Further Important Classifications

Continuing with our efforts to bring greater clarity to our views on healing, I suggest we try, when we face a set of symptoms, to determine whether they are best treated by primary or secondary methods (as discussed in a previous post) that seem to fulfil the ideal of accurate, non-invasive and empowering etc., and those that are best handled by traditional (say allopathic or physical) mainly tertiary methods for, under extreme conditions, the latter will probably continue to be needed.

For convenience I am calling the first stage ‘chronic’ (for want of a better word) and the later stage ‘acute’. My rationale is that if in the earlier, chronic stage symptoms have been generally misdiagnosed, which is to say assumed to have a mainly physical cause and are therefore treated with a physical intervention - eventually becoming acute or emergency in the form of strokes, heart failure, degenerative diseases, cancer etc. that maybe then need tertiary attention and would include, I suppose, attention to ‘accidents’.

This line of thinking presupposes that there is much ‘baggage‘ in the unconscious mind which has been there from our youth, perhaps even (Dr Weiss) from previous incarnations and not easily confronted, but may also be unearthed from our childhood with the help of psychotherapists (such as assisted Dr Sarno).

The apparent challenge is to try to identify this sub-conscious cess-pool as soon as possible – before it manifests at the physical level if neglected or indefinitely misdiagnosed; since Nature, in the interest of Evolution, will eventually try to get our attention, according to theory, by means of pain and suffering.

There may, of course, be more than two stages in this process and your ideas on the subject are therefore rather important - as is use of the word ‘chronic’ for the first stage when primary methods seem most applicable.