Reply to comment

I wanted to reply to several people's comments, but I figured instead of chunking it up below each individual post, I would just consolidate me thoughts down here on the bottom.

I am going to avoid dipping too deeply into the conversation on the usefulness of a depressive episode for two reasons. First, I'm sure that many useful understandings can be generated from the sharing of subjective experience and personal meanings of depressive episodes. However, when we start using words like right/wrong and good/bad to describe experiences that people obviously have strong convictions about in the first place, we enter into mucky territory... not only with ethical issues, but with diagnostic issues, subjectivity issues etc... I think that we may be able to uncover more useful understandings if we tiptoe around these areas as much as possible.

Second, I'm not sure how I can add to the conversation. I've been sad before. Really sad. But, I can't say I have ever experienced anything like the depths that some people have described. I don't think I have anyway... Who is to say that we wouldn't describe the same things (whatever that means) differently? How can we compare two people's subjectively described experiences? I'm sure we could find a way, but it seems more useful to just move in a different direction.

As Dr. G mentioned above, one direction might be to continue to flesh out a more outside view of what depression really is. So, to stick with the inputs/outputs model, I cannot see how depression, as described by individuals who have experienced it and our stories in class, can be a complete dissociation of the storyteller and the tacit knowledge. There are obviously still inputs from the TK that are being observed by the ST. But, if the ST really were cut off from all inputs and the ST is the area that contains "us"... That doesn't seem to fit the descriptions that people are giving of the experience. It seems like that would result in some sort of complete oblivion.

I have two alternate suggestions. First, perhaps there is something wrong with the connections between the TK and the ST (similar to Capgras). One line of information is coming in telling the ST that someone just gave them a hug. However, the line that is supposed to tell the ST that this is a pleasant experience and the proper response would be to be happy or feel loved is malfunctioning somehow.

Second, perhaps the malfunction is inside the ST. This seems like it would call for a compartmentalization of the ST. We usually talk about it as a black box. However, maybe there are pathways and connections within the ST that are vulnerable to malfunction. For example, maybe all the necessary ingredients have entered the ST via connections from the TK and the "assembler," or the part that organizes them into a cohesive story is malfunctioning. Or perhaps the "motivator," or the part that sparks our motivation to construct a story in the first place is broken.