Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘health’ Category

Just over a month ago we had a brief but intense storm which did a bit of damage, including snapping the stem of this tomato plant. Most of the plant was at right angles to its base, but there was a thin sliver of stem still connected. So I got out a rather unorthodox gardening tool – gaffer tape – and taped it up around the break. (Reminded me of putting plasters on broken arms and legs!) And look at it now!

We had the first of the ripe tomatoes the other day and they were delicious.

Now part of me is just amazed at the resilience of plants, but mostly it makes me think about a fundamental characteristic of all living creatures, including human beings.

A new concept in science, and biology, started circulating a couple of decades ago. It goes by the name of “complex adaptive systems“. Basically, this applies to all forms of life because they all have vast interconnected networks of cells and molecules. When you get these vast networks certain characteristics appear, and, in the case of living organisms that includes “self-making capacity”, termed “autopoiesis” by Maturna and Varela. That means the ability to make itself, which encompasses growth, repair and reproduction. I find it a more useful term than the old “homeostasis” used in biology and Medicine, which suggested the maintenance of a stable, internal environment, but didn’t capture the key features of repair, growth and reproduction.

There’s an older term, not used very much in Medicine (I don’t know why), which is the ability to “self-heal”. I think self-healing is just an aspect of autopoiesis.

This is exactly what the story of this tomato plant demonstrates. The capacity of a living organism to heal, to repair, and to grow again – given the right support. And here’s the nub of what I want to say – that’s what we doctors actually do – we support self-healing. At least, that’s what we do when we don’t cause harm!

Yet it’s common to think that doctors can heal, that they can cure diseases. And it’s common for people to believe that drugs do that. They heal. They cure. Except they don’t.

Neither doctors nor drugs heal or cure.

What they do (optimally) is support self-healing. It is ALWAYS the organism which heals itself. There is no healing, no cure, without autopoiesis doing what it does. Which isn’t to say it can always do that all by itself. Nope, it might need help. That help, however, is not a substitute for self-repair and self-healing.

Good treatments can do one of two things – they can nurture the conditions for self-healing, or, they can directly stimulate some aspect of it.

Maybe it would be good to remind ourselves of that. The power of healing lies in the natural functions of the complex adaptive system. I think it’s worthwhile considering that when undertaking any form of treatment. Is this treatment going to nurture the conditions for my self-healing, or harm them? Is it going to directly stimulate some aspect of my self-healing, and, if not, then what is it doing?

Of course, there’s also a lot more to think about than just treatments. What nurtures the conditions for autopoiesis in my life? And what impairs it? That takes us into a whole related area of the environment, of food, movement, relationships, adequate housing and finance……what comes up for you when you start to consider that?

Read Full Post »

One of my most favourite cities is Segovia, in Spain. Perhaps its most striking feature is the Roman aqueduct. It begins as a pretty average sized wall, then column by column, arch by arch it gets bigger and bigger and bigger, straddling the town below until it reaches the old castle.

In this first part houses have been built on each side of it. I don’t think I’ve ever come across such an astonishing structure running right down the middle a street!

One of the first of the town’s squares lies at the foot of the aqueduct just as it reaches its greatest height.

I find this SO inspiring! Here’s what it got me thinking last time I was there…..

Throughout my career as a doctor I saw time as linear. Perhaps because the second half of my working life was in a specialist centre for people with chronic (long term) conditions, I commonly heard patients tell me of the traumas which they had experienced prior to becoming unwell.

I was never someone who bought into a mechanical, linear view of human beings, or of life. Every patient I met convinced me that all these chronic ailments are multi-factorial. You could never say that “this” caused “all that”. But there was one question I frequently found revelatory.

“When were you last completely well?”

Sounds an easy question, huh? But, actually, it was often difficult, and took some time and conversation to find the time, perhaps even several decades ago, when the patient last felt completely well. I’d then ask about the year the patient moved from wellness to illness.

“Tell me about that year”.

It was often a year of significant trauma, or the culmination of many traumas. I don’t think that meant that the patient’s illness could all be attributed to that trauma, but it was a starting point in making sense of their experience and beginning to find the way forward.

Sometimes patients were clearly stuck with these unresolved hurts. Again and again they’d think about those times, feel bad about them all over again. Others were so traumatised that they were living lives of fear, continually looking ahead and wondering “what if….?” “what might happen?” “how will I cope if….?” and things like that.

In both of these scenarios I’d draw a straight line – and say, the left hand point of this line is your date of birth, the right hand, the date of your death. We know the first, and have no way of knowing the second. But right now, today, you are somewhere along that line. Where is your attention? Where is your focus? Because if it’s to the left of today, it’s in the past, and that doesn’t exist any more, except in your memory. If it’s to the right, it’s in the future, and that only exists in your imagination. You can’t have your attention in more than one place at a time, so what if you draw your attention into the present instead? How might that feel? And we’d then explore ways of living more in the present reality, than in the past traumas and future fears.

I think it was often helpful, but now it seems somewhat simplistic to me. Because I now see time is not as linear as I thought. In fact, seeing cycles and seasons of time makes rather more sense to me now. As I experience a place like Segovia I realise that the past doesn’t go away. It doesn’t disappear into memory. (and memory is not an artificial place anyway….it’s no dusty filing cabinet with the drawers all locked)

Rather the past is always present, always here, and always now. It fashions our every day. It colours our every experience. It sets the tone of today. It constantly challenges us to respond to it, to adapt. In fact, that’s how we learn isn’t it? By having an awareness of the past in the present? If we forgot and discarded everything we experienced how could we learn anything? We adapt by carrying with us the past into the present.

And although this is even more challenging, the future is here now too. Not least because the future is, in one sense, a “multiplicity of singularities” – a set of possible paths, which are, at least in part, fashioned by this present moment, and by each and every decision and action.

I don’t think the past goes away. I don’t think the old “time heals” is true in the sense that it makes the past go away. Instead I think we learn to adapt to it. When we become aware of the past in our everyday we have the opportunities to create new responses, new strategies of living under it’s influence.

OK, so, this is not where I thought this post would go when I pasted in those photos of the aqueduct! But here’s a related thought – how does the presence of the past in today, as we see in this colossal aqueduct stretching over Segovia, shape, fashion, influence, inspire, challenge, stimulate the thoughts, feelings and actions of the people living there?

And so, of course, even when the past isn’t as obvious as this aqueduct, how does it’s presence today influence our experience of today?

Here’s the final part of that story – we don’t heal just by shifting our focus, we heal by becoming aware, aware of the past AND the future IN this present day, and realising we can change how we respond to that. Realising our current patterns aren’t fixed. We can alter them.

Read Full Post »

I recently visited the Chateau de Clos Lucé in Amboise, in the Loire valley. This is where Leonardo da Vinci spent the last years of his life. He was invited to live there by François I in 1516. The king provided Leonardo with a place to live, 700 gold ecus a year, and financed his works, in turn for the pleasure of his company and daily discussions with him. Leonardo only lived three more years, dying in 1519, which is why, on this 500th anniversary year of his death, the chateau is hosting a major exhibition of his work. (As an aside I find it fascinating and inspiring that Leonardo was given free range “to dream and work” – what kind of society could we have if we funded creatives and academics to “dream and work” together, without goals, funding applications or publication demands?)

There are a number of Leonardo quotations around the chateau and the gardens. This one caught my eye –

You know that medicines when well used restore health to the sick: they will be well used when the doctor together with his understanding of their nature shall understand also what man is, what life is, and what constitution and health are. Know these well and you will know their opposites; and when this is the case you will know well how to devise a remedy.

After a lifetime career in Medicine, I’m less sure now that medicines do “restore health to the sick”. I think it’s biology which restores health. Human beings are complex adaptive systems, and all such organisms have both “self-healing” and “self-making” capacities. The best medicines stimulate those natural processes of healing. The next best support the processes. Many of the ones we use reduce symptoms, or reverse an imbalance in the body, both of which are reasonable goals and acts, but are they directly involved in restoring health to the sick? Do you think that’s just semantics? I don’t. I’d have a hope for the future that we’d develop the treatments which really do support and stimulate the natural processes of healing, and that’s what Leonardo says, in other language, at the end of that quotation – “when this is the case you will know well how to devise a remedy”.

When what’s the case?

Oh, yes, understand “what man is, what life is, and what constitution and health are”.

Ah! Well, there lies both the problem and the signposts to the solutions…..

A couple of years into my work as a General Practitioner I started to wonder what health is. Nobody taught us what health is at university, and the clinical training of a young doctor focuses on learning diagnostic and therapeutic techniques – identifying pathologies and treating disease states. I went back and looked at my Clinical Medicine textbooks. I searched the index for “health” – no entries. Nope, not one. That set me off on an exploration, looking for an understanding of what health is. The medical school textbooks were no help. Oh yes, there was that old World Health Organisation definition –

“a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”

But all that really does is substitute the word “well-being” for “health”. It does suggest health is multidimensional – physical, mental and social – and it does suggest health is something positive, not just the absence of disease or infirmity. But does it really take us much further that irritating “Brexit means Brexit”?

While researching the issue of the absence of health in medical textbooks, I discovered there was a kind of parallel anomaly….biology textbooks didn’t have a definition of life. Really? Well, yes, it wasn’t uncommon to find a biology textbook without the word life appearing in the index.

So what is life?

One of the more satisfying descriptions I read was from Maturana and Varela’s, living organisms demonstrate a “self-making” capacity, which they termed “autopoiesis” and that lead me down the path of the complexity scientists and their definition of “complex adaptive systems”. I still find that a good starting place.

That leaves us with two more areas to explore, according to Leonardo. What is man? and What is a constitution? Remember he was writing 500 years ago, and we would probably now say “What is a human?”, rather than “what is man?”. Let’s leave constitution aside for just now, as it’s pretty embedded in the issues of what is a human and what is health?

What is a human being?

There have been a couple of books published recently which put this question centre stage again. Douglas Rushkoff’s “Team Human“, and Paul Mason’s “Clear Bright Future“. Both of these books are concerned about the impact of technology on human beings and on our societies. Rushkoff says –

being human is a team sport. We cannot be fully human, alone. Anything that brings us together fosters our humanity. Likewise, anything that separates us makes us less human, and less able to exercise our will.

In other words, he focuses on the innate sociability and need to act co-operatively in human beings. I’ve heard Paul Mason say at least two interesting definitions of what is a human – human beings “use energy to counter entropy” – in other words we are a creative species. And human beings are “co-operative, imaginative and linguistic” – the combination of which makes us a unique species.

All of these ideas are interesting to me. And I find it refreshing that these questions are coming to the fore now. Surely this is a timely and positive response to the mechanical, data and statistics driven reductionism which is so utterly de-humanising.

I continue to explore what it means to be human, and I find some of the more impressive answers in the works of philosophers, from the classical schools to Spinoza, Bergson and Deleuze (to name just a few!)

Of course, I could write about this for hours! Ha! Ha! But I’ll stop here and leave the possibility that these are questions you might like to pursue for yourself.

Let me summarise – because I think this is a lifetime project as well as potentially the basis for a whole curriculum –

  • What is Life?
  • What is a human being?
  • What is health?

The answers which appear from those studies could, possibly, give us the remedies of the future – the ones which actually do “restore health to the sick” – and, yes, more than that, allow us to create healthier societies filled with people who fulfil their potentials, creatively, co-operatively, and artistically…..can I even say “spiritually?”

Read Full Post »

I was reading an interview with Harvard historian, Anne Harrington, who has written “Mind Fixers: Psychiatry’s Troubled Search for the Biology of Mental Illness”.

When I was at university I was taught there were two types of depression – reactive and endogenous – the former occurring in response to specific events, and the latter seen as an illness of internal origin. It was thought that talking therapies, as they’ve come to be called, were the best way of dealing with reactive depression but that endogenous was a biological problem which required drugs. One of the main themes which emerged from that thinking was the serotonin theory of depression which was the basis for the great commercial success of Prozac, a drug which influenced the levels of serotonin in the brain.

Well, it all changed. Psychiatrists stopped distinguishing between “reactive” and “endogenous” and moved to thinking of all depression as biological and, hence, all requiring treatment with drugs.

But that didn’t last. As Anne Harrington describes, in the late 90s, “a range of of different studies increasingly seemed to suggest that these antidepressants – although they’re helping a lot of people – when compared to placebo versions of themselves, don’t seem to do much better.” As the “gold standard” of drug effect is its performance over that of placebo, and drug after drug was shown not to be that much better, it got harder and harder to bring new drugs onto the market. She says –

“But it doesn’t mean that the drugs don’t work. It just means that the placebo effect is really strong. But the logic of clinical trials is that the placebo effect is nothing, and you have to be able to better than nothing. But of course if the placebo effect isn’t just nothing, then maybe you need to rethink what it means to test a drug”

This is the same observation as Irving Kirsch made in his “Emperor’s New Drugs”. In that book he drew a graph which I found very impressive –

 

 

The point he was at pains to make was the same as Anne Harrington’s – well, actually, he was trying to emphasise that just because the drugs didn’t seem much more effective than placebo didn’t mean that doctors should stop prescribing them. But the main point, I think, is –

Placebo is not nothing

It seems crazy to me that people make decisions about whether or not a treatment should be offered to patients solely on the basis of its statistical difference to placebo if those decisions then lead to the withdrawal of treatments which were helping thousands of patients.

If the placebo effect is not the same as doing nothing (and it is clear that it is NOT the equivalent of doing nothing) then we should be exploring just what it is. That will involve moving on from the stigma of trickery, because that’s how the placebo effect has been portrayed. “Dummy pills”, “inactive pills”, “mock treatments” producing real life changes in the patients who receive them, only to reveal to them that, ha! ha! you got nothing!

I think it’s interesting that it is in the area of psychiatry that this debate has emerged. Because we know something of the power of placebo on our mental states. But as we are whole, body/mind, non-dual beings. What influences our mental states, influences our bodily functions too. Placebo effects are not restricted to changes in mental states, they are seen throughout the body, influencing organs, cells and circulating levels of natural chemicals.

Here’s the other thing – if placebo is NOT the same as doing nothing but a drug doesn’t show a substantial and significant benefit over placebo, then what else can we offer the patient? What else will be at least as powerful as placebo, but less harmful than the drug?

What about exercise, nutrition, the creation of significant social relationships, engagement with natural environments, meditation, learning how to handle our emotions for starters? And not forgetting demanding that we do something about the conditions in which more and more chronic illnesses are emerging – both mental and physical – poverty, poor housing, inequality, polluted environments, industrial, chemical methods of agriculture and food production and so on – have a look at the perspective I described in “There still aren’t enough”, and in “Inequality and health”.

Read Full Post »

cordes sur ciel

There’s a lot of talk about the increasing strain on health services, something I’ve addressed here.

One of things that bothers me about these discussions is the assumption that increasing funding and resources to the health care system will result in a healthier population, which will, in turn, reduce the demand on the health services. This has never happened. And it’s not likely to happen.
The health of a population mainly comes down to how we live, not to the medicines we swallow or how quickly we can get an operation. Let me just clarify that I’m not arguing against more resources and funds for the health service, we need that to improve them. It’s just that this isn’t a way to create a healthier population and so reduce demand.
To create a healthier population we need to invest in what creates better lives. Better lives for as many people as we can.
There are many ways to do this. But let’s start with housing. Because decent housing, warm, weather-proof, houses with enough living space, clean, running water, an efficient sanitation system, and affordable, reliable power, is a foundation for healthier lives.
Would anyone argue otherwise?
If people are homeless, or living in insanitary, unsafe, overcrowded conditions, then they are more likely to get sick – both in the short term, with infections, and in the longer terms, with chronic, inflammatory conditions. I’m not going to list references here. Google these issues for yourself. But I am going to claim that adequate shelter is a necessary first step to better health for a population.

There are many factors and problems to consider here, but I just want to focus on one – waste – the number of abandoned and/or unused dwellings in every town and city.
When I think about this I can’t help also becoming aware of “high streets” full of empty, abandoned shops and offices. So, let’s take that into consideration too. Because when the town centres empty of commerce they aren’t only dying, depressing and, possibly, dangerous, but they represent a huge waste of opportunity for people to work and live together. We need shops, offices, workshops, cafés, restaurants, exhibition and performance venues, to have a healthy community. It’s no good just building lots of apartments in streets which are devoid of the possibilities for people to meet, share, and work together.

Take a walk around the streets where you live, both the residential streets where you dwell, and the town streets you visit most often for shops, offices, cafés, restaurants, and so on.
How many properties are sitting closed up and seemingly abandoned?
At the same time, are there homeless people in your locality? The homeless might be obvious sitting or lying on the pavements, in the doorways of closed shops, or they might be invisible to you, struggling to get by in bedsits, guest houses or hostels. What about decent housing? Is there anyone living in sub-standard, even unsafe properties? Is there anyone housed in overcrowded conditions with landlords maximising their income by minimising the personal living space of their tenants? Are the streets of your town vibrant, filled with people socialising and satisfying their daily needs and desires, for material , social and cultural goods?

I’m asking because it seems to me that it’s very common to find so many shops, offices and houses that look abandoned that a whole area feels either unsafe or unhealthy. The French have a word for it – désertification…..where a once vibrant locality becomes a desert. What could we do to turn this around? Here’s one idea.

A policy of compulsory purchase and leasing.

What if the local authority, the Council, or the Commune, had the right to compulsorily purchase, in its area of jurisdiction, any property which was uninhabited or unused for at least five years? What if all such properties could be compulsorily purchased for the current independent valuation price, then leased out to new tenants?
Residential properties could be rented out to those on housing benefit, paid for directly from the tenants’ housing benefit, instead of the current situation where these benefits go straight into the pockets of private landlords. Some properties could also be rented at commercial rates to either individuals or groups of individuals, encouraging a healthy social mix in the community.
Additionally some could be offered for sale, either directly at market rates, or using co-ownership schemes, where part of each month’s rent is allocated towards the final purchase of the property by the tenants. In a co-ownership scheme, an additional idea could be to agree a contract of improvement and renovations of the properties which would be paid for by the initial rental payments. For example, a property requiring £50,000 of work, and valued at a monthly rental of £1000, could have the works paid for by the first 50 rental payments.
Commercial properties, shops, workshops and offices could be offered rent-free for new tenant businesses. Instead of paying rent, the Council or Commune could be empowered to collect the VAT generated by these businesses, keeping that element of taxation for local use, instead of it disappearing into national funds.
The income streams to the councils from the housing benefits, domestic rents, co-ownership contracts, sales and locally ring-fenced VAT could then be used to make more compulsory purchases.
I’m sure somebody else will be able to take this idea and refine it considerably, but the basic idea is to favour circulation of property and wealth in the local economy and environment, instead of the current picture of stasis and decline.
Community associations, and co-operatives could be included in such schemes. In other words, it’s not just something for independent businesses and entrepreneurs, but something which could also encourage community led activities. Workshops, recycling services, training and education courses, as well as libraries, galleries, theatres and music venues.

Bringing life back to our existing communities by prioritising decent housing for everyone and supporting the daily opportunities for people to live, work and play together, would be a good beginning, if we want healthier populations who have less need of health services.

I’ll explore some other factors in later articles, including food, education and inequality. But maybe you’d like to share your own ideas? If you do, on your blog, your youtube channel, your instagram feed, or wherever you express yourself, please let me know. I’ll include links to your ideas in my posts.

Read Full Post »

bandanaEvery day in the UK, we hear stories of ambulances waiting in queues at hospitals. Patients waiting hours to receive attention. Patients waiting hours on trolleys in hospital corridors.

What’s the problem?

Much of the media coverage focuses on the “demand”, by which they mean the sheer numbers of people coming to hospital for health care.

Let me return to the issue of demand in a minute, but let’s start with waiting times. Let’s set targets aside for a moment as well, because targets can be arbitrary and unhelpful.

Why are there queues of ambulances at hospitals?

Part of the answer is there aren’t enough doctors and nurses to attend to the patients’ needs.

There aren’t enough, because if there were, they would be able to devote all the time necessary to each patient but there wouldn’t be a huge queue.

Part of the answer is the staff can’t move patients through from A&E for inpatient care because there aren’t enough inpatient beds.

There aren’t enough inpatient beds.

There are more patients needing inpatient care than there are beds to put them in.

Beds aren’t enough.

Once a patient is in a bed, they need to be cared for….by staff to keep the ward clean, staff to make food for them and feed them, staff to care for their daily needs and staff to manage their diseases and get them well enough again to go home.

So can we fix that first?

  • Increase the numbers of beds available in the NHS to cater for the needs of sick people.
  • Increase the numbers of NHS staff to the level where there are enough of them to meet the needs of sick people.

Wasn’t that the whole point of the NHS in the first place?

To meet the needs of the sick in society.

Let’s turn to demand.

It’s going up.

And there’s absolutely not a shred of evidence to suggest it’s going to do anything other than continue to go up.

The proportions of the population over 60, over 70, over 80, and, yes, over 90 are all rising. All the evidence shows that older people have greater health needs. The demographics of the country tell us that demand will increase.

Life expectancy might be going up, but disease isn’t going down. There are more people suffering from a chronic illness every year. There are more people suffering from two or more chronic illnesses every year. This is what doctors are referring to when they talk about increases in “complex problems and needs”.

All those patients waiting on trolleys for a hospital bed have been assessed as needing the complex care of a hospital to cater for their complex needs.

Not all those patients already in the hospital need the complex care of the hospital. Some of them are elderly, and/or disabled people who are not able to look after themselves at home. They need to be looked after somewhere else.

Here’s the next item on the list.

There are not enough places available in care facilities which are not hospitals.

Places in care facilities, (nursing homes, residential homes etc), need sufficient numbers of trained and support staff to provide the care for their residents. We don’t have enough care facilities.

Let’s think about another aspect of demand. Time and again we hear that many people pitch up at A&E because they can’t get to see their local GP. They are told they have to wait several days, or even weeks, for an appointment so they go to the local hospital instead – with problems which could be, and should be, managed by GPs in the community.

Why can’t people get to see a GP in a more timely manner?

There aren’t enough GPs.

There never have been.

The scourge of General Practice is not having enough time to treat each patient as well as the doctors would like to. Were five minute appointments ever adequate? Are ten minute appointments adequate? Do they give the patient enough time to say what they want to say? Do they give the doctor enough time to listen, to examine, to diagnose, to offer treatment, to give the patient enough information to give informed consent to the treatment, to allow enough time to discuss options and alternatives?

You’ll have a hard time finding someone who can answer yes to that.

There aren’t enough GPs.

And there aren’t enough staff in the GPs’ teams either.

A healthier society

The biggest delusion suffered by those who created the NHS was that the NHS would make the population so much more healthy that eventually demand for it would shrink. That’s never happened. And it’s not likely to happen.

Health care isn’t the biggest contributor to the health of the population.

We need to address the causes of illness if we want to reduce demand. The causes of illness are primarily social, economic and environmental.

  • We need to tackle the isolation of people in our society.
  • We need to tackle poverty.
  • We need to tackle the constant stress of the “precariat” – all those without secure incomes, those on zero hour contracts, short term contracts, those employed for insufficient hours at insufficient levels of pay to meet their daily needs.
  • We need to tackle the food industry, from farming methods, to factory production of foodstuffs, to marketing and sales of food.
  • We need to tackle the chemical industry, to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the amount of plastic in the sea, the number of chemicals found in the blood of every newborn child, the number of chemicals found in drinking water, the number of chemicals in every household.
  • We need to tackle inequality which is rising fast and has been shown time and time again to inflict pain and suffering on millions.
  • We need to tackle conflict, to be able to direct resources towards healthy lives instead of war.
  • We need to tackle our political systems which leave so many feeling disempowered and forgotten. Democracy might be a great idea. Maybe we should try it. Not the pretend democracy of a vote every few years for someone to work in government, but real, relevant, responsive democracy which increases the engagement and autonomy of citizens.
  • We need to find different ways to live together.
  • We also need to tackle the Pharmaceutical industry. That industry which doesn’t exist to produce cures, but profits. There isn’t a drug on the market which increases health. At the very best a drug will support the body’s natural systems of repair and recovery. At worst drugs diminish symptoms without making any impact on the underlying disease.

We need a different philosophy of health care, one focused on health not taking drugs.

That’s an awful lot. Daunting perhaps. But are there better answers?

In summary

This is a toe in the water. There is no way to cover the complexity and extent of the issues in one short article. But can we make a start?

  1. We need more hospital beds, more care facilities, more GPs, more doctors, more nurses and more support and care staff.
  2. At the same time, we need to tackle the causes of the increase in demand – the social, economic and environmental causes.

Read Full Post »

Every year I’m amazed to watch the butterflies appear in the garden the very same day the buddleia bushes flower. I’m convinced they both appear at exactly the same moment. No idea how that happens! Are the butterflies just hanging out around the corner somewhere waiting for the blossoms to appear, then zip round as fast as they can the moment that happens?

However it happens, it’s a delight to see so many varieties of butterfly (and the hummingbird moths, which are incredible creatures!), to watch how they fly in such utterly unpredictable directions, how they spread their wings in the sunlight, or close them up so they look like little leaves.

But here’s one thought which comes up for me time and time again when I see butterflies….they make me more aware of the cyclical nature of life. These little creatures have such different life stages, so different you wouldn’t realise they were stages of the same life. Do we think of them as having a beginning and an end? Starting with an egg, progressing through their caterpillar stages, becoming a chrysalis, then emerging as a butterfly which lays eggs, then dies. Is that the life?

I suppose we do all think of ourselves as having a beginning and an end. But where do we begin, and where do we end?

It depends on whether or not you want to reduce a person to just a physical body. My physical body began with a single fertilised egg and this body will die.

But what about ME?

Do I really think I’m only a physical body? Don’t I have a sense of something immaterial too? A consciousness? A sense of Self? A personality? Characteristics, behaviours, values, beliefs, creative acts, destructive acts? Is there anything I can do which doesn’t ripple out into the world beyond me?

When I look at Rodin’s “The Kiss”, or “The Thinker”, what do I see? The product of the imagination and creative skill of the man called Auguste Rodin. When I listen to music composed and performed by people who are long since dead, isn’t there something I’m sharing there which only they could have created? Aren’t these great works of art the ongoing ripples of unique human beings? Or do you think these are just their footprints? (It doesn’t seem that way to me….these works seem full of life and the potential to continue to create and send out ripples into the universe)

And what about those characteristics, quirks or tendencies that I have which others in my “family tree” also exhibited, even perhaps before I was born? Anyone who explores their genealogy encounters remarkable “coincidences”, talents, life events, behaviours which echo down through the generations. Weren’t those threads present even before the egg which became me even existed?

I think it’s inadequate to narrow a person down to a physical body.

But even if we did, there is still the fact that the body changes continually. It never stops. There is a constant turnover of cells, new beginnings, new endings, every hour of every day. There is a continuous exchange of energy, materials and information between my body and my environment, and we all share the same environment, the same atmosphere, the same air, water…..we are all made from the same molecules, all created from the same “star stuff”.

So it seems to me that beginnings and endings are everywhere……wherever, and whenever, we happen to look.

But it also seems to me that they are nowhere. They just don’t exist. We all emerge from, and dissolve into, the great cycles of the universe.

Beginnings and endings are just where we choose them to be. But we can always make a different choice. We can always take a broader view, a bigger view, a longer view, a more holistic view.

I’m reminded of a song from my school days….it’s by Jeff Beck, and it’s called “Hi Ho Silver Lining” – he sang this truth right there in the opening line of this song…in the first five words……

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »