posted April 02, 2009 11:44 PM           

“I have often asked myself whether, given the choice, I would choose to have manic-depressive illness. If lithium were not available to me, or didn’t work for me, the answer would be a simple no and it would be an answer laced with terror. But lithium does work for me, and therefore I can afford to pose the question.

Strangely enough I think I would choose to have it. It’s complicated. Depression is awful beyond words or sounds or images… So why would I want anything to do with this illness? Because I honestly believe that as a result of it I have felt more things, more deeply; had more experiences, more intensely; loved more, and been more loved; laughed more often for having cried more often; appreciated more the springs, for all the winters… and slowly learned the values of caring, loyalty and seeing things through. …Depressed, I have crawled on my hands and knees in order to get across a room and have done it for month after month. But, normal or manic, I have run faster, thought faster and loved faster than most I know.”

-Kay Redfield Jamison, An Unquiet Mind

http://chrysti.wordpress.com/2009/02/13/an-unquiet-mind/

"The disease that has, on several occassions, nearly killed me does kill tens of thousands of people every year: most are young, most die unnecessarily, and many are among the most imaginative and gifted that we as a society have. The Chinese believe that before you can conquer a beast you first must make it beautiful. In some strange way, I have tried to do that with manic-depressive illness. It has been a fascinating, albeit deadly, enemy and companion; I have found it to be seductively complicated, a distillation both of what is finest in our natures, and of what is most dangerous."

~ Kay Redfield Jamison, An Unquiet Mind

posted April 03, 2009 02:41 PM           

Have you read it?

posted May 23, 2009 12:55 PM         

I agree that, after a point, the book starts to read like an extended ad for Lithium, and that turned me off. Most of your objections, though, dont strike me as meaningful. So what if she mentioned (in her memoir) that she thought she looked good in a negligee? Thats your idea of "erotica"? It seems puritanical, or nit-picking, to find fault with that, or with almost anything she shared about her experiences while under the influence of bi-polar. What does refusing hospitalization signify, other than a possible phobia (or healthy skepticism?) of hospitalization, and a perhaps stubborn attachment to her relative autonomy? I do not know why you conclude that she is "deceptive" just because there are two dates floating around for her birth. Anyone can post on Wikipedia. And what is all this about her being "perfect", but a "product", etc.? I dont think she is perfect, or a hero, and I don't know anyone who has suggested as much. Just because she had a priviledged background, in many ways, doesnt discount the background of severe depression, or her emergence from it. You speak for "many readers", but are you sure there are any readers, other than yourself, who felt that her experience has no relevance for people who dont grow up priviledged? Perhaps you also think it could only have relevance for people who grew up as "military brats", shifted from place to place, unable to form sustained friendships or relationships? She is a person who suffered, found a way to mitigate her suffering, and wrote a book about it. I disagree with her on many things, but I'm not going to accuse her of being a puppet because she likes Lithium, or convict her of dishonesty for no reason, or take offense with the fact that she doesnt shy away from discussing her sexuality. What relevance does any of that have? As for "clinician" -- perhaps the ambiguity is yours? Is she or is she not a clinician?

quote:

---

Without mentioning any name on my part, the two psychiatrists immediately put on defenses and refused to comment further but only some very ambiguous remarks. They knew whom I was talking about.

---

Did they say they knew who you were talking about? Or did they just shy away from commenting, as a disinterested person might do (and as a disinterested person might expect them to do)? For one thing, they get paid handsomely for answering those questions, and giving those "second opinions". A few more possibilities: They would not wish to contradict another doctor. And/or possibly feed into a personal drama you might be trying to enlist them in. They would not be able to answer without more information. They were hungry and anxious to go to lunch. They didnt feel like it. Could it be that you were just being suspicious, and seeing only what appeared to fit in with your suspicions?

posted May 23, 2009 09:05 PM         

Do you know what I've discovered really, truly helps me the most whenever I get really down?

LOVE.

And also.....being able to reach out to other human beings who really understand where you are coming from.

And animals.

posted May 23, 2009 09:17 PM         

The book looks interesting....wouldn't mind reading it some time.

posted May 23, 2009 09:31 PM         

Detoxing- toxins and heavy metals from our environment, in our food and in dental fillings, etc- significantly contribute to depression.

Exercising- Increases serotonin and also gets rid of more of those toxins.

Getting out in daylight as much as possible- the Sun has extraordinary and powerful healing properties.

Finding a purpose- easier said than done, but we all need to find it- this is essential to our well being.

Learning to love ourselves- learning to love ourselves through empathy and insight....as we learn to love ourselves more and be gentler on ourselves, we are able to love others.

posted May 26, 2009 01:11 PM         

especially this:

quote:

---

What I am personally aiming to do for my own depression is:
Detoxing- toxins and heavy metals from our environment, in our food and in dental fillings, etc- significantly contribute to depression.

Exercising- Increases serotonin and also gets rid of more of those toxins.

Getting out in daylight as much as possible- the Sun has extraordinary and powerful healing properties.

Finding a purpose- easier said than done, but we all need to find it- this is essential to our well being.

Learning to love ourselves- learning to love ourselves through empathy and insight....as we learn to love ourselves more and be gentler on ourselves, we are able to love others.

Contact, communication, and belonging.....We all need to have this in our lives, and if things have fallen apart for us...then we'll just have to keep the faith....and get out there and find it. Often we place limtations on ourselves by surrendering to the darkness and believing that there is no way out. But the daylight shall surely come.

---

posted May 26, 2009 01:54 PM         

The fact that you've made several simple errors in understanding what I wrote to you does not lead me to have condidence in your intuition, or lack of analysis, in instances where (as you pointed out) I was not even there.

quote:

---

If you had read the whole book, preferably more than once,

---

So now you want people to read it?
"Preferably more than once"? LOL

And your review will makes sense,
after I have read the entire book,
more than once, I suppose?

Kinda defeats the purpose of a review, no?
(Especially, an unfavorable one.)

Okay...

If she was in a position to resist treatment, what makes you think that her illness would have provoked her into, and not out of, hospitalization? If refusing hospitalization is a sick thing to do, well, can you argue she wasnt sick, because she did a sick thing? Where's the logic, or intuition, there? Plenty of alcoholics and other people with huge problems manage to function at their jobs. I'm not saying that these are not points which may raise a hair of suspicion.. but they dont signify much more than hairs at this point, and there's not much sense quibbling over hairs. If you feel the need to say that she is not a hero, because some people (and there are always such people -- glad I don't know them) think she is, that's fine. It seems like a concession you make to the silliest demographic, but thats okay. I do that, too. And if you and others think her upbringing discounts her story from having any relevance for you, that's fine, too. Though I suspect it has as much to do with being hung-up on class divisions, as anything else. Whether or not I am an innocently crusading idealist, you still hadn't shown evidence for your claims, which, in my mind, are unflattering enough to require actual evidence from the person who makes them. That Jamison, who has every right, and should be expected, to make use of her title, was miscast as a physician by others does not suggest that she was aware of this possibility, or that she encouraged the misunderstanding. Again, it may raise a hair of suspicion, but, if all you have are hairs... this is starting to look about as circumstantial as it gets.

quote:

---

You were not even there. I was. I reached my conclusion through intuitive observation. While you are trying to fathom the unfathomable, the intangible. I would not favor pure logic to intuition. I knew they knew.

---

I believe you convinced yourself.
But your "inner knowing" is even more
circumstantial than the rest of it.

How common is it for people to claim
that their profound sense of
inner knowing is what assured them
that people reincarnate into fish,
or any number of things which people
claim to have intuitive knowledge of,
and which you are sure do not exist?
You'll forgive me if I doubt you,
along with all the rest of them.

quote:

---

I managed to sneak in. Throughout a conference, during the coffee breaks, and after a conference, there are always discussions going on. I approached thos two psychiatrists as one of the participants of the conference and we had a brief discussion. I was NOT asking them questions as a civilian, but as a conference participant. I was NOT seeking a second opinion.

---

Okay, so you snuck in, and probably gave off an air of conspicuousness, maybe a red light to anyone with intuition (or were you the only one?) that blinked, "imposter". On top of that, you were brimming with your suspicions about Jamison. I'll bet your energy was anything but casual, however it appeared to you. So, okay, they had coffee, it was casual.. but do you expect them to give a formal response to every question they receive, from every person? I did not suggest that you were seeking an actual second opinion, as a patient would, but, that this is exactly what happens when a patient seeks a second opinion, and this is what they get paid handsomely for. So, it makes sense that they may or may not have chosen to answer the question. There is no more reason to expect them to answer than to expect them not to answer. Especially if it was so casual.

quote:

---

Besides, I've never disclosed the exact contents of their response to me, so how would you know that those two psychiatrists "could not answer my question without further information"?

---

No, you haven't disclosed it, though I would think that it would either support or detract from your case, -- and if the former is true, why not disclose it? And I did not say that I knew they could not answer. I suggested it as a possibility. The same is true of the next few sentences, which were all prefaced the same way; as possibile explainations; and which you misinterpeted, one after the other, as being claims of knowledge on my part. These simple mistakes you made in reading my post suggest to me that your eagerness to make your points may blind you to the realities, and I cannot help but suspect your competence in this matter. You "ROFL" when I suggest that they were hungry, because, either you assumed I intended to make a statement of fact, -- or, because you think that for anyone to consider such a possiblity is absurd, since you, D, have seen around that corner. Either way, it shows a lack of competence, and not the keen eye of a master sleuth who can dispense with logic and rely entirely on intuitive knowing.

quote:

---

obviously she is mysterious, private and deceptive, hence the two versions of her date of birth.

---

Also, I see you decided not to respond to my objection to your rash condemnation of Jamison, based on nothing but the two dates of births. Could it be that you dare not acknowledge a good point made against you? Anyone who wants can post on Wikipedia, yet, the appearance of two dates of birth, for you, signifies irrefutable "obvious" proof that Jamison is deceptive. ROFLMFAO!!! The only proof I see in this, is the proof that you are biased and paranoid where this matter is concerned.