Change: The Scariest Word

The idea of change terrifies Sarah.

Speaking to her about changes that are going to occur is nearly impossible. Even speaking about what changes she may want, causes intense distress. I’m speaking literally about any and all changes. Changing activities, changing clothes, even changing directions whilst out for a walk.

It seems that Sarah’s fears centring on speculative changes are based upon her fear of the concept of future events. Sarah experiences intense fear when faced with concepts she can’t understand. The main functional concept in change is that of time, and Sarah does not comprehend the passage of time - she has no sense of it whatsoever. Poor recall of past events and variable anterograde amnesia prevent Sarah from being able to project her concept of self onto past or future scenarios.

There is only now as far as she is aware.

 

The idea of now has always intrigued me. The concept aligns with several existential philosophies and scientific theories that refute the existence of time, or imply that it is static.

Briefly; there is only now because time does not actually exist, it is merely a concept created by humans to understand the damage caused by radioactive decay and toxic substances which inflict the depredation of aging on living tissue thereby limiting lifespans. Radioactive particles from background cosmic radiation cause damage directly to DNA as well as the DNA-repairing mitochondrial bodies. When the mitochondrial bodies are damaged to the point where they can no longer repair/replace the damaged DNA, cells begin to fail in their maintenance of bodily functions and death occurs. If there were no damaging radiation (or other substance), then we could conceivably live forever [barring accidental injury and disease].  ((Radio-isolation experiments with plants and animals have produced results indicating that this may be the case. Although, to date they have all failed due to limitations in the isolation systems causing disease conditions related to the proliferation of environmental toxins and competing organisms.))

 

To say that Sarah is Cognitively Impaired, in the classical sense, would be incorrect. Sarah has always had a slightly above average IQ. In the now her grades on standardised daily work materials often average near an A- level (excepting math). Her intellectual perception and insight can be quite extraordinary at times. This intellectual strength does not translate into functional ability. Rather, the opposite is the case in that Sarah is acutely aware of the level of her Functional Disability. I believe that this may be what lies behind the majority of her self-injurious behaviours. The current commonly overused ‘Catch-All’ term that describes Sarah’s condition is Functionally Impaired. That covers a huge array of neurodevelopmental differences. It would be far better to describe Sarah as being Perceptually Impaired. The end result of this perceptual impairment is that only now can be understood in concrete terms. Speculative alterations on a partial perception of reality as it exists in any given moment are impossible for her to conceive. The act of trying to imagine the effects of something that one is not aware of the existence of (change), while it continually occurs around you, creates specific challenges.