An Ontological Analysis of Disease as a Spiritual Reality | an Essay

originally published on 06/06/2023

What is Disease? It seems appropriate to set out in search of an answer to that question prior to the proper beginning of this analysis, as to truly start considering the reality of a concept, one must, first, figure out what it is… But is that not, in and of itself, the sheer act of ontologically analyzing a thing? Coming to understand what it is?

That could be true, but, if that were the case, then the preemptive goal I’ve attempted to establish might turn out to be our primary goal, which could prove to be both beneficial and simultaneously detrimental for the experiment that’s at hand. That disadvantageous position we might have found ourselves in relates exclusively to the direction of this research. One needs to have a direction, be it a proper path or a finger vaguely pointing, and with the admission that the subject of this mental exercise is the sheer concept of Disease, then it would appear that there is no known road that can be followed.

Then, when one knows not how to proceed, I find it appropriate to take a look at what is found before that individual. In the case of our experiment, we need only look to the thing being discussed - Disease. Naturally, we have no knowledge of what it is, no certainty of what it is. To have that kind of certainty would indicate that we have not just a direction, but a destination in mind, and that would mean that asking the question with which the text was started would be pointless.

So, knowing what we do - that being nothing - it is proper to start looking into what we have in an effort to find some speck of knowledge. The word, itself, is what is going to be utilized, as it is at our disposal.

‘Disease’ - within that word I can see two components, those being ‘dis’ and ‘ease’. ‘Dis’, by itself, does not mean much to me, but ‘ease’ has a meaning that I know. A meaning that hides, within itself, much of what ‘disease’ is.

So, let us take a look at ease, and consider what it is. At first glance, one might associate it with a lack of effort, with an effortlessness, which could be entirely appropriate, but it seems as though there is something more to it. However, let’s tackle that primary assumption, after which we can deal with the darker implications that have been hinted at.

A lack of effort - that is what ‘ease’ means, yet it appears as though there arises a need to find out what ‘effort’ means. For what is it that is effort and what is it that is a lack thereof? Definition through negation requires a knowledge of that which is being negated, thus more work has presented itself to us.

There are many definitions of the word ‘effort’. Many meanings… That could make our effort more challenging, but that is of no consequence. One definition provided for the word is:
“an attempt to do something especially when it is difficult to do”

That indicates a conscious act on the part of the one doing whatever it is that is being attempted. That indicates that effort can only be associated with deeds, or rather attempted deeds, and nothing else. Something, however, implies to me that ‘ease’ is not, necessarily, bound to a deed, for it could be bound to something else - something perpetual, something not perceived as an action.

Here appears one very important part of this mental exercise. Things that ARE as a result of a process are actions. Things that ARE as a result of an unseen, almost unknown process are also actions. Thus, it can be said that life, itself, which IS as a result of a vast number of processes, is an action. It can also be said that a river, which IS as a result of its flowing, is an action, even if the river is, contradictory to this statement, a noun - a word that shows a thing - and not a verb - a word that shows an action.

So then we now have a supposition - that even things that are not directly actions can be treated as such, and that these actions, which are not conscious acts, can be affected by ‘ease’. Perhaps described through use of that word, rather than being affected by it.

Why is it so, however? How come I associate consciousness with the definition of the word ‘effort’, and how come I am stating that this definition of effort is not what we are looking for in relation to the word ‘ease’?

Because the very concept of an ‘attempt’ is bound to ‘experience’, which is, in turn, bound to ‘knowledge’, which is bound to ‘consciousness’. Without consciousness, there is no knowledge, and without knowledge, there is no experience. When there is no experience to be accumulated, there is no attempt to be made, for that attempt is intrinsically bound to consciousness, and consciousness being treated as a prerequisite for the performance of any action. That is owed up to the fact that an action implies that, prior to the action, there was no action. There was a moment in which there was no action, and thus it cannot be attributed with effort.

There must be something that provokes an action - necessity - so that the action can even take place. Everything is a reaction to something, is it not? One does not simply do something, one does a thing because of - hunger, boredom, desire, anger, sorrow, etc. - and thus everything is a reaction. Even when a creature is perceived as incapable of feeling emotion, even if it is stated to lack sentience, it is still reacting to something - most often stimuli that are perceived by it, or even stimuli that are not perceived, rather that simply are.

Even an organism that is unbelievably simple, that lacks any form of complexity, still requires something to continue being. There is still something that necessitates other things. Most often, that is the act of feeding, and thus any movement (performed with the goal of procuring food) is a reaction to that necessity to feed. Alternatively, any movement can be necessitated by the fundamental, predetermined and imposed requirement that an organism needs to reproduce, so the movement can be a reaction to that requirement.

There is no action that is not a reaction to something, and thus it seems inappropriate to make use of the word ‘effort’ when describing processes, as those seem to go on in a manner that attempts to abstract itself from reactions… Though not quite.

In the case of the river, which was mentioned earlier, there is a process that occurs. That process is not a reaction to something, even if it is caused by something. I, then, deem that a reaction is something, some kind of ‘action’, that can fail to take place, that can remain unperformed, whilst a process is something that, by the very nature of its existence, takes place.

A creature can act upon its hunger, or it can avoid acting upon it. A river cannot stop flowing, as the river is, by definition, flowing. If it ceases to flow, it ceases to be, immediately. In the case of a creature avoiding to act upon its hunger, that creature can remain, it can continue to be, but it might become different. It might have ‘hunger’ attributed to it.

Thus, effort seems to be something that can only be attributed to actions, rather than processes. Ease, on the other hand, seems as though it can be applied to processes… Why?

We might require more information, and as a result of that we will take another look at the possible definitions of the word ‘effort’:

“a force applied by a machine or in a process”

That definition seems to give us a little bit of insight into what the problem might be. It appears as though effort CAN be applied to both processes and actions, rather than just actions, however the processes in question need to be observed and/or taken part in, so that whoever, or whatever it is, that is performing the observation or partaking in these processes, can conclude whether there was an effort applied in the process.

That, in turn, necessitates consciousness, which indicates that ‘effort’ is bound to consciousness, as it needs to be determined, somehow. ‘Ease’, on the other hand, being something that is defined through the lack of ‘effort’, appears to be applicable to every single thing, the effort of which can either not be perceived or can not be measured.

Is a stone putting in effort in… Simply being? Is there a process that decides whether the stone is or isn’t? Is that process observable by those who possess consciousness, and, if so, can it be somehow measured? The answer to those questions is somewhat inconclusive, but I dare say that it is a negative one. No, the stone does not put in effort, or, as far as we can tell, it is not putting in effort. There is no moment in which the stone will stop being a stone, following some kind of cessation or some kind of action being performed upon it. Thus, that stone is lacking in effort, and it is at ease.

However, if that definition for effort is considered so, and it is bound to the observability of a certain thing - in this case, the effort - then whenever effort is not observed, whenever it is not perceived, it simply IS NOT. That means that, whenever there is no effort being perceived, there is an ‘ease’.

For the purposes of this mental exercise, we will take a look at life itself. Life is characterized by an ease, very often, in fact. It seems to be the natural state of things - life simply is, and there is no difficulty that is associated with its sheer BEING, which means there is no perceivable effort, which means that there is no effort, and there is an ease. Of course, there can be a multitude of difficulties associated with life, but they stem from the observation of the world in relation to the preservation of life, rather than the pure process of life.

Life just happens. A creature remains alive, and it lives its life, without effort - at ease. That is what ‘ease’ IS. It is the neutral state of things - when things simply are, they are at ease.

However, this is not a bout of mental gymnastics in an effort to define ‘ease’ and to become aware of all its subtleties. It is a thought experiment focused on the opposite of that - on ‘disease’.

Now that the latter half of the word has been understood, we ought to take a gander at the former half. ‘Dis’ - again, it tells us little, but through the application of other words and their meanings, we might find out what it could be.

Disappear. Displease. Disrespect.

These three words have two things in common. The addition of a ‘dis’ before another word (appear, please and respect), as well as a meaning that sets them apart as total opposites of those three words. To appear and the opposite of that, to disappear. To please and the opposite of that, to displease. To respect and the opposite of that, to disrespect. So the addition of the ‘dis’ indicates not just a negation of the word that follows it, but a transformation of it into something that directly opposes the concept of the word when free of the ‘dis’.

Disease is the direct opposite of ease. That would imply that disease is a state of being that brings about an effort that hampers whatever it is, be it a process or an action, that had previously borne ‘ease’ as its attribute.

If ease is the natural way of things, that which is ‘normal’, or the way things are meant to be, then disease is something that affects this normalcy and takes it away. It brings about a wrongness to things, makes them not what they should be.

That, in turn, indicates that a disease can affect not just actions and processes, but absolutely everything. There could be a disease that affects the entirety of existence, or there could be a disease that affects a single aspect of existence - a single thing.

Finally, we will take a look at the definitions provided for ‘disease’:

“an illness affecting humans, animals or plants, often caused by infection”

Unfortunately, no further utilization of other definitions will help in this experiment, as whenever ‘illness’ or ‘ill’ is presented to the dictionary, it makes use of either the words ‘ill’, ‘illness’ or ‘disease’ to define them. Thus, it would appear that what we have come to - pertaining to the definition of ‘disease’ - is exactly what a disease is. There is a little bit of additional knowledge that can be gleaned, however it only serves to confirm that conclusion.

The origins of the word ‘ill’ can be traced through Middle English, when it purportedly bore the meaning of: ‘wicked, malevolent, harmful or difficult’, which, in turn, has originated from Old Norse, bearing the meanings: ‘evil, difficult’. Naturally, difficulty is tightly associated with effort, thus disease (the act of being ill) is the reversal of ease, the opposite of ease.

And, as it was established that ease is the natural way of things, then disease, due to the fact it is not the natural way of things, complicates things and presents the one experiencing it with a new perspective on the process that has been made more difficult. Life suddenly becomes full of ease, whenever one is not diseased, and gains the quality of difficult, whenever one is diseased. Ease becomes tangible.

In a sense, it would appear as though disease’s existence is based on the fact that it takes away the ease that would otherwise be experienced by those who can be afflicted with a disease. That seems to suggest that the concept of ‘ease’ would not exist if there was no concept of ‘disease’ to make it perceivable.

What, then, is it that causes a disease? According to the definition, it would be an infection. Yet what is it that the infection, itself, is? Simply put, that would be another organism, or a multitude of other organisms, which have come into contact with the organism of the thing that is diseased.

However, that, too, does not seem to be the complete answer, as there are other organisms that come into contact with the organism that would be diseased if it were to come into contact with other organisms, and yet the organism does not become diseased. For the purposes of this experiment, let’s use the human being, the human organism, as our example. Within the human organism is a number of other organisms - most widely known would be those that dwell within the intestines.

These organisms are in constant contact with the human organism, and yet that human organism does not become diseased. If, however, there was another type of organism that would find itself within the intestines of that human, then it is very likely that said human would become diseased. So there is some kind of specificity to what, exactly, makes an organism (a human being in this case) diseased - it is not absolutely everything that does make a thing diseased, it is a certain type of thing that does.

Due to the fact that there is a countless number of things that could be causes of disease, this text will not attempt to explore them. However, it does seem as though there is a very specific type of activity, or rather function, that these things do to cause a disease.

Whereas the organisms living in a human’s intestines do not cause disease, and a number of other organisms that, if they were to be presented with the opportunity to live within a human’s intestines, would not cause disease, there are some that do cause disease. The reason appears to be that those things that cause disease are somewhat harmful for the organism that becomes diseased.

The bearers of disease, if we can so call them, are antagonistic towards those who are susceptible to disease. That could be so, or it could also not be so. Antagonism implies that whoever is taking part in it is doing so purposefully, consciously. An organism that causes disease, most likely, does not intend to cause harm to, exemplarily, the human being that it happens to afflict with a disease.

After all, the organisms that cause disease are trying to either feed themselves or reproduce. The fact of the matter is that the very performance of these functions has an adverse effect on those affected by diseases. That is natural - as it is simply how nature operates. Things need to eat, and so they do so. Their lack of sentience makes it impossible for them to have any regard, or conscience, when it comes to the things consumed.

As a result of that, it could be said that an infection, and by extension diseases, are totally normal. It could be argued so, yes, but there is another kind of thing that can also be treated as a disease, yet it is not caused by an infection. Illnesses of the mind.

That, however, brings some questions along with it. First, mental illness will be spoken of in relation to human beings exclusively. Second, it would appear that the most insidious aspect of an illness that affects the mind is that it is nigh imperceivable for the inflicted individual.

The way that a mental illness is discovered by an individual is through communication with another individual. Most often, that other individual may provide information to the afflicted one, and then the afflicted one will become aware of the disease affecting them, thus truly plunging them into a diseased state.

Yet, prior to finding out that they are afflicted, a mentally ill individual is not likely to be able to tell that they are mentally ill. Thus, are they truly diseased? Of course, that depends on the kind of illness that affects the individual. What also comes into consideration is the fact that mental illness might not be an illness at all, but, rather, a disorder. Yet, considering the definition provided for ‘disease’, it might be proper to refer to disorders as diseases. After all, was a disease not some deviation from the ‘norm’?

A disorder, much like a disease, is the reversal of something - in this case ‘order’, relating to the manner in which a thing works, which, pertaining to the mental faculties of a human being, would make it so they are not fitting the ‘norm’.

Though the arguments provided, the statements pertaining to what is ‘natural’ and ‘normal’ - those things are not applicable in every single case of ‘disease’. Why? Because there is a second meaning for that word:

“something that is very wrong with people’s attitudes, way of life or with society”

This definition brings about another question that we need to ask ourselves, as if things were to be relegated exclusively to processes and animals, or rather non-sentient beings, then there would have been no problem. However, due to the fact that the human factor has ended up being involved, we need to take note of the potential problems that arise as a result of that.

How can a wrongness be defined? Well, it can be defined through the observation of that which lacks this wrongness and then, following said observation, a comparison is made between that, which exhibits the wrongness, and the information gleaned from observing those that do not exhibit the wrongness. In the setting of nature, this is not problematic, as things tend to function in a very specific manner, following specific rules that are established with a specific goal, or rather purpose - survival and reproduction.

In the case of humanity, however, there is no such thing. There are rules, but those rules are not intrinsic and subconscious. They are not predetermined and rooted within human minds. They vary from society to society, from community to community, and even from human to human. The very concept of subjectivity has arisen as a result of that. The issue here stems from the fact that wrongness and rightness are not concrete things.

There is a rightness, however that rightness might remain the same whilst simultaneously becoming a wrongness. Similarly, there might be a wrongness that does not change, yet it ends up becoming a rightness. An example of a wrongness becoming a rightness could be the conception that ‘Black People’ are just as human as ‘White People’.

At one point in time, it was a ‘norm’ to have that idea, and to support it. Having the belief that people were equally human would have been something that was wrong, as it would have deviated from the norm. However, in the times during which this text is written, the norm is the opposite, and the wrongness is the belief that certain types of people are more human than others.

Is the disease what was formerly normal, or is the disease what is currently normal? Is it a disease at all? There is a perception that society, having been built upon certain systems, is fundamentally wrong. That would indicate it is very wrong. However, that perception appears to have come about following society’s ordering in this ‘wrong’ fashion, which indicates that the disease perceived in society has existed since society’s conception, meaning that the disease isn’t a disease, at least not in the sense that it has so far been defined.

Not only that, but it could not be a disease, considering the lack of an alternative, the lack of a state of ‘ease’ which can be compared to the ‘disease’.

So is the definition of disease not an appropriate one? Of course it isn’t - no single thing can be defined in a dictionary, not totally and in full, at least. That’s owed up to the nature of language, to the fact that it is symbolic and malleable, rather than concrete. So, too, seems to be the case with disease itself.

It ought to be a concrete concept - a thing that is such and such - yet, as it turns out, it might not be so, and the main reason for that is the ability of the human being to acclimate to their circumstances. Due to the fact that disease exists as it does thanks to the manner in which the human being operates, it is only fitting that said manner affects disease in an interesting way.

Disease is what was established, is it not? A state of unease, a state of effort or difficulty, when simply living seems harder. That comes about as a result of the comparison made between the diseased state of the human and the previous, disease free state. However, the longer a disease lasts, the more and more distant the memory of ease becomes. Not only that, but one grows accustomed to the disease, becomes acclimated to it, and there is a very real possibility of the disease becoming a normal part of everyday life.

At that point, the disease is no longer a disease, but, rather, a quirk. It remains a disease, certainly, but due to the fact it is not perceived as such, it might not be a disease for the one suffering through it. The aspect of suffering is what is important here, and it needs to be an active suffering, not a passive suffering. The difference would be that the passive suffering is not noticeable by the one going through it, while the active suffering is present in the mind of the sufferer.

That aforementioned acclimation makes it easier for the body and mind to deal with the suffering. What is not normal becomes normal as the previous normalcy, free of disease, is forgotten. At that point, is disease even disease?

Sources:

1. 2022 Oxford University Press, Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries, accessed on 16/04/2022, https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/