The idea of individuality covers the entire Western medical tradition, including complementary medicine. Certain facets of it have remained extremely stable
KATHMANDU, FEBRUARY 8
The philosopher Aristotle never thought in threes.
From his law of contradiction, also labelled as the law of the excluded middle, to the binary logic of our modern computer programmes, our mind-set focuses its compass and radar on certain pros and cons and vice versa.
The mediaeval philosopher René Descartes, however, offered a small space for a third, right in the middle of the brain, the pineal gland, the source of melatonin - a hormone that regulates our circadian rhythms (sleep-wake cycle). Descartes attested the tiny gland's big value in opposition to two major contenders in his system of thought - the thinking mind of the individual from within and the extended space outside.
The chronicle of individualised diagnosis and treatment, as well as diverse models of the individual and their effect on medical practice and healthcare, likewise, originates from the ancient Greeks to the present day. The idea of individuality covers the entire Western medical tradition, including complementary medicine. While certain facets of it have remained extremely stable,others have progressed while taking on new connotations in diverse social, intellectual and technological contexts.
As biochemist Roger John Williams, who 'baptised' folic acid (vitamin B9) and discovered pantothenic acid (vitamin B5), suggested, "The existence in every human being of a vast array of attributes, which are potentially measurable (whether by present methods, or not), and often uncorrelated mathematically, makes quite tenable the hypothesis that practically every human being is a deviate in some respects." What does this connote? That all of us are subtly and marvellously different. Williams called the 'spin-off' of such individuality, or deviation, as illness, or disease.
New research evidences that there is certainly a reasonable possibility of individuality and to also measuring the 'vast collection of attributes' and closing the sphere between individual variation and disease. The splendid, though far-flung, objective today is aimed to categorise vulnerability factors and prevent disease from occurring.
Integrative and functional medicine too focuses on the interdependent relationship between bio-chemical individuality, metabolic balance, ecological interactions, and unique personal attributes in the dynamics of health.
According to the Institute for Functional Medicine, US, the definition of biochemical individuality is simple and profound, "Each individual has a unique physiological and biochemical composition, based on the interactionsof their individual genetic make-up with lifestyle and environment - i.e., the continuous exposure to inputs, such as diet, experiences, nutrients, beliefs, toxins, medications, etc. - that influence our genes. It is this combination of factors that accounts for the endless varieties of phenotypic responses seen every day by clinicians. The unique make-up of each individual also, likewise, requires personalised levels of nutrition and lifestyle adapted to that individual's needs in order to achieve optimal health. The consequences of not meeting thespecific needs of the individual are expressed, over time, as degenerative disease."
The inference in our current context would, therefore, be obvious - if one acquiesces to the fact that such dynamics are not fully the result of genetic inheritance, what's left could just as well be accounted for by environmental influences and vice versa. Agreed that'that' something would violate our mode of thought, or the convenience of our habitual operations. It would also upset the applecart of people who link comfortable thinking with clarity of thought.
Interestingly, however, 'that' something has more to it than what meets our mind. For one thing, it cannot be confined within the precincts of nature, or nurture.
Take for example, the remarkable singularity of individuals and the disparities among billions of people - even between identical twins. This is uniqueness.
You may also agree toany view for being the reason behind 'that' something - one that may be espoused by heredity, theology, economics, past lives, history, society, etc.
Yet, one cannot yet dispute the pre-eminent role played by the DNA, the corkscrew that carries the genetic code and plays a major part in the governance of our lives - physically, psychologically and also spiritually.
New research may not concur with such 'obvious' generalisations, thanks to its solid grounding in a specific, technologically-based approach. It's a method that is specifically discerned with its essence and also complexity in its questions.
It queries about differences even among individuals who are genetically closely linked. Here's one tangible riposte: why do twins have diverse characters, or different fates? You'd, perhaps, think of epistas is- genetic windfall - a changeable 'luck of the draw', as philosopher Plato suggested, in the context.
We now have a new-fangled name for it: 'chaos theory' in heredity, although it'd make us acknowledge that we cannot think of our autobiographies as a time-bound progression along a line from birth to death. As Plotinus, a Platonian philosopher, put it, "The soul moves in circles."
This brings us to yet another perspective - we all seem unique, yet not quite unique. To quote James Hillman, the late American psychologist, and distinguished author, "I am different from everyone else and the same as everyone else; I am different from myself ten years ago and the same as myself ten years ago; my life is a stable chaos, chaotic and repetitive both, and I can never predict what tiny, trivial bit of input will result in a huge and significant output. I must always remain acutely sensitive to initial conditions, such as what or who came into the world with me and enters the world with me each day. On that I remain dependent."
The legendary psychologist Carl Gustav Jung placed the idea in synchronous perspective: "In the final analysis, we count for something only because of the essential we embody, and if we do not embody that, life is wasted." Or, to quote celebrated Spanish painter Pablo Ruiz Picasso, who also verbalised, more or less, on identical lines, "I don't develop; I am."
Nidamboor is a wellness physician, independent researcher and author
A version of this article appears in the print on February 9, 2023, of The Himalayan Times.
