A copy of this email about me came into my hands when I found it included by Dr                    with a referral letter to Dr              in the medical evaluation unit in              Hospital.

 

This response is addressed to the doctors I have been seen by in recent months and it is my attempt to clarify how despite the best of intentions of the doctors they have almost completely not addressed what is the matter with my health. This situation is somewhat of a norm when the health issue is long covid, but it is nevertheless unbelievably distressing for those who have this health issue and I hope that this communication might go some way towards a course correction for the way Irish medicine attempts to deal with long covid. It is clear that the fact that doctors do not respond adequately to long covid and to other fatigue syndromes is not just an Irish problem, but is characteristic of Western medicine worldwide. This article, https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/oct/13/long-covid-patients-not-believed-doctors demonstrates that even when doctors themselves get long covid they are gaslit by their colleagues. Gaslighting is not intentional but happens because of ignorance and the absence of capacity to think out of the box, which is otherwise known as practising evidence based or 'scientific' medicine. Nevertheless a great many people who are seriously ill suffer a great deal because of the incapacity of medicine to deal humanly with their illnesses.

 

There is no known cure for long covid yet although, there are some promising possibilities being researched, such as https://www.berlincures.com/en/ .

 

There are certainly now available good understandings of what long covid is. The problem is at its most acute when doctors attempt symptom management without any understanding of long covid, and do harm to patients by applying treatments which although effective in normal circumstances, in the context of long covid do harm to a patient's mental and physical health.

 

To:-

Dr , GP, 

Dr  Psychiatrist, 

Dr  and staff,Consultant Psychiatrist, 

, Consultant Psychiatrist, 

Dr , Geriatric Consultant, 

Dr , GP, 

 

 

The email.

 

17th June, 2022

 

Private and Confidential:

Dr ,

 

 

 

County Cork

 

 

 

Re:                                            , Co. Cork

Date of birth:

MRN: 

Diagnosis: Hypochondrical Delusions consistent with persistent delusional disorder

Somatization Disorder

Psychotropic Medication:

0 Nil (He tried several and could not tolerate)

 

 

Dear Dr.                 .

 

Thank you for referring this pleasant gentleman who I assessed via a phone call on 9" June,

2022. We had discussed the case earlier in the day and you had mentioned that       had

previously been to St. John of God‘s — that he had overwhelming anxiety; that he believed he was

suffering from long Covid and that this would ultimately lead to his physical deterioration and

death. He wanted to be referred to a palliative care team as he believed he was dying. He also had

many strange health beliefs such as naturopathic medicine. He also has H. pylori infection which

he refuses to treat because he says he cannot tolerate PPI's. He uses Diazepam occasionally and

has been tried on SSRl‘s and MAO inhibitors and he could not tolerate either of those. He is very

anxious about medication generally and does not tolerate medication and he reports physical

side-effects because of it. He has a fixed belief that any medication he takes will kill him. l

offered        an assessment on the day but he was unable to travel and so l conducted an

assessment via telephone call.           reported, “I don't really want to see a Psychiatrist. l don't

have any psychiatric issues, but I have a lot of anxiety about my body, and a lot of stress.” He

reported that he had long Covid for the last two years and two months; that his body is “unstable”

and that anything that be puts in it causes an exacerbation of his long Covid symptoms. He listed

out quite a long list of Covid symptoms including; production of a lot of mucus, intermittent

choking bronchial obstruction, being afraid to go to sleep, constant fatigue, constant nausea,

feeling emotionally drained, problems with his bowels, problems with urinating and “heart

spasms” at night. There is an overlap between some of these symptoms and anxiety symptoms,

however he did not see any connection and refused to consider that psychological factors may be

influencing his physical symptoms. He also discussed at length that he found it extremely

difficult to tolerate any medication. He had recently been started on Prothiaden and he also had

recently refused to take PPI for his H. pylori infection. He reported that he moved to                

three months ago and that his personal relationships were strained and that he doesn't get along

with his daughter. He had been living in Ballingeary and Valentia Island previously. He had been

travelling a lot for the last two years. He explained that he wanted a referral to palliative care

because he believed he was physically deteriorating. The nature of his beliefs is more consistent

with hypochondrical delusions than with nihilistic. When I suggested that there might be

psychological factors worsening his physical condition, he responded, “That is a standard

Western medicine response. I'm not really being listened to at all. No, you‘re gas lighting me.

My thinking isn’t wrong. I know myself.” He then reminded me that we were working from

different intellectual paradigms and that our intellectual paradigms were not consistent. He

described how he has gone on long Covid groups online and that he is absolutely certain this is

what is causing his problems. At times he expresses some grandiose ideation in that he believes

he has helped people in the past and that he has expertise in naturopathic medicine. He does

accept that anyone living through what he is living through in terms of his physical health

symptoms could have mental health problems, and so is willing to see us in the outpatient clinic.

l discussed different options for treatment but he is not open to medication or CBT. He says,

“They wanted me to do CBT in St. John of God’s. There isn't a person on the planet that can give

me psychological support.” He reported he did not have suicidal ideation, however at times he

does have a passive death wish due to the extent of his suffering.

 

Past Psychiatric History:

 

         told me that he had been in St. John of God’s for four and a half weeks because he was in

complete despair. He did not view this as being particularly helpful, and said it was expensive. He

also describes that he had engaged with the _____________   mental health team. However he describes

having had a bad experience with them. He said they were “incompetent and rude" and that they

were bullying him and he gave as good as he got and had fallen out with that service, He also

describes having constantly challenged his Psychiatrist in St. John of God’s.

 

Past Medical History:

 

        describes how he was recently in Beaumont Hospital and has been extensively medically

investigated there. He describes himself as having been “thrown out of” Tralee Hospital. He

mentions that despite his extensive medical investigations, nobody can find anything wrong with

him. He has frequently changed GP‘s. He has a history of SIADH which may have been due to a

previous trial of an SSRI. He does believe that despite his current suffering, his mental health is

actually improved over the last year.

 

Mental State Examination (limited due to this being a telephone call):

 

         was quite eloquent. He was at times quite irritable. At times he was somewhat challenging

and even grandiose. His speech was normal in terms of rate, rhythm, volume and tone. He

presented as euthymic and reactive in terms of his mood, however subjectively he was unhappy

and “struggling.” In terms of his thoughts, he has very clear hypochondrical delusions. In terms

of his perception he describes numerous somatic symptoms He denies frank perceptual

disturbance. He has no suicidal ideation, but does have a passive death wish. He has no insight

into the nature of his difficulties. At present there are no acute risks.

 

Impression:

 

This is a 77 year old man who is presenting with Hypochondrical delusions and prominent

somatic symptoms, from which he has been suffering for the past two years and two months,

believing that he has long Covid and that this will ultimately lead to his physical deterioration

and death. He has no insight into the nature of his problems and has had significant difficulty

engaging with psychiatric help in the past. He has had several attempts to engage with psychiatric

services which have been largely unsuccessful. He has also been extensively medically

investigated and he has been referred to a long Covid clinic previously. He does not appear to be

overtly depressed; however he does appear to be extremely anxious which is understandable

given the nature of his delusions. He has frequently switched GP’s in the past and also

disengaged from other specialist services. I suspect that personality factors may also play a role

in his presentation. He is not willing to accept CBT or medication to try and help with his

difficulties; however he is willing to attend the clinic for further assessment.

 

Management Plan:

 

As discussed with Dr. , Consultant Psychiatrist:

l. He should be offered our next available                OPD to attend for an in-person

assessment.

2. We can be contacted for any further information or advice about the case.

 

Thanking you.

 

Yours sincerely,_

Dr. 

IMCRN 

Registrar to Dr. 

Consultant Psychiatrist

                  Mental Health Services.

 

 

My comments on the email

 

(correct spelling for hypochondrical is hypochondriacal)

 

This letter seriously misrepresents what I communicated, what my medical condition is, what my intentions are, what my stance is on medication and other medical treatments, shows catastrophic deficiencies in the understanding and significance of long covid in relation to symptoms and physical and mental health, and it is demeaning and disrespectful to me as a person and belittling of my intelligence.

 

In relation to the diagnosis of hypochondria, yes if you leave out of the picture long covid, fatigue, and the loss of capacity to continue one's life as it was before getting covid, there is not much left but to be absorbed in research about one's health dilemmas. The role of self observation and one's experience of how one's own body responds to curative treatments and interventions is discounted as providing useful information given for the most part the absence of capacity in the medical world to follow up on this information with diagnostics and treatments. It is well known that there are difficulties in understanding and treating long covid but there has been progress in both understanding and in considering therapeutic approaches in the medical literature, which is quite sufficient for any medical practitioner to be up to date on and informed about long covid, and it is unprofessional, dangerous, and potentially iatrogenic to treat anyone with long covid whilst ignoring or being uninformed about this information. An explanation of long covid at the time of writing is included with comments below.

 

The same considerations apply to delusion. Delusion means being out of touch with reality. I would suggest on the basis of what I have said in relation to hypochondria, that it is the doctors who are out of touch with reality and maintaining unjustified narrow and limited beliefs in the face of what is available to them to know.

 

I assume that 'persistent delusional disorder' is psychiatric nomenclature for nailing down the intensity in your opinions of my delusion.

 

In relation to 'somatization disorder' I assume this is intended to convey that I am mistaken in paying attention to my own experience of my physical and mental states especially when they fall outside of known 'science.' I assume you are aware that cigarette smoking was once declared by science to be harmless. My reality is that the science about long covid and other difficult to understand fatigue syndromes is growing by the week, and that I have the time and intelligence to devote myself to getting well informed about it. It appears to me very possible that many, if not most, doctors have neither the time, nor the intellectual bandwith to get so informed, and lack in particular the ability to think out of the box.

 

So to the details next.

 

It strikes me in the overall context of the letter that referring to me as 'this pleasant gentleman' is quite possibly disingenuous.

 

Dr           may have been asked to assess my mental health. I certainly was not informed about it beforehand. If I had been asked I would have said no. I had already agreed with Dr            that he would follow up with his request for me to be seen by Dr           and I had asked him to hold off on this until he had spoken to the lady I see for traditional Chinese medicine consultations as I felt she could give him another, perhaps calmer and more objective, view of what I was dealing with. I was therefore shocked when the unsolicited phone call with Dr           happened within a couple of hours of my leaving Dr             's office,however I consented to speak with him on the understanding he was well intentioned towards me and that I could make it clear to him what I did want and what I did not want.

 

Dr           did not inform me that he was assessing me. I had not been informed that I would be contacted by him. He asked me if I would accept the call and I agreed. During the call I made it absolutely clear that I was interested in talking to psychiatrists only because I was searching for better sedative medication than what was available to me at the time. Apparently he did not take this in nor pass it on.

 

He had discussed 'the case' with Dr             (without my advance knowledge!). I am a person, not a case. From my time in academia I have never heard people referred to as cases. Yes, the body of knowledge accumulated in any inquiry is correctly called a case, but people are not cases.

 

"       had previously been to St. John of God‘s — that he had overwhelming anxiety; that he believed he was suffering from long Covid and that this would ultimely leadat to his physical deterioration and death."

 

At the time I was admitted to St. John of God's I had had long covid for a year. My GP during that year had agreed that I had long covid. He had referred me to Dr                      in the               in Cork, who was not running a long covid clinic but was the only consultant in Cork investigating long covid. I misunderstood that she would attempt to diagnose and treat my long covid and it became clear when I saw her that this was not so. She referred my to many medical specialities, all of whom I saw, including Dr              , who I thank for making the point to me that the only problem he saw was depression. The GP who I saw over this period can I am sure confirm that despite the absence of PCR testing to confirm that I had covid at the time, end of March 2020, (the decision not to request a PCR test was decided by Dr               for very rational and coherent reasons,) and that he came to say to me he was certain I had had covid and had acquired long covid. His name is Dr          .

 

The reason I was admitted to St John of God's was that I was in complete despair about life after dealing with long covid for a year and this was accompanied by acute anxiety.

 

Long covid has been demonstrably causing physical deterioration. I do believe it will very possibly lead to premature death.

 

"He wanted to be referred to a palliative care team as he believed he was dying."

 

I wanted to be seen by a palliative care doctor because they are expert in making people comfortable while they are alive without attempting to cure them. In other words they work with incurable disease. In the absence of any medical understanding of long covid and in the absence of diagnosis and treatment, I do see my long covid condition as incurable and deteriorating. To say I believed I was dying is really not so and I was articulate and specific about the difference. Palliative means relieving pain without dealing with the cause of the condition. In my case the pain is psychological due to unending stress and fatigue, but nevertheless it is pain. I had for at least six months or more been attempting to have this conversation with psychiatrists and I had been meeting a brick wall. It is a reasonable stance in my situation as curative interventions and medications have been experienced as causing heavy and prolonged increases in long covid symptoms, only adding to the intensity of stress, exhaustion, and fatigue. I understand that different kinds of medications are used to reduce or relieve pain, and I have always said with absolute clarity that my request and my intention was and is to microdose with such medications, being mindful of the risk of addiction and harm from normal dosage levels.

 

Involvement in naturopathic medicine is not strange and not a belief in the sense it has no basis in reality.

 

“He also has H. pylori infection which he refuses to treat because he says he cannot tolerate PPI's. He uses Diazepam occasionally and has been tried on SSRl‘s and MAO inhibitors and he could not tolerate either of those. He is very anxious about medication generally and does not tolerate medication and he reports physical side-effects because of it. He has a fixed belief that any medication he takes will kill him.”

 

Dr            prescribed Esomeprazole for acid reflux. I did not say I could not tolerate PPI's, nor was there any thought that there was a causal relationship in my mind between using PPI's and treating h-pylori, which I understood is an antibiotic treatment, while Esomeprazole is for symptom management. Originally Dr                    prescribed Esomeprazole for acid reflux. I did not take it because it was very occasionally that I had acid reflux and most of my life I have avoided pharmaceutical medicine at all costs and only take them when the situation is acute and there is no other choice. I decided not to (refuse ?) treat the H-pylori because I did not want to put my body in distress any more than is necessary. I did believe that the h-pylori treatment would be enormously distressing and I chose to try to carry on without treatment by looking for better sedative medication to manage anxiety. It is true that my body on account of and only on account of the long covid biological abnormalities that are present in it, reacts badly to mostly all medications and other treatments and interventions. These reactions are not the same as side effects. I also experience side effects as conventionally understood with medication. The basis for saying this is my own experience. This does not make it either untrue nor even unreliable. And certainly the reality that it cannot be verified scientifically is not grounds for ignoring it's significance in the context of my difficulties.

 

It is absolutely untrue that I have a fixed belief that any medication I take will kill me.

 

"I offered         an assessment on the day but he was unable to travel and so I conducted an

assessment via telephone call.         reported, 'I don't really want to see a Psychiatrist. I don't

have any psychiatric issues, but I have a lot of anxiety about my body, and a lot of stress.' He reported that he had long Covid for the last two years and two months; that his body is “unstable” and that anything that be puts in it causes an exacerbation of his long Covid symptoms. He listed out quite a long list of Covid symptoms including; production of a lot of mucus, intermittent choking bronchial obstruction, being afraid to go to sleep, constant fatigue, constant nausea, feeling emotionally drained, problems with his bowels, problems with urinating and “heart spasms” at night. There is an overlap between some of these symptoms and anxiety symptoms,

however he did not see any connection and refused to consider that psychological factors may be influencing his physical symptoms. He also discussed at length that he found it extremely difficult to tolerate any medication. He had recently been started on Prothiaden and he also had recently refused to take PPI for his H. pylori infection."

 

I have no recollection of Dr             offering me an assessment. He may have asked me would I come to              to see him. If he did I would have declined as I was too fatigued to make the trip.

I reported one spasm around my heart in the night. It happened. I have many times come to in the night not breathing. This is terrifying when it happens.

 

"He did not see any connection and refused to consider that psychological factors may be

influencing his physical symptoms." This is a complete misrepresentation of what I said. It is obvious to me and to any intelligent person that psychological factors influence physical symptoms. It is equally obvious that physical symptoms influence the psychological state. In my case the physical symptoms are primary. They occur and the psychological factors follow.

 

I said my body does not tolerate most medications. This is true and based on my experience.

 

As I write this I have just completed the sixth day of a fourteen day cure for h-pylori. My fear that it would from the beginning cause intensification of long covid symptoms has not turned out to be justified. However it is absolutely gruelling in other ways. I speculate that the two antibiotics and the PPI medication do not change the way intracellular metabolic processes work and it may not impact the long covid state of disequilibrium in my body in the same way that other medications have done. I will not know if I can finish the remaining eight days until it is complete. Only then will I be able to assess how my long covid situation has been impacted by the medication process.

 

"He reported that he moved to              three months ago and that his personal relationships were strained and that he doesn't get along with his daughter."

 

My personal relationship (singular) with my partner was strained at the time. This is no longer so. However she and I both live a very strained life due to my health issues.

 

My relationship with my daughter who accompanied me to meet Dr           in           is strained. My relationship with her older sister who accompanied me to see Dr             in                   is harmonious, however she normally lives in Australia

 

"He had been travelling a lot for the last two years." In 2021 I attempted to relocate to Greece and to Devon in the UK but it did not work out.

 

"He explained that he wanted a referral to palliative care because he believed he was physically deteriorating. The nature of his beliefs is more consistent with hypochondrical delusions than with nihilistic. When I suggested that there might be psychological factors worsening his physical condition, he responded, 'That is a standard Western medicine response. I'm not really being listened to at all. No, you‘re gas lighting me. My thinking isn’t wrong. I know myself.' He then reminded me that we were working from different intellectual paradigms and that our intellectual paradigms were not consistent. He described how he has gone on long Covid groups online and that he is absolutely certain this is what is causing his problems. At times he expresses some grandiose ideation in that he believes he has helped people in the past and that he has expertise in naturopathic medicine. He does accept that anyone living through what he is living through in terms of his physical health symptoms could have mental health problems, and so is willing to see us in the outpatient clinic. I discussed different options for treatment but he is not open to medication or CBT. He says, 'They wanted me to do CBT in St. John of God’s. There isn't a person on the planet that can give me psychological support.' He reported he did not have suicidal ideation, however at times he does have a passive death wish due to the extent of his suffering."

 

This is not why I wanted a referral to Palliative care. I am physically deteriorating. The two notions are not connected.

 

I would say not beliefs, not hypochondriacal, and as far as nihilistic goes, I actually would prefer to be dead than carry on living my life as it is.

 

I have already commented on how I see the role of psychological factors.

 

It is true that in addition to sharing the worldview that is commonly accepted as our common reality, I have in addition another different worldview than is considered normal, one that better reflects my own way of looking at reality. It makes communication difficult for me. It is somewhat documented on two websites and one published article online.

 

(A worldview or world-view is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the whole of the individual's or society's knowledge and point of view. A worldview can include natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview)

 

 

I did not remind Dr                  of anything. I informed him of the worldview issue.

 

In order for paradigms to be consistent they have to be of the same worldview.

 

Long covid is causing me problems. I am not just absolutely certain. I know it is. It is a complex issue and to reduce it to 'what is causing my problems' is absurd.

 

I am not a practitioner of naturopathic medicine but I have used it for most of my life and I have considerable knowledge in that domain.

 

I have been paid a lot of money in the past to help people. If this is grandiose ideation the world is in big trouble.

 

I told Dr          that I did want to see his team in the outpatient clinic, because and only because I wanted help with finding a better solution to sedating than I have at present. I did not want my mental health to be assessed or to be treated psychiatrically for mental health issues. I have been clear with everyone about this and the only way I can understand my failure to communicate this is that those who I say it to misinterpret or mishear what I want and what my intention is.

 

I have already explained the issue with medication in relation to long covid.

 

The issue about CBT is to do with the worldview situation. However I believe that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the UK, which is the organisation that sets out guidelines for the care of people with long covid and other fatigue related syndromes, recommends against CBT (cognitive behavioural therapy) and GET (graduated exercise therapy) for people who are dealing with fatigue illnesses, presumably because more stress is not helpful, and this is my reason too.

 

By the way, when I was admitted to the Bantry psychiatric unit it was written as one of the diagnostic points that I have poor coping skills. This is absurd, especially given what I am dealing with in my life and how I have handled myself.

 

If you can produce anybody who shares my worldview and has the skills to help and counsel me in that context I will be very happy. Actually my partner who I live with is the only person I rely on to any extent for that kind of support.

 

Yes, I did not at the time have suicidal ideation although I long for my life as it is to be over. However within a few hours of speaking with Dr            the suicidal ideation set in and over the ensuing weeks has spilled over at times into contemplating actual suicide. I previously had suicidal ideation during the part of 2020 that I had long covid. Since then I have had none. As I explained to professor Smyth I think I will be dealing with this issue for some time yet. In moral terms I absolutely do not want to actively kill myself however in recent weeks I have acquired a much better understanding of how this can become a reality in anyone's life.

 

"           told me that he had been in St. John of God’s for four and a half weeks because he was in complete despair. He did not view this as being particularly helpful, and said it was expensive. He also describes that he had engaged with the             mental health team. However he describes having had a bad experience with them. He said they were “incompetent and rude" and that they

were bullying him and he gave as good as he got and had fallen out with that service, He also

describes having constantly challenged his Psychiatrist in St. John of God’s."

 

Being in St John of God's got me through a huge crisis. The              mental health team were incompetent and I am happy to explain why I have that view. I did not fall out with them. I stood my ground and the senior psychiatrist there came to me and said she was happy to discharge me without issue.

 

I challenged the consultant psychiatrist in St John of God's on the same grounds I have articulated here, that he was leaving long covid out of the picture and that was unacceptable. Otherwise he took good care of me and I respected him.

 

"           describes how he was recently in Beaumont Hospital and has been extensively medically

investigated there. He describes himself as having been 'thrown out of' Tralee Hospital. He

mentions that despite his extensive medical investigations, nobody can find anything wrong with him. He has frequently changed GP‘s. He has a history of SIADH which may have been due to a previous trial of an SSRI. He does believe that despite his current suffering, his mental health is actually improved over the last year."

 

I had SIADH when I was admitted to St John of God's. It was rapidly cleared up by paying attention to my sodium and drinking water intake. It was resolved within a couple of days of beginning to take Citaloprem. It could not have been caused by Citaloprem. I again had SIADH when I was admitted to Beaumont and it quickly resolved itself. I had stopped taking Citaloprem about 4 months before going to Beaumont. The SIADH can not have had any connection with the Citaloprem. My guess is that on both occasions I had been in extreme, even for me, stress, anxiety, fatigue and exhaustion, and it may have had something to do with excessive water intake along with insufficient sodium intake.

 

With one exception I have changed GP's only when I have moved my living location. The exception was that the GP I was with had been unwilling to prescribe the imported thyroid medication I had been taking for some months as she was anxious about getting into trouble. I visited Dr Cotter in Bantry and he had written the prescription almost before I had finished telling him about the situation.

 

Late last year I decided to take myself to Tralee A and E around 7:00 pm. I went there because I was feeling very ill and worried about what was going on in my body. I waited sitting up until 5:30 am to see a doctor. He was young and clearly not experienced. He listened to me for a few minutes, and then excused himself saying he was going to consult with his registrar. He came back with a discharge note saying I should have a psychiatric consultation and when I explained that I had been seen by the psychiatric team and discharged without issues, he would not reconsider my situation. It felt like being thrown out. I certainly would not have sat up in the waiting room if I had expected that the medical issues I was presenting with would be ignored.

 

"         was quite eloquent. He was at times quite irritable. At times he was somewhat challenging

and even grandiose. His speech was normal in terms of rate, rhythm, volume and tone. He

presented as euthymic and reactive in terms of his mood, however subjectively he was unhappy

and 'struggling.' In terms of his thoughts, he has very clear hypochondrical delusions. In terms of his perception he describes numerous somatic symptoms. He denies frank perceptual disturbance. He has no suicidal ideation, but does have a passive death wish. He has no insight into the nature of his difficulties. At present there are no acute risks."

 

I can understand why I am interpreted as being grandiose so long as I look at the situation from within the generally shared worldview. Perhaps what I have said here might prompt reconsideration.

 

I don't relate to 'frank perceptual disturbances'. It needs clarification for me. I can say there have been times when I have noticed perceptual disturbances but that is quite some months ago. I am not sure what the relevance is to the context being discussed.

 

To say that I have no insight into the nature of my difficulties is absurd.

 

"This is a 77 year old man who is presenting with Hypochondrical delusions and prominent somatic symptoms, from which he has been suffering for the past two years and two months, believing that he has long Covid and that this will ultimately lead to his physical deterioration and death. He has no insight into the nature of his problems and has had significant difficulty engaging with psychiatric help in the past. He has had several attempts to engage with psychiatric services which have been largely unsuccessful. He has also been extensively medically investigated and he has been referred to a long Covid clinic previously. He does not appear to be overtly depressed; however he does appear to be extremely anxious which is understandable given the nature of his delusions. He has frequently switched GP’s in the past and also disengaged from other specialist services. I suspect that personality factors may also play a role in his presentation. He is not willing to accept CBT or medication to try and help with his difficulties; however he is willing to attend the clinic for further assessment."

 

When I was a student in UCD, I was under the care of Dr Peter Fahy for three years. He took really good care of me basically with sympathetic counselling and tranquilising medication. In St. John of God's I was similarly treated well and sensitively. I saw a psychiatrist in the town of Kerkyra in Corfu who was similarly helpful and aware of and responsive to the long covid issues I was dealing with.

 

On a referral by Dr Karen Fitzmaurice in the Mater Private who wanted me to see a psychiatrist I was seen at home by a psychiatrist from the Mercy hospital in Cork. There was no follow up. There was quite likely an assessment done but I have not seen or heard of it, nor was I informed that my mental health was being assessed. When I was referred by SouthDoc to the Mercy Hospital A and E for help with despair, they lost the referral letter so I did not get to see a psychiatrist on the visit. On a follow up phone call I could not hear what the psychiatrist was saying as there was so much screaming in the background. A few days later I spoke with a psychiatric nurse in the Mercy A and E and she confirmed my suspicion that their unit would not be a suitable environment for me. I can only assume that this was interpreted as one of my unsuccessful attempts to engage with psychiatric services.

 

The first time in my life I was informed I was being assessed was with the                  psychiatric team. Bear in mind that I had not asked for anything more than a consultation about medication. If my GP who referred me for this had more in mind than what I was asking for which was help with medication, she did not tell me about it. I was seen at home by a mental health nurse, and then by the mental health nurse and a psychiatrist also at home. I was scheduled for an in office consultation. In between there was a second visit from two mental health nurses for no apparent reason other than that the first nurse wanted the second nurse to meet me before the in office consultation. It was alleged to me that he was a trainee, but on the basis of the subsequent office visit I doubt this was the truth. When I went for the office visit instead of being seen by the psychiatrist who had seen me at home I was seen by a young woman who I imagine qualified within the prior few years. The psychiatrist who had first seen me had been transferred to another region. At a certain point she got frustrated with me and told me we were there to assess my mental health. I told her it was the first I knew of that, that I had not asked for or consented to having my mental health assessed and that I was there to talk about anxiety medication.

 

Now I find again that Dr             was assessing me without informing me.

 

I am not happy at all with this letter he wrote and the subsequent outcome. Nor am I happy that it has become part of my recorded medical history and I would like this corrected.

 

Do you not need the patient to consent to a full mental health assessment and to ask for treatment before you go down that track? I am writing this to clarify all the different ways in which this approach is not OK.

 

I have never been referred to a long covid clinic.

 

I can only think that the significance of the statement I have frequently switched GP's in the past is a misreading of my HSE medical history files as is the mention of the association of SIADH and Citaloprem, and no doubt a bunch of other erroneous information I have no idea about.

 

Apart from an early discharge from Beaumont hospital because there was a personal issue in my life that I had no option but to take care of, I don't know what specialist services I am alleged to have disengaged with, unless perhaps the Mercy Hospital psychiatric unit.

 

I don't know the meaning, or relevance of saying that personality factors may be playing a role in my presentation. I would have assumed that is the case for every human being.

 

It is true I will not accept CBT. I am not even asking for help with my alleged hypochondria, delusions, grandiosity, erroneous and strange beliefs, and all other perceived difficulties that are represented in the letter.

 

I did want to be seen in the clinic to discuss better medication in the light of my experiences with the long covid reactivity and so far that has not happened in any way other than trials with medicines that cause me great distress.

 

I want to be helped not managed and I have had enough unasked for assessment.

 

The above was written on or around Wednesday 24th August. I finished the two week course of antibiotics for H-pylori on Tuesday 1st September. What follows is an account of recent developments.

 

I was not affected by the treatment for h-pylori in the same acute way that I expected from my experience with other experiments with medication, where one tiny dose had been enough to cause intense peaks of long covid symptoms which took up to 10 days to pass out of my body. I somehow managed to get through the gruelling debilitation of 14 days of very strong antibiotics morning and evening. However it is now more than three weeks since I finished the antibiotics and I am feeling extremely debilitated as a result of taking the antibiotics.

 

I have done considerable research in the past two weeks and have made two discoveries. One is the clear explanation by Dr Claire Taylor that long covid is entirely caused by Thrombotic Vasculitis and how it impacts each person's body differently depending on what prior predispositions each of us have. The point is that inflammation of the vascular system can affect any aspect and many aspects of one's health I have included Dr Clare Taylor's explanation below. One of the main symptoms that long covid people can have and that underpins extreme fatigue, is dysautonomia. I have also included Dr Sanjay Gupta's proposition of an alleviative treatment for dysautonomia below.

 

Now that I understand that I have had dysautonomia at least from the time I originally contracted the covid virus more than 29 months ago, I can say that the dysautonomia was seriously worsened by the h-pylori medication. Of course it is good to have cured the h-pylori condition, but I actually feel more ill now on account of the much increased inflammation that is signified by the intensified dysautonomia.

 

Here is the information I have put together from Twitter messages of Dr Claire Taylor showing her understanding of what Long Covid is about:-

 

I find Dr Claire Taylor's insights into the nature of long covid very compelling, clear, and comprehensive especially as she explains brain fog and neurological issues in a way that is consistent with the views of Dr Jack Lambert ( https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/long-covid-can-result-in-ongoing-psychiatric-issues-studies-have-revealed-41721264.html ) concerning brain fog and mental health challenges.

 

Below is a summary of her understanding taken from recent twitter posts she made in June. I would hope to see this perspective become the basis for our national long covid care and treatment program.

 

This seems to me to be the information and the perspective (both scientific and out of the box together) that GP's and consultants need to grasp before they deal with long covid patients. I wonder what our chances are of getting it out there.

 

“Dr Claire Taylor

 

( https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1535963941360345088.html )

 

excerpts:-

 

From twitter thread June 12th 2022

 

[#longcovid]( https://threadreaderapp.com/hashtag/longcovid ) is covid related THROMBOTIC VASCULITIS.

 

thrombotic vasculitis is when the spike protein makes your blood vessels inflamed and form little clots that block small blood vessels #MicroClots I like evidence so here you go - https://portlandpress.com/bioscirep/article/41/8/BSR20210611/229418/SARS-CoV-2-spike-protein-S1-induces-fibrin-ogen

 

When your blood has little clots in it filled with amyloid it causes more Inflammation. Think of when you get a cut and the skin goes red and sore. That’s inflammation. Imagine that in your blood vessels. The oxygen in your blood then struggles to get to all the tissues.

 

Covid related thromobotic vasculitis puts you at higher risk of heart attacks and strokes after Covid. After all the blood vessels are inflamed. That’s what vasculitis means.Evidence - https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2022/covid-and-the-heart-it-spares-no-one

 

What about your brain? ? is that spared? Unfortunately not. It’s is invaded by [#COVID19]( https://threadreaderapp.com/hashtag/COVID19 ) with a resulting huge increase in inflammation. Some people call it ‘brain fog’ or ‘neuroimmune’. It is actually ENCEPHALITIS. Sounds serious, right?Evidence - [ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00415-022-11050-w ](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00415-022-11050-w)

 

(This is what backs up Dr Jack Lambert's focus on long covid as a neurological issue!)

 

In medicine we have always treated thrombotic vasculitis and encephalitis seriously. Not left people at home and tried to rehabilitate them with no treatment.

 

The next time you see a patient with long Covid think of the pathology. Covid related thrombotic Vasculitis - and acknowledge the implications. Take it as seriously as the pathology suggests.

 

Would you try and rehabilitate and psychologicalise a patient with vasculitis or encephalitis? No you absolutely wouldn’t.

 

Rehabilitation is important. But you cannot rehabilitate someone until you diagnose and treat the underlying condition. Sending Long Covid patients to physiotherapists and occupational therapists and expecting them to get better with no medical treatment?

 

From twitter thread June 8th2022

 

Covid is a vascular disease. We need to stop thinking of it primarily as a lung disease. I hear lung Doctors say ‘we don’t see much on the chest X-rays in #longcovid’. The rheumatologists say ‘we don’t see raised inflammation on the blood tests in #LongCovid’

 

The cardiologists say ‘we don’t see much myocarditis in [#LongCovid]( https://twitter.com/hashtag/LongCovid?src=hashtag_click )and when we do it’s mild’. The GPs say ‘ we see lots of odd chest pain after Covid but we don’t really know what it is’.

 

The media say ‘Covid is mild, long Covid is a mystery and we don’t know what causes it or how to treat it’.

 

I say - Covid is a virus that causes vascular damage and inflammation. I say the ‘odd chest pain’ is not a mystery and neither is [#LongCovid]( https://twitter.com/hashtag/LongCovid?src=hashtag_click )

 

Why do I say that? We now know that the blood tests we do in the NHS only show a tiny % of the immune system. We are testing the wrong markers. In studies Interleukins and cytokines ARE raised.

 

( https://t.co/L1m204Y8PU ) [#Covid_19]( https://twitter.com/hashtag/Covid_19src=hashtag_click )causes inflammation. No mystery.

 

Now to more exciting stuff. Covid causes micro clots with amyloid. Yes amyloid. They block capillaries and reduce oxygenation. Here is a photo of a patient’s blood before Covid and afterwards when they got [#LongCovid]( https://twitter.com/hashtag/LongCovid?src=hashtag_click )showing new microclots [ https://cardiab.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12933-021-01359-7https://cardiab.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12933-021-01359-7"> ]

 

Covid is a vascular disease. If you want to learn more this is a brilliant paper.

https://portlandpress.com/biochemj/article/479/4/537/230829/A-central-role-for-amyloid-fibrin-microclots-in//portlandpress.com/biochemj/article/479/4/537/230829/A-central-role-for-amyloid-fibrin-microclots-in%5B@dbkell%5D(https://twitter.com/dbkell"> [@dbkell]( https://twitter.com/dbkell ) [@resiapretorius]( https://twitter.com/resiapretorius )

 

 

Why is it not on the front pages of the newspapers? Why hasn’t our health secretary mentioned it? Why doesn’t your Doctor know about it? Why don’t they know that ‘normal’ bloods in Covid don’t test the whole immune system and for microclots? These would be good questions.

 

#LongCovid is a post viral illness. Therefore it has not surprised me today to see the pre-print showing the same microclots in #MECFS https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1727226/v1 This will not show up in blood tests done currently for #MECFS or #LongCovid resulting in ‘but your bloods are normal’

 

Hopefully this thread might convince you Covid is more than a cold. That Covid causes vascular complications.That doing the usual tests won’t show you the problem. That when you apply cutting edge science to medicine you find answers. #MedTwitter #LongCovid #MECFS #TeamClots

 

‘Medical science has proven time and again that when the resources are provided, great progress in the treatment, cure, and prevention of disease can occur.’ Michael J. Fox' "

 

[End of Dr Claire Taylor twitter thread]

 

This research, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.10.13.22281055v1 , just recently published confirms strongly that long covid is an inflammation based disease.

 

Here is a paper that is relevant to a possible way of looking at how depression arises as a response to stress.

 

" https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/838376 "

 

Here is the work of Dr Sanjay Gupta in the UK explaining how periodic saline infusions provide relief to patients suffering with POTS and with Long Covid.

 

From https://drsanjayguptacardiologist.com/blog/a-potentially-transformative-treatment-for-pots-long-covid/

 

"A potentially transformative treatment for POTS/Long COVID.

 

By Dr Sanjay Gupta|August 31st, 2022|Blog, Brain Fog, Coronavirus, Covid-19, Postural Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS), POTS|0 Comments

 

What is POTS?

 

POTS stands for postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome. In this condition, patients complain when they stand up for a prolonged period of time, they feel very uncomfortable with dizziness, palpitations and tremulousness and therefore they either have to sit or lie down or they risk collapsing. When you examine them, the heart rate can be found to be excessively fast.

 

As doctors, sometimes when we can’t explain what is going on, we just take what the patient tells us, give it a fancy technical name and make it a condition. This patient says her heart rate goes up excessively when she is in an upright posture. Let’s call it Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome – that’s not really a diagnosis – it’s just a medical jargon filled term for what the patient has just told us. It tells us nothing more than that – but this is the term that we have ended up sticking with! In fact this term does patients a disservice. Because of the name of the condition, many clinicians have incorrectly assumed that it is only a condition that is manifest when the patient is upright or standing up. This is incorrect. I have over a thousand patients with POTS and I have spent a lot of time listening to their stories. All of them say ‘ I feel rubbish all the time – I just feel rubbisher when I am upright’.

 

 

What do they mean when they say they feel rubbish all the time?

 

They are always tired, they have bad brain fog, they have issues with lack of refreshing sleep, they have horrendous gut issues, they have chest pain and breathlessness, they have headaches and they even have bladder symptoms. Unfortunately, the term POTS does not capture all these other symptoms and therefore I prefer the term dysautonomia which means a disequilibrium between the flight and fight system and the rest and digest system. In essence these patients spend a lot more time in flight and fight mode and very little time in rest and digest mode and therefore they are always simultaneously tired and wired. This is a far more appropriate and accurate name for this condition.

 

 

How do patients develop POTS?

 

Increasingly we are seeing that they often inherit a genetic vulnerability such as Ehler’s Danlos syndrome/joint hypermobility syndrome and then at some point in their lives they get hit by some kind of infection, this vulnerability is unmasked and the patient starts noticing these symptoms. In essence, people are born with a genie in their lamp and then an infection comes along and the genie is unleashed and they then can’t get the genie back in the lamp. The most common infection that I have come across as a trigger for dysautonomias is Glandular fever, However there are other infections that can also trigger dysautonomias including coronaviruses and it is therefore not at all surprising that so many people have developed this condition called LongCOVID which has almost identical symptoms to a dysautonomia like POTS and I would argue that perhaps POTS and Long COVID are indeed the same condition.

 

 

Are POTS AND Long COVID the same condition?

 

Why do I say this?

 

Only 10% of patients with COVID develop Long COVID – why? If it were just something about the virus then surely everyone who got COVID would be expected to get long COVID. There must be something about that 10% which makes them more vulnerable.

 

The severity of COVID does not have a bearing on whether you get Long COVID or not. Well if it was just about the virus then logic would dictate that the more severe the illness, the greater the chance of having Long COVID. We do not see this. Again makes you think that the virus simply flicks the switch in those people who possess that switch.

 

When you talk to many Long COVID sufferers, they will admit to having some dysautonomic symptoms albeit mildly even before they caught COVID. Many times they had just assumed that those symptoms were normal for them but when they get hit by the infection then they find that all those symptoms which were very mild get so much worse.

 

 

So it is highly likely that a majority of patients with Long COVID have POTS and the problem is that because the definition of the term POTS is so narrow, patients with Long COVID will be managed as they have a completely separate condition rather than being managed as a post-viral dysautonomia, the way POTS is managed. There are too many doctors who are interested in treating conditions rather than treating patients. This means that many patients with LongCOVID may miss out on lots of helpful treatments which we use in POTS, and just be asked to pace whilst we wait for some fancy American pharmaceutical company to produce a mega-expensive and potentially harmful new drug specifically for Long COVID. I have hundreds of patients with Long COVID and I can categorically say that many of them feel better when they are managed in the same way as I manage my POTS patients.

 

 

In terms of optimal management for POTS patients, i use 4 approaches:

 

Lifestyle management

 

Physiotherapy

 

Medications

 

Patient advocacy where the doctor who is interested in the patient helps the patient maintain their identity by advocating for them to access modifications at school and work.

 

 

You will find a lot more details about these 4 pillars of treatment on other videos on my channel. To be honest, these measures make a difference but they don’t transform patients. I usually see like a 40-50% improvement but patients still remain enfeebled.

 

Today I wanted to talk about an intervention that in my experience can be transformative for some patients and in my -opinion should be offered more widely than it is.

 

Today I am going to talk to you about the benefit of regular intravenous saline infusions in POTS and potentially even in many patients with Long COVID.

 

One of the most consistent symptoms in POTS is that patients generally feel worse when they are upright. The one thing that happens when we are upright is that gravity will pull blood towards it and therefore it is more difficult for the blood to get up to the brain which is the furthest organ from the ground. We therefore rely on our legs muscles and the blood vessels in our legs to squeeze and help push the blood upwards. In patients with POTS this does not happen as well and therefore blood pools in the legs and therefore less blood is available for circulation. We also find that this same phenomenon happens when it is warm because when it is warm our blood vessels open up and therefore the leg vessels open up and this encourages more pooling. Similarly many patients will feel worse after a big carbohydrate rich meal because the carbs need more blood to go to the gut and the blood tends to pool in the gut – a phenomenon known as splanchnic pooling. We also know that because of this reduction in circulating volume, the heart has to work with less blood and therefore over a period of time the heart can actually become smaller which means that the heart now is pushing less blood out with each beat and has to beat faster to get the same amount of blood around. In addition, the legs muscles start getting deconditioning which continues to propagate this vicious cycle. We also know that patients with POTS tend to run low on the hormones that are produced to by the kidneys to help retain water and so not only can’t they circulate it, they even have difficulty holding onto it which is why many patients with POTS will say that they are constantly urinating and many have to undergo investigation for Diabetes insipidus.

 

If we can therefore increase the circulating volume, then patients do feel better. The easiest way to do so (at least theoretically) is to ask the patient to drink more and this is why the first recommendation is to ask patients to substantially increase their fluid input to at least 3L of water daily and cut down on diuretics such as soda etc and carb rich meals. Because extra water does not stay in the blood vessels, we usually ask patients to take more salt and electrolytes as these encourage fluid retention in the blood vessels. However despite these measures, patients see only a mild/at most modest benefit. The reasons are many fold.

 

It is requires a lot of discipline to make sure you are constantly hydrating

 

The frequent urination is inconvenient, bothersome and tiring

 

Many patients struggle with increasing salt intake and electrolytes because these can be unpalatable

 

Patients with POTS suffer from gut issues so they feel nauseous anyway and get easily bloated and also may have impaired digestion and this may have an impact on absorption

 

Finally when the water finally gets into the blood vessels, they have difficulty holding onto it

 

So in some ways, if one could bypass the gut and in some way deliver the fluid with the right concentration of salt directly into the blood vessels and bypass the gut altogether then that would be expected to have quicker and more dramatic effects.

 

This is where the idea of giving intravenous saline comes in. The problem is that the patient still struggles to hold onto the water for a prolonged period of time therefore you would expect the patient to feel better when they get the fluid and then you would expect them to deteriorate after a few days and this is why intravenous saline infusions have to be given repeatedly.

 

Is there any evidence that this works?

 

Well there is an interesting paper by a very prominent physician called Blair Grubb from Toledo which was published in the Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology in 2017 called ‘Effects of intravenous saline infusions in patients with medication – refractory postural tachycardia syndrome’.

 

They took 57 patients who were already medicated (at least 3 different types) for POTS but were still struggling. They recorded measures of quality of life before initiating intravenous saline infusions regularly (1L every week) via peripheral cannula (or in small numbers through PORTS) and they followed these patients up over the next 3-12 months to see if they reported an improvement in quality of life.

 

The results showed that only 4 patients of the 57 did not feel that they benefitted. All the rest reported a benefit and the benefit was seen in all domains across the quality of life assessments. Most patients reported an immediate improvement in symptoms that lasted upto 3 days. Many patients subsequently found that because they felt so much better they were able to use that improvement to do more physiotherapy, get more conditioned and many were then able to discontinue the IV fluids altogether. More importantly there were no major adverse events from the IV saline.

 

This was clearly very encouraging even though this study was a non-blinded observational study rather than a randomised placebo controlled trial which most doctors pay more attention to. Despite these encouraging data, as yet I am unaware of anyone who has done a randomised controlled trial and this is probably because there is no real money to be made from IV saline (which is cheap as chips).

 

On the basis of this study, one would think that this is a simple and safe intervention to offer those patients who continue to struggle despite lifestyle physio and medications and I have many such patients and so I was keen to explore this option for my patients. Unfortunately I found that it proved far more difficult to convince the NHS gurus that this was worth trying for several reasons.

 

 

Many doctors don’t know anything about POTS

 

Many who do know about it don't believe in it

 

Those who believe in it, fail to understand why just telling the patient to drink more is not an adequate enough intervention

 

As it is not dangerous, it does not seem to be important enough to address

 

Many feel that that benefit is simply due to a placebo effect (even though you have to ask whether that really matters – if someone says i don’t enjoy my quality of life and after delivering a cheap, safe intervention, the same person says i feel so much better!)

 

Finally there were no easy mechanisms within a cash strapped, space-starved, staff-depleted NHS to provide a service.

 

 

Despite all these challenges, i was keen to see if i could access fluids for some of my patients and my breakthrough came when one of my patients wrote to Mr RIshi Sunak, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer and her local MP and Mr Sunak wrote back requesting that on humanitarian grounds she be offered IV fluids because she was so incredibly debilitated. Happily my hospital agreed and we started offering some of our patients regular IV saline infusions via peripheral cannula (we do not put ports in because there is a much higher risk of blood clots and infections with something that remains in the patient). I am delighted to say that the vast majority of my patients (about 30 or so) have found this simple intervention to be transformative. They come once a week, sit in our day case unit and receive IV saline 2L over 4 hours via a peripheral cannula. They then go home and engage with physiotherapy and conditioning work and come back and do it all over again in a week.We have not been able to offer it to more simply because of a shortage of resources but i am hoping that soon we will be able to add to the evidence base and fund more resources.

 

I wanted to share some feedback from the patients in their own words.

 

Dear Dr Gupta,

 

I thought I would write to you now we are a couple of months into my IV treatment.

 

I can’t believe how much of a difference this treatment is making. I admit I was sceptical at first but having run out of options in my treatment I had no alternative but to give this a try.

 

To start with I didn’t see much difference but then after a couple of weeks my wife commented that I looked different immediately after receiving treatment, that I looked well and my complexion was more refreshed, my skin was less pale and I had more of a glow about me.

 

I am able to get more done than I have in the last 6 years on the day of the infusion, I can bare to stand up for longer where usually I would be rushing for a chair or my mobility scooter.

 

This would last a day but that day is time I can spend with my family instead of being left behind as I was unable to participate.

 

I noticed a longer effect if I wear my compression socks that I purchased from Amazon (the ones you suggest are way out of my price bracket unfortunately). Ever since I did this I’m able to extend these effects from my treatment into the following day.

 

Although you only get 1-2 days of lesser symptoms from this treatment, it has made such a difference to me. I very much hope that funding will continue so that I am able to have more of a life instead of being confined to my home.

 

 

Dear Dr Gupta,

 

H has now finished her once a week, over 4 weeks course of infusions. I have to say I did not expect the infusions to make such a difference to H, but they have!

This therapy has given us glimpses of our daughter back, that we haven’t seen for over 8 years. She has struggled not only with Ehlers Danlos Syndrome, but also with Chronic Fatigue, Brain fog, Auditory delay, Headaches and Difficulty processing speech from others and giving a related answer.

Therapy has given her so many benefits. She has not had a headache since starting treatment. For 3 days a week she is animated, chatty and can process conversations correctly. Her energy levels have increased vastly for 3 days a week she can do hobbies, sit downstairs ( she is normally bed bound) and has now been for days out. This is huge for H and us as a family.

If H were to continue and possibly have infusions twice a week, she may benefit so much. It would give her more family and friends time. Less time being fatigued and in a state of all consuming brain fog, which makes life so hard for her. She would not feel isolated, in H’s words she feels,”Normal” for those few days. To a disabled person that word is HUGE! To a parent it’s a life line we thought she would never have. Thankyou for this opportunity you have given to H.

So as you can see – these are incredibly heartwarming stories and it is a shame that this is a service that is not offered more widely to carefully selected patients. Although one of the reasons is that there are no mechanisms in place to offer this service within existing NHS services, a bigger reason is the attitude of doctors. Doctors these days think, what will happen to me if i try to help this patient when they should be thinking ‘what will happen to this patient if i don’t help them’. My own feeling is that a doctor who is not prepared to put him or herself out of his/her comfort zone, for the sake of the patient then that doctor is not deserving of their title.

I hope this video/blog will empower patients who suffer from dysautonomia, POTS and long COVID to access the care that they truly deserve.

https://youtu.be/retGCkEuE5A

P.S We now have a new website that I have started for patients with POTS. This has lots of free resources you can access. The website is www.potsspecialist.com. If you get a minute to check it out please do and let me know how we can make it better and more useful.”

[End of Dr Sanjay Gupta section on Covid POTS and saline infusion relief]

I have requested this treatment from my GP and from Dr         in Cork University Hospital. Neither of these doctors were willing to consider being informed about Dr Gupta's work or in helping me to get this treatment in a careful and timely way.

 

When long covid is understood to be basically Thrombotic Vasculitis it is obvious that any treatment or medication that may intensify the level of inflammation in the patient needs to be carefully evaluated. When the medical practitioners are ignorant of this possibility and insist on practising 'evidence based medicine' without any flexibility to think outside of this box, it both puts patients with long covid, POTS, ME, CFS, Fibromyalgia, Lyme Disease and other fatigue related syndromes at risk of being harmed. By insisting on evidence based medicine and insisting on not considering that maybe there are explanations which they don't know about, doctors devote enormous and time consuming efforts to explain what is wrong and to treat only what they can find to be evidence based. They waste the resources of the health system without getting to the bottom of what is going on with the patient and treating the patient in a sensible way. Practising evidence based medicine means ignoring the patients experience unless it is backed up by laboratory testing, even when suitable tests are not known about, or in development.

 

Dr Seamus O'Mahony has become an authority on what is wrong with medicine. (https://seamusomahony.com/ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9O2HSYy4bY )

 

Most especially egregious is the custom of deciding it is all explained away as mental health issues. Yes, mental health issues arise and have to be dealt with, but they arise as secondary issues to the actual physical impairment that is Long Covid.

 

From https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/what-king-charles-iii-said-about-religion-that-resonates-with-psychiatry

 

“Around the turn of the new millennium, the Royal College of Psychiatrists established a Spirituality and Psychiatry Special Interest Group to appreciate the influence of spirituality and religion in mental health and patient care in the United Kingdom.Likewise, in recent decades, psychiatry in the United States has also paid increased attention to the influence of spirituality and formal religions. Like the challenge for King Charles, the basic recommendation is to assess what any faith might mean to an individual patient and to watch for any countertransference reactions which might unduly stem from the clinician’s own faith preferences.Moreover, even though there is official separation of church and state in the United States, the influence of a given religion varies with size and other political factors. Discrimination has increased recently in the form of anti-Semitism towards those of the Jewish faith and Islamophobia towards those of the Islamic faith. To help address such adverse mental health repercussions, colleagues of various faiths and I labored to learn from each other in order to recently produce a scholarly and practical trilogy of books on psychiatry and these 3 faiths.1-3 Psychiatry still needs one that will focus on Hinduism and other Eastern religions.As we discussed in the column, “An Oath of Lifelong Psychiatric Service,” let us join King Charles III in recognizing, understanding, and incorporating how religious and spiritual beliefs can potentially be of benefit for us all. Applying that to our Hippocratic oath might convey: do no religious-based harm of omission or commission.”

 

This course description of a course given by Dr Jack Lambert - https://www.lymedisease.org/long-haul-covid-lyme-disease/ makes it very clear why everything recounted in this document that has happened to me has been so wrong in the way that Irish doctors are 'treating' people with long covid.

 

Update on 11th November 2022

 

On September 22nd 2022 I asked Dr                    , who had told me she knew absolutely nothing about long covid, if, based on the work of Dr Sanjay Gupta, I could be given saline infusions. She offered me an appointment with a consultant in a Limerick hospital for a tilt test for POTS to take place after several weeks. I declined on the basis that I knew experientially that the test would show positive and it would be a long time to wait for a diagnosis that would still not be accepted as a suitable treatment for long covid management. I am also in no condition to go so far and further risk my health. In other words, just more procrastination, as this is how doctors put off dealing with actual health issues they don't know anything about. Dr        flat refused to even consider looking into Dr Gupta's work.

 

On September 28th I had my last consultation with Dr                      . I asked him if he could arrange for me to have saline infusions. He turned me down flat saying it would not be ethical and there was no basis in medical understanding (ie evidenced based medicine) for doing it. He did not even inquire why I was asking.

 

I realised that I needed to change GP. I was refused by two practises on the grounds that I already had a GP. I asked Dr           if he would delist me from his practise, and he informed me that he could not do that until I had an acceptance from another GP, although possibly after six months had elapsed there might be a way to do it. Somewhat mysteriously out of the blue I received yesterday morning out of the blue a letter instigate by my GP telling me if I can show three refusals from other practises they will assign me to a new GP. I am currently pursuing this with relief.

 

I have been deteriorating since late September. For the past ten days or so my health has been extremely bad. I could not possibly continue researching and calling GP's as the fatigue and stress was already over the top.

 

Two days ago I felt so bad both mentally and physically that I become frightened for my life. When I settled again in the early hours of the morning it came to me that I almost certainly am having a reoccurrence of SIADH. If this is correct it will be the third occurrence since I got long covid. The medical test to verify this is to have a blood test that shows low levels of blood sodium.

 

Today I called the GP to ask for a blood test and to get a recommendation on whether I should go to the accident and emergency department. I was seen by Dr              who is the         of Dr           . Dr              treated me even more badly than Dr              .

My blood pressure was extremely high. He wanted me to take blood pressure medication.

 

The treatment for SIADH is saline infusions.

 

I refused the blood pressure medication.

 

When I was in Beaumont hospital a year ago a single saline infusion was sufficient to clear the matter up. I was stronger and had better physical wellbeing for several months subsequently.

 

My view on the blood pressure issue is that if I have SIADH and I get the infusion I will not need blood pressure medication. I have several years ago had bad reaction and side effects while taking blood pressure medication for a few weeks and I would count myself lucky to die suddenly of a stroke or a heart attack rather than to continue struggling on with ever increasing impairment and disablement.

 

Tomorrow morning I will go to the CUH Accident and Emergency department and the story will unfold.

 

Test heading

Foreign travellers, sipping coffee in cafes as they waited for their flights, could be seen looking on puzzled as reporters and photographers surrounded Michaella, snapping away and asking her for comment.

"Who is that?" they undoubtedly wondered as she brushed by with the media in pursuit. And therein lies the problem. Imagine their reaction when they find out that she's a drugs trafficker. They will think that we have lost our senses to be treating this woman as a celebrity.

Some will say that McCollum didn't invite the attention. Yet had she wanted to arrive back home in anonymity, she would hardly have posted selfies on Instagram in Lima as she prepared for take-off on board a flight to London.

Everything about the Michaella McCollum story sends out the wrong message to young people.

Imagination and Rigor In Harmony


In August 1978, Gregory Bateson, having attended a meeting of the Board of Regents of the University of California, wrote a memorandum to the board, and ended saying,

Do we, as a board, foster whatever will promote in students, in faculty, and around the boardroom table, those wider perspectives which will bring our system back into an apporpriate synchrony or harmony between rigor and imagination?

As teachers, are we wise?” (Mind and Nature, p 223)

In the introduction to his book Steps To An Ecology Of Mind, Bateson says, “The contemporary crises in man's relationship to his environment, can only be understood in terms of such an ecology of ideas as I propose,” (Steps To An Ecology Of Mind p xiii) and our failure so far to engage in corrective action about climate change may be seen as iconic of the absence in us so far of a harmony between rigor and imagination.

In her beautiful documentary movie, An Ecology of Mind, Nora Bateson, Gregory's younger daughter, quotes Gregory as saying, “The pathology of wrong thinking in which we all live, can only in the end be corrected by an enormous discovery of those relationships which make up the beauty of nature.” (Nora Bateson, 2010)

After completing the book Mind and Nature, Gregory wrote a poem about it:-

The Manuscript

So there it is in words
Precise
And if you read between the lines
You will find nothing there
For that is the discipline I ask
Not more, not less

Not the world as it is
Not ought to be—
Only the precision
The skeleton of truth
I do not dabble in emotions
Hint at implications
Evoke the ghost of old forgotten creeds

All that is for the preacher
The hypnotist, therapist and missionary
They will come after me
And use the little that I said
To bait more traps
For those who cannot bear

The lonely
          Skeleton
                 of Truth

(Angels Fear, p 5-6)

Gregory Bateson's poem makes the point that relational understanding is about the pattern he calls the lonely skeleton of truth. The skeleton of truth is the pattern itself abstracted from the instance in form where the pattern is perceived, or in Bateson's language, the map abstracted from the territory and it is lonely because Bateson challenges us to see and deal with the pattern itself, without our usual scaffolding of “for instances,” “for examples,” and “becauses” that return us to the territory of Cartesian dualism.

What is important about a harmony between rigor and imagination is “harmony between”. This essay proposes to look into how we can discover what it is to live in a harmony between rigor and imagination. When we speak about a harmony between rigor and imagination, we focus on the relation itself, the harmony between, or to put it relationally, imagination and rigor in harmony.

After Gregory died in July 1980, Mary Catherine Bateson, his first daughter, completed a book, Angels Fear, Towards an Epistemology of the Sacred, that Gregory had begun writing. Before he died he invited Mary Catherine to be his coauthor. In it Mary Catherine wrote the following:-

If we want to be able to talk about the living world (and ourselves), we need to master the disciplines of description and reference in this curious language that has no things in it but only differences and relationships. Only if we do so will we be able to think sensibly about the matrix in which we live, and only then will we recognize our affinity with the rest of that world and deal with it ethically and responsibly. Not only do we misread and mistreat meadows, oceans, and organisms of all kinds, but our mistreatments of each other are based on errors of the general order of not knowing what we are dealing with, or acting in ways that violate the communicative web. (Angels Fear, p 191)

In her memoir of her parents, With a Daughter's Eye: A Memoir of Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson, Mary Catherine Bateson said, “Once on an adult camping trip he [sc. Gregory Bateson] asked about the current state of thinking on what is called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, the hypothesis that there is a causal link between thought and language, so that the patterns of thought of speakers of different languages differ. 'I suppose,' he said, 'that it's one of those things that cannot not be true.' I agreed but pointed out that efforts to prove it were unsatisfying. 'Get it said right,' he said, 'and then it will be self-evident.'”(With a Daughter's Eye, p 178)

In these times, enabled by the enormous power Cartesian thought has given us to master science and nature, rigor has taken prominence and imagination is alienated. Our thinking mostly exemplifies rigor, and imagination flourishes while isolated, in the domain of the arts, and in the hands of mystics.

In Steps to an Ecology of Mind, Gregory says, “The step to realizing -- to making habitual -- the other way of thinking -- so that one naturally thinks that way when one reaches out for a glass of water or cuts down a tree—that step is not an easy one.” (Steps To An Ecology Of Mind, p 469) The thinking he refers to is relational thinking. It is with relational thinking that a harmony of rigor and imagination can be realized.

Bateson said, “... we shall know a little more by dint of rigor and imagination, the two great contraries of mental process, either of which by itself is lethal. Rigor alone is paralytic death, but imagination alone is insanity.” (Mind and Nature, p 219)

Why is the step to realizing relational thinking not an easy step, in the sense, as Bateson says, of relational thinking becoming habitual? The principle of linguistic relativity of linguist Benjamin Lee Whorf can explain an aspect of why our thinking remains other than relational, and show us how we may open a way to a synthesis of rigor and imagination. Whorf's point is that our thinking draws on patterns of linguistic acculturation that limit or filter the range of patterns we employ in making sense of reality. The success of Cartesian dualism lies in the absence of grammatical forms in our linguistic acculturation that enable us to bring forward relational patterning in our thinking.

Whorf says, “We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native language. The categories and types that we isolate from the world of phenomena we do not find there because they stare every observer in the face; on the contrary, the world is presented in a kaleidoscope flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds—and this means largely by the linguistic systems of our minds. We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largely because we are parties to an agreement to organize it in this way—an agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is codified in the patterns of our language." (Language, Thought, and Reality p 272)

He goes on to say, “We are thus introduced to a new principle of relativity, which holds that all observers are not led by the same physical evidence to the same picture of the universe, unless their linguistic backgrounds are similar, or can in some way be calibrated.” (Language, Thought, and Reality p 274)

It follows from Whorf's principle that some speech communities may be party to an agreement to conceptualize reality non-relationally. When Bateson, in the movie An Ecology of Mind, speaks to people about his reality as being different than theirs, he alludes to, “The nature of the world in which I live, and in which I wish you lived, all of you, and all the time, but even I don't live in it all the time...”(Nora Bateson, 2010)

His concern, one that was the focus of his life's work, was to show us how to live in deep connection with nature, to show us how to enable in ourselves capacity to think relationally, and realize this in a synchrony or harmony of rigor and imagination. We do not readily think of failing to harmonise rigor and imagination as a condition of why we have so far failed to deal adequately with climate change, or with any of the many difficulties that face us as a consequence of the particulars of our acculturation, such failures as we sometimes refer to as collateral damage, or accidental side effects.

How we respond to the fact, for instance, of climate change depends on whether we believe the science, and if we do, how we evaluate the significance of what the science tells us is true. It is, in philosophical terms, a matter of both fact and value. Thus, to any individual, climate change may be true and significant. Climate change may be true but not significant. Climate change may be not true, but if it were, it would be significant. Climate change may be not true and not significant. People who believe it is true and significant will tend to take prompt and appropriate action. People for whom it is true but not significant will tend to accept the truth and not act on it. People who think that climate change is not true but nevertheless significant would tend to take action once they believed it is true. People who believe that climate change is neither true nor significant are unlikely to pay attention at all.

The question of whether our relationship with nature is bringing to an end the possibility of nature sustaining human life on earth is a question that involves a synthesis of fact and value. Rigor is what determines fact, and imagination is what determines value. As Gregory Bateson said, rigor alone is paralytic death, and imagination alone is insanity. The science about climate is a matter of rigor. Those who accept that we are destroying the climate appear to believe that the scientific truth should inspire people to act. Those who value nature and care about what is happening to the climate regardless of whether the science is correct or not are seen as unreliable or even hysterical.

If relational thinking is the ground of rigor in harmony or in synchrony with imagination then we have some questions to answer. What is non-relational about the way we think? What is relational thinking? How do we access a capacity for relational thinking? What is the relationship between relational thinking and non-relational thinking? And finally, how does thinking evolve?

Near the beginning of the movie An Ecology of Mind, Gregory asks Nora, “How is thinking done?

Mostly while we drive a car, we think about driving, but not about how driving is done. We are equally disinclined to think about how we think while we are thinking. Here already we are in the realm of paradox. We can only think about thinking while we are thinking.

Perhaps the best place to begin thinking about thinking is to acknowledge that there is no point of reference where one can begin the process, other than to acknowledge that this is so, and then to begin right here in the absence of a foundation.

Descartes founded his thinking on the following:-

It is not possible for us to doubt that we exist while we are doubting; and this is the first thing we come to know when we philosophize in an orderly way.

In rejecting – and even imagining to be false – everything which we can in any way doubt, it is easy for us to suppose that there is no God and no heaven, and that there are no bodies, and even that we ourselves have no hands or feet, or indeed any body at all. But we cannot for all that suppose that we, who are having such thoughts, are nothing. For it is a contradiction to suppose that what thinks does not, at the very time that it is thinking, exist. Accordingly, this piece of knowledge — I am thinking, therefore I exist — is the first and most certain of all to occur to anyone who philosophizes in an orderly way.
(Selected Philosophical Writings, p 161-162, from Principles of Philosophy, Part 1, item 7)

Descartes' position relies on not doubting logic, on not doubting that philosophizing is to be done only according to his status quo understanding of what is orderly thinking, and on assuming that the meaning of the word 'nothing' is clear.

The paradox here is that paradox can allow for a way of philosophizing that is not limited to an idea of order implicit in res extensa, one that is not limited to the logic of deduction and induction, relying on truth by the relation of cause and effect, and can allow that there may be more to the relationship between stuff and nothing than is obvious.

In Angel's Fear, Gregory Bateson tells how, “For me, the Cartesian dualism was a formidable barrier, and it may amuse the reader to be told how I achieved a sort of monism – the conviction that mind and nature form a necessary unity, in which there is no mind separate from the body and no god separate from his creation – and how, following that, I learned to look with new eyes at the integrated world.” (Angels Fear, p 12)

He chose to express this in terms of a distinction taken from Carl Jung's Seven Sermons to the Dead. He says, “Jung‘s book insisted upon the contrast between Pleroma, the crudely physical domain governed only by forces and impacts, and Creatura, the domain governed by distinctions and differences.” (Angels Fear, p 13-14)

He goes on to say, “I think that Descartes' first epistemological steps – the separation of 'mind' from 'matter' and the cogito – established bad premises, perhaps ultimately lethal premises, for Epistemology, and I believe that Jung‘s statement of connection between Pleroma and Creatura is a much healthier first step. Jung‘s epistemology starts from comparison of difference – not from matter.

So I will define Epistemology as the science that studies the process of knowing – the interaction of the capacity to respond to differences, on the one hand, with the material world in which those differences somehow originate, on the other. We are concerned then with an interface between Pleroma and Creatura.

There is a more conventional definition of epistemology, which simply says that epistemology is the philosophic study of how knowledge is possible. I prefer my definition – how knowing is done – because it frames Creatura within the larger total, the presumably lifeless realm of Pleroma; and because my definition bluntly identifies Epistemology as the study of phenomena at an interface and as a branch of natural history.” (Angels Fear, p 20)

Near the beginning of Nora Bateson's movie An Ecology of Mind, the following short dialogue takes place between Nora and her father:-

Gregory. OK, now I want to make this big jump which is to the question of how do you think?
Nora. Me?
Gregory. How is thinking done?
Nora. By the brain in your head!
Gregory. That may be the part that does it, but that isn't how.

And Nora then poses, as the theme of the movie, the question, “How is thinking done?
(Nora Bateson, 2010)

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's approach to epistemology is sympathetic to Gregory Bateson's question, “How is thinking done?” and to relational thinking, and to Bateson's difficulties with Cartesian dualism and the separation of mind and matter, the separation of res cogitans and res extensa. Hegel asks us to investigate reality from the point of view that there is no foundation to begin from that is already known to be true. We are to engage with reality with openness, starting where we can, and taking the view that through engaging with an aspect of reality as a whole or as a system, understanding will emerge which validates the starting point. A circular process of thought brings us to philosophical truth by looking for meaning within the pattern of reality.

Hegel's approach validates Bateson's way of looking at patterns in reality, in the light of a chosen starting point, finding the differences that make a difference, and arriving at meaning through discovering the pattern that connects, validating the choice of starting point according to the outcome of the thinking process.

In Hegel's Difference Between Fichte's and Schelling's System of Philosophy, he says, “As objective totality knowledge founds itself more effectively the more it grows, and its parts are only founded simultaneously with this whole of cognitions. Center and circle are so connected with each other that the first beginning of the circle is already a connection with the center, and the center is not completely a center unless the whole circle, with all of its connections, is completed: a whole that is as little in need of a particular handle to attach the founding to as the earth is in need of a particular handle to attach the force to that guides it around the sun and at the same time sustains it in the whole living manifold of its shapes.” (The Difference Between Fichte's and Schelling's System of Philosophy, p 180)

In section 7 of his introduction to The Science of Logic, Hegel says, “It thus appears that modern philosophy derives its materials from our own personal observations and perceptions of the external and internal world, from nature as well as from the mind and heart of man, when both stand in the immediate presence of the observer.” (Hegel's Logic, p 12)

Hegel in section 18 of his introduction to The Science of Logic says, “As the whole science, and only the whole, can exhibit what the Idea or system of reason is, it is impossible to give in a preliminary way a general impression of a philosophy. Nor can a division of philosophy into its parts be intelligible, except in connection with the system. A preliminary division, like the limited conception from which it comes, can only be an anticipation.” (Hegel's Logic, p 28)

In section 17 of the same work, he says, “The very point of view, which originally is taken on its own evidence only, must in the course of the science be converted to a result ̶ the ultimate result in which philosophy returns into itself and reaches the point with which it began. In this manner philosophy exhibits the appearance of a circle which closes with itself, and has no beginning in the same way as the other sciences have. To speak of a beginning of philosophy has a meaning only in relation to a person who proposes to commence the study, and not in relation to the science as science.” (Hegel's Logic, p 27-28)

Tom Rockmore, in Before and After Hegel, says about Hegel,“As he understands philosophy as a totality of knowledge conceived as system, as an organic totality of concepts produced by reflection, dependent solely on reason, he cannot admit a foundation of a Cartesian type. For Hegel reason is the final philosophical principle that has no need of another principle to found or ground itself. In other words, reason legitimates or justifies itself through its own result: the philosophical system.” (Before and After Hegel, p 74)

Descartes, relying on doubt to eliminate any idea that is less than one hundred percent certain, comes to the primary truth that thinking validates existence. From there he relies on chains of cause and effect to deductively arrive at other truths, providing that the thinking is done in an orderly manner, and that the thoughts are clear and distinct. This is the position that is the foundational value of our scientistic epistemology, the kind of thinking that dominates our realities, and the dominance from which Gregory Bateson sought to free us.

Descartes goes on to validate the existence of God inductively reversing the chain of cause and effect, with the same valuing of orderly thinking, involving thoughts that are clear and distinct, to arrive at a certainty that there exists a perfection of being that is known inductively, taking the idea that every imperfection we know points back in a chain towards an original cause that is perfection itself. By this method of induction Descartes arrives finally at the starting point.

Whether thinking deductively or inductively, Descartes maintains the concept of a primary truth and a chain of related causes and effects. The linearity of this pattern accounts for the pattern of thinking we know as Cartesian dualism. We are thus bound in our thinking to a pattern involving a chain of relations where we are either going towards or coming away from a primary truth.

It is pointed out by Tom Rockmore in his book, Before and After Hegel, that both Descartes himself, and modern science, virtually abandoned inductive thinking, leaving us with the kind of deductive thinking we associate with Cartesian dualism. (Before and After Hegel, p 60)

In Hegel's approach it is the primary truth, the chain of cause and effect relations, and the inductive or deductive logic that are dispensed with in favour of a paradoxical field of systemic relations that clarify the truth of the system in terms of a complex set of relationships. Understanding, that in the end validates the truth of the starting point, is carried out in a circular way that allows also for paradox, and that does not exclude speculative thinking.

Gregory Bateson takes as his starting point Jung's distinction between pleroma and creatura. The thinking of Cartesian dualism is seen to distort our relationship to life, to art, and to the sacred. Cartesian dualism has served us well in science. Rigor is friendly with science and imagination is friendly with life, art, and the sacred. Bateson's intention is to discover an epistemology that allows for harmony in rigor and imagination. Peter Harries Jones in his book A Recursive Vision, Ecological Understanding and Gregory Bateson, mentions that Bateson calls his approach an 'experimental epistemology'. (A Recursive Vision, p 89)

Descartes divided reality into res extensa, and res cogitans. Jung and Bateson divide reality into pleroma and creatura.

David Bohm, a quantum physicist, writes about the relationship between the physical and the mental. His paper called Soma-Significance: A New Notion of the Relationship Between the Physical and the Mental was completed at the very end of his life. In this paper Bohm suggests that the physical and the mental are universally or cosmologically in relationship and he speaks about this relationship as soma-significance. It exists as a pair of inseparable relations, the soma-significant and the sigma-somatic relations. (Mind in Time, chapter 9, p 181)

Bohm says, “The notion of soma-significance implies that soma (or the physical) and its significance (which is mental) are not in any sense separately existent, but rather that they are two aspects of one over-all reality. By an aspect we mean a view or a way of looking. That is to say, it is a form in which the whole of reality appears - it displays or unfolds - either in our perception or in our thinking. Clearly each aspect reflects and implies the other, so that the other shows in it. We describe these aspects using different words; nevertheless we imply that they are revealing the unknown whole of reality, as it were, from two different sides.” (Soma-Significance third paragraph).

In the glossary of Angel's Fear by Gregory and Mary Catherine Bateson mind is defined as follows:-

A mind is a system capable of mental process or thought.” Referring to Gregory's criteria for recognizing such systems, (which are listed on pages 18 and 19 of Angel's Fear,) she says, “They do not include consciousness nor do they require association with a single organism.” (Angels Fear, p 210)

While Bateson's idea of mind is defined initially in terms of creatura, Bohm's view is that mind is universally existential.

Bohm refers to Bateson in his paper, Soma-Significance: A New Notion of the Relationship Between the Physical and the Mental, saying, “One can refer here to a useful definition introduced by Gregory Bateson. Information is a difference that makes a difference.” (Mind in Time, p 200)

In Hegel's view, philosophy begins with dichotomy or difference or separation.

Antitheses such as spirit and matter, soul and body, faith and intellect, freedom and necessity, etc. used to be important; and in more limited spheres they appeared in a variety of other guises. The whole weight of human interests hung upon them. With the progress of culture they have passed over into such forms as the antithesis of Reason and sensibility, intelligence and nature and, with respect to the universal concept, of absolute subjectivity and absolute objectivity.

The sole interest of Reason is to suspend such rigid antitheses. But this does not mean that Reason is altogether opposed to opposition and limitation. For the necessary dichotomy is One factor in life. Life eternally forms itself by setting up oppositions, and totality at the highest pitch of living energy is only possible through its own re-establishment out of the deepest fission. What Reason opposes, rather, is just the absolute fixity which the intellect gives to the dichotomy; and it does so all the more if the absolute opposites themselves originated in Reason.

When the might of union vanishes from the life of men and the antitheses lose their living connection and reciprocity and gain independence, the need of philosophy arises.” (The Difference Between Fichte' s and Schelling's System of Philosophy, p 90-91)

Descartes' opposition of res extensa and res cogitans, Jung's (and Bateson's) opposition of pleroma and creatura, and Bohm's opposition of mind and matter are different dichotomies that draw us into thinking creatively, and therefore relationally, about reality.

Gregory Bateson's epistemological experiment is to look into the reality of mind in creatura, leaving behind Descartes' cause and effect thinking, seeking to discover the truth of reality without imposing either a starting point or a fixed epistemology that might limit our grasp of meaningful patterns. This is epistemology without Cartesian dualistic baggage. Without naming it as such, Bateson's epistemology can be seen to have embraced a Hegelian pattern.

Hegel points out that reason opposes the absolute fixity that the intellect gives to the dichotomy. In Descartes' way of thinking, which the modern world follows whether this was Descartes' intention or not, res extensa and res cogitans are thought of as being fixedly distinct. When we discern that the fixity of this distinction is hostile to creatura, we are destined, unless we can become free of our fixed adherence to dualistic thinking, to try to discover a new epistemological fixity to fix this problem. If we think about the relationship between res extensa and res cogitans relationally, with a circular Hegel like epistemology we may understand that Bateson's experimental epistemology offers us an opening to discover harmony in the relation of rigor and imagination.

Bateson's work may be well described in his own terms as a search for the pattern that connects body and mind, and connects res extensa and res cogitans, in the realm of the creatura. The creatura is a context in which, when we observe the patterns there, we can look in Hegel's terms for the living connection and reciprocity of the antitheses within and among living organisms.

Towards the end of chapter three of Mind and Nature, Gregory Bateson says, “It is the Platonic thesis of the book that epistemology is an indivisible, integrated metascience whose subject matter is the world of evolution, thought, adaptation, embryology, and genetics—the science of mind in the widest sense of the word.” (Mind and Nature, p 87) He continues in a footnote, “The reader will perhaps notice that consciousness is missing from this list. I prefer to use that word, not as a general term, but specifically for that strange experience whereby we (and perhaps other mammals) are sometimes conscious of the products of our perception and thought but unconscious of the greater part of the processes.” (Mind and Nature, p 87)

In chapter five of Mind and Nature, Gregory Bateson speaks about abductive logic. “We are so accustomed to the universe in which we live and to our puny methods of thinking about it that we can hardly see that it is, for example, surprising that abduction is possible, that it is possible to describe some event or thing (e .g . , a man shaving in a mirror) and then … to look around the world for other cases to fit the same rules that we devised for our description. We can look at the anatomy of a frog and then look around to find other instances of the same abstract relations recurring in other creatures, including, in this case, ourselves.” (Mind and Nature, p 142)

He continues, “Metaphor, dream, parable, allegory, the whole of art, the whole. of science, the whole of religion, the whole of poetry, totemism (as already mentioned) , the organization of facts in comparative anatomy—all these are instances or aggregates of instances of abduction, within the human mental sphere.”(Mind and Nature, p 142)

Finally, he points out that, “Any change in our epistemology will involve shifting our whole system of abductions. We must pass through the threat of that chaos where thought becomes impossible.” (Mind and Nature, p 143)

Bateson, in turning to the creatura, puts to one side the deductive and inductive logics of Descartes and turns to abductive thinking to make sense of life and our relation to it. In doing so he steps into an open epistemology where patterns, relations, and context become the ground of reason.

Cartesian thinking mandates foundational rules of thinking which we call logic. One truth is deduced from another, logically. When Cartesian thinking enters into creativity, it is described as speculative, and follows the reversed cause and effect thinking that uses the same rules in reverse and is then called inductive logic. Speculation leads the thinker to theories that may or may not be correct. Deductive thinking is then used to test the theory experimentally. If the theory is deduced to be correct through experimental verification, it is considered true, and if not it is false. There is no abductive logic in Cartesian thinking. In Bateson's world, truth is demonstrated abductively.

In chapter one of Mind and Nature, Bateson remarks that, “Nothing has meaning except it be seen as in some context.” (Mind and Nature, p 14)

Later in chapter one, he says, “And 'context' is linked to another undefined notion called 'meaning.' Without context, words and actions have no meaning at all. This is true not only of human communication in words but also of all communication whatsoever, of all mental process, of all mind, including that which tells the sea anemone how to grow and the amoeba what he should do next.” (Mind and Nature, p 15)

It is interesting that we think and communicate a great deal without being explicit as to what is the context, and we don't attend to whether the context is clear to and understood by those with whom we communicate. It is as if there is no question at all about context, as if context is perhaps obvious, or universal.

Cartesian thinking takes both foundational and context from some known body of knowledge, a particular science. Education in the modern era is dedicated to providing a knowledge base we can treat as a context when we think deductively. As it is enacted, it might be more correctly called instructation, or inculcation. Education has become distorted to such an extent that people now expect scientific inculcation in living, creativity, and the mystical dimensions of life.

The rules and contexts of thinking become tacit or implicit rather than explicit, and are unconsciously called on to place communication and thinking in a context that we assume to be sufficiently shared universally that we can interpret our ideas and those of others according to these tacit contexts and rules of logic.

The tacit contexts and rules of logic involve a forgotten agreement to avoid abductive logic, to adhere to deductive logic, and also to engage with inductive logic.

The patterning of the tacit contexts and rules of logic is founded in the measurable and mappable characteristics of res extensa, and from there carried into metaphysics, so that we follow thinking patterns that render all possible thoughts as necessarily Cartesian.

In Meditations on First Philosophy, the First Meditation, Descartes speaks about res extensa as follows:-

This class appears to include corporeal nature in general, and its extension; the shape of extended things; the quantity, or size and number of these things; the place in which they may exist, the time through which they may endure, and so on.” (Selected Philosophical Writings, p 78)

When we venture into the realm of metaphysical thinking and communication about metaphysical realities we carry with us the learned logical patterning of Cartesian dualistic logic, thoughts with a certain beginning and deductive and inductive chains of cause and effect. Our thinking is then, when it is well done, rigorous, but not imaginative. Imagination, when we think speculatively in the Cartesian way, is put outside the realm of thinking, except in a very limited inductive way. We can be imaginative artistically and mystically. However these domains are generally thought of as conceptually deficient, lacking serious thinking capacities. The term “common sense” has become almost another way of saying, “stupid”, or “foolish.”

While the significant relation in Cartesian thinking is indicated by the words “because” and “therefore,” the significant relation in the abductive world of Gregory Bateson and the creatura, is indicated by the words “like,” and “similar.” Other names for abductive thinking are metaphorical thinking, and relational thinking.

The logic of abduction is all about one pattern being like another, or to put it another way, it is the logic of similarity, where two contexts share the same pattern. With abductive thinking we are able to look at reality's patterns, and find meaning there that while not necessarily scientific truth, is truth that is meaningful to us and our aliveness in this reality. Abducitvely perceiving patterns in reality is a non-scientific way to know reality. It is the way of knowing reality that exists and only began to be set aside when Descartes empowered us in limiting our thinking to science. We then allowed ourselves to become so fascinated with what we could do with science that we have on account of this fascination almost forgotten to live. Science and life are in conflict only from the point of view of science, as science is the thinking pattern that locks out abductive thought, while life allows that science has a place in life but not such that life and abductive thinking are rendered obsolete.

When the part occupies the totality we are in trouble. There is nowhere for the rest of reality to go other than to hide alienated in the wings, and wait.

Where then do we find the thinking rules and the context for life? The context is not separate from the system but embedded in it as pattern. The rule of abduction is to find meaning in the pattern. This is the way of thinking that Gregory Bateson demonstrated and it is also of the essence of Hegel's thought. Meaningful rigor is discovered in patterns of reality. Meaningfulness is in the human utility we derive from understanding reality abductively.

We are in trouble when we try to synthesise abductive and Cartesian thinking. When we are clear about the difference, we are not.

We now have a partial answer to Gregory Bateson's question, “How is thinking done?” Thinking may be done as Descartes thinks, and it may be done as life thinks, but it must not be done otherwise. There is no such thinking domain as “pure thought,” an imagined realm of thinking that becomes a hell reserved for philosophical mindism, and mystical madness.

We have to find a way out of the box that limits us to Cartesian thinking, and Cartesian thinking will not be able to discover how this can happen. Gregory Bateson following Carl Jung stepped out of Cartesian dualism, abandoning the foundational context and rules of Cartesian thinking and looking in the system of life to see how life thinks. It is interesting to note that this involved separation from, but no loss of the possibility for Cartesian thinking.

The principal difficulty with such a learning project lies with unlearning the unconscious identification with deductive logic and scientific thinking which we associate with Cartesian thinking patterns.

When Gregory Bateson speaks about thinking patterns he distinguishes two kinds of syllogism, a Cartesian dualistic form, and an abductive form. In a paper called Men Are Grass: Metaphor and the World of Mental Process, presented in absentia to a meeting of the Lindisfarne Fellows on June 9th 1980, less than four weeks before he died, he said:-

The first is a syllogism in the mood traditionally called Barbara:

Men die.
Socrates is a man.
Socrates will die.

And the other syllogism has, I believe, a rather disreputable name,
which I will discuss in a minute, and it goes like this:

Grass dies.
Men die.
Men are grass.
(A Sacred Unity, p 240)

Gregory was publicly criticised by a reviewer who was 'unconvinced' about the rigor of his use of the grass syllogism, and he commented about this in the same paper as follows:-

So I took a very good look at this second syllogism, which is called, incidentally, 'Affirming the Consequent.' It seemed to me that indeed this was the way I did much of my thinking, and it also seemed to me to be the way the poets did their thinking. It also seemed to me to have another name, and its name was metaphor. Meta-phor. And it seemed that perhaps, while not always logically sound, it might be a very useful contribution to the principles of life. Life, perhaps, doesn't always ask what is logically sound. I'd be very surprised if it did.” (A Sacred Unity, p 240)

From the point of view of abductive thinking, a criticism can be made of Cartesian thinking that parallels the issue of 'affirming the consequent'. It is the issue of 'taking for granted'.

Later in the same paper, he goes on to point out that Cartesian dualism has come very late to life, and only became possible with the evolution of the capacity for language in human beings.

You see, if it be so that the grass syllogism does not require subjects as the stuff of its building, and if it be so that the Barbara syllogism (the Socrates syllogism) does require subjects, then it will also be so that the Barbara syllogism could never be much use in a biological world until the invention of language and the separation of subjects from predicates. In other words, it looks as though until 100,000 years ago, perhaps at most one million years ago, there were no Barbara syllogisms in the world, and there were only Bateson's kind, and still the organisms got along all right.” (A Sacred Unity, p 241)

In Bateson's syllogism of grass, there is no subject, only two predicates, and it is the function of the syllogism to identify one predicate with the other. This involves comparison rather than deduction. Nature mimes!

Language is essential for deductive thinking, while language is optional for abductive thinking. Nature thinks abductively without language. Abductive thinking in language is a way to think in communion with nature. The essence of an abductive thought articulated is in pointing out identical patterns found in multiple contexts.

The pattern of thought that made logic intrinsic to thinking was laid down by Aristotle. It might have been more accurate if Descartes had said something like, “I think logically, therefore it is logical I am.” Logic has been assumed to be a universal characteristic of human language until language communities were discovered in which logic is not intrinsic. Abductive thinking avoids deduction and it can be imagined that the discovery of the rules for deductive thinking were arrived at through abductive apperception of deductive thinking in action.

Benjamin Whorf drew further attention to the importance of the relationship between epistemology and language. The significance of language is in the relationship between a grammar and a lexicon. Grammar is knowledge about how to communicate with words. A lexicon is the repertoire of words and ideas employed by a language community. As children, initially we grasp our home language abductively. Subsequently if the language we have learned is also adapted to Cartesian dualist thinking we learn a theory of grammar and thereby enhance our epistemological capacity. Civilization in the western mind is associated with Cartesian dualism and primitive communities are thought of as those whose language remains solely adapted to abductive logic.

Whorf speaks about grammar and linguistic relativity as follows:-

The phenomena of language are background phenomena, of which the talkers are unaware or, at the most, very dimly aware—as they are of the motes of dust in the air of a room, though the linguistic phenomena govern the talkers more as gravitation than as dust would. These automatic, involuntary patterns of language are not the same for all men but are specific for each language and constitute the formalized side of the language, or its 'grammar'—a term that includes much more than the grammar we learned in the textbooks of our school days.

From this fact proceeds what I have called the "linguistic relativity principle,” which means, in informal terms, that users of markedly different grammars are pointed by their grammars toward different types of observations and different evaluations of externally similar acts of observation, and hence are not
equivalent as observers but must arrive at somewhat different views of the world. (A more formal statement of this point appears in my article of last April.) From each such unformulated and naive world view, an explicit scientific world view may arise by a higher specialization of the same basic grammatical patterns that fathered the naive and implicit view. Thus the world view of modern science arises by higher specialization of the basic grammar of the Western Indo-European languages.” (Language, Thought, and Reality, p. 282 – 283)

John M Ellis, in Language, Thought, and Logic, in speaking about controversial responses to Whorf's linguistic relativity principle, says that Whorf, “Shifted the emphasis of the argument from concepts in the lexicon of a language to the broader realm of grammatical structures.” (Language, Thought, and Logic, p 63)

Whorf also extended the understanding of grammar to include hidden or implicit aspects of grammar that are in use by a particular speech community but in a way that speakers do not know how they know these grammatical features of the language.

In 1938 while he was teaching at Yale, Whorf worked with a colleague, G. L. Trager, on a document called The “Yale Report”: Report on Linguistic Research in the Department of Anthropology of Yale University for the Term September 1937 – June 1938. Whorf became ill in late 1938 and died in 1941. Whorf's draft of the report was not published until Penny Lee included it as an appendix in her book, The Whorf Theory Complex A Critical Reconstruction, in 1996.

The unfinished document indicated that it would consist of two parts, part 1 being The Synchronic or Non-historical Aspect and part 2 being The Historical Aspect. Only a reconstructed part 1 became available and consisted of two sections, Division A – Configurative Linguistics, and Division B – Configurative Linguistics and Cultural World-Outlook – Ethnolinguistics. There were however some outline notes found that pertain to part 2.

In item 4 of Division A, Whorf speaks about configurations of grammar, including grammatical classes.

He talks about grammatical categories as being distinguished by grammatical markers which may or may not appear in or near the sentence which demonstrates the marker. The grammatical meaning of a marker that appears is called a phenotype and the grammatical meaning of a marker that does not appear is called a cryptotype. A marker which appears is described as overt, and a marker which does not appear is described as covert, and the occurrence of the covert marker is called a reactance.

In English, for example, in the sentence, “I hear it,” the tense is overtly marked as 'present' and the gender of what is heard is overtly marked as 'neutral'. Present tense and neutral gender are phenotypes marked in overt categories, the present tense of the verb ' hear' belonging to a grammatical category, and the neutral gender of the pronoun 'it' belonging to another grammatical category.

In the sentence, “I hear,” the tense of the verb 'hear' is again overtly marked as 'present', while the absence of a pronoun indicates a reactance which is meaningful and therefore grammatically significant, and is a cryptotype. The grammatical meaning of this cryptotype conveys that the person speaking is aware of hearing, and the significance of the statement can only be grasped in the context of the discourse. We know what is being said, but we can only give it significance when we also know how the speaker in general understands reality and specifically in relation to the statement, “I hear,” what is the background story in which the statement is contextualised.

If the statement, “I hear it,” is expressed in a particular context where we are are also being informed what 'it' refers to, the statement is an effective communication. If however we are left not knowing what 'it' is, the statement may either be meaningless or generate a reactance which can be decoded and gain significance within the communication because it calls out a cryptotype of the speech community. For example if a person has recently had ear surgery for deafness and says “I hear,” the communication is meaningful based on a cryptotype. The hearer would need to understand about deafness and the biology of the ear and the nature of a surgical intervention for deafness to make sense of the statement, and members of a speech community are able to participate in this communication despite the grammatical covert marking that accompanies the statement.

If we are only to expect overt grammatical marking, then we restrict ourselves to the domain of the syllogistic logic of Cartesian dualism. Here, in order to make sense of utterances we have to know where to begin, how to infer by a deductive thought process what an utterance means, and which standardized learned body of knowledge to call on as context.

When we can think both abductively and deductively, and we are able to be cognizant of both the phenotypes and cryptotypes of a grammar, we arrive in a domain of knowing where a harmony of rigor and imagination can be in play. The call to resolve multiple opposed thoughts into one single idea is rooted in a Standard Average European Cartesian dualistic worldview where there is a cryptotype operating that cannot allow that reality is complex in a way where multiple ways of knowing reality may coexist in the knowing of thinkers, each way of knowing rigorous and complete in its own right.

The grammar of a given language, with both overt and covert features, determine what way speakers can express thought in language. A reactance, being evidence of a covert category, is an experience where the framer of a particular utterance experiences a grammatical discomfort that gives the message, “To speak this way violates a grammatical rule,” and at the same time the rule violated is not explicit in the grammar, but is nevertheless known to the language community as violating the rapport between the grammar and the worldview of the language community.

Whorf's thinking is abductive, in Bateson's and Hegel's sense. His and his colleagues' approach to linguistic research took the stance of understanding grammars of languages they investigated without any foundational opinion about the grammars and discovered the rules and categories, both overt and covert, by studying the languages in action amongst speech communities. Whorf descibes how enriching this approach was.

When linguists became able to examine critically and scientifically a large number of languages of widely different patterns, their base of reference was expanded; they experienced an interruption of phenomena hitherto held universal, and a whole new order of significances came into their ken. It was found that the background linguistic system (in other words, the grammar) of each language is not merely a reproducing instrument for voicing ideas but rather is itself the shaper of ideas, the program and guide for the individual's mental activity, for his analysis of impressions, for his synthesis of his mental stock in trade. Formulation of ideas is not an independent process, strictly rational in the old sense, but is part of a particular grammar, and differs, from slightly to greatly, between different grammars.”(Language, Thought, and Reality, p 272)

Like Bateson, Whorf points out the great variety of ways perceptual impressions of the same reality may be differently understood. We concern ourselves more about sameness than about difference, and believe that there is a right way to decode our impressions and agree about what reality truly is. It doesn't occur to us to investigate different ways of understanding. People who understand reality differently can come to believe that they are thinking defectively if they are not on board with the status quo way of knowing, if they deviate from the linguisitic and cultural norms of their communities. Who wants to be abnormal? The tacit and unconscious agreement we subscribe to through our cultural and linguistic identity is, as Whorf says, “An implicit and unstated one, BUT ITS TERMS ARE ABSOLUTIELY OBLIGATORY; we cannot talk at all except by subscribing to the organization and classification of data which the agreement decrees.” (Language, Thought, and Reality, p 272)

In the case of Standard Average European languages, we have inherited the syllogistic form first pointed out by Aristotle. Descartes supercharged the form by adding a worldview based on linear mapping and measuring of res extensa, so that it slowly became unacceptable in the mainstream of thought to entertain any idea that is not accountable to a known scientific context. Whorf's work was criticised for being abductive, and therefore not scientific. We, the speakers of Standard Average European languages have become weakened in our ability to engage in original thought to the extent that the business world now pays a premium for thinkers who can 'think out of the box' and yet this thought is coming out of the very box that the originators, unconscious of their embeddedness in the box as they speak, are unable to understand in a clear way what they themselves are saying. This exemplifies Gregory Bateson's point that rigor without imagination is paralytic death.

Whorf's understanding of cryptotypes was the beginning of a new approach to the relationship between language and thought. The study of a wide variety of languages brought to light a great variety of elegant and sophisticated ways of knowing, thinking, and communicating that exist among speech communities, and it is clear that Standard Average European syllogistic thinking is a very narrow and specialised way of thinking that can be thought of as an epistemological thoroughbred designed to run in the steeplechases of science. It is neither needed nor adapted for common sense day to day thinking. It is urgent for us to follow the lead of Gregory Bateson and actually change the way we think at a linguistic level.

Whorf says, “The task of formal grammar ends when the analysis of all linguistic configurations is completed, but the characteristics of a language are by no means fully accounted for then. It still remains to indicate the type of experience and kinds of referents referred to by different grammatical classes, for l[an]g[uage]s may here differ widely. Our ordinary ways of classifying referents, as being 'things', 'objects', 'actions', 'states', etc. are quite unsuitable for this work, as they are themselves names for partitionings of experience resulting after it has been grammatically classed, and circular definitions or mere confusion will result from applying them as if they referred to the conformation of reality itself. Terms like 'subject', 'predicate', 'actor', 'agent', 'function', 'cause', 'result', are equally misleading or useless in any other than a strictly grammatical sense, defined for and by each particular l[an]g[uag]e and referring only to the patterns therein and not to external reality. It is, e.g. quite legitimate to talk about 'the agent' in a given l[an]g[uag]e where the term has been defined or illustrated, but it is not to say that two different l[an]g[uage]s of widely different type are alike in their treatment of the 'agent'. In such a use it is not clear what 'agent' means. It is impossible to break up the flow of events in a non-arbitrary manner into 'subject', 'actor', 'predicate', etc. as if there existed external realities of this sort. We, to be sure, may analyze a phenomenon as ‘boy runs’, but another l[an]g[uag]e is capable of analyzing it 'run manifests as boy’. In describing differences between l[an]g[uage]s in such respects we must have a way of describing phenomena by non-linguistic standards, and by terms that refer to experience as it must be to all human beings, irrespective of their languages or philosophies.” (Language, Thought, and Reality, p 354 - 355)

Whorf is here agreeing with Bateson and Hegel that there is no meaning except the meaning that is intrinsic in the context or system at issue.

Whorf had begun to set out an innovative approach to abductive thinking. He died with his work incomplete and it was much misunderstood and misinterpreted, likely largely because the mainstream of academic linguists did not have capacity for the kind of thinking in which he excelled. Like Bateson, Bohm, and Hegel, he has been followed and appreciated by a minority of thinkers and scholars, and were it not for the work of Penny Lee in thoroughly researching his legacy and making his work available in her 1996 book, The Whorf Theory Complex, his innovative beginnings might have been lost. There is a wealth of insight about thinking, language, and reality in Whorf's work that can yet be called on. In her book, Penny Lee has laid down pointers to where the work can go, and her exposition of the Whorf theory complex is more than a scholarly exposition of Whorf's nascent thinking. It is itself a work of creative scholarship.

Whorf proposed the name Configurative Lingusitics for the study of the relationship between language, thought, and experience. His idea of 'configurative' parallels Hegel's idea of understanding through finding the pattern that is intrinsic to the system. Penny Lee refers to this as an abstractive process of thinking and the idea appears to be close to if not the same as Bateson's notion of abductive thinking. He proposed the term 'ethnolinguistics' for the aspect of configurative linguistics that looks into linguistic difference among cultures. The varieties of different ways of thinking may allow us to understand the range of thinking and communication patterns within human capacity. The difference between synchronic and historical linguistics may be about the difference between how languages are in present usage and how they evolve and change. It is very much part of Whorf's view that language differences are the norm such that it becomes important to have an overview of the linguistic process and Penny Lee suggested that the term 'metalinguistic' is in use to name this aspect of linguistic understanding. It becomes necessary for each party to a communication to have metalinguistic understanding and awareness of their own ways of thinking, and that they engage in a process of interpersonal calibration so that each may be accurate about the meaning of the other.

If we are to change the way we think, we must begin as Bateson suggested by getting free of the dominance of Cartesian dualism, and bring into play a robust capacity for abductive thinking. To go in this direction we have first to understand how we think, and then enter into a transformative process of letting go of our unconscious adherence to our status quo way of thinking, in order to open in our own thinking process to new ways of thinking.

Getting free of the dominance of Cartesian dualism is something like shedding a skin. Passing through the chaos where thought becomes impossible is the sign of a successful shedding.

The question arises as to how we change the way we think. Is it a case of learning to think differently? If it is, then it can be done the way we learn any new accomplishment. It will be something that is in our hands to implement with conscious purpose. Bateson called this kind of learning deutero learning, or learning two. Or is it something else? What is the context for this learning?

Bateson thought and wrote extensively about learning. The key thoughts he brings to learning are related to the theory of logical types, to the theory of the double bind, to context, and to his typology of learning.

Bateson used the theory of logical types to speak about levels of abstraction and the importance for a thinker of being accurate about the relationship between contexts and their associated levels of abstraction. There are higher and lower levels of abstraction and a thought in a higher level belongs to a different context than a thought in a lower level. The thinker needs to be aware of a higher context than the context where thinking is focused. In the most basic kind of thinking, the thinker reacts to an environmental stimulus. In the next level of thinking the response of the thinker to an environmental stimulus is not reactive but considered. The response is thoughtful and based on both knowledge and experience. In the third level of thinking, the thinker is thoughtful about the thinking process they are in. There is thoughtfulness about thinking itself. In the fourth level of thinking, the thinker is able to be thoughtful in many different thinking contexts. This level may be thought of as the level where the thinker is free of any particular thinking context and easily moves between a range of thinking contexts including the complete absence of thinking. Bateson named these levels learning zero, learning one, learning two, and learning three, and he spoke about a fifth level, learning four, which may be thought of for now as a placeholder for what is beyond learning three, and which might, provisionally, be occupied by our idea of God.

It is interesting to see that the language used to speak about thinking and learning is itself drawing metaphoric capacity from a res extensa idea of reality. Although difference between types, contexts and levels are communicated, the metaphor is of things, of levels, of kinds, of doing, of changing, of moving, of learning, of purposiveness, of measurement, higher and lower, more, less, many, and most, of abstractions counted or enumerated, of presence and of absence, of including, and so on.

This arises because we speak with a Standard Average European semantic and it carries with it a res extensa worldview. Without these features of our language and thinking we cannot think at all. As we become aware that our Standard Average European language and culture double binds us insofar as we are locked in by it to Cartesian dualistic metaphor and to a Cartesian worldview, and so also to a primitive capacity for abductive thinking which refers to patterns seen in or modelled on space time extensionality. This primitive capacity for abductive thinking is bound also to a Cartesian worldview.

The significance may now be clearer of Bateson's comment, “Any change in our epistemology will involve shifting our whole system of abductions. We must pass through the threat of that chaos where thought becomes impossible.” (Mind and Nature, p 143)

It is impossible to learn to think differently precisely because we think the way we do. Yet paradoxically, we can evolve our way of thinking and it is absolutely available once we grapple with the paradox that we can't do it out of conscious purposiveness.

If we take another look at what Bateson has said about learning, this time looking purely for significance of difference and relation, we may be able to see that what is essentially involved is thinking that is not purposive, contexts that have an inside / outside relationship, worldviews that transcend res extensa, and capacities for abductive semantic thought and articulation that emerge from our newly realised worldviews. We may also begin to answer the question of what we are involved with when we want to change the way we think. It will not happen because we purposively set out to transform our thinking. It will involve recognising the double bind we are in, the difficulty of not knowing how to spring ourselves free from thinking only out of a Cartesian worldview, opposed with the sense we have that we can realise abductive thinking that synthesises a harmony of rigor and imagination. We can be assured that we will pass through the chaos where thought becomes impossible, and if we don't yet know that we have passed through this chaos, then we can be assured that our thinking is still embedded in a Cartesian dualistic worldview. We can be clear that we will be engaging in a kind of learning that transitions us from living inside the status quo worldview to living inside a worldview that contains not only the worldview we now know as status quo but myriad other worldviews also. The primary consideration is that the Cartesian dualistic worldview will not any more dominate our thinking capacity to the exclusion of all kinds of relational abductive worldviews.

The success of Standard Average European thought culminating in Cartesian dualism is that it enabled rigorous thinking in matters relating to res extensa. The truth and falsehood of ideas combined with procedural thinking relying on deductive and inductive logic is our status quo way of thinking. We have invested almost everything in learning to think step by step along chains of cause and effect, where the language semantics are innately adapted to enabling expression of ideas based on foundations that are known to be true, foundations which have been scientifically verified and proven to be either true or false. We are immersed in this way of talking, thinking, and writing, both consciously and unconsciously, to the extent that we believe it is the only way we can be rigorous in our thought. We don't yet realise that it is a cul-de-sac in thinking. We believe that without science there can be no rigor. We dismiss the idea that people who think differently can be rigorous thinkers.

Rigor arises out of seeing order in a pattern. The capacity we have for seeing order is called reason. We have become conditioned culturally to think that without deductive and inductive logic there is no rigor, yet as Gegory Bateson tells us nature has been rigorous through all of evolution without needing deductive and inductive logic. Abductive logic can be rigorous, and its rigor depends on the accuracy of making sense out of the innate patterns in reality, out of abducing or abstracting the rigor of pattern innate in life and in the cosmos itself. Because of our specialisation in Cartesian dualism we have let go of trusting ways of speaking and thinking that are attuned to rigorous abductive thinking. We have tried to squeeze all of reality into a res extensa thought pattern. Those of us who can't abide this habit find ways around it. It really is not true that if something is not scientifically proven it is not reliable. We imagine that if we think abductively we will lose the ability to think scientifically. Cartesian dualism entrances us in the idea that there has to be one overarching explanation of everything. We can buy into this only because we believe that objectivity requires us to be outsiders. This is so deeply built into our thinking that the basis of our grammatical understanding is the sentence structure subject, verb, and object. The idea of subjective rigor is foreign to us. As long as this is so we will not be able to know reality from the inside (albeit from the outside too, if we so choose), and we will remain caught up in reconciling what does not need to be reconciled, in trying to be scientific instead of living, when we could live, and be scientific. When you discover the donkey is pushing the cart, there is only one thing to do, once you come through the embarassment, and that is to unhitch the donkey and get the cart behind the donkey. There is no problem about having the donkey push the cart from time to time, but as a way of life it is not satisfactory. Scholars and thinkers read Gregory Bateson and think, mistakenly, that they can deutero learn abductive thinking.

Paradox is meaningful only in relation to Cartesian dualistic thinking. Nature and life are inherently paradoxical. There is no need to 'resolve' paradoxes unless they occur inside the realm of Cartesian dualism. There is no need to find an integrative science that explains 'everything' unless you actually do want to be God, or to make science the new religion. Living the delight and abundance of no fixed orthodoxy is the best orthodoxy. We can be grateful to Gregory Bateson and to other courageous thinkers like Whorf, Hegel and Bohm, for showing us the way out of the box of Cartesian dualism, and we can be grateful to Aristotle, Descartes and all for bringing to maturity the non-relational perspective on reality.

Standing outside life without first standing inside is madness, and it is the disease of science, while standing outside life is the genius of science. How did we get to be so confused?

Imagination and rigor in harmony relies on Bateson's lonely skeleton of truth!

References:-

1. Bateson, Gregory. Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology. Northvale, N.J., London: Jason Aranson, Inc., 1972, 1987.

2. Bateson, Gregory. Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity. New York, E. P. Dutton, 1979

3. Bateson, Gregory. A Sacred Unity: Further Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York, Harper Collins. Ed. Rodney E. Donaldson, 1991

4. Bateson, Gregory, and Bateson, Mary Catherine. Angels Fear: Towards an Epistemology of the Sacred. New York, Macmillan, 1987

5. Bateson, Mary Catherine. With a Daughter's Eye: A Memoir of Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson. New York, Morrow, 1984

6. Bateson, Nora. An Ecology of Mind: A Film by Nora Bateson. Oley, PA, Bullfrog Films, 2010
    (anecologyofmind.com)

7. Descartes, Rene. Descartes, Selected Philosophical Writings. New York, Cambridge University Press. Eds. John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, Dugald Murdoch, 1998.

8. Ellis, John M. Language, Thought, and Logic. Evanston, Northwestern University Press, 1993.

9. Harries-Jones, Peter. A Recursive Vision Ecological Understanding and Gregory Bateson. Toronto, Buffalo, London, University of Toronto Press, 1995.

10. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. Difference Between Fichte's and Schelling's System of Philosophy. Albany, State University of New York Press. Trans. H. S. Harris and Walter Cerf.

11. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. Hegel's Logic: Being Part One of the Encylopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences (1830). Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1975. Trans. William Wallace. 


12. Lee, Penny. The Whorf Theory Complex: A Critical Reconstruction. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1996.

13. Mind in Time: The Dynamics of Thought, Reality, and Consciousness. New Jersey, Hampton Press. 2004. Eds. Allan Combs, Mark Germine, Ben Goertzel.

14. Rockmore, Tom. Before and After Hegel: A Historical Introduction to Hegel's Thought. Indianapolis and Cambridge, Hackett, 1993, 2003.

15. Whorf, Benjamin Lee. Language, Thought, And Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MIT Press. 1956, 2012. Eds. John B Carroll, Stephen C Levinson, Penny Lee.