MORE THAN NEIGHBORS: A COMMON BASIS FOR RELATIONSHIP-CENTERED MEDICINE AND SCIENCE

Hans von Lüpke
Auf der Koernerwiese 6, D-60322 Frankfurt/M., Germany

Korespondenční autor: Hans von Lüpke (hans.von.luepke@gmx.de)

ISSN 1804-7181 (On-line)

Full verze:
Full version

Submitted:24. 10. 2011
Published online: 15. 12. 2011

Summary

Causal linearity is still one of the fundaments in scientific thinking. It remains unquestioned in spite of the fact that scientific results in important fields of human life such as genetics and brain function obviously do not follow linearity. Instead, they follow non linear laws as conceptualized in the Chaos Theory, the concepts of complexity or the quantum theory. Because of the fact that the same dynamics can also be found in relational oriented dialogic communication, the traditional gap between natural sciences and humanities seems to vanish. It appears that there has not been made use of the resulting open space for creative interdisciplinary research and practice in human sciences up until now. The reason is obviously a fear of losing stability. The final discussion in this paper deals with the consequences of rigidity and discrepancies in the conceptualization of pathology, rehabilitation and psychotherapy. The balance of the dialectic tension between the pole of security as a human need and the aspect of playful creativity seems to be fundamental for a relationship oriented medicine.

Keywords: brain research; genetics; complex systems; quantum theory; humanities vs. natural sciences; dialogic communication; linear-causal relationship; non-linear dynamic systems; chaos theory

Literatura

1. Andreas Vesalius Personenlexikon Google (2009). http://www.personenlexikon.net/…easvesalius/ andreas-vesalius.htm.

2. Bauer J (2002). Das Gedächtnis des Körpers. Frankfurt/M.: Eichborn.

3. Bauer J (2003). Verbindungslinien zwischen Psychotherapie und Neurobiologie. Bvvp-magazin 3: 16–17.

4. Bauer J (2008). Das Kooperative Gen. Hamburg: Hoffmann und Kampe.

5. Beebe B, Jaffe J, Lachmann FM, Feldstein S, Crown C, Jasnow M (2000). System Models in Development and Psychoanalysis. The case of vocal rhythm coordination and attachment. Infant Mental Health Journal 21(1–2): 99–122.

6. Benjamin W (1977). Einbahnstraße. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.

7. Brisch KH (2002). Bindungsstörungen. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.

8. Buber M (1979). Ich und Du. In: Das dialogische Prinzip. Heidelberg: Lambert Schneider.

9. Boston Change Process Study Group (2004). The “something more” than interpretation revisted: sloppiness and co-creativity in the psychoanalytic encounter. JAPA 53(3): 693–729.

10. Cilliers P (1998). Complexity and Postmodernism. Understanding Complex Systems. London/New York: Routledge.

11. Das Manifest (2004). Elf führende Neurowissenschaf­tler über Gegenwart und Zukunft der Hirnforschung: Elger CE, Friederici AD, Koch C, Luhmann H, von der Malsburg C, Menzel R, Monyer H, Rösler F, Roth G, Scheich H, Singer W. Gehirn & Geist 6: 30–37.

12. Freeman W (1995). Societies of Brains. A Study in the Neuroscience of Love and Hate. New Jersey: Hillsdale.

13. Görnitz B, Görnitz T (2006). Was kann die Quantenphysik zum Verstehen des Selbst beitragen? Self Psychology. 7, 24(2): 156–183.

14. Kandel E (2006). In Search of Memory: The Emergence of a New Science of Mind. New York: W. W. Norton.

15. Milani Comparetti A (1996). Von der Behandlung der Krankheit zur Sorge um Gesundheit. Entwicklungsförde­rung im Dialog. In Janssen E, von Lüpke H (ed..): Tagungsdokumen­tation. Frankfurt/M. (Internet: BIDOK).

16. Mitchell SA (2002). Can Love Last? New York: W.W. Norton.

17. Musil R (1952). Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften. Hamburg: Rowohlt.

18. Reck C, Backenstraß M, Möhler E, Hunt A, Resch F, Mundt C (2001). Mutter-Kind-Interaktion und postpartale Depression. Psychotherapie 6, 6(6): 171–185.

19. Thelen E, Smith L (1994). A Dynamic Systems Approach to the Development of cognition and Action. Cambridge Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

20. von Lüpke H (2006). Sprachliche Verwirrspiele – nicht nur in der Hirnforschung. Konsequenzen für Theorie und Praxis der Rehabilitation. Sonderpädagogische Förderung 51, 3: 229–241.

21. Winnicott DW (1978). Primitive Emotional Development. In: Through Paediatrics to Psycho-Analysis. London: The Hogarth Press, p. 145–156.

22. World Health Summit: Personalisierte Medizin (2009). Deutsches Ärzteblatt 106, 42, 16: C 1733–C 1738.

23. Wunderlich D (2009). http://www.dieterwunderlich.de/…tenkofer.htm.

24. Zieger A (2005). Wieviel Gehirn braucht der Mensch? Anmerkungen zum Anencephalie-Problem aus beziehungsmedi­zinischer Sicht. Überarbeitete Fassung eines Vortrags beim Interdisziplinären Fachgespräch „Kinder mit Anencephalie und ihre Angehörigen“; 26.–27. November 2004, Erfurt.

25. Zieger A (2009). Anencephalie als menschenmögliche Seinsweise – Neue Forschungsergeb­nisse und Konsequenzen aus beziehungsmedi­zinischer Sicht. In Goll H, Jaquier M, Römelt J (ed.): Kinder mit Anencephalie und ihre Familien. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt, p. 75–100.


Warning: readfile(http://www.xin.cz/xin/o.php) [function.readfile]: failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden in /var/www/journal-of-nursing-social-studies-public-health-and-rehabilitation/templates/templates.php on line 206