but it also makes one wonder, "ok, as to medical science investigations into treatments for cancer that use the immune system, how can we
differentiate the influence of psychosocial factors on functionality, from the experimental protocol?"
It's a good question to ask, but its one which medical science is just too giddy with self-satisfaction to notice. Psychological function is a
function of social context; nervous system function is a function of psychological function; immune system function is deeply affected by the
'entropic' influence of psychological stress - which in turn is influenced by social dynamics. Get the picture?
A perspective such as this allows us to recognize the promises for health and wellbeing that social consciousness can have for human individual
wellbeing, yet the mainstream medical sciences continue to place 9 eggs out of 10 in the basket of "lets try to manipulate the system", as if the
issue were one of 'not having enough of', as opposed to "coherency" - or a delicate regulation
of complexly interacting molecules.
The poor success and the amount of 'ruthlessness' engaged in by scientists, justified on the grounds that these patients are 'already terminal', and
that this is the only way we can ever "overcome cancer', could in fact be a profoundly misdirected approach to not just the treatment of cancer, but
an understanding of what cancer is.
Understanding that the immune and nervous systems are analagous allows us - nay, logically forces us - to employ analogies: if my mind misrepresents
social situations, would there perhaps be a continuity between 'reflexive psychological interpretations' and the way and manner our immune system
"deals" with cancerous, or foreign materials?
In a very real sense, not knowing, or acknowledging, "what is good for you" as a psychosocial being, is akin to the immune system (which keeps track
of self vs. not self, or more or less, "acknowledging" what happens) not "knowing" that a cancerous cell is growing within the body. Brought up a
level: harboring a 'cancerous' self-state, or positive identification with an idealized (i.e. unreal) identity, is like "holding a cancer" within your
neurodynamic functioning. There is an incoherent procedure within the system: the social recognition which builds the self and gives it "self-esteem",
is being used to hurt other systems, which is very contradictory and hypocritical, because self-functioning is literally dependent on other people's
recognition of you in your expression of agency. This 'deformity' at the psychological, or unconscious level, becomes 'translated' into nervous system
dynamics, which is 'translated' into immune system functionality vis-à-vis the analogous process of regulating coherency throughout the body.
This perspective seems far more plausible a treatment for issues like cancer because it makes so much sense of how it is the "whole" is greater than
the parts and yet the parts work together to make the whole - and so, the parts and the whole are equally deserving of attention.
Immunologists focus simply - and superficially - on a part at the expense of the whole. The nervous system is also a 'part', but it, logically
speaking, depends on its directionality (or dynamics) on psychological events, which are subject to the mysterious 'top-down' effect of consciousness
reflecting on itself, which might just be a global 'reentry' dynamic between many different sites in the brain - still, it is subject to the social
dynamics of self's psychologically in interaction with one another.
And yet - this is the weirdness: the nervous system IS the basis of the events that happen in consciousness. There is this weird 'monistic dualism'
where the inside CAN bring about events that can only happen if the inside is taken as primary - that is, as seriously as one can. When this happens,
the system 'attunes' to the world, therefore revealing that the 'cognition' of the first cell appears to be the same cognition as our conscious mind.
Our mind performs the function of what is unconscious in other beings - but conscious in us.
Question is - therefore, can science "recreate" what love does from within? The question doesn't even make sense, as the nervous system has intrinsic
dynamics which medical interventions are seeking to 're-right'. Human medical science is a tad bit superficial in its scale-of-analysis, and even
then, the question of "how" you even influence the system on such a subtle scale comes into focus. Seriously.
Of course, there is still room for improvement, and no doubt, with more knowledge, perhaps I will be 'proven' wrong, and the success of penicillin can
be extended beyond the very general effect of bacterial infection, into the far more nebulous realm of cancer - where a systems own cells mutate at
the genetic level.
Ultimately, though, I think most 'aware' people know this perspective is the right one. Genes - thoughts; coherent narratives, and coherent
ecosystems, and coherent molecular dynamics, probably go together.
edit on 20-7-2018 by Astrocyte because: (no reason
edit on 20-7-2018 by Astrocyte because: (no reason given)