Diabetes Agonistes is art for art’s sake. It is nothing other than entertainment — a thing of beauty, a technical marvel, a source of amusement, a way to pass the time and take a load off. If it ever becomes more than that, it may fail.
For example, if it becomes healthy like exercise, or educational like school, or prescriptive like medicine, or covered by health insurance like a benefit, it will probably skid off the road and wind up in a ditch of “things that are good for me.” Diabetes Agonistes is not good for you. It doesn’t show you what to do. It’s not a safety cap or a warning label. It isn’t a mutant form of health care.
Yet Diabetes Agonistes promotes health, more widely and effectively than anything else I can think of. It is educational technology that endows millions of people with competence as owners (not renters) of a body. Their own body, the one they were born with but never got to know except in a mirror, though the mirror lies.
How can this be? How can frivolous entertainment promote health; and even harder, promote the health of folks with chronic illness? The answer is, by conditioning.
Conditioning refers to learning that is experiential rather than didactic. The experience of what there is and what is happening in the surroundings of an active individual. Active is vital, because people must engage directly with their surroundings to learn from their experience.
Yes of course, I know that engagement may also be as quiet as observation and reflection, without lifting a finger, while zillions of neurons fire in a silent brain and nervous system. Okay, but that is not active engagement; it is passive. And it is not what works for regular folks.
The regular folks in line for Diabetes Agonistes rarely learn from quiet contemplation. They don’t learn from reading instructions and answering diagnostic questions, because all that is intellectual. It is voluntary rather than necessary, speculative rather than felt, pondered rather than suffered . Passive engagement may inform but it doesn’t condition, so the competence gained from it is fragile and often transient. Here today, gone tomorrow. Most health education works that way, which is to say it really doesn’t work at all.
Regular folks actually learn about health, not from TED Talks and books, but by experiencing the wounded body. Their own, in the case of folks with chronic illness, or another, in the case of caregivers.”You can’t see or understand me if you haven’t walked in my shoes.” And if you have, and walked enough times, your response has most likely been conditioned.
Conditioning helps regular folks perceive and adapt to a body’s needs — without thinking for a long time, without googling the research, without sinking into the quicksand of WebMD — just by deciding and doing what comes naturally. Insight and habits are ready for action and waiting for that decision, thanks to conditioning. Of course, things coming naturally is no guarantee of being right.
Conditioning that warrants competence rather than prejudice is catalyzed by science. Science is the only way that “gut” feelings, about something as complicated and dangerous as chronic illness, can evolve into useful intuition. Folks who are conditioned to respond to the body’s needs do it correctly if their responses express health acumen. Otherwise, they just have a dumb hunch, like the orangeman had about hydroxychloroquine.
This is why Diabetes Agonistes is built on a core of scientific knowledge about human metabolism. The core is manifest in a dynamic, user-controlled model of homeostasis, caving to metabolic syndrome and further eroding, like a dyke crumbling before a raging sea, into diabetes type 2.
But the regular folks who take up Diabetes Agonistes will never see that dynamic model, will not be aware of it unless they read the backstory, and will not think about it as they fight for their virtual lives. Yet everything they experience in the interactive entertainment will abide by the model. The competence that emerges from their active engagement with fantastic demons in the game will accord with science, will come naturally from autonomous healthy choices, and will stand up to opposition when it enters new contests in the real world.
Why may Diabetes Agonistes fail if it becomes something other than frivolous entertainment? The reason is simple. It would lose its audience if the audience even suspected it of teaching or preaching. Not because those are inherently bad services, but because they have little or nothing to do with folks gaining control of their own body and health.
Diabetes Agonistes is the kind of learning that empowers lots of people do to what they want, if they want, when they want, the way the want, and still wind up making the healthiest choices for themselves. In other words, it is nothing other than entertainment.