Posted by JahL on April 3, 2001, at 12:27:13
In reply to Re: Truth? » JahL, posted by Todd on April 3, 2001, at 11:11:04
> > I make the mistake of assuming any given disorder has a common aetiology? On the contrary, Jah. I am emphatically stating that any given disorder more than likely has a DIFFERENT aetiology. Which is why finding a magic bullet for each individual person would be akin to, as Sulpicia suggested, finding a unique magic bullet for five billion different people. I really don't think that's entirely realistic. If that's what you wish to research, there's nothing wrong with that. More power to you. But what is humanity to do while it waits for the magic bullet to be developed? We can never run away from ourselves.
Sorry if I come across as confrontational; I guess I am a little, but that's the nature of my disorder. I appreciate yr view on things but this is a subject I feel *v. strongly* about & I can't agree that 'finding' yourself' is any sort of real solution to the sort of medical disorders that feature on this board. I would similarly pull someone up if they were to suggest all-day chanting as a cure.
> > I've read your replies to me, Jah, and there is one thing that I continue to notice. You always seem to react to what I say and assume I am taking sides by digging into the "opposite" viewpoint.
No you assume I assume. I merely question the validity of the statements before me.
> > You don't seem to realize that I am merely sharing my opinion and experience along with the rest of you in the hopes that we may all come to new understanding.
I do, but maybe don't express it clearly. Apologies.
> > Yet everything seems to boil down to "either/or" in your replies.
I could say the same about you. Besides in some instances it is a case of either/or .
> >Never something in between or even all-encompassing.
This is rubbish Todd. You appear to have read 1 set of posts on one thread. Never is a strong word & I suggest you reconsider.
> > Your hint to Cam above about people who do not ground their realities in the facts of medical science is a perfect example. What I am getting from this, and correct me if I am wrong, is that you think that because I hold medical science up to the light of scrutiny, then it also holds that I mistrust it.
I'm correcting you. I can see why you thought that was aimed @ you but it wasn't. I merely meant that science is the surest foundation on which to base yr (anyone's) reality. I did *not* imply SCIENCE=REALITY & I did not imply that one's faith in science shld be to the exclusion of other influences. Science is by no means flawless & scrutiny is a must. Oh & who said anything about *medical* science? Not me.
& I said I find anyone with an *INNATE* (ie one that ignores reason) mistrust of science dubious. When I speak of science I'm talking physics, chemistry etc, disciplines which explain how the world works. It is hard to deny science's fundamental tenets.
> >That's not the truth. In turn you mistrust and discount my viewpoints and react as if I am attacking yours. I am a bit insulted. Let's get back on the same page, here, Jah.
This is just yr perception. Perception=subjective. I don't mean to insult. I'm insulted that you make so many assumptions about me.
> > We ALL have a common goal, don't we? TO BE WELL. I trust medical science...to an extent. Much has been done by it to alleviate human pain and suffering, and it truly is a wonder. How far has that taken us, though? I'm certainly not going to put all my eggs in one basket. I believe that the pharmaceutical concept can only be taken so far. If you feel that it can be taken further, once again, more power to you. I am WITH you, not against you. But what are we to do while we all wait for the magic bullet?I don't pretend to have the answers. I just believe that most serious mental illness is principally biological in origin & so can't see the point in pursuing non-physical treatments. It's just my point of view, nothing else. What's the problem with me expressing this?
> >New areas of science need to be explored. I am a big advocate of bioenergetic research. To me, there is a lot more information to be mined in those realms than in the field of psychopharmacology, with a more "here and now" potential to bring about healing sooner. And it is becoming more and more accepted by the scientific community. Are we going to talk here, or are we going to continue to argue? Because if the latter is the case, I give up. Peace and love.
Again, sorry to have gotten off on the wrong foot. I'm the archetypal angry young(ish) man & perhaps this explains my manner. I will continue to reply to yr posts as I see fit, but will try & be a bit more civil:-)
Sincerely,
J.Oh & deej, thanx 4 the history lesson, which I only skim read. What pisses me off about this board is that folks are apt to take yr words out of their context.
Blind faith in science is as dangerous as it is in anything else. I did *not* say SCIENCE=GOOD, I just stated that for the reasons given by Cam, scientific findings form the basis of my reality.
The tales you tell are of BAD, corrupt science, conducted by by bad practitioners/researchers. Where did I imply that everything done in the name of science is intrinsically virtuous? I didn't.
In the UK a disproportionally high proportion of clergy are paedophiles. Is this reason to abandon yr religious beliefs? I think not (tho I cld think of plenty of others;-) )
I wish I had never posted now...all I wanted to do was offer Cam a little moral support against the science-bashers. Cam seems to be getting a bit of unwarrnted grief lately, most of it coming from uninformed quarters.
My head is bad shape right now & I don't like the way this discussion is headed (ie descending into nit-picking) so I respectfully withdraw...cannot be bothered to continually state the obvious.
J
poster:JahL
thread:966
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20010315/msgs/979.html