What is Outside the approved areas of use

Zahnlabor mit ForscherAlexander Raths - Fotolia

Forscher

„Outside the approved areas of use“ is another way of expressing the meaning of „off label use“.   A lot more looms behind this small phrase than simply a problem with our health system.  Don’t be fooled.  When searching the internet for the term “Off Label Use” you’ll get the impression that the pharmaceutical industry is being forced by politics to make us use medicaments outside the permitted areas of usage. This is not correct.  Neither is it correct to ascribe the cause of this problem to one single guilty party, e.g. industry.  Usually there is no blame and therefore no guilty party.  In order to fully understand the depth of meaning of this phrase, however, you have to carve your way  right through to the end of this article.  “Off Label Use” is no more than a symbol for an established system which only brings suffering to all of us, even those who work in it but more suffering is probably needed in order to realise what actually hides behind “Off Label Use”.
Just as with the expression „Off Label Use“, behind all our problems there is one cause.  This one cause is, in itself, easily explained but not, however, to people with conventional thinking.

You can imagine what it was probably like for the man who tried to explain that the world is round.  It isn’t easy to break through long-held ideas.  Why it takes so long for us to become more and more aware of this cause is due to the fact that the effects of this one cause, which prolongs our suffering and which creates phenomena such as “off label use” are so strongly woven together that attempts to deal with the cause are all too often concerned with its effects and therefore never penetrate into the cause itself.  A doctor would say that one is treating the symptoms of the illness and not the cause of the illness itself.  We are not only going to write about “off label use” therefore, since this is merely a symptom.  We want to penetrate into the cause of this small phrase, since a cause always has a beginning and thus an end.

What is Off Label Use?

Off label use is merely a consequence, a result of the actual problem.  Let’s start with the definition of the term “Approved area of use of a medicament“.  It makes sense to concern ourselves with the term “area of use” although one must also often admit that most of the medicaments currently to be found in the market today aren’t tested in laboratories so the area of use is de facto established by the marketing department.  There are reasons why large pharmaceutical companies sometimes have 10 times as many people in marketing as in research and why the marketing budget is many times greater than the research budget but the pharmaceutical sector isn’t to blame for the development of “off label use”, however.  This observation would be too shallow and doesn’t make sense.

If we define the term „area of use“ according to ethical points of view, then the definition sounds rather banal albeit the devil is in the detail, such as when we read: medicaments should provide a benefit, according to sustainable observation and objectively reproducible evaluation before they are approved.
We already have a problem here.  What is a “benefit”?  If all diabetics and patients suffering from high blood pressure were to suddenly get better then on one hand this would be a benefit but on the other hand, however, many people would lose their jobs and, since we have created a system whereby work and money are highly prized, then in today’s view this wouldn’t be a benefit.  Today’s health system therefore is not interested in curing illnesses but rather in creating chronic dependencies - but even this is merely a symptom.

Now you’re going to think that this simply can’t be the case since you’ve surely taken some kind of medication and experienced its beneficial effect on your body.  Yes, no one will deny this.  Nonetheless the benefit is not to be ascribed to the medicament, as you will later realise, but to you yourself.  You may find this hard to believe but that is exactly how our health system earns money.  The placebo effect has long been known to medicine and this is exactly what makes you well or indeed ill; your conscious/unconscious approach to health issues.  Even medicine itself has yet to fully understand this effect.

It’s due to the placebo effect that you get better, not thanks to the medicament itself.  Almost none of the medicaments administered today promote the purpose of their administration, according to evidence based methods.  Through clever marketing campaigns however, we believe that research is being done in laboratories all over the world for the benefit of our health.  This may be the case in some but not in most.  Luckily our belief in science is so great that proverbial mountains are moved by it, regardless of the pills we pop.  If you’re ill and a pill-popper then it would probably be better to stop reading now as it may take some time for you to learn a new way of thinking.  Perhaps you’ll get better more quickly with your old methods.  You can always read on later.

The placebo effect was also explained by physics a hundred years ago.  Before we do a bit of physics, however, let’s get back to where we started.  What do politicians understand by “area of use of a medicament”?

From a legal point of view, every medicament must be approved by a central authority before it can enter the market.  In the USA this is the FDA and in Europe the EMA.  The blame for the symptom of “off label use” isn’t to be found in these authorities either.  There is, it’s true, room for improvement - for example the approval criteria for medicaments aren’t always consistently regulated.  Why not, you’d think?  Do Americans react somewhat differently to Europeans when it comes to medicament X?

Of course not.  Indeed, consistent rules, from the medical point of view, wouldn’t make a difference nowadays, since it’s not the medicaments that make us well.  The harmonisation of the approval criteria would however be a useful step in a new direction where people agree to a ‘truth’ above and beyond borders and race.  Not only would such a step herald the start of a new direction for the entire system, it would also eliminate certain shortcomings at one fell swoop since the crossover to the new health care system, away from “off label use” will require a change in our thinking and this transformation will need time.

The situation of different approval processes is currently being used by the profit-oriented health care system to the detriment of us all.   It’s worth having a closer look at this point.  Previously medicaments were put into the approval process for the first time in more or less equal amounts in the USA or in Europe.  However, the industry soon noticed that the registration process is more difficult in Europe, due to the fact that the healthcare system isn’t so influenced by private companies which are more capital-oriented.  For this reason the competent authority in Europe is more precise in its work.  Do not think, however, that capitalism, in itself, is to blame for everything.  No, this is not the real reason either.  Capitalism is, like “off label use” itself, not only the product, but an effect of the actual problem.

Business soon noticed the difference in the approval processes and that it is easier to bring a medicament to market in the USA and today medicaments are always first registered with the FDA.  Under the influence of the American market the European approval authority is getting more ‘tolerant’ and so useless medicaments are reaching the European market much more easily than they used to.  Why don’t the authorities work according to a standardised process?  Why do they behave irrationally?

An approval process devours a lot of legal, as well as illegal, expenses (John Virapen) and whenever the area of application of a medicament is extended the approval process must be formally extended too.  No pharma-concern is interested in this.  In addition the concern, by means of “off label use” has further advantages from such remedies, apart from the financial savings.

Along with the financial aspects there is the more limited liability when it comes to side effects.  It’s true that medicaments’ information sheets nowadays have been expanded somewhat haphazardly by the manufacturers but nonetheless the company is formally responsible for the area of usage.  In the course of further education the areas of use of a medicament are never clearly described.  More often usage outside the area of effect is cleverly packaged by opinion makers and passed on to the doctor as further education.  The doctor goes back home and starts a field trial with a medicament on an unknowing you, often outside the area of application.
Opinion makers are usually the leaders of university clinics who are on the payroll of pharmaceutical companies (Hans Weiß).  Should serious side effects then occur the manufacturer is not liable thanks to ‘off label use’.   The application outside the normal area of use, according to today’s system, therefore only has apparent advantages for the pharmaceutical company as well as for many doctors.  But why only ‚apparent‘ ?  Again, physics explained this to us 100 years ago.  Why is it always physics?

What does it mean to acquire knowledge?

Physics makes use of a “relationship language” and not a “definitions language” and this makes misunderstandings, distortions and deflections more difficult.  What do I mean by ‘definitions’ and ‘relationship’ languages? Let’s say I go fishing with my fishing net, which has a mesh size of 2”.  You will immediately think that today fish longer than 2” will be caught.  But I live in the mountains and I don’t know what the sea is.  We lay the nets out underneath the apple trees, shake them and, thanks to the net, take all the apples larger than 2”.  I cover my thoughts in certain words and throw them out to you in the hope that these disguised terms will create the same thoughts.  The mathematician would say “today he’s going to get something as big as or bigger than 2”.  What is going to be got will be determined by a variable.

As you can see, a definitions language is not only liable to misunderstandings but also to distortions.  What do I actually mean by distortions?

Most distortions in science nowadays occur through ignorance rather than through malice.  In order to understand this we have to ask what “acquiring knowledge” means.  Most people, indeed scientists themselves, do not actually know what “science” means and this can easily be illustrated by means of a short story.
More than 180 years ago a monk called Mendel worked on heredity and thereby established hereditary rules which became known as Mendel’s laws.  Scientists at that time were fascinated by his efforts and people believed the key to heredity had been found.  However some more critical minds researched further into why the inheritance patterns were flawed and sometime later it was postulated that chromosomes were crucial to heredity. But even here errors occurred and people researched further and soon afterwards they said that a string was responsible for heredity and this string was called DNA.  For a long time it was unassailable dogma that DNA was solely responsible for the inheritance of an individual’s characteristics.  The more one worked on this subject the more one realised that something was not quite right and soon the term ‘epigenesis’ was coined.  By this we mean that something ‘above’ (= epi) the DNA was the cause of heredity and we said that even the way the DNA was folded was responsible for the hereditary patterns.

At each of these points in time the scientists behaved as though they had discovered Colombus’s egg.  Anyone who continued to research critically would often end up being criticized by the scientific business interests and indeed even despised until such time as new “evidence” was discovered – remember the man and the round Earth?  What has really happened to science?  People develop machines and appliances and attempt to dissect our lives with them in the hope of finding answers.  In our case it began with Mendel and a simple knife and pea seeds and ended in our current time with gel electrophoresis.  With each investigation the scientist doesn’t only create a new reality and thus new creations, but he also serves(served) a large market.  What do I mean by market?

All these machines, appliances, attempts which were done in the laboratory, indeed, even the laboratories themselves need to be produced, marketed, maintained and sold.  The botanist therefore lives in his own little world and serves his own little market just as the histologist, the biochemist, the molecular biologist and so on do and a lot of jobs depend on them.  From the pea right up to some amino-acids, small microcosms have been created, with many new definitions, many opinions and their related distortions since we all work with a language of definitions. Did you know that no one has actually seen DNA yet?  DNA is made visible by a complicated process called gel electrophorensis.  It can roughly be described like this: you strew sand in front of your door, close it and wait until a passer-by comes along and leaves tracks in the sand.  As soon as you see a track in the sand you open the door and yell loudly.  You do it as though you know something about the passer-by but in reality you’ve only seen the tracks and not the passer-by.

A few years later you won’t be strewing sand but creating a new “machine“ which again, however, only follows a track and thus even when, in the near future, there are machines with the help of which DNA is made visible, this ‘making visible’ will merely be a creation of its own time.  We’re only dealing with an artificially created entity which only exists in this machine or experiment.  What then is the difference between Mendel and his macroscopic observations?  The recognition of these “creations” will then be provided with new terms and once again a new market will be served.

Perhaps this description will help you understand science better.  Perhaps now you will understand that science can only ever deliver an approximation of what actually is.  As a consequence of this approximation scientists create a new reality – which in itself wouldn’t be a problem.  Thanks to science we would get closer to what actually is.  We would, so to say, decode certain ‘principles’ of Nature.  These decoded ‘principles’ correspond to the relative approach; some would be inaccurate but some of the new principles discovered would lighten our daily lives. By principles, we mean the following: Nature functions according to patterns.  You yourselves know of a major pattern – periodicity.  Day/night, tides, seasons, breathing, heartbeat, even life itself are all examples of periodicity. So what is the problem with science?

The problem is in combination with a system that we have developed, a system in which we try to circumvent this periodicity - we call it permanent economic growth, a completely unphysiological process.  The problem doesn’t begin with science per se, but starts when we use science in order to grow a market i.e. to make profits.  Then science behaves like a malignant tumour and will kill the host, namely us.  As already mentioned above, unfortunately today it’s not about the diabetic, the patient with high blood pressure or the obese getting healthy.

Before we get too abstract, let’s have a look at a well-known and easily-recognised example of the perversions our science embraces.  Some years ago a scientist hypothesized that man had perhaps found the cause of an illness that was then known as GRID and is now known as AIDS.  Since that time the retrovirus has been intensively researched and we can find many studies which explain the various mechanisms of the virus.  Many of these mechanisms are correctly explained and described, such as that the virus multiplies or that it infiltrates our DNA.  A lot of the ‘principles’ of this virus have been decoded.  What however has been totally dazzled away is that up to now it hasn’t been demonstrated that the virus causes AIDS.  AIDS itself has yet to be clearly defined, let alone a standardised test produced, so it could happen that you test positive in the USA and negative in Europe.

It would be totally contrary to the nature of a retrovirus to kill its host but in front of loud „scientific microcosms“ who have come up with this hypothesis we fail to hear that even the discoverer of this virus himself admitted after a short time that it was unlikely to be it.  Just as in the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes, an avalanche was released by that press conference; the scientific and capitalist machinery was (and still is) under way and a turnaround for all the suppliers of laboratory equipment, manufacturers of chemicals and so on is definitely not desirable.  If you’re interested you can read more about HIV and AIDS but while you’re at it don’t forget that it’s only about a symptom of illness and therefore here we will stick to the theme of decoding the cause that that is by means of physics.

What is?

Why physics so easily busies itself with the approximation of what is, is the particularity of mathematical language, which leaves little room for incorrect interpretation and so we come to what is.  We won’t keep to the microcosm of the botanist or the histologist or the geneticist and its associated word creations (terms).  We’ll avoid the numerous ‘markets’ and ask the mathematician to describe what he believes heredity consists of.

If we break a DNA molecule down into atoms, electrons and even further there are no more particles but we obtain energy.  Even physics doesn’t really take gladly to this idea.  It’s true that we can, when we get down to pure energy not particles with mass, unify two old physics’ theories, namely quantum theory with the theory of relativity but we haven’t reached that far in physics and we create other creations in physics, such as the string theory until we come to that, that actually is.

Until then we will build ever more complicated devices, pose useless questions like “What colour is a circle?” and spend lots of money on laboratories such as the CERN particle accelerator in order to finally come to what is.  But what does the mathematician tell us now in his language?  He will tell you that DNA is only an artificially created entity in gel electrophoresis.  Actually, it’s music.  Before you say this is crazy let’s consider what quantum physics demonstrated a hundred years ago.

Quantum physics disproved the then current belief that everything is made up of the smallest possible part, the indivisible atom.  The more we got into the matter of smallness the more we realised that the world isn’t what it seems to be, what we can experience through our senses.  In this context it is important to get away from your senses.  What would a blind person say if you ask him “what does the world look like?” He would say it’s black, but is it really like that?  Just as a blind person perceives a snippet of the world we too perceive just a snippet of this world.  We call the world truth and the snippet reality. It’s easy to work with these words.  The meaning of this realisation is extremely important and you will observe that we have all been in contact with the truth at one stage, without knowing it.  What does this truth look like?  Can we grasp it with our senses?  Yes we can!

Let’s think this thing through together and take it apart with the tools of today’s quantum physics.  It doesn’t matter what you take apart into the smallest detail here, you will find shards, crumbs, perhaps fibres too and you will probably end up with some kind of chemical connections which again are merely the catchwords of a biochemist, for example.  The quantum physicist has penetrated further thanks to mathematics and so the table which to us is apparently surrounded by air is neither surrounded by air nor is it a table but rather it is energy, out of which everything and everyone is made, as is the entire solar system and the universe itself.

Even air is made up of this energy and not out of molecules.  Maybe you have come across some other documentation about quantum physics in which scientists dare to declare that time does not exist, that this is merely a product of our understanding.  Yes, these people are right although they themselves have yet to fully understand it. It can be easily explained by an example – we are like jellyfish in water.

If you go up to a jellyfish and say “you, you’re just water in water“ the jellyfish wouldn’t know what you’re talking about because for a jellyfish it is, as it always was, like that, that is it’s life.  We also lead such a life, like the jellyfish.  A Buddhist describes our life by means of a nice comparison: man lives like a raindrop and doesn’t realise he is a sea.  We feel and act like we are individual raindrops; we don’t realise that we are in fact the sea itself as our senses convey to us a reality which is basically different from the truth.

OK, from the point of view of mathematics and quantum physics these examples are still to be understood.  Does this have an effect on our lives, indeed on “off label use”?  Yes, a tremendous one, but as I said, for this we must still reach out further.  In the end the last paragraph will seem very familiar to some of you and some of you may perhaps understand better why at the moment a lot of things are changing around us.  It’s not only the Arab Spring, the White Revolution or an ever-recurring new-old finance crisis.  There’s a lot more to it than that.

Define life anew

Why does this reality seem so „far“ to us?  This lies in the fact that we never defined this reality.  We can only feel it.  You know this for yourselves.  You declare to someone who has never experienced it, love.  That’s impossible - you don’t know how to define love.  To someone who has loved, however, and who knows what love is, you don’t need to explain further.

Our problem is that as a result of evolution we have un-learned feelings and nowadays we beat a path further and further away from feelings.  It’s a vicious circle.  Why have we un-learned how to feel?  Why do we get further and further away from feelings?  Even this has a “scientific” cause which was demonstrated very well as long ago as the 18th century by a sociologist.  Emil Durkheim demonstrated a “principle” which is fascinating but we’ll come to this later.  Let us define life as seen with the senses of this truth.

It seems like everything is energy which is continuously re-materialising as mass, comparable with a film which is actually made up of many individual pictures and through the speed at which they are run becomes one film.  Since our senses can’t distinguish the individual pictures – this is only possible with special devices – whilst we shouldn’t forget that the machines of today’s quantum physics provide us with an approximation of what is – we believe in the reality and our mind then makes a life out of it with a beginning and an end.  If then everything is energy and we are made of energy ourselves, just like jellyfish in water, then we have to ask ourselves just what exactly life is.
Let us not abandon the language of mathematics when we answer this question as it seems that this language has brought us very near to that what is.  Once again we start the answering of this question with an example.  Physics has recognised a comical “principle” of nature and expressed it in the following words: ‘the probable is more likely to happen’.  So it happens that when you add milk to coffee the milk disperses within the coffee and doesn’t remain apart from it since from the point of view of energy this would be unfavourable for both liquids.  What does this have to do with life though?  A lot!
With a lot of energy we have made a table out of energy.  In doing so the sun, water and the resulting wood have spared us a lot of work.  We only needed to cut and glue the wood correctly and it’s now a table.  For the table it is, from an energy point of view, most practical to constantly re-materialize as a table, in line with the motto the probable is more likely to happen.

In the course of this re-materialisation which takes place so quickly that we don’t see it, small mistakes occur and we call this decomposition.  If we didn’t put in any energy at all – in the form of improvements and maintenance – the table would be reduced to dust over hundreds of years.  This phenomenon derives from the first principle.  There is in fact a second principle which says: disorder increases (unless you expend energy).  Perhaps this re-materialisation is hard for you to imagine.  It is indeed strange that out of energy something can ‘be’.  Nonetheless we know this in “our world”, we don’t need to go to the quantum world.  Imagine what it was like for people when they realised that water vapour became snow when it froze.  At the time steam was regarded as energy, people didn’t know about atoms and so ice suddenly appeared out of nothing, simply due to a change in temperature.

What is the difference between us and the table?  We change (re-materialise) ourselves constantly and we call this movement.  For these constant changes our materialised energy – our bodies – needs energy to be supplied, what we usually call nutrition.
Thus we can say life means change.  It seems that change is the only constant in life.  At the same time, life isn’t only change but also instability and sensitivity – it’s simple, you know it!  Imagine a simple mechanical pendulum which you place exactly vertical.

You lift the weight of the pendulum exactly vertical, thereby supplying it with energy then you let go.  The pendulum will either drop to the left or the right and then move back and forth.  Let’s consider in which direction this mechanical pendulum prefers to move.  It will depend on whether there is any wind, for example.  If we isolate it from wind and other possible disturbing factors then even the energy of a sunbeam – a photon – will be enough to influence the pendulum.   If we centre a mechanical pendulum absolutely precisely in the centre and isolate it from all possible factors that may disturb it, the more sensitively the pendulum will react.  At its maximum point of instability the pendulum will communicate with the entire universe and is therefore at its most sensitive.

If the pendulum doesn’t get any energy it simply swings to a stop after overcoming the moment of instability.  Life, however, finds itself at the point of greatest instability all the time.  We constantly supply it with energy in the form of nutrition and keep ourselves so unstable that we communicate with anyone and everyone.  We’re talking about feelings.

Why can we only feel the truth?

Did you know that you too have felt this odd truth sporadically?  Most don’t know it though.  Why only sporadically? This is because we find it difficult to deal with feelings and the cause of this is in our socio-cultural development.

Emil Durkheim got straight to the point in the 18th century.  Imagine what life was like thousands of years ago.  Everyone was a “lone wolf”, meaning you got up in the morning, arranged your bedding, got your equipment together and began to look for food.  In the evening you arranged your own skins, repaired your simple shoes and sat down together in front of your campfire.  Since everyone did more or less the same, there wasn’t any specialization; people’s dependence on each other was very limited.  Emil Durkheim spoke of mechanical solidarity.  When one of the group died it wasn’t such a terrible thing.  Anyone could do the job of the person who had died.

People didn’t have much to say since life was the same for everybody.  Language was characterized by a few terms which were enough to describe life.  If, for example a storm rocked the group and tore their tent apart, there wasn’t much to talk about around the campfire in the evening.  Primitive sounds such as sighs would have been enough and anyone could put himself in the others’ proverbial position and feel what they were feeling.  You could ‘re-live’ the event, having experienced it yourself.

In time, specialization came into being.  People realized that if one spent all his time cutting wood he’d be able to do it better than someone else who, for example, only baked bread.  As a result of this specialization, people managed to find some free time and this led to individualization.  Concurrently, something changed in society – dependency on others increased greatly.  Durkheim calls it organic solidarity.  At the same time people invented many new terms since through specialization and individualization people were creating many new “microcosms”.

Nowadays our society is characterized by its many microcosms which are regulated by a vast bureaucracy.  It’s not that people have less to say but rather that a doctor doesn’t feel what a judge or a mechanic feels and in addition this problem has been aggravated by capitalism.  In the course of our development we un-learned our capacity to feel without realising it and we created a world full of terms.  We therefore believe today that we will be able to understand life through terminology.  Our minds are far too small to understand, however.

This isn’t meant to be offensive.  You probably know the situation – when driving early one morning someone doesn’t give way.  You immediately start to complain about the person’s barbaric driving instead of being grateful.  Why grateful?  Well, it could be that by causing you to brake suddenly you have been saved from being rammed by a lorry at the next junction.

Buddhists like to describe this human phenomenon by means of a nice story:  snow falls, each snowflake in its own place.  In other words the snowflakes are destined to fall into a certain place.  This higher order of things is incomprehensible to our limited minds.  It suffices for us to take pleasure in seeing the snow fall and feel the order without defining it.

How can life be felt though?  Feeling order sounds very vague but I bet you will know what I’m talking about.  You can also feel truth!  Do you know that moment when you can see over the sea, or gaze into an open fire, the moment where you come out of a walk in the forest, or help someone unselfishly and suddenly feel a moment of absolute quiet, calmness, warmth and security?  You have a wonderful feeling; at a moment like this you stop thinking and your mind – Eckhart Tolle calls it the ego – is switched off; in these brief moments you acquire a connection to the truth, but only for a moment then thinking starts again and you believe yourself to be “back in life”.
There are many people in history who were/are linked with the truth for a long time in the course of this journey of consciousness.  I’m sure you know a few who are well-known and I’ll bet you that suddenly statements like “I am Abraham” will have a completely new meaning but not that which the church would like to explain to us.
Could Jesus have come to the same realisation that quantum physics deciphered for us a hundred years ago as he said “I am mother, father – all together, forever” ?  Could statements like “Buddha is in the water, the air, in you – everywhere” suggest that an Indian, as we would call Buddha today, also came to this realisation hundreds of years ago; that everything is energy, always and forever there.

Could it be that this is exactly what Plato wanted to describe with his “Symposium”? Or, that Salvatore Dali, as he said “One day man will have to admit officially that what we have named truth is a greater illusion than the world of dreams.”
Could it be that we call all those who have detached themselves from their mind/ego - who feel that they “are not raindrops, but the sea” to use the Buddhists’ expression – Holy, Enlightened, Demented and so on.

Religion prevents us from feeling

Why we then create religions out of all this is easily explained by science.  All we have to do is have a brief look at our childhood.  Why our childhood?
Well, probably the roots lie there as to why we want to believe in a guiding and thinking might, as to why this compulsion for this belief has prevented us from realising what really is.  This compulsion is so strong that we have been hitting ourselves on the head for thousands of years in the name of religions for Zeno, Zeus, God, Allah, Buddha and Co.

Mathematics is also ignored in this connection, such as when we simply compare two numbers, namely the age of the universe and our age, i.e. when man appeared on the stage, with the result being an absurd figure.  This guiding, thinking Being has let us take part in the spectacle for about 0.00000067% of all time – us, the highest beings in Creation.  In this regard we have to ask the question – how does this Being guide us – or, would you play the lottery with such a percentage probability of winning?  What is it that triggers in us this compulsion to believe?

The evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins has an interesting theory in this regard.  It is more advantageous for the growing individual to observe one rule rather than many rules.  This is clear; this also follows the energy principle of physics.  It’s easier to learn “Everything that the Great One (usually the parents) says keeps me away from danger” than to have to learn the many individual rules “Don’t touch that.... Careful that’s hot.... There’s electricity... .”  At the start of our development  we got a big advantage from this blind trust, this blind belief.

Could it be that this factor lies deep in our consciousness without us knowing it, that we therefore want to believe in gods, politicians and other powerful leaders.  Could it be that this mechanism is therefore to blame for the fact that we would rather actually believe than understand?  Regardless of how we twist it about, if we look back at our history and remove all the words like monarchy, capitalism, communism, dictatorship and so on we can reduce our life together to one sentence: a few have it good at the expense of many and we all believe that this is good.

History and our innumerable wars and conflicts and the resulting suffering clearly show us that it isn’t so good.  Suffering, however, begins much earlier and it doesn’t take a war to feel it first.  “Off label use” is also suffering.  It seems though, however new suffering comes about, that the effects of the cause are so complex that it doesn’t even come into our heads to think more deeply about them.  It is thus irrelevant whether we are concerned with “off label use”, “AIDS” or nappies, for example, it’s always about the effects of a cause.
How come nappies now?  In order to demonstrate the complexities of the effects let’s turn to a completely different area for once.

The complexities of the effects

Children in Asia used to learn how to control their bowel movements and urination much earlier than American or European children.  Why used to learn?  It’s easy to explain the reason why it was like that but no longer is.  Because of poverty Asian babies didn’t used to wear nappies.  For ages, the solution to toddler incontinence in Asia was to put them in cut-off pants.  The wetness of the urine on their skin made the infants uncomfortable and the oncoming urge to urinate would make them restless.

In addition the infants were being carried around in a sling on their mothers backs or fronts – which could easily be done in the original working environment, usually agricultural, at the time - so Asiatic mothers were more sensitive to the restlessness of their children and could sit them on a potty at the right time.  The net result was that Asian children learned how to control their stools and urine more quickly.  In time economic prosperity increased in Asia and with it mothers spent less time together with their children since they had to work more to maintain living standards and the working environment had shifted to offices which were not conducive to carrying children in slings which broke the original mother/child connection. But it wasn’t only these developments that led to Asian children taking longer to learn how to control their bodily functions.  The industry had also recognised the potential of the Asian market for nappies and with clever marketing campaigns which suggested to Asians the idea that children sleeping through the night was connected with intelligence later in their lives, the nappy boom was launched in Asia.  In the cities children now only wear nappies, the traditional cut off trousers have been forgotten. It’s true that children sleep right through the night but of course this has nothing to do with intelligence.

Nowadays Asian children take longer to learn how to control their stools and urine.  Nappies also bring about a new environmental problem, the effects of which are not visible, let alone solved.  The mother/child connection and the situation of the family in Asia has been altered and not for the better.  The nappy manufacturers however are in a better position after these developments.  However you look at it, the children of today’s nappy manufacturers will have to deal with the environmental problems of tomorrow.  Do today’s nappy manufacturers have this in mind?  Now you can see how such complicated developments such as these can come to be.  Who or what is to blame, is it the nappy makers, is it the pharmaceutical companies ( to keep to the topic of “off label use”), is it the doctors?  Can we indeed determine for sure what the cause is?  Do we need to talk about nappies or “off label use”?  It’s no use – we won’t be dealing with the cause!

The Cause

First of all, yes we make up a cause, we only have to delve deep! If we are all one, one with the sun, the universe, with all people, plants and animals on this world, why then do we behave as “raindrops”?

Could the cause lie in the fact that we can’t even feel the “sea”?

If we start from the point that there is a truth that is hidden to our senses, that we can only feel, then it will be worth it to mentally block reality out for once and to think about what we can’t even see.

Could it be that due to our development we have un-learned how to feel, as Emil Durkheim has described it?  Could it be that our compulsion for leadership is instilled in us in the cradle, so that, as Richard Dawkins says, as adults we’d rather be guided than have to think for ourselves?  Could it be that all this has led us to believe that in order to “grasp” life we have to literally “grasp” as much as possible and thus surround ourselves with lots of material goods to hold on to because we’re afraid of being left over on our own? Is this perhaps the root of all evil, that we cannot feel that we’re the sea anymore and that we therefore behave as egoistic raindrops? We’re so busy with the struggle for survival that we don’t even realise that discussions about political systems like communism, capitalism, socialism and so on are repeated all the time and are not the problem.  We don’t realise that all the manipulated discussions like off label use, nappy problems in Asia, finance crisis, AIDS and so on ignore what really is.  Could it be that we lead lives in which we isolate ourselves more and more and thus get through less and less to what actually is, like the rat which bites its own tail?

An interesting idea which could be illustrated with a statement: whoever believes that money or property makes you happy has never possessed either.
Can material things actually make us happy?  It doesn’t seem so, as every one of us knows about the gaunt faces and empty eyes of many stars and the super-rich and each one of us knows the lively smile in the eyes of people who don’t even have what to eat – such as many African children.  Everyone knows the feeling of diminishing pleasure after buying a new car or handbag.

Could it be that we are actually in a journey to consciousness in a space and we call this space life but we don’t realise this?

Could it be that this short-circuit in our thinking leads to soldiers not realising that they have a lot more in common with those they are fighting against than those who have sent them to war?
Could it be that all religions only serve the few who do well out of them, as in “preach water and drink wine”.
Could it be that even those who believe they are doing well are stuck in the same matrix as those who are being worn out?
There are innumerable forces, religions and political systems in the world.  We are experiencing how 700 million people (in Europe and the USA) realise that they can’t dictate to 8 billion people how they have to live.

Not that long ago the Middle East passed on world domination to Europe and then Europe to the USA.  We are living at a time when world domination is being passed on to Asia and we continue to waste our time with discussions about political systems, about territorial thinking and other unnecessary contents and we don’t realise that we are all one.
The 700 million people could, however, find a new way for Mankind instead of fighting for domination but it seems that we need a certain luxury to be able to realise what is.  Man, that energetic distillation, is on a journey of consciousness, comparable with that of a child.  Everyone knows children who get angry because the present they wanted isn’t under the Christmas tree.  Adults can feel the child’s anger and would very much like to explain a lot of things to the child but they know that they can’t explain it and that every child must make his own journey of consciousness, at his own tempo.
It seems that our consciousness develops especially well when we find ourselves outside the comfort zone, as up to now development was always linked with previous suffering such as separation, unemployment, death in the family and other life events.  In these situations we find it especially easy to change things – we suddenly do what our partner has been saying for years.  After separation it is usually easy to become a new man.

Now, however, part of mankind has reached a situation where it is possible to have such thoughts outside the comfort zone without previous suffering.  In this connection we talk and question our financial and economic systems.  It’s coming to the breakup of old, fossilized, political structures and other exciting changes.
How about if these 700 million people could save the others from the way of war, of hunger and of the realisation that money alone doesn’t bring happiness, with their positive behaviour contributing to the collective awareness.  The words “collective awareness” sound odd but seen together from a mathematician’s point of view one could say that energy creates materialized condensations such as solar systems, planets, animated matter and conscious animated matter.  All this is a bubble which is subject to periodicity and part of the animated matter in this bubble can become conscious of this phenomenon, of this periodicity, by feeling it and thus realising that everything is love.  Love is the best-fitting term for this bubble, more beautiful than energy.  It must be stated that we are trying to describe with terms things which are difficult to grasp, things which we can only feel.

Why is love a better term than energy?  Just as mathematics expresses love as a relationship without stating anything about the parties concerned, we could ask ourselves why there is no nothing.  There is in fact  Nothing.  We call it ‘dark matter’, an inappropriate expression of physics, as it is much simpler.  Energy, or, better stated, love first becomes what it is from this Nothing.  We all know the Ying Yang sign in this respect.

How will change take place?

Whoever believes that a political system, science or anything else is going to bring about a change is rather outdated in his thinking.  If we don’t leave the logic of mathematics then we have to admit that change from on top, i.e. through politics, isn’t possible, as history has shown us.

We simply don’t need history to come to this conclusion; it should be enough for us to concern ourselves carefully with this question to realise that change cannot happen from above, without needing history.  Let’s start this piece with a Hindu comparison: “The problem with people is that when they sit they think of walking then when they walk they think of running.  When they run then they think of sitting.  Sit when you sit, walk when you walk, run when you run.

This sentence sounds like one of the innumerable Facebook phrases which we continually post on the Web but it’s worth thinking about it.  We take on a connection with reality by not thinking, by simply being observant.  Eckhart Tolle calls it Now.

It is at moments like this that we feel the warmth, love and comfort that give us strength and they stop us from agonizing over death, the beginning of the end, money, poverty and other suffering.  When we connect with this reality it means the end of our suffering; it is then that we grow above ourselves, that we actually feel that what we used to call living is only a cover, only a reality achieved through our senses.  It is at these moments that we feel the real enormity of living and thus the key to change is to be found within ourselves, since we are God and, to use the words of religion, this God is always and everywhere – remember the jellyfish in water.
We simply have to be observant in the Now.  It’s enough to ask ourselves when shopping can everything that is sold to us as bio really be bio?  It’s enough when we reach for other products, when we spend money for the good of all instead of on mobile phones, cars and other unnecessary goods.  When we buy expensive free-range eggs instead of those from battery hens.  It’s enough when we treat other people as we would like to be treated ourselves.  That means always sticking to the truth even if sometimes it can seem difficult for us.

You can see where all this is leading to.  In order to change the world we have to change ourselves.  We can only change ourselves in the Now.  Whoever has an intention, or believes in a guru or a leader has missed what is, since whoever has an aim is no longer observant about Now but is still stuck in old thought patterns which can only lead to more suffering.  In that moment where I set myself an aim I put myself in a region of time traps, in a potential future created by my mind.  But everything is happening only right Now.  We can stop in fear of the future or live in a melancholic past.

It is only in the Now that we can change things by very carefully and observantly considering.  It doesn’t make sense to think about the future or the past since suffering only happens now.  No one has ever suffered in the future or in the past, so old phrases like “the honour of the dead” quickly become meaningless.  It’s far more important to think how I can prevent 7000 people a day from dying of hunger.  Simple – by becoming aware when eating, shopping or acting.

Science can help us to understand these changes better and sometimes also shows us how beautiful certain principles of this energy bubble are.  Like the way the iron in the haemoglobin in our blood originally came from stardust.  Iron came to the Earth in meteorites and then via creatures from single celled to multicellular ones came through to us humans.  Thanks to science we can learn to become aware of these relationships.  We can be pleased about certain principles and when we manage to get these principles to come together instead of pitting them against each other then the voyage of humanity will have just started.

This post is also available in: German

on No Comments Yet

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.