The edges of the known

    I would like to move our attention constantly to the edges of the known and explore this space which is the creative edge of reality. The focus will be on the nature of ill health, why we become ill and how to manage ill health from the perspective of that edge. That edge is the place where the known meets the unknown and therefore that exploration will often transcend what conventional science can offer and allows new ideas to emerge.

    This in fact is the way good science proceeds forward. Good scientists are always working at that edge, making postulates which emerge out of the depth of their beingness using thinking, imagination and intuition to make postulates which must then be subjected to measurements and experience.


     It may seem that so much is already known about human beings that there is not much more to discover and that what we know is enough to treat all kinds of ill health successfully. Clearly this is not what is happening. While surgery and acute emergency medicine has made remarkable progress, the management of chronic ill health still seems bogged down and confined to symptomatic advances only. Drugs can often control symptoms, but this approach does not heal people. The war against cancer is still a battle ground of failed approaches and people struggling very often to deal with the consequences. Editorials in peer reviewed journals still question whether cancer drugs for example improve survival or quality of life.1

    ‘In its analytic pursuit of parts, science has missed the whole, and thus tended to reduce the world to dead aggregations rather than to the real wholes which make up nature.’  ~ Jan Smuts Prime Minister of SA from his book Holism.

    Here is the problem. The human being does have a body, but the body is not the human being. We are a great deal more than a body and it is this ‘more’ that makes all the difference. Trying to understand the human being from body only, may be the problem.

    Think of looking for a lost item in an area that you had not been in. Makes no sense but that is what many medical scientists are doing. Biochemists know about biochemistry and will look in biochemistry for the answers of ill health especially if their sponsors are pharmaceutical companies that are only interested in answers that support their particular domain. That domain is biochemistry and the finding of drugs which are also chemicals that work at the biochemical levels.

    A human being, however, is not just biochemical but also has energy running through every aspect of the body and this energy also carries information that ‘in-forms’ the way the energy should be moving. Clearly if the underlying cause of ill health is energetic or disturbed information then it won’t be found within the biochemical body of humans.

    There is what I refer to as the ‘Greater Anatomy’ of human beings:

    Matter- energy- information- quantum-potential and Body- emotions– mind- spirit-consciousness.

    Matter/biochemistry moves much too slow to be where the controls are. We are dealing with billions of cells and every one of the multiple functions must be coordinated and be coherent to each other almost instantaneously, no not almost but instantaneously, to maintain balance and homeostasis. Without this astonishing degree of speed and holistic application the system would very quickly fall apart. Only energy and information could handle this complexity.

    Why do we concentrate on biochemistry, when clearly energy and information need to be included in any research protocol. That’s a good question but the answer is not difficult to understand. It’s not so much a problem of science but the direction medical science has taken over the last 100 years. By reducing the body to physical parts and chemicals, scientists have reduced human beings to a machine-like object which then can be understood by examining these parts. Somewhere along the way the ‘human being’ has disappeared and the magic and mystery with it.

     ‘Medicine misunderstands itself as a science because it equates “the scientific method” with the reductionistic and quantitative methodologies of the physical sciences. The physical sciences traditionally endeavor to explain the way nature behaves by relating it to the behavior of its simplest constituent parts. This does not take into account the complexity of nature.’ ~ Anton van Niekerk, Department of Philosophy, Stellenbosch University.

    Let’s go deeper into this complexity and try and make sense of the unknown as it attempts to reveal itself into the known.


    1. Prasad V. Do cancer drugs improve survival or quality of life? BMJ 2017; 359 :j4528 doi:10.1136/bmj.j4528
    continue to top