This ain\u2019t no easy world for sure.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Yep. A much easier world would be one in which one can plainly say: only truth can truly cure, so we stick to that as much as we can (which may sometimes not be very much, but at least we try).<\/p>\n\n\n\n In medicine, what is at stake is becoming healthy as a total person<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Therefore, also becoming healed \/ whole \/ holy. [These three words have the same origin.]<\/p>\n\n\n\n Psychosomatic symptoms are there because somehow (in reality, not merely in theory) we have lost contact with ourselves, more precisely with our non-conscious, our \u2018deeper self.\u2019 This is pretty widespread. People are increasingly \u2018dissociated\u2019 within, of which C.G. Jung reminded us more than half a century ago. A bit more dramatically said:<\/p>\n\n\n\n We are losing contact with \u2018soul\u2019.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Starkly in depression, but it happens in daily life, for many people, continually.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Then the body comes to remind us of our destiny. It does so by way of psychosomatic symptoms. We can ignore this by killing the symptoms, or we can try to communicate appropriately with deeper self.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the latter case, the symptom itself is a good entry point, like a channel open in two directions. Something comes from deep inside as a symptom. We can take the same route in the other direction, towards deeply within. The symptom is, at that point, part of the deeper self\u2019s vocabulary. We can make use of that same vocabulary. Thus:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Take the symptom as a starting point for communication<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n and use it further in symbolic ways. [see: “From Placebo to Insight<\/a>“]<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hard-core placebo \u2013 without symbolic meaningfulness nor the aim of being open \u2013 doesn\u2019t do that. Its purpose is to get rid of the symptom by closing the channel. The person feels better, comfortable, \u2018cured\u2019 even\u2026 in a cosmetic way. Is this the reason why the symptom is present in the first place?<\/p>\n\n\n\n So, to placebo or not to placebo?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n As said, no easy question. Intellectually in mere coldness, one should get rid of hard-core placebo. Something that by definition<\/em> circumvents full truth is problematic, which is what hard-core placebo does by definition<\/em>. It is, therefore, quite different from empathy, a distinction that should always be made.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Humanly, morally, warmly, one should think twice before striving to get rid of placebo just like that. Due to long-time presence, certain kinds of placebo \u2013 even the hard-core ones \u2013 may become indispensable for many people depending on them for mental and physical stability. Drop placebo, and a lot of people drop to the ground.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, again.<\/p>\n\n\n\n People have wings from birth on.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n I am a firm believer in this. People may lose their ability to use their wings. They may lose the knowledge of having them. Therefore, if you point towards these wings, you point towards \u2018nothing\u2019 in the eyes of many.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And yet, the wings are there and will always be there. I\u2019m talking of proper use of the non-conscious. This is: of integration of ego<\/em> and deeper self<\/em> into one total self<\/em>. This is what the symptom is calling for. Eventually, it\u2019s what being alive<\/em> is about.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This makes the purpose of any psychosomatic symptom understandable: for the total person, being bothered by symptoms is better than not being fully alive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is a wake-up call in this!<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hard-core placebo may stand in the way of life itself.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n People need to be asleep as long as they don\u2019t know how to be awake. But is it a good thing to not try to awaken them at all? Let\u2019s ask nature. Her answer is clear: she didn\u2019t intend us to sleep all our lives. If she did, we wouldn\u2019t have psychosomatic symptoms in the first place. Nature points us towards awakening.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So, in the end, should one more than needed<\/em> prolong any placebo that is but suggestion in disguise? Of course, we\u2019re human, not superhuman. But keeping placebo even if we attain the possibility to transcend it towards open autosuggestion is problematic. [see: “Power of Placebo < Autosuggestion<\/a>“]<\/p>\n\n\n\n So, to placebo or not to placebo?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Hard-core placebo doesn\u2019t accord to any Aurelian value. With AURELIS in place, placebo must go.<\/p>\n\n\n\n