Too true. I couldn't put it better myself. I sometimes think this point of view can be applied to health matters: what's the point of knowing what's wrong with you when doctors can rarely do anything about it? Ignorance is bliss, I say.
Oooh - beautiful icon. Whoo. That just perked up my morning.
Your comment absolutely reflects most of my long experience with doctors. What they can do is put a name to the ailment. Only with age and experience have I realized how totally useless that is.
I realized that young, but then my mother was always this way. She grew up with an over-obsessie mother (about medical things) and pretty much went the other way completely, lol.
My mother had a lot of faith in doctors, despite having numerous bad experiences with them - but her father was a doctor, and her brother, and that seems to have predisposed her to trust them.
I don't trust them at all, but for various reasons I keep going to them for wha tails me, and I do what they tell me - a mammogram every two years, the various tests and pills - even though I think it is highly unlikely to enhance my life, my health, or my odds of death. Why? Societal indoctrination. No, not even that. It's easier to do it than to resist it. So I do it.
Yeah, my mom pretty much doesn't trust them and I learned that from her. Her mother trusted them too much and died either way, so I think for my mother it was a disappointment.
Sorry! I've got two LJs and thought I'd commmented from this one earlier today. Well, if you liked the 'shooting2kill' picture what about this one? I think it's my favourite. *This* is the one which reminds me of something from Mount Rushmore.
I think the true answer is: you never know where you will find help. You will almost certainly not find any help in falsehood. In truth you may or may not find hope, but falsehood can only lead to false hope.
And the line doesn't say there is never hope in truth; just that it's discouraging when truth doesn't offer help.
I'm still working on that one, but currently my definition of spirituality is something like "balance of the psyche with the universe" - i.e., any practice that makes the outer world and the inner world closer together. My current definition of religion is 'shared belief in gods or higher beings, especially as delineated by tradition or teachings or holy books'.
If I think hard enough and long enough, I may be able to do better than that.
I think my problem is that I consider myself spiritual (not religious) but I do believe along the lines of Christianity, but I feel I'm completely intelligent and have no problem in saying that I just like believing in those things, short of evidence (wow, that was a lot of 'buts').
Does this make me emotionally immature? I hope not.
I think my problem is that I consider myself spiritual (not religious)
What distinction do you make there? do you agree with my definition or do you have a different one?
I do believe along the lines of Christianity
I would maybe have said at one time that I was Christian - at least the kind of "non-fundmentalist, interpret the Bible as metaphor" kind of Christian that my parents were. Then one day I found myself reading the Apostle's Creed and realized that I didn't believe any single part of it. In fact, I thought it came very close to being gibberish. There is very little in Christianity that I do actually believe in, except a few basics that combine kindness with common sense. (It also seems to me that there is much more cruelty in the Bible than there is kindness.)
And please don't think I'm trying to attack your faith - I'm just explaining my reasoning and my reaction.
That was when I stopped telling myself I was (or could be) a Christian.
I feel I'm completely intelligent
Well, so you are. No doubts on that score.
have no problem in saying that I just like believing in those things, short of evidence
That's why they call it 'faith'.
Does this make me emotionally immature?
Not necessarily, no. But surely you have met many religious people who did seem emotionally immature, especially with regard to their religion? Pepole with not just faith, but totally unreasoning credulity in anything that they could interpret as religion? I certainly have.
There are many Christians I admore greatly, of course. Who were mature, wise, brilliant and wise. But there's no one I admire just because they were Christian. (At least, I can't think of any one.)
Not necessarily, no. But surely you have met many religious people who did seem emotionally immature, especially with regard to their religion? Pepole with not just faith, but totally unreasoning credulity in anything that they could interpret as religion? I certainly have.
Quite frankly, I think that's why I don't call myself religious, lol. I consider those kinds of people religious. Possibly unfair to people truly devoted short of being a fundamentalist, but that's how I've always labeled it.
I consider myself spiritual because my beliefs are not entirely associated with a single organized religion. They do heavily line up with Christianity, but I was taught my beliefs initially in the home (not through a church) and then developed my own version as I grew up and re-thought things (still) and combine them with other beliefs, so any church I've attended I generally find myself disagree with something.
I do, though, pretty much believe along the lines of the Apostles Creed, which is why I call myself Christian.
I agree that there is more cruelty than kindness in the Bible. It seems to me that it reads somewhat like humanity's history: a lot of wars, killing, and cruelty but with some kind people making a difference.
truth is never an end, you can always search further. I meant, don't stop neccessarily at this truth before you (like in medical situation, you have illness X you die in a year) but look for other answers. Not ad infinitum, knowing when to stop and surrender is the hard part.
Also, truth changes. Situations change. In the medical context, for example, it may be true that a person has inoperable cancer, for example; it may also be true that the person recovers completely without surgery. The past doesn't chance, but understanding of it may change - a truth may be still a partial truth, when the whole truth (if such a thing is even possible) would clarify still more.
Perhaps the maxim should be: the truth may be dreadful, but fear of the truth is worse.
knowing when to stop and surrender is the hard part.
I think there are two attitudes to this, both psychologically valid. I was going to say, both philosophically valid, then realized I wasn't sure what that would mean.
The first is to never surrender, like Dylan Thomas: "Do not go gentle into that good night/...Rage, rage against the dying of the light."
The other approach is to accept and let everything flow over you as if reality were a river and you were a pebble on the bottom, smoothed and eventually assimilated by the water.
I don't find myself able to choose which approach is better - even for myself. I suppose I'm more of an accepter than a rager, though I respect the ragers all the more because I'm not temperamentally one of them. Only maybe I am, in some ways.
I think there are two attitudes to this, both psychologically valid.
well, as said, my attitude tends to waver/bounce/cirkel somewhere in between. Rage, rage yes, but endless raging is too much for me, accepting, yes sometimes, somethings when they cannot be changed. But somethings cannot be changed (or it looks like it) and still I would not want to roll over (roll over both as in a derogatory way of describing cowardly surrender as in the much more gracefull and usefull way of an aikido master)
Since you placed it in the context of medical issues. I have been told I have 3 incurable disseases, non fatal as such though one may have fatal consequences. Each time I search for ways to find my way between the rage and the flowing of acceptance. I find it a hard way, but I doubt that choosing only one would suit me.
(Note, I think this has drifted a bit from the quote, but still. I think I am adverse to absolutes. though the quote has chilling beauty to it. And now you've placed it in context even more so)
Rage, rage yes, but endless raging is too much for me, accepting, yes sometimes, somethings when they cannot be changed.
Seems to me that fighting the disease is sometimes the best course (even if it can't really be fought) and that acceptance is sometimes the best course. What are your incurable diseases? Scleroderma, Epstein-Barr and candidiasis would be mine, though I think/hope they are gone, diminished, or under control. All are (at least currently) non-fatal, but life itself is fatal, and any one of them could get me in the end. Or I could be run over by a truck. Who knows?
I like your phrasing - that the Sophocles quote has a 'chilling beauty'. I think for me the power of it is in recognition - the sense that sometimes the truth is dreadful, and that this is one of the great truths of drama: the moment when Hamlet learns his father was murdered, or when Achilles sees the body of Patroclus, or when Lymond gives the command for the little boy to die. Some truths are unbearable, but still have to be dealt with - even if it's only like Juliet, waking to see Romeo dead and then killing herself.
On this scale of literary truth, acceptance and raging are two sides of the same coin - and so, I suppose, is reconciling the two, or raging and then accepting later, which is probably the most common reaction. Or the converse, accepting first, raging afterwards.
What are your incurable diseases? Scleroderma, Epstein-Barr and candidiasis would be mine, though I think/hope they are gone, diminished, or under control. All are (at least currently) non-fatal, but life itself is fatal, and any one of them could get me in the end.
propiospinal myoclunus, non fatal, not tatally disabling but to a certain agree. I have tics all over my body (though technically they orriginate in the spine) so at times I cannot drink a full cup of coffee (ask for halves) can't hold a book in my hands, get people staring at me and making silly remarks (oh I thinks it is so brave of you to be here ). This waxes and wanes, never know when it will appear though tiredness, noise, flickering lights and sudden touches are all potential triggers.
The other is post concussional syndrome. To be honest, I've not been told that is life long, but that with every year it persists the changes of it totally disappearing dimminish and that after 5 years you better accept it. It is 7 years now. (symptoms, near constant headache, extreme high muscletone in neck an shoulder area, migraines)
Now is it time to tell about the miracle drug I got prescribed for illness 3: Depakine (valproic accid). It is an anti convulsant also used as moodstabilisator and as such I got it prescribed for my bipolar disorder (=manic depression). The universe was nice to me. Unexpetedly this drug also helped against the myoclonus and against the near permanent headache I had had for 5 years at the time I started taking it (since my concussion). (alas, not sufficiently for the bipolar, but he, shouldn't get greedy)
So the potential fatal of the 3 is bipolar, 15% of people diagnosed die from suicide. The average life expectancy is 12 years shorter compared to same agegroup. (both due to suicide, comorbidity and detrimental effects of drugs, poor self care during depression and higher accident rate). I did forget an other lifelong illness, namely the syndrome of Hashimoto, a thyroid problem. As long as you have it monitored properly it shouldn't form that much of a problem. And today I went to the hospital to deliver a urinesample so they can check me for diabetes insipidus. Not fatal either.
propiospinal myoclunus - interesting. I never had any kind of tic except when I was on anti-depressant medicine; when I started to take Zoloft I got strange, violent jerks sometimes, especially when I was tired, especially in my spinal column, making my whole torso jerk. It was weird but not frequent - mostly happened late in the evening when I was at home so it was no big deal. It ended when I stopped taking the pills. Since the pills were actually working to control the depression, it was a small price to pay.
A near-permanent headache sounds like a horrible thing, and I've suffered from migraines myself - usually when stressed.
I can see that bipolar would be the worst.
In my teens I was diagnosed with low thyroid and given pills that I was told I would need all my life. I stopped taking them, and survived. Now the doctors say my thyroid is 'low normal' and I don't need pills. Okay. Whatever they say. Perhaps my thryroid overcame its problems. I don't know.
I got strange, violent jerks sometimes, especially when I was tired, especially in my spinal column, making my whole torso jerk. It was weird but not frequent - mostly happened late in the evening when I was at home so it was no big deal.
At the times I had it realy bad I had tics days on end, sometimes a whole hour continuously and then a bit of respite, sometimes a few every 5 minutes or so. Since I had many in my neck (bang the head goes forward and backwards, ouch) I also became realy sore at such times. Oh well, I survived.
I am not trying anything with thyroid, I am soo suspectable for depression, and the thyroid pills are a version of the body's own hormones. If I don't take them I might wel need more of the other mood influencers, and I am allready taking 3 of those. (lithium, depakine and seroquel) Better the thyroipills I think.
Oh the diabetes is a different type, it is not the well known diabetes mellitus but a kidney disease (thank you lithium for introducing me in the wonderfull world of kidneydisseases). As such disseases go it is not very bad, but not having it would be best I think.
Truth is the best thing we have. We have to learn to live with it.
Well - the alternative is unthinkable!
it's a line of drama: which character said it and when?
It's from Oedipus Rex. The speaker is Teiresias. I found the context after a bit of a Google hunt: "Teiresias is warning Oedipus that the answers that he is seeking will not help him, but actually hurt him. This quote is spoken by Teiresias to Oedipus when Oedipus is pestering Teiresias for his knowledge of who killed King Lauis in Scene 1 of Oedipus Rex." - From http://classblogmeister.com/blog.php?blogger_id=15898.
I would guess that the point is that horrific truths may be dreadful and horrible, but we still can't evade them because the truth is the truth.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-08-14 02:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-14 02:39 pm (UTC)Your comment absolutely reflects most of my long experience with doctors. What they can do is put a name to the ailment. Only with age and experience have I realized how totally useless that is.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-14 05:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-14 06:12 pm (UTC)I don't trust them at all, but for various reasons I keep going to them for wha tails me, and I do what they tell me - a mammogram every two years, the various tests and pills - even though I think it is highly unlikely to enhance my life, my health, or my odds of death. Why? Societal indoctrination. No, not even that. It's easier to do it than to resist it. So I do it.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-14 09:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-14 08:39 pm (UTC)Oh, I'm so pleased. It's a bit Mount Rushmoreish isn't it? Big, bad, beautiful Bodie.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-14 08:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-14 09:27 pm (UTC)The one with the gun is best, though.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-15 01:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-14 03:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-14 04:55 pm (UTC)And the line doesn't say there is never hope in truth; just that it's discouraging when truth doesn't offer help.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-14 03:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-14 03:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-14 04:56 pm (UTC)In fact there is nothing to stop people from being emotionally immature under all sorts of circumstances, worse luck!
no subject
Date: 2006-08-14 05:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-14 06:04 pm (UTC)If I think hard enough and long enough, I may be able to do better than that.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-14 09:57 pm (UTC)I think my problem is that I consider myself spiritual (not religious) but I do believe along the lines of Christianity, but I feel I'm completely intelligent and have no problem in saying that I just like believing in those things, short of evidence (wow, that was a lot of 'buts').
Does this make me emotionally immature? I hope not.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-14 10:11 pm (UTC)What distinction do you make there? do you agree with my definition or do you have a different one?
I do believe along the lines of Christianity
I would maybe have said at one time that I was Christian - at least the kind of "non-fundmentalist, interpret the Bible as metaphor" kind of Christian that my parents were. Then one day I found myself reading the Apostle's Creed and realized that I didn't believe any single part of it. In fact, I thought it came very close to being gibberish. There is very little in Christianity that I do actually believe in, except a few basics that combine kindness with common sense. (It also seems to me that there is much more cruelty in the Bible than there is kindness.)
And please don't think I'm trying to attack your faith - I'm just explaining my reasoning and my reaction.
That was when I stopped telling myself I was (or could be) a Christian.
I feel I'm completely intelligent
Well, so you are. No doubts on that score.
have no problem in saying that I just like believing in those things, short of evidence
That's why they call it 'faith'.
Does this make me emotionally immature?
Not necessarily, no. But surely you have met many religious people who did seem emotionally immature, especially with regard to their religion? Pepole with not just faith, but totally unreasoning credulity in anything that they could interpret as religion? I certainly have.
There are many Christians I admore greatly, of course. Who were mature, wise, brilliant and wise. But there's no one I admire just because they were Christian. (At least, I can't think of any one.)
no subject
Date: 2006-08-14 10:27 pm (UTC)Quite frankly, I think that's why I don't call myself religious, lol. I consider those kinds of people religious. Possibly unfair to people truly devoted short of being a fundamentalist, but that's how I've always labeled it.
I consider myself spiritual because my beliefs are not entirely associated with a single organized religion. They do heavily line up with Christianity, but I was taught my beliefs initially in the home (not through a church) and then developed my own version as I grew up and re-thought things (still) and combine them with other beliefs, so any church I've attended I generally find myself disagree with something.
I do, though, pretty much believe along the lines of the Apostles Creed, which is why I call myself Christian.
I agree that there is more cruelty than kindness in the Bible. It seems to me that it reads somewhat like humanity's history: a lot of wars, killing, and cruelty but with some kind people making a difference.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-15 12:38 am (UTC)do, though, pretty much believe along the lines of the Apostles Creed, which is why I call myself Christian.
Yes, exactly! To me that's the make-or-break thing.
It seems to me that it reads somewhat like humanity's history
Yes. So much of it is history. The history of a faith. And what people did, good or bad.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-15 01:16 am (UTC)Yes, it is quite to the point, LOL.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-14 04:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-14 03:54 pm (UTC)Truth is the best thing we have. We have to learn to live with it.
Also, it's a line of drama: which character said it and when? I suspect it's not meant to be an impartial maxim.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-14 04:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-14 05:12 pm (UTC)Perhaps the maxim should be: the truth may be dreadful, but fear of the truth is worse.
knowing when to stop and surrender is the hard part.
I think there are two attitudes to this, both psychologically valid. I was going to say, both philosophically valid, then realized I wasn't sure what that would mean.
The first is to never surrender, like Dylan Thomas: "Do not go gentle into that good night/...Rage, rage against the dying of the light."
The other approach is to accept and let everything flow over you as if reality were a river and you were a pebble on the bottom, smoothed and eventually assimilated by the water.
I don't find myself able to choose which approach is better - even for myself. I suppose I'm more of an accepter than a rager, though I respect the ragers all the more because I'm not temperamentally one of them. Only maybe I am, in some ways.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-14 06:32 pm (UTC)well, as said, my attitude tends to waver/bounce/cirkel somewhere in between. Rage, rage yes, but endless raging is too much for me, accepting, yes sometimes, somethings when they cannot be changed. But somethings cannot be changed (or it looks like it) and still I would not want to roll over (roll over both as in a derogatory way of describing cowardly surrender as in the much more gracefull and usefull way of an aikido master)
Since you placed it in the context of medical issues. I have been told I have 3 incurable disseases, non fatal as such though one may have fatal consequences. Each time I search for ways to find my way between the rage and the flowing of acceptance. I find it a hard way, but I doubt that choosing only one would suit me.
(Note, I think this has drifted a bit from the quote, but still. I think I am adverse to absolutes. though the quote has chilling beauty to it. And now you've placed it in context even more so)
no subject
Date: 2006-08-14 06:47 pm (UTC)Seems to me that fighting the disease is sometimes the best course (even if it can't really be fought) and that acceptance is sometimes the best course. What are your incurable diseases? Scleroderma, Epstein-Barr and candidiasis would be mine, though I think/hope they are gone, diminished, or under control. All are (at least currently) non-fatal, but life itself is fatal, and any one of them could get me in the end. Or I could be run over by a truck. Who knows?
I like your phrasing - that the Sophocles quote has a 'chilling beauty'. I think for me the power of it is in recognition - the sense that sometimes the truth is dreadful, and that this is one of the great truths of drama: the moment when Hamlet learns his father was murdered, or when Achilles sees the body of Patroclus, or when Lymond gives the command for the little boy to die. Some truths are unbearable, but still have to be dealt with - even if it's only like Juliet, waking to see Romeo dead and then killing herself.
On this scale of literary truth, acceptance and raging are two sides of the same coin - and so, I suppose, is reconciling the two, or raging and then accepting later, which is probably the most common reaction. Or the converse, accepting first, raging afterwards.
personal medical interlude in highbrow discussion
Date: 2006-08-14 07:31 pm (UTC)propiospinal myoclunus, non fatal, not tatally disabling but to a certain agree. I have tics all over my body (though technically they orriginate in the spine) so at times I cannot drink a full cup of coffee (ask for halves) can't hold a book in my hands, get people staring at me and making silly remarks (oh I thinks it is so brave of you to be here ). This waxes and wanes, never know when it will appear though tiredness, noise, flickering lights and sudden touches are all potential triggers.
The other is post concussional syndrome. To be honest, I've not been told that is life long, but that with every year it persists the changes of it totally disappearing dimminish and that after 5 years you better accept it. It is 7 years now. (symptoms, near constant headache, extreme high muscletone in neck an shoulder area, migraines)
Now is it time to tell about the miracle drug I got prescribed for illness 3: Depakine (valproic accid). It is an anti convulsant also used as moodstabilisator and as such I got it prescribed for my bipolar disorder (=manic depression). The universe was nice to me. Unexpetedly this drug also helped against the myoclonus and against the near permanent headache I had had for 5 years at the time I started taking it (since my concussion).
(alas, not sufficiently for the bipolar, but he, shouldn't get greedy)
So the potential fatal of the 3 is bipolar, 15% of people diagnosed die from suicide. The average life expectancy is 12 years shorter compared to same agegroup. (both due to suicide, comorbidity and detrimental effects of drugs, poor self care during depression and higher accident rate).
I did forget an other lifelong illness, namely the syndrome of Hashimoto, a thyroid problem. As long as you have it monitored properly it shouldn't form that much of a problem. And today I went to the hospital to deliver a urinesample so they can check me for diabetes insipidus. Not fatal either.
Re: personal medical interlude in highbrow discussion
Date: 2006-08-14 08:27 pm (UTC)A near-permanent headache sounds like a horrible thing, and I've suffered from migraines myself - usually when stressed.
I can see that bipolar would be the worst.
In my teens I was diagnosed with low thyroid and given pills that I was told I would need all my life. I stopped taking them, and survived. Now the doctors say my thyroid is 'low normal' and I don't need pills. Okay. Whatever they say. Perhaps my thryroid overcame its problems. I don't know.
Good luck with the diabetes test!
Re: personal medical interlude in highbrow discussion
Date: 2006-08-14 08:41 pm (UTC)At the times I had it realy bad I had tics days on end, sometimes a whole hour continuously and then a bit of respite, sometimes a few every 5 minutes or so. Since I had many in my neck (bang the head goes forward and backwards, ouch) I also became realy sore at such times. Oh well, I survived.
I am not trying anything with thyroid, I am soo suspectable for depression, and the thyroid pills are a version of the body's own hormones. If I don't take them I might wel need more of the other mood influencers, and I am allready taking 3 of those. (lithium, depakine and seroquel) Better the thyroipills I think.
Oh the diabetes is a different type, it is not the well known diabetes mellitus but a kidney disease (thank you lithium for introducing me in the wonderfull world of kidneydisseases). As such disseases go it is not very bad, but not having it would be best I think.
Re: personal medical interlude in highbrow discussion
Date: 2006-08-14 09:31 pm (UTC)Ah, complaints, complaints. I'm sure we will both muddle through.
As such disseases go it is not very bad, but not having it would be best I think.
Being perfectly healthy in all ways would be best of all! If only.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-14 05:03 pm (UTC)Well - the alternative is unthinkable!
it's a line of drama: which character said it and when?
It's from Oedipus Rex. The speaker is Teiresias. I found the context after a bit of a Google hunt: "Teiresias is warning Oedipus that the answers that he is seeking will not help him, but actually hurt him. This quote is spoken by Teiresias to Oedipus when Oedipus is pestering Teiresias for his knowledge of who killed King Lauis in Scene 1 of Oedipus Rex." - From http://classblogmeister.com/blog.php?blogger_id=15898.
I would guess that the point is that horrific truths may be dreadful and horrible, but we still can't evade them because the truth is the truth.