(This is Part 2 of a continuing series. Go back to Part 1.)
Let's look at some other examples in the area of drugs:
Let's say we're feeling anxious and we take a relaxer to calm ourselves. The relaxer can be anything from a tranquilizer to a barbiturate to an opium derivative to alcohol. But now let's see what happens:
Let's say we take heroin, an opium derivative. At first we do indeed feel more relaxed; that is the primary effect. But over time we actually become more anxious. This fact becomes apparent when we withdraw from the heroin—greater anxiety is immediately revealed in the process of withdrawal.
The same thing is revealed when someone addicted to alcohol, tranquilizers, barbiturates, etc. withdraws from the drug. In each case a tremendous anxiety—greater than before—is immediately revealed.
Again we observe a short-term primary effect—increased calmness—while long-term an underlying and opposite secondary effect manifests, namely increased anxiety.
This has to be so because once again we are dealing at a symptomatic rather than a causal level. What can we do causally to become more calm? We can meditate, we can eat foods with a low GI index (so our blood sugar doesn't spike up and down), we can do our best but let go of the outcome, etc.
But if we ignore the causal level and use a symptomatic approach, we're likely to actually increase the underlying problem over time.
The same dynamic holds true if, for instance, we take an antacid drug for excessive stomach acid. Short-term the stomach acid decreases—primary effect. Yet studies have shown that stomach acid actuallly increases over time.
This is not surprising. Because we're ignoring the causal level—what is causing the symptom?—the underlying problem increases rather than decreases long-term. And this is the secondary, the hidden, the real effect.
We can see the same phenomenon with, for example, drugs to "combat" high cholesterol:
(Ever notice how many modern drugs are anti-something? Anti-hypertensives, anti-cholinergics, anti-inflammatories, antacids and so on. This is symptomology. In my opinion, this is why the medicine system has had so little success with modern degenerative diseases such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, osteoporosis and so on, which are largely diseases of lifestyle.)
For instance, if we eat a high-fat, high animal-food diet we're almost certain to create a high cholesterol level (plant-kingdom foods contain zero cholesterol), which in turn will contribute to an underlying disease process of atheroschlerosis—plugging of the arteries.
Because anti-cholesterol drugs do not address this causal level—what is driving the high cholesterol levels?—the underlying disease process is very likely to increase even though the symptom itself appears to be reduced.
(This is the end of Part 2. Go to Part 3.)
—jim sloman, 9.18.04 for Nov 9
|
