Gods, Genes, Conscience: August Dialogues
Dear Readers: Please feel free to review the Contents of my book and biography in Gods, Genes, Conscience (iUniverse.com worldwide release 2006); and/or here (Google Books Search 2007) or here (Amazon.com Look Inside 2008). A list of global booksellers near you can be found here. Thank you all for scrutinizing!
Immediate Posting: The following Commentaries (developing thinkings) were made in response to the concerned articles, sources, and dates listed in August 2014, so as to promote the Good Dialogues worldwide. Thank you all for reading and scrutinizing!
- [NB: I'm in preparation of writing 2 books Decoding Scientism and Consciousness & the Subconscious (works in progress since July 2007), so my future Dialogues worldwide would not be engaged, and posted herein, as often as I had been over the past 8 years or so.]
RE: Unlike David Adam’s proclamation: In the 21st-century psychiatry research (and beyond), “biological basis of psychiatric causes” is fundamentally essential and diverse -- one which is often revealed as “idiosyncratic and personal” human stories, just as portrayed in and by the very Adam’s new book*!?
Although David Adam has had identified and presented a very truthful and heartfelt case of OCD that he has had been encountering for over 20 years even today, I thought his concluding remark that “the question of ‘why’ [of OCD] is unimportant” is illy-misguided or even misunderstood; and thus, at best, misleading, from a present-day more-educated patient’s “self-analysis” perspective or “introspective psychoanalysis” comprehension of psychological diseases (more discussions below)!?
*David Adam “The Man Who Couldn't Stop: OCD and the true story of a life lost in thought” (Picador; 2014)
Although David Adam has had identified and presented a very truthful and heartfelt case of OCD that he has had been encountering for over 20 years even today, I thought his concluding remark that “the question of ‘why’ [of OCD] is unimportant” is illy-misguided or even misunderstood; and thus, at best, misleading, from a present-day more-educated patient’s “self-analysis” perspective or “introspective psychoanalysis” comprehension of psychological diseases (more discussions below)!?
Unlike all other corporeal or physical diseases such as cancer, stroke, heart or other infectious diseases, etc -- in modern neuropsychiatry research and literature -- OCD may soon reveal itself or be representing a lesser-severe psychological disorder experience and behavioral manifestation (or cause and effect of unwanted or uncontrollable thoughts; or subconsciously-invoked actions in and by a stream of habitual imagery or imageries) within and among the overall, evermore, wider implications (or causes and effects of the evermore broadly-going-awry neurocircuitry or circuitries) of schizophrenia -- and -- within the normal developmental neuroplasticity and psychodynamic behavioral context!?
Furthermore, unlike the conventional Freudian (or often misguided) psychoanalysis or talking therapy -- one which is often presented and intended to treat patients from the psychoanalyst’s perspective of a mental illness and interpretations, such as the Freud’s infamous Oedipal complex syndrome, hysteria, etc -- the modern “cognitive behavior therapy” (or CBT, since the late 1970s) may represent and prove provide a more accurate and effectual treatment and helpful psychoanalytic “self-training, enlightenment, and practice” in and for OCD introspective psychoanalysis, or “expert-guided meditation” or “self-diagnosis and treatment” at one’s earliest OCD developmental stages, possible!?
As such, I wonder why Adam didn’t -- earlier but only more recently -- seek CBT in this respect: ie, at his earliest developmental stages of OCD, possible -- perhaps, at least over 15 years ago, before his OCD has had become habituated -- so as to help self-diagnose, or identify, or clarify, or characterize and/or treat or prevent (mindfully or willfully with or without the help of medications or psychiatrists, etc) the psychological causes of OCD habituation, or manifestation thereof, etc during the mid or late 1990s!?
Best wishes, Mong 8/1/14usct10:40a; practical science-philosophy critic; author "Decoding Scientism" and "Consciousness & the Subconscious" (works in progress since July 2007), Gods, Genes, Conscience (iUniverse; 2006) and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now (blogging avidly since 2006).
- 2) A: Reflecting on Sasai tragedy, STAP, and today's flawed world of science (iPScellUSA; August 5); B: Stem-cell scientists mourn loss of brain engineer (NatureNewsUK; August 5)
RE: The (suicide) Death of A (modern-day scientist) Samurai at RIKEN!?
I thought that the most unfortunate-suicide death of Yoshiki Sasai must be read and understood within the present-day Japanese cultural and societal scientific and biomedical research context and mission.
Thus, this specific case of suicide tragedy may be interpreted as Sasai’s own self-conscientious way of honoring or submitting himself to the revered “spirit and/or way of the (warrior) samurai” since the 12th-13th century in Japan!? -- Please note that “From the earliest times, the Samurai felt that the path of the warrior [or the modern-day scientist] was one of honor, [integrity, humility, etc] emphasizing duty to one's master [or by modern definition as science, novelty, discovery, etc], and loyalty unto death." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samurai). -- [Furthermore, this Bushido spirit or ethos has since been ingrained and retained in and maintained the Japanese society, including its burgeoning century-old scientific research community, tradition, that is the RIKEN foundation (since the early 1910s) -- just as the neighboring Chinese society which has been culturally ingrained and maintained by its own implicit, millennia-old, foundational Confucianism (circa 551-479 BCE) ever since the unification of nationalism or Sino-authoritarianism of the Qin dynasty in 221-206 BCE!?]
In the most recent and very high-profile case of the STAP fiasco, investigation, retraction of the 2 “pioneering” STAP “research” papers in Nature; and of the subsequent public calling to disband the CDB at RIKEN: Sasai was indeed found out to be in dereliction of his primary professional duty that “None of the persons investigated were found to have actively participated in any kind of research misconduct, but as has already been noted, Drs. Wakayama and Sasai allowed the papers to be submitted to Nature without verifying the accuracy of the data, and they bear heavy responsibility [of professional negligence and implicit shame, etc] for the research misconduct that resulted from this failure on their part,” -- (thus violating and/or dishonoring the implicit and foundational RIKEN scientific research traditions, integrity, and ethos, etc at all the institutional, national, and international levels, dimensions, and reputations, etc) -- as the STAP-CDB Research Paper Investigative Committee has concluded, recommended, and reported to the RIKEN President on March 31, 2014 (http://www3.riken.jp/stap/e/f1document1.pdf)!?
Best wishes, Mong 8/7/14usct9:45a practical science-philosophy critic; author "Decoding Scientism" and "Consciousness & the Subconscious" (works in progress since July 2007), Gods, Genes, Conscience (iUniverse; 2006) and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now (blogging avidly since 2006).
