-80s (like "diseases of civilisation", "chronic
non-infectious diseases", "psychosomatic disorders",
"hierarchy of needs", etc.), which are chiefly out of use in current
biomedicine. However, substantially, he attaches herein a novel—cosmist—meaning
to them. Moreover, author generally calls for the restoration of philosophical
reflections on the phenomenon of "diseases of civilisation", which
likewise finished in the same 1960-80s, having provided biomedicine with no one
fruitful concept.
At this point, endeavouring to
realise his original approach to the consideration of the phenomenon of
"diseases of civilisation",[2]
author, first of all, divides the entire spectre of all diseases into four
macro-classes: 1) of genetic diseases
(of genetic origin; they are, however, excluded from consideration); 2) broadly
understanding class of infectious
diseases, caused by the entire range of pathogens; 3) broadly understanding
class of traumatic diseases—of
physical and chemical origin, of acute and chronic continuance, of natural and
ecological (anthropogenic) occurrence; 4) of civilised man diseases (epistemological characterisation of this
new notion forms the chief subject-matter of the entire work). Here, however,
it would be relevant to indicate the main properties of the civilised man diseases: a) they are
chronic noninfectious and nontraumatic diseases, which have not the specific etiologic causes of their
occurrences and which are considered, thereby, in relation to etiogenesis, as non-specific and multifactorical, and
which, thus, lack the specific mode of their treatment; b) civilised man
diseases are precisely the diseases of civilised
man. The latter is assessed as the man, who is free, in principal, from the
harmful physical, ecological, or social influences or oppressions (as it
clearly follows from the comparison of the civilised man of-today with the man,
for instance, of the XIX-th century; or, to be more demonstrative, with the man
of XV-th, or XI-th century, etc.).
Approximately, a state of
prerequisites for health (listed in 1986 by WHO's Ottawa Charter for Health
Promotion) could serve, simultaneously, as the characteristic features of
(post)modern civilised man's existence: "peace, food, shelter, education, income,
a stable ecosystem, sustainable resources, social justice and equity"
(Hancock, 1999, p.419). (It is also noteworthy that this list of prerequisites
does not include health care!).
Finally, emphasis is placed upon the following point:
Author's subject-matter has nothing in common with the synthetic reviews or
thorough analysis on the historical aspects of the "diseases of
civilisation" concepts and the related topics. His main task is direct and
clear—to meet the crisis of modern biomedicine (in relation to philosophical
issues) and to advance new systemic philosophical and theoretical assumptions,
aimed at its overcoming. Therefore, in so far as author presents a principally
novel perspective of biomedicine's evolution, the references he exploits have
not the quality of analytic and comparative exploration, and they are,
conversely, not the 'fortuitous reminiscences', but the ones, called to make
his innovative discourse more apprehensible.
1.
Crisis of Modern Biomedicine in Relation to
Philosophical Issues
Now, as a starting point of
author's reflections, an example of coronary artery disease is brought into
light. The latter, as it is well known, is one of the most significant chronic
noninfectious and nontraumatic diseases and causes of human mortality. At the
same time, as shown by evidence, the basis of coronary disease is
atherosclerosis, which is a major form of arteriosclerosis, and the latter is a
"chronic disease characterised by abnormal thickening and hardening of the
walls of arteries, with a resulting loss of elasticity."
(Arteriosclerosis, 2001). Thereby, atherosclerosis is an autonomous chronic
disease (just as coronary artery disease itself) of the whole human organism.
Hence, we have then, that the cause of one chronic disease (coronary artery
disease) is established in the existence of the other chronic disease
(atherosclerosis).
That is a matter of fact, with
regard to any civilisation disease, that modern biomedicine, although having
tremendous achievements in understanding molecular mechanisms of diseases,
lacks, in principle, ‘single causes’
etiologic comprehension and scientific study of the causes of chronic diseases
appearance but, instead, modern biomedicine conducts the extensive
investigation of social, environmental, and biologic "risk factors"
of the chronic diseases, as well as the investigation of the unified mechanisms
of their pathogeneses and the modes of their treatment.
In other words, it is evident,
within the limits of existing biomedical paradigm, that the very various
factors could participate in the occurrence of the one certain case of a
chronic noninfectious disease, for example, coronary artery disease; and, at
the same time, one certain risk factor (for instance, long-term emotional
stress) is associated with the appearance of very various chronic noninfectious
diseases (coronary artery disease, hypertension, duodenal ulcer, dermatitis,
alcoholism, etc.).
Thereby, modern biomedicine does
not possess at present the true etiogenic (individual) approach to the treatment
of any of existing chronic noninfectious diseases (civilised man diseases).
More accurately, in relation to civilisation diseases, modern biomedicine
individualises, but "depersonalises" the man (Glick, 1981, p.1037),
in this continuing to break new frontiers daily and extending scientific
benefits of medicine. The reason is that modern biomedicine treats man as an
abstract statistical unit: Although it admits the uniqueness of man's
individual bio-organismic or psycho-social characteristics, it sees them
exclusively as variables within the common range of a given trait, i.e. as the
biostatistical norm and its possible deviations. For example, allergist sees
the specialised (individualised) approach to a patient in revealing the certain
allergens (to which the patient is sensitive) and their consequent adequate
treatment (specific desensitisation). But there never a question arises: Why
does this patient acquire the allergic sensitivity, while thousands of
surrounding men (of the same population)—do not?
Returning to the example with
atherosclerosis process, author places emphasis on the generally accepted fact
that the accumulation of cholesterol in atherosclerotic lesions "is
primarily determined by genetic factors but can also be influenced by environmental
factors, such as a high-fat diet." (Atherosclerosis, 2001).
Relying on this example of
pathogenic interrelation of coronary artery disease (ischaemic
heart disease) with atherosclerosis, it is essential to state that the
genetic—molecular—level, although a basic one, is merely one more level of
man's whole universal organisation. Hence, general philosophy on the whole and
its branch—philosophy of biomedicine, in particular, either:
a) Establishes an 'iron
curtain'—separates Man from the existing surrounding World, when reduces the
problem of a civilised man disease to the genetic level (or to any other part
of an organism), thus acting exclusively within the limits of man's organism;
or
b) Places Man and World 'on the
different sides of a barricade'—on the counteracting positions, when considers
the harmful factors of the environment as causative to civilised man diseases
occurrence.
In both cases, however, current
philosophy of biomedicine (and, hence, general philosophy) deals not with a
reality, but precisely with unreality. In fact, at least since the year 1953 we
know the absolute truth of natural sciences—Man and Earth's living World, the
entire evolutionary process of Earth's life is the single whole. At this point,
author naturally means the discovery of the structure of DNA by Watson and
Crick, which proves the unity of all kinds of the life on the Earth and the
genetic transmission of psychic character by DNA molecules.
Furthermore, in this discourse,
modern biomedicine evidently comes to light as the one, which treats its chief
object (man, a patient) in the subject-object
type of relationship. Thereby, there is no place for the subject of
individual's health, for, healthy man, as a natural universal unit of Earth's
life, can exist exclusively in the subject-subject
interrelations with the 'uterine' world. Indeed, the absence of the etiogenic
approach to civilised man diseases—that is the lack of the true individual
approach in biomedicine and of the biomedicine of health itself (of the 'health-centric'—person-centred—biomedicine).
Actually, modern biomedicine
exists strictly in the pathocentric
paradigm. In outcome, contemporary civilised man—living in a democratic society
(!)—is in fact deprived of the right to have the information on his/her individual's
health. In other words, s/he has to become already
diseased, or found himself/herself in the surroundings of serious risk
factors, to make the impressive power of modern biomedicine turn to help
him/her. But it is nearly impossible, at present, to attract existing enormous
biomedical (sociological, humanitarian) capacities to assist man in putting
into operation his/her individual 'factors of wellbeing', that would guarantee
his/her health—the individual "state of complete physical, mental, and social
well-being and not merely the absence of diseases and infirmity."
(following WHO's famous definition of health of the year 1946).
Next, the so-called 'paradox of creativity' should be
considered: The contemporary man, being a creature of 'the Nature', actively
creates and materialises the social and ecological forms of his/her existence
on the planet Earth and actually steers the whole planetary life process. But,
at the same time, no less than about 90% of all existing risk factors of
civilised man diseases have a human or social origin, thus, the one resulting
from the man's 'creativity'. In other words, about 90% of all chronic diseases
are anthropogenic.
'Paradox of creativity' and the
other settled above arguments clearly explain the crucial point—the reason why
modern biomedicine is deeply embedded in the pathocentric way of development.
The essence is that the crisis under consideration—the impotence of
contemporary biomedicine to comprehend the phenomenon of individual's health
and to originate the etiologic investigation of the single (specific) causes of
modern civilised man diseases (CMD)—directly stems from present impotence of
general (and of biomedicine) philosophy and resulting incompetence of
(post)modern science and man.
2. Introduction to Philosophical
Cosmology
One of the origins of the
continuing crisis of contemporary philosophy, science and man (in relation to
the problems of comprehension of individual's health and etiogenesis of
civilised man diseases) may be seen in the fact, that modern biomedicine is
strictly based on the pluralist foundations. The current pluralistic
development is 'natural' in the historical-cultural settings of the evolution
of (post)modern Western civilisation
but, in the light of irrefutable evidence
of the universality of Earth's life process, it is not natural (and just
unnatural) from the point of view of the natural sciences.
Indeed, it is possible to treat
variously the 'INGRESS' (to argue for the origin of the life on Earth from
different backgrounds),[3]
but on the EGRESS (in the present) we objectively and actually have the
universal and integrated order of Earth's life organisation. In this case, the
laws of logic inexorably lead to the following conclusion: If, on EGRESS, we
have one whole universal PROCESS, then it is logically irrefutable that we have
one whole universal PROGRAM (whatever origin it has) of existing PROCESS.
Equally, if EGRESS is one whole universal phenomenon (what is verified by
natural sciences), then rightfully follows that as much INGRESS in PROCESS (the
origination of PROCESS), as PROCESS, itself, are equally the 'one whole
universal' phenomena, in so far as they belong to the one indivisible
integrated substance. Moreover, if
INGRESS in PROCESS (PROCESS'S origin), and its single and indivisible past
(evolution of PROCESS) and present (EGRESS, i.e. the present actuality of
PROCESS) constitute universal whole, then there are no reasons to refuse in
this (in universality and wholeness) to the future of PROCESS.
In consequence, PROCESS—that is
an objective reality unknown (mysterious) for us in its origin, but actually
existing and positively available for the current philosophical and scientific
exploration and comprehension. Thereby, the objective factuality of
PROCESS—that is the direct way for human mind to comprehend the universal ideal
but logical essence of current evolutionary PROCESS, including the Future
stages of its development.
At any rate, however,
contemporary Western pluralism can be justified by the only reason that it has
established the status of man as not merely of the thinking creature but,
equally, as of the acting person holding a certain position.
In conclusion, thereby,
contemporary philosophy and science (biomedicine as well), striving for the
study of the problems of the life on the Earth, ought to have an urge to put
forward new philosophical foundations for science, which should necessarily
possess the properties of positivism, evolutionism, personalism and
universalism.
Attempting to create the sought-for
philosophical bases by himself, author primarily introduces the original
principles of his philosophical cosmology (its complete substantial
characterisation is given in author’s previous work – “Introducing
Philosophical Cosmology”, 2001). In this, he proposes the key term and notion
of Process (CEPLE, Absolute)—of the one common universal cosmic evolutionary
process of the life on the Earth. In philosophical and scientific relation, the
significance of the conception of Process, to author's view, is equal to such
of Newton's 'Gravity' or Maxwell's 'Electromagnetic Field'.
The most substantive properties
of Process are a) its cosmic origin
and b) the essence of being the autonomous
(self-unfolding) ascendant emergent
evolutionary process.
Further, to provide a required
context for understanding the author's 'process philosophy' and 'cosmist
thinking', the definition of the other key cosmist
terms are advanced—of 'emergence', 'future', and 'subject'. The former
('emergence') substantially has the accepted (in evolutionary thinking)
meaning—of the rise of a system that cannot be predicted or explained from
antecedent conditions.
'Future', in turn, has the
specific sense: of the new—emergent—successively coming integrated level of a
subject's (man's) being and wellbeing (the university for a schoolboy; the
vocational body for a graduate student, etc.).
Finally, 'subject' is one more
specific and basic term in the author's cosmist system. 'Subject' defines the 'integrated functional subject', which
ever is integrating by itself/himself/herself (to be the functional whole) and
simultaneously being ever functionally integrated by the higher organised
subject. In other words, 'subject' means—from the cosmist point of view—every
living organism on the Earth: molecule, cell, biological organism, biosphere,
human being, family, community, social body, society, mankind, and, ultimately,
Process itself—the cosmic evolutionary process of the life on the Earth.
3. Ontological System of Absolute Cosmist Wholism
Next, on the bases of
philosophical cosmology, the central element of the whole cosmist philosophical
approach—the system of basic ontological assumptions (named as Absolute Cosmist
Wholism—ACW-system) is being put forward. Likewise, the detailed
characterisation of this system is given in author’s previous work – "The
Doctor of Tomorrow"; the latter was published in the E-Logos, 2001).
ACW-system is constituted by ten chief principles. In this discourse it is
possible to give only very brief characteristics to them:
1) Principle of universal functional integration—'all living is a whole—functionally integrated subject'.
2) Principle of universal emergent evolutionism—'all living—any subject—is the process'.
3) Principle of creativity—'man
is a creator': here are introduced and discerned two categories of human
creativity (they are characterised below):
a) Adaptational creativity; b) Creative
creativity.
4) Principle
of unity of evolutionary levels—'of
man's constant active creativity'.
5) Principle of cosmist hierarchy of evolutionary levels—'of the managing priority of the higher
integrated level'.
6) Principle of cosmist functionalism—'every subject of the lower level is the
function of the higher, ‘uterine’, whole organised subject (level)'.
7) Principle of evolutionary selection from Above—'evolutionary selection from the emergent
future'.
8) Principle of the particular role of modern man in the being of common
cosmic evolutionary process of the life on the Earth (Process)—'the future wellbeing of common Process—of Earth's life—entirely depends on the
man's deliberate cosmist creative activity'.
9) Principle of personal functional elitism—'the meaning of man's life is embedded in the successful ascendant
evolution of man through all macro-levels of his/her ontogenesis for the
ultimate achievement, in the period of maturity, of specific (cosmist) personal
macro-level of his/her wellbeing, to realise here the man's personal specific
(functional, of elite selection) contribution to the wellbeing of one common
whole Process.’
10) Principle of subject's individual wellbeing—'the subject's (man’s) wellbeing directly depends on the extent of one's
belongingness and integration into Process'.
The far-reaching deduction from
the cosmist philosophical bases is the definition of two chief categories of
man's constant creativity—of Adaptational Creativity and Creative Creativity:
Adaptational creativity has the synonyms of ‘micro-evolutionary, actual, constructive creativity’. It largely
conforms with Carl Popper's evolutionary
emergentism—the constant production of novel tentative behavioural and
cognitive patterns through actual problem solving in the present situation;
here, man expediently uses the method of trial and error, as well as s/he
effectively exploits the already existing (of Popper's 'world 3') scientific
and cultural material; the means of positivism, rationalism, subjectivism,
existentialism and phenomenology are equally relevant herein; man's
adaptational creative activity ends ultimately in the attainment of the highest
level of stability of his/her existence in the given environment.
Creative creativity has
the synonyms of ‘macro-evolutionary,
ascending, cosmist creativity’. It is a creative activity personally
gratifying man, which is aimed at the production of specific (functional)
personal effects or results making possible, eventually, the person’s future
wellbeing integration into the successively higher emergent level (absent in
the present reality) of his/her ontogenesis. In other words, cosmist creative activity is
the realisation and manifestation of the basic functional ability of a person
to carry out his specific inclusion into the wholeness of the new higher
emergent macro-level of the man’s well-being ontogenesis.
To account for these categories,
author brings in the example with a medical student. Due to the cosmist
paradigm, s/he would hold the personal wellbeing ontogenesis if, and only if,
s/he succeed as much in meeting the requirements of the higher medical school’s
curriculum, as in the active search (in his/her free time and over the
curriculum)—to discover (re-discover) and self-realise his/her basic inherent
(personally gratifying) functional ability (for instance, working in a surgical
unit). Naturally, when graduated, the given student would certainly be selected
and employed in a manner deeply satisfactory to the needs of his/her basic
intrinsic personal functionality realisation. Thereby, our student would
certainly be free (on his/her next ontogenetic level of vocational activity)
from the unfriendly surroundings, thus—from the harmful long-term conflicts and
emotional stresses, forming hard strain on the psychosomatic
(psychophysiological) systems of his/her organism and eventually throwing the
man into a chronic disease. Therefore, our student, basing his/her activity on
the cosmist principles, would certainly preserve his/her wellbeing (health)
during the studentship and further on the vocational level, and also would get
more favourable perspectives to realise successfully the further stages of
his/her macro-evolutionary ascendance (for instance, to become further a
manager—head of the surgical department).
Another far-reaching deduction from philosophical
cosmology and ACW-ontology is the principle establishing the equality of the
three main evolutionary units of one common whole Process—of Nature, Society,
and Man. In this course the basic notion of Homo Sapiens cosmicus (HSC) is
proposed. In other words, together with
the notions of biological and social evolution, the notion of the Personal
Cosmist Evolution of the Free Civilised Man is characterised as the present-day
forefront of Process. The further wellbeing of one common Process depends
nowadays neither so much from the biological evolution (it reached its high
point in the emergence of Homo Sapiens animalis
(HSA), nor from the social evolution (reaching its high point in the
emergence of contemporary Western civilised society and Homo Sapiens sapiens (HSS). Further continuation of
the evolution is to-be-mission of a new evolutionary active subject—Homo
Sapiens cosmicus (HSC): the man, who
is free from physical, biological, ecological and social harmful and oppressing
influences, and who is ready to realise his/her ultimate creative (specific)
functional ability and contribute personally and directly to the preservation
and continuation of Process.
In conclusion, the cosmist definition
of individual's health is formulated:[4]
‘The individual’s health is the
successful cosmist unity of adaptational and creative processes of the human
organism and personality.’
In other words, the individual’s
health is the ‘process of processes’ (‘ontogenesis of ontogeneses’) of man’s
wellbeing. It comprises:
a) man’s successful specific
(functional, cosmist, personal) ontogenetic macro-evolution, the process of
transcendence of the whole man’s being on the successively higher hierarchical
levels (of ascending emergent complexity); and at the same time,
b) the regular and necessary man’s micro-evolution,
the process of man’s successful adaptation and development from the stage of
initial elementary (infantile) forms up to the stage of mature stable forms of
the man’s integrated wellbeing on the given macro-evolutionary level.
4. Cosmist Epistemology: Treating Man as a Bio-Social-Cosmist
Creature
One more basic deduced principle
of theoretical essence (of special significance in relation to the epistemology
of civilised man diseases) is the one called as CosmoBiotypological principle.
The latter, likewise deduced from the aforementioned cosmological and
ontological premises, founds the unity of man's subjective knowledge and the
objective knowledge about the man's wellbeing. In other words,
CosmoBiotypological principle states: in so far as any subject (organism) is
the integrated inseparable part of one common ascending (self-evolving)
Process, therefore equally the natural gratifying[5]
subjective perceptions of man (that
is, following WHO's definition, "mental" (psychological) wellbeing of
man), his/her appropriate social and cultural settings (WHO's
"social wellbeing"), and his/her whole biological functional
normality,[6]
naturally serving the fulfilment of the man's basic specific (functional,
cosmist, personal) assignment in the given social and cultural settings (WHO's "physical wellbeing"), they all are uterine and universal, as
they all are
the functional parts
and developments of one common
whole Process.
Now, from the all above stated
substance author arrives at epistemologically valid conclusion: Man is not
merely a bio-social creature, but precisely the bio-social-cosmist[7]
one. That is precisely the object of cosmist epistemology to treat human
knowledge as originating equally from man's genetic (bio-) experience, cultural
knowledge of the surrounding social world, and the future emergent (transcendental) knowledge—to realise the
hierarchical needs of the man’s intrinsic personal (functional) ontogenetic
‘program’ (which is ultimately the integrated unit of the absolute Process’s
Program). Basically, the latter precisely constitutes the origin of human
knowledge on the whole.
Reasonably, then, the purpose of
cosmist epistemology is to treat HSC (Homo Sapiens cosmicus) as a positive phenomenon of reality (alike to HSS and
HSA). To accomplish this purpose naturally a novel methodology is needed. The
cosmist dialectical method[8]
is precisely of innovative character—it considers the whole life (ontogenesis) of man (any other subject) as
the unity of evolutionary emergent macro-process (of the man's ascending on the
successive levels of his/her ontogenesis)—with the evolutionary emergent
micro-processes (in Popperian essence)
of adaptation and growth (development) from slightly-stable ('infantile') up to highly-stable ('mature') gradation of adaptivity on the
given macro-level of the man's being.
However, contemporary mainstream
(Western) biomedicine treats man ever as a bio-social organism and personality,
and, in this, emphasising that man's individual differences can be most
fruitfully pursued by paying attention to both these aspects of the man's
nature. On contrary, as it was strenuously argued for above, cosmist paradigm
considers man as a bio-social-cosmist creature, who necessarily and absolutely
expediently 'survives' and develops on the given macro-level of his/her
existence, but who equally needs to rediscover—on the every macro-level of the
man's ontogenesis—his/her basic functionality and to realise its actual mode
for the successful functional integration into the higher level of the man's
wellbeing ontogenesis. In other words, cosmist epistemology explores not only
the biological, social, and environmental factors of the nature and origin of
human knowledge but, equally, and at the decisive extent, the cosmist factors
of the man's subjective and objective understanding of the world and his/her
natural (cosmist) personal wellbeing in the world. Cosmist epistemology—that is the study of universal human
knowledge, which integrates subjective values and experience with objective
knowledge (about the man's wellbeing, first of all), thus leading directly to
the rational substantiation of the man's wellbeing (healthy) social life,
behaviour dynamics and personality development.
Thereby, cosmist epistemology advances the whole-triple nature of human
knowledge: 1) of man's (being HSA) biological and biosocial patterns of
behaviour; 2) of man's (being HSS) social learning to objective realities or
predefined norms and, as well, of the lived experience of the person's
meanings, relations, values, patterns, etc.; 3) of man's cosmist (being HSC)—subject-subject—perception of the world
and the transcendental realisation of the person's unique successful route on
the future emergent level of his/her wellbeing ontogenesis. At this point, the
object of cosmist epistemology includes in itself basically the subjective
knowledge of man about his/her current and on-going (into the emergent future)
personal (individual's) wellbeing. The latter directly means that all knowledge
about man is derived as much from objective study of man or consideration of
his/her subjective present and past experience (both of empiricist and
rationalist origin), as from the future emergent experience, coming from the
transcendental apprehension by a person of the (cosmist) values of his future
(emergent) functional integrated wellbeing. In this comes the task to explore
thoroughly the 'process of processes' of individual's wellbeing—of the unity of
evolutionary levels: of the (constant) macro-evolutionary ascent of man on the
successively higher—of the emergent future—levels of his/her wellbeing, but,
simultaneously and primarily, of the micro-evolutionary adaptational
development on the given macro-level—up to the highest gradation of equilibrium
and stability with the environment.
In other words cosmist
epistemology resolves the needs for both (‘micro-evolutionary’) stability
(through man's adaptational creativity) and (‘macro-evolutionary’) ascent—going
above stability (through cosmist creativity). In this, as it is very important to
underline, both forms of man's creativity have the positivist character. The
difference is that adaptational
creativity refers to ‘naturalist positivism’, whereas creative
creativity—to ‘cosmist positivism’.
The former (naturalist p.), in author's cosmist context, recognises as true
exclusively observable phenomena and admits as knowledge only that about which
man can be absolutely certain, i.e., what is immediately graspable or
"empirical". Man, therein, essentially deals with the sensibly given
(current, present) reality, which is basically thought to be causally dependent
(from the past and present occasions and factors) and rationally
comprehensible. Naturally, at this point, in the realm of adaptational
creativity man ever holds teleological ends (based in the given reality) and
conducts constructive teleological responses to influences (stimuli) and
demands of the environment.
On contrary, cosmist positivism, although admitting
the same positively given reality of the present (caused by the past occasions),
establishes the chief significance of the emergent future for man's wellbeing
ontogenesis on the whole, the knowledge of which springs from primarily virtual
and transcendental—principally subjective and gratifying—values. Substantially,
both naturalist (existing exclusively in the present) and cosmist (admitting
the chief significance of the emergent future) positivism deny metaphysical
statements as meaningless. The point is, however, that cosmist positivism has
the dialectical essence on the natural phenomena comprehension. Essentially, to
state it once again, that cosmist
creativity originates from values and goals of principally subjective (personal) origin, which primarily emerge from 'within the self'
of man, having basically the intrinsic origination; whereas adaptational creativity (of naturalistic
essence) relies chiefly on the science-driven values, justifying that the
reason is the chief guide to knowledge and action.
In this course, aiming at the
'real world' implications of his cosmist epistemological approach, author
attempted to elaborate, in the preceding exploration (Khroutski, 2001), the
pattern of the "Doctor of Tomorrow". In his deductions, doctor of the
future[9]
ought to be simultaneously physician, psychologist (and sociologist), and philosopher. In this, physician and psychologist (sociologist) treat a
patient in the subject-object
epistemological line of relationship, aiming at the physiologic preservation
(or recovery) of human health, and also on the disease prevention, treating the
harmful influences of the environment. On contrary, the
third—philosophical—macro-level of the "doctor of tomorrow" activity
realises precisely the subject-subject
epistemological line between a doctor and the patient. That is exactly the level of the application
of the cosmist dialectical philosophy and the deduced theoretical proposals and
methodologies. This level of
doctor-patient relationship leads precisely to psychological
("mental") wellbeing of the person and, consequently, to "social" and "physical
wellbeing". It is likewise essential that here—on the philosophical
level—a doctor and his/her patient are partners in principle, constituting 'philosopher-philosopher'
relationship; moreover, the subjective
(autonomous) personal feelings, perceptions and cogitation of a patient
(a person), relative to the realisation of his/her current (adaptational) and
the whole route of personal wellbeing have the decisive significance, while the
activity of the 'doctor-philosopher' acquires mainly the quality of delicate
assistance.
At any rate, to author's firm
conviction, epistemology of the future should appeal to general philosophy (as
a branch of world knowledge and culture) to leave chiefly its academical sphere
and be brought to bear upon the practical issues of life (primarily, of
individual’s health).
5. Restoring Russian Philosophical
Cosmism (Universalism)
The historical analysis of the
notion "diseases of civilisation" does not constitute the subject of
this exploration. However, it is essential that the original notion under
consideration—civilised man diseases
(CMD)—is a component part within one semantical family, which includes likewise
the notions of "diseases of civilisation", "civilisation
diseases", "civilisatory diseases", "civilised
diseases", etc.
However,
at the same time, it is substantial that there is no 'conceptual relationship'
between the notion of civilised man
diseases and the notion “diseases of civilisation” (and the analogous
ones). The point is that the concept of “diseases of civilisation” had not been
elaborated at the times of its active presentation—in the period of 1960-1980s.
The latter is a natural outcome, in so far as it could not be elaborated, in
principle, within the existed (and still existing) paradigm of naturalistic
positivism (of subject-object
rational relationship of man with the world), or alternative
existential—irrational—consideration of man in the world (the latter accesses
the subject-subject approach to
comprehension of the interrelations of man with the world). Therefore, framing
of a concept of “diseases of civilisation” in the 1960-80s (as well as today)
is doomed to operate, as concerns the scientific productivity, within the
search of the objects of external
harmful risk factors and organismic markers (biological, physiological,
metabolic, etc.) or behavioural deviancies, and unified pathogenic mechanisms
of a chronic (civilisation) disease. Likewise, it naturally progresses, in the
continued search for new findings, to the more profound and detailed examining
of risk factors, biological and psychological markers, and pathogenic
mechanisms exploiting in this the newest technologies, as in the example with
computed radiography (Shemesh et al, 2001, pp.226-8).
Naturally, that is one of the
absolutely necessary perspectives of biomedicine development. Author calls this
perspective as humane
civilizational—normal[10]--line
of biomedicine development. That is, essentially, the rational course of
biomedical philosophy, science, and practice—to explore all the causes and
pathogenic factors of the all diseases, and to take possession of the all
methods (technologies) of their radical treatment. This perspective is fully
the proper one in relation to the diseases of traumatic or infectious causative
origin. Principally, at this point, humane
civilizational (normal) biomedicine development is embedded in the
'pathocentric' paradigm and realised in the subject-object
relationship between physician and patient (scientist and man under
exploration).
However, referring to civilised
man diseases ("diseases of civilisation"), as it was argued for
above, this line lacks the true humane perspective. Thereby, with respect to
chronic noninfectious and nontraumatic diseases, author holds that precisely
the 'health-centric' approach is
needed for their treatment. Today, objectively, ‘Health is a central philosophical problem’ (Veber and Khroutski,
2000, 381).
It is noteworthy, herein, that
there was no principal difference, in the 1960-80s, in treating conceptually
the "diseases of civilisation" in the West and the so called
'countries of the socialist camp', united by the total devotion to the ideology
of Marxism (dialectical and historical materialism). The point is that both
scientific paradigms (Western and Soviet) totally denied the existence of the
personal emergent future (man's free realisation of his/her wellbeing emergent
future) and the necessity of subject-subject
epistemological and scientific approach to the comprehension of individual's
health and the etiogenesis of civilised man diseases. Moreover, in so far as
socialist society (according to Marxism and, hence—to the chief ideological
dogma of the total socialist system) was treated as the 'most perfect and
ultimate in the entire history of the world', soviet biomedical philosophers
reduced the notion of "diseases of civilisation" to "certain
negative consequences of scientific and technical revolution" (Cherkasov,
1983, p.65).
Therefore, nowadays (in
democratic Russia), we, Russian scientists in biomedicine, could find ourselves
in the remarkable historical condition—of the opportunity to revise the concept
of "diseases of civilisation". (As it is a matter of fact, Soviet and
Western science failed to comprehend the ‘single causes’ etiogenesis of “diseases
of civilisation”—chronic noninfectious and nontraumatic diseases). In this,
moreover, we could realise ourselves (in 'post-soviet' Russia of-today) in the
unique—'naturally' phenomenological—conditions. The latter means that we had
lost simultaneously and entirely (since the late 1980s) all our philosophical
bases (for, the incompetence of Marxism—one-sole methodology-ideology in
biomedical, social, and human sciences in Soviet Russia—was brought out).
Hence, every Russian scientist could have become, at once, entirely free in
consideration and synthesis of the entire range of existing concepts, theories
and notions in world philosophy and science.
Taking this opportunity author,
himself, primarily restores the potentials of the Russian cosmist philosophical
tradition of pan-unity and active evolution. Philosophical cosmism
(universalism) constituted the mainstream of Russian philosophy in the end of
the 19-th and beginning of the 20-th century, having, at that time, favourable
perspectives for its further evolution. However, since the 1917, the true
Russian cosmism was not only badly repressed, even in a 'physical manner'
('gulags', executions, all kinds of ideological and physical terror), by the
Bolsheviks (in favour of the totalitarian promotion of marxism-leninism), but it was also almost completely deleted from
Russian cultural sphere and, accordingly, from the Western and world attention.
Author emphatically states, however, that the
fundaments of the philosophical tradition of Russian cosmism turn to be the most suitable for the purposes of
philosophical synthesis under consideration. Relying on the work of the leading
Russian explorers of philosophical cosmism (S. Semenova, 1993; V. Sagatovsky,
1994; A. Aleshin, 1995; O. Shubaro, 1998; I. Kaltchev[11],
1999; E. Gutov, 1996; and others) here are listed ten most characteristic
features of Russian cosmism:
1)
Idea of Pan-Unity (Total-Unity)—the central idea
of Russian cosmism;
2) Idea of incompleteness
of the evolution of world and man;
3)
Idea of creative destination of man;
4)
Idea of transformation of world as the meaning of
human life;
5)
Idea of responsibility of man for the fortune of
universe;
6)
Idea of active evolution;
7)
Recognition of the ascending character of evolution;
8) Idea of the synthesis
of sciences;
9) Epistemological idea, that the true knowledge is the result of empirical,
rational and mystical (intuitive) cognition in their proper interconnection;
10) Axiological idea, that all human
sufferings originate from an inappropriate cosmic position and activity of man.
6. "Diseases of
Civilisation" are the 'Civilised Man Diseases'—Diseases of the Civilised
Man's Non-Utilised Creative Energy
Now, restoring and developing
philosophical cosmism, author unfolds his original systemic variant of cosmist
world-view—of philosophical cosmology, ontological ACW-system and cosmist
epistemology.
Working on this basis, author
pushes forward (with respect to the epistemology of civilised man diseases
(CMD)—to understanding of their etiogenesis) his chief proposition, asserting
that CMD arise from the excess amount of internal
creative—psychophysiological—energy, not having been utilised during current
man's vital activity.
Really, in the cosmist course,
the entire ontogenesis of man is basically the ontogenesis of Homo Sapiens cosmicus (HSC), for the meaning of man's
life is his/her ultimate personal (specific, functional) contribution to the
wellbeing of Process. Man is ultimately the function of Process—that is the
basic tenet of the whole cosmist philosophy.
Hence, lawfully, the whole vital
(psychophysiologic) energy of man is (ultimately) the creative one. From this
basic assumption follows that there are three macro-directions of the
self-exploitation of man's creative (vital) energy: a) physiological—of the organismic growth and regeneration of tissues,
and to the maintenance of the internal environment of organism in the state of
equilibrium (within narrow limits—of homeostasis) with respect to various
functions and to the chemical compositions of the fluids and tissues; b) adaptational—to the maintenance or
restoration of equilibrium with external environment, in response to external
stimuli or meeting new conditions and environmental demands, and due to inborn
and acquired (instinctual, learnt, experienced, etc.) adaptive (or coping)
mechanisms; c) cosmist—conversely, of
the subjective self-going out (self-transcendence) of the 'equilibrium with
environment' (of the adaptational stable wellbeing)—for the successful ascent
on the next future emergent level of the man's wellbeing ontogenesis.
In other words, for instance, if
man falls ill, his/her total capacity of vital energy would be chiefly
exploited within organism for the sake to provide the processes of recovery; in
turn, if man falls under the excessive environmental stress (as it happens, for
example, during war periods)—his/her total vital energy would be used utmost to
maintain physiological homeostasis and to meet the adaptational demands of
behavioural survival in the given extreme surroundings.
But if healthy (in physiological
relation) man has resolved his adaptational problems and[12]
successfully satisfied his/her dominating needs in the given environment, then
inevitably the excessive amount of internal vital energy, of directly cosmist
creative essence would be certainly accumulated within the man.[13]
Then, there is the sole (natural) way for man to discharge this excessive
amount of internal vital (psychophysiological) energy—to rediscover
subjectively his/her basic functional ability and realise the appropriate mode
of its realisation and, next, start the process of satisfaction of the new
arising need of the man's ontogenetic necessity to functionally integrate into
the future higher emergent level of the man's wellbeing ontogenesis. In the
case that man is unaware of this necessity for his/her wellbeing, or the
environment suppresses his/her creative activity—then the excess amount of
non-utilised internal (creative) energy would inevitable disorder the
psychophysiological harmony of the man’s organism.
It is a very difficult task to
find the direct evidence to the proposition having been pushed forward, for,
there naturally does not exist such an issue to inquire into in the field of
contemporary biomedicine. Russian Professor I.Gundarov, however, carried out a unique
epidemiological investigation, in which he reached a tenable conclusion
"of the spiritual non-wellbeing as the cause of the demographic disaster
in Russia" (Gundarov, 1995). In accord with this statement another serious
investigation put the stress on the evidence that, in a terminal health crisis,[14]
"changes in mortality in
children were not systematic and mortality among the old did not increase
much. The mortality increase was
proportionally higher among people of working age, supposed to be the most
active and wealthy." (Shkolnikov et al., 1998, p.2007).
Indirect proofs are more
available in verifying the aforementioned proposition—of the decisive
significance of the excess amount of creative energy in a person,[15]
not having been utilised during man’s life—to cause the civilised man diseases
("diseases of civilisation").
For instance, highly valid
statistical finding is that during Great Patriotic war (1941-1945) a serious
reduce in the morbidity of rheumatism and bronchial asthma was ascertained. (Molchanov
and Gembitski, 1983, p.21).
The same authors had also examined
the structure of morbidity during this war (p.17-26). On the other hand, an
investigation into the structure of chronic diseases of the inhabitants of
Sankt-Petersburg of-today was conducted with the aim to compare the morbidity
of Peterburgians from elite (prestigious) districts with those, living in slums
(Gubachev, and Makienko, 1997, p.46).
Comparison of the results of these
two extremely different investigations impresses strongly. Elite settlements
(with their high index of wellness, health services, education, prestigious
employment, personal security, etc.) stand out—by an order of magnitude
greater—in the dominance of cardiovascular diseases, mainly of ishaemic heart
disease (coronary artery disease). Conversely, zones of slums turned to be
exceptional—by an order of magnitude lesser—in cardiovascular morbidity but,
instead, with dominance of gastrointestinal diseases.
That is the extraordinary
analogy, for, the similar change of the structure of morbidity had been fixed
during the war time; at this point, the first place, in the general structure
of therapeutic diseases, was occupied by the gastrointestinal diseases (25-30%
of the whole morbidity), the second place—by pulmonary diseases (13-20%), and
only the third place—by cardiovascular diseases (8-10%) (Molchanov and
Gembitski, 1983, p.23). In peaceful times, however, the cardiovascular diseases
evidently dominate in the general structure of chronic noninfectious diseases.
Thereby, cardiovascular diseases
are relegated to the background during war periods and among unfortunate layers
of population. (The author's discourse, naturally, does not lead to a
'conclusion' that the condition of 'eternal war' should be established to solve
the problem of civilised man diseases). How did the researches (to the point,
separately from each other) interpret their findings? Molchanov and Gembitski
accounted for the main cause lying in "the change of organismic reactivity
under the altered external conditions" (p.23). Gubachev and Makienko
considered the decisive factor to be the "manifested and long-drawn-out
sympathoadrenal activation", caused by the high degree of responsibility
bearing for the results of activity, constant high psychosocial stress level,
minimal standard of physical activity, combining with erudition, high index of
wellness" (p.46).
Author continues to consider the
object of emotional stress in the next section of the work. Herein, however, he
emphasises that both man 'in peaceful times' and man 'from elite districts' (as
against 'war time man' and 'man from slums') bear the properties, in the
cosmist context, precisely of civilised
man: of his/her being protected, at a great extent, from physical and
ecological (social) environmental stresses, thus converting him/her into the
HSC-subject—of the accumulation of free (unused) creative energy ready to be
exploited precisely for the accomplishing specific (personal) cosmist tasks. On
the contrary, the latter category of inhabitants (who is outside of the stable
relations with the enclosing world) subjects to unfavourable and harmful
influences of the environment and thus meets excessive adaptational
requirements. In outcome, the socially unsuccessful people would be chiefly occupied
with the problems of survivement and, naturally, there should not be the case
of the accumulation of free creative energy within their organisms.
Therefore, in substance, these facts could implicitly
indicate that the emotional stress civilised
man is often suffering from, has primarily the internal (intraorganismic)
origination. Then, chronic diseases, associated with long-term emotional
stress, largely come 'from within', but not 'from outside'.
7.
Difficulty in Satisfaction of Man’s Basic Urges—the Chief Psychological Reason
for ‘General-Illness of the Personality’
Starting this part, author puts
forward his next deduced thesis, likewise stemming from the cosmist
philosophical bases: Wellbeing (health) of man (with respect to chronic
noninfectious and nontraumatic diseases) chiefly is the function of his/her
ability to discharge (throw off, eject, get rid of) from the power of
constantly being produced and accumulated creative energy[16]
within man's soma, obligatory including the brain—the centre of his/her
sensation and of intellectual and neuroendocrine activity.
At this point author
points to the substantive similarities of the principles of some generally
accepted outstanding theories in psychology and psychophysiology. Ultimately,
in this, he attempts to disclose that world leading psychological and
psychophysiological schools basically and directly bind the psychological
non-wellbeing of man with the excess of his/her intrinsic vital non-utilised
energy.
To start with, Academician
P.V.Simonov—prominent Russian physiologist—found out by investigation and fixed
conclusively that man's emotions are determined by some actual need and the
evaluation of the probability of its satisfaction on the basis of the man's
phylo- and ontogenetic experience (Simonov, 1986). That is the core tenet of
P.Simonov's "need-informational theory of emotions" (Simonov, 1998,
pp.143-144). From this follows that low probability of the goal's achievement
leads to negative emotions (fear, anxiety, anger, grief, etc.),[17]
conversely positive emotions (in substance, of attainability of the actual need
satisfaction) lead to delight, pleasure, happiness (what accompanies the
natural discharge of psychophysiological strain).
Further, the special emphasis is
placed exactly on the fact that main world psychological theories bring account
for man's mental non-wellbeing precisely through the non-utilisation of the
man's excessive intrinsic (unconscious and conscious) vital energy. Referring
to the substance of the fascinating synthetic work of W. Edgar Vinacke on
psychological health (Vinacke, 1984), therein the assertion is underlined
that "the instigative forces
especially characterise human beings."
(p.312). The terms most commonly used for this function are
"instinct," "need," "drive," and "motive." (p.286).
Thus, in psychoanalytic theory the instigation function is attributed to
the instincts of the libido. In drive
theory (neo-behaviourism), likewise,
innate forces in the organism continue, relatively unchanged, throughout life,
to energise behaviour (p.312). In
humanistic views these forces are similarly treated as inherent in the
organism, striving for wholeness or selfhood (Jung), and self-actualisation
(Rogers, Maslow) (p.314). At any rate, however, being treated as inherent in
the organism and as unchanging throughout life (psychoanalysis, neobehaviorism,
and humanistic theory) or, in contrast, maintained that instigative systems may
be acquired during socialisation
(learned cognitive systems), replacing in explanatory power whatever
original drives there may be (p.286)—evidently is accepted the basic principle:
all the instigative forces primarily have the internal character.
As a result, for example
(similarly with the author's original assumptions), in psychoanalysis unhealthy
("neurotic") person is the one, "who has a great weight of
unconscious conflict, suffers from a burden of anxiety, and ties up a great
amount of energy in defensive patterns of behaviour... has difficulty in
satisfying instinctive impulses and engages in much futile, wasted, and
unproductive activity." (p.292). On the other hand, humanist theories,
although relying on the same inherent energising forces in the organism, have
opposed the libido and other drive theories and moved away from a purely personal
value system toward "a continuing organismic valuing process"
(Rogers, 1951, p.522) and thus, likewise run through Maslow's views,
established a healthy man to be a self-actualising person, who achieves a
harmoniously functioning hierarchy of motives, without conflict, in which the
higher motives are no longer blocked by demands at a lower level. (Vinacke,
1984, 303).
"That is, general-illness
of the personality is seen as any falling short of growth, or of
self-actualisation, or of full-humanness. And the main source of illness
(although not the only one) is seen as frustrations (of the basic needs, of the
B-values, of idiosyncratic potentials, of expression of the self, and of the
tendency of the person to grow in his own style and at his own pace) especially
in the early years of life." (Maslow, 1968, p.193).
Evidently, author's original cosmist
position is close to the humanist one and, thus, to 'hierarchy of inherent
personal needs' theory of man's wellbeing ontogenesis. Noteworthy, this
position bears some substantial similarity to P.V.Simonov's consideration of
personality "as an individual unique composition and internal hierarchy of
his vital, social, and individual needs" (Simonov, 1992, p.3). In a
clear-cut distinction, however, author basically considers man as a
cosmo-bio-social creature (who is, ultimately, the function of Process), but
not only as a biosocial one.
8. 'Forward to Hippocrates': True
Humane—CosmoBiotypological—line of biomedical evolution.
Remarkably, author's main
thesis—that chronic noninfectious and nontraumatic disease have the inherent
etiogenesis—is, in substance, the thesis of Hippocrates, father of medicine,
himself, who stated in his time (citing B.Aschner, 1941, p.261) that "the
majority of all diseases does not come from without (like injury or infection),
but from within...".
"Cancer and diseases of the
cardiovascular system affect a great percentage of the population in Western
countries. This undeniable reality prompts us to rediscover the long-forgotten
Hippocratic principles regarding healthful behaviour, the quality of life, and
the healing power of nature... Depersonalisation of the patient and a lost
sense of his or her individuality can be confronted by keeping the Hippocratic
humanistic values in perfect balance with progress in technology."
(Marketos and Skiadas, 1999, p.1163).
Therefore, the being
argued future emergent—cosmist—line of biomedical evolution could be accurately
called as the 'True Humane—Cosmist-Hippocratic' one.
It is, herein, important that
Hippocrates was a genuine positivist and cosmist. He released the healing art
from demons, superstition, and magic. Diseases were given a logical
interpretation. "The name Hippocrates is associated with the transition
from empiricism to rational medicine, and perhaps this represents his most
important contribution to medicine." (p.1160). The great physician
attributed diseases to natural causes, formed a diagnostic system based on
clinical observation and logical reasoning. He treated patients as psychosomatic
entities (a holistic medical approach). Therefore, due to Hippocrates, "as
an art dealing with life, medicine was regarded as a part of philosophy in its
broader sense." (p.1162).
In this line, Hippocrates
considered man to be part of the nature world and subject to the same laws as
the rest of the world. The first Western global and unitarian concept of
biotypology—'Humoral theory' of Hippocrates—precisely is based on this
conception of man as a microcosmos that contains in itself all the
characteristics of the universe. (Marino, 1999, p.17). At this point, it is
utmost essential that the cosmic and biotypological approach formed the basis
of Hippocrates's rational whole humane approach to the patient. Biotypology is
precisely the comprehensive study of human being and, therefore, "a
typical example of 'holistic' thinking." (p.17). At the same time, the
history of more than 25 centuries of modern biomedicine more than convincingly
proved that there exists no other rational method (than biotypological) of rational
wholistic biomedical examination of man.
However, in our cosmist context,
Hippocrates was a naturalistic positivist, but not the cosmist one. He treated
the surrounding world as state, and
thus subscribed to a "whole humane (psychosociosomatic) approach to the
patient." (Marketos and Skiadas, 1999, p.1163). But Hippocrates was not
the dialectical cosmist, who treats
the surrounding world and man (the patient) as emergent evolutionary process.
At any rate, Hippocrates
was a true cosmist and wholist. Author believes that now the historical time
has evidently finished its ascending evolutionary circle and crosses, in our
days, the point of the beginning of a new epoch of spiral evolutionary
ascent—now of CosmoBiotypology basing on the philosophical cosmology and
ACW-ontology.
It is utmost important that
biotypology (constitutionalism) is ever a Mean, but Hippocratism, conversely,
is ever an End, but never a Mean. As Carsten Timmermann forcefully shows in his
exploration, Hippocratic principles are still "ready to be appropriated
and reinterpreted in correspondence with the medical ideals of an era."
(Timmermann, 2001, p.324). They are, originally, precisely as Castiglioni—an
author, in 1926, of the very expression of Neo-Hippocratism (in this, B.Aschner
is cited, 1941, p.262)—laid the stress upon the essence of Hippocratism to be
"synthetic, cosmic, constitutional, humoral, biological, dynamic, and
artistic, helping the self-healing power of nature, (physis) to a large extent
by appropriate medical treatment."
However, it is likewise
utmost essential, that on the basis of the having been proposed cosmist
dialectical paradigm, 'Hippocratic (constitutional) form of diagnosis' acquires
a form of the CosmoBiotypological
one, thus, of principally distinctive essence. CosmoBiotype—that is the biological expression of the cosmic basic
functionality of the man, which primarily should be revealed personally by a
patient him/herself—through precisely the man's subjective original realization
of his/her preferable and gratifying route of life, which, in turn, expediently
ought to be supplemented and corroborated by the doctor's constitutionologic
examination of the patient. In other words, the basic functionality of man has
primarily and ultimately the cosmist personal perception (of the man’s cosmic
assignment), which thus ought to be substantially realised by the man
him/herself. The latter likewise means that the successful subjective
realisation of this basic functionality is a cornerstone for his/her wellbeing
ontogenesis. Naturally, this basic functionality demands to be re-discovered,
realised and executed on the every macro-level of the man's ontogenesis. Again,
there is some similarity with the 'holist-dynamic' and 'hierarchy-of-needs'
theory of A.Maslow, which states precisely that:
[B]asic needs or basic values
therefore may be treated both as ends and as steps toward a single end-goal. It
is true that there is a single, ultimate value or end of life and also it is
just as true that we have a hierarchical and developmental system of values,
complexly interrelated. (Maslow, 1968, p.154).
Additionally, there are some
clear-cut distinctions of the CosmoBiotypological approach. Firstly, it is
significant to remind, that Neo-Hippocratism followed the scientific formula,
articulated by Nicola Pende—one of the leaders of Neo-Hippocratic medicine,
that "Biotype is not only the expression of psychosomatic individuality
but it is a base for the self
characterisation with its ethical, philosophical and moral problems." (in
this, Lisitsin is cited, 1982, p.298). On contrary, CosmoBiotypology admits the
priority of subjective (gratifying) perceptions of a person (with respect to
his/her personal route of wellbeing ontogenesis), but assigns the secondary
purpose of the biotypological (physiological) examination, of the supplementing
and corroborating character. However, if the matter concerns the already
existing civilised man disease, then the physiological knowing of its etiogenic
mechanisms acquires the decisive significance (to determine the
specific—individual—mode of its treatment).
Finally, as it is
sometimes argued against, CosmoBiotypology is not just a 'return' to the themes
of vitalism and the imbalance of internal humours. Yet, J.S.Haldane, the
founder of the doctrine of holism, stressed that:
"Vitalism in any form has the same
fundamental defect as a mechanistic theory of life. It assumes that a living
organism and its environment can be separated in observation and thought, when
they cannot be separated." (Haldane, 1931, p.29). Moreover, from the
holistic stand, "the normal of biology is an individual normal and not a
statistical normal." (p.20).
Furthermore, in so far as
the wholism under consideration has the cosmist essence, "the imbalance of
internal humours" emerges from a principally new substance—from the
excessive accumulation of internal creative energy, which, in turn, origins
from the incompetence of modern and post-modern philosophy, science, and man.
In other words, "the imbalance of internal humours"—the certain
central (cerebral) disorders of self-regulation—has primarily the intrinsic
(subjective) origin, but not the environmental one.
It is also essential, in
conclusion, that the true humane
(Cosmist-Hippocratic) line of biomedicine evolution has basically the health-centric essence, in
contradistinction to humane
civilizational (normal)—pathocentric—line
of biomedical development.
Relying on this point author
attempts, in the following section, to comprehend etiogenically the entire
range of existing diseases.
9. ‘Man's Artificial Chronic
Diseases’: Main Postulates of their Etiogenesis
It is generally accepted that
modelling is a regular initial stage in solving a complex scientific problem.
Modelling, in turn, inevitably stands in need of the simplification of basic
principles and notions with respect to the object under consideration.
Precisely following this way,
author represents here, in the simplified form, the salient points of his
framework:
A) He divides the whole number
of diseases into four classes (in relation to the origin of etiogenic factor:
1) Firstly he separates genetic diseases—genetic in origin;
which, however, fall outside the scope of this exploration;
2) Secondly, author founds two
classes of the so-called ‘natural causal’ diseases - infectious, and traumatic and toxicological diseases. All these diseases equally are caused by
the direct specific extrinsic
(environmental) altering etiogenic factors (of utmost broad forms—of infectious
or of physical or chemical (toxicological) origin). The study and treatment of
theses—natural causal—diseases
lawfully is realised in the humane
civilizational (normal) line of biomedicine development, within subject-object relationship between a
doctor and the patient, man and the world.
3)
Finally, author originates and substantiates etiologically a new class of ‘artificial civilizational‘ diseases—of
CMD-civilised man diseases (this term
corresponds with the previous ones of "diseases of civilisation",
"civilisatory diseases", etc.). Within the limits of the existing pathocentric (of naturalistic
positivism) humane civilizational paradigm
(of subject-object relationship
essence), CMD are substantially non-specific
and multifactorical, as concerns their pathogenesis.[18]
Naturally, these diseases undergo nowadays systemic and very close examination
on the unified mechanisms[19]
of their pathogenesis. Likewise, the risk factors (biological, somatic,
metabolic, behavioural, environmental, etc.) associated with the
CMD-epidemiology, constitute the objective of paramount importance. Naturally, in this line, the
'individualisation' process, with reference to "diseases of
civilisation", develops at identifying new risk factors (biological markers) eventually on the
genetic (molecular) level, as well as the "privatisation of risk factor knowledge" takes
place. In the latter attempt is implied
to predict individuals' morbid futures on the basis of risk factor profile by
mean of the conceptual and quantitative limits of "individual risk" estimation." (Rockhill, 2001, p.365). By no means, that is a very
significant perspective of biomedicine development.
However, this way does not lead,
in principle, to the comprehension of civilised man diseases (CMD) etiogenesis.
Henceforth, to tackle the problem of CMD-etiogenesis, author pushes forward a health-centric cosmist dialectical paradigm of subject-subject pattern of scientific comprehension of world and
man. In this order he advances new cosmist
systemic philosophical bases of cosmological, ontological and epistemological
essence. On this basis, his main 'real world' deduction is that civilised man
diseases are, in substance, man's
artificial chronic diseases,
which are basically caused by the incompetence (with respect to
CMD-etiogenesis) of contemporary philosophy, science and man. In this, the term
'man' refers traditionally to the human race in general, or 'mankind'; while
the term 'artificial' precisely means man's (anthropocentric) counteraction to
natural (cosmic) laws of Process (CEPLE, Absolute)—one common whole cosmic
evolutionary process of the life on the Earth. Noteworthy, the term
'artificial' largely corresponds with the concept of "natural technologies
of biological systems" by prominent Russian physiologist A.M.Ugolev, in
which he maintains that "man ought to realise him/herself as a part of the
hierarchy of technologies in biosphere, where natural and artificial
technologies interrelate, and where man meets the task—to regulate the whole
aggregate of technologies in biosphere." (Ugolev, 1987, p.276). Further,
relying on his cosmist basis, and as refers to CMD-etiogenesis, author
hypothetically pushes forward several more crucial points of his framework (a
'system of axioms' with respect to CMD-etiogenesis):
1) Civilised man diseases
(CMD) are chiefly caused by the excessive amount of non-realised and
non-utilised creative (of adaptational and cosmist character) energy within the
organism of man—that is the chief factor, of intrinsic altering essence,
causing the CMD;
2) The excess of this
non-utilised creative energy is directly responsible for the genesis of
long-term ('stagnant') emotional stresses, which strain tightly the cerebral
centra and systems, and eventually end in break-down of the central
self-regulation mechanisms—of organismic homeostasis maintenance.
3) In turn, ‘stagnant
emotional stress’ is precisely an intrinsic
phenomenon; its origin goes back to man's inability to realise and put into
operation, for a long-term period, his/her basic gratifying functional ability.
In other words, in the case of the man’s being in the state of physical and
social wellbeing (what is natural for civilised man) and, simultaneously, in
the state of unawareness of the goals (channels) of the excess of his/her
accumulated creative energy throwing off (releasing)—this internal creative
(vital) energy, being constantly produced and not having the suitable outlet
for its satisfactory realisation and exploitation, would be blocked within the
organism and, overfilling it, start to strain persistently central systems of
the organismic self-regulation—up to their break-down and thus, eventually,
cause the disturbance of the functioning of the entire organism.
4) Therefore, the main
factor of man's artificial chronic diseases (CMD) occurrence is the man's
incapability to 'throw off' the excess of internal (intrinsic) creative energy
through the unawareness of the values and objectives of his/her personal
(functional, gratifying) mental and motor activity. Other modes of activity
would not serve this purpose satisfactorily.
5) Intrinsic stagnant emotional stress (ISES) is the sole and primary
causative condition of specific psychophysiological disturbances, which
directly lead to numerous CMD—civilised man diseases (man's artificial chronic
diseases).
In turn, primary ISES
causes the numerous secondary factors (generally accepted risk factors), which,
in essence, are the natural components of the urgent functional systems
responding to long-term ISES, or the remedies of the man for the
self-compensation of the state of frustration, caused by the original
ISES—intrinsic stagnant emotional stress. The former are manifested, for
example, by hypertension, high blood cholesterol, high fasting blood glucose,
hemostatic factors, or physical inactivity—natural components of the organism's
response (mobilisation) under the unknown stress; the latter, in turn, such as
obesity (frequent consuming of food reduces the stress to a certain extent),
cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption—all these modes lead, in various ways,
to the relaxation of the long-term state of frustration caused by the original
chronic emotional stress, having been originated, in turn, by the man's
inability to satisfy an actual need. (Actually, there is one-sole natural way
to settle the stress—to discover, realise, and execute the gratifying specific
(personal) functional activity by the man him/herself). All the aforementioned
factors remarkably compose (except the biological ones of sex and age) the
generally accepted set of risk factors of atherosclerosis (Tegos et al, 2001). Noteworthy, the
factor of emotional stress is absent in this, although it is assumed to be a
contributing one.
At this point, Professor
Gundarov shares the same position. Referring to the data of domestic (conducted
in Russia) population researches, he argues that spiritual (mental)
non-wellbeing causes damaging influence on the human organism not only in
direct way, but also through the "stimulation of the other risk
mechanisms: addictions (smoking, alcoholism, drug addiction), an abnormal
increase or decrease of weight of the body, etc." These
"secondary risk mechanisms» evidently correlate with the man’s
conditions of hopelessness, loss of the meaning of life, aggression (Gundarov,
2001, p.86).
In substance, the
analysis of the notion 'emotional stress' does not constitute the
subject-matter of this paper. However, at this point, it should be noted that
emotional stress, from the stand of traditional Western biomedicine, apparently
has the extrinsic origin, being
associated largely with acute stressors, life change events, stressful
situations and crises, interpersonal relations, etc., and thereby dealing
mainly with man's ability to counteract stress or to cope with a stressful
relationship.
Contrasting with this
generally accepted scientific position, author relies largely, in his original
approach, on the "theory of functional systems" (by P.Anokhin and
K.Sudakov), which treats stress, of any origin, as a systemic response of the
organism to a conflict situation. "The theory of functional systems
regards, along with the action of stressors, the conflict behavioural situation
in which the subjects are deprived of a possibility to satisfy their main
requirements" (Sudakov, 1992, p.86). Thereby, in a conflict situation, a
summation of negative excitations in the structures of the brain and their
transition into a "stagnant" state occurs, which acquires a capacity
to exert constant tonic influences on the self-regulation mechanisms of
particular functional systems of the homeostatic level, with the eventual
disturbance of the functions of the organism (p.86). Essentially, the
"conflict situation" means herein that the strongly motivated man (by
the biological or social need) is deprived of its satisfaction for a long-term
period (p.87). It is also substantial that the theory of functional systems
establishes "the system-organizing role of basic needs" as its
guiding principle. (Sudakov, 1997, p.395).
It is likewise of real value that the principal scheme of functional
system is characterised by "universality, constructivity, and practical
usefulness". (Sudakov, 1998, p.171).
6) The specific
etiogenesis of a CMD—man's artificial chronic disease, itself, is effected in
the specific breakdown of the 'weak locus' (“Locus minoris resistentiae”)—CosmoBiotypologically predetermined—of
the centrally organised and wholly organising (organism) neuroendocrinoimmune
substance of human being.
7) The chief factor for
man's wellbeing (in relation to CMD) is the constant 'throwing off'
(exploitation) of the excess of vital (creative) energy, constantly being
produced in the man's organism. Otherwise, logically, the only alternative way
would be not to allow the accumulation, itself, of the 'excess of vital
(creative) energy' (that is, to live
constantly in the 'conditions of war time'—of extreme adaptational demands, or
to be dependent on addictive substances (alcohol, drugs) causing psychological
relaxation). Naturally, however, the
latter forms have absolutely non-humane essence.
8) In relation to man's
artificial chronic diseases, frustration emotions have no causative role but
they serve as the important manifestation (symptom)—of subjective distinct
feeling of the general non-wellbeing of man, which correlates with the stagnant
excitement of the organism's centra of self-regulation (involving cerebral
motive centra) caused by the excess amount of the non-realised and non-utilised
vital energy within the man's organism.
9) Cosmist epistemology
in relation to CMD—that is the health-centric
epistemology of individual's health: of man's natural knowledge (ever primarily
subjective) about his/her cosmist—healthy, functional—place in the world
(CEPLE, Process), within the given circumstances. The inappropriate position of
man ("microcosmos") in Process ("macrocosmos") inevitably
leads to the summation of negative excitations and its harmful strain on
neuroendocrinoimmune centra and systems, and their harmonious
interrelationship, what, in turn, further adversely affects physiological
(somatic) functioning of extra-cranial bodily organs and peripheral systems.
10) Simultaneously, the
scientific comprehension of the etiogenesis of CMD, in this light, is the
bringing out of the specific primary break-down (under the adverse strain of
emotional stress) of the naturally 'weak locus' of the entire central
individual CosmoBiotypological (functional, natural, harmonious) organisation
of the man's organism. CosmoBiotypology—that
is Functional Cosmist Biotypology, designed for the ultimate execution of the
man’s functional contribution to Process's wellbeing and, therefore, possessing
the intrinsic specific integrated biological type of organisation. In this way,
metaphorically, neurocyte naturally differs from a muscle cell. At this point,
however, let it be emphasised once again, man's intrinsic basic (and ultimate)
personal (functional) organisation primarily is realised subjectively by
him/herself as a personal assignment. Thus, at this point, we need,
epistemologically, the specific—cosmist
functional systemic—approach at the consideration of CosmoBiotypological
issues (searching primarily for the subjective revealing and the following
expedient biological corroboration of the traits and markers of precisely
individual's health, not of disease).
Henceforth, the
reasonable task arises to complete the elaboration of the CosmoBiotypology
theory itself (and, naturally, of underlying cosmist philosophical bases). Of
course, that is a great work—to transcribe the universal laws of Process's
evolution and translate them consistently to the man's (any subject's)
evolution (ontogenesis). Apparently, therefore, that is not the matter of the
nearest future, but, however, that is principally the conceivable cognisance,
to author's firm conviction.
10. Universal Modelling of the
Etiogenesis of Modern Diseases
Finally, attempting to
organise the substance of the exploration more intelligibly, it would be
relevant to represent two schemes of hypothetical modelling: of the 1)
Epistemological classification of the etiogenesis of modern diseases; 2) Of 5
stages of the universal etiopathogenesis of modern chronic noninfectious and
nontraumatic diseases (civilised man diseases).
Scheme1: Epistemological
classification of the etiogeneses of modern diseases
A) Genetic diseases - of genetic origin
|
I) Extrinsic Natural Causal diseases
of pathocentric study and treatment (relying on subject-object type of epistemological exploration) |
|
|
B) Infectious diseases (caused by the direct invasion of specific pathogen) Differentiation: Dependent
on causative agent: Viral, bacterial, fungal, protozoic, caused by
worms, etc. Dependent on the duration of the
infectious process: Acute (cyclic), persistent,
chronic, etc. |
C) Traumatic and Toxicological diseases (caused by the direct injury of man's body by specific – physical or chemical – factor) Differentiation: Dependent on the nature of
injuring factor: Natural—of natural physical and chemical origin
Ecological—of anthropogenetic physical and chemical
origin Dependent on the exposition: Acute
and chronic
|
|
II) Intrinsic Artificial
Civilizational diseases of health-centric study and treatment (involving the subject-subject type of epistemological exploration) |
|
D) Civilised Man Diseases (Man's
Artificial Chronic diseases)
Man's
artificial chronic diseases
(MACD) stem from contemporary incompetence of philosophy, science
(biomedicine), and man, and originally are brought about by the excess amount
of creative (vital) energy not having been realised and utilised by man—through
deficiency of the activity (for a long-term period) satisfying the man's needs
of specific (personal) creativity; this non-utilised energy forms a stagnant
(emotional) stress primarily on the central—neuroendocrinoimmune—substance
(centra) of self-regulation of the organism, with the following break-down
of 'homeostatic' activity of the CosmoBiotypologically ‘weak locuses’
and eventual dysfunctional and
structural damaging of the bodily organs. Intrinsic
stagnant emotional stress (ISES) is the primary factor of man's artificial chronic diseases
(MACD); secondarily, ISES gives rise, in time, to the appearance of 'risk
factors' (of constituent or compensatory origin). In turn, ISES has its origin
in the man's incapability to re-discover, realise, and execute his/her basic
specific (functional) gratifying activity—on the every macro-level of the man's
ontogenesis and for the ultimate personal contribution to Process's wellbeing.
Therefore, to determine the specific cause of a person's MACD, doctor ought to
rely, primarily, on the man’s subjective findings (of his/her basic
functionality), but, secondary, therein depending basically on the
CosmoBiotypology theory (which is a challenge to the future of science), to
reveal the corroborating (or refuting)—CosmoBiotypological—empirical data, and
further undertake the rational substantiation of the individual etiogenesis of
the MACD (of the atherosclerosis, for instance).
Scheme
2: 5 stages of the universal etiopathogenesis of modern chronic noninfectious
and nontraumatic diseases (civilised man diseases).
|
I stage: Of an altering intrinsic
causative factor occurrence: That is the accumulation of the excess amount of
non-utilised creative (vital) energy during long-term period of man’s life
(due to the man’s inability to realise satisfactorily the actual need of
adaptational or cosmist creativity)—formation of intrinsic stagnant emotional
stress—the state of the summation and overfilling of frustration excitations
in the brain structures |
|
II
stage: This factor directly
and successively causes strain, disturbance, and eventually—break-down of
central (cerebral, of natural harmony) interaction and self-regulation
mechanisms; thereafter it specifically injures primarily the 'weak locus' of
the individual form of type—CosmoBiotype—harmony
of the intrinsic order of centrally organised and wholly organising (organism
and person) neuroendocrinoimmune substance of the man. |
|
III stage: the so-called 'III-stage'[20]
of man's health: herein, there are no organ-specific somatic disturbances,
but it manifests itself in the secondary behavioural, psychophysiological,
bodily (as obesity), vegetative,
immune, metabolic, etc., deviations, caused by the primary central-organising
disturbances; the 'III-stage' manifestations chiefly correspond with the
generally accepted risk factors of modern noninfectious and nontraumatic
diseases. |
|
IV stage: Formation of the functional disturbances, due
to the reversible degenerative impairments of the structures of the
constitutionally (CosmoBiotypologically) 'weak' organs and systems of the
man's organism (due to continuous disharmonious vegetative tension caused by
the primary central-organising disturbances). |
|
V stage: Non-reversible structural (organic) and
functional damage of the constitutionally 'weak' organs and systems (as a
result of complete exhaustion of organic compensatory and defence resources. |
Making a comment on the second scheme it might be relevant to note that
modern biomedicine treats only the third, fourth and fifth stages of
CMD-pathogenesis. Thus, causative (etiogenic) elements (the first and second
stages) turn out to be beyond the interest of modern biomedicine. Henceforth,
at this point, author appeals to the entire biomedicine and attempts by
himself, herein, to outline a new perspective for biomedicine of application
its capacities to the comprehension of the etiogenesis of chronic noninfectious
and nontraumatic diseases—man’s artificial chronic diseases (civilised man
diseases).
Conclusion
Vladimir Solovyov, a bright representative of Russian philosophical
cosmism (universalism), as far as in the year 1888 asserted that "a moral
creature never is able to release himself from the power of divine idea, which
is the meaning of his being, but it is the function of himself to carry it in
his heart and destiny as blessing, or as curse." (Solovyov, 1992, p.187).
It is essential that
author builds his cosmist approach on the Russian philosophical tradition of
pan-unity and active evolution. The latter, however, is situated far away from
current mainstream contributions. Nevertheless, it is essential to emphasise in
conclusion, author does not intend in his paper merely to propagate a new
'cosmist wholistic philosophy', but he precisely undertakes the task to
substantiate novel philosophical (cosmological, ontological, epistemological)
bases, appropriate for the deduction of guiding theoretical principles,
sufficient, in turn, for the tackling of the problem of philosophical and
scientific comprehension of the ‘single causes’ etiogenesis of contemporary
chronic noninfectious and nontraumatic diseases—civilised man diseases
(“diseases of civilisation”). Henceforth, CosmoBiotypological trend (forming,
in this, a central point) is a genuine and direct challenge to world's science
and philosophy.
Western traditional
medicine, entirely originated on Hippocratic principles of wholly (synthetic)
individual (constitutional, psychobiological) rational (cosmic) approach to a
patient, evolved in history through the stages of Hippocratism,
Neo-Hippocratism, Post-Neohippocratism (taking into account modern holistic
alternative medicine), and now, apparently, is ready to totally transcend
Hippocratism and to enter the stage of 'Non-Hippocratism'—of totally
bio-statistical approach to the patient, denying, in principle, the personal
traits of a patient; and thus threatening to totally separate natural man’s
wellbeing from the being established 'real
world' (of the man’s existence) based on the anthropocentric 'artificial' laws driven from the science of
subject-object epistemological
essence.
Author resolutely
challenges the danger of creating the future medical system totally not
oriented (in rational sense) to the patient as a personality. Vehemently
opposing this tendency, he precisely attempts, in the exploration having been
presented, to ground a novel wholistic concept of biomedicine in higher order
philosophical principles. In this,
author pins his hopes on the validity and coherence of his argumentation.
Acknowledgements
Author
wishes to express his profound gratitude to all those who have helped in
various ways with the realisation of this work: Professor Igor A. Gundarov, National Research Centre of Preventive Medicine, Moscow; Professor Thomas Greening, Saybrook Graduate School; Professor David C. Thomasma, Neiswanger
Institute of Bioethics and Health Policy;
Professors Walter Kofler and Michael Puritscher, Innsbruck University;
Professor Giuseppe Benagiano, University la 'Sapienza' in Rome; Professor Darryl R.L. Macer, University
of Tsukuba; Carsten Timmermann, Ph.D., University of Manchester; Professor Henk ten Have, University
Medical Centre Nijmegen; Professor Zbigniew
Szawarski, Warsaw University; Professors Lennart Nordenfelt and Ingemar Nordin,
Linkoping University; Dr. Jozef Glasa, Institute of Medical Ethics and
Bioethics, Bratislava; Professor Edmund D. Pellegrino, Georgetown
University Medical Centre; Professor Robert Perlman, University of Chicago; Alessandro
Volpone, Ph.D., University of
Bari; Richard T. Allen, Ph.D., University of
Nottingham; Dr. Vladimir Mouraviev, Ph.D., Baylor College of Medicine;
Professors Victor R. Veber, Georgi S. Arkhipov, Gennadi P. Vyzhletsov, Victor
P. Petlenko, Novgorod State University; Professor
Konstantin V. Sudakov, P.K.Anokhin
Institute of Normal Physiology, Moscow.
References
Arteriosclerosis. 2001. Encyclopaedia Britannica, http://www.britannica.com/
Aschner B. 1941.
Neo-Hippocratism in Everyday Practice. Bulletin
for the History of Medicine 10:260-271.
Atherosclerosis. 2001. Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Cherkasov, S.V. 1983. O poniatii “bolezni zivilizatsii” (On the concept
of "diseases of civilisation"). Vestnik
Akademii Meditsinskich Nauk. 7:62-65.
Glick,
S.M. 1981. Sounding board. Humanistic medicine in a modern age. New England Journal of Medicine
304(17):1036-8.
Gubachev J.M., and Makienko V.V. 1997. Zabolevaniya serdechno-sosudistoy sistemye (Cardiovascular diseases).
St Petersburg: "Hippocrat" Press.
Gundarov, I.A. 1995. Pochemu ljudi
umirajut v Rossii, kak nam vyezhit? (Why do people die in Russia, how are we to
survive?). Moscow: “Media Sphera”
Press.
Gundarov I.A. 2001. Probuzhdenie: puti preodolenia
demographicheskoi catastrophie v Rosii (Awakening: The Ways of Overcoming the
Demographic Catastrophe in Russia). Moscow, The Center of Creation
"Belovod'e".
Haldane, P.S. 1931. The
philosophical basis of biology. Garden city, New York: Doubleday,
Doran&Company, Inc.
Hancock, T.
1999. Health care reform and
reform for health: creating a health system for communities in the 21st
century. Futures. 31:417-436.
Khroutski,
K.S. 2000. Individual Health: New Definition and Ontological Background. Medical Ethics & Bioethics (Bratislava) 7
(1-2), 14-17.
Khroutski, K.S.
2001. Doctor of Tomorrow – Physician, Psychologist, Philosopher: Towards the
Cosmist-Hippocratic Ethics in Biomedicine. E-Logos
(http://nb.vse.cz/kfil/elogos/ethics/)
Khroutski, K.S. 2001. Introducing
Philosophical Cosmology. World Futures.
57(3):201-212.
Khroutski K.S. 2001. The Doctor of Tomorrow – Physician,
Psychologist, Philosopher: Towards the Cosmist-Hippocratic Ethics in
Biomedicine. Appraisal 3(4):135-146.
Lisitsin J.P. 1982. Zdorov'e
naselenia i sovremenneye teorii meditsiney (Health of population and modern
theories of medicine). Moscow: “Meditsina” Press.
Lossky, N.O. 1951. History of Russian Philosophy. New York:
International. Universities Press, Inc.
Marino, F. 1999. Biotypology I: Scope and history. British Homeopathic Journal 88:17-19.
Marketos, S.G., and Skiadas, P.G. 1999. The modern
Hippocratic tradition: Some messages for contemporary medicine. Spine 24(11):1159-63.
Maslow, A.H. 1968.
Toward a psychology of being. New
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
Molchanov, N.S., and Gembitski, E.V., 1983. Osnovey
organizatsii terapevticheskoy pomoschi (Principles of the organisation of
therapeutic aid in operating army). In Voenno-polevaya
terapija: uchebnik (Military field therapy: Textbook), edited by
E.V.Gembitski and F.I.Komarov. Moscow: “Meditsina” Press.
Rockhill, B. 2001. The privatisation
of risk. American Journal Public Health
91(3):365-8.
Rogers, C.R. 1951. Client-centred
therapy: Its current practice, implications, and theory. Boston:
Houghton-Mifflin.
Shemesh, J., Weg, N., Tenenbaum, A.,
Apter, S., Fisman, E.Z., Stroh, C.I., Itzchak, Y., and Motro, M. 2001.
Usefulness of spiral computed tomography (dual-slice mode) for the detection of
coronary artery calcium in patients with chronic atypical chest pain, in
typical angina pectoris, and in asymptomatic subjects with prominent
atherosclerotic risk factors. American
Journal of Cardiology 87(2):226-8.
Shkolnikov, V.M., Cornia, G.A., Leon D.A., and Mesle F. 1998. Causes of the Russian mortality
crisis: Evidence and interpretation. World
Development 26(11):1995-2011.
Simonov, P. 1986. The emotional brain. New York-London:
Plenum Press.
Simonov, V.P. 1992. Vysshie formey deiatel'nosti mozga i psikhologiia
(Higher forms of brain activity and psychology). Vestnik Rossijskoi Akademii Meditsinskikh Nauk 8:3-6.
Simonov, P.V.
1998. Psikhofisiologiya emotsij (Psychophysiology of emotions). In Osnoviy psikhofisiologii: Uchebnik
(Principles of psychophisiology: Textbook), edited by J.I Alexandrov.
Moscow: “INFRA-M” Press.
Solovyov, V.S. 1992. Russkaya ideya (Russian idea). In Russkaya ideya (Russian idea), edited by M.A.Maslin. Moscow: "Respublika" Press.
Sudakov, K.V. 1992. Stress: Postulatey, analiz s
positsij obshey teorii funktsional'neykh sistem (Stress: postulates, analysis
in terms of the general theory of functional systems). Patologiceskaja Fiziologija i eksperimentalnaja terapija 4:86-93.
Sudakov, K.V.
1997. The theory of functional
systems: general postulates and principles of dynamic organisation. Integrative Physiological and Behavioral
Science 32(4):392-414.
Sudakov, K. 1998. To the
centenary of P.K.Anokhin, a great Russian physiologist. Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science 33(2):171-75.
Tegos,
T.J., Kalodiki, E., Sabetai, M.M., and Nicolaides, A.N. 2001. The genesis of atherosclerosis and risk factors: a review. Angiology 52(2):89-98.
Timmermann C. 2001. A
Model for the New Physician: Hippocrates in Interwar Germany, in Reinventing Hippocrates, ed. David
Cantor, pp. 307-329. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Ugolev, A.M. 1987. Estestvenneye
tekhnologii biologicheskikh sistem (Natural technologies of biological
systems). Leningrad: “Nauka” Press.
Veber, V.R. and
Khroutski, K.S. 2000. Health—a central ontological problem. ESPMH Conference,
Krakow 2000 – Abstracts, Medicine,
Healthcare & Philosophy. 3 (3): 381.
Vinacke, W.E.
1984. Healthy personality: toward a unified theory. Genetic Psychology Monographs 109:279-329.
Notes
[1] This passage opens the chapter
“Characteristic Features of Russian Philosophy” in N.Lossky’s book “History of
Russian Philosophy”.
[2] Civilisation diseases and disorders, in the author's
interpretation, are the civilised man
diseases—they strike precisely the civilised man; in this original approach
(which is characterised below), for short, author lists ten main types of
civilisation diseases: 1) Cardiovascular diseases of atherosclerosis genesis
(coronary artery disease, strokes, peripheral vascular disease, etc.); 2)
Malignant tumours; 3) Diseases and disorders of the endocrine system
(hyperinsulinism and insulin-independent diabetes, diffuse toxic goiter,
obesity; 4) Diseases of respiration system (bronchial asthma, chronic
bronchitis); 5) Diseases of digestive system (ulcerative disease of the stomach
and duodenal ulcer); 6) Neuroses and psychoses; 7) Alcoholism, drug addictions;
8) Allergic diseases; 9) Skin diseases (neurodermatitis, eczema); 10) Disorders
of reproduction (acquired sterility, impotence).
[3] Be it a Creator, or the spontaneous origin of Life, or
the Panspermia, or the accidental biochemical origin, or the Big Bang
entailments, etc.
[4] Originally, the cosmist definition of individual's
health was given in Jozef Glasa'a Medical
Ethics and Bioethics (Bratislava), Vol. 7, No. 1-2, Spring-Summer, 2000.
[5] Due to the 'cosmic' inborn mechanisms of satisfaction
(gratification) of the man's functionally needed activity.
[6] Including, naturally, his/her integrated biological
traits—biotypological organisation—biotype (constitution), of all—precisely
predisposed for the execution of the basic functional ability of man.
[7] Author draws attention on the distinctions between the
terms 'cosmist' and 'cosmic' when applying them in relation to a person: in
this, the term 'cosmist' stresses on two points: a) on the intrinsic subjective origination of the primary perceptions of a
person's creative creativity; b) the deliberate
character of a person's creative activity, aimed at the ascent on the
successively higher level of his/her integrated wellbeing. In other words, man
performs cosmist creative activity basically by himself/herself. In turn, the
term 'cosmic' puts a particular emphasis that a subject is ultimately the
function of Process.
[8] Which has nothing in common with the schemes, delivered
by Marxism, for, it realises precisely the new philosophical trend, based on a
novel cosmological and ontological background.
[9] Naturally, that is chiefly a family specialist,
practising in general medicine.
[10] In Kuhn's term.
[11] Ivan Kaltchev is a Bulgarian philosopher.
[12] At this point, author strongly holds Abraham Maslow's
holist-dynamic theory of personality and his conception of the successive
realisation by man of the hierarchy of needs.
[13] Analogously,
hungry man is overfilled with psychophysiological energy directed at the search
of food and, thus—satisfaction of the dominant need—to provide the man’s
organism with energy and plastic materials. Creative needs, however, are often
non-realisable and vague for man.
[14] Male life expectance in Russia plummeted from 64 to 57
years from 1989 to 1994, and the country's population is steady declining close
to a million each year.
[15] Intrinsic, of psyche—of the soul, spirit, or mind; of
non-realised (a case of the invisibility of the goals-channels of the satisfactory
throwing off the excess amount of creative energy within the man), axiological,
and teleological essence.
[16] From the cosmist stand, man's creative energy is
identical to man's vital energy.
[17] Which, from the cosmist stand, corroborate and express
the development of a stagnant emotional stress—the low possibility of excessive
vital energy throwing off for gratifying activity in the environment, of
constructive (adaptational) or creative (cosmist) essence.
[18] At this point, metaphorically, it is impossible, in
principle, to work out a 'specific vaccine' or realise a specific mode of
operation.
[19] Mainly on the level of organ and, therein, at present—on
the molecular (genetic) level.
[20] 'Between health and illness', a basic notion of
valeology—new-born science in Russia, which emerged since the late 1980s, the
latter has the interdisciplinary character and deals with the object of human
health. In this, it chiefly matches up the Western trend of "health
promotion".