Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Future Implications
Conclusion
References

Apithology of Humanity Psychology: Humanity as a Generative System

Profile image of Will VareyWill Varey

Abstract

The systems discipline of apithology was established to look specifically at the wellbeing of the humanity system. Being a systems theory of generative dynamics it provides the potential for a different research focus in the field of human systems. It looks for systemic outcomes for human health and offers a counterpart perspective to the mitigation of problems. This enables a generativist approach to the complex challenge of governance for humanitarian outcomes. This paper comprises an introduction to the application of apithology theory and practice to humanity psychology. While apithology theory can be applied to many forms of generative systems, its greatest value is possibly in its application to the formation of human motivations. This involves the analysis of dynamic tensions in systems of conceptions. This form of human systems inquiry illuminates the changing capacities of human conceptions across varied human contexts. The result is a systems discipline for the ethical care of the generative potentials necessary for humanity-scale wellbeing. In this paper the distinction between generative and dissipative dynamics is clarified. The tensions involved in the formation, continuation and actuation of systems of conceptions are described. This is done using the systems principles of autopoietic systems, purposive systems and complex systems. The delineation of three systemic dimensions comprising coherence, orientation and integration is made and the effects of their interactions explained. From this analysis the basis for a generativist approach to the health of humanity-scale systems is proposed. The generation of an apithology triptych is demonstrated. This is used to illustrate three forms of systemic health as a focus for the enablement of humanity's capacity for adaptability. The practical challenges and ethics of practice, as well as the abilities of practitioners in this field, are also mentioned. The paper concludes with a description of the governance challenges for the wellbeing of a future humanity.

Related papers

The Health of Complex Human Populations
Teresa Cutts

NAM Perspectives

Health care and public health are finding common-but conflicted-ground in population health. Current discussions in the two fields are collecting a large and growing set of tools, but with little clarity about which are appropriate for exactly what kind of work. Furthermore, neither field provides a clear explanation about how to manage this work within the field, including budgets, job descriptions, and evaluation methods, etc. that distinguish between good and better, efficient, effective or not. The following article offers four linked domains of thought and practice that together constitute a bridge from where we are to where we want to be-healthier people and institutions-by using the idea of the Leading Causes of Life as the supporting paradigm.

View PDFchevron_right
Governing Lives in the Times of Global Health
Veronica Gomez-Temesio, Frederic Le Marcis

The SAGE Handbook of Cultural Anthropology, 2021

View PDFchevron_right
Moral & Intellectual Foundations of Global Health -- Pointers
James R. Cochrane
View PDFchevron_right
Toward Social Health for a Global Community
Elena Mustakova-Possardt

Mustakova-Possardt and Woodall explore what we know about the relationship between the social health of communities and the mental health of individuals. They advocate a dynamic systems perspective on social health and suggest that the mental health of an individual has to be understood in the context of the whole social group.Thus a healthy social organization is one that entails well-regulated harmonious inter-participation with each person and group. The health of the social organization entails maintenance of the dignity of every participant in that organization. Failure to meet this requirement creates prime ground for the emergence of all kinds of social ill-health. This chapter integrates insights that reach from the macro level of community life to the micro processes that animate the inner workings of persons. It has been recognized as a major conceptual contribution to the field.

View PDFchevron_right
Guest Editorial: How to Be Human? Some Answers and New Questions
Matti Häyry

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 2016

This special section of the Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics examines the delicacies of human nature and human interaction in terms of responsibility, vulnerability, dignity, and humanity. The contributions can be divided into four groups in the order in which they inspect the four title concepts. Responsibility The fi rst topic is responsibility. How far does our responsibility for each other extend? What is the meaning of solidarity? Is solidarity a form of justice or an alternative to it? How are healthcare services to be distributed in a just and responsible way in less affl uent countries? What theories of morality and justice can be employed to answer these questions? 1 The matters surrounding solidarity and justice are taken up by Johanna Ahola-Launonen in "Humanity and Social Responsibility". If the revision of healthcare structures needs to be value based and respect individuals as members of communities and citizens of states, it has been suggested that solidarity could be the key value to be observed, and that it would provide a fi rmer and more humane basis for practical considerations than the liberal notions of justice and rights. Ahola-Launonen questions this solution, and sees it as a form of nostalgia. The solidaristic ideologies evoked are not viable today, or have problems, and justice in the more liberal sense still offers a better starting point for the protection of the wellbeing and integrity of vulnerable populations. Adalberto de Hoyos, in "Issues on Luck Egalitarianism, Responsibility, and Intercultural Health Care Policies", addresses the fair and effi cient distribution of medical and related services in a world where populations age, epidemics abound, and cultural differences make it diffi cult to provide sensitive care for everyone. The approaches considered are utilitarianism, liberalism, and luck egalitarianism. The author argues that utilitarianism is conceptually unable to deal with situations in which the advanced care of a limited number of people would drain most of the resources available. He also contends that liberalism faces similar resource issues in trying to cope with diseases of epidemic proportions. Luck egalitarianism, or a version of it, is offered as the best solution. Vulnerability The second focus of attention is vulnerability. What does it mean? Is it a neglected concept that should be made the focus of global bioethics? How would

View PDFchevron_right
People at the centre of complex adaptive health systems reform
Joachim Sturmberg

Medical Journal of Australia, 2010

View PDFchevron_right
HEALTH IN AN ECOLOGICAL CIVILIZATION TOWARDS A PROCESS UNDERSTANDING OF THE DIALECTICS OF HEALTH
Glenn McLaren

Cosmos and History, 2019

The past one hundred years has seen major advances in medical knowledge, care and technology, but has this been healthy? These advances have been underpinned by oversimplified misconceptions of reality in the form of mechanical and atomistic metaphysics. These views effectively abstract us from nature and each other while obscuring the holistic roots of the word health. They have provided justification for our drive to harness the potential energy of non-renewable fossil fuels which has allowed us to augment the living conditions for some on our planet, but at the expense of the conditions for life itself. We are now seeing the consequences of our profligate use of energy in the emergence of environmental problems such as the melting of our polar ice caps, extremes of weather conditions and life threatening pollution more generally. This destruction is happening partly due to economic demands for unconstrained linear growth which generates greater dependence on energy intensive technologies. But healthcare is following this trend of linear growth towards even greater dependence on technology, adding to the growing demand for energy globally. This trend is unhealthy as increasing energy use generates larger, more intractable health problems such as Type Two Diabetes. What is needed are further arguments for holistic approaches to health which create the conditions for self-healing rather than energy intensive, entropy accelerating interventions. Such approaches have long been practiced by the healthiest peoples in the world in what are called the 'Blue Zones.' To cultures fragmented by the abstractions of mechanical metaphysics, however, holism no longer makes sense. In this paper, therefore, I will argue for holistic approaches drawing upon what physics understands to be the nature of the Higgs Field and fields in general to reveal the complex nature of our connectedness with all in the universe. I will show holism's ontological primacy through understandings in process metaphysics and modern physics and biology. I will further argue that to avoid extinction we will need to create an ecological civilization which helps heal our dysfunctional relationships with nature. This will require an education in dialectics in order to understand the relationships between contradictory arguments and the implementation of an ethics and politics of eco-poeisis to COSMOS AND HISTORY 428 generate a feel for the whole that so many today fail to experience. This will create and maintain our connections to our communities. Such deep connections will be necessary for us to take responsibility for continually generating the future potential for diverse, healthy life. A condition for this will be the creation of a holistic health field which, being based in process metaphysics, will act as a higher level constraint to condition more holistic thought and practice.

View PDFchevron_right
Constructing a systems psychodynamic wellness model
Sanchen Henning, Frans Cilliers

2012

The systems psychodynamic paradigm evolved at the Tavistock Institute in the United Kingdom in the 1950s and 1960s (Miller, 1993). It is a combination of the 'working outside in' (systems) perspective and the 'working inside out' (psychodynamic) perspective (Czander, 1996). The two different perspectives merge to provide a unique framework because it integrates the concepts of systems thinking and psychoanalysis to understand the unconscious processes in people, groups, organisations and societies better (Gould, Stapley & Stein, 2004). From a systems psychodynamic perspective, wellness is a relational concept. Object relation theory postulates that the periods of loving care must exceed those of frustration and deprivation during childhood for wellness to develop and be sustained (Klein, 1975). If all goes relatively

View PDFchevron_right
Public Health and Human Systems Dynamics: What can we learn from each other?
Glenda Eoyang

Complexity Science in Practice: Understanding & …

View PDFchevron_right
Embedding human well-being in the body, social relations, and the more-than-human world: towards a framework for understanding whole-systems well-being
John B Adams

2021

The dominant mode of societal operation in today’s world, in its pursuit of the good life through economic growth and consumption, is destroying the planet’s ecosystems and accelerating towards an inhospitable climate regime, with mixed results for even short-term human well-being. This pathological mode of societal operation is based in discredited worldviews. However, important aspects of a coherent, updated worldview have not been articulated and thus have not been integrated into the efforts of scholarship to steer society away from collapse and toward sustainable, desirable futures. In particular, there is a need for an explanatory framework that makes sense of seemingly incompatible perspectives on the human being (e.g., between the natural and social sciences) and on human well-being (WB; e.g., between hedonic and other perspectives)—and that situates human WB in the context of planetary WB. This thesis lays the foundation of such a framework. Previous researchers taking a complex-systems approach have argued convincingly that self-regulatory capacity is the underlying basis of WB, providing a key premise for this thesis. I synthesize evolutionary, neurobiological, psychological, and social lines of investigation into a coherent, broadly consistent understanding of the development and dynamics of self-regulatory capacity, focusing on various interdependent levels of regulation (e.g., physiological, psychological, and social) and showing many of their impacts on WB. With the help of predictive processing models of perception, this thesis explores how self-regulatory dynamics are affected by the qualities of three key relationships fundamental to the human situation: relationship with one’s body (embodiment), relationship with other humans (sociality), and relationship with the more-than-human world (terrestriality). This work suggests a number of conclusions. First, all three of these relational contexts (embodiment, sociality, terrestriality) are fundamental to both our existence and our well-being. It follows that any coherent worldview must account for these dynamic interrelations. Second, human well-being may be proximally defined by the capacity for integrated, non-defensive functioning, which is a developmental achievement dependent on supportive conditions. Third, beyond material sufficiency, the most important factors for WB seem to be attentional, collective, and mutualistic, rather than consumptive, individual, and rival. This thesis, by synthesizing a variety of scientific disciplines into a coherent framework for an embedded, complex-systems understanding of whole-person health and well-being, is the first part of a research agenda toward understanding—and achieving—whole-systems well-being, from person to planet.

View PDFchevron_right

References (96)

  1. Ackoff, R.L. , & Emery, F. E. (1972). On purposeful Systems. London: Tavistock.
  2. Angyal, A. (1967). Foundations for a science of personality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  3. Ashby, W. R. (1956). An introduction to cybernetics. London: Chapman & Hall.
  4. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  5. Barrett, F. J., & Peterson, R. (2000). Appreciative learning cultures: Developing competencies for global organizing. Organization Development Journal. 18(2), 10.
  6. Bateson, G. (1958). Naven: A survey of the problems suggested by a composite picture of the culture of a New Guinea tribe drawn from three points of view (2nd ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  7. Bateson, G. (1972). Ecology and flexibility in urban civilization. (pp. 494-505) In. Steps to an ecology of mind. San Francisco, CA: Chandler Publishing Company.
  8. Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. New York, NY: Dutton.
  9. Benack, S. (1984). Postformal epistemologies and the growth of empathy. In. Commons, FA Richards, & С Armón (Eds.), Beyond formal operations: Late adolescent and adult cognitive development. (pp. 340-356). New York: Praeger.
  10. Benack, S. (1988). Relativistic thought: A cognitive basis for empathy in counseling. Counselor Education and Supervision. 27(3), 216-232.
  11. Bilewicz, M. & Bilewicz, A. (2012). Who defines humanity? psychological and cultural obstacles to omniculturalism. Culture & Psychology. 18(3), 331-344.
  12. Boden, M. A., & Edmonds, E. A. (2009). What is generative art?. Digital Creativity, 20(1-2), 21-46.
  13. Bohnacker, H., Groß, B., Laub, J., Lazzeroni, C. (Ed.) (2009) Generative gestaltung (de): Designing, programming, visualizing with processing, Mainz: Verlag Hermann Schmidt.
  14. Boulding, (1985), The world as a total system, New York: Sage.
  15. Boulding, K. E. (1996). The economics of the coming spaceship Earth. In. Radical political economy: Explorations in alternative economic analysis. New York: M. E. Sharp. (pp. 357-367).
  16. Bruner, J. (1973) Beyond the information given: Studies in the psychology of knowing. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Dictionary (Oxford English). (1989) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  17. Eckert, C., Kelly, I., & Stacey, M. (1999). Interactive generative systems for conceptual design: An empirical perspective. AI EDAM, 13(04), 303-320.
  18. Erikson, E. (1959). Identity and the life cycle: Selected papers by Erik H. Erikson. New York: International University Press.
  19. Featherstone, M. (1990). Global culture: Nationalism, globalization and modernity (Vol.
  20. London: Sage.
  21. Forrester, J. W. (1971). World dynamics. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.
  22. Freidman, N. A. (2011). An introduction to hyperseeing and hypersculptures. Kybernetes, 40(7/8), 1015-1020.
  23. Freud, S. (1962) The ego and the id (Riviere, J. Trans.). London: Hogarth Press.
  24. Fromm, E. (1973). The anatomy of human destructiveness. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  25. Fuller, B. R. (1969). Utopia or oblivion: The prospects for humanity. Toronto, Canada: Bantam Books.
  26. Gallopin, G. (2006). Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. Global Environmental Change. 16, 293-303.
  27. Gergen, K. J. (1978). Toward generative theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 36(11), 1344.
  28. Graves, C. W. (1970). Levels of existence: An open system theory of values. Journal of Humanistic Psychology. 10(2), 131-155.
  29. Gullichsen, E., & Chang, E. (1985). Generative design in architecture using an expert system. In Magnenat-Thalmann, N. and Thalmann, D. (Eds.). Computer-generated images. Tokyo: Springer Japan. (pp. 367-375).
  30. Holling, C. S., Peterson, G. D., & Allen, C. R. (2008). Panarchies and discontinuities. In C. R. Allen & C. S. Holling (Eds.). Discontinuities in ecosystems and other complex systems. New York: Columbia University Press.
  31. Huck, J., Remo, C. (2008) "Will Wright -Video Games Close To 'Cambrian Explosion' Of Possibilities". Gamasutra. (June 9, 2008). Retrieved June 19, 2015.
  32. Hutchinson, G. E. (1961). The paradox of plankton. The American Naturalist 95(882), 137-146.
  33. Huxley, J. (1957) New bottles for new wine, London: Chatto and Windus.
  34. Jackendoff, R. (2003). Précis of foundations of language: brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26(06), 651-665.
  35. James, W. (1950). The principles of psychology, New York: Dover Publications.
  36. Jantsch, E. (1975). Design for evolution: Self-organization and planning in the life of human systems. New York: G. Braziller.
  37. Jörg, T. (2011). New thinking in complexity for the social sciences and humanities: A generative, transdisciplinary approach . Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media.
  38. Klir, G. (1985). Complexity: Some general observations. Systems Research, 2(2), 131- 140.
  39. Klir, G. (2013). Architecture of systems problem solving. Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media.
  40. Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation: A study of conscious and unconscious processes of humor, scientific discovery and art. New York: Macmillan Company.
  41. Kohlberg, L. T. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. (pp. 347-480).
  42. Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development: The nature and validity of moral stages. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
  43. Koplowitz, H. (1982). A projection beyond Piaget's formal operations stage: general systems theory and unitary thought. In. Commons, FA Richards, & С Armón (Eds.), Beyond formal operations: Late adolescent and adult cognitive development. (pp. 141- 157). New York: Praeger
  44. Laszlo, E. (1974). A strategy for the future; the systems approach to world order. New York: G. Braziller.
  45. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  46. Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts: Selected papers on group dynamics. New York: Harper & Row.
  47. Loevinger, J. (1976). Ego development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  48. Luhmann, N. (1989). Ecological communication. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  49. Luhmann, N. (1990). Essays on self-reference. New York: Columbia University Press.
  50. Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370 -396.
  51. Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis: The organization of the living. In H. R. Maturana & F. J. Varela (Eds.), Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living (pp. 73-134). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
  52. McFarland, S. (2011). The slow creation of humanity. Political Psychology, 32, 1-20.
  53. McFarland S., Webb M, & Brown D (2012). All humanity is my ingroup: A measure and studies of identification with all humanity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology PMID: 22708625.
  54. McFarland, S., Brown, D., & Webb, M. (2013). Identification with all humanity as a moral concept and psychological construct. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(3), 194-198.
  55. Midgley, G. (1992). The sacred and profane in critical systems thinking, Systems Practice, 5(1), 5-16.
  56. Mitchell, J. (1974). Psychoanalysis and feminism. Oxford: Pantheon.
  57. Moghaddam, F. M. (1990), Modulative and generative orientations in psychology: Implications for psychology in the three worlds. Journal of Social Issues, 46: 21-41
  58. Meadows, D. H., & Meadows, D. L. (2007). The history and conclusions of The Limits to Growth. Systems Dynamics Review, 23(2-3), 191-197.
  59. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., & Randers, J. (1992). Beyond the limits: Global collapse or a sustainable future. London: Earthscan.
  60. Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice.
  61. Pask, G. (1968). An approach to cybernetics. London: Hutchinson.
  62. Piaget, J. (1928). Judgment and reasoning in the child (Warden, M. Trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  63. Reynolds, Craig (1987). "Flocks, herds and schools: A distributed behavioral model.". SIGGRAPH '87: Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (Association for Computing Machinery): 25-34.
  64. Robinson, D. (2014). The inscience of translation. International Journal of Society, Culture & Language, 2, 25-40.
  65. Rogers, Carl. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist's view of psychotherapy. London: Constable.
  66. Schumacher, E. F. (1974). Small is beautiful: A study of economics as if people mattered. London: Abacus.
  67. Simon, H. A. (1962). The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106, 467-482.
  68. Simon, H. A. (1973). The organization of complex systems. In H. H. Pattee (Ed.), Hierarchy theory (pp. 3-27). New York: George Braziller.
  69. Simon, H. A. (1977). Models of discovery, and other topics in the methods of science. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
  70. Simon, H.A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd Ed.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  71. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Simon and Schuster.
  72. Smith, L. and Esther, T. (2003). Development as a dynamic system, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Vol.7 No.8 August 2003 343- Spence, K. (1956). Behavior theory and conditioning. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  73. Tart, C. (1973). States of consciousness, New York: E. P. Dutton.
  74. Teilhard de Chardin, P. (1964). The future of man (N. Denny, Trans.). London: William Collins and Sons.
  75. Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  76. Wallerstein, I. (1997). The modern world system: Capitalist agriculture and the origins of the European world economy in the sixteenth century (Vol. 1), New York: Academic Press.
  77. Wallerstein, I. (2004). World-systems analysis: An introduction. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
  78. Wimsatt, W. (1999). Generativity, entrenchment, evolution, and innateness: Philosophy, evolutionary biology, and conceptual foundations of science. In. Hardcastle, V. (Ed.) Where biology meets psychology: Philosophical essays, (pp. 137-179). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  79. Wimsatt, W. (2006). Generative entrenchment and an evolutionary developmental biology for culture. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29 (4), 364-366.
  80. Varey, W. (2008). Apithology: An emergent continuum. Aspects of Apithology: Journal of Apithological Practice, 1(1), 1-7.
  81. Varey, W. (2009a). Abductive theory: The origins of praxogenesis. Paper presented at the Murdoch University Post-Graduate Students Association (MUPSA) Conference, Perth, Australia.
  82. Varey, W. (2009b). Opening to unknowing: The epistemology of apithology. Aspects of Apithology: Journal of Apithological Practice, 2(5), 1-10.
  83. Varey, W. (2010a). Health in, of and for: The ethics of delineating 'health' and 'unhealth'. Paper presented at the 2nd Biennial Integral Theory Conference, San Francisco, CA.
  84. Varey, W. (2010b). Psychological panarchy: Steps to an ecology of thought. Paper presented at the 54th Meeting of the International Society for the Systems Sciences (17- 23 July 2010), Waterloo, Ontario.
  85. Varey, W. (2011a). Poiesis, ethics, praxis: Evolutionary neurophenomenology and praxogenesis. Presentation for the ISTP Seminar Series, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia.
  86. Varey, W. (2011b). Viability of psychological panarchy: Thought as an ecology. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 28, 509-525.
  87. Varey, W. (2012). Abductive theory for thought-ecologies: Depicting systems of conceptions. Thesis (PhD) submitted to the Faculty of Arts, Education and Creative Media. Murdoch University, Australia.
  88. Varey, W. (2013). Reflexive thought ecologies: A reflection on practice. Kybernetes, 42(9/10), 1470-1478.
  89. Varey, W. (2014). Nurturance spaces: Twelve places to intercede in apithology systems. In. Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the ISSS-2013 HaiPhong, Vietnam (Vol. 1, No.
  90. Van Geert, P. (1991). A dynamic systems model of cognitive and language growth. Psychological Review, 98, 3-53.
  91. Van Geert, P. (2003). Dynamic systems approaches and modeling of developmental processes. In. J. Valsiner and K. J. Conolly (Eds.), Handbook of developmental Psychology. London: Sage. (pp. 640-672).
  92. Visell, Y. (2004). Spontaneous organisation, pattern models, and music. Organised Sound 9.2 (Aug 2004): 151-165.
  93. Vygotsky, L. (2012). Thought and language. (Trans. Hanfmann, E., Vakar, G. and Kozulin, A.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  94. Ward, B., & Dubos, R. (1972). Only one Earth: The care and maintenance of a small planet. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
  95. Wilber, K. (2000). Integral psychology: Consciousness, spirit, psychology, therapy. Boston, MA: Shambhala.
  96. Zeleny, M. (1980). Autopoiesis: A paradigm lost? In M. Zeleny (Ed.), Autopoiesis, dissipative structures, and spontaneous social orders. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. (pp.

Related papers

Humanity Development: An Enfolded Path of Eight Domains
Will Varey

Aspects of Apithology: Journal of Apithological Practice, 2021

This article elucidates the relevance, significance and importance of the eight major inquiry domains in the practice of humanity nurturance. These domains were derived using the generativist systems theory of apithology, which examines the causative dynamics of health in living systems. Apithology uniquely concerns itself with the dynamics of generative forms independent of the determinate conceptions of human observation. This allows for the interpretation and appreciation of developments that include humanity-scale perceptions. The field of humanity development is one discipline that requires this form of non-observer specific inquiry and the use of more expansive referents. The advantage provided by this article is that, in understanding the specificity and contributive necessity of the eight domains of inquiry for the apithology of humanity, we also come to appreciate the reason for their obscuration and the difficulty of their perception. The receptivity to this elucidation of the eight domains provides an initiating pathway for researchers into a humanity-centric ontology, epistemology and methodology. This makes the premise of humanity nurturance a practical reality.

View PDFchevron_right
Towards A New Paradigm of Health and Human Potential
Julene Siddique

Towards A New Paradigm of Health and Human Potential, 2018

View Published Article in World Futures Journal here: http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/Ni2Wfp9P5YdwPC7a3VeY/full ABSTRACT In today's highly dynamic and changing industries there are an incredible array of things converging, all of which are signalling a significant need for a new paradigm in health and medicine. Scientific revolutions have brought forward new forms of knowledge, which fundamentally oppose the premises on which the majority of our traditional medical institutions are based. Through my CIRR framework (Critique, Insight, Re-Define, Re-Structure) I will bring forward the key elements and principles of what this paradigm shift is and what would be involved in bringing it into fruition. There are 3 key elements of a paradigm shift which I will review through the CIRR framework these are a) structural and systemic elements b) dynamics of social constituents and pathologies and c) shifts in thinking that have given rise to new forms of knowledge that enable new forms of research and practice. I will demonstrate that the key elements involved in a genuine paradigm shift are here, however it's up to us to bring it into fruition. I hope to inspire both researchers and practitioners towards this new paradigm in health and human potential.

View PDFchevron_right
From “one medicine” to “one health” and systemic approaches to health and well-being
Marcel Tanner

Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 2011

Faced with complex patterns of global change, the inextricable interconnection of humans, pet animals, livestock and wildlife and their social and ecological environment is evident and requires integrated approaches to human and animal health and their respective social and environmental contexts. The history of integrative thinking of human and animal health is briefly reviewed from early historical times, to the foundation of universities in Europe, up to the beginning of comparative medicine at the end of the 19th century. In the 20th century, Calvin Schwabe coined the concept of "one medicine". It recognises that there is no difference of paradigm between human and veterinary medicine and both disciplines can contribute to the development of each other. Considering a broader approach to health and well-being of societies, the original concept of "one medicine" was extended to "one health" through practical implementations and careful validations in different settings. Given the global health thinking in recent decades, ecosystem approaches to health have emerged. Based on complex ecological thinking that goes beyond humans and animals, these approaches consider inextricable linkages between ecosystems and health, known as "ecosystem health". Despite these integrative conceptual and methodological developments, large portions of human and animal health thinking and actions still remain in separate disciplinary silos. Evidence for added value of a coherent application of "one health" compared to separated sectorial thinking is, however, now growing. Integrative thinking is increasingly being considered in academic curricula, clinical practice, ministries of health and livestock/agriculture and international organizations. Challenges remain, focusing around key questions such as how does "one health" evolve and what are the elements of a modern theory of health? The close interdependence of humans and animals in their social and ecological context relates to the concept of "human-environmental systems", also called "social-ecological systems". The theory and practice of understanding and managing human activities in the context of socialecological systems has been well-developed by members of The Resilience Alliance and was used extensively in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, including its work on human well-being outcomes. This in turn entails systems theory applied to human and animal health. Examples of successful systems approaches to public health show unexpected results. Analogous to "systems biology" which focuses mostly on the interplay of proteins and molecules at a sub-cellular level, a

View PDFchevron_right
People at the centre of health care: Harmonizing mind and body, people and systems
Dr Sally Fawkes, Vivian Lin
View PDFchevron_right
Health in a dynamic world
Henry Lucas

Brighton: STEPS Centre. …, 2007

View PDFchevron_right
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved