Posted by pullmarine on November 3, 2000, at 19:54:06
In reply to Re: Back at ya, posted by Miguy on November 3, 2000, at 11:39:40
> Ok. So you're talking about semantics.
Nope, I'm taking primarily about epistemilogy!
>The article seemed to me to take the position that the condition (whatever you call it) did not exist.
>The article discusses some of the epistemological issues that underlie any science.
It does not claim that there are no variations in brain chemicals. It does not claim that these changes in levels do not affect mood or thought. It does not claim that psycho-emotional crises do not exist. It does not claim that people should not get the help or the medications they need in order to deal with their pains and troubles.
> If you want to Call it something other tha
n an illness.... I don't know what I think about that. I agree that at times (many times?) these conditions very well could be called emotional crises or something of the sort. But when someone has a natural deficit of serotonin, norepineprhine or dopamine which requires pharmaceutical assistance, I don't see that any different from the person who has to supplement their insulin. Do you?
Well, different people produce different amounts of insulin. some produce a lot, some less, and some none at all.So, if not an illness, what is it? It's certainly a medical condition due to a malfunction or shortcoming of an organ.
>
I'd call it a variation in temperament.> Like I said, it appears we may be quabbling over semantics. It sure sounded to me as if the article was speaking of more than semantics though. He seemed to be proposing that disorders of the brain do not exist.
IN some cases, neurological disorders are clearly organic and can be refered to as an illness . these imclude, but are not limitted to :tertiary syphilis, alzeimer's, parkinsons.
> I apologize for assuming that this was your point of view.
> Normally, ehen people apoligize, i reply: apologies are the foundations of future offenses, but in this case i say: thank you!
I run into a lot of people who believe that. It's really not very rational to believe that every organ and system of the body *except the brain* may be diseased, malfunction or be out of balance.
I think very few people would take this position. But I must add the the natural condition of things is not balance, but a constant strive for/towards balance.>
john
poster:pullmarine
thread:47722
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20001102/msgs/48147.html