Community Forum Archive

The Epilepsy Community Forums are closed, and the information is archived. The content in this section may not be current or apply to all situations. In addition, forum questions and responses include information and content that has been generated by epilepsy community members. This content is not moderated. The information on these pages should not be substituted for medical advice from a healthcare provider. Experiences with epilepsy can vary greatly on an individual basis. Please contact your doctor or medical team if you have any questions about your situation. For more information, learn about epilepsy or visit our resources section.

To seize is not to seize- what is the difference?

Thu, 03/31/2011 - 04:59

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
J Krishnamurti

 

I find this quote interesting and the more I think about it, the more I am unsure how to define health.

 

If this society has become profoundly sick in a certain sense, if the above statement does have any validity whatsoever, then what does it say about me...I feel I have been grasping to find answers since my first "seizure", grasping to find a new purpose, all the while eating pills in an attempt to get back to "well adjusted"...

No wonder I feel confused about how to feel "genuinely me" all the time.

much love

marty

 

I am extremely interested in how others may feel about any of this.  

What does "well adjusted" mean to you? What about purpose? Are you more purposeful now or less?

Has your definition of health changed?

pgd has posted a few times now about somehow finding common language and definitions on words like awareness, consciousness, perception... this would make a very interesting separate thread.

 

Comments

Re: Why do we distinguish sickly from healthy?

Submitted by thebettles on Tue, 2011-04-12 - 18:26

Hi AJ,

 

I think you have made incredible points. First off, I do think way too much. More importantly though, your point as to who is more likely to survive a diangosis of cancer is also a good one.

I feel sickness is not sickness. I feel that sickness, like feeling depressed because of being diagnosed with cancer,  and health, like feeling happy and healthy, actually is the same healing process. I feel the difference is how we define health versus sickness. To define one versus the other is to show how both definitions are necessary in order to know either. Therefore in a certain way, a very important way, sickness and health are the same thing just defined differently. This is not just word play. 

What this means to me is that sickness is not "bad" and health is not "good". Sickness is not abnormal and health is not normal. Sickness is not disease. Disease is not sickness. All the words and definitions and concepts we use in order to specify and distinguish sickness from health is misleading. 

Both states of sickness and health are the same state. 

They both are the same in that they both are "healing".

It is my nutty opinion that all physical, emotional, and mental pain is healing. Healing is not "good" or "bad", simply a returning to a balanced state.

I think the idea of good and bad and normal and abnormal comes into play when we feel our lives are more valuable than others. Especially when we feel our lives are much more valuable than the lives of the tiny organisms, the extraordinarily efficient cancers and diseases that live inside us that threaten to "kill" us.

When we do not understand we are not more valuable than any other organism,  we must feel negative and positive as separate states, but this does not make it so. All negative states as well as positive states, like joy and happiness and contentment and anger and frustration, all these states are ways in which our organism heals entropy each moment. Again, forget your definitions of good and bad and right and wrong for a moment, and all that is left is an organism, you, reacting to each moment in a way that survives entropy until you do not. What else is there to do?

It is a beautiful game of hide and seek in a sense.

much love,

marty

 

 

Hi AJ,

 

I think you have made incredible points. First off, I do think way too much. More importantly though, your point as to who is more likely to survive a diangosis of cancer is also a good one.

I feel sickness is not sickness. I feel that sickness, like feeling depressed because of being diagnosed with cancer,  and health, like feeling happy and healthy, actually is the same healing process. I feel the difference is how we define health versus sickness. To define one versus the other is to show how both definitions are necessary in order to know either. Therefore in a certain way, a very important way, sickness and health are the same thing just defined differently. This is not just word play. 

What this means to me is that sickness is not "bad" and health is not "good". Sickness is not abnormal and health is not normal. Sickness is not disease. Disease is not sickness. All the words and definitions and concepts we use in order to specify and distinguish sickness from health is misleading. 

Both states of sickness and health are the same state. 

They both are the same in that they both are "healing".

It is my nutty opinion that all physical, emotional, and mental pain is healing. Healing is not "good" or "bad", simply a returning to a balanced state.

I think the idea of good and bad and normal and abnormal comes into play when we feel our lives are more valuable than others. Especially when we feel our lives are much more valuable than the lives of the tiny organisms, the extraordinarily efficient cancers and diseases that live inside us that threaten to "kill" us.

When we do not understand we are not more valuable than any other organism,  we must feel negative and positive as separate states, but this does not make it so. All negative states as well as positive states, like joy and happiness and contentment and anger and frustration, all these states are ways in which our organism heals entropy each moment. Again, forget your definitions of good and bad and right and wrong for a moment, and all that is left is an organism, you, reacting to each moment in a way that survives entropy until you do not. What else is there to do?

It is a beautiful game of hide and seek in a sense.

much love,

marty

 

 

Re: To seize is not to seize- what is the difference?

Submitted by 3Hours2Live on Mon, 2011-04-04 - 03:05
Hi Marty, To seize is not to seize - what is the difference? The difference is in magnitude, location, and name. The cues with small micro-seizures are called learning, and the learned functioning with memory is called micro-kindling. Pavlov hypothesized this many decades ago, but he wasn't enough in strongly denouncing communism by Western canon, over practicing science. Concepts of a sick society versus a healthy individual, or a sick individual versus a healthy society? "Baghdad Fever" or "Biduoterian fever"? Favism versus malaria. How can society be healthy if it turns a natural resistance to malaria into another disease? There are a large number of healthy benefits that societies turn into diseases. Is the Ketogenic Diet and Epilepsy just another example? Is Synesthesia an impairment or an enhancement? After the "too smart to be a cop" fiasco, even higher intelligence is often more of an impairment than a benefit within society. "Well Adjusted" in the USA means mediocre, as in "The Happy Mediocrity" (Elaine Kendall, 1971)? A railroad is the more purposeful, as: "RAILROAD,n. The chief of many mechanical devices enabling us to get away from where we are to where we are no better off. For this purpose the railroad is held in highest favor by the optimist, for it permits him to make the transit with great expedition" ("The Devil's Dictionary" by Ambrose Bierce). Health, as in a healthy life, from "LIFE, n. A spiritual pickle preserving the body from decay." Tadzio http://books.google.com/books?id=MEQ45L3ZcegC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Why+some+like+it+hot&hl=en&ei=u8SXTcWXHo-WsgP1hpS_BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=favas%20blessing%20curse&f=false

Re: To seize is not to seize- what is the difference?

Submitted by thebettles on Mon, 2011-04-04 - 04:24

To seize is not to seize -what is the difference?

The difference is in magnitude, location, and name. The cues with small micro-seizures are called learning, and the learned functioning with memory is called micro-kindling.

Again, words are failing miserably, fireworks emulsified with peanutbutter....

 

Did "learning" exist before you knew about it as a "concept"? How about micro-seizures? Did micro-seizures exist before the people who "discovered"  them, "discovered" them? Did the word "behavior" have the same meaning the moment our animal species first uttered the original sound?

I am going beyond the myriad distinctions of how I can tell the difference between seizing and not seizing. I am stating something much more obvious.

To "know" I am not seizing is to "know" I am seizing.

(To understand this is to understand there is only this moment right now.)

If I do not understand this, which I very often do not, it is because I am trying to understand it. I am trying to intellectualize how this paradoxical statement can make any sense. I am trying to find meaning and purpose in the statement and my discerning, distinctualizing self soon gets fed up.

To "know" I am not seizing is to know I am seizing" ---

 

The only way to see this is to feel it. No intellect.  It takes a complete dummy to understand how meaningless and purposeless each moment is, and therefore to see how unbounded and infinite this moment is.

I am only able to define something, like a seizure, and distinguish it from something else, because I have a fixed concept of there being a something else. It is in the very act of seeing ourselves as separate and everything as separate from ourselves which creates a "concept" of infiniteness.

Again, though, words will necessarily fail when attempting to pin down and define anything, especially a concept like "infinity".

Do you not agree?

much love

marty

 

 

 

 

To seize is not to seize -what is the difference?

The difference is in magnitude, location, and name. The cues with small micro-seizures are called learning, and the learned functioning with memory is called micro-kindling.

Again, words are failing miserably, fireworks emulsified with peanutbutter....

 

Did "learning" exist before you knew about it as a "concept"? How about micro-seizures? Did micro-seizures exist before the people who "discovered"  them, "discovered" them? Did the word "behavior" have the same meaning the moment our animal species first uttered the original sound?

I am going beyond the myriad distinctions of how I can tell the difference between seizing and not seizing. I am stating something much more obvious.

To "know" I am not seizing is to "know" I am seizing.

(To understand this is to understand there is only this moment right now.)

If I do not understand this, which I very often do not, it is because I am trying to understand it. I am trying to intellectualize how this paradoxical statement can make any sense. I am trying to find meaning and purpose in the statement and my discerning, distinctualizing self soon gets fed up.

To "know" I am not seizing is to know I am seizing" ---

 

The only way to see this is to feel it. No intellect.  It takes a complete dummy to understand how meaningless and purposeless each moment is, and therefore to see how unbounded and infinite this moment is.

I am only able to define something, like a seizure, and distinguish it from something else, because I have a fixed concept of there being a something else. It is in the very act of seeing ourselves as separate and everything as separate from ourselves which creates a "concept" of infiniteness.

Again, though, words will necessarily fail when attempting to pin down and define anything, especially a concept like "infinity".

Do you not agree?

much love

marty

 

 

 

 

Sign Up for Emails

Stay up to date with the latest epilepsy news, stories from the community, and more.