Tuesday, January 6, 2015

The Problem With Meaning


David Brooks, writing about "meaning" today says "meaning has become the stand-in in concept for everything the soul yearns for and seeks."  He says, "In this way meaning is an uplifting state of consciousness. It's what you feel when you're serving things beyond self."

For me, meaning gained a very concrete status my second year of medical residency.
The meeting was mandatory, I was told, no excuses. I had been up thirty hours, but that was no excuse. Two other residents had been up just as long, but six of us had to rally for a meeting in the Department of Medicine office conference room. 

It was a very impressive room, with a long glistening conference table. Eight by ten photos of chief medical residents past  lined the walls, along with bookcases filled with medical journals and text books. We took our chairs and not a one was happy to be there. We were required to be there for the one hour of "psychiatry training" required of internists,  so we could sit for our board exams.  

Waiting for the shrink to arrive, I looked around and the three of  us who had been on call looked no better than I did: a day's growth of beard, dark circles under eyes, and white uniforms spattered with blood, urine, vomit,  all the stuff you acquired on call.

I fiddled with the rubber tourniquet looped through my belt and Jay, whom I had known since medical school, spun his reflex hammer on the polished table, eyelids drooping. David, flipped a sealed angiocath container up and down in his palm, as if he were throwing a knife.  We were, each in our own way, in a really foul mood.

Six hours earlier, I had been talking to a favorite patient, when his eyes went opaque in that peculiar, pathognomonic glaze unique to the eyes of the dead. We managed to get him back, briefly, with defibrillation and the code had gone smoothly, but then he flat lined and there was no getting him back. As many times as I saw patients die, there was still something about their eyes when they died that chilled me. FUBAR that night, no doubt.

 I had to call his wife in and take her to a conference room, and deliver the news, which has always been my absolute least favorite task as a doctor. 

What could this shrink tell me, or any of us, which would be of any use at all? He didn't have to do what I had just done. He never had to tell a wife her husband had died, or a son his mother had died, or worst of all, a mother, her child had died.  We had about as much use for this  shrink as skunk has for perfume.

The shrink walked in and sat down and looked around the table as we stared at its polished surface or met his eyes, each as we felt inclined to do. I actually felt a little sorry for him, but he was what was standing between me and my bed and four hours sleep before rounds.

He wore a nice Harris tweed jacket and his tie was flawlessly knotted, a silk rep striped tie, and he looked well rested and spotless, unlike his captives.

"What would it mean to you," he asked,  "To know you were going to die today, by the end of the day?"

Even in my resentful, sleep deprived state, that got my attention. But the real surprise was what followed. 

David and Jay, who were both married with kids, guys I thought I knew better than their own wives knew them, guys I stayed up with all night, guys who had watched people die with me, guys who confided in me secrets they would never have their wives know--how they lusted after the charge nurse who wore her skirts so short you could see her panties when she bent over a bed--these guys, my comrades in arms, both said, without hesitation: "It would mean I'd never get to see my kids grow up."

That came as a complete surprise to me. Of course, when I thought about it, it made sense. Being a father was something neither of them ever talked about. It was a part of their lives I never saw. I knew, in some abstract sense, they were married and had kids they never saw back at Payson House, in some apartment, with wives who only came out at parties, but there it was. The most important thing in the world to these two guys was not their world I shared, but that world I never saw.

I, of course, being unmarried, lived for a good sleep, the next day off, and whatever pleasure might be available at the Recovery Room or other pubs around the hospital.

It turned out "meaning" was bigger than I had guessed. Meaning for me meant I could live my life entirely for myself, for some discrete periods of time. My own family had been depleted by death and distance. I spoke to my father by phone every couple of weeks and to my brother and his wife a little more often, but mostly, I was on my own. I never saw childhood friends or neighbors--I was living in a city far away from my hometown.  I had friends, but it was like Army buddies: At some level, you knew you'd never see them again. You'd go on to "the real world," i.e. the world outside the hospital, where people dying was not a daily event.

The meaning of life was, for me, whatever was happening that day.

But not my two married friends. Meaning for them was invested in children I hardly knew existed. 

After that, I made it a point to go over to their apartments and play with their kids every now and then, to see what that sort of meaning meant.

4 comments:

  1. Phantom,
    As far as Brooks piece goes-I had to read it more than once just to be certain I was getting his whole point. He starts out with what appears an endorsement of the pursuit of meaningfulness in one's life, yet ends with denigrating it as the the "nutrasweet of inner life". He seems to believe a transitory, subjective, selfish meaningfulness has replaced "objective and true standards of justice" in our culture. I'm not sure I'm buying that, I don't think they are mutually exclusive and it would seem both states can be present in society and in one's life. Surely society can have over reaching and immutable guiding principles while individuals in that society still pursue a meaningful life. Don't think I'm on board with his discussion of meaningfulness and happiness as two distinct entities either. It would appear one can have a meaningful life and still not be happy, however I don't think one can be truly happy without leading a meaningful life. Also meaningfulness seems to require not only service to others but a strong connection to others. That is why you perhaps felt your married with children peers had lives with greater meaning. At work you all were serving others and had a purpose-but they had a stronger human connection outside of work which gave greater meaning and I would imagine greater happiness to their lives...

    I am always amazed at the harsh rigor and hardship that was inherent in medical training in the past. After 30 hours of work, a meeting, four hours of sleep and then back to the grindstone I would be satisfied just to still be upright and not speaking in tongues. That requires a physical stamina I never possessed. But it's not just physical stamina- patients require more from their doctors than to just be still standing. There's significant intellectual and emotional stamina required that a lot of people would not be able to bring to the table... I was also struck by your candor in describing your reaction to the eyes of patients who have just died. I haven't witnessed this, but as someone who has been very disturbed by the eyes of dead animals, I can only imagine my reaction if the eyes were those of a human being, never mind a human being I had been responsible for taking care of. I can also readily understand why facing the eyes of the dead patient's family would be your least favorite aspect of being a doctor. You describe your aversion to this in the present tense-apparently all these years of practicing medicine has not dulled your reaction to the pain of others. It's hard to imagine having that type of conversation with family members and then carrying on with the rest of the day's work. Such emotional, stressful experiences have to take their toll in some way. So that I guess is the reason for the tough conditions during medical training-to steel you for the severely intense situations you'll face in your career. Did it work? In any case, one can think of few careers that would bring as much meaningfulness and purpose to one's life as being a doctor. But of course that's just the view of someone on the outside looking in and as Brooks correctly stated, meaning is, above all else, relative and subjective...
    Maud

    ReplyDelete
  2. Maud,
    As always, you get far more out of any existential discussion than I do, and you dissect it far more analytically. Your college professors should be very proud. I gravitate to the concrete; you actually deconstruct the theory.

    As for medical training, it's much more humane now, work hours are limited. It did teach me you can become inured to things you never thought you could.

    David Brooks did write a courageous article this morning, examining whether those French cartoons were simply free speech or "hate speech," and how we extol freedom of speech in America but we thwart it. Even if they were hateful, that would in no way would justify killing anyone, of course. That had struck me, when I saw them--the Nazis used cartoons which looked eerily similar. Nobody should die for drawing a cartoon and this whole thing reinforces my feelings about organized religion.

    Phantom

    ReplyDelete
  3. Phantom,
    You haven't had much to say lately...is everything OK, or have you gone egg hunting?

    I agree that Charlie Hebdo's cartoons are not "just cartoons" any more than Mein Kampf was simply a book-not that I'm equating the two, just that they both were making political statements-which you can make as easily with a drawing as you can with words. I agree with Brooks we can often be hypocritical about freedom of speech and how we employ it, but didn't appreciate him lumping Bill Maher at the "kid's table" with Ann Colter. Colter? Please...Maher, as offensive as he can sometimes be, is at least amusing and intelligent about it-Colter is simply the female version of Limbaugh... Did you read Brooks' later piece "The Child in the Basement" on a short story/parable dealing with the morality of the few suffering for the many? It was thought provoking, if you haven't read it you should...
    Maud

    ReplyDelete
  4. Maud,
    I missed that Brooks column, but will now go read it.
    Totally agree with you about Brooks and his prissiness about Bill Maher. To lump Maher with Coulter is simply silly.
    Brooks is simply distressed by any sort of incivility.
    I used to see him at the Barber shop in Bethesda with his kid and he was so gentle and such an indulgent father, you can see any sort of harsh word is simply unpalatable to him--which is probably why he sees Maher as simply a liberal version of Coulter. But of course, he is blind to the pathology in Coulter and the intelligence of Maher.
    He probably could not see past the four letter words in George Carlin to the genius, one would guess.
    Coulter is a bundle of pathology. What do you think her fans are like? What would their living rooms look like?
    Phantom

    ReplyDelete