Madrilene Interviews (2): Welcome to the right hemisphere!
Wholeness and Carcinoma
In this interview we ( Lena Madrilena and me ) will approach a very actual subject: the role of whole / wholeness in our personal life, in society and in nature. Traditionally the education was concentrated on the so-called left hemisphere thus the contemporary human brain presents a marked functional asymmetry clearly favoring linear analytical (Cartesian!) methodology, as well as the sequential thinking and equally suboptimal ability of most people to recognize and effectively promote the integrative values as opposed to partial values, in other terms inseparability as opposed to separability. Indeed, in all Western societies the principle “see the whole picture” it is still considered rather optional, still belonging to methodological extravagance sometime even to…risible. As I will further show this inertial vision is dearly paid, sometimes with the supreme price. Welcome to…the right hemisphere!
M. – Recognizing that education – of every level – it is still deficient in promoting the wholeness and integrative values, I would like to pay homage to poets who before any other cultural groups have discreetly but decisively warned us that whole and inseparability constitute a first class problem. While Heidegger has almost obsessively quoted Holderlin I would rather open this dialog invoking Rudyard Kipling who expressed the inseparability principle as follows:
“All nice people like Us are We
And everyone else is They
But if you cross over the sea
Instead of over the way
You may end by (think of it!) looking on We
As only a sort of They.”
F. – I’m hoping that this first poetry step will be a good augur for our discussion. I would like to underline the simplist, sterilizing classical conception about development: under Cartesian auspices development had to be conceived in a rigorous determinist manner rejecting any stochasticity as a disturbing factor meaning the exclusion of any fluctuations – including of…healthy breasts!, see below – from the system. To note that development without fluctuations has proved to be a nonsense. Here are some top examples of traditional (erroneous) options:
Descartes: the separation between reason and emotion : many generations of researchers have belived, without any …Cartesian doubt, that emotions disturb the reason. It had to come Antonio R. Damasio (Descartes’ Error, 1995) – a remarkable American psychologist to prove that Descartes did not have wholeness, that reason can not be constituted nor be functional without emotional support;
Kant: “In world there is no hiatus, nor jump nor hazard, nor destin…”
Einstein has methodologically erred by assuming linearity and separability, excluding at the same time non-local effects (as being spooky), stochasticity (God does not play dice), and authentic irreversible time from physics.
Not even Jacques Monod was right in asserting, placing himself at the opposite methodological extremity, that “only the pure hazard is found at the source of any innovation, of the whole creation in biosphere.” It is not so! Fluctuations do not mean “pure hazard”, they having an organizational nature (in Heideggerian terms: the genuine fluctuations are always tuned), and taking place not outside but rather inside of a coherent whole, equally determined by local and non-local factors.
Just as I have shown on this site many times before, the contemporary understanding / comprehension not only tolerates inseparability but rather promotes it, slowly but surely as a constitutive, fundamental feature.
M. – How could we transpose this discussion about nature and the role of fluctuations in a Heideggerian context?
F. – Not so difficult: tuned men (Heideggerian Dasein) represent genuine social historical fluctuations which come and go back from / into potentiality, while the untuned men (some existential…contraband entities) do not potentialize, do not last, being condemned to annihilation.
M. – I would like to focus the attention of our readers toward a subject directly involving the rapport wholeness / carcinoma, a subject that posed a great interest to me since I have lost my mother at an early age (52 years) due to an against nature treatment, with synthetic estrogen uncompensated by progesterone –targeting the relieving of the so-called menopausal symptoms. Is this a case of wholeness violation or abandonment of inseparability?
F.- Absolutely: the medics have applied, with a relative success, for some 20 years, treatment with “unopposed estrogen” to manipulate post-menopausal symptoms without considering wholeness demands, more exactly without considering the collateral risks of potential aggressive cancerization involving uterus (endometrial cancer), ovaries and even breasts. Integrative elementary considerations would have imposed to add some progesterone to the unopposed estrogen, especially keeping in mind that the so-called xeno-estrogens progressively lead too to estrogen dominance. The conventional doctors have later resorted to progesterone…after almost 20 years! but, attention, not by prescribing some natural progesterone but rather different types of progestin versions (synthetical progesterone) these having a mostly aggravating effect. To note that a similar conception without wholeness lies with utilizing the birth-control pills which indeed block the ovulation process but at the same time block the intrinsic production of progesterone, leading after several years to estrogen dominance (and cancer) too. The women interested by some alternative, natural procedures can utilize natural estrogen, I personally recommend the brand Triest produced by the labs Dr. Jonathan V. Wright, or especially natural progesterone obtained relatively simply by chemical means from vegetable diosgenin .
M. – Another problem of great interest is the so-called “genetical threat”: the fact that some women have a family history of breast cancer, does it drastically diminish their longevity hopes? This could be my case as well as your 4 daughters too, if genetical analysis would indicate positive results, thus major risks? How does the whole become involved in such situations?
F. – The problem is indeed interesting: I imagine that my daughters are already but not excessively preoccupied by such genetical aspects this is why I decided to try to publish a book centered on this theme – breast cancer with and without genetical premises. The subject became even more interesting after the appearance and development of epigenetics which – through DNA methylation and histones modifications – can contribute to either increasing or decreasing cancer probability. To note that in the last decades the conventional doctors have paid closer attention to the role of genetic predisposition in the breast cancer area going as far as some women having familial breast cancer history but without having any symptoms have decided to undergo mastectomy sacrificing both breasts “for greater assurance”. I totally disagree with such decisions / practices which rather belong to schizophrenia, just like you would deliberately demolish your own house for the fear of a… potential fire. Just as Dr. John R. Lee and his colleagues have shown (referring to the US situation), only 10% of the breast cancers can be attributable to genetical causes, with a special remark that it is only viewed as a predisposition and not a guaranteed cancer development. We have to understand the following simple fact that existence is consisted of real and potential and that the transformation of potential into real (actualization) may be efficiently controlled, in our case through nutrition, lifestyle and supplements. My personal recommendation following Dr. Hamer is to avoid any psychical trauma (as much as possible), in other words: be happy! (needlessly to say that the femininity loss due to voluntary extirpation of the breasts represents in itself a formidable and permanent psychical trauma).