Having problems with message search?
Well definitions are always a problem, since they lead ultimately to reification. As Karl Popper said, the most useless philposophical activity there is is trying to define the meanings of words.
I don't want to carry this discussion into the realms of the fanatical and boring, so I'll just suggest the issue of PLoS ONE devoted largely to biomarkers for mood disorders (No. 4(1)). Perhaps for an overview that I at any rate find to be just normal study of disease in the usual sense in this collection,
A. Bartolomucci & R. Leopardi (2009), Stress and depression: Preclinical research and clinical implications. PLoS One 4(1), avaolable at http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.ppone.0004265 . There are papers in Nature and other respectable journals too showing biomarkers for depression (neuronal loss in the hippocampus, abnormal amygdala) going back at least to the 90s, and biochemical work on amine neurotransmitter metabolites going back a good deal further than that. OK I'm not a scientist or professional, but I can read and utilise what I think is a normal definition of 'disease', and this literature I find satisfying. Even very primitive and not always reliable procedures like the dexamethasone suppression test, and the induction of depression by depletion of the serotonin precursor put depression solidly into the realm of the medical as far as I can see.
Reading of the work of Robert Sapolsky on serotonin levels and depressive behaviours in non-human primates, and the role of cortisol in mood would also be useful.
I will now withdraw.
----- Original Message -----From: Dixie DeanSent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 7:37 AMSubject: Re: [psychiatry-research] Reflective StatesSorry Roger but suffering doesn't define illness or v.v. Psychiatry claims illness is defined by science but I find no reliable evidence for such belief and persist in questioning because even if some on the list ignore it wholesale denial of human rights and abuse of the vulnerable for profit are serious matters
You mention your books and papers as validation for your views so here's my own validation: My starting points are (like yours) empiricism but I term it Bipolar misdiagnosis; subject v. object; Lange, before and since; Zen; and a great deal of focussed research leading me to reject the 30yr old lable in 2006
Goodwin & Jamison didn't go as far as you in claims for their research so please provide other references for <there are certainly enough biomarkers to show that mood disorders are 'diseases' in your sense> since to date I've found none. Genetics could provide such evidence but the jury's still out
Finally, your religious knowledge appears limited to Christianity which I too explored in some depth, at one time instructed by a C.of E.Canon. I found it lacking objective truth and solely a matter of faith . I then explored all major and some minor religions dismissing all but Hinduism and a few persistent sects of ancient Middle Eastern thinking. I ended up with Zen philosophy, described as 'The Apotheosis of Reason', of which I'm a Teacher registered with the Rinzai School in Japan. We favour instant realisation rather than developing understanding like the alternative Soto and say: 'The only place for the bullet of truth is between the eyes'. We strongly reject all forms of dualism. Should anyone wish to discuss Zen I suggest that be done off list
dixie
-----
Roger Lass wrote:Illness is not defined by eccentricity but by suffering. I don't see my bipolar disorder as 'eccentric' (though behaviourally it may be) but as to a large extent a source of pain and distress, no different in principle from a really bad flu or any other disease. As far as I being ignornat of t hings, I'm not ignorant of religion anyway, being a militant atheist who has passed through a religious phase in my 20s and learned better, and having a fairly good background in theology since I am a mediaevalist by training.I know enough about religion to dislike it in principle, enough about faith to think it is an unworthy mental state for a human being. And enough about bipolar disorder to know it's a real disease, as other mood disorders are. OK the definitions aren't perfect, but there are certainly enough biomarkers to show that mood disorders are 'diseases' in your sense. There has been imaging evidence around since Goodwin & Jamison's classic book of 1990, and studies of blood levels of metabolites of amines and BDNF and cortisol that are as good evidence for real disease as one needs.----- Original Message -----From: Dixie DeanSent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 11:03 AMSubject: [psychiatry-research] Reflective States Even in the most adept this meditative state can't persist longer than a few days. Nor is that desirable since nothing practical can be done. It's what follows that counts, as I tried to suggest without being too obvious when connecting with CBT. Please comment on that rather then the practice itself since you're unqualified to do so
No Roger, I'm sure you know noise is not <where you get stuff done>. That happens when concentrated on the task - again a state of mind undistracted by other things, i.e. otherwise silent. Some consider highly focussed concentration a form of meditation and that overlap is widely recorded throughout history. Consider Newton, Darwin and other scientists' 'unwordliness' and dislocation from normal family life when resolving deep intellectual questions
As all know I've been misdiagnosed Bipolar and in line with one of my two purposes on this list have deliberately posted personal information to see if people will 'see the person', as psychiatric training emphasises. As expected there's been virtually no response to them so what does that suggest? To me it shows the list is still reluctant to look in the mirror I hold; still unwilling to pursue ethical depth in its profession. Over to the list . . .
Do you not agree <verging on religion> smacks of prejudice against something of which you (like most people) know nothing? Here lies one of psychiatry's besetting sins - beside that of condemning eccentricity and normal human reactions to adversity as mental illness, which doesn't mean reactions can't go over the top. They can and do, then need treatment, but that's relatively rare and can't excuse wholesale labelling and lifetime treatments with horrendous side effects. Again, over to the list . . .
dixie
-----
Roger Lass wrote:Sorry, I find that mystical and incomprehensible and verging on religion. The noise is where you get stuff done, and that's at least to me what the brain is for, not to be silent.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dr. A. Fullam
To: psychiatry-research@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: [psychiatry-research] News: Anti-Anxiety Drugs Raise New Fears
R,
The highest cortical heritage, the highest level of knowledge (gnosis), wisdom, truth and freedom is in stillness and silence, not in the noise and havoc.
Aretoula Fullam, Ph.D.
dr.a.fullam@earthlink. net
<Snip>
Send Email
