Essentialism versus Anthroposophy in the ontology of health

Essentialism & logical positivism do not have any ontological history, nor otherwise anything else in common with Biodynamics, but for one thing, they were able to both prove, with statistical significance, the positive effects of Biodynamics.

Essentialism & logical positivism frame a subject quicker and more easily understandable. While putting the subject at matter into a logical perspective, they do not observe their subjects to their full interrelated extent. Biodynamics’ anthroposophy, on the other hand, draws parallels to existentialism and Goethean science with a very strong aptitude to phenomenological propositions and empirical research, meaning it observes complex interrelations of its subjects rather than reducing it to a few essentials.

Biodynamic farmers try and apprehend the environment in all its aspects and consciously do not chose a ‘quick fix’. The reductionist approach of essentialism is the core of our conventional and simple approach to solving problems. By not considering the deeper complexities, we have damaged the environment for many decades and partly destroyed one of our most important resources, our soils. The consequences show up everywhere, especially in our health. We are what we eat, we eat what comes from the soil and so the health of our soil is 100% congruent to the health we have. This means that we need to fix the way we approach our soils, for our own healthy body and mind!

The progressive growth and domination of value chains have heavily influenced, without our taking notice, the way we consume in established and growing economies. Their focus on high carbohydrate products which favour monoculture, has further exacerbated the problem, with the same repercussions for both soil and human health. A needed paternalist approach to conserveing the soil is next to non-existent. We must patronage the caring potential which exists within smaller producers and family farmers; especially now where we have the worst custodians of land, massive farming cooperations. Produce is no more local and engineered to look perfect but is outright void of necessary nutrients.

We clearly haven’t grasped the extent of health and environmental damage done, and our science continues to mostly, bar a few hopefuls here and there, follow the broad-based methodology of essentialism and reductionism. In building our new world, we will only fix our problems and have the ability to progress into further dimensions of potential, if we and our sciences start to adopt a more phenomenological approach. When we step back from our simple, artless, yes lofty problem solving methods, and embrace a larger joint research method, relying on bigger numbers of scientific thought with the ambition of utilizing phenomenon, rather than pushing for an explication, we will be able to reach out much further into the unknown depths of complex interrelations.

This will finally make us understand the intricacies of current major scientific challenges such as fusion and quantum physics, which requires, in my mind, a new philosophic understanding of consciousness to enable progress in this field. An enormous world of exciting discoveries awaits us and because of its vastness, it will be exceptionally exciting to discover it bit by bit, especially when we see things happen, that in our world and our frameworks otherwise should never happen! 

That is why I do what I do: I help people unlock their true calling and then help them build a business around that through design; engineering around their talents magnetically attractive products to which clients naturally gravitate..