![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 40. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by dj on August 9, 2000, at 10:50:55
Re-reading this book which I first read when in the throes of major depression. Easier to read now and making much more sense. An intricate examination of the interplay of elements that comprise depression, written by someone who has been there and also has very solid scientific credentials.
Here's a couple of sample quotes:
“It was the worse experience of my life. More terrible even than watching my wife die of cancer. I am ashamed to admit that my depression felt worse than her death but it is true. I was in a state that bears no resemblance to anything I had experienced before. It was not just feeling very low, depressed in the commonly used sense of the word. I was seriously ill... I could not think properly, much less work… I had panic attacks if left alone. And there were numerous physical symptoms – my whole skin was on fire and I developed uncontrollable twitches. Every new physical sign caused extreme anxiety. I was terrified… Sleep was impossible… and when I woke up I felt worse. The future was hopeless. I was convinced that I would never work again or recover. There was the strong fear that I might go mad...
Several reports have concluded that rates of depression have increased over the past 30 years and are continuing to do so...
A striking finding in recent years that could account for the apparent increase in depression has been an increasing incidence in the young population...
There is a strong correlation between depression and the absence of sympathetic social support...
Depression always occurs within a social context. Relationships, work, poverty, hopes, children, parents and so on, can all play some role in the generation of a depressive episode. To say that the origin of a depression is multifactoral is merely to say that it is necessary to try and tease out the relative importance of various influences in a person's life...
While acute life events have been a major focus of psycological stress research, it may be that this attention is somewhat misplaced and much more attention should be given to chronic stress. The distinction between chronic and acute is that chronic stress persists for longer periods... A study of stress in depressed individuals found that chronic stress such as physical illness, poverty and marital conflict are more powerful predictors of depression than acute stress. Chronic stress can even reduce the emotional effects of acute stress...
Social factors play a key role in the orgin of depressive disorders... The influence of life events is greatly affected by how much the individual is cared for, loved and valued...
Lack of intimacy and the opportunity to confide one's problems greatly increases vunerablity...
...one can think of both antidepressants and psychotherapy as working by breaking the loop in which sadness and negative thinking reinforce each other...
The skill of a good therapist may lie in the ability of how best to deal with a particular patient and to establish what is called a therapeutic alliance, which promotes a successful outcome...
”- Lewis Wolpert, Malignant Sadness: The Anatomy of Depression, 1999, (Wolpert is a Professor of Biology as Applied to Medicine at University College, London)
Sante!
dj
Posted by dj on August 9, 2000, at 22:59:57
In reply to Malignant Sadness - The Anatomy of Depression, posted by dj on August 9, 2000, at 10:50:55
"If one accepts that sadness is an adaptive, universal and normal emotion than there is no difficuly in thinking of depression as pathological sadness... depression is sadness out of control... mania could be malignant happiness...
Dr. Yutaka Ono in Toyko thinks of loss of interpersonal relationships as a key feature in causing depression...
My journey increased my conviction that depression is almost always related to sadness due to loss of some sort or another... but those that get depressed may be influenced by a genetic predispositon. How the depression is expressed, interpreted and treated can be very significantly affected by the prevailing culture...
Try to get psychotherapy as the preferred treatment; cognitive therapy would be a sensible choice, but if that does not work, or the depression is too severe then take the antidepressant drugs until therapy becomes possible...
And if possible, take the advice given at the end of Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy: "Be not idle."
- Lewis Wolpert, Malignant Sadness: The Anatomy of Depression, 1999, (Wolpert is a Professor of Biology as Applied to Medicine at University College, London)
Sante, encore!dj
Posted by Oddzilla on August 10, 2000, at 18:24:01
In reply to Re: Malignant Sadness - title source.., posted by dj on August 9, 2000, at 22:59:57
Do you think depression is malignant sadness? I think I would call it malignant disconnection as opposed to healthy detachment. Or meaninglessness as opposed to meaning. That's more what it feels like to me. Loss of interpersonal relationships would probably underly those causes too.
Of course I'm old enough to remember when depression was "anger turned inward". It's been a long time since I heard that one, thank goodness.
And thanks for telling me the ending of Anatomy of Melancholy. I rescued a three volume edition from a street curb years ago and never got close to the end!
Oddzilla
"If one accepts that sadness is an adaptive, universal and normal emotion than there is no difficuly in thinking of depression as pathological sadness... depression is sadness out of control... mania could be malignant happiness...
>
> Dr. Yutaka Ono in Toyko thinks of loss of interpersonal relationships as a key feature in causing depression...
>
> My journey increased my conviction that depression is almost always related to sadness due to loss of some sort or another... but those that get depressed may be influenced by a genetic predispositon. How the depression is expressed, interpreted and treated can be very significantly affected by the prevailing culture...
>
> Try to get psychotherapy as the preferred treatment; cognitive therapy would be a sensible choice, but if that does not work, or the depression is too severe then take the antidepressant drugs until therapy becomes possible...
>
> And if possible, take the advice given at the end of Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy: "Be not idle."
>
> - Lewis Wolpert, Malignant Sadness: The Anatomy of Depression, 1999, (Wolpert is a Professor of Biology as Applied to Medicine at University College, London)
>
>
> Sante, encore!
>
> dj
Posted by dj on August 10, 2000, at 22:14:55
In reply to Re: Malignant Sadness - title source.., posted by Oddzilla on August 10, 2000, at 18:24:01
> Do you think depression is malignant sadness? I think I would call it malignant disconnection as opposed to healthy detachment. Or meaninglessness as opposed to meaning. That's more what it feels like to me. Loss of interpersonal relationships would probably >underly those causes too.
I think it depends on the type and degree of the depression. The deeper the depression the more the sense of meaninglessness and detatchment. Thinking about this just now I took a look at some of Richard O'Connor's comments at:
http://www.undoingdepression.com/excerpts.html
and focused on the following:"People with depression have a special talent for stuffing feelings. They can pretend to themselves and the world that they don't feel normal human emotions. They are very good at the defenses of repression, isolation, and intellectualization. They raise self-denial and self-sacrifice to the point where the self seems to disappear. (page 97)
It takes a great deal of practice for the depressed person to learn how not to experience emotions, but we get very good at it. Women get especially good at not feeling anger and men get good at not feeling sadness. All of us stop experiencing much joy or happiness. It seems as if when you lose the ability to feel painful feelings, you also lose the ability to feel positive ones. We go through life numbed. (page 100)"
As he points out in his writings, as does Lewis Wolpert, Robert Sapolosky and other more thoughtful writers who don't go for one simple explanation but examine the interplay of many concepts, it is not black and white, either or but rather a dance between our biological and mental vunverabilities, our environments and how they all interact and how we act and react to all of the above.
However, when I go back to the roots of my own experience and as I work back through the layers, I do detect a core of sadness in my self which if I don't deal with effectively can spin out of control and become a depress-ing or of feelings that I don't want to experience/deal with and in the process also a repression of feelings that I would prefer to experience because if I suppress one, I deny the other as well...
> Of course I'm old enough to remember when depression was "anger turned inward". It's been a long time since I heard that one, thank >goodness.Some say that anger is a cover for or reaction to sadness, anxiety, or fear. I think there is some validity to that as I think the above description of depression is not out of line. Wolpert discusses the origins of the psychoanalytiv view and other theories. He also generally dismisses that theory, the core ambivalence which they point to is certainly one I have grappled with at times and the anger and frustration with situations and people that I consider(ed) inane.
Certainly anyone who commits, considers or attempts suicide has to be in a state of self-loathing. Wong and McKeen whom I cited below:
The link between work and Anaclitic Depression, explore the issue of self-hate and hating yourself for hating yourself, ideal self vs. actual self, etc, in their writings and the models they work with, based on lots of observation of self and others over many years.The book: "Compassion and Self-Hate" by Theodore Rubin also explores these issues. Sapolosky in "Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers" writes: "...depressives often experience elevated levels of glucocorticoids...looking at a depressive sitting on the edge of the bed, barely able to move, it is easy to think of that person as energyless, enervated. A more accurate picture is of the depressive as a tightly coiled spool of wire, tense, straining, active - but all inside..." (pg. 234)
He goes on to note, amongst other things, when reviewing various theories and how they relate: "On an incredibly simplistic level, you can think of depression as occuring when your cortex thinks an abstract negative thought and manages to convince the rest of the brain that this is a real physical stressor. In this view, people with chronic depressions are those whose cortex habitually whispers sad thoughts to the rest of the brain..." (pg 244)
A complicated melange of issues but ones worth grappling with, I believe.
> And thanks for telling me the ending of Anatomy of Melancholy. I rescued a three volume edition from a street curb years ago and never got close >to the end!My pleasure. That's the ending of Malignant Sadness too, so you got two in one.
Sante!
dj
Posted by Oddzilla on August 11, 2000, at 8:01:54
In reply to Re: Malignant Sadness - title source.., posted by dj on August 10, 2000, at 22:14:55
>
> Certainly anyone who commits, considers or attempts suicide has to be in a state of self-loathing.I don't agree with that. I think it may be true sometimes but a lot of times suicide is a last desperate attempt to stop the pain. This could be seen as an act of self-love rather than loathing. I think most suicides are trying to destroy the pain and destroying themselves is just a side effect.
> > And thanks for telling me the ending of Anatomy of Melancholy. I rescued a three volume edition from a street curb years ago and never got close >to the end!
I wrote a PS last night that didn't get posted. I looked in the back of volume III and the actual ending is
Be not idle and be not solitary.Doesn't that remind you of Sigmund's love and work?
Thanks for replying
Oddzilla
Posted by dj on August 11, 2000, at 8:38:06
In reply to Re: Malignant Sadness - title source.. » dj, posted by Oddzilla on August 11, 2000, at 8:01:54
> > Certainly anyone who commits, considers or attempts suicide has to be in a state of self-loathing.
>
> I don't agree with that. I think it may be true sometimes but a lot of times suicide is a last desperate attempt to stop the pain. This could be seen as an act of self-love rather than loathing. I think most suicides are trying to destroy the pain and destroying themselves is >just a side effect.Could be either/or and/or just a sense of futility and hopelessness... there is no one size fits all... though there are commonalities in afflictions there are uniquenesses in them and the surrounding circumstances for each and every one of us...
> >I looked in the back of volume III and the actual ending is
> Be not idle and be not solitary.
>
> Doesn't that remind you of Sigmund's love and >work?Well Siggie was certainly not idle and probably not solitary, much either so I suppose so. I do like this ending even better because though there is value in solitariness there is also proven health values in supportive companionship.
> Thanks for replying
My pleasure.
Sante!
dj
Posted by misterb on August 13, 2000, at 3:29:49
In reply to Re: Malignant Sadness - title source.. » dj, posted by Oddzilla on August 11, 2000, at 8:01:54
"I could have told you, Vincent, this world was never meant for one as beautiful as you."
I could explain this motivation for suicide in my own psuedonymic voice but then i would have to deal with yet another derisive, hateful series of "get some help" posts. Better to quote Don Mclean as he explained this common motivation in the words of a well-received popular song.
By the way, isn't ersatz concern, expressed as "get some help" another way of stigmatizing people? Isn't that just a rather sophisticated rendition of the insult "sicko"?
Is it okay (aka "civil") to stigmatize people who endure conditions often described as depression if the person stigmatized is one who declines to accept the popular diagnoses and medical description of those conditions?
Is it possible for a person to intelligently disagree with DSM-IV, and to agree with Thomas Szasz and many others without that intelligent disagreement being reduced to another proof of the person's sickness?
And that burning cosmic question....
What if there really is something to be sad about for a long, long time? Such as the direction of our culture, and the destruction of the environment? like constant artificial stimulation of the RAS?
"Beware of the HANDSHAKE, it don't tell the truth...SMILING FACES TELL LIES."Another very uncivil popular song.
Oh, and one other question... what if these were real expressions of my legitimate feelings and concerns, and not just some effort to gain attention for psuedonymic character?
This world was probably never meant for one as sincere, concerned, intense and iconoclasitic as me. This is my party and I'll die if I want to, die if I want to.> >
> > Certainly anyone who commits, considers or attempts suicide has to be in a state of self-loathing.
>
> I don't agree with that. I think it may be true sometimes but a lot of times suicide is a last desperate attempt to stop the pain. This could be seen as an act of self-love rather than loathing. I think most suicides are trying to dest
Posted by dj on August 13, 2000, at 11:59:20
In reply to I could have told you Vincent..., posted by misterb on August 13, 2000, at 3:29:49
> What if there really is something to be sad about for a long, long time? Such as the direction of our culture, and the destruction of the environment? like constant artificial >stimulation of the RAS?Good questins Mr. B! Hopefully we shall find some good answers to these, each in our own way and at our own time...
RAS?
Sante!
dj
Posted by shar on August 13, 2000, at 15:04:11
In reply to I could have told you Vincent..., posted by misterb on August 13, 2000, at 3:29:49
"I could have told you, Vincent, this world was never meant for one as beautiful as you."
>...........Beautiful song. One of my all time favorites. I admire your taste.
isn't ersatz concern, expressed as "get some help" another way of stigmatizing people? Isn't that just a rather sophisticated rendition of the insult "sicko"?
>...........On a message board designed for support and suggestions for people who post when they are having difficulties and/or reaching out? On a message board wherein people who respond may talk about their own depression, bi-polar, anxiety, meds, nightmares, daymares, therapy, emotional paralysis, obsessive-compulsive disorder, etc? No.
Is it okay (aka "civil") to stigmatize people who endure...depression if the person...is one who declines to accept the...diagnoses and medical description of those conditions?>..........I tried to simplify this sentence in order to understand it, but couldn't get there. The statement seems to assume that people on a mental health board who openly discuss their state of mind are stigmatizing someone for not feeling good?
> What if there really is something to be sad about for a long, long time?>..............I am sure there are an infinite number of things to be sad about for a long, long time.
Such as the direction of our culture, and the destruction of the environment?
>............Those could certainly be.
like constant artificial stimulation of the RAS?
>...........dkwrasi
what if these were real expressions of my legitimate feelings and concerns, and not just some effort to gain attention for psuedonymic character?
>...............I don't recall a lot of statements from you that announce your feelings and concerns (like, I feel completely sad and concerned about the direction of our culture). You already know what responses you will get from this board if you express genuine pain. People will try to help you, people will sympathize with your pain, people will give parallel examples, people will suggest you get help, people will give you advice, share similar experiences, etc. If that isn't what you want.....you probably need to say what you do want in response to your real expressions. If you don't want people to respond, you might consider saying so, because the point of this forum is to respond to posts in a supportive and helpful manner.
This world was probably never meant for one as sincere, concerned, intense and iconoclasitic as me.>..........probably true for you and the other 90 million sincere, concerned, intense, iconoclastic people who endure.
This is my party and I'll die if I want to, die if I want to.
>..........As you know, on this board people get very concerned when others talk about suicide. If you want no response, you are probably out of luck, as you know. You will probably end up getting what you say you don't want, caring sentiments from people who don't want you to die. That must be the ultimate annoyance.>.......By the way, I encourage you not to take your own life.
Shar
Posted by misterB on August 13, 2000, at 16:51:53
In reply to I could have told you Vincent..., posted by misterb on August 13, 2000, at 3:29:49
> isn't ersatz concern, expressed as "get some help" ... a rather sophisticated rendition of the insult "sicko"?
>
> >...........On a message board designed for support ..... ? No
My inquisitive rehetorical style there was designed to avoid conflicts. In my experience, ersatz concern is common way of stigmatizing people in daily life, and the devise is not redeemed when it is applied on a medical bulliten board. Many, "seek help" posts are sincere replies to people who are seeking that kind of help. Occassionally, "get some help" posts are insults vieled in civil language - sort of like calling your spouse "mam'm" or "sir." Texts like "Communicating Racism" or "Verbal Self Defense" offer some help in sorting out veiled prejudice and contemptIs it okay (aka "civil") to stigmatize people who ... decline ... medical description of those conditions?
>
> >..........I tried to simplify this sentence... couldn't get there. The statement seems to assume that people... who openly discuss their state of mind are stigmatizing someone for not feeling good?Sorry. The sentence is coherent, but long. It does not say people are stigmatized for not feeling good. It says there can be a presumption of a universally correct state of mind, and those who reject that state of mind are often stigmatized, and their preferences ignored. This sometimes happens innocently and sometimes maliciously. Its like telling someone whose ambition is to be a laboror "why don't you instead make something of your life."
> >..............I am sure there are an infinite number of things to be sad about...
But I am dealing with specific things, regardless the number...
>
> Such as the direction of our culture, and the destruction of the environment?
>
> >............Those could certainly be.
>
> like constant artificial stimulation of the RAS?
>
Reticular Activating System, aka Brain Stem
...............I don't recall a lot of statements from you that announce your feelings...I don't recall a lot
Posted by misterB on August 13, 2000, at 17:15:51
In reply to RAS: Reticular Activating System, posted by misterB on August 13, 2000, at 16:51:53
(sorry . this expendible machine apparntly delivers only part of my posts... here is the rest of the story...
> >..............I don't recall a lot of statements from you that announce your feelings...
They are there. But I don't recall a lot of what I read on pbabble either. Some respondants seem to only recall the parts of my contributions with which they disagree (not neccessarily you, shar). I have actually related quite a lot about myself here, apparently far more than some can accept.
> You already know what responses you will get....
You presume a lot. Poeple who deal with the pain of living the way I do seem to be the minority here. That seems to repeatedly suprise me. It is not this way everywhere I go.
> If you don't want people to respond, you might consider saying so.
I am more accustomed to confronting the rigours of open dialogue, maintaining my stance and wading through temporary conflicts that arise out of diversity.
> This world was never meant ... (for such as I)
> >..........probably true for you and the other 90 million sincere, concerned, intense, iconoclastic people who endure.Yes. Many of us 6 billion are slowly moving toward greater appreciation of minority viewpoints, though. There are actually only less than .9 million such as I though (lol).
>...caring sentiments from people who don't want you to die. That must be the ultimate annoyance.
Indeed. I will die someday.
> >.......By the way, I encourage you not to take your own life.
Why? I have already taken it, to do with as I choose. (First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin!)
I appreciate concern about the value of my life, Just As I Am, more so than concern about the manner of my death.
- some stranger on earth
Posted by Steeler Tookahn on August 13, 2000, at 17:43:47
In reply to I could have told you Vincent..., posted by misterb on August 13, 2000, at 3:29:49
>What if there really is something to be sad about for a long, long time? Such as the direction of our culture, and the destruction of the environment?
I share many of your pessimistic views regarding the environment. What sensitive person could not? However, the emotional feelings I have regarding this, whether it be called sadness or "emotional depression", are quite different from the biological illness I am suffering from.
As strange as it may sound to some one who has not suffered from a depression of a biological origin, nothing can upset me enough to become biologically depressed. I understand that severe emotional distress can set off the biological illness in many, but for me the two are quite distinct and unrelated. I get sad and depressed at things that are sad and depressing but that is normal and I handle it quite well (if I do say so myself).
The biological illness is immobilizing, physically painful, and robs me of the ability to respond to any situation (good or bad). I find sadness and adversity, on the other hand, emotional states of mind that tend to inspire me to action. One is horrible and meaningless: the other is temporarily painful and insightful.
I think it's important that we not brush off your concern about the sorry state we might be in and the pain you may be feeling if you are sensitive to your surroundings. It's just that it may not be the same thing that many on this board are experiencing.
Posted by misterB on August 13, 2000, at 18:40:33
In reply to Re: I could have told you Vincent..., posted by Steeler Tookahn on August 13, 2000, at 17:43:47
> The biological illness is immobilizing, physically painful, and robs me of the ability to respond to any situation (good or bad). I find sadness and adversity, on the other hand, emotional states of mind that tend to inspire me to action. One is horrible and meaningless: the other is temporarily painful and insightful.
>
...it may not be the same thing that many on this board are experiencing.
_________________________________________
Steeler,I can't discount your perspective regarding your feelings, but I am not so quick to agree that what I feel is much different, subjectively or objectively.
I understand that some might think that, if I find meaning in my condition, I could not possibly hurt the way they hurt. While that might be true, it is possible that my pain, my immobility, and my frustration is more severe and more life threatening. It could be that the sheer magnitude of the risk and suffering in my life, along with my unique experience, compelled and allowed me to identify and embrace the far-removed, immutable social conditions that seem to foster this biological condition.
All psychological conditions are biological. All cultural and social behaviours are based in biological imperatives, and produce biological results.
I can't say you could or should live your life the way I do, but I can say smiling faces often tell lies and that I appreciate honest, bitter, immobilizing sorrow more than I appreciate ersatz oh-so-civil and oh-so-shallow niceties. This thread mentioned that depressives might be unable to express feelings. I tend to see depression as an expression of feeling and "treatment" as often an act of repression.
When this deep, long-lasting sorrow infects a critical mass in our society, perhaps we will collectively find the strength to push this culture out of its dehumanizing, self-destructive mirey pit. Few of us can move society on our strength alone.
Posted by shar on August 13, 2000, at 23:02:39
In reply to Re: RAS: Reticular Activating System shar, posted by misterB on August 13, 2000, at 17:15:51
>
> > >..............I don't recall a lot of statements from you that announce your feelings...
>
> They are there. But I don't recall a lot of what I read on pbabble either. Some respondants seem to only recall the parts of my contributions with which they disagree (not neccessarily you, shar). I have actually related quite a lot about myself here, apparently far more than some can accept.> > > > > > > >I differentiate between feelings and facts. You have generally used this board to relate factual information, and have fairly theoretical discussions on your pain vs. other's pain, and the general root causes you believe to be involved.
>
> > You already know what responses you will get....> You presume a lot. Poeple who deal with the pain of living the way I do seem to be the minority here. That seems to repeatedly suprise me. It is not this way everywhere I go.
> > > > > > > > > > > >No fair taking part of a quote...I presume you know what responses you will get HERE because you have done all of this on this board before. I expect you know you are in the minority here, given that this board is for people who are experiencing what you say you are not. And, that this would surprise you is beyond belief; I'm not saying you're not surprised, though....
> > If you don't want people to respond, you might consider saying so.
>
> I am more accustomed to confronting the rigours of open dialogue, maintaining my stance and wading through temporary conflicts that arise out of diversity.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I always wonder why you choose this particular forum to do this. Based on an analysis of your past postings and responses, there seems to be nothing here for you except an opportunity to engage in conflict, argue your position, annoy others, and hurt some. I wonder if you innocently believe that this time will be different (ie, you non-ersatzly believe an open dialogue will take place with people you know are mostly in disagreement with your position, the majority not being here for theoretical discussions). Most cultures have norms and mores that prescribe and proscribe certain behaviors based on different variables, and I wonder if there is an organized (even loosely) set of beliefs you hold that sets out disruption as a particularly desirable behavior?
> > This world was never meant ... (for such as I)
> > >..........probably true for you and the other 90 million sincere, concerned, intense, iconoclastic people who endure.
>
> Yes. Many of us 6 billion are slowly moving toward greater appreciation of minority viewpoints, though. There are actually only less than .9 million such as I though (lol).
>
> >...caring sentiments from people who don't want you to die. That must be the ultimate annoyance.
>
> Indeed. I will die someday.> > > > > > > > > > > >The gentleman doth misquote too much. 8-)
> > >.......By the way, I encourage you not to take your own life.
>
> Why? I have already taken it, to do with as I choose. (First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin!)> > > > > > > >It goes without saying that using quotes out of context to make the writer your foil will someday end you up hoist by your own petard...
> I appreciate concern about the value of my life, Just As I Am, more so than concern about the manner of my death.
> - some stranger on earth> > > > > > > > > >The person who is brutally honest enjoys the brutality as much as the honesty.
- A quote from Reader's Digest
Posted by misterB on August 14, 2000, at 1:37:45
In reply to Response to MrB, posted by shar on August 13, 2000, at 23:02:39
shar, I don't know if you just don't like me or what, but I am not lashing out at you. I am reflecting who I am as a person, because I have found that to be useful to others. I posted in this thread because I trust the people who started it. Please respect my effort.
The fact that I might be in the minority among people who post here does not diminish me as a person, or a community member, nor does it abrogate my responsibility to reflect my perspective.
I am working on an old 386 because it is cheap and disposable. It apparently does not allow me to post more than few paragraphs at a time, so I can't quote in full every post to which I reply. The text of the post to which I replied is but a mouse-click away. No deception intended on my part.
There has been plenty of theoretical information about the flaws of DSM nomenclature published by people more qualified than me. What i have tried to say in various posts is that I do not subscribe to the nomenclature. The nomenclature is theoretical, and can only be discussed as a theoretical description of subjective, yet biologically rooted feelings. My rejection of the nomenclature does not imply I don't share the experience. To imply otherwise rather demeams my experience.I have not said I do not endure many of the same conditions as others here. I have infrequently described my often dark feelings. My coping style does not include frequent emphasis of my feelings, but rather involves ambivilant acceptance of my feelings.
I expect support for my style, and find some of that here, along with some thinly-veiled abuse directed at me.
My primary purpose here is not disruption, yet any culture that precludes disruption precludes growth. I don't come here to hurt people. I get hurt here. I feel it is abusive of you to presume to explain my motivation rather than asking and trying to understand my explanation of my motive. I feel annoyed with your reply to my post in this thread, but that does not mean you annoy me. I own my annoyance toward you, and support th
Posted by misterB on August 14, 2000, at 1:41:16
In reply to Re: Response ... » shar, posted by misterB on August 14, 2000, at 1:37:45
(darn 386... here is the rest of the post...)
My primary purpose here is not disruption, yet any culture that precludes disruption precludes growth. I don't come here to hurt people. I get hurt here. I feel it is abusive of you to presume to explain my motivation rather than asking and trying to understand my explanation of my motive. I feel annoyed with your reply to my post in this thread, but that does not mean you annoy me. I own my annoyance toward you, and support those who do not attribute their feelings to a second or third person.
On the other hand, if you hold me responsible for the annoyance others feel, perhaps you can understand why I explore a culture basis for "my depression" (borrowed term).
I don't understand how one can maintain that I should discuss my feelings, yet adamantly discount my reflection of my feelings.
I don't understand how one can express concern that I not take my life, but have so little interest, concern or respect for what my life means.
_____________________________________________
"The persecution of witches and madmen is the expression of social intolerence and a search for scapegoats. Those who fight against such bigotry and oppression do not neccessarily profess revolutionary beliefs or propound novel truths."
-Thomas Szasz
_________________________________________________
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 14, 2000, at 2:59:47
In reply to Re: Response ... » shar, posted by misterB on August 14, 2000, at 1:37:45
> The fact that I might be in the minority among people who post here does not diminish me as a person, or a community member, nor does it abrogate my responsibility to reflect my perspective.
The way in which you contribute to a community can in fact make you a more or less valuable member. And reflection is generally to be encouraged, but doesn't necessarily have to take place, and isn't necessarily appropriate, here.
> I get hurt here. I feel it is abusive of you to presume to explain my motivation rather than asking and trying to understand my explanation of my motive...
Please, however you feel, don't accuse others of being abusive.
> I don't understand how one can maintain that I should discuss my feelings, yet adamantly discount my reflection of my feelings.
Again, discussion of feelings is generally to be encouraged, but doesn't necessarily have to take place, and isn't necessarily appropriate, here.
Bob
Posted by MisterB on August 14, 2000, at 3:23:15
In reply to Re: please be civil » misterB, posted by Dr. Bob on August 14, 2000, at 2:59:47
You are way off base, Robert Hsuing. This is an abusive, accusatory statement directed at me:
"...there seems to be nothing here for you except an opportunity to engage in conflict, argue your position, annoy others, and hurt some."
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000811/msgs/42803.html
Your response to me is one sided, accusatory, insensitive and inappropriate. I can present to the administration of the Behavioral Sciences Department and of the University of Chicago a collection of abusive, accusatory posts directed at me and at others that you have tolerated.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 14, 2000, at 11:03:16
In reply to I am civil. You are way off base » Dr. Bob, posted by MisterB on August 14, 2000, at 3:23:15
> > Please, however you feel, don't accuse others of being abusive.
> You are way off base, Robert Hsuing. This is an abusive, accusatory statement...
Since you don't follow the guidelines I set forth, I'm going to try to block you from posting. If you agree to submit to those rules, arbitrary and ambiguous though they may seem to you, just e-mail me, and I'll reconsider.
> I can present to the administration of the Behavioral Sciences Department and of the University of Chicago a collection of abusive, accusatory posts directed at me and at others that you have tolerated.
You have the right to complain to the authorities. Thanks for the warning...
Bob
Posted by Cass on August 14, 2000, at 12:41:10
In reply to Re: please be civil » misterB, posted by Dr. Bob on August 14, 2000, at 2:59:47
>And reflection is generally to be encouraged, >but doesn't necessarily have to take place, and >isn't necessarily appropriate, here.
> Again, discussion of feelings is generally to be encouraged, but doesn't necessarily have to take place, and isn't necessarily appropriate, here.
>
Dr. Bob,
It sounds to me like you're saying that MisterB's reflections and feelings are not encouraged but everyone else's are. Why? I did not think he was more uncivil than others.
Cass
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 14, 2000, at 13:55:34
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Cass on August 14, 2000, at 12:41:10
> It sounds to me like you're saying that MisterB's reflections and feelings are not encouraged but everyone else's are. Why? I did not think he was more uncivil than others.
I did think he was more uncivil than others. Have others made accusations of abusiveness?
Bob
Posted by Cass on August 14, 2000, at 15:14:46
In reply to Response to MrB, posted by shar on August 13, 2000, at 23:02:39
Dr. Bob,
Yes, MisterB accused someone of being abusive, but here someone accused MisterB of wanting to engage in conflict, annoy, hurt and disrupt. I maintain my opinion that MisterB's statement was no more uncivil than others.
Cass
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I always wonder why you choose this particular forum to do this. Based on an analysis of your past postings and responses, there seems to be nothing here for you except an opportunity to engage in conflict, argue your position, annoy others, and hurt some.>I wonder if there is an organized (even loosely) >set of beliefs you hold that sets out disruption >as a particularly desirable behavior?
Posted by Oddzilla on August 14, 2000, at 15:47:22
In reply to Civility, Dr. Bob, posted by Cass on August 14, 2000, at 15:14:46
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I always wonder why you choose this particular forum to do this. Based on an analysis of your past postings and responses, there seems to be nothing here for you except an opportunity to engage in conflict, argue your position, annoy others, and hurt some. I wonder if you innocently believe that this time will be different (ie, you non-ersatzly believe an open dialogue will take place with people you know are mostly in disagreement with your position, the majority not being here for theoretical discussions). Most cultures have norms and mores that prescribe and proscribe certain behaviors based on different variables, and I wonder if there is an organized (even loosely) set of beliefs you hold that sets out disruption as a particularly desirable behavior?
--------------DR Bob,
Do I count as a person? MrB has been both informative and supportive to me. I may be in the minority does that mean I don't count?
I was staying off his threads in order to avoid accusations of being the same person. I consider that to be much more incivil behaviour than anything MrB has done. Having my identity attacked and discounted is certainly a more uncivil act than anything he has done. Nobody was reprimanded about civility for that.
Is there a list of forbidden words on PB besides abusive? Please post them.
You are wrong about this DR bob. I hope you admit your mistake.
MrB is not just a disruption. I find his posts helpful in finding meaning in great pain-my own meaning not his. This is a practical not theoretical concern. There are a lot of discussions on here that are not medication related. Why is he the only one singled out as a disruptor?
Why is it OK to level accusations at MrB (annoying people, hurting people, causing disruption) but not alright when he characterizes someone elses behaviour as abusive?
I am dismayed and disappointed with your action Dr Bob. Perhaps I will have more to say after you publish the list of forbidden words.
Oddzilla
>
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 14, 2000, at 19:10:42
In reply to Civility and fairness Dr Bob, posted by Oddzilla on August 14, 2000, at 15:47:22
> Do I count as a person? MrB has been both informative and supportive to me. I may be in the minority does that mean I don't count?
You count as a person. But sometimes when you're in the minority, how you feel counts less.
> I was staying off his threads in order to avoid accusations of being the same person. I consider that to be much more incivil behaviour than anything MrB has done. Having my identity attacked and discounted is certainly a more uncivil act than anything he has done. Nobody was reprimanded about civility for that.
I think it's a significant problem, the real possibility of multiple identities. The most effective way I can think of to address it is to require not just email addresses, but also credit card numbers. But I'm not set up for that yet...
At the same time, I think he contributed to it himself in this case by actually assuming different identities.
> Is there a list of forbidden words on PB besides abusive? Please post them.
Sorry, but I think it's a case of I know 'em when I see 'em. Or at least I'm forced to decide one way or the other when I see 'em. Plus context is important.
> You are wrong about this DR bob. I hope you admit your mistake.
I may be wrong, but I don't think I am. I think there's room for dissent, but not if it can't be expressed in an appropriate way.
> Why is he the only one singled out as a disruptor?
Have I singled him out?
> Why is it OK to level accusations at MrB (annoying people, hurting people, causing disruption) but not alright when he characterizes someone elses behaviour as abusive?
First, there's a difference between calling someone annoying and calling someone abusive. Second, I think there's some truth to the charge that he annoys, hurts, disrupts, etc.
> I am dismayed and disappointed with your action Dr Bob.
Sorry. I wish it were otherwise, but this board can't be all things to all people.
Bob
Posted by Oddzilla on August 14, 2000, at 20:01:34
In reply to Re: Civility and fairness, posted by Dr. Bob on August 14, 2000, at 19:10:42
> > Do I count as a person? MrB has been both informative and supportive to me. I may be in the minority does that mean I don't count?
>
> You count as a person. But sometimes when you're in the minority, how you feel counts less.
>
> > I was staying off his threads in order to avoid accusations of being the same person. I consider that to be much more incivil behaviour than anything MrB has done. Having my identity attacked and discounted is certainly a more uncivil act than anything he has done. Nobody was reprimanded about civility for that.
>
> I think it's a significant problem, the real possibility of multiple identities. The most effective way I can think of to address it is to require not just email addresses, but also credit card numbers. But I'm not set up for that yet...> Wouldn't it be necessary to give a name with the credit card for it to be of any use? Don't most people have lots of credit cards?
> At the same time, I think he contributed to it himself in this case by actually assuming different identities.
But I'm not one of them and I'm the one that was accused (and it felt UNCIVIL to me not him).
>
> > Is there a list of forbidden words on PB besides abusive? Please post them.
>
> Sorry, but I think it's a case of I know 'em when I see 'em. Or at least I'm forced to decide one way or the other when I see 'em. Plus context is important.
>
> > You are wrong about this DR bob. I hope you admit your mistake.
>
> I may be wrong, but I don't think I am. I think there's room for dissent, but not if it can't be expressed in an appropriate way.
>
> > Why is he the only one singled out as a disruptor?
>
> Have I singled him out?You chose to permit people to make accusations against me without doing anything about it.
You allowed Shar to accuse him of hurting people (how is that any different from saying someone is abusive?)
>
> > Why is it OK to level accusations at MrB (annoying people, hurting people, causing disruption) but not alright when he characterizes someone elses behaviour as abusive?
>
> First, there's a difference between calling someone annoying and calling someone abusive. Second, I think there's some truth to the charge that he annoys, hurts, disrupts, etc.The American Heritage dictionary defines abuse as "to hurt or injure by maltreatment". No difference.
Several people have annoyed me on this board, but I quit reading their posts,I didn't expect them to be banned from the board.
One person can't disrupt the board if no one answers his posts and assists in the disruption,but only one person is being ejected.
>
> > I am dismayed and disappointed with your action Dr Bob.
>
> Sorry. I wish it were otherwise, but this board can't be all things to all people.I'm sorry too. It really makes me sad.
I think it would be most honest just to say the board belongs to you and you don't have to have any reasons to kick people off. I think that would be fairer and more honest and kinder than making accusations against people as you evict them. It really does make me sad.Oddzilla
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.