G. CORNUȚIU
with phenomena and realities in general.
Naturally, nature sciences (of a series) require quantifications.
These quantifications are impossible in the sciences of singu-
larities (for instance, history). The psyche, besides the aspects
of its generalities, is also a singularity. The generalities are
derived from and consequences of its biological under-layer
and are quantifiable. The singularity of the psychic derives
from heredity and its ontogeny; that is why each phenotype is
unique. It may be compared to the light which is both quant and
wave at the same time. To regard the psychic only through its
generality (quant) would be a pitiful reduction and it would lead
to errors of approach and understanding.
So far, psychology (the science of the healthy mind) and
psychiatry (the science of the ill mind) have approached the
psychic either in its generality or in its singularity. There is a
need for a synthesis which would give unity to the two aspects
of the psyche. This is not possible unless the genetic heritage
and the ontogeny are systemically integrated. For the time be-
ing, this is only possible at the level of sums. The synthetic
unity remains a dream, but, at least, one more step is taken
towards fulfilling it.
Every generation restated, sometimes loudly, that the mo-
ment had arrived for a quality leap, for a synthesis which would
use all good discoveries of the minds and hearts of the previous
generations of physicists, and then, step by step, all was aban-
doned in the exclusive favor of novelty. A state of accumula-
tion has been reached which should enable people to become
wise.
Historical Data about Reflection These
Principles in the Medical Practice
There is a tendency for the current generation to proudly and
stupidly pretend that they have an undeniable superiority in
thinking compared to other generations. This pride has its ori-
gins in ignorance, partly. But if one examines carefully the
older or the ancient, one may have surprises which warn us to
be modest. Thus, 2049 years ago (Ösler, 1921), Varro in De Re
Rustica was talking about “tiny organisms which cannot be
perceived by the naked eye and which get inside the body and
cause diseases”. Or, in 16th century Venice, Fracastorius was
talking about “contagious germs passing from one person to
another”. Of course, the techno-scientific complex of the time
could not capitalize such thoughts, but the performance of
thinking in a sector of (series) nature allows people to trust the
performance of the thinking back then, especially when it re-
ferred to singularities.
In this context, R. Iftomovici (2009), remarks that, before
medicine, the shamans based their therapeutic exercise on the
valence of uniqueness. Their discourse, addressed to Sprits or
Secluded or Malefic Forces, was often imploring: “Help him”,
“Make him stronger” etc. or imperative: “Go away!” or “Get
out” etc.
Of course, the extra religious awareness must not be attrib-
uted to the shaman act, but the intuition of the role of the va-
lence of uniqueness must be noted.
In a papyrus dating from Ramses I times (1314 BC), it is said
that “the incantations are excellent in boosting the effect of the
medicine, and the medicine does the same for the incantations”
(Iftimovici, 2009).
Approximately one thousand years later, in the Hippocratic
Corpus, in the book about proper behavior (ibidem), there is the
concept of thenai, which stated that medicine is both science
and art. The science addressed the human generalities and the
art referred to human uniqueness. The art implied talent to
“know how to ally with the patient’s soul in the healing act. For
this, the doctor must not offend the family”, “to accept the
consultation from other colleagues” etc. The Hippocratic Oath
in itself makes reference to the moral aspect and to the relation
of uniqueness in the medical practice (Cornuţiu, 2004).
Aristotle makes a very profound remark: “... and we notice
that the doctor in general does not heal even though he pos-
sesses the medicine but there is another principle which urges
him to act according to science, but not because of science”.
The more direct explanation of this statement is to be found in
Plato, who says: “I would earn people’s respect but I would sin
against the gods” (Plato, 1993). In a different culture, Confu-
cius’, this truth sounds as follows: “The philosopher says: the
one who knows the principles of right reason does not equal the
one who loves them; the one who likes them does not equal the
one who makes them his own pleasures and practices them”
(Confucius, 1994). This is the same duality in unity: quant and
wave, series generality of nature and uniqueness of phenotype.
The necessity of synthesis and the respect for the harmony
between the two aspects of the same unique reality was also
noticed by Albert the Great, who wrote: “there seems to be a
unique nature of things whose essential act is one” (Albert the
Great, 2001). Saint Augustus was also preoccupied by these
relations and he emphasized the characteristic of the human
uniqueness grained in affectivity. He said: “for those, it is
enough to believe, to hope and to love” (St. Augustus, 1992).
The history of science comprises a consistent blend of gener-
ality and singular subjectivity. In 1927, the famous science
philosopher (Calvin, 2007) Bertrand Russel remarked, banter-
ing in an English manner the psychology and the psychophar-
macology laboratory research: “the animals studied by the
Americans swoop, hectically almost, with unbelievable agita-
tion and energy, and, in the end, almost by chance, they get the
desired result. The animals observed by the Germans sit still
and think and, in the end, they develop the solution in their
inner conscience”.
All these are connected with understanding diseases and pa-
tients and they determine the attitude towards patients. In order
to limit the subject, return to the partiality stated in the title is
needed. It is remarked what J. Z. Sadler (2005) concluded as
historical evolution: “in the western medical practice, the ideal
of the doctor-patient relationship has evolved since the second
half of the 20th century towards equality as the ethical ideal”.
All these are supported by the presence of the informed consent,
by the necessity of discussing the therapeutic options with pa-
tient, by the recommendation of reaching a therapeutic decision
together, etc.
This evolution of the contractual and relational content of the
medical act is not merely the translation of the evolution of the
general (theoretical) conception in reality, but also an evolution
of the collective thought, which differs from geography to an-
other, in spite of the homogeneity imposed by globalization.
Thus, this attitude is natural for the Anglo-Saxon population,
but in Hispanics it may signify insecurity on behalf of the doc-
tor who emphasizes these aspects, or even incompetence, as they
prefer the authoritarian attitude, which they associate with com-
petence and confidence. These are reflexes of the two cultures
and are impossible to abolish, the catholic shadowing a strict
hierarchical order from God downwards and the protestant
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 507