Optimising Dysfunction
The Imperfect and Unhealthy Pursuit of Perfect Health
“Chaos is inherent in all compounded things.”
– Buddha
The seeking of anything that is not – is a striving – or a view of the experience through the lens of lack.
Of what isn’t – the negative.
I don’t really know where I’m going with this, and it will probably all come across as hypercritical and contradictory, however, I’ll attempt to explain the nuance throughout the paragraphs.
And this is what I tell myself:
“The wisest man would be the one richest in contradictions, who has, as it were, antennae for all types of men—as well as his great moments of grand harmony—a rare accident even in us! A sort of planetary motion –”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
Having spent the last 20+ years trying to optimise my own health – and working with many individuals, over the years to do the same, I declare, I am in full support of, “health optimisation”.
However, this process can be philosophically and fundamentally flawed.
The seeking of optimal anything can seem to be somewhat of a compulsive disorder. It can be a hinderance or a counterintuitive protective mechanism. An attempt to discard the “incomplete” present or “painful” past, for a perfected future – a solidified or embodied, “happily ever after” event.
However, we all know perfectionism doesn’t tend to yield more “perfect” outcomes.
“The perfect is the enemy of the good.”
– Voltaire
An easy example is all these anatomical fundamentalists ranting about minute joint angle aberrations and slight out of alignment biomechanics – assumably contributing to total system dysfunction. Although many people are out there achieving their goals and successes with what would be deemed, by the analysis crowd as, “poor posture and equally poor biomechanical functioning.”
Just like that annoyingly, arrogant dude from “Functional Patterns” – really doesn’t appear to move well, be strong, be athletic, have greater structural integrity, or any perceivable, measurable quality to support his theory of movement optimisation.
That’s not to suggest that we can’t optimise movement, or that he hasn’t done such a thing – but what are the metrics?
Does the fixation provide superior outcomes? And how would that be recognised?
“Be careful, lest in casting out your demon you exorcise the best thing in you.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
And it seems the same within the optimal health crowd — people are out there achieving the assumed unachievable with *gasp* objectifiable poor health.
If we’re to pay attention – ‘optimal’ as a standard should elicit real world benefits. If it doesn’t, how is it quantifiable?? How is it measured? Is it really optimal?
What’s the deciding factor?
Through objective data – bloods, diagnostic testing, appearance, competition?
Or subjective experience – symptoms, expression, removal of discomfort and limitations?
Unfortunately, the objective is prone to illusion and the subjective is prone to delusion.
As we can see that which is considered optimal is often filtered through societal constructs, personal conditioning, systematic expression of part deductions and reductionist theorising.
If our aim is optimisation – in one regard – our health – are we becoming subject to sub-optimal or dysfunctional elements in other regards? Maybe we become less social, more controlling, more obsessed with weight or every little perceivable experience and its possible detriments.
Maybe we start to pay attention to every experience that we do experience at total capacity – repeated and compounded – and this approach stifles our ability to live, create or explore.
“The Buddha said that suffering was caused by desire, we'd learned, and that the cessation of desire meant the cessation of suffering. When you stopped wishing things wouldn't fall apart, you'd stop suffering when they did.”
― John Green
‘Optimal’ is potentially a fixation flaw.
The Law of Diminishing Returns is commonly applied in economics but can also be observed in many complex systems. It suggests that as you keep improving or optimising one aspect of a system, the additional gains from further optimisation become smaller or even detrimental once a certain point is passed.
Or in complex systems theory, or cybernetics, it’s referred to as, “Optimisation Paradox”.
Which can be seen when trying to optimise a system globally leads to local disruptions, diminishing the overall performance and / or introducing new issues or dysfunctions within the total scope of the system.
In the context of system optimisation, it often presents that overly focusing on fine-tuning or making small, incremental improvements in one area might potentially and inadvertently lead to negative effects elsewhere in the system. This could be due to many factors, like, resource constraints, unintended side effects, or complexity increase that diminishes overall efficiency and function.
Or another applicable concept is, “overfitting” in machine learning and statistics – where excessive optimisation of a model to past data can reduce its ability to generalise well to new data.
“You just became something like some smoke that I tried too hard to hold.”
– Brian Fallon
But back to health – orthorexia is an easy example of this – as we seek out a more “perfect diet”, we create dysfunctional elements outside of this single, specific element of being well.
Humans are a complex system of complex systems – interacting within a complex system of complex systems.
Our coding is corruptible. Our biological processes are self-limiting.
The immune system, for example, serves its purpose until it potentially kills us within 15 minutes. Do we really want a strong and effective immune system?
That’s a joke – of course we do.
Of course we do.
“The more we try to live up to an ideal, the more we are going to feel that we are failing.”
– Alan Watts
What’s the real-world value of optimal health?
If our lives are on hold until we feel better — until we feel ready – we will never truly live. If we believe that we need optimal health to be able to live our dreams and hopes and aims — then they will, likely, only go unfulfilled.
So, does poor health become a protective reasoning to avoid failure or ever trying?
Or does it become a badge of honour?
Or does it become a true limitation of expression?
Could we do more with what we have? Could we be more effective with less?
“Maximizing every moment of your day can actually leave you with less time and less energy in the end.” – Tim Ferriss
Like that dude with no arms or legs swimming the English Channel…. Are we fixated on the wrong things?
We can’t wait until things are right or resolved or perfected.
“Life is a series of natural and spontaneous changes. Don't resist them; that only creates sorrow. Let reality be reality. Let things flow naturally forward in whatever way they like.”
― Lao Tzu
Life is now. It’s only now.
This doesn’t mean to live out our lives in self-destructive, chaotic hedonism.
It means that the two ends are more closely related than we care to believe.
This is why our lives can tend to fluctuate between new year’s resolution style stark motivation and wallowing in self-perceived failure, guilt and shame at our inability to follow through.
We don’t recognise the connectivity.
“Every good quality has its bad side, and nothing that is good can come into the world without directly producing a corresponding evil. This is a painful fact”.
– Carl Jung
We find it impossible to change or shift our more hard-wired inputs – and continue to alternate between seeking and failing.
This is because we ignore the relationship between the two ends.
Between sickness, injury, failure and rejection – to health, performance, success and acceptance.
They’re not exclusive, but so entirely interconnected that they’re inseparable.
We know this – the commonly shared ideas of, Thomas Edison, “I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.” Or Winston Churchill’s, “Success is stumbling from failure to failure with no loss of enthusiasm.” Etc etc etc ad nauseum.
Motivational.
But we can’t often recognise as it plays out in our lives in many other respects.
Especially in the modern age of misinformation, propaganda and control-profiteering.
We’ve become fixed on repression and fear as our protectors. The age of insurance and warranties.
We fear illness. We avoid injury at all costs.
Sure, they shouldn’t be sought out – but that’s not a reasonable counteraction. Which it seems we’re slowly losing in the age of divisive algorithms. Issues in one aspect doesn’t suggest total avoidance or removal. That’s the point of all this.
We know failure – repeated can lead to success – like rejection can lead to acceptance. That one can’t, often, occur without the other.
So how do we believe that health can exist without illness? That strength can be developed without injury.
Like Icarus attempting to fly to the sun – ignoring the wax on his wings.
Maybe genetic potential is the sun. Maybe the removal of discomfort and issues are protective of crashing and burning.
And no, this isn’t an argument for “everything is moderation.”
It’s a useless claim. Ineffective and unusable.
Sure, sure, sure the dosage is in the poison – of course. Which has become a great, catch all catch phase of the oh so-sciency crowd. Like “correlation doesn’t equal causation”. Cool. You know a cliché – your argument must be more intelligent.
Anyway, a small shot of poison, repeated over time, without adequate relief or remission – will also contribute to the dosage. Also, multiple poisons combined over periods of time without adequate relief or remission, will also contribute to the dosage.
"Sola dosis facit venenum".
– Paracelsus
The simple cause and effect equation is inadequate for understanding biological complexity.
And, also, moderation compared to what? Compared to your neighbours? The previous generations? Government recommendations? What feels right? It’s baseless.
What’s the golden ratio of moderation?
What a failed philosophy – why are we presented with two incomplete thought systems, such as “everything is moderation” or “optimal health”. Both ignore the complexity of the individual.
They ignore the complexity of the environment. They ignore the complexity of the interactions between these systems.
“Moderation is a fatal thing. Nothing succeeds like excess.”
– Oscar Wilde
How do we expect to achieve anything if we remain moving safely within the bounds of the shared rules, collective limitations and myths? Moderation, of what? Of the rules, sticking purely to states of balance and control? To seek out only the avoidance of excess? The avoidance of discomfort? Or the avoidance of inconvenience?
Moderation as an idea is built upon other conditions that we’ve had established for us. Not a fixed rule.
If alcohol is a toxin and we can drink one standard drink a day without noticing any decrease in health – are we able to determine a tiny decrease in health? Would we notice it? And for how long? One week, one year, ten years? Would we notice the difference over ten years if we didn’t drink or if we did? The answer is probably, who knows?
So, would we create moderation from this is one drink, to determine that one standard drink every second day – moderation? Or is it two drinks a day? Which becomes moderation?
Also considering the concepts of “anchoring” – the assessment phenomenon where we approach a certain number, at a point within a decision process – and become reluctant to move away from – even when the number is insignificant.
Does this influence our understanding of moderation?
Or cognitive heuristics, utility theory or peak-end rule?
Do we have the ability to overcome our societal delusions and our personal illusions to create a glimpse into what moderation would actually look like?
For example, if we’re interested in eating “well” – and we consume on average 3 meals per day, then we would consume 21 meals per week. If we want to use a 90/10 ratio of healthy to unhealthy – that would like, roughly, 19 meals – healthy and 2 meals – unhealthy. That’s two meals of take-away per week, no other snacks, soft drinks, or alcohol, etc.
Or to reduce the ratio to a more popular approach of 80/20 – that’s still only, roughly, 4 meals per week – of take-away – and no snacks, soft drinks, alcohol etc.
So, is that moderation? 80% or 90% or less or higher?
“The art of living… is neither careless drifting on the one hand nor fearful clinging to the past on the other. It consists in being sensitive to each moment, in regarding it as utterly new and unique, in having the mind open and wholly receptive.”
– Alan Watts
If we could understand that our minds ideas and decisions are impacted by many logical fallacies – one that remains probably the most relevant – “Focusing Illusion”. Crafted by the late, great Daniel Kahneman.
"Nothing in life is as important as you think it is while you are thinking about it."
– Daniel Kahneman
The cognitive bias where we overestimate the impact of a specific factor in our overall happiness. The belief that a specific change or element within our lives will influence the whole. Such as, getting a new job, moving house, renovating the kitchen etc. Though this bias we ignore the wider scope of influences on our experience of life and its total concepts and ideas of happiness and satisfaction.
For example, we believe that if we can only just overcome this one health hurdle – all our other issues will be resolved along with them.
“The illusion that we understand the past fosters overconfidence in our ability to predict the future.” Nothing in life is as important as you think it is, while you are thinking about it.”
– Daniel Kahneman
So, what’s the point of all this.
I think we need to recognise the process – embrace the path to optimal – reject it and come back to it.
In order to do so, we need an ability to discern, reject, embrace, surrender, destroy, control, let go, embody and accept.
We require gratitude for where we’re at, contentment and allowing – while striving and developing.
To do what we can with what we have, but to also seek out our higher selves. To recognise our inner biases and illusions, accept them, understand them.
To sit with our demons. To allow our imperfections and failures.
But also, keep moving. Stop wallowing.