'panic spells' in the News

k p Collins kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Tue Jan 27 15:40:45 EST 2004

There is an article, "Panic Spells Are
Traced To Chemical In the Brain", by
A. O'Connor, in the "Science Times"
section of the 2004-01-27 issue of
The =New York Times=, pD5.

I don't have a URL, but it should
be available on the =NYT= web
site http://www.nytimes.com

The article discusses research that
points to serotinin involvements, if
folks are interested.

I'm going to discuss the same stuff
from another perspective.

Quoting from the =New York Times=
article, as it quotes an interviewee:

"`Panic disorder is due to a specific
abnormality in the brain, not a weak-
ness in character.'"

This's misleading 'double-speak', half
of which is entirely-False.

There is an 'abnormality' involved, but
it's independent of Pathology, and, as
is implied, is independent of 'character'.

Quoting from the =New York Times=
article, as it states the comments of
an interviewee:

"there is a strong likelihood that the re-
ceptor deficiencies are genetic".

This's where I have a problem with
the approach that's discussed in the

'Panic disorder' can be induced within
=anyone=. It will occur 100% of the
'time' when there are relentlessly-neg-
ative external experiential conditions.

This happens be-cause, as one exper-
iences such relentlessly-negative condi-
tions, one's nervous system constructs
"biological mass" [AoK, Ap5] that
conforms to the neural activity that
actually occurs within one's nervous

And the 'adjustment' of the neural
Topology that results, is =necessary=
with respect to Survival within the
relentlessly-negative environmental

It's not "abnormal". It's just what
happens, and is no 'different' than
what happens within a nervous
system that is not subjected to
relentlessly-negative external
experiential environments.


Nervous systems literally become
what they experience.

This "becoming" =necessarily=
takes the form of modifications to
the neural Topology.

If the neural Topology was not
modified as a consequence of
experience, learning wouldn't


This study, and so many like it,
are 'blind' to this one Reality,
and all such studies lead Neuro-
science away from actual com-
prehension of nervous system

Given a nervous system that, at
birth, is 'normal', the neural activ-
ation that the nervous system sub-
sequently experiences literally
modifies the neural architecture.

Neuroscience has done, and con-
tinues to do, a great disservice to
Humanity when it Fails to carry
this simple =FACT= through its

It is =entirely= appropriate for
a nervous system that's subjected
to relentlessly-negative experience
to adjust its internal dynamics in
ways that 'counter' that relentless-

To Fail to do this is to Fail to

But, when Neuroscience points
the finger of 'abnormality' in-there,
it Fails to see that, although com-
parative differences can, in fact,
be discerned, all of the nervous
systems that it's looking at can
still be functioning 'normally'.

Why it matters [greatly] is that,
approaches that attribute 'ab-
normality' to this or that pharmo-
cological 'difference' actively-
encourage folks to be 'blind' to
the fact that, "Yes Virginia, if
your experiential environment
is 'hell', then your nervous system's
functionality will be altered in a
way that reflects that."

Fail to get this point across
to folks, and Neuroscience induces
folks to acquiesce to behaving as
'victims' - to =not= do anything to
modify their external experiential

But the approach that is being
considered in the study reported
on in the article can have =no=
success because the =only= thing
that happens as a result of trying
to 'reset' the supposed 'imbalance'
of this or that neurochemical, without
ameliorating the external experiential
conditions that precipitated the so-
called "deficit", is to actively artificially
render the nervous system's functioning

This 'modern' concept of there 'being
a way' to do with a 'pill' what folks
are Failing to do through their own
efforts is totally-non-sensical.

Look at it through the 'lens' of
an analogy.

Say there's a fellow who can't get
to his Loved-one because an earth-
quake has opened up a crevass,
between him and her, that he
cannot cross.

Do you tell him to 'take a pill'?

Or do you tell him to do the work
that building a bridge across the
crevass requires? Or to do the
work inherent in walking around
the crevass?

See the difference?

Giving the guy a 'pill' might result
in his becoming complacent about
his not being able to reach his Loved-
one, but that's a 'solution' that 'denies'
the Problem, rather than Fixing it.

And, all over the place, 'neuro-
science' is imposing such 'denial'
of needed-work upon folks.

If this continues, pretty soon, the
only folks who'll be left working
will be the folks who make 'pills'.

Everyone else will be sitting by
their ever-burgenoning collection
of 'pills', 'vegetating'.

It's all very-Serious.

The modifications that occur
within nervous systems through
their encounters with environmental
Difficulties are the very =embodiment=
of the propensity to Resolve
the Problems that have been


It's Unethical to 'presume' that
'pills' replace the physical labor
that needs to be accomplished.

But, where ever I look, within
'neuroscience', all I see is folks
trying to give folks 'pills' that
'blind' them to what their nervous
systems are 'encouraging' them
to accomplish.

Then this Error - this invited-Failure
becomes established within 'culture',
and pretty soon, nobody can do
anything about the Problems that
confront Society, because, if they
try to, as a result of the absence-of-
understanding that's been actively
promulgated by 'neuroscience',
everyone treats them as if they're


Get it?

K. P. COllins [building a Bridge to Understanding]

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list