Free Thought and Your Good Health

James E. McIntosh
Sept. 3, 2006
Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Marion County
P.O. Box 829, Summerfield, FL 34492

“Be careful with the words you use, make them soft and sweet.  You never
know which ones of those you’re going to have to eat.”  Anonymous



Can we link freethinking and good health?
            
This morning I would like to examine the linkage of two concepts that are
near to the hearts of most Unitarian Universalists.  Those concepts are
“Free Thinking” and “Good Health.”  My premise is that freethinking can
and should promote good personal health.  If you know UU history, you
probably recall that for many of our historical figures, freethinking was
definitely a health liability linked to burning at the stake and other such
outcomes.
                  
Freethinking can be like a loaded gun!
                    

Please note that I said that freethinking could promote good health.  Let’s
be perfectly clear what we are talking about when we use the term,
“freethinking.”  As hallowed as we hold this concept in the UU world,
freethinking is in reality a loaded .45 in the hands of a chimpanzee.  Why do
I say this?  Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer, and the man who invented the
toilet paper hat were freethinkers.  I might add the first two on the list did
not end up in a healthy situation.  I can’t state categorically that they were
UU’s.  I strongly doubt it.  The point is that their thinking was outside of
what society considers conventional thought.  They chose to not be bound
by convention.  Many dictators, both alive and those assigned to the trash
heap of history, believed strongly in free thought -—just not for ­other
people.


Dust off that old three-legged stool.


Clearly freethinking is part of a bigger picture.  In fact, freethinking is one
of those famous three-legged stools.  The three-legged stool causes us to
visualize an object or concept that cannot stand alone unless all three
components are in place.


First, the freethinking trilogy carries with it the license to think without
boundaries.  Good or bad, these thoughts are of little value if they remain
only in your head.  The second component of freethinking is action.  A
thought held in personal storage has no effect on society at all.  Bear in
mind that we could discuss the meaning of good and bad as well as a
whole host of other relative terms for hours without resolution.  In fact, we
have done so numerous times.


These two components neither eliminate nor elevate freethinking to the
rightful level we hold as UU’s.  The third leg of the stool is critical thinking.  
Critical thinking is the link between thought and productive, principled
action.  Critical thinking makes use of the two highest human facilities -—
the right to choose what to think and the ability to synthesize those
thoughts into new concepts or to revitalize our own view of life.
                 

Humans are herd animals and are getting more so.


I have spoken in the past of the forces that hold groups together—the
Corral and Solar System models.  Most animals still carry with them the
herding instinct, tending to group together.  Within the true herd there is
little co-operation.  Most animals do not tend to colonize but actually lead
parallel lives.  Within the herd most members behave in much the same
way as other members of the herd, mainly alone, isolated from the others.  
Incidentally, the leader is typically an outlier who garners the instinctual
respect of herd members.


Humans are herding animals.  Somewhat smarter, nevertheless they are
more inclined to act based on their own self interest, employing
observation and analysis, but still very much isolated. Isolation is the
enemy of free thought.


I wish I could feel that humans were moving toward greater capacity for
interaction, cooperation, and colonization.  It is my personal observation
that with all our technology, we are actually moving toward greater
personal isolation. With satellite radio, Walkman, internet, cable TV, mp3
players, and iPods, it is now possible for us to decrease the time we spend
interacting with other people.


I really do appreciate modern technology.


Am I a ludite advocating that all modes of communication return to the
good old days of smoke signals and jungle drums?  No. However, I am
suggesting we evaluate what is being communicated in a more critical
manner.  Since most of us are not in a position to arrive at all of our
conclusions by direct examination of actual evidence, I am suggesting we
also rely on the examination and conclusions of others. Critical thinking
and analysis can inform our thinking and thereby allow us to better
evaluate what to think and how best to act upon those thoughts.


Stress is a real factor in personal health.


According to many researchers, stress has an decided influence on our
health. Mental morbidity, heart disease, gastrointestinal disorders,
hormonal malfunctions and numerous other physical conditions have all
been attributed to stress.


What I am referring to when talking about stress is what we will call “bad”
stress, for lack of a better term.  There are also many instances of “good”
stress.  As an example, we all welcome a little excitement in our lives such
success on the job, on the playing field, or good news of friends or loved
ones.


According to Larry Alan Nadig, PhD, a noted Marriage & Family Therapist.  
“One of the most useful definitions of stress is as follows: Stress is an
internal process that occurs when a person is faced with a demand that is
perceived to exceed the resources available to effectively respond to it,
and where failure to effectively deal with the demand has important
undesirable consequences. In other words, stress is experienced when
there is an awareness of a substantial imbalance between demand and
capability, under conditions where failure to meet the demand is perceived
to have unwanted consequences.”


Stress then arises basically from the discontinuity that arises between
what we want to do and what we can do.  This discontinuity creates an
emotion that triggers a hormonal discharge that, in turn, results in the
stimulation of targeted organs of the body.  To paraphrase Nadig, the body
then selects a procedure that is expected to reduce or eliminate the
stressor. If stress is successfully reduced the person experiences
relaxation and increased confidence in being able to handle future
stressors. If the coping response is not successful, stress accompanied by
increased aggitation continues. If new strategies are not tried or are
unsuccessful the prolonged stress and increased arousal results in strain
and eventually organ damage.


Major events and dangerous circumstances are obvious stressors;
however, in most lives these do not occur frequently.  Despite the relative
infrequency of major events, exposure to stress situations and their
degrading effects exist for all of us on a daily basis. Think of the number of
little things that you have dealt with in the last few days, either by
practicing a coping strategy or by suppressing those irritants.  
Unfortunately,  suppressing stressors only bottles them up to be dealt with
at a later time.


For the thinking person the unhealthy daily stresses come not from the
little accidents, such as spilling your coffee, or transgressions of others
but from stresses we set up ourselves.


Earlier in this presentation, I identified stress as the discontinuity between
what we wanted to do and what we could do.  This is the stress that comes
upon us externally.  There is a source of internal stress just as dangerous
over time as external stress. This internal stressor may be most aptly
attributed to simply stubbornness—a position taken at one point in time
that then prevents us from changing at a later time.


Nailing down free thought.


Almost 40 years ago my family and I were stranded for a short time near
the town of Ontario in eastern Oregon. As noontime approached we
decided to go to a nearby city park for a picnic lunch.  It was a rather windy
day so we placed boxes of food down on our tablecloth to keep it from
blowing away. A very practical solution, we thought.


A couple of tables away from us another family arrived for a similar lunch.  
They put their tablecloth down minus the weights we had used and the
wind blew it off the table.  I figured then that they would just do what we
did and get on with lunch.  No so.  The dad went to their car and came
back with a hammer and some tacks.  Using a single tack in the middle of
the windward edge of the table he confidently tacked down the tablecloth.  
It didn’t fly away but the tablecloth continued to flop around on either side.  
Not discouraged, he quickly placed a tack on each side of the previous one
out near the edge of the table. Problem solved the table cloth was in place,
some minor flapping but no problem.


When we finished, we simply picked up our boxes and leftover lunch and
folded up the tablecloth. We left before the other family so I don’t know
how they finished their picnic lunch and dealt with the tacked down
tablecloth.  However, I am almost certain it was more of a hassle than ours
had been.


As I recalled the experience of nearly forty years ago, it occurred to me
how we often set ourselves up for much of the stress we experience day to
day.  Could it be that the tablecloth is like free thought? As long as it
remains unencumbered it can fly free to create and to bring meaning and
substance to our lives, but the minute we begin to tack it down we begin to
sacrifice some of our freedom.  


How do we tack it down?  We do so by making non-negotiable decision on
things that are or may occur in our lives.  Each such decision diminishes
our free thought.  The more tacks you add, the less freedom you have.  As
you amass this weight of non-negotiables, you are like the floor painter
who in carrying out his task steadily decreases the space in which he is
free to move.


I have a friend who is the most finicky person I know.  When he comes to
visit, we have a narrow choice of restaurants. He is a “meat and potatoes
man.”  He doesn't eat fish; he doesn't like any ethnic restaurants. He
doesn't eat breakfast and he only likes two brands of soft drinks, which
many restaurants do not carry. Since Pat and I like almost any kind of
cuisine, our choices of restaurants are severely restricted when our friend
comes to town.


Although our friend’s foibles typically do not cause big problems they do
illustrate how an individual can, by their own hand, limit their choices in
life.  How much more enjoyable and adventurous a life they might lead if
they did not put up so many restrictions to they own enjoyment?


My Dad who loved baseball and the Cincinnati Reds once made the
statement that he would never go to another ball game if the Reds built
their new stadium downtown by the river instead of out in the open
countryside.  They did build downtown and he never attended another
game.  My dad loved the game of baseball, but his pride and the nails he
tacked down served only to place arbitrary limits on his range of choices
and ultimately, his enjoyment in life.


Even the dumbest horse knows not to saddle himself.


How is health affected by these situations? The stance you take today may
be radically different from what life experiences dictates tomorrow.  If you
take an arbitrary position today you may leave no room for compromise
tomorrow. Even a horse is intelligent enough not to saddle himself.


Certainly one should create from their knowledge and experience a code of
ethics by which they live.  It is laudable when a person lays out a
framework for life’s decisions, but should we not always be open to
amending that framework when better information comes to our attention?
I would argue that life is difficult enough without placing additional barriers
in the way, especially when we do it to ourselves.