Musings... axes in hand and mind

...

Axes in hand and mind
[Accounting for the I-G (individual-group) axis and the need for the H-M axis]

Clearly there is a need for a basic scaffold. One that reflects the real world and the real time to which we are all exposed and are a part; and one that can also represent the model(s) we wish to create - the products of our health care, nursing activities. The scaffold we build must be one on which we can hang concepts and for simplicities sake human (care) concerns. Specifically a conceptual scaffold and a human scaffold. The latter can be represented simply as a continuum from INDIVIDUAL to GROUP, hereafter referred to as I-G.

The other, the conceptual scaffold, calls for what might be termed conceptual inflation. If we imagine the I-G as the vertical challenge (remember the health & safety issue!) and draw with the 'individual' at the top, then there is much we can model based on this basic dichotomy. This is too simple however. We cannot capture the part of the rich tapestry that is life - well-being, health - and death. For this another axis is needed.

(Which begs me to ask myself:

is there a law that suggests that one axis however oriented invites another?)

With this further partition and heralding of a further dichotomy what is lost? What is gained, if anything? In scribing this first line we explicitly separate the 'one' - the self from the other. The addition of another axis is where and how we define a center. With this center and from it we can find the energy to fuel our conceptual inflation. We literally draw out the foundation by considering what these persons do? ...

Conceptual inflation: Four-fold nursing agnostics
...
PJ Dec 2010

Musings... building models, health & safety, group and individual

....

Basic foundations and minimal defaults
[Accounting for the I-G (individual-group) axis]

Since nurses and technologists are concerned with communication then the foundation from which they begin to (build and model their) work is of fundamental importance. The foundation needs to be generic in the first instance. Generic in the sense of the commonality that language instills, enables and facilitates within and between communities. Not only that, but if we take the property of 'generic' to its extreme then the foundation must be stripped down to the barest of defaults: there are no 'types'.

To use the safety analogy we need to risk assess the extent of our model building activities.

We can do this by asking: is this a one, or at most two dimensional venture; such that we can rest secure on terra firma? Or are we above 'ground' floor and immediately required to address health and safety legislation?

Since medicine and nursing are concerned with - must be evidence based - there is an immediate  vertical challenge in the hierarchies inherent in the sciences and the structure of knowledge.

Science is not the only influence here. The foundation of what we are modelling and building must reflect the ultimate subjects (the person - patients, carers, communities, whole populations) of our activities. So, the individual (whose very safety is our concern!) must be factored in and with this concept the notion of human rights. While a dialogue of no trivial nature in itself, suffice here to suggest that individual and applied human rights emerges out of and is dependent upon the collective (group). This in turn is a measure of the level of social coherence, coherence through a level of social and political organisation that allows leaders to effect positive change and betterment. The person, the individual is built not upon the shoulders of giants, but ordinary people - our ancestors and peers. ...

Axes in hand and mind
...
PJ Dec 2010