One point that he raised that I found intersesting was that he suggested that the use of medication reflected a broader cultural message of narcissistic hedonism. The rather infantile belief that all pain or suffering is bad(and meaningless)and should automatically avoided.

When I thought of my own experience.
I know myself I have no desire to reduce the tremendous psychic pain I suffered down to misfiring neurons. I mean that suffering had incredible existential meaning to me and I believe that struggle has resulted in me becoming a wholer, fuller more compassionate and overall more balanced person of maybe that's just my bipolar self-aggrandizing.

This also led me to consider the creativity/madness arguments brought up in the afore mentioned thread. I don't think there is any direct causal link between a psychiatric label and creative expression, however, i do think there is a link between pain, experience awareness and creative expression.

In other words suffering does not cause creativity but those who have suffered and have had the ability and awareness to make the experience meaningful are often those who are capable of great works of art.

quote:

---

I mean that suffering had incredible existential meaning to me and I believe that struggle has resulted in me becoming a wholer, fuller more compassionate and overall more balanced person of maybe that's just my bipolar self-aggrandizing.

---

NRK, I know this conviction and have spent most of my adult life turning it over and over and trying to figure out how to put it so that others will respond to it rather than react against it.

I also know some of the pitfalls in claiming a direct relationship between pain and creation, but remain interested anyway.

I would have a hard time, eg, claiming to have grown up with much pain: although I wasn't especially materially privileged, I recognize more and more how relatively protected I was when I was young -- protected, nurtured, and encouraged. I suspect that lots of people like me sustained their first major shock in life, actually, when they discovered that most of the fairy tales they'd been told about the world -- how good people behave, what goodness, truth, and beauty are, how much the world values goodness, truth, and beauty -- were just that -- fairy tales, or at least as far as the "real" world is concerned.

N.R.Kissed, that part of your post that skdadl quoted is exactly how I feel about it too. I hated being depressed at the time, and I was relieved by the meds I was on for a short time, but there was real existential meaning to that suffering as well. It has given me a deeper understanding of not only my world view, but of human emotions in general. It made me confront my fear of death, and my search for meaning was amplified (perhaps to an obsessive extent). The depression and obsession with meaning and death also made me come to terms with my mortality in a way that I hadn't done up to that point, and that some other people I've met have never done.

That said, I was still grateful for the meds that helped me cope through that period of my life. It's hard to philosophize and think about how you feel about the world, and what meaning it has for you when you're absolutely paralyzed by your "existential angst". You can't discover meaning when you're having constant panic attacks, having insomnia, and finding yourself dozing all day to make up for not sleeping because of night terrors.

I think that's why I didn't need the meds after several months - because I was on them long enough to be able to put the terror aside and think about my life and try and figure out some meaning. And once I started figuring stuff out, I was better able to cope with the depression that came on and off even after I went off the meds - I came up with coping strategies (which were basically thoughts and feelings, nothing physical) that were able to ward it off before I slipped too deeply into the panic or terror.

With constant migrain, for instance, you can't do anything - quite literally. Same with debilitating and crippling physical illness. So, i'm all for medicating away as much of that kind of pain as possible, as quickly as possible.

Psychic pain is different from physical pain, and varies considerably within the category. Some mental illness is disabling and adds little to either creativity or empathy. But some kinds of emotional suffering - loss, grief, heartache, loneliness, disillusionment - certainly does build character. In creative people, it certainly does add to the meaning and content and value of the product. In unimaginative people, it may well enhance understanding of and sympathy for others.

It may be a bad idea to shield ourselves and our children from all unpleasant experience. It's possibile that such a protected life would be dull, numbing and colourless; that such people would be self-indulgent and unfeeling. I wonder, though. It's also possible that such protected people would be far more shocked and outraged at cruelty, at the suffering of others, than people who had taken abuse and borne pain.

quote:

---

Why can't grief
Be like pain?
All my trials, Lord,
Soon
Be over.

---

Do people remember that old spiritual? It is odd that physical pain is mostly very hard to re-experience; even when we remember it, we don't really, not in the way that grief -- mental pain -- returns full-force whenever it does.

I wonder whether some of us are simply more inclined to grieve, maybe over more. ?

I worked for many years in a drop in centre for people with mental health problems and one of the things I found that they had in common was that one day they would wake up and everything would be the way it used to be.

Most of the people disliked medication as there are so many bad side effects. One young man drank enormous amounts of coffee. I asked him why and he said it was the only way he could shake off the 'zombie' feeling due to medication.

I guess it is true that most of the people I met were into denial and also a lot of 'ifs'.

quote:

---

Being 'in denial' is another kettle of fish. Often, it is self-deception to avoid dealing with a problem. Sometimes it is a way of coping with a situation that one can't fix; that would otherwise be overwhelming and paralyzing. Sometimes, as when one has just been given a fatal diagnosis, it is a way of dealing with the problem gradually, rather than all at once. That's where the term comes from: a stage in a normal process.

---

I think in this particular case it was self deception to avoid dealing with the problem.

But more to the point. It's such an important and difficult question, NRKissed. Both artistic creation and madness (I'd rather use that word than 'mental illness') are probably about breaking into something, about breaking some boundaries. When I read people who have been touched by madness in some ways, the range of what I am or what I expect to be possible changes. Some old distinctions, like the one between a self and a self, vanish; in some Virginia Woolf's novels (I vaguely remember that Deleuze wrote good stuff about this) everything is in the state of becoming, not a thing simply is or isn't. I remember a passage from Nijinsky's diary, the one that he wrote after an earthquake, that says The Earth has had a chance to breathe deeply last night.

Of take some artists who have not officially been 'classified' as mad by their environment but whose work is mind-blowing. Kafka, for instance, whose writings are like some elegantly built psychotic nightmares that make you feel like a kind of a receptor for all the pain in the world. Or Gertrude Stein sentences a la Every day more and more I become the being of both men and women understand am more and more man and woman equally every day.

quote:

---

Lately, though, it's been popularized (Lordeee, i hate when that happens to words!) to mean saying no to anything related to one's emotions - from not letting the office flibbertygibbet psychoanalyze you, to putting grief aside while making the funeral arrangements, to simply stating that you do not have a crush on the hunk the down the hall, when you really don't. So, it's come to mean almost nothing.

---

I hate the phrase "in denial". In some ways, it gets used as a weapon -- I've been accused of being "in denial" when I've been in situations where I have simply refused to be immobilized by pain. It doesn't mean you don't feel it, or don't recognize it... It's a stubborn refusal to let it get the best of you and to do what needs to be done. (Your funeral arrangements comment brought this out in me, btw... I nearly plowed my aunt when I overheard her telling another relative I was "in denial" after my father died because I was the only immediate family that was functional at the time...)

But aside from the small rant above... What an interesting conversation.

quote:

---

But more to the point. It's such an important and difficult question, NRKissed. Both artistic creation and madness (I'd rather use that word than 'mental illness') are probably about breaking into something, about breaking some boundaries. When I read people who have been touched by madness in some ways, the range of what I am or what I expect to be possible changes. Some old distinctions, like the one between a self and a self, vanish; in some Virginia Woolf's novels (I vaguely remember that Deleuze wrote good stuff about this) everything is in the state of becoming, not a thing simply is or isn't. I remember a passage from Nijinsky's diary, the one that he wrote after an earthquake, that says The Earth has had a chance to breathe deeply last night.

---

I think a distinction really needs to be made between madness and eccentricity here.

Artists are often eccentric. They refuse to acknowledge boundaries, even though they see and often understand them -- many actually manipulate them to produce an effect. Creation and manipulation go hand in hand.

The truly mad (ie: mentally ill) can't recognize boundaries. This is an important difference. You cannot manipulate what you cannot see.

As to pain itself and creativity... Why do we get so hung up on pain being the genesis of creativity? What about joy? Does no-one create out of the sheer joy of being alive? Of having the ability? Because you love to?

Perhaps making sense of the pain in one's life does contribute to the depth of art one can create, but I would argue the same for any strong emotional experience. I also find artists who can sing both the high and low notes to be infinitely more interesting in the work they produce.

It's a condition suffered by Psychiatrists when they deny that sitting across from them is a living breathing human being, with a rich narrative history of experience of love,loss,hopes dreams,suffering and joy.

I also believe this unfortunate Diagnosis(of which there are various sub-types)leads to a denial of a long history of extreme violation of human rights, this particular delusion is also characterized by a professed desire to help.

They also seem to be denial concerning how little they know about brain function, the mind and human experience.

On another note Denial in the Freudian sense was a primitive defence mechanism used in response to extreme trauma, an example being in a war zone and a friend or loved one gets there head blown off and you keep going. I believe this occurs.

I also think the term is misused frequently in the offensive manner Zoot mentioned. In the case of grief people often consiously bracket of their experience of pain to keep on going.

In life some people never face various sources of pain, this may not be best but what do i know.

I would also like to add that I don't really feel I'm professionalizing here rather more philosophizing, mostly based on personal experience. Personally I think that's one of the problems with the professions of Psychology and Psychiatry in that they divorced themselves from philosophy in an attempt to appear scientific.

My sister, who is medicated - lithium, paxol, and now an antipsychotic for her latest diagnosis of hyperacuity - feels that now she has a name for her pain and is managing her life more successfully. Obviously it is most important that she feels this way, and not that I or others agree with her assessment of her life.

It has been my observation that both of these creative and highly intelligent women are quite focused on and very articulate about their interior life, though they are often unable to either experience or express empathy for others in pain. With my sister, I suspect that the pain of others impacts on her powerfully and makes her own pain unbearable, so her seemingly sociopathic behavior is really a psychic survival mechanism, a self-imposed distance required by her hyper-sensitivity.

All the surviving members of my immediate family suffer from various depressive and anxiety disorders. Most are medicated, have survived multiple suicide attempts, have self-medicated with drugs and alcohol, are profoundly miserable and fucked-up, yet manage to cope on a level that, frankly, I find heroic. I have long since given up trying to separate who they are from the pain they suffer. I can no longer distinguish between innate personality, illness and life experience. They are who they are and I love them regardless.

When thinking of myself and our shared genetic material and traumatic childhoods, it is inexplicable to me that I am not similarly crippled by suicidal depression, anxiety and addiction. To be sure, I have brushed against these things in the dark and am, I believe, a better person for having done so. But really, the pain I have experienced just hasn't effected me in the same way it has my parents, siblings, and their children. Whichever ancestor lent me their resiliance, so that I could pass it on to my children, they have my eternal gratitude.

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

Maybe it's just because psychiatrists have taken over the role of priests. But i suspect that we're so afraid of emotion that we want it neatly standardized and categorized. By putting it in the hands of a professional, we hope to neutralize its power. I suspect that we have so much 'mental illness' because we put too narrow a limit on the range of 'normal'.

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

The majority of posts so far have stressed the question of whether or not the person wishes to accept the suffering associated, for example, with bipolar disorder.

I would ask that people also keep in mind those who have close contact with the person suffering.
For example, it is very hard for children to hear their mother regularly accuse them of hating her,
regularly iunsisting that she will commit suicide as soon as they go to school, and similar illness-related statements.

If medication can minimize the harm done to others, even at some cost to artistic creativity, it may be worth it. So, when I see the suggestion that taking medication may be a result of narcissistic hedonism, I wonder if not taking medication may not be selfish in other ways.

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: jeff house ]

quote:

---

I think a distinction really needs to be made between madness and eccentricity here.

Artists are often eccentric. They refuse to acknowledge boundaries, even though they see and often understand them -- many actually manipulate them to produce an effect. Creation and manipulation go hand in hand.

The truly mad (ie: mentally ill) can't recognize boundaries. This is an important difference. You cannot manipulate what you cannot see.

---

I don't know I'm not sure whether the distiction between eccentric and "mentally ill" is perhaps just another socially constructed boundary.

Historically this depends on who is drawing the boundaries or making the classification not so long ago ,homosexuals, feminists and communists were considered to suffer from psychopathology.

I also have difficulty in categorizing, comparmentalizing or segregating aspects of human experience. I don't think the DSM IV and it's labels accurately reflect individual experience or the exent of their struggle. I also have problems with the tendency in psychiatry to objectively label someone else's experience at the detriment of those given the label. A great deal is lossed because personal experience is pathologized and then dismissed. I therefore have difficulty accepting what I see as a false dichotomy of illness/health or normal/abnormal. That is why I prefer the terms psychic pain or psychic crisis because they represent more of a continuum of human experience we can all relate to and empathize with.

quote:

---

If medication can minimize the harm done to others, even at some cost to artistic creativity, it may be worth it. So, when I see the suggestion that taking medication may be a result of narcissistic hedonism, I wonder if not taking medication may not be selfish in other ways.

---

This is an excellent point although I would like to make some clarifications in what I'm trying to say.

First when I used the term narcissitic hedonism in reference to a Cultural theme that seeks to define the good life as the absence of pain and also appears to devalue the meaning we ascribe and understanding we have of our pain informs and potentially enriches our lives. I would never denounce anyone individually for how they choose to cope with pain even in instances where it is self-destructive(i.e. substance abuse)

I would also like to stress that although I have serious concerns about medication use (including personal experience) I am not anti-med. I am aware of many people who have derived benefits from it and have no desire to dismiss their experience or choice. I do believe in fully informed consent including alternatives that many have found helpful. I also am not saying that people who choose medication are not dealing with their "issues".

Concerning the harm done to others I also acknowledge the devastating effect that people in extreme psychic crisis can have on family and loved ones. I also believe the impact or harm we do to others is a broader ethical concern for everyone. There is cerainly no shortage of suffering that those not diagnosed or labelled cause others. I also believe the pain we inflict on others is also associated with the way we process and give meaning to the suffering we experience.

I don't believe having a psychological condition is an excuse to cause others suffering. In the scenario you describe(Anne Sexton comes to mind)I believe the person you describe has a responsiblity to others and that this responsiblity should inform her choice of "treatment"/coping. If that necessitates medication so be it.

Skadadl: I unfortunately don't know a great deal about dementia. I am presently working closely with a person who has Huntingdon's but they are not at the stage where this has been an issue. I do know there is a growing amount of literature mostly coming out of the field of psychogeriatrics. I do definetly know that there exists an appalling lack of resources and support for caregivers but I'm sure you're already aware of that.

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]

quote:

---

One point that he raised that I found intersesting was that he suggested that the use of medication reflected a broader cultural message of narcissistic hedonism. The rather infantile belief that all pain or suffering is bad(and meaningless)and should automatically avoided.

---

quote:

---

Thanks to NRK for beginning this topic, and to all those who have posted thus far.

---

...what he said.

NRK said even further back,

quote:

---

I know myself I have no desire to reduce the tremendous psychic pain I suffered down to misfiring neurons.

---

How's this - Tom Stoppard on love:

quote:

---

Is love something we've created, or does it exist of itself?

Oh, dear. I once did a radio program with a famous materialist, that is to say a scientist who believed that absolutely everything was physical and that all emotions were reductive to little electrical impulses in your neurons. And I found that I didn't believe that. But what the emotions really are, I don't have an alternative theory. -- New York Times Magazine, 20 May 2001

---

What do you think, NRK?

[edited to add source]

[ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: scrabble ]

Naturally since human beings are organism everything is in fact biological and ultimately electro-chemical.

My first point would be that presently our understanding of the complexity of neurochemistry is insufficient to support the simplistic conclusions that are drawn.

Having said that can we imagine it possible in the future to reduce human experience to the neurochemical. Again the complexity of such an endeavour is mind boggling.

Even the rather seemingly simple activity of me sitting here typing this message, reading what I write would involve innumerable interactions that would be in a state of continuous flux. Add in my cogitation on the subject, my search through memory, my reflections my analysis we then have another level. What then would these reflections have on the interaction with emotion and physiology. Do I add in that I am smoking, having a cup of tea and my stomach is rumbling because I haven't had breakfast(this last part involves not only the physiology but also the awareness of it).

Another problem I have with the concept of reduction of experience is with the belief that the brain functions as a closed system. So in reality to speak reasonably about our neurochemistry in relation to experience we would have to consider not only present interactions within our self and the environment but also past interactions and their impact on neurochemical pathways. i would think.

So let us imagine further we were capable of measuring and isolating all these factors what would we be left with. I believe a vast chemical equation that would reflect only a brief moment in time. So we could potentially end up with this equation and I think we could then say to paraphrase or invert Tina Turner "what's this got to do with Love."
That's the way I see it anyway.

I am reminded of the brilliant Argentinian film "Man facing southeast"(I believe Hollywood made a lame remake). The man of the title who (who mysteriously appears in the asylum claiming to be an alien) is working in the neurology lab working on a brain when he asks(I'm paraphrasing)" so where would we find the experience of the first kiss,the feeling of love..."etc

It's been ages since I saw it but I so remember some other brilliant moments.
The "man" speaking to the psychiatrist asks "Why do psychiatrists always sit back when talking to patients? are they afraid of being infected"
I would say yes or at least affected by the experience of human pain.

Anyways those are my immediate thought on the subject. I'm glad everyone appears to be enjoying the thread.

[ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]

Actually Mandos I think that is the name of the Hollywood film, I guess the Argentinian film(came out around 1980-84) must have been based on the same book
Do you know the name of the book?

[ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]

quote:

---

I don't know I'm not sure whether the distiction between eccentric and "mentally ill" is perhaps just another socially constructed boundary.

---

I wasn't necessarily talking about the boundary, pre se -- but there is a clear distinction between one who ignores a social boundary and another who can't see it at all.

quote:

---

I also have difficulty in categorizing, comparmentalizing or segregating aspects of human experience. I don't think the DSM IV and it's labels accurately reflect individual experience or the exent of their struggle. I also have problems with the tendency in psychiatry to objectively label someone else's experience at the detriment of those given the label. A great deal is lossed because personal experience is pathologized and then dismissed. I therefore have difficulty accepting what I see as a false dichotomy of
illness/health or normal/abnormal. That is why I prefer the terms psychic pain or psychic crisis because they represent more of a continuum of human experience we can all relate to and empathize with.

---

There is more to diagnosing an illness than "compartmentalizing experience". The fact is, most of us can not relate to the experience of a paranoid schizophrenic or one who suffers from manic-depressive or a bipolar disorders.

It's a nice rationalization, but you know, mental illness exists. It makes it difficult for people to function in society. And that's where we all live, isn't it? Might I remind you that social constructs are there for a reason?

Jeff had an excellent point about those who hurt others with their illness. Because we live with other people, we have to deal with the damage they do when they are ill.

This is the kind of thing that goes beyond "pain" and goes beyond "crisis". Losing a loved one, dealing with a major transition, a difficult situaation is a crisis. A lifelong pattern is not.

Not being able to see boundaries, not being able to stop yourself from doing destructive things... This is not healthy. It's not a nasty old imposed social thing. It's an illness. And just because the label "mental illness" was used against eccentrics and other perfectly normal people doesn't negate the fact that mental illness exists.

quote:

---

...maybe that's just my bipolar self-aggrandizing.

---

quote:

---

The fact is, most of us can not relate to the experience of a paranoid schizophrenic or one who suffers from manic-depressive or a bipolar disorders.

---

Of course you and psychiatry apparently know better and are in a much better place to define my experience. No I do not experience any common human phenomena such as love, joy, suffering , grief, loss or confusion or anxiety. It all can be explained by my "illness." I guess I might as well give up my job, drop out of school and end my relationship because Zoot says I can't function in society. yeah o.k. thanks.

quote:

---

There is more to diagnosing an illness than "compartmentalizing experience".

---

Are you even aware of how most psychiatric assessments take place. Usually a shrink will spend a maximum of talking to a "patient" and then will come up with a label based on self-reported experience that the professional then tries to fit under one of the numerable diagnostic criteria.

Do you know who the DSM is compiled. A group of psychiatrists get together and they pitch various labels based on observed "symptoms" and then in the most scientific of all manners they vote on it.

When was the last time you heard of physicians sitting around the table and voting on whether heart disease, cancer or Huntingdon's disease existed hmmmm...

I have to go to the Pope squat though I know i really should stay home and take my meds because quite obviously a danger to others. A danger to others preconcieved notions of reality and desire to reduce complex human experience to simplistic ideas that they don't find threatening.

quote:

---

Jeff had an excellent point about those who hurt others with their illness. Because we live with other people, we have to deal with the damage they do when they are ill.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...maybe that's just my bipolar self-aggrandizing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quite.

---

It just sometimes happens (and I think Laing wrote about this first) that the entire family is psychotic, their internal functioning is invisibly psychotic, and the individual caught up in the whirl of 'mental illness' speaks about it with her whole body, becomes the expression of the unsaid of that particular family. Moreover, the 'normal' members of the family (usually unconsciously) regroup when the 'mental illness' strikes; the unruly madwoman or man sometimes functions as a burden that binds the 'rest of us'... Oftentimes also for the psychotic (yet perfectly normal) families looking into the unspoken insanity and injustice of their own internal setup is the last thing they want to do - instead, the mad individual is consigned to the attic or the institution, the family life goes on, perhaps even strengthened by the emergence of the family Other. The family weaves narratives about ordeals that they are enduring because of the mental patient in their midst; the family enclose themselves and the structural familial psychosis continues to live unacknowledged...

Would you all concede that this sometimes happens?

quote:

---

the individual caught up in the whirl of 'mental illness' speaks about it with her whole body, becomes the expression of the unsaid of that particular family

---

Edited to add: That, and the case of non-matching scripts. You know, when people around you have a totally different, uncannily unrecognizable account of a situation that you've been involved in together.

(I like your From line, nonesuch - In Denial. )

F**k! After I posted this I found an article about connections between double bind and schizophrenia. So I wasn't entirely off base after all.

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: Trespasser ]

quote:

---

I would have a hard time, eg, claiming to have grown up with much pain: although I wasn't especially materially privileged, I recognize more and more how relatively protected I was when I was young -- protected, nurtured, and encouraged. I suspect that lots of people like me sustained their first major shock in life, actually, when they discovered that most of the fairy tales they'd been told about the world -- how good people behave, what goodness, truth, and beauty are, how much the world values goodness, truth, and beauty -- were just that -- fairy tales, or at least as far as the "real" world is concerned.

---

That's very beautifully put Skdadl my own experience was quite similar growing up.
It also brought back a memory from way back in my undergrad days. A painter friend of mine had asked me to pose for her rendition of the banishment from Eden. I remember at the time being struck by what a profound existential metaphor the fall was(o.k. I know others have written about it and said it better)The idea of being banished from the safety of paradise and the comforting presence and certainty of God. To be cast out into the waste land, forlorn and alone in determining and creating your own meaning,the only certainty being death. That's one of the ways I reflect on my own sense of shock in losing protective cetainties of my youth.
I would say this is a fairly profound loss in need of grieving, on the one hand different than the grief we experience when we lose an other but not entirely dissimilar i would think.

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]

quote:

---

Well acutally I was diagnosed as having bipolar disorder and I really have not had a great deal of difficutly relating to others or having others relate to my experience.

---

Well, that's good. I think you could also acknowledge that some people suffer more acute forms of bipolar disorder than others. I have a sister and had a grandmother, both of who have been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. I could relate to their feelings of grief, confusion, happiness, etc. What I could not relate to were the extreme and unexplained highs, lows, and occasional delusions. And most people who do not have the disorder can't. It doesn't mean I don't feel for them, have sympathy, I just can't know what it's like. It would be incredibly arrogant of me to suggest that I can.

quote:

---

No I do not experience any common human phenomena such as love, joy, suffering , grief, loss or confusion or anxiety. It all can be explained by my "illness." I guess I might as well give up my job, drop out of school and end my relationship because Zoot says I can't function in society.

---

Did I say specifically that *you* particularly can't function? I don't think so.

However, when my sister self-medicates with drugs and alcohol, can't hold on to a job, nearly kills one of her babies with neglect, shows up on my doorstep at -20 in the middle of the night with nowhere else to go and nothing to her name but the clothes on her back, I kinda think she's maybe NOT FUNCTIONING!

And when my regular-church-going gran freaks out on a stranger in a supermarket for no apparent reason and my father has to go bail her out at the cop shop.... Well, you get the drift.

If you're doing fine without meds, I applaud you. I don't think everybody with bipolar disorder needs meds, and that they should only be used as a last resort. But sometimes it's the better way.
I also don't think the disorder negates a person from experiencing all that the rest of us experience. That's utter nonsense, and you're putting words in my mouth -- I never said anything of the kind.

quote:

---

Somehow you seem to have difficulty considering the damage done to people are labelled in the name of helping. Lobotomies, insulin shock,Ect,physical abuse and neglect. But of course that's o.k. because we can't "understand their experience" so they are other, the same rules don't apply.

---

I didn't say that either. I do understand. I worked in a nursing home that had a number of former mental hospital patients. I find it as horrific as you do. Not knowing exactly how it feels to be in a manic phase or a depressive one doesn't mean I believe anyone should be treated abusively.

quote:

---

I was trying to be civil but if you're going to start. You know how frightening and irrational us crazies are.

---

You really don't worry me. You're just all snarky because I disagreed with your theory, which is not all that practical in many respects.

Believe me, I've seen "crazy" close up and personal. One of my nieces is slightly brain damaged and nearly died because of untreated bipolar disorder. My nephew has been in and out of foster care because of it. I've dealt with it personally at 3 am and had a couple of ribs broken because of it. I don't know about you, but I do know how it can affect a person.

quote:

---

You're just all snarky because I disagreed with your theory, which is not all that practical in many respects.

---

Oh yeah well you started it

Besides it's not that I'm presenting a "theory". We were just discussing the relationship between psychic pain, experience and meaning, when you decided to stop in and express some psychiatric orthodoxy.

quote:

---

It's a nice rationalization, but you know, mental illness exists. It makes it difficult for people to function in society. And that's where we all live, isn't it? Might I remind you that social constructs are there for a reason?

---

Just because someone denies interpretations based on the psychiatric medical model and choose not to use the term "illness" does not mean that they deny that people are pschoemotionally disturbed. Nor does it dismiss the fact that family members or loved ones can have innumerable difficulties in dealing with individuals who experience such crisis. Some of us don't believe that just because a psychoemotional crisis is prolonged or cyclical that this necessitates a biological disfunction.

On the subject of illness.
Psychiatry has yet to demonstrate the existence of a biological marker. To date no physical diagnostic test exists.

They do not have blood tests or ways of measuring neurochemicals that support their theories.

No genetic Marker has been found as in a genuine neurologicgal disorder such as Huntington's.

Psychiatry has never been able to show what a normal or balanced brain looks like so how is it possible to speak of imbalanced brains or neurochemistry.

No differences in brain structures have been shown in the autopsies of people diagnosed with "mental illness". Such differences such as atrophy is noticable in classified neurological disorders.

Furthermore if an individual recovers(is in remission as they call it) should there not be a biological indices that this person still has a "disease".

[ July 29, 2002: Message edited by: DrConway ]

quote:

---

Besides it's not that I'm presenting a "theory". We were just discussing the relationship between psychic pain, experience and meaning, when you decided to stop in and express some psychiatric orthodoxy.

---

Not exactly. I was part of the discussion, and took exception to the idea that people diagnosed as having bipolar disorder, etc, were just having a "crisis". When a crisis is lifelong, I think there might be some pathology involved, whether we fully understand it at this point or not.

quote:

---

Just as psychiatrists can't entirely pin down the physical aspects of such disorders, you haven't been able to effectively argue that, as illnesses, they do not exist. Especially since medications can frequently give such people a new lease on life, or at least some less destructive form of it.

---

The point is psychiatry has not pinned down anything,whatso ever therefore there is no evidence to suggest they do exist.

quote:

---

The point is psychiatry has not pinned down anything,whatso ever therefore there is no evidence to suggest they do exist.

---

I don't think that's entirely accurate. There is a pattern of behaviour that fits within a specific range for certain disorders. We may not be advanced enough in our understanding of the brain to determine how or why... But just because physicians in the past were unable to determine viruses existed did not change the fact that the common cold virus did, and still does, exist.

The fact that certain medications can relieve a person of delusions and hallucinations gives some credence to the theory that it might be a biological condition. I don't think one can completely ignore that and, at the same time, offer a reasonable argument.

Edited to add:

And if medications are only treating the symptoms, ie: delusions, because we lack the knowledge to treat the root cause -- What's wrong with that?

[ July 29, 2002: Message edited by: Zoot Capri ]

quote:

---

The point is psychiatry has not pinned down anything,whatso ever therefore there is no evidence to suggest they do exist.

---

quote:

---

Even if your premise is accurate, which I don't know, your conclusion doesn't follow therefrom.

---

My sentence was clumsily and hastily constructed I admit 'lance my friend.

What I meant to say was: That in the absence of a biological marker indicating a disease and a lack of distinquishing organic features between those diadnosed with an illness and those that are not, i do not find it unreasonable to conclude that evidence of existing disease process is therefore lacking.

quote:

---

In 1988 in The New Harvard Guide to Psychiatry Seymour S. Kety, M.D., Professor Emeritus of Neuroscience in Psychiatry, and Steven Matthysse, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Psychobiology, both of Harvard Medical School, said "an impartial reading of the recent literature does not provide the hoped-for clarification of the catecholamine hypotheses, nor does compelling evidence emerge for other biological differences that may characterize the brains of patients with mental disease" (Harvard Univ. Press, p. 148).

---

quote:

---

I don't think it's really the psychiatrists' fault - or not altogether. They, as a profession (given that, as in any other profession, there is a range of competence, imagination and dedication) are doing their best. The material they have to work with is... eclectic.
Only a small percentage of mental illness is physical in origin. Most insanity is cultural: people go off the rails because their psychic makeup is in conflict with their social environment, and how the disturbance manifests is also determined by cultural icons, mores and methods of communication.

---

I don't have a problem necessarily with invidual psychiatrist but unfortunately the prevailing and general unquestioned ideology in Psychiatry today is the Biomedical model which generally believes that all(or at least the majority)of psychological/emotional disorders have a biological aetiology. This generally leads to a lack of available treatment alternatives(especially for those with out resources). This frequently results in people being released post-crises with a bag of pills and little else,sometimes without even housing or income supports. I know this because I hear about it and observe it regularly as a Community Mental Health worker.

Psychiatries treatment of disease rather also tends to the actual person getting lost and their concerns not being listened to.

quote:

---

What I meant to say was: That in the absence of a biological marker indicating a disease and a lack of distinquishing organic features between those diadnosed with an illness and those that are not, i do not find it unreasonable to conclude that evidence of existing disease process is therefore lacking.

---

That still does not logically follow.

There are other aspects of the disease that are present and consistent, ie: delusions, hallucinations, mood swings, etc.

I reiterate my earlier example of the cold virus -- just because at one time we did not know what a virus was, doesn't mean it didn't exist. That's a kind of ostrich-head-in-sand-you-can't-see-me kind of reasoning.

quote:

---

The beautiful dark-faced lady requested him to seek out the Bishop and relay the message that she desired a new church built on the ancient site where the Indians once worshiped freely. ... Finally, when the Bishop agreed to see him, he doubted the poor Indian's story and with a sarcastic tone stated that if this dark-faced lady wanted a favor, she better be prepared to give the Bishop a sign.

---

Then there was a story of this psychiatrist who had a patient who was convinced that people were following her and trying to hurt her. Soon after the the psychiatrist cured the patient of these delusions, the patient, a Jewish woman, was picked up by the Ghestapo and sent to a concentration camp. The psychiatrist then took the next trip out of Germany.

There are some who see psychiatry and the medicalization of deviance as an instrament for the purposes of social control. We must ask ourselves whether the pain one suffers is because of their neurological difference, or because of our intollerance of that difference.

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: vaudree ]

quote:

---

But just because physicians in the past were unable to determine viruses existed did not change the fact that the common cold virus did, and still does, exist.

---

I don't think you are suggesting an environmental pathogen such as a virus is the cause of "mental illness" although some researchers have tried to draw a connection between the presence of a virus in the prenatal uterine environment as a cause for schizophrenia. I only mention this to make a distiction.

If the presence the physical symptoms of a cold led you to believe that the condition was due to a genetic vulnerability alone or inherent physiological flaw, I think you might be a little off target. this is what Psychiatry does when faced with psychoemotional disturbance.

It would be even more far fetched if one was to suggest that because a person experiences a number of colds over a life time that this represents a chronic underlying condition apart from the obvious condition we all experience in interacting with the environment.

quote:

---

There are other aspects of the disease that are present and consistent, ie: delusions, hallucinations, mood swings, etc.

---

There are a number of conditions that can lead to hallucinations or delusions including:

Extreme or prolonged traum/abuse(PTSD)
sleep deprivation
sensory deprivation
substance abuse/substance withdrawl
Use of psychoneuroleptics(meds) withdrawl from same.
Complicated grief response (it is not uncommon for the bereaved to hear the voice or voices of the deceased, others will suffer delusions)
caffine intoxification and even water intoxification(I kid you not this has been documented)

So does that mean that people experiencing any of the above should be considered "mental ill"

quote:

---

And if medications are only treating the symptoms, ie: delusions, because we lack the knowledge to treat the root cause -- What's wrong with that?

---

This might lead me to believe you have never been on Chlorprmozine(thorazine) or Haledol.
Mark Vonnegut(son of Kurt V. Jr.) wrote quite poignantly about it's mind-numbing effect in his book EDEN EXPRESS. I can tell you from experience it shuts down almost all cortical funcitoning for that matter no feeling, little cognition, no dreaming, motivation, volition, awareness, intellectual curiosity. Lithium is also effective in producing a similar form of lethargy. Very effective yes. Of course they claim the new ones are much better(they always do, just like the wonders of valium or any other wonder drug), this usually means that no one has yet received funding to study the long-term destructive effects of these chemicals. You can find evidence of it's brain damaging effect in the link I provided for Dr. Mosher. You might also want to check out Peter Breggin another critical psychiatrist.

quote:

---

That still does not logically follow.

---

quote:

---

I can tell you from experience it shuts down almost all cortical funcitoning for that matter no feeling, little cognition, no dreaming, motivation, volition, awareness, intellectual curiosity.

---

quote:

---

"Do They Grow Out of It? : Long-Term Outcomes of Childhood Disorders" - Lily Hechtman

What happens to children with psychiatric disorders as they mature? ... Long-term outcome of childhood disorders is becoming increasingly more important as clinicians, teachers, and parents take a broader, more comprehensive view of childhood disorders, their natural history, their developmental impact, later adolescent and adult functioning, and their possible multigenerational consequences.

---

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: vaudree ]

quote:

---

The fact that certain medications can relieve a person of delusions and hallucinations gives some credence to the theory that it might be a biological condition. I don't think one can completely ignore that and, at the same time, offer a reasonable argument

---

So what is the unreasonable proposition that I am advancing. One that suggests that environmental factors such as violence, poverty, oppression, might lead to psychological/emotional disturbance that express themselves in the form of delusions or hallucinations. Is it so difficult for you to imagine that inter or intrapersonal conflict can lead to emotional disturbances that are either prolonged or experienced in a cyclical fashion.

let us consider then the DSM classification of Borderline Personality disorder.
people classified in this manner tend to be highly dysfunctional in terms personal and work relationships. They exhibit very little impulse or emotional control. They can and do experience hullucinations, delusions, and dissociation.

Consider also that approx. 70-80% are survivors of child physical/and or sexual abuse.

Is this due to a brain pathology, I would think not.

Consider also that these individuals are also sometimes diagnosed as being bipolar depending on whose doing the assessing.

Consider this anecdote courtesy of my G.P.
He told me of a woman from eastern Europe who was of Jewish decent. At the age of 15, her country was invaded by the Nazis. Her entire family was sent to a concentration camp and subsequently killed. Because she was young and pretty she was kept as a "comfort girl". On her first night she was brutally gang-raped by innumerable SS soldiers. This continued for the rest of the war.

A psychiatrist at the Clarke diagnosed her later as being bipolar he also told that her condition was entirely due to her biochemistry. Psychiatry at it's finest.

Let us also consider grief (since you recently did a film on the topic which I'm sure is very interesting[not being facetious]}

Do you actually believe there to be a significant difference in the physiological process underlying extreme grief and severe depression despite the similarities in presenting symptoms?

Psychiatry does, I recently read in the News that a woman whose son was killed in a Toronto club was cut off her disability benefits by her insurance company(Clarica) because she was "only" suffering from grief and not "clinical depression". I find this disturbing.

Finally the other thing that disturbs me about biological reductionism is that it fails to acknowledge that we live in an exceedingly fucked up world and so responding to these conditions is somehow pathological. I'm not surprised there are crazies in this world I am more surprised there aren't more of us.

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]

quote:

---

Researchers found that the upper portion of the left posterior frontal area was utilized more by ADHD participants throughout the presentation of auditory CPT tones, while no group differences emerged in the utilization of the right posterior frontal area (Zametkin, Liebenauer, Fitzgerald, King, Minkunas, Herscovitch, Yamada & Cohen, 1993; Ernst, Liebenauer, King, Fitzgerald, Cohen & Zametkin, 1994). Alternatively, ingestion of a large dosage of methylphenidate by ADHD adults resulted in increased activation of the right posterior frontal region (Matochik, Liebenauer, King, Szmanski, Cohen & Zametkin, 1994). Presumably the use of methylphenidate compensates for the increased activity of the left posterior frontal region (as contrasted with controls) by exaggerating the activity of the right posterior frontal region (which was comparable for both ADHD and ordinary participants).

---

quote:

---

I don't know I'm not sure whether the distiction between eccentric and "mentally ill" is perhaps just another socially constructed boundary.

---

quote:

---

...That is why I prefer the terms psychic pain or psychic crisis because they represent more of a continuum of human experience we can all relate to and empathize with.

---

These are two parts of the post that I was responding to, in which you seem to be denying that true mental illness does not exist, that those diagnosed with mental disorders are merely experiencing pain and crisis, which is really no different from the average person.

And which I heartily disagree with, and to which you have not, so far, responded with a logical, reasoned argument.

Now we've moved on to the whole nature/nurture debate -- You are now claiming that it is all experiential.

quote:

---

So what is the unreasonable proposition that I am advancing. One that suggests that environmental factors such as violence, poverty, oppression, might lead to psychological/emotional disturbance that express themselves in the form of delusions or hallucinations. Is it so difficult for you to imagine that inter or intrapersonal lead to emotional disturbances that are either prolonged or experienced in a cyclical fashion.

---

No, I don't find it difficult to imagine. I'm sure it happens. I haven't once denied that this is either probable, possible or true in many cases. However, what you neglect to address are the cases in which there was no trauma, no abuse. How do you explain those cases?

Here's a couple cases in point -- My own younger sister, raised in the same home as I. Loving parents (albeit with some quirks, as all parents have), had all the necessities and then some, no abuse, no trauma -- and always had emotional problems.

An acquaintance of mine had a normal childhood, solid family, no abuse or trauma, but started seeing monsters morph out of the walls for no apparent reason. No drugs, nothing. Was treated for schizophrenia, and was happy to bid the monsters adieu.

I could go on, I have another friend whose sister recently started having delusions that assassins are out to get her and has been diagnosed as bipolar. Again, no traumatic childhood or terrible experience in her past.

I have no doubt that some people who have depressions, what have you, with a cause that is situational, and as you read in the other thread on SSRIs, I don't think these people should be medicated carte blanche. But for those who have no situational cause, what other conclusions are we to draw?

I recognize that the medications for schizophrenia and other disorders have terrible side effects, and that this is often the reason people don't want to stay on them. I wouldn't want to live that way if I could help it, either. But I also wouldn't want to live in a state of delusional fear, or to have voices in my head. And this goes far beyond eccentricity, my friend. It's an illness. It is not reasonable to equate the two.

Which, I might add, has consistently been my point in this discussion.

quote:

---

I don't think you are suggesting an environmental pathogen such as a virus is the cause of "mental illness"...

---

I'm stuck on the nature/nurture issue as well.

On one hand I agree that there very likely is an increase in mental illness due to over-analyzing and compartmentalizing of peronality traits. But what about the f_cked-up culture the western world lives in combined with abuse and/or learned behaviour in childhood? On the other, I wonder if it is genetic, or biological or both, as I see it runs in families. I've read that other parts of the planet don't have these cases like the western world does. Anyone know any studies on that?

I know a family member who suffered childhood trauma and appears to be a bi-polar narcissist. Undiagnosed, as those with narcissistic personality disorder think that the REST of the planet are the problem, not the perfect image of themselves. This persons child is also BP -self diagnosed- but doesn't have the NPD traits. Unmedicated and coping well for now.

Nature? Nurture? Too much time on our hands to worry about nuclear war and watch TV for four hours a day? Argh.

quote:

---

These are two parts of the post that I was responding to, in which you seem to be denying that true mental illness does not exist, that those diagnosed with mental disorders are merely experiencing pain and crisis, which is really no different from the average person.

---

quote:

---

An acquaintance of mine had a normal childhood, solid family, no abuse or trauma, but started seeing monsters morph out of the walls for no apparent reason. No drugs, nothing.

---

One theory as to why Skitzophrenia occurs in winter in poor families is a lack of sensory stimulation in early development (cheep white furnature against cheep white walls with very few toys or sights or sounds). Since people differ genetically in how much stimulation they need from the environment to feel optimally stimulated, they also differ in their tendency to experience the damaging effects of sensory deprivation and overstimulation. The more the child is like her parents, the more likely the child will be optimally stimulated in her home environment.

In our present society, we can nolonger claim to be drug free - polution is basically pesticides, cleaners, and a million other things that get thrown into our air every day. Some of us can handle the effects of (for example) smog more easily than others - with all the mental and respiratory problems than go along with increased sensitivity to these substances, or that can be avoided with decreased sensitivity to these substances. Even looking at the effect of AIDs - they are finding that, with equal exposure, so people are less proned to getting AIDs than others - which would not make a difference between the two groups unless both are exposed to the AIDs virus on numerous occassions.

As far as seeing monsters coming out of walls - did they rule out a visual perceptual problem? In "User's Guide to the Brain" Ratey tells a story of a girl who passed all the eye tests but saw trees coming into her house at her, which turned out to be an early sign that her depth perception was collapsing. The girl did not know what was happening so she was scared, and her parents did not know what was happening so they thought she was going crazy.

She was clumsy, usually only played with one person at a time, when she read, the letters would crumble, in fact she could only hold a visual image for a short time and then it would begin to crumble - and to focus on anything long enough to see it the rest of her visual field would go blank.

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: vaudree ]

As NRK points out,...

quote:

---

There are a number of conditions that can lead to hallucinations or delusions including:

Extreme or prolonged traum/abuse(PTSD)
sleep deprivation
sensory deprivation
substance abuse/substance withdrawl
Use of psychoneuroleptics(meds) withdrawl from same.
Complicated grief response (it is not uncommon for the bereaved to hear the voice or voices of the deceased, others will suffer delusions)
caffine intoxification and even water intoxification(I kid you not this has been documented)

---

He left out head trauma, electric shock, religion, and a whole range of culturally specific experiences.

All that aside, someone diagnosed with garden variety schizophrenia or bi-polar may respond poorly to meds, be crushed by the illness, and/or subsequent treatment, living on the streets or in back wards. Some may have only one episode and be fine after that. Some may be really ill not on meds but take to meds well with minimal side effects. Some manage with no meds. etc. etc.., you get the point.

The only way I can understand this to assume that there are any number of completely different possible reasons for people to come to experience what they do, but the medical system sees them as all being under the same roof, and paints them with the same brush. If your only tool is a hammer, then every problem is a nail.

Having said that, we're probably better off than we were say 80 years ago. Research is an evolutionary process, and I don't fault professionals for not getting from A to D without having to sort out B and C first.

What I do fault is attitude. The public stigma of mental illness is rightfully raised as a huge issue, and that's something that doesn't need a lot of research to know what's right. And it has to start with the institutions that provide mental health services before we can expect the public at large to have more constructive attitude.

I don't know how many people here have ever tried to get someone who is suicidal or acutely psychotic admitted through a hospital emergency ward. They are treated with open contempt. The ratio of assholes to angels among psychiatrists is also a bit depressing, although I do know some of the latter.

I guess I would look at things in a more functional way, and see the issue based on what the individual wants. Contemplating deriving personal growth from suffering is a luxury for those who are camping a little further up the slope on Mazlow's hierarchy of needs. For many however, taking meds seems a prerequisate to just managing life on a most basic level.

I've read mental illness as being almost romanticised as a sort of fountainhead of creativity. I'm more than a little sceptical of this. But some experiences have got to give you the feeling of a bit of an edge. (personally, I'm a straight clinical depression guy, so I wouldn't know). I tried chlorpromazine on my own for a short time ages ago, just to help me understand a bit of what my clients were feeling when I was talking with them. It's horrible. You feel like a limp dishrag. The brain is just totally rubbery, it's physically unpleasant, and you're interacting with the world through a fog. I can see where anyone who has any kind of a normally sharp mind would experience it as crippling.

quote:

---

I don't think anyone is arguing that there is no difference between a hemeroid or colon cancer, but the fact reamains that the difference between the two is a matter of degree.

---

I'd liken it more to comparing apples to bumblebees. Nowhere in the same category.

quote:

---

I can see where anyone who has any kind of a normally sharp mind would experience it as crippling.

---

quote:

---

Gearaldine Shaw

These individuals seek high sensation and risk-filled situations, which, given their scattered information-gathering styles, leads to a divergent knowledge base. In these individuals, higher levels of nonconscious processing from tacit perception and/or previous thought and subsequent semantic activation are present...

(S)timulants cause ADHD children to canalize their attentional capacity, to become perseverative and lacking in flexibility, and to exibit reduced curiousity and incidental learning...

Thus one ramification of stimulant medication appears to be that it takes some of these children out of the mode of processing information that is easiest for them. Therefore, childhood medication may be counter-productive for a lifetime of cognitive functioning that is based on strategies and knowledge gained earlier in life. Although the learning of language skills and concentrated effort must not be ignored, these children may be best served by being allowed to use their natural interests to achieve optimum arousal by means of the cognitive processes that they favor most.

Virginia I. Douglas

(T)he fact that methylphenidate (ritalin) enhanced the ability of children with ADHD to recall central (task-relevant) stimuli, but impaired recall of incidental (irrelevant) stimuli, was seen as evidence for stimulant- induced "over-focusing." Others might conclude that methylphenidate enabled the children to focus on relevant stimuli and ignore irrelevant distractors.

---

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: vaudree ]

quote:

---

Okay, NRK, what we seem to have here is a seriously shifting premise.

---

quote:

---

These are two parts of the post that I was responding to, in which you seem to be denying that true mental illness does not exist, that those diagnosed with mental disorders are merely experiencing pain and crisis, which is really no different from the average person.

---

You'll excuse me if I fail to notice a shift in premise.

When you use the term "mental Illness" I'm making the assumption that you are using that is consistent with the prevailing biomedical psychiatric model. It is the assertion of this model that psychoemotional disturbance("mental illness") is the result of inherent biological brain dysfunction. i.e. a broken brain, diseased brain, inherent chemical imbalance or however you wish to concieve of it. In other words the aetiology(cause/origin) of "mental illness is genetic and biological in nature. My position has consistently been that I not believe there is sufficient evidence to make this assumption.( I have even gone so far to say that this hypothesis may be true in part but the evidence is still lacking to presently support this belief.)

quote:

---

And which I heartily disagree with, and to which you have not, so far, responded with a logical, reasoned argument.

---

1) You stated that "mental illness" exists i.e. there is a biophysiological to "mental illness"

I stated that presently there exists no identified biological marker for such illness.
There is no physiological test to determine either the presence or absence of an illness.

There is also not a method to distinquish or demonstrate neurochemical differences between so called normal and imbalanced brains.

Autopsies have not revealed differences between neurological structures of people diagnosed "mentally ill" and those who have not.(difference in brain structure has been observed in people with genuine organic dysfunction i.e parkinson's, Huntingtons, Alzheimers ect.

Conclusion therefore there is a lack evidence of an underlying organic brain dysfunction associated with "mental illness".

You didn't believe that.

2) You stated that the existence of symptoms was sufficient to suggest an underlying biological cause. your cold analogy.

As I stated early I did not think you were suggesting "mental illness" was due to an environmental pathogen. I was making a distinction between symptom and underlying disease.( I was also engaging in a bit of historical biopsychiatric joke, Emile Kreaplin father of biopsychiatry had included in his population he diagnosed as suffering the condition "demential Praecox" a number of people suffering from advanced syphillis.) Anyways I degress.

In challenging your cold analogy I made to salient points.
A) The existence of cold symptoms does not therefore imply that the condition is due to an inherent physiological flaw in the sufferer. I would say the same for "mental illness"

B)Experiencing repeated colds throughout a lifetime does not mean that it represents a chronic illness. Again I would say the same for psychoemotional disturbances.

I also stated that symptoms such as halucinations,delusions, dissociation occur for a number of reasons. Oldgoat added to my list and I could also include food poisoning, and Pellegra, there are more.
what I was suggesting was
A) These symptoms are not necessarily so rare or extrordinary in themselves.
B)This also would suggest these symptoms are a neurological response to number of conditions some of which are socioenviromental. Also not necessarily caused by a broken brain perhaps just one under stress.
3. You stated that the "effectiveness" of medication suggested undelying biological factors of mental illness.

I stated that the treatment of symptoms did not prove the existence of an underlying biological pathology.

As an example if someone comes to see a Doctor suffering from an infection and you treat it with pain killers, you are hardly dealing with the cause. I also mentioned that the reason many 'meds" are effective is that the create an overall dampening off almost all brain activity, a rather scatter-gun approach to treatment I think.

4. You stated that prolonged or cyclical occuring psychoemotional disturbance indicated an underlying chronic biological condition. I pointed to BPD as an example of a condition that is ungoing, results in extreme dysfunction but is related to condition other than biological i.e. abuse/trauma.

I also made various other points that I am presently to tired to address right now.

I also posted a nine page annotated bibliography to back up my arguments.

So I would be really interested if anyone else here believes this constitutes a lack of evidence or a logical argument.

If I have time tommorow I would like to address.

The eccentricity/madness question (hint: it has to do with both the subjective process of diagnostic classification and the subjective application of these criteria.

As much as our technologically oriented society would like everything to be explainable by electronics and chemistry, i just don't believe that the human mind is a simple, fixable machine. Part of the reason psychiatrists have been cozying up to neurology in the last few decades (i glibly date this trend from the first of those cute thermal maps of the brain - early 80's?) is to make their profession more scientific and credible. Part of the reason North American society jumped so eagerly on the bandwagon is that we would prefer to think that madness is caused by a slipped cog in the victim's brain, rather than by the way we live.

quote:

---

I wonder whether it's possible to find reliable figures for the incidence of mental illness in different cultures and time periods. (I mean different; not two 20th Century industrial countries.)

---

An American Psychiatrist Richard Warner wrote an excellent book Recovering from Schizophrenia Psychiatry and the Political economy.
In this book he discussed World Health Organization studies that have shown that people still go crazy in other nations but that prognosis is much better in the developing world compared to industrial nations with modern psychiatry.

The book also examines the history of Schizophrenia from Kraeplin and Bleuer onward and examines incidence and recovery from mental illness both historically and socially. Connections between unemployment and "mental illness." Great stuff. I'll post any links I might be able to find.

i couldn't agree more with the rest of your post It's interesting to note that Neurologists don't share their love of psychiatry and have little desire to claim their "illness" In fact a number of informed critiques of Psychiatric research and methods come from neurologists.

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]

quote:

---

I think a distinction really needs to be made between madness and eccentricity here.

---

I think it's fine if you want to make that distiction, I'm just trying to say that psychiatry doesn't always make that distiction.

As I mentioned earlier not only is the establishment of Diagnostic criteria subjective (voting) but application of these criteria are also subjective. At the end of the day a psychiatric assessment is nothing more than two people having a discussion at the one with the power deciding whether certain experiences are pathological.
Any cursory glance at the history of psychiatry past and present will reveal innumerable people who might be considered eccentric or "perfectly normal" being diagnosed as ill and then psychiatrized.

Secondly there are plenty of eccentrics who have crossed over into madness some come back some don't.

As far as social boundaries are concerned each and everyone of us cross boundaries almost daily sometimes with awareness and sometimes not. I know in my own craziness I often crossed barriers not necessarily due to a lack of awareness but more in a sense that I felt it justified.

quote:

---

So our opinions differ, NRK. Repeating the same opinions several times does not make them any more logical than the first time they were stated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

Here's what I'm thinking might be the case with you, and if you're feeling thin-skinned, you might want to skip this part...

You've admitted to being diagnosed with bipolar disorder. You are also, against logic, desperately trying to convince me (among others) that bipolar disorder doesn't really exist, ergo, there's nothing wrong with you.

Was it regular bipolar or jeuvinile bipolar? REgular the depressive and manic episodes occur together and the jeuvinile the manic and depressive are the same episode alternating with sanity.

The commentators were talking about all the emotion during the popes visit (mania) and that there may be a let down after he left (depression).

Some people have a tendency to try to get themselves out of a depression or to try to avoid an episode of depression through adrenaline inducing activities. Adrenaline exagerates all kinds of moods - which could mimic rapic cycling.

quote:

---

I've explained where I've found your arguments to be less than logical. You've done nothing but repeat the same irrational leaps in logic, nor have you given me any reason to change my mind. I see no point in playing ring around the rosie with you.
Here's what I'm thinking might be the case with you, and if you're feeling thin-skinned, you might want to skip this part...

You've admitted to being diagnosed with bipolar disorder. You are also, against logic, desperately trying to convince me (among others) that bipolar disorder doesn't really exist, ergo, there's nothing wrong with you.

This isn't an unusual argument coming from bipolars who are in an up phase. I submit that this may be happening here, too.

---

An interesting quote for those interested in the stigma related to mental illness.

All of a sudden everything I say, everything I do
is filtered through a label I was given.
To quote Elvis C. "I used to be disgusted now I try to be amused."

On the topic of logic, it doesn't appear you have a clear grasp on the concept.

It's quite possible to have a logically consistent position that doesn't necessarily reflect reality, mathematical modelling is a prime example of this.

You're quite welcome to disagree with the conclusions I draw but to suggest anything I've said as illogical would be erroneous.

I have made statements that I have backed up with evidence.

You have made statements that I countered again providing evidence.

You have made claims without providing any evidence apart from a few anecdotes.

As to my diagnosis of bipolar.

Have I denied experiencing depression? No!

Have I experienced being Manic? No!

Have I denied experiencing psychoemotional disturbance? No!

Have I denied experiencing psychosis? No!

Have I denied that any of the above experience is due to something as simplistic, reductionistic and mechanistic as an innate biological dysfuntion in my brain well...to err on the side of caution I would say that I have provided sufficient evidence to raise doubt about conclusions made by biomedical psychology.

As far as your diagnosis is concerned
If I were manic I would be making delusions of grandiosity. Anyone is welcome to dispute this claim but I think I have been quite reserved in any claims of expertise.
In reality as someone who has actually experienced Psychosis it would not be unreasonable to assume that I might have a somewhat better understanding of what is involved than someone who has not.

Also as someone who is an experienced Community Mental Health worker I might also have a little bit more interaction with the "mentally ill" than the average person.

Finally as a Grad student in Psychology I might possibly have done a little bit more extensive research in the area than most.

As far as expressing extreme emotion I also think (apart from one outburst)I have been exceptionally reserved,expecially the rather nasty and dismissive tone that seems to have been present in the majority of your posts.

But perhaps I am so far out of touch with reality that I'm incapable of making any sort of informed assesment.

So fellow Babbler's what do you think.

Apart from that I am not entirely sure to responds except perhaps to state.
A)Questioning someone's mental well-being has to be the cheapest shot in the book when in engaging in debate.
B)Perhaps one day you will reach a level of awareness that will allow you to comprehend just how offensive it is to define and appropriate another person's experience.

As far as me being thin-skinned, I've survived Psychiatry and I've survived psychosis I think I will manage to survive your closed mind.

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]

quote:

---

So fellow Babbler's what do you think.

---

I think that if grandiosity meant mentally ill, then 75% of the regular posters in the News and Politics thread should be on meds.

In terms of schizophrenia, I take issue with what NRK seems to be saying, in that in NO case is it of biological origen. (if I understand you correctly ) The bi-polar area presents a somewhat mushier diagnostic can of worms, and always with the proviso that I know nothing for sure, I lean strongly in NRK's direction. Then you get into such terms as "schizo-affective which means your psychiatrist is winging it. My impressions are based on over 20 yas in the mental health field. I should also add that I only suffer fron clinical depression, and I'm feeling fine today. I hope you're prepared to take my word for that.

NRK: check your PM's

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: oldgoat ]

As for the general direction of this discussion, I will state the obvious: I am on the side of those who argue that 'mental illness' is not self-generated, idiosyncratic kind of event, and something that randomly strikes whoever. It is part of the personal, familial, social narrative of an individual. When mental illness occurs, everyone tends to concentrate solely on that individual (her responsibilities, her unruliness etc.), whereas a much more comprehensive view is needed.

quote:

---

As far as your diagnosis is concerned

---

Whoa, Nellie! I diagnose nothing. You said you were bipolar. I took you at your word.

I merely pointed out that I've heard similar arguments from other bipolars when manic, and that it's definitely a motivation to declaring that bipolar disorder/mental illness does not exist.

I also still maintain that your arguments take too many leaps to be considered, in my opinion, logical. Denigrating my grasp of logic doesn't change that.

quote:

---

I also think it's a bit offensive to interpret somebody's arguments as effects of his or her psychiatric 'diagnosis'.

---

quote:

---

This isn't an unusual argument coming from bipolars who are in an up phase. I submit that this may be happening here, too.

---

Then you said:

quote:

---

Whoa, Nellie! I diagnose nothing. You said you were bipolar. I took you at your word.

I merely pointed out that I've heard similar arguments from other bipolars when manic,
and that it's definitely a motivation to declaring that bipolar disorder/mental illness does not exist.

---

No you didn't diagnose. N.R.K. said he had been diagnosed as bi-polar.

However, in your first quote, what I heard was you dismissing his arguments because he carries a diagnosis, and was in an acute phase. When you said " I submit that this may be happening here too", I believe you crossed a line.

The thesis that NRK is presenting is not something he's made up himself. It represents a pretty broad point of view that's gaining currency in the field of community based mental health services. IMHO he's backed up what he's been saying.

quote:

---

As I have the time I've been looking for links that discuss mental illness from a biological point of view because I think they may contribute to the debate,

---

I would look forward to that. I think Vaudree raised an issue when she mentioned genotypes. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume there are variations in individuals physiological functoning due to genetics. The question to me though is what are those variations and how do they interact with environment to result in expressed behaviour and experience. This seems more informed than speaking of a nature/nurture dichotomy. I would also state that I'm using environment in the broadest terms including the physical(the food we eat, the air we breath etc). In that sense "environment" begins at conception.

I also recall Vaudree in the Prozac thread provided a link that discussed neurology from an interactionist perspective. Which is a vast improvement over models that present the brain as a unidirectional generating system. The brain doesn't just generate thoughts,feelings and perceptions, these processes also have an effect on physiology, neurological and otherwise.

I also think Trespasser provided an important link discussing updated theories of early family process(Bateson, Laing)concepts. I think there is a vast difference between "blaming families" and excepting that family environments have an impact on social/emotional development and expression.

[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]

quote:

---

However, in your first quote, what I heard was you dismissing his arguments because he carries a diagnosis, and was in an acute phase. When you said " I submit that this may be happening here too", I believe you crossed a line.

The thesis that NRK is presenting is not something he's made up himself. It represents a pretty broad point of view that's gaining currency in the field of community based mental health services. IMHO he's backed up what he's been saying.

---

I'm sorry you feel I crossed a line, as that was not my intention. I wasn't dismissing NRK's argument because he carries a diagnosis -- I was suggesting that some of the facts of his life may be colouring how he regards the issue. I don't chalk that up to any diagnosis or condition, but to human nature.

NRK's view may be backed up by community based mental health services, but I'd have to say that I'd have the same problems with their point of view, too. I can't tell you how many conversations I've had with mental health workers regarding what incident(s) may have caused my sister's problems, but there just hasn't been anything that fits that model. It's also appeared in other generations and branches of the family. In my own personal experience, the situational cause model just doesn't work.

And there's also the flavour of the year thing. Next year it could be another theory, and everybody will race to embrace that one.

If you will also take into account my comments on the SSRI thread, I don't think everybody who has depression or bipolar disorder needs to be on medication. It should be a last resort, not a first one. If a person can find some life strategies to manage their condition instead, I applaud that. But denial of the existence of the disorder is, frankly, ridiculous.

quote:

---

I'm sorry you feel I crossed a line, as that was not my intention.

---

I'm glad to know that I misread your intent.

I know that family members and care givers often get shabbily treated by the mental health care system. Their struggles and hardships are often disregarded by the system and they share in the stigma in more subtle ways. The last thing I want is to be perceived by you as being part of that.

It is my own opinion that the issues that NRK has raised go beyond "the flavour of the year", though I know what you mean by that. I think it represents a real part of the evolution in understanding mental illness. I also don't agree with him on every point. Again, I said somewhere that the only thing I know for sure is that I know nothing for sure.

Frankl, a concentration camp survivor, details the psychological reactions to suffering (in this book suffering taken straight from his experiences). His conclusions are that human can endure nearly endless suffering if they only have a reason (any reason) to do so. While people in the most ample luxery often commit suicide. I know Adbusters has placed a lot of emphasis on this phenomena of unhappy (and drugged) people in our society. Frankl suggests that our modern industrial society suffers because 1) we have more free time, and 2) we have lost many of our traditions - giving us almost endless possibilities. He further suggests that much of modern medicine/culture promotes 'happiness' as a goal. This goal is difficult to obtain if you don't find meaning in your life. He suggests that the goal should not be happiness, but rather individual meaning in your life (and that happiness may result because of it).

It seems kinda obvious, but it is a pretty good (if sometimes depressing) and easy read.

The Disclosure article can be listened to and is about the targeting of doctors already in practise and the Straight Goods article is on how drug companies influence doctors while they are still in training.

http://www.cbc.ca/disclosure/archives/0103_pharm/main.html

quote:

---

Because of a mistaken interpretation of a Supreme Court reporter's notes in an 1886 railroad tax case, corporations are now legally considered "persons," equal to humans and entitled to many of the same protections once guaranteed only to humans by the Bill of Rights

---

quote:

---

If corporations can have rights like humans does that mean they can develope disorders like humans as well? Corporate Generalized Anxiety Disorder... and what kind of cure to feed the corporation?

---

To find out more
http://thomhartmann.com/unequalprotection.shtml

And also on the association between rights and mental health - this review of Jack Layton's book on Homelessness:

quote:

---

Society doesn't work well when people see their main job as establishing their right to this or that. It does work well when we stress our interdependence and our obligation to others. We know that from looking at the state of the city: the homeless among us are a sign that Toronto isn't doing well. Read Layton -- and Ignatieff. You'll enjoy both books and you'll be provoked about your role in society and the city.

---

quote:

---

Well-known Canadians explore Canada’s financial system and business practices in Lorne Nystrom’s unique collection of practical, accessible mini-essays. Just Making Change! offers an honest and realistic view of the impractical, exploitative Canadian financial system and how we can transcend it. Bold and insightful, this volume addresses the abusive financial and business processes that impact our daily lives

---

[ August 07, 2002: Message edited by: vaudree ]