Hi All,

I have an interest in doing a review on the history of anatomy, specifically to look at how some if the ideas in dissection and naming muscles has evolved. My interest in this regard stems from the problems that are occurring in the evolving field of functional anatomy. There has been significant difficulty in describing moving and loading tolerances etc through the common isolated muscle approach. I do not have a background in philosophy, but have gained a recent interest and was wandering if such an analysis could be done using the ideas of Derrida's deconstructive approach. Any ideas in this regard would be much appreciated.

Kind regards,

Phillip

this sounds like an idea pursuing, are you able to provide some recommended readings?
...
Yes, I have often seen him reference and read a biography but never any original work, which may be worth pursuing.

There has been significant difficulty in describing moving and loading tolerances etc through the common isolated muscle approach.

including differential equations but its not overwhelming.

cheers will follow this up

Can you say a little more about the following:

There has been significant difficulty in describing moving and loading tolerances etc through the common isolated muscle approach.

I have only a vague idea of what you are saying here. Can you say a little more. I think it's an interesting example plus this post needs an anchor or it will drift off into generalities.

Assessments of tissues tolerance in terms of loading have been way off the mark. For example the spine has been calculated to only tolerate a 60 kg deadlift, yet the world record is in excess of 450kg, this is not a small discrepancy. In regard to movement there are many ideas and they are often conflicting, for example there are at least three different ideas of the optimal functioning of the lumbar spine. These included the spinal engine theory, inner and outer unit, and bracing. All of which are conflicting but have evidence to support there use.

Well clearly the spine does not perform the dead lift all by itself and there are other variables or else there are a few extreme outlying individuals that have supper strong spines which is silly so I vote for the former.

Sorry, I meant the spine and related tissues. Essentially we are way off the mark in predicting the breaking point load wise.


These type of questions will have answers when adequate mathematical models have been developed that fit the data. I think you'll find the right mindset in Bertalanffy and maybe some inspiration but you won't find the final equations there.

interestlingly many of the functional anatomy models have not used a mathematical foundation, but have looked at different ways the parts of the system relate, examples include the anatomy trains, contractile feilds, and inner and outter unit. These all use different metaphor as a starting point as well.



Perhaps philosophy can help by shaking one out of ones preconceptions but in the end I think it comes down to finding that mathematical model and philosophy can offer no royal road to that model.

Systems get very complex very quickly the more variables are added. For one famous example it is easy enough to calculate the gravitational relationship and movement of two objects but add a third object and the problem becomes exceedingly difficult. The human body is easily more complex.