Picking up sticks: when axes matter ii

This past week at WCCS26, I've put Hodges' model itself on the work-, or more properly the inspection bench. Now, referring back to the - 'Our broken sticks' c/o Roger Lewin "Complexity: life at the edge of chaos" post, perhaps a theatre table is required. That is, as I try to examine the model, take it apart, have a look at the bits - as far as they are. And, what about the question posed in the above post?

'If we take the axes of Hodges' model, and break them at twenty-five points, I wonder what we end-up (or start) with?'

If there are twenty-six sticks, well, amongst other things - we've made quite a mess. But, there's more going on.

There may be some kind of idealised symmetry, or is it equality between the necessary, or projected length of the I-G axis. That is, as it extends for the INTERPERSONAL and SOCIOLOGICAL domains. But is there equivalence, in a default sense, for the SCIENCE and POLITICAL domains? Or am I (once again) overthinking? If medicine, health and by implication social care are bio-psycho-social, then surely we have a structural problem? Not only that, but we see a boundary, partition ... axis - in action. In Hodges' model the axes have two parts, two sides, so they are in effect composite. If the bio-psycho-social model is true, in whatever senses we wish to declare, derive or pursue in research (the literature, logic, practice, political expediency, or realism ...), then the group axis is incomplete. 

Hodges' model: Structure and Content - Axes and Domains

Is this literally why health care systems are so difficult to design, develop, establish and sustain? Think about that too, please. Is this why we as individuals rely on a functioning (caring) society and political systems? Is this why health care systems can suddenly be faced with collapse, as geopolitics has revealed. Vulnerability, becomes more than an individual characteristic and experience; when nations are dependent upon others for their funding, organisation, logistics, personnel, continuity and more. As a result, many understandably want to break with this socio-political and coloanial legacy.

Is there something in the sentence above in italics, that we can actually utilise to help define the foundation of Hodges' model? Again, not wanting to sound grandiose, but is there an axiom hidden in there? Even as 'health' is the inevitable election issue. The irony of this! Even if the politics of health and health in politics is not so much hidden as often denied. History reveals the influence of triage on the battlefield on the emergence of medicine and surgery. The future is here now. There is a political fight to follow for health in all its manifest forms. So here is another post to return to.