The mystery of Referred Pain

Referred Pain is most commonly experienced when a nerve is somehow compromised, either threatened or obstructed in the spinal structure. A sensation of pain, seemingly ‘real’ pain, is felt in an otherwise perfectly healthy local area (for instance hand, arm, leg etc ) . The pain feels just as ‘real’ as it would if there was an injury to that local area, and thus begins a process of analysing by the conscious mind ( C/M) to identify a possible source. With no obvious injury in the local area apparent, that analysis must adopt lateral means of cognition to aid identifying a possible source for the referred pain. However, part of that analysis should also be to identify what created this sensation of ‘fictitious’ referred pain, and what was the purpose in adopting such oblique methods in order to engage the conscious mind ( C/M) with a possible threat or injury.

There must be a purpose, and there must be a purpose for the methods employed also, otherwise we are dealing with something which makes no sense whatsoever. That purpose seems to be that some ‘intelligence’ has contrived to alert our C/M into a process of seeking some hidden ‘silent’ malfunction, most likely a threat to a nerve somewhere. The creation of a ‘fictitious’ sensation of pain in an otherwise healthy local area may be the least compromising way of raising this alert. This may well be the nervous system’s (N/S) adopted best method for raising the alarm about a threat to itself, because any direct indication (sensation of pain) to the actual threatened area might be too traumatic and counter-productive. The N/S is inherently designed, or has evolved, to always maximise its protective qualities, and as such, chooses to alert its own distress by means of ‘fictitious’ referred pain.

This peculiar behaviour also gives us some insight into the essential nature of pain itself. If it is possible for a ‘fictitious’, but seemingly ‘real’ sensation of pain to be felt in a healthy local area, what does that say about the nature of pain ? It suggests that pain can be manipulated by some unknown force. It suggests that pain is being used as a tool by some ‘intelligence’. It suggests that our normal understandings of the processes of injury / pain are being overridden whenever a nerve is threatened. It also suggests that our C/M can easily be confused with these conflicting overlapping purposes which we perceive in the experience of referred pain in particular. However, if we alter our perceptions slightly, and try to see these events from the perspective of what the N/S is trying to achieve, it can begin to make sense. The N/S has irrevocable duties and responsibilities to ensure survival, one of which is to inform the C/M of any ‘silent’ threats. How it achieves this goal, and the complex methods and tactics it uses, are probably the least traumatic and most favourable methods available to it. The less our C/M is aware of these tactics is probably a beneficial side effect as well, because the slower we are in becoming aware of a threatened nerve might serve its own purpose. A compromised nerve, because it might compromise the whole protective system, has its own set of behavioural rules, one of which is to override normal injury/pain relationships, which are known to our C/M, and to employ methods which slowdown our responses….thus allowing the N/S more time to rectify any threat to itself, without the interference of questionable interventions contrived by the C/M.

In an attempt to visualise the relationship between the N/S and the C/M I’m inclined to view the both as different operating systems using the same hard drive. As such, they might only have the capacity to influence each other on very minimal levels. Any cross-contamination, particularly from the C/M to the N/S is prohibited because, although the C/M is programmed to allow for errors of judgement, the N/S isn’t. Any compromising of the responsibilities or functions of the N/S could be disastrous. If we assume that the N/S is capable of using the ‘illusion’ of ‘fictitious’ referred pain in order to influence the behaviour and reactions of the C/M, then we must summarise that the N/S is capable of resorting to deceptive means in order to achieve its goals, irrespective of how the C/M might actually react.

Only one explanation can be read into such events and that is, that the N/S is somehow ‘aware’ of the possible incorrect assessments which the C/M is capable of, and therefore the N/S attempts to pre-empt any possible C/M mistakes. It might be said that the N/S has learned its lessons from the irrational reactions of the C/M, and has adjusted its methods, over time, to suit such unpredictable reactions. It might even be said that the N/S allows the introduction of a sensation of pain, as a constant reminder to the C/M that any injury / threat must be treated with care and proper consideration. Why is it that, when the C/M is sleeping (i.e. unconscious) there seems less need for the sensation of pain to enter the equation. Perhaps the N/S detects less possibility for irrational reactions, orchestrated by the C/M.

I’m aware that much current research into the enigma of pain tends to view pain as a construct of the C/M, i.e. that the N/S provides the warning signals and the C/M does the rest. I disagree with this approach, simply because of what seems to occur during a referred pain event i.e. a ‘fictitious’ pain is signalled in an otherwise healthy local area in order to prompt the C/M into assessing a ‘silent’ threat elsewhere. That would suggest that the referred pain was instigated by something other than the C/M. After all, why would the C/M need to prompt itself into such a reaction, if it was already aware of the location of the ‘silent’ threat. Of course, the C/M isn’t aware of any of this…..but the N/S is, and the means it uses to prompt an appropriate C/M reaction are very interesting when attempting to consider the essential nature of pain, and how and why it is used as a tool by the N/S.

Admittedly, there are some instances where the C/M seems to have some influence over pain sensations, but these are mostly illusionary in nature, and can easily be put down to the meanderings of a low grade, sometimes defective, operating system, which resides well down the pecking order in terms of integrity of function. The C/M is fallible. The N/S isn’t. The N/S only seems fallible when the C/M has distorted our interpretations. To view the real action we must disengage from our pressing need to always allow our C/M to sit on top of the hierarchy of our understanding.