Neutral Chi

qi |CHē|(also chi or ki )

noun

the circulating life force whose existence and properties are the basis of much Chinese philosophy and medicine

I was introduced to this concept in college.  The difficult piece to teach, and understand, from a scientific, Western perspective, was that once you gave any kind of definition to the word you immediately misunderstood its meaning.  It is specific, and it is not specific.  It is everything, and it is nothing.

We're all familiar with positive and negative energy in the universe: positive and negative chi, electrons and protons, optimism and pessimism, hope and doubt, trust and fear.  Same ideas, different explanations for reality.  My favorite part about the concept was the flowing metaphor of something that was a connecting force, that did not isolate my body from the world, or from disparate parts of itself: for example, mind & body & spirit; respiratory & circulatory systems.

But as I get older and experience continually reminds me what values tried to teach me long ago, that life isn't as simple as negative and positive.  The bright spots in my life aren't islands, lonely in a sea of dispair, or vice versa.  Positivity can just as likely give rise to negativity or to more positivity, because there are just too many variables in the perspective equation to consider.  Let me give an example: ever hear of the book "That's Good! That's Bad!" by Margery Cuyler? If you haven't its a great book.  It begins: "One day a little boy went to the zoo with his mother and father. They bought him a shiny red balloon."  That balloon then takes the little boy through a series of adventures throughout the zoo, into the hands of a baboon, narrowing escaping the jaws of a giant snake, etc.  At each turn, the narrator(s) seem to be confused in his decision of the outcome, exclaiming: "That's good!  No!  That's bad!"or the other way around.  The narrator can't decide if the outcome will ultimately turn out well or not for the little boy.  Ultimately, what assurance do any of us have?

But I digress.  Neutral chi is the action of inaction, not just a description of a balancing point between two opposing forces, but a force within itself.  In leadership development, this concept was introduced to me as 'stepping back, and letting someone fail' so that they might also learn from the best teacher: experience.  There is a leap of faith involved.  None of us know if/that we will land safely on the other side.  But stepping back and letting the situation run its course is sometimes the best action we can take.  That which we fight to change, sometimes is not ready until inertia has taken it as far as it can go.

Take Apple as an example.  They market their products just like everyone else.  Sure you could say that they were ahead of their time because they were simple in a world of complexity, but think about what complexity they made simple for a second: in order to pull it off they had to spend years and lots of money on R&D (a practice I'm voting they aren't going to follow as strictly, as evidenced by the faultiness of both Lion and iCloud, post-Jobs), to make a product that is integrated and, for the general user "just works."  But then they had to rely on all their own parts, all their own design, all their own rules.  Politically, Apple is the monopolized dictatorship of technology.  I love the functionality as much as the next person, but are those my values?  At that point they don't need to have programs like "Refer a friend and get $100" because they've successfully created a clique. A clique that everyone can join for the right price.  They don't have to appeal to anyone positively, or negatively, their ads just show you the product, and we can't wait to get our hot little hands on that shiny red balloon.

Eugenics today

This is a short position paper that I wrote for my genetics and society class at portland state.  It is meant to be a persuasive paper only, mostly not reflective of any of my personal views.  The topic fascinated me, which is why I posted it here.  Enjoy.

1/24/12

SPP #2: Why did eugenics fail?

As genetics became a scientifically viable field, public discourse struggled to define this new science. Many new thinkers were attracted to the topic, many with their own agendas. If the fundamental principles of the development of species could be understood, surely they could also be controlled and manipulated. Control of human biological destiny developed into what is now known as eugenics. Culminating in the idealogical purging of Nazi Germany, eugenics was based on tenuous scientific principles at best, and quickly transformed into political rhetoric. Because of the catastrophe of the Holocaust, the word 'eugenics' may have fallen out of favor, and with it the metaphor of animal stock-breeding, but as a social concept eugenics still influences political rhetoric.

Political discourse, especially in today's 24-hour news cycle, thrives on controversy, even without truth. “The dynamics of reductive simplicity and full-blown complexity persist in the public discourse because each features substantial, though different, rhetorical advantages.” (Condit, 1999: 56) Both modern American political narratives, the “conservative” and “liberal” agendas are guilty of reductive simplicity and paralyzing complexity for political victories. Both sides blame each other of seeking homogeneity, which at its core, is what eugenics is all about: “The ambiguous notion of the germ-plasm, with its connotations of cohesion and homogeneity...” (Condit, 1999: 54) Conservatives accuse liberals of threatening individual freedom and traditional values through dilution of the gene pool. Liberals accuse conservatives of threatening freedom of expression and inclusive values through similarly over-simplistic views of the gene pool. “Clearly, the scientific findings did not drive the public discourse to new anti-eugenic positions but merely supported reorientations urged by other forces.” (Condit, 1999: 55) Politics drives itself. Under eugenics, science was just a guise for a racist agenda: “...In public rhetoric, it matters little whether the true believers learn from new data and correct themselves, for the balance of public opinion is built... from members of the broader public who serve as audience and judge of these doctrines.” (Condit, 1999:55) Eugenics may have enjoyed a brief wink of scientific validity, but that is dwarfed by its historical importance as political rhetoric.

Within the modern conservative narrative, traditional values are under attack by progressives and liberals attempting to control the America citizenry via federalized institutions and mandates. The truth is that this was the aim of many eugenicists at the beginning of the 20^th century, in order to encourage the re-education of the “unfit.” However, “[eugenicists] eventually bowed to the conditions of feasibility generated by innate [biological] complexity.” (Condit, 1999:57) Scientific understanding had not yet advanced to enable sufficient control for breeding out the “unfit” in exchange for the genetically “superior.” According to French Strother: “The most [the eugenic scientist] hopes is that some day he will have so many facts, so clearly proven, that only the very ignorant will not know how nature deals with human heredity, and only the fools will be rash enough to try to beat nature. But that's a century or two ahead yet.” (1924:170-171) Now, nearly a century later, according to conservative political narrative, eugenics is thriving in the form of population and reproductive control via advances in medicine: the morning after pill, abortion, and birth control. Simultaneously, the paradigm continues the victim stance by decrying the scientific research of global climate change as a 'liberal agenda.' Literally, Strother's vision has manifest as “nature deals with human heredity” and the industrial choices Western culture has made in the name of superiority.

At the same time, the conservative narrative has used the eugenic argument to its advantage. The power of the individual in the context of American capitalism to “lift himself up by his bootstraps” (Lakoff, 2004) has cast the poor on the losing side of the superior/unfit dichotomy. However, the modern Great Recession has limited the argument, similar to how the Great Depression “...cast doubt on the proposition that the unemployed were out of work because of their incapacities rather than because of factors in the social structure.” (Condit, 1999:52) Despite, the economic realities, this type of polarizing rhetoric continues even through the current Republican Presidential Debates.

Eugenics was only briefly scientifically relevant. The science of eugenics quickly got replaced as methods and knowledge advanced. But as public and political rhetoric, eugenics by many other names, is alive and well.

• Lakoff, George (2004) Don't Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing.

• Condit, Celeste M. (1999) The Meanings of the Gene: Public Debates about Human Heredity. Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press.

Thoughts to get started.

Hello all,

In a new year's effort to examine my life, keep things in perspective and well, keep in touch better, I'm going to be kickstarting this blog thing again. The resolution? Stop worrying so much about what you'll be defined as if you do anything. Do something, and if it doesn't work out, do something else.

In a broad introductory effort to remember this, I'm starting with two lists based on one of my favorite mantras: [That which goes by many names and is beyond all naming], grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

Things I can change:
Now.
Myself, and my attitude.


Things I can't change:
Time.
Others, more than they want to be changed.

I took a walk in the snow covering Portland last night and was exhilarated both by the joyous novelty of the weather and what it brought out in my neighbors. People were playing in the streets, greeting each other as we walked past, things that normally don't happen. It was a good reminder to simply "Be the change you wish to see." Because although being friendly is sometimes exhausting, its still easier than doing nothing and complaining.

Ambulance Ride Along

Following are the text messages between myself and Jenn during the Ambulance ride-along that I completed as a requirement for my EMT-Basic certification. I have deleted any names of people, places, and other identifying information in order to protect the patients and people that I worked with. Thank you for the opportunity, I had an amazing experience with the professionals I worked with, and please contact me directly with any concerns or questions.


Jenn: hope you're able to stay awake :-)

19:18 me: Hehe. Stayed up till 5am last night, then slept to 3pm. I hope so too

19:19 Jenn: whoa

19:20 me: We were just at a tbone car accident, guy was fine but complaining of hip pain. Hit an icy patch. Car door w a 6 in indent

19:21 Now we're going to a nursing home. Possible GI bleed

23 minutes

19:45 Jenn: whoa

crazy night

how are you liking it so far?

19 minutes

20:04 me: Ya, interesting

Tons of protocols tho

20:05 Jenn: yeah i bet there's a BUNCH of stuff you're not allowed to do

5 minutes

20:11 me: Oh yea

Lots of paperwork. They're doing the care report on a heavyduty ipad looking thing

20:12 We've been on the move ever since we started bc of the icy roads tonightI love the camaraderie too

20:13 Jenn: ah that makes sense

the other guys are cool?

13 minutes

20:26 me: One guy paramedic, one lady paramedic

They're fun

Make fun of each other a lot

20:28 Jenn: haha fun

20:31 me: I'm going to keep msging you all shift if that's ok, mostly just to document :)

You can read it in the morning

5 minutes

20:36 Jenn: haha ok

9 minutes

17 minutes

21:03 me: Could def see myself doing this. I like the movement

21:06 Jenn: nice

what's the work week like?

8 minutes

21:14 Jenn: did you know in-state tuition for the med school at ucsf is $0?!?!?!?

i may or may not be looking at med school rankings...

21:15 i've been thinking that i'd like some book recommendations (books that are readable and interesting to me) so i can be conversant with you while you're in the med school process

13 minutes

21:28 Jenn: holy shit

21:29 all of the UC medical schools are zero tuition for in-state residents

dude you should totally do that

10 minutes

21:39 Jenn: oOoh but there's like 30k in required fees...?

weird

51 minutes

22:30 me: Yea that is weird and I did not know that!

22:31 I would love to get in to a UC med school

All of them are some of the best in the country

22:34 We just did a patient transfer

Jenn: there's so much hierarchy in medicine

5 minutes

22:47 me: I know dude. Its my biggest problem with it

And one of the biggest factors in considering NOT doing medicine

13 minutes

23:01 me: We just dropped off the nurse back at his hospital. He was finishing a 16 hr shift

7 minutes

23:08 me: I want to be a healer. I want to treat people, not just patients. I want to not wipe my hands clean of the situation when dropping the patient off at the ER. I want to understand, and I want to cure, not just triage with all my time. I didn't like that about the [ ] model either. It sometimes felt superficial, and like triage: who's the best and let me spend most of my time with them, instead of setting down roots. That's why I'm much more attracted to public health

10 minutes

23:19 Jenn: yeah

do you think you'd get that from being a doctor?

although a huge complaint from doctors (and patients) is that they don't spend enough time with each other

23:20 me: Yes and no, depending on what I do

Jenn: if you were an ER doc, no

me: Depending on where you work

Jenn: yeah

23:22 me: Also, that's why I'm looking into md/mph programs, then maybe work for the WHO or UN or county or state, or open my own practice/clinic

And DO

23:23 There's a really cool integrative care model in seattle that I went to once while I lived there. I'm forgetting the name right now.

Most models are based on doctors meeting w dozens of patients a day, some are not

23:24 Jenn: yeah

phew big decisions comin up

23:27 me: I know dude..

Welcome to my life, and partially why its taken me this long to start applying in the first place

23:28 Jenn: yeah

23:30 me: Chillin in the firefighter clubhouse right now :)

23:32 Jenn: cool!!!

is it weird that you keep texting on your phone....? i wouldn't want you to get a negative review from the current EMTs

23:34 me: Nah, they're on their on phones too, or diriving, etc

8 minutes

14:59 me: It was incredibly interesting

15:00 Stopped msging you bc they were on their phones less

Altho now sleeping all day I kinda wish id kept it up, this off sleep schedule sucks

15:02 Let's see we had a few more calls

15:03 One was a fire standby just in case anyone got hurt, which no one did, and it was fun listening to the firefighter radio chatter

15:04 Our final call was a possible stroke, probably TIA if you're interested in looking it up, had woken up at 5am not being able to find his nose and with diminished movement in the left side of his body, slurred speech, this came and went.

15:06 When we got him to the hospital, they had new protocol where the doc did a preliminary diagnosis in the hall and they sent him directly to the CT brain scanner from the ambulance gurney

7 minutes

15:14 me: We also got a call from a patients father, his daughter was staying at [ hotel ] which the hospital had paid for after holding her in psych for the past three weeks. She had had a seizure and called him. She didn't want to come to the hospital so the cop that was there put her under POH- Police Officer Hold, which is usually used for suicide threats, bc there was some discrepancy about how many of her pills she had actually taken (which there were a ton of bottle from various dates all around the room). It took 3 firefighters to help her walk down the stairs in her postseizure daze (post-ictal phase). In the ambulance she told us she'd been kicked out of her house by her husband and kids bc they didn't know what to do with her, she had a tumor the size of a fist right in the lower center of her brain and some behavioral/emotional thing called [ ].

15:19 Jenn: Dude I bet you learned so much

And learned how much you still don't know

15:20 That poor woman with the brain tumor

Sounds so sad. How are you emotionally after all that?

6 minutes

15:27 me: I'm ok. Tho probably still digesting

Thanks

15:28 For askin

I'm stoked for my ER rotation tonight