Tress W, Junkert B
Klinisches Institut und Klinik für Psychosomatische Medizin und Psychotherapie, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf.
Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol. 1992 Nov;42(11):400-7.
Psyche and soma are open to scientific-causal analysis for biomedicine as well as for social-empirical studies. Both are furthermore accessible to the ideographic discourse of subjective meanings and intentional acts. The German language marks this difference with the terms of "Körper" (body) and "Leib" (embodied soul--spirited body). The Bieri-trilemma demonstrates the resulting epistemological calamity. Neither the so-called behavioral medicine as variation of an ontologic-methodological materialism nor pure phenomenology of the sick subject lead the way out of such inconsistencies. Attempts of systemtheoretical mediation usually only prove their poor reviewing of traditional discussion. This paper outlines some of the currently interesting positions towards the so-called body-soul-problem in the field of psychosomatic medicine, at the same time warning against hasty expectations. We discuss the intentional-biographic approach, the biomedical approach (including the simultaneity correlation (Schultz-Hencke) as well as the brain-soul-correlationism (Kurthen and Linke). As our result we maintain the complementarity of a double discourse for psychosomatic medicine, namely the complementarity of hermeneutic analysis of meaningful processes and of bio-psycho-social casualties. The complementary discourse levels occasionally find their counterparts on an intersubjective-objective time-space-axis. For this we suggest the concept of socialempiric and biomedical markers. Attempts of mediation, be it from systemic-emergence-theoretical or from hermeneutic perspective of interaction forms and their interaction engrams corresponding to their central nervous substratum, turn out to be mystifications of actual incompatibilities, namely of the inevitably double discourse. For this the theory of absolute processes (W. Sellars) promises mediation, but so far no more.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
对于生物医学以及社会实证研究而言,心理与身体都有待进行科学因果分析。此外,二者都能够通过关于主观意义和意向行为的表意性话语来理解。德语用“Körper”(身体)和“Leib”(具身化的灵魂——有精神的身体)这两个术语来区分这种差异。比里三难困境表明了由此产生的认识论灾难。无论是作为本体论 - 方法论唯物主义变体的所谓行为医学,还是患病主体的纯粹现象学,都无法解决这种不一致性。系统理论调解的尝试通常只会证明它们对传统讨论的审视不力。本文概述了心身医学领域目前关于所谓身心问题的一些有趣观点,同时警告不要抱有仓促的期望。我们讨论了意向 - 传记方法、生物医学方法(包括同时性关联(舒尔茨 - 亨克)以及脑 - 灵魂关联论(库尔滕和林克))。我们的结论是,心身医学需要一种双重话语的互补性,即对有意义过程的诠释学分析与生物 - 心理 - 社会因果关系的互补性。这种互补性话语层面偶尔会在主体间 - 客观的时空轴上找到对应。为此,我们提出了社会实证和生物医学标记的概念。无论是从系统涌现理论还是从互动形式及其与中枢神经基质相对应的互动记忆痕迹的诠释学角度进行调解尝试,结果都证明是对实际不相容性的神秘化,也就是对不可避免的双重话语的神秘化。就此而言,绝对过程理论(W. 塞拉斯)有望实现调解,但目前尚无更多进展。(摘要截选至250字)