dag.stenberg at helsinki.nospam.fi wrote:
>kkollins at pop3.concentric.net wrote:
> > The community of researchers has missed one thing: what's referred to as
> > "depression" is not, per se, "pathological". Rather it's an
> > evolutionarily-engineered-in, and absolutely-necessary, mechanism that becomes
> > activated when a person "blunders" a bit, and has the effect of quieting
> > behavior so that the person will not be experienced by others as a source of
> > "agitation"... which would lead to "escalating" group-behavioral conflict,
> > injury or death.
>> Could be, but then we are left with only two outcomes: spontaneous
> healing or suicide.
Although I understand that there's tremendous behavioral inertia in accord with what
you say, I disagree that that's all that's possible. I pointed out the primary factor
in the prior msg: the promulgated, unfounded, proposition that what's referred to as
"depression" is "bad". It's not "bad" it just is, and as I briefly discussed in my
last post, it's absolutely-necessary within fully-functional behavioral dynamics. What
kills people isn't "depression". What kills them is the prevailing ignorance with
respect to the necessity and worthiness of the dynamics of "depression". Because such
ignorance prevails still, an artificial pall is imposed upon folks who are doing
nothing more than becoming "quited" while their nervous systems are working to extract
them from this or that behavioral "mistake". This results in folks' spiralling inward
because this or that associate has told them something like "snap out of it", which,
in the prevailing ignorance of the biological necessity of "depression", translates in
the mind of the "depressed" person, to something like, "Woah! You're messed up." And
=this= is where things gain their savagery. The death falsely-attributed to what's
referred to as "depression" will subside as folks come to understand how
wonderfully-functional the biological mechanism is, and how well it can serve them, if
only genuine nurturance and caring replace "quick fixes". What's more, the innate
reward mechanisms are just sitting there, waiting to be activated, while the "mistake"
is unlearned, and its replacement behaviors learned.
> I believe we can attempt to help those persons in
> some other ways too, using modern biological knowledge.
> > We =need= "depression", and the modern trend that takes the stand, that it
> > should be engineered-out of the nervous system, has more to do with the
> > profit-seeking of the pharmaceutacal companies than science or the welfare of
> > humanity.
>> For anybody who has never suffered from major depression or seen that in
> their immediate surrounding, it is easy to think like that.
Is there anyone, having lost life-long Love, who can deny experiencing such? It's a
fact of Life. I understand that folks get "stuck". I'm just saying that folks do get
stuck because folks, in general, have not been led to an understanding of the
functionality of the biologcial mechanisms. Failure, here is 100% attributable to
> But in the nervous system, everything is redundantly-engineered, and
> the "components" are organized in relatively-failsafe ways. This doesn't mean
> > that any particular neurotransmitter is "unimportant". It just means that there
> > are [reiterating what someone else has already said in this thread] many factors
> > which determine the contribution of any neurotransmitter. And the only way to
> > get a handle on such is to work with the system as a whole.
>> I disagree. It impossible to design an experiment if you let all
> parameters vary at the same time.
Not only is it not "impossible". It's already been done. The understanding has just
not been communicated.
> This can point to correlational
> evidence, and to important factors, but it can not elucidate what part a
> single factor has in the regulation of the whole.
"Single experiments", no. But, through the diligent efforts of the experimentalists,
the Neuroscience stacks have been overfolowing with more than enough proven
information for decades to allow everything to be cross-correlated at a
verifiably-lasting foundation level. It's from that understanding that I write. ken