Disease
I wonder what we'll do when we realize that for every pathogen we think we've conquered as many will arise as need be to fulfill the functions of those we've eliminated. Just beyond that and the awareness that disease is a form of natural population control is the realization that an uncontrolled population is it's own greatest danger, which means disease is good, in the sense of being purposeful and beneficial in the grand scheme. Most of us have no problem with these basic tenets until the disease results in death, especially the death of someone we know, especially someone we love.
Perhaps beyond the realization that disease is good we'll find that even death is good. Perhaps that will open the door to finding death in ease, not needing all the pain and trauma of disease or accident to allow ourselves to pass from this life to the next. And there will always be a next life. Life could not exist without death, but neither can death exist without life. If when we pass from these bodies there is nothing else then we must hope that we've lived each moment as we saw fit and death has not harmed or helped us any more than any other life experience; it has simply come to pass in the course of things. It seems to me more reasonable and there is more evidence to suggest that when we pass from these bodies, while we still hope to have lived as has seemed best to us, every aspect of us moves on to something new, a new type of life. The body is of course passed back to the Earth and used by her and her many denizens as fuel and building material, recycled over and over again until it's been broken down into it's most basic elements and taken up again into some plant, which will somewhere along the line either die and give those elements back to the Earth or be eaten by some animal which will then either incorporate them into it's own body until it dies and begins the process again or perhaps pass them along through an entity to which the animal gives birth, and that infant will in it's time either pass those elements along or die, and the cycle continues. The spirit and mind follow the same patterns, but our present science is not capable of quantifying that progression. For most Earthly entities this is not a concern - their brains and neural networks or whatever approximates those things in a given type of body (animal, plant, fungi, protozoan, what-have-you) are designed to experience life in a given manner, to collect whatever data is pertinent to doing so and utilize it to fulfill their purpose. The human being is unique in that it's brain is designed to question, seek reason(s), and look to the past and the future in an analytical way, so we wish to understand what happens to those other aspects of ourselves as intimately as we're coming to understand what happens on the physical level both in life and death. The spiritual and mental aspects of death, as of life, are found in and followed through faith and reason respectively. Faith, in accepting that there are those things which it's not our individual lot to know at a given time, and reason, in which we integrate that which we know with that which we can't know and follow them to their logical and illogical conclusions. Each of us is going to find faith in those things, voices, and ideas that prove themselves out to us over time, and each of us is going to subscribe to our own set of reasons according to our experience, knowledge, attitude, and mindset, just as each of us decides what parts of modern science we'll accept as comprehensive and accurate.
So getting back to the topic at hand, it's commonly accepted in many, perhaps even most circles, that stress is a significant factor in disease. As we work at reducing stress in our lives and our worlds, perhaps a closer look at death is called for. Perhaps much of the disease our elderly experience is connected to their awareness of death's approach, whether through worry and expectation or that feeling some have, that still small voice that tells them it's nearly time to go (explaining the disparity of length as well as variability of age of onset and pathology of diseases) and the surrounding uncertainty and general unease with the concept. The elderly of many cultures go out willingly, many still in seeming good health or at a level of health from which our culture would consider it a sin not to retrieve them, and simply wait for death's arrival when they feel it's appropriate for their community. Some consider it an honor to die in war. Few object morally to accidental death, although the cause of the accident may play a significant part in the opinions of others as to the honor or dishonor of an individual's passing in such a case. When a death is truly accidental it seems to me most reasonable to treat it as one of the things that belong in a realm in which morality is not taken into account. Not all issues are issues of good and evil, and of those which can be debated in that light there are few reasons for doing so, the most common purpose appearing to be that of dividing groups of people into opposing camps. The space between then often becomes a battleground. Using the issue of life and death as an example, we have those who consider all life to be sacred and believe that it must be preserved at all costs, and those who toss it away as carelessly as many discard a used tissue or an orange rind. In between are the majority, those who feel that some life is worth preserving and some is expendable. These folks are divided along lines of which lives are which, does life begin at conception, ought it to end when nature brings death? Whose nature, and what level of and segment of their nature? Everyone has an opinion on such things. How do we define whose judgement is correct? The majority? Which majority? God? Whose God? And what about the opinions of atheists, where does one count those if God is judge? Does self decide? What do we do when my opinions differ from yours? How much disease in those areas of the world where selfishness and selflessness are out of balance is the result of trying to see to our own needs and desires and those of our households while keeping in mind and heart the needs and desires of our neighbors and communities, our societies and our worlds? Where the incidence of disease is low we find nearly infinite configurations from places where the individual accepts that he or she is merely a cog in a machine to places where there is almost no direction. The former can become very large but individuals will invariably arise who desire to be seen and treated as such and when there are enough such individuals in any society they'll begin a swing back toward balance or catalyze the society's destruction (perhaps to rise again, perhaps not, and perhaps to return transformed). The latter are rarely if ever successful beyond a given size as the chaos within such a society rattles it apart from within in short order. They may splinter into more small groups, simply disintegrate, or be absorbed into a larger, more directed society. In between are many forms of governance available to the modern human as is seen in the many successful societies around the world, and even in our global community, but the point is that no one approach is ever going to be the right one for everyone.
The same is true with death. For some it's appropriate to extend life at all costs, to preserve anything that may be construed as life in any way. For others it's appropriate to completely disregard the concept of life entirely, or to see it as at worst a hindrance and at best a nuisance. The majority, again, will fall somewhere in the middle, see some forms and degrees of life as worthy, even sacred, and others as moot or even pesky. Perhaps a part of the cure for disease is creating a world in which there's room for all of us, one way or another. Perhaps death is not the enemy. Perhaps there is no inherent enemy and maybe there's no reason that every conflict has to be or become a war. Is it really getting us anywhere, this chronic state of illness, or might we be more productive, happier, more contented and fulfilled, and at the same time freer, more confident, inventive and uninhibited, kinder and more well-mannered. This is not to say the rude would not be with us, and the crass and unfriendly, but when we respond to rudeness with kindness we, at least, do not create more of the same ill feeling the other person has brought us, and at best may prompt that individual to find something kinder and gentler within and toward him- or herself. Either fosters both the personal and greater good. A third option, to respond with more rudeness or another ill-tempered action, whether due to anger or frustration or whatever negative emotions arise within us as a result of the other person's actions, serves largely to create ill feeling within ourselves (which, left unaddressed may result in chronic disease) and often creates a ripple effect in our wider world, just as does acting through positive emotions but in a more chaotic, even destructive way. In the context of this posting, relating disease to death, perhaps it's not the proximity of death that creates illness around it for us, but acting through our negative emotions toward it, fear, anger, sadness and the rest. Of course, it's not the only thing that prompts us to negative action, thus it wouldn't be the only issue around which disease would be born in the body, and sometimes disease strikes those who seem least to deserve it and approach death faithfully and fearlessly. Perhaps those entities choose to be examples to us of the aplomb with which one is able to approach the end of life when life is lived in the way we feel is best within a community that sees our worth. Perhaps the truest way to honor them is to seek the message in their lives and their deaths, to feel them near and in ourselves and our friends and loved ones and ponder what it means if it's true they're still with us. What do we want to leave when it's our time to pass, angst and grief, joy and loving memories, some reasonable, human combination of the two, perhaps? If our energy does not go on, fine, at least we've surrounded ourselves with the best in each moment we have. If it does, what kind will it be?
Much love
Peace
Perhaps beyond the realization that disease is good we'll find that even death is good. Perhaps that will open the door to finding death in ease, not needing all the pain and trauma of disease or accident to allow ourselves to pass from this life to the next. And there will always be a next life. Life could not exist without death, but neither can death exist without life. If when we pass from these bodies there is nothing else then we must hope that we've lived each moment as we saw fit and death has not harmed or helped us any more than any other life experience; it has simply come to pass in the course of things. It seems to me more reasonable and there is more evidence to suggest that when we pass from these bodies, while we still hope to have lived as has seemed best to us, every aspect of us moves on to something new, a new type of life. The body is of course passed back to the Earth and used by her and her many denizens as fuel and building material, recycled over and over again until it's been broken down into it's most basic elements and taken up again into some plant, which will somewhere along the line either die and give those elements back to the Earth or be eaten by some animal which will then either incorporate them into it's own body until it dies and begins the process again or perhaps pass them along through an entity to which the animal gives birth, and that infant will in it's time either pass those elements along or die, and the cycle continues. The spirit and mind follow the same patterns, but our present science is not capable of quantifying that progression. For most Earthly entities this is not a concern - their brains and neural networks or whatever approximates those things in a given type of body (animal, plant, fungi, protozoan, what-have-you) are designed to experience life in a given manner, to collect whatever data is pertinent to doing so and utilize it to fulfill their purpose. The human being is unique in that it's brain is designed to question, seek reason(s), and look to the past and the future in an analytical way, so we wish to understand what happens to those other aspects of ourselves as intimately as we're coming to understand what happens on the physical level both in life and death. The spiritual and mental aspects of death, as of life, are found in and followed through faith and reason respectively. Faith, in accepting that there are those things which it's not our individual lot to know at a given time, and reason, in which we integrate that which we know with that which we can't know and follow them to their logical and illogical conclusions. Each of us is going to find faith in those things, voices, and ideas that prove themselves out to us over time, and each of us is going to subscribe to our own set of reasons according to our experience, knowledge, attitude, and mindset, just as each of us decides what parts of modern science we'll accept as comprehensive and accurate.
So getting back to the topic at hand, it's commonly accepted in many, perhaps even most circles, that stress is a significant factor in disease. As we work at reducing stress in our lives and our worlds, perhaps a closer look at death is called for. Perhaps much of the disease our elderly experience is connected to their awareness of death's approach, whether through worry and expectation or that feeling some have, that still small voice that tells them it's nearly time to go (explaining the disparity of length as well as variability of age of onset and pathology of diseases) and the surrounding uncertainty and general unease with the concept. The elderly of many cultures go out willingly, many still in seeming good health or at a level of health from which our culture would consider it a sin not to retrieve them, and simply wait for death's arrival when they feel it's appropriate for their community. Some consider it an honor to die in war. Few object morally to accidental death, although the cause of the accident may play a significant part in the opinions of others as to the honor or dishonor of an individual's passing in such a case. When a death is truly accidental it seems to me most reasonable to treat it as one of the things that belong in a realm in which morality is not taken into account. Not all issues are issues of good and evil, and of those which can be debated in that light there are few reasons for doing so, the most common purpose appearing to be that of dividing groups of people into opposing camps. The space between then often becomes a battleground. Using the issue of life and death as an example, we have those who consider all life to be sacred and believe that it must be preserved at all costs, and those who toss it away as carelessly as many discard a used tissue or an orange rind. In between are the majority, those who feel that some life is worth preserving and some is expendable. These folks are divided along lines of which lives are which, does life begin at conception, ought it to end when nature brings death? Whose nature, and what level of and segment of their nature? Everyone has an opinion on such things. How do we define whose judgement is correct? The majority? Which majority? God? Whose God? And what about the opinions of atheists, where does one count those if God is judge? Does self decide? What do we do when my opinions differ from yours? How much disease in those areas of the world where selfishness and selflessness are out of balance is the result of trying to see to our own needs and desires and those of our households while keeping in mind and heart the needs and desires of our neighbors and communities, our societies and our worlds? Where the incidence of disease is low we find nearly infinite configurations from places where the individual accepts that he or she is merely a cog in a machine to places where there is almost no direction. The former can become very large but individuals will invariably arise who desire to be seen and treated as such and when there are enough such individuals in any society they'll begin a swing back toward balance or catalyze the society's destruction (perhaps to rise again, perhaps not, and perhaps to return transformed). The latter are rarely if ever successful beyond a given size as the chaos within such a society rattles it apart from within in short order. They may splinter into more small groups, simply disintegrate, or be absorbed into a larger, more directed society. In between are many forms of governance available to the modern human as is seen in the many successful societies around the world, and even in our global community, but the point is that no one approach is ever going to be the right one for everyone.
The same is true with death. For some it's appropriate to extend life at all costs, to preserve anything that may be construed as life in any way. For others it's appropriate to completely disregard the concept of life entirely, or to see it as at worst a hindrance and at best a nuisance. The majority, again, will fall somewhere in the middle, see some forms and degrees of life as worthy, even sacred, and others as moot or even pesky. Perhaps a part of the cure for disease is creating a world in which there's room for all of us, one way or another. Perhaps death is not the enemy. Perhaps there is no inherent enemy and maybe there's no reason that every conflict has to be or become a war. Is it really getting us anywhere, this chronic state of illness, or might we be more productive, happier, more contented and fulfilled, and at the same time freer, more confident, inventive and uninhibited, kinder and more well-mannered. This is not to say the rude would not be with us, and the crass and unfriendly, but when we respond to rudeness with kindness we, at least, do not create more of the same ill feeling the other person has brought us, and at best may prompt that individual to find something kinder and gentler within and toward him- or herself. Either fosters both the personal and greater good. A third option, to respond with more rudeness or another ill-tempered action, whether due to anger or frustration or whatever negative emotions arise within us as a result of the other person's actions, serves largely to create ill feeling within ourselves (which, left unaddressed may result in chronic disease) and often creates a ripple effect in our wider world, just as does acting through positive emotions but in a more chaotic, even destructive way. In the context of this posting, relating disease to death, perhaps it's not the proximity of death that creates illness around it for us, but acting through our negative emotions toward it, fear, anger, sadness and the rest. Of course, it's not the only thing that prompts us to negative action, thus it wouldn't be the only issue around which disease would be born in the body, and sometimes disease strikes those who seem least to deserve it and approach death faithfully and fearlessly. Perhaps those entities choose to be examples to us of the aplomb with which one is able to approach the end of life when life is lived in the way we feel is best within a community that sees our worth. Perhaps the truest way to honor them is to seek the message in their lives and their deaths, to feel them near and in ourselves and our friends and loved ones and ponder what it means if it's true they're still with us. What do we want to leave when it's our time to pass, angst and grief, joy and loving memories, some reasonable, human combination of the two, perhaps? If our energy does not go on, fine, at least we've surrounded ourselves with the best in each moment we have. If it does, what kind will it be?
Much love
Peace
Comments
Post a Comment