Blog Posting # 5 (Due Sunday 27 February 11:59 PM) So are you feeling better now? Drug Life (forms)

Every time I read a list of symptoms in the Merck Manual or take one of those online tests ('Do you suffer from Generalized Anxiety Disorder?') I instantly have the disease—at least for a little while.  Elliot called this 'semantic contagion.'  We've talked in detail about how much minds (by writing words) can alter bodies, and how bodies-out-of-balance (hungover, dehydrated, hungry, 'sugar high,' sleep-deprived, cortisol-hyped, or 'on Prozac,' and so on) can profoundly influence minds. For M. Latour, minds are bodies and vice versa.

So at best, 'conditions' belong to historical 'eras' whose ways of seeing the world (partly) determine how we 'read' ourselves--and know what we're supposed to be.

Can we find a better picture of 'The Feminine  Mystique' than this 1967 ad from JAMA? Andrea Tone claims that drugs like this benzodiazepine were used to make women accept 'settings in which they should be uncomfortable,... (and) encourage them to focus on tasks that did not matter.' (106).

Here we get to be critical historians, critical science-studies guys, and text analysts.  Go to the totally wonderful Bonkers Institute website (not sure how respectful that name is, but whatever....) and mouse around over the many collections of advertising in the archive.  It's not boring.  It's framed on our Moodle, week 7, but directly linked HERE.

Ads mean (they show us our histories).  Ads matter (they shape our lives and bodies).

Find a good one, and read it in terms of our work.  Write your post with some of the same 'public commitment' you used in your 'letter to the editor'; in other words, find an issue of political / ethical / social importance, imagine a real audience who actually cares, make it clear why it's urgent, and show how seeing what's going on in this text can bring us to understand how our lives have been shaped by technoscience—maybe for better, maybe not.

Why Feminists Hate the Cartesian Split

In gender studies this previous semester I got the purely biased view of my professor who is obviously herself a feminist as well on why women today are persecuted by the patriarchal society we live in. As you can imagine some days it ground on me but the longer I sat in class the more sense it began to make. The primary problem feminists have with cartesian thought is because of its strong emphasis on pure logic as the gateway to everything worth understanding. To understand why feminists dislike this however observe that in the traditional nuclear family women were responsible for child rearing and men were the "bread winners" of the family and the split between what you know and what you feel is ingrained in our societies idea of what it means to be a woman compared to what it means to be man. The sterotypical vision of what it means to be a man and woman was perfectly shown on "I Love Lucy" you have Lucy the flighty and romantic housewife and her husband Ricky the calm and logical "rock" who keeps her grounded in reality. To show a stark example of this anyone who has ever seen a grown man crying in public will probably say that it was at least a little uncomftorable but if we see a woman in public crying does anyone give it a second thought? The double standard continues in the number of women we see in leadership positions of fortune 500 companies and vice versa how many men we see who are cosmetologists. What these double standards really hint at is that because we are living in a patriarchal society all that is deemed masculine is valued and all that is feminine is persecuted examples include toleration of masculine women (Tom boys) but not so much the feminine man. The true political implications of this system however is that it dichotomizes all people on the basis of wether you are feminine or masculine when in reality both men and women share many characteristics in varying degrees. Instead of dichotomizing people this way Feminisism would prefer people to view others on a continum that allows for people to not be excluded from society because they don't fit neatly into the extreme masculine or the extreme femininity that genders are classicly lumped into. The results of this way of thinking are shocking to some. Imagine if you will the plight of a battered man today most would criticize him for being hurt by a woman and claim he should "toughen up" but in reality he may be in a situation that he needs outside assistance in, who does he go to for help? The pitfall of this thinking is that feminists traditionally argue for equitable treatment, not equal treatment, and this is divisive to both the feminism movement as well as outside voters who may consider legislation in support of their interests if it treated men and women equally.

Abortion or not abortion

Medical Abortion (brand name Mifeprex) is a form of early abortion caused by the combination of two medications, mifepristone and misoprostol that is an option for women who are 8 weeks pregnant or less. Also known as RU486 or medication abortion.
During the first appointment at the clinic you receive the mifepristone pill to take orally. Then 24 to 72 hours later, in the privacy of your own home, you take the the second medication, misoprostol. Misoprostol causes contractions resulting in a miscarriage. When used in combination, mifepristone and misoprostol are 95-97% effective within two weeks. Mifepristone and misoprostol are FDA approved.

Read more on: http://www.fwhc.org/abortion/medical-ab.htm

By reading this first passage you can see that taking an abortion is not a big problem now a days. If you get pregnant and you don’t want the baby or for other reasons than just don’t want it, you can schedule an appointment with your doctor who will help you getting the pill. It’s as easy as that, you swallow a pill and nature will take its course.
But is it that easy? When you get pregnant something is growing inside of you and eventually it will become a human being. So by taking an abortion do you kill a human being? This is an ongoing discussion in society and there will always be people that are pro abortion and people that are against it.
We can put this up to the faith and science wars that have been a discussion in class. When I researched abortion a lot of the sites that came up where about not going through with an abortion. Most of these sites, are made by Christian people that believe that from the very beginning of a pregnancy the fetus has a sole and that it already is a human being. So by taking an abortion you are killing a human being. What is right or wrong in this discussion? Is it all just up to our own beliefs or can we determine the right decision?
On one of the sites I looked at, it has this saying;
Take comfort in God’s promises and ask Him to guide your decision as you gather information, view an ultrasound and consider every alternative. Respect the life He has created within you, despite the circumstances. Safeguard your own future health and well being by confidently doing the right thing. You may not be happy with decisions made by you or others in the past. But now you have the opportunity to make a better choice, not only for yourself but also for your child.
Read more:
http://www.abortionfacts.com/literature/literature_9430TR.asp

I’d rather laugh with the sinner, than cry with the saints

So according to Christianity the good part is our mind, while our body is the bad part. The sinner. It will constantly try to deceive us into sin. This got me wondering, why are people then overweight? Is it the body that crave junk food, no exsercise along with a diet coke? Is it a natural instinct of survival that makes you eat a Big Mac instead of a salad?

The same goes for drinking. It’s pure toxic for the body. Is it the body that crave this toxic? There’s nothing in the alcohol the body could possible benefit from, still, so many of us drink it until we get sick. We ignore all signs our body keep giving us, in order to have a good time.

If there is such a thing as a mind body split, why would a machinery that God created crave unhealthy things? He must be smarter than that. The mind body split worked well when you wanted to repress certain groups, sexuality and at the same time give everyone free will. Today, in order to live a healthy life, you need to listen to your body.

Monkey see, monkey puke

I apologize in advance if some of this if left wanting. The illness of my body has defied the split and vitiated my mind.

“Am I not that very being who now doubts of almost everything; who, for all that, understands and conceives certain things; who affirms one alone as true, and denies the others; who desires to know more of them, and does not wish to be deceived; who imagines many things, sometimes even despite his will; and is likewise percipient of many, as if through the medium of the senses…In fine, I am the same being who perceives, that is, who apprehends certain objects as by the organs of sense, since, in truth, I see light, hear a noise, and feel heat. But it will be said that these presentations are false, and that I am dreaming. Let it be so. At all events it is certain that I seem to see light, hear a noise, and feel heat; this cannot be false, and this is what in me is properly called perceiving (sentire), which is nothing else than thinking.
Meditation II, part 9



Magic, 3-D images, tilt effect, persistence of vision. While illusions can be entertaining, we Cartesians put little faith in our organ senses when our logical minds allow our "common sense" to debunk our perceptions. With the exceptions of anxiety, phobias, naivety, and extreme gullibility, reason precludes hysteria in extreme situations. Sure, our minds may consider worst-case scenarios, but an individual hopefully weighs the variables and probabilities of all outcomes before reacting. Still, when someone yells "fire" we don't take the time to look for flames or wait until we smell smoke; we follow our instincts (and the crowd) and head for the door. Call it herd mentality, collective behavior or contagion theory; it's a reaction to the reaction of others as opposed to a direct threat.

But did you smell smoke? Did you smell it before or after the warning? Now that you think about it, you felt the room getting warmer. Yes, I felt it too! And I thought I heard some crackling, didn't you? Nah, not really. Besides, it doesn't matter now. Clearly none of us are on fire.

What about when the threat isn't confirmed or denied by our organic senses? What if the fire is inside of us? Mass psychogenic illness (MPI) occurs when misinterpreted information of a biological threat results in the manifestation of actual symptoms. Fear over contagion manifests symptoms in others, by word of mouth or line of sight transmission. MPI usually travels quickly and intensifies as the numbers of those affected increase. Emergency and media response can solidify and/or exacerbate the phenomenon. Because the symptoms are genuine, the threat perceived by those afflicted with MPI is reinforced by Cartesian ideology. “There's no way it can be only in my head when it's clearly spread to my body.”

The mind is driving the body to an unhealthy state seems to be the opposite of phenomena where optimism and "healthy thinking" seems to ameliorate a diseased body. But why would a rational mind induce a negative psychosomatic effect? It cannot be a question of will. Descartes declares that, while he imagines things sometimes against his will, he does not wish to be deceived. Perceptions of the senses are nothing else than thinking. If we are Cartesians, what does it mean perceptions of the senses are a consequence of thought and not the other way around? The body is not tricking nor poisoning the mind, but instead the mind poisons the body.

So why is it so hard for those affected by MPI to believe medical professionals when they are told that their symptoms have no biologic etiology? The doctors don't deny that the symptoms and the experience are real. It's not the fear of contagion to which they claim. It's harder to believe that they could be capable of such irrational thought or that the mind could so trick the body.
The cure is to treat the mind and not the body:

Recommended Approach to Patients with Mass Psychogenic Illness
http://www.aafp.org/afp/20001215/2649.html
________________________________________
-Attempt to separate persons with illness associated with the outbreak.
-Promptly perform physical examination and basic laboratory testing sufficient to exclude serious acute illness.
-Monitor and provide oxygen as necessary for hyperventilation.
-Minimize unnecessary exposure to medical procedures, emergency personnel, media or other potential anxiety-stimulating situations.
-Notify public health authorities of apparent outbreak.
-Openly communicate with physicians caring for other patients.
-Promptly communicate results of laboratory and environmental testing to patients.
-While maintaining confidentiality, explain that other people are experiencing similar symptoms and improving without complications.
-Remind patients that rumors and reports of "suspected causes" are not equivalent to confirmed results.
-Acknowledge that symptoms experienced by the patient are real.
-Explain potential contribution of anxiety to the patient's symptoms.
-Reassure patient that long-term sequelae from current illness are not expected.
-As appropriate, reassure patient that thorough clinical, epidemiologic and environmental investigations have identified no toxic cause for the outbreak or reason for further concern.
________________________________________

Words like explain, acknowledge, remind, and reassure are an appeal to reason, reinforcing the Cartesian split. The perception of the senses resulted in a conclusion that seemed one of common sense. Now that common sense and the failure of a rational responders must be accepted before returning to the Cartesian control.

Universal Reasoning

Humanity is defined by its unwillingness to 'let it be'. Our species has matured and evolved on the principle of adaptation, manipulation, and control of its surroundings, through which has developed a fundamental stubbornness. There are, of course, instances of apathy in all beings; stubbornness is not present in every interaction (though it could be argued that refusal to care is but another of stubbornness' embodiments), but is an accompaniment of any scenario in which there is an underlying stake in how one's response/opinion is perceived (arguably, everything). We are all Cartesians; Descartes' theory of Universal Reasoning has provided humanity the logical support needed in order to magnify its individual perception of personal infallibility. In other words, Decartes made us all even bigger, closed-minded, one-track jackasses than was previously established by fundamental human nature. Where once one could reinforce his/her personal views by trust in past displays of common sense, s/he is now able to tack on to the list of inherent credentials the attribute of universal intellectual potential: if one holds the power of universal reasoning, there is no concept mentally out of reach; 'I have the ability to rationalize the universe, of course I know what I'm talking about on this specific matter.' It is because such a response has become so normative that we are faced with multiple, contradicting 'truths', and definitions of 'truth' in every daily interaction; it is also because of this that people define their individual principles prior to application, rather than letting experiences shape their cemented guidelines to life. We see our views and opinions as building blocks of our 'self' and consequently, we are all at each other's necks every time a personal, 'defining' principle gets called into question. Add a spotlight to the mix and you just produced Jerry Springer.

Descartes & Pinker

When we initially read Steve Pinker for class, I was struck by his use and dismissal of the idea that he traces back to Descartes. The notion of “the ghost in the machine,” which Pinker informs us that “the ghost in the machine has been subject to the most withering threats from modern science” (4). I thought this was interesting because Cartesianism has defined the notion of the mind / body split and has also been influential in the bedrock values of modern science (like the idea that we can actually know everything). Still, Cartesian values are present in the work of Pinker in precisely such ways as the notion that “we can know everything.”

Pinker is a particularly interesting example here because there is an example of mind / body dualism that is studying physical properties of human brains (which is certainly part of a contemporary understanding of the mind) in a way that seeks to undermine what he writes about as a view of human nature (the ghost in the machine). This precisely illustrates part of the conundrum with Pinker's writing in that he invokes a very specific part of Descartes' arguments, which paradoxically refused to abandon the concept of God, in order to argue that that particular worldview is invalid. He avoids, however, the parts of Descartes philosophy that have contributed to his own field—the idea that the mind can be separated from the body, that we can have a “pure” observational knowledge, etc.

Part of what my group had a discussion about when we discussed Pinker was whether the shift that Pinker (and work like his) makes, makes any difference from a functional level. Pinker looks to science of the brain and writes things like, “...all of our experiences, thoughts, feelings, yearnings, and emotions consist of physiological activity in the tissues of the brain” (4). Instead of using the existence of God or the idea of a soul, Pinker relies on studies of the brain as an ultimate explanation for what constitutes human nature. I don't think that this shift accomplishes much because it still holds the potential for essentialism (I am the way I am) and it still posits the locus of behavioral control outside the reach of human control. Furthermore, the curious part of it is that even though Pinker is trying to refute part of Descartes philosophy, he ultimately embraces it because they are both “knowers” who are purportedly able to rationalize and explain the way we live and experience our lives.