In the late ’70s, I took just about any rx a revered doctor in the up and coming field of psychiatric-pharmacology prescribed. The doses only got larger when they failed for being wrongly advised. It wasn’t pretty, neither the relationship between the pyshopharmacologist and me, or the field itself, which was soon bullying both emotionally disturbed individuals (and I was indeed) and their caregivers, including well-meaning psychiatrists and personal doctors. In spite of, at times, barely being able to lift my arms from massive doses (enough to put down and elephant), I nonetheless still read the news in various newspapers, and kept a job (low level though it was for my many as then proven gifts). I still have the news article that changed my perspective for life. I find it when I’m cleaning file cabinets to make room. The yellowed newsprint is always a pleasant reminder of my curiosity and common sense. Written about a young scientist studying the human brain, the article said of his findings regarding how the brain actually demonstrates through small variances in tissue and neurons, etc. that it has received new information, such as “this is pear.” Give a fragrant pear, for instance, to a brain prior untouched by pear, and it will begin by creating a design that resembles a baobab tree. After a few more exposures to pear, the wild branches fall away, until finally the form resembles more of a cull de sac. Label this “pear.” The brain knows now and has a basic understanding of all that the senses ascribe to “pear.” The young researcher created a theory out of that and his continuing work, eventually concluding that we probably need less of a medication, not more, to get the same results once it has shown to improve a problematic symptom, in my case a diagnosis that was impossibly wrong and hardly observed. I made my own findings based on this article and it remains a deciding factor in a lot of what are the rare and few options I’ve been able to make about my life and those of my loved ones in my charge. Our choices are limited to our circumstances, no doubt. There doesn’t appear to be a grand scheme. But, still, more is not always better. The mind is the hungriest organ, for it craves only more information, and is not the seat its own environmental or ecological pinnings. But as far as information goes, the brain surpasses any computer and has more neurons than all the stars in the universe, so I suppose it knows what knowing is. I learned over time that the brain wants more of whatever you give it. This was a freeing concept that I took for truth after testing it on my repetitive proclivities and on letting go of those same leanings. I could stop a growing bad habit by not doing it or giving a taste of it to my brain, even it was a food or drink, and only for a week. I’d replace it with a different (usually more proven healthy alternative) and shortly, my brain had gained a real interest in the newer object of my perusal, and lost interest in whatever that last thing was. And so it goes. I’ve passed on this belief to so many people who were interested and it hasn’t come back to me as utter nonsense yet. However, the poor young scientist, who with his slides of brain tissue and advanced curiosity and knowledge of chemistry and everything ever hardwired, basically would have put the pharmaceutical companies from his state (New Jersey) in bankruptcy, I never have been able to find a single research paper written by him. I may clear some files drawers just to feel the wonder that went into his mind that changed mine in such a profound way all those decades ago. If I do, I’ll post his name and the piece and give him proper credit. Names and titles still allude my mind, the final pocket of mystery belonging to the awful period when a far less knowledgeable and overconfident young psychopharmacologist medicated me without weighing me and comparing me to a giant wild animal. And I wasn’t even angry. That was the point, I think. If only I could have been. These questionable concepts, heredity and ecology, and such human constructs that so swells the questions for their uncertain answers and gratifications, they spring from vulnerability. Knowledge is logical. The brain is not, by and in itself.