In The Snow Leopard, we learn of Sherpa - and other ethnic Tibetan porters - going into a 'lung-gom' state (or something like that) which enabled them to negotiate particularly difficult terrain, or even to walk quickly in the dead of night, without a torch, on unknown trails. Or they would be walking happily along, barefoot in the snow and ice, chatting, telling jokes and laughing, thumping their 50kg loads; when the trail would narrow to a veritable foot-wide cliff hanger. They would go silent, seeming to look inward - as if in meditation - then successfully make the pass. And pick up their cheery banter where they'd left off. Matthiessen, with his much lighter pack and thick soled boots, would have to crawl these particular ledges on his hands and knees.
Could there be a neurological explanation linking these two phenomena?
Then a few weeks ago I heard on Morning Edition (I forget who, what, when, etc.) an interview with a researcher who'd focused on memory. Specifically, how memory fades as we age. Anybody who has either lived on this planet for more than forty years - or knows somebody who has - is quite aware of so-called 'senior moments.' However, the researcher described a change in the brain's neuro-chemistry (or something like that) that begins in middle age, and enables older brains to make meaningful connections far more readily than younger brains. (Hah! take that all you gen x, y, and z's out there...)
But seriously, this little connection about the blind leading the blind, isn't exactly earth shattering. However, as I lose my keys gradually a bit more often as the years go by, it seems that there are just more and more things floating around up here between my ears; it's not hard to imagine them making more connections. (Actually, it was Miller who lost my keys the evening before last when he went down to get the mail... The next morning was a bit of a panic till I found a spare key to the Civic. And later our house guest Sara found the keys.)
The connection I'm making these days is between life's tension and stress on the one hand, and various psycho-somic pains and maladies on the other. Pains so very real, the term psycho-somic literally means 'mind-body,' (from the Greek?). And not the denigrated 'it's all in your head' that it has come to mean in the popular usage. My lingering dental pain is bringing such ideas to the fore. I have started eating whole - though generally softer - foods again. (E.g. oatmeal instead of granola, etc.) Got my new nightguard last Thursday, and was able to wear it for two hours the first night. (Over the weekend it's gone up to six hours.)
It is disappointingly hard - I'd hoped for something soft and chewy. Don't know if it's gonna help with the pain (so far it hasn't), but it will likely help preserve my teeth. The pain is moving around in my mouth - seemingly after a certain area's muscles have learned to relax the pain away, it goes somewhere else. This makes it a clear candidate for psycho-soma, that is, tension caused pain. (But the jury is still out; I hope to see an acupuncturist this week.)
While sitting in the dentist's waiting room, I read the article about plastics in the latest New Yorker. Though not a sure thing, it seems clear that BPA - an additive to certain plastics - does come with some environmental risks. The studies are not yet conclusive. I didn't ask whether this new dental appliance had any in it - I'd just paid almost five hundred bucks for it! - and like I said, it was hard: BPA is used to soften plastics or some such thing. (Maybe I should just put a rag in my mouth? Organic unbleached cotton?)
The article was fascinating and mentioned that the European Union requires companies to do all the scientific research to prove a new chemical will be safe in the environment before it is approved for use. I have heard of this referred to as the 'precautionary principle,' and was one of the stipulations placed on post World War II Germany by FDR's Marshall Plan (or something like this...). Unlike in the U.S., where a new chemical - unless it is intended specifically for food or medicine - can be introduced willy nilly. Thousands of new chemicals are introduced annually, and it is up to the EPA to review the safety of these; in a good year they can get to maybe 10% of them. Why don't we have the precautionary principle here? It hasn't exactly crippled the EU. Though I'm sure industry would argue otherwise, perhaps it has even made the Union stronger.
Instead, what we have is a chemical free for all, and if a substance is found to be dangerous - at tax payer expense, of course, and often after significant damage is done (e.g. DDT or ALAR) - it might be banned. Again, after litigious struggles with industry. Does this not sound like a completely backward way of doing things? As a friend tells me, it's just one of a number of unfortunate things we Americans put up with, not knowing any better. (Such as this small example: why do we have to pay for cell-phone time when we are called by somebody else? Doesn't happen in most the rest of the world...) I'm starting to sound like a dirty socialist.
Maybe this is an example of my middle-aged brain making far too many connections? It does kind of wear me out. Time to get ready for bed, bonne nuit.
No comments:
Post a Comment