What is the philosophy behind the cultural conversation about raising barriers to entry in the name of harm reduction?
Vs
A cultural conversation about the nature of harm itself and the philosophical codification that inhibits our natural sensory capacity to navigate pain with ease?
The former lives within the same hegemonic paywall that requires a professional to know what is good for us, the paradigm in which death and suffering is possible to avert, and within which we will spend ourselves out of existence while extracting the joy and passion out of the few short moments we have here together.
Seeking health is an exhausting obsession over an impermanent state, redefined every two years by
European men in lab coats who’s partners are bored to tears and who’s children are replicating the patriarchy in their kitchen. None of them remember aesclepius or that the tragedies were medicinal theatre.
Seeking professional regulations that protect consumers from harm is how we got labels on our food that have rendered our nostrils useless.
There’s a dance between our current states of learned helplessness (someone come get all the cis het men please and most of us ww too?) and our desire for regulatory controls and our search for meaning behind our being that we hope will alleviate suffering.
I have news, and it’s painful. The diagnosis is not the cure. The treatment also is not the cure. The root of that disease is not a lack of neurotransmitters.
The neurotransmitters are responding exactly as designed for their inputs, and the readings of acceptability are rooted in the lab coat guys assessments…
If we are maybe a little bit culturally caught on the finger pointing to the moon, how do we remember the moon while we are inundated with knuckle-speak?