depression

CSGnet Archive CSG1993
1

[Avery Andrews 931026.0621]

Another thought about depression: my `active' theory of depression
(that it's reorganization at something like the Principle level) seems
counter-intuitive because people don't normally think of depression
as being a process with a function, but as a useless state that you
just fall into. But I suggest that the active theory looks more
plausible when you consider the context in which its relatives and
variants occur, such as grief (response to loss of a person), etc.
In these cases you have to start functioning without something that
has been important to you, which ought to require reorganization, so
the claim is that the `melancholic' feeling is the conscious
manifestation of this process. This would indicate that the counsellors
who insist that you experience and `work through' these emotions
are right: no feeling = no reorganization = no adjustment to the new
circumstances.

But, if it's really the Principle level, consider the fact that dogs
are clearly able to experience grief and depression: these means that
they would have to have some version of the Principle level (but what
about cats?).

2

Ed Ford (931031.0700)

David Goldstein:

Thanks for the suggestion on Simon's book. I'll order it.
I've always (in my private practice) perceived depression as
a way people deal with conflict or disharmony in their
hierarchy, generally found at systems concept level, which I
believe is where the greatest struggle to change occurs.
I see it as long term or chronic, and an attempt to satisfy
goals over which one has little or no control, or trying to
satisfy two incompatible goals. It could also be that
people have never identified areas in their life that could
be highly satisfying but which they have never made a part
of their life, and that their present goals have not brought
the level of satisfaction for which they are looking. One
of the symptom generated from this inability to satisfy
goals is depression.

Sorry I can't say more but am leaving for Buffalo (yes from
Phoenix to Buffalo) in a few hours and have yet to complete
my packing. I'll be back Tuesday night. Good hearing from
you, Dave.

Best, Ed

Ford, 10209 N. 56th st., Scottsdale, AZ Ph.602 991-4860

3

I have been following the discussion of applying HPCT to the
topic depression. As a clinician, I have a special interest in
this subject because many people who come to me for help are
depressed. This places me in the uncomfortable position of trying
to solve a problem which no one really understands.

Some points I would like to make:

1. What is "it"? From the viewpoint of neuroscience, it is the
result of the right hemisphere, especially the frontal lobes,
being overexcited and/or the left hemisphere being underexcited.
When there is damage to the right hemisphere, elation occurs.
When there is damage to the left hemisphere, depression results.

If this is true, a bipolar or manic/depressive disorder results
from the sequencing of left and right hemisphere dysfunctioning.

2. The "standard" treatments for depression are: medication and
psychotherapy. A nonstandard treatment which is emerging is EEG
biofeedback training.

Medication is supposed to normalize the neurotransmitters which
are guessed to be disregulated in some way.

Psychotherapy is supposed to address the conflicts, or other
psychological issues involved.

3. The discussion which has been taking place has focused on the
idea that depression is importantly linked to the principle level
of perception, in HPCT terms. Julian Simon has written a very
interesting book for the ordinary person, entitled Good Mood,
which presents his approach to depression. He is a professional
economist who has struggled with depression for 13 years and has
finally found a way to recover from it. His approach, which he
places in the cognitive-behavioral category, is amazingly
consistent with HPCT Therapy. Ed Ford would love it. It is
exactly the way he works but applied more specifically to
depression.

I highly recommend it to all interested CSG-L people with any
interest in this subject. One nice side benefit is that one can
send for a free ($2.00 for postage, shipping, handling)
computer software program, written by a psychiatrist Dr. Colby,
who bases the program on Simon's book. The progam includes an
educational, informational presentation of the book's
information plus a dialogue tutorial. The dialogue tutorial
gives a feeling of talking with a therapist but clearly has its
limitations which the user is warned about.

ยทยทยท

To: Avery, Bill, other CSG-Lers interested in depression
From: David Goldstein
Subject: Depression
Date: 10/30/93

4

From Tom Bourbon [931101.0948]

To: Avery, Bill, other CSG-Lers interested in depression
From: David Goldstein
Subject: Depression
Date: 10/30/93

I have been following the discussion of applying HPCT to the
topic depression. As a clinician, I have a special interest in
this subject because many people who come to me for help are
depressed. This places me in the uncomfortable position of trying
to solve a problem which no one really understands.

Some points I would like to make:

1. What is "it"? From the viewpoint of neuroscience, it is the
result of the right hemisphere, especially the frontal lobes,
being overexcited and/or the left hemisphere being underexcited.
When there is damage to the right hemisphere, elation occurs.
When there is damage to the left hemisphere, depression results.

If this is true, a bipolar or manic/depressive disorder results
from the sequencing of left and right hemisphere dysfunctioning.

Hello, David. A caution: Don't believe everything purportedly offered in
the name of "neuroscience." At least, approach it *very* cautiously.

Regards,
Tom Bourbon
Department of Neurosurgry
University of Texas Medical School-Houston Phone: 713-792-5760
6431 Fannin, Suite 7.138 Fax: 713-794-5084
Houston, TX 77030 USA tbourbon@heart.med.uth.tmc.edu

5

From Tom Bourbon [931101.1053]

To: Avery, Bill, other CSG-Lers interested in depression
From: David Goldstein
Subject: Depression
Date: 10/30/93

David, your post deserved more thorough treatment than I gave in my brief
caveat: Tom Bourbon [931101.0948].

1. What is "it"? From the viewpoint of neuroscience, it is the
result of the right hemisphere, especially the frontal lobes,
being overexcited and/or the left hemisphere being underexcited.
When there is damage to the right hemisphere, elation occurs.
When there is damage to the left hemisphere, depression results.

If this is true, a bipolar or manic/depressive disorder results
from the sequencing of left and right hemisphere dysfunctioning.

For information that either refutes, or adds qualifiers to, dramatic claims
of cortical specializations for emotion, and of hemispheric asymmetry in the
genesis of emotion, I recommend the following two sources:

Sally P. Springer & Georg Deutsch (any one of four editions), _Left brain,
right brain_. New York: W. H. Freeman and Co.

   See especially their sections on topics such as: psychiatric illness
   and asymmetry; emotion; clinical data; neuropsychological disorders.

Andrew C. Papanicolaou (1989). _Emotion: A reconsidration of the somatic
theory_. New York: Gordon and Breach.

   See especially his chapter six, the following sections: 3. Brain
   stimulation and evoked affective states; 4. Other evidence of the
   brain's efficiency to engender emotion.

The message in both of those sources is that most people have gone far
beyond the data with their assertions (a) that *any* part of the brain can
be credited with specialization for producing emotions and, following from
that point, (b) that either hemisphere is specialized for producing one
kind or quality of emotion more than any other. In many cases, the data are
not there to support the claims; in other cases, the data were there at
least once, but they cannot be replicated; in others, there are data but
they do not support the dramatic claims. Bill Powers (931031.0750 MST) was
on the right track with the questions he put to you about the claims in your
post, David. (Not that *you* originated the claims; you merely summarized a
very common assertion from the literature on the "neuroscience" of emotion.)

This has been a nice "thread," David.

Until later,
Tom Bourbon
Department of Neurosurgry
University of Texas Medical School-Houston Phone: 713-792-5760
6431 Fannin, Suite 7.138 Fax: 713-794-5084
Houston, TX 77030 USA tbourbon@heart.med.uth.tmc.edu

6

I just have to make my own little comment about depression and
left/right frontal relative activition. It does seem to be the case
that there is this right over left trend, but that's all it is--a
TREND. This is NOT a highly respected fact, at least in the lab I
work in we find this line of reasoning Extremely unsatisfying and
nonexplanatory. There is research on the modification of this
left/right frontal explanation which brings in right parietal
activation. This smooths out the data maybe a little, but so what,
right--it baffles me why the important unit of analysis has now become
an entire half-lobe! Furthermore, you can find studies that correlate
depression with other factors which are further correlated with other
things. I can't remember the specific ones, but it works out that if
you follow the path of correlations around, (beginning with the
depression on the right side premise), you will end up with depression
on the left side.

This work, at best, is a DULL pointer of where to look.

Mark Olson
Neuroscience Program
University of Illinois
m-olson@uiuc.edu