How to Successfully Navigate Through Chronic Illness

[Abrin]

Before that, if someone asked me how we can understand morality, I probably thought it had to be reasoned, or maybe I was more of a moral relativist like yourself. I don’t remember how articulated my views were on it.

I had never heard the term 'moral relativist' before! I must admit that philosophy is not my strong suit. But now that I looked up the definition, I am currently confused my claims are not relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. My claims have to do with neuroscience.

 

[Abrin]

@Cmt12 - I don't want you to think I am abandoning or ignoring you. I am afraid I have to leave our conversation because dinner is here.

Thank you for sharing your views and engaging with me.

 

[Cmt12]

Now I am curious, according to psychology confirmation bias says that no matter how many facts you present that people won't be able to hear you. So therefore your attempt to counter a negative emotional reaction in this way wouldn't work.

First, my understanding is not based on mainstream psychology. Regardless, I am not trying to make an argument but more to describe a landscape. I am relying on shared experience and intuitive realization rather than reason. The only way anyone will be able to choose to engage is through accessing their Will while experiencing frustration and discomfort. If someone is able to consciously recognize that experience the next time they are in it, perhaps they will be more open to what I am sharing and these posts can be of use.

And just because we can’t convince someone to change their beliefs or actions in the moment doesn’t mean they don’t hear us, now or in the future. But yeah, we should be aware of how hard we are pushing (and adjust accordingly), which is why I am staying in my own thread.

I had never heard the term 'moral relativist' before! I must admit that philosophy is not my strong suit. But now that I looked up the definition, I am currently confused my claims are not relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. My claims have to do with neuroscience.

Well, if you don’t believe in moral absolutes, then you are a relativist. Do you believe that neuroscience is capable of revealing absolute moral truths? Previously you distinguished between scientific facts and moral truths. Do the observations of neuroscience fall under the category of facts or morality?

This might be of interest to you:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem

In other words, are images of brain activity enough to inform us of how we should act or that there are no moral absolutes? I would say no.

 

[Cmt12]

Indeed you are.

My claim on the other hand is that neuroscience shows us that we don't actually have universally shared experiences and universally shared moral laws.

I also claim that when you attach the concept of 'bad' onto the concept of suffering you are now falling into the trap of attaching a personal moral judgement onto a subjective human experience again.

The moral judgement of whether that experiencce is 'good' or 'bad' is up to the individual.

Suffering is just suffering, it isn't personal.

Disease is just disease, it isn't personal.

It is nothing more or nothing less than that until we define it with our own brand of personal morality.

Just in case you are wondering, I am not trying to start an argument either. We are two different people with two different subjective experiences. Since I don't believe in a universal truth that means that we can both be right in the conversation and that we both can be wrong in this conversation at the same time.

Actions about beliefs speak louder than what people say about what they believe. People can say all they want about suffering being neither intrinsically good or bad, but in the heat of the moment, they act in a way that illustrates what they truly believe with 100% universality.

 

[Abrin]

Do you believe that neuroscience is capable of revealing absolute moral truths? Previously you distinguished between scientific facts and moral truths. Do the observations of neuroscience fall under the category of facts or morality?

I believe that no two human brains are the same and that the ways in which each brain differ from one another show up in the ways their owners perceive the world.

Now I have a question for you. Do you believe that psychopaths believe the same 'absolute moral truth' as non-psychopaths then?

 

[Abrin]

First, my understanding is not based on mainstream psychology

I am a little confused by this statement and need clarification. Are you claiming there is more than one type of psychology? Isn't psychology, well psychology?

Earlier in this this thread you posted the statement that "I’ve noticed that I haven’t been banned or put on probation for discussing psychology".

I mean this with no snark.....are we discussing psychology or are we discussing philosophy?

I only ask this so I don't waste your time with having to hash out semantics.

 

[Abrin]

In other words, are images of brain activity enough to inform us of how we should act or that there are no moral absolutes? I would say no.

While I can completely respect that position, I do have to warn you that neuroscience is now nipping at the heels of philosophy when it comes to free will. The jury is still out, but maybe someday the case will be settled.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/what-neuroscience-says-about-free-will/

 

[Cmt12]

Our beliefs fight for themselves.

When it comes to the unknown, the conscience is the only reliable indicator of truth.

Regardless, I am not trying to make an argument but more to describe a landscape. I am relying on shared experience and intuitive realization rather than reason.

Abrin, I want to use the quotes above to restate my aim in this thread. I’m not trying to be dismissive. It’s just that my stamina for arguing beliefs is going to run out quickly since I’ve been down that road so many times by now on this topic and know the futility of it.

I am COMPLETELY receptive to discussing how we should act rather than what I believe. It’s my experience that if we act the right way, then the accuracy of our beliefs takes care of itself. I understand that you have a problem with the idea of making evaluations or judgments on actions, so I accept that you’re not interested in applying it to your life.

 

[Abrin]

Abrin, I want to use the quotes above to restate my aim in this thread. I’m not trying to be dismissive. It’s just that my stamina for arguing beliefs is going to run out quickly since I’ve been down that road so many times by now on this topic and know the futility of it.

I am COMPLETELY receptive to discussing how we should act rather than what I believe. It’s my experience that if we act the right way, then the accuracy of our beliefs takes care of itself. I understand that you have a problem with the idea of making evaluations or judgments on actions, so I accept that you’re not interested in applying it to your life.

That is more than completely fair position take. I can concede to that.

I do have a gentle suggestion when it comes to the communication of your ideas that has nothing to do with any criticism of those ideas you are communicating. I hope that is is okay. Feel free to do with it what you will.

If you trying to effectively communicate your views to a group of people who exhibit brain fog as a symptom in hopes of being helpful, many people with excessive brain fog aren't able to deal with reading a complete wall of text. You may want to consider summarizing in less than a paragraph the key points of what you are saying in the rest of your post and putting it in bold on top before the massive wall of text underneath in order to reach more people with your message.

I respond well to modafinil so that is why I can sometimes do well with massive amounts of text but I know a large subset of people just aren't as lucky.

 

[Cmt12]

That is more than completely fair position take. I can concede to that.

I do have a gentle suggestion when it comes to the communication of your ideas that has nothing to do with any criticism of those ideas you are communicating. I hope that is is okay. Feel free to do with it what you will.

If you trying to effectively communicate your views to a group of people who exhibit brain fog as a symptom in hopes of being helpful, many people with excessive brain fog aren't able to deal with reading a complete wall of text. You may want to consider summarizing in less than a paragraph the key points of what you are saying in the rest of your post and putting it in bold on top before the massive wall of text underneath in order to reach more people with your message.

I respond well to modafinil so that is why I can sometimes do well with massive amounts of text but I know a large subset of people just aren't as lucky.

Are you saying that you don’t think people will marvel at every word that I posted here???

I get it. I struggle with how much I should be sharing or how to communicate it, so I appreciate the feedback. At times, it feels like I am holding a hot potato (especially after reading about others’ experiences) and I selfishly feel the urge to release what I know into the ether. Then I berate myself and take a break from the forums for awhile.

 

[Abrin]

I get it. I struggle with how much I should be sharing or how to communicate it, so I appreciate the feedback. At times, it feels like I am holding a hot potato (especially after reading about others’ experiences) and I selfishly feel the urge to release what I know into the ether. Then I berate myself and take a break from the forums for awhile.

I know the feels. I hope you don't think that I believe what you say doesn't have merit. I am just one of those people with the annoying habit of finding joy and connection in playfully picking other people's totems apart.

To me, all knowledge is worth having. If I have accidentally given you any other impression than I do apologize.

 

[Cmt12]

THE KNOWN VS THE UNKNOWN

We can divide the world into categories of the known vs unknown, explored territory vs unexplored territory, or order vs chaos. It’s critically important to understand where we are (known/explored/order vs unknown/unexplored/chaos) when trying to solve a problem. Reaching a goal can be conceptualized as successfully going from one place (undesired state) to another place (desired state). **If we are not in the right place when taking action, then we won’t have a chance at arriving at the desired location and reaching the goal.**

When it comes to CFS, the symptoms of the illness exist in the known but the cause exists in the unknown. There are patterns that indicate when we are in unknown territory which include repeated failure, no consensus on how to act, and many differing theories. So, if we realize that the cause of CFS should be approached in unknown territory, how do we know when we are there? How do we know if we are acting from the right place?

The unknown, or unexplored territory, can be recognized by the presence of chaos. If we focus our mind on the desired goal (resolving our CFS) and feel for the sensations of chaos/uncertainty, then we can be assured that we are acting from the right place. What then? The better our understanding is of where we are, then the more effective we will act in getting to where we want to be. That means that once we can feel that chaos, then we should explore it, transforming it into order. We continue this process of transforming the sense of chaos into order, or making more of the unknown known, until we get the answers we need.

 

[Abrin]

@Cmt12 - I hope you don't mind me asking a personal question just to satisfy my curiosity. I was just wondering how long you had ME/CFS before you figured all this stuff out and how long you had to work on your personal thought patterns before you saw improvement from it?

 

[Cmt12]

@Cmt12 - I hope you don't mind me asking a personal question just to satisfy my curiosity. I was just wondering how long you had ME/CFS before you figured all this stuff out and how long you had to work on your personal thought patterns before you saw improvement from it?

This approach is something you have to gradually build confidence in over time. It wasn’t until I was probably age 21 did I start to consciously recognize and intentionally use it (this isn’t exactly something we are taught in school). From age 21 through 23, I took it to the next level, but I still couldn’t articulate clearly what I was doing. At age 23 was when my symptoms became disruptive to the point of being functionally disabling.

The first year or two of pain I was doing whatever came to mind about suppressing the pain, but that wasn’t working. Over the next year or so, I started to dig deeper, gathered as much information as I could, consulted with the supposed experts, and tried countless treatment programs - the common path that we all know. Eventually, I was able to recognize that nobody had the answer as to how to cure this, so I applied this approach to the problem because by that time I had developed enough confidence in it from past experience.

The next several years were a grind. If you use this approach, you are aiming at a cure rather than symptom management, meaning prepare for symptoms to get worse for a long time before they get better. We have to deal with the psychological aspects first, followed by the physical symptoms. The principles are the same though. For instance, it’s common knowledge in psychology that before integrating/overcoming a traumatic memory, it has to be engaged with (ie: symptoms get worse with the memory surfaces). The same is true with chronic pain - has to be fully surfaced before it gets integrated.

At age 26/27 is when I got to the point in the process in which I was getting unique causal insights about both chronic illness and this process I’ve been describing. Over the next several years I’ve gotten more and more clarity. I’m almost 33 now.

 

[Abrin]

This approach is something you have to gradually build confidence in over time. It wasn’t until I was probably age 21 did I start to consciously recognize and intentionally use it (this isn’t exactly something we are taught in school). From age 21 through 23, I took it to the next level, but I still couldn’t articulate clearly what I was doing. At age 23 was when my symptoms became disruptive to the point of being functionally disabling.

The first year or two of pain I was doing whatever came to mind about suppressing the pain, but that wasn’t working. Over the next year or so, I started to dig deeper, gathered as much information as I could, consulted with the supposed experts, and tried countless treatment programs - the common path that we all know. Eventually, I was able to recognize that nobody had the answer as to how to cure this, so I applied this approach to the problem because by that time I had developed enough confidence in it from past experience.

The next several years were a grind. If you use this approach, you are aiming at a cure rather than symptom management, meaning prepare for symptoms to get worse for a long time before they get better. We have to deal with the psychological aspects first, followed by the physical symptoms. The principles are the same though. For instance, it’s common knowledge in psychology that before integrating/overcoming a traumatic memory, it has to be engaged with (ie: symptoms get worse with the memory surfaces). The same is true with chronic pain - has to be fully surfaced before it gets integrated.

At age 26/27 is when I got to the point in the process in which I was getting unique causal insights about both chronic illness and this process I’ve been describing. Over the next several years I’ve gotten more and more clarity. I’m almost 33 now.

I must admit I am still confused. What chronic illness were you diagnosed with?

 

[Cmt12]

I must admit I am still confused. What chronic illness were you diagnosed with?

There is only one tree with many branches. If the goal is symptom management, then by all means we should isolate each branch as its own entity and focus on our particular branch. For me, it’s all one tree and I’m focused on the roots.

 

[Abrin]

There is only one tree with many branches. If the goal is symptom management, then by all means we should isolate each branch as its own entity and focus on our particular branch. For me, it’s all one tree and I’m focused on the roots.

The problem is if you are experiencing a symptom like extreme brain fog it makes being able to think about your own thinking to be near impossible. :/

 

[Cmt12]

In this thread, I’ve attempted to lay out the claim that the way to successfully resolve chronic illness is to connect with and be guided by the conscience toward what is meaningful. Further, it is only the self reliant individual who can do this.

SOCIETY CANNOT PROTECT US

-The default way we react to life’s pain and distress is to seek comfort and security through a variety of means including obedience to rules and social norms, mobilizing or seeking support of groups/community, relying on authority figures (parents, politicians, doctors, etc), and so on.

-To become a self reliant individual, we must first pay attention to the patterns and see that our pain transcends the capacity of society to shield us from it. Each time we experience and notice the failure of society to resolve our pain, we become a little more self reliant. It’s a gradual process.

-Chronic Illness is the most blatant example of forcing us to confront the reality that our pain transcends the level of society. It makes this realization nearly undeniable to its sufferers, as long as they are aligned with truth.

-Throughout evolutionary history, women have been more reliant on society for their well being and therefore more protective of it, so this process toward solitary individualism can be especially difficult.

SOCIETY CANNOT SAVE US

-Since our value system had been adopted from society, once we become more of an individual, we will have to rediscover/recreate our value structure. This begins the transition toward the conscience, which aligns us with transcendent meaning.

-At this point, on some level we realize that society cannot sufficiently protect so we no longer seek comfort, but we still look toward society to find this meaning we now desire. Thus begins the repeating cycle of getting our hopes up, believing we have found the answer, and then getting our heart broke.

-Only once we consciously realize that society not only fails at protecting us from transcendent suffering but also is empty of transcendent meaning will we turn inward toward the psyche and allow ourselves to be guided by the conscience.

 

[Abrin]

In this thread, I’ve attempted to lay out the claim that the way to successfully resolve chronic illness is to connect with and be guided by the conscience toward what is meaningful. Further, it is only the self reliant individual who can do this.

SOCIETY CANNOT PROTECT US

-The default way we react to life’s pain and distress is to seek comfort and security through a variety of means including obedience to rules and social norms, mobilizing or seeking support of groups/community, relying on authority figures (parents, politicians, doctors, etc), and so on.

-To become a self reliant individual, we must first pay attention to the patterns and see that our pain transcends the capacity of society to shield us from it. Each time we experience and notice the failure of society to resolve our pain, we become a little more self reliant. It’s a gradual process.

-Chronic Illness is the most blatant example of forcing us to confront the reality that our pain transcends the level of society. It makes this realization nearly undeniable to its sufferers, as long as they are aligned with truth.

-Throughout evolutionary history, women have been more reliant on society for their well being and therefore more protective of it, so this process toward solitary individualism can be especially difficult.

SOCIETY CANNOT SAVE US

-Since our value system had been adopted from society, once we become more of an individual, we will have to rediscover/recreate our value structure. This begins the transition toward the conscience, which aligns us with transcendent meaning.

-At this point, on some level we realize that society cannot sufficiently protect so we no longer seek comfort, but we still look toward society to find this meaning we now desire. Thus begins the repeating cycle of getting our hopes up, believing we have found the answer, and then getting our heart broke.

-Only once we consciously realize that society not only fails at protecting us from transcendent suffering but also is empty of transcendent meaning will we turn inward toward the psyche and allow ourselves to be guided by the conscience.

Honest question.....you do understand that most people with ME/CFS have a very hard time cognitively processing large amounts of text, right?

 

[Cmt12]

Here is a summation of some of the principles, or truths, of the conscience that I’ve touched on:

-Denial or escapism is wrong

-Reassurance is insufficient

-Society cannot protect or save us

-The intellect cannot save us

-Reality is both oppressive and redeeming

-We are both imperfect and good

-It is a necessity and a moral duty that we strive toward our potential

-Aiming at truth and meaning is where we want to be

-Chronic Illness is suffering and despair, but has the potential to speed up our development

-We will do better over the long run if we feel our way through life instead of think

-Pay attention, recognize the patterns, abstract the principles, and implement through discipline and the Will.

-When things get overwhelming, simplify: stabilize, breathe, know where you are, know where you want to get to, then look out for the traps, detours, and obstacles