posted April 03, 2009 12:00 AM           

“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/

posted April 03, 2009 01:51 AM           

Did you check out the youtube link?

She reads the introduction,
and the first chapter, i think.

posted April 03, 2009 02:49 AM           

A - Z List of People W/ Bi-Polar Disorder
_________________________________________

Abraham Lincoln
Charles Baudelaire
Ludwig Van Beethoven
Jeff Buckley
Jim Carey
Kurt Cobain
Samuel Taylor Coleridge
Charles Dickens
Robert Downey Jr.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
F. Scott Fitzgerald
William Faulkner
Graham Greene
Jimi Hendrix
Ernest Hemingway
Herman Hesse
Abbie Hoffman
Daniel Johnston
John Keats
Edvard Munch
Isaac Newton
Sinead O'Connor
Edgar Allen Poe
Robert Schumann
Nina Simone
Mark Twain
Vincent Van Gogh
Kurt Vonnegut
Robin Williams
Brian Wilson
Virginia Woolf

posted April 09, 2009 12:15 AM         

quote:

---

We've all seen with that true eye. For a moment, somewhere, we looked on things in a spirit of poverty, simply. Saw how only nature is perfect and pure, and all the works of men, even those we most admire, bear the stamp of something at once silly and scary, childish and exaggerated. We stood in the silence, and were a part of the silence, humble, and without knowing ourselves to be profound. We had to become self-conscious, distanced in an instant from 'that hollow note', dragged, as if by some great and implacable whirlwind, back into the roar of the familiar, before we could know just what had happened. What had we touched? What had we lost, in that instant, and maybe forever? Walking amidst the bookshelves, you know the poetry speaks of moments like these, but the books are tombs, enshrined bones, obstinate facades, - somehow, there is no taking them down, no opening, no entering into the life of them for us. We might thumb at them, trying to recapture that devout and elusive magic which springs forth unsummoned, and only at some strange, unforeseen time, when soul and book are perfectly matched by providence; though neither is capable of holding in itself that ineffable nature; that true splendor which shines through of its own accord, in its own patient and impossible hour. -- Or, when you stepped over branches, shielded heavy leaves from your path, to get somewhere through the woods, and you caught scent of something unmistakable, something real, and stopped dead in your tracks to notice it gone. Now, the path is familiar, and you brush those leaves away with annoyance, and hardly remember (or remember with annoyance) having been there once, and felt, for a precious instant, the presence of grace, the breath of God on your nape. And the sadness that is a deadening of soul drags you down and down, and forgetfulness, like a curtain, closes off to you the life that once was so real and true, if only for an instant. And you think that it is gone forever, and that thought is both the seal of your tomb, and the emptiness from which all new things are born, and receive their immaculate spark of life.

---

posted April 09, 2009 02:40 AM           

That will be page 1

A Grain of Salt
___________________

posted May 18, 2009 01:01 AM         

"An Unquiet Mind" has gotten mixed reviews at Amazon.com; I submitted mine but deleted it later on, and someone contacted me about my book review and told me it had been saved and could be found somewhere on Google. Most psychiatrists seem to think this is a great book for their bipolar patients. As a matter of fact, it may not be so- for good reason.

Jamison has a way of confusing her readers regarding her identity in her writing. She repeatedly wrote "as a clinician...", bewildering her readers and making many of them believe that she is a physician, a psychiatrist, while she is not, and never has been. Many people praise her as a hero, but is there really such heroism behind what we see on the surface? Jamison wrote in her memoir about her WASP background, smooth path to higher education, all her friends, associates and acquaintances are highly educated, with upper-class backgrounds, most of whom are doctors- and all her boyfriends and deceased husband were handsome, sexy psychiatrists[EDITED TO ADD:] (except for her first husband, who was a French artist). Her story makes an impression on many readers that it is as if only someone like her can battle against such a debilitating disease which is bipolar disorder and be super duper successful at the same time. In that light, "An Unquiet Mind" cannot truly help bipolars who are mere mortals to come to terms with their own manic-depression. The book is neither helpful nor informative for many manic-depressives; while there are other readers who find this book inspirational and gut-wrenching- Jamison's memoir has made paradoxical impacts.

At one point, this book looks like Jamison's erotica [EDITED TO ADD:] (for instance, at the church service of the funeral of her late boyfriend, Jamison was bored, and whispered to the man sitting next to her that she just wanted to stand up and say "David was great in bed"; also how she lamented her "lost vivacity" and how she described the way she looked in a "sexy negligee") . What's particularly disturbing is her staunch advocacy for lithium. In this book, she wrote about her initial lithium intolerance, and later stated that "Lithium works for me". According to Jamison, there were many times that her condition was severe and required hospitalization, but she would refuse to be hospitalized every single time, even though on many occasions she had to be physically restrained. This shows the fact that Jamison enjoyed her privilege to refuse psychiatric hospitalization, which the average bipolar patient would never do.

Also, Jamison wrote about her repeated discontinuation of her medications by herself- many bipolar readers may find themselves easily relating to this.

Jamison wrote that she loved her "white manias".

I met two American psychiatrists who worked for the UCLA Mood Disorders Center and were guest speakers at the top psychiatric hospital in the country in which I currently reside. I participated the conference, and spoke to these two psychiatrists afterwards. I asked them if it were ever possible for a patient with bipolar I disorder, manic, severe, with psychotic features, to be on only 300mg lithium per day (as Jamison wrote about herself in "An Unquiet Mind"). 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.

It is all very suspicious that Jamison passionately advocates for lithium as the best choice for treating bipolar disorder. She also highly recommended other mood stabilizers, antipsychotics in her other books concerning manic-depression. Jamison looks like a "survivor" to many, and to be honest, she is simply perfect. And her "imperfection", which is her bipolar disorder, in fact adds to her impossible perfection. Many may argue that Jamison is merely human, and her struggle with her manic-depression makes her even more human. I think otherwise. I suspect Jamison is a product (and an advocate) of American psychiatric medicine. This might sound dehumanizing, but that is exactly the way I perceive the whole thing. Jamison remains an accomplished, highly intelligent, legendary, but questionable, figure. Her books may worth a look, but I would not take Jamison as such a "hero".

D

posted May 22, 2009 11:00 PM         

I find Kay Redfield Jamison's natal placements interesting. She used to have two different DOBs at Wikipedia, one of which was false. Currently Wikipedia uses her bogus DOB. I go along with her real one:

Kay Redfield Jamison, born on
October 14, 1946

POB not ascertained
TOB not known

No house positions can be determined, but the potential aspects and the established ones, plus her signs of her luminaries and all her planets and Chiron are worth a glance. Jamison is a stellium Scorpio:

Jamison's signs-

Sun in Libra, in fall;
Moon in Gemini;
Mercury in Scorpio;
Venus in Scorpio, detrimental;
Mars in Scorpio, dignified;
Jupiter in Scorpio;
Saturn in Leo, detrimental;
Uranus in Gemini, retrograde;
Neptune in Libra;
Pluto in Leo, exalted;
True Node in Gemini, retrograde;
Chiron in Libra

Jamison's ascertained aspects:

Mercury in Scorpio conjunct Mars in Scorpio;
Mercury in Scorpio conjunct Jupiter in Scorpio;
Mercury in Scorpio square Saturn in Leo;
Mercury in Scorpio square Pluto in Leo;

Mars in Scorpio conjunct Jupiter in Scorpio;
Mars in Scorpio square Saturn in Leo;
Mars in Scorpio square Pluto in Leo;

Jupiter in Scorpio square Saturn in Leo;
Jupiter in Scorpio square Pluto in Leo;

Saturn in Leo conjunct Pluto in Leo;

Moon in Gemini sextile Saturn in Leo;
Moon in Gemini trine Neptune in Libra;

Sun in Libra conjunct Chiron in Libra;
Sun in Libra trine Uranus in Gemini, retrograde;
Sun in Libra sextile Pluto in Leo;

Jamison's potential aspects:

Sun in Libra may or may not trine Moon in Gemini, depending on her TOB and POB;

Moon in Gemini may or may not sextile Saturn in Leo, depending on her TOB and POB;

Moon in Gemini may or may not conjunct Uranus in Gemini, retrograde, depending on her TOB and POB;

Moon in Gemini may or may not sextile Pluto in Leo, depending on her TOB and POB;

No grand trines, no T-squares, no grand squares, no final dispositor

I hope I typed everything correctly.

That's her- Kay Redfield Jamison. With her complete birth information and subsequently a rectified natal chart, we can get to know this complex character. But obviously she is mysterious, private and deceptive, hence the two versions of her date of birth.

D

posted May 23, 2009 01:44 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 26, 2009 03:41 AM         

quote:

---

So what if she mentioned (in her memoir) that she thought she looked good in a negligee? Thats your idea of "erotica"?

---

If you had read the whole book, preferably more than once, you would see that it is NOT only because Jamison mentioned her negligee that makes me feel the entire book, at least a large part of the book, is more like an erotica than a sincere memoir on her so-called struggle with bipolar disorder.

quote:

---

What does refusing hospitalization signify, other than a possible phobia (or healthy skepticism?) of hospitalization, and a perhaps stubborn attachment to her relative autonomy?

---

THAT signifies Jamison had the priviledge the average bipolar patient does not. As an advocate for psychiatric medicine, Jamison certainly would advise any other manic-depressive patient to be hospitalized should the condition requires that. "Healthy skepticism", "phobia", "stubborn attachment to her relative autonomy"...? I think not. Those are very innocent assumptions. Being physically restrained on many occasions, meanwhile psychiatric hospitalization was clearly warranted, becoming violent, or absolutely depressed...and still she managed to not lose her job. THAT smells suspicious.

quote:

---

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.

---

I am pleased to hear that you do not think she is a hero. But many do. You can find them on Amazon.com- check all the book reviews and the customers who've written those.

quote:

---

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?

---

YES, I am absolutely sure. I know there are such readers who feel this way.

quote:

---

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.

---

As always, you are the idealist you always have been. You are defending Jamison as though you are a defense attorney. Maybe you don't find anything wrong with this little book Jamison wrote, rationalizing away all the things between the lines with your innocent, crusader-type logic- but I do.

quote:

---

As for "clinician" -- perhaps the ambiguity is yours? Is she or is she not a clinician?

---

I have no ambiguity on my part. She is a clinician- as a clinical psychologist. I was pointing out that many, many people, including practicing psychiatrists who recommend this book to their patients, mistake Jamison as a physician, a psychiatrist, but she is NOT. I was trying to convey her ability to bewilder her readers in subtle ways.

I have been quoted by you-

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.

You said:

quote:

---

Did they say they knew who you were talking about?

---

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.

quote:

---

For one thing, they get paid handsomely for answering those questions, and giving those "second opinions".

---

Have you ever attended one of those psychiatric conferences? I have. Those were for physicians only, but I managed to sneak in. Throughout a conference, during the coffee breaks, and after a conference, there are always discussions going on. I approached those 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.

quote:

---

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.

---

The discussions were much more open than you think. We were all free to voice our opinions. And by the way, I was not trying to enlist them into a "personal drama". Interesting choice of vocabulary of yours here. And for the record, it was a simple question. If you had read psychopharmacology, you would know that for a bipolar I disorder, manic, mild patient, if the choice of drug is lithium, the dosage should be around 1000mg per day, or at least 900mg per day. 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"?

quote:

---

They were hungry and anxious to go to lunch. They didnt feel like it.

---

Allow me to inform you- they had had lunch. It was a late afternoon conference. During the coffee breaks, we pigged out on the refreshments sponsored by one of those major pharmaceutical companies.

quote:

---

Could it be that you were just being suspicious, and seeing only what appeared to fit in with your suspicions?

---

Don't analyse
Don't analyse
Don't go that way
Don't lead that way
That would paralyse your evolution...
~The Cranberries

I could smell something. I do sense something. Read "An Unquiet Mind" a few more times if you could, and log onto Amazon.com, read all the customers' book reviews for this memoir, and you might just see something. All the while you are defending Jamison, suggesting that it is no more than "my suspicion".

It is beyond my own personal suspicion.

D