Alright folks, today's topic: health. What is it?
After 3 years giving massages in Paris, I have to come out of the closet: massages are not the Graal to health. Yep sorry. Actually, some people are consuming massages the way they would consume anything - without paying attention, having the misconception that something branded "healthy" that they pay (and believe me, they pay :)) for should provide them with a certain quality of being.
I actually heard of someone who got sued from one of her regular attendee because she had cancer. In a gesture of anger, and refusal, she preferred to sue her massage therapist in order to have someone to blame for it. That's unfortunate, not to mention pointless and wasteful. But indeed, it illustrates some of the rather poor ideas some of us have on health. So let me randomly banter on that topic.
1. Health is the absence of disease.
In a society (the French society) famous for its disdain for the body, and its high medication consumption, it could seem that health is merely the absence of inconvenience in this singular vehicle that transports us from important thing to importantest thing.
The body, from which some were ashamed, is just there to function quietly, and we only acknowledge it whenever it hurts.
And then, what shall we do?
Fix it. With allopathy, surgery, prayer when needed, and then bam - go back home, you're fixed.
But are you? My first-hand knowledge, somehow augmented by the trust with which people have told me about their own stories, has shown me that it's not always the case. Actually, any systemic change is not neutral. It is not as if you could go back to the state of equilibrium (the homeostasis) that you had before. The whole body has changed and so have you. Especially since many people have to continue treatment after an intervention - with all the side effects that we know - or don't know about.
A study, that I should find has wondered what are the criteria that can account for a good healing process. What accounts for a difference between, let's say, Mrs M and Mrs U, both the same age, suffering from the same cancer? Family, stability, etc., play a part. But the perspective, the desire to do something specific after the disease has been distinguished as decisive. Well I really should find this study. So anyway this was just a point made in the direction of "on the margin, health is a merely individual thing that cannot be fully comprehended from the outside."
On top of that, many interventions do act on the symptom, but not necessarily the cause - for which osteopathy is allegedly a good remedy, considering its insistence on homeostasis, and on which traditional medicines like ayurveda or chinese medicine insist. The main difference lies in the fact that in our general conception, there is a certain lack of interest for super deep anamnesis of them patient. Not that it's not done or that health professionals don't care for that, but there is a certain lack of time, interest and a certain reluctance to invade the privacy of someone, and maybe a lack of interest for the patient that might account for this. There is also a segmented comprehension of the individual that can not take into account all aspects of someone's life. This is less perceptible in more traditional arts of healing since they actually start from the individual, not from the disease. It has its drawbacks as well: moralistic or intolerant understandings, lack of scientific proof, probable placebo effect, etc.. We mostly know about those too.
2. The body is something that I am in relation to - it's not me.
These medicine have an integrative approach - according to which the human being is a complex system of interactions, between mind, body and soul, and for which everything has an influence: your diet, your environment, your spiritual state, what you do, who you are, what your relationships are, etc. Needless to say there is a lot to discuss there, especially the more conservative aspects of these approaches, but it is indeed relevant because it never - as we do - disembodies the human being - separates it in livers, knees, jobs, sexuality, diabetes, etc.
As I went through surgery, I had a difficult time trying to find a surgeon that would consider me something else than a walking limb with insurance. An incredibly difficult time. I postponed some appointments because I didn't trust these people, I didn't feel ready, all these vaporous "emotional" and quite "feminine" notions. It struck me how unquestioned these - very competent - members of the medical body were. Most of them of course are quite busy, and have financial imperatives that probably gets in the way of their oath. I can't really blame them, they are the product of a medical culture that has, for a long time, put little emphasis on empathy, integrative theories, and has promoted the most driven, ambitious people - some of them by the sake of curing, some less. Also, many of them have absolutely no idea what's happening in their own bodies - do not ever feel them.
I struggled to find one that actually looked at me. Talked to me, and considered the fact that it was not just a broken limb that was there - it was a part of me.
Because that's what it is, and that's what we sometimes don't want to see. We are no different from our bodies. We are it - and every part of it is sensitive - and can be joyful and fresh, as much as we are these superior instincts or reflexions (that, of course, we are not only).
Consider that: man would actually be divided between a body, a mind, and well, a soul? My experience tells me that it's not exactly like that. Of course these are categories that we use to describe some subtle or less subtle differences of let's say, the shape of consciousness. But these only come a posteriori, these are just classifications. As we distinguish between ice and water - even though it's always just water. I am my body, and I'm not it. If I identify with it, relate to it, and point at it saying "that's me", that's not right. But as long as I inhabit my life, I inhabit my body, it is not different - because there's no reflexive me saying anything about it.
In reality, and anyone who has had troubles, and then has lived fully can attest, it's a permanent interaction. My body reflects what I do with it. This of course is dependent on what's on my mind, and, ultimately, what type of habits, and drive, I have recognized and allowed to influence my existence. None of it is rigid, fixed, or given.
3. Health can be produced by will / force
True, apparently, and false, deeply. Even though it is true that exercice, a proper diet and a stable life are essential to health, it seems to me that we have overly dwelled on this - and developed all sorts of intensive fitness / protein diets, while sometimes leaving aside the fact that it actually comes the other way round. Many people have a very combative approach to this - while I guess that once you give up on this type of conformity (becoming the best yogi / the fittest man in the room, etc.), real health can emerge. That a proper sense of belonging, of care, of the importance of our lives, of the fact that we have (and we do) some creative things to do here, that we can trust our intelligence, our perception, and that we can count on each other conveys almost automatically all the right habits.
Again, speaking from my own experience with cigarettes, alcohol and drugs, I've noticed how much I felt I needed them when my life was kind of endlessly doomed to be this conformist, forced, inadequate existence. Whenever I feel a lack of connection, whenever I put myself in a situation that I don't like, or relate to, the part of my brain that found an escape in drugs is awoken.
But whenever I gave up, really, and said to myself: you know what? Fuck it I don't know and I can't control whatever's gonna happen, I'll just have to trust it - everything felt lighter, and the idea of drinking myself to a stage of unconsciousness seems so completely irrelevant that it has no longer any power. It is actually the inside burn of truthfulness that drives me - and puts real order in my life. This also led me to infinite reflexions on power - as a form of subjugation.
And this works for me as much as it works for others. Or some others, who talked to me about this.
4. What is it then?
The WHO defines it as "a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity."
I would also add to that that it is produced by a recognition of our deepest personal aspirations, and a willingness to let it act on us - to embody it. This, of course, means a lot for our societies - because we have to be able to provide an environment that renders health possible for each other. And if we consider it as a whole, needless to say that there is a lot that we should question. Our health insurance system, our approach to sickness, our submission to the power of pharmaceutical companies, our lack of responsibility in our own health, our refusal to see that all this has only been made possible because we give up our current state of well-being way too often for future hypothetical rewards - and then, well, we have to fix ourselves, to fix our system, to fix what actually causes our troubles.
Let me end this first glimpse of conversation with a wonderful post by Parker Palmer, quoted by the nonetheless wonderful Brain Pickings, the author insists on embracing our inner wholeness - which, to me, is where health starts:
After 3 years giving massages in Paris, I have to come out of the closet: massages are not the Graal to health. Yep sorry. Actually, some people are consuming massages the way they would consume anything - without paying attention, having the misconception that something branded "healthy" that they pay (and believe me, they pay :)) for should provide them with a certain quality of being.
I actually heard of someone who got sued from one of her regular attendee because she had cancer. In a gesture of anger, and refusal, she preferred to sue her massage therapist in order to have someone to blame for it. That's unfortunate, not to mention pointless and wasteful. But indeed, it illustrates some of the rather poor ideas some of us have on health. So let me randomly banter on that topic.
1. Health is the absence of disease.
In a society (the French society) famous for its disdain for the body, and its high medication consumption, it could seem that health is merely the absence of inconvenience in this singular vehicle that transports us from important thing to importantest thing.
The body, from which some were ashamed, is just there to function quietly, and we only acknowledge it whenever it hurts.
And then, what shall we do?
Fix it. With allopathy, surgery, prayer when needed, and then bam - go back home, you're fixed.
But are you? My first-hand knowledge, somehow augmented by the trust with which people have told me about their own stories, has shown me that it's not always the case. Actually, any systemic change is not neutral. It is not as if you could go back to the state of equilibrium (the homeostasis) that you had before. The whole body has changed and so have you. Especially since many people have to continue treatment after an intervention - with all the side effects that we know - or don't know about.
A study, that I should find has wondered what are the criteria that can account for a good healing process. What accounts for a difference between, let's say, Mrs M and Mrs U, both the same age, suffering from the same cancer? Family, stability, etc., play a part. But the perspective, the desire to do something specific after the disease has been distinguished as decisive. Well I really should find this study. So anyway this was just a point made in the direction of "on the margin, health is a merely individual thing that cannot be fully comprehended from the outside."
On top of that, many interventions do act on the symptom, but not necessarily the cause - for which osteopathy is allegedly a good remedy, considering its insistence on homeostasis, and on which traditional medicines like ayurveda or chinese medicine insist. The main difference lies in the fact that in our general conception, there is a certain lack of interest for super deep anamnesis of them patient. Not that it's not done or that health professionals don't care for that, but there is a certain lack of time, interest and a certain reluctance to invade the privacy of someone, and maybe a lack of interest for the patient that might account for this. There is also a segmented comprehension of the individual that can not take into account all aspects of someone's life. This is less perceptible in more traditional arts of healing since they actually start from the individual, not from the disease. It has its drawbacks as well: moralistic or intolerant understandings, lack of scientific proof, probable placebo effect, etc.. We mostly know about those too.
2. The body is something that I am in relation to - it's not me.
These medicine have an integrative approach - according to which the human being is a complex system of interactions, between mind, body and soul, and for which everything has an influence: your diet, your environment, your spiritual state, what you do, who you are, what your relationships are, etc. Needless to say there is a lot to discuss there, especially the more conservative aspects of these approaches, but it is indeed relevant because it never - as we do - disembodies the human being - separates it in livers, knees, jobs, sexuality, diabetes, etc.
As I went through surgery, I had a difficult time trying to find a surgeon that would consider me something else than a walking limb with insurance. An incredibly difficult time. I postponed some appointments because I didn't trust these people, I didn't feel ready, all these vaporous "emotional" and quite "feminine" notions. It struck me how unquestioned these - very competent - members of the medical body were. Most of them of course are quite busy, and have financial imperatives that probably gets in the way of their oath. I can't really blame them, they are the product of a medical culture that has, for a long time, put little emphasis on empathy, integrative theories, and has promoted the most driven, ambitious people - some of them by the sake of curing, some less. Also, many of them have absolutely no idea what's happening in their own bodies - do not ever feel them.
I struggled to find one that actually looked at me. Talked to me, and considered the fact that it was not just a broken limb that was there - it was a part of me.
Because that's what it is, and that's what we sometimes don't want to see. We are no different from our bodies. We are it - and every part of it is sensitive - and can be joyful and fresh, as much as we are these superior instincts or reflexions (that, of course, we are not only).
Consider that: man would actually be divided between a body, a mind, and well, a soul? My experience tells me that it's not exactly like that. Of course these are categories that we use to describe some subtle or less subtle differences of let's say, the shape of consciousness. But these only come a posteriori, these are just classifications. As we distinguish between ice and water - even though it's always just water. I am my body, and I'm not it. If I identify with it, relate to it, and point at it saying "that's me", that's not right. But as long as I inhabit my life, I inhabit my body, it is not different - because there's no reflexive me saying anything about it.
In reality, and anyone who has had troubles, and then has lived fully can attest, it's a permanent interaction. My body reflects what I do with it. This of course is dependent on what's on my mind, and, ultimately, what type of habits, and drive, I have recognized and allowed to influence my existence. None of it is rigid, fixed, or given.
3. Health can be produced by will / force
True, apparently, and false, deeply. Even though it is true that exercice, a proper diet and a stable life are essential to health, it seems to me that we have overly dwelled on this - and developed all sorts of intensive fitness / protein diets, while sometimes leaving aside the fact that it actually comes the other way round. Many people have a very combative approach to this - while I guess that once you give up on this type of conformity (becoming the best yogi / the fittest man in the room, etc.), real health can emerge. That a proper sense of belonging, of care, of the importance of our lives, of the fact that we have (and we do) some creative things to do here, that we can trust our intelligence, our perception, and that we can count on each other conveys almost automatically all the right habits.
Again, speaking from my own experience with cigarettes, alcohol and drugs, I've noticed how much I felt I needed them when my life was kind of endlessly doomed to be this conformist, forced, inadequate existence. Whenever I feel a lack of connection, whenever I put myself in a situation that I don't like, or relate to, the part of my brain that found an escape in drugs is awoken.
But whenever I gave up, really, and said to myself: you know what? Fuck it I don't know and I can't control whatever's gonna happen, I'll just have to trust it - everything felt lighter, and the idea of drinking myself to a stage of unconsciousness seems so completely irrelevant that it has no longer any power. It is actually the inside burn of truthfulness that drives me - and puts real order in my life. This also led me to infinite reflexions on power - as a form of subjugation.
And this works for me as much as it works for others. Or some others, who talked to me about this.
4. What is it then?
The WHO defines it as "a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity."
I would also add to that that it is produced by a recognition of our deepest personal aspirations, and a willingness to let it act on us - to embody it. This, of course, means a lot for our societies - because we have to be able to provide an environment that renders health possible for each other. And if we consider it as a whole, needless to say that there is a lot that we should question. Our health insurance system, our approach to sickness, our submission to the power of pharmaceutical companies, our lack of responsibility in our own health, our refusal to see that all this has only been made possible because we give up our current state of well-being way too often for future hypothetical rewards - and then, well, we have to fix ourselves, to fix our system, to fix what actually causes our troubles.
Let me end this first glimpse of conversation with a wonderful post by Parker Palmer, quoted by the nonetheless wonderful Brain Pickings, the author insists on embracing our inner wholeness - which, to me, is where health starts:
As teenagers and young adults, we learned that self-knowledge counts for little on the road to workplace success. What counts is the “objective” knowledge that empowers us to manipulate the world. Ethics, taught in this context, becomes one more arm’s-length study of great thinkers and their thoughts, one more exercise in data collection that fails to inform our hearts.
I value ethical standards, of course. But in a culture like ours — which devalues or dismisses the reality and power of the inner life — ethics too often becomes an external code of conduct, an objective set of rules we are told to follow, a moral exoskeleton we put on hoping to prop ourselves up. The problem with exoskeletons is simple: we can slip them off as easily as we can don them.
[…]
When we understand integrity for what it is, we stop obsessing over codes of conduct and embark on the more demanding journey toward being whole.
(...)
What we name it matters little to me, since the origins, nature, and destiny of call-it-what-you-will are forever hidden from us, and no one can credibly claim to know its true name. But that we name it matters a great deal. For “it” is the objective, ontological reality of selfhood that keeps us from reducing ourselves, or each other, to biological mechanisms, psychological projections, sociological constructs, or raw material to be manufactured into whatever society needs — diminishments of our humanity that constantly threaten the quality of our lives.
Commentaires
Enregistrer un commentaire