Depression

Depression, as cognitive behavioral therapists acknowledge, is largely a problem rooted in negative thought and feeling habits. The problem is is that the roots of these negative cognitive habits extend back to the earliest years of a person's history, and grow and strengthen, a phenomenon that has neuro-developmental dimension.

There has been a lot of research done into the neuro-developmental effects of persistent behavioral patterns, at both the cognitive and bodily levels, suggesting that the brain bears the impress of our habits of thought, feeling and behavior. For example, specific areas of the brain to which specific cognitive abilities and activities have been localized, are found to be much bigger in people who exercise these abilities and engage in these activities persistently, so that, for example, amongst taxi drivers, the area of the brain correlated with spatial intelligence is abnormally large, attesting to the fact that the brain bears the impress of experience and habit, and creates self-sustaining neural networks.

It seems that this applies to people suffering from negative habits of thought and feeling. For example, this way ADHD can be understood as a lifestyle problem, an inevitable by-product of an age when far too many children indulge in activities that require little exercise of the faculties considered defective in people to whom this label is applied.

With people who are depressed, what happens is that often, in the crucible of childhood experience, when the foundations for our understanding of the self are laid, and habits of thought and feeling inculcated, negative messages are conveyed to the individual leading inexorably to the establishment of negative cognitive habits, which take root in the individual's mind, and over the years are nourished by habit, leading to chronic self-loathing.

>

This explains why it is so difficult, if not, impossible, for people to overcome social anxiety, depression, and paranoid thinking; their brains have been wired by experience to support such habits, making it extremely difficult to overcome them.

This is why the bromides and nostrums that the self-help industry traffics in are useless to help. People who are seriously depressed are told often by those of us on this side of the divide "pull yourself together", "love yourself", and to "stop wallowing in self-loathing", as if people can just simply change habits of thought and feeling nourished over years or decades with ease.

As cognitive behavioral therapists have found out, and as I learned personally, it just isn't that simple, yet the notion of man' as an autonomous animal, who can simply exercise complete control over his thoughts and feelings, accommodates our appetite for blaming victims, for rationalizing human suffering in terms that support our emotionally-rewarding view of the world as a just place.

On this latter issue, sadly, the majority of people are optimists, in whom one finds a superior propensity for victim-blaming. Optimism, as Voltaire said, is a cruel philosophy under a consoling name, and as Schopenhauer said, a sinister mockery of human suffering. Optimism, that is, the philosophical optimism satirized by Voltaire, is essentially an a priori conception of the world. The optimist adapts the facts to theories. The world is a beautiful, just place, ergo any suffering is qualified as deserved, justified. This kind of thinking is seen amongst people who pass negative judgment on depressives, claiming we choose to wallow in self-loathing, or some such other nonsense, anything that justifies their optimism about an essentially absurd and cruel world.

Hi Cledwyn,

I love your writing.
So eloquent, so reasoned, so persuasive.
Truly, nobody does it better than Cledwyn.
I agree with so much of what you say, that it delights me to read your thoughts.

Confirmation of one's perception happens so rarely in my life,
so it has a very poignant meaning to me to find a somewhat-like mind.

Thank you for sharing your insights, and for making them so poetic.
You blow the doors off Leonard Cohen, man.

Being a lifelong Contrary, my offering in reply must needs be to identify areas of looseness.
It is something I have grown into, against great adversity . . . universally disliked for what I am.

To do the work thaat seems to be my destiny,
it is necessary to adopt specific characteristics of character and behaviour.

By earthling standards, I am really weird.
But without my fierce defiance of being manipulated and deceived
it would have been too difficult to defy the abstract manipulation and deceits
that trouble visitors to this forum.

I am obsessive about the truth, and it drives people nuts.
No matter how I smooth it over with artful courtesy
people are shocked by the degree of dissonance behind the niceties.

Reckon this is due to subliminal communication.

I’ve spent a lifetime learning how to read the invisible world of ideas,
and, in every encounter, to read the source of ideas.

Meaning, effects, ramifications, veracity, fit with crossreferences
all that is going on while someone is trying to have a chat with the Cruxx.

And they pick up on it.

I am satisfied by the evidence I have of telepathy.
Works fine, but requires a fair amount of functioning in the 2nd-Attention
which is relevant to some who visit this forum of enquiry
into dissonant perceptions and behaviours and the origins thereof.

If the human race survives, future men will, I suspect,
look back on our enlightened epoch as a veritable age of Darkness.
They will presumably be able to savor the irony of the situation
with more amusement than we can extract from it.
The laugh's on us.
They will see that what we call 'schizophrenia' was one of the forms in which,
often through quite ordinary people,
the light began to break through the cracks in our all-too-closed minds.

. . . R.D. Laing, The Politics of Experience, p. 107 [1967]

It seems that everyone is subliminally aware of the 2ndAttention,
and folk get spooked by my habitual scrutiny of everything and its meaning.
They become self-conscious, embarrassed, dumbstruck . . .
their sense-of-identity goes into panic.

Most people cannot enjoy the level of engagement at which I operate.
As soon as we initiate mergence of consciousness, they start freaking out.

On the outside, it’s business-as-usual, but on the inside, they are spooked.
See a lot of defensive behaviour, followed by distancing.
For just being what I am – the Cruxx.

And my obsession with truth is just one of a bunch of spooky attributes
needed for the field in which I work, the engineering of dark matter.

Long story involved in working with dark matter,
but, briefly, one such as I disturbs some of the local wildlife.

They feel threatened when I remove an implant, or disintegrate cousin Fred.
They resent me interfering with their predation on my client.

Life and Deeath type resentment, because I’m messing with their food supply.
For me, I got the works, the full treatment, everything they could throw.

Takes a special kind of personality to withstand the forces these species have specialised in.
People sense that I am not a civilian, not a one-of-them
they read it straight from my beingness, the will, the intensity.

Automatically they want me to be somewhere else, but dare not say so.

Always a spectacular misreading, all too often a tragic Freudian Projection,
in which it seems I evoke their greatest fears of exposure.

And the greatest fear of those who prey on mankind is Accountability.
So accountability is my business with Them.

They really hate it – an eternity of unAccountability leaves them totally unprepared
for an examination of their account of interpersonal transactions.
And doing what they hate is a pretty good tactic for opposing an enemy.

So there’s this energy around me – of accountability and sudden disExistence.
And people are trying to get a chat going, so they can talk about themselves.

Major dissonance, man, especially when I leak a bit Forbidden Knowledge.
And eventually, society really did spit me out, like a very Sour plum.

Yet, despite this weird “Social disAdvantage”, I am free of depression.
Can anyone explain this ?
How can it be ? [img][/img]

It is common in our day, as it has been in many other periods of the world's history, to suppose that those among us who are wise have seen through all the enthusiasms of earlier times and have become aware that there is nothing left to live for. The men who hold this view are genuinely unhappy, but they are proud of their unhappiness, which they attribute to the nature of the universe and consider to be the only rational attitude for an enlightened man. Their pride in their unhappiness makes less sophisticated people suspicious of its genuineness ; they think that the man who enjoys being miserable is not miserable.
This view is too simple ; undoubtedly there is some slight compensation in the feeling of superiority and insight which these sufferers have, but it is not sufficient to make up for the loss of simpler pleasures. I do not myself think that there is any superior rationality in being unhappy. The wise man will be as happy as circumstances permit and if he finds the contemplation of the universe painful beyond a point, he will contemplate something else instead. . . . I am persuaded that those who quite sincerely attribute their sorrows to their views about the universe are putting the cart before the horse : the truth is that they are unhappy for some reason of which they are not aware, and this unhappiness leads them to dwell upon the less agreeable characteristics of the world in which they live.

Bertrand Russell : Excerpt from "The Conquest of Happiness"

Hi there!

I know I'm totally violating the norms of forum-posting by replying to a month-old post, but this post was far too interesting for me to resist. Also, there was a reference to Wittgenstein and the Investigations, which, for me, is basically like begging me to post.

As much as I want to agree with what you've written about depression much of it is really irksome. For example, saying that the relationship between symptoms of a psychological event (i.e. depression) and the event-itself is somehow circular misses the fact that the relationship is empirical: depression has behavioral manifestations like crying, sleeping too much, feeling lethargic, withdrawing from others, and so on. The relationship between the psychological event and those behavioral manifestations is not tautological, like the relationship between being a bachelor and being married, it is causal, being depressed causes the behaviors, in much the same way as fires produce smoke.

Also, the critique of the so-called Medical Paradigm, that describes severe, debilitating depression as an illness seems odd. Maybe you're right that depression is part of being human. As much as I hate we-all-isms, I'm going to use one now: we all experience suffering, injustice and death and that produces emotional pain, but I don't see why we should cease to refer to severe, debilitating depression as an illness, for the reason that, depression is, ipso facto, awful. Also, let's keep in mind the fact that many illnesses are statistically normal, in the sense that, a high percentage of people, living now, experience it. Just a few examples: tooth decay, migraines, menstrual cramps, viral infections (colds & flus) and, for older adults, dementia.

As for the putative harm done by ascribing a diagnostic label of Major Depressive Disorder, Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder, Dysthimia, Substance Induced Mood Disorder or [insert diagnostic label] to someone, I'm pretty skeptical that this is as harmful as you're describing it. Of course, diagnostic labeling within psychiatric institutions leads to harm, for the reason that, it licenses the institution to use force and coercion against the person by confining them in the institution and allowing the staff to force the person to take medications against their will (I'm not necessarily saying that this is wrong, for the reason that, there are many things that are harmful to experience, but necessary). Also, when a person's diagnostic label becomes known by members of the person's social milieu, this can be harmful because of the prejudice and stigma associated with mental and emotional suffering. Just an anecdote: when I told a group of students that I have Bipolar Disorder, they looked at me as though I had dropped my pants and defecated on the table. Suffice to say: I don't divulge my dx anymore. Stigma internalized.

However, many people experience their diagnosis as liberating. It's as though someone has finally recognized their suffering and validated it. This is the first step to treatment whether that involves exercising, using social support, meeting with a therapist, taking medication, playing with your dog or whatever!

Also, it's not entirely clear to me how you can avoid the problems associated with psychiatric diagnosis. Psychiatric diagnosis, at it's best, is really just the careful use of psychological language. Being diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder just means that you're really depressed. Being diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder just means that you experience alternating mood disturbances: (hypo)mania and depression. And so on. For every mental disorder there's a corresponding common-or-garden psychological concept. Using the common-or-garden psychological concept in place of the diagnostic label might seem less stigmatizing, but, in practice, I don't think there's much of a difference. Anti-psych proponents who substitute "mental illness/disorder" with "problems in living" (or whatever) don't seem to be doing anything significant. I know that's mean, but really, there isn't much difference between saying depression is an illness and depression is a bad experience, problem or an-equally-painful-yet-beautiful existential event.

So... that's my thoughts. Let me just add that you're absolutely right that medications don't work as well or for as many people as the aggressive adverts in the early 2000s led us to believe nor is happiness as statistically normal or easily realizable as the self-help industry has led us to believe. And, yes, some of the grossly over-simplified neurological, biochemical and genetic explanations of depression are flat out bunk (i.e. too little 5-HT --> Sadness). Nonetheless, we shouldn't dismiss the behavioral sciences, the mental health care system or psychopharmacology altogether.

-IJ

a Lot said, but what does it mean ?

Infinite_Jester wrote:As much as I want to agree with what you've written about depression much of it is really irksome. For example, saying that the relationship between symptoms of a psychological event (i.e. depression) and the event-itself is somehow circular misses the fact that the relationship is empirical: depression has behavioral manifestations like crying, sleeping too much, feeling lethargic, withdrawing from others, and so on. The relationship between the psychological event and those behavioral manifestations is not tautological, like the relationship between being a bachelor and being married, it is causal, being depressed causes the behaviors, in much the same way as fires produce smoke.

That's certainly debatable. Anyway, I think we were talking about the actual process of making a diagnosis, not about some general class of “psychological events”. In the framework of DSM the relationship between the diagnostic conclusion “Patient P has depression” (MDE) and the precondition “Patient P has at least five of the criterial symptoms” is hardly contingent. Or do you think we can have the precondition false and the conclusion true?

Now it’s certainly not uncommon to hear that, for example, depression causes this or that. “Depression causes insomnia” etc. (Let’s not forget that “insomnia or sleeping too much” is one of the diagnostic criteria for depression). But we should examine if this is a case of true causation. Now there are criteria for true causative relationship, and one of them is time order. If A is the cause of B, then A must precede B in time. Would you like to explain how we can verify the occurrence of depression (the supposed cause) before the occurrence of symptoms (the supposed effect)? And do you really think that the notion “symptomless depression” makes sense? If the relationship was causal, it should.

Infinite_Jester wrote:Anti-psych proponents who substitute "mental illness/disorder" with "problems in living" (or whatever) don't seem to be doing anything significant.

The latter parlance makes room for ethics while the former does not. Thus we bring the reality of suffering and the ethical question “How should we live?” back together again. What could be more significant than this?

I don’t mean to suggest that we need a certain parlance. I’m just saying we need to pay attention to what our ways of speaking imply.

El Nino wrote:Anyway, I think we were talking about the actual process of making a diagnosis, not about some general class of “psychological events”. In the framework of DSM the relationship between the diagnostic conclusion “Patient P has depression” (MDE) and the precondition “Patient P has at least five of the criterial symptoms” is hardly contingent. Or do you think we can have the precondition false and the conclusion true?

Hmmm... You're right that this is certainly debatable. It's hard to pin down whether or not the symptoms are manifestations of some internal process (a psychological event) or are criteria for the instantiation of the concept. Notice how I did something very tricky in my post by using the general term "depression" instead of an actual diagnostic label. Of course , if it's puzzling whether or not the symptoms of Major Depressive Disorder are manifestations of some unknown psychological event or are just criteria for the instantation of the concept "Major Depressive Disorder", it's probably just as puzzling whether or not the behaviors and internal states associated with depression are bona fide symptoms or just criteria. I think L.W in the "Blue Book" just said something like: "yeah, that's our psychological language. It's kinda hard to parse when we're talkin' bout symptoms and when we're talkin' bout critieria" (Not an exact quote )

El Nino wrote:The latter parlance makes room for ethics while the former does not. Thus we bring the reality of suffering and the ethical question “How should we live?” back together again. What could be more significant than this?

I don't see how one form of description disallows/allows people to do ethics. Maybe certain forms of description can bias how people treat a particular person. For example. describing someone who commits a serious crime as mentally ill, might solicit pity and nudge people in the direction of having compassion for the person, as opposed to the same situation occurring and people describing the person as a "moral monster" (or whatever).

As for the second part of what you wrote, I think you're being overly charitable to people who substitute the term "mental illness" with, the more hedged, "problems in living" (or whatever). What is the semantic distinction being made here? A mental illness is an illness that compromises your psychological abilities and a problem of living is... what exactly? Not having enough money for that vacation you really wanted to go on? Having the fantods because you want to ask a woman on a date? Being stuck in traffic for an hour because there's construction on the highway? It's so vague and leaves out the primary characteristic of mental illnesses: suffering!

Of course, I'm willing to concede that describing psychological events and behaviors as "illnesses" does give the illusion of objectivity to the normative judgement being presupposed, namely, that there's something wrong with a person if they are experiencing or demonstrating the event or behaviors (historical anecdote that confirms this: psychiatrists describing homosexuality as a mental disease). However, even though there's a normative component to describing severe, debilitating depression as an illness, I haven't met anyone who really wants to challenge this. If you're literally incapacitated by overwhelming emotional pain and stifling emptiness, then there's something wrong with you. It's possible to challenge this, but I just don't see the argument being successful. Why should we believe that this is what you're brain is supposed to do under normal conditions?

Anyways, more words.

Cruxx wrote:a Lot said, but what does it mean ?

It means whatever you want it to mean.

Thanks for the contribution, this is surely an interesting topic. I’ll try to clarify my comments within a few days or so, right now I don’t have enough time. (Producing English is also frustratingly slow for me too, this forum being the only place I use it nowadays.)