The phenomenon called \u2018human being\u2019 is a totality, not the sum of all parts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Suppose several people are looking through a keyhole simultaneously, with the necessary drumming, of course, at an elephant who is standing in the room behind that door. One observer sees the elephant\u2019s tail; the other sees his trunk; another sees his ear.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Conclusion of the observers: in that room, there is a trunk (or an ear or a tail). Is that conclusion correct? The only sure thing is that one can only understand the concept \u2018elephant\u2019 in its entirety.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Several observers are looking through a keyhole at the phenomenon of \u2018human being.\u2019 One sees a body, the other a political being, a spiritual being, etc. The phenomenon \u2018human being\u2019 is the totality, viewed as a unit. If one looks at every angle in isolation, one loses the entirety.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So, a purely material-medical view of man is not only incomplete but also downright wrong. The consequences are similar.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
From a purely technical point of view, one can make a technical classification of the human being without too many tears. In terms of psycho-somatics, the maps are different. The whole elephant here is the entire human embedded in his environment in the broadest sense of the word.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For example, medieval man, with his guilt and fear, had a religious problem. Today\u2019s person with indeterminate guilt and fear apparently has a psychological, if not a medical problem. However, the real person in this situation has an issue that can be viewed from different sides. These are all meaningful sides, including the religious one. Not in the medieval form if you ask me, but in (post)modern state, as a tension that drives to re-ligare, reconnect with one\u2019s human depth, without a statement as to where it ends.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Very exciting: box-thinking not only complicates any depth but IS itself the opposite.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Another example: the level of aggression within a particular culture (xenophobia, discrimination, road rage, child abuse, to outright war) is not separate from medicine. How depth is handled is directly linked to aggression in cultural standards. Inward aggression ultimately results in outward aggression. This goes \u2013 again \u2013 very far.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Suppressing this is downright aggressive. So, for every single patient, it is essential not only that he feels\/behaves better, but also in which way<\/em> he feels\/behaves better. This is important for the patient, his environment, and the entire culture. This idea may cause a culture shock to many colleagues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n How is that supposed to be: a medicine that assumes that the previously set boundaries are vague in reality? There are two possibilities:<\/p>\n\n\n\n 1. The doctor focuses solely on the technical domain. Strictly speaking, of course, this is impossible. It is an attitude that one imagines, a hill that one occupies exclusively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2. The doctor goes very deep into the phenomenon of \u2018human\u2019 in all layers and domains. That, too, is impossible. The phenomenon \u2018human\u2019 is far too broad to acquire expertise in every area of it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Doctors without borders, however, do not have a limited gaze. They know that the \u2018healing\u2019 of an individual often has to do with an entire culture. It would be desirable if some depth concerning this could be found in the training of doctors.<\/p>\nDoctors without borders<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
There are still two impossibilities, and a dose of goodwill left to make the most of it.<\/h5>\n\n\n\n