On Reductionism, Parallelism, Dialectic Causality, The Physiology/Psychology of Defense, and Homeostatic Balance

I would like to point out the difference between reductionism, parallelism, and dialectic causality.

Reductionism screens out certain types of information that may or may not be important. If the information is important, then the theorist has committed a theoretical error by overlooking information that he obviously shouldn't be overlooking because it is an imporant part of his investigation -- or at least the 'contextual background' of his investigation. For example, many a scientist has tried to study the 'mind' as if it is exactly the same thing as the 'brain' and thus can be understood entirely in terms of 'brain physiology, biology, bio-chemistry, neurology' -- or conversely, from the perspective of 'external conditioning' (social rewards and punishments that are designed to 'steer' an animal's -- or a person's -- behavior one way or another.




Parallelism, on the other hand, compares the similarities between the types of events that happen in two different realms of knowledge -- say, for example, medicine and psychotherapy, and perhaps uses the same, or a similar, 'model' or 'theory' -- like the theory of 'homeostatic (dialectic/bi-polar) balance' for both.




A biochemist (or 'empirical reductionist') might want to tell you that an 'unbalanced biochemistry' leads to 'unbalanced thoughts, feelings, and actions'.




A cognitive therapist might want to tell you that 'unbalanced thought patterns' lead to 'unbalanced feelings, actions -- and biochemistry'.




A 'dialectic theorist' (like myself) argues that 'causes' often proceed and extend both ways such that A not only influences the behavior and evolution of B, but also, B inluences the behavior and evolution of A. This is what might be called 'dialectic causality'.




The Aristotlean thinker says that 'A causes B'. The 'counter-Aristotlean thinker' argues that 'B causes A'. And the Hegelian dialectic thinker argues that 'A and B both affect and influence each other'.




Now, let's look at the concept of parallelism as it applies to both the physiology/biochemistry and the psychology of defense.




In the body, at least two different types of 'defense' can be distinguished from each other: 1. 'screening/ejecting'; and 2. 'isolation/dissociation/containment/destruction/healing'.




The latter defense actually contains three 'sub-defenses' -- containment of the toxin, destruction of the toxin, healing of the cells affected. But we will classify the three sub-defenses as one defense.




Sometimes -- indeed, oftentimes, depending on the strength of the invading toxin/virus/bacteria -- 'all hands may be needed on deck' -- all systems of defense may need to work in conjunction and harmony with each other in an organized and coherent, timely fashion in order to 'evict' and/or 'destroy' the 'enemy' before it can do greater harm to the organism.




A virus/bacteria/toxin tries to get inside our body from outside -- through an oriface or a wound. It might try to get in through our food or drink, or through our breathing.




The body tries to keep the toxin out. For example, we 'sneeze' in order to eject the toxin coming in through our nose. Or we may 'throw up' an unpleasurable and/or toxic food.




Or we get something in our eye, and overnight, our eye slowly ejects the 'piece of dirt' or whatever it is, until we wake up and pull a 'sandman' the rest of the way out of our eye. These are all examples of 'screening and/or ejecting' toxins from our body.




Sometimes our screening defenses can become 'out of balance' -- and here is where the parallelism starts to come in -- our body's screening defense can become either 'too oral-receptive' or 'too anal-rejecting', both type of 'disorders' can be similarly linked to psychological as well as physiological disorders.




Our colon is supposed to break down 'nutritional foods' into their component parts -- fats, carbs, proteins, enzymes, etc. -- and absorb these into the blood. From here, they all go to the liver for further screening and purification before they are distributed to the different parts and cells of the body.




If the colon walls are too 'loosey-goosey' (too oral-receptive, i.e., not enough 'bouncers' working, and/or working hard enough -- such as in 'inflammatory bowel disease'), toxins can easily mix in with our foods, or be mistaken for 'nutritional foods' and start invading the body enmass to the point where the liver may not be able to keep up with all proper screening procedutes and/or destroying the enless parade of invaders... Here is another metaphor of parallelism -- it is like 'security procedures at the airport' and what can go wrong if 'the screeners are over-worked'.




Diabetes, to give another example, is a disease where a person can eat themselves silly -- and still starve themselves to death. Why? Well, if it is Type 1 diabetes, the person's pancreas are not making insulin -- the 'chaperone' that escorts 'sugar' from the bloodstream into the individual cells. No insulin, and sugar doesn't get into the cells -- and starts backing up in the bloodstream to the potential point of coma and death.




Conversely, if it is Type 2 diabetes, 'fat cells' and/or 'cholesterol' have essentially 'blocked the pathway from the bloodstream into the individual cells' and the sugar -- even with insulin -- can't get through the 'gateway'. Consequently, again, it starts backing up in the bloodstream to the point of possible coma and death. The person has more than enough 'sugar' in his or her bloodstream to 'feed all his or her cells' but there is in effect a 'door or wall blockage' between blood stream and cells.




Thus, the cells can still 'starve' without all the sugar that is backed up in the bloodstream...and if 'blood circulation' is even blocked off to the different parts of the body by too much sugar in the blood stream blocking the blood flow -- even 'gangrene' can set in at the point of a 'toe', 'a foot', and even a 'limb'.




Sometimes, a Type 1 or Type 2 diabetic on insulin can 'over-compensate', inject too much insulin into his or her bloodstream -- and then we have the opposite type of problem but with a similar result. With too much insulin circulating in the body, too much sugar can get into the cells, not enough sugar is left in the bloodstream, and this is where a diabetic needs to run to the fridge for a glass of orange juice, or hopefully have a chocolate bar within easy reach. Otherwise, the person 'passes out' and again we have an emergency situation of potential coma and/or death.




The amount of sugar in the blood needs to be 'homeostatically/dialectically balanced' within a small range of deviation -- or outside of this 'acceptable range', the person is looking at serious, immediate trouble. Same with the 'acidic/alkaline homeostatic balance' in the body. Same with the thyroid gland. Same with blood pressure. The body works on the principle of 'homeostatic/dialectic/bi-polar balance'.

We come back to psychology and the same basic principles of both homeostatic/dialectic/bi-polar balance vs. unbalance as well as the principle of 'screening' and 'isolation/dissociation/containment' in the psychology of mental defense as well as the physiology of internal body defense.

We will start to address this question in the next essay/lecture starting with the following question:

-- dgb, Jan. 17th, 2011,

-- David Gordon Bain