A Guide Back From The Depths Of Post-Modern Hell

We are what we are...BUT, if I had to speculate [i.e., bs :], I would suggest that our foray into the intellectual realm has not worked out so well on balance [and although we have been able to achieve many amazing things]. The intellect has made possible many horrendous outcomes. Man's [intellectual] inhumanity [against his fellow man] has been and continues to be absolutely staggering.

Those species that have less intellectual input seem to concentrate more on getting along with Nature [as their best chance of survival] and appear to be much better adapted. Perhaps a life consumed with survival is better than one consumed with feelings? We humans, otoh, seem to be more concerned with happiness, comfort, and pleasure [all feelings-based].

Let's use patient care as an example. When confronting a patient, you have two choices...the first is to assume that you understand the depth of their issue, the second is to simply listen to what they feel their issue is. I am sure you have heard the old adage that if you listen hard enough, the patient will tell you exactly what is wrong with him/her.

The traditional way to care for patients has been to place them into a [diagnostic] category based on our own perceptions/cognition within acceptable governmental/corporate parameters [what they'll pay for], then tell them what we think.

Sometimes this works if it's an obvious issue, e.g., the patient presents with a broken arm. But most of the time, this method works poorly [as most issues are chronic and multi-factorial], so in our need to rapidly categorize [and increasingly to standardize care], we choose from an acceptable drop-down list of possible diagnoses and implement treatment plan A, B, or C. This is poor care based on fallacious reasoning and inappropriate prioritization.

The other way to go about it is allowing the patient to tell you what the problem is by describing how the issue is affecting how they function. With enough exploration, you can begin to see the picture being painted by the patient. This takes time [which is not in the best interests of the corporations that run the health care system]. This is how intuitive physicians practiced before technology changed everything and individuals succumbed to collective dictates.

Empathy is delusion. It's self virtue signaling. As if you can really feel somebody else's pain.

The most compassionate thing you can do is to point an individual in the right direction and allow the collective wisdom of mankind to serve as a guide.

 

But why does the person react so strongly & negatively? What has the person been exposed to in their past that brought on such a response?

Whether the response is voluntary or involuntary, every response has a cause. The very word "response" itself indicates an a priori condition or state. Just as there can be no 1 without a 0 - nor a 0 without a 1 - there's always a pre-existant foundation.

Thus, logically, there can be no response/reaction (effect), nor even a thought, without a cause. And that 'cause' is the product of what IS - ie, a 'snapshot' of one's reality representing infinite causes in one eternal moment/present.

In that eternal moment of infinite cause, our mind/body complex operates on a 'program' or 'template' which acts as a 'filter' or 'processor' allowing us to meaningfully interact with our material reality. Each individual is born with a different program/template - likely the product of a combination of both inherited & 'past-life' programming.

This is why different people will react differently to the same stimulus - and is why even identical twins will have different personalities. Physically they appear identical, and may even have a strong psychic connection, but they'll operate on a completely different programming - which is evident even at birth.

Recall that, because All is One, all thoughts & feelings are real, and recall that all effects have a cause.

The interpretation of the stimulus would thus be called an 'objective' response because it is the product of a priori cause(s). An interpretation need not be identical to others.

There is no effect that one can identify that has no cause.

 

We are all very similar and very different at the same time. It just depends on your perspective.

As well, cause and effect is just the best we can do. I am sure that what is really going on is considerably different.

You are making the common error of mixing the intellectual and the non-intellectual. All IS One, but not in the intellectual world. In the intellectual world, duality rules.

 

You specify duality in your healthcare example above.

The fact is that the information gained from patients is important, but not necessarily diagnostic.

For example, a shoulder ache carefully communicated by a patient is not necessarily an indication that there is a shoulder problem, as heart attacks can be experienced as shoulder pain - somethin the patient is most likely to be totally unaware of.

We need to listen to patients. But, patients are not doctors.

 

I'll take that under advisement, doctor.