macrophages, logic and bio-logic

The French are, at least in part, a hippophagous people.  Caterpillars are phyllophagous, and, with population growing,

humans will soon be entomophagous.  Yes, it’s not hard to guess, the Greek root phagein means “to eat.”  It might be horses. It might be leaves.  It might be insects. In each case, there is an eater and an eaten.

Something similar occurs on the cellular level. The eater in this case is a type of white blood cell.  It becomes a “big eater,” a “macrophage.” Despite their formidable name,

macrophages are mostly an organism’s friend. What they eat are intruders and trouble makers, nasty bacteria, parasites, rogue cells. Macrophages thus provide protection. They serve an important function.

In official philosophical terminology, this end-directed, or goal-directed activity has a specific name, “teleology.”  We shiver, for example, when cold. This helps us keep warm. Ditto, but in reverse, for perspiration. Dr. Walter B.

Cannon’s well known book Wisdom of the Body, detailed the various processes contributing to, here comes another big word, “homeostasis.” It means keeping the body’s key activities within an established, familiar (“homeo”) and stable (“stasis)  range.

Walter B. Cannon was even willing, as we saw above, to speak of “wisdom” as the body preserved its harmonious, well-functioning operations.  At one time, the “big eaters,” the macrophages, fit well within this paradigm. Their activity, gobbling up troublemakers, made of them a sort of poster child for the “wisdom of the body.” Then came a bit of trouble.  

It turns out that, for some ailments, macrophages actually aggravate the problem. Atherosclerosis, autoimmune disorders, and even cancers provide the best-known examples. When it comes to cancers, the “big eaters” should be  “tumoricidal.” Instead, they often become “tumorigenic,” fostering tumor growth.

Just as Cannon used a human descriptor “wisdom” to describe our physiological functioning, so Barbara Eherenreich in a recent book discussing macrophages, also uses human descriptors. Hers, though, are negative. She speaks of macrophages as “treasonous,” as having a “mind of their own.”  The “wisdom” of the body may thus need to be rethought. Instead of the smooth functioning of harmoniously interacting components, the organism should be seen as a “battleground where its own cells and tissues meet in  mortal combat.”

At the same time there is something discomforting about alternating between harmonious “wisdom” and all-out combat.  It would be good, Ehrenreich thinks, to have a new paradigm, one moving away from the sharp utopian or dystopian models.

She could be helped by taking a page from the realm of food. Salt, sugar, fat.  Are they good

for us? “Yes, assuredly.” Are they bad for us? “Definitely.” It’s not all that unusual for the same factor to embody both beneficient and maleficient possibilities. The technical term for this comes from ancient Greek.  The word is pharmakon.  It means both “drug, in the medical sense, and “drug” in the sense of poison.

Humans seem to have a natural aversion to holding opposites together. In strict formal logic the contradictory claims “sugar is good” and “sugar is bad” simply can’t coexist.

Logically, a pharmakon makes no sense.   Bio-logically it’s fairly prevalent. Logic may be neat and clean, but life if often messy, context-sensitive, subject to contingencies,  and full of surprises. In logic, strict determinism is assumed. In bio-logic it’s all about probabilities.

Using metaphors is hard to avoid. But they can be misleading. An organism is not a “machine.”

At the same time, it is not a conscious being able to possess “wisdom.” It can’t be “treasonous.” The same thing, sugar or a macrophage, in conjunction with an organism, can be both beneficient and maleficient.  

If a paradigm switch is needed it’s one in the direction of a favorite phrase of Aristotle, a biology-inspired philosopher: “always or for the most part.”  Today, we might tweak it a bit and say “usually, or for the most part.”

Neither pure determinism nor sheer randomness, neither peaceful harmony or treasonous betrayal can faithfully describe organic operations.  The biological realm need not follow any other pattern, certainly not that of machines; not that of generous-spirited or nasty humans. The biological is sui generis, unique and complicated. Teleological flexibility in light of homeostatis is real.  It works well “usually or for the most part.” The pharmakon dimension is also real. What is good can also be bad.

Flexibility and pharmakon as pivots of a new paradigm can help make good sense of “usually or for the most part.” For a long time philosophers were fascinated with certitude. This might work well in deductive logic.  However, in bio-logic, it’s all about probabilities. Start with a large enough sample, recognize flexibility, admit a pharmakon dimension, and atherosclerosis, diabetes, arthritis and various cancers will appear in the population. It’s not about wisdom having failed or treason succeeding. It’s just about bio-logic.